text:
# Dark Energy and Dark Matter

\[

## Abstract

It is a puzzle why the densities of dark matter and dark energy are nearly equal today when they scale so differently during the expansion of the universe. This conundrum may be solved if there is a coupling between the two dark sectors. In this paper we assume that dark matter is made of cold relics with masses depending exponentially on the scalar field associated to dark energy. Since the dynamics of the system is dominated by an attractor solution, the dark matter particle mass is forced to change with time as to ensure that the ratio between the energy densities of dark matter and dark energy become a constant at late times and one readily realizes that the present-day dark matter abundance is not very sensitive to its value when dark matter particles decouple from the thermal bath. We show that the dependence of the present abundance of cold dark matter on the parameters of the model differs drastically from the familiar results where no connection between dark energy and dark matter is present. In particular, we analyze the case in which the cold dark matter particle is the lightest supersymmetric particle.

\]1. Introduction. Combined analysis of cosmological observations such as cosmic microwave radiation (CMB) anisotropies , cluster baryon fraction  and supernovae Ia , give increasing support for the so called ‘cosmic concordance’ model, in which the universe is flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{t}ot}=1`$), and made for one third of non-relativistic dark matter (DM), and for two thirds of a smooth component, called Dark Energy (DE). DM is commonly associated to weakly interacting particles (WIMPs), and can be described as a fluid with vanishing pressure. DE, being responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe, has to be identified with some more exotic component with negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant or a scalar field with a proper potential . A common assumption is that there is no interaction between DM and DE. This implies that the ratio between their energy densities evolves in time as $`\rho _{DM}/\rho _{DE}a^{3W}`$, $`a`$ being the scale factor of the universe and $`W`$ the DE equation of state ($`W=1`$ for a cosmological constant, $`W<1/3`$ to get acceleration). As a consequence, the cosmological constant or the scale of the effective potential have to be carefully tuned in order to get the observed proportions of DM and DE right today.

A possible solution to this ‘cosmic coincidence’ problem may be obtained by introducing a coupling between DM and DE. More specifically, if DE is identified with a scalar field $`\phi `$ with an exponential potential and the DM particle mass also depends exponentially on $`\phi `$, the late time behavior of the cosmological equations gives accelerated expansion and, at the same time, a constant DM/DE ratio . This behavior relies on the existence of an attractor solution, which makes the late time cosmology insensitive to the initial conditions for DE and DM. The possibility of varying mass particles (VAMPs) as DM candidates was considered previously in , but with different functional dependences not leading to a solution of the cosmic coincidence problem.

In this letter, we will explore the impact of this scenario on the usual cold DM picture, which is based on the freeze-out at an early epoch of some non-relativistic species (see, for instance, ). In the standard scenario with constant mass particles the late time DM energy density is just the one at the freeze-out rescaled by the volume expansion. Instead, in the present VAMP scenario the attractor prompts a mass change in order to have the right DM/DE ratio today. As we will see, besides solving the cosmic coincidence problem, this will significantly enlarge the parameter space allowed by the observed abundances.

2. VAMPs and the coincidence problem We will consider as DM candidate a particle $`\chi `$ of mass $`M`$, depending exponentially on the DE field $`\phi `$,

$$M_\chi (\phi )=\overline{M}e^{\lambda \phi },$$
(1)
where $`\phi `$ is expressed in units of the Planck Mass $`M_p`$. The scalar field has an exponential potential

$$V(\phi )=\overline{V}e^{\beta \phi },$$
(2)
with $`\lambda ,\beta >0`$. If the DM particle is non-relativistic, its energy density is also $`\phi `$-dependent, since it is given by

$$\rho _\chi =M_\chi (\phi )Y_\chi n_\gamma ,$$
(3)
where $`Y_\chi =n_\chi /n_\gamma `$ is the number density of DM particles relative to the density of photons, $`n_\gamma =n_\gamma ^0(a/a_0)^3`$, with $`n_\gamma ^0=411\mathrm{c}m^3`$, and $`a/a_0`$ the scale factor of the universe relative to its value today.

As a consequence, the scalar field is subject to an effective potential given by the sum of Eqs. (2) and (3). The equation of motion is then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\chi +\rho _\mathrm{b}+V+\rho _{\mathrm{r}ad}}{1\phi ^2/6}}\phi ^{\prime \prime }+`$ (4)
$`\frac{1}{2}\left(\rho _\chi +\rho _\mathrm{b}+2V+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\rho _{\mathrm{r}ad}\right)\phi ^{}=\beta V+\lambda \rho _\chi ,`$ (5)
where primes denote derivatives with respect to $`\xi =\mathrm{log}(a/a_0)`$, $`\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{r}ad}`$ are the energy densities in baryons and radiation, respectively, and we have assumed a spatially flat universe. Since we are interested in the late-time behavior, we can assume $`\rho _\mathrm{b},\rho _{\mathrm{r}ad}\rho _\chi ,\rho _\phi `$. In this limit it is easy to see that there is a solution such that

$$\phi =\frac{3}{\lambda +\beta }\xi ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi 1\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi =\frac{3+\lambda (\lambda +\beta )}{(\lambda +\beta )^2},$$
(6)
which is an attractor in field space if $`\beta >(\lambda +\sqrt{\lambda ^2+12})/2`$. From the moment the attractor is reached, the energy densities in DM and in DE evolve at a constant ratio depending only on $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$, thus solving the cosmic coincidence problem.

A closer inspection at the solution (6) using Friedman’s equations reveals that

$$\frac{a\ddot{a}}{\dot{a}^2}=\frac{1+3W}{2},\mathrm{w}ithW=\frac{\lambda }{\beta +\lambda },$$
(7)
that is $`W`$ is negative and may lead, if $`W<1/3`$, to an accelerated expansion of the universe. To understand how it is possible to get both acceleration and constant ratio between DM and DE one may look at the scaling behavior of the energy densities on the attractor (6),

$$\rho _\chi e^{\lambda \phi 3\xi }\rho _\phi e^{\beta \phi }e^{3(W+1)\xi }.$$
(8)
The $`\phi `$ dependence of the DM mass modifies the usual scaling $`e^{3\xi }`$ of non relativistic matter. Since the mass increases with the expansion, it corresponds to an effectively negative $`W`$, even though DM is still a pressureless fluid made up by non-interacting particles.

In Fig. 1 we plot a typical solution, including also $`\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{r}ad}`$. During radiation domination $`\rho _\phi ,\rho _\chi \rho _{\mathrm{r}ad}`$, then $`\phi \mathrm{c}onst.`$, so that DM exhibits the standard scaling, $`e^{3\xi }`$. Around matter-radiation equivalence the attractor starts to become effective and after some transient regime – possibly including a baryon-dominated epoch – it is reached at about the present epoch. In this scenario, the future will be characterized by values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\phi `$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi `$ closer and closer to the values in (6), with $`\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{r}ad}`$ diluting with the usual laws, $`a^3`$ and $`a^4`$, respectively.

As will be discussed in  the growth of fluctuations in this scenario is compatible with the present data on CMB and large scale structure. In particular, it is remarkable that matter fluctuations grow even during accelerated expansion, unlike in the usual $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated or quintessence scenario.

2. VAMPs and DM abundance As we have discussed in the previous section, the late-time attractor forces the DM particle mass to change with time as to ensure that DM and DE scale at the same, constant, ratio given by Eq. (6). In this section we show how this translates into an enhancement of the parameter space giving the observed energy densities. Alternative ideas to modify the standard freeze-out picture of CDM suppose a kineton-dominated expansion of the universe  or a low-reheating temperature after inflation . Differently from these approaches, where some new dynamics occurs at early epochs, in our proposal the standard expansion history of the universe gets modified only at late times – after radiation-matter equality – when the field $`\phi `$ starts to roll. We assume that the DM particle $`\chi `$ falls into the category of Cold Dark Matter (CDM), that is $`\chi `$-particles cease annihilating during the evolution of the universe when they were non-relativistic ( in the case of relativistic DM, due to the fact that the DM abundance $`Y_\chi `$ is mass independent, the predictions of the VAMP and the standard scenarios are the same). This amounts to assuming that $`x_f=M_\chi \left(\phi _f\right)/T_f>1`$, where $`\phi _f`$ is the value of the DE field at the freeze-out epoch and $`T_f`$ is the freeze-out temperature. The present DM energy density, Eq. (3), depends on the value of the physical $`\chi `$-mass today $`M_\chi ^{\mathrm{ph}}M_\chi (\phi _0)\overline{M}e^{\lambda \phi _0}`$ (where $`\phi _0`$ is the value of the DE field today) and on the comoving number density $`Y_\chi `$. The latter depends, among other parameters, on the $`\chi `$ mass at the earlier epoch of freeze-out, i.e. on $`M_\chi (\phi _f)\overline{M}e^{\lambda \phi _f}=M_\chi ^{\mathrm{ph}}e^{\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\phi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \phi _0\phi _f`$.

In order to be definite, we will consider the case of stable $`\chi `$-particles annihilating into light states by exchanging an heavier particle $`S`$ of mass $`M_S`$, $`\chi \overline{\chi }`$ light states. To estimate $`x_f`$ we make use of the criterion $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ann}}(x_f)H(x_f)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ann}}=n_\chi ^{\mathrm{eq}}\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}|v|`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}|v|`$ is the thermally-averaged annihilation cross-section times velocity of the DM particles. We also suppose that the DM particles annihilate through a $`p`$-wave suppression channel. This happens – for instance – if $`\chi `$ is a Majorana fermion.

Under these assumptions, the thermally-averaged annihilation cross section at freeze-out is given by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{a}nn}|v|=\alpha _S^2\frac{T_f}{M_\chi (\phi _f)}\frac{M_\chi ^2(\phi _f)}{(M_\chi ^2(\phi _f)+M_S^2)^2}\sigma _0\frac{T_f}{M_\chi (\phi _f)},$$
(9)
where $`\alpha _S`$ is a combination of coupling constants measuring the strengths of the interactions. The standard freeze-out picture  gives the number abundance at late times $`Y_\chi (T_0)Y_\chi (T_f)=(7.6x_f^2/g_{}^{1/2}(T_f)M_p\sigma _0M_\chi (\phi _f))`$, where $`T_02.75`$ K is the present-day photon temperature and $`g_{}`$ counts the relativistic degrees of freedom in the plasma at the freeze-out epoch. The energy density of the DM particles today reads

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi (t_0)h^2=ce^{3\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\phi }\frac{\left(e^{2\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\phi }\left(M_\chi ^{\mathrm{ph}}\right)^2+M_S^2\right)^2}{\left(M_\chi ^{\mathrm{ph}}\right)^2}$$
(10)
with $`c1.46\times 10^{10}\alpha _S^2(x_f^2/g_{}^{1/2}(T_f))\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM scenario is recovered by setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =0`$ or, equivalently, $`\lambda =\beta =0`$. In this case, $`\overline{V}`$ plays the role of the cosmological constant, $`M_\chi =M_\chi ^{\mathrm{ph}}`$ at any epoch, and constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi (t_0)h^2`$ contours in the $`(M_\chi M_S)`$ plane are those corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$ in Fig. 2, where the region $`M_S<M_\chi `$ has been excluded. It is worth while stressing that, once the acceptable range for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi (t_0)h^2`$ has been chosen, the DE abundance has to be fine tuned to give a flat universe (at, say, ten percent accuracy). This translates into a constraint on $`\overline{V}`$ which is nothing but the cosmic coincidence problem of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM scenario.

In the VAMP scenario the situation changes dramatically. Keeping the physical abundance, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi (t_0)h^2`$, fixed and assuming the attractor has been reached by today, the circular contour for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =0`$ is deformed to a ellipse of the same area and eccentricity given by $`e^{\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }\phi }`$, as in Fig. 2. On the same contour the potential energy of the $`\phi `$ field is also constant, $`\overline{V}e^{\beta \phi _0}`$, so we can express $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ in terms of $`\overline{V}`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{log}\frac{\overline{V}}{\stackrel{~}{V}}\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is the particular value of $`\overline{V}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =0`$.

Compared to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM case, in the VAMP case we can vary $`\overline{V}`$ by many orders of magnitude, see Fig. 2. In principle, any value of $`\overline{V}`$ would give an acceptable ellipse. In practice, extreme values would prevent the field $`\phi `$ from reaching the attractor before the present epoch, thus deforming the corresponding contour from an elliptical shape and reducing its area. However, as we have checked numerically, the allowed values for $`\overline{V}`$ typically span many orders of magnitude, thus removing any fine tuning on this parameter.

The most striking feature is that observationally allowed values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi (t_0)h^2`$ can be obtained for very large masses of the scalar particle $`S`$. In the traditional $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM scenario large scalar masses would lead to a suppression of the annihilation cross-section and therefore to a over-abundance of DM particles today. On the other hand, in the case in which the $`\chi `$-mass depends on the DE field, the initially large value of the $`\chi `$-energy density at the freeze-out is adiabatically reduced not only by the expansion of the universe, but also by the fact that, due to the running of the DE field, the $`\chi `$-mass is smaller today than at freeze-out. For consistency, we have to impose in this case that $`\chi `$ has always been lighter than $`S`$, which is ensured by the constraint $`M_\chi (\phi _f)<M_S`$, giving the straight dashed lines in Fig. 2.

Even more remarkable from a phenomenological point of view is the drastic enhancement of the allowed parameter space in the $`(M_\chi ^{\mathrm{ph}}M_S)`$ plane. Varying $`\overline{V}`$, the allowed regions span an area delimited by an hyperbole, which contains values for $`M_S`$ much larger than in the standard scenario.

Points above the hyperbole give still the good DM/DE ratio, but fail in reproducing their absolute value, that is, the Hubble parameter today.

4. An illustrative example: supersymmetric dark matter. Of the many CDM candidates, the best motivated from a particle physics point of view is the supersymmetric neutralino if the latter is the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) . Most of the supersymmetric models obtained from supergravity usually predict that the LSP is an almost pure $`B`$-ino. Therefore, to give an illustrative example of our previous findings, we consider the case in which the LSP is a $`B`$-ino and its mass $`M_B`$ depends exponentially upon the time-dependent DE field $`\varphi `$, $`M_B=\overline{M}_B\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda \phi \right)`$.

Being the $`B`$-ino the supersymmetric partner of the $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge boson, it does not directly contribute at the one-loop level to the running of gauge couplings. This means that the time-dependence of the electromagnetic coupling is induced by the bino mass only through tiny quantities parametrizing how much the LSP composition depends on the Wino and Higgsinos. A full parameter space analysis regarding this specific point will be presented in . In the early universe, $`B`$-inos mainly annihilate into fermion pairs through $`t`$-channel exchange of squarks and sleptons. Exceptions occur only for pathological situations in which there is a resonant $`s`$-channel exchange of $`Z^0`$ or a Higgs boson. Because of the large hypercharge of the right-handed electron and the expected lightness of sleptons compared to squarks, it is often a good approximation to include in the annihilation cross section only the exchange of the right-handed sleptons.

Summing over three slepton degenerate families with mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{}_R`$, the thermally-averaged $`B`$-ino annihilation cross section times velocity has the same form as eq. (9), with $`M_S`$ and $`M_\chi `$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{}_R`$ and $`M_B`$, respectively, and $`\alpha _S^2=24\pi \alpha ^2/\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _W6.7\times 10^3`$.

In the traditional case in which the mass of the $`B`$-ino is not dependent upon the DE field, $`M_B=M_B^{\mathrm{ph}}`$, cosmological considerations give an upper bound to the $`B`$-ino mass. Indeed, the requirement that charged particles are not the LSP implies $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{}_R>M_B`$. The minimum allowed $`B`$-ino relic abundance corresponds to the maximum annihilation cross section and therefore to the minimum $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{}_R`$. Setting $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{}_R=M_B`$ in the expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, one obtains an upper bound on the $`B`$-ino mass of about 300 GeV (for $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$) . This bound can be weakened in several ways. For example through the presence of resonant $`s`$-channel annihilations, once a small Higgsino admixture is introduced. Furthermore, as emphasized in Ref. , whenever the sleptons and the $`B`$-ino become degenerate in mass within about 10–20%, one cannot ignore the effects of coannihilation. These effects can modify significantly the $`B`$-ino relic abundance, because annihilation channels involving the charged sleptons have large cross sections which are not $`p`$-wave suppressed. Indeed, even in the case of the constrained model, the previous limit on the $`B`$-ino mass can be relaxed to about 600 GeV . Coannihilation effects do not significantly modify the bound on the slepton mass for a fixed value of $`M_B`$ (as long as it is not too close to $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{}_R`$).

On the other hand, these bounds on the slepton and $`B`$-ino masses can be drastically modified if the mass of the $`B`$-ino depends upon the DE field. These effects are illustrated in Fig. 2 at different values of the parameter $`\overline{V}`$. As expected from the findings of the previous section, observationally allowed values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B(t_0)h^2`$ can be obtained for very large slepton masses for given values of $`\overline{V}`$: the smaller $`\overline{V}`$ is, the larger the slepton mass can be. Furthermore, allowing $`\overline{V}`$ to vary enhances drastically the allowed parameter space in the $`(M_B^{\mathrm{ph}}\stackrel{~}{M}_\mathrm{}_R)`$ plane. We leave a more complete analysis of the parameter space of the supersymmetric models for a future publication . It is intriguing that a coupling between the dark energy and the dark matter sectors may provide not only a natural solution to the coincidence problem but also a drastic modification of the predicted abundance of CDM in terms of the particle physics parameters.

Acknowledgements. We thank Antonio Masiero for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by European Contracts HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and HPRN-CT-2000-00149.


format: text

text:
# What can we learn about extragalactic radio jets from X-ray data?

## 1. Introduction

The study of relativistic jets via X-ray emission provides certain key advantages unobtainable at lower frequencies. If the X-rays come from synchrotron emission, then we are dealing with Lorentz energies $`\gamma 10^7`$. This fact leads to two important features: $`E^2`$ halflives are very short which means that observed emission regions correspond to sites of injection or acceleration of particles, and that variability timescales are of order a year or less. For the most part, X-ray variability has been limited to unresolved cores; whereas now we can observe variability for knots which are well separated from the nucleus (Harris et al. 2003).

If the X-ray emission arises from the inverse Compton (IC) process, then we are dealing with electrons for which $`\gamma 1000`$ and thus we can obtain amplitudes of the electron spectra at energies not available to ground based radio observations.

For the case of synchrotron self-Compton emission (SSC), we are able to estimate the average magnetic field strength and for the case of equipartition fields, constrain the filling factor and the contributions to the total particle energy density from low energy electrons and from protons.

In this overview which is limited to jet knots and hotspots clearly distinct from emission associated with the nucleus, we discuss the emission processes and summarize what we have learned so far. We end with a discussion of some of the current problems and goals. We concentrate on aspects for which new information has become available subsequent to a previous short review prepared for a meeting in 2000 August (Harris 2002) and discussions on the enhancement of IC scattering on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) experienced by relativistic jets (Celotti, Ghisellini, & Chiaberge. 2001; Tavechhio et al. 2000; Harris & Krawczynski 2002).

We maintain a website (http://hea-www.harvard.edu/XJET/) which currently lists 37 radio galaxies and quasars with known X-ray emission from jets or hotspots. Before the launch of the Chandra X-ray Observatory, this table had only 7 entries: 3C273, Cen A, M87, Cyg A, Pic A, 3C120, and 3C390.3.

## 2. X-ray Emission Processes and what they reveal

For any given feature, it is necessary to identify the emission process before we can estimate physical parameters. For knots and hotspots there is no longer any serious consideration given to thermal emission, although X-ray emission from hot gas may be closely associated with jets in some cases. The main problem is to decide between synchrotron and IC emissions (the latter comes of course in many different flavors depending on the nature of the target photons). Every synchrotron source must also produce IC emission from at least the CMB and the synchrotron photons; our question is, which process dominates the X-ray emission.

### 2.1. Synchrotron Self-Compton Emission

SSC emission models have been successfully applied to several terminal hotspots of FRII radio galaxies and the resulting magnetic field strengths are close to equipartition for filling factors close to 1 and little or no contribution to the particle energy density from protons (Harris 2002). Hardcastle et al. (2002) have recently added to the small number of FRII hotspots with sufficiently large photon energy densities to provide detectable SSC X-rays. In figure 1 we show one of their sources, the double hotspot in the quasar 3C 351. This is not a typical SSC hotspot, nor is it a typical FRII radio structure since the hotspot on the other side of the source is very weak. It is one of the few where the X-ray emission is substantially greater than predicted by SSC with equipartition fields. Here, and in the western hotspot of Pic A, Doppler boosting, a significant departure from equipartition, and/or a substantial contribution from synchrotron emission are possible explanations for the excess emission.

### 2.2. IC/CMB

The notion that kpc scale jets of FRII sources are still moving with significant bulk relativistic velocity was argued by Bridle (1996) and others. Celotti et al. (2001) and Tavecchio et al. (2000) suggested that in the jet frame, the photon energy density, $`u(\nu )`$, of the CMB would be augmented by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the jet’s Lorentz factor), and this could shift the primary energy loss mechanism from the normally dominate synchrotron channel to the IC channel, thus increasing the ratio of the IC to synchrotron luminosities. These authors successfully applied this idea to the jet of PKS0637 and derived $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10`$ for equipartition fields. However, when the model is applied to low redshift FRI radio galaxy jets, it fails since extremely large values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, coupled with unreasonably small angles of the jet to the line of sight, are required (Harris & Krawczynski 2002).

Once the redshift becomes significant, the (1+z)4 term in the energy density of the CMB becomes increasingly important, and for such sources, the ’heavy lifting’ to increase u($`\nu `$) comes from the redshift rather than the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ term (see e.g. Siemiginowska et al. 2002).

### 2.3. Synchrotron Emission

Synchrotron X-ray emission is normally modeled by extending the powerlaw distribution of electron energy (with or without breaks) to Lorentz factors, $`\gamma `$, of $`10^7`$ to $`10^8`$. This sort of model can be applied to most or all X-ray knots in the jets of FRI sources and does not require excessive amounts of energy. It is true however that the E2 lifetimes are short, and hence observed X-ray emission must demarcate injection/acceleration regions.

When constructing synchrotron (or IC) models, we often obtain estimates of the beaming parameters as a by product. In the case of the knot HST-1 in the M87 jet, we were able to demonstrate that the variability characteristics were consistent with a synchrotron model, but not with IC emission (Harris et al. 2003). Moreover, by solving for synchrotron parameters for a range of Doppler factors $`\delta `$, it was found that the observed decay rates in the lightcurves (harder X-rays decay faster than softer X-rays) were consistent with synchrotron losses in a field of order 1 mG with $`\delta 3`$.

To relate the decay of the lightcurve to a synchrotron loss model, we start with the normal synchrotron equations (Pacholczyk 1970) and make the simplifying assumption that if the emission in a small band drops by a certain amount, then there will be a proportionally smaller number of electrons after the drop. Although this approach assumes that the magnetic field strength remains constant, it demonstrates the method of obtaining parameters.

The electron spectrum is the usual power law.

$$N(E)=k_eE^p$$
(1)
Synchrotron losses go as $`E^2`$ ($`c_1`$ & $`c_2`$ are constants):

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=c_2B^2E^2ergs^1$$
(2)
Consider a segment of the electron energy distribution responsible for a given observed X-ray band between $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$. Let $`h\frac{\nu _2}{\nu _1}`$. The number of electrons entering the band (per sec) at $`E_2`$ will be $`N(E_2)\times \frac{dE_2}{dt}`$ and the number leaving at $`E_1`$ will be $`N(E_1)\times \frac{dE_1}{dt}`$.

The net change will be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N=N(E_1)\frac{dE_1}{dt}[h^{1\frac{p}{2}}1]s^1$$
(3)
and for a drop in flux, f(t), over some given time, $`t^{}=t_2^{}t_1^{}`$ (primes denote the jet frame):

$$\frac{f(t_2^{})}{f(t_1^{})}=\frac{N(E,t_1^{})+t^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }N}{N(E,t_1^{})}$$
(4)
With $`t^{}=\delta t_o`$ and $`E^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\nu }{\delta c_1B}}`$, we find:

$$\delta B^3=\frac{c_1}{\nu _1}\frac{1}{t_o^2c_2^2}\left[1\frac{f(t_2)}{f(t_1)}\right]^2\frac{1}{(p1)^2}\left[\frac{h^{(1p)/2}1}{h^{(1p/2)}1}\right]^2$$
(5)
All the terms on the far right depend only on the spectral index and the bandwidth. In the center we have the ratio of fluxes at two times, and the time between intensity observations is given by to. Thus on the right are observables, providing a measure of $`\delta B^3`$ which can be compared with this product from trial $`\delta `$s and resulting equipartition fields (see Harris et al. 2003 for the relevant table). For the 3 energy bands used in the M87 analysis of HST-1, we find $`\delta =3.3\pm 1`$ (slightly different values are obtained if $`\alpha 1.0`$)

This ’modest beaming’ model is consistent with beaming parameters deduced from proper motions of substructures in the same knot at optical wavelengths (Biretta, Sparks, & Macchetto 1999).

## 3. Problems

### 3.1. High frequency, flat spectrum components - the ’bowtie’ problem: Some knots have flatter X-ray spectra than they ’should’.

It has become common to differentiate IC from synchrotron emissions on the basis of the X-ray spectral index. If $`\alpha _x\alpha _r`$, then IC emission is indicated since we expect the low frequency radio spectrum to extrapolate to unobservable frequencies with $`\alpha _r`$ or less. If $`\alpha _x\alpha _r`$, then losses or cutoffs in the synchrotron spectrum are invoked. We believe that this approach is reasonable, but should not be considered as definitive. Fresh injection may be manifest by flat spectra at high energies, and at the other end of the electron spectrum, we don’t actually know what slope the power law distribution (if indeed it is still a power law) might have at energies below those responsible for synchrotron radiation observable from the ground.

The ’bowtie problem’ arises from the expectation that synchrotron spectra (log Sν vs. log $`\nu `$) are generally concave downwards and such a spectrum extrapolated from the optical data cannot accommodate the ’bowtie’ delineating the X-ray intensity and spectral index (with uncertainties) for some jet knots and hotspots; see e.g. Pic A (Wilson, Young, & Shopbell 2001) or M87 (Wilson & Yang 2002). Although we have argued in the past for ’concave downwards’ sort of spectral fits, we no longer believe that this argument is germane to knots in jets. Rather it is a characteristic of the continuous injection (CI) model for stationary sources. For relativistic jets, the electrons resulting from a power law generation at a shock are convected downstream instead of accumulating in the local emitting volume as assumed for CI. Our view is that while synchrotron spectra of jet knots may be a single or broken power law over a wide frequency range, at acceleration sites (wherever X-rays are observed), it is expected that there may be a flat spectrum component visible only at the highest frequencies because the lower segment of such a power law is lost in comparison to the much higher intensity component which has arrived from upstream and no longer contains electrons with $`\gamma 10^7`$. The only non-standard ingredient of this scenario is that the local acceleration site should not intercept all of the flow from upstream, thus allowing, in a sense, two spectral components: the upstream contribution which is cutoff at a lower energy and the locally (re)accelerated flat spectrum component.

### 3.2. Offsets in peak brightnesses between bands & progression of relative intensities in different bands

Even when care has been exercised to ensure that the effective beamsizes are close to being the same, relative offsets are sometimes observed between peak emissions at different bands. In fig. 2, we show a comparison of radio and X-ray images of M87. Offsets can be seen for knots D, E, and F (2.5′′ to 9′′ from the core). Other cases are the nearest X-ray jet (Cen A, Kraft et al. 2002) and one of the more distant jets, the quasar PKS1127-148 (z=1.18; Siemiginowska et al. 2002).

For synchrotron models of FRI radio galaxies (i.e. with physical offsets of order parsecs, not kpc), a reasonable explanation of the offsets would be that the acceleration region is distributed along the jet and the magnetic field strength is increasing after the initial shock front. Moving downstream, the increasing field strength will lower the maximum energy attainable in subsequent shocks and increase the emissivity. Since the halflives of X-ray emitting electrons are of order a year, whereas the optical and radio emitting electrons would endure ten and 10,000 times longer (respectively), such an acceleration region would naturally produce the observed offsets. No offsets would be expected for a single shock, although the lower frequency emissions could extend further down the jet than the X-ray knot.

A somewhat similar situation exists for the overall structure of a few jets: the brightest X-ray features are close to the nucleus and the knots get fainter moving out the jet. In the case of 3C 273, the optical features have similar intensities but the radio intensities increase as one moves further downstream (the final radio ’knot’ is weak or undetected at optical and X-ray energies). If one were to observe the 3C 273 jet from a great distance with only a few resolution elements for the jet, one would see an offset between the radio and X-ray peaks. Put another way, each small segment of some jets mimics the gross characteristics of the whole (observable) jet. Once again, a natural explanation would be an increasing average field strength as one moves out along the jet.

### 3.3. Other items needing attention

* Is there any method to check on the extrapolation to lower $`\gamma `$ in the electron spectra which is required for IC/CMB models?
* Are there serious departures from Beq?
* Is complex jet structure required? Celotti et al. (2001) suggested the possibility of a fast spine with large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, surrounded by a sheath with low $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This obviously provides more latitude to explain observed fluxes in different bands, but is it necessary?
* How much beaming is there, and where (i.e. in FRI jets? in hotspots?)? Currently we think $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is of order a few in FRI jets, but we don’t really have convincing limits for FRII jets.
* X-ray emission between discrete knots. If, as seems likely in several jets, there is quasi continuous X-ray emission along the jets, then the standard synchrotron model of acceleration at discrete locations (shocks=knots) fails to explain the emission between knots. Two possibilities are IC/CMB emission from cold pairs (Harris & Krawczynski 2002) and synchrotron emission from distributed acceleration such as might occur from magnetic reconnection along a magnetically dominated jet (Blandford, private communication).

## 4. Summary

### 4.1. Goals

It seems reasonable that we may expect progress in understanding a number of jet properties in the not too distant future.

* Composition: is the major carrier of momentum Ponyting flux, normal plasma, or pair plasma? NB: large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$s at large distances (kpc scales) effectively kills hot pairs.
* Distribution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: refining models, we should be able to obtain reasonable estimates of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for various jets and for features within jets.
* Jet Structure: does the fluid follow a helical path or is there a spine plus sheath structure?

### 4.2. What have we learned so far?

Except for terminal hotspots, all detected X-ray jets are one sided. Therefore, whatever the emission process, Doppler favoritism is operating and we need to include beaming effects. With increased sensitivity, examples of bona fide two sided jets will most likely be found, but this is expected for the small values of the bulk relativistic velocity currently estimated for many FRI radio galaxies.

As reviewed in Harris (2002), X-ray emission from terminal hotspots provides the following conclusions. If the X-rays are synchrotron emission from high energy electrons which are generated by Proton Induced Cascades (rather than the usual high energy tail of a power law distribution), the average magnetic field strength will be large (of order a mG) and hotspots would be good candidates for the origin of UHE cosmic rays.

If the hotspot X-rays come from SSC emission as is commonly accepted, then the fact that the average magnetic field required for SSC is consistent with the conventional equipartition field strength, can be taken as circumstantial evidence that relativistic protons do not contribute to the total particle energy density, and thus are most likely absent.

For the handful of hotspots successfully modeled with SSC, we find $`\alpha _x\alpha _r`$, as expected, and the ratio of photon to magnetic energy densities $`0.1`$

From X-ray synchrotron emission from knots in jets, $`\gamma 10^7`$ and the halflife of the highest energy electrons, $`\tau _{\frac{1}{2}}`$ a few years. Therefore, X-rays mark the spot of acceleration sites.

From models involving IC/CMB emission, we find the following.

* Since $`\nu _{IC/CMB}=3\times 10^{11}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\times (1+z)\times \gamma ^2`$, the electrons responsible for the observed X-rays have energies $`\gamma `$=30-300 and we may obtain an estimate of the amplitude of the electron spectrum at very low energies.
* Some jets are relativistic on kpc scales.
* $`\alpha _x\alpha _r`$ (or flatter).

#### Acknowledgments.

The radio map of M87 was kindly supplied by F. Owen. The work at SAO was supported by NASA contract NAS8-39073 and grant GO2-3144X.

## References

Biretta, J. A., Sparks, W. B., and Macchetto, F. 1999, ApJ, 520, 621

Bridle, A.H. 1996, ASP Conference Series 100, 383-394, “Energy Transport in Radio Galaxies”, Hardee, Bridle, & Zensus, eds.

Celotti, A., Ghisellini, G., & Chiaberge, M. 2001, MNRAS, 321, L1

Hardcastle, M. J., Birkinshaw, M., Cameron, R. A., Harris, D. E., Looney, L. W., and Worrall, D. M. 2002, ApJ, 581, 948

Harris, D. E., Biretta, J. A., Junor, W., Perlman, E. S., Sparks, W. B., and Wilson, A. S. 2003, ApJ, (submitted)

Harris, D. E. & Krawczynski, H. 2002, ApJ, 565, 244

Harris, D.E. 2002, in ’Particles and Fields in Radio Galaxies’, ASP Conference Series 250, p.204 R. A. Laing and K. M. Blundell, editors

Kraft, R.P., Forman, W.R., Jones, C., Murray, S.S., Hardcastle, M.J., and Worrall, D.M. 2002, ApJ, 569, 54

Pacholczyk, A.G. 1970, “Radio Astrophysics” W. H. Freeeman, San Franciso

Siemiginowska, A., Bechtold, J., Aldcroft, T.L., Elvis, M., Harris, D.E., and Dobrzycki, A. 2002, ApJ, 570, 543

Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Sambruna, R.M., & Urry, C.M. 2000, ApJ, 544, 23

Wilson, A.S., Young, A.J., & Shopbell, P.L. 2001, ApJ, 547, 740

Wilson, A. S. & Yang, Y. 2002, ApJ, 568,133


text:
# Limits on temporal variation of quark masses and strong interaction from atomic clock experiments

## I Introduction

Interest in the temporal and spatial variation of major constants of physics has been recently revived by astronomical data which seem to suggest a variation of the electromagnetic constant $`\alpha =e^2/\mathrm{}c`$ at the $`10^5`$ level for the time scale 10 billion years, see alpha  (a discussion of other limits can be found in the review uzan  and references therein). However, an independent experimental confirmation is needed.

The hypothetical unification of all interactions implies that variation of the electromagnetic interaction constant $`\alpha `$ should be accompanied by the variation of masses and the strong interaction constant. Specific predictions need a model. For example, the grand unification model discussed in Langacker:2001td  predicts that the quantum chromodynamic (QCD) scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ (defined as the position of the Landau pole in the logarithm for the running strong coupling constant) is modified as follows

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}34\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }$$
(1)
The variation of quark and electron masses in this model is given by

$$\frac{\delta m}{m}70\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }$$
(2)
This gives an estimate for the variation of the dimensionless ratio

$$\frac{\delta (m/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})}{(m/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})}35\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }$$
(3)
The large coefficients in these expressions are generic for grand unification models, in which modifications come from high energy scales: they appear because the running strong coupling constant and Higgs constants (related to mass) run faster than $`\alpha `$. This means that if these models are correct the variation of masses and strong interaction may be easier to detect than the variation of $`\alpha `$.

Unlike for the electroweak forces, for the strong interaction there is generally no direct relation between the coupling constants and observable quantities. Since one can measure only variation of the dimensionless quantities, we want to extract from the measurements variation of the dimensionless ratio $`m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ where $`m_q`$ is the quark mass (with the dependence on the normalization point removed). A number of limits on variation of $`m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ have been obtained recently from consideration of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, quasar absorption spectra and Oklo natural nuclear reactor which was active about 1.8 billion years ago FS ; oliv ; dmitriev ; FS1  (see also Murphy1 ; Cowie ; Oklo ; c12 ; savage ). Below we consider the limits which follow from laboratory atomic clock comparison. Laboratory limits with a time base about a year are especially sensitive to oscillatory variation of fundamental constants. A number of relevant measurements have been performed already and even larger number have been started or planned. The increase in precision is very fast.

It has been pointed out by Karshenboim Karschenboim  that measurements of ratio of hyperfine structure intervals in different atoms are sensitive to variation of nuclear magnetic moments. First rough estimates of nuclear magnetic moments dependence on $`m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ and limits on time variation of this ratio have been obtained in our paper FS . Using H, Cs and Hg+ measurements prestage ; Cs , we obtained the limit on variation of $`m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ about $`510^{13}`$ per year. Below we calculate the dependence of nuclear magnetic moments on $`m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ and obtain the limits from recent atomic clock experiments with hyperfine transitions in H, Rb, Cs, Hg+ and optical transition in Hg+. It is convenient to assume that the strong interaction scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ does not vary, so we will speak about variation of masses.

The hyperfine structure constant can be presented in the following form

$$A=const\times [\frac{m_ee^4}{\mathrm{}^2}][\alpha ^2F_{rel}(Z\alpha )][\mu \frac{m_e}{M_p}]$$
(4)
The factor in the first bracket is an atomic unit of energy. The second “electromagnetic” bracket determines the dependence on $`\alpha `$. An approximate expression for the relativistic correction factor (Casimir factor) for s-wave electron is the following

$$F_{rel}=\frac{3}{\gamma (4\gamma ^21)}$$
(5)
where $`\gamma =\sqrt{1(Z\alpha )^2}`$, Z is the nuclear charge. Variation of $`\alpha `$ leads to the following variation of $`F_{rel}`$ prestage :

$$\frac{\delta F_{rel}}{F_{rel}}=K\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }$$
(6)
$$K=\frac{(Z\alpha )^2(12\gamma ^21)}{\gamma ^2(4\gamma ^21)}$$
(7)
More accurate numerical many-body calculations dzuba1999  of the dependence of the hyperfine structure on $`\alpha `$ have shown that the coefficient $`K`$ is slightly larger than that given by this formula. For Cs ($`Z`$=55) $`K`$= 0.83 (instead of 0.74), for Rb $`K`$=0.34 (instead of 0.29), for Hg+ $`K`$=2.28 (instead of 2.18).

The last bracket in eq. (4) contains the dimensionless nuclear magnetic moment $`\mu `$ in nuclear magnetons ( the nuclear magnetic moment $`M=\mu \frac{e\mathrm{}}{2M_pc}`$), electron mass $`m_e`$ and proton mass $`M_p`$. We may also include a small correction due to the finite nuclear size. However, its contribution is insignificant.

Recent experiments measured time dependence of the ratios of hyperfine structure intervals of 199Hg+ and H prestage , 133Cs and 87Rb marion  and ratio of optical frequency in Hg+ and 133Cs hyperfine frequency bize . In the ratio of two hyperfine structure constants for different atoms time dependence may appear from the ratio of the factors $`F_{rel}`$ (depending on $`\alpha `$) and ratio of nuclear magnetic moments (depending on $`m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$). Magnetic moments in a single-particle approximation (one unpaired nucleon) are:

$$\mu =(g_s+(2j1)g_l)/2$$
(8)
for $`j=l+1/2`$.

$$\mu =\frac{j}{2(j+1)}(g_s+(2j+3)g_l)$$
(9)
for $`j=l1/2`$. Here the orbital g-factors are $`g_l=1`$ for valence proton and $`g_l=0`$ for valence neutron. The present values of spin g-factors $`g_s`$ are $`g_p=5.586`$ for proton and $`g_n=3.826`$ for neutron. They depend on $`m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The light quark masses are only about $`1\%`$ of the nucleon mass ($`m_q=(m_u+m_d)/2`$ 5 MeV). The nucleon magnetic moment remains finite in the chiral limit of $`m_u=m_d=0`$. Therefore, one may think that the corrections to $`g_s`$ due to the finite quark masses are very small. However, there is a mechanism which enhances quark mass contribution: $`\pi `$-meson loop corrections to the nucleon magnetic moments which are proportional to $`\pi `$-meson mass $`m_\pi \sqrt{m_q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}`$; $`m_\pi `$=140 MeV is not so small.

According to calculation in Ref. Thomas  dependence of the nucleon g-factors on $`\pi `$-meson mass $`m_\pi `$ can be approximated by the following equation

$$g(m_\pi )=\frac{g(0)}{1+am_\pi +bm_\pi ^2}$$
(10)
where $`a`$= 1.37/GeV , $`b`$= 0.452/GeV2 for proton and $`a`$= 1.85/GeV , $`b`$= 0.271/GeV2 for neutron. This leads to the following estimate:

$$\frac{\delta g_p}{g_p}=0.174\frac{\delta m_\pi }{m_\pi }=0.087\frac{\delta m_q}{m_q}$$
(11)
$$\frac{\delta g_n}{g_n}=0.213\frac{\delta m_\pi }{m_\pi }=0.107\frac{\delta m_q}{m_q}$$
(12)
Eqs. (8,9,11,12) give variation of nuclear magnetic moments. For hydrogen nucleus (proton)

$$\frac{\delta \mu }{\mu }=\frac{\delta g_p}{g_p}=0.087\frac{\delta m_q}{m_q}.$$
(13)
For 199Hg we have valence neutron (no orbital contribution), therefore the result is

$$\frac{\delta \mu }{\mu }=\frac{\delta g_n}{g_n}=0.107\frac{\delta m_q}{m_q}$$
(14)
For 133Cs we have valence proton with $`j`$=7/2, $`l`$=4 and

$$\frac{\delta \mu }{\mu }=0.22\frac{\delta m_\pi }{m_\pi }=0.11\frac{\delta m_q}{m_q}$$
(15)
For 87Rb we have valence proton with $`j`$=3/2, $`l`$=1 and

$$\frac{\delta \mu }{\mu }=0.128\frac{\delta m_\pi }{m_\pi }=0.064\frac{\delta m_q}{m_q}$$
(16)
Deviation of the single-particle values of nuclear magnetic moments from the measured values is about 30 $`\%`$. Therefore, we tried to refine the single-particle estimates. If we neglect spin-orbit interaction the total spin of nucleons is conserved. The magnetic moment of nucleus changes due to the spin-spin interaction because valence proton transfers a part of its spin $`<s_z>`$ to core neutrons (transfer of spin from the valence proton to core protons does not change the magnetic moment). In this approximation $`g_s=(1b)g_p+bg_n`$ for valence proton (or $`g_s=(1b)g_n+bg_p`$ for valence neutron). We can use coefficient $`b`$ as a fitting parameter to reproduce nuclear magnetic moments exactly. The sign of $`g_p`$ and $`g_n`$ are opposite, therefore a small mixing $`b0.1`$ is enough to eliminate the deviation of the theoretical value from the experimental one. Note also that it follows from eqs. (11, 12) that $`\frac{\delta g_p}{g_p}\frac{\delta g_n}{g_n}`$. This produces an additional suppression of the effect of the mixing. This indicates that the actual accuracy of the single-particle approximation for the effect of the spin g-factor variation may be as good as 10 $`\%`$. Note, however, that here we neglected variation of the mixing parameter $`b`$ which is hard to estimate.

Now we can estimate sensitivity of the ratio of the hyperfine transition frequencies to variation of $`m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. For 199Hg and hydrogen we have

$$\frac{\delta [A(Hg)/A(H)]}{[A(Hg)/A(H)]}=2.3\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }0.02\frac{\delta [m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}{[m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}$$
(17)
Therefore, the measurement of the ratio of Hg and hydrogen hyperfine frequencies is practically insensitive to the variation of masses and strong interaction. The result of measurement prestage  may be presented as a limit on variation of the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\alpha [m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]^{0.01}`$:

$$|\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{dt}|<3.6\times 10^{14}/year$$
(18)
Other ratios of hyperfine frequencies are more sensitive to $`m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. For 133Cs/87Rb we have

$$\frac{\delta [A(Cs)/A(Rb)]}{[A(Cs)/A(Rb)]}=0.49\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }+0.17\frac{\delta [m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}{[m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}$$
(19)
Therefore, the result of the measurement marion  may be presented as a limit on variation of the parameter $`X=\alpha ^{0.49}[m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]^{0.17}`$:

$$\frac{1}{X}\frac{dX}{dt}=(0.2\pm 7)\times 10^{16}/year$$
(20)
Note that if the relation (3) is correct, variation of $`X`$ would be dominated by variation of $`[m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]`$. The relation (3) would give $`X\alpha ^7`$ and limit on $`\alpha `$ variation $`\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{d\alpha }{dt}=(0.03\pm 1)\times 10^{16}/year`$ .

For 133Cs/H we have

$$\frac{\delta [A(Cs)/A(H)]}{[A(Cs)/A(H)]}=0.83\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }+0.2\frac{\delta [m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}{[m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}$$
(21)
Therefore, the result of the measurements Cs  may be presented as a limit on variation of the parameter $`X_H=\alpha ^{0.83}[m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]^{0.2}`$:

$$|\frac{1}{X_H}\frac{dX_H}{dt}|<5.5\times 10^{14}/year$$
(22)
If we assume the relation (3), we would have $`X_H\alpha ^8`$, $`|\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{d\alpha }{dt}|<0.7\times 10^{14}/year`$.

The optical clock transition energy $`E(Hg)`$ ($`\lambda `$=282 nm) in Hg+ ion can be presented in the following form:

$$E(Hg)=const\times [\frac{m_ee^4}{\mathrm{}^2}]F_{rel}(Z\alpha )$$
(23)
Note that the atomic unit of energy (first bracket) is canceled out in ratios, therefore, we should not consider its variation. Numerical calculation of the relative variation of $`E(Hg)`$ has given dzuba1999 :

$$\frac{\delta E(Hg)}{E(Hg)}=3.2\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }$$
(24)
Variation of the ratio of the Cs hyperfine splitting $`A(Cs)`$ to this optical transition energy is equal to

$$\frac{\delta [A(Cs)/E(Hg)]}{[A(Cs)/E(Hg)]}=6.0\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }+\frac{\delta [m_e/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}{[m_e/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}+0.11\frac{\delta [m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}{[m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]}$$
(25)
Here we have taken into account that the proton mass $`M_p\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The factor 6.0 before $`\delta \alpha `$ appeared from $`\alpha ^2F_{rel}`$ in the Cs hyperfine constant (2+0.83) and $`\alpha `$-dependence of $`E(Hg)`$ (3.2). Therefore, the work bize  gives the limit on variation of the parameter $`U=\alpha ^6[m_e/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}][m_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}]^{0.1}`$:

$$|\frac{1}{U}\frac{dU}{dt}|<7\times 10^{15}/year$$
(26)
If we assume the relation (3), we would have $`U\alpha ^{45}`$, $`|\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{d\alpha }{dt}|<1.5\times 10^{16}/year`$. Note that we presented such limits on $`\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{d\alpha }{dt}`$ as an illustration only since they are strongly model-dependent.

This work is supported by the Australian Research Council.


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

This report contains my contribution to the panel discussion on “The Future of Hadron $`B`$ Experiments” held at the 8th International Conference on $`B`$ Physics at Hadron Machines (Beauty 2002) at Santiago de Compostela, Spain, June 17-21, 2002. The panel was chaired by Fred Gilman, also current chair of HEPAP, who charged the panel members to evaluate the physics potential for $`B`$ physics at Hadron Machines in five years and beyond . In my contribution, I discussed the future of $`B`$ physics at the two Tevatron Collider experiments CDF and DØ at the end of Run II. More information about $`B`$ physics prospects at the Tevatron in Run II and beyond can be found in Ref. .

Since the official start of the Fermilab Tevatron Run II in March 2001, much work has gone into commissioning the CDF and DØ detectors. Both experiments were taking physics data and presenting first physics results at the time of this conference in summer of 2002 . The goal for the first phase of Run II (Run IIa) is to collect a data sample of about 2 fb-1 until 2004. After a short shutdown of about 6 months, Fermilab’s current plan foresees a high-luminosity running period of the Tevatron with an integrated luminosity of possibly $`10`$ fb-1 delivered until the turn-on of the LHC in 2007. The most important upgrades for CDF and DØ consist of replacing their silicon vertex detectors by more radiation tolerant devices to allow for collecting 10-15 fb-1 of $`p\overline{p}`$ collision data.

## Toward Precision Flavour Physics

In the 1990’s, particle physics was dominated by a decade of precision electroweak physics with measurements from LEP, SLD, the Tevatron and various fixed target experiments. The progress made in that decade can be summarized in the constraints on the Higgs boson mass as known in 1999. In the famous $`M_W`$ versus $`M_{\mathrm{top}}`$ plane, the Tevatron and LEP measurements on $`M_W`$, the CDF and DØ results on $`M_{\mathrm{top}}`$ as well as constraints from various indirect measurements are displayed in Figure 1(a). As indicated, the Standard Model (SM) prefers a light Higgs Boson mass. Ten years earlier, in 1989, the top quark was not yet discovered and the $`W`$ boson mass was only known with a precision of about 1.5 GeV$`/c^2`$. Enormous progress has been made in this decade of precision electroweak physics.

With the turn-on of the $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$ factories in 1999, the physics community started to talk about particle physics moving from a decade of precision electroweak physics toward a decade of precision flavour physics. A lot of progress in understanding flavour physics has already been achieved in the past 4-5 years. In 1998, we had no information on $`CP`$ violation in the $`B`$ system which was discovered in 2001 , and the constraints from $`|V_{ub}|`$, $`B`$ mixing and $`CP`$ violation in the kaon system were quite coarse. Much progress has been made since then as can be seen in Figure 1(b) showing the constraints on the position of the apex of the unitarity triangle from $`|V_{ub}|`$, $`B`$ mixing, $`ϵ_K`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. This plot has been taken from the 2002 Review of Particle Properties .

According to the chair of this panel on “The Future of Hadron $`B`$ Experiments”, Fred Gilman, for the first time there exist now two independent tests of the CKM mechanism in the Standard Model . Rate measurements of $`|V_{ub}|`$ as well as $`B^0`$ and $`B_\text{s}^0`$ mixing constrain the position of the apex of the unitarity triangle as illustrated in Figure 2(a). The second independent test comes from $`CP`$ violation in the kaon system ($`ϵ_K`$) and the $`B`$ system ($`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$) as displayed in Figure 2(b). Both tests through rate measurements and $`CP`$ violation are in striking agreement as illustrated in Figures 2 and 1(b).

### A Look into the Future

When the “wise (wo)man” is asked to have a look into the future of $`B`$ physics at hadron machines, (s)he might do two things. First, (s)he might take a step back and recommend to get a “grand view”. For the topic of this panel discussion, the “grand picture” is presented in Figure 3 taken from Ref. . In this diagram an ideal view of the CKM unitarity triangle is given indicating the different constraints from $`K`$ decays ($`ϵ_K`$, $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$, $`K_L^0\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$) as well as $`B`$ physics ($`|V_{ub}|`$, $`B`$ mixing, rare decays and $`CP`$ violation in form of the angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$). The second advice the wise (wo)man might offer is to look at your older friends. If you want to know how you’ll appear in five years from now, look at your older friends and see what they are right now. The older friend of $`B`$ physics is kaon physics. Currently, the virtue of kaon experiments is to test the Standard Model by measuring modes that are theoretically clean such as $`K_L^0\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$. Thus, the goal of $`B`$ physics in five years and beyond should be to test the SM by concentrating on theoretically clean modes. These will also allow to find new physics in an unambiguous way. In the remainder of this paper, we will therefore focus on testing $`CP`$ violation through theoretically clean $`B`$ decay modes.

## The Future of $`𝑪𝑷`$ Violation

In the following, we assume a data sample of 15 fb-1 for the quoted prospects which would correspond to the luminosity that can possibly be reached by the end of the Tevatron Run II. We will mainly concentrate on prospects determined at CDF as they were more accessible than prospects from DØ.

### The Angle $`𝜷`$ from $`𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟎}`$

CDF’s most important $`B`$ physics goal in Run II is the study of $`CP`$ violation in the $`B`$ system. The golden decay $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$ is the mode which all experiments will use to obtain precision measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. For Run IIa with 2 fb-1 of data, CDF expects $``$20,000 fully reconstructed $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$ decays. With an expected effective tagging efficiency of $`\epsilon 𝒟^29.1\%`$, CDF will measure $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ with an uncertainty of about 0.05. DØ expects a similar precision. The systematic uncertainty on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is dominated by the uncertainty on the dilution which is determined by large control samples of $`J/\psi K`$ data. Thus this uncertainty scales with statistics. Since we do not see a limiting systematic uncertainty, the precision on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ will scale with the integrated luminosity resulting in an uncertainty of 0.02 in 15 fb-1 competitive with expected measurements at the $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$ factories.

### $`𝑪𝑷`$ Asymmetry in $`𝑩_\text{s}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$

While the $`CP`$ asymmetry in $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$ measures the weak phase of the CKM matrix element $`V_{td}`$, $`CP`$ asymmetry in $`B_\text{s}^0J/\psi \varphi `$ measures the weak phase of the CKM matrix element $`V_{ts}`$. The latter $`CP`$ asymmetry is expected to be very small in the Standard Model, on the order of a few percent. In the context of testing the Standard Model, this mode has the same fundamental importance as measuring $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ but is most accessible at a hadron collider. An observation of a large $`CP`$ asymmetry would be a clear signal of new physics.

In Run I, CDF’s yield of $`J/\psi \varphi `$ was about 40% of $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ which results in an expectation of about 8000 $`J/\psi \varphi `$ events in Run IIa. The magnitude of the $`CP`$ asymmetry in $`B_\text{s}^0J/\psi \varphi `$ is modulated by the frequency of $`B_\text{s}^0`$ mixing. This requires to resolve $`B_\text{s}^0`$ oscillations. There is an additional complication in this decay mode, if the $`J/\psi \varphi `$ final state is not a pure $`CP`$ eigenstate. In this case, an angular analysis is necessary to determine the mixture of $`CP`$ even and $`CP`$ odd states in this decay channel. With 15 fb-1 of data in Run II, CDF expects a resolution of 0.03-0.06 on the $`CP`$ asymmetry in $`B_\text{s}^0J/\psi \varphi `$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\text{s}20`$ ps-1 depending on the $`CP`$ content of the final state.

### $`𝑪𝑷`$ Asymmetry in $`𝑩_\text{s}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝜼^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{)}}`$

Measuring the $`CP`$ asymmetry in $`B_\text{s}^0J/\psi \eta ^{()}`$ decays is very similar to measuring it in $`B_\text{s}^0J/\psi \varphi `$ with two differences. First, the $`J/\psi \eta `$ and $`J/\psi \eta ^{}`$ final states are $`CP`$ eigenstates. Therefore no angular analysis is needed and no degradation of the $`CP`$ asymmetry occurs. Second, the presence of photons in the final state makes these modes more difficult to detect at CDF since the CDF calorimeter was not designed to measure low energy photons with good resolution. However, CDF is capable of detecting these signals as shown in Figure 4. Here, in the invariant diphoton mass spectrum clear signals of $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$ are observed in CDF Run I data.

Scaling from the expected number of $`B^+J/\psi K^+`$ events, the rate of $`B^0`$ to $`B_\text{s}^0`$ production and the expected relative branching ratios, CDF expects about 8000 $`B_\text{s}^0J/\psi \eta `$ events in Run II. Studies of $`J/\psi `$ events in Run I indicate that a mass resolution of 40 MeV$`/c^2`$ and a signal-to-background ratio of 1:2 appears achievable. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\text{s}20`$ ps-1 and a proper time resolution of $`\sigma _t0.045`$ ps, CDF expects to measure the $`CP`$ asymmetry in $`B_\text{s}^0J/\psi \eta `$ with an uncertainty on the order of 0.1.

### The Angle $`𝜸`$ from $`𝑩_\text{s}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫_\text{s}^{\mathbf{}}𝑲^\mathbf{+}`$

A good candidate to determine the CKM angle $`\gamma `$ is the decay mode $`B_\text{s}^0D_\text{s}^{}K^+`$ measuring $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$. In this mode, $`CP`$ violation occurs via interference of the quark level processes $`bc\overline{u}s`$ and $`bu\overline{c}s`$ through direct and mixed decays. Since $`B_\text{s}^0`$ oscillations are expected to have a small $`CP`$ violating phase, the relative weak phase of this decay is $`\mathrm{e}^{i\gamma }`$. Penguin contributions are expected to be small but there is a strong phase $`\delta `$ present which cannot be reliably calculated with present theoretical techniques and needs to be extracted from data. The time dependent decay rates for all four processes $`B_\text{s}^0/\overline{B}_\text{s}^0D_\text{s}^{}K^\pm `$ are fitted with a two-fold ambiguity in $`\delta `$ and $`\gamma `$.

The reduction of backgrounds, in particular physics backgrounds from the Cabibbo allowed process $`B_\text{s}^0D_\text{s}^{}\pi ^+`$, is the primary challenge for CDF in extracting the $`B_\text{s}^0D_\text{s}^{}K^+`$ signal. Exploiting the $`D_\text{s}^{}K^+`$ invariant mass as well as d$`E`$/d$`x`$ information of the final state particles, studies at CDF show that a signal-to-background ratio of 1/6 can be achieved and a signal of 850 $`B_\text{s}^0D_\text{s}^{}K^+`$ events can be expected in 2 fb-1. Thus, an initial measurement of $`\gamma `$ should be possible at CDF in the beginning of Run II. Within the first 2 fb-1 of data, the expected error on $`\mathrm{sin}(\gamma \pm \delta )`$ is 0.4 to 0.7 depending on the assumed background levels. By the end of Run II, an uncertainty near $`0.2`$ for $`\gamma `$ may be achievable.

### The Angle $`𝜸`$ from $`𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑫^\mathrm{𝟎}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$

In a similar manner, the angle $`\gamma `$ can be determined from the decays $`B^{}D^0K^{}`$ and $`B^{}\overline{D}^0K^{}`$ with $`D^0/\overline{D}^0K^{}\pi ^\pm `$. The advantage is that these modes are self-tagging and no time-dependent measurement is necessary. One needs to just measure branching fractions of these decays. However, the decay $`B^{}\overline{D}^0K^{}`$ is particularly problematic due to the small expected branching ratio. All these decay modes have significant physics and combinatoric backgrounds that must be reduced to acceptable levels to make this method feasible. CDF expects to collect a small sample of about 100 signal candidates with the two-track hadronic trigger in 2 fb-1. There is optimism that the physics background can be brought down to the same level as the signal, but there could be considerable combinatoric background. If the combinatoric background can also be reduced to a level comparable to the signal, CDF would be in the position to measure $`\gamma `$ with an uncertainty in the order of 10-20 in 2 fb-1. At this point it is not clear whether this can be scaled to a 5 measurement on $`\gamma `$ with 15 fb-1 at the end of Run II.

### The Angle $`𝜶`$

To date, there are only two methods considered to be clean extractions of the $`CP`$ phase $`\alpha `$ from $`B`$ decays. Each method has its own particular difficulties. Originally it was suggested to use the time dependent $`CP`$ asymmetry in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ to obtain $`\alpha `$. In order to remove the “penguin pollution”, it is necessary to perform an isospin analysis of $`B\pi \pi `$ decays  including the decay mode $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ which is difficult to measure. The second method is the Dalitz-plot analysis of $`B^0\rho \pi \pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decays . The problem here is to understand the continuum background and the correct description of $`\rho \pi \pi `$ decays.

In a recent paper by London and Datta , a new method to measure the $`CP`$ phase $`\alpha `$ has been suggested using decays $`B^0/B_\text{s}^0K^{()}\overline{K}^{()}`$. Because the branching ratios for $`BK^{()}\overline{K}^{()}`$ are rather small, $`𝒪(10^6)`$, and because $`B_\text{s}^0`$ decays are involved, this method is most appropriate for hadron colliders, in particular since no $`\pi ^0`$ detection is needed. The basic idea is to consider the pure $`bd`$ penguin decays $`B^0K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B^0K^{}\overline{K}^{}`$ and relate their time dependent decay rate to the corresponding $`B_\text{s}^0`$ decay modes into $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`K^{}\overline{K}^{}`$ assuming $`U`$-spin symmetry. Using a double ratio in which the $`SU(3)`$-breaking effects largely cancel, the theoretical uncertainties are estimated to be at most 5% . The potential weakness of this method is an up to 16-fold ambiguity in extracting $`\alpha `$ which can be reduced by considering other $`K^{()}\overline{K}^{()}`$ final states. This constitutes a promising method for a potentially clean measurement of $`\alpha `$. CDF expects to collect about 100-200 $`BK^{()}\overline{K}^{()}`$ decays with its hadronic track trigger in 1 fb-1.

## Conclusion

In this contribution to the panel discussion on “The Future of Hadron $`B`$ Experiments” held at the Beauty 2002 conference, we made an attempt to discuss the question “Quo vadis, $`B`$ physics?”, where is $`B`$ physics going in five years and beyond by representing the $`B`$ physics prospects at CDF and DØ. There exists a long laundry list of modes to measure at the $`B`$ factories, the Tevatron and $`3^{\mathrm{rd}}`$ generation $`B`$ experiments (BTeV, LHCb). In the kaon system two clean tests of the Standard Model have been identified, $`K_L^0\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$, but it is not clear which are the “smoking gun modes” in the $`B`$ system. Precision measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, $`B_\text{s}^0J/\psi \varphi `$ and possibly $`BK^{()}\overline{K}^{()}`$ decays are likely good candidates.

Going back to looking at the “grand picture”, the relation of the CKM matrix to the quark mass hierarchy, flavour physics, the Higgs mechanism and electroweak symmetry breaking, it would be desirable to have a well defined path with clean Standard Model tests to be performed in the $`B`$ system. Since this path is not obvious at this point, the only answer can be to continue strengthening the planned experimental efforts (Run IIb, BTeV, LHCb) to ask questions to nature by doing experiments in order to test the flavour sector of the Standard Model until it breaks. Let me conclude with a quote from Woody Allen which does not only relate to the lack of access to divine counseling but also to the funding situation in US high energy physics: “If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.”