text:
# Quantum metric fluctuations and Hawking radiation

## Abstract

In this Letter we study the gravitational interactions between outgoing configurations giving rise to Hawking radiation and in-falling configurations. When the latter are in their ground state, the near horizon interactions lead to collective effects which express themselves as metric fluctuations and which induce dissipation, as in Brownian motion. This dissipation prevents the appearance of trans-Planckian frequencies and leads to a description of Hawking radiation which is very similar to that obtained from sound propagation in condensed matter models.

PACS number(s): 04.70.Dy, 04.60.-m, 05.40.-a

In his original derivation, Hawking assumed that gravity can be treated classically, i.e. the metric was determined by the energy of the collapsing star but was unaffected by the quantum processes under examination. In this approximation, the radiation field satisfies a linear equation (in the absence of matter interactions) and the in-falling and outgoing field configurations are completely uncorrelated near the black hole horizon. In fact the pairs of quanta generated by its formation are composed of two outgoing quanta, one of each side of it. The external ones form the asymptotic flux whereas their partners fall towards the singularity at $`r=0`$. Upon tracing over these inner configurations one gets an outgoing incoherent flux described by a thermal density matrix.

There is nevertheless a precise relationship between the expectation values of the in-falling and the outgoing energy fluxes. Indeed, the asymptotic thermal flux is accompanied by a negative in-falling flux $`T_{vv}`$ which has, on the horizon, exactly the opposite value and which drives black hole evaporation according to

$$\frac{dM}{dv}=T_{vv}|_{r=r_{horizon}=2M}\frac{1}{M^2}.$$
(1)
We work with in Planck units: $`c=\mathrm{}=M_{Planck}=1`$. $`v=t+r^{}`$ is the advanced null time, $`r^{}=r+2M\mathrm{ln}(r/2M1)`$ is the tortoise coordinate and $`M(v)`$ is the time dependent mass which appears in the Vaidya metric

$$ds^2=(1\frac{2M}{r})dv^2+2dvdr+r^2(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(2)
The important point is that (2) offers a good approximation of the near horizon geometry (i.e. $`|r2M|2M`$) of an evaporating black hole, see .

This semi-classical description would be perfectly valid if another feature of black hole physics wasn’t present, namely the field configurations giving rise to Hawking quanta possess arbitrary high (trans-Planckian) frequencies near the horizon: When measured by in-falling observers at $`r`$, the frequency grows as

$$\omega =\frac{\lambda }{12M/r}\frac{\lambda \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M}{r2M}$$
(3)
where $`\lambda `$ is the asymptotic energy of the quantum. This implies that a wave packet centered along the null outgoing geodesic $`u=tr^{}`$ had a frequency $`\omega =\lambda e^{\kappa u}`$ when it emerged from the in-falling star. ($`\kappa =1/4M`$ is the surface gravity and fixes Hawking temperature $`T_H=\kappa /2\pi `$.) Unlike processes characterized by a typical energy scale, the relation $`\omega =\lambda e^{\kappa u}`$ shows that black hole evaporation rests on arbitrary high frequencies.

As emphasized by ’t Hooft, this implies that the gravitational interactions between these configurations and in-falling quanta cannot be neglected, thereby questioning the validity of the semi-classical description. In questioning this validity, two issues should be distinguished, see Sect. 3.7 in . First, there is the question of the low frequency $`O(\kappa )`$ changes which can be measured asymptotically, and secondly, that of the high frequency modifications of the near horizon physics. It should also be stressed that thermo-dynamical reasonings indicate that the asymptotic properties, namely thermality governed by $`\kappa `$ and stationarity, should be preserved. The difficulty is therefore to conciliate the stability of these properties with the radical change of the near horizon physics which is needed to cure the trans-Planckian problem. Indeed, local interactions near the horizon lead to recoil effects proportional to $`\omega `$ which seem incompatible with the stationarity of the flux. It thus appears inappropriate to treat these interactions by a perturbative approach based on Feynman diagrams.

A different approach is suggested by the analogy with condensed matter physics pointed out by Unruh. He noticed that sound propagation in a moving fluid obeys a d’Alembertian equation which defines an acoustic metric. Therefore, upon neglecting viscosity and non-linear effects, thermally distributed photons should be emitted when the acoustic metric corresponds to that of a collapsing star. (The formation of an acoustic horizon occurs when the fluid velocity reaches the speed of sound.) However contrary to photons, the dispersion relation of phonons is not linear for frequencies (measured in the rest frame of the fluid) higher that a critical $`\omega _c`$. Nevertheless, when $`\omega _c\kappa `$, the asymptotic properties of the Hawking flux of phonons are unaffected  in spite of the fact that the high frequency spectrum, which was solicited in Hawking’s derivation, is no longer available.

This insensitivity suggests that something similar might apply to black holes and solve the trans-Planckian problem. However it is a priori unclear what can play the role of the microscopic constituents of the fluid which introduce through their interactions the non-trivial dispersion relation and the cut-off $`\omega _c`$ which breaks the low frequency Lorentz invariance.

The aim of this letter is to show that the gravitational interactions between the outgoing configurations giving rise to Hawking radiation and in-falling configurations in their ground state lead to collective effects which define an effective dispersion relation for the outgoing modes. These collective effects express themselves in terms of a stochastic ensemble of metric fluctuations. The specification of the vacuum state at early times determines the statistical properties of this ensemble and this in turn fixes both the cut-off $`\omega _c`$ (in terms of $`\kappa `$) and the frame which breaks the 2D Lorentz invariance.

For simplicity, we shall consider only s-waves propagating in spherically symmetrical space times. The background metric is taken to be that generated by the collapse of a null spherical shell of mass $`M_0`$ which propagate along $`v=0`$. Inside the shell, for $`v<0`$, the geometry is Minkowski and described by (2) with $`M=0`$. Outside, the metric is also static and given by (2) with $`M=M_0`$.

When studying the propagation of massless s-waves in this background, they fall into two classes according to their support on $`𝒥^{}`$, the light-like past infinity. The waves in the first class have support only for $`v<0`$ and will be noted $`\varphi _{}`$. They propagate inward in the flat geometry till $`r=0`$ where they bounce off and become outgoing configurations. This first class is itself divided in two: For $`v<4M`$, the reflected waves cross the in-falling shell with $`r>2M`$ and reach the asymptotic region whereas those for $`0>v>4M`$ cross it with $`r<2M`$ and propagate in the trapped region till the singularity. The separating light ray $`v_H=4M`$ becomes the future horizon $`u=\mathrm{}`$ after bouncing off at $`r=0`$. The configurations which form the second class have support only for $`v>0`$ and are noted $`\varphi _+`$. They are always in-falling and cross the horizon towards the singularity.

In the semi-classical derivation of black hole radiation, the configurations for $`v<v_H`$ give rise to the asymptotic quanta, those for $`v_H<v<0`$ to their partners whereas $`\varphi _+`$ plays no role in the asymptotic radiation. The correlations between the asymptotic quanta and their partners follow from the fact that, on $`𝒥^{}`$ and in the vacuum, the rescaled field $`\varphi =r\chi `$ (where $`\chi `$ is the 4D s-wave) satisfies

$$\varphi (v)\varphi (v^{})=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{4\pi \omega }e^{i\omega (vv^{})}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}|vv^{}|$$
(4)
across $`v_H`$. Since this equation is valid for all $`v,v^{}`$ there also exist correlations between $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$. However, they become negligible for late Hawking quanta since these emerge from configurations which are characterized by frequencies $`\omega =\lambda e^{\kappa u}\kappa `$ and which are extremely localized across $`v_H`$, see . These two effects follow from the asymptotic ($`\kappa u1`$) relation  between the value of $`u`$ of the geodesic which originates from $`v`$ on $`𝒥^{}`$

$$V(u)v_He^{\kappa u}.$$
(5)
It is this exponential which induces both the thermal radiation at temperature $`\kappa /2\pi `$ and the necessity of considering trans-Planckian frequencies. In the absence of gravitational interactions, it also tells us that $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ are effectively two independent fields.

Our aim is now to describe how the gravitational interactions between $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ modify the semi-classical description of Hawking radiation. The generating functional of the whole system is

$$Z=𝒟\varphi _{}𝒟\varphi _+𝒟he^{i[S_{g+h}^{()}+S_{g+h}^{(+)}+S_{h,g}]}.$$
(6)
In this equation, $`h`$ is the linear change of the metric with respect to the background $`g`$ discussed above and $`S_{h,g}`$ is the action of $`h`$ obtained from the Einstein-Hilbert action. $`S_{g+h}^{()}`$ and $`S_{g+h}^{(+)}`$ are the actions of $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ propagating in the fluctuating geometry $`g+h`$.

When imposing that the metric fluctuations be spherically symmetric, $`h`$ is determined by the matter stress tensor and characterized by $`\psi `$ and $`\mu `$, two functions of $`v`$ and $`r`$. In the place of (2), the line element in the fluctuating metric is

$$ds^2=(1+\psi )\left[(1\frac{2M}{r})dv^2+2dvdr\right]+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2$$
(7)
where $`M=M_0+\mu (v,r)`$. In this metric, the matter action is

$$S_{g+h}=𝑑v𝑑r\left[_v\varphi _r\varphi \left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)\frac{(_r\varphi )^2}{2}\right].$$
(8)
It is independent of $`\psi `$, thereby showing an horizon induced 2D conformal invariance, c.f. .

When only quadratic terms in $`h`$ are kept in $`S_{h,g}`$ the functional integration over $`h`$ gives

$$Z=𝒟\varphi _{}e^{iS_g^{()}}𝒟\varphi _+e^{iS_g^{(+)}+iS_{int}}$$
(9)
where the interaction action $`S_{int}`$ is a quadratic form of the total stress tensor. It thus contains self-interaction terms depending on $`\varphi _{}`$ or $`\varphi _+`$ separately. The terms concerning $`\varphi _{}`$ only have been studied in  and lead to small effects. Those concerning $`\varphi _+`$ are not directly relevant to black hole radiation since the $`\varphi _+`$ configurations disappear through the horizon. We shall simply assume that these interactions do not significantly modify (4) for $`\omega \kappa `$, a weak condition for large black holes $`MM_{Planck}`$.

$`S_{int}`$ also contains cross terms which couple $`\varphi _{}`$ to $`\varphi _+`$. When focusing at the near horizon physics, i.e. in the semi-infinite strip $`|r2M|2M`$, $`v>0`$, the relevant metric fluctuation is given by a mass term $`\mu _+`$ which is determined by $`T_{vv}=(_v\varphi _+)^2`$

$$\mu _+(v)=\mu (v,r)|_{r=2M}=_0^v𝑑v^{}T_{vv}(v^{}).$$
(10)
Using this approximation, the dominant contribution to $`S_{int}`$ is given by, see (8),

$$S_{int}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑v\frac{\mu _+(v)}{r}(_r\varphi _{})^2.$$
(11)
The reason that $`\mu _+`$ gives the dominant contribution is that it is coupled to $`(_r\varphi _{})^2(_v\varphi _{})^2/(r/2M1)^2`$ which diverges for $`r2M`$. In brief, (11) represents the $`\varphi _{}\varphi _+`$ interactions mediated by gravity. They have been already considered in . The novelty of this letter lies in their collective treatment when the state of $`\varphi _+`$ is vacuum.

When using (11) in (9) three approximations can be considered. The first one is that adopted by Hawking. It simply consists in putting $`\mu _+=0`$. Then $`\varphi _{}`$ is a free field propagating in the background geometry $`g`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ drops out from all matrix elements built with the operator $`\varphi _{}`$. In this treatment these matrix elements are characterized by trans-Planckian frequencies when one of the operator approaches the future horizon.

The second approximation consists in working with the expectation value of (10). Then the mean metric change $`\mu _+(v)`$ is driven by the (properly subtracted) expectation value of $`T_{vv}`$

$$T_{vv}(v)|_{r=2M}=\frac{\pi }{12}\left(\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }\right)^2.$$
(12)
This is minus the usual value of a 2D thermal flux. It is this negative flux which drives the black hole evaporation, see (1). In this mean field approximation, one simply replaces $`M_0`$ by $`M_0+\mu _+`$ in the former treatment. Therefore, the trans-Planckian problem mentioned above stays as such as long as this mass loss is slow compared to $`\kappa `$, i.e. as long as $`M(v)M_{Planck}`$.

To solve this problem clearly requires to take into account the fluctuating character of the interactions between $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$. By proceeding formally, one would perform in (9) the integration over $`\varphi _+`$ so as to obtain the influence functional (IF)  for the $`\varphi _{}`$ configurations on which we have access asymptotically. However to perform exactly this functional integration is out of reach since the final state of $`\varphi _+`$ is correlated to that of $`\varphi _{}`$. A convenient approximation consists in neglecting the entanglement. This is a common procedure both in QFT where it gives the vacuum contribution, see Chapt. 9 in , and in statistical mechanics (e.g. the polaron, Chapt. 11) when one neglects the modification of the environment due to the interactions with the system.

In this third approximation, the IF gives rise to a non-local action which is a sum of terms containing $`(_r\varphi _{})^2`$ and kernels given by the Wick contractions of the $`_v\varphi _+`$. The first term is quadratic in $`(_r\varphi _{})^2`$ and the kernel is the (connected) two-point function of $`T_{vv}`$

$$T_{vv}(v)T_{vv}(v^{})_c=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{(vv^{})^4}$$
(13)
evaluated in the vacuum (4). Keeping only this term in the IF is equivalent to work with a stochastic ensemble of metric fluctuations $`\mu _+`$ which obey, see (10),

$`\mu _+(v)\mu _+(v^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(vv^{})^2}}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \omega \mathrm{cos}[\omega (vv^{})].`$ (15)
This equation gives the mean properties of the spherical metric fluctuations driven by $`\varphi _+`$ in its vacuum state.

In this quadratic approximation, to exploit the near horizon conformal invariance of (8), one should perform the integration over $`\varphi _+`$ after that over $`\varphi _{}`$ . In this eikonal-like treatment, the non-linear effects induced by the metric fluctuations are taken into account through the characteristics of the equation of motion of $`\varphi _{}`$

$$(1\frac{2M_0+2\mu _+(v)}{r})_r\varphi _{}=2_v\varphi _{}.$$
(16)
These are nothing but the outgoing null geodesics $`u(v,r)`$, the non trivial solutions of $`ds^2=0`$ of (7). The background solution is $`u_0=v2r^{}`$. The first order change induced by $`\mu _+`$, $`\delta u=uu_0`$, is given by

$`\delta u(v)|_{u_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _v^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑v^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _+(v^{})}{r(v^{})|_{u_0}2M_0}}`$ (17)
where $`r(v)|_{u_0}`$ is obtained by inverting $`u_0(v,r)=v2r^{}`$. The integral is dominated by the near horizon region wherein $`r(v)|_{u_0}2M_02M_0e^{\kappa (vu)}`$. This dependence in $`\kappa v`$ will tame the UV content of the metric fluctuations.

To determine the effects of these fluctuations on outgoing configurations, we analyze the near horizon behavior of asymptotic plane waves representing Hawking quanta. (Notice that it also controls that of matrix elements of $`\varphi _{}`$ such as the Feynman Green function.) In the absence of metric fluctuations $`e^{i\lambda u}`$ behaves as

$$e^{i\lambda u_0(v,r)}=\theta (r2M_0)e^{i\lambda v}(r2M_0)^{i\kappa \lambda }.$$
(18)
It vanishes for $`r<2M_0`$ and possesses an infinite number of oscillations as $`r2M_0`$ with increasing momentum $`p_r=i_r`$. This is the trans-Planckian problem.

When considering the Feynman Green function obtained from (9), (11) and (13) (and with one operator at $`v,r`$ and the other on $`𝒥^+`$), its behavior in $`v,r`$ is determined  by the ensemble average waves

$$e^{i\lambda u(v,r)}e^{i\lambda u_0(v,r)}e^{\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\delta u(v)\delta u(v)}.$$
(19)
Using (15) and (17), one obtains

$`\delta u(v)|_{u_0}\delta u(v)|_{u_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\omega }{\kappa ^2+\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(r/2M_01)^2}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\overline{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(r/2M_01)^2}}`$ (21)
where the mean spread $`\overline{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is equal to $`\kappa \sqrt{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa )/12}`$. We have have introduced the UV cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to define the integral over $`\omega `$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a Lorentz scalar (since it is the energy of an s-wave in its rest frame) and that its value is hardly relevant since $`\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=M}=\sqrt{2}\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=1}`$.

The main result of (21) is that $`\overline{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ even though $`\mu _+^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. This is because the high frequencies ($`\omega \kappa `$) are damped by the integration over $`v`$ in (17). The frequencies $`\omega \kappa `$ dominate the integral.

Since $`\delta u\delta u`$ diverges as $`r2M_0`$, (19) tells us that the correlations between asymptotic quanta and early configurations, which existed in a given background as shown in (18), are washed out by the metric fluctuations once $`r2M_0\overline{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1/M_0`$. The physical reason of this loss of coherence is that the state of $`\varphi _+`$ becomes correlated to that of $`\varphi _{}`$. Nevertheless, when tracing over both $`\varphi _+`$ and the inner configurations of $`\varphi _{}`$, the asymptotic properties of Hawking radiation obtain.

Finally it should be pointed out that (19) can be viewed as defining a phenomenological dissipation of outgoing waves. In this point of view, as in condensed matter, one ignores the interactions with the environment and deals only with an effective wave propagation governed by a non-trivial dispersion relation.

In conclusion, even though we have made many simplifying assumptions, we believe that the following results are robust. (A) When propagated backwards in time towards the star’s matter, outgoing quanta are scattered by the metric fluctuations induced by the in-falling quantum matter fields in their vacuum state. (B) These interactions grow so strongly near the horizon that the quanta are completely scattered. This prevents a perturbative $`S`$-matrix description of these interactions. (C) The in-falling vacuum fluctuations act as a reservoir of modes. This invites to describe these interactions in terms of stochastic metric fluctuations. (D) Even though the spectrum of the latter contains all frequencies (up to a UV cut-off), their impact on outgoing configurations is governed by frequencies $`\omega \kappa `$. (E) The stationarity of vacuum (i.e. the fact that (13) is a function of $`vv^{}`$ only) leads to stationary metric fluctuations (15) and this, combined with the stationarity of the background metric, give a mean spread $`\overline{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is independent of $`v`$.

Acknowledgements. I wish to thank Robert Brout for very useful discussions. I also thank the organizers of the 5-th Peyresq meeting where some of the ideas presented here crystallized.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a strongly motivated candidate for new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). It provides a natural framework for resolving the hierarchy problem. The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), with a conserved R-parity, has an economical particle content with well defined interactions most of which are already constrained by experiment. It has two Higgs doublets ($`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$); necessary for giving mass to both up and down quarks, respectively. In the MSSM, electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) occurs naturally since $`m_{H_u}^2`$, the soft SUSY breaking (SSB) mass of $`H_u`$, is automatically driven negative as a result of a large top quark Yukawa coupling.

The MSSM solves the hierarchy problem by allowing for dimensionful SSB parameters of order the electroweak scale and protecting scalar masses from large radiative corrections above the SSB scale. However, this in itself is not sufficient to solve the hierarchy problem. In addition, it is necessary to demand that the $`\mu `$ parameter (where $`\mu `$ is the bilinear Higgs coupling in the superpotential of the form $`\mu H_uH_d`$) is also of order the electroweak scale. Consider the vacuum conditions obtained by minimizing the tree level Higgs potential, we have

$$\mu ^2=\frac{M_Z^2}{2}+\frac{m_{H_d}^2m_{H_u}^2tan^2\beta }{tan^2\beta 1},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_u/H_d`$, $`sin2\beta =2B/m_A^2`$, $`m_A`$ is the mass of the CP odd Higgs and $`B`$ is the SSB Higgs bilinear coupling. On the left hand side of Eq. 1, the $`\mu `$ parameter, multiplying a supersymmetric $`\mu `$ term in the Lagrangian, breaks no SM symmetries; it could in principle be as large as the Planck or GUT scales. On the right side, the $`Z`$ boson mass and the SSB Higgs masses are of order the electroweak scale. Clearly, all three scales, i.e. $`\mu `$, $`M_Z`$ and the SSB scales must be of the same order. This is the $`\mu `$ problem .

In order to avoid large values for $`\mu `$, a symmetry is needed which prevents the $`\mu `$ term at tree level, but allows such a term once this symmetry is broken. Moreover, since in the MSSM the $`\mu `$ term is contained in the superspace potential, there are two possibilities - 1) it can be generated via a term in the Kahler potential (at tree level or radiatively) once supersymmetry is broken or 2) no supersymmetry breaking is required if it is generated through higher dimension operators in the superspace potential. Several simple mechanisms for generating a $`\mu `$ term have been suggested .

In the context of gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB) models , there is an additional problem. $`\mu `$ can be generated at one loop order once supersymmetry is broken. However, the $`B`$ parameter (the SSB scalar Higgs bilinear coupling) is usually generated at the same loop order and is too large. A solution generating $`B`$ at higher loop order than $`\mu `$ was proposed in .

In this paper we use an extension of the GMSB model discussed in Ref.  to solve the $`\mu `$ problem. This model has GMSB with Higgs-messenger mixing in an SO(10) theory and naturally leads to a gluino LSP. The gluino LSP is stable due to R-parity conservation. The specific signature of a gluino LSP i.e. missing momentum has been analysed in Ref.  for LEP and CDF data and in Ref.  for CDF data. Ref.  concludes that a stable gluino with mass in the range $`2535`$ GeV is still allowed by both the LEP and CDF data. Our model, with a modest adjustment of parameters, gives a gluino with mass in this range.

The $`\mu `$ term is absent in this model (at tree level) due to a U(1) Peccei-Quinn (PQ) symmetry. Both SUSY and PQ symmetry are broken when the chiral superfield $`X`$ develops a vacuum expectation value (vev)

$$X=M+\theta ^2F_X.$$
(2)
Note, the following dimension five operator in the Kahler potential

$$K\frac{1}{M_P}X^{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^2+h.c.$$
(3)
is however allowed by the symmetries. Thus we find $`\mu F_X/M_P`$. $`B`$, on the other hand, is generated radiatively via renormalization group (RG) running below the messenger scale $`M`$.111Note, the mechanism used here to generate the $`\mu `$ term is a combination of the ideas discussed in .

In addition to solving the $`\mu `$ problem, the PQ symmetry provides a natural solution to the strong CP problem . The strong CP violating $`\theta `$ term dynamically tracks to zero. Moreover, as a bonus, the axion is a candidate for cold dark matter.

In the next section we discuss the model, saving some of the details for the appendices. We derive the low energy spectrum consistent with electroweak symmetry breaking, gauge coupling unification and third generation quark and lepton masses. We then consider experimental constraints which constrain the available parameter space to a very narrow region. In this region we find a light neutral Higgs with mass $`8691`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 914`$. In addition the lightest stop and neutralino have mass $`100122`$ GeV and $`5072`$ GeV, respectively. Finally, in an appendix we investigate the possibility of obtaining a reasonable mass for the tau neutrino in the model. Clearly this model is preeminently testable.

## 2 The model

The theory at the GUT scale is defined by the SO(10) invariant superpotential $`WW_1+W_2+W_3`$ and a non-renormalizable term in the Kahler potential $`K`$ where

$`\begin{array}{c}W_1=\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3,\\ \\ W_2=\lambda _a\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_HA\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_A+\lambda _XX\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_A^2,\\ \\ W_3=\lambda _1\overline{\eta }_1A\eta _1+\lambda _2\overline{\eta }_2A\eta _2+\lambda X\overline{\eta }_1\eta _2.\end{array}`$ (9)
$$K\lambda _K\frac{X^{}}{M_P}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^2+h.c.$$
(10)
$`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3,\eta _1,\eta _2)`$ are $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$’s, $`(\overline{\eta }_1,\overline{\eta }_2)`$ are $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$’s, $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H,\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}_A)`$ are $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s, $`(X)`$ is a singlet and $`(A)`$ is an adjoint under SO(10).

At the GUT scale, the theory is invariant under a U(1) PQ and an R symmetry. The R symmetry is broken spontaneously at the GUT scale. The PQ symmetry, however, is not broken at the GUT scale and prevents a $`\mu `$ term in the superpotential. The PQ and R charges of the fields are defined in Appendix A.

$`W_1`$ contains the coupling of the third family matter multiplet ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3`$) to the Higgs field ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H`$) which includes both the weak doublet and color triplet Higgs fields.

$`W_2`$ serves two purposes. In the first case, it provides doublet-triplet splitting using the Dimopoulos-Wilczek mechanism . The adjoint field $`A`$ gets a vev

$$A=(BL)M_G,$$
(11)
where $`BL`$ (baryon number minus lepton number) is non-vanishing on color triplets and zero on weak doublets and the singlet $`X`$ gets a vev

$$X=M+\theta ^2F_X.$$
(12)
This gives mass of order $`M_G`$ to the color triplet Higgs states and of order $`M`$ to the weak doublets in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_A`$. The Higgs doublets in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H`$ remain massless. The SUSY breaking vev, on the other hand, exhibits the second purpose for $`W_2`$.

In the second case, $`W_2`$ and $`W_3`$ also provide the messengers for SUSY breaking.222Due to an accidental cancellation, gluinos receive no mass at one loop from $`W_2`$. Thus $`W_3`$ is introduced with additional messenger fields $`(\eta _1,\overline{\eta }_1,\eta _2,\overline{\eta }_2)`$ contributing to the masses of gauginos and scalars at the scale $`M_G`$. The auxiliary field $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_A`$ and the fields $`\overline{\eta }_1,\eta _2`$ feel SUSY breaking at tree level due to the vev $`F_X`$. They are thus the messengers for GMSB . We take the messenger scale $`M10^{12}`$ GeV with the effective SUSY breaking scale in the observable sector given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=F_X/M10^5GeV.$$
(13)
Thus the Higgs field in this model plays a central role with regards to supersymmetry breaking. It is this central role which also provides a natural framework for solving the $`\mu `$ problem using the PQ symmetry. When $`X`$ gets a vev, both SUSY and the PQ symmetry are broken. The $`\mu `$ term is generated at the scale $`M`$

$$\mu =\lambda _K\frac{F_X}{M_P}.$$
(14)
while $`B`$ remains zero at tree level.

The PQ symmetry solves the strong CP problem and produces an axion; the Goldstone boson of the broken PQ symmetry. The axion gets mass due to the QCD chiral anomaly of order $`m_a^2=\frac{f_\pi ^2}{f_a^2}m_\pi ^2N^2\frac{Z}{(1+Z)^2}`$  where $`Z=m_u/m_d0.56`$, $`f_aM=10^{12}`$ GeV is the PQ symmetry breaking scale and $`N=3`$ is the number of families. Putting in the numbers we find $`m_a2\times 10^5`$ eV.333We take $`M=10^{12}`$ GeV, so that the energy density in the axion field does not over close the universe.

We refer the interested reader to Appendix A for the complete model defined at the GUT scale. Note, in order to obtain realistic $`t,b`$ and $`\tau `$ masses, we find it necessary to abandon Yukawa unification at $`M_G`$. How this is obtained in the complete model is discussed in Appendix B. Finally, a simple extension of the model to include a $`\tau `$ neutrino mass is presented in Appendix C.

## 3 Boundary conditions at the messenger scale

The boundary conditions at the messenger scale are determined by two sources of SUSY breaking, gauge mediation and D-term . The messengers give mass to the gauginos and Higgs at one loop and to squarks and sleptons at two loops. Since the color triplet messengers have mass of order the GUT scale, the gluino mass is suppressed compared to the other gauginos. The gaugino masses (at $`M`$) are given by

$`\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\frac{\alpha _3}{\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }b^2,& \\ & \\ M_2=\frac{\alpha _2}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+\frac{28}{9}b^2),& \\ & \\ M_1=\frac{3}{5}\frac{\alpha _1}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+4b^2).& \end{array}`$ (20)
where

$$b^2=\frac{9\lambda ^2}{\lambda _1\lambda _2}\frac{M^2}{M_G^2}>0.$$
(21)
The two loop GMSB contribution to the scalar masses is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{m}^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\{C_3(\frac{\alpha _3}{4\pi })^2(a^2+4b^2)+C_2(\frac{\alpha _2}{4\pi })^2(1+\frac{28}{9}b^2)+C_1(\frac{\alpha _1}{4\pi })^2(\frac{3}{5}+\frac{2}{5}a^2+\frac{12}{5}b^2)\},$$
(22)
where $`a=\frac{\lambda _XM}{\lambda _aM_G}`$, $`C_3=4/3`$ for color triplets and zero otherwise, $`C_2=3/4`$ for weak doublets and zero otherwise and $`C_1=(\frac{3}{5})(Y/2)^2`$. $`a`$ and $`b`$ are free independent parameters which we use to fit the data at the EWSB scale.

The gravitino mass is given by

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{susy}^2}{\sqrt{3}M_P},$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{susy}`$ is the scale of SUSY breaking and $`M_P=(8\pi G_N)^{1/2}=2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck mass. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{susy}^2=F_X10^{17}GeV^2`$ the gravitino mass is

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}=\frac{M}{\sqrt{3}M_P}\mathrm{\Lambda }0.024GeV,$$
(24)
making the gravitino the LSP. However, this conclusion is model dependent.

For example, we show that in the particular model of SUSY breaking discussed in Ref. , the gravitino mass is significantly larger. In this model the field which gets both a scalar and F-component vev is the third component of an $`SU(2)_F`$ vector field $`S_3`$. In this theory $`X`$ is a composite field with $`X=M=S_3^2/M_{st}`$ and $`F_X=2S_3F_{S_3}/M_{st}`$. The gravitino mass is therefore given by

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}=\frac{F_{S_3}}{\sqrt{3}M_P}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\frac{\sqrt{MM_{st}}}{M_P}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(25)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ still given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=F_X/M`$. The gravitino mass is thus enhanced by the factor $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{M_{st}}{M}}`$. For example, letting the string scale $`M_{st}=M_P`$ and requiring the scale of PQ symmetry breaking $`M=10^{12}`$ GeV, we find $`m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}=18.6`$ GeV.444It is necessary to check that the supergravity contribution to squark and slepton masses is small compared to the GMSB contribution. This ratio scales as
$$\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}}{M_2}=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{3}\alpha _2}\frac{S_3}{M_P}.$$
(26) Thus $`S_3`$ cannot be much larger than $`10^{15}`$ giving $`\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}}{M_2}0.04`$. Taking the string scale $`M_{st}=M_P`$ and requiring the scale of PQ symmetry breaking $`M=10^{12}`$ GeV, one gets $`S_31.5\times 10^{15}`$ and $`\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}}{M_2}0.056`$ which is reasonable. To conclude, in this model, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^5`$ GeV, the gravitino, gluino and wino masses (at $`M`$) are given by

$`\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}=18.6GeV& \\ & \\ m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=(\frac{b}{0.1})^2\times 14GeV& \\ & \\ M_2=340GeV.& \end{array}`$ (32)
Hence, either the gluino or the gravitino is the LSP depending on the particular SUSY breaking model and the value of the parameter $`b`$.555In order to have $`b=0.1`$ with $`M/M_G10^4`$ we need to take $`\lambda ^2/\lambda _1\lambda _210^5`$.

For phenomenological reasons we assume that SUSY is also broken by the D-term of an anomalous $`U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry as already discussed in Ref. . Moreover, the GMSB and D-term contributions are necessarily comparable.666 Ref.  presents a model which dynamically breaks SUSY and leads to comparable SUSY breaking effects from gauge-mediated and D-term sources. The D-term contribution to scalar masses is given by

$$\delta _D\stackrel{~}{m}_a^2=dQ_a^XM_2^2,$$
(33)
where $`Q_a^X`$ is the $`U(1)_X`$ charge of the field $`a`$ and $`d`$ is an arbitrary parameter of order $`1`$ which measures the strength of D-term versus gauge-mediated SUSY breaking. The value of $`Q_a^X`$ for $`a=\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10},\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ of SO(10) is given by $`1,2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}`$ .

We now summarize the messenger scale boundary conditions. The gaugino masses are given by Eq. 20 and scalar mass by Eqs. 22 and 33.777Note, the Higgs states also get a SSB mass correction at one loop due to their direct interaction with the messengers. This correction is negligible however because of the small values we have chosen for the free parameters $`a,b`$. D-term SUSY breaking only contributes to the scalar masses. The SSB trilinear scalar coupling $`A`$ and scalar Higgs mass squared $`B`$ vanish at tree level but are generated via RGE running below $`M`$. We have chosen $`a=10^4`$. We then determine the free parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`b,d`$ and $`\mu `$ (at $`M`$) and $`\alpha _{GUT},ϵ_3`$, the top ($`\lambda _t`$), bottom ($`\lambda _b`$) and $`\tau `$ ($`\lambda _\tau `$) Yukawa couplings (at $`M_G`$) by fitting the low energy data which we take to include $`m_t,m_b,m_\tau ,\alpha _{em},\alpha _s`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$.888 Note, we allow for a small one loop threshold correction to gauge coupling unification at $`M_G`$ which we have parametrized by the free parameter $`ϵ_3=(\alpha _3\alpha _G)/\alpha _G`$ evaluated at $`M_G`$. Imposing gauge coupling unification at the GUT scale, we renormalize the effective Lagrangian parameters to the EWSB scale using one (two) loop equations for dimensionful (dimensionless) parameters. We have also included the effect of a light gluino in the running of $`m_b`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ below the EWSB scale . Finally the one loop SUSY threshold corrections for the $`b`$ and $`\tau `$ masses at the EWSB scale have also been included.

## 4 Phenomenology at the EWSB scale

The parameter $`b`$ is varied to keep the gluino pole mass at $`30`$ GeV. 999Using the RGEs we evaluate $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^{\overline{MS}}`$ at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and then calculate the one loop corrected gluino pole mass. It is the pole mass which is constrained to lie between 25 and 35 GeV. Note, that an 18 GeV $`\overline{MS}`$ running mass defined at $`M_Z`$ is roughly equivalent to a 30 GeV pole mass. $`d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ set the scale for squark, slepton and gaugino masses. We have examined cases of fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, varying $`d`$ and vice versa in order to study the effects of these two SUSY breaking mechanisms on the low energy phenomenology separately. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is solved from Eq. 1 and helps determine the quark and lepton masses. We have allowed for values of ($`ϵ_3<4\%`$).

In the first part of our analysis, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is fixed to the value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^5`$ GeV while $`d`$ is varied. Fig. 1 shows the values of $`|\mu |`$ at the messenger scale giving the best low energy fit. Note that $`\mu <0`$ and $`|\mu |`$ increases with $`d`$. The reason for negative $`\mu `$ can best be seen by considering the following equation

$$B=(m_{H_u}^2m_{H_d}^2)\frac{\mathrm{tan}2\beta }{2}M_Z^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{2}.$$
(34)
At small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the second term on the right hand side of the equation is negligible. Although $`m_{H_u}^2`$ and $`m_{H_d}^2`$ have a common value at the messenger scale, $`m_{H_u}^2`$ is always driven to smaller values than $`m_{H_d}^2`$ by the RGE because of the larger top Yukawa coupling. We also know that $`\mathrm{tan}2\beta <0`$ as long as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >1`$. We therefore need $`B>0`$ at the EWSB scale. The one loop $`\beta `$-function for $`B`$ is given by

$`\begin{array}{c}\beta _B^{(1)}=B\{3|Y_t|^2+3|Y_b|^2+|Y_\tau |^23g_2^2\frac{3}{5}g_1^2\}\\ \\ +\mu \{6A_tY_t^{}+6A_bY_b^{}+2A_\tau Y_\tau ^{}+6g_2^2M_2+\frac{6}{5}g_1^2M_1\}.\end{array}`$ (38)
Since $`B`$ and the trilinear couplings $`A_{t,b,\tau }`$ vanish at the messenger scale, we must choose $`\mu <0`$ in order to get a positive $`B`$ at the EWSB scale.

The values of $`|\mu |,\sqrt{B}`$ and $`|B/\mu |`$ at the $`Z`$ scale are also shown in the plot. It is notable that RGE running gives small values of $`B`$, eliminating fine tuning in the Higgs potential, and thus giving a good solution to the $`\mu `$ problem. Note, $`|\mu |,\sqrt{B}`$ are both increasing functions of $`d`$; with a sharper rise at small values of $`d`$. This can be understood using Eqn. 1. For moderate values of $`d`$, the $`M_Z^2`$ and $`m_{H_d}^2`$ terms are negligible (the latter due to the fact $`|m_{H_d}^2|<|m_{H_u}^2|`$ and the factor of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta ^21`$ in the denominator). Hence the approximate relation $`\mu ^2=m_{H_u}^2>0`$ holds. Increasing $`d`$ leads to a linear increase in $`|m_{H_u}^2|`$ (the $`U(1)_X`$ charge of $`H_u`$ is -2) and therefore in $`|\mu |`$. For very small values of $`d`$, $`|m_{H_u}^2|`$ becomes comparable to $`M_Z^2/2`$ and the significant cancellation in the relation $`\mu ^2M_Z^2/2m_{H_u}^2`$ leads to a sharp decrease in $`\mu `$. Since $`B`$ is generated from $`\mu `$ via RGEs, the dependence of $`\sqrt{B}`$ on $`d`$ follows that of $`\mu `$.

We mentioned that $`m_{H_u}^2m_{H_d}^2`$ is zero at the messenger scale but is negative at the $`Z`$ scale. Decreasing $`d`$ has a small effect on the value of $`m_{H_u}^2m_{H_d}^2`$ at the $`Z`$ scale. However from Eq. 34 we see that a sharp decrease in $`B`$ at small values of $`d`$ has to be compensated by small values of $`|\mathrm{tan}2\beta |`$. This is the reason for the sharp increase in $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, plotted in Fig. 2, at low values of $`d`$.101010Note, a small $`|\mathrm{tan}2\beta |`$ gives a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ assuming $`\pi /4<\beta <\pi /2`$.

In Fig. 3 we plot the masses of the Higgs states. The masses of $`A,H^0`$ and $`H^+`$ are determined at tree level while we have included the one loop SUSY threshold corrections to the mass of $`h`$. Since $`B`$ increases with $`d`$, the masses of $`A,H^0`$ and $`H^+`$ also increase while $`A`$ stays the lightest. One might think that since the mass of the lightest Higgs state $`h`$ is an increasing function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, it should decrease when increasing $`d`$. However since our model is constrained and $`B`$ increases with $`d`$, the effect of $`B`$ dominates over that of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the mass of $`h`$ slowly increases with $`d`$. The reason for the slow increase is that the mass of $`h`$ is determined by EWSB and hence it cannot be a strong function of $`d`$.

In Fig. 4, we have magnified the small $`d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ regions in order to show the rapid variation in the value of $`m_h`$ here. The solid line shows the change in the mass of $`h`$ versus $`d`$ for a fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^5`$ GeV while the dashed line shows the variation versus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with a fixed $`d`$. As discussed above, $`B`$ decreases with decreasing $`d`$. This decrease in $`B`$ is directly reflected in the decrease in the tree level value of $`m_h`$. Similarly the value of $`B`$ decreases when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decreases and thus so does $`m_h`$.111111The Higgs mass apparently increases without bound as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases. We believe this result is due to the fact that we only use the tree level Higgs potential for EWSB. Note, we have checked that we cannot obtain reasonable fits to the data for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>1.1\times 10^5`$ GeV; hence we believe that our range for the allowed Higgs mass will not be significantly affected when including higher order corrections to the Higgs potential.

For completeness, we show the behavior of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ with changing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and fixed $`d=1`$ in Fig. 5; $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ decreases rapidly for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<10^5`$ GeV. This is because $`|\mathrm{tan}2\beta |`$ must increase to compensate for $`|m_{H_u}^2m_{H_d}^2|`$ which is decreasing proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ (see Eq. 34).

Fig. 6 contains plots of the masses of charginos and neutralinos versus $`d`$. The mass of the heavy chargino ($`\chi _2^+`$) and the two heaviest neutralinos ($`\chi _3^0,\chi _4^0`$) increase, as $`|\mu |`$ increases with $`d`$. However, for most values of $`d`$, the mass of $`\chi _1^0`$ scales as $`M_1`$ while the masses of $`\chi _2^0`$ and $`\chi _1^+`$ scale as $`M_2`$ and do not run with $`d`$. At very small $`d`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ gets very large and the off diagonal elements, proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ in the chargino and neutralino mass matrices, become larger than the diagonal elements including $`\mu `$ resulting in a sharp drop in the masses.

Squark and Slepton masses are plotted in Fig. 7. The D-term contributes positively to the masses of squarks and sleptons since the $`U(1)_X`$ charges of these fields are $`+1`$. Consequently, we see an increase in their masses with increasing $`d`$. The mixing due to $`A`$ and $`\mu `$ terms for the third generation squarks and sleptons is very small. Nevertheless, due to the different boundary conditions at $`M`$, the right handed squarks and sleptons are lighter than the left handed ones. The right handed stop is always the lightest and below $`d0.7`$ it becomes lighter than the top. This is because the right handed stop mass squared is driven negative by RGE as a consequence of the large top Yukawa coupling.

Finally in Fig. 8 we plot the masses of squarks, sleptons, charginos, neutralinos and Higgs fields versus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As one expects, all these masses increase with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ except the lightest Higgs whose mass is determined by EWSB. Recall that all scalar and gaugino masses at the messenger scale are directly proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 5 Laboratory and cosmological constraints

Let us first consider the heavy gluino. If it is the LSP it was shown that it can survive in a narrow window with mass between 25 and 35 GeV . We note that to get this limit, Refs.  assume very large squark masses. Ref.  however also argues that lowering the squark masses increases the allowed range for the gluino mass. Now consider the possibility that the gravitino is the LSP and the gluino is the NLSP. In this case we must check whether the analysis of Refs.  still applies, i.e. whether the gluino lifetime is greater than $`10^8s`$. The decay rate of the gluino to a gluon and a gravitino is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}g\stackrel{~}{G}}=\frac{\alpha _s^2}{48\pi }\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^5}{M_P^2m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}^2}(1\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2})^3.$$
(39)
Even in the case that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{susy}^2=F_X10^{17}GeV^2`$, which gives a very light gravitino as in Eq. 23, a gluino mass of $`30`$ GeV has a lifetime of $`\tau _{\stackrel{~}{g}}2\times 10^6s1`$ month. We therefore conclude that the gluino is in all cases a stable particle with regards to detector experiments. Hence the missing momentum analysis of Refs.  is relevant and a heavy gluino NLSP with mass in the range $`2535`$ GeV is still viable.

Note there are several significant advantages for having a heavy gluino LSP or NLSP.

* It reduces the fine tuning necessary for EWSB, since the dominant contribution to scalar masses due to RG running from $`M_G`$ to $`M_Z`$ comes from color corrections proportional to the gluino mass squared.
* Even if the gluino is the NLSP, its lifetime is long enough for it to be a candidate for the UHECRon, i.e. the source of the ultra high energy cosmic rays .
* The model with a Higgs mass of order 90 GeV and a stop mass less than the top satisfies some of the dynamical constraints necessary for electroweak baryogenesis in supersymmetric theories .

We now consider the LEP constraints on other SUSY parameters in our model. The most important constraints come from the latest Higgs search results at LEP . The light neutral Higgs $`h`$ and the CP odd Higgs $`A`$ in the MSSM are produced at LEP via the Higgs-strahlung process $`e^+e^{}hZ`$ or the pair production process $`e^+e^{}hA`$. $`h`$ and $`A`$ decay predominantly into $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. Thus LEP experiments search for either a $`b\overline{b}`$ or $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ plus the decay products of the Z; or for $`bb\overline{b}\overline{b}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}b\overline{b}`$. In our model the off-diagonal elements in the stop mass-squared matrix are very small, thus the LEP limits for the neutral Higgs in the no stop-quark mixing scenario are most applicable . These limits are very severe. Looking at our data in Figs. 2 and 4, it can be seen that only $`d0.400.45`$ survives the LEP constraint for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^5`$ GeV. With these values of the parameters, the mass of the lightest neutral Higgs resides in the narrow range $`8691`$ GeV with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 914`$. At this point, our model also survives the limit on the mass of $`A`$ as indicated in Ref. . $`H^+`$ and $`H^0`$ are also too massive to be constrained. For $`d0.400.45`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^5`$ GeV we find the lightest stop and neutralino with mass in the range 100 - 122 GeV and 50 - 72 GeV, respectively. Note, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases, then the Higgs mass and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ remain unchanged while all other masses increase.121212Note, a recent LEP bound on a heavy gluino LSP using stop production and decay  does not constrain the model since the stop mass in our case is larger than the values probed in this search.

This narrow region of parameter space is obtained with the fit values of the parameters $`\alpha _G=5.285.49\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, $`ϵ_3=2.442.42\%,\lambda _{b,t,\tau }=(0.065,0.42,0.096)(0.042,0.42,0.061)`$ at $`M_G`$ and $`\mu =(85.4)(139)`$ GeV and $`b=0.06`$ at $`M`$. Note, we are not able to get a good fit to the data assuming Yukawa coupling unification. This was not the case in Ref.  and is due to the fact that, unlike the model presented here, the parameter $`B`$ was a free parameter. In the appendix, we show how to complete the model described earlier in order to accomodate non-unification of Yukawa couplings in this SO(10) theory. Clearly this feature of the model is not very satisfying.

The process $`e^+e^{}`$hadrons can constrain the chargino mass based on the OPAL 2 $`\sigma `$ bound on new physics at $`\sqrt{s}`$=172 GeV . We analysed the contributions to $`e^+e^{}`$hadrons coming from chargino and neutralino pair production using (SPYTHIA, A Supersymmetric Extension of PYTHIA 5.7 ), which has been modified by S. Mrenna and K. Tobe to accommodate a gluino LSP. The result is that except for very small values of $`d`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which are strongly ruled out by the Higgs constraint, the cross section is below the limit of $`3pb`$ reported in Ref. .131313For example, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^5`$ GeV, the cross section of the process $`e^+e^{}`$hadrons through charginos and neutralinos exceeds the 3 pb limit only for $`d<0.37`$.

We have evaluated the rate for $`bs\gamma `$.141414In order to do this calculation we need to assume some values for flavor mixing elements. As a rough estimate we use the observed CKM matrix elements in the appropriate places. This is clearly just a rough estimate which gives us at best an order of magnitude approximation. The ratio of the SUSY amplitude to the SM amplitude for (varying $`d`$-fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and (varying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-fixed $`d`$) are given in Fig. 9. The main SUSY contribution in our model comes from the charged Higgs-top loop. Fig. 9 shows that we always get an amplitude larger than the SM amplitude approaching it at large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ since $`\mu <0`$. Note, our result is at the limiting edge of values allowed by CLEO data . Our result is however incomplete. We approximate flavor mixing using the known CKM elements as a crude approximation to squark - quark flavor mixing and we only use a one-loop analysis. With regards to the latter, it is clear that a one loop analysis is not sufficient since the higher order corrections have recently been shown to be very important (see for example Ref. ). Hence within the approximations considered here, the model is roughly consistent with the observed rate for $`bs\gamma `$.

Now consider the low energy consequences of the PQ symmetry which is spontaneously broken at the scale $`f_AM=10^{12}`$ GeV. This generates an invisible axion which is a significant component of the energy density of the universe and thus a candidate for cold dark matter . The axion is predominantly the angular part of the complex scalar field component of the chiral superfield $`X`$. The radial part of this scalar field and the fermion component of the supermultiplet are named saxino ($`\stackrel{~}{S}`$) and axino ($`\stackrel{~}{A}`$) in the literature, respectively. In our model, these fields obtain large radiative masses via a messenger $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_A`$ loop.

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{A}}=\frac{\lambda _X^2}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda },M_{\stackrel{~}{S}}^2=\frac{\lambda _X^2}{6\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.$$
(40)
The axino decays mainly to a gluino and a gluon. The decay rate is calculated to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{A}g\stackrel{~}{g}}=\frac{\alpha _s^2}{16\pi ^3}f^2(\frac{m_t^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}_{t_1}\stackrel{~}{m}_{t_2}})\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{A}}^3}{f_A^2},f(x)=\frac{x}{1x}+\frac{x\mathrm{ln}x}{(1x)^2}.$$
(41)
and we find $`10^{22}GeV<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{A}g\stackrel{~}{g}}<10^{17}GeV`$ for $`0.2<\frac{m_t^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}_{t_1}\stackrel{~}{m}_{t_2}}<1`$ and $`0.5<\lambda _X<3`$. This translates into an axino lifetime of $`10^7s<\tau _{\stackrel{~}{A}g\stackrel{~}{g}}<10^2s`$.

The saxino decays either to 2 gluons or 2 gluinos. The decay rate of the saxino to 2 gluons is given in Ref.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{S}2g}=\frac{\alpha _s^2}{32\pi ^3}\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{S}}^3}{f_A^2}.$$
(42)
For $`0.5<\lambda _X<3`$, the decay rate is $`10^{18}GeV<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{S}2g}<10^{15}GeV`$ with a comparable decay rate into two gluinos. This gives the saxino an approximate lifetime of $`10^9s<\tau _{\stackrel{~}{S}2g}<10^6s`$. The heavy axino and saxino have very short lifetimes and decay before nucleosynthesis starts. Their decay therefore does not affect the standard nucleosynthesis calculations.

Finally, the relic gluino density, assuming the gluino is the LSP, should be small enough that it does not constitute a significant fraction of the dark matter halo density (see for example ). Refs.  show that taking into account the non-purturbative effects of gluino-gluino annihilation into quark-antiquark and gluon-gluon the relic gluino density is extremely small; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}h^210^810^{11}`$. There are however stringent limits on a gluino LSP coming from searches for anomalous heavy isotopes  and from energetic neutrinos due to gluino annihilations in the sun . Both of these latter constraints apparently rule out an absolutely stable gluino LSP. They do not however constrain the case of a gluino NLSP and gravitino LSP also considered in this paper.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have presented a solution to the $`\mu `$ and strong CP problems in the presence of a heavy gluino LSP. The model has a natural Peccei-Quinn symmetry which prevents the $`\mu `$ term at tree level. However when the PQ symmetry is broken at the messenger scale $`M10^{12}`$ GeV the $`\mu `$ term is generated.

The particle phenomenology of the model is quite novel. Either the gluino or the gravitino is the LSP. If the gravitino is the LSP, then the gluino is the NLSP with a lifetime on the order of one month or longer. In either case this heavy gluino, with mass in the range 25 - 35 GeV, can be treated as a stable particle with respect to experiments at high energy accelerators.

We have studied some of the phenomenological constraints on the model. The most significant comes from LEP searches for the neutral Higgs boson. Our model is most like the no stop-quark mixing benchmark which is severely constrained by the data. In fact the model only survives in a narrow region of parameter space resulting in a light neutral Higgs with mass $`8691`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 914`$. In addition the lightest stop and neutralino have mass $`100122`$ GeV and $`5072`$ GeV, respectively. Thus the model will soon be tested. Finally, the invisible axion resulting from PQ symmetry breaking is a cold dark matter candidate.

## 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the DOE/ER/01545-796. A. Mafi thanks K. Tobe for helpful discussions. S. Raby thanks N. Polonsky and L. Roszkowski for useful conversations at an early stage in this work.

## 8 Appendix

## Appendix A The complete model

In this section we present the complete model with all the symmetries and charges. The model is defined at the GUT scale by the SO(10) invariant superpotential $`WW_1+W_2+W_3+W_4+W_5`$ and a non-renormalizable term in the Kahler potential $`K`$ where

$`\begin{array}{cc}W_1=\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3,& \\ & \\ W_2=\lambda _a\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_HA\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_A+\lambda _XX\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_A^2,& \\ & \\ W_3=\lambda _1\overline{\eta }_1A\eta _1+\lambda _2\overline{\eta }_2A\eta _2+\lambda X\overline{\eta }_1\eta _2,& \\ & \\ W_4=\lambda _{Y_3}\overline{\eta }_1Y\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3,& \\ & \\ W_5=\lambda _H\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }^{}+\lambda _{Y_1}Y\overline{\psi }^{}\psi ^{},& \end{array}`$ (52)
$$K\frac{X^{}}{M_P}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H^2+h.c.$$
(53)
$`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3,\eta _1,\eta _2,\psi ,\psi ^{})`$ are all $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$’s, $`(\overline{\eta }_1,\overline{\eta }_2,\overline{\psi },\overline{\psi }^{})`$ are $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$’s, $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H,\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_A)`$ are $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s, $`(X,Y)`$ are singlets and $`(A)`$ is an adjoint under SO(10). $`W_1,W_2`$ and $`W_3`$ were discussed earlier in section 2.

The theory is invariant under U(1) PQ and R symmetries. The charges of the fields under these symmetries are given in Table 1.

The R symmetry is broken by the vevs of several different fields at the GUT scale. However, the PQ symmetry is not broken at the GUT scale and prevents a $`\mu `$ term in the superpotential.

$`W_4`$ contains the field $`Y`$ which gets a vev

$$Y=M_G.$$
(54)
$`W_4`$ also results in a bottom-$`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling non-unification at the GUT scale as discussed in B.1.

We use $`W_5`$ in a standard way to split the top and bottom Yukawa couplings by giving vevs to $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ of order $`M_G`$. This mechanism is discussed in B.2.

## Appendix B Yukawa coupling non-unification in an SO(10) SUSY GUT

In minimal SO(10), all standard model fermions in a given generation are contained in a single spinor ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$) representation of SO(10). The coupling of the form $`W_1`$ results in a unified Yukawa couplings for the top and bottom quarks and the $`\tau `$ lepton, i.e. $`\lambda _t=\lambda _b=\lambda _\tau `$ at $`M_G`$. It is interesting, and necessary for our model, to see if it is possible to relax this condition in a simple way. The low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ fit of our SO(10) SUSY GUT to the infrared-scale physical observables requires $`\lambda _t\lambda _b`$ splitting at the GUT scale. We are also interested in the possibility of splitting $`\lambda _b\lambda _\tau `$. The reason is that our best fits to the data come from bottom Yukawa couplings which are $`30\%`$ smaller than the $`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling at the GUT scale.

### B.1 $`\lambda _b\lambda _\tau `$ non-unification

$`W_1,W_3`$ and $`W_4`$ contain interaction terms

$$\overline{\eta }_1(\lambda _1A\eta _1+\lambda _{Y_3}Y\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3+\lambda X\eta _2),$$
(55)
resulting in a heavy ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{\prime \prime }`$) and a massless (at the GUT scale) ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}`$) multiplet given by

$$\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{\prime \prime }(\lambda _1A\eta _1+\lambda _{Y_3}Y\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3)$$
(56)
and

$$\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}(\lambda _{Y3}Y\eta _1\lambda _1A\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3).$$
(57)
Note, we can safely ignore the last term in Eq. 55 since the vev of $`X`$ is much smaller than $`M_G`$.

The massless $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}`$ is identified with the matter multiplet containing the third generation quarks and leptons. Since $`A`$ gets a vev in the $`BL`$ direction and $`BL`$ quantum numbers are different for quarks and leptons, $`\lambda _b\lambda _\tau `$ unification will be lost, but we still have $`\lambda _t\lambda _b`$ unification. In fact this mechanism is an SO(10) version of the one introduced in Ref. . Considering Eqs. 1154 we define

$$s_a=\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{BL}\right)_a=\frac{\rho T_a^{BL}}{\sqrt{1+\rho ^2(T_a^{BL})^2}}$$
(58)
where $`T_a^{BL}`$ is the $`BL`$ quantum number of the state $`a=Q,\overline{U},\overline{D},L,\overline{E},\overline{\nu }`$ in the matter multiplet and $`\rho =\lambda _1/\lambda _{Y_3}`$. 151515In calculating the one loop gaugino (two loop scalar) mass contributions from $`W_3`$ in Eq. 20 (22), we have ignored an order $`1/\rho `$ correction coming from $`W_4`$. Since $`b`$ is a small free parameter, this does not affect the wino, bino and scalar masses while the gluino mass is varied by the free parameter $`b`$.

From $`W_1`$ we see that the fermions in the matter multiplet $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}`$ obtain mass at the electroweak scale due to the term

$$\left(s_a\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}\right)\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_H\left(s_a\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}\right).$$
(59)
We therefore have

$$\frac{\lambda _b}{\lambda _\tau }=\frac{s_Qs_{\overline{D}}}{s_Ls_{\overline{E}}}=\frac{1}{9}\frac{1+\rho ^2}{1+\rho ^2/9},$$
(60)
where $`\lambda _b`$ and $`\lambda _\tau `$ are the effective bottom and $`\tau `$ Yukawa couplings. We thus find

$$\frac{1}{9}<\frac{\lambda _b}{\lambda _\tau }<1,$$
(61)
depending on the choice of $`\rho =\lambda _1/\lambda _{Y_3}`$. For $`\rho 4.2`$ we get $`\frac{\lambda _\tau \lambda _b}{\lambda _\tau }30\%`$.

### B.2 $`\lambda _t\lambda _b`$ non-unification

The splitting between $`\lambda _t`$ and $`\lambda _b,\lambda _\tau `$ Yukawa couplings is best achieved in the Higgs sector using $`W_5`$. Since $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ get vevs of order $`M_G`$, the Higgs doublet mass term can be written as

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d_H& d_A& d_{\overline{\psi }^{}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda _XX& 0\\ \lambda _H\overline{\psi }& 0& \lambda _{Y_1}Y\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{d}_H\\ \overline{d}_A\\ \overline{d}_\psi ^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (69)
From the above we see that the two light Higgs doublets are $`d_H`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma \overline{d}_H\mathrm{sin}\gamma \overline{d}_\psi ^{}`$ which are identified with the light Higgs doublets of the MSSM, $`(H_u,H_d)`$, respectively. $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\gamma =\frac{\rho ^{}}{\sqrt{1+\rho ^2}}$$
(70)
where

$$\rho ^{}=\frac{\lambda _{Y_1}Y}{\lambda _H\overline{\psi }}.$$
(71)
Note, the rest of the Higgs doublets remain very heavy. From $`W_1`$ we see that

$$\frac{\lambda _b}{\lambda _t}=\mathrm{cos}\gamma $$
(72)
where $`\lambda _t`$ and $`\lambda _b`$ are the effective Yukawa couplings of the top and bottom quarks. A hierarchy of 50 is easily achieved by choosing $`\rho ^{}1/50`$.

## Appendix C $`\tau `$ neutrino mass

In this section we show that it is possible to get a reasonable $`\tau `$ neutrino mass, in agreement with atmospheric neutrino oscillations. Let us add two SO(10) singlets $`N`$ and $`P`$ to the model with R and PQ charges given in Table 2.

The only possible couplings for these singlets are

$$\lambda _{n_1}\overline{\psi }N\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3+\lambda _{n_2}N^2P.$$
(73)
We assume that $`P`$ gets a vev of order the messenger scale ($`10^{12}`$ GeV). The neutrino mass matrix is then given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _L& \overline{\nu }_R& N\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& m_t\frac{s_Ls_{\overline{E}}}{s_Qs_{\overline{U}}}& 0\\ m_t\frac{s_Ls_{\overline{E}}}{s_Qs_{\overline{U}}}& 0& s_{\overline{E}}\lambda _{n_1}\overline{\psi }\\ 0& s_{\overline{E}}\lambda _{n_1}\overline{\psi }& \lambda _{n_2}P\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L\\ \overline{\nu }_R\\ N\end{array}\right).`$ (81)
The mass of the lightest neutrino, identified as $`\nu _\tau `$, is given by

$$m_{\nu _\tau }=(\frac{s_L}{s_Qs_{\overline{U}}})^2\frac{\lambda _{n_2}}{\lambda _{n_1}^2}\frac{m_t^2P}{\overline{\psi }^2}6.3\times 10^7(\frac{\lambda _{n_2}}{\lambda _{n_1}^2})(\frac{10^{16}GeV}{\overline{\psi }})^2\mathrm{eV}6\times 10^2\mathrm{eV}.$$
(82)
Thus one gets a reasonable value for $`m_{\nu _\tau }`$ with $`\lambda _{n_1}3\times 10^3`$ and $`\lambda _{n_2}1`$.


text:
# Stochastic GW Backgrounds and Ground Based Detectors

## Motivations

The purpose of the present contribution 111Contribution to CAPP-2000, Verbier (Switzerland) July 2000. To appear in the Proceedings ( American Institute of Physics publication). is to summarise some general results whose implications can improve our understanding of cosmological models through the next decade. In this sense, the present session (devoted to GW) is complementary to the one on Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies. CMB experiments are the present of experimental cosmology, GW represent a foreseeable future.

Every departure of the background geometry from a radiation dominated evolution produces GW gr . This simple fact can be easily understood because, during a radiation dominated phase, the evolution equation of the fields describing the two polarisation of a GW in a (spatially flat) Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) background are conformally invariant. The amplitude of the detectable signal depends not only upon the specific theoretical model but also upon the specific GW detector.

The GW spectrum ranges over thirty decades in frequency. GW with (present) frequencies around $`f_010^{18}h_0`$ Hz correspond to a wave-length as large as the present Hubble radius \[$`h_0`$ represents the indetermination of the (present) value of the Hubble parameter\]. For these waves ideal detectors would be CMB experiments.

Frequencies of the order of $`10^4`$ Hz correspond roughly to the operating region of the space-borne interferometer (LISA) which will be (hopefully) operating at some moment after 2017. Between few Hz and $`10`$ kHz is located the operating window of ground based interferometers. The (narrow) band of resonant mass detectors is around the kHz. Finally between few MHz and few GHz microwave cavities can be used as GW detectors.

Between $`10^{18}`$ Hz and $`10`$ kHz there are, roughly, 22 decades in frequency. The very same frequency gap, if applied to the well known electromagnetic spectrum, would drive us from low-frequency radio waves up to x-rays or $`\gamma `$-rays. As the physics explored by radio waves is very different from the physics probed by $`\gamma `$ rays it can be argued that the informations carried by low and high frequency GW must derive from two different physical regimes of the theory.

In particular, low frequency GW are sensitive to the large scale features of the given cosmological model and of the underlying theory of gravity, whereas high frequency GW are sensitive to the small scale features of a given cosmological model and of the underlying theory of gravity. For instance string theory is expected to lead to a description of gravity which resembles very much Einstein-Hilbert gravity at large scales but which can deviate from Einstein-Hilbert gravity at smaller scales. That is only one of the many reasons why it is very important to have GW detectors operating over different frequency bands.

## Ground based GW detectors

GW detectors can be divided in three broad classes: resonant mass detectors, interferometers and microwave cavities. There are five (cryogenic) resonant mass detectors which are now operating: NIOBE niobe  (Perth, Australia), ALLEGRO allegro  (Baton Rouge, Lousiana, USA), AURIGA auriga  (Legnaro, Italy), EXPLORER explorer  (Geneva, Switzerland) and NAUTILUS nautilus  (Frascati, Italy). They all have cylindrical shape (the are “bars”). They are all made in Aluminium (except NIOBE which is made of Niobium). Their approximate mass is of the order of $`2200`$ kg (except NIOBE whose mass is of the order of $`1500`$ kg). Their mode frequencies range from $`694`$ Hz (in the case of NIOBE) to the $`912`$ Hz of AURIGA. The shape of a resonant mass detector does not need to be cylindrical. In particular the nice idea of spherical GW detectors is being actively pursued sph ; sph2 .

There are, at the moment, four Michelson-Morley interferometers being built. They are GEO geo  (Hannover, Germany), TAMA tama  (Tokyo, Japan), VIRGO virgo ; virgo2  (Cascina, Italy), and the two LIGO ligo  (in Hanford \[Washington\], and Livingston \[Lousiana\], USA). The arms of the instruments range from the 400 m of TAMA up to the three km of VIRGO and to the 4 km of LIGO. The effective optical path of the photons in the interferometers is greatly enhanced by the use of Fabry-Pérot cavities.

Microwave cavities have been originally proposed as GW detectors in the GHz–MHz region of the spectrum mw1 . A first prototype has been built in MIT in 1978 showing that this idea could be actually implemented in order to detct small harmonic displacements mw2 . It is not unreasonable to think that sensitive measurements could be performed in the near future. In particular improvements in the quality factors of the cavities (if compared with the prototypes of mw1 ) could be foreseen. Two experiments (in Italy paco  and in England bir ) are now trying to achieve this goal with slightly different technologies.

## Stochastic GW backgrounds

Define

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(f,\eta _0)=\frac{1}{\rho _c}\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho _{\mathrm{GW}}}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}f}$$
(1)
as the fraction of critical energy density stored in relic GW at the present time. In ordinary inflationary models $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(f)`$ is minute. Consider an ordinary inflationary phase being replaced by a radiation dominated phase which evolves, in its turn, into a matter dominated epoch of expansion. Then, the GW spectrum has two branches: a soft branch (between $`10^{18}`$ and $`10^{16}`$ Hz) and a quasi-flat branch for $`f>10^{16}`$. In the soft branch the logarithmic energy spectrum decreases as $`f^2`$. The gross features of inflationary models forbid $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$ being larger that $`10^{15}`$ in the flat branch of the spectrum. The reason is that at low frequencies (of the order of $`f_0`$) the COBE bound imposes $`h_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}<7\times 10^9`$. If we now assume (rather optimistically, indeed) that the inflationary GW spectrum is flat for $`f>10^{16}`$ Hz we can compute quite easily the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for a pair, say, of correlated interferometers. Thus, even with a pair of advanced devices we can get (at most) down to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(0.1\mathrm{kHz})6.5\times 10^{11}`$ ar ; noi ; pol . Thus, ordinary inflationary models are invisible by ground based detectors.

In order to have a large detectable signal for frequencies larger than $`10^{16}`$ Hz we have to invoke departures from scale invariance m1 ; m2 , i.e. scaling violation which can take place both in the case of quintessential inflationary models pv ; m3  and in the case of string cosmological models ven ; m4 . The scaling violations should go in the direction of logarithmic energy spectra which increase in frequency. Only in this case a large signal can be expected at high frequencies m5 .

By recalling that interferometers will be operating between few Hz and $`10`$ kHz and by recalling that microwave cavities will instead be operating for frequencies higher than the MHz we can envisage two different theoretical situations noi . We can think of a model where the signal at the frequency of the interefreometers is small. However, thanks to the frequency growth the same model could lead to a large signal at the frequency of the microwave cavities. We could also have the situation where the signal is large both at the interferometers scale and at the scale of the microwave cavities. The first case corresponds to quintessential inflationary models m2 ; m3  the second case corresponds to string cosmological models m4 ; m5 .

In both cases a detection of a signal at the scale of the microwave cavities would be a probe of the cosmological nature of the process producing the GW background: no astrophysical sources are expected at such high frequencies. In both cases there are frequency regions where the signal exceeds ( even by 8 decades in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(f)`$ ) the inflationary prediction. The idea of using electromagnetic detectors in order to probe stochastic GW backgrounds at high frequencies was also pointed out Grishchuk gr2 .

## Sensitivity of a VIRGO pair to string cosmological gravitons

Recently there have been concrete steps gia  towards the proposal of building in Europe an interferometer of dimensions comparable with VIRGO virgo . In view of this idea the sensitivity of the correlation between two VIRGO-like detectors to a generic stochastic GW background has been scrutinised in a number of papers noi ; noi2 .

Different locations for the site of the second detector have been examined in light of the possible stochastic sources. Given a theoretical model whose signal is, in principle, large enough to be detected by such a device there are two important aspects. In the first place, assuming a specific configuration of the VIRGO pair, we ought to know how the detectable signal changes by changing the parameters of the model. Secondly, we would like to know how much of the parameter space of the model can be probed assuming that the noises of the detctors are reduced by a given amount. These two questions have been discussed in noi2 .

In Fig. 1 the visibility region of a VIRGO pair is illustrated in terms of the parameter space of string cosmological models. The shaded areas correspond to regions of the (two-dimensional) parameter space giving a signal-to-noise ratio larger than (or equal to) one. In both plots the normalisation the signal is compatible with all the physical bounds we can apply to stochastic GW backgrounds m3 . Fig. 1 refers to the case where the noises induced by the pendulum and by its internal modes are suppressed, respectively, by a factor of $`10`$ and by a factor of $`100`$ if compared with the initial VIRGO noise power spectrum. Different noise reductions give rise to different visibility regions. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the minimal detectable $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(f)`$ at a frequency of $`0.1`$ kHz after one year of correlation of the two detectors. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{th}}`$ is the theoretical normalisation of the spectrum. For all the points in the shaded regions $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{th}}/\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}>1`$.

## Conclusions

It is very important to have detectors in different frequency regions. Interferometers and resonant mass detectors on one hand and microwave cavities on the other hand are complementary devices. Arrays of detectors at intermediate and high frequencies (i.e. larger than the MHz) can provide informations on the spectrum. Large signals coming from string cosmology and quintessential inflation can be, in this context, inspiring for the experimental work.


text:
# The HI halo of NGC 2403

## 1. The HI halo

The position-velocity diagram along the major axis of the Sc galaxy NGC 2403 shows the presence of gas with anomalous velocities (see Fig. 3 of the paper by Sancisi et al., this conference). This is the signature of an extended, slower rotating HI halo surrounding the thin disk (Schaap et al., 2000)

We have isolated the ‘anomalous gas’ in NGC 2403 by fitting a Gaussian line profile to the thin disk and subtracting it from the data.

Figure 1 shows the comparison between the velocity field of the total HI and that of the anomalous gas. It is clear that the second has a major axis at a different position angle. Moreover, the minor axis and the major axis are not orthogonal. This may be the effect of a radial in-flow towards the centre of the galaxy.

## 2. Models and discussion

We have constructed various models of the HI layer of NGC 2403 adopting a two component structure with a thin disk surrounded by a thicker, slower rotating layer. In Figure 2 we show a position-velocity diagram parallel to the minor axis at 2 (South-West) from the center of the galaxy. This is a suitable position to illustrate the effects of radial motions.

The diagram shows asymmetries especially visible at the low density levels. which represent here the anomalous gas component. The models attempt to reproduce such asymmetries by assuming radial motions. The anomalous HI in NGC 2403 clearly indicates a preference for an in-flow with a mean value of $``$20 km s<sup>-1</sup>, and somewhat larger values in the central regions.

What is the origin of this gas? Possibilities are: 1) A galactic fountain (Shapiro & Field, 1976) in which the HI traces the final phase of the fountain itself. The large number of HI holes and superbubbles in NGC 2403 is supporting evidence. 2) An accretion of primordial extragalactic gas (Oort, 1970). The kinematics observed in NGC 2403 shows an analogy with some of the HVCs in our Galaxy.

## References

Oort J.H., 1970, A&A, 7, 381

Schaap W., Sancisi R., Swaters R.A., 2000, A&A, 356, L49

Shapiro P.R., & Field G.B., 1976, ApJ, 205, 762


text:
# References

Random Matrix Theory with Non-integer $`\beta `$

Peter Markoš

Institute of Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9,

842 28 Bratislava, Slovakia

e-mail: fyzimark@savba.sk

## Abstract

We show that the random matrix theory with non-integer ”symmetry parameter” $`\beta `$ describes the statistics of transport parameters of strongly disordered two dimensional systems.

PACS: 71.30.h, 72.15.Rn

The application of the random matrix theory (RMT)  to electronic transport in weakly disordered systems  enables us to understand the main features of the transport. The small number of parameters which enters RMT explains the universal features of transport, especially the universal conductance fluctuations as well as the simple (linear) form of the spectra of eigenvalues of the transfer matrix .

There are only three parameters which characterize the system in the RMT: the system size $`L`$, the mean free path $`l`$. and the symmetry parameter $`\beta `$. It is believed that only three integer values of $`\beta `$ have physical meaning: $`\beta =1,2,4`$ for orthogonal, unitary and symplectic symmetry, respectively. Recently, however, Muttalib and Klauder  showed that the non-integer values of $`\beta `$ are also consistent with the DMPK equation . They introduced a new parameter $`\gamma `$, which substitute $`\beta `$ in the DMPK equation. $`\gamma `$ is determined by statistical properties of eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the transfer matrix. Consequently, it could possess any positive real value, although the physical symmetry of the system remains unchanged. This observation indicates that the electronic transport in disordered systems outside the weak disorder limit could be described by the the RMT model with non-integer symmetry parameter. The same hyputhesis has been formulated in  on the basis of numerical studies of strongly anisotropic disordered systems This conclusion also corresponds with the hypothesis , that any RMT which pretends to describe strongly localized regime, should contain non-integer ”symmetry parameter”

$$\beta \xi /L$$
(1)
where $`L`$ is the system size and $`\xi `$ is scaling parameter (= localization length in the limit of strong disorder).

In this Letter we study the most simple random matrix model with non-integer parameter $`\beta `$. To characterize the statistics of transport, we use quantities $`z_i`$ $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$ ($`N`$ is the number of channels) which determine the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ of the matrix $`t^{}t`$ ($`t`$ is the transmission matrix) as $`\lambda _i=(\mathrm{cosh}z_i1)/2`$. We calculate the spectrum (the most probable values) of $`z`$ for $`\beta `$ being free parameter. Then we apply our solution to $`\beta `$ given by (1) and show that obtained results correspond to the spectrum of $`z`$’s for strongly disordered two dimensional (2D) systems.

We start with the RMT - form of the probability distribution of $`z`$s:

$$P(z)=\mathrm{exp}\beta $$
(2)
 where $``$ consists from one - particle potential and the two-particle interaction term. In the limit of small $`z`$’s, $``$ has a simple form

$$=\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}kz_i^2/2\beta \mathrm{log}z_i/\beta \underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{log}|z_i^2z_j^2|.$$
(3)
Following Muttalib , the most probable values $`\stackrel{~}{z}_i`$ of $`z`$’s with distribution (2,3), defined as the solution of the system of nonlinear equations

$$\frac{}{z_i}|_{z_i=\stackrel{~}{z}_i}=0,$$
(4)
could be found analytically by method of Stieltjes through zeros of Laguerre polynomials $`L_n^\alpha `$  with

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{\beta }1.$$
(5)
Using properties of Laguerre polynomials , we express $`\stackrel{~}{z}_i`$ in the simple form

$$\stackrel{~}{z}_i=\sqrt{\frac{1}{k(N+(\alpha +1)/2)}}j_\alpha (i)N>>1$$
(6)
where $`j_\alpha (i)`$ is the $`i`$th zero of the Bessel function $`J_\alpha `$.

In the special case $`\beta =1`$ parameter $`\alpha =0`$ and formula (6) describes correctly the spectrum of $`z`$’s in the metallic phase of orthogonal ensembles. Indeed, $`j_0(i)=(i\pi +1/2)/2`$ for $`i>>1`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{z}_ii`$. It explains also the small deviation from this linear behavior for small index $`i`$, ($`j_0(2)/j_0(1)=2.3`$), which was observed numerically .

Solution (6) has been derived without any restriction to value of $`\beta `$. We can apply it also for $`\beta \xi /L<<1`$. Then $`\alpha >>1`$. In this limit we found zeros of Bessel functions in the form

$$j_\alpha (i)\alpha \left[1+\frac{2}{9}\left(\frac{3\pi }{8}\frac{4i1}{\alpha }\right)\right]^{2/3}$$
(7)
Then, supposing that

$$k[N+(\alpha +1/2)]=𝒪(L^0),$$
(8)
we obtain relation for the smallest $`z_1`$

$$z_1=\mathrm{const}\times L/\xi +𝒪(L^{1/3})$$
(9)
and for the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }=z_2z_1`$

$$z_2z_1L^{1/3}.$$
(10)
Formulae (9,10) represent the main result of the present work. To find their physical interpretation, we study the spectrum of $`z`$s for the strongly disordered two dimensional systems. Model is the standard 2D Anderson model with diagonal disorder. The strength of the disorder, $`W=10`$ and $`=20`$ assures that samples are in strongly localized regime.

Formula (9) gives correct $`L`$-dependence of $`z_1`$. It confirms also the physical interpretation of $`\xi `$ as the quantity proportional to the localization length.

Interpretation of the relation (10) is less trivial. However, our numerical data presented in Figure 1, confirm that $`z_2z_1L^\nu `$ with exponent $`\nu 0.31`$, in agreement with (10).

It is worth to note that the relation (10) does not hold in three dimensional (3D) systems. In the last, we found that the difference $`z_iz_1`$ is constant, independent on the system size and on the strength of the disorder. This qualitative difference between 2D and 3D systems is caused by the dimension dependence of the one particle potential, discussed in .

In conclusion, we presented simple random matrix model which seems to describe correctly transport properties of strongly disordered two-dimensional systems. Our work has been inspired by previous success in the application of the random matrix theory to weakly disordered samples and by recent observation that the non-integer ”symmetry parameter” $`\beta `$ could be, at least formally, introduced in the theory . This observation requires the new physical interpretation of $`\beta `$. We suggest that rather than being the symmetry parameter, $`\beta `$ represents the ”strength of the interaction” between particles described by ”Hamiltonian” (3). Decrease of $`\beta `$ with increasing disorder just indicates that the ”interaction” is weaker. The symmetry of the model remains, of course, unchanged.

We have not tried to derive the present random matrix model (without the $`\mathrm{cosh}z`$-term in the interaction) for the strongly disordered systems from the ”first principles”. We only showed that simple quadratic model (2,3) with $`\beta `$ given by (1) describes correctly some properties of the spectrum of transfer matrix for two dimensional strongly disordered samples. We found the present result inspiring for further progress in the generalization of the random matrix theory to system outside the weak disorder limit.

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by Slovak Grand Agency, Grant VEGA n. 2/7174/20.


text:
# Resonant tunneling through zero-dimensional impurity states: Effects of a finite temperature

11institutetext: Institut für Festkörperphysik, Universität Hannover, Appelstraße 2, 30167 Hannover, Germany
11email: zeitler@nano.uni-hannover.de

## Abstract

We have performed temperature dependent tunneling experiments through a single impurity in an asymmetric vertical double barrier tunneling structure. In particular in the charging direction we observe at zero magnetic field a clear shift in the onset voltage of the resonant tunneling current through the impurity. With a magnetic field applied the shift starts to disappear. The experimental observations are explained in terms of resonant tunneling through a spin degenerate impurity level.

Resonant tunneling experiments through a single impurity Read  mainly reflect the energetic position of an impurity level and the Fermi-Dirac distribution in the emitter. In order to refine the concept of such tunneling processes, in particular as far as the temperature dependence is concerned, we investigated an asymmetric double-barrier resonant-tunneling device (DBRTD) consisting of a 10 nm GaAs quantum well (QW) and two 5 nm and 8 nm wide Al0.3Ga0.7As barriers. The structure is sandwiched between highly doped GaAs electrodes (Si-doped with $`n_{Si}=4\times 10^{17}`$ cm-3) separated from the barriers by a 7 nm thick nominally undoped GaAs spacer. From this wafer we processed a vertical tunneling diode with a mesa diameter of 2 $`\mu `$m. When applying a bias voltage $`V`$ between the top and the bottom electrode the sample displays the normal behavior of a resonant tunneling diode with pronounced current peaks at $`V_r^+=82`$mV and $`V_r^{}=183`$ mV. For lower voltages additional small current steps are observed. We assign them to tunneling through zero-dimensional impurity levels originating from donor atoms unintentionally present in the GaAs QW Read ; Bumbel . In this work we concentrate on the first current step due to resonant tunneling through the energetically lowest lying impurity state. We will show that the spin degeneracy of this ground state and the Coulomb blockade causes a shift of the step position as a function of temperature note .

For a theoretical description of the effects observed we regard the situation as sketched in Fig. 1. A zero-dimensional impurity with a spin-degenerate ground state $`ϵ`$ is situated inside the central well of the DBRTD. It is coupled via two tunneling barriers (characterized by tunneling rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L<\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$) to three-dimensional reservoirs with chemical potentials $`\mu _L`$ and $`\mu _R`$. Applying a finite transport voltage $`V`$ to the structure induces a difference in the chemical potentials, $`eV=\mu _L\mu _R`$. A resonant current through the impurity shows up as a current step at a voltage $`V_+>0`$ (or $`V_{}<0`$, respectively) when $`\mu _L`$ (or $`\mu _R`$, respectively) equals $`ϵ`$ note . Two possible spin states can be occupied by an electron during a tunneling event. However, Coulomb blockade prohibits simultaneous occupancy of both states at the same time. With this condition the tunneling current $`I`$ through the impurity can be calculated as Schoeller :

$$I=2e\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\frac{f_L(ϵ)f_R(ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lf_L(ϵ)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Rf_R(ϵ)}$$
(1)
where $`f_L(ϵ)`$ and $`f_R(ϵ)`$ are the Fermi-Dirac distributions in the left and right reservoirs.

For a finite bias $`|eV|kT`$ we have $`f_R1`$ for $`V>0`$ (and $`f_L1`$ for $`V<0`$) and the current as a function of an applied bias $`V`$ simplifies to:

$`I=2e\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R{\displaystyle \frac{f_L(\alpha _Le(V_+V))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lf_L(\alpha _Le(V_+V))}}(V>0)`$
$`(2a)`$
$`I=2e\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R{\displaystyle \frac{f_R(\alpha _Re(VV_{}))}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Rf_R(\alpha _Re(VV_{}))}}(V<0)`$
$`(2b)`$
The prefactors $`\alpha _L`$ and $`\alpha _R`$ account for the fact that only a part of the bias voltage drops between the emitter reservoir and the impurity, see also below.

An experimental example for the $`I`$-$`V`$ characteristic of our sample is shown in Fig. 2. Clear current steps due to resonant tunneling through the energetically lowest lying impurity level are observed for both bias directions in the two top figures. For positive bias (right panel) the electrons tunnel into the impurity through the thicker barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and leave it through the thinner one $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. The impurity is mostly empty and both degenerate states of $`ϵ`$ are available for tunneling (non-charging direction). For negative bias the tunneling current is limited by the small tunneling $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ for electrons leaving the impurity. As a consequence, one of the two states of $`ϵ`$ is mostly occupied and Coulomb blockade suppresses a simultaneous tunneling event through the other spin state (charging direction). Therefore, the resonant current is smaller than in the non-charging direction. This current suppression follows from Eqs. (2a) and (2b) which predict for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and $`T=0`$ current steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }I^+=2e\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ in the non-charging direction and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I^{}=e\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ in the charging direction.

Effects of temperature can be visualized more clearly when plotting the differential conductance $`G=dI/dV`$ as a function of bias voltage. The current steps show up as peaks in $`G`$. Fitting its half width $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{HW}`$ as a function of temperature to Eqs. (2a) and (2b) allows to determine the lever factors $`\alpha _L`$ and $`\alpha _R`$, see Fig. 3, top panels. For both bias directions we find $`\alpha 0.5`$ indicating that the impurity is approximately situated half way between the two reservoirs.

Eqs. (2a) and (2b) also predict that the maximal conductance at finite temperature is not always observed at the voltage where the chemical potential in the source (i.e. $`\mu _L`$ for positive bias and $`\mu _R`$ for negative bias) equals $`ϵ`$. In particular in the charging direction the step voltage shifts to a lower absolute value when $`T`$ is increased. This is indeed observed experimentally and shown in the left bottom curve of Fig. 3. The solid line shows a theoretical fit as expected from Eq. (2b) and yields $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=10`$ in reasonable agreement with the expected tunneling rates through the two barriers. For the non-charging direction the shift observed is negligible and consistent with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R/\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=10`$.

When applying a magnetic field the Zeeman effect lifts the spin-degeneracy of $`ϵ`$. As a consequence the current step in the SET direction splits-into two steps corresponding to tunneling of electrons with a different spin orientation Desh ; PeterSpin . From the magnetic field dependence of this split we extract a Landé factor $`g^{}=0.14`$ for the impurity ground state PeterSpin . In the charging direction Coulomb blockade still prohibits simultaneous tunneling through both energy levels and only one current step is observed. However, since the degeneracy is lifted the shift of the step voltage is no more observed as long as $`3.5k_BT>g^{}\mu _BB`$. For $`3.5k_BT<g^{}\mu _BB`$ the energy splitting of the ground state $`ϵ`$ is no more resolved and $`ϵ`$ can be again regarded as a virtually degenerate level. Finally it is worthwhile remarking that the effects described in this paper also influence the spin splitting of the current steps in the SET direction and a direct determination of $`g^{}`$ is only possible if $`3.5k_BT<g^{}\mu _BB`$.

In conclusion we have shown that the actual voltage position of a resonant current step through a zero-dimensional state is not only given by the energetic position of this state but can also be strongly influenced by temperature.