text:
# A “general boundary” formulation for quantum mechanics and quantum gravity

## I “General boundary” formulation

Let me explain what the “general boundary” formulation, i.e. a (suitably adapted notion of) TQFT is. Let $`M`$ be a region of space-time (i.e. a four-dimensional manifold) and $`S`$ its boundary hypersurface. (For the moment I do not specify what background structure this entails.) (T1) Associated with each such boundary $`S`$ is a vector space $`_S`$ of *states*. (T2) If $`S`$ decomposes into disconnected components111One might also want to admit the decomposition of connected boundaries, but this will not be discussed here. $`S=S_1\mathrm{}S_n`$ then the state space decomposes into a tensor product $`_S=_{S_1}\mathrm{}_{S_n}`$. (T3) For a given boundary $`S`$, changing its orientation, i.e. the side on which it bounds a region $`M`$, corresponds to replacing $`_S`$ with the dual space $`_S^{}`$. (T4) Associated with $`M`$ is a complex function $`\rho _M:_S`$ which associates an *amplitude* to a state. One may also dualize boundaries. This means that one may convert $`\rho _M:_{S_1}\mathrm{}_{S_n}`$ to a function $`\rho _M:_{S_1}\mathrm{}_{S_k}_{S_{k+1}}^{}\mathrm{}_{S_n}^{}`$, replacing spaces with dual spaces. Mathematically both versions of $`\rho _M`$ are equivalent, giving one determines the other (hence the same notation). A crucial property is the *composition rule*. (T5) Let $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ be two regions of space-time that share a common boundary $`S`$. Let $`M_1`$ also have a boundary $`S_1`$ and $`M_2`$ a boundary $`S_2`$. Consider $`\rho _{M_1}:_{S_1}_S`$ and $`\rho _{M_2}:_S_{S_2}`$. (The state spaces are chosen with respect to suitable orientations of the boundaries.) Then gluing gives $`M=M_1M_2`$ with boundaries $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. The composition rule demands the equality $`\rho _M=\rho _{M_2}\rho _{M_1}`$.

For quantum gravity the background structure coming with space-time regions and their boundaries is just a differentiable structure. One obtains essentially a proper TQFT. For QM and QFT the background structure is a fixed metric (usually that inherited from Minkowski space).

## II Holographic quantization

Consider a classical field theory with a given set of fields $`\varphi (x)`$ and an action $`𝒮[\varphi ]`$ so that the equations of motion can be derived from a minimization of $`𝒮`$. (For simplicity I use the notation of a single scalar field.) Now let $`K_S`$ be the space of field configurations on a hypersurface $`S`$ bounding a region $`M`$. The guiding principle is here, that the amount of boundary data encoded in $`K_S`$ should be such that it essentially uniquely determines a classical solution inside $`M`$ in a generic situation (e.g. $`M`$ a 4-ball). (Q1) The space of states $`_S`$ associated with $`S`$ is the space of complex valued functions $`C(K_S)`$ on $`K_S`$. This means adopting a *state functional* picture. (Q2) The amplitude $`\rho _M`$ for a state $`\psi _s`$ is given by the expression

$$\rho _M(\psi )=_{K_S}𝒟\varphi _0\psi (\varphi _0)_{\varphi |_S=\varphi _0}𝒟\varphi e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮[\varphi ]}.$$

The first integral is over field configurations $`\varphi _0`$ on $`S`$. The second integral is over all (not necessary classical) field configurations $`\varphi `$ inside $`M`$ that match the boundary data $`\varphi _0`$ on $`S`$.

Note that (Q1) gives a prescription for (T1) and ensures (T2) since for $`S=S_1S_2`$ a disjoint union, $`K_S=K_{S_1}\times K_{S_2}`$ and hence $`C(K_S)=C(K_{S_1})C(K_{S_2})`$. (T4) is determined by (Q2). The dualization of boundaries corresponds simply to leaving the evaluation with a state on those boundaries open. Let $`M`$ have boundaries $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ and consider states $`\psi _1_{S_1}`$ and $`\psi _2_{S_2}`$. Then $`\rho _M(\psi _1)`$ is an element of $`_{S_2}^{}`$, i.e. a linear map $`_{S_2}`$ by mapping $`\psi _2`$ to

$$_{K_{S_1}\times K_{S_2}}𝒟\varphi _1𝒟\varphi _2\psi _1(\varphi _1)\psi _2(\varphi _2)_{\begin{array}{c}\varphi |_{S_1}=\varphi _1\\ \varphi |_{S_2}=\varphi _2\end{array}}𝒟\varphi e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮[\varphi ]}.$$

This also explains (T3). The composition property (T5) is also rather obvious: Consider an integral over all field configurations in two regions with fields fixed on a common boundary and integrate also over the boundary values. Then this is the same as doing the unrestricted integral over field configurations in the union of the regions.

This heuristic quantization procedure based on the path integral thus leads to “general boundary” type quantum theories. The TQFT-like axioms (T1) - (T5) are automatically satisfied. I will refer to it as “holographic quantization” for the reasons given above. The quantization prescription is meant to be neither precise nor complete. In particular, one would usually “divide out” symmetries either from the configuration space $`K_S`$ or from the functions $`C(K_S)`$ on it to arrive at the “physical” state space $`_S`$. In quantum mechanics an example is the symmetrization or antisymmetrization for identical particles (see below). In quantum gravity an important step would be to divide out diffeomorphism symmetry (see also below).

## III Quantum mechanics

Let me show how the standard formalism of quantum mechanics fits into the “general boundary” scheme. Space-time is now Euclidean or Minkowski space. I denote a point in space-time by coordinates $`(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$. The background structure is the metric which is inherited by regions and their boundaries. The regions $`R`$ we admit are time intervals $`[t_1,t_2]`$ extended over all of space. The boundaries $`S`$ are thus pairs of time-slices $`S=S_1S_2`$ with $`S_1`$ at $`t_1`$ and $`S_2`$ at $`t_2`$. According to (T2) $`_S=_{S_1}_{S_2}`$ and because of (T3) $`_{S_2}=_{S_1}^{}`$. Indeed, let $`_{S_1}=`$ be the Hilbert space of quantum mechanics and define $`\rho _R:`$ to be the time-evolution operator $`e^{i/\mathrm{}H(t_2t_1)}`$. Then a state in $`_S`$ corresponds to a pair of states $`\psi `$ at time $`t_1`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ at time $`t_2`$ (or a linear combination of such pairs). The transition amplitude between $`\psi `$ and $`\eta `$ is given by $`\rho _R`$ via

$$\eta |e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}H(t_2t_1)}|\psi =\rho _R(\psi \eta ).$$
(1)
The composition property (T5) encodes the composition of time evolutions. The inverse operation corresponds to the insertion of a complete set of states $`_\psi |\psi \psi |`$ at a given time.

So far we have only reformulated quantum mechanics. To show that a generalization to a “general boundary” formulation is possible it is necessary to consider a specific theory. The idea is to show that this theory arises as a holographic quantization. Then, the generalization should be straightforward, being determined by (Q1) and (Q2).

Let me specialize to the NRQM of scalar particles. Start with just one free particle. The action is $`𝒮[\stackrel{}{x}]=dt\frac{1}{2}m\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}^2(t)`$ for a path $`\stackrel{}{x}(t)`$ and a classical solution of the equations of motions is a straight line in space-time. It intersects each time-slice exactly once. Thus for a region $`R`$ determined by a time interval $`[t_1,t_2]`$ as above, denote the intersections with the boundaries $`S_1,S_2`$ by $`\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2`$. The configuration space on the boundary $`K_S`$ associated with $`S=S_1S_2`$ which determines a classical solution uniquely is thus the space of pairs $`(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$, i.e. $`^3\times ^3`$. According to (Q1) we should set $`_S=C(K_S)=C(^3\times ^3)`$. For the disconnected components we get that $`_{S_1}`$ and $`_{S_2}`$ can be identified with $`C(^3)`$. Indeed, this is the correct state space for a particle at time $`t`$, namely the space of fixed-time wave functions $`\psi _t(\stackrel{}{x})`$. An element $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$ of $`_S`$ is generally a linear combination of products $`\psi _{t_1}(\stackrel{}{x}_1)\eta _{t_2}(\stackrel{}{x}_2)`$. (Q2) tells us that $`\rho (\psi \eta )`$ is given by

$$_{^3\times ^3}d\stackrel{}{x}_1d\stackrel{}{x}_2\psi (\stackrel{}{x}_1)\eta (\stackrel{}{x}_2)_{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{x}(t_1)=\stackrel{}{x}_1\\ \stackrel{}{x}(t_2)=\stackrel{}{x}_2\end{array}}𝒟\stackrel{}{x}e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮[\stackrel{}{x}]}.$$
(2)
Here the second integral is over all paths $`\stackrel{}{x}(t)`$ in the interval $`[t_1,t_2]`$ with the given boundary values. This is indeed the correct expression for the transition amplitude (1) in the path integral formulation of NRQM. Note that we can easily generalize (2) to include a potential in the action.

The extension to several particles is rather obvious. For example, for two particles, $`K_S`$ would be the space of quadruples $`(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{y}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2,\stackrel{}{y}_2)`$, while $`K_{S_1}`$ would be given by pairs $`(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{y}_1)`$ etc. $`_{S_1}`$ would be given by $`C(K_{S_1})=C(^3\times ^3)`$, i.e. fixed-time wave functions $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})`$ of two particles. (2) is generalized in the obvious way with the path integral now over one path for each particle. This gives the correct results for *distinguishable* particles. For *identical* (and bosonic) particles we have to take for $`_{S_1}`$ the subspace of symmetric functions in $`(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y})`$. A different way to look at this is to replace the space $`K_{S_1}`$ of ordered pairs by the space of unordered pairs. Of course this is not something coming out of the quantization prescription sketched above, but compatible with it. Note also that the path integral in (2) does not have to be explicitly symmetrized as it is always evaluated with symmetrized functions.

The next step is to see how using the rules (Q1) and (Q2) the NRQM of particles extends to a “general boundary” formulation. Consider a 4-ball shaped region $`B`$ in space-time with boundary $`S`$. As with the spatial slices, a classical particle trajectory intersects $`S`$ exactly twice. Thus, the configuration space is essentially $`K_S=S\times S`$. However, the entry time of the particle into $`B`$ is necessarily earlier than the exit time. Thus $`K_S`$ is really the subspace of $`S\times S`$ where one point (say the first one) has a smaller time coordinate. By (Q1) then $`_S`$ is the space of functions $`\psi (z_{\text{in}},z_{\text{out}})`$ on $`S\times S`$ with this restriction. Here $`z`$ denotes a parameterization of the hypersurface $`S`$. By (Q2) then we have a function $`\rho _B`$ that associates amplitudes with such a generalized wave function $`\psi `$. The physical interpretation is that of the amplitude of a particle being sent into the region $`B`$ at $`z_{\text{in}}`$ (which includes a time coordinate $`t_{\text{in}}`$) and being observed emerging from $`B`$ at time and place $`z_{\text{out}}`$.

So far everything seems straightforward. However, consider the following situation. Choose a time interval $`[t_1,t_2]`$ containing $`B`$ and the region of space-time $`R`$ defined by it. Call its boundaries $`S_1,S_2`$. Cut out $`B`$ from $`R`$ and call the remainder $`A`$. Then, as $`R=AB`$ the composition rule (T5) requires that $`\rho _R`$ equals the composition of $`\rho _A`$ and $`\rho _B`$. Say we consider a one-particle state on $`S_1S_2`$. Then $`\rho _R`$ contains an integral over paths from $`S_1`$ at $`t_1`$ to $`S_2`$ at $`t_2`$, see Figure 1. Such a path may cross the inner region $`B`$ an arbitrary number of times. However, we have taken above as the state space $`_S`$ associated with the boundary $`S`$ between $`A`$ and $`B`$ the one for one particle. This only accounts for the paths in the integral that cross $`B`$ exactly once. The composition rule seems to be violated. What went wrong?

Looking back at the definition of the one-particle state space $`_S`$ for $`S`$ we see that already there is a problem. Namely, the path integral in the expression for $`\rho _B`$ only constrains paths at their starting point and end point. There is no a priori restriction for them to lie entirely inside $`B`$. However, we only want to allow to integrate inside $`B`$. Thus, how do we deal with paths that would leave $`B`$ in between? The answer is rather obvious now. This corresponds to states with several particles on $`B`$. We need to let $`_S`$ be a direct sum of state spaces *for any number of particles*, i.e. $`_S=_S^0_S^1_S^2\mathrm{}`$ (the superscript indicates particle number). Now one may restrict the path integral to paths inside $`B`$. The occurrence of all paths in a composition (such as with $`A`$) is ensured by the summation over all numbers of particles on $`S`$. This way we do obtain a consistent formalism, as guaranteed by the composition rule.

The surprising result is that one needs states with all possible numbers of particles even in NRQM. Perhaps this is not too surprising after all. The parallel to relativistic quantum mechanics is rather apparent. Namely, we can think of a boost there as tilting a fixed-time boundary (such as $`S_1`$). The induced departure from fixed-time boundaries in the original frame has essentially the effect I have just described.

Note another subtlety. In the configuration spaces for the multi-particle states, one has to keep track which classical endpoint is connected to which other one by paths in the integral. If we remove this restriction we introduce pair creation and annihilation of particles. Consider Figure 2. On the left the connectivity inside $`B`$ of the intersection points on the boundary $`S`$ is described by the pairs $`(a,b)`$ and $`(c,d)`$. On the right this is exchanged to $`(a,d)`$ and $`(c,b)`$. The emerging picture might be interpreted as admitting an extra virtual particle that is created and subsequently annihilated.

Apart from the fact that we know this to happen in QFT there is good physical reason to admit this situation also here. Namely, being an observer on $`S`$, I see a particle coming into $`B`$ at $`a`$ and $`c`$ and a particle emerging at $`b`$ and $`d`$. If the particles are identical I have no way to say if it was *the same* particle that I saw twice or two different particles. In summary, it turns out that a “general boundary” formulation even of NRQM recovers essential features of *relativistic* quantum mechanics.

From the point of view of the holographic quantization prescription the “accident” of the failure of the naive (one-particle only) quantization is also explicable. The starting point of that prescription is a field theory. NRQM may be regarded as a field theory, but with the unusual property that the value of the field $`\stackrel{}{x}(t)`$ is at the same time a coordinate in space. This resulted then in the problems with the boundaries of the path integrals that had to be fixed.

## IV Quantum field theory

Let us move to QFT. Space-time is Minkowski space and I denote coordinates by $`x=(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$. I start by considering regions $`R`$ determined by time intervals $`[t_1,t_2]`$. The encoding of Hilbert spaces and time evolutions in terms of the TQFT language is as described generically for quantum mechanics above. The first goal will be to show that the holographic quantization scheme reduces to the usual Feynman path integral quantization.

Consider a theory with a massive scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$, for the moment free. The classical action is thus $`𝒮[\varphi ]=dx\left(_\mu \varphi (x)^\mu \varphi (x)m^2\varphi ^2(x)\right)`$. Considering two time-slices $`S_1,S_2`$ at $`t_1,t_2`$, a classical solution to the field equations in the region $`R`$ in between is essentially uniquely determined by the values of the field on $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. Thus, we declare this to be the configuration space $`K_S`$ associated with the boundary $`S=S_1S_2`$ of $`R`$. It decomposes into $`K_S=K_{S_1}\times K_{S_2}`$ where each is the space of field configurations on the respective boundary. According to (Q1) the state space $`_S`$ is the space of functions $`C(K_S)`$ on $`K_S`$. It decomposes into $`C(K_S)=C(K_{S_1})C(K_{S_2})`$. Consider $`\psi _{\stackrel{}{x}_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{x}_n}_{S_1}`$ and $`\eta _{\stackrel{}{y}_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{y}_n}_{S_2}`$ given by $`\psi _{\stackrel{}{x}_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{x}_n}(\varphi _1)=\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x}_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x}_n)`$ and $`\eta _{\stackrel{}{y}_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{y}_n}(\varphi _2)=\varphi _2(\stackrel{}{y}_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _2(\stackrel{}{y}_n)`$. Then, by (Q2) the amplitude of the corresponding state in $`_S`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}_{K_{S_1}\times K_{S_2}}𝒟\varphi _1𝒟\varphi _2\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x}_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x}_n)\varphi _2(\stackrel{}{y}_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _2(\stackrel{}{y}_n)\hfill \\ \hfill _{\begin{array}{c}\varphi |_{S_1}=\varphi _1\\ \varphi |_{S_2}=\varphi _2\end{array}}𝒟\varphi e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}𝒮[\varphi ]}.\end{array}$$
(3)
We recognize this as essentially the transition amplitude between the “in” state $`|\varphi (\stackrel{}{x}_1,t_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (\stackrel{}{x}_n,t_1)`$ at $`t_1`$ and the “out” state $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{y}_1,t_2)\mathrm{}\varphi (\stackrel{}{y}_n,t_2)|`$ at $`t_2`$. We may switch on even a perturbative interaction in the time interval $`[t_1,t_2]`$ by modifying the action in the path integral accordingly.

It turns out that one recovers the complete quantum field theory correctly. To see this in terms of particle states one has to repeat the reduction procedure of Lehman, Symanzik and Zimmermann Lehmann et al. (1955), adapted to the situation where initial and final states are at fixed times $`t_1,t_2`$ and not in the infinite past or future. This will be detailed elsewhere. An essential role plays the concept of the vacuum as will be explained in Conrady et al. .

Having once established the formalism for the special time-slice boundaries the generalization to arbitrary boundaries is straightforward following (Q1) and (Q2). Here, no “accident” as for NRQM can happen as the fields have nothing to do with coordinates in space-time. States on time-slices can be “pulled-back” to any kind of boundary using the composition rule (T5), as ensured by the form of (Q2). The resulting description is not only local but also natural in terms of typical experimental setups.

Consider for example a scattering experiment in high energy physics. A typical detector has roughly the form of a sphere with the scattering happening inside (e.g. a collision of incoming beams). The entries for particles and the individual detection devices are arranged on the surface. At some time $`t_1`$ the beam is switched on and at $`t_2`$ it is switched off. The space-time region $`M`$ relevant for the experiment is the region inside the sphere times the time interval $`[t_1,t_2]`$. The particle inflow and detection happens on the boundary $`S`$ of $`M`$. What seems unusual is that the parts of $`S`$ that are really interesting and carry the particle states are its *timelike* components. On the spacelike components at $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ there are no particles (we imagine the switching to happen smoothly). Concerning the interaction term in the Lagrangian it is now natural to turn it on only inside $`M`$. Indeed, the particles detected on the boundary $`S`$ should (as usual) be thought of as free.

For calculational reasons it will usually be still advantageous to use particle states that are asymptotic. Indeed, the difference should have negligible effect on the resulting amplitudes as will be discussed elsewhere Conrady et al. . However, there no longer seems to be a *fundamental* reason to do this. This becomes rather important for the construction of a non-perturbative theory of quantum gravity. There, “asymptotic states” in terms of a Minkowski space are not expected to be a useful fundamental concept. The advantage of a local description is thus crucial.

## V Quantum gravity

Both, the “general boundary” formulation of quantum theories as well as the holographic quantization prescription are mainly designed for a quantum theory of gravity. Then, the background structure for the TQFT-type axioms is just that of differentiable manifolds and their boundaries. Going down to three dimensions it is well known that pure quantum gravity is a TQFT Ooguri (1992), i.e. satisfies (T1) - (T5). What is more, this TQFT is obtainable by following the quantization prescription given by (Q1) and (Q2). Using connection variables the configuration space $`K_S`$ associated with a boundary $`S`$ of a region $`M`$ is basically the space of flat spin connections on $`S`$. The path integral (Q2) is rigorously defined through a discretization of $`M`$ as a spin foam model.

The role of diffeomorphism invariance is the following here: If we think of the spin connection as specified by a connection 1-form $`A_\mu (x)`$ then $`K_S`$ is the space of equivalence classes of such 1-forms under general gauge transformations. These general gauge transformations are now both, the $`SU(2)`$ gauge transformations and diffeomorphisms.

I propose to approach also four-dimensional quantum gravity using the quantization prescription (Q1) and (Q2). Indeed, the path integral approach to quantum gravity is well established Misner (1957); Hawking (1979). The crucial new ingredient is the admission of arbitrary (in particular connected) boundaries and their interpretation Oeckl . A promising context for a non-perturbative realization of this appear to be spin foam models Perez (2003) in connection with a renormalization procedure Oeckl (2003).

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Carlo Rovelli for stimulating discussions and Thomas Schücker for a careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported through a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Union.


format: text

text:
# C*-algebra generated by projections

## 1 Introduction

There has been considerable amount of work in the operator theory/operator algebra literature on the structure of a pair of projections. Study of this issue goes back to Dixmier (). In  Halmos gives a structure theorem for a pair of projections, which has been rederived on various occasions. There is also a survey article by C. Davis () on this topic. Avron et. al.  discusses an index problem in this context. All these approaches use geometric or operator theoretic methods. Our aim is to put these in the proper perspective of noncommutative geometry (NCG). To that end we have described the universal C\*-algebra generated by $`n`$ projections as a crossed product. An application of the representation of imprimitivity system yields the structure theorem for a pair of projections. We believe, our proof of this fact is the shortest and the first one to connect this issue clearly with imprimitivity. Incidentally it may be remarked that Dixmier’s paper was reviewed by Mackey and it seems that the aforesaid connection went unnoticed. We also show that an index problem, the main result discussed in , can be settled easily using general machinery from NCG.

## 2 Results

We will refer to unitary operators whose square is identity as symmetry.

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`𝒜_n`$be the universal C\*-algebra generated by $`n`$ projections $`P_1,P_2,\mathrm{},P_n`$. Then we have the following isomorphisms,

$$𝒜_nC^{}(_2)^nC^{}(F_{n1})_2$$

where $`C^{}(_2)^n`$ is the free product of n copies of the group C\*-algebra of $`_2`$ and $`C^{}(F_{n1})_2`$ is the crossed product of the group C\*-algebra of free group with $`n1`$ generators with respect to the $`_2`$ action that sends each generator to its inverse.

Proof: The first isomorphism follows from the following observations,
a) $`C^{}(_2)^n`$ is the universal C\*-algebra generated by $`n`$ symmetries $`U_1,U_2,\mathrm{},U_n`$;
b) $`PU_P=2PI`$ gives a bijective correspondence between projections and symmetries.
For the second isomorphism note that $`C^{}(F_{n1})_2`$ is the universal C\*-algebra generated by a symmetry $`V`$ and $`n1`$ unitaries $`W_1,\mathrm{},W_{n1}`$ satisfying $`VW_iV=W_i^1`$ for all $`i`$. An invertible homomorphism $`\pi :C^{}(F_{n1})_2C^{}(_2)^n`$ is given by

$$\pi (V)=U_1,\pi (VW_i)=U_{i+1}\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},n1.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.2

We can identify representations of $`𝒜_2`$ with that of $`C(S^1)`$ on some Hilbert space $``$ along with a symmetry $`V`$ implementing the conjugation action of $`_2`$ on $`S^1`$. Clearly $``$ must look like $`𝒦_{}𝒦_+L^2(S_+,\mu _+)L^2(S_{},\mu _{})`$ where $`S_+=\{zS^1:Imz>0\}`$, $`S_{}=\{zS^1:Imz<0\}`$ and the measures $`\mu _\pm `$ satisfy $`\mu _+=\mu _{}Conjugation`$. The symmetry $`V`$ switches $`L^2(S_\pm ,\mu _\pm )`$ and respects $`𝒦_\pm `$. The representation $`\pi :C(S^1)`$ acts as $`\pi (f)=`$ multiplication by $`f`$ on $`L^2(S_\pm ,\mu _\pm )`$ and $`\pi (f)|_{𝒦_\pm }=f(\pm 1)I_{𝒦_\pm }`$. If we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1,\stackrel{~}{P}_2`$ the images of the generators $`P_1,P_2`$ of $`𝒜_2`$, then they respect $`𝒦_{}𝒦_+`$ and commute there. Using the correspondence between projections and symmetries stated in the proof of theorem 2.1 we get that on $`L^2(S_+,\mu _+)L^2(S_{},\mu _{})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}_2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \pi (z)\\ \pi (z)& 1\end{array}\right)`$. This is the structure theorem for a pair of projections. Note that in this part of the space $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1\stackrel{~}{P}_2`$ is an offdiagonal operator matrix and on $`𝒦_{}𝒦_+`$ has eigenvalues $`\pm 1,0`$. Therefore under the assumption that $`(\stackrel{~}{P}_1\stackrel{~}{P}_2)^{2k+1}`$ is trace class for some $`k`$, we have the following equality, $`tr_{}(\stackrel{~}{P}_1\stackrel{~}{P}_2)^{2k+1+2m}=tr_{}(\stackrel{~}{P}_1\stackrel{~}{P}_2)^{2k+1},m0.`$

Now we intend to put the index problem tackled by Avron et. al. () in the framework of NCG. There it has been remarked that the problem has “relations to the work of Connes ”. We show that the main result of  can be deduced as a simple application from results in .

###### Theorem 2.3

Let $`\stackrel{~}{P},\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ be projections on $``$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{P}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2k+1}`$, the Schatten ideal. Then $`\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{P}:\stackrel{~}{P}\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is Fredholm with $`Index(\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{P})=tr(\stackrel{~}{P}\stackrel{~}{Q})^{2k+1}`$.

Proof: Let $`𝒦=`$, $`\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),F=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$, and $`\pi :𝒜_2(𝒦)`$ be the representation given on the generators $`P_1,P_2`$ by the prescription $`\pi (P_1)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{P}& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{Q}\end{array}\right),\pi (P_2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{Q}& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{P}\end{array}\right)`$. Then $`(𝒜_2,\pi ,𝒦,\gamma ,F)`$ is an even Fredholm module. Hence by proposition 2, page 289, and proposition 4, page 296,  we get $`\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{P}:\stackrel{~}{P}\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is Fredholm with $`Index(\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{P})=(1)^{k+1}tr_𝒦\gamma \pi (P_1)[F,\pi (P_1)]^{2k+2}=tr(\stackrel{~}{P}\stackrel{~}{Q})^{2k+3}`$. Now remark 2.2 completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$


text:
# Strangeness at SIS energies

## 1 Introduction

The production of strange particles in heavy ion collisions has been studied extensively for all available energies. While fits to particle yields  seem to indicate a common systematic for particle production over the entire energy range, as far as strange particle production and dynamics is concerned there is, at least from the theoretical point of view, a conceptual difference between the low energies and the ultra-relativistic regime. At low energies, the system is dominated by (non-strange) baryons, whereas for SPS-energies ($`\sqrt{s}=20\mathrm{GeV}`$) and higher the system is temperature dominated. In the limit of perfect flavor SU(3) symmetry a system at zero baryon chemical potential and finite temperature preserves the SU(3) flavor symmetry. Contrary to that, a system at low temperature, but large chemical potential, breaks the SU(3) flavor symmetry explicitely. The extreme example is a cold nucleus which consists only of protons and neutrons, but does not contain any hyperons. As a consequence, slow kaons and anti-kaons feel, contrary to pions, repulsive and attractive mean field potentials, respectively. This is analogous to pions in neutron matter, where the in-medium potentials for positive and negative pions are different due to the explicit isospin breaking of neutron matter. As the bombarding energy is increased, and the system becomes more temperature dominated, these effects are less relevant and more difficult to extract experimentally. Thus, low energy heavy ion collision provide a unique environment to study the SU(3) flavor dynamics and its effects on the strangeness sector at densities above the nuclear matter ground state density.

Historically, the interest in kaon production at low energies has been motivated by the search for the nuclear equation of state . Since at these energies kaons are produced either sub or near threshold, kaon production should be sensitive to the equation of state. This approach, however, can only work if all other forces on the kaons, such as mean fields, are well understood. By now a rather consistent picture of kaon production has emerged, and the resulting equation of state is in agreement with the analysis of flow observables.

In recent years the production of anti-kaons has received considerable attention. Especially the connection to the structure of compact (neutron) stars, with the possible formation of a kaon ($`K^{}`$) condensate , generated interest in anti-kaon production at high densities. Unfortunately, the environment generated in a heavy ion collision is different from that of a neutron star. The system is a finite temperature ($`T70\mathrm{MeV}`$) and the kaons observed in experiment have finite momenta. Therefore, a careful extrapolation to the conditions inside a compact star – zero temperature and momentum – needs to be carried out. This, as we shall discuss, introduces quite some ambiguities and model dependencies which require further detailed investigation.

This contribution is organized as follows. First, we will discuss the conceptual differences between kaon and anti-kaon production. Then we will briefly summarize the present understanding of kaon ($`K^+`$) production, which is rather non-controversial. A large part of this contribution will be devoted to anti-kaon production, because here the interpretation of the data is not yet settled. Also, the in-medium properties for anti-kaons present a nice and possibly tractable example for in-medium modifications of hadronic properties. Before we conclude, we will briefly mention how kaon production can also be utilized to address the question of equilibration in these collisions.

Throughout this contribution we will concentrate on the SIS energy regime. While some of the effects are also seen at the lower AGS energies ($`4\mathrm{AMeV}`$), there, temperature effects wash out most of the interesting dynamics responsible for the anti-kaon in-medium properties.

## 2 Kaon and anti-kaon production in a density dominated environment

Initially, the properties of kaons in dense matter has been discussed in the framework of chiral perturbation theory. In ref.  the leading order interaction between a kaon and nucleon has been given by

$`\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8f^2}}(\overline{K}i\stackrel{}{}K)\overline{N}\gamma _0N+c(\overline{K}K)(\overline{N}N)`$ (1)
The first term reflects the vector interaction analogous to the Weinberg-Tomozawa term know from pion physics. This term is repulsive for kaons and attractive for anti-kaons. The second term, which is due to explicit symmetry breaking, is attractive for both, kaon and anti-kaon. The coefficient of this term is much less known than that of the vector interaction. The resulting interaction is repulsive for the kaons, in agreement with experiment, but attractive for anti-kaon, which is not supported by $`K^{}`$-nucleon scattering data which also give a repulsive scattering length . The reason for this discrepancy is the existence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance right below the $`\overline{K}N`$-threshold, which couples strongly to the the $`\overline{K}N`$ system. Thus, re-summed chiral perturbation theory is required in order to describe the $`\overline{K}N`$ system correctly. As a result, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is generated as a bound state, which in fact has already been proposed almost forty years ago .

The importance of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ illustrates the essential difference between the anti-kaon–nucleon and kaon–nucleon system. While the former is dominated by resonances, the latter does not show any significant structure in the scattering amplitude, since the strange anti-quark cannot be absorbed into a baryon resonance. This difference will also affect the in medium properties of kaons and anti-kaons. Since the kaon-nucleon interaction is non-resonant, we expect that the impulse approximation should describe the kaon-nucleus system as well as kaon propagation in heavy ion collision rather well. We thus expect that a straightforward mean field description should be reasonable for kaons in nuclear matter. This is different for the anti-kaon. Here we expect strong mixing with resonance-hole states, similar to pion propagation in nuclear-matter. Thus a detailed coupled channel treatment is called for.

### 2.1 Kaon properties in dense matter

Let us first discuss the simpler case of kaons in matter. As already pointed out, we expect that kaons in matter should be reasonably well described by a mean-field obtained via the impulse approximation. And indeed this works rather well for the description of kaon-nucleus scattering experiments . Since the scattering amplitude is non-resonant, corrections due to finite temperature should be small, and thus, the impulse approximation should provide a reasonable estimate for the kaon mean field potential. Using the measured scattering length one obtains

$`U_{\mathrm{opt}}20\mathrm{MeV}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho _0}}`$ (2)
which is slightly repulsive.

As predicted by Ko et al. , this repulsion should be visible in kaon flow observables and, as can be seen in Fig. 1, the data clearly favor a repulsive mean field for the kaons. For SIS energies, where transport calculations are more reliable, the above mean field potential (2) leads to a quantitative agreement with the data  for the so-called squeeze out and the sideways flow . The repulsive potential for the kaons is even seen at AGS energies (left panel of Fig. 1). Strong flow away from the nucleons is observed . Thus the presence of a repulsive mean field for kaons in nuclear matter up to twice nuclear matter density seems to be called for.

In addition, the resulting kaon yield as a function of system size can be utilized to extract information about the equation of state. Again, the data are reproduced, and, provided the kaon mean field is taken into account, the resulting equation of state is consistent with other observables such as nucleon flow .

### 2.2 Anti-kaons in dense matter

While the properties of kaons in dense matter seem to be rather well described by a simple repulsive mean field potential based on the impulse approximation, the situation for anti-kaons is much more complicated; the main reason being the aforementioned coupling to baryon resonances. The effect of this more complex dynamics becomes already apparent in the spectroscopy of kaonic atoms, where very low nuclear densities are probed. Whereas the $`\overline{K}N`$-amplitude is repulsive, kaonic atoms call for an attractive mean field . Thus, already at densities well below nuclear matter density the impulse approximation fails. The observed attraction in kaonic atoms can be naturally explained if one assumes that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance is indeed a $`\overline{K}N`$-bound state . In this case, Pauli-blocking of the $`\overline{K}N`$ intrinsic wavefunction shifts this state up in energy above the $`\overline{K}N`$ threshold before it then dissolves. As a result, the underlying attractive $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction, which was responsible for the binding of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$, is revealed. The resulting attractive potential is then in reasonable agreement with the findings from kaonic atoms, which by themselves are somewhat model dependent . This is similar to proton-neutron scattering in the deuteron channel, where the scattering amplitude is repulsive due to a bound state just below threshold. Again, the true interaction is attractive and is only revealed in an atomic nucleus where the deuteron is dissolved due to Pauli-blocking. While this idea has first been developed based on an effective $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction , more refined calculations employing re-summation techniques using chiral Lagrangians find the same result . But the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is only one of many resonances the anti-kaon can couple to, and a consistent treatment requires the coupling of all these channels. As a result a rather complex spectral distribution for the excitations with the quantum numbers of the anti-kaon emerges. An example of a $`K^{}`$ spectral function based on a chiral Hamiltonian is shown in Fig.2. In this model not only the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ but many other resonances are generated dynamically. The spectral function for zero momentum kaons shows the mixing of the kaon with resonance-hole states and, as the density is increased, the strength broadens considerably. Obviously, a simple quasi-particle plus mean field description of the anti-kaon will oversimplify this situation considerably.

In addition, a resonance dominated interaction also should lead to strong energy/momentum dependencies for the spectral distribution. Furthermore, one would also expect that the strong density dependent mixing of states should modify the transition rates between the states. In the simple model of ref. , where the essential in-medium effect is due to Pauli-Blocking of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ one immediately expects that for kaons with momenta that are large compared to the Fermi momentum of the nuclear matter, the free (slightly repulsive) $`\overline{K}N`$ interaction should re-emerge. This indeed is found as shown in Fig.3 (left panel). The right panel of Fig.3 shows the results of a calculation based on a different, more sophisticated interaction . Again with increasing momentum, the $`\overline{K}`$ potential becomes less attractive. But in this case, some net attraction remains even for momenta of the order of $`500\mathrm{MeV}`$.

The momentum dependence of the $`\overline{K}`$ in-medium modifications can also be read off from the spectral distribution shown in Fig.2. The set of curves on the right shows the spectral function for a anti-kaon momentum of $`q=500\mathrm{MeV}`$. Not only are the distributions much less broadened but they all peak at the energy of a free kaon. Thus, the effective kaon potential is essentially zero, whereas at zero momentum almost all the strength accumulates below the free value. Thus, this calculation also predicts a reduced attraction as the momentum of the kaons is increased.

Finally, let us turn to the cross sections. One of the crucial channels for $`\overline{K}`$ production in low energy heavy ion collisions is the strangeness exchange reaction

$`Y+\pi \overline{K}+N`$ (3)
For example, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance couples to both channels, and as this resonance moves in mass as a result of Pauli blocking, this cross section may change considerably . Actually, as shown in , this may explain the observed pion distribution from stopped anti-kaon reactions. In Fig.4 we show the results of two different calculations for the in-medium change of the cross section for the reaction (3). In both cases, the cross sections are enhanced, even though the calculations and results differ in the details.

While the general trends of all calculations concerning the the in-medium properties of anti-kaons agree qualitatively, there are obvious model dependencies. Those, be it the momentum dependence of the optical potential or the density/momentum dependence of the cross sections, can only be resolved with more detailed experimental knowledge about the underlying $`\overline{K}N`$ scattering amplitudes. At present the available data are rather poor and only better measurements of the elementary reactions will allow to make definitive conclusions about the rather interesting in-medium properties exhibited in the above figures.

#### 2.2.1 Experimental results and their interpretation

How are the above theoretical considerations born out in experimental data? As already discussed in the previous section, kaons appear to fit into a rather consistent framework. As for anti-kaons, the situation is, as expected, considerably more complex. Most prominent is the discovery by the KAOS collaboration , that the production of anti-kaons in heavy ion collisions compared to proton-proton collisions is much more enhanced then that of kaons. Indeed if plotted with respect to the threshold energy, the excitation function of the anti-kaons and kaons are identical (see Fig.5). Initially this observation gave rise to speculations about reduction of in-medium kaon masses, as predicted by simple first order chiral perturbation theory. However, from the above considerations, this scenario seems too naive. In particular, the kaons observed by the KAOS collaboration have a momentum larger than approx. $`300\mathrm{MeV}`$ in the matter rest frame. At these momenta, all microscopic calculations predict reduced if not vanishing attraction.

In addition, microscopic models predict a considerable modification of the cross section for the most important productions channel (3). So what is the correct interpretation of these data? Most disturbingly, at present transport models, which in this energy regime often serve as reference, do not agree on the anti-kaons yield even absent any in-medium modifications. While the calculations of  more or less reproduce the measured $`K^{}`$ yield, the calculations of  definitely call for some additional source of $`K^{}`$. Fortunately, these discrepancies are presently being investigated .

But there is additional experimental information, which may guide us independent of the details of the transport model results. Namely, the kaon to anti-kaon ratio is essentially independent of centrality. How can this be understood in terms of density dependent in-medium effects. The densities reached in central collisions are considerably higher then those in more peripheral ones. Maybe there is a much simpler explanation to the anti-kaons production, as proposed by Oeschler .

Suppose the strangeness exchange reaction as given by Eq.3 is fast compared to the lifetime of the system. Then a relative chemical equilibrium between hyperons and anti-kaons is established, with $`N(Y)N(\overline{K})`$. Furthermore, in the initial hard collisions strangeness conservation requires that as many hyperons as kaons are produced. Consequently, given the number of kaons, the number of hyperons is determined and in turn the number of anti-kaons. Note that this process does not require any in-medium modifications and is consistent with the observation  that the anti-kaon yields follow a thermal model.

Indeed transport calculations give support to this picture. As shown in Fig.6, the rates for both directions of the reaction (3) are almost identical, meaning relative chemical equilibrium between hyperons and anti-kaons is essentially established. As an interesting consequence an increase of the cross section for these transition has only limited effect on the final anti-kaon yield . As shown in the lower part of the right panel of Fig.6 increasing the cross section by a factor of three does not enhance the $`K^{}`$ yield by the same amount.

There is actually an even more amusing consequence of this scenario. As shown in Fig.7, in-medium potentials for kaons have a larger impact on the anti-kaon yield than in-medium potentials for the anti-kaons themselves. This is again a simply corollary of the relative chemical equilibrium between hyperons and kaons. Given the number of hyperons, the anti-kaon number is fixed at a rather late stage of the collision. The number of hyperons, however, is directly linked to the number of kaons and is established early on in the dense phase of the collision. Thus, a repulsive kaon potential, which reduces the kaon yield, affects the final anti-kaon yield much more effectively than an anti-kaon potential.

Another, more sobering consequence of this scenario is that heavy ion reaction may actually not be the right environment to study the rather rich in-medium properties of anti-kaons. If equilibrium physics dominates, then the subtle dynamics are hard to unravel. Anti-kaon nucleus scattering experiments, therefore, seem to be the better environment to study this interesting question.

In summary, the picture for the in-medium behavior of kaons seems to be reasonably well under control and consistent with simpler systems, such as kaon-nucleus scattering. Anti-kaons, however, are much more complex because of their strong mixing with baryon hole states. While the different theoretical models agree qualitatively, a quantitative agreement requires better knowledge of the underlying amplitudes. Therefore, in order to make progress in this interesting field, detailed $`K^{}`$-nucleon scattering data are called for.

## 3 Other aspects: equilibrium

As already mentioned in the introduction, it is somewhat surprising that the strange particles, like all other particles, seem to follow the same universal chemical freeze-out curve which connects density dominated systems created at SIS with temperature dominated systems at SPS and RHIC. As we have argued before, in a dense system the properties of kaons and anti-kaons are quite different. And indeed, taking the in-medium spectral functions seriously, a fit to a thermal model should take these spectral distributions into account. Simply using free particle properties does not seem to be the correct procedure. In ref.  an attempt in this direction has been made. By weighting the in-medium spectral distribution with a thermal distribution the authors are forced to use much lower temperatures for the anti-kaons in order to reproduce that data. Or, in other words, they do not find chemical equilibrium in these reactions. However, one should interpret these result with some caution. The in-medium spectral function for the anti-kaons contains considerable strength form hyperon-hole pairs. What happens to this strength as the system expands? This will depend on the time scales involved. In the adiabatic limit, the spectral distribution de-mixes and all the strength will accumulate in the kaon branch. However, if the expansion is sudden, some of the strength will remain in the hyperon-hole branch, which then materializes as hyperons in the final state. Therefore, a more detailed dynamical calculation is required before any definite conclusions can be drawn about the effect of in-medium spectral functions on the final state anti-kaons number.

Another surprising aspect of the success of the thermal model is the fact that the kaon should be in chemical equilibrium with the rest of the matter. Kaons interact with small cross sections and it seems that the lifetime of the system is too short for any equilibrium to establish . Luckily, kaons at SIS energies represent one of the few systems, where the degree of equilibrium can be determined experimentally. As discussed in  the number of kaon pairs, though difficult to determine experimentally, provides a direct measurement on the degree of equilibration. This is essentially due to the fact, that at SIS energies strangeness is rare and thus needs to be conserved explicitly and not only on the average as it is usually done in the grand-canonical approximation . At higher energies similar arguments can be made, but much more complicated measurements are needed, since strangeness is not rare anymore . If indeed, the measurement of the kaon pairs establishes chemical equilibrium, then additional processes, such as many body collisions or possible new in-medium effects need to be invoked in order to explain this. Thus, potentially new physics may emerge from these investigations.

## 4 Summary

In this contribution we have discussed strangeness at SIS energy heavy ion collisions. We have concentrated on the in-medium properties of kaons and anti-kaons and have pointed out the conceptual difference between the two in a density dominated environment.

In particular the anti-kaons in matter are an interesting example for in-medium modifications via coupling to hyperon-hole modes etc. Since strangeness is involved, the number of possible channels is limited and thus a quantitative understanding of these effects in the future is conceivable. However, in order to make progress, detailed information about the basic $`\overline{K}N`$ system is needed. We have also pointed out that heavy ion collisions may not be the most appropriate tool to study this system, since efficient partial equilibrium may wash out most of the dynamics. It rather appears that $`K^{}`$-nucleus scattering experiments are more appropriate to investigate all the interesting phenomena associated with the in-medium propagation of a hadron.

Finally, we have mentioned that kaons at SIS energies may actually be one of the few examples where the question of equilibrium can be addressed in experiment. In case of the anti-kaons, the subtle coupled channel dynamics needs to be controlled before this issue can be addressed with confidence.

I would like to thank M. Lutz and C. Sturm for providing some of the figures and J. Aichelin for many useful discussions on the status of the transport calculations. This work was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of Nuclear Physics, and by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Nuclear Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.

## References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the context of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories, a very interesting possibility is to break supersymmetry by non-perturbative dynamics. However, dynamical supersymmetry breaking is only possible in a restricted class of theories, the so-called chiral theories, i.e. those with a matter content which does not allow to write a mass term for all matter fields. Chiral theories with gauge group $`SU(N)`$ are the most well-known examples of theories where dynamical supersymmetry breaking can occur.

That dynamical supersymmetry breaking does occur in a number of chiral theories has been convincingly argued some time ago . The two lines of arguments put forward are the following. One can determine the non-perturbatively generated superpotential by symmetry arguments, and show that together with the tree-level superpotential it does not lead to an extremum . Alternatively, one can use the Konishi anomaly relations  to prove that in a supersymmetric vacuum the gluino condensate $`S=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{tr}W^\alpha W_\alpha `$ must vanish, and then show with a one-instanton calculation that $`S`$ is actually non-zero in the vacuum , thus contradicting the assumption of a supersymmetric vacuum.

The object of the present paper is to discuss dynamical supersymmetry breaking by using the Konishi anomaly to determine the non-perturbative piece of the effective superpotential. If such a term is non-zero, one can then see whether the addition of a tree level superpotential leads to a supersymmetric vacuum or not. If, on the other hand, there is an insufficient number of gauge invariants, the Konishi relations typically lead to a vanishing gluino condensate $`S`$. One then has to resort to the arguments of  for the case where no non-perturbative superpotential is expected, which point towards a strongly coupled non-supersymmetric vacuum.

Although the introduction and use of the generalized Konishi anomaly  has recently led to some new insight in the dynamics of $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories, we only make use of the original Konishi anomaly. In one instance we can use a slight generalization, which leads however only to a classical relation (as in  for SQCD with baryonic deformations). We use a simplified version of the method outlined in , where it was applied to one particular chiral theory (which does not have dynamical supersymmetry breaking). For a related discussion see .

The generalization of the Konishi anomaly seems non-trivial for these theories which do not have a matter field in the adjoint like in  (or at least in a real representation with two indices, see ). Similarly, for the same reason (and because of the impossibility to write mass terms for the matter fields) it seems difficult to have a matrix model formulation of the chiral theories in the spirit of .

In the following, we will consider first of all the $`SU(5)`$ gauge theory with 2 families of chiral matter in the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ representations, which is the most celebrated chiral theory where dynamical supersymmetry breaking occurs at arbitrarily small coupling. We then proceed to consider more generally the $`SU(N)`$ theories with one antisymmetric and $`N4`$ antifundamental (i.e. one family), which can have a supersymmetric vacuum for $`N`$ even while they break supersymmetry dynamically (but at strong coupling) for $`N`$ odd. Finally we show that for $`N`$ odd and one family the chiral ring is generated only by the glueball superfield and by the basic invariants.

## 2 $`SU(5)`$ chiral gauge theory with two families

The matter content of this $`SU(5)`$ gauge theory is given by 2 flavors of anti-fundamentals $`\stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}`$ and 2 flavors of antisymmetric tensors $`T_i^{ab}`$ . The matter content is of course such that the gauge anomaly cancels. The global symmetries of the theory are at the classical level $`SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{F}}\times SU(2)_T\times U(1)_{\stackrel{~}{F}}\times U(1)_T\times U(1)_R`$. At the quantum level, the $`U(1)`$s are anomalous, but 2 anomaly-free combinations can always be found. We refrain from proceeding further on the analysis of the $`U(1)`$ charges since the Konishi anomaly approach is precisely a systematic way to obtain the results of that analysis.

There are 6 independent gauge invariants one can build from the matter fields:

$$X_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=\stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}ϵ_{bcdef}T_j^{ab}T_k^{cd}T_i^{ef}ϵ^{jk},$$
(1)
$$Y_i=ϵ_{\stackrel{~}{ı}\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}\stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}\stackrel{~}{F}_b^{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}T_i^{ab},$$
(2)
where $`ϵ_{bcdef}`$, $`ϵ_{\stackrel{~}{ı}\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}`$ and $`ϵ^{jk}`$ are the Levi-Civita invariant tensors of $`SU(5)`$, $`SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{F}}`$ and $`SU(2)_T`$ respectively.

The above 6 invariants parameterize the 6 dimensional moduli space of the theory. In a generic point on the moduli space the gauge group is totally broken, consistently with the counting that the 24 gauge bosons eat up 24 out of the 30 matter fields, leaving 6 massless singlets representing the classical flat directions which satisfy the D-flatness conditions (see  for a complete parameterization of the solution of these conditions).

Note that $`X_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}`$ can be considered as a $`2\times 2`$ matrix, and hence $`detX`$ is a gauge and flavor symmetry invariant of mass dimension 8.

According to , a tree-level superpotential $`W_{tree}=\nu Y_1`$ lifts all classical flat directions and, together with the non-perturbatively generated superpotential, leads to dynamical supersymmetry breaking at a scale controlled by the coupling $`\nu `$.

Here we wish to consider a more general tree-level superpotential given by:

$$W_{tree}=\mathrm{tr}\mu X+\nu ^iY_i.$$
(3)
This is not a renormalizable superpotential, though the first term can be easily generated by integrating out some massive non chiral matter, as is present in supersymmetric grand unified models.

Let us first briefly consider a generalization of the Konishi anomaly which boils down to the classical equations of motion. For the anomalous one-loop piece of the relation to be trivially zero, one needs the variation of the field to be independent of the field itself. It is straightforward to convince oneself that the only non-trivial variation satisfying the above requirement is the following:

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=\rho ^{\stackrel{~}{ı}ij}ϵ_{abcde}T_i^{bc}T_j^{de},\delta T_i^{ab}=0.$$
(4)
Acting on the invariants, the variation above gives:

$$\delta X_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=0,\delta Y_i=2\rho ^{\stackrel{~}{ı}jk}ϵ_{ij}ϵ_{\stackrel{~}{ı}\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}X_k^{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}.$$
(5)
We have used the fact that there is no gauge invariant built out of 5 $`T`$s, and that the only gauge invariant built out of 1 $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ and 3 $`T`$s is in the $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of $`SU(2)_T`$, and thus is $`X`$. Using now the tree-level superpotential, we see that in a supersymmetric vacuum we must have:

$$\nu ^iX_k^{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}=0.$$
(6)
This means that as soon as the coupling to the $`Y_i`$ invariants is turned on at tree-level, the only supersymmetric vacua can occur at zero value for the $`X_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}`$ invariants. This is going to be crucial for the determination of dynamical supersymmetry breaking.

We now turn to determine the “canonical” Konishi anomaly relation, that is the anomaly associated to the currents generating the variations $`\delta \stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=\xi _{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}\stackrel{~}{F}_a^{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}`$ and $`\delta T_i^{ab}=\chi _i^jT_j^{ab}`$. Assuming the tree-level superpotential (3), the following relations hold in a supersymmetric vacuum:

$$(X\mu )_{\stackrel{~}{ı}}^{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}+\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ı}}^{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}\nu ^iY_i=\delta _{\stackrel{~}{ı}}^{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}S,$$
(7)
$$(\mu X)_j^i+\delta _j^i\mathrm{tr}\mu X+\nu ^iY_j=3\delta _j^iS.$$
(8)
The classical equations of motion are recovered by setting $`S`$ to zero.

By taking traces and substituting back into the equations, it is straightforward to show that the above equations are equivalent to:

$$\nu ^iY_j=0,(\mu X)_j^i=\delta _j^iS.$$
(9)
Considering first the classical vacua (i.e. $`S=0`$), we notice that (9) together with (6) implies that as soon as we turn on the $`\nu ^iY_i`$ coupling, all the flat directions are lifted since the equations imply that $`X_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=0=Y_i`$. On the other hand, if $`\nu ^i=0`$, not all flat directions are lifted, since the expectation values of $`Y_i`$ remain unconstrained. For instance, take the following values for the matter fields, which satisfy the D-flatness conditions:

$$T_1^{12}=a,T_2^{12}=b,\stackrel{~}{F}_1^{\stackrel{~}{1}}=\stackrel{~}{F}_2^{\stackrel{~}{2}}=\sqrt{|a|^2+|b|^2}.$$
(10)
For the above values we have that $`Y_1,Y_20`$ while $`X_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=0`$, and one can also check that the classical equations of motion are satisfied (for $`\nu ^i=0`$ and $`\mu 0`$).

### 2.1 Unbroken supersymmetry

We now solve for (9), assuming that $`\nu ^i=0`$:

$$X_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=S(\mu ^1)_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}.$$
(11)
and use the above result to compute the coupling dependent piece of the effective superpotential by using the effective relations, valid for expectation values in a supersymmetric vacuum:

$$X_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=\frac{W_{eff}}{\mu _{\stackrel{~}{ı}}^i}.$$
(12)
By integrating the above equation, we find:

$$W_{eff}=C(S)+S\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2det\mu ),$$
(13)
where $`C(S)`$ is a piece of the superpotential which is independent of the couplings $`\mu _{\stackrel{~}{ı}}^i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the holomorphic scale at high energies.

We can now apply the linearity principle  and integrate in the effective fields $`X`$ by subtracting the linear coupling $`\mathrm{tr}\mu X`$, to obtain:

$$W_{eff}=C(S)2S(1\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3})S\mathrm{log}\frac{detX}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8},$$
(14)
where the procedure is obviously unaffected by the form of $`C(S)`$.

To find $`C(S)`$, we use the following argument. We have to match the above result to the expected low-energy superpotential of the theory where now $`W_{tree}=0`$. The invariants are expected to take on generic expectation values, and break entirely the gauge group. We thus expect the following $`S`$-dependent Veneziano-Yankielowicz-type  superpotential:

$$W_{eff}=S(1\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3})S\mathrm{log}\frac{detX}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}.$$
(15)
At this point one may question the validity of introducing the gluino condensate $`S`$ in (15) since there is no unbroken low energy gauge group. However, this is a situation similar to $`SU(N_c)`$ SQCD with $`N_f=N_c1`$ flavors,111Indeed, the total matter index, which plays the role of $`N_f`$ in our case, is $`n=2\frac{1}{2}+2\frac{3}{2}=4=51`$. where a non-perturbative superpotential is still generated by the instantons in the broken gauge group, and correspondingly one can introduce a glueball superfield $`S`$ and its related Veneziano-Yankielowicz superpotential as explained for instance in  (see also ).

By matching with the above, we find:

$$C(S)=3S(1\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}).$$
(16)
We can thus write the complete effective superpotential (13) as:

$$W_{eff}=3S(1\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3})+S\mathrm{log}det(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mu ).$$
(17)
We will see that the coefficient of 3 is the number of vacua of the theory with $`W_{tree}=\mathrm{tr}\mu X`$.

Minimizing (15) with respect to $`S`$, we get that:

$$S=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{11}}{detX},$$
(18)
The non-perturbatively generated superpotential is thus:

$$W_{np}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{11}}{detX}.$$
(19)
This is nothing else than the superpotential determined by Affleck, Dine and Seiberg  using symmetry arguments. Recall that it is generated by a one-instanton contribution (indeed $`3Nn=11`$) as it should be in a theory with $`Nn=1`$. For yet another alternative way to derive this superpotential, see .

Now that we have derived $`W_{np}`$ we can check the vacuum structure of:

$$W_{eff}=W_{tree}+W_{np}=\mathrm{tr}\mu X+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{11}}{detX}.$$
(20)
Extremizing the above with respect to $`X`$, we find:

$$W_{eff}|_{extr}=3\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{11}}{detX},\text{with}\left(\frac{detX}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}\right)^3=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2det\mu }.$$
(21)
Note that the constraint on $`detX`$ is cubic, resulting in 3 vacua. Of course since there is no coupling for the $`Y_i`$s, all these vacua are additionally labeled by two flat directions.

Another way to determine that there must be 3 vacua for $`\nu ^i=0`$ is the following. When $`W_{tree}=\mathrm{tr}\mu X`$ the generic situation is that $`Y_i`$ have non trivial expectation values. Then classically we can take for instance a configuration like (10). These background matter fields break the gauge group from $`SU(5)`$ to $`SU(3)`$. Out of the 30 matter superfields, 16 are eaten by the gauge bosons which become massive, while two remain massless but are neutral, since they parameterize the flat directions. The remaining 12 matter fields fit into 2 fundamental and 2 anti-fundamental representations of $`SU(3)`$. Thus the effective gauge theory is $`SU(3)`$ SQCD with $`N_f=2`$. Moreover $`W_{tree}`$ gives a tree level mass to the quarks, so that the low-energy theory is pure $`SU(3)`$ SYM, which has 3 supersymmetric vacua. This is also an additional justification for the Veneziano-Yankielowicz piece in (15).

Let us now briefly comment on a slightly different route, inspired by . We could add to the tree level superpotential a piece like $`W_{tree}=\mathrm{}+\lambda detX`$, so that the classical equations of motion would allow for a (frozen) expectation value for $`X`$, though only when $`\nu ^i=0`$. The solution to the Konishi anomaly equations including the above higher order term would consist of two branches, one which classically reduces to the origin and the other to the (possibly large) expectation value. This way one forces the theory to be in a specific vacuum where the gauge group is broken and a low-energy superpotential like (15) is expected. Then by analytic continuation one recovers (17), with additional terms depending on $`\lambda `$. The vacuum structure of such a theory consists of 4 vacua, the 3 which exist for $`\lambda =0`$ and the additional one with classical broken gauge symmetry, which is pushed to infinity in the vanishing $`\lambda `$ limit.

### 2.2 Dynamical supersymmetry breaking

Let us now finally come to supersymmetry breaking. To recapitulate the situation for $`\nu ^i=0`$, we have seen that it is quite similar to SQCD with $`N_f<N_c`$: For $`W_{tree}=0`$, the non-perturbative superpotential is of runaway behavior (though in this case (19) is still flat in the $`Y^i`$ directions), thus pushing all supersymmetric vacua to infinity. When $`W_{tree}=\mathrm{tr}\mu X`$, we recover 3 supersymmetric vacua, all being parameterized by 2 additional flat directions.

Now turning on the coupling $`W_{tree}=\nu ^iY_i+\mathrm{}`$ we see that it immediately leads to supersymmetry breaking: From the classical variation (6), we learn that $`X`$ must vanish. But from the reasoning of the previous subsection, we had learned that $`W_{np}`$ is precisely singular at the origin. Now, by virtue of the linearity principle $`W_{np}`$ must be independent of the couplings in $`W_{tree}`$, and is thus exact also for $`\nu ^i0`$. The outcome is that $`W_{eff}`$ has no extremum, and thus there is no supersymmetric vacuum in the theory. However, since the $`\nu ^iY_i`$ term lifts all flat directions, while $`W_{np}`$ is singular at the origin, the potential must have a minimum at a finite value of the fields, which will be the non-supersymmetric vacuum of the theory .

Note in this respect that if $`W_{tree}=\mathrm{tr}\mu X+\nu ^iY_i`$, and the $`\nu ^i`$s are kept small, we expect three minima of the potential close to the original values of the 3 supersymmetric vacua (without flat directions of course), with the supersymmetry breaking presumably lifting the degeneracy among them. On the other hand, if a $`\lambda detX`$ coupling is added, we expect the 4th vacuum to be lifted at a much higher energy than the others since the $`X0`$ vacuum is already ruled out classically.

We have thus established dynamical supersymmetry breaking by deriving through the Konishi anomaly first the non perturbative superpotential and then checking that an additional coupling leads to a total effective superpotential with no supersymmetric vacua.

An alternative way to show supersymmetry breaking still exploiting the Konishi anomaly would have been to use (6) and (9) to show that $`Y_i=X_i^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=S=0`$ in a supersymmetric vacuum. Then one could have argued as in  that in such a vacuum the global $`U(1)`$ symmetries are unbroken, and thus the effective fields must satisfy the ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions, which is possible only at the price of an extremely odd effective field content. Or in the spirit of  one could have computed a one-instanton contribution to a correlator involving the above invariants, and upon finding a non-zero result the conclusion is that, for instance, $`S0`$, which implies that supersymmetry is broken.

## 3 $`SU(N)`$ chiral gauge theories with one family

In this section we will consider $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories with gauge group $`SU(N)`$ ($`N5`$) with one matter field in the antisymmetric representation $`T^{ab}`$ and $`N4`$ matter fields in the anti-fundamental representation $`\stackrel{~}{F}_a^i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N4`$. The matter content is such that the gauge anomaly cancels.

For all $`N6`$, we have the following type of invariants:

$$Y^{ij}=\stackrel{~}{F}_a^i\stackrel{~}{F}_b^jT^{ab},$$
(22)
which are in the antisymmetric representation of the flavor group $`SU(N4)`$. For $`N`$ even, we have an additional invariant which is the Pfaffian of the antisymmetric tensor:

$$Z=ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}T^{a_1a_2}\mathrm{}T^{a_{N1}a_N}=\mathrm{Pf}T.$$
(23)
Note that no invariant at all can be written for the $`SU(5)`$ theory with one family, which thus does not have any flat direction nor the possibility to have a tree-level superpotential.

The simplest tree-level superpotential is thus:

$$W_{tree}=\nu _{ij}Y^{ij}+\lambda Z.$$
(24)
Note that the second term is present only for $`N`$ even, and is non-renormalizable for $`N>6`$.

We can now write the Konishi anomaly relations, for the expectation values in a supersymmetric vacuum:

$$2\nu _{ik}Y^{kj}=\delta _i^jS,$$
(25)
$$\nu _{ij}Y^{ij}+\frac{N}{2}\lambda Z=(N2)S,$$
(26)
the second term on the left hand side of (26) being present only if $`N`$ is even.

### 3.1 Odd $`N`$

We immediately see that if $`N`$ is odd, the only solution is $`Y^{ij}=S=0`$ (in the $`SU(5)`$ case, the only solution is $`S=0`$ since also the first term of $`W_{tree}`$ cannot be written).

In this case, we do not dispose of the additional $`X`$-type invariants as in the situation with two families, so that we cannot argue as in the previous section. However the situation is also clearly different: for instance in the $`SU(5)`$ case, no invariant can be written and hence no $`W_{np}`$ either can be written. We have thus to resort to the arguments of  and say that the conditions $`Y^{ij}=S=0`$ are not consistent either with a credible low-energy spectrum, or with one-instanton calculations.

At this point we comment on the chiral ring of these theories. It turns out that its structure is very simple (somewhat like in SQCD), as it is generated only by the two invariants:

$$S=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{tr}W^\alpha W_\alpha ,\text{and}Y^{ij}=\stackrel{~}{F}_a^i\stackrel{~}{F}_b^jT^{ab},$$
(27)
(the second invariant being of course zero for $`SU(5)`$.)

To see this, consider the chiral ring relations:

$`W_{\alpha c}^aW_{\beta b}^c`$ $`=`$ $`W_{\beta c}^aW_{\alpha b}^c,`$
$`W_{\alpha a}^b\stackrel{~}{F}_b^i`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (28)
$`W_{\alpha c}^aT^{cb}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{\alpha c}^bT^{ca}.`$
We can construct singlets using the primitive invariants

$$\delta _b^a,ϵ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}\text{and}ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}.$$
(29)
Let us first look at all the tensor structures that can be constructed with $`\delta _b^a`$ only, up to the relations (28). They are, in addition to the fundamental fields and the two invariants (27):

$`F^{ai}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_b^iT^{ab},`$
$`S_b^a`$ $``$ $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }W_{\alpha c}^aW_{\beta b}^c,`$
$`T_\alpha ^{ab}`$ $``$ $`W_{\alpha c}^aT^{cb}=T_\alpha ^{ba},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}`$ $``$ $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }W_{\alpha c}^aW_{\beta d}^cT^{db}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ba}.`$ (30)
It is easy to convince oneself employing (28) that no more independent structures can be constructed by simple contraction of the indices and also that the tensors (30) have the indicated symmetry properties. Gauge singlets must then be constructed by contracting the above with the $`ϵ`$-tensors. Since $`ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}ϵ^{b_1\mathrm{}b_N}`$ is a product of $`\delta `$’s, one can use either all $`ϵ`$ in the fundamental or all $`ϵ`$ in the antifundamental. Using $`ϵ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}`$ will not work because of the “lack of indices” (recall that $`i=1\mathrm{}N4`$) so the only possibility is to use $`ϵ_{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}`$ which restricts the possible tensors that can be used to the two singlets in (27) and $`F^{ai}`$, $`T^{ab}`$ (one of the fundamental fields), $`T_\alpha ^{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}`$.

Now recall that $`T^{ab}`$ has one zero eigenvalue, so that by an $`SU(N)`$ transformation we can take $`T^{aN}=0`$. We then use the chiral ring relations to show that also

$$F^{Ni}=T_\alpha ^{aN}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{aN}=0.$$
(31)
Thus no further invariants can be constructed with the $`ϵ`$-tensor which always carries a $`a=N`$ index and we are left with (27) as the only possibility. This shows that no non-trivial generalized Konishi anomaly relations can be constructed for these theories.

It would be interesting to study the chiral rings for $`N`$ even and for theories with more families. Though the above argument is not applicable, we believe that their structure is the same, i.e. the only generators are the glueball superfield and the basic invariants.

### 3.2 Even $`N`$

On the other hand, when $`N`$ is even and $`\lambda 0`$, the Konishi relations (25), (26) can be solved to give:

$$Y^{ij}=\frac{1}{2}S(\nu ^1)^{ij},Z=\frac{S}{\lambda }.$$
(32)
This case can be solved as in the previous section (see also  for $`SU(6)`$), finding the expected non-perturbative superpotential. In this case however, we have already all the invariants in $`W_{tree}`$, and we can check that there is no additional relation like (6). Hence, there is no contradiction and all the supersymmetric vacua found in this way are not lifted, supersymmetry being unbroken.

Let us quickly review how to derive $`W_{np}`$ and the number of vacua in this case. From (32), we find straightforwardly, for $`N=2k`$:

$$W_{eff}=C(S)+S\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k3}\lambda )+\frac{1}{2}S\mathrm{log}det\nu =C(S)+S\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k3}\lambda \mathrm{Pf}\nu ).$$
(33)
We now proceed to integrate in the effective fields $`Y^{ij}`$ and $`Z`$, by subtracting $`W_{tree}`$ (24) and solving (32) for the invariants. The result is:

$$W_{eff}=C^{}(S)(k1)S(1\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3})S\mathrm{log}\frac{Z\mathrm{Pf}Y}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4k6}},$$
(34)
where we absorbed in $`C^{}(S)`$ a trivial term linear in $`S`$. But here we know what the coefficient of the $`S\mathrm{log}S`$ piece should be: when $`W_{tree}=0`$, the invariants take arbitrary values and the gauge group is maximally broken. By analyzing the D-flatness conditions, one finds that the effective theory is always a pure $`Sp(4)`$ SYM with massless neutral fields parameterizing the flat directions. Hence the overall coefficient of the Veneziano-Yankielowicz term in (34) must be 3. In turn this implies that the exact effective superpotential is given by:

$$W_{eff}=(k+2)S(1\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3})+S\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k3}\lambda \mathrm{Pf}\nu ),$$
(35)
and that there should be $`k+2`$ supersymmetric vacua.

This is confirmed if we integrate out $`S`$ in (34), after having substituted for $`C^{}(S)`$, to find that:

$$W_{np}=3\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+3}}{Z\mathrm{Pf}Y}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(36)
Extremizing then $`W_{eff}=W_{tree}+W_{np}`$ with respect to $`Y^{ij}`$ and $`Z`$ one again finds $`k+2`$ solutions. Of course, if we take $`\lambda =0`$, we have a runaway behavior and no stable vacuum.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Vanicson L. Campos for discussions. This work is partly supported by EU contract HPRN-CT-2000-00122.


text:
# Chapter 1 Antiprotons in CR: What Do They Tell Us?

## Chapter 1 Antiprotons in CR: What Do They Tell Us?

LANL Report \# LA-UR-03-3405

### Abstract

Recent measurements of the CR $`\overline{p}`$ flux have been shown to pose a problem for conventional propagation models. In particular, models consistent with secondary/primary nuclei ratio in CR produce too few $`\overline{p}`$’s, while matching the ratio and the $`\overline{p}`$ flux requires *ad hoc* assumptions. This may indicate an additional local CR component or new phenomena in CR propagation in the Galaxy. We discuss several possibilities which may cause this problem.

### 1. Introduction

The spectrum and origin of $`\overline{p}`$’s in CR is of interest for many studies in physics and astrophysics. Most of the observed CR $`\overline{p}`$’s are “secondaries” produced in collisions of CR particles with interstellar gas. Their spectrum with a peak at about 2 GeV is distinctly different from other CR species. Some proportion of the $`\overline{p}`$’s might originate in WIMP annihilations and/or primordial black hole evaporation contributing mostly at low energies. During the last decade there have been a number of space and balloon CR experiments with improved sensivity and statistics, which impose stricter constraints on the models of CR propagation and heliospheric modulation. It has been recently shown  that accurate $`\overline{p}`$ measurements during the last solar minimum 1995-97  indicate a discrepancy with calculations made using existing propagation models. Because of the specific shape of the secondary $`\overline{p}`$ spectrum and the fact that their production in the ISM can be calculated accurately, $`\overline{p}`$’s provide a unique opportunity to test models of CR propagation and heliospheric modulation.

### 2. The Problem

Secondary $`\overline{p}`$’s, $`e^+`$’s, and some proportion of diffuse $`\gamma `$-rays are products of interactions of mostly CR protons and He nuclei with interstellar gas. In very much the same way spallation of CR nuclei give rise to secondary isotopes. Propagation of all particles is governed by the same mechanism. The main constituents are diffusion, energy losses and gains, particle production and disintegration. Because the mechanism is the same for *all* particles, a correct CR propagation model that describes any secondary to primary ratio should equally well describe all the others: B/C, sub-Fe/Fe, $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios, and spectra of nuclei, $`e^+`$’s, and diffuse continuum $`\gamma `$-rays.

The diffusive reacceleration models have certain advantages compared to other CR propagation models: they naturally reproduce secondary/primary nuclei ratios in CR, have only three free parameters (normalization and index of the diffusion coefficient, and the Alfvèn speed), and agree better with K-capture parent/daughter nuclei ratio . However, the reacceleration models designed to match the nuclei ratios produce too few $`\overline{p}`$’s  because matching the B/C ratio at all energies requires the diffusion coefficient to be too large. The discrepancy is $``$40% at 2 GeV while the stated uncertainty in measured $`\overline{p}`$ flux in this energy range is now $``$20%. The conventional models without reacceleration based on local CR measurements, with simple energy dependence of the diffusion coefficient, and with uniform CR source spectra throughout the Galaxy also fail to reproduce simultaneously both the B/C ratio and $`\overline{p}`$ flux.

The difficulty associated with $`\overline{p}`$’s may indicate new effects, if new experiments can confirm the BESS measurements.

### 3. Discussion of Uncertainties

The sources of uncertainties which may affect the interpretation of $`\overline{p}`$ measurements appear to be fourfold: (i) propagation models and parameters, (ii) heliospheric modulation, (iii) production cross sections of secondary nuclei and $`\overline{p}`$’s, and (iv) systematic measurement errors.

(i) To this category we attribute errors in the Galactic gas distribution, ambient spectrum of CR, and our current knowledge of CR diffusion process. $`\mathrm{}`$ The errors in the gas distribution appear not to be so important in the case of stable and long-lived nuclei. Such errors are compensated simultaneously for all species by the corresponding adjustment of the propagation parameters. $`\mathrm{}`$ The local interstellar CR spectrum is studied quite well by direct measurements at HE where solar modulation effects are minimal, while the ambient CR proton spectrum on the large scale remains unknown. The most direct test is provided by diffuse $`\gamma `$-rays, but here we have a well known puzzle of the GeV excess in the EGRET data . A possible explanation is the inverse Compton scattering (ICS) of electrons whose Galactic spectrum may be harder than the local one ; an explanation justified by the large electron energy losses. $`\mathrm{}`$ Our understanding of the CR propagation in the Galaxy is quite basic. The distribution of CR sources is uneven in space and random in time. The diffusion is assumed *ad hoc* to be governed by one unique mechanism over the decades of energy MeV-PeV, while the diffusion coefficient is often taken the same for the whole Galaxy. It is certainly an approximation, but in fact most of CR data (except $`\overline{p}`$’s) support it.

(ii) Heliospheric modulation may introduce some error; it will be similar for all CR nuclei which have the charge/mass ratio about $`+1/2`$, except (anti-) protons which have $`\pm 1`$. Besides, solar modulation for $`\overline{p}`$’s is different from that of protons, due to charge sign dependent drift effects in the heliosphere. At present, several spacecraft provide information about particle fluxes at different heliolatitudes (Ulysses) and close to the heliospheric boundary (Voyagers), which make the likelihood of a serious error small. However, if modulation is weaker than assumed a reacceleration model combining B/C, $`\overline{p}`$’s, and other CR species is feasible.

(iii) Nuclear cross section errors are one of the main concerns. $`\mathrm{}`$ Fitting B/C ratio in CR is a standard procedure to derive the propagation parameters, while the calculated ratio, in turn, depends on the total interaction and isotope production cross sections. The latter have large uncertainties, typically $``$$`>`$20%, and sometimes larger. In our calculations we use our own *fits to the data* on cross sections $`p+\mathrm{C},\mathrm{N},\mathrm{O}\mathrm{Be},\mathrm{B}`$, that produce most of the Be and B (see ). We thus can rule out a possibility of large errors in the calculated B/C ratio. $`\mathrm{}`$ Antiproton production cross section in $`pp`$-interactions is studied quite well, while $`\overline{p}`$ production on nuclei relies on scarce data. This may lead to underestimation of the atmospheric contribution to the $`\overline{p}`$ flux measured in the upper atmosphere. The flux of CR $`\overline{p}`$’s thus may be *lower* at the top of the atmosphere by $``$25–30% , giving better agreement with our calculations in the reacceleration model. An analysis of different parametrizations of $`\overline{p}`$ production on nuclei is given in .

(iv) Systematic measurement errors are difficult to account for, but their effect can be reduced by careful choice of the data. The $`\overline{p}`$ data we rely on is the flux at maximum $``$2 GeV where the statistical errors are minimal. The spectra of protons and He are measured almost simultaneously and quite precisely by BESS and AMS (see ). They also agree with earlier experiments within the error bars. The most accurate measurements of nuclei at low energies are made by ACE, Ulysses, and Voyager and the agreement is good. At HE the data obtained by HEAO-3 are the most accurate and generally agree with earlier measurements; we compare with the data in the middle of the interval where the systematic errors should be minimal. However, new HE CR measurements are desirable.

### 4. Alternative Possibilities

A solution in terms of propagation models requires a break in the diffusion coefficient at a few GV . It has been interpreted as change in the propagation mode; propagation of LE particles may be aligned to the magnetic field lines rather than scattering. The chaotic distribution of the magnetic field gives it a diffusion-like character.

If our local environment influences the spectrum of CR, then it is possible to solve the problem by invoking a fresh “unprocessed” nuclei component at LE , which may be produced in the Local Bubble. The idea is that primary CR like C and O have a local LE component, while secondary CR like B are produced Galaxy-wide over the confinement time of 10–100 Myr. In this way an excess of B, which appears when propagation parameters are tuned to match the $`\overline{p}`$ data, can be eliminated by an additional local C (and the reduced Galactic production of B). The model appears to be able to describe a variety of CR data, but at the price of additional parameters.

A consistent $`\overline{p}`$ flux in reacceleration models can be obtained if there are sources of LE protons $``$$`<`$20 GeV. This energy is above the $`\overline{p}`$ production threshold and effectively produces $`\overline{p}`$’s at $``$$`<`$2 GeV. The intensity and spectral shape of this component could be derived by combining restrictions from $`\overline{p}`$’s and diffuse $`\gamma `$-rays. This kind of nucleon spectrum was used in our HEMN model  to match the spectrum of diffuse $`\gamma `$-rays as observed by EGRET .

More $`\overline{p}`$’s may be produced if there is a population of hard-nucleon-spectrum sources in the inner Galaxy. Such a population is required since the ICS of hard-spectrum electrons is insufficient to obtain an acceptable fit to the diffuse $`\gamma `$-ray latitude profiles . Antiprotons produced by freshly accelerated particles in matter near the source can add up to $`\overline{p}`$’s produced Galaxy-wide. We are going to address this possibility in future.

*To summarize,* it is clear that accurate measurements of $`\overline{p}`$ flux are the key to testing current propagation models. If new measurements confirm the $`\overline{p}`$ “excess,” current propagation and/or modulation models will face a challenge. If not – it will be evidence that reacceleration model is currently the best one to describe the data.

I.V.M. and S.G.M. acknowledge partial support from a NASA Astrophysics Theory Program grant and from the US Department of Energy (S.G.M.).

### 5. References

1. Huang C.Y., Derome L., Buénerd M. 2001, in Proc. 27th ICRC (Hamburg), 1707

2. Hunter S.D. et al. 1997, ApJ 481, 205

3. Jones F.C., Lukasiak A., Ptuskin V., Webber W. 2001, in Proc. 27th ICRC (Hamburg), 1844

4. Mashnik S.G., Moskalenko I.V. 2003, LANL preprint LA-UR-03-1610

5. Moskalenko I.V., Strong A.W., Ormes J.F., Potgieter M.S. 2002, ApJ 565, 280

6. Moskalenko I.V., Strong A.W., Mashnik S.G., Ormes J.F. 2003, ApJ 586, 1050

7. Moskalenko I.V., Mashnik S.G. 2003, these Proc.

8. Orito S. et al. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1078

9. Strong A.W., Moskalenko I.V., Reimer O. 2000, ApJ 537, 763 (err. 541, 1109)

10. Strong A.W., Moskalenko I.V., Reimer O. 2003, these Proc.