text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The price multiplier effect gives us an insight into the behavior of investors during a speculative price peak. It tells us that the higher the price of an asset, the higher the amplitude of the price peak by which we understand the ratio $`A=p_2/p_1`$ of the peak price $`p_2`$ to the initial price $`p_1`$. In short, highly priced items seem to attract speculative capital in the same way as a magnet would attract bits of iron. In previous works (see ) this effect was shown to hold (during speculative episodes) for items as diverse as real estate, collector’s stamps, antiquarian books or rare coins. What do these items have in common? Firstly, all of them happen to experience price peaks of substantial amplitude (say $`A>2`$ ); a second common feature is the fact that an investor can select one item among similar ones at almost no cost. For instance, an investor in stamps can choose whether to buy 20 stamps valued approximately ten euros each or instead to buy a single stamp valued at 200 euros. The only cost involved will be the time it takes to make the selection (the transaction cost may be slightly different also but we will neglect this effect). In contrast, for commodities a very different situation prevails: for instance it is a very different matter to have a cargo of oil in the Persian Gulf valued at $20/barrel, or one in the Gulf of Mexico valued at $25/barrel for in this case there is not only a difference in price but also a difference in location; to substitute one cargo for another would involve substantial transportation costs.

A natural question is whether or not the price multiplier effect also holds for stocks. Answering that question is the purpose of this paper; it is not an easy problem for at least three reasons.

$``$ First one has to define how to compare the price of two stocks. Whereas it makes sense to say that a given house in San Francisco costs twice as much as another of same size in Oklahoma City, it is meaningless to say that the price of an IBM stock is twice the price of a CISCO stock for, as we know, through stock splits stock prices can be reduced by an arbitrary factor almost overnight. To sum up, our very first task will be to define the price of stocks in an intrinsic way so that they can be compared one with another in a meaningful way.

$``$ The second difficulty has to do with the diversity which is inherent to stock markets. In order to explain this point let us again consider the example of the two houses in San Francisco and Oklahoma City; despite their disparity the prices of the two assets are determined by the same set of rules, namely by the rules which govern residential property markets. On the contrary, two companies such as Yahoo (an Internet company) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (a railroad company) belong to two very different worlds and it is unlikely that their stock prices will be determined by similar rules. Naturally, to some extent it is possible to remedy to this difficulty by selecting stocks from a specified sample. For instance one may consider stocks belonging to the Dow Jones Transportation index that all belong to the transportation industry. But even for such a restricted sample there will be companies as different as Delta Airlines and the above mentioned Burlington railroad company.

$``$ The third difficulty stems from the well-know fact that stock prices have a much higher volatility than housing prices. For instance the stock price of Wall-Mart (a retail trade company) increased from $ 0.12 in January 1980 to $ 61 dollar in March 2002; once deflated this represents a multiplication by a factor 239. The case of Wal-Mart is by no means unique for as we know during the 1980-2000 time interval, not a few companies experienced huge price peaks, especially in the telecommunication and information technology sectors. Needless to say, price increases of such an amplitude are completely unheard of in the housing market; this illustrates the fact that stock prices are much more volatile than housing prices, a feature which is directly connected with the fact that transaction costs and transaction times in housing markets are larger than in stock markets by several orders of magnitude. Needless to say, the high volatility of stock prices will add a substantial amount of noise and make it more difficult to test the price multiplier effect.

In the second section, starting from the known case of real estate markets, we show how the price multiplier effect can be extended to stocks. In the third section we explain why the price-dividend ratio can be seen as a convenient yardstick for assessing the respective value of stocks. Then in the fourth section we present the results of a several statistical tests of the price multiplier effect in stocks.

## 2 From real estate to stocks

First of all, in order for the reader to be able to develop an intuitive understanding of the price multiplier effect and its implications, we briefly illustrate it by way of an example. We consider housing prices in the West of the United States over the 1995-2002 time interval. Fig.1 shows that there is a significant correlation between initial prices in 12 major cities at the beginning of the price peak (that is to say in 1995) and the amplitudes of the price peaks; the correlation is equal to 0.75 with a confidence interval (at probability level 0.95) extending from 0.30 to 0.92. For California alone (6 cities) the correlation is equal to 0.71.

It can be noted that these correlation levels are substantially higher than during the previous peak of 1984-1990; for California the correlation was then equal to only 0.60 (with a price increase of about 60 percent in San Francisco); moreover for the western cities located outside of California, prices showed no substantial increases (less than 10 percent over 6 years). As an empirical rule, the level of the correlation in the price multiplier effect provides a measure of how widespread speculative trading is. If only we could know the proportion of transactions made by investors (as opposed to users), we would be able to check that rule directly; unfortunately such data do not seem to be available either for California or for any other housing market. The best possible check consists in observing that usually the higher the price peaks, the higher is also the correlation in the price multiplier effect.

Regarding Fig.1 the reader may object that in 2002 prices in the West were still increasing and that the amplitudes shown in Fig.1 represent only a proxy of the actual peak amplitudes. This is true; in fact, it is quite by purpose that we choose to present that case. It shows that we do not need to wait until all prices have peaked in order to test for the price multiplier effect. The obvious advantage of such a procedure is that it provides an assessment of the level of speculative trading at any moment during the upgoing phase. Naturally, in the first quarters of 1995 price increases were still small as was also the correlation of the price multiplier effect; but as speculative trading built up and gained momentum both price increases and correlation became more substantial.

At the beginning of the paper we pointed out that the major obstacle for extending the price multiplier effect to stocks is the fact that stock prices have no intrinsic meaning. Can we reformulate the price multiplier effect in the case of housing markets by substituting another variable to initial housing prices? The answer is yes: as will be seen, prices can be replaced by price-rent ratios, the latter being defined as the the ratio of the price of the house (or the apartment) to the annual rent paid by the tenant. This substitution is justified by the two following observations.

$``$ Prices are correlated with price-rent ratios. This can be illustrated by resorting again to the case of the West in the U.S. For 18 cities the correlation between prices and price-rent ratios was equal to 0.66 in May 2001 and to 0.88 in May 2002 (more details can be found in ).

$``$ Fig.2 shows that during a speculative price peak, price and price-rent ratio move in parallel. Thus, the evolution in the course of time can be described either through price changes or through variations in the price-rent ratio. In the legend of Fig.2 we used the expression price earnings ratio in order to underline the parallel with the price-earnings ratio of stocks. The fact that the price-rent ratio increases in the ascending phase shows that rents either increase slower than prices or even decrease. Direct evidence of a decrease can be found in New York City during the price peak of 2001-2002: between mid-2001 and the end of 2002, rents on average decreased by 15 percent while at the same time prices increased by about 20 percent (New York Times May 23, 2002, p.B9).

In short, at least during speculative episodes, prices and price-rent ratios are strongly connected both temporally and spatially; the great advantage of this observation comes from the fact that, in contrast to prices, price-rent ratios can be defined in an intrinsic way also for stocks. This is the point to which we come now.

## 3 Defining a yardstick for the price of stocks

The yardstick we wish to define should be able to tell us whether a stock $`A`$ is cheaper or more expensive than a stock $`B`$, but that yardstick only needs to apply to periods of speculative price peaks. Fig.3 a,b,c,d shows that during such episodes prices and price-dividend ratios move in parallel ways.

The definition of the price-dividend ratio used in these figures is the following:

$$\text{PDR}(t)=\frac{\text{Stock price at time}t}{\text{Dividends paid in the year preceding}t}$$

The price-dividend ratio is very similar to the price earnings ratio but it has two clear advantages over the later (i) For a stock holder it is the quarterly dividend (rather than the earnings per share) which is is the analogue of the monthly rent received by an apartment owner from his (or her) tenant. (ii) Depending on the strategical accounting choices made by the direction of a company the profit in a given quarter can be reduced or inflated; for instance writing off a major acquisition over four years instead of ten years would substantially lower the earnings. Naturally, the level of dividend payments are also partly affected by the strategy of the company, but at least the dividends represent real money and not just a line in the company’s accounting books. As the saying goes “Paper profits are one thing, cash is another.” In short, relying on dividends rather than on earnings seems to be a prudent and conservative approach.

On average in normal times companies distribute about 60 percent of their profit in the form of dividends, but for a company which wants to invest aggressively, that proportion may be much smaller. It can be noted that on the basis of 60 percent of the earnings being distributed to stockholders, the price-dividend ratio should be larger than the price earning ratio by a factor $`1/0.60=1.70`$. If, as is commonly admitted, the long term average of the price-earnings ratio over the last century is about 14, the long term average of the PDR is around $`14\times 1.70=23`$.

To sum up, the price-dividend ratio fulfills all the requirements that one may wish for a yardstick of stock prices. (i) During speculative episodes, PDR and stock price move in parallel. (ii) Seen from the side of the investor, the PDR is the exact analogue of the ratio of housing price to annual rent; it tells the investor in how many years its purchase (whether it is a house or a stock) will be covered by the flow of rents or dividends. In short, it provides a measure of how expensive the asset is with respect to future capital flow. (iii) The PDR (in contrast to the price-earnings ratio) can be measured in an objective and non-ambiguous way; furthermore long time series of dividend data are available in stock markets factbooks. The question in the title of this paper about whether or not the price multiplier effect holds for stocks can therefore be rephrased in the following way: is there a relationship between initial PDR levels and amplitudes of price peaks?

## 4 Testing the price multiplier rule

### 4.1 Setting up the experiment

Is there a significant correlation between levels of the price-dividend ratio at the start of a price peak and peak amplitudes, this is the question we wish to investigate. However, there are about 3,000 companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange and the first question we must address is how to select the sample(s) on which the price multiplier effect will be tested. There are several requirements. First, the selection must follow an objective criterion, for example we may consider all the companies of the Dow Jones (DJ) Industrial Index, or the first 30 companies of the Standard and Poor’s index arranged in alphabetical order. In order to limit the diversity of the sample we begin with the first choice. Besides the companies comprised in the Dow Jones Industrial Index we will also investigate other fairly homogeneous sets of companies such as those in the DJ Transportation index and the DJ Utility index. The second question concerns the initial year, in other words when did the speculative price peak begin? A possible criterion would be to consider the largest time interval characterized by continuously positive annual price variations of stock indices. Such a criterion would put the beginning of the price peak around 1980. However, since the decade before 1980 was a bear market marked by substantial price falls, one may argue that during the early 1980s the market was merely catching up. Whatever the validity of such a reasoning, it would anyway be difficult to say with any degree of certainty whether the price peak has begun in 1985, 1990 or 1995. This is why we will investigate all these dates in the hope that the comparison of the different results may give a better insight.

Remark Special dividends may be paid to stockholders on particular occasions, for instance when the company sells a subsidiary. In some cases these special dividends are very large compared to normal quarterly dividends. For instance, in May 1998 General Motors paid a $14.33 special dividend which represented 7 times the annual dividend paid in previous or later years; other examples are Eastman Kodak which in January 1994 paid a special dividend equal to 6 times the annual dividend or At&T which in October 2001 paid a special dividend equal to 11 times the annual dividend. Clearly special dividends of such an order of magnitude tend to disrupt the normal pattern of quarterly dividends over periods of time which are of the order of one decade; thus, in order to avoid any bias we discarded the companies and periods of time during which huge special dividends were distributed.

### 4.2 Results

The relationship between price-dividend ratios and peak amplitudes is summarized in Fig.4a,b,c,d for the four initial years 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995.

For 1980 the correlation is almost completely due to Wal-Mart; moreover, the regression slope is much at variance with the results for the other three years. Naturally, one would expect that the slope of the regression becomes smaller when the initial date which is selected approaches the date of the peak which is somewhere between 2000 and 2002, and this is indeed the trend that we observe.

The significant correlation in cases 2 and 3 (see table 1) shows that the price multiplier rule applies to the stocks in the DJ Industrial index whether one takes 1985 or 1990 as the initial year. For 1995 as the initial year, one observes the same effect, but there is little interest in considering such a late starting point when previous ones work as well.

We now turn to the companies in the DJ Transportation and Utility indexes. The first index comprises 20 stocks, while the second contains only 15. In each case a few companies need to be discarded because the data are not available or because they did not pay dividends. We are therefore left with samples which are fairly small; as a result, the correlations although positive have broad confidence intervals (see table 1). In order to get a more significant result we have grouped together all the stocks of the DJI, DJT and DJU; the corresponding graph is shown in Fig.5.

On the one hand, the dispersion is increased because the sample is less homogeneous, but on the other hand we now have a sample comprising 44 stocks which results in reduced confidence intervals for both the correlation and the regression coefficients.

In the next test we relaxed the homogeneity criterion and considered a sample of companies drawn at random from the set of 500 companies that make up the Standard and Poor’s index. In this case the correlation breaks down; table 1 shows that for 1990 at the starting year it is almost zero, whereas for 1995 it is slightly positive but barely significant. It must be said that what makes the matter worse is the fact that many of those companies in the information technology sector which experienced huge price increases did not pay any dividend at all; in other words their PDR was basically infinite and we cannot include these stocks into our sample. In short, the cases which would provide the most compelling evidence unfortunately must be left out of the statistical analysis.

## 5 Conclusion

Previous studies have shown that the strength of the price multiplier effect that is to say the level of the correlation between initial prices and peak amplitudes can be seen as a measure of the amount of speculative trading (as distinct from trades performed by users) which is going on in a market. As on stock markets there are no users at all (nobody buys a stock just to “use it”); one would expect the price multiplier effect to apply to stocks even better than it applies to other assets. However, for a number of reasons ranging from the high levels of noise and volatility to the dwindling importance of dividends, the experimental test is far from being straightforward. Nevertheless, when conducted in a proper way observation shows that the price multiplier effect also holds for stocks provided initial price-dividend ratios are substituted for initial prices.

At this point an observation is in order regarding the dwindling role of dividends. In recent times, companies more and more tended to replace dividends by other gratifications among which buyback of shares is the most important. Usually companies buy back their own shares at a price which is slightly higher than the market price; this represents a one-time payment which can be seen as a special dividend replacing the payment of quarterly dividends. Over the past five or six years, major companies such as Citigroup or IBM have devoted billions of dollars to buyback programs; it is estimated that over this time interval buybacks represented 1.3 trillion dollars that is to say approximately 10 percent of the capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange in 2001 (source: Trimtabs.com cited in WallstreetWishList.com). At the other end of the pipe, new stocks are constantly created for instance through the distribution of stock options, that is to say the right to buy a given amount of stocks at a preset price and date. Currently, the distribution of stock options is limited mainly to employees, but one could imagine stock holders to be rewarded in a similar way. That would have the obvious advantage of giving stock holders a strong incentive for pushing up stock prices. At the present time it is difficult to say whether markets will continue to move in this direction. If they do this would represent a significant watershed with respect to the way stock markets have been operating during the past two centuries. With dividends losing much of their importance, investors would increasingly have to rely on capital gains. In other words, instead of being a cash flow asset like commercial or residential property, stocks would tend to become an asset similar to rare coins, collector stamps or antiquarian books. If it continues such an evolution would significantly change the behavior of stock holders during speculative episodes which was the topic that we investigated in this paper.

Acknowledgement We express our gratitude to Professor Bruce Mizrach for his kind assistance regarding data sets for dividends.

References

 Roehner (B.M.) 2000: Speculative trading: the price multiplier effect. The European Physical Journal B 14, 395-399. Roehner (B.M.) 2001: Hidden collective factors in speculative trading. Springer-Verlag. Berlin (chapter 6).

 Roehner (B.M.) 2003: Patterns of speculation in real estate and stocks. in Proceedings of the Nikkei Workshop in Econophysics (Tokyo, November 2002). Springer-Verlag. Berling. in press.


format: text

text:
# Chapter 1 Pulsar velocities and dark matter hint at a singlet neutrino

## Chapter 1 Pulsar velocities and dark matter hint at a singlet neutrino

### Abstract

Two astrophysical puzzles, the origin of pulsar velocities and that of dark matter, may have a simultaneous explanation if there exists a sterile neutrino with a mass in the 1–20 keV range and a small mixing ($`\mathrm{sin}\theta 10^4`$) with the electron neutrino. Although the mixing is too small for direct detection, future observations of the X-ray telescopes, as well as the gravity waves detectors, such as LIGO and LISA, may be able to confirm or rule out the existence of such a neutrino.

### 1. Introduction

Pulsar velocities range from 100 to 1600 km s-1 . They present a long-standing puzzle. According to numerical simulations of supernova explosions , the asymmetries in the core collapse could not account for a kick velocity of more than 300-600 km s-1. Although the average pulsar velocity is in this range , there is a substantial population of pulsars with velocities in excess of 700 km/s, while as many as 15% of all pulsars have speeds over 1000 km s-1 .

It has been suggested that an asymmetric emission of electroweak-singlet neutrinos from a cooling neutron star could explain the pulsar velocities . Since most of the supernova energy is carried away by neutrinos, only a few per cent asymmetry is sufficient. The range of parameters (mass and mixing angle) consistent with this explanation overlaps with the allowed region for the singlet neutrinos to make up the cosmological dark matter .

Let us consider a singlet (or sterile) neutrino $`\nu _s`$ that has a small mixing with the electron neutrino $`\nu _e`$. The mixing angle $`\theta `$ we will consider is $`10^510^4`$, much smaller than those accessible to laboratory experiments. However, neutrino oscillations could result in a production of such a neutrino in the early universe, as well as in a supernova.

There are actually two possible mechanisms for the pulsar kick due to the sterile neutrinos. One is based on off-resonance production and requires the singlet neutrino to have a mass of a few keV . The other possibility is a resonant $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ conversion, which can occur for the mass of several to 20 keV. Let us briefly discuss both of these possibilities.

### 2. Off-resonance emission.

In a strong magnetic field inside the neutron star, the electroweak (urca) processes produce neutrinos with a sizable asymmetry. However, the asymmetry in production  does not cause an asymmetry in emission  of ordinary, active neutrinos because numerous re-scatterings of the trapped neutrinos wash out the asymmetry . However, if the urca processes produced some other particles, with a very small scattering cross section, these particles could escape from the neutron star with an asymmetry equal to their production asymmetry, hence giving the neutron star a recoil. This is what happens if a sterile neutrino exists and if it has a small mixing with the electron neutrino .

For a sufficiently small mixing angle between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _s`$, only one of the two mass eigenstates, $`\nu _1`$, is trapped. The orthogonal state, $`|\nu _2=\mathrm{cos}\theta _m|\nu _s+\mathrm{sin}\theta _m|\nu _e,`$ escapes from the star freely. This state is produced in the same basic urca reactions ($`p+e^{}\nu _e+n`$ and $`n+e^+\overline{\nu }_e+p`$) with the effective Lagrangian coupling equal the weak coupling times $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _m`$. The region of parameters consistent with the pulsar kick and also with the existing constraints is shown as region “2” in Fig. 1 .

### 3. On-resonance emission

Resonant production of sterile neutrinos can cause the pulsar kick as well, for a somewhat different range of masses and mixings. The position of the resonant conversion $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ depends on the direction of the magnetic field relative to the direction of the neutrino momentum. Therefore, the sterile neutrinos escape from different densities, i.e., from different depths, depending on their direction. Due to the temperature gradient in the star, the average neutrino energy varies with depth, and so the momentum distribution of emitted sterile neutrinos is anisotropic. This mechanism was proposed in Ref.  and was a straightforward generalization of the mechanism proposed earlier  for active neutrinos.*** I note in passing that the pulsar kick mechanism based on neutrino oscillations  was criticized erroneously by Janka and Raffelt , who got an incorrect result by neglecting the differences in the neutrino opacities for different flavors and by assuming that the flux of neutrinos remained constant through the core and the neutrinospheres. The latter assumption is wrong because both the neutrino absorptions  and the $`(1/r^2)`$ effect of the spherical geometry  result in a non-constant flux of the outgoing neutrinos. These two errors of Janka and Raffelt were pointed out by us  and by Barkovich et al. , respectively. (The mechanism using the active neutrinos alone does not work because the required neutrino mass is too large .)

### 4. Prospects for detection

The mixing angles shown in Fig. 1 are too small for direct detection. However, there are ways to confirm or rule out this range of the singlet masses and mixing angles. Sterile neutrinos can decay into a (lighter) active neutrino and a photon. The lifetime of the sterile neutrinos exceeds the age of the universe by many orders of magnitude, but there is, nevertheless, a signal that X-ray telescopes can detect . Chandra observations are sensitive to part of the region shown in Fig. 1, and Constellation-X may be able cover the entire range, or, at least, a larger part of it.

A pulsar being accelerated by an asymmetric emission of neutrinos generates gravity waves . One can think of it as a rotating source of a neutrino jet superimposed on a spherically symmetric distribution of neutrinos and spinning around some axis. This rotating jet produces gravity waves, which may be detected in the event of a nearby supernova .

To summarize, a singlet neutrino could explain both the pulsar kicks and the dark matter simultaneously. Introduction of such a particle is probably the most economical extension of the Standard Model that makes it consistent with dark matter.

This work was supported in part by the DOE Grant DE-FG03-91ER40662 and the NASA grant ATP02-0000-0151.


text:
# 5D gravity and the discrepant G measurements

## 1 Introduction

Although the methods and techniques have been greatly improved since the late nineteenth century, the precision on the measurement of the gravitational constant, G, is still the less accurate in comparison with the other fundamental constants of nature . Moreover, given the relative uncertainties of most of the individual experiments (reaching about $`10^4`$ for the most precise measurements), they show an incompatibility which leads to an overall precision of only about 1 part in $`10^3`$. Thus the current status of the $`G`$ terrestrial measurements (see ) implies either an unknown source of errors (not taken into account in the published uncertainties), or some new physics . In the latter spirit, many theories which include extradimensions have been proposed as candidates for the unification of physics. As such, they involve a coupling between gravitation and electromagnetism (GE coupling), as well as with other gauge fields present.

Here we show that the discrepancy between the present results of the G-measurements may be understood as a consequence of the GE coupling. Also, this theory predicts a variation of the effective fine structure ”constant” $`\alpha `$ with the gravitational field, and thus with the cosmological time (see ).

## 2 Theoretical background

An argument initially from Landau and Lifshitz  may be applied to the pure Kaluza-Klein (KK) action (see ): the negative sign of the kinetic term of the five dimensional (5D) KK internal scalar field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, leads to inescapable instability. The question to know which of the two conformally related frames (Einstein-Pauli frame or Jordan-Fierz frame) is the best remains debated in the literature, each frame having its own advantage. The negative kinetic energy density for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field, and thus the instability, occur in both frames. In the following, we perform calculations in the Jordan-Fierz frame, where, as we show, the discrepant laboratory measurements of G find a natural explanation. Also, it is true that the 5D KK theory may yield a zero kinetic term (and thus a zero kinetic energy density, which would also be unusual in 4D), but this occurs only when the electromagnetic (EM) field is identically zero everywhere. This may be relevant for some cosmological solutions, but not for our discussion. On the contrary, we argue here that the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-field is tightly related to the EM field via the link between the compactified space of the fifth dimension and the U(1) gauge group.

Since stabilization may be obtained if an external field is present, we assume here a version, KK$`\psi `$, which includes an external bulk scalar field minimally coupled to gravity (like the radion in the brane world scenario). After dimensional reduction ($`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$), this bulk field reduces to a four dimensional scalar field $`\psi =\psi (x^\alpha )`$ and, in the Jordan-Fierz frame, the low energy effective action takes the form (up to a total divergence)

$$S=\sqrt{g}[\frac{c^4}{16\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{G}R+\frac{1}{4}\epsilon _0\mathrm{\Phi }^3F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{c^4}{4\pi G}\frac{_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}]d^4x$$

$$+\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Phi }[\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \psi ^\alpha \psi UJ\psi ]d^4x,$$
(1)
where $`A^\alpha `$ is the potential 4-vector of the EM field, $`F_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha A_\beta _\beta A_\alpha `$ the EM field strength tensor, $`U`$ the self-interaction potential of $`\psi `$ of the symmetry breaking type and $`J`$ its source term.

The source term of the $`\psi `$-field, $`J`$, includes the contributions of the ordinary matter, of the EM field and of the internal scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For each, the coupling is defined by a function (temperature dependent, as for the potential $`U`$) $`f_X=f_X(\psi ,\mathrm{\Phi })`$, where the subscript $`X`$ stands for ”matter”, ”EM” and ”$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$”. In addition, the necessity to recover the Einstein-Maxwell equations in the weak fields limit, implies the following conditions: $`U(v)=0`$ and $`f_{EM}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})=f_{matter}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})=0`$, where $`v`$ denotes the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the $`\psi `$-field.

The contributions of matter and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are proportional to the traces of their respective energy-momentum tensors. A contribution of the form $`\epsilon _0f_{EM}F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }`$ accounts for the coupling with the EM field. Besides, though the fit to the data involves $`\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v4\pi G/c^4`$, we may infer that $`\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v`$ is negligibly small at very high temperature (e.g., like in the core of the Sun or at the big bang nucleosynthesis) and even vanishes beyond the critical temperature (say $`T_c=6000`$ K) of the potential $`U=U(\psi ,T)`$ as one gets $`v=0`$ in that case.

Following Lichnerowicz , let us interpret the quantity

$$G_{eff}=\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(2)
of the Einstein-Hilbert term, and the factor $`\epsilon _{0eff}=\epsilon _0[\mathrm{\Phi }^3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}f_{EM}(\psi ,\mathrm{\Phi })]`$ of the Maxwell term respectively as the effective gravitational ”constant” and the effective vacuum dielectric permittivity. The effective vacuum magnetic permeability reads $`\mu _{0eff}=\mu _0[\mathrm{\Phi }^3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}f_{EM}(\psi ,\mathrm{\Phi })]^1`$, so that the velocity of light in vacuum remains a true universal constant. Both terms depend on the local (for local physics) or global (at cosmological scale) value of the KK scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, assumed to be positive defined.

The least action principle applied to the action (1) yields the generalized Einstein-Maxwell equations and the scalar fields equations

$$_\nu ^\nu \psi =J\frac{J}{\psi }\psi \frac{U}{\psi }$$
(3)
and

$$_\nu ^\nu \mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}\epsilon _0F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Phi }^3+U\mathrm{\Phi }+J\psi \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{J}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\psi \frac{1}{2}(_\alpha \psi ^\alpha \psi )\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(4)
## 3 Solutions in presence of a dipolar magnetic field

Let us study the spatial variation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the weak fields conditions out of the fields’ source, but in presence of a static dipolar magnetic field, $`\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{}V(r,\phi ,\theta )`$. We denote $`r`$, $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$ respectively the radius from the centre, the azimuth angle and the colatitude. Thus, writing $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\phi ,\theta )`$, and taking into account that $`\frac{U}{\psi }(v)=0`$ (definition of the VEV), equation (4) simplifies after linearization as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{2}{\mu _0}[\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v+\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}](\stackrel{}{}V)^2.$$
(5)
Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=div\stackrel{}{B}=0`$ and $`(\stackrel{}{}V)^2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }(V^2)V\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ identically, the solution of equation (5) above reads merely

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=1\frac{1}{\mu _0}[\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v+\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}]V^2.$$
(6)
For our purpose, it is sufficient to limit the expansion of the scalar potential, $`V`$, to the terms of the Legendre function of degree one ($`n=1`$) and order one ($`m=1`$). Hence $`V=(a^3/r^2)[g_1^0\mathrm{cos}\theta +g_1^1\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi +h_1^1\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ]`$, where $`g_1^0`$, $`g_1^1`$ and $`h_1^1`$ are the relevant Gauss coefficients, $`a`$ is the Earth’s radius and $`M=\frac{4\pi }{\mu _0}a^3\sqrt{(g_1^0)^2+(g_1^1)^2+(h_1^1)^2}`$ denotes its magnetic moment. Setting $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _1=g_1^1/\sqrt{(g_1^1)^2+(h_1^1)^2}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _1=h_1^1/\sqrt{(g_1^1)^2+(h_1^1)^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\lambda =g_1^0/\sqrt{(g_1^1)^2+(h_1^1)^2}`$, the solution of equation (5) then reads (and similarly for $`\psi `$ by making the substitution $`\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{f_{EM}}{\psi }`$)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=1\frac{1}{\mu _0}\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v(\frac{\mu _0M}{4\pi r^2})^2x(\theta ,\phi ),$$
(7)
where we have set

$$x(\theta ,\phi )=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{cot}^2\lambda \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2(\phi +\phi _1)\mathrm{cot}\lambda \mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{cos}(\phi +\phi _1).$$
(8)
Thence, one derives the expression of $`G_{eff}(r,\theta ,\phi )`$ by inserting the solution (7) above in relation (2).

It is worth noticing that the magnetic potential, $`V`$, scales as $`Br`$, where $`B`$ is the magnitude of the geomagnetic field at radius $`r`$. Indeed, because of this scaling effect, the small spatial variations of the geomagnetic field will influence significantly the laboratory measurements of G whereas the large local magnetic fields present in the laboratory (e. g., the magnetic suspension used to support the balance beam, the magnetic damper, etc…) will not. A rough estimate shows that, even using a 30 Tesla superconducting magnet, one still needs to gain at least one order of magnitude with the most precise G measuring apparatus avalaible yet. Hence, our prediction is consistent with the earlier conclusion of Lloyd .

## 4 Comparison with laboratory measurements

There are presently almost 45 results of G measurements published since 1942 . Because of the too numerous uncontrolled systematic biases, the mine measurements are excluded from the present study (including them will not change our fit because of their lack of precision, typically less than $`1\%`$). Also, the more discordant laboratory measurement (high PTB value ) is excluded, since it may suffer from a systematic effect. The ” official ” values are presently $`G=6.67259\pm 0.0008510^{11}`$ (CODATA 86, ) and $`G=6.670\pm 0.01010^{11}`$ (CODATA 2000, ) in MKS unit. In the following, all the measurements are weighted equally in the fit. Fitting the 44 data with these values gives respectively $`\chi _\nu ^2=11.128`$ and $`\chi _\nu ^2=62.498`$ ($`\chi _\nu ^2=\chi ^2`$ per degrees of freedom). If we forget the official values and try a best fit, assuming an arbitrary constant value of $`G`$, we obtain $`G=6.674110^{11}m^3kg^1s^2`$ with $`\chi _\nu ^2=2.255`$. The fit to the same sample of 44 measurements (figure 1), on account of the GE coupling, yields (in MKS units) with $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.669`$ :

$$\frac{1}{10^{11}G_{eff}}=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.149929}\pm 0.000017)(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.0001509}\pm 0.0000252)x(L,l).$$
(9)
From the above fit, one derives both estimates of the true gravitational constant

$$G=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.6696}\pm 0.0008)10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2,$$
(10)
and the coupling parameter

$$\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.44}\pm 0.66)10^6fmTeV^1.$$
(11)
The latter quantity, expressed in the canonical form $`\frac{f_{EM}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})v=\mathrm{}cM_5^2`$, yields a 5D Planck scale $`M_55.9`$ TeV of the order of the value that is invoked in the literature to solve the hierarchy problem.

| *Location \[reference\]* | *Latitude ()* | *Longitude ()* | *Glab ($`10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2`$)* |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Lower Hutt (MSL)  | -41.2 | 174.9 | 6.6742 $`\pm `$ 0.0007 |
|  |  |  | 6.6746 $`\pm `$ 0.0010 |
| Wuhan (HUST)  | 30.6 | 106.88 | 6.6699 $`\pm `$ 0.0007 |
| Los Alamos  | 35.88 | -106.38 | 6.6740 $`\pm `$ 0.0007 |
| Gaithersburg (NBS)  | 38.9 | -77.02 | 6.6726 $`\pm `$ 0.0005 |
|  |  |  | 6.6720 $`\pm `$ 0.0041 |
| Boulder (JILA)  | 40 | -105.27 | 6.6873 $`\pm `$ 0.0094 |
| Gigerwald lake  | 46.917 | 9.4 | 6.669 $`\pm `$ 0.005 (at 112 m) |
|  |  |  | 6.678 $`\pm `$ 0.007 (at 88 m) |
|  |  |  | 6.6700 $`\pm `$ 0.0054 |
| Zurich  | 47.4 | 8.53 | 6.6754 $`\pm `$ 0.0005 $`\pm `$ 0.0015 |
|  |  |  | 6.6749 $`\pm `$ 0.0014 |
| Budapest  | 47.5 | 19.07 | 6.670 $`\pm `$ 0.008 |
| Seattle  | 47.63 | \- 122.33 | 6.674215 $`\pm `$ 0.000092 |
| Sevres (BIPM)  | 48.8 | 2.13 | 6.67559 $`\pm `$ 0.00027 |
|  |  |  | 6.683 $`\pm `$ 0.011 |
| Fribourg  | 46.8 | 7.15 | 6.6704 $`\pm `$ 0.0048 (Oct. 84) |
|  |  |  | 6.6735 $`\pm `$ 0.0068 (Nov. 84) |
|  |  |  | 6.6740 $`\pm `$ 0.0053 (Dec. 84) |
|  |  |  | 6.6722 $`\pm `$ 0.0051 (Feb. 85) |
| Magny-les-Hameaux  | 49 | 2 | 6.673 $`\pm `$ 0.003 |
| Wuppertal  | 51.27 | 7.15 | 6.6735 $`\pm `$ 0.0011 $`\pm `$ 0.0026 |
| Braunschweig (PTB)  | 52.28 | 10.53 | 6.71540 $`\pm `$ 0.00056 |
|  |  |  | 6.667 $`\pm `$ 0.005 |
| Moscow  | 55.1 | 38.85 | 6.6729 $`\pm `$ 0.0005 |
|  |  |  | 6.6745 $`\pm `$ 0.0008 |
| Dye 3, Greenland  | 65.19 | -43.82 | 6.6726 $`\pm `$ 0.0027 |
| Lake Brasimone  | 43.75 | 11.58 | 6.688 $`\pm `$ 0.011 |

Table 1 : Results of the most precise laboratory measurements of G published during the last sixty years and location of the laboratories.

| Sample | H0 | H1 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| S1 |  |  |
| 17 points | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 3.607 (best fit) |  |
|  | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 21.523 (mean of CODATA 86) | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 1.327 |
| (Fig.1) | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 141.46 (mean of CODATA 2000) |  |
| Whole | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 2.255 (best fit) |  |
|  \-  | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 11.128 (mean of CODATA 86) |  |
| 44 points | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 62.498 (mean of CODATA 2000) | $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ = 1.669 |
| (Fig.2) |  |  |

Table 2 : Reduced $`\chi ^2`$ for the two different hypothesis H0 (Hypothesis of a constant $`G`$) and H1 (Hypothesis of an effective G), and different samples S1 and whole (except the high PTB value , see text).

Considering the whole sample, we check the relevance of our result under H1 compared to the best value of $`G`$ under H0, by applying the F test (Fisher law). This yields $`F_\chi =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2}{\chi _\nu ^2}=16.09`$, which indicates that, independently of the number of parameters (two instead of one), our fit is better with a significance level greater than $`99.9\%`$ . Let us emphasize that the most precise value of G today  contributes to $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ to less than $`0.0006`$ in the above fit. Likewise, the last published value of G  would contribute to less than $`0.02`$. This suggests that the agreement may be better than purely indicated by the $`\chi ^2`$ values. Moreover, if one substitutes $`G=(6.6731\pm 0.0002)10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2`$  announced by the MSL team in June 2002 (CPEM, Ottawa, Canada) for the prior $`G=(6.6742\pm 0.0007)10^{11}m^3kg^1s^2`$ published in 1999 , one would obtain with the sample S1 :

H0 : $`\chi _\nu ^2=5.168`$

H1 : $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.162`$

and with the whole sample of 44 measurements :

H0 : $`\chi _\nu ^2=2.836`$

H1 : $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.488`$

## 5 Discussion and Conclusion

It is worth noticing that the scalar fields under considerations identify neither to the dilaton nor to the inflaton of higher dimensional theories, without further assumptions. In particular, the computation of both scalar fields, as given by equations (3) and (4), involves only (see the right hand sides) quantities related to fields sources, and not to the test bodies. Hence, the effective $`G_{eff}`$ given by relation (2) does not depend on the composition of the test bodies. Besides, let us emphasize that the equation of motion of a neutral point-like particle in the genuine KK theory reduces to the 4D geodesic equation after dimensional reduction , although the KK scalar field is coupled to the Maxwell invariant $`F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }`$. In a forthcoming paper , we address the effect of the varying effective coupling constants on the masses of composit particles. On account of the Higgs mechanism of quarks and leptons masses generation, by promoting the Yukawa coupling constants to effective parameters (on an equal footing with $`G`$ or $`\alpha `$) that depend on both scalar fields $`\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we prove that the KK$`\psi `$ model is actually consistent with the current experimental bounds on the violation of the equivalence principle. Hence, we conclude that present laboratory experiments may not measure a true constant of gravitation. Instead, in addition to all other possible biases (e. g., anelasticity in the wire of torsion pendulum as pointed out by Kuroda , and which since has been generically taken into account in the experiments), they may be pointing out an effective one depending on the geomagnetic field at the laboratory position.