text:
# DO–TH 01/20 hep-ph/0201052 Leptogenesis and low energy observables in left–right symmetric models

## 1 Introduction

In the last few years, there has been mounting evidence for physics beyond the standard model coming from the leptonic sector of the model. In particular, the muon up–down asymmetry, as declared by the SuperKamiokande collaboration, has given compelling evidence for neutrino mass and mixing . Measurements of the solar neutrino fluxes by several experiments  have also provided convincing experimental signatures for oscillations. Recently, the first results from the SNO experiment  have substantiated the existence of neutrino oscillations among active flavors involving $`\nu _e`$ from the Sun. In parallel, an interesting problem in cosmology — which could have its solution from the particle physics sector — is the issue of resolving a tiny baryon asymmetry in the universe . To recapitulate, the explanation of this asymmetry requires satisfying the three Sakharov conditions, one of them being the presence of $`CP`$ violation . As it is well known, within the standard model, $`CP`$ violation is explained through a phase in the CKM matrix and turns out to produce a baryon asymmetry far too below  the observed value  and thus additional inputs are required. For instance, the leptogenesis mechanism  can produce a baryon asymmetry through the out–of–equilibrium decay of heavy right–handed Majorana neutrinos in the early universe. Courtesy of the see–saw mechanism , these right–handed Majorana neutrinos also produce small masses for the light left–handed neutrinos as indicated by neutrino experiments. In addition, most viable neutrino models with large mixings  produce Majorana mass terms which break the $`BL`$ quantum number by two units and it is to be noted that if the conservation of this quantum number is assumed, the explanation of the baryon asymmetry is hard.

Therefore, the presence of heavy right–handed Majorana masses can be useful to explain both, the smallness of neutrino masses in oscillation experiments and the baryon asymmetry of the universe. This connection has been analyzed in several recent papers . It would be fair to say, that, from all of these observations, there seems to be a definite indication of new physics interplay between cosmology and particle physics, and leptogenesis could be one viability.

A relevant issue to this subject is to examine possible low energy signatures of leptogenesis. Among them are $`CP`$ violation in oscillation experiments and the value of the effective electron neutrino mass, $`m`$, as measured in neutrinoless double beta decay $`(0\nu \beta \beta )`$. In fact, given that in most models the heavy Majorana neutrinos are too heavy to be produced at realistic collider energies, observation of low energy $`CP`$ violation and lepton number violation might be the only possibility to validate leptogenesis. It might even be possible to distinguish different models through these additional observables . In this paper, we consider leptogenesis in left–right symmetric (LR) models111See e.g.  for the possibility of baryogenesis in left–right models. . We are motivated by the simplicity of the model which offers us to relate the left– and right–handed sectors of the theory due to the symmetry. This choice reduces the ambiguities which arise due to the unknown right–handed sector of the theory. In this model, one finds that for a specific choice of the Dirac mass matrix, the baryon asymmetry is proportional to the lightest mass eigenvalue. When we impose a unitarity constraint on this mass, we observe that rather stringent constraints on the low energy parameters follow, especially regarding the yet unknown phases in the leptonic mixing matrix. Subsequently, in a limiting two flavor case, we can relate one of the Majorana phases to the solar mass squared difference and also set useful lower bounds on the neutrino parameters.

Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we give the basic formalism of the see–saw mechanism in LR models. Section III deals with the leptogenesis mechanism and the results for the baryon asymmetry in the LR model. In Section IV, we apply a unitarity constraint to the light Majorana mass, which is used to constrain the low energy parameters. A lot of our analysis can be complemented with future solar neutrino experiments which will try to pin down the specific solar solution. We conclude in Section V by summarizing the main results.

## 2 Basic formalism in left–right symmetric theories

We begin by reviewing the known results for neutrino mass in LR models . The see–saw mechanism follows in models where the fermionic sector of the standard model is extended with massive right–handed singlet (under $`SU(2)_L`$ group action) neutrinos with mass of the order of $`10^{10}`$ GeV or heavier. The decoupling of such heavy mass states from the active left–handed sector can result in a small Majorana mass. In LR symmetric theories this decoupling results in a mass term of the form

$$m_\nu =M_L\stackrel{~}{M}_DM_R^1\stackrel{~}{M}_D^T.$$
(1)
In (1), $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ and $`M_R`$ denote the Dirac and the heavy right–handed Majorana neutrino mass matrices, respectively. This is to be contrasted with the conventional form where the left–handed mass matrix $`M_L`$ is absent and hence does not contribute to the light neutrino mass. The presence of $`M_L`$ is required in order to maintain the LR symmetry. The matrix in (1) can be diagonalized in the usual way with a unitary mixing matrix $`U_L`$:

$$U_L^Tm_\nu U_L=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3),$$
(2)
where $`m_i`$ are the light neutrino mass eigenvalues which determine the solar and atmospheric mass squared differences, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$, respectively. $`M_R`$ can be diagonalized by a unitary mixing matrix $`U_R`$ leading to

$$U_R^TM_RU_R=\mathrm{diag}(M_1,M_2,M_3).$$
(3)
The triplet induced Majorana mass matrices in (1) have the same coupling matrix $`f`$ in the flavor basis. Therefore, we have a simple relation between the left– and right–handed masses,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}M_L=fv_L& \text{ and }& M_R=fv_R.\end{array}$$
(4)
In (4), $`v_{L,R}`$ are the vevs of the left– and right–handed Higgs triplets, whose existence ensures the left–right symmetry. Generically, we can translate this vevs to an approximate equality ,

$$v_Lv_R\gamma v^2,$$
(5)
where $`v174`$ GeV is the weak scale and the constant $`\gamma `$ is a model dependent parameter of $`𝒪`$(1). Using (4) and (5) in (1), the light neutrino mass matrix can be written as

$$m_\nu =v_L\left(f\stackrel{~}{M}_D\frac{f^1}{\gamma v^2}\stackrel{~}{M}_D^T\right).$$
(6)
An interesting property of the mixing matrices $`U_L`$ and $`U_R`$, which arises due to the LR symmetry, has been found in . If we assume that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ is not identified with the up quark mass matrix, then the second term in (6) can be neglected and $`m_\nu M_L`$. Under this circumstance, we have $`U_RU_L`$, where the approximation is true up to $`𝒪(M_D^2/v^2)`$ in $`m_\nu `$.

Furthermore, the approximate equality of $`U_L`$ and $`U_R`$ leads to an interesting and simple connection between the light and heavy mass eigenvalues. From $`m_\nu M_L`$, it follows due to (4) that $`m_\nu \frac{v_L}{v_R}M_R`$. Therefore, one arrives at a very simple connection between the left– and right–handed sectors:

$$m_i=M_i\frac{v_L}{v_R}.$$
(7)
Note that in (7), the light neutrino masses are proportional to the heavy right–handed masses. In other words, the low energy spectrum is directly correlated to the spectrum at the see–saw scale. As we shall see in the next section, due to (7), the baryon asymmetry turns out to be proportional to the lightest mass eigenvalue, $`m_1`$.

In the following, we specify the strengths of $`v_{L,R}`$ which determine the corresponding size of the light neutrino masses. From terrestrial neutrino experiments, the scale of the mass matrix is $`m_\nu =v_Lf(10^2\mathrm{}10^3)`$ eV, which for not too small $`f`$ is only compatible with $`v_Lv_R\gamma v^2`$ for $`v_R(10^{14}\mathrm{}10^{15})`$ GeV. This implies that $`v_R`$ is probably close to the grand unification scale and $`v_L`$ is of the order of the neutrino masses. This situation is expected since under our assumption for the Dirac mass, $`M_L`$ is the dominating contribution to $`m_\nu `$. We shall work with (7) and explore its consequences on leptogenesis and low energy observables.

## 3 Leptogenesis in left–right symmetric models

The observed baryon asymmetry, usually given as a ratio of the baryon to photon number density in the universe requires physics beyond the standard model. This asymmetry can be generated by the leptogenesis mechanism through the mediation of sphalerons in the intermediate states . Within the framework of the see–saw mechanism, the heavy right–handed fields can produce a lepton asymmetry in an out–of–equilibrium decay. A lepton asymmetry is caused by the interference of tree level with one–loop corrections to the decays of the lightest Majorana states, $`N_1\mathrm{\Phi }l^c`$ and $`N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}l`$. The resulting decay asymmetry reads

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }l^c\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}l\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }l^c\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}l\right)}\\ =\frac{1}{8\pi v^2}\frac{1}{\left(M_D^{}M_D\right)_{11}}\underset{j=2,3}{}\mathrm{Im}(M_D^{}M_D)_{1j}^2f(M_j^2/M_1^2).\end{array}$$
(8)
Here, $`\epsilon `$ is now a function of $`M_D=\stackrel{~}{M}_DU_R`$ and the function $`f`$ represents the terms arising from vertex and self–energy contributions and is given to be

$$f(x)=\sqrt{x}\left(1+\frac{1}{1x}(1+x)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+x}{x}\right)\right)\frac{3}{2\sqrt{x}}.$$
(9)
The approximation in (9) holds for $`x1`$ with $`xM_j^2/M_1^2`$. It is worth mentioning that the hierarchical assumption $`(x1)`$ is also favored in order to produce large lepton mixings within the see–saw mechanism . As a result of (7), when the see–saw spectrum is hierarchical, so is the low energy spectrum. The decay asymmetry $`\epsilon `$ is related to the baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$ through the relation

$$Y_B=c\kappa \frac{\epsilon }{g^{}}.$$
(10)
In (10), $`c0.55`$ is the fraction of the lepton asymmetry converted into a baryon asymmetry via sphaleron processes , $`\kappa `$ is a suppression factor due to lepton number violating wash–out processes and $`g^{}110`$ is the number of massless degrees of freedom at the time of the decay. In supersymmetric models, $`g^{}`$ and $`\epsilon `$ are roughly twice as large, therefore the results are rather unaffected by the presence of supersymmetry. We shall work with the non–supersymmetric version of the theory. Phenomenologically, the preferred range for the baryon asymmetry is $`Y_B(0.6\mathrm{}1)10^{10}`$ .

In order to estimate the baryon asymmetry, we can insert in the neutrino mass matrix (7) any of the solar solutions, i.e. the small angle (SMA), large angle (LMA) or quasi–vacuum (QVO) solution. Following this, the baryon asymmetry is obtained using (8) and (10). As a passing remark, we wish to mention that within the context of the left–right models, this procedure can also be useful to extract the possible structure of the high scale theory based on the available phenomenological information at the low scale. This also relaxes the need to make, sometimes unavoidable, assumptions on the various neutrino parameters in order to satisfy the observed baryon asymmetry . In addition, as we shall see, the contributions due to the solar and atmospheric sectors to the asymmetry can be analyzed individually.

By performing a numerical analysis of the allowed oscillation parameters  and the three unknown phases in $`U_L`$, it is found that if $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ is a down quark or lepton mass matrix, $`m_1`$ should not be too small . Furthermore, the LMA solution gives a better fit to the baryon asymmetry and is thus slightly favored over SMA and QVO. It is interesting to note that current neutrino data also prefers the LMA solution  over the other possible solutions. If $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ is an up quark mass matrix, some fine tuning of the parameters is required .

Let us parameterize the mixing matrix $`U_L`$ to be of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}U_L=U_{\mathrm{CKM}}P=U_{\mathrm{CKM}}\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i(\beta +\delta )})\\ =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3& s_3e^{i\delta }\\ s_1c_2c_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1c_2s_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& s_2c_3\\ s_1s_2c_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1s_2s_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_2c_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i(\beta +\delta )}),\end{array}$$
(11)
where $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$, $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$ and the two Majorana phases are factored out in a matrix $`P`$. Within this parameterization, $`CP`$ violation in neutrino oscillations is governed by the Dirac phase $`\delta `$ and the $`ee`$ element of $`m_\nu `$ ($`m`$), as measurable in neutrinoless double beta decay, depends on the Majorana phases $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The presence and relevance of these additional phases was introduced in . If $`s_3=0`$, then the there is no $`CP`$ violation in oscillations and $`m`$is only a function of $`\alpha `$. In oscillation experiments, any $`CP`$ violation will depend on the Jarlskog invariant

$$J_{CP}=\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}2\theta _2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _3\mathrm{cos}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\delta <\frac{1}{4}s_3c_3^2\mathrm{sin}\delta .$$
(12)
For approximately bimaximal mixing, with $`c_1^2=c_2^2=1/2`$ and keeping the leading order in $`s_3`$, the baryon asymmetry is given to be

$$Y_B10^{10}\frac{4m_1}{12s_3c_\delta }\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2\left\{\frac{s_{2\alpha }+4s_3s_\delta c_{2\alpha }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}}+\frac{2s_{2(\beta +\delta )}4s_3s_{2\beta +\delta }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2}}\right\}.$$
(13)
Here $`c_\delta =\mathrm{cos}\delta `$, $`s_{2\alpha }=\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ and so on. The largest entry in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ is denoted by $`m`$. A few remarks are in order from (13). This form holds for both, the LMA and the QVO solution and clearly separates out the contributions due to the solar and atmospheric sectors. Also, the Majorana phases $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ do not mix and are related to the solar and atmospheric sector, respectively. This feature will help us to individually analyze the phases depending on the scales, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$. It is explicitly seen that the baryon asymmetry vanishes if $`CP`$ conservation holds, which is the case when all the phases are zero or $`\pi `$. The asymmetry is proportional to the square of the heaviest entry in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$, which in our case is either the the tau or bottom quark mass. Due to the mass relation in (7), $`Y_B`$ is proportional to the lightest neutrino mass eigenstate $`m_1`$ and has a lower limit of $`𝒪(10^7\mathrm{}10^8)`$ eV . Choosing the Dirac mass matrix to be the up quark mass matrix will erase this simple proportionality of the baryon asymmetry. In the following section, we use this proportionality, $`Y_Bm_1`$ to impose a restriction following from unitarity. We then discuss the implications of this for leptonic $`CP`$ violation and $`0\nu \beta \beta `$. To derive (13), we assumed that the wash–out factor $`\kappa `$ is approximately 0.1.

Note that in (13), the baryon asymmetry is predominantly governed by the solar scale. However, if there are any accidental cancellations in the first term in (13), then $`Y_B`$ will depend on the atmospheric scale. Alternatively, both the solar and atmospheric sectors can contribute to the asymmetry when the two terms in (13) are of the same order, which requires

$$\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}}\frac{2s_{2(\beta +\delta )}4s_3s_{2\beta +\delta }}{s_{2\alpha }+4s_3s_\delta c_{2\alpha }}1.$$
(14)
This is possible when $`s_{2\alpha }+4s_3s_\delta c_{2\alpha }0`$ or equivalently, $`t_{2\alpha }4s_3s_\delta `$, where $`t_{2\alpha }=\mathrm{tan}2\alpha `$. Given the strong constraints from reactor based experiments like CHOOZ  and Palo Verde  we have $`0s_3<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.28}`$. Hence the atmospheric scale can contribute only if $`\alpha `$ is in the range such that, $`1.12s_\delta t_{2\alpha }0`$. Clearly, this relation is not valid for values of $`\alpha (2n+1)\pi /4`$. For example, with $`\alpha n\pi /2`$, we require $`\delta n\pi `$ in order to let the second term in (13) dominate, which implies $`J_{CP}0`$. This would be identical to a two flavor scenario where we can set $`\delta =0`$. An interesting outcome is that the value of $`\alpha `$ is determined by the amount of $`CP`$ violation in oscillation experiments, $`J_{CP}`$. Therefore, in terms of $`J_{CP}`$ from (12), the atmospheric scale contributes to (13) only if $`\alpha `$ satisfies the relation

$$t_{2\alpha }\frac{16J_{CP}}{(s_3^21)}16J_{CP}.$$
(15)
The approximation in (15) is assuming that $`s_3^21`$ and this allows us to directly probe $`\alpha `$, up to $`𝒪(s_3^2)`$, by measuring the amount of $`CP`$ violation in oscillation experiments. In the next section, we independently analyze the contributions of both the solar and atmospheric sector for (13). We find that given the large mass scale involved for the atmospheric sector, it is hard to make a direct estimate of its contribution to the baryon asymmetry.

## 4 Unitarity bound, neutrinoless double beta decay and $`CP`$ violation

In the presence of any new physics originating at some scale $`M_X`$ above the electroweak scale, one should consider the standard model as an effective theory. An upper limit for $`M_X`$ can be determined by examining the high energy behavior of the lepton number violating reactions like $`\nu \nu WW`$ or $`ZZ`$, which can occur because of a Majorana mass term. It was noted that a stringent bound for $`M_X`$ is obtained by considering the following linear combination of the zeroth partial wave amplitudes

$$a_0\left(\frac{1}{2}(\nu _+\nu _+\nu _{}\nu _{})\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(W^+W^{}+Z^0Z^0)\right),$$

where $`\nu _\pm `$ are helicity components of the neutrino mass eigenstate and the final state bosons are longitudinally polarized. This amplitude to obey unitarity requires $`|a_0|1/2`$. In terms of the mass eigenvalue $`m_1`$, this can be translated to

$$m_1=\frac{4\pi v^2}{\sqrt{3}M_X}.$$
(16)
In the left–right symmetric model, the Higgs triplet $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=(\mathrm{\Delta }^0,\mathrm{\Delta }^+,\mathrm{\Delta }^{++})`$, which generates the light left–handed neutrino masses, also induces lepton number violating processes like $`e^+e^+W^+W^+`$. The $`t`$ and the $`u`$ channels of this process exhibit a unitarity violating high energy behavior, since the amplitude grows with energy. It has been explicitly shown that the presence of the doubly charged Higgs boson $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{++})`$, which mediates the same process via exchange in the $`s`$ channel, restores unitarity in the high energy limit . Furthermore, it follows from (5), that for a light $`m_1`$, the scale $`M_X`$ is dependent on $`\gamma `$ and for $`\gamma 1`$ we require $`M_Xv_R`$. However, in the following, for our analysis, it is sufficient if we maintain the requirement that $`M_X`$ be lower than the Planck scale.

Using (13), we have an equality relating the scale $`M_X`$ to $`Y_B`$:

$$M_X\frac{16\pi v^2}{\sqrt{3}Y_B10^{10}(12s_3c_\delta )}\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2\left\{\frac{s_{2\alpha }+4s_3s_\delta c_{2\alpha }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}}+\frac{2s_{2(\beta +\delta )}4s_3s_{2\beta +\delta }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2}}\right\}.$$
(17)
As observed in the previous section, there are contributions due to the solar and atmospheric sector. We analyze them separately.

### 4.1 Effects due to the solar scale

In the following, we neglect the contribution due to the atmospheric scale, and examine (17) for the LMA and QVO solar solutions. In this case, the Majorana phase $`\beta `$ is a free parameter in the theory. Depending on the solar solution, constraints on $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ are obtained, which could reflect in low energy observables such as $`m`$and in the $`CP`$ violating parameter, $`J_{CP}`$. In order to satisfy the baryogenesis requirement, we set $`Y_B=10^{10}`$ and (17) can be rewritten as

$$M_X\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2\frac{16\pi v^2}{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}}A\text{, where }A=\frac{s_{2\alpha }+4s_3s_\delta c_{2\alpha }}{12s_3c_\delta }.$$
(18)
The lower limit of $`s_3=0`$ is identical to a two flavor system, where one can set the Dirac $`CP`$ phase to zero. The fact that in a two flavor limit there is still a $`CP`$ violating phase ($`\alpha `$) reflects the Majorana nature of the neutrinos involved. Choosing $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ to be the charged lepton mass matrix, therefore $`m=m_\tau =1.77`$ GeV, we have

$$M_X2.810^{15}\frac{A}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}}\text{ GeV}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1.210^{19}\text{ GeV},$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$is given in eV2 and $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ denotes the Planck scale. This sets an upper bound on $`A`$ for a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. Furthermore, it could restrict the values in $`m`$and $`J_{CP}`$. This approach can be useful to probe the possible value for $`M_X`$ based on our chosen low energy observables. Future terrestrial solar experiments like BOREXINO , which will identify the preferred $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, can also correlate to the scale in our scheme. However, we can still make an estimate of the size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, depending on the parameters. To see this, we rewrite the result in $`(\text{19})`$ as

$$A4.310^3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}/\text{eV}.$$
(20)
Thus, depending on the values for $`\alpha `$, $`\delta `$ and for a given $`s_3`$, a lower bound on $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}`$ is possible. For example, the maximum value that $`A`$ can take is for the case when $`\delta =0`$ and $`s_3=0.28`$, which is its maximally allowed value. For this choice, we have $`max(A)2.3`$. Correspondingly, this sets a lower bound of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^22.710^7\text{eV}^2\text{for}A=2.3.$$
(21)
Note that from $`(\text{21})`$, in order to incorporate the QVO solar solution, we need to restrict the value of $`A`$ much below its upper limit. As we shall see in the following, the allowed region of parameter space for the LMA solution clearly covers $`A2.3`$ and for the QVO solution the parameter space is restricted with $`A2.3`$.

#### 4.1.1 LMA solution

In this case, we choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2510^5`$ eV2 and for this value we have $`M_X3.910^{17}A`$ GeV. Following (19) we can have a closed bound

$$0\frac{s_{2\alpha }+4s_3s_\delta c_{2\alpha }}{12s_3c_\delta }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}30.6}.$$
(22)
Clearly, there are no restrictions in the various angles, $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ in order to satisfy the bound in (22). Note that for the two flavor limit, the bound in (20) gives a consistent upper bound for one of the Majorana phases,

$$s_{2\alpha }4.310^3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}/\text{eV}\text{or}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^25.410^8\text{eV}^2\text{for}\alpha =\pi /4.$$
(23)
This bound can however be revised if we lower the scale where unitarity may break down. For LMA, one requires $`m_1<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^3`$ eV in order to have a hierarchical scheme, which corresponds to $`M_X>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.2}10^{17}`$ GeV. Then, (22) is modified to the range

$$0.6\frac{s_{2\alpha }+4s_3s_\delta c_{2\alpha }}{12s_3c_\delta }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}30.6},$$
(24)
which can be used to set bounds on the phases. On the other hand, for the hierarchical scheme to hold in the QVO solution, one needs values of $`M_X`$ close to the Planck scale. In Fig. 2, we show the area in $`\alpha `$$`\delta `$ space which is allowed for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2510^5`$ eV2 and $`s_3^2=0.08`$ and 0.001, respectively. As expected, the allowed region for the Majorana phase $`\alpha `$ is strongly constrained while the $`CP`$ violating phase $`\delta `$ remains unbounded. This is an indication of possible effects in $`m`$while $`J_{CP}`$ could still not be sensitive to our constraints.

From Fig. 2 one observes that the phase $`\alpha `$ is basically around $`\pi /4`$ or $`5\pi /4`$, which incidentally, from (15), are the values disallowed when the atmospheric scale contributes to the asymmetry. If $`\alpha `$ is fixed, then $`m`$is a function of the second phase $`\beta `$. As known, the LMA solution provides the highest value for $`m`$in the hierarchical scheme. For $`\alpha =\pi /4`$ we show in Fig. 2 the expected $`m`$for different $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$and $`s_3^2`$. For $`\alpha =5\pi /4`$ the situation is basically the same. A measurement of $`m`$could probe the second phase $`\beta `$, which drops out of the baryon asymmetry in our scenario. The limiting values are $`0.001\text{ eV}<m<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.01}\text{ eV}`$, depending on the values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$and $`s_3`$. Large part of this range is well within the sensitivity of the GENIUS experiment . If $`s_3^2`$ is too small, the dependence on $`\beta `$ vanishes, as does the presence of $`CP`$ violation in oscillation experiments. We remark that one could in principle obtain all phases by measuring the other entries of the light neutrino mass matrix, e.g. the element $`m_{\mu \mu }`$, which triggers the decay $`K^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$. However, this and other analogue processes have far too low branching ratios to be observed .

#### 4.1.2 QVO solution

In this case, requiring $`M_XM_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2510^{10}`$ eV2, this corresponds to $`M_X1.210^{20}A`$ GeV. Similar to the bound in (22), we now have

$$0\frac{s_{2\alpha }+4s_3s_\delta c_{2\alpha }}{12s_3c_\delta }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.1}.$$
(25)
This is a stronger limit than the one obtained for the LMA solution. It also imposes restrictions on the values for $`\alpha `$, $`\delta `$ and $`s_3`$, and requires the value of $`A`$ to be lower than the upper limit suggested in (21). In Figs. 3 and 4, we plot the allowed areas in $`\alpha `$$`\delta `$ space for different values for $`s_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$. As can be seen from these figures, in contrast to the LMA solution, the phase $`\alpha `$ is basically around $`\pi /2`$ or $`\pi `$. For these two choices of $`\alpha `$ we show in Figs. 5 and 6 the value of $`m`$for different $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$and $`s_3^2`$. The limiting values are now $`10^5\text{ eV}m0.01\text{ eV}`$, depending on the values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$and $`s_3`$. Some part of this range is well within the sensitivity of the GENIUS experiment. As known, for the QVO solution large $`s_3^2`$ is required in order to give accessible $`m`$. We note that the cases $`\alpha =\pi `$ or $`\pi /2`$ together with $`\beta =\pi `$ or $`\pi /2`$ are situations in which one can not distinguish $`CP`$ violation from $`CP`$ conservation in 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$.

A common feature for both solar solutions is that the case $`\delta =0`$ is allowed, which can be seen from Figs. 2, 3 and 4. This means that vanishing $`CP`$ violation in oscillation experiments does not mean that leptogenesis is disfavored. Also, since the atmospheric scale decouples in our framework, the presence of only one non–vanishing Majorana phase is sufficient to generate the observed baryon asymmetry. These features have also been observed in the model presented in .

### 4.2 Effects due to the atmospheric scale

As mentioned earlier, for the contributions from the atmospheric scale to be significant, we require to satisfy (15). This leads to two possibilities: case (i) with $`CP`$ violation or Im$`(U_{e3})0`$ and case (ii) with no $`CP`$ violation or Im$`(U_{e3})=0`$. Note that case (ii) is also identical to the two flavor scenario where we can set $`\delta =0`$. However, as already hinted, due to the largeness of the atmospheric scale, regardless of the unitarity bound, we do not expect to have strong constraints on the Majorana phases, unlike the situation for the solar sector.

We first analyze the possibility where Im$`(U_{e3})0`$. For this analysis, we take the largest value of $`s_3=0.28`$, for which case we can express the scale $`M_X`$ as

$$M_X\frac{16\pi v^2}{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2}Y_B10^{10}}\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{A}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\text{, where}\stackrel{~}{A}=\frac{2s_{2(\beta +\delta )}1.12s_{2\beta +\delta }}{10.56c_\delta }.$$
(26)
As in the previous cases, setting $`Y_B=10^{10}`$ and for $`m=m_\tau =1.77`$ GeV, we have the lower bound

$$\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2}2.2910^4\stackrel{~}{A}\text{eV},$$
(27)
which is easily satisfied for any value of the angles, $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$. Furthermore, setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2310^3`$eV2, we have the closed bound

$$0\frac{2s_{2(\beta +\delta )}1.12s_{2\beta +\delta }}{10.56c_\delta }187.6$$
(28)
and there are no restrictions on the angles from (28). The reason for this uninteresting situation is that the atmospheric scale is too large to set any useful limits on $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. As a result, the bounds have no impact on either $`m`$or $`J_{CP}`$. In case (ii), where we have no $`CP`$ violation, we set $`\delta =0`$ in all the results obtained above for the $`CP`$ violating scenario. The only Majorana parameter $`\beta `$, as expected, satisfies all the bounds derived above and remains unconstrained. As a further check, we briefly address the question: could there be any restrictions on $`\beta `$ if we relate the estimates from 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$and $`J_{CP}`$? To see this, in the hierarchical scheme of neutrino masses, we have

$$m\left[\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2s_1^4+\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2s_3^4+2s_1^2s_3^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2}c_\varphi \right]^{1/2},$$
(29)
where $`\varphi =2(\alpha \beta )`$. As a numerical illustration, we choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=510^5\text{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2=510^3\text{eV}^2,s_3=0.28\text{and}s_1=\pi /4`$, for which case

$$m6.3\sqrt{1+c_\varphi }10^3\text{eV}.$$
(30)
Using (15), we can rewrite (30) as

$$m6.3\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\left[\mathrm{tan}^116J_{CP}+2\beta \right]\right)^{1/2}10^3\text{eV}.$$
(31)
Taking the current allowed range, $`0m0.35`$ eV, this translates to a closed bound

$$0<\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tan}^116J_{CP}+\beta \right]<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}39.2},$$
(32)
which, as expected, is easily satisfied for all $`\beta `$ and $`J_{CP}`$. We see from (30) that almost all of the allowed regions are well within the reach of GENIUS except for $`\varphi =\pi `$ for which case we arrive at $`\mathrm{tan}2\beta 16J_{CP}`$. Therefore, for a null 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$result, the Majorana phase $`\beta `$ is determined by the amount of $`CP`$ violation in oscillation experiments. Again, this conclusion requires some finetuning, now in $`m`$, and is equivalent to the requirement in (15).

## 5 Summary

In left–right symmetric theories one can find a simple formula for the baryon asymmetry, expressing it in terms of the low energy neutrino parameters. In our analysis, we have made a specific choice for the Dirac mass matrix to be the charged lepton mass matrix. This choice results in only the triplet term contributing to the neutrino mass, while, for all practical purpose, the conventional see–saw term gives a negligible contribution. This results in a simple expression for $`Y_B`$ which is proportional to the lightest Majorana mass $`m_1`$. On the other hand, if we choose $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ to be the up–quark mass matrix, such a proportionality is not possible. We find that within this model the imposition of an additional constraint on $`m_1`$ coming from unitarity restricts the allowed parameter space for the $`CP`$ violating phases. This could be a distinguishing feature of the choice of the Dirac mass matrix with observable low energy consequences. The ensuing bound helps in narrowing down one of the Majorana phases, thereby reducing the theoretical uncertainty in the prediction for $`m`$. The value of the phase constrained by our approach is different for the LMA and QVO solution. Upon measuring the effective mass, one could obtain the second Majorana phase. In each of the cases, the corresponding limit of a two flavor system is obtained by setting $`s_3=0`$. In general, for both cases, most of the allowed parameter space predicts $`m`$in the measurable range of GENIUS with its sensitivity of $`m10^3`$ eV. The presence of one single Majorana phase is sufficient to generate the correct baryon asymmetry, especially the case $`\delta =0`$ is allowed, which corresponds to no $`CP`$ violation in oscillation experiments. We examined individually the contributions to the asymmetry due to the solar and atmospheric sectors and found that in general the solar mass scale dominates $`Y_B`$. Under a special situation, when $`m0`$, one could relate the phase $`\beta `$ to $`CP`$ violation in oscillations experiments. This might perhaps indicate the possible atmospheric contribution. However, if there are no positive indications for $`m`$from GENIUS, we still need to rule out the QVO solution in order to strengthen our claim for the atmospheric contribution. The reason is that the QVO solution predicts a small though nonzero $`m10^4`$ eV (see Figs. 5 and 6). It is in this context that future experiments like BOREXINO, which can pin down the correct solar solution, will help in better understanding the various $`CP`$ phases within this scenario. Furthermore, upon correlation with long baseline experiments searching for a nonzero $`U_{e3}`$ and $`CP`$ violation, together with a simultaneous measurement of 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$, it might be possible to make a reasonable guess on the Majorana phase contributions to the baryon asymmetry.

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Bonn under contract no. 05HT1PEA9. W.R. acknowledges the financial support from the Graduate College “Erzeugung und Zerfälle von Elementarteilchen” at Dortmund University. We also thank Prof. R.N. Mohapatra and A.P. Lorenzana for useful comments and discussions.


format: text

text:
# Lambda production in central Pb+Pb collisions at CERN-SPS energies

## 1 Introduction

Relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions allow the investigation of nuclear matter at high temperatures and densities. In-medium production of strangeness in nucleus-nucleus collisions is expected to differ from what is known from elementary hadron-hadron interactions. The measurement of strange baryons like $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(uds) hyperons, which contain between 25 and 60$`\%`$ of the total strangeness produced (depending on the energy), offer the possibility to study simultaneously strangeness production and the effect of baryon density in A-A collisions. The excitation function of hyperon production will probe the behavior of strange baryons at various energy densities in the interaction zone, which depend on the collision energy. The NA49 collaboration contributes to the excitation function the measurements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons in central Pb+Pb collisions at 40, 80 and 158 A$``$GeV.

## 2 The NA49 experiment at CERN-SPS

The experiment NA49 is a large acceptance hadron spectrometer at the CERN-SPS (figure 1). Tracking and particle identification by the measurement of the specific energy loss (d$`E`$/d$`x`$) is performed by two Time Projection Chambers (VTPC-1 and VTPC-2) located inside two vertex magnets (1.5 and 1.1 T, respectively) and two large volume TPC’s (MTPC-L and MTPC-R) situated downstream of the magnets symmetrically to the beam line . The relative d$`E`$/d$`x`$ resolution is 3-4 $`\%`$ and the momentum resolution $`\frac{\sigma (p)}{p^2}=0.310^4(\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c})^1`$. Two Time-of-Flight walls (TOF-TL and TOF-TR) give additional particle identification near mid-rapidity. The trigger on centrality is based on the energy measurement in the forward calorimeter (VCAL), which detects the projectile spectator nucleons.

## 3 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production

The NA49 collaboration has taken central Pb+Pb data at 40, 80 and 158 GeV per nucleon. For the present analysis, the 7 $`\%`$ most central interactions at 40 and 80 A$``$GeV were selected. The resulting event sample has 349 participating nucleons on average. For 158 A$``$GeV the trigger selected the 10 $`\%`$ most central events (335 participants). The number of analyzed events is 400k for 40 and 158 A$``$GeV as well as 300k for 80 A$``$GeV.

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons are identified by reconstructing their decay topologies  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{p}+\pi ^+`$, respectively, with a branching fraction of 63.9$`\%`$. The charged decay products are measured with the TPC’s. In figure 2, the invariant mass distributions are shown for all three energies. Clear signals are observed with reasonable signal-to-background ratios. The agreement between the measured masses and the nominal value, indicated by the arrows, is excellent. The mass resolution is 2 MeV/$`c^2`$ ($`\sigma _\mathrm{m}`$). The signals were extracted after subtracting the background, which is well described by a third-order polynomial. The average numbers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reconstructed are also shown in the figures.

### 3.1 Spectra

We have performed corrections bin by bin in rapidity and transverse momentum for geometrical acceptance and tracking efficiency using a full Monte Carlo simulation of the detector in GEANT. The reconstruction efficiency was obtained by embedding GEANT simulated $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in raw data events (one per event) followed by the same reconstruction procedure, which was used for the normal data sample. The transverse mass ($`m_\mathrm{T}=\sqrt{p_\mathrm{T}^2+m_0^2}`$, where $`m_0`$ is the rest mass of the particle) distributions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (at mid-rapidity) are plotted in figure 4. All spectra follow a single exponential function in $`m_\mathrm{T}`$ according to

$$\frac{1}{m_\mathrm{T}}\frac{d^2n}{dm_\mathrm{T}dy}e^{\frac{m_\mathrm{T}}{T}},$$

where $`T`$ is the inverse slope parameter. The slope factors are fitted in the interval 0.2 GeV/$`c^2`$ $`m_\mathrm{T}`$ 1.6 GeV/$`c^2`$ resulting in $`T=(290\pm 16)`$ MeV at 158 A$``$GeV, $`T=(269\pm 19)`$ MeV at 80 A$``$GeV and $`T=(252\pm 15)`$ MeV at 40 A$``$GeV. The slope parameter increases with increasing energy. This is illustrated in figure 4, where the inverse slope $`T`$ is shown as a function of center-of-mass energy per nucleon nucleon pair, $`\sqrt{s}`$. The value published by the WA97 collaboration at 158 A$``$GeV  and the preliminary result from the STAR collaboration (central Au+Au at $`\sqrt{s}`$= 130 GeV ) as well as an estimate of the slope at AGS energies  confirm the trend seen in our data. Another estimate at AGS beam energies  seems to be too high but still compatible due to its large errors.

At 40 and 80 A$``$GeV the acceptance covers the full transverse momentum region down to $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ = 0 GeV/$`c`$. The yield in each rapidity bin is the integral of the $`p_\mathrm{T}`$-distribution. At 158 A$``$GeV, however, an extrapolation using the fitted slope parameter is necessary to determine the yield (extrapolation factor = 1.22). Feeddown corrections for cascade decays are not applied, but these corrections are expected to be small. The resulting rapidity distributions for all three energies are compared in figure 5. The baseline for 40 A$``$GeV is at 0, indicated by the horizontal line. For clearness, the baseline for 80 and 158 A$``$GeV is shifted by 10 and 20, respectively. The reflected points (open circles) are close to the measured ones (filled circles). At 40 A$``$GeV the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are concentrated at mid-rapidity, whereas the distribution becomes flatter at higher energies.

### 3.2 Energy dependence

The maximum of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ rapidity distribution decreases with increasing collision energy, as shown in figure 5. This is highlighted in figure 6 (left), where the yield at mid-rapidity ($`y^{}`$=0) is plotted as a function of c.m. energy, including measurements from AGS energies   and from the WA97 collaboration . The rapidity density $`\frac{dn}{dy}(y^{}=0)`$ steeply increases at low energies and reaches its maximum at or below 40 A$``$GeV. In the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\pi `$ (see figure 6 right) this effect is even enhanced. The pion multiplicity is calculated in the form $`\pi =1.5(\pi ^++\pi ^{})`$, using measurements from  and assuming isospin symmetry of the interacting nuclei. The ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\pi `$ shows a steep increase at AGS energies and a strong drop at SPS energies. Much further on the energy scale, at $`\sqrt{s}`$= 130 GeV, the first result from the STAR collaboration , indicated by the arrow, fits smoothly into this systematics. The strong non-monotonic energy behavior is explained by the superposition of the slightly decreasing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ yield and the increasing $`\pi `$ yield in the range of SPS energies.

The large acceptance of the NA49 detector allows to study also the particle yields in the full phase space, as illustrated in figure 5. The total yields are obtained by integration of $`\frac{dn}{dy}`$ with only small extrapolations into unmeasured regions at 40 and 80 A$``$GeV. For 158 A$``$GeV the rapidity distribution must be extrapolated, using realistic estimates of the tails of the $`\frac{dn}{dy}`$ distribution, e.g. those of the net-proton distribution at 158 A$``$GeV  or the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ rapidity distribution in central S+S collisions . In figure 7 (left), the total multiplicities as well as the AGS measurements   are summarized. The total $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ multiplicity increases in the AGS region and saturates at SPS energies. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\pi `$ ratio (the pion yields are taken from ) follows a non-monotonic energy dependence (see figure 7 right).

The non-monotonic behavior of the strangeness-to-entropy ratio is predicted to occur in the case of deconfinement . The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\pi `$ ratio is sensitive to the strangeness-to-entropy ratio and in addition to the baryon density. The effect of baryon density is strong as shown in figure 7 (right), where our results are compared with statistical model calculations by , which are represented by the dotted line. The curve lies systematically above the measured points.

## 4 $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production at 40 and 80 A$``$GeV

A full analysis, as described in section 3.1., was also performed for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons. The resulting rapidity spectra are illustrated in figure 8. The filled circles represent the measured points and the open circles indicate the points reflected with respect to mid-rapidity. Both distributions show a maximum at mid-rapidity with a rapidity density of $`0.42\pm 0.03`$ and $`1.06\pm 0.1`$ for 40 and 80 A$``$GeV, respectively. The width of a Gaussian fitted to the distribution gives $`\sigma _\mathrm{y}=0.71\pm 0.05`$ at 40 and $`\sigma _\mathrm{y}=0.90\pm 0.13`$ at 80 A$``$GeV. The integrated 4$`\pi `$ yields are $`0.74\pm 0.06`$ and $`2.26\pm 0.35`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ per event for 40 and 80 A$``$GeV, respectively. This means that the rapidity distribution becomes broader going from 40 to 80 A$``$GeV and the maximum increases by a factor of about 2.5.

The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ratio is studied at mid-rapidity as well as over the full rapidity range. At mid-rapidity this ratio is extracted to be $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.025\pm 0.0023`$ at 40 A$``$GeV, which is in good agreement with $`0.023\pm 0.001`$ (uncorrected yields of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) measured by the WA97 collaboration , and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.079\pm 0.01`$ at 80 A$``$GeV. The $`4\pi `$ ratios are found to be $`0.016\pm 0.0018`$ and $`0.048\pm 0.005`$ for 40 and 80 A$``$GeV, respectively. We deduce from these numbers that the ratio $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases by a factor of 3, at mid-rapidity and $`4\pi `$, when going from 40 to 80 A$``$GeV. That implies a reduction of the baryon chemical potential $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ of about 27$`\%`$.

## 5 Summary and outlook

Within the framework of the NA49 energy scan program $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons were measured at 158 A$``$GeV and for the first time at 40 and 80 A$``$GeV over a large range of rapidity and transverse momentum. The inverse slope parameter near mid-rapidity seems to increase slightly with increasing energy. This indicates the effect of transverse flow which is expected to increase with collision energy. The rapidity density at mid-rapidity decreases with increasing energy in the SPS energy range. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\pi `$ ratio shows a significant non-monotonic energy dependence. The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ rapidity distribution at 80 A$``$GeV is observed to be broader than at 40 A$``$GeV and the total multiplicity increases by a factor of 3. The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ratio increases by a factor of 3, at mid-rapidity and $`4\pi `$, when going from 40 to 80 A$``$GeV. The planned 20 and 30 A$``$GeV run in the year 2002 will cover the interesting range between top AGS and low SPS energies.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Division of Nuclear Physics of the Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics of the US Department of Energy (DE-ACO3-76SFOOO98 and DE-FG02-91ER40609), the US National Science Foundation, the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (5 P03B 13820 and 2 P03B 02418), the Hungarian Scientific Research Foundation (T14920 and T23790), the EC Marie Curie Foundation, and the Polish-German Foundation.

## References


text:
# On the Nature of Angular Momentum Transport in Nonradiative Accretion Flows

## 1 Introduction

Originally developed to be powerful luminosity sources, black hole accretion models are now confronted by an embarrassing plethora of underluminous X-ray emitters, the best known of which is the Galactic center source Sgr A\* (Melia & Falcke 2001). These low luminosity objects are thought to be prime candidates for a class of theoretical accretion models that has been intensively studied in recent years, which we shall refer to generically as nonradiative accretion flows. Accretion generally requires significant energy loss, and the absence of radiative losses in these flows means that determining the ultimate fate of the gas is less than straightforward.

Much of the recent interest in nonradiative flows was sparked by the work of Narayan & Yi (1994), who examined a series of one-dimensional, self-similar, steady accretion models referred to as “advection-dominated accretion flows,” or ADAFs for short. In these models an $`\alpha `$ viscosity allows angular momentum transport and the resulting flows are quasi-spherical and substantially sub-Keplerian. Dissipative heating increases toward the flow center, creating an inwardly increasing entropy profile which we shall refer to as “adverse.”

Nonradiative accretion flows are amenable to numerical simulation. Hydrodynamical simulations carried out with large assumed $`\alpha `$ values ($`>0.3`$) show some similarities to ADAFs (Igumenschev & Abramowicz (1999), 2000), but smaller values of $`\alpha `$ led to flows with substantial turbulence, smaller than anticipated net inward mass accretion rates, and density distributions that are far less centrally peaked than in ADAFs (Stone, Pringle, & Begelman (1999); Igumenschev & Abramowicz (1999), 2000). Both inward and outward mass fluxes were observed at different times and different locations within the flow, and they nearly cancelled.

These findings were given the following interpretation by Narayan, Igumenschev, & Abramowicz (2000; hereafter NIA), Quataert & Gruzinov (2000; hereafter QG), and Abramowicz et al. (2002; hereafter AIQN). The adverse entropy gradient triggers an instability, and significant levels of convection result, hence the global solutions were called “convection-dominated accretion flows” (CDAFs). The next step in the argument is key: invoking the findings of other hydrodynamical simulations (Stone & Balbus 1996; Igumenschev, Abramowicz, & Narayan 2000), the angular momentum transport generated by the convective turbulence was claimed to be inward. This inward transport by convection was envisioned to be sufficiently great as to cancel the primary outward angular momentum transport by whatever process the $`\alpha `$ viscosity was modeling—presumably the magnetorotational instability, or MRI (Balbus & Hawley 1991).

In the CDAF scenario the vanishing of the angular momentum flux implies that the $`R\varphi `$ component of the stress tensor responsible for accretion also vanishes (NIA, AIQN). This has the further consequence that there is essentially no mass accretion and no dissipation, despite the presence of vigorous turbulence throughout the bulk of the flow. The only region where there is any mass accretion in the model is at the very inner edge of the flow. All of the energy release associated with this small net accretion is transported outward to infinity by the surrounding convective flow which is maintained with no further dissipative losses. For this reason, CDAFs are put forth as natural candidates to explain under-luminous X-ray sources. These models have been elaborated upon, becoming influential and widely-cited. Since black hole accretion models are central to our understanding of much of X-ray astronomy, the theoretical foundations for CDAFs deserve careful scrutiny.

In this work we carry out an explicit analysis of magnetized, rotationally-supported gas in the presence of an adverse entropy gradient. We find that CDAF models have two major inconsistencies. First, locally unstable disturbances with adverse entropy gradients do not generally transport angular momentum inwards in magnetized fluids. Rather, they generally transport angular momentum outwards. Qualitatively, their behavior is indistinguishable from standard MRI modes. This latter point has been emphasized elsewhere (Hawley, Balbus, & Stone 2001; Balbus 2001), but here we demonstrate it quantitatively by explicitly calculating the leading order angular momentum transport associated with unstable WKB modes. Convective modes transport angular momentum outwards when magnetic tension is significant, and inwards only for the very longest wavelength (global scale) disturbances, where magnetic tension forces are negligible. Indeed, for a given wavenumber, the direction of angular momentum transport is less a matter of whether it is destabilized by convection or rotation, and more a matter of the nature of background medium: is it effectively magnetized or not? This is the crucial issue.

The second difficulty is more direct and fundamental, affecting magnetic and nonmagnetic models alike. By relying upon dissipated heat energy to trigger a convective instability that supposedly renders the flow dissipation-free, CDAFs run afoul of thermodynamic principles. If the source of the free energy is differential rotation, the direction of angular momentum transport must be outward. This is a serious inconsistency. The dissipation is quite significant, and is indeed essential if convectively unstable entropy profiles are to be sustained.

We are led to a much more standard picture of the dynamics of turbulent accretion flows, though one at odds with the tenets of CDAF theory. The turbulent stress tensor in magnetized differentially rotating gas does not vanish. There is vigorous local turbulent dissipation. There is mass accretion. The near cancellation of instantaneous inward and outward mass fluxes is a property of any turbulent flow with large rms fluctuations, and not a superposition of the contributions from two distinct sources of mass flux with opposite signs.

In the following sections, we present (§2) the details of the angular momentum calculation showing outward transport; (§3) an explanation of important thermodynamic inconsistencies evident in CDAF theory; (§4) a brief review of numerical simulations and a concluding summary.

## 2 Radial Angular Momentum Transport

### 2.1 Local WKB Modes

Consider a disk with radially decreasing outward entropy and pressure gradients. We use standard cylindrical coordinates $`(R,\varphi ,Z)`$. The square of the Brunt-Väisälä frequency ($`N^2`$) is thus negative, and tends to destabilize. In what follows, it is convenient to work with the positive quantity

$$𝒩^2N^2=\frac{3}{5\rho }\frac{P}{R}\frac{\mathrm{ln}P\rho ^{5/3}}{R}>0.$$
(1)
The disk is differentially rotating with decreasing outward angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$, and epicyclic frequency

$$\kappa ^2=4\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{d\mathrm{ln}R}=\frac{1}{R^3}\frac{dR^4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{dR}>0.$$
(2)
A vertical magnetic field $`𝑩=B𝒆_𝒁`$ threads the disk. Its associated Alfvén velocity is $`v_A^2=B^2/4\pi \rho `$, where $`\rho `$ is the gas density. Axisymmetric WKB plane wave displacements of the form

$$𝝃(R,Z,t)=𝝃\mathrm{exp}(ikZi\omega t),$$
(3)
where $`k`$ and $`\omega `$ are respectively the vertical wavenumber vector and the angular frequency, lead to the dispersion relation (Balbus & Hawley 1991)

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }^4+\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2(𝒩^2\kappa ^2)4\mathrm{\Omega }^2(kv_A)^2=0,$$
(4)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2=\omega ^2(kv_A)^2.$$
(5)
Let $`\gamma =i\omega `$. Then, the unstable branch of the dispersion relation (4) is

$$\gamma ^2=(kv_A)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left[𝒩^2\kappa ^2+\sqrt{(𝒩^2\kappa ^2)^2+16\mathrm{\Omega }^2(kv_A)^2}\right].$$
(6)
It is straightforward to show that these unstable modes must have

$$(kv_A)^2<𝒩^2\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{d\mathrm{ln}R}=𝒩^2+\left|\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{d\mathrm{ln}R}\right|,$$
(7)
and that the maximum growth rate is

$$\gamma _{max}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4}\left(\frac{𝒩^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}+\left|\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{d\mathrm{ln}R}\right|\right),$$
(8)
which is attained for wavenumbers satisfying

$$(kv_A)_{max}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(1\frac{(𝒩^2\kappa ^2)^2}{16\mathrm{\Omega }^4}\right).$$
(9)
### 2.2 Stress Calculation

The angular momentum flux is directly related to the $`R\varphi `$ component of the stress tensor

$$T_{R\varphi }=\rho (\delta v_R\delta v_\varphi \delta v_{AR}\delta v_{A\varphi }),$$
(10)
where $`\delta `$ denotes an Eulerian perturbation, and

$$𝜹𝒗_𝑨=\frac{𝜹𝑩}{\sqrt{4\pi \rho }}.$$
(11)
For the local WKB modes we consider here, the angular momentum flux is $`R\mathrm{\Omega }T_{R\varphi }`$. Hence, the sign of the transport is simply the sign of $`T_{R\varphi }`$.

The needed expressions can be written down immediately from the equations (2.3c–g) of Balbus & Hawley (1991). In terms of $`\gamma `$, they are

$$\delta v_\varphi \delta v_R=(\delta v_R^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{D\gamma }\left(\frac{(kv_A)^2}{\gamma ^2}\left|\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\mathrm{ln}R}\right|\frac{\kappa ^2}{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\right),$$
(12)
$$\delta v_{A\varphi }\delta v_{AR}=(\delta v_{AR})^2\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{D\gamma }=(\delta v_R)^2\left(\frac{kv_A}{\gamma }\right)^2\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{D\gamma },$$
(13)
where

$$D=1+\frac{(kv_A)^2}{\gamma ^2}.$$
(14)
These equations are general beyond our simple example, holding in the presence of both vertical and radial entropy gradients. Note that there is no explicit dependence upon $`𝒩`$; the only dependence upon $`𝒩`$ anywhere is through the growth rate $`\gamma `$. The Maxwell stress (13) must always be positive. For a given growth rate, angular momentum transport is completely determined by rotation and magnetic tension.

Figure (1) shows the stability and angular momentum transport properties of an unmagnetized Keplerian disk in the $`k^2𝒩^2`$ plane. The vertical scale is immaterial: when $`𝒩>\kappa `$, convectively unstable modes are triggered at all wavenumbers. There is nothing special about the physics of convection per se with regard to inward angular momentum transport. In the absence of a magnetic field, any axisymmetric disturbance governed by the above equations would transport angular momentum inwards. This is why hydrodynamic simulations consistently find inward transport.

Matters change radically when a magnetic field is present. By combining equations (6), (12), and (13), we may calculate the full range of wavenumbers that transport angular momentum outwards:

$$(kv_A)^2>\frac{1}{16}\left(4\left|\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{d\mathrm{ln}R}\right|\right)\left(2𝒩^2\kappa ^2\right).$$
(15)
It is apparent that unless $`𝒩`$ is sustained at values in excess of $`\kappa /\sqrt{2}`$, every mode, convective or otherwise, will transport angular momentum outward.

The content of equation (15) is shown graphically in figure (2). Clearly, the dominant direction of angular momentum transport is now outwards. Note that the sense of transport is outward even for those wavenumbers that satisfy the condition

$$\left|\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{d\mathrm{ln}R}\right|<(kv_A)^2<𝒩^2+|\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{d\mathrm{ln}R}|$$
(16)
which are unstable only because of the presence of an adverse entropy gradient. These wavelengths occupy Region A in the figure, specifically the shaded wedge above the dotted line $`(kv_A)^2=3\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. These wavelengths would otherwise be stable to the “pure MRI.” They are destabilized only because of the existence of adverse entropy gradients, yet all region A modes transport angular momentum outwards. Physically this is because the large magnetic tension, which regulates angular momentum transport in this regime, would oridinarily be a strongly stabilizing agent. The adverse entropy gradient destabilizes, but does not alter the outward flow of angular momentum.

Region B denotes the shaded area below region A, but above the unshaded wedge comprising regions C and D. The B region is the wavenumber domain of outward transporting modes that would be unstable in the presence of the pure MRI. Their growth rate is increased by the presence of finite $`𝒩^2`$. The curve showing the most rapidly growing wavenumber (equation ) lies in region B, as shown, but eventually leaves this region at larger values of $`𝒩^2`$ (see below).

The inward transporting modes are confined to the unshaded narrow wedge at the bottom of the diagram, corresponding to long wavelengths. These modes have only a small magnetic tension force, $`(kv_A)^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. Region C consists of modes with $`𝒩^2<\kappa ^2`$. Comparison with figure (1) shows that region C modes are destabilized only by the MRI (i.e., they are stable in hydro disks), but are nevertheless associated with inward transport. Finally, region D identifies the modes that would be unstable in a purely hydrodynamic system that likewise transport angular momentum inward. In this narrow domain, both magnetic tension and rotational stabilization are smaller than the adverse entropy gradient. The curve denoting the most rapidly growing wavenumber enters region D for values of $`𝒩^2`$ in excess of $`4\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$.

The region of inward transport is very small, indeed non-existent for $`𝒩^2<0.5\kappa ^2`$, and it would be surprising if these marginally-valid WKB modes effectively halted angular momentum transport in nonradiative flows. In the next section we show that this is in fact impossible in any system where the seat of free energy is differential rotation. For the present, it is useful to have an estimate (or a bound) of the size of $`𝒩^2`$ one expects in nonradiative flows.

The entropy equation for a monotomic gas is

$$\frac{3}{2}P\frac{d}{dt}\left(\mathrm{ln}P\rho ^{5/3}\right)=Q^+$$
(17)
where $`Q^+`$ represents dissipative heating. This will generally not exceed the total energy budget available from differential rotation, $`T_{R\varphi }d\mathrm{\Omega }/d\mathrm{ln}R`$, and may be much less. In a one-dimensional approximation, we therefore expect

$$\frac{3}{2}Pv_r\frac{d}{dr}\left(\mathrm{ln}P\rho ^{5/3}\right)\mathrm{}<T_{R\varphi }\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\mathrm{ln}R}$$
(18)
Let us work near the equatorial plane and switch to cylindrical radius $`R`$. The inward drift velocity is related to the stress tensor by (Balbus & Hawley 1998):

$$v_R\frac{T_{R\varphi }}{\rho R\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(19)
which leads to

$$\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{d}{dR}\left(\mathrm{ln}P\rho ^{5/3}\right)\mathrm{}<\frac{1}{3}\frac{R}{P}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{d\mathrm{ln}R},$$
(20)
and

$$𝒩^2=\frac{3}{5\rho }\frac{dP}{dR}\frac{d}{dR}\left(\mathrm{ln}P\rho ^{5/3}\right)\mathrm{}<\frac{1}{5}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}P}{d\mathrm{ln}R}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{dR}.$$
(21)
Generally, when differential rotation increases, the pressure gradient decreases, and vice-versa. For a Keplerian profile, $`𝒩^2/\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{}<0.6d\mathrm{ln}P/d\mathrm{ln}R`$. In such a disk, pressure gradients are small, and $`𝒩^2/\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is likely to be less than unity. If a significant fraction of free energy goes into generating a magnetic field that is carried off from the disk (i.e., not into dissipative field reconnection), then $`𝒩^2`$ could be appreciably smaller. The point here is that a well-defined bound on the rate of energy dissipation limits the size of $`𝒩^2`$.

## 3 Theoretical Implications

To the extent that an MHD fluid description is valid, the stability of black hole accretion flow is regulated by the generalized Høiland criteria presented in Balbus (1995) or Balbus (2001). The notion of a “convective mode” is ambiguous, as evidenced in figure (2). A perturbation in a given background flow is best characterized simply by its wavenumber. The important physical point is not to categorize and study convective modes, but to understand that magnetic tension in an accretion flow produces outward angular momentum transport.

### 3.1 Turbulence and Irreversibility

The dissipative properties of CDAFs are very striking, and, in light of the results of §2, they merit reexamination. In a CDAF (NIA, AIQN), outward angular momentum is driven by a viscous-like primary instability in the fluid, and the energy from the differential rotation is dissipated as heat. This heating creates an adverse entropy gradient which, in turn, generates a convective-like secondary instability. When both the primary viscous and secondary convective instabilities are active, their angular momentum transport is equal and opposite, and the total angular momentum flux drops to zero, as does the volume-specific energy dissipation rate $`Q^+`$. This means that the convective instability recovers the dissipated heat (that originally produced the convective instability), and returns it to the fluid in the form of work (inward angular momentum and outward energy fluxes).

Clearly, this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, whether the system is hydrodynamical or magnetohydrodynamical: the onset of convection is caused by irreversible heat dissipation, and this energy can not be fully recovered in the form of work. NIA identify

$$T_{R\varphi }\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\mathrm{ln}R}$$
(22)
as the fundamental expression for the volume specific dissipative energy loss rate. But the fundamental definition of the energy loss must be in terms of the dissipation coefficients themselves. With $`\eta _v`$ equal to the viscous diffusivity, $`\eta _B`$ the resistivity, and $`\delta 𝒥`$ the fluctuating current density, the energy dissipation rate per unit volume is

$$Q^+\underset{i}{}\eta _v|\delta v_i|^2+\eta _B\delta 𝒥^2,$$
(23)
where the sum is over vector components. These losses never vanish in a turbulent cascade, and a secondary source of turbulent fluctuations can never fully recover the energy that is dissipated in the process of triggering the creation of the same source. It amounts to reversing diffusion, a thermodynamic impossibility.

This effect is not small. In a realizable nonradiative flow, none of the entropy generated via dissipation ever leaves the system (except in an outflow), for entropy can only increase. The CDAF description ignores all of the entropy production in the flow, entropy which would be required to produce the vigorous convection driving angular momentum inward. Recall that $`𝒩`$ needs to exceed $`\kappa /\sqrt{2}`$ for there to be any unstable modes transporting angular momentum inward, and even this minimum threshold already requires substantial levels of energy dissipation to be present. The description of a CDAF as a dissipation-free flow (or even nearly so) lacks a fundamental self-consistency.

The sources and sinks for turbulent fluctuations may be read off from Balbus & Hawley (1998), eq. (89):

$$T_{R\varphi }\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\mathrm{ln}R}+P\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝜹𝒗Q^+.$$
(24)
The expression (22) happens to be equal to dissipative energy losses $`Q^+`$ under strictly defined conditions that may be inferred from the above: steady, local turbulence in which the work done by pressure is negligible. This is, in fact, a good description of the behavior of turbulence in magnetized differentially rotating flows. An immediate consequence is that the time-averaged value of $`T_{R\varphi }`$ must be $`>0`$, i.e.,

$$T_{R\varphi }=\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{d\mathrm{ln}R}\right)^1Q^+>0.$$
(25)
The unavoidable presence of dissipation compels a net outward angular momentum flux in any time-steady magnetized system in which the free energy source is differential rotation.

## 4 Comparison With Simulations

The point of contact of CDAFs with numerical simulations is the power law scaling of the density, $`\rho (r)`$, where $`r`$ is spherical radius. The argument runs that since the CDAF energy flux is conserved (no dissipation), $`\rho v^3r^2`$ is a constant. With $`vr^{1/2}`$, this gives $`\rho r^{1/2}`$ as well. By way of contrast, constancy of the mass flux $`\rho vr^2`$ would give a much steeper $`\rho r^{3/2}`$ power law, which is associated with an ADAF solution. The power law scaling $`\rho r^{1/2}`$ has been interpreted as evidence in support of convection-dominated flows.

Since gas accreting into a black hole is almost certainly magnetized at some level, there is very little to be gained by hydrodynamical simulations: the stability and transport properties of magnetized and unmagnetized gases are simply too different from one another. In general, MHD simulations have not been supportive of CDAFs (Stone & Pringle 2000; Hawley, Balbus, & Stone 2001; Hawley & Balbus 2002). The one exception cited is that of Machida, Matusmoto and Mineshige (2001). This simulation follows the evolution of a magnetized torus in a Newtonian potential. “Convective motions” are observed in the subsequent accretion flow. However, these authors draw no distinction between what they refer to as convective motions and turbulence in general. Turbulence is, of course, inevitable in an MHD accretion flow; it is hardly the defining signature of a CDAF. The only quantitative basis for the claimed agreement with CDAFs was the observation that at one point in time the the density exhibited a $`r^{1/2}`$ power law behavior. However, the flow was a highly time-dependent, the $`r`$ dependency evolved, and a different power law emerged at the end of the simulation.

Even if $`\rho r^{1/2}`$ scaling were unambiguously extracted from a simulation, there is no compelling association with thermal convection. Under steady conditions, all nonradiative flows, regardless of their level of dissipation, have a conserved mass flux and a conserved total energy flux. When the flow is turbulent, to address the behavior of these fluxes one must speak in terms of correlations of the flow quantities. In the presence of fluctuations, it is common to have weak correlations in the mass flux and much stronger correlations in the energy flux; indeed, ordinary waves display this sort of behavior. The scaling $`\rho r^{1/2}`$ could emerge, for example, if the correlation between pressure and velocities in the energy flux were strong, and the magnitude of all velocity fluctuations scales by the local virial velocity. Neither the presence or absence of thermal convection, nor the rate of energy dissipation is relevant.

In any case, any similarity between theory and simulation in a radial power law index is not an answer to fundamental dynamical and thermodynamical inconsistencies. Verification should run in the opposite direction: in the course of producing MHD turbulence, any numerical simulation should show on average a positive value for $`T_{R\varphi }`$, and significant levels of energy dissipation.

The notion of a convectively unstable mode is ill defined in magnetized differentially rotating systems. When the magnitude of the Brunt-Väisälä frequency $`𝒩`$ is less than $`\kappa /\sqrt{2}`$, all unstable modes transport angular momentum outward. If $`𝒩`$ is maintained above this, equation (15) and figure (2) show that a small range of wavelengths on the largest scales transport angular momentum inwards. (It is of course not at all surprising that sufficiently large values of $`𝒩`$ can be chosen to render the dynamics of differential rotation less important than convection.) For $`𝒩<\kappa `$, the inward transporting modes are destabilized by magnetic tension, for larger $`𝒩`$ values the destabilization is by convection. Small wavenumber convective modes (Region A in figure ) always transport angular momentum outwards, and overall transport remains overwhelmingly outwards for values of $`𝒩\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

This is a very serious difficulty for CDAF models, which rely on a significant level of inward angular momentum transport engendered by convectively-driven modes. Moreover, and most importantly, the claims of vanishing stress and vanishing energy dissipation are inconsistent with fundamental thermodynamic principles. They are also inconsistent with the need to maintain $`𝒩>\kappa /\sqrt{2}`$, a requirement for the existence of any inward transporting unstable modes. The central feature of CDAF theory, a vanishing of the angular momentum flux, is not possible if the seat of free energy is differential rotation. Characteristic power law scalings extracted from numerical simulations are not evidence for low dissipation flow.

Black hole accretion features far more conventional and familiar fluid dynamics. Underluminous sources are likely to be a consequence of low densities and lower than anticipated temperatures, as opposed to dissipation-free turbulence. MHD turbulence leads to outward angular momentum transport and to a positive $`R\varphi `$ stress component, irreversible dissipative heating, mass accretion, and significant mass outflow as well. These are all manifest in numerical MHD simulations. The development of the spectral and energetic properties will test these model flows more stringently.

M. Begelman, O. Blaes, and C. Terquem provided helpful comments on a preliminary draft of this paper, as did R. Narayan, though he is in disagreement with our conclusions. This research was supported by NSF grant AST-0070979, and NASA grants NAG5-9266 and NAG-10655.


text:
# The Effect of the Minimal Length Uncertainty Relation on the Density of States and the Cosmological Constant Problem

## I Introduction

In this paper, we continue our investigation CMOT1  of the consequences of the commutation relation

$$[\widehat{x},\widehat{p}]=i\mathrm{}(1+\beta \widehat{p}^2),$$
(1)
which leads to the minimal length uncertainty relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}+\beta \mathrm{\Delta }p\right).$$
(2)
As reviewed in Ref. CMOT1 , Eq. (2) has appeared in the context of perturbative string theory gross  where it is implicit in the fact that strings cannot probe distances below the string scale $`\mathrm{}\sqrt{\beta }`$. It should be noted that the precise theoretical framework for such a minimal length uncertainty relation is not understood in string theory. In particular, it is not clear whether Eq. (1) represents the correct quantum mechanical implementation of Eq. (2). Indeed, Kempf has shown that the commutation relation which implies the existence of a minimal length is not unique Kempf:2001 .

Furthermore, Eq. (2) does not seem to be universally valid. For example, both in the realms of perturbative and non-perturbative string theory (where distances shorter than string scale can be probed by $`D`$-branes joep ), another type of uncertainty relation involving both spatial and time coordinates has been found to hold stu . The distinction (and relation) between the minimal length uncertainty relation and the space-time uncertainty relation has been clearly emphasized by Yoneya yoneya .

Notwithstanding these caveats, the minimum length uncertainty formula does exhibit the basic features of UV/IR correspondence: when $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ is large, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$, a fact which seems counterintuitive from the point of view of local quantum field theory. As is well known, this kind of UV/IR correspondence has been previously encountered in various contexts: the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence adscft , non-commutative field theory ncft , and more recently in the attempts to understand quantum gravity in asymptotically de Sitter spaces dscft ; dsrg .

Moreover, it has been argued by various authors banks  that the UV/IR correspondence, described by Eq. (2), is relevant for the understanding of the cosmological constant problem cosmoc . Likewise, it has been suggested in the literature that some kind of UV/IR relation is necessary to understand observable implications of short distance physics on inflationary cosmology Kempf:2001 ; greene .

In this paper we ask the question whether the cosmological constant problem could be understood by utilizing a concrete UV/IR relation, such as Eq. (1). In particular, we study the implication of the commutation relation on the effective density of states in the vacuum and consequently on the cosmological constant problem. We point out that the commutation relation implies the finiteness of the cosmological constant and the modification of the blackbody radiation spectrum. While we do not present a solution to the cosmological constant problem, our results offer a new perspective from which this outstanding problem may be addressed.

## II The Classical Limit and the Liouville Theorem

The observation we would like to make is that the right hand side of Eq. (1) can be considered to define an ‘effective’ value of $`\mathrm{}`$ which is $`p`$-dependent. This means that the size of the unit cell that each quantum state occupies in phase space can be thought of as being also $`p`$-dependent. This will change the $`p`$-dependence of the density of states and affect the calculation of the cosmological constant, the blackbody radiation spectrum, etc. Lubo:2000yj . For this interpretation to make sense, we must first check that any volume of phase space evolves in such a way that the number of states inside does not change with time. What we are looking for here is the analog of the Liouville theorem. To place the discussion in a general context, we begin by extending Eq. (1) to higher dimensions.

In $`D`$-dimensions, Eq. (1) is extended to the tensorial form Kempf:1995su  :

$$[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{p}_j]=i\mathrm{}(\delta _{ij}+\beta \widehat{p}^2\delta _{ij}+\beta ^{}\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_j).$$
(3)
If the components of the momentum $`\widehat{p}_i`$ are assumed to commute with each other,

$$[\widehat{p}_i,\widehat{p}_j]=0,$$
(4)
then the commutation relations among the coordinates $`\widehat{x}_i`$ are almost uniquely determined by the Jacobi Identity (up to possible extensions) as

$$[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{x}_j]=i\mathrm{}\frac{(2\beta \beta ^{})+(2\beta +\beta ^{})\beta \widehat{p}^2}{(1+\beta \widehat{p}^2)}\left(\widehat{p}_i\widehat{x}_j\widehat{p}_j\widehat{x}_i\right).$$
(5)
Let us take a look at what happens in the classical limit. Recall that the quantum mechanical commutator corresponds to the Poisson bracket in classical mechanics via

$$\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]\{A,B\}.$$
(6)
So the classical limits of Eqs. (3)–(5) read

$`\{x_i,p_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\beta p^2)\delta _{ij}+\beta ^{}p_ip_j,`$ (7)
$`\{p_i,p_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8)
$`\{x_i,x_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\beta \beta ^{})+(2\beta +\beta ^{})\beta p^2}{(1+\beta p^2)}}\left(p_ix_jp_jx_i\right).`$ (9)
The time evolutions of the coordinates and momenta are governed by

$`\dot{x}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\{x_i,H\}=\{x_i,p_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_j}}+\{x_i,x_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}},`$ (10)
$`\dot{p}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\{p_i,H\}=\{x_j,p_i\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}.`$ (11)
The analog of the Liouville theorem in this case states that the weighted phase space volume

$$\frac{d^D𝐱d^D𝐩}{\left[1+\beta p^2\right]^{D1}\left[1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2\right]}$$
(12)
is invariant under time evolution. To see this, consider an infinitesimal time interval $`\delta t`$. The evolution of the coordinates and momenta during $`\delta t`$ are

$`x_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x_i+\delta x_i,`$ (13)
$`p_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`p_i+\delta p_i,`$ (14)
with

$`\delta x_i`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\{x_i,p_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_j}}+\{x_i,x_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\right]\delta t,`$ (15)
$`\delta p_i`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\{x_j,p_i\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\right]\delta t.`$ (16)
An infinitesimal phase space volume after this infinitesimal evolution is

$$d^D𝐱^{}d^D𝐩^{}=\left|\frac{(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_D^{},p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_D^{})}{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_D,p_1,\mathrm{},p_D)}\right|d^D𝐱d^D𝐩.$$
(17)
Since

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{x_i^{}}{x_j}=\delta _{ij}+\frac{\delta x_i}{x_j},\hfill & \frac{x_i^{}}{p_j}=\frac{\delta x_i}{p_j},\hfill \\ \frac{p_i^{}}{x_j}=\frac{\delta p_i}{x_j},\hfill & \frac{p_i^{}}{p_j}=\delta _{ij}+\frac{\delta p_i}{p_j},\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
the Jacobian to first order in $`\delta t`$ is

$$\left|\frac{(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_D^{},p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_D^{})}{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_D,p_1,\mathrm{},p_D)}\right|=1+\left(\frac{\delta x_i}{x_i}+\frac{\delta p_i}{p_i}\right)+\mathrm{}.$$
(19)
We find

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta x_i}{x_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p_i}{p_i}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta t}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}\left[\{x_i,p_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_j}}+\{x_i,x_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}\left[\{x_j,p_i\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\right]`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}\{x_i,p_j\}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_j}}+\{x_i,p_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H}{x_ip_j}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}\{x_i,x_j\}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}`$ (23)
$`+\{x_i,x_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H}{x_ix_j}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}\{x_j,p_i\}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\{x_j,p_i\}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H}{p_jx_i}}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}\{x_i,x_j\}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}\{x_j,p_i\}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2\beta \beta ^{})+(2\beta +\beta ^{})\beta p^2}{(1+\beta p^2)}}(D1)p_j\right]{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\left[\{2\beta +(D+1)\beta ^{}\}p_j\right]{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`\left[2(D1)\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2}{1+\beta p^2}}\right)+2(\beta +\beta ^{})\right]p_j{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}.`$ (26)
Therefore, to first order in $`\delta t`$

$$d^D𝐱^{}d^D𝐩^{}=d^D𝐱d^D𝐩\left[1\left\{2(D1)\beta \left(\frac{1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2}{1+\beta p^2}\right)+2(\beta +\beta ^{})\right\}p_j\frac{H}{x_j}\delta t\right].$$
(27)
On the other hand,

$`1+\beta p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\beta (p_i+\delta p_i)^2`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`1+\beta \left(p^2+2p_i\delta p_i+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`1+\beta \left(p^22p_i\{x_i,p_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\delta t+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`1+\beta \left(p^22\left[1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2\right]p_j{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\delta t+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`(1+\beta p^2)2\beta \left[1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2\right]p_j{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\delta t+\mathrm{}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`(1+\beta p^2)\left[12\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2}{1+\beta p^2}}\right)p_j{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\delta t+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (33)
and

$`1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`1+(\beta +\beta ^{})(p_i+\delta p_i)^2`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`1+(\beta +\beta ^{})\left(p^2+2p_i\delta p_i+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`1+(\beta +\beta ^{})\left(p^22p_i\{x_i,p_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\delta t+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`1+(\beta +\beta ^{})\left(p^22\left[1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2\right]p_j{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\delta t+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`\left[1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2\right]2(\beta +\beta ^{})\left[1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2\right]p_j{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\delta t+\mathrm{}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`[1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2]\left[12(\beta +\beta ^{})p_j{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\delta t+\mathrm{}\right].`$ (39)
Therefore, to first order in $`\delta t`$

$`\left[1+\beta p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]^{D+1}\left[1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]^1`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`\left[1+\beta p^2\right]^{D+1}\left[1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2\right]^1`$ (42)
$`\times \left[1+\left\{2(D1)\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2}{1+\beta p^2}}\right)+2(\beta +\beta ^{})\right\}p_j{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}\delta t\right].`$
From Eqs. (27) and (42), we deduce that the weighted phase space volume Eq. (12) is invariant. Note that in addition to the non-canonical Poisson brackets between the coordinates and momenta, those among the coordinates themselves (and thus the non–commutative geometry of the problem) is crucial in arriving at this result. When $`\beta ^{}=0`$, Eq. (12) simplifies to

$$\frac{d^D𝐱d^D𝐩}{(1+\beta p^2)^D}.$$
(43)
As a concrete example, consider the $`1D`$ harmonic oscillator with the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2\mu }+\frac{1}{2}\mu \omega ^2x^2.$$
(44)
The equations of motion are

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`\{x,H\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}(1+\beta p^2)p,`$ (45)
$`\dot{p}`$ $`=`$ $`\{p,H\}=\mu \omega ^2(1+\beta p^2)x.`$ (46)
These equations can be solved to yield

$`x(t)`$ $`=`$ $`x_{\mathrm{max}}\sqrt{1+\epsilon }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{1+\epsilon }\omega t)}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon \mathrm{sin}^2(\sqrt{1+\epsilon }\omega t)}}},`$ (47)
$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`p_{\mathrm{max}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{1+\epsilon }\omega t)}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon \mathrm{sin}^2(\sqrt{1+\epsilon }\omega t)}}},`$ (48)
where

$$\epsilon =2\mu E\beta ,x_{\mathrm{max}}=\sqrt{\frac{2E}{\mu \omega ^2}},p_{\mathrm{max}}=\sqrt{2\mu E}.$$
(49)
Note that the period of oscillation, $`T`$, is now energy (and thus amplitude) dependent:

$$T=\frac{2\pi }{\omega \sqrt{1+\epsilon }}.$$
(50)
Now, consider the infinitesimal phase space volume sandwiched between the equal–energy contours $`E`$ and $`E+dE`$, and the equal–time contours $`t`$ and $`t+dt`$. It is straightforward to show that

$$dEdt=\frac{dxdp}{1+\beta p^2}.$$
(51)
The left–hand side of this equation is time–independent by definition, so the right–hand side must be also.

Finally, note that the semi–classical quantization ($`\mathrm{}0`$ limit) of the harmonic oscillator is consistent with the full quantum mechanical result derived in our previous paper, Ref. CMOT1 .

## III Density of States

From this point on, we will only consider the $`\beta ^{}=0`$ case for the sake of simplicity.

Integrating over the coordinates, the invariant phase space volume Eq. (43) becomes

$$\frac{Vd^D𝐩}{(1+\beta p^2)^D},$$
(52)
where $`V`$ is the coordinate space volume. This implies that upon quantization, the number of quantum states per momentum space volume should be assumed to be

$$\frac{V}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^D}\frac{d^D𝐩}{(1+\beta p^2)^D}.$$
(53)
Eq. (53) indicates that the density of states in momentum space must be modified by the extra factor of $`(1+\beta p^2)^D`$. This factor effectively cuts off the integral beyond $`p=1/\sqrt{\beta }`$. Indeed, in $`3D`$ the weight factor is

$$\frac{1}{(1+\beta p^2)^3},$$
(54)
the plot of which is shown in Fig. 1. We look at the consequence of this modification in the calculation of the cosmological constant and the blackbody radiation spectrum in the following.

### III.1 The Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant is obtained by summing over the zero–point fluctuation energies of harmonic oscillators, each of which corresponds to a particular particle momentum state cosmoc . If we assume that the zero–point energy of each oscillator is of the usual, canonical, form

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\omega =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{p^2+m^2},$$
(55)
then, the sum over all momentum states per unit volume is (up to some prefactors)

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(1+\beta p^2)^3}\left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{p^2+m^2}\right]}`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2dp}{(1+\beta p^2)^3}}\sqrt{p^2+m^2}`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2\beta ^2}}f(\beta m^2),`$ (58)
where

$$f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{x}{2\left(1x\right)}+\frac{x^2}{4\left(1x\right)^{3/2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1\sqrt{1x}}{1+\sqrt{1x}}\right)\hfill & (x1),\hfill \\ 1\frac{x}{2\left(x1\right)}+\frac{x^2}{2\left(x1\right)^{3/2}}\mathrm{tan}^1\sqrt{x1}\hfill & (x1).\hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
$`f(x)`$ is a monotonically increasing function which behaves asymptotically as

$$f(x)\sqrt{x},$$
(60)
as can be gleaned from Eq. (58). In the region $`0x1`$, it is well approximated by

$$f(x)(1+x)^{0.42}.$$
(61)
In the massless case we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)=\frac{\pi }{2\beta ^2}.$$
(62)
As expected, due to the strong suppression of the density of states at high momenta, the cosmological constant is rendered finite with $`1/\sqrt{\beta }`$ acting effectively as the UV cutoff. This result is in strong contrast to conventional calculations where the UV cutoff is an arbitrary scale which must be introduced by hand, and where one must assume that the physics beyond the cutoff does not contribute.

Unfortunately, since $`1/\sqrt{\beta }`$ is the string mass scale, which we expect to be of the order of the Planck mass $`M_p`$, this does not solve the cosmological constant problem. This is true even if the Planck mass $`M_p`$ were as low as a TeV as suggested in models with large extra dimensions ADD .

### III.2 The Blackbody Radiation Spectrum

Taking into account the weight factor Eq. (54), the average energy in the EM field per unit volume at temperature $`T`$ is

$`\overline{E}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\mathrm{k}}{(2\pi )^3[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\beta (\mathrm{}k)^2]^3}\frac{\mathrm{}kc}{e^{\mathrm{}kc/k_BT}1}}`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{c^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\beta (h\nu /c)^2]^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h\nu ^3}{e^{h\nu /k_BT}1}}\right)`$ (64)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu u_\beta (\nu ,T).`$ (65)
We see that the blackbody radiation spectrum is damped at high frequencies close to the cutoff scale:

$$u_\beta (\nu ,T)=\frac{1}{[1+(\nu /\nu _\beta )^2]^3}u_0(\nu ,T),\nu _\beta \frac{c}{h\sqrt{\beta }}.$$
(66)
Here

$$u_0(\nu ,T)=\frac{8\pi h\nu ^3}{c^3}\frac{1}{e^{h\nu /k_BT}1},$$
(67)
is the regular spectral function.

To see the effect of this damping on the shape of the spectral function, we plot the functions

$`f_0(\nu ,T)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\nu /\nu _\beta )^3}{e^{(\nu /\nu _\beta )(T_\beta /T)}1}},`$ (68)
$`f_\beta (\nu ,T)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[1+(\nu /\nu _\beta )^2]^3}}f_0(\nu ,T),`$ (69)
for several values of the temperature $`T`$ in Figs. 2 and 3. The temperature $`T_\beta `$ in the definition of $`f_0(\nu ,T)`$ is defined as

$$T_\beta \frac{c}{k_B\sqrt{\beta }}.$$
(70)
As is evident from the figures, the distortion to the blackbody radiation is undetectable unless the temperature is within a few orders of magnitude below $`T_\beta `$. Given that the decoupling temperature is on the order of an MeV SMOOT , we do not expect the spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) to be affected in any observable way, even if $`1/\sqrt{\beta }`$ were as small as a TeV ADD .

## IV Discussion

We have shown that Eq. (1) and its higher dimensional extensions imply that the density of states is naturally suppressed in the ultraviolet. This suppression renders the cosmological constant finite, without affecting the blackbody radiation spectrum at observable temperatures. The cosmological constant is still too large, however, since it is proportional to $`1/\beta ^2M_p^4`$. This scaling is to be expected since $`1/\sqrt{\beta }`$ is the only scale present in the problem.

Nevertheless, we believe that our result is a major improvement over previous results and points to a new direction from which we may approach the cosmological constant problem. The reason why conventional calculations were obtaining an infinite result can be identified as a case of over-counting of states. If string theory does indeed lead to Eq. (1) and the resulting suppression of the density of states at high momenta, the number of states in the UV is not as numerous as conventional calculations assume.

The smallness of the cosmological constant can then be interpreted as a sign that we are still over-counting the number of states in our calculation and the density of states should be further suppressed. Whatever the method of suppression, this would necessarily entail the introduction of an additional characteristic scale, $`M_c`$, other than $`1/\sqrt{\beta }=M_p`$, in which case the dependence of the cosmological constant on the scales can be expressed as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M_p^4F(M_c/M_p)`$ with $`F(1)=1`$.

One method we could use would be to modify the right hand side of Eq. (1) to further suppress the higher momentum states 555Depending on the modification, the cosmological constant may be rendered divergent. For instance, if we adopt the commutation relations used by Kempf in Ref. Kempf:2001 , the cosmological constant will diverge logarithmically.. However, that would not work since all that would do would be to change the ‘effective’ value of the UV cutoff from $`M_p`$ to $`M_c`$. ($`F(M_c/M_p)^4`$.) So the additional suppression must occur in a more subtle fashion.

Banks banks  has argued that $`F(M_c/M_p)^8`$ with $`M_c1TeV`$ and $`M_p10^{19}GeV`$ would reproduce the correct value of the cosmological constant. But the exact mechanism which would lead to such a form for $`F`$ remains elusive. (See also Ref. per  for a related discussion.)

At this point, we note that if string theory is the correct theory of gravity, modifying the commutation relations alone would not properly take into account all of its potential effects. It is possible that the holographic principle holography  could be of help here. Consideration of holography in a cosmological background might naturally provide another scale other than $`1/\sqrt{\beta }`$, namely the size of the cosmological horizon, the Hubble radius $`H`$, related to the cosmological constant as $`H^21/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It is conceivable that due to the correct implementation of the holographic principle in a cosmological situation, the number of fundamental degrees of freedom contributing to the vacuum energy is determined by the density of states above some very large momentum (which by the UV/IR correspondence (2) would be related to the degrees of freedom at distances of the order of the cosmological horizon). If indeed the density of states is strongly suppressed at high momenta, as argued in this paper, then the effective number of degrees of freedom contributing to the vacuum energy density would be very small. While these considerations are highly speculative, they seem to point to a new promising way to approach the cosmological constant problem.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Vijay Balasubramanian, Per Berglund, Will Loinaz, Asad Naqvi, Koenraad Schalm, Gary Shiu, Joseph Slawny, and Matthew Strassler for helpful discussions. This research is supported in part by a grant from the US Department of Energy, DE–FG05–92ER40709.