format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The origin of fermion masses and mixings in the Standard Model is still as mysterious as when the first elementary particles were being discovered. Unlike the couplings of fermions to spin one particles which are now understood in terms of Yang-Mills interactions, Yukawa couplings still await such a level of understanding. The lack of a first principle explanation for their patterns have led theorists to devise elaborate schemes , none of which (including our owns ) are particularly convincing. A less ambitious approach, couched in the language of low energy effective field theories, is that advocated by Froggatt and Nielsen  (FN): the hierarchies of masses and mixings stem from higher dimensional operators which, when evaluated in the desired vacuum, yield effective Yukawa interactions of the right strengths. This approach organizes the dimensions of these operators in terms of hitherto unknown $`U(1)`$ charges. The result is that the suppression level of a particular Yukawa coupling is related to its Froggatt-Nielsen charge.

Among ideas and schemes that involve additional gauge symmetries (flavor or family symmetries) to explain this fermion hierarchy problem, models with $`U(1)`$ symmetries have been shown to be self-consistent, anomaly-free, and experimentally testable . In these schemes, the addition of a particular symmetry that accommodates data is not derived from first principles; yet it could be very useful in hinting at its possible origin.

Of the many versions of models of this type in the physics literature, those with chiral Froggatt-Nielsen charges are particularly restrictive, since their anomalies must be cancelled. We have investigated FN models with several charges: one is family independent and anomalous; its anomaly is cancelled by a dimension-five Green-Schwarz term at the cut-off , together with anomaly-free family dependent FN charges which are responsible for the interfamily hierarchies.

Specially daunting to these models has been the recent determination of the neutrino mass and mixing patterns. While the existence of neutrinos masses and mixings is perfectly natural and expected, the recent determination of two large neutrino mixing angles poses further theoretical challenges .

In this paper, we limit our investigation to the generation of *anomaly-free family-dependent* charges. We investigate the type of mechanisms capable of generating such symmetries.

Cancelling a chiral anomaly is always done by adding new fermions. The easiest is to add fermions of the opposite chirality, the route Nature chooses for QCD. The next to easiest is to add chiral fermions of different chiralities such that the result adds up to zero, Nature’s choice for the hypercharge anomaly. Today we understand the latter as embedding the Standard Model fermions inside representations of anomaly-free groups.

Central to anomaly cancellation are the groups. The anomaly free groups are well known: all Lie groups except $`SU_n`$ for $`n>2`$. On the other hand, anomalies can occur only if the representations are complex, and so we focus on anomaly-free groups with complex representations: the spinors of $`SO(2n+6)`$ and the complex representations of $`E_6`$. In fact the three families of Standard Model fermions fit remarkably well in a spinor of $`SO(10)`$ or a $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ of $`E_6`$. However the extra charges carried by these groups are not family-dependent, although they are anomaly-free over these representations.

To find anomaly-free, family-dependent charges, we assume, in the spirit of Ref. , that the gauge group at the Planck scale is replicated. Taking one copy of the same group $`G`$ per family, for three families, the fundamental gauge group will be of the form

$$G_{Pl}=G\times G\times G$$
(1)
The group $`G`$ should be simple, anomaly-free and should contain the group of the Standard Model, $`G_{SM}SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y`$. The fundamental group $`G_{Pl}`$ therefore contains $`G_{SM}\times G_{SM}\times G_{SM}`$. It has to be reduced to the diagonal $`G_{SM}`$, because Standard Model gauge interactions are flavor blind. Anomaly-free charges with opposite signs for different families can then be generated by order parameters which we call bi- or tri-chiral, to distinguish them from the usual bi-vector vacuum values.

Symmetry breaking down to the Standard Model group proceeds in several steps. We assume that at some stage, there are $`U(1)`$ family-dependent symmetries which dictate the orders of magnitudes of the Yukawa couplings. In this paper, we restrict the discussion to the generation of anomaly-free family-dependent phase symmetries.

The question of family hierarchy reduces to a search for plausible unifying structures and the way to break them. The qualitative features of fermion masses and mixings are encoded in the underlying group structure and the breaking path.

We will start with some examples that show how these ideas can be realized before working our way towards a realistic scheme.

## 2 Simple examples

In order to fix our notation, and introduce key concepts, we start this investigation with simple examples.

#### $`SU(2)\times SU(2)SU(2)`$

We can first restrict the discussion to two families. The starting point is two copies of the simplest non-Abelian group, namely

$$SU(2)^\alpha \times SU(2)^\beta ,$$

where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ label the two copies. The two fermion families fall into the representations

$$\psi _1(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏}),\psi _2(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐}).$$

The order parameter that describes the symmetry breaking is taken to be a scalar field, transforming as a bi-fundamental representation

$$H(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})$$

A suitable vacuum expectation value (vev) of $`H`$ is able to trigger the breaking to the diagonal subgroup

$$SU(2)^\alpha \times SU(2)^\beta SU(2)^{\alpha +\beta }$$

because the order parameter contains a singlet of the unbroken subgroup

$$\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝟐}=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟑}$$

After symmetry breaking, the fermions transform as doublets under the remaining diagonal group. As long as the Higgs potential has no extra symmetry, there is no left-over phase symmetry. The two families are not distinguished by any family-dependent symmetry.

#### $`SU(3)\times SU(3)SU(2)\times U(1)`$

Our next example starts with the group

$$SU(3)^\alpha \times SU(3)^\beta ,$$

with two fermion families transforming as

$$\psi _1(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{𝟑}^\alpha ,\psi _2(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})\mathrm{𝟑}^\beta .$$

We ignore for the moment the important question of anomalies. If the gauge group of the low-energy theory is the diagonal subgroup $`SU(2)`$, different inequivalent symmetry breakings are possible. Consider first an order parameter of the form $`H_1(\mathrm{𝟑},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$; we call it a bi-vectorial order parameter, since the two copies appear the same way up to a conjugation. A suitable vev will trigger the breaking

$$SU(3)^\alpha \times SU(3)^\beta SU(2)^{\alpha +\beta }\times U(1)_{V^\alpha +V^\beta }$$
(2)
where $`V^{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is the Abelian factor in the embedding

$$SU(3)SU(2)\times U(1)_V$$

The two fermion families are not distinguished after symmetry breaking by the remaining $`U(1)`$ factor, since

$$\mathrm{𝟑}^\alpha ,\mathrm{𝟑}^\beta \mathrm{𝟐}_1\mathrm{𝟏}_2.$$

In contrast, consider the bi-chiral order parameter, $`H_2(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})`$, which can produce the breaking

$$SU(3)^\alpha \times SU(3)^\beta SU(2)^{\alpha +\beta }\times U(1)_{V^\alpha V^\beta }$$
(3)
In this case, the extra Abelian symmetry acts as a family symmetry with opposite charges for the two families

$`\mathrm{𝟑}^\alpha \mathrm{𝟐}_1\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$
$`\mathrm{𝟑}^\beta \mathrm{𝟐}_1\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$
We use this toy example to introduce a notation that enables us to catalog in a systematic way all the possible singlet directions that can be chosen by the scalar field during the symmetry breaking. A singlet under $`SU(2)^i`$ will be notated as $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{v^i}^i`$ with its charge $`V^i`$ in the subscript. A direction singlet under the diagonal subgroup of $`SU(2)^i\times SU(2)^j`$ but not under each group separately will be notated by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(v^i+v^j,v^iv^j)}^{i+j}`$. A straightforward calculation of the product $`\mathrm{𝟑}^\alpha \overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}^\beta `$, applied to the bi-vectorial order parameter yields the following $`SU(2)^{\alpha +\beta }`$ singlet

$$(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}3}^\alpha ,\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}^\beta )(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_2^\alpha )(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1^\beta \mathrm{𝟏}_2^\beta )\mathrm{𝟏}_{(0,2)}^{\alpha +\beta }(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_2^\beta ).$$
(4)
The first singlet $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(0,2)}^{\alpha +\beta }`$ leaves the family-independent $`U(1)_{V^\alpha +V^\beta }`$ unbroken. The second singlet, $`\mathrm{𝟏}_2^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_2^\beta `$, leaves the larger subgroup $`SU(2)^\alpha \times SU(2)^\beta \times U(1)_{V^\alpha +V^\beta }`$ invariant.

The same analysis applied to the bi-chiral order parameter yields

$$(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}3}^\alpha ,\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}3}^\beta )(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_2^\alpha )(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1^\beta \mathrm{𝟏}_2^\beta )\mathrm{𝟏}_{(2,0)}^{\alpha +\beta }(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}_2^\beta )$$
(5)
It is clear that $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(2,0)}^{\alpha +\beta }`$ now leaves the diagonal subgroup $`SU(2)^{\alpha +\beta }`$ and the family-dependent phase symmetry $`U(1)_{V^\alpha V^\beta }`$ unbroken. Although the fermions are chiral, this simple model is not realistic since the starting group is anomalous.

#### $`G\times GSU(3)\times U(1)`$

It is more difficult to generate a diagonal $`SU(3)`$, starting with two copies of a simple gauge group $`G`$. The maximal embeddings leading to a single $`SU(3)`$ are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}SU(4)SU(3)\times U(1)& & \mathrm{𝟒}=\mathrm{𝟑}_1\mathrm{𝟏}_3\\ Sp(6)SU(3)\times U(1)& & \mathrm{𝟔}=\mathrm{𝟑}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_1\\ SO(8)SU(3)& & \mathrm{𝟖}=\mathrm{𝟖}\\ SU(6)SU(3)& & \mathrm{𝟔}=\mathrm{𝟔}\\ G_2SU(3)& & \mathrm{𝟕}=\mathrm{𝟑}\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathrm{𝟏}\\ E_6SU(3)& & \mathrm{𝟐𝟕}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}\\ E_7SU(3)& & \mathrm{𝟓𝟔}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}}\end{array}$$
(6)
Only the first two embeddings contain an extra $`U(1)`$ factor. $`Sp(6)`$ is vectorial under $`SU(3)`$, and this chain cannot lead to a model with chiral fermions. This leaves $`SU(4)`$, putting anomalies aside. To avoid anomalies, one can embed $`SU(4)`$ into $`SO(7)`$

$$SO(7)SU(4);\mathrm{𝟕}=\mathrm{𝟔}\mathrm{𝟏},$$

but then the $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ of $`SO(7)`$ is vectorial, yielding vector-like fermions under $`SU(3)`$

$$SO(7)SU(4)SU(3)\times U(1);\mathrm{𝟕}=\mathrm{𝟑}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_2\mathrm{𝟏}_0$$

Because of $`SU(3)`$ triality, a bi-chiral order parameter does not contain an $`SU(3)^{\alpha +\beta }`$ singlet. This suggests we consider three copies

#### $`G\times G\times GSU(3)\times U(1)`$

We start with three copies

$$SU(4)^\alpha \times SU(4)^\beta \times SU(4)^\gamma ,$$

together with three fermion families

$$\psi _1(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}),\psi _2(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}),\psi _3(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}4}).$$

In this case, the tri-chiral order parameter

$$H(\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}4})$$

is capable of breaking to the diagonal $`SU(3)`$. Using the decomposition,

$$SU(4)SU(3)\times U(1)_V;\mathrm{𝟒}=\mathrm{𝟑}_1\mathrm{𝟏}3,$$

and using $`SU(3)`$ triality,

$$\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟏}$$

we see that the breaking

$$SU(4)^\alpha \times SU(4)^\beta \times SU(4)^\gamma SU(3)^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }\times U(1)_{V_\alpha V_\beta }\times U(1)_{V_\beta V_\gamma }$$

is obtained if the order parameter takes a vev along the singlet $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(3,0,0)}^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$, where the three subscripts refer to the sum of the charges and their two differences. Hence this order parameter produces two family-dependent phase symmetries. This yields the following fermions: three quarks, distinguished by their family charges, $`(1,0)`$, $`(1,1)`$, and $`(0,1)`$, together with three singlets of charges $`(3,0)`$, $`(3,3)`$, and $`(0,3)`$. This model is chiral, but riddled with anomalies.

## 3 Towards a realistic scheme

We learned from these simple but unrealistic examples that a good candidate for a replicated gauge group must have complex representations to describe chiral fermions, and must be anomaly-free. The candidate groups are then either orthogonal groups with complex spinor representations, or the exceptional group $`E_6`$ . Here, we limit ourselves to studying groups that appear in the sequence

$$E_6SO(10)SU(5)SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y$$
(7)
The complex representation $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ of $`E_6`$ decomposes itself as

$$\begin{array}{cc}E_6SO(10)\times U(1)_V^{}\hfill & \mathrm{𝟐𝟕}=\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏}_4\hfill \\ SO(10)SU(5)\times U(1)_V\hfill & \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}=\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3\mathrm{𝟏}_5\hfill \\ & \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}=\mathrm{𝟓}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2\hfill \\ SU(5)SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y\hfill & \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}=(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/3}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{4/3}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_2\hfill \\ & \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}=(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_1(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
#### $`SO(10)\times SO(10)\times SO(10)SU(5)\times U(1)`$

We first consider the case

$$SO(10)^\alpha \times SO(10)^\beta \times SO(10)^\gamma SU(5)^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }\times U(1).$$

A tri-chiral order parameter

$$H_1(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})$$

can trigger the desired breaking to the diagonal $`SU(5)`$, because the product $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ contains a $`SU(5)`$ singlet, namely

$$\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^\beta \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^\gamma \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1^\alpha \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3^\beta \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3^\gamma S_{1\alpha }\mathrm{𝟏}_{(5,4,4)}^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }$$
(9)
where the $`U(1)`$ charges for the $`SU(5)^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$ singlet $`\mathrm{𝟏}^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$ are given in subscript in the form $`(v^\alpha +v^\beta +v^\gamma ,v^\alpha v^\beta ,v^\alpha v^\gamma )`$. The product $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ also contains a singlet under $`SU(5)^3`$, as can be seen from the decomposition (8). These singlets are listed in Table 1.

Because a singlet direction carries three charges, it will always leave two independent $`U(1)`$ symmetries unbroken. If all the charges vanish, then a third independent $`U(1)`$ is also unbroken. If we associate a vector $`\stackrel{}{v}=(a,b,c)`$ in a three dimensional space to the linear combination $`aV^\alpha +bV^\beta +cV^\gamma `$, then for each singlet with at least one non-vanishing charge, the vectors $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ corresponding to the $`U(1)`$ symmetries left unbroken by this singlet span a (hyper-)plane. We can therefore associate to such a singlet a vector perpendicular to this plane, and call it the broken direction.

For example, the singlet $`S_{1\alpha }`$ is invariant under any linear combination of $`U(1)_{V^\beta V^\gamma }`$ and $`U(1)_{3V^\alpha +V^\beta }`$. Therefore, its broken direction is given by a vector perpendicular to $`(0,1,1)`$ and $`(3,1,0)`$, so we can take $`\stackrel{}{v}_{1\alpha }=(1,3,3)`$.

Among all the possible linear combinations of $`V^\alpha `$, $`V^\beta `$ and $`V^\gamma `$, the sum $`V^\alpha +V^\beta +V^\gamma `$ has the distinctive characteristic to be family-blind. It will be left unbroken by a singlet $`S`$ if the vector $`(1,1,1)`$ is perpendicular the broken direction $`\stackrel{}{v}_S`$ associated to $`S`$. In other words, the $`U(1)`$ symmetry corresponding to $`\stackrel{}{v}_S`$ has to be traceless over the family index. For example, the singlet $`S_{1\alpha }`$ does not leave the combination $`V^\alpha +V^\beta +V^\gamma `$ unbroken.

We also notice that the initial gauge group is invariant under a permutation of the indices $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$. However, a singlet $`S`$ can spontaneously break this permutation symmetry, corresponding to the group $`P_3Z_6`$, down to a smaller subgroup $`D`$. All the singlets obtained from $`S`$ by a permutation of the indices $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ belong to the same conjugacy class under the coset $`Z_6/D`$.

For example, the singlet $`S_{1\alpha }`$ is invariant only under the exchange $`\beta \gamma `$. In other words, it breaks the symmetry $`Z_6`$ down to $`D=Z_2`$. Therefore, we can construct two equivalent singlets $`S_{1\beta }`$ and $`S_{1\gamma }`$, obtained from $`S_{1\alpha }`$ by cyclic permutation of the indices $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$

$$S_{1\beta }\mathrm{𝟏}_{(5,4,0)}^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma },S_{1\gamma }\mathrm{𝟏}_{(5,0,4)}^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }$$

Their corresponding broken directions are $`\stackrel{}{v}_{1\beta }=(3,1,3)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_{1\gamma }=(3,3,1)`$, and are again obtained by cyclic permutation of the indices $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$.

The appearance of a spontaneously broken discrete symmetry can be potentially harmful in the cosmoligical context, because it leads to the formation of domains and domain walls. However, if the scale at which the symmetry is broken is very high, which is the case here, their presence will be washed away during inflation.

We can now combine several singlets in order to narrow down the unbroken symmetry. By this, we mean that the order parameter can yield a non zero vev in more than one $`SU(5)`$ singlet. The $`U(1)`$ factors left over are found as the intersection of the unbroken spaces for each of the non-zero singlet. For example, the vev $`<H_1>=S_{1\alpha }S_{1\beta }`$ will trigger the breaking

$$SO(10)^\alpha \times SO(10)^\beta \times SO(10)^\gamma SU(5)^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }\times U(1)_{Y_F}$$

with

$$Y_F=V^\alpha +V^\beta \frac{2}{3}V^\gamma $$
(10)
This yields three $`SU(5)`$ families

$$(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3,\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1,\mathrm{𝟏}_5);(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3,\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1,\mathrm{𝟏}_5);(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2,\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{2/3},\mathrm{𝟏}_{10/3}).$$

The subscript refers to their $`Y_F`$ values. This family symmetry distinguishes the third family from the first two.

Let us emphasize the question of anomalies. The Abelian charge $`Y_F`$ given by Eq. (10) is our first example of an anomaly-free and family-dependent symmetry. The cancellation of anomalies is achieved by completing the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$, and is ensured because $`SO(10)`$ is an anomaly-free group. Therefore, the inclusion of all three right-handed neutrinos is necessary. If we take the $`SU(5)`$ representations separately, the mixed anomaly coefficients $`(Y_FSU(5)SU(5))`$ will not vanish, but the contributions from $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ compensate each other.

The mixed anomalies will only vanish over each $`SU(5)`$ representation in the case where $`Y_F`$ is traceless. This can be achieved by taking a tri-vectorial order parameter instead of a tri-chiral one

$$H_2(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓},\mathrm{𝟒𝟓},\mathrm{𝟒𝟓})$$

With the branching rule

$$SO(10)SU(5)\times U(1)_V;\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_4+\mathrm{𝟏}_0$$
(11)
we can obtain singlets of the type $`\mathrm{𝟏}^\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}^\beta \mathrm{𝟏}^\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}^{\alpha +\beta }\mathrm{𝟏}^\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$. They are listed in Table 2, together with their broken direction.

Notice that the adjoint representation has the peculiarity that its tensor product with itself always contains a singlet and an adjoint representation. Therefore, in the case of $`SO(10)`$, we have

$$\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}^\alpha \mathrm{𝟒𝟓}^\beta \mathrm{𝟏};\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}^\alpha \mathrm{𝟒𝟓}^\beta \mathrm{𝟒𝟓}^\gamma \mathrm{𝟏}$$
(12)
These singlets have a zero charge under the diagonal $`U(1)_V`$, $`U(1)_{V^\alpha +V^\beta }`$ and $`U(1)_{V^\alpha +V^\beta +V^\gamma }`$ respectively, but do not have a charge under the orthogonal combinations (and hence, these are broken). They are of course also singlets under the respective diagonal $`SU(5)`$. However, using the branching rule (11), we can actually construct singlets contained in the tensor product of adjoint representations of $`SU(5)`$, which have well-defined (and zero) charges under the orthogonal linear combinations of $`V`$’s. As mentioned previously, singlets for which all the charges vanish have no associated broken direction.

The singlet $`S_2=\mathrm{𝟏}_{(0,8,0)}^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$ has the desired features in order to give rise to a traceless family symmetry. The $`U(1)`$ corresponding to its broken direction is traceless, therefore, it triggers the breaking

$$SO(10)^\alpha \times SO(10)^\beta \times SO(10)^\gamma SU(5)^{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }\times U(1)_X\times U(1)_{Y_F}$$

with

$$X=V^\alpha +V^\beta +V^\gamma ,Y_F=V^\alpha +V^\beta 2V^\gamma $$

The charge $`X`$ is family-blind while the charge $`Y_F`$ is traceless. This yields the following three chiral families along with their $`Y_F`$ charges

$$(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3,\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1,\mathrm{𝟏}_5);(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3,\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1,\mathrm{𝟏}_5);(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_6,\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2,\mathrm{𝟏}_{10}).$$

As emphasized earlier, we notice that the mixed anomaly coefficients $`(Y_FSU(5)SU(5))`$ between $`SU(5)`$ and the traceless family charge $`Y_F`$ vanish over each $`SU(5)`$ representation. The charge $`Y_F`$ is said to be non-anomalous in the language of Froggatt and Nielsen. In contrast, the anomaly coefficients $`(XSU(5)SU(5))`$ for a given $`SU(5)`$ are necessarily different from zero, but are family-independent. The charge $`X`$ is said to be anomalous.

The anomaly coefficient $`(Y_FXX)`$ also vanishes because $`Y_F`$ is traceless. Finally, the anomalies $`(Y_FY_FY_F)`$, $`(XY_FY_F)`$ and $`(XXX)`$ can differ from zero for a given $`SU(5)`$ representation, but they don’t involve the Standard Model group or charges. As before, a complete cancellation of the anomalies is achieved by completing the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ of $`SO(10)`$.

In the case that we have considered so far, we were able to construct a family symmetry that is anomaly-free, and get three families of chiral fermions with different family charges. However, the breaking of $`SO(10)`$ down to $`SU(5)`$ lowers the rank by only one unit, which does not leave enough room to build a family symmetry that can accommodate the observed phenomenology of fermion masses. This can be achieved by upgrading to $`E_6`$, as we are ready to see now.

#### $`E_6\times E_6\times E_6SU(5)\times U(1)`$

A further complication arises here, because $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ is not a maximal subalgebra of $`E_6`$. Two chains of maximal subalgebras can lead from $`E_6`$ to $`SU(5)`$, namely (leaving aside the possible $`U(1)`$ factors)

$$E_6SO(10)SU(5)$$
(13)
which is the chain we already considered, or

$$E_6SU(6)\times SU(2)SU(5)\times SU(2)$$
(14)
In what follows, we will consider order parameters which are tri-chiral, tri-vectorial, bi-chiral and bi-vectorial

$`H_1(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟐𝟕})`$
$`H_2(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟕𝟖})`$
$`H_3(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ (15)
$`H_4(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\mathrm{𝟏})`$
The irrep $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ contains a singlet of $`SO(10)`$, but no singlet under $`SU(6)\times SU(2)`$,

$$E_6SU(6)\times SU(2);\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}=(\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟐})(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})$$

nor under $`SU(5)\times SU(2)`$ as we have

$$SU(6)SU(5)\times U(1);\mathrm{𝟔}=\mathrm{𝟓}_1\mathrm{𝟏}_5;\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}=\mathrm{𝟓}_4\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2$$

However, we can see that it contains two distinct singlets of $`SU(5)`$. The way to understand this is the following. By making suitable linear combinations, one is a singlet under $`SO(10)`$, and the other one is singlet under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_V`$ but not under $`SO(10)`$. We will designate these singlets by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(0,4)}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(5,1)}`$ respectively. They are distinguished by their charges $`(v,v^{})`$ under $`U(1)_V`$ and $`U(1)_V^{}`$.

Similarly, the irrep $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}`$ decomposes itself as

$$E_6SO(10)\times U(1)_V^{};\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}=\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_0\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_3\mathrm{𝟏}_0$$

$$E_6SU(6)\times SU(2);\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}=(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})(\mathrm{𝟑𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{𝟐𝟎},\mathrm{𝟐})$$

Therefore, it contains one singlet of $`SO(10)`$ but no singlet under $`SU(6)\times SU(2)`$. Using the branching rules

$$SU(6)SU(5)\times U(1);\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}=\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_3$$

$$\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}=\mathrm{𝟏}_0\mathrm{𝟓}_6\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_6\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0,$$

we further see that $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}`$ does contain a singlet under $`SU(5)\times SU(2)`$. We can also see that it contains four singlets under $`SU(5)`$ alone, which is in agreement with what is obtained using the chain of maximal subalgebras (13), because

$$SO(10)SU(5)\times U(1)_V;\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}=\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3\mathrm{𝟏}_5$$

$$\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_4+\mathrm{𝟏}_0$$

Two of these singlets have a distinct non-zero charge $`V`$, they are designated by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(5,3)}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(5,3)}`$, following our notation. The two remaining singlets have zero $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ charges. By making suitable linear combinations, one is singlet under $`SO(10)`$, and the other one is singlet under $`SU(5)\times SU(2)`$. We will designate them collectively by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(0,0)}`$, which is sufficient for the discussion of $`U(1)`$ factors. The implications of an extra $`SU(2)`$ factor in the framework of Froggatt and Nielsen is beyond the scope of the present paper, and will be described elsewhere.

Following our method, a singlet under the diagonal $`SU(5)`$ will be associated with a broken direction in a six-dimensional space, $`\stackrel{}{v}=(a,b,c,a^{},b^{},c^{})`$ corresponding to the combination $`aV^\alpha +bV^\beta +cV^\gamma +a^{}V^\alpha +b^{}V^\beta +c^{}V^\gamma `$. Many more possibilities of $`SU(5)`$ singlet directions arise in this case. Lists of inequivalent singlets (under permutation of the indices $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$) and their associated broken directions are given in the Tables 3 to 5.

## 4 Physical Implications

### 4.1 More on anomalies

As noticed earlier, singlets that leave the family-blind combinations unbroken are of particular interest. They trigger a symmetry breaking in which the $`U(1)`$ symmetries are factorized into a family-blind part $`X`$ and a family dependent part $`Y_F`$ which is traceless over the family index. This decomposition, in turn, enables a ”multi-layered” anomaly cancellation, which is a central ingredient in the construction of Froggatt-Nielsen-type models.

The first layer is given by the cancellation of all the possible anomalies involving only Standard Model groups over the fermion content of the Standard Model. This ”accidental” cancellation is now understood in terms of embeddings, because the fermions of the Standard Model have the right quantum numbers to fit into the representations $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ of $`SU(5)`$, which in turn, complete the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ of $`SO(10)`$ when a right-handed neutrino, singlet under $`SU(5)`$, is added.

In the second layer, there will be mixed anomalies between $`X`$ or $`Y_F`$ and Standard Model groups $`G_{SM}`$. Because the family charge $`Y_F`$ commutes with $`SU(5)`$ in our framework, it is sufficient to consider the mixed anomalies between $`X`$ or $`Y_F`$ and $`SU(5)`$. Anomaly coefficients with a single $`SU(5)`$, namely $`(XXSU(5))`$, $`(XY_FSU(5))`$ and $`(Y_FY_FSU(5))`$, vanish over any representation of $`SU(5)`$. The anomaly coefficient $`(Y_FSU(5)SU(5))`$ vanishes over the family index because $`Y_F`$ is traceless. The anomaly coefficients $`(XSU(5)SU(5))`$ differ from zero – $`X`$ is anomalous – but are family-independent. In the low-energy point of view of effective theories of the Froggatt-Nielsen type, they are cancelled through a dimension five term at the cut-off, in the so-called Green-Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism .

In the third layer, the remaining anomaly coefficients do not involve $`G_{SM}`$ (or $`SU(5)`$). The anomalies $`(XY_FY_F)`$ and $`(XXX)`$ can also be compensated by the Green-Schwarz mechanism. The coefficient $`(Y_FXX)`$ vanish because $`Y_F`$ is traceless, so that the only non-vanishing coefficient that needs to be compensated is $`(Y_FY_FY_F)`$.

This last cancellation can be achieved by adding new matter fields which don’t carry any Standard Model charge. Their presence in the effective theory is solely for the sake of anomaly cancellation, and does not modify the observable phenomenology.

Of course, in the top-down approach used in our framework, we know how the question of anomaly cancellation is resolved. The fermion content of the Standard Model is upgraded to the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ of $`E_6`$ by the addition of vector-like matter under $`SU(5)`$, $`\mathrm{𝟓}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$, and two singlets. Therefore, it is not surprising that the theory looks anomalous when only the Standard Model fermions are taken into account!

### 4.2 Predictions for fermion masses and mixings

Among the possible linear combinations of $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$, $`V^\alpha +V^\beta +V^\gamma `$ and $`V^\alpha +V^\beta +V^\gamma `$ are family-blind. Therefore, at least three singlets are needed in order to fix completely the traceless family symmetry $`Y_F`$. If this is the case, the interfamily mass ratios are completely determined by the family charges $`Y_F`$ of the fermions, independently of the dynamics which further breaks the family symmetry.

Let us briefly recall how the family symmetry is related to fermion mass hierarchies. To fix our notation, we will use the supersymmetric setup of Ref. . The Yukawa couplings for quarks and charged leptons stem from invariants in the superpotential of the form $`Q_i\overline{u}_jH_u`$, $`Q_i\overline{d}_jH_d`$, $`L_i\overline{e}_jH_d`$, where $`i`$ and $`j`$ are family indices. For neutrinos, after the see-saw mechanism has taken place, the effective Yukawa coupling is given by the quartic invariant $`L_iL_jH_u^2`$. In the presence of a family symmetry, these invariants can appear in the superpotential only if they are not charged under the extra family symmetries. If they are charged, they can still appear, but only as higher dimensional operators

$$\stackrel{~}{I}=I\left(\frac{\theta }{M}\right)^n,$$

where $`I`$ is a MSSM invariant, $`\theta `$ is an order parameter, singlet under $`G_{SM}`$ but charged under $`Y_F`$, and $`M`$ is the cut-off scale, usually taken as the string scale. The operator $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ has to be gauge invariant. The families symmetries are spontaneously broken when the $`\theta `$ fields get a vev, yielding the expansion parameter

$$\lambda =\frac{<\theta >}{M}$$

As a result, the Yukawa coupling corresponding to the invariant $`I_{ij}`$ will be suppressed by a power $`n_{ij}`$ which is related to its family charge $`Y_F`$

$$n_{ij}=Y_F(I_{ij})+\mathrm{𝑐𝑠𝑡}.$$
(16)
where the family-independent constant arises because of the anomalous charge $`X`$. We can notice that these powers obey the sum rule

$$n_{ii}+n_{jj}=n_{ij}+n_{ji}.$$

In our framework, the family symmetry depends only upon $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$, and therefore commutes with $`SU(5)`$. The structure of the mass matrices is then determined by the charges $`Y_F(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})`$ and $`Y_F(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$, reordered and normalized to the heaviest family

$`Q,\overline{u},\overline{e}`$ $``$ $`Y_F(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})`$
$`L,\overline{d}`$ $``$ $`Y_F(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$
We have taken all the possible sets of three singlets that determine the family symmetry $`Y_F`$, and derived the corresponding Yukawa structure. However, thousands of different patterns can emerge. To reduce this number, we chose to enforce a phenomenological constraint. To make it strong and reliable, only the heavier fermions from the second and third families are involved.

The measured fermion mass ratios scale as

$$\frac{m_c}{m_t}\lambda ^4;\frac{m_s}{m_b}\lambda ^2;\frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }\lambda ^2$$
(17)
where the expansion parameter $`\lambda `$ is of the order of the Cabibbo angle $`\lambda _c0.22`$. Therefore, we can use the constraint derived from the relations

$$\frac{m_c}{m_t}\left(\frac{m_s}{m_b}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }\right)^2$$
(18)
After noticing that Eq. (18) is compatible with a family symmetry commuting with $`SU(5)`$, we see that it translates into

$$Y_F(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2)=Y_F(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3)$$
(19)
This relation, in turn, implies a large mixing angle for the atmospheric neutrinos, as it is indeed observed  !

It turns out that the constraint (19) restricts severely the number of possible patterns. Four ’scenarios’ were considered, in which the order parameter that is spontaneously broken transforms as $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, $`H_4`$ and as $`H_1`$ or $`H_3`$ in the last one (see Eq. (3)). We find that a bi-chiral or a bi-vectorial order parameter does not lead to a family symmetry with physical interest. The family charges for a tri-chiral or tri-vectorial order parameter that survive from the constraint (19) are listed in Tables 6 and 7. The interesting charges that give rise to a phenomenology compatible with all present data on quarks, charged leptons and neutrinos masses and mixings have been underlined. It can be noticed that all of them can be obtained with an order parameter transforming like $`H_2`$.

Most of these charges are only in weak agreement with the data. The mismatch lies in the predicted masses for the first generation. A light up quark mass is in conflict with the derivation of the correct CKM matrix. A further conflict comes from the neutrinos sector, where a mild $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ hierarchy, and a large solar mixing angle induce a heavier electron.

In the following, we analyze in more details three of these possible charge assignments.

#### Model A

The charges $`Y_F(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})(2,1,0)`$ and $`Y_F(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})(0,0,0)`$ with expansion parameter $`\lambda \lambda _c^2`$ give rise to the so-called anarchical model , where hierarchical and mixing structure is totally absent from the neutrino mass matrix. The observed hierarchy between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ for atmospheric neutrinos and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ for solar neutrinos (for the LMA solution )

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}10^2$$
(20)
can still be obtained but resides in Nature’s choice of the prefactor coefficients. Large mixing angles for solar and atmospheric neutrinos are natural in this context, but the small value of the CHOOZ  mixing angle is problematic. The model is otherwise in fair agreement with phenomenology. The predicted mass ratios are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_t}}\lambda _c^8;{\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{m_t}}\lambda _c^4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_b}}\lambda _c^4;{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_b}}\lambda _c^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\tau }}\lambda _c^4;{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}\lambda _c^2`$
However, we notice that the electron mass comes out too heavy compared to the $`\tau `$ mass. A smaller ratio

$$\frac{m_e}{m_\tau }\lambda _c^{56}$$

would be in better agreement with the measured masses. Moreover, some stretching in the prefactor coefficients is needed to reconcile the model with the structure of the CKM matrix .

#### Model B

The charges $`Y_F(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})(3,2,0)`$ and $`Y_F(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})(2,0,0)`$ with $`\lambda \lambda _c`$ enable to reproduce the CKM matrix. The predictions for quarks and charged leptons are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_t}}\lambda _c^6;{\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{m_t}}\lambda _c^4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_b}}\lambda _c^4;{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_b}}\lambda _c^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\tau }}\lambda _c^4;{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}\lambda _c^2`$
with a heavier up quark. In the neutrino sector, the resulting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ hierarchy is in agreement with Eq. (20), the CHOOZ mixing angle is suppressed by a factor $`\lambda _c^2`$, but the solar mixing angle also turns out to be naturally small, which is less satisfying in view of the recent solar neutrino data , and the KamLAND result .

A phenomenologically better charge assignment would be $`Y_F(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})(3,2,0)`$ and $`Y_F(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})(1,0,0)`$ It can been incorporated in a consistent way in a FN model , but could not be reproduced by symmetry breaking in the present approach.

#### Model C

Finally, the charges $`Y_F(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})(5,2,0)`$ and $`Y_F(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})(1,0,0)`$ also with $`\lambda \lambda _c`$ can be in fairly good agreement with the observations. The predicted mass ratios are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_t}}\lambda _c^{10};{\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{m_t}}\lambda _c^4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_b}}\lambda _c^6;{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_b}}\lambda _c^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\tau }}\lambda _c^6;{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}\lambda _c^2`$
We notice that the electron to $`\tau `$ mass ratio have the correct order of magnitude, but the up and the down quarks appear a little light. However, it has been pointed out that non perturbative QCD effects can also contribute to the masses of the lightest quarks at low-energy, so that the actual masses and the mixings in the CKM matrix can be recovered (see  for example).

## 5 Conclusions

The possibility that the fundamental gauge group at very high scales appears replicated in several copies, as inspired by the brane world, opens up new possibilities to understand the patterns in the low energy world. We have studied how the family mass hierarchy problem can be elucidated in this context through a group-theoretical approach. Imprints of symmetry breakings were recognized and systematically analyzed, although the dynamics which triggers the symmetry breaking is beyond the scope of the present work.

The realistic scheme considered, based on $`E_6\times E_6\times E_6SU(5)`$ shows interesting features. Although many different family symmetries can survive after symmetry breaking, a simple and reliable phenomenological constraint killed most of them. Moreover, only a few possibilities lead to mass patterns in accordance with observations. So it might be that our world has something exceptional rather than generic, that very particular dynamical conditions triggered such a symmetry breaking. Or it might also be that the true mechanism that Nature choose to order fermion masses is totally different.

However, it is worth pointing that this approach *does* give rise to patterns in agreement with our world. Moreover, it appears that this path, for reasons explained throughout this paper, necessarily leads to the consideration of exceptional algebras. So Nature might indeed be exceptional… Anyhow, the idea that mass could be partially treated as a quantum number is a very attractive scheme that can help us organize and understand the legacy of the Standard Model.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the United States Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-97ER41029.


text:
# On the energy determination of extensive air showers through the fluorescence technique

## Abstract

The determination of the shower development in air using fluorescence yield is subject to corrections due to the angular spread of the particles in the shower. This could introduce systematic errors in the energy determination of an extensive air shower through the fluorescence technique.

Suggested keywords

The fluorescence technique consists on observing the atmospheric nitrogen fluorescence light induced by the passage of the charged particles in a shower through the atmosphere. It is an alternative for ultra high energy cosmic ray (UHECR) detection to the more common experiments that detect the shower front as it reaches ground level. The technique was first explored in a pioneering experiment by the Fly’s Eye detector Baltrusaitis88  and is currently being exploited in its successor, the high resolution Fly’s Eye (HiRes) Abu-Zayyad00 , as well as in the Auger Observatory Cronin95  now in construction stage, and the Telescope Array TA . It is also the basis of planned experiments that will look for atmospheric UHECR showers from satellites EUSO , and which are likely to provide the next generation of UHECR detectors. Although the technique has been completely successful, there are unsolved discrepancies between the UHECR spectrum measured with it and with the more conventional techniques that sample the shower front as it hits the ground. The measurements of the cosmic ray spectrum above $`510^{19}`$eV with the HiRes experiment give results which differ at the 2 to 3 sigma level from those obtained with the AGASA air shower array AGASA . In this respect the Auger observatory, being a hybrid experiment that combines both the fluorescence and the shower front sampling techniques, is a crucial step for resolving the discrepancies and for the future of UHECR measurements.

Fluorescence detectors use mirrors to collect light produced by all the charged particles in the shower front as it propagates through the atmosphere. Different depths of the shower are observed from different arrival directions which are viewed by different photo-detectors of an imaging camera in the focal plane of the mirror. A procedure must be devised to compare the light emission curve as a function of depth to that expected from an air shower, from which important properties such as shower energy can be inferred. As fluorescence technique experiments measure the light emitted at different depths in shower development, they perform a calorimetric measurement of energy deposition, and are in principle more reliable for establishing shower energy.

The technique has other difficulties, particularly those associated to light transport in the atmosphere which is complex and changing with time, and also because the fluorescence light emission mechanism itself is subject to uncertainties. In this article we discuss the relation between the emission process and the shower development. We argue that there are geometric effects associated to shower development that can have important implications in the procedure to compare light emission to shower development, with important consequences for the determination of shower energy. This idea is not new, it was already discussed over a decade ago by M. Hillas hillas .

The depth distribution of the collected photons in a fluorescence telescope $`N_\gamma ^{\mathrm{tot}}(X)`$, where $`X`$ is measured along shower axis, is often converted to the number of charged particles $`N_e(X)`$ at the corresponding depth. In this way the longitudinal shower profile can be obtained after correcting for attenuation and geometrical effects associated to the characteristics of the detector and the orientation of the shower with respect to it,

$$N_e(X)=\frac{N_\gamma ^{\mathrm{tot}}(X)}{Y\mathrm{\Delta }X}\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{atten}}g_{\mathrm{area}}},$$
(1)
where $`g_{\mathrm{atten}}`$ takes into account the attenuation of the fluorescence photons in the atmosphere, and $`g_{\mathrm{area}}`$ accounts for the collection area of the mirror (see Eq.(6.2) in Ref.Sokolskybook ). Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ is the segment of the shower viewed by the telescope which is measured along the shower axis, and $`Y`$ is the fluorescence yield for air.

The amount of fluorescence light emitted by a particle of charge $`e`$ is usually assumed to be isotropic and proportional to the energy loss by ionization. The fluorescence yield for nitrogen, $`Y`$, measured in photons/m, is concentrated in the Ultra Violet (UV) range of the spectrum, and must be experimentally determined. Most of the data used relies on two experiments tesis ; Kakimoto95 . In the most recent experiment, electrons were fired onto an air target of a given length. The yield is obtained dividing the number of emitted photons per incident electron ($`N_\gamma `$) by the length ($`d`$) of the visible portion of the electron beam in the direction of the beam axis Kakimoto95

$$Y_{\mathrm{exp}}=\frac{N_\gamma }{d}.$$
(2)
The experimental result is that on average about five UV fluorescence photons are emitted when a particle of charge $`e`$ passes through one meter of air at standard temperature and pressure Kakimoto95 .

The shower energy has been determined in the past by integration of the longitudinal profile of the shower Sokolskybook ; Song00 , applying Eq. 1 to obtain it, and fitting it to an adequate depth development function Abu-Zayyad01 . The numerical value of this integral is just the track length of the charged particles in the shower. Since the integral is performed in the direction of the shower axis, the calculated track length corresponds to the sum of all the charged particle track lengths projected onto the shower axis. We have referred to this track length as the total projected track length in a different context ZHS91 . This track length is known to be proportional to the shower energy,

$$E_{\mathrm{em}}=\alpha _0^{\mathrm{}}N_e(X)𝑑X,$$
(3)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant that can be related to the ionization loss rate. Its numerical value has been obtained from Monte Carlo simulations Song00  and is usually given the value $`\alpha 2.19\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. We have performed a detailed simulation of 1 TeV electromagnetic showers in air using the GEANT 4 GEANT4  package, following particles down to a very low kinetic energy threshold of 10 keV. These simulations produced a numerical value $`\alpha =2.25\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. For the sake of clarity we adopt in the following the standard value of $`\alpha =2.19\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, keeping in mind that any uncertainty in $`\alpha `$ translates directly into a systematic error in the determination of shower energy. It is also important to note that an accurate determination of $`\alpha `$ by Monte Carlo simulations should take care for the backward-going particles in the shower. We have obtained that $`34\%`$ of the contribution to the track integral in Eq. 3 is due to backscattered particles.

The main idea of this article refers to the relation between energy loss in a shower and the value of the projected track length. It is well known that as the shower develops charged particles degrade their energy, they suffer more scatterings and they acquire transverse momentum. In other words their paths become less aligned with shower axis. However both the energy loss and the fluorescence yield of charged particles are defined per unit length measured along the particle travel direction. If the fluorescence light is used to infer the number of shower particles in a given depth interval, and the fluorescence yield is assumed to be proportional to energy loss, account must be taken that the energy loss of particles depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$, the average track length traveled by the shower particles regardless of the particle direction in a given depth interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ measured along the shower axis. While $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ is measured along the particle direction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ is measured along the shower axis. One expects the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ to increase as the shower develops and the average energy of the shower particles decreases. This ratio can be thought as the average value of $`\mathrm{sec}\theta `$ for all tracks, $`\theta `$ being the angle between the particle direction and the shower axis.

We have performed shower simulations in air to calculate the relation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ as a function of atmospheric depth. Air showers initiated by photons have been simulated using the GEANT 4 GEANT4  and the ZHS ZHS91  packages. It is worth noting that we have obtained that the results of both simulations in air, under the same conditions, agree at the $`1\%`$ level. We define a factor $`f`$ as the ratio of the total to the projected track length. We have found that $`f`$ in a shower is significantly different from 1. Moreover it increases with shower age as expected. In Fig 1 we plot the dependence on depth (expressed in terms of shower age) of $`f`$ as obtained in electromagnetic showers for 1 TeV showers.

The effect can amount to a $`25\%`$ ($`f=1.25`$) correction at the end of the shower. We have also obtained that the correction is energy independent which is not surprising since showers are known to have very good scaling properties. A reference value of the effect is given by $`f=1.18`$ at shower maximum $`s=1`$.

It is worth noting that this effect is not seen in experiments that measure the Čerenkov light emission from a shower. The kinetic threshold energy for Čerenkov emission in air is around 21 MeV. At this energy the deflection angle is very small and the correction (expressed as $`(f1)\times 100`$) is less than 1%. We also show in Fig. 1 the calculated value of $`f`$ for showers with threshold energy of 21 MeV. The ratio is seen to be very small at all stages of shower development. In figure 2 we show $`f`$ at shower maximum as a function of the kinetic energy threshold introduced in the simulation. At a kinetic energy threshold of 3 MeV the correction is around 1.06 and goes rapidly to 1 at higher energies. For a kinetic energy threshold of 10 keV it increases to about 1.18.

For showers initiated by hadrons the effect must be similar because they can be considered as a superposition of electromagnetic showers initiated from photons from neutral pion decays at different depths. To a reasonably good approximation the lateral distribution of hadronic showers around maximum does not change very much with depth and corresponds to that of an electromagnetic shower of age $`s1`$ alvarezPLB98 . We can expect $`f1.18`$ for these showers around shower maximum.

The same effect has to be kept in mind in experiments that measure the photon yield applying Eq. 2. The electrons traveling through Nitrogen a distance $`d`$ will be scattered, and as a result the path they travel will be longer than its projection onto the beam axis depending on the electron’s energy. Providing that $`d`$ is sufficiently short, an electron does not deviate much from the incident direction, and its total track length is approximately equal to the length of the visible portion of the beam. The ratio of the track lengths will actually depend on electron energy and must also be taken into account in the calculation of the yield. We have simulated electron paths in air using the GEANT 4 package, propagating a 1.4 MeV electron along a distance of 30 cm along the direction of movement of the incident electron, to roughly reproduce the conditions of the experimental setup in Kakimoto95 . These simulations predict an average ratio $`f_{\mathrm{exp}}=1.02`$ between the total track length and the track length projected along the electron’s incident direction. This value is significantly smaller than the typical value of $`f`$ obtained in shower simulations and as a result corrections should be made to account for these factors.

Assuming that the fluorescence light emitted is just proportional to the track length of charged particles in a shower, we introduce an effective value of the yield ($`Y_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)`$) which is dependent on depth and takes into consideration the fact that charged particles do not travel parallel to shower axis. Let us consider that the fluorescence yield $`Y_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is obtained in a given experimental setup for which the ratio of total to projected track lengths is given by $`f_{\mathrm{exp}}`$. The effective yield that should be used in air shower experiments is given by:

$$Y_{\mathrm{eff}}(X)=\frac{f(X)}{f_{\mathrm{exp}}}Y_{\mathrm{exp}}.$$
(4)
In other words $`Y_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ must be corrected by a factor $`f(X)/f_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ which is $`1.16`$ near maximum, assuming $`f_{\mathrm{exp}}=1.02`$.

The deduced value of the number of shower particles, $`N_e(X)`$, must be inversely proportional to the effective yield which now measures the emission in terms of depth along the shower axis. Since $`f(X)>f_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ for most depths, using the experimental yield without this correction to estimate the shower energy will lead to an overestimate of the electromagnetic shower energy. This translates directly into a systematic overestimate of the energy which is deposited in the atmosphere in the form of charged particles (mainly electrons and positrons).

Moreover since $`Y_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is in general depth dependent, ignoring the correction factor can also affect other observables such as the position of shower maximum We can roughly estimate an upper bound of the expected effect on the calculation of the depth of shower maximum. The number of particles as a function of depth obtained without correcting for this effect would be $`\stackrel{~}{N}_e(X)=f(X)N_e(X)`$, where $`N_e(X)`$ is the actual number of particles. Using a simple parameterization of $`f`$ from figure 1 and the Greisen parameterization for $`N_e(X)`$ one obtains a depth of maximum which is deeper by $`\mathrm{\Delta }X_{\mathrm{max}}4`$ g/cm2. This effect was already noticed in Risse . Our upper bound estimate is compatible with the shift of $`34\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ between the depth at which the fluorescence light emission reaches maximum and the depth at which $`N_e`$ is maximum, obtained in Risse  for hadronic showers.

The result is independent of energy. This implies, for instance, that the elongation rate, the derivative of $`X_{\mathrm{max}}`$ with respect to the logarithm of the energy, is unchanged by this effect. Finally, the change of $`f`$ with depth for showers induced by hadrons is expected to be less important because the lateral distribution function of hadronic showers is known to be less dependent on depth. In any case an iterative process taking this small effects into account could be implemented to avoid such systematic effects.

We have shown that the fact that charged particles in a shower do not travel parallel to the shower axis has important implications in the fluorescence light output of a shower in the assumption that the fluorescence yield is only dependent on distance traveled by the individual particles. The light output per unit charged particle (as measured in the plane containing the shower axis perpendicular to the direction of observation) increases as the shower develops in the atmosphere since the individual particles travel in larger angles with respect to the shower axis as the shower develops. In a conventional approach the deduction of the depth development curve of the shower from the detected light needs to take these effects into account. This can be made trough an effective yield which is to be obtained in a detailed simulation. Proposals to directly compare the data to the light outputs generated by simulated showers are at an advantage to take such effects into consideration in a consistent way GuerardGAP . Alternatively it has been recently proposed to directly measure the energy deposited in fluorescence light in order to estimate the shower energy Dawson . Such an energy determination would also not be subject to the corrections discussed here. However, any determination of the number of particles through the fluorescence technique has to be corrected by the factor discussed here.

Acknowledgments We thank P. Privitera, P. Sommers, and A.A. Watson for helpful insights and suggestions after carefully reading the manuscript. We especially thank P. Sommers for pointing out the potential problem with the Čerenkov light. This work was partly supported by the Xunta de Galicia (PGIDIT02 PXIC 20611PN), by MCYT (FPA 2001-3837 and FPA 2002-01161). R.A.V. is supported by the “Ramón y Cajal” program. We thank CESGA, “Centro de Supercomputación de Galicia” for computer resources.


text:
# Primordial Nucleosynthesis in the New Cosmology

## 1 Introduction

Big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) theory predicts the abundances of the light elements, deuterium (D), helium (3He and 4He), and lithium (7Li) produced during the first three minutes after the big bang. Anisotropies detected in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) contain information about the universe at the time of last scattering, about 300,000 years after the big bang. Both of these pillars of cosmology, probing two different epochs in the early universe offer independent determinations of the cosmic baryon density. Comparing their results will provide a fundamental test of cosmology. There is tentative agreement between current obervations of the CMB anisotropies and the light element abundances, and their respective baryon density determinations adding confidence to the cosmic “standard model” .

Figure 1. BBN Predictions

Table 1. Most important reactions and their uncertainties.    Reaction % Error    d(p,$`\gamma `$)3He 13.2  7Li(p,$`\alpha `$)4He 11.4  3He($`\alpha `$,$`\gamma `$)7Be 10.6  3He(d,p)4He 9.15  p(n,$`\gamma `$)d 4.45  t($`\alpha `$,$`\gamma `$)7Li 4.21  t(d,n)4He 4.01  7Be(n,p)7Li 3.87  3He(n,p)t 3.52  d(d,n)3He 3.10  d(d,p)t 1.59  n$``$pe$`\overline{\nu }_e`$ 0.09

## 2 BBN and the CMB

In standard BBN, primordial abundances are sensitive to only one parameter, the baryon-to-photon ratio, $`n_\mathrm{B}/n_\gamma \eta \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$. Light element observations are used to determine their primordial abundances . These in turn, are convolved with BBN theory to determine the baryon density. The uncertainties in the theory lie entirely with the nuclear reaction cross sections that govern the formation of the light nuclei .

Figure 1 shows the 95% confidence predictions of BBN theory. Combined with observational constraints, shown with dark boxes, they pick out an $`\eta 5.0\times 10^{10}`$. Current CMB measurements by DASI and BOOMERANG  tentatively agree with this baryon density, as shown by the vertical band.

With the advent of precision measurements of the anisotropies in the CMB by MAP and PLANCK, we are obliged to go out of our way to improve both theory and observations in order to make the best comparison between BBN and the CMB.

## 3 Data Needed

The reactions listed in Table 1 dominate the uncertainties in the light element abundance predictions from BBN. The uncertainties listed are from , see also  for different and complimentary methods. It is important to measure these key reactions to less than 4% so that BBN theory’s predictions are more precise, making BBN a sharper probe of nuclear and particle astrophysics .

Besides improving the nuclear reaction uncertainties, it is important to reduce the errors in the light element abundance observations. A large number of 4He and 7Li observations exist from extragalactic Hii regions and the atmospheres of population II stars in the Galactic halo, respectively. Both of these abundance determinations suffer from large systematic uncertainties. Improvements in theoretical models of these regions are needed to reduce these systematics,and possible new obervational stageties should be attempted.

Deuterium however, consists of only a handful of observations. This small sample prevents us from analysing systematic uncertainties and exploring possible trends. Only with more observations in high-redshift damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ systems will D be put on the same statistical footing as 4He and 7Li.

## 4 BBN with the CMB

With the direct comparision of the baryon densities derived from BBN and the CMB, we will fundamentally test the very framework cosmology is built upon. Assuming concordance is established we can use BBN and the CMB together to place stronger constraints on physics . With the CMB baryon density, we can predict the light element abundances with high precision. Using the observations of light element abundances we can address their evolution in universe. We can test new particle physics (reviewed in ) and non-standard cosmology (e.g. dark radiation ). With new analyses of observational data determining the primordial light element abundances and updated nuclear cross section data, we will be able to perform precision cosmology.

## 5 Acknowledgments

I would like thank Timothy Beers, Sean Ryan, Jason Prochaska, John Norris, and Scott Burles for useful discussions about the light element observations.


text:
# Surprisingly Little O VI Emission Arises in the Local Bubble

## 1 Introduction

The Local Bubble (LB) or Local Hot Bubble and its environment are sketched in Figure 1. The Local Bubble, a $`10^6`$ pc3 region of X-ray emissive, presumably hot ($`10^6`$ K) plasma, is nestled within a rarefied cavity in the Galactic disk called the Local Cavity, (Knapp, 1975; McCammon et al., 1983; Snowden et al., 1998; Sfeir et al., 1999). Within the Local Bubble, lie a number of cool ($`10^4`$ K) clouds, including the complex of parsec-scale clouds surrounding the Sun (Frisch, 1986; Lallement & Bertin, 1992; Gry et al., 1995). Estimates of the number of clouds per line of sight range from $`2`$ to $`6`$, with $`2`$ coming from the ratio of the typical observed absorbing column density (Hutchinson et al., 1998) to the absorbing column density of the local cloud (Lallement et al., 1995), and $`6`$ coming from the number of clouds along the $`ϵ`$ CMa line of sight (Gry et al., 1995). Beyond the Local Bubble, in the direction of the Galactic center, lies a superbubble named Loop I, which was blown by the stars and supernovae in the Sco Cen association (Egger, 1993).

The Local Bubble is larger and more energetic than a supernova remnant, yet smaller and less energetic than a superbubble. Such bubbles are important as most of the hot gas in the Galactic disk resides within them. Like the distribution of small versus large stellar associations, the population of bubbles is likely to be larger than the population of superbubbles. Nonetheless, because its softer X-ray photons from its relatively cooler plasma are more easily absorbed, a bubble like the Local Bubble would be much more difficult to detect from a great distance than would an energetic superbubble like Loop I. Thus, many other Local Bubble analogs may reside within the Galaxy, unknown to us because they are obscured by the neutral and molecular material of the Galactic disk. In this sense, we are fortunate to have a local specimen to examine.

At this time, our understanding of the Local Bubble is chiefly phenomenological. To some degree, the Local Bubble is defined as the source of soft X-rays ($`\frac{1}{4}`$ keV) produced between us and the nearest opaque material. Its physical presence has been surmised from the anti-correlation between soft X-ray intensities and neutral hydrogen column densities (associated with the larger Local Cavity), detections of X-rays originating in the foreground of opaque clouds, relative constancies between Be (0.07 to 0.11 keV), B (0.13 to 0.19 keV) and C (0.16 to 0.28 keV) band surface brightnesses across the sky (implying very little absorption as the effective absorption cross sections vary significantly between the bands), and consistency among two decades of X-ray observations.

Fundamental characteristics of the LB, such as its presumed temperature and size, cannot be determined directly, but can only be estimated when additional constraints (such as ionizational equilibrium, constancy of emissivity, and filling factor) are assumed. Given these assumptions, the estimated temperature has been derived from the ratio of fluxes in broad soft X-ray bands. In directions where the Galactic disk blocks all of the $`\frac{1}{4}`$ keV emission from beyond the Local Bubble, the observed ROSAT R2 to R1 band ratio is $`1.06`$, implying a temperature of $`10^{6.1}`$ K (Kuntz & Snowden, 2000). This temperature is consistent with values found by shadowing observations (described below) at higher Galactic latitudes (Kuntz & Snowden, 2000; Snowden et al., 2000) and with Wisconsin’s Ultrasoft X-ray Telescope (UXT) and All-Sky Survey’s B/Be and C/B band ratios (Bloch et al., 1986; Juda et al., 1991). Similar temperatures were also derived from the Diffuse X-ray Spectrometer’s soft X-ray spectra, although these high resolution spectra were difficult to fit with simple models (Sanders et al., 2001).

Desirous of a better understanding of our environs as well as a model of the bubble population (useful for calculating the hot gas filling factor), both observers and theorists have long sought explanations of the LB’s origin and life history. Many researchers have pointed out that the energy embodied in the Local Bubble’s X-ray emitting plasma is so great as to require a supernova or a series of supernovae, possibly aided by stellar winds. The energy may have been deposited within an existing gap in the H I disk or may have pushed aside the disk material to create a cavity. Alternatively, the explosion(s) and winds may have originated in the nearby Loop I (Sco-Cen) superbubble and blown into the solar region (Frisch, 1981; Bochkarev, 1987), or the Local Bubble and Loop I may have been blown independently but are now interacting (Egger & Aschenbach, 1995). In some of these scenarios, the X-ray emitting plasma may have expanded after being shock heated, vastly cooling the plasma, retarding the collisional recombination rates, and thus “freezing” the plasma into an “overionized” state (Breitschwerdt & Schmutzler, 1994; Breitschwerdt, 2001). In contrast, if the expansion was restrained and the time-scale was long, the plasma may have already approached collisional ionizational equilibrium (Smith & Cox, 2001). These two cases should produce markedly different spectral signatures. Presently, many theorists and observers are working to decipher the Local Bubble’s life story by comparing its X-ray spectra to spectra predicted by hydrodynamical simulations. It is hoped that when the observed fluxes in multiple bands or emission lines are matched by the predictions of a particular type of model, then we will have found a key to deciphering the story of the Local Bubble. Here, we extend this sort of comparison into the ultraviolet, using the O VI resonance line (1032, 1038 Å) intensities. We also compare the intensities with O VI absorption line column densities taken from the literature, in order to estimate the physical properties of the O VI-bearing plasma.

We use the “shadowing” strategy long employed in X-ray analyses to isolate the Local Bubble’s emission from the more distant interstellar medium’s emission (see Section 2). The observations (228 ksec toward $`l=278.6^\mathrm{o},b=45.3^\mathrm{o}`$) and data reduction techniques are discussed in Section 3. Although we observed for a very long time, no O VI resonance line emission was detected. Tight upper limits were placed on the 1032 and 1038 Å lines (see Section 4). The results of our searches for other cosmic lines within the bandpass are also reported (see Section 4). Our upper limit on the O VI doublet intensity is well below the $`4\times 10^4`$ K, overionized model (Breitschwerdt, 2001) predictions. This discrepancy, as well as discrepancies in the C III intensities and the O VI column density, practically disallow models of this sort. Our two sigma upper limit on the O VI doublet intensity is only marginally above the minimum intensity expected from the O VI-rich zone around the most local cool cloud (Slavin, 1989) combined with the O VI-rich regions in Smith & Cox (2001)’s suite of simulations of a multiple supernovae induced hot bubble. In the event that the line of sight intersects multiple cool clouds within the Local Bubble, as well as the Local Bubble’s wall, then our doublet upper limit is well below the predicted intensity and places a strong constraint on models of hot gas/cool gas transition zones. In order to determine if the upper limits require the Local Bubble to be undergoing unusual physical processes or contain unusual plasmas, we constructed and compared with a generalized multi-component (an O VI-rich $`3\times 10^5`$ K plasma and a soft X-ray emitting $`10^6`$ K plasma) model of the Local Bubble. This model’s O VI intensity and column density and soft X-ray surface brightness were all consistent with observations (see Section 5). By combining our O VI intensity upper limit with other researcher’s O VI column density estimates, we were able to calculate limits on the electron density, thermal pressure, pathlength, and cooling timescale (also see Section 5). By subtracting the Local Bubble’s O VI doublet intensity upper limit from measurements for longer, high latitude lines of sights, we found the halo’s intensity, from which its electron density, thermal pressure, pathlength, and cooling rate were estimated. The results of this project are summarized in Section 6.

## 2 Shadowing Strategy

The intensity of resonance line photons from O VI along extended lines of sight through the Local Bubble, the Galactic halo, and intervening regions is reported elsewhere (Shelton et al., 2001; Dixon, et al., 2001; Shelton, 2002; Welsh et al, 2002). Here, we wish to measure only the O VI intensity of the Local Bubble, and so must block the photons from external regions. To do so, we employ the “shadowing” strategy oft-used in X-ray analyses. In the ideal shadowing observation, an opaque object blocks the emission originating beyond it, so that the observed emission originates between the viewer and the object. For the shadowing object, we have chosen a filament in the Southern Galactic hemisphere (see Figure 2). Penprase et al. (1998) estimated the distance to the filament as 230$`\pm `$30 pc, which places the filament between the Local Bubble and the Galactic halo. Penprase et al. (1998) also estimated the mean color excess ($`E(BV)`$) of the filament as 0.17$`\pm `$0.05 magnitudes, implying an absorbing column density of $`N_H=8.4\pm 2.5\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. This is consistent with the column density implied by the Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis (1998) IRAS 100 $`\mu `$m measurement of $`7.3`$ MJy sr-1, which when scaled by the 100 $`\mu `$m to $`N_H`$ converstion relation for the southern hemisphere listed in Snowden et al. (2000), yields a column density of $`9.9\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. For this color excess and the extinction curve and parameterization presented in Fitzpatrick (1999), $`89_{11}^{+5}\%`$ of the O VI photons originating beyond the filament should be blocked.

As a demonstration of the filament’s “shadowing” function, we note it’s ability to block soft X-rays. (The theoretical extinction of $`\frac{1}{4}`$ X-rays is larger than that of ultraviolet photons.) The ROSAT $`\frac{1}{4}`$ keV band image (see Figure 2) reveals an obvious soft X-ray depression coincident with the filament. The surface brightness seen in the direction of the filament and attributed to the Local Bubble is $`590\times 10^6`$ counts s-1 arcmin-2, while the “off-filament” surface brightness is $`1300\times 10^6`$ counts s-1 arcmin-2 (K. D. Kuntz, private communication). Not surprisingly, the filament has already been used successfully in ROSAT soft X-ray shadowing analyses (Wang & Yu, 1995; Snowden et al., 2000).

One potential difficulty in using this region of the sky is posed by Penprase et al. (1998)’s suggestion that the filament may be part of a supernova remnant. If this were the case, then the foreground O VI intensity should be attributed to both the Local Bubble and the supposed supernova remnant. Because the results or our study are upper limits, this point is unimportant. Observations of the targeted region, the bulbous portion of the filament around $`l=278.6^\mathrm{o},b=45.3^\mathrm{o}`$, are discussed in the following section.

## 3 Observations and Data Reduction

The FUSE focal plane assembly contains four spectrograph entrance apertures. The largest, the low resolution (LWRS) aperture measuring 30” $`\times `$ 30”, is used for observations of diffuse sources. Furthermore, the FUSE instrument includes multiple approximately co-aligned channels. Four of the channels (LiF 1A, SiC 1A, LiF 2B, and SiC 2B) cover the 1032, 1038 Å region. Of these, the LiF 1A is most sensitive and least prone to scattered light problems in the 1032, 1038 Å region. We use this channel for our O VI analysis. In addition, we use the LiF 1A, SiC 1B, LiF 2A, and SiC 2A channels for the C I, C II, C III, N I, N II, N III, Mg II, Si II, S II, S III, S IV, S VI, Fe II, and Fe III analyses.

The raw data consists of multiple observations of three nearly coincident directions (see Table 1 and Figure 3). The combined exposure time (after subtracting time when the spacecraft was exposed to the Earth’s South Atlantic Anomaly, time when the detectors recorded anomalous bursts, etc.) for the LiF 1A observations is 228 ksec. The other detectors have had differing useful exposure times. Most notably, detector 2 malfunctioned during the I2050501 observation, reducing the total observation time with the LiF 2A and SiC 2A channels. The observations can be grouped according to pointing direction. Henceforth, the combined I2050501 and I1050510 observations of $`l=278.58^\mathrm{o},b=45.31^\mathrm{o}`$ will be denoted by “I20505”, the I2050601 observation of $`l=278.59^\mathrm{o},b=45.30^\mathrm{o}`$ will be denoted by “I20506”, and the combined B1290101 and B1290102 observations of $`l=278.63^\mathrm{o},b=45.31^\mathrm{o}`$ will be denoted by “B12901”. Each of these three datasets was processed using version 2.1 of the CALFUSE pipeline (Sahnow et al., 2000; Dixon, Kruk & Murphy, 2002). We set the appropriate pipeline switches, so as to 1.) exclude counts that produced pulseheights outside the expected range for cosmic photons (the chosen CALFUSE pipeline cutoffs were 4 and 12 in the standard arbitrary units for the older datasets (I20505 and I20506) and 4 to 31 for the newer dataset (B12901)) in order to reduce the detector background noise, and 2.) disallow automatic background subtraction, enabling us to more accurately calculate the signal to noise of the results.

Figure 4 displays the 1020 to 1045 Å region of the LiF 1A spectra for the three pointing directions. At this stage, the absolute wavelength scales are still inaccurate, though the relative wavelength scales of the pipeline spectra are accurate to several detector pixels (about 0.035 Å in the LiF 1A spectrum). The largest sources of systematic error in the following intensity calculations are the uncertainties in the solid angle of the aperture and effective area calibration. Both the LWRS’s solid angle (30 arcsec $`\times `$ 30 arcsec) and the LiF 1A effective area calibration are thought to be accurately known to $`10\%`$. Thus, the systematic uncertainty in intensity measurements will be $`14\%`$.

## 4 Spectral Analysis

In order to determine the absolute wavelength scales for the LiF 1A spectra from the three pointings, we used the airglow emission lines as reference wavelengths. We then co-added the spectra from the three pointings and shifted to the Local Standard of Rest (LSR) reference frame. The 1020 to 1045 Å region of the resulting satellite-night and day $`+`$ night spectra are displayed in Figure 5.

We found the continuum level in the satellite-night spectrum by fitting a smooth curve to the surrounding spectral region. We then searched the residual spectrum for emission features. None were found in close proximity to the O VI resonance line rest wavelengths in the LSR reference frame. If cosmic features had existed, their widths would have equaled or exceeded the instrumental width function, their signals would have been calculated from the numbers of counts in excess of the continuum within the extraction width, and their random uncertainties would have been calculated from the square roots of the numbers of spectral counts (not residual counts) within the extraction width. We have followed this method, using the total instrumental width (generously set to 0.43 Å) as the extraction width, to determine the upper limits. The “signal” and 1 sigma statistical uncertainty intensities for the O VI resonance lines at their rest wavelengths in the LSR reference frame are 180 $`\pm `$ 330 and -180 $`\pm `$ 310 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, for the 1032 and 1038 Å lines, respectively. These measurements are subject to the above mentioned systematic uncertainties of $`14\%`$. We validated our technique by applying the following alternate extraction technique to sample spectra. We fit the spectrum to a continuum and small emission feature, then varied the size of the feature to determine the 1 sigma uncertainties. The results were similar to those found by applying our techniques to the same spectra.

When the satellite-day portions of the data sets were added, the spectrum became more ragged. From the variations between the I20505, I20506, and B12901 satellite-day spectra we surmise that the raggedness is primarily due to scattered light. For the combined day and night spectrum, the “signal” and 1 sigma statistical uncertainty intensities are 20 $`\pm `$ 230 and 80 $`\pm `$ 210 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, for the 1032 and 1038 Å lines, respectively. The measurements are subject to the $`14\%`$ systematic uncertainties. For reference, Table 2 tabulates these results and lists the tightest 1 and 2 sigma upper limits. The 1 and 2 sigma upper limits were calculated from the unrounded numbers.

We also searched for C I, C II, C III, N I, N II, N III, Mg II, Si II, S II, S III, S IV, S VI, Fe II, and Fe III emission lines in the spectra taken with the LiF 1A, SiC 1B, LiF 2A, and SiC 2A detector segments. We relied on the satellite-night portion of the data when we searched for emission lines which also appear strongly in the solar spectrum (i.e. C III, Curdt et al. (1997)), appear weakly in the terrestrial airglow spectrum (i.e. N II, Feldman et al. (2001)), or are significantly stronger in the satellite-day portion of the data than in the satellite-night portion of the data (i.e. C II). The only signals detected were marginally significant intensities of C III and N II (see Table 3).

## 5 Discussion

These observations are the first to place tight upper limits on the intensity of the O VI emission from the Local Bubble (2 sigma upper limits on the 1032 and 1038 Å emission lines of 530 and 500 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, respectively). The theoretical ratio of the intensity of 1032 to 1038 Å photons is 2.0 to 1.0. Using the 2.0 to 1.0 ratio and the 1032 Å line upper limit yields a 2 sigma doublet upper limit of 800 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1 or $`1.5\times 10^8`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 sr-1.

### 5.1 Comparisons with Local Bubble Models

Breakout Model: $`4\times 10^4`$ K, Overionized Bubble

In this scenario, a series of supernova explosions and winds has created a hot, youthful bubble. It is assumed that the bubble expanded rapidly as it broke into a low density region. The rapid, adiabatic expansion cooled the bubble faster than the ions could recombine, so that the gas now has a temperture of 4 to $`6\times 10^4`$ K, but still highly ionized and X-ray emissive (Breitschwerdt & Schmutzler, 1994; Breitschwerdt, 2001). Because the transition zones between the bubble plasma and the embedded cool clouds will be cooler than the collisional ionizational equilibrium temperature for O VI, they need not be rich in O VI ions.

In the Breitschwerdt (2001) model, the Local Bubble has a radius of 115 pc, density (of electrons, Breitschwerdt, personal communication) of $`2.4\times 10^2`$ cm-3, and pressure (presumably thermal) of $`2000`$ K cm-3. Thus, the plasma temperature is approximately $`4.3\times 10^4`$ K. Lacking published estimates for the O VI intensity, we will calculate it from the above values and the emission equation in Shull & Slavin (1994). The intensity calculation also requires the ratio of electrons to hydrogen nuclei in a solar abundance plasma (1.2), the solar abundance of oxygen ($`8.5\times 10^4`$, Grevesse & Anders (1989)), and an estimate of the fraction of oxygen atoms in the O VI ionization level. During the plasma’s extraordinary cooling history, it has experienced some degree of recombination, as evidenced by the strong lines of C III, O III, and O IV in Breitschwerdt (2001)’s predictions. Here, we take the lower limit on recombinations of oxygen to the O VI state as that of a $`5\times 10^5`$ K collisional ionizational equilibrium plasma. In this case, the fraction of oxygen in the O VI state is 0.037 (Mazzotta et al., 1998; Schmutzler & Tscharnuter, 1993). As the plasma recombines further, the O VI/oxygen fraction increases, and, due to recombinations of O VII, does not decrease until the most of the oxygen has recombined to O I and O II. An upper limit on the extent of the recombinations is taken from the isochoric cooling predictions of Schmutzler & Tscharnuter (1993) at the model temperature, again yielding an O VI to oxygen fraction of 0.037. We take 0.037 as our estimate, noting that the O VI/oxygen ratio and the intensity prediction may be higher. The resulting intensity estimate, $`1900`$ photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, is more than twice the 2 sigma upper limit established in this paper.

For this calculation, the O VI ions are assumed to be mixed throughout the remnant. If the assumed abundance of metal atoms were reduced from the solar value, then the soft X-ray scaling relationships used in finding the model parameters would need to be adjusted to a similar degree. As a result, the model parameters would need to be adjusted, probably leading to a bigger, denser, and/or hotter bubble. As far as the predicted O VI intensity is concerned, these adjustments would probably offset the hypothetical abundance adjustment.

Not only is there a significant discrepancy between our null result and the intensity calculated from the model, there is a factor of 20 difference between the observed O VI column density ($`1.6\times 10^{13}`$ cm-2, Shelton & Cox (1994), Oegerle et al. (2002), see below) and the column density calculated from the model ($`2.7\times 10^{14}`$ cm-2), and a significant discrepancy between the 2 sigma upper limit on the observed C III 977 Å intensity ($`7300`$ photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1) and the published C III prediction ($`8500`$ photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, Figure 2 Breitschwerdt (2001)). The number and magnitude of these discrepancies practically eliminate this class of models.

Generalized Multi-Phase Model of the Local Bubble

The lesson learned from evaluating the previous model was that a bubble consisting of a single, moderate temperature, overionized plasma is disallowed because it contains too many O VI ions and emits too many photons from its O VI and C III ions. Furthermore, a bubble consisting of a single, collisional ionizational equilibrium plasma which is hot enough to produce the observed soft X-ray surface brightness is disallowed because it contains too few O VI ions (see below). In contrast, suppose the Local Bubble contains multiple distinct plasmas, a collisional ionizational equilibrium, million degree, X-ray emissive plasma and a several hundred thousand degree, O VI-rich plasma. Cool clouds are also known to lie within the Local Bubble so such a topology is reasonable. One example of an allowed form is a hot bubble, bounded by transition temperature gas and possibly containing additional transition zones around embedded cool clouds. Here, we consider such a generalized multi-phase model, in order to determine if it can meet the observational constraints or if more unusual circumstances are required.

The hotter component in this multi-phase model accounts for the observed soft X-rays, but few O VI photons. Based on the temperature found from a soft X-ray analysis ($`10^{6.1}`$ K, assuming collisional ionizational equilibrium, Kuntz & Snowden (2000)), the observed ROSAT R12 band countrate seen toward this part of the filament (590 $`\times 10^6`$ counts s-1 arcmin-2, K. D. Kuntz, private communication), the conversion between the ROSAT R12 band countrate and the emission measure ($`1\times 10^6`$ counts s-1 arcmin-2 $`=`$ $`7.15\times 10^6`$ cm-6 pc-1, Snowden et al. (1997)), the fraction of oxygen atoms in the O VI ionization level at this temperature ($`3.2\times 10^3`$, Mazzotta et al. (1998)), the solar abundance of oxygen ($`8.5\times 10^4`$, Grevesse & Anders (1989)), the ratio of free electrons to hydrogen nuclei (1.2), and the electron-impact excitation rate coefficient of Shull & Slavin (1994), we estimate that the $`10^6`$ K region produces only $``$60 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1 in the O VI resonance line doublet from a column density of only $`5\times 10^{11}`$VI ions cm-2.

The primary source of O VI ions and resonance line photons would be the transition temperature gas. Althought it need not be in collisional ionizational equilibrium, we will assume its temperature is between $`1\times 10^5`$ K and $`1\times 10^6`$ K for the following calculations. The Local Bubble’s column density of O VI ions is roughly $`1.6\times 10^{13}`$ cm-2 (see following subsection). By assuming that the gas is in thermal pressure balance with the soft X-ray emitting plasma ($`P_{th}/k`$ 15,000 K cm-3, Snowden et al. (1998)), we estimate its electron density. The temperature is not well known, but most of the O VI ions are likely to be near their ionizational equilibrium temperature ($`3.2\times 10^5`$ K), and the emission equation is relatively insensitive to temperature for $`1\times 10^5\stackrel{<}{}T\stackrel{<}{}1\times 10^6`$ K. An O VI-rich plasma, with the above column density, a temperature of $`6.3\times 10^5`$ K, and a thermal pressure of 15,000 K cm-3 emits 450 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, which is within the observational 2 sigma upper limit on the intensity. Similar plasmas with temperatures as low as $`1\times 10^5`$ K emit even less intense O VI radiation. Thus, a two phase model could meet the observational constraints without requiring unobserved astrophysics or unusual conditions.

Simulations of A Hot Bubble with Transition Zones

In this section, we examine the multi-phase bubble simulations of Smith & Cox (2001) and the evaporating cloud simulations of Slavin (1989). In the models of Smith & Cox (2001), the Local Bubble resulted from two or three supernova explosions occurring up to several million years ago. The interior of the structure consists of hot ($`10^6`$ K), nearly collisional ionizational equilibrium plasma, while the periphery of the structure consists of an intermediate temperature transition zone. Although the simulations do not explicitly include the transition zones surrounding the embedded cool clouds, such zones are thought to harbor O VI ions (Slavin, 1989; Oegerle et al., 2002) and so should contribute to the flux of O VI resonance line photons. Here, we will use the simulations of Slavin (1989), which predict their intensity.

After performing several hydrodynamical simulations, Smith & Cox (2001) decided that the best model lies intermediate between their various simulations. Their simulations yield predicted O VI intensities ranging from 190 to more than 9,500 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, (after the extra factor of $`4\pi `$ in their Figure 19 (Smith, private communication) is divided out). To this intensity must be added the intensity emitted by the transition zone on the local cloud and, possibly, transition zones on other cool clouds embedded in the Local Bubble. For the transition zone on the cool cloud surrounding the Sun, Slavin (1989) predicted an O VI doublet intensity of 250 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1. The sum of the Smith & Cox (2001) and Slavin (1989) predictions (440 to $`9800`$ photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1) marginally overlaps the 2 sigma upper limit reported in this paper. If other cool clouds reside along the line of sight, then the predicted O VI intensity would be even higher. Thus, this particular model is heavily constrained by the null results. We would have lost confidence in this type of model had it not been possible to simultaneously satisfy the O VI emission, O VI column density, and ROSAT soft X-ray constraints with the above generalized multiphase model.

### 5.2 Limits on Electron Density, Pressure, Pathlength, Cooling Timescale

Here, we will combine the intensity upper limit with column density estimates taken from the literature in order to calculate the upper limits on the electron density and thermal pressure in the O VI-rich plasma. The first data-derived estimate of the typical O VI column density of the Local Bubble ($`N_{OVI}1.6\times 10^{13}`$ cm-2, (Shelton & Cox, 1994)) was found via a statistical analysis of several dozen Copernicus lines of sight, most of which terminated far beyond the Local Bubble. Later, FUSE observed a couple dozen lines of sight entirely within the Local Bubble. The work of Welsh et al (2002) and Oegerle et al. (2002) suggest that the O VI column density within the Local Bubble may be as little as a few $`\times 10^{12}`$ cm-2 in some directions, but that the column density increases roughly with distance from the Sun and the total column density along a 100 pc radial path is consistent with values of $`7\times 10^{12}`$ cm-2 to $`1.6\times 10^{13}`$ cm-2. Here, we take the column density from the published survey (i.e. $`1.6\times 10^{13}`$ cm-2).

Using the emission equation of Shull & Slavin (1994), the above column density, the 2 sigma upper limit on the doublet intensity, and the temperature at which O VI is most prevalent in collisional ionizational equilibrium plasmas ($`T=3.2\times 10^5`$ K, Mazzotta et al. (1998)) yields an estimated upper limit for the electron density, $`n_e`$, of 0.021 cm-3. Thus, the estimated upper limit for the thermal pressure, from $`P_{th}/k=1.92n_eT`$, is $`13,000`$ K cm-3. If the temperature were significantly higher than the assumed temperature, then the pressure would be greater. If it is not, then the total (thermal and nonthermal) pressure in the O VI-rich region of the Local Bubble (presumably the transition zones) could be brought into balance with that of the X-ray emitting region of the Local Bubble (presumably the interior, $`P_{th}/k`$ 15,000 K cm-3) by assuming that the cooler, denser O VI-rich regions have a greater non-thermal pressure than the hotter, more rarefied X-ray emitting region.

Furthermore, the O VI-rich material occupies a pathlength ($`\mathrm{\Delta }l`$) of at least $`5900N_{OVI}/n_e`$ in cm, (incorrectly type-set in Shelton (2002)), or $`\stackrel{>}{}0.15`$ pc, consistent with transition zones. The cooling timescale solely due to cooling through the O VI doublet is

$$t=\frac{\frac{3}{2}kT}{4\pi (\mathrm{sr})I_{OVI}}N_{OVI}\frac{n_T}{n_{ovi}},$$
(1)
where $`k`$ is Boltzman’s constant, $`n_{ovi}`$, $`n_{oxy}`$, $`n_H`$, and $`n_T`$ are the densities of O VI ions, oxygen atoms, hydrogen nuclei, and particles, respectively, sr means steradians, and $`n_{ovi}/n_{oxy}=0.24`$ at $`3.2\times 10^5`$ K (Mazzotta et al., 1998). Thus, the cooling timescale due solely to O VI resonance line emission is at least $`2.0\times 10^6`$ years. These Local Bubble values are tabulated in Table 4, along with the Galactic halo values calculated in the following subsection.

### 5.3 Galactic Halo

Previous FUSE studies of emission from O VI in the interstellar medium (ISM) outside of superbubbles or supernova remnants observed far longer paths (Shelton et al. (2001); Dixon, et al. (2001); Shelton (2002); and Welsh et al (2002)). In each of those cases, the instrument had been directed toward a high Galactic latitude direction ($`|b|>40^\mathrm{o}`$). Given that the local region contributes little O VI resonance line intensity, the vast majority of the intensity observed on the relatively unobscured, high latitude observations must originate beyond the Local Bubble. Extragalactic sources are ruled out by the velocities of the observed emission features and so this emission presumably resides in the Galactic thick disk and halo. Subtracting the Local Bubble’s doublet intensity from the averages of the intensities observed by Shelton et al. (2001); Dixon, et al. (2001); Shelton (2002); and Welsh et al (2002) leaves 3500 to 4300 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, attributable to the Galactic halo.

The column density through the halo is roughly $`3.0\times 10^{14}`$ cm-2 (Savage et al., 2000). Thus, using the method of Section 5.2, we find the electron density in the halo’s O VI-rich gas to be 0.0050 to 0.0061 cm-3. The thermal pressure is 3100 to 3800 K cm-3, consistent with the range of total pressures in models of the Galactic thick disk and lower halo (Boulares & Cox, 1990; Ferrière, 1995). The pathlength is at least 110 pc. The cooling timescale is 7 to $`8\times 10^6`$ years.

## 6 Summary

* The Local Bubble’s O VI intensity has been examined through a shadowing observation directed toward $`l=278.6^\mathrm{o},b=45.3^\mathrm{o}`$. No emission was seen. The tightest 2 sigma upper limits on the 1032 and 1038 Å emission lines are 530 and 500 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1, respectively. Given the theoretical intensity ratio (2.0 to 1.0), the tightest 2 sigma upper limit on the resonance line doublet is 800 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1.
* The class of models in which the Local Bubble is assumed to be a single, moderate temperature ($`4\times 10^4`$ K), extremely overionized plasma is virtually ruled out. The 2 sigma upper limits on the O VI and C III intensities exceed the model predictions, as does the observed O VI column density. The class of models in which the Local Bubble is a single, hot ($`10^6`$ K), collisional ionizational equilibrium plasma are also ruled out. Such a model could not produce the observed O VI column density. However, the combined O VI and ROSAT soft X-ray observations allow models in which the Local Bubble contains multiple, separate phases. The X-ray emission can be attributed to the hot zone and the O VI ions can be attributed to transition zones. Existing simulations of a multiphase bubble combined with simulations of a single evaporating cloud are tightly constrained by our 2 $`\sigma `$ upper limit on the doublet intensity. Considering that multiple clouds are expected to reside along the typical line of sight, the expected O VI intensity falls well below the upper limit, suggesting that transition zones differ from current models.
* The estimated 2 sigma upper limit on the electron density in the Local Bubble’s O VI-bearing plasma is 0.021 cm-3. If the temperature is near the collisional ionizational equilibrium temperature for O VI ($`3.2\times 10^5`$ K), then the thermal pressure is $`13,000`$ K cm-3, which is weaker than that of the soft X-ray emissive portion of the Local Bubble. The discrepancy could be resolved if the O VI-bearing gas were to have a greater than assumed temperature or a significant nonthermal pressure.
* The timescale for cooling soley due to the O VI resonance line emission is proportional to the thermal energy in the gas and inversely proportional to the O VI intensity. For the Local Bubble, this timescale is $`2\times 10^6`$ years.
* The Galactic halo’s O VI doublet intensity has been found by subtracting the Local Bubble result from other observations. It is 3500 to 4300 photons cm-2 s-1 sr-1.
* The Galactic halo’s intensity implies an electron density of $`0.0050`$ to $`0.0061`$ cm-3. If the temperature is near the collisional ionizational equilibrium temperature for O VI then the thermal pressure is $`3100`$ to $`3800`$ K cm-3. This pressure is consistent with the total pressure estimates in models of the thick disk and lower halo.
* The O VI in the Galactic halo cools on a timescale ($`t`$ thermal energy / O VI intensity) of 7 to $`8\times 10^6`$ years.

We thank the referee, Steve Snowden, for volunteering the DIRAS corrected IRAS and ROSAT images and critiquing the manuscript, K. D. Kuntz for providing the ROSAT measurements and commenting on the manuscript, B.-G. Andersson for discussing the telescope’s specifications, and Tim Heckman for reviewing the manuscript. We acknowledge Welsh et al (2002), which compared observed and modeled C III intensities for other directions. This research has been supported by NASA grant NAG5-10394 (through the FUSE Guest Investigator program) and NASA grant NAG5-10807 (through the Long Term Space Astrophysics Program).