text:
# Fuglede’s conjecture is false in 5 and higher dimensions

## 1. Introduction

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a domain in $`\text{R}^n`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a Lebesgue measurable subset of $`\text{R}^n`$ with finite non-zero Lebesgue measure. We say that a set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{R}^n`$ is a spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`\{\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Omega }|^{1/2}}e^{2\pi ix\xi }\}_{\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. In this paper we use $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ to denote the Lebesgue measure of a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\mathrm{\#}A`$ to denote the cardinality of a finite set $`A`$.

###### Conjecture 1.1.

 A domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ admits a spectrum if and only if it is possible to tile $`\text{R}^n`$ by a family of translates $`\{t+\mathrm{\Omega }:t\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (ignoring sets of measure zero).

Fuglede  proved this conjecture (also known as the spectral set conjecture) under the additional assumption that the tiling set or the spectrum are lattice subsets of $`\text{R}^n`$. This conjecture arose from the study of commuting self-adjoint extensions of the partial derivative operators $`\frac{}{x_j}`$, and has attracted much recent interest, see the references given in the bibliography for a partial list of papers relating to this conjecture, and  for a survey.

Our main result here is that Fuglede’s conjecture is false in sufficiently high dimension.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`n5`$ be an integer. Then there exists a compact set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2\text{R}^n`$ of positive measure such that $`L^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_2)`$ admits an orthonormal basis of exponentials $`\{\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Omega }_2|^{1/2}}e^{2\pi i\xi _jx}:\xi _j\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\}`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\text{R}^n`$, but such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ does not tile $`\text{Z}^n`$ by translations. In particular, Fuglede’s conjecture is false in $`\text{R}^n`$ for $`n5`$.

The counterexample $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ is elementary - it is an explicit finite union of unit cubes, and is based on a counterexample to Fuglede’s conjecture in a specific finite abelian group. Basically, the idea is to exploit the existence of Hadamard matrices (i.e. orthogonal matrices whose entries are all $`\pm 1`$, or more generally a $`p^{th}`$ root of unity) of order not equal to a power of $`p`$; when $`p=2`$ the first example occurs at dimension 12, and when $`p=3`$ the first example occurs at dimension 6. Such Hadamard matrices quickly lead to a counterexample to Fuglede’s conjecture in the finite groups $`\text{Z}_2^{12}`$ and $`\text{Z}_3^6`$ (actually to $`\text{Z}_2^{11}`$ and $`\text{Z}_3^5`$), and one can use standard transference techniques to move this counterexample to $`\text{Z}^5`$ and thence to $`\text{R}^5`$.

Our arguments do not preclude the possibility that the conjecture may still be true in lower dimensions, and in particular in one dimension; see for instance  for some evidence in favor of the one-dimensional conjecture. For instance, the results of  show that Fuglede’s conjecture is true for cyclic $`p`$-groups $`\text{Z}_{p^N}`$, so one cannot directly replicate the above counterexample in one dimension.

It may still be true that Fuglede’s conjecture still holds in higher dimensions under more restrictive assumptions on the domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, for instance if one enforces convexity (our example is highly non-convex, although it does not fall into the class of non-convex objects studied on , or the near-cubic objects studied in ).

We do not address the issue as to whether the converse direction of Fuglede’s conjecture might still hold; in other words, whether every set which tiles $`\text{R}^n`$ by translations admits a spectrum. Again, it seems that one should first look at $`p`$-groups to determine the truth or falsity of this conjecture.

## 2. The finite model: failure of Fuglede in $`\text{Z}_2^{12}`$, $`\text{Z}_3^6`$, and $`\text{Z}_3^5`$.

We begin with a finite version of Theorem 1.2, in the finite group $`\text{Z}_p^n`$, where $`p=2,3`$ and $`\text{Z}_p:=\text{Z}/p\text{Z}`$. If $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$, $`\xi =(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)`$ are elements of $`\text{Z}_p^n`$, we define the dot product $`\xi x\text{Z}_p`$ as

$$\xi x:=\underset{j=1}{\overset{12}{}}\xi _jx_j$$

and in particular we can define the quantity $`e^{2\pi i(\xi x)/p}`$, which is always a $`p^{th}`$ root of unity.

To illustrate the method, we begin with a counterexample in $`\text{Z}_2^{12}`$, although we will not directly use this example for our main result.

###### Theorem 2.1.

There exists a non-empty subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0\text{Z}_2^{12}`$ such that $`l^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_0)`$ admits an orthonormal basis of exponentials $`\{\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Omega }_0)^{1/2}}e^{2\pi i(\xi _jx)/2}:\xi _j\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\}`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\text{Z}_2^{12}`$, but such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ does not tile $`\text{Z}_2^{12}`$ by translations.

Proof Let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_{12}`$ be the standard basis for $`\text{Z}_2^{12}`$, thus $`e_j`$ is the 12-tuple which equals 1 in the $`j^{th}`$ entry and 0 everywhere else. We shall take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ to simply be this 12-element set:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0:=\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_{12}\}.$$

It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ does not tile $`\text{Z}_2^{12}`$ by translations, since $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Omega }_0=12`$ does not divide evenly into $`\mathrm{\#}\text{Z}_2^{12}=2^{12}`$. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ admits an orthonormal set of exponentials. To see this, we take any Hadamard matrix $`H`$ of order 12, for instance111We are grateful to Neil Sloane for making this example available on his web page http://www.research.att.com/$``$njas/hadamard.

$$H:=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}+1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill & 1\hfill & +1\hfill & +1\hfill \end{array}\right).$$

One can verify that all the rows of $`H`$ are orthogonal to each other (this is part of what it means for a matrix to be Hadamard). We then define the set of 12 frequencies $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0:=\{\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{12}\}`$ by requiring that the 12-dimensional vector $`(e^{2\pi i(e_j\xi _k)/2})_{j=1}^{12}`$ matches the $`k^{th}`$ row of $`H`$, thus for instance

$$\xi _1:=(1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0),\xi _2:=(1,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1),\text{ etc.}$$

It is then clear that the twelve exponential functions $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}e^{2\pi i(\xi _kx)/2}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},12`$, form an orthonormal basis of $`l^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ as claimed.

The above simple example may be compared with the example used to disprove Tijdeman’s conjecture in , or to disprove Keller’s conjecture in ; the three counterexamples are not directly related to each other, but they do share a similar flavor, in that the combinatorics of tiling and orthogonality in “higher-dimensional” situations may behave quite differently from what one might intuitively extrapolate from “low-dimensional” examples. These three examples also show that the main obstructions to tiling or spectral conjectures in Euclidean spaces in fact come from finite abelian groups of relatively small order.

Now let $`\omega :=e^{2\pi i/3}`$ be a cube root of unity. Observe that the $`6\times 6`$ matrix

$$H:=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 1\hfill & \omega \hfill & \omega \hfill & \omega ^2\hfill & \omega ^2\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \omega \hfill & 1\hfill & \omega ^2\hfill & \omega ^2\hfill & \omega \hfill \\ 1\hfill & \omega \hfill & \omega ^2\hfill & 1\hfill & \omega \hfill & \omega ^2\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \omega ^2\hfill & \omega ^2\hfill & \omega \hfill & 1\hfill & \omega \hfill \\ 1\hfill & \omega ^2\hfill & \omega \hfill & \omega ^2\hfill & \omega \hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

is orthogonal222Unfortunately, we do not know of any slick way to verify this other than by brute force computation; this above example was discovered by trial and error. It may have some algebraic interpretation, perhaps relating to a group of order 6 such as $`\text{Z}_6`$ or $`S_3`$, but we were unable to discover such an interpretation., with all its entries equal to a cube root of unity. By repeating the above argument, we thus see that the six-element set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{}:=\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_6\}`$ in $`\text{Z}_3^6`$ has a spectrum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{}`$, also with six elements, but does not tile $`\text{Z}_3^6`$ since $`6`$ does not go evenly into $`3^6`$.

In fact one can descend from this example to $`\text{Z}_3^5`$ by the following simple observation. We may translate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{}`$ by $`e_1`$ to create a new set

$$\{0,e_2e_1,\mathrm{},e_6e_1\};$$

this of course does not affect the property that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{}`$ is a spectrum. This set is contained in the 5-dimensional space

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_6)\text{Z}_3^6:x_1+\mathrm{}+x_6=0\};$$

by projecting out the orthogonal complement $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}:=\{(x,x,\mathrm{},x):x\text{Z}_3\}`$ we may thus assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{}`$ is also contained in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. But $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is clearly isomorphic to $`\text{Z}_3^5`$. We have thus proved

###### Theorem 2.2.

There exists a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }\text{Z}_3^5`$ of six elements, such that $`l^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime })`$ admits an orthonormal basis of exponentials $`\{\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime })^{1/2}}e^{2\pi i(\xi _jx)/3}:\xi _j\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{\prime \prime }\}`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{\prime \prime }\text{Z}_3^5`$, but such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }`$ does not tile $`\text{Z}_3^5`$ by translations.

Note that the non-tiling property follows since $`6`$ does not go evenly into $`3^5`$. A similar argument allows one to replace $`\text{Z}_2^{12}`$ with $`\text{Z}_2^{11}`$ in Theorem 2.1, but we will not need to do so here. We also remark that the above theorem clearly also holds if $`\text{Z}_3^5`$ is replaced by $`\text{Z}_3^n`$ for any $`n5`$.

## 3. The discrete model: failure of Fuglede in $`\text{Z}^5`$

We now modify the construction in the previous section to prove a discrete version of Theorem 1.2, in the lattice $`\text{Z}^5`$. The dual group to this lattice is the torus $`\text{R}^5/\text{Z}^5`$; if $`x\text{Z}^5`$ and $`\xi \text{R}^5/\text{Z}^5`$ we can define the expression $`e^{2\pi i\xi x}`$ in the obvious manner.

###### Theorem 3.1.

There exists a non-empty finite subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\text{Z}^5`$ such that $`l^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$ admits an orthonormal basis of exponentials $`\{\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Omega }_1)^{1/2}}e^{2\pi i\xi _jx}:\xi _j\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\}`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\text{R}^5/\text{Z}^5`$, but such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ does not tile $`\text{Z}^5`$ by translations.

Proof Heuristically, this theorem follows immediately from Theorem 2.2 by pulling $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }`$ back under the obvious homomorphism $`\text{Z}^5\text{Z}_3^5`$. Unfortunately this has the problem of making the pre-image of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }`$ infinite; however this can be rectified by truncating this pre-image at a sufficiently large scale, and noting that boundary effects of the truncation will be negligible if the scale is large enough.

We turn to the details. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }\text{Z}_3^5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{\prime \prime }\text{Z}_3^5`$ be the counterexample to Fuglede’s conjecture in $`\text{Z}_3^5`$ constructed in Theorem 2.2. We need three large integers

$$1LMN,$$

for instance we may pick $`L:=10^{10}`$, $`M:=L^2`$, and $`N:=M^2`$.

We define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\text{Z}^5`$ to be the set

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1:=\underset{k[0,M)^5}{}(3k+\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime })$$

where we identify $`\text{Z}_3^5`$ with the set $`\{0,1,2\}^5\text{Z}^5`$ in the obvious (non-homomorphic!) manner, and $`[0,M)^5`$ is the discrete cube

$$[0,M)^5:=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_5)\text{Z}^5:0x_j<M\text{ for all }j=1,\mathrm{},5\}.$$

Observe that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is a finite set in $`[0,3M)^5`$ consisting of $`6M^5`$ elements. We define the spectrum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\text{R}^5/\text{Z}^5`$ in a similar fashion by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1:=\underset{l[0,M)^5}{}(\frac{l}{3M}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{\prime \prime }),$$

where the homomorphism $`\xi \frac{1}{3}\xi `$ from $`\text{Z}_3^5`$ to $`\{0+\text{Z},\frac{1}{3}+\text{Z},\frac{2}{3}+\text{Z}\}^5(\text{R}/\text{Z})^5`$ is defined in the obvious manner. Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is also a finite set consisting of $`6M^5`$ elements.

We now verify that the set of exponentials $`\{\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Omega }_1)^{1/2}}e^{2\pi i\xi _jx}:\xi _j\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\}`$ form an orthonormal basis of $`l^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$. The normalization property is obvious. Since the number of exponentials equals the dimension of $`l^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$, it will suffice to prove orthogonality, i.e. that

(1)
$$\underset{x\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }}{}e^{2\pi i(\xi \xi ^{})x}=0\text{ for all distinct }\xi ,\xi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1.$$

We write $`\xi =\frac{l}{3M}+\frac{1}{3}\xi _0`$ and $`\xi ^{}=\frac{l^{}}{3M}+\frac{1}{3}\xi _0^{}`$ for some $`l,l^{}[0,M)^5`$ and $`\xi _0,\xi _0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{\prime \prime }`$; since $`\xi \xi ^{}`$, we observe that at least one of $`ll^{}`$ or $`\xi _0\xi _0^{}`$ must hold. We similarly write $`x=3k+x_0`$ where $`k`$ ranges over $`[0,M)^5`$ and $`x_0`$ ranges over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }`$. We can then rewrite the left-hand side of (1) as

$$\underset{k[0,M)^5}{}\underset{x_0\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }}{}e^{2\pi i(\frac{ll^{}}{3M}+\frac{1}{3}(\xi _0\xi _0^{}))(3k+x_0)}.$$

We may expand this as

$$\underset{k[0,M)^5}{}\underset{x_0\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }}{}e^{2\pi i(ll^{})k/M}e^{2\pi i(ll^{})x_0/3M}e^{2\pi i(\xi _0\xi _0^{})x_0/3}$$

since the dot product of $`\frac{1}{3}(\xi _0\xi _0^{})`$ and $`3k`$ is an integer and hence negligible.

The sum $`_{k[0,M)^5}e^{2\pi i(ll^{})k/M}`$ vanishes unless $`l=l^{}`$ (this is basically the Fourier inversion formula for $`\text{Z}/M\text{Z}`$). Thus we may assume $`l=l^{}`$, and hence $`\xi _0\xi _0^{}`$. But then the previous expression simplifies to

$$M^5\underset{x_0\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }}{}e^{2\pi i(\xi _0\xi _0^{})x_0/3}$$

which vanishes since the frequencies in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{\prime \prime }`$ were chosen to give an orthogonal basis of $`l^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime })`$. This proves the existence of a spectrum.

We now show that the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ does not tile $`\text{Z}^5`$, if $`L,M,N`$ were chosen sufficiently large; this will be a volume packing argument that relies once again on the fact that $`6`$ does not go evenly into $`3^6`$. Suppose for contradiction that we could find a subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\text{Z}^5`$ such that the translates $`\{t+\mathrm{\Omega }_1:t\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$ tiled $`\text{Z}^5`$.

The idea is to exploit the intuitive observation that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ has local density either equal to 0 or to $`\frac{6}{3^5}`$, except on the boundary. To make this rigorous333Another approach, which is basically equivalent to this one, is to compute the convolution $`\chi _{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}\frac{1}{L^n}\chi _{[0,L)^n}`$ and observe that this is approximately equal to the function $`\frac{6}{3^5}\chi _{[0,M)^n}`$, which cannot tile $`\text{Z}^n`$. we now use the other numbers $`L,N`$ chosen earlier. let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N:=\mathrm{\Sigma }[0,N)^5`$. Observe that the sets $`\{t+\mathrm{\Omega }_1:t\mathrm{\Sigma }_N\}`$ are disjoint and each have cardinality $`6M^5`$, while their union contains the cube $`[2M,N2M)^5`$, and is contained in the cube $`[2M,N+2M)^5`$. Since both of these cubes have a cardinality of $`N^5+O(MN^4)`$, we thus have the cardinality estimate

$$6M^5\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }_N=N^5+O(MN^4).$$

Let $`A`$ denote the annulus

$$A:=[5L,2M+5L)^5[5L,2M5L)^5;$$

this $`A`$ represents the boundary effects of our restriction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ to $`[0,M)^5`$. We shall now work in a region of the tiling where $`A`$ can be ignored. Observe that $`A`$ has cardinality $`\mathrm{\#}A=O(M^4L)`$. In particular, we have

$$\mathrm{\#}\underset{t\mathrm{\Sigma }_M}{}(t+A)(\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }_N)(\mathrm{\#}A)=O(\frac{N^5}{6M^5}M^4L)=O(\frac{L}{M})N^5.$$

Thus, if $`M`$ is chosen sufficiently large with respect to $`L`$, we see that

$$\mathrm{\#}\underset{t\mathrm{\Sigma }_M}{}(t+A)<\mathrm{\#}[\frac{N}{3},\frac{2N}{3})^5,$$

and thus we may find a point $`x_0[\frac{N}{3},\frac{2N}{3})^5`$ which is not contained in $`t+A`$ for any $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }_M`$.

Fix this point $`x_0`$, and consider the quantity

$$f(t):=\mathrm{\#}\left((t+\mathrm{\Omega }_1)(x_0+[0,L)^5)\right)$$

defined for all $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since the sets $`\{t+\mathrm{\Omega }_1:t\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$ tile $`\text{Z}^5`$, we must have

(2)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}f(t)=\mathrm{\#}(x_0+[0,L)^5)=L^5.$$

On the other hand, we shall shortly show that for every $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we have either

(3)
$$f(t)=0\text{ or }f(t)=L^5(\frac{6}{3^5}+O(\frac{1}{L})).$$

Since $`6`$ does not go evenly into $`3^5`$, the estimates (2), (3) will cause the desired contradiction if $`L`$ is chosen sufficiently large.

It remains to prove (3). We may assume of course that $`f(t)0`$; so that $`t+\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ intersects $`x_0+[0,L)^5`$, which implies that

(4)
$$x_0t+[L,2M+L)^5.$$

Since $`x_0[\frac{N}{3},\frac{2N}{3}]^5`$, this implies that $`t[0,N]^5`$, since $`N`$ is much larger than $`L`$ or $`M`$. In particular, $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$. By construction of $`x_0`$, we thus see that $`x_0t+A`$. Combining this (4) we see that

$$x_0t+[5L,2M5L)^5.$$

In particular, we have

$$x_0+[0,L)^5t+[4L,2M4L)^5.$$

If one then covers $`x_0+[0,L)^5`$ by $`\frac{1}{3^5}L^5+O(L^4)`$ cubes of the form $`2k+\{0,1\}^5`$ for various $`k\text{Z}^5`$ \- and observe that all but $`O(L^4)`$ of these cubes will be strictly contained inside $`x_0+[0,L)^5`$ \- then each of these cubes will lie inside $`t+[3L,2M3L)`$, and thus will intersect $`t+\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ in exactly $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\prime \prime }=5`$ points. Thus we have

$$\mathrm{\#}\left((t+\mathrm{\Omega }_1)(x_0+[0,L)^5)\right)=[\frac{1}{3^5}L^5+O(L^4)]5+O(L^4)$$

which is (3) as desired. This concludes the proof that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ does not tile $`\text{Z}^5`$, and we are done.

## 4. The continuous model: failure of Fuglede in $`\text{R}^5`$

We can now prove Theorem 1.2 by a standard transference argument. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ be defined as in the previous section. Then we simply set

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2:=\mathrm{\Omega }_1+[0,1)^5$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_2:=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\text{Z}^5.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ was a spectrum for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, and $`\text{Z}^5`$ is a spectrum for $`[0,1)^5`$, it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ is a spectrum for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$. The proof that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ does not tile $`\text{R}^5`$ proceeds almost exactly the same as in the previous section, with the obvious changes that cubes such as $`[0,N)^5`$ should now be solid cubes in $`\text{R}^5`$ rather than discrete cubes in $`\text{Z}^5`$, and that cardinality $`\mathrm{\#}(A)`$ of sets should mostly be replaced by Lebesgue measure $`|A|`$ instead (except when dealing with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$, which remains discrete). We omit the details.

The above argument can be extended from $`\text{R}^5`$ to $`\text{R}^n`$ for any $`n5`$, mainly becase Theorem 2.2 also extends in this manner.


format: text

text:
# Decaying Superheavy Dark Matter and Subgalactic Structure of the Universe

## I Introduction

Recent cosmological observations such as dynamical mass, Type Ia supernovae, gravitational lensing, and cosmic microwave background anisotropies, concordantly predict a spatially flat universe containing a mixture of $`5\%`$ baryons, $`25\%`$ cold dark matter (CDM), and $`70\%`$ vacuum-like dark energy wang ; wmap , termed as the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. The identities and the nature of dark matter and dark energy are among some of the biggest puzzles in contemporary physics.

Although the nature of CDM is yet unknown, it is successfully treated in many aspects as weakly interacting particles. However, there exist serious discrepancies between observations and numerical simulations of CDM halos in collisionless cold dark matter (CCDM) models nfw ; moore ; ccdm , which predict too much power on small scales, manifested as cuspy CDM cores in dwarf galaxies dwarf , galaxies like the Milky Way galaxy , and central regions of galaxy clusters cluster  as well as a large excess of CDM subhalos or dwarf galaxies within the Local Group ccdm .

To alleviate the discrepancies, among many other attempts, models of non-standard interacting CDM have been proposed. They include self-interactions sper , annihilations kap , and decaying cold dark matter (DCDM) cen ; sal . Although these models involve different interactions, almost all interactions result in an adiabatic expansion of the cuspy halo that lowers the core density and reduces the number of subhalos. However, both self-interacting and annihilating CDM models require embarrassing large interaction cross-sections that have made the models less appealing. Although DCDM models are viable, possible underlying particle physics has been ignored.

Another big puzzle in astrophysics is the origin of the ultra-high energy cosmic rays (UHECR). One may expect that UHECR should originate from some unknown astrophysical sources at extragalactic scales. Greisen, Zatsepin, and Kuzmin (GZK) gzk  observed that due to inverse Compton scatterings of the relic photons the UHECR energy spectrum produced at cosmological distances should steepen abruptly at energy $`10^{10}`$ GeV. However, a number of cosmic ray events with energies beyond the GZK cutoff have been observed by Fly’s Eye fly  and AGASA agasa . A simple solution to this impasse is to invoke new physics in which UHECR can be produced in a cosmologically local part of the Universe. Ideas such as long-lived metastable superheavy particles that are decaying at the present epoch ellis ; bir ; ber ; kuz ; fod , annihilations of stable supermassive particles in halos bla , and collapses of cosmic topological defects bha  have been proposed. In most of the models the superheavy objects can simultaneously be viable candidates for DM.

In this paper, we try to address these issues at the same time within a single theoretical framework. We pursue the DCDM scenario, suggesting that the CDM is decaying weakly interacting superheavy particles with mass of the grand unification scale. In our scenario, not only the decay would produce much less concentrated cores in CDM halos, but also the decay products contain highly energetic quarks and leptons which lead to the production of ultra-high energy cosmic rays (UHECR) with energies beyond the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff. Moreover, the longevity of the superheavy particles may shed new light on the origin of the observed small value of the cosmological constant.

The paper is organized as follows: In section II we illustrate our idea by using the Kuzmin-Rubakov model. After briefly reviewing this model, we show in section III how this model can be naturally fitted into the scenario of DCDM. We show how this model solves the cuspy halo problem, and find out the parameter space which allow us to solve the origin of UHECR as well. In section IV we discuss some phenomenological implications and suggest that some on-going experiments could test this scenario.

## II Kuzmin-Rubakov model

Here we will concentrate on a specific scenario proposed by Kuzmin and Rubakov (KR) kuz  and show how the KR scenario for producing UHECR is related to the subgalactic structure of the Universe.

KR kuz  considered an extended standard model with a new $`SU(2)_X`$ gauge interaction and two left-handed $`SU(2)_X`$ fermionic doublets $`𝐗`$ and $`𝐘`$ and four right-handed singlets. Here at least two doublets are introduced because the $`SU(2)_X`$ anomaly prevents the number of $`SU(2)_X`$ doublets from being odd. All new particles are singlets of the standard model, while some conventional quarks and leptons may carry non-trivial $`SU(2)_X`$ quantum numbers. The $`SU(2)_X`$ gauge symmetry is assumed to be broken at certain high energy scale, giving large masses $`m_{X,Y}`$ to all $`𝐗`$ and $`𝐘`$ particles. Furthermore, $`𝐗`$ and $`𝐘`$ are assumed to carry different global symmetries, so there is no mixing between them. As such, both the lightest of $`𝐗`$ and the lightest of $`𝐘`$, which we call $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively, are perturbatively stable. However, $`SU(2)_X`$ instantons induce effective interactions violating global symmetries of $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Assume $`m_X>m_Y`$, then the instanton effects lead to the decay

$$XY+\mathrm{quarks}+\mathrm{leptons}$$
(1)
with a long lifetime roughly estimated as $`\tau _Xm_X^1e^{4\pi /\alpha _X}`$, where $`\alpha _X`$ is the $`SU(2)_X`$ gauge coupling constant. With the choices $`m_X10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\alpha _X0.1`$, $`\tau _X10\mathrm{G}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{s}`$ and $`X`$ particles are decaying at the present epoch. There have been many discussions on the production of $`X`$ particles in the early Universe. $`X`$ particles may be produced thermally during reheating after inflation with the produced energy density comparable to the critical energy density of the Universe kuz  (see also Refs. ber ; chu ). Also, it was realized in the same or different context that superheavy particles can be efficiently generated from vacuum quantum fluctuations during inflation enq  or couplings to the inflaton field during preheating baa .

The particles $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are good dark matter candidates. According to KR, there are two possible outcomes after $`X`$ particles have decayed. If $`Y`$ particles are perturbatively stable, they are also stable against instanton-induced interactions in virtue of energy conservation and instanton selection rules. In addition, if $`m_Xm_Y`$, an approximately equal amount of $`Y`$ particles is produced in the early Universe. Therefore, the decay products would contain stable supermassive $`Y`$ particles that constitute a dominant fraction of the CDM with a small admixture of $`X`$ particles as well as highly energetic quark jets and leptons that subsequently produce UHECR. Alternatively, the Higgs sector and its interactions with fermions may be organized in such a way that Y particles are in fact perturbatively unstable. As such, $`Y`$ particles would instantly decay into relativistic particles and leave metastable $`X`$ particles being the CDM.

Intriguingly, it has been recently pointed out that if the longevity of the superheavy particles in the KR model is due to instanton-induced decays, the observed small but finite cosmological constant can be explained by instantons or vacuum tunnelling effects in a theory with degenerate vacua jai . In such a theory, the vacuum energy density of the true ground state is smaller than that in one of the degenerate vacua where we live now by an exponentially small amount if quantum tunnelling between the degenerate vacua is allowed yok .

## III  Resolution of the cuspy halo problem and UHECR

We now turn to the cuspy halo problem and show how this problem can be solved within the context of the KR model. Numerical simulations of CCDM halos show cuspy halo density profiles well fit with the generalized Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) form nfw ; moore ; ccdm ,

$$\rho (r)=\rho _c\left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^\alpha \left(1+\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^{\alpha 3},$$
(2)
with the slope parameter $`\alpha 11.5`$ and the concentration parameter $`cr_{200}/r_c20`$, where $`r_c`$ is the core radius, $`\rho _c`$ is the mean density of the Universe at the time the halo collapsed, and $`r_{200}`$ is the radius within which the mean density $`\rho _{200}`$ is 200 times the present mean density of the Universe. However, observations indicate flat core density profiles with $`\alpha 0.5`$ and smaller concentrations with $`c68`$ dwarf ; galaxy ; cluster . Below we will simply study the effect of DCDM to the original NFW profile with $`\alpha =1`$ nfw  in Eq. (2). Defining $`x=r/r_{200}`$, it gives the halo mass profile $`M(x)=M_{200}F(x)`$ that is the mass within $`x`$ and the associated rotational velocity $`V(x)=V_{200}[F(x)/x]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, where $`M_{200}=M(x=1)`$, $`V_{200}=V(x=1)`$, and

$$F(x)=[\mathrm{ln}(1+cx)cx/(1+cx)]/[\mathrm{ln}(1+c)c/(1+c)].$$
(3)
Suppose a CDM halo gas composed of $`X`$ particles is formed at some high redshift with the NFW profile and a velocity dispersion $`v_X=\sqrt{GM_{200,X}/2r_{200,X}}`$, where $`M_{200,X}`$ is the mass of X particles within the radius $`r_{200,X}`$. The observed velocity dispersion typically ranges from 10 to 1000 km/s for dwarf halo to cluster halo. In $`X`$’s rest frame, the decay (1) produces a $`Y`$ with a recoiling velocity $`\gamma _{rc}v_{rc}=\delta (1\delta /2)/(1\delta )`$, where $`\gamma _{rc}=1/\sqrt{1v_{rc}^2}`$ and $`\delta =(m_Xm_Y)/m_X`$, and highly relativistic quarks and leptons of energy $`E_{q,l}=\gamma _{rc}v_{rc}m_X(1\delta )`$. The value of $`\delta `$ depends on the detail dynamics of the high energy model. Here we will treat it as an input parameter. There are two possibilities. When $`1\delta >v_X`$, we find that $`Y`$ would be relativistic and/or beyond the escape velocity of the halo. This together with the case of an unstable $`Y`$ correspond to the scenario discussed in Ref. cen , to which readers may refer for details. In the following, we will discuss the case for $`\delta <v_X`$, i.e. nearly degenerate masses, in which stable $`Y`$ particles would be bound to the halo with an averaged velocity about $`\sqrt{v_X^2+v_{rc}^2}`$ ($`v_{rc}\delta `$) just after the decay of $`X`$ particles. In particular, $`\delta 12\times 10^4`$ corresponds to the case considered in Ref. sal .

Let us assume that most $`X`$ particles have decayed and that the halo of $`Y`$ particles with the NFW profile has been formed by now. Using the virial theorem it can be shown that the core radius has expanded to

$$r_{c,Y}=r_{c,X}/y;y\frac{12\delta }{1\delta }\frac{\delta ^2}{v_X^2}\frac{(1\delta /2)^2}{(1\delta )^3}.$$
(4)
We will follow the method in Ref. cen  to work out the consequences of this core expansion. The difference is that here the mass inside $`r_{200,X}/y`$ is only slightly changed to $`(1\delta )M_{200,X}`$. As such, the final density within $`r_{200,X}/y`$ is $`y^3(1\delta )\rho _{200}`$. To obtain $`r_{200,Y}`$, we solve for $`r=yr_{200,Y}`$ in Eq. (2) ($`\alpha =1`$) within which the initial density is $`y^3(1\delta )^1\rho _{200}`$. The resulting equation is $`x^3F^1(x)=y^3(1\delta )`$ and we find that $`r_{200,Y}y^{0.2}r_{200,X}`$ for $`y1`$ and $`\delta <<1`$. Hence we obtain $`c_Yy^{1.2}c_X`$. To circumvent the over-concentration problem, $`y`$ should be about 0.4, implying that $`\delta 0.77v_X`$. Using $`c_X=20`$, $`y=0.4`$, and Eq. (3), we obtain the mass profiles and rotation curves of the original $`X`$ halo and the presently formed $`Y`$ halo shown in Fig. 1. We find that $`M_{200,Y}0.58M_{200,X}`$ and $`M_Y(r=0.1r_{200,Y})0.27M_X(r=0.1r_{200,X})`$, and that $`V_{200,Y}0.83V_{200,X}`$, $`V_{max,Y}0.64V_{max,X}`$, and $`r_{max,Y}2.5r_{max,X}`$, where $`V_{max}`$ is the maximum rotational velocity at radius $`r_{max}`$. In Fig. 1, we have also reproduced the mass profile and the rotation curve for the case cen  in which $`X`$ decays into relativistic particles. This requires solving for $`x=r/r_{200,X}`$ in the equation $`x^3F^1(x)=y^4`$, where the mass inside $`r_{200,X}/y`$ is $`yM_{200,X}`$ and $`y=0.5`$ is the fraction of $`X`$ particles that still remain by now. In this case, the softening of the central concentration is the same as in the $`Y`$ halo, but the reduction in the halo mass profile and the flattening of the rotation curve are even more pronounced. Thus we have shown that one can put KR model which was originally proposed to explain the origin of UHECR into the DCDM model.

Now let us examine the production of UHECR in the scenario proposed here and the applicability of the virial theorem for obtaining the $`Y`$ halo profile in Eq. (4). It was found that the level of the UHECR and the UHE neutrino fluxes produced from $`X`$ decays is proportional to a single parameter $`r_X=\xi _Xt_0/\tau _X`$ for a fixed $`m_X`$, where $`\xi _X`$ is the present fraction of $`X`$ particles in CDM and $`t_0=13.7\mathrm{Gyrs}`$ is the age of the Universe ber  and there $`r_X=5\times 10^{11}/\delta `$ was used to fit the observed UHECR flux spectrum. Note that a factor of $`\delta `$ is added because the energy of the decay relativistic quarks and leptons is $`E_{q,l}\delta m_X`$, where $`\delta 1`$ for the case in Ref.ber  and here $`\delta 0.77v_X10^3`$ (where $`v_X`$ is about 300 km/s) and $`m_X=10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, and also that the parameter $`r_X`$ will be larger if the energy dissipation of the decay particles is taken into account zia . Assume that the $`X`$ halo is originally formed at $`0.11`$ Gyrs and that $`\tau _X=0.7\mathrm{Gyrs}`$. Then the dynamical effect of $`X`$ decays on the halo is at work from about $`0.7`$ Gyrs to the present time. Since $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are non-relativistic and $`\tau _X<<t_0`$, most $`X`$ particles have decayed into $`Y`$ particles many Gyrs ago and the $`Y`$ DM halo has been virialized. Otherwise, one should treat the recoil velocities in a more proper way as considered in Ref. sal  to estimate the resulting halo profile. Hence we can see that we have found out the allowed parameter space which is consistent with current observation data and justified the method we used. In short, the fraction of remaining $`X`$ particles in the recently formed $`Y`$ DM halo is tiny and given by $`\xi _X10^9`$, and they are decaying at the present epoch to produce the observed UHECR flux ber . Furthermore, the possible distortions of the ionization history of the Universe caused by the energy injection from decays of these relatively short-lived $`X`$ particles have been recently discussed and the superheavy DCDM model is able to provide a good fit to the current CMB anisotropy and polarization data doro . On the other hand, the scenario proposed in Ref. cen , where $`\xi _X=1`$ and $`\tau _Xt_0`$, would produce unacceptably large flux of UHECR unless the relativistic particles produced from the $`X`$ decay involve some exotic quarks and leptons which are weakly interacting and may generate UHECR at an acceptable level by interacting with the interstellar medium when propagating to the Earth.

## IV Phenomenological implications

We have shown that the KR model that has attempted to explain the presence of UHECR with energies beyond the GZK cutoff can easily provide a DCDM solution for the problem of subgalactic structure formation in the CCDM model. In the DCDM model in which $`X`$ DM decay into relativistic particles cen , not only halo core density is lowered but also small dwarf galaxies are darkened due to core expansion and subsequent quenched star formation. It has also been argued that presently observed dwarf spheroidal galaxies with lower velocity dispersions were resulted from decaying dark matter and subsequent core expansion in a small fraction of halos with high velocity dispersions cen2 . This model predicts that the small-scale power at higher redshift is enhanced compared to the CDM model as well as the gas fraction in clusters should decrease with redshift. The latter can be tested by X-ray and Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect observations. However, this model has been criticized for that the reduction in the central density of clusters of galaxies due to $`X`$ DM evaporation might be too large to be compatible with observations and could even be harmful to the halo substructure formation sal . It has been pointed out that this excessive reduction can be remedied if $`X`$ particles decay into non-relativistic stable massive $`Y`$ DM, and shown that the $`Y`$ DM provides well fits to the rotation curves of low-mass galaxies and does not necessarily produce a significant reduction of the central DM density of certain dwarf spheroidals sal . Undoubtedly, detailed numerical simulations of the subgalactic structure formation in the DCDM model versus high-quality observations on the properties of subhalos and X-ray/Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect of clusters would test the DCDM model and should differentiate the two scenarios. Remarkably, the subhalo astrophysics at kpc scales may provide a hint to understand the mass difference between $`X`$ and $`Y`$ in the KR model at energy scale of grand unification.

To test models of superheavy particles directly in terrestrial particle accelerators is quite impossible. However, the particle spectra and the arrival directions of UHECR produced from decays of superheavy particles in the Galactic halo can provide crucial tests. Superheavy particles decay into ultra high-energy quark and lepton jets which fragment predominantly into photons with a small admixture of protons kuz ; ber . Although UHECR observations seem to show a subdominant photon flux ave , the photon flux with energies near the GZK cutoff may be attenuated in the cascading of the jets in the radio background and intergalactic magnetic fields bha . The ultra high-energy neutrino flux accompanying the UHECR has been calculated ber ; bir ; hoo  to be much higher than the proton flux due to the long mean free path and high multiplicity of neutrinos produced in high-energy hadronic jets. This neutrino flux is near the detection limit of the on-going AMANDA neutrino experiment and will be severely constrained by the upgraded AMANDA and next generation neutrino telescope IceCube. Because of the off-center location of the Solar system in the Galactic halo, some amount of anisotropy in the arrival directions of UHECR is expected bha . Recently it was claimed that no significant deviation from isotropy is found, based on the data from the SUGAR and the AGASA experiments taken a 10-year period with nearly uniform sky coverage anch . This may be overturned due to insufficient statistics. It is likely that the signal of the predicted anisotropy will have to wait to be tested by the upcoming Pierre Auger Observatory.

As pointed out by KR kuz , instanton mediated decay processes typically lead to multiparticle final states. Thus $`X`$ particle decays will produce a relatively large number of quark jets with a fairly flat energy distribution and rather hard leptons as compared to typical perturbative decays of superheavy particles. This may leave a distinct signature in the predicted UHECR spectrum which may help in distinguishing the KR model from other DCDM models. Furthermore, in the KR model which has $`\delta 1`$, the energy of the relativistic $`Y`$ particle is about $`m_X/2`$ and the flux of $`Y`$ particles in the Solar vicinity is approximately given by $`n_XR_{halo}/\tau _X10^5n_X`$ , where $`R_{halo}100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$ is the size of the Galactic halo. This flux is about two orders of magnitude lower than the local flux of typical halo DM which is estimated as $`n_Xv_X10^3n_X`$ (where $`v_X`$ is about 300 km/s). If the $`Y`$ particle interacts weakly with ordinary matter, it may scatter with the target nucleus with mass $`m_N`$ in a cyrogenic detector and deposit a huge amount of energy of order $`m_N(1\delta )^2`$ in the detector. This deposit energy is much larger than that of a typical halo DM particle which is about $`m_Nv_X^2`$. This may give a new thought to the direct detection of halo DM. Unfortunately, since the local number density of $`X`$ is $`n_X(\mathrm{GeV}/m_X)\mathrm{cm}^3`$ strongly suppressed by the mass of $`X`$ and $`X`$ is weakly interacting, the direct search for halo $`X`$ particles or the indirect search for high-energy neutrinos from decaying $`X`$ particles captured in the Sun or the Earth in current experiments are elusive jun . However, it is worth noting that the fluxes of $`X`$-induced high-energy neutrinos from the Sun and the Earth are expected to be similar, though they are relatively low, to those considered in a different context of annihilation of strongly interacting superheavy DM which are predominantly tau neutrinos with a flat energy spectrum of events at about few TeV far  and distinguishable from the energy spectrum of high-energy neutrinos induced by neutralino DM gai .

## V Conclusions and Discussions

In conclusion we have discussed the implication of the Kuzmin-Rubakov’s decaying superheavy dark matter model for generating cosmic rays with energies beyond the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff to the subgalactic structure formation of the Universe. The model involving a new $`SU(2)_X`$ gauge interaction and two left-handed $`SU(2)_X`$ fermionic doublets $`𝐗`$ and $`𝐘`$ can easily accommodate decaying dark matter scenarios for solving the cuspy halo problem inherent in the collisionless cold dark matter model. Intriguingly, the longevity of $`X`$ particles due to instanton mediated decays may explain the presence of a small cosmological constant as well.

The drawback is that we require the near-degeneracy of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ particle masses. However, this may have recourse to physics at the relevant high energy scale. In order to obtain the near mass degeneracy between $`X`$ and $`Y`$ particles, we assume that at high energies there is a symmetry, for example an exchange symmetry between $`X`$ and $`Y`$, that makes their masses equal. Small mass differences could be generated by radiative corrections from symmetry breaking terms arising via threshold corrections near grand unification scale or even from stringy effects near Planck scale. For example, consider a term $`\lambda _1_1`$ which contains $`X`$ and other heavy fields. The one-loop correction lifts $`X`$ mass by a factor of $`\lambda _1^2/16\pi ^2m_X`$, giving rise to $`\delta 10^2`$ for $`\lambda _11`$. To get an even smaller $`\delta `$, we may use the idea of collective breaking of symmetries. Instead of using one single coupling to break the symmetry, we introduce another similar coupling $`\lambda _2_2`$ in such a way that each coupling by itself preserves sufficient amount of symmetry such that the mass degeneracy between $`X`$ and $`Y`$ is exact at one-loop level. It is only when the simultaneous presence of both symmetry breaking terms the mass degeneracy will be lifted. Therefore the radiative corrections which lift the mass degeneracy of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are necessarily proportional to both $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. Hence this mass degeneracy splitting effect occurs at two-loop level and is of order $`\lambda _1^2/16\pi ^2\lambda _2^2/16\pi ^2`$ which is sufficiently small even for $`\lambda _1\lambda _21`$. An alternative mechanism for generating a small mass difference between $`X`$ and $`Y`$ particles is closely related to the result of instanton effects considered here. The mass relation between $`X`$ and $`Y`$ may be slightly modified by nonperturbative mass renormalization due to instanton-induced counterterms, similar to instanton-generated quark masses considered in QCD physics choi .

It is quite interesting to link different astrophysical and cosmological problems in a single particle model at grand unification scale. Future observations of dark matter halos and ultra high-energy cosmic rays, halo dark matter experimental search, and future CMB anisotropy and polarization measurements will test the decaying dark matter models and shed light on the mass degeneracy of $`X`$ and $`Y`$.

## VI Acknowledgments

The work of K.W.N. (C.H.C.) was supported in part by the National Science Council, Taiwan, ROC under the Grant NSC91-2112-M-001-026 (NSC91-2811-M-001-048).


text:
# Gauge Coupling Variation in Brane Models

## Abstract

We consider the space-time variation of gauge couplings in brane-world models induced by the coupling to a bulk scalar field. A variation is generated by the running of the gauge couplings with energy and a conformal anomaly while going from the Jordan to the Einstein frame. We indicate that the one-loop corrections cancel implying that one obtains a variation of the fine structure constant by either directly coupling the gauge fields to the bulk scalar field or having bulk scalar field dependent Yukawa couplings. Taking into account the cosmological dynamics of the bulk scalar field, we constrain the strength of the gauge coupling dependence on the bulk scalar field and relate it to modifications of gravity at low energy.

Physics beyond the standard model predicts the existence of scalar degrees of freedom, moduli fields, whose presence modify general relativity even at low energy. Within the framework of brane-world models these moduli fields are directly associated with the possible deformations of the bulk-brane configurations, i.e. the free motion of branes relative to each other (see e.g. braxvdbruckreview  for recent reviews on brane worlds). The presence of such massless fields is generally thought to lead to large deviations with respect to general relativity, prompting the need for a stabilization of the moduli. Within string theory this is the case for the dilaton field whose expectation value is related to the gauge coupling constant at the unification scale. Such a running dilaton is ruled out experimentally. Attempts to stabilize the dilaton have been notoriously difficult to justify and require ingredients such as non-perturbative effects and supersymmetry breaking.

The time evolution of the moduli fields does not only imply modifications to general relativity but may also provide a hint towards extensions to the standard model sector. Phenomena such as the variation of coupling constants may spring from the fact that these couplings are effective parameters depending on the moduli. In this paper we will discuss the time-variation of coupling parameters in brane models. (See e.g. Calmet & Fritzsch Kostelecky  for recent discussions on varying constants. Reference uzan  is a recent discussion on experimental and theoretical aspects of varying constants and has an extensive list of literature.)

We restrict the present analysis to the case in which the gauge couplings depend on the evolution of a single scalar field $`\psi `$. Let us consider the gauge couplings $`\alpha _i=g_i^2/4\pi `$ to one loop order

$`\alpha _i^1(E,\psi )=\alpha _i^1(\stackrel{~}{E},\psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{E}/E),`$ (1)
where $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ are two arbitrary energy scales, and $`b_i`$ are the renormalization group equation coefficients. Notice that the renormalization group coefficients are pure numbers determined solely by the matter content of the model. These coefficients may be taken as the standard model ones, $`b_i^{SM}=(41/10,19/6,7)`$. We have emphasized the explicit dependence on the scalar field $`\psi `$. In this way, a variation of the couplings $`\alpha _i`$ over cosmological meaningful periods would be a consequence of the evolution of $`\psi `$.

In the Einstein frame where the Planck mass is time-independent, the physical masses $`M`$ may depend on the scalar field $`\psi `$. If this is the case, the total variation of the gauge coupling involves the variation of $`M`$. From relation (1), this total variation reads

$`\delta \alpha _i^1(M,\psi )=\delta _\psi \alpha _i^1(m_{\mathrm{Pl}},\psi ){\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\psi M}{M}},`$ (2)
where $`M`$ is the energy scale at which one measures the gauge coupling. One can be more specific in a large class of theories where the effective four dimensional action has the generic form

$`S_\mathrm{J}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{A^2}{2\kappa _4^2}\frac{1}{4g_J^2}F^2\right]},`$ (3)
in the Jordan frame where matter couples to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, as opposed to the Einstein frame, where Newton’s constant is moduli field-independent. In the above expression $`A`$ depends on the scalar field $`\psi `$, $`F`$ is the antisymmetric gauge tensor field, and $`g_J`$ is the gauge coupling in the Jordan frame (which could have a dependence on the moduli field). To go to the Einstein frame formulation we must perform the conformal transformation

$`g_{\mu \nu }A^2g_{\mu \nu }.`$ (4)
The masses of particles are affected according to US

$$M_E=AM_J,$$
(5)
while the bare dimensionless coupling constants remain unaffected, $`g_Jg_E=g_J`$. This picture is modified quantum mechanically Fujii Maeda . In the Einstein frame, the relation between the bare and the renormalized couplings, $`g_B`$ and $`g`$, using dimensional regularization is

$$g_B=\mu ^{2d/2}g\left[1+g^2\frac{b}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2d/2)\right],$$
(6)
where $`\mu `$ is the renormalization group energy scale. The dependence between the bare coupling $`g_B`$ in the Einstein frame and the bare coupling $`g_J`$ in the Jordan frame is $`g_B=A^{2d/2}g_J`$. Then, it follows

$$g_J=(\mu /A)^{2d/2}g\left[1+g^2\frac{b}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2d/2)\right].$$
(7)
We consider its direct dependence on the scalar field $`\psi `$ by introducing a function $`D(\psi )`$ in such a way that

$$4\pi \delta _\psi (g_J^2)=\delta _\psi D(\psi ).$$
(8)
Now, taking into account the dependence of both the scale $`\mu =M`$ and $`A`$ on $`\psi `$ we find that in the limit $`d=4`$

$$\delta g=\beta (g)\left[\frac{\delta _\psi M}{M}\frac{\delta _\psi A}{A}\right]\frac{g^3}{8\pi }\delta _\psi D(\psi ),$$
(9)
where $`\beta (g)=bg^3/16\pi ^2`$ is the renormalization beta function. In terms of $`\alpha `$, the above variation can be written as

$$\delta \alpha ^1=\frac{b}{2\pi }\left[\frac{\delta _\psi A}{A}\frac{\delta _\psi M}{M}\right]+\delta _\psi D(\psi ).$$
(10)
Thus, if $`MA`$, the variation of the gauge coupling is purely due to its direct dependence on $`\psi `$. In general, one expects that masses of particles appear due to the Higgs mechanism where $`M_J=\lambda (\psi )v`$. Here $`\lambda (\psi )`$ is a Yukawa coupling which may depend on $`\psi `$ and $`v`$ the Higgs expectation value. In the Einstein frame this leads to

$$\delta \alpha ^1=\frac{b}{2\pi }\frac{\delta _\psi \lambda }{\lambda }+\delta _\psi D(\psi ),$$
(11)
showing that the variation of gauge coupling constants picks up a one loop contribution from the scalar field dependence of the Yukawa couplings. Let us emphasize that this result is the same one in the Jordan frame, where the conformal factor $`A`$ is absent in the matter sector. In fact the result (11) is frame-independent. In the following we shall assume that Yukawa couplings do not depend on $`\psi `$. Additionally, if we assume grand unification, then we are forced to take $`D(\psi )`$ as independent of the gauge sector $`i`$. From now on we consider that this is the case.

We now focus on the confinement mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ for the strong sector of the theory. This mass scale is defined by $`\alpha _3^1(E)=(b_3/2\pi )\mathrm{ln}(E/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$ implying that it depends on $`\psi `$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}A(\psi )\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{b_3^{SM}}}D(\psi )\right],`$ (12)
in the Einstein frame. This relation turns out to be highly relevant since, in the chiral limit, the masses of baryons are proportional to the QCD confinement mass scale.

Let us now turn to the variation of the fine structure constant. We can use its dependence on the electroweak couplings $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$: $`\alpha _{EM}=\frac{3}{5}\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _W)\alpha _1`$, and $`\alpha _{EM}=\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _W)\alpha _2`$, where $`\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle. In general, $`\theta _W`$ is also dependent on $`\psi `$. The relation between $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$ and the fine structure $`\alpha _{EM}`$ at a fixed energy scale $`E`$ is $`\delta \alpha _{EM}^1(E)=(5/3)\delta \alpha _1^1(E)+\delta \alpha _2^1(E)`$. In this way, the total variation of the fine structure constant is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha _{EM}}{\alpha _{EM}}}=\alpha _{EM}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{\psi }}\delta \psi .`$ (13)
Another measurable quantity intimately related to the former variation is the ratio of the proton mass $`m_p`$ to the electron mass $`m_e`$, $`\mu =m_p/m_e`$. Since in our model the electron mass has the behaviour $`m_eA`$, we obtain $`\mu =\mathrm{exp}\left[(2\pi /b_3^{SM})D(\psi )\right]`$, where we have used (12). Therefore, in the class of theories which we are considering, a variation of $`\mu `$ can be cast into $`\delta \mu /\mu =(2\pi /b_3^{SM})\delta D(\psi )`$, or by directly relating it to the variation of $`\alpha _{EM}`$, as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mu }{\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\alpha _{EM}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{b_3^{SM}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha _{EM}}{\alpha _{EM}}}.`$ (14)
Since $`b_3^{SM}`$ is negative, the variation of $`\mu `$ has the same sign as the variation of $`\alpha _{EM}`$. In the above expressions, we will use $`b_3^{SM}=9`$, which is the value corresponding to three light quark flavours.

We now apply the above results to brane-world models with a bulk scalar field and two boundary branes. The bulk scalar field will take the role of $`\psi `$ in the discussion above. More particularly we focus on BPS configurations where the two boundary branes are free to move without hindrance Davis & Brax . This results in the presence of two massless moduli fields at low energy whose dynamics have been described in a low energy effective action obtained after integrating over the fifth dimension US . The effective theory is of the tensor-scalar form leading to corrections to general relativity. Cosmologically the moduli fields are coupled to pressureless matter leading to a time dependence in the matter dominated era. In the Einstein frame, the action reads

$`S_{\mathrm{EF}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _4^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[3\lambda \left(\alpha ^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{4}R^2\right)\right]},`$ (15)
where $`\varphi `$ and $`R`$ are the two (unnormalized) moduli fields. The constant $`\alpha `$ springs from the coupling of the bulk scalar field $`\psi `$ to the branes. More precisely, the coupling of the scalar field to the brane reads $`d^4x\sqrt{g_4}T(\psi )`$ where $`T(\psi )`$ is a bulk scalar dependent function, $`g_4`$ is the induced metric on the brane and we identify $`\delta T/T=\alpha \delta \psi `$ evaluated at the present time. When $`\alpha =0`$ we retrieve the Randall-Sundrum model with no bulk scalar field. For larger values of $`\alpha =O(1)`$ one obtains the low-energy effective action of heterotic $`M`$ theory, taking only into account the volume of the Calabi-Yau manifold Lukas . The low energy effective action comprises the Einstein-Hilbert term and the kinetic terms of two massless fields $`\varphi `$ and $`R`$. In addition we will consider a gauge kinetic term. The coupling to ordinary matter is field dependent $`S_m^{(1)}=S_m^{(1)}[\mathrm{\Psi }_1,A^2(\varphi ,R)g_{\mu \nu }]`$ and $`S_m^{(2)}=S_m^{(2)}[\mathrm{\Psi }_2,B^2(\varphi ,R)g_{\mu \nu }]`$, where we have distinguished matter living on the positive tension brane labelled (1) and the negative tension brane labelled (2). The coupling constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given by US  $`A=e^{\alpha ^2\lambda /2\varphi }(\mathrm{cosh}R)^{\lambda /4}`$ and $`B=e^{\alpha ^2\lambda /2\varphi }(\mathrm{sinh}R)^{\lambda /4}`$, where $`\lambda =4/(1+2\alpha ^2)`$. One can write the action in the Jordan frame of the positive tension brane, i.e. in terms of the induced metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^B=A^2g_{\mu \nu }`$. The new action comprises the Einstein-Hilbert term and the gauge boson kinetic terms, having the same form as (3), with the same dimensionless factor $`A`$.

We have already seen that when the moduli fields manifest themselves only through the dimensionless factor $`A`$ of (3) the variation of the gauge coupling constants is due to

$$\delta _\psi D(\psi )=\beta \delta \psi ,$$
(16)
where $`\beta =D/\psi |_{\psi _0}`$ and $`\psi _0`$ is the present day value of $`\psi `$. In this expression we have neglected second-order terms in $`\delta \psi `$. The dependence of the scalar field $`\psi `$ in terms of the moduli fields is given by US  $`\psi =\alpha \lambda (\varphi +\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{cosh}R])`$.

Brane-world models lead to modifications to general relativity. Recalling that baryons have the dependence $`\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, and defining $`\alpha _\varphi =_\varphi \mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`\alpha _R=_R\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{m}`$, we obtain:

$`\alpha _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \lambda \left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{b_3^{SM}}}\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}\right],`$ (17)
$`\alpha _R`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \left[\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{b_3^{SM}}}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right]\mathrm{tanh}R.`$ (18)
As already said, the variation of gauge coupling constants is related to the corrections to general relativity as measured in the solar system. In particular the post-Newtonian Eddington coefficient $`\gamma `$ is constrained by the very long baseline interferometry measurements of the deflection of radio waves by the sum to be $`3.8\times 10^4<\gamma 1<2.6\times 10^4`$ at $`68\%`$ confidence level eubanks . This is related to the parameter $`\theta `$ by $`\gamma 12\theta `$, where

$$\theta =\frac{1+2\alpha ^2}{12\alpha ^2}\alpha _\varphi ^2+\frac{2\alpha ^2+1}{6}\alpha _R^2.$$
(19)
The parameter $`\theta `$ is a measure of the coupling of the moduli to matter which will be taken to be $`\theta 10^4`$ Will .

We now turn our attention to the variation of the fine structure constant $`\alpha _{EM}`$. Using the known cosmological evolution of the moduli fields in the matter dominated era, we can infer the variation of the fine structure constant in the recent past. It was found in US , that the field $`R`$ decays quickly during the matter dominated era and is small in the redshift range between $`z=0`$ and $`z=5`$. Therefore, we can neglect the influence of $`R`$. Taking the cosmological variation of $`\psi `$, in terms of the moduli $`\varphi `$, as $`\delta \psi =\alpha \lambda \delta \varphi `$ and using the solution for $`\psi `$ given by $`\delta \varphi =\varphi (z)\varphi _0=(1/6)\mathrm{ln}(1+z)`$ as a function of the redshift $`z`$ (where $`\varphi _0`$ refers to the present value of $`\varphi `$) in equation (13), the resulting expression for the variation of the fine structure is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha _{EM}}{\alpha _{EM}}}=\alpha _{EM}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha \beta }{1+2\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(1+z).`$ (20)
(Note that we have neglected the era of vacuum domination between $`z=1`$ and $`z=0`$.) Taking the value $`\delta \alpha _{EM}/\alpha _{EM}0.6\times 10^5`$ at $`z=3`$ from Webb et al. Webb 1 Webb 3 , we must then have $`|\alpha \beta |3\times 10^4`$. Assuming that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are of the same order, then $`\alpha 10^2`$, which is still in the acceptable region given by the $`\theta `$ constraint shown above. Figure 1 shows the favoured region for the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ subject to the $`\theta `$ constraint and the measured fine structure variation.

According to recent observations, at a redshift of about one, the expansion of the universe starts to accelerate bridle . This will modify the evolution of $`\varphi (z)`$ and therefore the expected evolution of the fine-structure constant between redshift $`z=1`$ and $`z=0`$. The details of the evolution of $`\alpha _{EM}`$ depend on whether or not the moduli fields have a potential and if they drive the apparent expansion at low redshift. Inferring the evolution of $`\alpha _{EM}`$ as a function of redshift can therefore give not only information about couplings between the moduli field(s) but also about the potential Wetterich 1 ,Wetterich 2 . When a potential for the moduli field is generated by an effective detuning of the brane tension, this leads to a variation of the cosmological constant

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{3}{8}\frac{\alpha }{\beta }\frac{\delta \alpha _{EM}}{\alpha _{EM}^2},$$
(21)
in the matter dominated era. For $`\beta \alpha `$ this implies that the variation of the cosmological constant is much smaller than the cosmological constant itself.

Finally, we consider the evolution of the ratio $`\mu =m_p/m_e`$. If we replace the variation of $`\psi `$ in terms of its cosmological evolution we obtain from (14)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mu }{\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{b_3^{SM}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha \beta }{1+2\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(1+z).`$ (22)
Since $`b_3^{SM}`$ is negative, the variation of $`\mu `$ is increasing in terms of $`z`$. This result does not agree with the observations of Ivanchik et al. who have measured a variation $`\delta \mu /\mu =(5.02\pm 1.82)\times 10^5`$ mp/me 1 -mp/me 2 . However, as claimed by this group, a more conservative position should be adopted until more accurate measurements come. With this caveat, the observation of a variation of $`\mu `$ can be taken to be $`|\delta \mu /\mu |<8\times 10^5`$. In terms of the brane moduli parameters, this constraint gives us $`|\alpha \beta |<1\times 10^4`$, which is compatible but stronger than the above results. We would like to emphasize again the fact that in the class of theories that we are presently considering the sign of the variation $`\delta \mu /\mu `$ is the same one of $`\delta \alpha /\alpha `$ (see equation (14)).

To summarize, in this paper we have presented two main results: firstly, we have verified that the variation of coupling parameter is frame-independent at the one-loop level in the quantum correction. Secondly, we have investigated the time variation of coupling parameter in the fairly general brane-world model with two boundary branes and bulk scalar field, whose low energy dynamics is governed by two moduli fields US . The existence of these fields leads to corrections to general relativity. We have argued that the only way to obtain time varying gauge couplings is by coupling the gauge fields directly to the bulk scalar field and allowing scalar field-dependent Yukawa couplings. We have not considered the latter possibility and analyzed a theory with two free parameters, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The parameter $`\alpha `$ defines the coupling of the brane tension to the bulk scalar field while $`\beta `$ describes the dependence of coupling parameter to the moduli field (see equation (16)). Interestingly, both parameters, although a priori independent, have the same order of magnitude, when the current constraints of variations of the fine structure constant and current constraints by gravity experiments are considered. Our work emphasizes once more the importance of experiments looking for deviation to general relativity. Together with measurements of the fine structure constant at high redshifts this would provide useful constraints on theories beyond the standard model. In fact, for $`\alpha =\beta `$ in the model discussed here, violations to general relativity should be measurable very soon, if the variation of $`\alpha _{EM}`$ reported in Webb 1 Webb 3  is confirmed by future investigations.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Fernando Quevedo, Jean-Philippe Uzan and Thomas Dent for useful comments. We acknowledge support from the Anglo-French alliance exchange program. This work is supported in part by PPARC. G.A.P. acknowledges the support of MIDEPLAN. P.B. is partially funded by the RTN european programme HPRN-CT-2000-00148.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Thomas precession is purely kinematical in origin . If a component of acceleration $`(\stackrel{}{a})`$ exists perpendicular to the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, for whatever reason, then there is a Thomas Precession, independent of other effects . When the acceleration is caused by a gravitational force field, the corresponding Thomas Precession is reasonably referred to as the Gravitational Thomas Precession (GTP). Given the physics involved in the Thomas Precession, the possibility of the existence of the GTP in planetary motion can not be ruled out in principle. However, the very existence of the GTP in planetary motion and its contribution to the perihelion advance of a planet as shown in this letter seems to be of some concern for the standard general relativistic explanation for the observed anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury .

## 2  The GTP’s contribution to the Perihelion Advance

The Thomas Precession frequency $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_T`$ in the non-relativistic limit (i.e., when $`v<<c`$) is given by

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }_T=\frac{1}{2c^2}(\stackrel{}{a}\times \stackrel{}{v}),$$
(1)
where the symbols have there usual meanings. For a planet (say Mercury) moving around the Sun, the acceleration $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ is predominately caused by the Newtonian gravitational field of the Sun,viz.,

$$\stackrel{}{a}=\frac{GM_{}}{r^3}\stackrel{}{r},$$
(2)
where the symbols have their usual meanings. Thus, from Eqs.$`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ we get the GTP frequency of the planet in question as

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}=\frac{GM_{}}{2c^2r^3}(\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{v}),$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the velocity of the planet.Since the angular momentum of the planet is $`\stackrel{}{L}=m(\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{v})`$, Eq.$`(3)`$ can be re-written as

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}=\frac{GM_{}}{2mc^2r^3}\stackrel{}{L},$$
(4)
If, as Thomas first pointed out, that coordinate system rotates, then the total time rate of change of the angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{J}`$For Thomas $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{S}`$, the spin angular momentum; but here we consider a more general term $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{S}`$,$`\stackrel{}{J}`$ representing the total ( orbital + spin ) angular momentum of the particle under consideration.  or more generally, any vector $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ is given by the well known result ,

$$\left(\frac{d\stackrel{}{A}}{dt}\right)_{\text{nonrot}}=\left(\frac{d\stackrel{}{A}}{dt}\right)_{\text{rest\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}frame}}+\stackrel{}{\omega }_T\times \stackrel{}{A}$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_T`$ is the angular velocity of rotation found by Thomas. When applied to the total angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{J}`$, Eq.$`(5)`$ gives an equation of motion:

$$\left(\frac{d\stackrel{}{J}}{dt}\right)_{\text{nonrot}}=\left(\frac{d\stackrel{}{J}}{dt}\right)_{\text{rest\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}frame}}+\stackrel{}{\omega }_T\times \stackrel{}{J}$$
(6)
The corresponding energy of interaction is

$$U=U_0+\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{\omega }_T=U_0+\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{\omega }_T+\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{\omega }_T$$
(7)
where $`U_0`$ is the energy corresponding to the coupling of $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ to the external fields - say the Coulomb field in atomic case ,nuclear field in nuclear case and the Newtonian gravitational field in the planetary case. The origin of the Thomas precessional frequency $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_T`$ is the acceleration experienced by the particle as it moves under the action of external forces.Since the nature of the external forces is not specified, the result obtained in Eq.(7) is valid for all type of force fields which cause accelerations of whatever nature. When applied to the gravitodynamic problems in solar system where the acceleration of a planet is caused by a Newtonian force field Eq.(7) takes the form

$$U_g=U_{0g}+\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{\omega }_T=U_{0g}+\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}+\stackrel{}{S}\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}$$
(8)
where $`U_{0g}`$ is the Newtonian potential energy of the planet under consideration and $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_{gT}`$ is given by Eq.(4).We then have

$$U_g=\frac{k}{r^2}\frac{h_1}{r^3}\frac{h_2}{r^3}$$
(9)
where $`k=GM_{}m`$ and

$$h_1=\frac{GM_{}L^2}{2mc^2}$$
(10)
$$h_2=\frac{GM_{}}{2mc^2}(\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S}).$$
(11)
Thus we see the gravitational Thomas precession introduced two potentials of the form $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/r^3`$ into the Kepler problem.What effect will result from the introduction of these potentials ? It is shown in  that if a potential with $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/r^3`$ form is added to a central force perturbation of the bound Kepler problem, the orbit in the bound problem is an ellipse in a rotating coordinate system. In effect the ellipse rotates, and the periapsis appears to precess.If the perturbation Hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{h}{r^3},(\text{ h\hspace{0.17em}=\hspace{0.17em}some constant })$$
(12)
then it predicts  a precession of the perihelion of a planet arising out of the perturbation Hamiltonian (of the form as in Eq.(12)) at an average rate of

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}=\frac{6\pi km^2h}{\tau L^4}$$
(13)
where $`k=GM_{}m`$ and $`\tau `$ is the classical period of revolution of the planet around the sun. It is to be noted that the so-called Schwarzschild spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein field equations corresponds to an additional Hamiltonian in the Kepler problem  of the form of Eq.(12) with

$$h=h_E=\frac{GM_{}L^2}{mc^2}$$
(14)
so that Eq.(13) becomes

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_E=\frac{6\pi k^2}{\tau L^2c^2}=\frac{6\pi GM_{}}{\tau c^2a(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^2)}$$
(15)
where we have used the relation $`L^2=GM_{}m^2a(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^2)`$. Eq.(15) represents Einstein’s expression for the anomalous perihelion advance of a planet’s orbit. Likewise the contributions to the perihelion advance arising out of the Thomas precession can be estimated by taking the $`h`$ in Eq.(13) as

$$h=h_1+h_2$$
(16)
where $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$are respectively given by Eq.(10) and Eq.(11).Then the GTP contribution comes out as

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_{GTP}=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_E\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{(\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S})}{L^2}\right]$$
(17)
For Mercury, the value of $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_E=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}42}98`$ arcsec/century - a well known data .Hence the GTP’s contribution to the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit is predicted at

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_{GTP}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}21}49\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{(\stackrel{}{L}\stackrel{}{S})}{L^2}\right]\text{arcsec/century}$$
(18)
This is in no way an insignificant contribution and should therefore be taken into account in any relativistic explanation for the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury if it is not there.

## 3 Concluding Remarks

The Modern observational value of the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury is at $`\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}43}^{\prime \prime }`$ per century . For Mercury, General Relativity predicts this phenomenon at

$$\delta \dot{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}_{GR}=\left[4298^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}289^{\prime \prime }(J_2/10^5)\right]\mathrm{per}\mathrm{century},$$
(19)
where $`J_2`$ is the magnitude of solar quadrupole moment of the sun - a definite value of which has still to be determined . Although the Solar quadrupole moment contribution is a Newtonian contribution, it was taken account of because it was not there in the standard expression. What about the GTP’s contribution ? Is it already there in the standard explanation ? The answer seems to be a negative one, because the GTP’s contribution contains a spin-orbit coupling factor ( see Eq.(18) ),which is absent in Einstein’s formula,viz.Eq.(15). Further the Thomas precession and the Schwarzschild solution represent two unrelated phenomena as either can exist independent of the other. The Schwarzschild effect is a curved space-time phenomenon while Thomas precession is a flat space-time phenomenon. So from these points of view it seems the GTP contribution is not inherent in the standard formula. So, if the existence of the GTP as an independent entity can not be denied in principle, it should be included in the general relativistic formula.But such an inclusion will have serious implications for the general relativity’s success in explaining the observed perihelion precession of Mercury in particular and other planets in general.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the help received from Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar for using its Library and Computer Centre for this work.


text:
# Ergodic amenable actions of algebraic groups

## Abstract

We prove that every ergodic amenable action of an algebraic group over a local field of characteristic zero is induced from an ergodic action of an amenable subgroup.

2000 Mathematics Subject classifications: 22D40 22F10 37A15.

It was shown by Zimmer that an ergodic amenable action of a connected locally compact group is induced by an ergodic action of an amenable subgroup, here we prove the following analogue for algebraic groups over any local field of characteristic zero. Let $`𝕂`$ be denote a local field of characteristic zero.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`G`$ be the group of $`𝕂`$-points of a Zariski-connected algebraic group defined over $`𝕂`$. Let $`S`$ be an ergodic amenable $`G`$-space. Then the action on $`S`$ is induced from an ergodic action of an amenable subgroup of $`G`$.

In order to prove this theorem we first prove the analogue of Moore’s result (see 3.2.22 and 9.2.5 of ) and the rest is similar to the proof of Zimmer. Our approach is different from  and we use a lemma of Furstenberg. Let $`V`$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over $`𝕂`$. Let $`P(V)`$ be the corresponding projective space. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }:V(0)P(V)`$ be the natural quotient map. It is a well known fact that any element $`g`$ of $`GL(V)`$ gives a homeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Pi }(g)`$ of $`P(V)`$. Let $`PGL(V)`$ denotes the group consisting of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(g)`$ for all $`gGL(V)`$: elements of $`PGL(V)`$ are known as projective linear transformations. A subset $`L`$ of $`V`$ is called a quasi-linear variety if it is a union of finitely many subspaces of $`V`$. We now state the following lemma due to Furstenberg (see ).

###### Lemma 1

Let $`(g_n)`$ be a sequence in $`PGL(V)`$ and $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ be probability measures on $`P(V)`$. Then there is a subsequence $`(g_{k_n})`$ and a transformation $`\tau `$ of $`P(V)`$ onto $`\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0))`$ where $`L`$ is a quasi-linear variety with the following properties:

1. $`(g_{k_n})`$ converges to $`\tau `$ pointwise on $`P(V)`$ and if $`(g_{k_n})`$ does not converge in $`PGL(V)`$, then $`L`$ is a proper quasi-linear variety of $`V`$;
2. If $`g_n(\mu )\lambda `$ in the space of probability measures on $`P(V)`$, equipped with weak\* topology, then $`\lambda `$ is supported on $`\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0))`$.

Let $`X`$ be any locally compact topological space and $`𝒫(X)`$ be the space of all regular Borel probability measures on $`X`$ equipped with the weak\* topology which is the weakest topology on $`𝒫(X)`$ for which the functions $`\mu \mu (f)`$ are continuous for all continuous bounded functions on $`X`$. Let $`G`$ be any locally compact group acting on $`X`$ by homeomorphisms of $`X`$. Then the action of $`G`$ induces an action of $`G`$ on $`𝒫(X)`$. For a probability measure $`\mu `$ on $`X`$, we define the subgroups $`_G(\mu )=\{gGg\mu =\mu \}`$ and $`I_G(\mu )=\{\alpha A\alpha (x)=x\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}xS(\mu )\}`$ where $`S(\mu )`$ denotes the support of $`\mu `$.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`G`$ be an algebraic subgroup of $`PGL(V)`$ and $`\mu `$ be a probability measure on $`P(V)`$. Then $`_G(\mu )/I_G(\mu )`$ is a compact group.

###### Proof

Let $`L`$ be the smallest quasi-linear variety such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0))`$ contains the support of $`\mu `$. Let $`H`$ be the algebraic subgroup of $`G`$ consisting of transformations that preserve $`\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0))`$, that is, $`H=\{gGg(\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0)))=\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0))\}`$. Then it is easy to see that $`_G(\mu )`$ is contained in $`H`$. Let $`(g_n)`$ be a sequence in $`_G(\mu )`$. Then by Lemma 1 and by passing to a subsequence, if necessary, we may assume that there is transformation $`\tau `$ of $`P(V)`$ onto $`\mathrm{\Pi }(U(0))`$ where $`U`$ is a quasi-linear variety such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(U(0))`$ contains the support of $`\mu `$ and $`g_n\tau `$ pointwise on $`P(V)`$. Since $`g_n(\mu )=\mu `$ for all $`n1`$, $`\tau (\mu )=\mu `$ and hence for $`n1`$, $`g_n(\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0)))=\tau (\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0)))=\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0))`$. Let $`L=_{i=1}^kW_i`$ where each $`W_i`$ is a subspace of $`V`$. Then $`H`$ has a subgroup $`N=\{gGg(\mathrm{\Pi }(W_i(0)))=\mathrm{\Pi }(W_i(0))\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}1ik\}`$ of finite index. Now by passing to subsequence, if necessary, we may assume there is a $`hG`$ such that $`g_nhN`$ for all $`n1`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be the restriction of $`\tau h`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(L(0))`$. Then for $`1ik`$, $`\alpha (\mathrm{\Pi }(W_i(0)))=\mathrm{\Pi }(W_i(0))`$. Let $`\alpha _i`$ be the restriction of $`\alpha `$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(W_i(0))`$ for $`1ik`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:N_{i=1}^kPGL(W_i)`$ be defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(g)=(\mathrm{\Phi }_i(g))_{i=1}^k`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(g)`$ is the restriction of $`g`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(W_i(0))`$ for $`1ik`$. Since $`N`$ is an algebraic group, the image $`\mathrm{\Phi }(N)`$ is closed and it is isomorphic to $`N/\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }(g_nh)(\alpha _i)_{i=1}^k`$ and the kernel of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`I_G(\mu )`$, $`(g_nh)`$ is relatively compact in $`N/I_G(\mu )`$. This proves the proposition since $`_G(\mu )`$ is a closed subgroup of $`H`$ containing $`I_G(\mu )`$.

By an algebraic group over $`𝕂`$ we mean the group of $`𝕂`$-points of an algebraic group defined over $`𝕂`$.

###### Corollary 1

Let $`G`$ be an algebraic group over $`𝕂`$ and $`H`$ be an algebraic subgroup of $`G`$. Let $`\mu `$ be a probability measure on $`G/H`$. Then $`G`$ acts on $`G/H`$ in a canonical way. Let $`(\mu )=\{gGg\mathrm{action}\mathrm{on}G/H\mathrm{preserves}\mu \}`$ and $`I(\mu )=\{gGg\mathrm{acts}\mathrm{trivially}\mathrm{on}\mathrm{support}\mathrm{of}\mu \}`$. Then $`(\mu )/I(\mu )`$ is a compact group.

###### Proof

Since $`H`$ is an algebraic subgroup of an algebraic group $`G`$, there is a finite-dimensional vector space $`V`$ on which $`G`$ acts by linear transformations and there is a vector $`v_0V`$ such that $`H=\{gGgv_0(v_0)\}`$ where $`(v_0)`$ is the one-dimensional subspace of $`V`$ spanned by $`v_0`$. This implies that $`G/H`$ can be viewed as a Borel subset (in fact, a locally closed subset) of $`P(V)`$ and $`G`$ acts on $`P(V)`$ as an algebraic group. Now the result follows from Proposition 1.

###### Corollary 2

Let $`G`$ be the group of $`𝕂`$-points of a Zariski-connected algebraic group defined over $`𝕂`$. Let $`P`$ be a minimal parabolic subgroup of $`G`$. Then for any algebraic subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$ and any $`\mu 𝒫(G/P)`$, $`_H(\mu )=\{hHh\mu =\mu \}`$ is amenable. In particular, a subgroup of $`G`$ is amenable if and only if it has a fixed point in the space of probability measures on $`G/P`$.

###### Proof

By Corollary 1, $`_H(\mu )/I_H(\mu )`$ is compact where $`I_H(\mu )=\{hHhx=x\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}x\mathrm{in}\mathrm{support}\mathrm{of}\mu \}`$. Hence it is enough to prove $`I_H(\mu )`$ is amenable. Since elements of $`I_H(\mu )`$ fixes the support of $`\mu `$ pointwise, $`I_H(\mu )`$ is contained in a conjugate of $`P`$ and hence since $`P`$ is amenable $`I_H(\mu )`$ is amenable.

###### Proof

(Proof of Theorem 1) Consider the cocycle $`\alpha `$ defined by $`\alpha (s,g)=g`$ for all $`sS`$ and $`gG`$. Let $`N`$ be the solvable radical of $`G`$. Then $`H=G/N`$ is semisimple and let $`P`$ be the minimal parabolic subgroup of $`H`$. By amenability there is a $`\alpha `$-invariant function $`f:S𝒫(H/P)`$. Since the action of $`G`$ on $`𝒫(H/P)`$ is smooth (see Corollary 3.2.17 of ) and by Corollary 2, stabilizers are amenable. By cocycle reduction Lemma 5.2.11 of , $`\alpha `$ is equivalent to a cocycle taking values in an amenable subgroup, say, $`M`$ of $`G`$. We now claim that the action of $`G`$ on $`S`$ is induced from action of $`M`$. By 4.2.18 of , there is an $`\alpha `$-invariant function $`\varphi :SG/M`$. This implies by Theorem 2.5 or Corollary 2.6 of  that the action on $`S`$ is induced from an ergodic amenable (because $`M`$ is amenable) action of $`M`$.

It may be recalled that any local field $`𝕂`$ of characteristic zero is either $``$ or $``$ or finite extension of a $`p`$-adic field. Zimmer’s result Theorem 5.7 of  covers the case of real algebraic groups and all connected groups (see 9.2.5 of ). We denote by $`_p`$ the $`p`$-adic field. Let $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ be an algebraic group defined over $`_p`$ and $`G=\stackrel{~}{G}(_p)`$, the group of $`_p`$-points of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Then it may be easily seen that $`G`$ is a totally disconnected group, hence these groups are not covered by Zimmer’s result. Now we will present a few explicit examples of these groups.

1. The elementary examples are the additive group $`_p`$ and the multiplicative group $`_p(0)`$ known as the one-dimensional split torus.
2. $`GL_n(_p)`$ be the group of all invertible $`n\times n`$ matrices with entries in $`_p`$, in general, all invertible elements in a finite-dimensional algebra over $`_p`$.
3. $`SL_n(_p)=\{AGL_n(_p)det(A)=1\}`$, the special linear group.
4. For any $`m`$ and any $`2m\times 2m`$ skew-symmetric matrix $`E`$, that is $`E^t=E`$, define the symplectic group $`SP_{2m}(E)=\{AGL_{2m}(_p)A^tEA=E\}`$.
5. The group of upper triangular matrices, $`UT_n(_p)=\{(g_{ij})GL_n(_p)g_{ij}=0\mathrm{if}j<i\}`$ and the group of all unipotent martices, $`U_n(_p)=\{(g_{ij})UT_n(_p)g_{ii}=1\}`$.

These groups and their direct and semi-direct products (in some cases) and many other classical algebraic groups are covered by our result but not by Zimmer’s result. Though the groups in examples $`1`$ and $`5`$ are amenable but their direct and semidirect products with $`GL_n`$ and $`SL_n`$ or some suitable subgroups of $`GL_n`$ and $`SL_n`$ are not amenable, for example, the general affine group $`_p^n\times _sGL_n`$ is not amenable.

We will end the article with few consequences of the main result. In , it is shown that for any lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`SL(2,)`$, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-space $`SL(2,)/N`$ (where $`N`$ is the group of all upper triangular matrices in $`SL(2,)`$) is ergodic amenable but it is not induced from an amenable subgroup. In fact, Theorem 1 combined with arguments preceding Theorem 5.11 of , we conclude that any ergodic amenable $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-space has a factor of the form $`SL(2,)/R`$ for some amenable subgroup $`R`$ of $`SL(2,)`$. Also, results regarding minimal ergodic amenable actions of closed subgroups of $`GL_n(𝕂)`$ may also be obtained as in Theorem 5.9 and Corollary 5.12 of .

###### Acknowledgement

I wish to thank the referee for useful remarks.

C. Robinson Edward Raja,
Indian Statistical Institute,
Statistics and Mathematics Unit,
8th Mile Mysore Road,
R. V. College Post,
Bangalore - 560 059.
India.

creraja@isibang.ac.in