text:
# Stable Neutral Fermi Ball

## I INTRODUCTION

In quantum field theory and especially in the cosmological context, various models have been discussed where the spontaneous breaking of a discrete symmetry produces domain walls KIB ; VIL . If the symmetry is approximate and broken spontaneously in the history of the expanding universe, the false vacuum regions shrink due to the energy density difference GEL  and this process is accelerated by the surface tension. The shrinking will stop before collapsing if there exist zero mode solutions for the fermions bound in such domain walls DVA ; SAK  and the Fermi pressure of such fermions becomes comparable to the shrinking force due to the surface tension and the volume energy. These objects, a kind of non-topological solitons, are called Fermi Balls MAC  and introduced as a candidate for cold dark matter MAC ; MACC . They were also suggested in the baryon-separation scenario with the QCD energy scale BRA . However, the stability of the Fermi Balls which should be essential to be a candidate for cold dark matter has not been fully examined.

We consider in this paper the stability of the thin-wall Fermi Balls against the fragmentation. The Fermi Ball, if it is electrically neutral as was firstly proposed MAC , is unstable against the fragmentation, when the domain wall thickness $`\delta _b`$ can be neglected in comparison with the Fermi Ball radius $`R`$. In the previous paper YOS , we estimated the corrections caused by the finite $`\delta _b`$ effect (corresponding to the curvature effect of the domain wall), and found that the neutral Fermi Ball is unstable even if the curvature effect is included. Though the electrically charged Fermi Ball introduced by Morris MOR  has the stability against the deformation from the spherical shape MOR ; YOS , they are metastable YOS  and not absolutely stable against the fragmentation. We do not discuss the charged Fermi Ball in the present paper.

In the above discussions, though, the thickness $`\delta _f`$ of the distribution of the fermions confined in the wall is much less than the wall thickness $`\delta _b`$ and can be neglected. This approximation is valid only for the case where the fermions are tightly bound to the domain wall. We in this paper consider the case where $`\delta _f`$ cannot be neglected. In order to estimate the corrections caused by the finite $`\delta _f`$ effect, we use the perturbation approximation expanding the scalar field $`\varphi `$, the fermion field $`\psi `$ and the static energy of the Fermi Ball $`E`$ in the power of $`\delta _b/R`$. We examine the stability of the Fermi Ball against the fragmentation at each level of the perturbation.

The contents of the present paper are organized as follows: We first explain the neutral Fermi Ball model to clarify terminologies and method of energy estimation in Sec.II. We next examine the stability of the Fermi Ball within the leading (zeroth) order of $`\delta _b/R`$-perturbation but with finite $`\delta _f`$ in Sec.III, and regain the result obtained in the previous works in the limit $`\delta _f0`$ MAC . The effect of the finite $`\delta _f`$ in the higher order corrections of $`\delta _b/R`$-perturbation is investigated in Sec.IV. We discuss constraints on the Fermi Ball parameters from the experimental viewpoint in Sec.V. We summarize the obtained results in Sec.VI.

## II METHOD FOR ESTIMATING FERMI BALL ENERGY

We consider the simple model with the Lagrangian density,

$$=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi )^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu G\varphi )\mathrm{\Psi }U(\varphi ),$$
(1)
where the scalar potential $`U(\varphi )`$ is approximately double-well shaped,

$$U(\varphi )=\frac{\lambda }{8}(\varphi ^2v^2)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi ).$$
(2)
Here, the first term has the $`Z_2`$ symmetry under $`\varphi \varphi `$, and the second term violates the symmetry though it is assumed to be much smaller than the first one, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Delta }(v)\mathrm{\Delta }(v)|\lambda v^4`$. Supposing $`\mathrm{\Delta }(v)>\mathrm{\Delta }(v)`$, we call the region with $`\varphi =v`$ and that with $`\varphi =v`$ as the true vacuum and the false vacuum, respectively. In the following, we neglect the second term except for the explicit discussion in Sec.VI. Fermi Ball is the ground state of the system with the total number of the fermion being fixed:

$$N_f=\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(3)
The classical fields $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ for Fermi Ball extremize

$$L[\varphi ,\mathrm{\Psi };ϵ_f]=\mathrm{d}^3x+ϵ_f\left(\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }N_f\right),$$
(4)
with $`ϵ_f`$ the Lagrange multiplier. The static fields thus satisfy

$`\left(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{p}+G\varphi \beta \right)\mathrm{\Psi }=ϵ_f\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{}{}^2\varphi +G\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\beta \mathrm{\Psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\varphi (\varphi ^2v^2)=0,`$ (6)
where $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\gamma ^0\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, $`\beta =\gamma ^0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}=i\stackrel{}{}`$.

Assuming the spherical symmetry of $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$, we take it as a function of the radial coordinate $`r`$. We first consider Eq.(5). Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})`$ be the eigenfunction of $`\stackrel{}{𝐉}^2`$, $`𝐉_𝐳`$ and $`𝐏`$:

$$\stackrel{}{𝐉}^2\mathrm{\Psi }_J^M=J(J+1)\mathrm{\Psi }_J^M,𝐉_𝐳\mathrm{\Psi }_J^M=M\mathrm{\Psi }_J^M,𝐏\mathrm{\Psi }_J^M=\beta \mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})=P\mathrm{\Psi }_J^M.$$
(7)
Then, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_J^M`$ is written as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_J^M(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(\begin{array}{c}f(r)𝒴_{lJ}^M(\theta ,\phi )\hfill \\ g(r)𝒴_{l^{}J}^M(\theta ,\phi )\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (10)
where $`𝒴_{lJ}^M(\theta ,\phi )`$ and $`𝒴_{l^{}J}^M(\theta ,\phi )`$ are the spherical spinors having the eigenvalues $`J=l\omega /2=l^{}+\omega /2`$ and $`M`$, with $`\omega =\pm 1`$. We take $`𝒴_{l^{}J}^M=(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{x}/r)𝒴_{lJ}^M`$ and note $`P=(1)^l=(1)^{J+\omega /2}`$. Substituting Eq.(10) into Eq.(5), we get

$`\{\begin{array}{c}G\varphi f+\left(p_ri\frac{K}{r}\right)g=ϵ_ff\hfill \\ \left(p_r+i\frac{K}{r}\right)fG\varphi g=ϵ_fg,\hfill \end{array}`$ (13)
where $`p_r=i(\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{d}r)`$ and $`K=\omega (J+1/2)`$. The equation (13) is compactly written in terms of $`\psi (r)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{f}{g}\right)`$:

$$H_f\psi =ϵ_f\psi ,$$
(14)
with

$$H_f=\sigma _1p_r+\sigma _2\frac{K}{r}+\sigma _3G\varphi .$$
(15)
The radial coordinate $`r`$ is hereafter replaced by $`w=rR`$.

We next consider Eq.(6). Noting $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }=_{KM}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M^J\mathrm{\Psi }_M^J=(1/4\pi r^2)_K(2|K|)\psi ^{}\sigma _3\psi `$, we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\varphi }{\mathrm{d}w^2}+\frac{2}{R+w}\frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi }{\mathrm{d}w}=\frac{\lambda }{2}\varphi (\varphi ^2v^2)+\frac{G}{4\pi (R+w)^2}\underset{K}{}(2|K|)\psi ^{}\sigma _3\psi .$$
(16)
The energy of the Fermi Ball is expressed in terms of $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ as follows:

$$E=E_f+E_b,$$
(17)
where $`E_f`$ is the fermi energy,

$`E_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{p}+G\varphi \beta \right)\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{KM}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw\psi ^{}H_f\psi ,`$
and $`E_b`$ is the surface energy 111We call $`E_b`$ the surface energy instead of the boson energy. It is simply the usual terminology which has been used in the previous works concerning Fermi Balls MAC ; YOS ; MOR .,

$`E_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3x\left\{\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{}\varphi )^2+\frac{\lambda }{8}(\varphi ^2v^2)^2\right\}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`4\pi R^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{R}}\right)^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi }{\mathrm{d}w}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}(\varphi ^2v^2)^2\right\}.`$
Note that we estimate the energy by integrating the above integrands not from $`R`$ but from $`\mathrm{}`$, since most of the contribution comes from the region near the surface and the error due to this approximation is exponentially small ($`e^{\mathrm{Const}.vR}`$).

## III LEADING ORDER OF $`\delta _b/R`$-PERTURBATION

Let us expand the fields,

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\varphi =\varphi _0+\varphi _1+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \psi =\psi _0+\psi _1+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}`$ (22)
and the Hamiltonian,

$`H_f`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+H_1+H_2+\mathrm{},`$ (26)
$`H_0=\sigma _1p_r+\sigma _2{\displaystyle \frac{K}{R}}+\sigma _3G\varphi _0,`$
$`H_1=\sigma _2{\displaystyle \frac{K}{R^2}}w+\sigma _3G\varphi _1,`$
$`H_2=\sigma _2{\displaystyle \frac{K}{R^3}}w^2,`$
in the power of $`\delta _b/R`$ (we need the expressions (17) to (19) in the power of $`\delta _b/R`$ up to the leading and the next-to-leading order). We also expand $`E=_iE_i`$, $`E_f=_iE_f^{(i)}`$, $`E_b=_iE_b^{(i)}`$ and $`ϵ_f=_iϵ_i`$. We obtain Eqs.(14) and (16) for the fields in the leading order,

$`H_0\psi _0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_0\psi _0,`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\varphi _0(\varphi _0^2v^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{G}{4\pi R^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{KM}{}}\psi _0^{}\sigma _3\psi _0.`$ (28)
We first solve Eq.(27). Taking into account that $`\varphi _0(\pm \mathrm{})\pm v`$, we obtain the normalizable solution,

$$\psi _0(w)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒩}}e^{U_0(w)}\chi _+,$$
(29)
with $`U_0(w)=G_0^wdw^{}\varphi _0(w^{})`$ and the normalization factor $`𝒩=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}dwe^{2U_0(w)}`$. Here, $`\chi _\pm `$ are eigenspinors of $`\sigma _2`$ satisfying $`\sigma _2\chi _\pm =\pm \chi _\pm `$ and $`\chi _\pm ^{}\chi _\pm =1`$. We obtain the energy eigenvalue,

$$ϵ_0=\frac{K}{R},$$
(30)
and take only $`ϵ_0`$ positive, i.e., $`\omega =1`$. Using Eq.(29), we obtain the leading order fermi energy,

$`E_f^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{KM}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw\psi _0^{}H_0\psi _0={\displaystyle \underset{KM}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{K}{R}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}{\displaystyle \underset{K=1}{\overset{K_{max}}{}}}K(2K)`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_{max}(K_{max}+1)(2K_{max}+1)}{3R}}.`$
Here, $`K_{max}`$ is determined by the total fermion number,

$$\underset{KM}{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}dw\psi _0^{}\psi _0=\underset{K=1}{\overset{K_{max}}{}}2K=K_{max}(K_{max}+1)=N_f.$$
(32)
From Eqs.(31) and (32), we get

$$E_f^{(0)}=\frac{2N_f^{\frac{3}{2}}}{3R}\left(1+\frac{1}{4N_f}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{2N_f^{\frac{3}{2}}}{3R}+\frac{N_f^{\frac{1}{2}}}{12R}\mathrm{for}N_f1.$$
(33)
The first term is the leading contribution to the fermi energy, which is the same as that obtained within the exact thin-wall approximation MAC . The second term in Eq.(33) is the correction caused by the effect of quantumizing the angular momentum, which we call $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_f`$ for the later discussion.

We next consider Eq.(28). Since the leading solution for the fermion satisfies $`\psi _0^{}\sigma _3\psi _0=0`$, the equation (28) becomes

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w^2}=\frac{\lambda }{2}\varphi _0(\varphi _0^2v^2).$$
(34)
We know that the solution to the above equation satisfying $`\varphi _0(\pm \mathrm{})\pm v`$ is a kink,

$$\varphi _0(w)=v\mathrm{tanh}\frac{w}{\delta _b},$$
(35)
with $`\delta _b=2/(\sqrt{\lambda }v)`$. Using Eq.(35), we obtain the leading order surface energy,

$$E_b^{(0)}=4\pi R^2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}dw\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}\right)^2+\frac{\lambda }{8}(\varphi _0^2v^2)^2\right\}=4\pi R^2\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(36)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\sqrt{\lambda }v^3/3`$. This also coincides with the result obtained in Ref.MAC  within the thin-wall approximation.

Combining Eq.(36) with the first term in Eq.(33), we get the leading order Fermi Ball energy,

$$E_0=\frac{2N_f^{\frac{3}{2}}}{3R}+4\pi R^2\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(37)
( Note that we neglect the false vacuum volume energy, assuming that it is negligibly small. We discuss its magnitude in the cosmological context in Sec.VI.) Minimizing Eq.(37) with respect to $`R`$, we get

$$R=\frac{\sqrt{N_f}}{(12\pi \mathrm{\Sigma })^{\frac{1}{3}}}=\frac{\sqrt{N_f}}{(8\pi )^{\frac{1}{3}}\lambda ^{\frac{1}{6}}v},$$
(38)
which yields

$$E_0=(8\pi )^{\frac{1}{3}}\lambda ^{\frac{1}{6}}N_fv.$$
(39)
Here, let us examine the stability of the Fermi Ball against the fragmentation using the leading order Fermi Ball energy. We compare two states: the one in which a single Fermi Ball has the fermion number $`N_f`$ and the other in which $`n`$ Fermi Balls have the fermion numbers less than $`N_f`$ but keep the total fermion number to be $`N_f`$. Since the energy of the Fermi Ball in the leading order approximation is proportional to the total fermion number, the two states have the same energy. The leading order estimation cannot tell whether the Fermi Balls with large $`N_f`$ produced in the early universe survive until now or not 222Taking into account the small energy density difference $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which we have neglected here, we see that the large Fermi Balls produced in the early universe have been fragmented into tiny pieces which are not thin-walled. The discussions on it are given in Ref.MAC ; MOR , and also in Ref.YOS  with some more details. In order to examine the stability of the Fermi Ball, we calculate the higher order corrections in $`E`$ in the next section.

## IV HIGHER ORDER CORRECTION OF $`\delta _b/R`$-PERTURBATION

The next-to-leading order components of the fields satisfy

$`\left(H_0{\displaystyle \frac{K}{R}}\right)\psi _1=(H_1ϵ_1)\psi _0=H_1\psi _0,`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\varphi _1}{\mathrm{d}w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(3\varphi _0^2v^2)\varphi _1={\displaystyle \frac{2}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G}{4\pi R^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{KM}{}}(\psi _0^{}\sigma _3\psi _1+\psi _1^{}\sigma _3\psi _0).`$ (41)
We here note

$$ϵ_1=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}dw\psi _0^{}H_1\psi _0=\frac{1}{𝒩}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}dwwe^{2U_0(w)}=0.$$
(42)
In order to solve Eq.(40), we first write $`\psi _1`$ as the following form:

$$\psi _1(w)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒩}}\left\{\xi _1(w)\psi ^{(a)}(w)+\xi _2(w)\psi ^{(b)}(w)\right\},$$
(43)
where $`\psi ^{(a)}(w)`$ and $`\psi ^{(b)}(w)`$ are the linearly independent solutions to Eq.(27) with the same eigenvalue $`ϵ_0`$,

$`\psi ^{(a)}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{U_0(w)}\chi _+`$ (44)
$`\psi ^{(b)}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{R}}e^{U_0(w)}W(w)\chi _++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{U_0(w)}\chi _{},`$ (45)
with $`W(w)=_0^wdw^{}e^{2U_0(w^{})}`$. The equations (40) and (43) give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\xi _1}{\mathrm{d}w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{R}}W(w){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\xi _2}{\mathrm{d}w}}=0,`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\xi _2}{\mathrm{d}w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2K}{R^2}}we^{2U_0(w)}=0.`$ (47)
The solutions to the above equations are

$`\xi _1(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2K^2}{R^3}}{\displaystyle _0^w}dw^{}w^{}W(w^{})e^{2U_0(w^{})}U_1(w),`$ (48)
$`\xi _2(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2K}{R^2}}{\displaystyle _w^+\mathrm{}}dw^{}w^{}e^{2U_0(w^{})},`$ (49)
with $`U_1(w)=G_0^wdw^{}\varphi _1(w^{})`$. We thus obtain the solution for $`\psi _1`$,

$$\psi _1(w)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒩}}\left(c_+(w)\chi _++c_{}(w)\chi _{}\right),$$
(50)
where

$`c_+(w)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{U_0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2K^2}{R^3}}{\displaystyle _0^w}dw^{}e^{2U_0}{\displaystyle _w^{}^{\mathrm{}}}dw^{\prime \prime }w^{\prime \prime }e^{2U_0}U_1(w)\right),`$ (51)
$`c_{}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K}{R^2}}e^{U_0}{\displaystyle _w^+\mathrm{}}dw^{}w^{}e^{2U_0}.`$ (52)
The $`w`$-dependence of the component $`c_\pm `$ is shown in FIG.1.

We next solve the Eq.(41). Replacing the fermionic source term of Eq.(41) by $`\psi _0^{}\sigma _3\psi _1=\psi _1^{}\sigma _3\psi _0=\xi _2/(2𝒩)`$, we get

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}w^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(3\varphi _0^2v^2)\right]\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G}{4\pi R𝒩}}{\displaystyle \underset{KM}{}}\xi _2`$ (53)
$``$ $`h(w),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}=R\varphi _1`$. The solution to the above equation is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{w}{\delta _b}}}{\displaystyle _0^w}dw^{}\mathrm{cosh}^4{\displaystyle \frac{w^{}}{\delta _b}}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^w^{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\right\}dw^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{h(w^{\prime \prime })}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{w^{\prime \prime }}{\delta _b}}}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{w}{\delta _b}}}{\displaystyle _0^w}dw^{}\mathrm{cosh}^4{\displaystyle \frac{w^{}}{\delta _b}}{\displaystyle _0^w^{}}dw^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{h(w^{\prime \prime })}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{w^{\prime \prime }}{\delta _b}}}`$
where we use

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dw\frac{h(w)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{w}{\delta _b}}_0^{\mathrm{}}dw\frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}h(w)=0$$
(55)
Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}(w)`$ satisfies $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}(0)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}(\pm \mathrm{})0`$ (see FIG.2).

We note that the first order energy corrections $`E_f^{(1)}`$ and $`E_b^{(1)}`$ vanish since the integrands for them are odd functions of $`w`$. In the next-to-leading order, the fermi energy is

$`E_f^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{KM}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw\psi _0^{}H_2\psi _0+{\displaystyle \underset{KM}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw\psi _0^{}H_1\psi _1`$ (56)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N_f^{\frac{3}{2}}}{3R^3𝒩}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dww^2e^{2U_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{4GN_f^{\frac{3}{2}}}{3R^3𝒩}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dwwe^{2U_0}{\displaystyle _0^w}dw^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}(w^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4N_f^{\frac{5}{2}}}{5R^5𝒩}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dwwe^{2U_0}{\displaystyle _0^w}dw^{}e^{2U_0}{\displaystyle _w^{}^+\mathrm{}}dw^{\prime \prime }w^{\prime \prime }e^{2U_0}\mathrm{for}N_f1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi \lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}v^3}{3𝒩}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dww^2e^{2U_0}+{\displaystyle \frac{32\pi \lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}Gv^3}{3𝒩}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dwwe^{2U_0}{\displaystyle _0^w}dw^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}(w^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{128\pi ^{\frac{5}{3}}\lambda ^{\frac{5}{6}}v^5}{5𝒩}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dwwe^{2U_0}{\displaystyle _0^w}dw^{}e^{2U_0}{\displaystyle _w^{}^+\mathrm{}}dw^{\prime \prime }w^{\prime \prime }e^{2U_0},`$
and the surface energy is

$`E_b^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi R^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw{\displaystyle \frac{w^2}{R^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}(\varphi _0^2v^2)^2\right\}`$ (57)
$`+4\pi R^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw{\displaystyle \frac{2w}{R}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _1}{\mathrm{d}w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\varphi _0\varphi _1(\varphi _0^2v^2)\right\}`$
$`+4\pi R^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _1}{\mathrm{d}w}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\varphi _1^2(3\varphi _0^2v^2)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw\left\{w^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}}\right)^22\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}{\displaystyle \frac{h(w)}{R}}\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw\left\{w^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi _0}{\mathrm{d}w}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2R𝒩}}{\displaystyle \underset{KM}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}\xi _2`$
$`=`$ $`\pi \lambda v^4{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw{\displaystyle \frac{w^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^4\frac{w}{\delta _b}}}2\pi \lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}v^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dw{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}(w)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{w}{\delta _b}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi \lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}Gv^3}{3𝒩}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dwwe^{2U_0}{\displaystyle _0^w}dw^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}(w^{}),`$
where $`R`$ is replaced by Eq.(38). Taking into account Eq.(38) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_f`$, the second term in the r.h.s. of Eq.(33), we obtain the Fermi Ball energy in the next-to-leading order,

$$E_2=E_f^{(2)}+E_b^{(2)}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_f=𝒞(\lambda ,G)v.$$
(58)
We see that $`𝒞(\lambda ,G)`$ does not depend on $`N_f`$; this is crucial to the discussion on the stability of the Fermi Ball below. Let us consider a single-Fermi Ball state and a $`n`$-Fermi Balls state both with the total fermion number taken to be $`N_f`$. The two states have the same leading-order energies $`E_0`$, while they have the different higher-order corrections $`E_2`$: the former has a correction $`𝒞v`$ and the latter $`n𝒞v`$. Therefore, when $`𝒞`$ is positive, the former state has the lower energy and the Fermi Ball is stable against the fragmentation. We evaluate $`E_2`$ numerically and find that $`𝒞(\lambda ,G)`$ is positive in a limited parameter region of $`\lambda `$ and $`G`$ (see FIG.3).

We see in FIG.3 that rather large value of $`G`$ is allowed for the Fermi Ball to be stable. This situation, however, is much changed if the fermions have more degrees of freedom, e.g., belonging to a large multiplet of the internal symmetry and if the scalar field $`\varphi `$ belongs to a singlet (see the forthcoming paper). Consider the fermion multiplet $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ ($`1in`$) coupling to $`\varphi `$ through the common Yukawa coupling constant $`G`$, and assume for simplicity the fermion number $`N_i=N`$ in common for each flavor $`i`$. In such a case, we see that the energy correction $`E_2`$ is independent of $`N`$ but depends on $`n`$, and that a smaller value of $`G`$ can stabilize the Fermi Ball (see FIG.4). Here, we emphasize that there is a certain region of the parameters where stable Fermi Balls are allowed to exist.

## V Cosmological or observational constraints on region of parameters

We very roughly examine here cosmological or observational constraints on the parameter region for the neutral Fermi ball. We define the parameter $`\kappa =2\pi ^{1/3}\lambda ^{1/6}v`$ which satisfies

$$M_f=\kappa ^3R^2,$$
(59)
with the Fermi ball mass $`M_f`$ and the radius $`R`$ being given by Eq.(39) and Eq.(38), respectively.

We first consider the energy density difference $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which we have neglected so far. We know that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be larger than the critical value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\kappa ^6/(144\pi ^2M_{pl}^2)`$ in order to avoid the domination of the black holes made up by domain walls in the total energy density of the early universe VILL . Such a finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ gives a volume energy $`E_v=4\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }R^3/3`$ to the false vacuum, having an effect to destabilize the Fermi Ball. As far as the volume energy is small enough, i.e., $`E_v=4\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }M_f^{3/2}/(3\kappa ^{9/2})<E_2`$, the Fermi Ball is absolutely stable. This gives a constraint,

$$M_f<2.9\times 10^{26}\left(\frac{\mathrm{GeV}}{\kappa }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{E_2}{\kappa }\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(60)
due to the condition for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to exist under the above constraints.

We next consider the observational aspect of the neutral Fermi ball. If they are produced in the early universe and have survived until present, they can contribute to the dark matter in the Galaxy. Let us assume here that the neutral stable Fermi ball has a sizable contribution to dark matter. We then have their flux $`F`$,

$$F\frac{\rho _{DM}u_0}{4\pi M_f}7.1\times 10^5\left(\frac{\text{GeV}}{M_f}\right)\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{sr}^1,$$
(61)
where $`\rho _{DM}0.3\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ is the energy density of the dark matter in the Galaxy and $`u_03\times 10^7\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ is the Virial velocity of the Fermi ball. We seek for the allowed region of the Fermi ball parameters through the use of currently available observational data. We use in the following the results of the experiments which searched for monopoles or heavy dark matter.

In order to examine whether the Fermi ball can be detected in terrestrial experiments, we first consider the condition that the neutral Fermi ball should reach the detector passing through matter. The energy loss rate (energy loss per path length) is given by Wit ; Gla

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}E}{\mathrm{d}x}=\sigma u^2\rho ,$$
(62)
where $`\sigma `$ is the collision cross section with a nucleus in the medium, $`u`$ is the velocity of the Fermi ball, and $`\rho `$ is the density of the target matter. For simplicity, in the following we assume that the cross section is geometrically given by,

$$\sigma =\pi R^2.$$
(63)
From Eq.(62), the velocity $`u`$ decreases exponentially with the path length, $`\mathrm{exp}(\sigma \rho x/M_f)`$. Estimating the final velocity as $`u_c1.2\times 10^4\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ Gla , we obtain the condition for the Fermi ball to reach the detector,

$$M_f>0.13\sigma \rho L,$$
(64)
where $`L`$ is the path length. Substituting Eqs.(59) and (63) into Eq.(64) yields

$$\kappa >4.6\times 10^2\left(\frac{\rho L}{\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(65)
We next consider the efficiency of the detectors to observe the neutral Fermi ball. Let us examine the track detectors with mica Mic  and the scintillators in the MACRO Mcr  and the KEK Kek  experiments. These experiments are sensitive to the neutral Fermi ball, if the energy loss per path length is large enough, $`q(\mathrm{d}E/\rho \mathrm{d}x)>(\mathrm{d}E/\rho \mathrm{d}x)_{min}`$, where $`(\mathrm{d}E/\rho \mathrm{d}x)_{min}`$ is the detection threshold for relativistic charged particles and $`q`$ is the efficiency correction factor. This condition with Eq.(62) gives $`\sigma >1.7\times 10^{18}[q^1(\mathrm{d}E/\rho \mathrm{d}x)_{min}/\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2]\mathrm{cm}^2`$, that is,

$$M_f=\frac{\sigma \kappa ^3}{\pi }>1.4\times 10^9\left(\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^3\left[\frac{q^1(\mathrm{d}E/\rho \mathrm{d}x)_{min}}{\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2}\right]\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(66)
For the scintillator experiments in MACRO and KEK we take $`q=1`$ for simplicity 333The value $`q`$ in this case is called a quenching factor and ranges $`q=0.11`$ with various conditions. We are interested only in the order of magnitude estimation, and we take $`q=1`$ in this paper.. In case of the MACRO experiments, the conditions Eq.(65) and Eq.(66) with $`\rho L=3.7\times 10^5\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and $`q^1(\mathrm{d}E/\rho \mathrm{d}x)_{min}3I_{min}6\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ Mcr  give $`\kappa >3.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`M_f>7.8\times 10^6(\kappa /\mathrm{GeV})^3\mathrm{GeV}`$. The flux upper limit of $`F<2.5\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ with Eq.(61) gives the mass lower limit $`M_f>2.8\times 10^{21}\mathrm{GeV}`$. In case of the KEK experiments, the conditions $`\rho L=10^3\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and $`q^1(\mathrm{d}E/\rho \mathrm{d}x)_{min}0.01I_{min}20\mathrm{KeV}/\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ Mcr  give $`\kappa >0.46\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`M_f>2.6\times 10^4(\kappa /\mathrm{GeV})^3\mathrm{GeV}`$. The flux bound $`F<3.2\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ gives $`M_f>2.2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

For the truck detector with mica Mic  we also take $`q=1`$ for simplicity. In this case we take $`\rho L=7.5\times 10^5\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ which is due to the fact that the mica was located at 3 km deep under the earth, and $`q^1(\mathrm{d}E/\rho \mathrm{d}x)_{min}2.4\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ Mic . They give $`\kappa >4.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`M_f>3.1\times 10^9(\kappa /\mathrm{GeV})^3\mathrm{GeV}`$. The flux upper limit $`F<2.3\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ gives $`M_f>3.1\times 10^{25}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Recently very low background experiments are being done for the dark matter search Cdms ; Dam ; Min . Here, we analyze the results of CDMS experiments, which uses cryogenic Ge detector. The condition Eq.(65) with $`\rho L=2.6\times 10^3\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ gives $`\kappa >1.2\mathrm{GeV}`$. The dark matter search experiments allow such a small cross section of the cold dark matter particle scattering with the target nucleus that the average number of collisions in the target is less than a unity ($`\sigma \rho d/m_{Ge}\sigma \rho d/A_{Ge}m_p<1`$, namely, $`\sigma <2.2\times 10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ with $`\rho =5.3\mathrm{gr}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`d=1cm`$ and $`A_{Ge}73`$). The experimental results are roughly expressed as $`F\sigma \sigma /M_f<3\times A_{Ge}\times 10^{42}\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`M_f>100\mathrm{GeV}`$, and this gives $`\kappa >3.9\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}`$.

We illustrate the allowed region of $`M_f`$ and $`\kappa `$ in Figure 5.

In this figure the condition for the stability Eq.(60) is also shown. One can see that there still remains the parameter region to be explored, especially the region of $`\kappa 10^5\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`M_f10^{25}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\kappa 10^5\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`10^{25}\mathrm{GeV}M_f10^{27}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

## VI CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

We have considered the neutral Fermi Balls in the thin-wall model where the domain wall thickness $`\delta _b`$ is much smaller than the Fermi Ball radius $`R`$. In the case where the spreading thickness $`\delta _f`$ of the fermion confined in the domain wall is negligibly small compared to $`\delta _b`$, the Fermi Ball is unstable against the fragmentation even if the finite $`\delta _b`$ is taken into account YOS . In the present paper, we have examined whether the Fermi Ball is stable or not if the effect of the finite $`\delta _f`$ is included.

In order to estimate the energy of the Fermi Ball, we have expanded the fields and the Hamiltonian in the power of $`\delta _b/R`$. At each level of the perturbation, we have examined the stability against the fragmentation. We have found that the energy correction in the next-to-leading order can stabilize the Fermi Ball in the limited region of the scalar self-coupling constant $`\lambda `$ and the Yukawa coupling constant $`G`$, as is shown in FIG.3.

We have lastly given rough estimations for the allowed region of the parameters, $`M_f`$ and $`\kappa `$, for the neutral Fermi Ball to have a sizable contribution to the cold dark matter in case where the cross section of the Fermi Ball scattering with matter is of geometrical size. We have found that the allowed region is severely restricted by cosmological or observational constraints, but that there still remains the region open to the future exploration.

In the present paper, we have dealt with the Fermi Ball in a semi-classical manner. The quantum corrections, such as the radiative correction coming from the scattering of the fermions in the domain wall, may affect the stability of the Fermi Ball. They will be discussed elsewhere.


format: text

text:
# Theoretical approaches to hadrons in nuclear matter

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The problem of the behavior of hadrons in dense and hot matter is a central question of present day nuclear and hadronic physics. On the theoretical side which is the main purpose of this article, a very important point is to incorporate the relevant features of chiral dynamics into the many-body problem of interacting hadrons to address the crucial issue of chiral symmetry restoration with increasing baryonic density and/or temperature and its interplay with hadron structure modification and confinement effects. The appropriate effective theories have to be constrained by lattice data when it is possible and experimental information from a variety of sources ranging from intermediate energy machines probing ordinary nuclear matter up to relativistic heavy ion collisions probing hadronic matter under extreme conditions.

## 2 THE ROLE OF CHIRAL SYMMETRY

### 2.1 Chiral symmetry breaking

The $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ chiral symmetry of the QCD Lagrangian is certainly a crucial key for the understanding of many phenomena in low energy hadron physics. This symmetry originates from the fact that the QCD Lagrangian is almost invariant under the separate flavor $`SU(2)`$ transformations of left-handed $`q_L=(u_L,d_L)`$ and right-handed $`q_R=(u_R,d_R)`$ light quark fields $`u`$ and $`d`$. The explicit violation of chiral symmetry is governed by the quark mass $`m_q=(m_u+m_d)/2`$ 10 MeV which is much smaller than typical hadron masses of order $`1`$ GeV, indicating that the symmetry is excellent. It is however well established that the QCD vacuum does not possess the symmetry of the Lagrangian i.e., chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken (SCSB) as it is evidenced by a set of remarkable properties. The first one is the building-up of a chiral quark condensate : $`\overline{q}q=\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d/2`$ which mixes, in the broken vacuum, left-handed and right-handed quark ($`\overline{q}q=\overline{q}_Lq_R+\overline{q}_Rq_L/2`$). Another order parameter at the hadronic scale is the pion decay constant $`f_\pi =94`$ MeV which is related to the quark condensate by the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation : $`2m_q<\overline{q}q>_{vac}=m_\pi ^2f_\pi ^2`$ valid to leading order in the current quark mass. It leads to a large negative value $`<\overline{q}q>_{vac}`$ -(240 MeV)3 indicating a strong dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry. The second feature is the appearance of soft Goldstone bosons to be identified with the almost massless pions. Finally the chiral asymmetry of the vacuum associated with the condensation of quark-antiquark pairs is directly visible at the level of the the hadronic spectrum : there is no degeneracy between possible chiral partners such as $`\rho (770)a_1(1260)`$ or $`\pi (140)\sigma (4001200)`$. This is really true only for the low mass part of the spectrum but higher in the spectrum chiral symmetry is restored since in heavy hadrons the valence quarks having higher momenta simply decouple from the condensate. In other words, the chiral asymmetry of the vacuum does not affect the valence quarks and the underlying plausible picture for heavy hadrons is a rotating QCD string with bare quarks at the end-points .

### 2.2 Chiral symmetry restoration and hadron structure

When hadronic matter is heated and compressed chiral symmetry is also expected to be restored. This picture is supported by lattice simulation showing a sharp decrease of the quark condensate around $`T_c=170`$ MeV accompanying the deconfinement transition. However far before the critical region, partial restoration should occur through the simple presence of hadrons. Quantitatively from the equation of state (i.e., from the knowledge of the thermodynamical potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu _B,T)`$), it follows that each hadron present with the scalar density $`\rho _s^h(\mu _B,T)`$ contributes to the dropping of the quark density through a characteristic quantity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_h`$ (the sigma commutator of the hadron) according to  :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q(\mu _B,T)}{\overline{q}q_{vac}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\overline{q}q_{vac}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu _B,T)}{m_q}}=1{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s^h(\mu _B,T)\mathrm{\Sigma }_h}{f_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_h=m_q{\displaystyle \frac{M_h}{m_q}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_h}{m_\pi ^2}},\rho _s^h(\mu _B,T)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu _B,T)}{M_h}}`$ (1)
Fortunately only the lightest hadrons actually contribute since the heavy hadrons just decouple and their corresponding sigma terms are very small. There is a very interesting interplay between chiral restoration and hadron structure since the in-medium chiral condensate behavior is driven, beside the influence of the equation of state, by the sigma term, itself related to the hadron mass obtainable in principle from the lattice. Even if lattice calculations are presently not feasible for quark mass smaller than $`60`$ MeV or equivalently pion mass smaller than $`400`$ MeV, a well controlled chiral model (possessing the correct light and heavy quark limits) for the pion loop correction can be utilized. In the case of the nucleon, one obtains an improved fit with lattice data which accurately extrapolates to the correct nucleon mass in the physical light quark sector . This sort of interplay between phenomenological models and QCD itself has just begun and will be certainly crucial in the future of this field.

### 2.3 Chiral symmetry restoration in hadronic matter

The restructuring of the QCD vacuum associated with chiral restoration should be visible, as is usual in the many-body problem, at the level of the excitation spectrum. Hence the observable consequences should be studied looking at the in-medium hadronic spectral functions defined as $`\rho _h(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})=(1/\pi )ImD_h(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ where $`D_h(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ is a propagator or a correlator between two currents or fields having the quantum numbers of the hadron $`h`$ under consideration. Numerous works have been devoted to the centroids of the mass distributions i.e., the in-medium masses, but the link between the evolution of the condensate and the masses cannot be an absolute one. More generally the modification of the hadronic spectral functions is certainly not restricted to the shift of the centroids of the mass distributions and we have to study the evolution of the whole shape of the spectral functions. Most of the time we expect a broadening of the spectral function (antikaons , rho meson ) and a dissolving of the resonances originating from various many-body mixing effects with the surrounding hadrons. There is however the notable exception of the sigma meson for which we expect a softening and a sharpening . The key question is the relationship between the observed reshaping and chiral symmetry restoration. One possible strategy to obtain this crucial connection is to make a simultaneous study of the spectral functions associated with chiral partners. A very important example is the rho meson and the axial-vector meson $`a_1`$ and it has been established that there is a mixing of the associated current correlators trough the presence of the pion scalar density .

### 2.4 Chiral effective field theory

The light scalar-isoscalar meson which is usually called the sigma meson is a particle representing the amplitude fluctuation of the chiral order parameter $`\overline{q}q`$ around the minimum of the effective potential. The pion corresponds to the other fluctuation of the condensate namely the phase fluctuation. It is (almost) massless since it is a mode moving at the bottom of the “Mexican hat” effective potential i.e., the so-called chiral circle. Consequently the sigma meson gets a large decay width into two-pion which makes this object so elusive in the vacuum. In other words, the physical sigma state in QCD can be at most a broad resonance which is a superposition of the ur-sigma (genuine amplitude fluctuation of the order parameter) and a two-pion state. To have some insight on the manifestions of chiral symmetry restoration and to make predictions, one has to rely on effective theories which should incorporate the symmetry properties of the underlying QCD Lagrangian. The sigma and pion taken as effective degrees of freedom are introduced through a $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`W=\sigma +i\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }`$. An alternative formulation of the resulting linear sigma model is obtained by going from cartesian to polar coordinates according to :

$$W=\sigma +i\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\pi }=SU=(f_\pi +s)exp\left(\frac{i\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\varphi }}{f_\pi }\right)$$
(2)
The new pion field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ corresponds to an orthoradial soft mode which is automatically massless (in the absence of explicit CSB) since it is associated with rotations on the chiral circle without cost of energy. The new sigma meson field $`s`$ describes a radial mode associated with the fluctuations of the “chiral radius”. As demonstrated in , this chiral invariant $`s`$ field can be identified with the famous “sigma meson” of the relativistic QHD theories, thus giving a solution to the long-termed problem of their chiral status. To leading order in density and temperature, the dropping of the chiral condensate is given by :

$$R=\frac{\overline{q}q(\rho ,T)}{\overline{q}q_{vac}}=\frac{\sigma (\rho ,T)}{f_\pi }1\frac{\varphi ^2(\rho ,T)}{2f_\pi ^2}\frac{|s|(\rho ,T)}{f_\pi }.$$
(3)
These two contributions to the dropping of the chiral condensate yield very different observable manifestations of chiral symmetry restoration. The pionic fluctuation piece ($`20\%`$ dropping at $`\rho =\rho _0`$) is associated with axial-vector mixing and does not contribute to the dropping of the masses. It is the scalar piece ($`20\%`$ dropping at $`\rho =\rho _0`$) which governs the evolution of the masses as a consequence of the shrinking of the chiral radius.

## 3 PIONS IN NUCLEAR MATTER

With the above degrees of freedom, one can build an effective Lagrangian and first address the question of the pion properties in nuclear matter. Such a Lagrangian will depend on parameters constrained by phenomenology and data such as the very recent accurate measurement showing that the pion-nucleon isoscalar scattering length is compatible with zero . From the Gell-Mann-Oakes Renner relation, it follows that to leading order in density, the pion decay constant squared behaves like the quark condensate. Recently the attention has focused on the charge exchange scattering length $`b_1`$ . The fit to these data  suggests a large enhancement associated with chiral restoration of the isovector scattering length $`b_1`$ in nuclei, as anticipated in . Within the approach described above, one obtains :

$$\frac{b_1^{}}{b_1}=1+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_N\rho }{f_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}\frac{7}{6}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{(\pi )}\rho }{f_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.18}\frac{\rho }{\rho _0}.$$
(4)
which comes from the combined effect of the energy dependence  of the pion self-energy and of the in-medium renormalization of the charge exchange amplitude related to the Weinberg-Tomozawa piece of the chiral Lagrangian . The effect is more moderate than in the original proposal  which ignores the pion-loop correction (last term of eq. 4).

## 4 SCALAR-ISOSCALAR MODES AND FLUCTUATIONS OF THE CHIRAL CONDENSATE

As mentioned before, the genuine sigma meson is defined as the quantum fluctuating mode of the chiral order parameter around the minimum of the effective potential. In nuclear matter the minimum is shifted and it is crucial to address this question of matter stability in chiral effective theories. The energy density taken as a function of the order parameter, which we call generically $`S`$, is the appropriate effective potential :

$$ϵ(\rho ,S)=\underset{p<p_F}{}\sqrt{p^2+M_N^{}(S)}+V(S)+C_V\rho ^2.$$
(5)
$`V(S)`$ is the “Mexican hat” potential generating vacuum symmetry breaking and the last term corresponds to some vector repulsion. In the NJL model the nucleon can be built as a quark-diquark bound state and the constituent quark mass $`M_q^{}=g_qS`$ plays the role of the order parameter . In the chiral version of relativistic theories of the Walecka type , the sigma field can be identified with the chiral invariant scalar field from which one can dynamically generate the effective nucleon mass $`M_N^{}=g_{SN}S`$. Independently of the particular chiral model, the decrease of the curvature of the Mexican hat potential, as one moves away from the vacuum state, implies an increase of the attraction between nucleons. The needed extra-repulsion to get matter stability can be obtained if the sigma-nucleon coupling constant $`g_{SN}^{}`$ becomes a decreasing function of the order parameter. This is precisely what happens if an infrared cut-off simulating confinement is incorporated in the NJL model  and the same effect appears in the QMC model from the polarization of the confined quark wave functions . Since the coupling constant $`g_{SN}^{}=M_N^{}/S`$ is essentially the scalar response of the nucleon, which is in principle calculable on the lattice, one gets a connection between nuclear saturation and QCD itself! The sigma mass is defined as the curvature of the effective potential $`m_\sigma ^2=^2ϵ/\sigma ^2`$. In case of structureless nucleons, it strongly decreases with the condensate as a consequence of chiral restoration. However when nucleon polarization and/or confinement effects are included, the sigma mass remains remarkably stable . This feature has a direct consequence on the scalar susceptibility defined in terms of the correlator of the quark density fluctuations which encodes the properties of the sigma meson :

$$\chi _s=\frac{\overline{q}q}{m}=i𝑑t𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\delta \overline{q}q(0,0),\delta \overline{q}q(\stackrel{}{r},t).$$
(6)
Such a quantity can be calculated on the lattice at finite temperature. It becomes very large near the phase transition as it should since the fluctuations of the order parameter become large as a second- or a weak first-order phase transition is approached. In addition lattice calculations also show that the pseudoscalar susceptibility (pionic channel) becomes identical with the scalar one beyond the transition point indicating chiral restoration . At finite density since lattice data are scarce, one has to rely on models. According to a calculation within the kind of effective theory described above, the convergence of these two susceptibilities at density larger than $`3\rho _0`$ seems to occur. In this approach the scalar fluctuations are transmitted by the sigma meson and are relayed by the nucleons .

The in-medium scalar-isoscalar modes in nuclei have been studied experimentally through two-pion production in reactions induced either by pions  or photons  on various nuclei. All these collaborations have observed a systematic A dependent downwards shift of the strength when the pion pair is produced in the sigma meson channel as it is apparent on the photoproduction data of the TAPS collaboration  (see right panel of Fig. 1). So far, conventional calculations are not able to reproduce the data and the proposed explanations rely on a in-medium modification of the unitarized $`\pi \pi `$ interaction in the final state of the reaction. Historically the first advocated medium effect is related to the softening of the pion dispersion hence modifying the two-pion propagator in the unitarized $`\pi \pi `$ interaction . The other effect proposed by Hatsuda and Kunihiro is related to chiral restoration through the dropping of the sigma mass and the scalar condensate . This is a very general argument since chiral restoration implies a softening of a collective scalar-isoscalar mode, the sigma meson, which becomes degenerate with its chiral partner, the pion, at full restoration. This implies that at some density the sigma mass is twice the pion mass and a sharp cusp-structure near threshold is generated. This spectral enhancement  is actually intimately related to enhanced in-medium fluctuations of the chiral condensate. This effect is however weakened if the nucleon polarization effect is included . Consequently at moderate density (see Fig. 1) corresponding to the actual experimental situation, the medium effect is mainly driven by pions. Indeed a detailed model calculation including only this latter medium effect  is able to reproduce quite decently the photoproduction data of the TAPS collaboration, as shown on Fig. 1. Hence whatever the vacuum nature of the sigma meson and the medium effect affecting it are, it appears that the sigma pole moves at lower energy with reduced width from in-medium chiral dynamics.

## 5 TOWARDS HIGH BARYONIC DENSITIES AND PERSPECTIVES

What happens at higher density is largely unknown and it is a major experimental challenge to investigate this high density region which should complement the high temperature domain studied at RHIC or at CERN/SPS. In that respect, there is a GSI project to study compressed baryonic matter matter with heavy ions in the range $`1040`$ AGeV. One crucial point is of course the nature of the phase transition. For instance lattice data show that at finite temperature deconfinement and chiral restoration occur simultaneously but we do not really understand the reason and one question is whether this feature survives in the high density transition. Even if this transition is very difficult to reach experimentally one can adopt a pragmatical bottom-to-top attitude looking at, beside the usual macrodynamical variables (flow) probing the eos, the behavior of the hadron spectral functions as precursor effects of the phase transition. This opens many theoretical challenges which can be illustrated with dilepton production. It is well known that a strong excess of dileptons below the rho mass has been observed at CERN/SPS and it has been attributed to strong medium effects in the interacting fireball. The dilepton production is actually related to the imaginary part of the current-current correlation function in the vector channel. According to the well established vector dominance phenomenology, this correlator is accurately saturated by the rho meson at least for the radiation from the interacting fireball before freeze out. Hence dilepton production probes the rho meson spectral function in the dense and hot medium. Experimentally one sees a broadening and a flattening of the rho meson spectral function. The resulting spectrum is very similar in shape with what would be radiated by a perturbative quark-gluon phase in which chiral symmetry is restored . The DPR has been studied using various methods ranging from density expansions up to transport codes together with model independent in spirit theoretical tools for calculating or constraining the current-current correlator such as chiral reduction formalism, QCD sum rules or Weinberg sum rules. One important very much debated question concerns the mechanism associated with chiral restoration. In the Rho-Brown dropping scenario , the rho meson mass plays the role of an order parameter. Another mechanism is the axial-vector mixing. The emission and the absorption of thermal (finite temperature) or virtual (finite density) pions in the medium is able to transform a vector current into an axial current and at full restoration the axial and vector correlators become identical . This mixing effect together with other ones such as the mixing of the rho with some $`N^{}h`$ configurations has been explicitly incorporated in the very detailed hadronic calculation  of the in-medium rho spectral function (see fig. 2). Once the local rate is space-time evolved through a realistic fireball expansion, this approach (full curve on the left panel of fig.2) correctly reproduces the CERES data and in particular the most recent data at lower SPS energy (40 AGeV) for which the low mass enhancement effect is even more important. This is compatible with the fact that the medium effects are mainly driven by baryons. Such a study has to be pursued in direction of higher density with the forthcoming HADES data in the GeV range and the future project at GSI. However on the theoretical size some questions remain to be clarified such as the chiral status of the $`N^{}(1520)`$ and this again might be related to an interplay between chiral dynamics and nucleon structure. In addition some new theoretical suggestions have been proposed such as the simultaneous softening of the rho and sigma mesons  or the fate of vector dominance at finite temperature or density. In a set of recent works mainly driven by Harada and Yamawaki  a novel way of matching an effective field theory with the underlying QCD in the sense of a Wilsonian renormalization group equation has been proposed. This has been explicitly worked out in the HLS model where the rho meson is generated as the gauge boson of a hidden local symmetry. By matching the axial and vectors correlators at a well chosen scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ GeV, the bare parameters of the effective Lagrangian are determined. Using the renormalization group equations with inclusion of quadratic divergences, the physical quantities such as masses and coupling constants are then obtained. It has been found that the usual vector dominance is recovered in the vacuum but is lost with increasing temperature and density. One obtains a vector manifestation of chiral symmetry in which the (longitudinal) rho becomes massless at the chiral phase transition point. This kind of approach which allows to constrain effective theories is certainly very encouraging and has to be pursued with the explicit incorporation of other degrees of freedom, and in first rank the scalar-isoscalar degrees of freedom. It is also clear that the deep understanding of hot and dense hadronic matter is a vast theoretical challenge. It certainly necessitates the interplay between model building, lattice QCD at finite chemical potential and non-perturbative methods such as renormalization group equations or methods issued from the many-body problem.

Acknowledgements. I am grateful to M. Ericson for critical comments on the manuscript.


text:
# Chapter 1 Recent Results from the VERITAS Collaboration

## Chapter 1 Recent Results from the VERITAS Collaboration

### Abstract

A decade after the discovery of TeV $`\gamma `$-rays from the blazar Mrk 421 (Punch et al. 1992), the list of TeV blazars has increased to five BL Lac objects: Mrk 421 (Punch et al. 1992; Petry et al. 1996; Piron et al. 2001), Mrk 501 (Quinn et al. 1996; Aharonian et al. 1999; Djannati-Atai et al. 1999), 1ES2344+514 (Catanese et al. 1998), H1426+428 (Horan et al. 2000, 2002; Aharonian et al. 2002; Djannati-Atai et al. 2002) and 1ES1959+650 (Nishiyama et al. 1999; Konopelko et al. 2002; Holder et al. 2002). In this paper we report results from recent observations of Mrk 421, H1426+428 and 1ES1959+650 using the Whipple Observatory 10 m telescope.

### 1. Introduction

The scientific interest in TeV blazars is manifold and ranges from classification studies of the AGN (active galactic nucleus) phenomenon and detailed studies of Doppler-boosted relativistic jets, to particle acceleration and $`\gamma `$-ray emission models near the central massive object. In addition, $`\gamma `$-ray beams traversing intergalatic space can be used to constrain and measure the diffuse extragalactic background light (EBL) through $`\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}`$ absorption. In this paper we present recent results relevant to those topics.

### 2. Broad Studies: Mrk 501, Mrk 421, 1ES2344+514, H1426+428 & 1ES1959+650

Various search strategies have been explored to build a catalogue of TeV blazars. The discovery of Mrk 421 as a TeV blazar resulted from a survey of the first EGRET catalogue of blazars (Fichtel et al. 1994), however, none of the other EGRET blazars have been detected. The focus shifted then to nearby BL Lac objects which led to the discovery of Mrk 501 as a $`\gamma `$-ray source (not in first EGRET catalogue), indicating that TeV blazars require search strategies independent from GeV sources. A striking feature in the multiwavelength spectrum of Mrk 501 is the synchrotron peak at an energy above 100 keV (Catanese et al. 1997; Pian et al. 1998) and a second peak at several hundred GeV (Samuelson et al. 1998). This provided the impetus for a refined search strategy (Catanese & Weekes 1999) selecting BL Lacs that are X-ray bright with spectra extending to hard X-rays. A systematic study that is based on a selection of X-ray and radio bright BL Lacs from X-ray and radio catalogues (Costamante & Ghisellini 2002) yielded a number of good candidates for TeV emitting BL Lacs, with H1426+428 and 1ES1959+650 among them. In fact H1426+428 was recently detected by several groups (Horan et al. 2002; Aharonian et al. 2002; Djannati-Atai et al. 2002) establishing the most distant TeV blazar that has been confirmed by several groups, with a redshift of z=0.129.

Another recent detection from the list of X-ray selected TeV candidate BL Lacs (Costamante & Ghisellini 2002) is 1ES1959+650. Observations between May 16th and July 8th 2002 yielded a strong detection (Dowdall et al. 2002; Holder et al. 2002) showing $`\gamma `$-ray flux states between 0.5 and 5 times the Crab Nebula flux. Due to its slightly larger redshift (z=0.048) in comparison to Mrk 421 and Mrk 501 but smaller redshift than that of H1426+428, spectral studies of 1ES1959+650 will provide important additional information about the EBL (see also Holder et al. in these proceedings). In summary, the catalogue of TeV blazars is steadily increasing, indicating that they are becoming an important class of extragalactic objects for high energy astrophysics at TeV energies.

### 3. Spectral cutoffs and variability: EBL

Spectroscopic information from $`\gamma `$-ray blazars is the key to extracting the physics related to acceleration and emission processes in the relativistic jet. In addition, spectra may exhibit imprints from absorption effects of $`\gamma `$-rays due to radiation fields in the vicinity of the AGN, or attenuation of the $`\gamma `$-ray beam by the EBL. Of particular interest has been the search for signatures of $`\gamma `$-ray absorption by the EBL in the energy spectra of Mrk 501 and Mrk 421, since high flaring states in 1997 and 2001, respectively, provided excellent statistics.

Figure 1 shows the average energy spectra of Mrk 501 and Mrk 421 for these high flaring states with flux levels reaching several Crab. Mrk 421 and Mrk 501 have similar redshifts and exhibit a cutoff in their energy spectra at $`4.3\pm 0.3_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ TeV and $`4.6\pm 0.8_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ TeV, respectively. The consistent cutoff energy of approximately 4 TeV for both sources might suggest, that it is of common origin. The similarity of their distance to Earth makes absorption due to the EBL a viable possibility. The cutoffs could also be caused by a falling Klein-Nishina cross-section in an inverse-Compton picture. Other possibilities include absorption by radiation fields near the $`\gamma `$-ray source or a terminating particle energy distribution in the jet. However, since the historical synchrotron peak energies observed for both sources differ by almost two orders of magnitude, the latter scenario seems less likely.

To decide whether or not the observed cutoff is indeed due to the EBL, measurements of TeV spectra for sources at different redshifts are necessary. Although those studies are in their infancy, the energy spectrum of one of the recently detected sources with a larger redshift provides some important clues. Also shown in Figure 1 is the energy spectrum of H1426+428 between 400 GeV and 10 TeV, which can be well described by a power law with a differential flux following $`\mathrm{dN}/\mathrm{dE}\mathrm{E}^{3.55\pm 0.27}`$ (Petry et al. 2002). This makes H1426+428 the TeV blazar with the softest spectrum above 400 GeV, despite the fact that H1426+428 seems to reach at times a synchrotron peak energy up to $`\mathrm{E}>100`$ keV (Costamante et al. 2001). H1426+428 is the most distant BL Lac seen at TeV energies and theoretical studies of the EBL (Stecker & Salamon 1992; Primack 2002) suggest that its TeV $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum may be substantially attenuated through pair production off the EBL. Although the steep energy spectrum of H1426+428 concurs well with this picture, studies that could reveal the detailed shape of an attenuated spectrum require better statistics. The data published so far are consistent with a power law. Nevertheless, future measurements with better statistics should be useful for constraining the EBL density.

A promising tool in the quest for understanding the origin of spectral cutoff features is the study of spectral variability. Flaring activity of Mrk 421 in 2001 yielded $`23,000`$ $`\gamma `$-rays at energies $`\mathrm{E}>300`$ GeV providing the statistics needed to carry out studies of spectral variability over an order of magnitude of flux levels (set I - set VIII). Figure 2 shows energy spectra for the 2000/2001 data of Mrk 421 binned into different flux levels. Spectral hardening with increasing flux levels is apparent from the data. Figure 3 shows the spectral index plotted versus flux (units of Crab), providing the first unequivocal evidence that TeV $`\gamma `$-ray spectra do indeed vary, placing an important observational constraint on models of particle acceleration and $`\gamma `$-ray emission in jets of AGNs. Studies of the variability of the cutoff energy should also provide important clues about the cause of the cutoff (for further discussion see Krennrich et al. 2002).

In summary, we have extended the catalogue of TeV blazars to 5 BL Lac objects. The study of their energy spectra demonstrate that spectroscopy of TeV blazars is becoming a promising means to constrain the emission mechanism in their jets. In addition, an indirect measurement of the EBL between $`0.1`$ and $`30\mu `$m is coming into reach, which will most likely be achieved by the next generation ground-based $`\gamma `$-ray telescopes CANGAROO, HESS, MAGIC and VERITAS.

### 4. References

1. Aharonian, F.A. et al., 1999, A&A, 349, 11

2. Aharonian, F.A. et al., 2002, astro-ph/0202072

3. Catanese M. et al. 1997, ApJ, 487, L143

4. Catanese M. et al. 1998, ApJ, 501, 616

5. Catanese M. & Weekes, T.C. 1999, PASP, 111, 1193

6. Costamante, L. & Ghisellini, G. 2002, A&A, 384, 56

7. Costamante, L. et al. 2001, A&A, 371, 512

8. Djannati-Atai, A. et al., 1999, A&A , 350, 17

9. Djannati-Atai, A. et al., 2002, astro-ph/0207618

10. Dowdall, C. et al., 2002, IAUC, 7903

11. Fichtel, C.A. et al., 1994, ApJS, 94, 551

12. Konopelko, A. et al., 2002, HEAD Meeting, Albuquerque, B17, 2002

13. Krennrich, F. et al., 1999, ApJ, 511, 149

14. Krennrich, F. et al., 2001, ApJ, 560, L45

15. Krennrich, F. et al., 2002, ApJ, 575, L9

16. Nishiyama, T. et al., 1999, Proc. of 26th ICRC, Salt Lake City, 1999, 3, 370

17. Holder, J. et al., 2002, submitted to ApJL

18. Horan, D. et al., 2000, Head Meeting (Honolulu, Hawaii), No. 32, 05.03

19. Horan, D. et al., 2002, ApJ, 571, 753

20. Pian, E. et al., 1998, ApJ, 492, L17

21. Punch M. et al., 1992, Nature 358, 477

22. Petry D. et al., 1996, A&A 311, L13

23. Petry D. et al., 2002, ApJ, 580, 104

24. Piron F. et al., 2001, A&A , 374, 895

25. Primack J.R. 2002, astro-ph/0201119

26. Quinn J. et al. 1996, ApJ, 456, L83

27. Samuelson, F. et al. 1998, ApJ, 501, L17

28. Stecker, F. De Jager, O.C. & Salamon, M.H. 1992, ApJ, 390, L49

## Entry Form for the Proceedings

### 5. Recent Results from the VERITAS Collaboration


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Black holes are among the most remarkable, but also most mysterious objects in physics. Since Hawking’s prediction of black hole evaporation , they play an important role in any attempt towards a theory of quantum gravity. Unfortunately, experimental detection of Hawking radiation from real, massive ($`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$) astrophysical black holes seems impossible, since the corresponding temperature, as seen by an outside stationary observer, is tiny, $`T_\mathrm{H}=610^8\mathrm{K}\left(M_{}/M_{\mathrm{bh}}\right)`$. Furthermore, the proposed detection  of Hawking radiation from primordial mini black holes – possible relics from the big bang – would be rather indirect. Last, but not least, the production and exploration of microscopic black holes at terrestrial accelerators requires seemingly center-of-mass (cm) energies of order the Planck scale, $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\text{ }>\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1/\sqrt{8\pi G_N}=210^{18}`$ GeV, way beyond energies obtainable even in distant future .

The latter, so far remote possibility seems, however, meanwhile within reach in the context of theories with $`\delta =D41`$ flat  or warped  extra dimensions and a low fundamental Planck scale $`M_D\text{ }>`$ TeV characterizing quantum gravity. In these theories one expects the copious production of black holes in high energy collisions at cm energies above $`M_D`$ . Correspondingly, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) , expected to have a first physics run in 2006, may turn into a factory of black holes at which their production and evaporation may be studied in detail . But even before the commissioning of the LHC, the first signs of black hole production may be observed in the scattering of ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrino off nuclei in ice or air  and recorded by existing neutrino telescopes, such as AMANDA  and RICE , or at cosmic ray air shower facilities, such as the Pierre Auger Observatory . Moreover, already now sensible constraints on black hole production can be obtained  from the non-observation of horizontal showers by the Fly’s Eye collaboration  and the Akeno Giant Air Shower Array (AGASA) collaboration , respectively. These constraints turn out to be competitive with other currently available constraints on TeV-scale gravity which are mainly based on interactions associated with Kaluza-Klein gravitons, according to which a fundamental Planck scale as low as $`M_D=𝒪\left(1\right)`$ TeV is still allowed for $`\delta 6`$ flat or $`\delta 1`$ warped extra dimensions 111For an exhaustive list of references in this context, see Ref. ..

In this talk we shortly review the theory and phenomenology of black hole production in TeV-scale gravity scenarios. More details and an exhaustive reference list can be found, e.g., in Ref. .

## 2 Black Hole Production – Theory

Why one expects the copious production of black holes in trans-Planckian scattering at small impact parameters? This expectation is basically relying on two assertions, which are substantiated below: i) Trans-Planckian scattering is semi-classical. ii) There are classical scattering solutions corresponding to the formation of black holes at trans-Planckian energies $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}M_D`$ and at small impact parameters $`b\text{ }<\text{ }r_\mathrm{S}\left(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\right)`$, where $`r_\mathrm{S}\left(M_{\mathrm{bh}}\right)`$ is the Schwarzschild radius  of a black hole with mass $`M_{\mathrm{bh}}`$ (cf. Fig. 1 (left)). Correspondingly, one expects a geometric cross-section for black hole formation ,

$`\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}^{\mathrm{bh}}\pi r_\mathrm{S}^2\left(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{M_D^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{M_D}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2^\delta \pi ^{\frac{\delta 3}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3+\delta }{2}\right)}{2+\delta }}\right)\right]^{\frac{2}{1+\delta }},\mathrm{at}\sqrt{\widehat{s}}M_D,`$ (1)
whose scale is set essentially by the fundamental Planck scale $`M_D\text{ }>`$ TeV and therefore quite sizeable.

Ad i) The fact that trans-Planckian scattering is semi-classical can be most easily seen through a dimensional analysis, in which one keeps $`c=1`$, but restores the appropriate powers of $`\mathrm{}1`$. Relevant quantities to be considered are the fundamental Planck scale $`M_D`$ and the fundamental Planck length $`\lambda _D`$ – the length below which quantum gravity fluctuations of the geometry are important – in terms of the $`D=4+\delta `$ dimensional gravitational constant $`G_D`$,

$`M_D^{2+\delta }={\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\pi \right)^{\delta 1}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^{1+\delta }}{G_D}},\lambda _D^{2+\delta }=\mathrm{}G_D,`$ (2)
as well as the de Broglie wave length $`\lambda _\mathrm{B}`$ of the scattering quanta and the Schwarzschild radius $`r_\mathrm{S}`$,

$`\lambda _\mathrm{B}=4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}},r_\mathrm{S}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3+\delta }{2}\right)}{2+\delta }}\right]^{\frac{1}{1+\delta }}\left(G_D\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+\delta }}.`$ (3)
An inspection of Eqs. (2) and (3) reveals that in the semi-classical ($`\mathrm{}0`$) limit, with $`G_D`$ and $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ fixed, the quantities $`M_D,\lambda _D,\lambda _\mathrm{B}0`$, whereas $`r_\mathrm{S}`$ remains finite. Therefore, semi-classics corresponds to the trans-Planckian regime, $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}M_D`$. Moreover, in this regime, the Schwarschild radius $`r_\mathrm{S}`$ $`\left(\lambda _D\lambda _\mathrm{B}\right)`$ characterizes the dynamics.

Ad ii) There are basically two regimes in trans-Planckian scattering: The soft regime of large impact parameters, $`br_\mathrm{S}\left(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\right)`$, which is adequately described by semi-classical eikonal methods for elastic small angle ($`\theta \left(r_\mathrm{S}/b\right)^{\delta +1}1`$) scattering , and the hard regime of small impact parameters, $`br_\mathrm{S}\left(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\right)`$, in which one expects the gravitational collapse to a black hole, since at particle crossing an amount $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ of energy is localized within a radius $`b<r_\mathrm{S}`$ (cf. Fig. 1 (left)). This is basically a variant of Thorne’s hoop conjecture  in classical general relativity, according to which a horizon forms if and only if a mass $`M`$ is compacted into a region whose circumference in every direction is less than $`2\pi r_\mathrm{S}\left(M\right)`$. Indeed, for small enough impact parameter $`b<b_{\mathrm{max}}`$, a marginally trapped surface forms at the overlap between two gravitational shockwaves describing the incoming partons at trans-Planckian energies (cf. Fig. 1 (right)), as has been convincingly demonstrated in Refs. . Correspondingly, a geometrical cross-section $`\pi b_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$ is expected, and a lower bound on $`b_{\mathrm{max}}`$ leads to a lower limit of e.g.

$`\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}^{\mathrm{bh}}\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.65}\pi r_\mathrm{S}^2\left(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\right),M_{\mathrm{bh}}\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}\sqrt{\widehat{s}},`$ (4)
in the case of $`D=4`$, substantiating the estimate (1) (see Ref.  for further discussion).

## 3 Black Hole Production – Phenomenology

The reach of the LHC to black hole production is illustrated in Fig. 2 (left) for $`\delta =6`$ extra dimensions. As can be seen, the LHC can explore the production of black holes with minimum masses nearly up to its kinematical limit of $`14`$ TeV. In order to appreciate the event numbers indicated in Fig. 2 (left), let us mention the expected signature of black hole decay, which is quite spectacular. Once produced, black holes decay primarily via Hawking radiation  into a large number of $`𝒪\left(20\right)`$ hard quanta, with energies approaching several hundreds of GeV. A substantial fraction of the beam energy is deposited in visible transverse energy, in an event with high sphericity (cf. Fig. 2 (right)). From previous studies of electroweak sphaleron production , which has quite similar event characteristics , as well as from first event simulations of black hole production , it is clear that only a handful of such events is needed at the LHC to discriminate them from perturbative Standard Model background.

However, until the LHC starts operating, cosmic rays provide the only access to the required energy scales. Cosmic rays of energies up to $`10^{21}`$ eV have been observed. The “cosmogenic” neutrinos, expected from the cosmic ray interactions with the cosmic microwave background (e.g. $`p\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }n\pi ^+\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _e\mathrm{}`$), are more or less guaranteed to exist among ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos predicted from various sources (cf. Ref.  for a most recent discussion). Thus, if TeV-scale gravity is realised in nature, ultrahigh energy cosmic rays/cosmic neutrinos should have been producing mini black holes in the atmosphere throughout earth’s history. For cosmic ray facilities such as Fly’s Eye, AGASA and Auger, the clearest black hole signals are neutrino-induced quasi-horizontal air showers which occur at rates exceeding the Standard Model rate by a factor of $`10÷10^2`$ (see Fig. 3 (left)), and have distinct characteristics . Black hole production could also enhance the detection rate at neutrino telescopes such as AMANDA/IceCube, ANTARES, Baikal, and RICE significantly, both of contained and of through-going events .

The reach of cosmic ray facilites in black hole production has been thoroughly investigated by exploiting the cosmogenic neutrino fluxes of Fig. 3 (right) . It is argued in Ref.  that an excess of a handful of quasi-horizontal events are sufficient for a discrimination against the Standard Model background. An inspection of Fig. 4 (left) thus leads to the conclusion that the Pierre Auger Observatory, expected to become fully operational in 2003, has the opportunity to see first signs of black hole production. Moreover, as also shown in Fig. 4 (left), the non-observation of horizontal air showers reported by the Fly’s Eye  and the AGASA  collaboration provides a stringent bound on $`M_D`$, which is competitive with existing bounds on $`M_D`$ from colliders as well as from astrophysical and cosmological considerations, particularly for larger numbers of extra dimensions ($`\delta 5`$) and smaller threshold ($`M_{\mathrm{bh}}^{\mathrm{min}}\text{ }<\text{ }10`$ TeV) for the semi-classical description.

As for neutrino telescopes, investigations show  (cf. Fig. 4 (right)) that due to their small volume $`V0.001÷0.01`$ km3 for contained events, the currently operating neutrino telescopes AMANDA and Baikal cannot yield a large enough contained event rate to challenge the already existing limits from Fly’s Eye and AGASA. Even IceCube does not seem to be really competitive, since the final effective volume $`V1`$ km3 will be reached only after the LHC starts operating and Auger has taken data for already a few years. But sensible constraints on black hole production can be expected from RICE, a currently operating radio-Cherenkov neutrino detector with an effective volume $`1`$ km3 for $`10^8`$ GeV electromagnetic cascades, using already availabe data.

The ability to detect muons from distant neutrino reactions increases an underwater/-ice detector’s effective neutrino target volume dramatically. In the case that the neutrino flux is at the level of the cosmogenic one, only $`\text{ }<\text{ }1`$ events from Standard Model background are expected per year. Thus, with an effective area of about 0.3 km2 for down-going muons above $`10^7`$ GeV and 5 years data available, AMANDA should be able to impose strong constraints if no through-going muons above $`10^7`$ GeV are seen in the currently available data (cf. Fig. 5 (left)). Moreover, in the optimistic case that an ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrino flux significantly higher than the cosmogenic one is realised in nature, one even has discovery potential for black holes at IceCube beyond the reach of LHC, though discrimination between Standard Model background and black hole events becomes crucial (cf. Fig. 5 (right)).

Acknowledgement I would like to thank M. Kowalski and H. Tu for the nice collaboration.


text:
# The morphology-density relation in X-ray bright galaxy groups

## 1 Introduction

The well known relationship between galaxy morphology and density (e.g. Dressler 1980; Dressler et al. 1997) suggests that the environment of a galaxy may have a significant effect on its evolution. By examining the properties of galaxies as a function of environment it should be possible to gain important insights into the evolution of both galaxies and galaxy systems. Particularly interesting is the group environment, which is typically made up of between three and a few tens of galaxies. These systems are gravitationally bound systems in which the density and velocities of the member galaxies suggest that mergers and interactions are more common than in clusters or in the field (e.g. Mamon 1992, 2000a). In addition, the majority of galaxies are found in a group environment (Tully, 1987), and many galaxies in clusters will once have been part of groups.

Perhaps the most striking connection between group and galaxy properties is the fact that almost all X-ray bright groups contain a bright early-type galaxy located at the spatial and kinematic centre of the group (Zabludoff & Mulchaey, 1998). This central galaxy is presumably the result of early merging activity in the collapsing group core (Governato et al., 1996) and given the high expected rates of mergers in present day groups, this central galaxy may still be rapidly growing through mergers and accretion. Other galaxies in the group are also likely to be affected by the group environment. Postman & Geller (1984) and Ramella et al. (1999) have shown that galaxies in groups follow a morphology-density relation. However, it is not clear if this is the same relation as for clusters as some X-ray bright groups appear to have spiral fractions consistent with those found in rich clusters (Zabludoff & Mulchaey, 1998).

It is also known that there is a connection between the morphological make-up of groups and the presence of diffuse X-ray emission (e.g. Pildis et al. 1995; Henry et al. 1995; Mulchaey et al. 1996), in the sense that X-ray detected groups tend to be spiral poor, whilst undetected groups contain more late-types. In this and a companion paper (Helsdon & Ponman, 2002) we aim to look in some detail at the relationship between the X-ray and optical properties of X-ray bright galaxy groups. Here we focus on the morphological makeup of these systems, and examine the morphology-density relation of X-ray bright groups.

## 2 The Sample

The group sample used here is the sample of 24 X-ray bright groups originally studied by (Helsdon & Ponman, 2000a). The X-ray properties of this sample are discussed extensively in Helsdon & Ponman (2000a) and Helsdon & Ponman (2000b), but the important thing for the purposes of this work is that all these groups have detected, extended diffuse emission, associated with the group. The presence of a hot intragroup medium indicates that the group is a real gravitationally bound object, rather than just a chance superposition of a few galaxies — potentially a serious problem with optically selected groups.

We also need to determine the galaxy memberships of these groups. Unfortunately, it is not satisfactory to simply use the galaxy memberships as given in the original group catalogue, since the galaxies were originally selected from different sources which in general have different selection criteria. This problem is addressed in Helsdon & Ponman (2002), and here we use the same technique. This procedure is summarised below — for full details see Helsdon & Ponman (2002). For each group we search the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) and the Lyon-Meudon Extragalactic Database (LEDA) for galaxies lying within the group virial radius in projection on the sky, and having recession velocities within three times the group velocity dispersion from the catalogued group mean. The centre position used for each group is the centre of the X-ray emission. In most cases this position is very close to the position of the central galaxy, with the three exceptions being bimodal systems in which the X-ray centre falls roughly between the two main galaxies. It is possible that the centres used in the bimodal groups could act to obscure radial trends present in the other groups. However, as we average over all groups when looking at radial trends, and the bimodal systems only make up a small fraction of the sample, this is unlikely to have a significant effect on any results.

To ensure an even luminosity cut in all groups we use the galaxy luminosity function of Zabludoff & Mulchaey (2000) (for X-ray bright groups) to employ two magnitude cuts — one which should include 50% of the total optical group light and one which should include 90% of the total group light. For the 50% cut Helsdon & Ponman (2002) show that for the typical group in this sample the membership should be almost 100% complete, whilst approximately 35% of the total group light is missing from the 90% cut sample. Morphological types are taken firstly from NED if available, and then LEDA.

It should be noted that the group sample used here should not be regarded as being statistically complete in any way. However, we do not believe that this will introduce any particular bias, other than the fact that since we only use groups with detected diffuse X-ray emission, we do not include systems with undetectably faint intergalactic gas. The group sample should rather be regarded as a reasonably representative sample of X-ray bright groups.

## 3 The morphology-density relation

The overall spiral fraction of all these X-ray bright groups combined is $`0.425\pm 0.035`$, however this spiral fraction drops to $`0.30\pm 0.05`$ if the sample is restricted to galaxies brighter than the 50% luminosity cut. Thus these groups have lower spiral fractions than found in the field ($``$ 0.6 — Postman & Geller 1984; Whitmore et al. 1993), particularly amongst the more luminous galaxies.

The spiral fraction also appears to increase with radius in these systems. In Figure 1 we plot the spiral fraction calculated from all galaxies in all groups, as a function of radius (in units of the virial radius). This plot shows that the spiral fraction drops from about 0.6 at the outer edge (consistent with the field population) to a value of about 0.2 in the innermost regions of the groups. The spiral number fraction and the spiral light fraction are similar to one another until the central bin, where the spiral light fraction drops to less than half the number fraction, due to the presence of a central bright early type in almost all these groups. The spiral fraction profile for the 50% sample is similar to the 90% sample shown, but has a slightly lower spiral fraction at each point.

This morphology-radius trend is similar to that observed in galaxy clusters (Whitmore et al., 1993) and also reported in X-ray bright groups (Tran et al., 2001). We have also looked for evidence of a morphology-density relation. We cannot calculate a local surface density for each galaxy in our sample as has been done in previous cluster work (e.g. Dressler 1980; Dressler et al. 1997) as we do not have sufficient numbers of galaxies in each group. Instead we calculate the average density of each of the 4 radial bins plotted on Figure 1. We plot these points in Figure 2 along with data from the local cluster sample of Dressler et al. (1997). Note that the 50% group sample data is used, as the magnitude cut for this sample is closest to the average of that used by Dressler et al. for the local cluster data (the local cluster data is derived from an apparent magnitude cut of $`V=16.5`$, which in turn corresponds to an absolute magnitude of $`M_V=20.5`$ at the average cluster distance. Our 50% group sample B-band cut falls within the range of magnitude cuts for the local cluster sample and is between 0.5 and 0.9 magnitudes brighter than the average, depending on galaxy type).

As can be seen in Figure 2, the group points (circles) do indeed appear to follow a morphology-density relation. However, it is clear that the group relation is offset from the cluster data of Dressler et al.. One explanation for this offset could be that the relation is driven by 3D density, rather than by projected density. In a group, fewer galaxies will be projected along the line of sight onto the centre of the group. Thus if a group and cluster had the same 3D density at the centre, the projected density of the group would be lower than that of the cluster. The projected surface density ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) should be related to the 3D density ($`\rho `$) by, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho R`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the cluster. Assuming self-similarity we have, $`RT^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, and therefore $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho T^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. So by using a mean group and mean cluster temperature, it is possible to correct for the effects of projection on the group data, and compare with the cluster data. Of the 55 clusters in the Dressler et al. local cluster sample we obtain temperatures for 31 of them from White et al. (1997) and use the mean of these as the typical cluster temperature. This gives a mean cluster temperature of $`T=3.85`$ keV in comparison with a mean temperature of $`T=0.92`$ keV for the group sample.

The group data corrected for the effects of 3D projection are also plotted (crossed circles) in Figure 2. It can be seen that the points have moved in such a way as to reduce the discrepancy between the group and cluster points, but there is still a significant offset between the datasets. At comparable local 3D densities, X-ray bright groups appear to have fewer spirals and more early-types than clusters. This result is inconsistent with that of Postman & Geller (1984), who found a universal morphology density relation for groups and clusters, with low density groups being more spiral rich than high density clusters, and with the higher density regions in groups having the same morphological mix as cluster regions of comparable 3D density. However, the groups used by Postman & Geller (1984) were optically selected, and it is possible that they included some spurious groups or groups at an early stage of virialisation. Both of these effects would increase the spiral fraction, and would therefore move the group data towards the cluster data. In comparison, our sample consists of collapsed, X-ray bright groups. It should also be pointed out that the trend of fewer spirals for a given 3D density is opposite to that noted by Mamon (1986) and Hickson et al. (1988) for the Hickson Compact Groups (HCG) (Hickson, 1982). However, the apparent densities of HCGs are subject to complicated and subtle selection effects (e.g. Prandoni et al. 1994; Mamon 2000b) and in light of this it may not be particularly surprising that they behave in a different way.

So whilst it seems that galaxies in X-ray bright groups do follow a morphology-density relation, this relation appears to be different to that observed in clusters. However, groups are just small clusters, and it is reasonable to assume that similar processes govern the morphological makeup in both groups and clusters. The group sample here is probing the morphology-density relation in systems approximately an order of magnitude less massive than the clusters in Dressler et al. (1997), and the variations seen over this large mass range suggest that an additional parameter is needed in the morphology-density relation.

A likely candidate for this extra parameter is the merging rate – galaxies in groups have a higher merging rate than galaxies in clusters, due to their lower velocity dispersions. Using different merger cross-sections, Mamon (1992) and Makino & Hut (1997) have shown that the merging rate ($`k`$) scales as $`k\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}^3`$, where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is the cluster velocity dispersion, and Mamon (2000a) argues that this $`k:\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}`$ relation will hold for any well-behaved merger cross section. Given $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}T^{1/2}`$, for self-similar clusters the merging rate will thus scale as $`kT^{3/2}`$. If we now assume that the spiral fraction in any particular environment is a function of the 3D density and the merging rate (as is expected given that the number of mergers endured by a given galaxy per unit time is $`P=nk=nv\mathrm{\Sigma }(v)`$ , where $`n`$ is the 3D number density and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the velocity dependent merger cross-section, see Mamon (1992, 2000a)), we can once again scale the group densities using the mean cluster and group temperatures, in order to remove the effects of projection and merging rate. The effects of scaling the group projected densities by this factor are also shown in Figure 2. This time the group and cluster points agree fairly well, with only the densest group point departing somewhat from the cluster trend. Given the likely hierarchical development of clusters, it is important not to overinterpret this result. However, it does clearly indicate that at a given 3D density morphological transformation of galaxies is more effective within X-ray bright groups rather than within clusters.

We have also separated our group morphology-density relation into abundances for elliptical and lenticular galaxies. These relations are compared with the equivalent cluster relations in Figure 3. Note that the group points are plotted at both the calculated surface densities and the 3D densities adjusted for their higher expected merging rate (see above). This figure clearly shows that at equivalent surface densities, the fraction of both ellipticals and lenticulars in groups tends to be higher than that in clusters. After scaling the projected densities to allow for system size and merger rate, as discussed above for spiral fractions, the points for X-ray bright groups again come into reasonable agreement with those for clusters, apart from an apparent deficit in lenticulars in groups (compared to clusters) at the highest densities.

## 4 Discussion

Studies of the evolution of the morphology-density relation (e.g. Dressler et al. 1997) have shown that the fraction of ellipticals in clusters has not evolved significantly since z$``$0.5. The elliptical fractions observed in these groups support the suggestion of Dressler et al. that the formation of ellipticals predates cluster formation, and that they are instead formed primarily in a group environment. However, the S0 fraction in clusters at z$``$0.5 is about 2-3 times smaller than in present day clusters (e.g. Dressler et al. 1997; although see Andreon 1998 for a different view), suggesting that some process must have transformed the excess spirals seen in these systems into S0s by the present day.

Major mergers do not appear able to produce enough S0s in clusters (e.g. Okamoto et al. 2001a), and a number of other mechanisms have be proposed to explain the transformation of spirals to S0s: ram pressure stripping (e.g. Gunn & Gott 1972; Quilis et al. 2000), galaxy harassment (e.g.Moore et al. 1999) or unequal mass galaxy mergers (e.g. Bekki 1998). The fact that we see a comparable S0 fraction in present day X-ray bright groups and clusters, suggests that whatever process is responsible for converting spirals to S0s in clusters also plays a significant role in creating S0s in these groups.

This would appear to rule out ram pressure stripping of the whole ISM of a galaxy as the dominant process. Indeed, since ram pressure scales as the square of the galaxy velocity within its group or cluster, ram pressure stripping should not be effective in the low velocity dispersion group environment (e.g. Zabludoff & Mulchaey 1998; Abadi et al. 1999). Furthermore, there is also evidence that ram pressure stripping cannot produce sufficient numbers of intermediate bulge-to-disk ratio galaxies in clusters (e.g. Okamoto et al. 2001b; Lanzoni 2000), where it should be more effective. However, if continuing star formation within spirals is fuelled by continuing infall of gas from a surrounding gas reservoir (still a controversial issue), then such a reservoir should be easily removed by infall into groups as well as clusters, leading to a gradual decline or ‘strangulation’ (Larson et al. 1980; Balogh et al. 2000; Balogh & Morris 2000) in star formation. There is observational evidence to suggest that this may be occurring, since late-type galaxies in groups appear to be HI-deficient (e.g. Williams & Rood 1987; Oosterloo & Iovino 1997; Verdes-Montenegro et al. 2001). The cessation of star formation would not in itself convert spirals to lenticulars, so dynamical interactions are probably involved in any case in effecting structural changes to spirals within dense environments (tidal disruption is needed to suppress spiral features and enhance the relative importance of the bulge).

It is tempting to relate the difference in behaviour in the highest density bin, between the incidence of lenticulars in X-ray bright groups and clusters, to the apparent evolution in cluster S0 content since moderate redshifts. In contrast, the elliptical content of clusters is not found to evolve, and appears to be similar to that of groups after correction for the higher merger rate in groups. It may be, for example, that galaxy harassment within the densest regions of the cluster environment has further boosted the S0 content inherited from precursor groups: galaxy harassment depends on the frequency of encounters (Moore et al., 1998), which will be higher than the merger rate, and should be greatest in the centres of clusters.

## 5 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the referee, Gary Mamon, for his many useful comments and suggestions. This work made use of the Starlink facilities at Birmingham, the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED — http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu) and the LEDA database (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr). SFH acknowledges financial support from the University of Birmingham.