text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been some theoretical activity  111See also  for other works. analyzing the compatibility of regions in the parameter space of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with the sensitivity of current dark matter detectors, DAMA  and CDMS . These detectors are sensitive to a neutralino-nucleon cross section222Let us recall that the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is the natural candidate for dark matter in supersymmetric theories with conserved R parity, since it is usually the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) and therefore stable .  $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ in the range of $`10^6`$$`10^5`$ pb. Working in the supergravity framework for the MSSM with universal soft terms, it was pointed out in  that the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime allows regions where the above mentioned range of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ is reached. Besides, working with non-universal soft scalar masses, they also found $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}10^6`$ pb for small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In particular, this was obtained for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >25`$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta >4`$) working with universal (non-universal) soft terms in . The case of non-universal gaugino masses was also analyzed in  with interesting results.

The above analyses were performed assuming universality (and non-universality) of the soft breaking terms at the unification scale, $`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV, as it is usually done in the MSSM literature. Such a scale can be obtained in a natural manner within superstring theories. This is e.g. the case of type I superstring theory  and heterotic M-theory . However, recently, going away from perturbative vacua, it was realized that the string scale may be anywhere between the weak scale and the Planck scale. For instance D-brane configurations where the standard model lives, allow these possibilities in type I strings . Similar results can also be obtained in type II strings  and weakly and strongly coupled heterotic strings . Hence, it is natural to wonder how much the standard neutralino-nucleon cross section analysis will get modified by taking a scale $`M_I`$ smaller than $`M_{GUT}`$ for the initial scale of the soft terms 333This question was recently pointed out in  for a different type of analysis. In particular the authors studied low-energy implications, like sparticle spectra and charge and colour breaking constraints, of a string theory with a scale of order $`10^{11}`$ GeV. Similar phenomenological analyses were carried out in the past  for $`M_{Planck}`$ rather than $`M_{GUT}`$..

The content of the article is as follows. In Section 2 we will briefly review several scenarios suggested by superstring theory where the initial scale for the running of the soft terms is $`M_I`$ instead of $`M_{GUT}`$. In particular, we will see that $`M_I10^{1014}`$ GeV is an attractive possibility. The issue of gauge coupling unification, which is important for our calculation, will also be discussed. Then, in Section 3, we will study in detail the stability of the neutralino-nucleon cross section with respect to variations of $`M_I`$. For the sake of generality, we will allow $`M_I`$ to vary between $`10^{16}`$ GeV, which corresponds to $`M_{GUT}`$, and $`10^{10}`$ GeV. Of course the results will be valid not only for low-scale string scenarios but also for any scenario with an unification scale smaller than $`M_{GUT}`$. Let us finally remark that the analysis will be carried out for the case of universal soft terms. This is the most simple situation in the framework of the MSSM and can be obtained e.g. in superstring models with dilaton-dominated supersymmetry breaking  or in weakly and strongly coupled heterotic models with one Kähler modulus . Finally, the conclusions are left for Section 4.

## 2 Initial scales

As mentioned in the Introduction, it was recently realized that the string scale is not necessarily close to the Planck scale but can be as low as the electroweak scale. In this context, two scenarios are specially attractive in order to attack the hierarchy problem of unified theories: a non-supersymmetric scenario with the string scale of order a few TeV , and a supersymmetric scenario with the string scale of order $`10^{1012}`$ GeV . Since we are interested in the analysis of supersymmetric dark matter, we will concentrate on the latter.

In supergravity models supersymmetry can be spontaneously broken in a hidden sector of the theory and the gravitino mass, which sets the overall scale of the soft terms, is given by:

$`m_{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{M_{Planck}}},`$ (1)
where $`F`$ is the auxiliary field whose vacuum expectation value breaks supersymmetry. Since in supergravity one would expect $`FM_{Planck}^2`$, one obtains $`m_{3/2}M_{Planck}`$ and therefore the hierarchy problem solved in principle by supersymmetry would be re-introduced, unless non-perturbative effects such as gaugino condensation produce $`FM_WM_{Planck}`$. However, if the scale of the fundamental theory is $`M_I10^{1012}`$ GeV instead of $`M_{Planck}`$, then $`FM_I^2`$ and one gets $`m_{3/2}M_W`$ in a natural way, without invoking any hierarchically suppressed non-perturbative effect .

For example, embedding the standard model inside D3-branes in type I strings,the string scale is given by:

$`M_I^4={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha M_{Planck}}{\sqrt{2}}}M_c^3,`$ (2)
where $`\alpha `$ is the gauge coupling and $`M_c`$ is the compactification scale. Thus one gets $`M_I10^{1012}`$ GeV with $`M_c10^{810}`$ GeV.

There are other arguments in favour of scenarios with initial scales $`M_I`$ smaller than $`M_{GUT}`$. For example in  scales $`M_I10^{1014}`$ GeV were suggested to explain many experimental observations as neutrino masses or the scale for axion physics. These scales might also explain the observed ultra-high energy ($`10^{20}`$ eV) cosmic rays as products of long-lived massive string mode decays. Besides, several models of chaotic inflation favour also these initial scales .

Inspired by these scenarios we will allow the initial scale $`M_I`$ for the running of the soft terms to vary between $`10^{16}`$ GeV and $`10^{10}`$ GeV, when computing the neutralino-nucleon cross section below. As we will see, the values of the gauge coupling constants at those scales will be crucial in the computation. This head us for a brief discussion of gauge coupling unification in models with low initial scale:

(a) Non universality of gauge couplings

An interesting proposal in the context of type I string models was studied in : if the standard model comes from the same collection of D-branes, stringy corrections might change the boundary conditions at the string scale $`M_I`$ to mimic the effect of field theoretical logarithmic running. Thus the gauge couplings will be non universal and their values will depend on the initial scale $`M_I`$ chosen. This is schematically shown in Fig. 1a for the scale $`M_I=10^{11}`$ GeV, where $`g_30.8`$, $`g_20.6`$ and $`g_10.5`$. Clearly, another possibility giving rise to a similar result might arise when the gauge groups came from different types of D-branes. Since different D-branes have associated different couplings, this would imply the non universality of the gauge couplings.

(b) Universality of gauge couplings

On the other hand, if gauge coupling unification at $`M_I`$, $`\alpha _i=\alpha `$, is what we want to obtain, then the addition of extra fields in the massless spectrum can achieve this task . An example of additional particles which can produce the beta functions, $`b_3=3`$, $`b_2=3`$, $`b_1=19`$, yielding unification at around $`M_I=10^{11}`$ GeV was given in

$`2\times [(1,2,1/2)+(1,2,1/2)]+3\times [(1,1,1)+(1,1,1)],`$ (3)
where the fields transform under $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. In this example one obtains $`g(M_I)0.8`$. This is schematically shown in Fig. 1b.

As a matter of fact, once the Pandora’s box containing extra matter fields is open, other possibilities arise. Note that the example above does not contain extra triplets, and therefore $`\alpha _3`$ runs as in the MSSM

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _3(Q)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _3(M_{susy})}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_3}{2\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{M_{susy}}},`$ (4)
where $`b_3=3`$ and $`M_{susy}`$ indicates the supersymmetric threshold. However, introducing $`n_3`$ extra triplets, $`b_3=3+\frac{1}{2}n_3`$ will increase and therefore $`\alpha _3`$ will also increase. Likewise, extra doublets and/or singlets will allow to increase the value of $`\alpha _2`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ as in the example above and therefore we will be able to obtain unification at $`M_I`$, but for bigger values of $`\alpha _i=\alpha `$. For example, the additional particles

$`3\times [(3,1,2/3)+(\overline{3},1,2/3)]+6\times [(1,2,1/2)+(1,2,1/2)],`$ (5)
produce $`b_3=0`$, $`b_2=7`$, $`b_1=27`$, yielding unification again at around $`M_I=10^{11}`$ GeV but for $`g(M_I)1.3`$.

We will see in the next section that due to the different values of the gauge couplings at $`M_I`$, scenarios (a) and (b) give rise to qualitatively different results for cross sections.

## 3 Neutralino-nucleon cross sections versus initial scales

In this section we will consider the whole parameter space of the MSSM with the only assumption of universality. In particular, the requirement of correct electroweak breaking leave us with four independent parameters (modulo the sign of the Higgs mixing parameter $`\mu `$ which appears in the superpotential $`W=\mu H_1H_2`$). These may be chosen as follows: $`m`$, $`M`$, $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, i.e. the scalar and gaugino masses, the coefficient of the trilinear terms, and the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values $`\frac{<H_2>}{<H_1>}`$.

On the other hand, we will work with the usual formulas for the elastic scattering of relic LSPs on protons and neutrons that can be found in the literature . In particular, we will follow the re-evaluation of the rates carried out in , using their central values for the hadronic matrix elements.

As mentioned in the introduction, the initial boundary conditions for the running MSSM soft terms are usually understood at a scale $`M_{GUT}`$. Smaller initial scales, as for example $`M_I10^{11}`$ GeV, will imply larger neutralino-nucleon cross sections. Although we will enter in more details later on, basically this can be understood from the variation in the value of $`\mu ^2`$ with $`M_I`$, since the cross sections are very sensitive to this value.

Let us discuss then first the variation of $`\mu ^2`$ with $`M_I`$. Recalling that this value is determined by the electroweak breaking conditions as

$`\mu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{H_1}^2m_{H_2}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_Z^2,`$ (6)
we observe that, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ fixed, the smaller the initial scale for the running is, the smaller the numerator in the first piece of (6) becomes. To understand this qualitatively, let us consider e.g. the evolution of $`m_{H_1}^2`$ (neglecting for simplicity the bottom and tau Yukawa couplings)

$`m_{H_1}^2(t)=m^2+M^2G(t),`$ (7)
where $`t=\mathrm{ln}(M_I^2/Q^2)`$,

$`G(t)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}f_2(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_1(t),`$ (8)
and the functions $`f_i(t)`$ are given by:

$`f_i(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_i}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{\alpha _i(0)}{4\pi }b_it\right)^2}}\right).`$ (9)
For $`M_I=M_{GUT}`$ we recover the usual case of the MSSM: $`t61`$ for $`Q1`$ TeV. However, for $`M_I`$ smaller than $`M_{GUT}`$, the value of $`t`$ will decrease and therefore $`f_i(t)`$ will also decrease, producing a smaller value of $`G(t)`$. As a consequence $`m_{H_1}^2`$ at $`Q1`$ TeV will also be smaller. For $`m_{H_2}^2(t)`$ the argument is similar: the smaller the initial scale for the running is, the less important the negative contribution $`m_{H_2}^2`$ to $`\mu ^2`$ in (6) becomes.

In fact, when the initial scale is decreased, it is worth noticing that the values of the gauge couplings are modified. Therefore, this effect will also contribute to modify the soft Higgs mass-squared (see e.g. (9)). Let us consider first the case (a) with non-universal gauge couplings at $`M_I`$ discussed in the previous section (see also Fig. 1a), where $`\alpha _2(M_I)`$ and $`\alpha _1(M_I)`$ are smaller than $`\alpha (M_{GUT})`$. For instance, for $`m_{H_1}^2`$ this has obvious implications: $`f_i(t)`$ decrease for $`M_I`$ smaller than $`M_{GUT}`$, not only because $`t`$ decreases but also because $`\alpha _i(0)`$ are smaller.

The above conclusions have important consequences for cross sections. As is well known, when $`|\mu |`$ decreases the Higgsino components, $`N_{13}`$ and $`N_{14}`$, of the lightest neutralino

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0=N_{11}\stackrel{~}{B}^0+N_{12}\stackrel{~}{W}^0+N_{13}\stackrel{~}{H}_1^0+N_{14}\stackrel{~}{H}_2^0`$ (10)
increase and therefore the spin independent cross section also increases. We show both facts in Figs. 2 and 3.

These figures correspond to $`\mu <0`$. Opposite values of $`\mu `$ imply smaller cross sections and, moreover, well known experimental constraints as those coming from the $`bs\gamma `$ process highly reduce the $`\mu >0`$ parameter space. The other parameters are chosen as follows. For a given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and neutralino mass, the common gaugino mass $`M`$ is essentially fixed. For the common scalar mass $`m`$ we have taken $`m=150`$ GeV. Finally, for the common coefficient of the trilinear terms $`A`$ we have taken $`A=M`$. This relation is particularly interesting since it arises naturally in several string models . In any case we have checked that the cross sections and our main conclusions are not very sensitive to the specific values of $`A`$ and $`m`$ in a wide range. In particular this is so for $`A/M<5`$ and444Let us remark however that for $`m`$ in the range $`50100`$ GeV the neutralino is not the LSP in the whole parameter space. In some regions the stau is the LSP. 50 GeV $`<m<250`$ GeV.

We have checked that our results are consistent with present bounds coming from accelerators and astrophysics. The former are LEP and Tevatron bounds on supersymmetric masses and CLEO $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio measurements. The latter are relic neutralino density bounds and will be discussed in some detail later on.

In Fig. 2, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, we exhibit the gaugino-Higgsino components-squared $`N_{1i}^2`$ of the LSP as a function of its mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ for two different values of the initial scale, $`M_I=10^{16}`$ GeV $`M_{GUT}`$ and $`M_I=10^{11}`$ GeV. Clearly, the smaller the scale is, the larger the Higgsino components become. In particular, for $`M_I=10^{16}`$ GeV the LSP is mainly Bino since $`N_{11}`$ is extremely large. The scattering channels through Higgs exchange are suppressed (recall that the Higgs-neutralino-neutralino couplings are proportional to $`N_{13}`$ and $`N_{14}`$) and therefore the cross sections are small as we will see explicitly below. As a matter of fact, the scattering channels through squark exchange are also suppressed by the mass of the first-family squarks. Indeed in this limit the cross section can be approximated as

$`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}{\displaystyle \frac{m_r^2}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2}}\right)^2|N_{11}|^4,`$ (11)
where $`m_r`$ is the reduced mass and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, $`\theta `$ are the mass and the mixing angle of the first-family squarks respectively. However for $`M_I=10^{11}`$ GeV the Higgsino contributions $`N_{13}`$ and $`N_{14}`$ become important and even dominant for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}<130`$ GeV (e.g. with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ this is obtained for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}<65`$ GeV). Following the above arguments this will imply larger cross sections. Indeed scattering channels through Higgs exchange are now important and their contributions to cross sections can be schematically approximated as

$`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}{\displaystyle \frac{m_r^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _q^2}{m_h^4}}|N_{1i}\left(g^{}N_{11}g_2N_{12}\right)|^2,`$ (12)
where $`i=3,4`$, $`\lambda _q`$ are the quark Yukawa couplings and $`m_h`$ represent the Higgs masses. It is also worth noticing that, for any fixed value of $`M_I`$, the larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is, the larger the Higgsino contributions become. The reason being that the top(bottom) Yukawa coupling decreases(increases) since it is proportional to $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\beta }`$($`\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }`$). This implies that the negative(positive) contribution $`m_{H_2}^2`$($`m_{H_1}^2`$) to $`\mu ^2`$ is less important. The discussion of the cases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$ is more subtle and will be carried out below.

The consequence of these results on the cross section is shown in Fig. 3, where the cross section as a function of the LSP mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is plotted for five different values of the initial scale $`M_I`$. For instance, when $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=100`$ GeV, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ for $`M_I=10^{11}`$ GeV is two orders of magnitude larger than for $`M_{GUT}`$. In particular, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, one finds $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}<10^6`$ pb if the initial scale is $`M_I=10^{16}`$ GeV. However $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}>10^6`$ GeV is possible if $`M_I`$ decreases. For $`M_I<10^{12}`$ GeV, taking into account the experimental lower bound on the lightest chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=90`$, the range 70 GeV $`<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}<`$ 100 GeV is even consistent with the DAMA limits. As discussed above, the larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is, the larger the Higgsino contributions become, and therefore the cross section increases. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ we see in Fig. 3 that the range 60 GeV $`<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}<`$ 130 GeV is now consistent with DAMA limits. This corresponds to $`M_I<10^{14}`$ GeV.

Finally, we show in Fig. 3 the case $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$. Then the above range increases 50 GeV $`<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}<`$ 170 GeV, corresponding now to $`M_I<10^{16}`$ GeV. It is worth noticing here that the value of $`\mu ^2`$ is very stable with respect to variations of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ when this is large ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$). This is due to the fact that $`\mu ^2m_{H_2}^2\frac{1}{2}M_Z^2`$ (see (6)). Since $`\mathrm{sin}\beta 1`$, the top Yukawa coupling is stable and therefore the same conclusion is obtained for $`m_{H_2}^2`$ and $`\mu ^2`$. Thus, for a given $`M_I`$, the reason for the cross section to increase when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases cannot be now the increment of the Higgsino components of the LSP. Nevertheless there is a second effect in the cross section which is now the dominant one: the contribution of the down-type quark Yukawa couplings (see (12)) which are proportional to $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }`$.

In Fig. 4 we plot the neutralino-proton cross section as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Whereas large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are needed in the case $`M_I=M_{GUT}`$ to obtain cross sections in the relevant region of DAMA experiment, the opposite situation occurs in the case $`M_I=10^{11}`$ GeV since smaller values are favoured.

Let us consider now the case (b) with gauge coupling unification at $`M_I`$ discussed in Section 2 (see also Fig. 1b). The result for the cross section as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is plotted in Fig. 5 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$. Clearly, the cross section increases when $`M_I`$ decreases. However, this increment is less important than in the previous case. The reason being that now $`\alpha _2(M_I)`$ and $`\alpha _1(M_I)`$ are bigger than $`\alpha (M_{GUT})`$ instead of smaller. For example this counteracts the increment of $`f_i(t)`$ in (9) due to the smaller value of $`t`$ when $`M_I`$ is smaller. Due to this effect, only with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >20`$ we obtain regions consistent with DAMA limits.

The results for the case with extra triplets (see e.g. (5)) are worst since the gauge coupling at the unification point $`M_I`$ is bigger than above. The value of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ at $`M_I`$ may be even smaller than its usual value at $`M_{GUT}`$.

Before concluding let us discuss briefly the effect of relic neutralino density bounds on cross sections. The most robust evidence for the existence of dark matter comes from relatively small scales. Lower limits inferred from the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies  are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{halo}>10\mathrm{\Omega }_{vis}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{halo}h^2>0.010.05`$, where $`h`$ is the reduced Hubble constant. On the opposite side, observations at large scales, $`(620)h^1`$ Mpc, have provided estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^20.10.6`$ , but values as low as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^20.02`$ have also been quoted . Taking up-to-date limits on $`h`$, the baryon density from nucleosynthesis and overall matter-balance analysis one is able to obtain a favoured range, $`0.01<\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2<0.3`$ (at $`2\sigma `$ CL) . Note that conservative lower limits in the small and large scales are of the same order of magnitude.

In this work, the expected neutralino cosmological relic density has been computed according to well known techniques (see ). In principle, from its general behaviour $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^21/\sigma _{ann}`$, where $`\sigma _{ann}`$ is the cross section for annihilation of neutralinos, it is expected that such high neutralino-proton cross sections as those presented above will then correspond to relatively low relic neutralino densities. However, our results show that for some of the largest cross-sections, with e.g. $`M_I10^{1211}`$ GeV, the value of the relic density is still inside the conservative ranges we considered above. As a function of the intermediate scale our results show a steady increase in the value of the relic density when we move from $`M_I10^{11}`$ GeV down to $`M_I10^{16}`$ GeV. In this respect, the main conclusion to be drawn from our results is that it should be always feasible, for large areas of supersymmetric parameters, to find an “intermediate” initial scale $`M_I`$ which represents a compromise between a high neutralino cross section and an adequate relic neutralino density.

We expect that neutralino coannhilitations555The computation of the relic density carried out here, following , contains only a partial treatment of neutralino coannhilation channels. do not play an important role here since the mass differences among the LSP and the NLSP are not too small in general. For example, for the relative mass difference among the two lightest neutralinos, we have found $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}>0.2`$ in most of the interesting regions, being typically much higher.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have analyzed the relevant implications for dark matter analyses of the possible existence of an initial scale $`M_I`$ smaller than $`M_{GUT}`$ to implement the boundary conditions.

We have noted that the neutralino-nucleon cross section in the MSSM is quite sensitive to the value of the initial scale for the running of the soft breaking terms. The smaller the scale is, the larger the cross section becomes. In particular, by taking $`M_I10^{1012}`$ GeV rather than $`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV for the initial scale, which is a more sensible choice e.g. in the context of some superstring models, we find that the cross section increases substantially being compatible with the sensitivity of current dark matter experiments $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}10^6`$$`10^5`$ pb, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >3`$. For larger values of the initial scale, as e.g. $`M_I=10^{14}`$ GeV, the compatibility is obtained for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$. Let us remark that these results have been obtained assuming non-universal gauge couplings at $`M_I`$, as discussed in Section 2. They should be compared with those of the MSSM with initial scale $`M_{GUT}`$, where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >20`$ is needed.

We have also discussed the corresponding relic neutralino densities and checked that they are of the right order of magnitude in large areas of the parameter space for the neutralino being a CDM candidate.

The above computations have been carried out for the case of universal soft terms. This is not only the most simple possibility in the framework of the MSSM, but also is allowed in the context of superstring models. This is e.g. the case of the dilaton-dominated supersymmetry breaking scenarios or weakly and strongly coupled heterotic models with one Kähler modulus. In this sense the analysis of neutralino-nucleon cross sections of those models is included in our computation.

Obviously, non universality of the soft terms will introduce more flexibility in the computation, in particular in the value of $`\mu ^2`$, in order to obtain regions in the parameter space giving rise to cross sections compatible with the sensitivity of current detectors.

Acknowledgments

We thank P. Belli for interesting discussions about DAMA experiment. We also thank G. Jungman for providing us with the relic-density code based on .

E. Gabrielli acknowledges the financial support of the TMR network project “Physics beyond the standard model”, FMRX-CT96-0090. S. Khalil acknowledges the financial support of a Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Cultura research grant. The work of C. Muñoz has been supported in part by the CICYT, under contract AEN97-1678-E, and the European Union, under contract ERBFMRX CT96 0090. The work of E. Torrente-Lujan was supported by a DGICYT grant AEN97-1678-E.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT AND QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS

AFSAR ABBAS Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar-751005, India

(e-mail : afsar@iopb.res.in)

Abstract

Non-locality or entanglement is an experimentally well established property of quantum mechanics. Here we study the role of quantum entanglement for higher symmetry group like $`SU(3_c)`$, the gauge group of quantum chromodynamics ( QCD ). We show that the hitherto unexplained property of confinement in QCD arises as a fundamental feature of quantum entanglement in $`SU(3_c)`$.

Quantum entanglement, leading to non-locality, is an experimentally well tested aspect of quantum mechanics . Starting with two particles, now four particle entanglement has been demonstrated . Non-local quantum entanglement forms the basis of the concept of quantum information thereby enabling such phenomena as quantum cryptography , dense coding , teleportation  and quantum computation .

The experimental demonstration of quantum entanglement involves polarization states of the photons, spin of the electrons and atoms etc. Hence objects within $`U(1)_{em}`$ and representations of the spin SU(2) group are involved. This entanglement necessarily implies non-locality. Here we would like to study the property of quantum entanglement for representations of higher group, in particular the group SU(3). Note that the group $`SU(3_c)`$ ( here the subscript c is placed to indicate color degree of freedom ) forms the basis of the theory of strong interaction, the Quantum Chromodynamics, While the electrons and photons are immune to QCD, atoms for whom the quantum entanglement and non-locality has also been demonstrated, are composite systems - consisting of electrons and a nucleus. A nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons whose structure and properties are determined by the rules of QCD. An understanding of non-locality in the quantum atomic systems would involve an understanding of quantum entanglement in QCD. In fact viewed in this manner, it becomes a puzzle as to why quantum non-locality of elementary systems like the electron and the photon is the same as in the composite systems like the atoms. How does the quantum entanglement function in the QCD case to make the above possible? One should also not forget that after all the protons and the neutrons are themselves composite systems of quarks and gluons which in turn are governed by QCD. Hence this understanding may have implications for quantum measurements, quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation and quantum computation.

As a theory of strong interaction QCD is well established both theoretically and experimentally. This is well documented in literature. ( eg. see ref.  ). Herein, the protons and neutrons are made up of three constituent quarks and the mesons are made up of a quark-antiquark pair. Note that the quarks belong to the fundamental representation 3 of $`SU(3_c)`$, the gauge group of QCD. In the colour space

$$333=18810$$
(1)
$$3\overline{3}=18$$
(2)
The above coupled with the fact that single coloured quark or any other coloured object like a gluon have not been found in nature, has led to the hypothesis that colour is permanently confined and that colour singlet objects are only found in nature. This so called colour singlet confinement hypothesis is well tested experimentally. Right from the early days of QCD there have been intense efforts to prove the confinement hypothesis in QCD. There been intriguing hints of confinement in some interpretations, however as of now there has been no definitive proof of confinement in QCD. It is widely expected that confinement arises due to some non-perturbative property of QCD. But, as to what it is, nobody knows. Hence the problem of confinement is still an open one in QCD.

When three quarks or a quark-antiquark come together only colour singlet representations are observed. Hence in the canonical picture it is proposed that in the colour space while the singlet has a finite mass, the octet, decuptet ( and all other higher representations arising in multiquark systems ) are infinitely heavy and hence do not contribute to the low energy spectrum. Also the triplet representation ie. the free quark becomes infinitely heavy when free. Hence the singlets have finite mass and the coloured masses are infinitely heavy . Thus it has been a long standing puzzle as to how infinitely heavy free objects can come together in a size of 1 fm to give finite mass bound states.

To appreciate the point further, let us go to the hidden colour concept in the multiquark system. When a neutron and a proton come together to form a bound state of deuteron of approximate size of 2 fm, then at the centre in a region less than a fm or so they should overlap to appear like a six quark bag. As per the colour singlet hypothesis the 6-quark bag looks like,

$$|6q>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}|1>|1>+\frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}|8>|8>$$
(3)
where $`|1>`$ represents a 3-quark cluster which is singlet in colour space and $`|8>`$ represents the same as octet in colour space. Hence $`|8>|8>`$ is overall colour singlet. This part is called the hidden colour because as per confinement ideas of QCD these octets cannot be separated out asymptotically and so manifest themselves only within the 6-q colour-singlet system . Group theoretically the author had earlier obtained the hidden colour components in 9- and 12-quark systems . The author found that the hidden colour component of the 9-q system is $`97.6\%`$ while the 12-q system is $`99.8\%`$ ie. practically all coloured. These 9- and 12-quark configurations have been found to be relevant in nuclear physics for the A=3,4 nuclei $`{}_{}{}^{3}H`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$.

Now the problem is that three infinitely heavy quarks come together to form a finite mass colour singlet object while at the same time forming infinite mass octet and decuptet states. When two such colour singlet objects as in eq. 3 come together both the individual singlet as well as octet parts contribute. How come 6-q singlet arises due to two finite mass colour singlets and two infinite mass colour octet objects, both of which contribute similar amounts to the total mass of the 6-q system? Similar problems persist for the 9-q and the 12-q systems .

Note that what we are doing here is identical to the configuration mixing problem in quantum mechanics - in particular nuclear physics. To determine various properties in nuclear physics one finds that one has to mix several states with a particular quantum number to obtain agreement with the experiments. The configurations which mix to give a particular state are all degenerate or very close in energy. It is always found that configurations which are separated by large energy gaps do not contribute significantly to to a particular state. In principle one has an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, however only a finite number of configurations are known to mix to give a state of good quantum number which is physically relevant. Hence in quantum mechanics if any configurations are infinite apart in energy then they are infinitely suppressed in the mixed final state. Therefore it is a puzzle here is as to how the two 3-q states configurations the singlet and the octet, which are infinite energy apart in energy manage to mix in the 6-q system. However this is precisely what confinement means for the 6-q system. Now looking back at eqns 1 and 2 we notice that for confinement in the case of baryons and mesons the same problem of configuration mixing arises. So how does this come about? Thus the confinement problem should be viewed as a fundamental outstanding problem in quantum mechanics.

As shown above, for the ground state hadrons at temperature T=0, the singlet states have finite energies and the coloured states 3, 8, 10, 27 etc are all expelled to infinite energies. So far there has been no clue as to why it is so in QCD, though there have been several model calculations indicating this feature . Let us now leave the T=0 region and proceed to some finite temperature region and study the problem there. Though it has never been explicitly demonstrated even in a toy model calculation, there is a common feeling that at finite temperatures too the same infinite separation between the singlet and the coloured objects would persist.

Recently we have looked at this specific problem . We looked at the role of higher representations like 8-plet, 27-plet etc. for large hadronic systems like quark stars and objects created in high energy heavy ion collisions.

The orthogonality relation for the associated characters $`\chi _{(p,q)}`$ of the (p,q) multiplet of the group $`SU(3)_c`$ with the measure function $`\zeta (\varphi ,\psi )`$ is

$$_{SU_C(3)}𝑑\varphi 𝑑\psi \zeta (\varphi ,\psi )\chi _{(p,q)}^{}(\varphi ,\psi )\chi _{(p^{},q^{})}(\varphi ,\psi )=\delta _{pp^{}}\delta _{qq^{}}$$
(4)
Let us now introduce the generating function $`Z^G`$ as

$$Z^G(T,V,\varphi ,\psi )=\underset{p,q}{}\frac{Z_{(p,q)}}{d(p,q)}\chi _{(p,q)}(\varphi ,\psi )$$
(5)
with

$$Z_{(p,q)}=tr_{(p,q)}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \widehat{H}_0\right)\right]$$
(6)
$`Z_{(p,q)}`$ is the canonical partition function. The many-particle-states which belong to a given multiplet (p,q) are used in the statistical trace with the free hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0`$, d(p,q) is its dimensionality and $`\beta `$ is the inverse of the temperature T. The projected partition function $`Z_{(p,q)}`$ can be obtained by using the orthogonality relation for the characters. Hence the projected partition function for any representation (p,q) is

$$Z_{(p,q)}=d(p,q)_{SU(3)_c}𝑑\varphi 𝑑\psi \zeta (\varphi ,\psi )\chi _{(p,q)}^{}(\varphi ,\psi )Z^G(T,V,\varphi ,\psi )$$
(7)
Once we have the partition function for any representation $`Z_{(p,q)}`$, then any thermodynamical quantity of interest can be calculated. For example the energy

$$E_{(p,q)}=T^2\frac{}{T}\mathrm{ln}Z_{(p,q)}.$$
(8)
In ref.  we projected out different representations like singlet (0,0), octet (1, 1), 27-plet (2, 2) etc. on these large hadrons. The most interesting result we obtained is that for large values of $`TV^{1/3}`$ ( where V is a measure of the size of the composite object ) all representations ; singlet, octet, 27-plet etc are all degenerate in energy ( ie they all have the same energy ) with the unprojected state. There is nothing which favours the colour-singlet representation over the colour-octet at high temperatures. At the same time we also found that our projection technique at low temperatures is able to discriminate between the singlet and the octet states etc by clearly favouring the singlet state over others which are all expelled to infinite energies..

This result is quite general and at high enough temperatures represents the generic property of QCD that all representations have the same energy . Only as the temperature drops do the singlets find themselves favoured over the other colour states and all the coloured states are expelled to infinite energies.

What is our singlet state at finite temperature? It is degenerate in energy with respect to all coloured states. This colour singlet is made from configurations like $`11`$, $`88`$, $`2727`$ etc, that is, all permitted coloured states which can come together to give a singlet. Note that in the said paper  we had looked at the chemical potential zero state. We have found that the same holds for non-zero chemical potential as well. Since all these have the same energy, as per the configuration mixing idea in quantum mechanics, at finite temperature there is nothing barring them from contributing to the colour singlet object. How this significant effect at finite temperature manifests itself at T=0 is what we shall discuss below.

As per the standard picture of cosmology the Universe was much hotter at early times. Hence at high enough temperature in the Early Universe as per our calculation in QCD , all the coloured states must have existed and were degenerate with the colour singlet states. Being degenerate in energy all kind of configuration mixing giving a particular quantum states were allowed quantum mechanically. Hence, the 6-q state as given by eq. 3 was a quantum mechanically permitted configuration mixed state. In this particular case in the Early Universe clearly the mixing configurations were the singlet and the octet. It was at this stage in the Early Universe that the two states, $`|1>`$ with another $`|1>`$ and $`|8>`$ with another $`|8>`$ got entangled quantum mechanically. Similar things happened for all other possible states. Hence a 3-q colour singlet state was an entangled state of three different $`|3>`$ coloured states at that temperature. And so on.

As the Universe cooled as shown by us , the colour singlet states would come down in energy while the coloured states would be expelled to infinite energies. And this happens to be the physical situation at present. Hence today when the $`|6q>`$ state has components $`|1>|1>`$ and $`|8>|8>`$, it is because the system remembers that it was entangled in this manner in the Early Universe. It is a manifestation of quantum entanglement of these states in the Early Universe which manifests itself as confinement in QCD at present. We can argue in the same manner for all possible colour singlet states available at present. Hence we propose here that confinement in QCD at present arises as a result of quantum entanglement in $`SU(3_c)`$ at finite temperature in the Early Universe.

Note that quantum entanglement in the case of the spin properties of electrons and photon manifests itself as non-locality. In the case of QCD, as shown here, quantum entanglement appears as the local colour confinement. It is quantum correlation which is important. Non-locality or locality depends upon the quantum property under consideration,

Note that the significant effect of the quantum entanglement in QCD leading to confinement is that this is a local effect, meaning that it is ensures that QCD entanglement acts only within a distance of a fermi for a nucleon and a few fermis for a nucleus. This ensures that whether you use an electron ( or a photon ) beam, the quantum entanglement effects as studied in the two slit experiments or the EPR kind of experiments, the effect would be the same if you used an atomic beam instead. Had the quantum entanglement effect in QCD been any different than to give confinement in a finite size, the effects for the Universe today would have been unimaginably different! Actually this fact should be seen as experimental confirmation of the ideas presented here.

In summary, we emphasize our recent result in the study of QCD at finite temperature, that all states - coloured as well as singlet are degenerate at finite temperatures . This allows for all kind of quantum configuration mixing giving a particular state in the Early Universe. Hence these configurations get quantum mechanically entangled. As the Universe cooled to reach the present status of finite mass colour singlet states and infinite mass coloured states, the colour singlet states remember as to how they were made up of which coloured entangled states when the Universe was hot. And continues to behave that way at present. Hence confinement in QCD at present, arises as a result of quantum entanglement in QCD at finite temperature in the Early Universe.

References

1. J F Clauser and A Shimony, Rep Prog Phys 41 (1978) 1881

2. A Aspect, P Grangier and G Roger, Phys Rev Lett 49 (1982) 91

3. W Tittel, J Brendel, H Zbinden and N Gisin, Phys Rev Lett 81 ( 1998) 3563

4. G Weihs, T Jennewein, C Sunon, H Weinfurter and A Zeilinger, Phys Rev Lett 81 ( 1998) 5039

5. P G Kwiat, E Waks, A G White, I Appelbaum and P H Eberhard, Phys Rev A 60 ( 1999) R773

6. S Duerr, T Nonn and G Rempe, Nature 395 (1998) 23

7. C A Sackett, D Kielpinski, B E King, C Langer, V Meyer, C J Myatt, M Rowe, Q A Turchette, W M Itano, D J Wineleand and C Monroe, Nature 404 (2000) 256

8. A K Ekert, Phys Rev Lett 69 (1992) 1293

9. C Bennett et al, Phys Rev Lett 70 (1993) 1895

10. Ed.- D DiVencenzo, E Knill, R LaFamme and W Zurek, Proc R Soc Lon Ser A 1969 (1998)

11. R E Marshak, ” Conceptual foundations of modern particle physics”, World Scientific Pub Ltd ( Singapore ) 1993

12. C Bender, Phys Rep 75 (1981) 205

13. V A Matveev and P Sorba, Lett Nuovo Cim 20 (1977) 435

14. Afsar Abbas, Phys Lett B 167 (1986) 150

15. Afsar Abbas, Prog Part Nucl Phys 20 (1988) 181

16. Afsar Abbas,Lina Paria and Samar Abbas, Eur Phys J C 14(2000)695
Journal electronic version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100520000395