text:
# Do the KamLAND and Solar Neutrino Data Rule out Solar Density Fluctuations?

## I Introduction

The evolution of the Sun is modeled using a standard set of input parameters describing the physics of the interior, including thermodynamic properties (equation of state), energy transfer through solar matter (opacity) and the rates of the nuclear reactions that power the Sun (astrophysical S-factors). The resulting detailed models of the Sun predict temperature, density, composition profiles, and neutrino fluxes coming from the nuclear fusion reactions. Recently the Standard Solar Model (SSM) has been enjoying a tremendous success. Its predictions (see Bahcall:2000nu ; Brun:1998qk ) have withstood the observational and experimental tests very well. For example, SSM predicts frequencies of the pressure (p-mode) vibrations which can be observed on the solar surface. Observation and analysis of these oscillations, called helioseismology, provide detailed information about the Solar interior (for a thorough introduction to helioseismology and review of the observational data see Ref. Christensen-Dalsgaard:2002ur ). The helioseismological information can be inverted to obtain the sound-speed profile throughout the Sun. The speed of sound in the Sun is determined by combining the density and temperature profiles which are predicted using the Standard Solar Model. The sound speeds of solar models that include element diffusion agree with helioseismological measurements to better than 0.2 % Bahcall:1996qw ; Bahcall:1998wm . Another test of SSM was achieved by the neutral-current measurements at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) Ahmad:2002jz . These measurements yield a total (all flavors) 8B solar neutrino flux which is in very good agreement with the Standard Solar Model predictions. Identifying the precise nuclear reactions that power the Sun would be another valuable constraint on the SSM Adelberger:1998qm . It is generally believed that the nuclear fusion reactions that power the Sun take place in the so-called pp cycle. The recent data also provides a stringent limit (less than 7 %) to the amount of energy that the Sun produces via the CNO fusion cycle Bahcall:2002jt .

Given these recent successes of the Standard Solar Model and the quality of the experimental data currently being taken, perhaps the time has come to test some of the other aspects of the model. One such test, namely looking for fingerprints of the solar density fluctuations in solar neutrino spectra was already considered extensively starting in the early 1990’s Loreti:1994ry ; Balantekin:1996pp ; Nunokawa:1996qu ; Burgess:1996mz ; Nunokawa:1997dp ; Bamert:1997jj ; Torrente-Lujan:1998pf ; Bykov:2000ze , but at that time the solar neutrino data were not accurate enough to make a definitive statement. Such fluctuations may provide an additional probe of the physics of the deep solar interior Burgess:2002we . For example, evolution theories of stars, in addition to p-modes, also predict the existence of buoyancy-driven gravity modes (g-modes). Whether g-modes are actually excited in the Sun is an open question. These modes are exponentially damped in the convective zone of the Sun; unlike the p-modes it is not possible to observe the resulting very small amplitudes of the g-modes on the surface of the Sun using current techniques even if they are indeed excited in the Sun. It is argued that g-modes in the Sun can be excited by turbulent stresses in the convective zone Kumar:1995gq  or by magnetic fields in the radiative zone Burgess:2002we . Although the latter hypothesis requires large magnetic fields in the Sun, a magnetic field as large as $`10^7`$ G in the radiative zone seems to be permitted by the helioseismic data Couvidat:2002bs . It should be emphasized that temperature fluctuations associated with the large-amplitude g-mode oscillations would have significantly reduced the neutrino flux produced in the core of the Sun. Observational upper limits on the surface velocity amplitudes (as well the direct measurement of the total solar neutrino flux at SNO) rule out such large-amplitude g-mode oscillations Bahcall:zk . The scenario we discuss here is the possibility of smaller-amplitude g-mode oscillations or some other mechanism causing fluctuations in the density profile of the Sun affecting neutrinos only through their interaction with the matter. (For an alternative mechanism for producing density fluctuations in the Sun through magneto-hydrodynamic waves see Ref. Dzhalilov:1998np ). At the very least it is important to investigate what limits the solar neutrino data (supplemented by the constraints of the KamLAND reactor neutrino measurements) would place on the size of such fluctuations.

Our goal in this paper is to revisit the subject of density fluctuations and investigate limits placed by the recent solar and reactor neutrino experiments on the amount of fluctuation. Our preliminary attempts to use earlier SNO data were presented in Ref. Balantekin:2001dx . In the next section we review the formalism and summarize our method for doing the global analysis. In Section 3 we present our results and discuss their implications.

## II Solar Density Fluctuations

We will assume that the electron density $`N_e`$ fluctuates around the value, $`N_e`$, predicted by the SSM

$$N_e(r)=(1+\beta F(r))N_e(r),$$
(1)
and that the fluctuation $`F(r)`$ obeys

$`F(r)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`F(r_1)F(r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{12}`$
$`F(r_1)F(r_2)F(r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`F(r_1)F(r_2)F(r_3)F(r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{12}f_{34}+f_{13}f_{24}+f_{14}f_{23})`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{}`$
where $`f_{ij}=f(|r_jr_i|)`$ gives the correlation between fluctuations in different places. In Eq. (1) we can interpret the quantity $`\beta `$ as the fraction of the fluctuation around the density given by the SSM. Throughout the current paper, we consider the case of delta-correlated (white) noise:

$$f(r)=2\tau \delta (r),$$
(3)
with the correlation length $`\tau `$ as a parameter. We discuss the limitations of this assumption later in this section. The Hamiltonian describing neutrino evolution in matter can be written as as sum of two terms:

$$H=H_0+B(r)M,$$
(4)
where $`H_0`$ is the standard Mikheev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) Hamiltonian Wolfenstein:1977ue  (for a brief review see Balantekin:1998yb ) with the average electron density $`N_e`$, $`B(r)`$ is the fluctuating c-number and $`M`$ is a constant operator. For the two-flavor mixing $`H_0`$ governs the time-evolution in the SSM density:

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _x\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m^2}{4E}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\zeta (t)\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \mathrm{sin}2\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}2\theta & (\zeta (t)\mathrm{cos}2\theta )\end{array}\right)`$ (12)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _x\end{array}\right)`$
where

$$\zeta (r)=\frac{2\sqrt{2}G_FE}{\delta m^2}N_e(r),$$
(13)
$`\theta `$ is the vacuum neutrino mixing angle, $`\delta m^2`$ is the difference in the squared masses of the two neutrino species, $`E`$ is the neutrino energy, and $`N_e`$ is the averaged electron number density given by the SSM. In Eq. (12), $`\nu _x`$ is an arbitrary combination of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ Balantekin:1999dx . The fluctuating term $`B(t)`$ is given by

$$B(r)=\beta F(r)\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}N_e(r),$$
(14)
and $`M=\sigma _3`$. Using Eq. (2) one can show that the fluctuation of $`B(r)`$ satisfies the conditions

$`B(r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`B(r_1)B(r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^2f_{12}`$
$`B(r_1)B(r_2)B(r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`B(r_1)B(r_2)B(r_3)B(r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^4(f_{12}f_{34}+f_{13}f_{24}+f_{14}f_{23})`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{}`$
where

$$\alpha (r)=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\beta N_e,$$
(16)
It was shown in Refs. Loreti:1994ry ; Balantekin:1996pp  that with the white noise assumption of Eq. (3) the fluctuation-averaged neutrino density matrix satisfies the equation

$$\frac{}{t}\rho (t)=\alpha ^2\tau [M,[M,\rho (t)]]i[H_0(t),\rho (t)].$$
(17)
For the two-flavor case, depicted in Eqs. (12) and (14), after calculating the commutators Eq. (17) can be re-written as a $`3\times 3`$ matrix equation Loreti:1994ry ; Balantekin:1996pp

$$\frac{}{t}\left(\begin{array}{c}z\\ x\\ y\end{array}\right)=2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& D\\ 0& k& A(t)\\ D& A(t)& k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z\\ x\\ y\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
where the individual elements of the density matrix are

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`2\nu _e^{}\nu _e^{}1`$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`2\text{Re}\nu _\mu ^{}\nu _e^{}`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`2\text{Im}\nu _\mu ^{}\nu _e^{}.`$ (19)
In these equations $`\nu _f`$ is the probability amplitude for the neutrino flavor $`f`$, and we introduced the definitions

$$A(t)\frac{\delta m^2}{4E}(\zeta (t)\mathrm{cos}2\theta ),D\frac{\delta m^2}{4E}\mathrm{sin}2\theta ,$$
(20)
and

$$k=G_F^2N_e(r)^2\beta ^2\tau .$$
(21)
We numerically solved Eq. (18) using the technique developed in Ref. Ohlsson:1999um  which we summarize. We first consider the constant density case. If we represent the column vector in Eq. (18) by $`(t)`$ and the matrix governing its time-evolution by $`𝒦`$ ($`d/dt=𝒦`$), for constant density one can write

$$(t)=\mathrm{exp}[𝒦t](t=0)=U(t)(t=0).$$
(22)
The exponential in Eq. (22) can be calculated using Cayley-Hamilton theorem which states that for any matrix $`M`$, the eigenvalue in the characteristic equation can be replaced with the matrix itself. For a $`3\times 3`$ matrix we get:

$$e^M=a_0I+a_1M+a_2M^2.$$
(23)
The coefficients can be found by by substituting eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ of $`M`$ into

$$e^{\lambda _i}=a_0+\lambda _ia_1+\lambda _i^2a_2.$$
(24)
In a medium with varying density (where the variables $`A`$ and $`k`$ are changing), time evolution can be calculated by dividing neutrino path into small intervals in which potential can be approximated as a constant. Then the total evolution operator is product of evolution operators for all intervals:

$$U=U_NU_{N1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.U_2U_1.$$
(25)
Care must be taken to ensure that the intervals chosen are smaller than the oscillation length.

To give a feeling about the solutions of Eq. (18) we show in Figure 1 mean survival probabilities obtained by solving it numerically as described above for different values of $`\beta `$ and a correlation length of $`\tau =10`$ km. From this figure one observes that the effect of the fluctuations is more dominant when the neutrino parameters and the average density are such that neutrino evolution in the absence of fluctuations is adiabatic. For the two-flavor case one can write the electron neutrino survival probability as Haxton:dm ; Balantekin:1998yb

$$P(\nu _e\nu _e)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \mathrm{cos}2\theta _M(12|\psi _2|^2),$$
(26)
where $`|\psi _2|^2`$ is the probability of observing the second matter eigenstate on the surface of the Sun (calculated with the initial condition that the neutrinos start in the first matter eigenstate), also known as the hopping probability, and the matter angle is given as

$$\mathrm{cos}2\theta _M=A/\sqrt{A^2+D^2}.$$
(27)
In Eq. (26) $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _M`$ is the matter angle where the neutrinos are created. Note that the $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta _M`$ is zero at the MSW resonance. If the neutrino propagation is adiabatic when $`\beta `$ is set to zero, the hopping probability is zero. However when the fluctuations are turned on they cause some hopping, yielding a small but non-zero $`|\psi _2|^2`$, which grows with $`\beta `$. Consequently when $`\beta 0`$, the absolute value of the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (26) is always less than its value when $`\beta =0`$. If the value of $`\delta m^2/E`$ is such that neutrinos are produced at the MSW resonance density then the cosine of the initial matter angle is zero, and Eq. (26) predicts a survival probability of $`1/2`$ no matter what the value of $`\beta `$ is. For smaller values of $`\delta m^2/E`$ the initial value of the matter angle is negative, yielding a higher survival probability as compared to the $`\beta =0`$ case. For larger values of $`\delta m^2/E`$ the initial value of the matter angle is positive, yielding a lower survival probability as compared to the $`\beta =0`$ case. This behavior is clearly evident in Figure 1.

There are two constraints on the value of the correlation length. In averaging over the fluctuations we assumed that the correlation function is a delta function (cf. Eq. (3)). In the Sun it is more physical to imagine that the correlation function is like a step function of size $`\tau `$. Assuming that the logarithmic derivative is small, which is accurate for the Sun, delta-correlations are approximately the same as step-function correlations if the condition

$$\tau \left(\mathrm{sin}2\theta \frac{\delta m^2}{2E}\right)^1$$
(28)
is satisfied Balantekin:1996pp . Eq. (28) can be rewritten as

$$\tau (\mathrm{km})3.95\times 10^4\frac{E(\mathrm{MeV})}{\mathrm{sin}2\theta \delta m^2(\mathrm{eV}^2)}.$$
(29)
A second constraint on the correlation length is provided by the helioseismology. Density fluctuations over scales of $`1000`$ km seem to be ruled out Christensen-Dalsgaard:2002ur ; Burgess:2002we ; Castellani:1997pk . On the other hand current helioseismic observations are rather insensitive to density variations on scales close to $`100`$ km Burgess:2002we .

## III Results and Discussion

In our analysis we used a covariance approach the details of which are described in Ref. Balantekin:2003dc . We use 93 data points in our analysis; the total rate of the chlorine experiment (Homestake Cleveland:nv ), the average rate of the gallium experiments (SAGE Abdurashitov:2002nt , GALLEX Hampel:1998xg , GNO Altmann:2000ft ), 44 data points from the SK zenith-angle-spectrum Fukuda:2001nj , 34 data points from the SNO day-night-spectrum Ahmad:2001an  and 13 data points from the KamLAND spectrum Eguchi:2002dm . We took into account the distribution of the neutrino sources in the Sun. Specifically we divided the Sun into several shells, calculated the survival probability numerically for neutrino paths and averaged the survival probabilities over the initial source distributions. Similarly we considered the effects of the matter density of the Earth (the day-night effect) by solving neutrino evolution equations numerically. We illustrate the effects of source averaging (with and without fluctuations) in Figures 2 and 3. In Figure 2 we show the source-averaged survival probability separately for the pp and 8B neutrinos. In this figure the solid line represents the survival probability of the neutrinos coming from a single point (the center of the Sun) contrasted to the source-averaged cases. For $`\beta =0`$, for a given $`\delta m^2`$, neutrino energy, and mixing angle neutrino evolution is adiabatic for the region of interest shown in the graph. In contrast, for $`\beta 0`$, one has a non-zero, but small hopping probability. When the neutrinos are created over a finite-size region (instead of a single point) source-averaged survival probabilities do not coincide at large $`\delta m^2/E`$ values with the point-source survival probability unlike the $`\beta =0`$ case. Fluctuations also reduce the effect of the averaging. In Figure 3 we present the source-averaged survival probabilities detected at the location of SNO for 8B neutrinos with and without solar-density fluctuations. To calculate this figure we used the day and night live-time information from Ref. HOWTOSNO . One again observes that fluctuations smoothen the survival probabilities.

We next turn our attention to parameter-space searches. In Ref. Balantekin:2003dc  from a global analysis of solar neutrino and KamLAND data we found for electron neutrino oscillations into another active flavor, the best fit values of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}0.46`$ for the mixing angle between first and second generations, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{13}0`$ for the mixing between first and third generations, and $`\delta m_{21}^27.1\times 10^5`$ eV2. Other groups doing similar analyses found very similar best fit values allothers . In Ref. Balantekin:2003dc  $`\beta `$ was taken to be zero. We find that non-zero values of $`\beta `$ reduces the size of the allowed region as shown in Figure 4. In this figure allowed regions of the neutrino parameter space are shown for different values of $`\beta `$ when all the solar neutrino experiments (chlorine, all three gallium, SNO and SK experiments) are included in the analysis. Although the minimum value of $`\chi ^2`$ is achieved when $`\beta =0`$, one observes that for values of $`\beta `$ as large as 0.07 allowed regions remain even at the 70 % confidence level. Thus we conclude that solar neutrino data alone does not significantly constrain the fluctuation parameter. Note that for larger values of $`\beta `$ the region with larger values of $`\delta m^2`$ are no longer allowed. Since KamLAND data favor larger values of $`\delta m^2`$, incorporating KamLAND results dramatically reduces the allowed region in parameter space as shown in Figure 5. Again the he minimum value of $`\chi ^2`$ is achieved when $`\beta =0`$. However, in contrast to the calculation presented in Figure 4, one can put stringent limits on the amount of fluctuation. We find that $`\beta <0.05`$ at the 70 % confidence level, $`\beta <0.06`$ at the at the 90 % confidence level, and $`\beta <0.07`$ at the at the 95 % confidence level.

Let us recall that both calculations are done for a value of $`\tau =10`$ km for the correlation length. Note that only the combination $`\beta ^2\tau `$ enters into the calculation (cf. Eq. (21). Hence the $`\beta `$ values can be scaled by adjusting the value of $`\tau `$ and for larger correlation lengths the limits quoted above get tighter. However one cannot consider arbitrarily large values of the correlation length. Our formulation of the problem (the delta-function correlation approximation) becomes unrealistic for larger values of $`\tau `$ as we illustrated in Eq. (29). In we insert the best fit (minimum $`\chi ^2`$) values of $`\delta m^27.1\times 10^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.46`$ into Eq. (29) we find

$$\tau (\mathrm{km})<6E(\mathrm{MeV}).$$
(30)
Hence for lower-energy (pp) neutrinos the reliable correlation lengths are smaller then 10 km. However for higher energy (8B) neutrinos one can safely consider longer correlation lengths. For both SK and SNO the energy threshold is $`5`$ MeV for which Eq. (30) yields $`\tau <30`$ km. To explore this feature we repeat our analysis considering only SK and SNO data together with the KamLAND data. We show the allowed regions of the parameter space in Figure 6. In this figure for better comparison to Figure 5 we took $`\tau `$ to be 10 km, however even $`\tau =20`$ km would be reasonable. The best fit is still with $`\beta =0`$. We find that $`\beta <0.07`$ at the 70 % confidence level with $`\tau =10`$ km. This limit would scale down to $`\beta <0.07/\sqrt{2}0.05`$ at the 70 % confidence level with $`\tau =20`$ km.

In Figure 7 we present $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=\chi ^2\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ calculated as a function of $`\beta `$ when other parameters $`\delta m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ are unconstrained. In this figure $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ is projected only on one parameter ($`\beta `$) so that $`n\sigma `$ bounds on it are given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=n^2`$. Clearly KamLAND data plays a crucial role to constrain $`\beta `$. As the KamLAND statistics improve in the near future we expect to improve our limits on the fractional fluctuation.

In this paper we ignored fluctuations of another kind, namely magnetic field fluctuations impacting neutrino evolution. It has been shown that if neutrinos have sizable magnetic moments they can interact with the transverse magnetic fields spinflavor1  undergoing a spin-flavor precession spinflavor2 . If the magnetic field is noisy the spin-flavor precession will be impacted Loreti:1994ry ; Nicolaidis:da ; Pastor:1995vn ; Nunokawa:1997dp . However a relatively conservative assumption about the maximal size of the solar magnetic field places the spin-flavor resonance at values of $`\delta m_{12}^2`$ Balantekin:dv  which is at the region of the neutrino parameter space ruled out by the KamLAND experiment. (For an alternative approach see Ref. Friedland:2002pg ). Hence one can conclude that solar magnetic field fluctuations do not play a role in the solar neutrino physics through the spin-flavor precession mechanism.

We would like to point out that besides in the Sun (and other stars) neutrinos interact with dense matter in several other sites such as the early universe, supernovae, and newly-born neutron stars and neutrino interactions with a stochastic background may play an even more interesting role in those sites Prakash:2001rx . Along those lines a preliminary analysis of the effects of random density fluctuations on matter enhanced neutrino flavor transitions in core-collapse supernovae and implications of such fluctuations for supernova dynamics and nucleosynthesis was given in Ref. Loreti:1995ae .

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation Grants No. PHY-0070161 and in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.


format: text

text:
# LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS OF THE EXTREME UNIVERSE

## I INTRODUCTION

This is an exciting time for astrophysics and cosmology. New observations and results from space-based, ground-based, and underground-based experiments are pouring in by the day. These have presented great leaps in our knowledge of the universe, and experiments proposed for the years to come promise to further revolutionize our view. This frontier of science lies at the intersection among several sub-fields of physics. Specifically, there are fundamental issues that overlap astrophysics with particle physics, or that connect quarks with the cosmos. The study of which is called particle astrophysics and cosmology (See Fig. 1). The present state of pursuit in this frontier can perhaps be best summarized by the “Eleven Science Questions for the New Century” posted by the U.S. National Research Council’s Committee on the Physics of the Universe (CPU)NRC-CPU . These are:

$``$ What is the dark matter?

$``$ What is the nature of the dark energy?

$``$ How did the universe begin?

$``$ Did Einstein have the last word on gravity?

$``$ What are the masses of the neutrinos, and how have they shaped the evolution of the universe?

$``$ How do cosmic accelerators work and what are they accelerating?

$``$ Are protons unstable?

$``$ Are there new states of matter at exceedingly high density and temperature?

$``$ Are there additional spacetime dimensions?

$``$ How were the elements from iron to uranium made?

$``$ Is a new theory of matter and light needed at the highest energies?

There is also the astrophysical frontier that lies at the intersection between astrophysics and plasma physics (See also Fig. 1). It is known that the (ordinary) matter in our universe largely exists in the plasma state. While the study of plasma astrophysics has a long history, its modern frontier typically involves very high density, high pressure, and high temperature plasma processes. This frontier lies in the domain of the newly emerged field of high energy-density physics.

Astrophysical phenomena associated with the Eleven Science Questions raised above often involve one or more of the following extreme conditions:

$``$ Extremely high energy events, such as ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs), neutrinos, gamma rays, etc;

$``$ Very high density, high pressure, high temperature processes such as supernova explosions and gamma ray bursts (GRBs);

$``$ Super strong field environments, such as that around black holes (BH) and neutron stars (NS).

Due to these connections, certain aspects of the particle astrophysics issues are further linked with high energy-density physics (See Fig. 1).

History has shown that the symbiosis between direct observations and laboratory investigations is instrumental to the progress of astrophysics. We believe that this will still be true in reaching ultimate answers to the above eleven science questions. Laboratory investigations of astrophysics have been very diverse, and the term “laboratory astrophysics” has been used in very different connotations. As the universe itself is a vast laboratory, almost every sub-field of physics finds its own connection to astrophysics, and thus its own associated laboratory investigations. This is true not only for particle physics and plasma physics, but also for nuclear, atomic, and molecular physics. In this article we focus on a subset of laboratory investigations that attempt to address certain aspects of the “eleven questions” in particle astrophysics and cosmology. Some of these involve only high energy processes or strong field environments, while some others are associated with high energy-density conditions (Again, see Fig. 1).

Many aspects of these extreme astrophysical phenomena, though not reproducible in the earth-bound laboratory, can be investigated by using the very high intensity photon and particle beams with the state-of-the-art technologies. The information so obtained can either be extrapolated to the actual astrophysical problems, or help to reveal their underlying physical mechanisms. Laboratory experiments can also help to characterize or calibrate astrophysical observations. Furthermore, the very complex astrophysical environments often render fully theoretical treatment impossible, and large scale computer simulations are indispensable. Yet limited by computer capacities and other constraints, even computer simulations require approximations and assumptions. Laboratory experiments can help to bench-mark the simulation codes and provide their validation. Finally, there also exists the possibility of using these technologies to probe into the unknown territory of physics at its very foundation. These different functions of laboratory investigations into the extreme universe can thus be largely classified into three categories. These are

1. Calibration of observation or detection processes;

2. Investigation of underlying dynamics;

3. Probing fundamental physics in extreme limits.

Laboratory calibration experiments aim at precision measurements for better determination of astrophysical observation or detection processes. The data acquired from such precision measurements can often stand-alone and may not require any extrapolation. Mundane as these experiments may be, their value for astrophysics is most certain.

Although it is possible using accelerator and laser technologies to create some energy, pressure or temperature conditions found in the cosmic sources, it is clear that laboratory conditions would never reproduce the astrophysical environments completely. Thus the value of the part of experiments that investigate the underlying dynamics of astrophysical phenomena lies not in recreating the astrophysical environments per se, but in determining the physical mechanisms in a generalizable, device-independent fashion so as to extrapolate or export our understanding, for example by means of computer simulations, to these extreme astrophysical conditions.

Experiments that aim at discovery of fundamental physics in its extreme limits, though exciting, are the least assured among the three categories. The underlying physical principles, such as the quantum nature of the spacetime, are still vague. In addition, the extreme physical conditions to be probed often render the signatures extremely faint. These imposes severe challenges to this line of effort. Nevertheless, given the potential scientific return, it would seem short-sighted if these efforts are categorically dismissed.

## II UNIVERSE AS A LABORATORY

Our Universe is a vast laboratory which produces physical phenomena in their most extreme conditions. Here we give a few examples.

### II.1 Extremely High Energy Events

Dictated by the inevitable interaction between the UHE proton and the cosmic microwave background radiation, Greisengre66  and Zatsepin and Kuzmin zat66  showed that protons with initial energy $`5\times 10^{19}`$eV originated from a distance larger than $`50`$ Mps cannot survive to the earth. Yet UHECR with energies above the GZK cutoff have been found in recent years FlysEye ; AGASA ; HiRes ; Haverah  without identifiable local sources. Observations also indicate a change of the power-law index in the UHECR spectrum (events/energy/area/time), $`f(ϵ)ϵ^\alpha `$, from $`\alpha 3`$ to a smaller value at energy around $`10^{18}10^{19}`$eV (See Fig. 2).

So far the theories that attempt to explain the UHECR can be largely categorized into the “top-down” and the “bottom-up” scenarios. The top-down scenario assumes that the UHECRs are originated from the decay of extremely heavy fundamental particles, while the bottom-up scenario assumes that these are ordinary particles (e.g., protons) that have been accelerated to extremely high energies. In addition to relying on exotic particle physics beyond the standard model, the main challenges of top-down scenarios are their difficulty in compliance with the observed event rate and the energy spectrum olinto , and the fine-tuning of particle lifetimes. The main challenges of the bottom-up scenarios, on the other hand, are the GZK cutoff, as well as the lack of an efficient acceleration mechanism olinto . To circumvent the GZK limit, several authors propose the “Z-burst” scenario wei99 ; far99  where neutrinos, instead of protons, are the actual messenger across the cosmos.

Even if the GZK-limit can be circumvented through the Z-burst scenario, the challenge for a viable acceleration mechanism remains acute. The existing paradigm for cosmic acceleration, namely the Fermi mechanism fermi  (including the diffusive shock acceleration axf77 ; kry77 ; bel78 ; bla78 ), is not effective in reaching ultra high energies. These acceleration mechanisms rely on the random collisions of the high energy particle against magnetic field domains or the shock media, which necessarily induce increasingly more severe energy losses at higher particle energies. Are there alternatives, and how can we verify them?

### II.2 Ultra High Energy-Density Processes

GRBs are by far the most violent release of energy in the universe, second only to the big bang itself. Within seconds (for short bursts) about $`ϵ_{\mathrm{GRB}}10^{52}\mathrm{erg}`$ of energy is released through gamma rays with a spectrum that peaks around several hundred keV. Existing models for GRB, such as the relativistic fireball model ree92 , typically assume either neutron-star-neutron-star (NS-NS) coalescence or super-massive star collapse as the progenitor. The latter has been identified as the origin for the long burst GRBs (with time duration $`10100`$ sec.) by recent observations pri02 ; gar02 . The origin of the short burst GRBs, however, is still uncertain, and NS-NS coallescence remains a viable candidate. Even if the progenitors are identified, many critical issues remain to be addressed. What is its underlying dynamics? Figure 3 shows a schematic diagram that depicts a recent modelchenGRB , which extends from the “relativistic fireball model”. While both models assume the outburst of a relativistic fireball, the new model further assumes a high temperature quark-gluon plasma exploding from the NS-NS epicenter outward as its origin. Is this notion correct? Are there ways to test the assumptions invoked by different GRB models?

### II.3 Super Strong Field Environments

In the vicinity of compact objects such as neutron star and black hole, the electromagnetic as well as gravitational fields are believed to be extremely intense. For example the magnetic fields around a neutron star is approaching the Schwinger critical field strength, i.e., $`4\times 10^{13}`$G, while the gravitational collapse of a super massive star to a charged black hole may generate an electric field that is comparably intense. In addition, gravity near the event horizon of a black hole is so strong that general relativity has to be invoked in order to properly describe its dynamics.

Furthermore, under such super-strong fields quantum effects play essential roles. For example under the Schwinger critical field condition the QED vacuum becomes unstable and $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs can be copiously created spontaneously. Black holes, on the other hand, can provide a fertile test bed for the eventual understanding of quantum gravity, for example, via Hawking radiation hawking . Can any of these be tested in the laboratory setting?

### II.4 Extreme Limits of Spacetime and Vacuum

Understanding the nature of the physical vacuum has been a perpetual challenge in physics, from the concept of aether in the 19th century to the notion of “dark energy” into this new century, which is considered to have contributed about 2/3 of the present energy density of our universe. What is dark energy? Some believe that the answer to it relies on the ultimate development of a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general theory of relativity. While such an ultimate theory is still lacking, certain feature of a quantum theory of gravity appears inevitable. In particular quantum effects of gravity should be non-negligible, or vise versa the spacetime should become foamy or granular, at around the Planck mass, $`M_p=(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}1.2\times 10^{19}`$GeV, or the Planck distance, $`l_p=(G\mathrm{}/c^3)^{1/2}1.6\times 1^{33}`$cm. Probing the nature of vacuum and the granularity of spacetime at such an extremely high energy or short distance scale is clearly beyond any earth-bound extrapolation. Did Einstein have the last word on gravity? Are we truly out of hope to probe this ultimate energy limit?

## III LABORATORY STUDIES OF THE UNIVERSE

Existing technologies can produce high energy particle beams and laser beams with intensities at or above $`10^{22}`$ Watt/cm2 at sufficiently high repetition rates. Such high intensity of EM energy can couple efficiently with air molecules, plasmas or solid material. These can be used, for example, to calibrate air fluorescence induced by cosmic ray showers, or to investigate the underlying acceleration mechanism that produces ultra high energy cosmic rays. High intensity lasers can impinge on thin solid films to create conditions similar to supernova explosions. Relativistic $`e^+e^{}`$ plasma jet can be produced by either converging two $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ beams or by laser-induced pair production. The $`e^+e^{}`$ jet can further interact with stationary plasma or other material to simulate astrophysical jet environments. In addition, high energy, high intensity electron beams can be efficiently converted to high fluence photon beams (tunable from x-ray to gamma-ray) by either colliding with laser pulses or channeling through an undulator or a crystal. These intense bursts of radiation throughout the spectrum can mimic those thought to operate in astrophysical environments.

As stated in the Introduction, laboratory investigations into the extreme universe can be largely classified into three categories. These are 1. Calibration of observation or detection processes; 2. Investigation of underlying dynamics; and 3. Probing fundamental physics in extreme limits. We provide examples of existing or possible experiments in each of these categories.

### III.1 Calibration of Observation or Detection Processes

Experiments in this category often do not invoke high density or high pressure settings. Instead they look for precision measurements of physical processes that are involved in astrophysical observations. Here we give a few examples.

#### III.1.1 Fluorescence in Air from Showers

There currently exist two different experimental techniques in the detection of UHECR. These are the air fluorescence technique, employed by the HiRes experiment HiRes , and the ground array detection employed by the AGASA experiment AGASA  (see Fig. 5). Both HiRes and AGASA have observed ultra high energy events above the GZK-cutoff. These two experiments, however, disagree in absolute flux of UHECR as well as in the shape of the UHECR energy spectrum. The HiRes UHECR flux measurement is systematically smaller than the AGASA measurement. The kink in the HiRes spectrum around 30 EeV may indicate a pile-up due to the GZK effect, or the appearance of a new extra-galactic component. This kink is not observed at this energy by AGASA. This existing discrepancy (See Fig. 6) between HiRes and AGASA still lacks a resolution.

For ground-based as well as the future space-based observations, energy estimation of an extensive air shower depends on an accurate knowledge of atmospheric fluorescence efficiency. Air fluorescence is a useful tool for cosmic ray measurements because its emission spectrum is in the near-ultraviolet (300–400 nm) where the atmosphere exhibits almost no absorption and a relatively long scattering length (10–20 km) and because the yield (in photons per meter per electron) is virtually independent of altitude up to about 15 km.

High energy electron beams are ideal for such a study for the following reasons:

A. An extensive air shower produced by a hadron at relevant cosmic-ray energies is a superposition of electromagnetic sub-showers. Most of the shower energy at shower maximum is carried by electrons near the critical energy of air (100 MeV). The atmospheric fluorescence energy measurement is dominated by the luminosity of the shower at its maximum development.

B. Important N2 fluorescence transitions (upper levels of the Nitrogen 2P system) are not accessible by proton excitation. Electron beams are required to study all the relevant transitions.

C. The energy distribution of electrons in the resulting shower as it exits the target into a controlled atmosphere is calculable and similar to what is expected in a UHE shower near shower maximum. Incidentally, a 10 GeV electron beam with $`10^{10}`$ particles carries a total energy $`10^{20}`$ eV, the same order of magnitude as UHECR.

The superposition of showers produced by a high energy beam can be modeled by softwares and the fluorescence yield can be measured at various stages of the shower development, allowing detailed comparison with Monte Carlo simulations. A proposal by an international collaborationFLASH  to do such an experiment on ”Fluorescence in Air from Showers” (FLASH) at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center has recently been approved. More details can be found in the companion article by P. Sokolsky in this volume. We expect that in about one year, this experiment should help to partially resolve the discrepancy between HiRes and AGASA, and would provide reliable and much needed shower data for future fluorescence-based UHECR experiments.

#### III.1.2 Neutrino Astrophysics and Askaryan Effect

Another good example of calibration experiments is the recent observation of the Askaryan effectsal01 . During the development of a high-energy electromagnetic cascade in normal matter, photon and electron scattering processes pull electrons from the surrounding material into the shower. In addition, positrons in the shower annihilate in flight. The combination of these processes should lead to a net 20-30% negative charge excess for the comoving compact body of particles that carry most of the shower energy. G. A. Askaryanask  first described this effect, and noted that it should lead to strong coherent radio and microwave Cherenkov emission for showers that propagate within a dielectric.

The observation of this effect should provide strong support for experiments designed to detect high energy cosmic rays and neutrinos via coherent radio emission from their cascades.

#### III.1.3 Heavy Element X-Ray Spectroscopy

One approach toward an answer to one of the “eleven questions”, “Did Einstein have the last word on gravity?”, is through x-ray probes of strong gravitybeg01 . It is suggested that x-ray observations will allow us to probe the spacetimes of black holes in detail. There exist three “lucky breaks” of black hole accretion that help to make such a claim possible. 1. (Many) accretion flows are “cold”; 2. Accretion disks are not fully ionized; 3. Accretion disks are illuminated by flaring coronae. These flares exicte different regions of disk at different times. By watching evolving echoes of flares one can map different slices of spacetime. As heavy elements, such as iron, in the disk are not fully ionized, their spectral lines are excited by the x-ray irradiation from the disk corona, and the reflected x-rays would be imprinted with iron lines (see Fig. 7). However, the x-ray spectroscopy, including its polarization property, in this regime has not been well measured. It has been suggestedbeg01  that laboratory experiments using high intensity x-rays to measure heavy ion atomic transitions could be very valuable in this effort.

### III.2 Investigation of Underlying Dynamics

This category of experiments aims at resolving the dynamical underpinnings of certain astrophysical phenomena under extreme conditions. Such phenomena often involve high energy-density environments, which may or may not overlap with extremely “high energy” processes.

#### III.2.1 Cosmic Acceleration Experiments

In addition to the first order (diffusive shock) and second order Fermi accelerations, there exist other interesting proposals, such as the idea of “Zevatron” bla99 . Another cosmic acceleration mechanism was recently introduced che02 , which is based on the wakefields excited by the Alfven shocks in a relativistically flowing plasma.

In the cosmic plasma wakefield acceleration model, there exists a threshold condition for transparency below which the accelerating particle is collision-free and suffers little energy loss in the plasma medium. The stochastic encounters of the random accelerating-decelerating phases results in a power-law UHECR energy spectrum: $`f(ϵ)1/ϵ^2`$. By invoking GRB atmosphere as the site for such an acceleration (see Fig. 3), protons with energies much beyond the GZK-limit can be produced. When the Z-burst scenario is further invoked, the estimated event rate in this model agrees with that from UHECR observations.

To test this mechanism, one can envision a setup where a $`e^+`$ beam and a $`e^{}`$ beam converge into a relativistic “plasma”. Alfven shocks can be excited by sending this “plasma” through the superposition of a solenoid field and an undulator field (see Fig. 8). Plasma wakefields so excited will randomly accelerate or decelerate beam particles, resulting in a power-law energy spectrum. The acceleration gradient observed can then be extrapolated to and confronted against the astrophysical conditions. The diffusive shock acceleration can in principle also be investigated using such a relativistic plasma.

#### III.2.2 Relativistic Jet Dynamics Experiment

Highly energetic and collimated astrophysical jets emitted from galactic centers and AGNs are common feature in our universe. How are they created? How do they interact with their environments? These jets often propagate over distances that are orders of magnitude larger than their sources and are still extremely confined. Why are they so collimated?

Computer simulations using magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) or particle-in-cell approach can address certain aspects of these issues (See Fig. 9). However typical simulations are highly idealized and are carried out in low dimensions. Based on the similar concept described in the cosmic acceleration experiment, $`e^+e^{}`$ beams can be merged to simulate a relativistic astrophysical jet. By sending such a jet through a stationary plasma or solid environment the dynamics of jet propagation can hopefully be better studiedjohnny . This can then help to bench-mark the computer codes.

### III.3 Probing Fundamental Physics in Extreme Limits

#### III.3.1 Event Horizon Experiment

The celebrated Hawking effect hawking  suggests that BH is not entirely black, but emits a blackbody radiation with temperature $`kT_H=\mathrm{}g/2\pi c`$, where $`g`$ is the gravitational acceleration at the BH event horizon. Unfortunately the Hawking radiation for a typical astrophysical BH is too faint for observation. Through the Equivalence Principle there exists a similar effect, the Unruh effect unruh , for a “particle detector” undergoing uniform acceleration. The accelerating detector would find itself surrounded by a heat bath with temperature $`kT_U=\mathrm{}a/2\pi c`$, where $`a`$ is the proper acceleration of the particle (see Fig 10). This very fundamental Hawking-Unruh effect can in principle be investigated via extremely violent acceleration provided by a standing-wave of ultra-intense lasers che99 . Through this, the nature of the “event horizon” can hopefully be better understood. An experimental concept for detecting the Unruh effect is shown in Figure 11.

#### III.3.2 Probing Spacetime Granularity

It is generally agreed that the spacetime at the Planck scale is topologically nontrivial, manifesting a granulated structure, or “quantum foam”. Quantum decoherence puts limits on spacetime fluctuations at Planck scale, and semi-classical quantum gravity and string theory support the idea of loss of quantum coherence at the Planck scale. But how can one ever probe this property at the extremely minute Planck scale?

In Einstein’s seminal paper (1905) on Brownian motion, the microscopic properties of atoms could be inferred by observing stochastic fluctuations of macro-structures. In a spirit analogous to Einstein’s, Power and Percivalper00  suggested that Planck scale spacetime fluctuations can induce stochastic phase shifts, and therefore the diffusion of the wave function. This effect can in principle produce decoherence in a atom interferometer (See Fig. 12). Rutherford Appleton Lab in the U.K. is currently considering such an experimentbin03 .

## IV Summary

As a sub-discipline of astrophysics, laboratory astrophysics spans across a broad spectrum of activities. In this article we focus on a subset of it that aims at addressing outstanding questions facing particle astrophysics and cosmology today, where certain aspects overlap with plasma astrophysics, or high energy-density physics. We classify laboratory astrophysics experiments into three categories, and discuss the promises and challenges in each of them. The eleven questions are deep and fundamental, and one should not expect easy answers to them. Direct space-based, ground-based, and underground-based observations or experiments are irreplacible in reaching the extreme universe. But we believe vigorous laboratory investigations would greatly enhance our ability in finding the ultimate answers.

This work is supported by Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00515. We are grateful for the assistance of Kevin Reil in preparing this paper.


text:
# Comment on ”Microcanonical Mean Field Thermodynamics of Self-Gravitating and Rotating systems”

In a recent Letter vot  Votyakov et al. stated that a microcanonical system of self-gravitating particles confined to a spherical container collapses at a sufficiently low energy and high angular momentum not to a single-core core-halo system but to a double-core binary. Based on molecular dynamics simulations and analytical estimates we found strong evidence that such systems do not form stable or even long-living metastable binaries. Instead, they form single core axially asymmetric states with the core traveling on an almost circular orbit along the container wall.

We considered systems consisting of $`N=`$250–1000 particles of unit mass confined to a spherical container of radius $`R`$ with reflecting walls and interacting via soft Coulomb potential $`(r^2+r_0^2)^{1/2}`$, $`r_0=0.002R`$. Details of the MD simulation setup are described in us . Two types of initial configurations were used: A spherically symmetric core-halo state and an axially symmetric ring. We chose the values of rescaled energy $`ϵ=ER/N^2`$ and angular momentum $`\lambda =L/\sqrt{(RN^3)}`$ in the intervals $`1ϵ0.4`$ and $`0.6\lambda 1.2`$, where according to Ref. vot  double-core structures exist.

Independent of the initial conditions, all simulated systems evolved to the same final configuration as shown in Fig. 1. All final (equilibrium) states consisted of a single core circling along the wall of the container at or near the equatorial plane, and a halo, also rotating. Systems initiated with a single core never developed a second one, while systems initiated as rings first fragmented into several small cores which later coalesced into bigger ones and finally into a single core. There inevitably exists a brief period of evolution when a ring-initiated system has two cores yet they merge into a single core at a kinematic timescale (system crossing time) $`\tau =R^{3/2}/N^{1/2}`$. This timescale is at least by 4 orders of magnitude shorter than the time required for total equilibration us  and hence we cannot consider a double-core structure even as a metastable state.

Apparently the observed single-core asymmetric configurations are artificially excluded from consideration in Ref. vot  and the following publications vot1 ; vot2 ; vot3  by fixing the center of mass of the system in the center of container. However, in a system with reflecting boundary conditions considered in Refs vot ; vot1 ; vot2 ; vot3 , the total momentum is not conserved and the center of mass does move. Once the position of the center of mass is not restricted, high angular momentum single-core states become possible and actually the most probable ones. Similarly to the non-rotating case, this can be seen by the following argument: If two cores merge, entropy ($`S`$) is gained mostly due to an increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in the kinetic energy of the high-energy halo, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S3/2(NN_c)\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }EN_c^2/2r_0`$ is the potential energy released during merging of two cores of radius $`r_0`$ us  consisting of $`N_c/2N`$ particles each. Entropy loss is negligible as only 3 degrees of freedom corresponding to the macroscopic (collective) motion of the particles of the vanished core become constrained.

Evidently, self-gravitating binary systems are abundant in the Universe, while the scenario of a single core sliding along the wall is highly unnatural. However, for a self-gravitating system to have an equilibrium state a container is needed, and within the framework of the model with container considered in vot , equilibrium binary-core states do not exist.

The authors are thankful to E. V. Votyakov for inspiring discussions and gratefully acknowledge the support of Chilean FONDECYT under grants 1020052 and 7020052.


text:
# WIYN Open Cluster Study: Tidal Interactions in Solar type Binaries

## 1. The effects of tidal interactions

Recent studies of angular momentum gain and loss in young solar-type stars have primarily been focused on single stars and the interaction with circumstellar disks (e.g. Barnes et al. 2001, Terndrup et al. 2000, and Krishnamurthi et al. 1997). Motivated by the high frequency of late-type binary stars, we will study the affect of close binary companions on stellar angular momentum evolution through tidal interactions.

Tidal deformation of stars in binaries results in a torque component in their gravitational attraction. This torque is responsible for the spin-orbit coupling by which angular momentum is exchanged between the star and the orbit (Zahn 1966,1977, Hut 1981 and references therein). Tidal interactions will continually change the rotation of the binary components and the orbital parameters of the binary system until an equilibrium state is reached. An equilibrium state is characterized by co-planarity of the equatorial planes of the two stars with the orbital plane of the system, circularity of the stellar orbits, and synchronization of the stellar rotation with the orbital revolution of the system.

Figure 1 (Zahn & Bouchet 1989) shows an example of a theoretical model of tidal evolution from the birth-line through the main-sequence phase for a binary system of two $`1M_{}`$ components. In this model, the friction that the tidal bulge experiences as the star rotates is caused by the interaction between convective turbulence and the tidal flow. The turbulent viscosity is reduced when the orbital period becomes shorter than the convective turnover time. The torque ($`\tau `$) on the tidal bulge is a sensitive function of the ratio of the stellar radius ($`R`$) to the distance $`r`$ between the stars ($`\tau \left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^6`$). The timescales for tidal evolution are therefore extremely sensitive to the stellar radius and the depth of the surface convection zone. Thus the rate of tidal circularization and synchronization is higher during pre-main-sequence phase $`(t<10^6yrs)`$ than during the main-sequence phase. Indeed, Zahn & Bouchet find that the main-sequence rate is so small as to not cause any significant tidal circularization during the main-sequence. The deviation from synchronization after $`10^6yrs`$ is due to conservation of angular momentum as the stars contract before settling on the main-sequence.

## 2. Observing tidal evolution

Identification and observations of binary populations of different ages are needed to test the physics of tidal interactions, and constrain and direct models of tidal evolution.

Specifically, to study the the rate and evolution of tidal circularization, observations of orbital eccentricity ($`e`$) as a function of orbital period ($`P`$) and stellar age are necessary (see Mathieu et al. 1992). For a close binary system determination of the orbital parameters can be obtained through repeated measurements of the radial velocity of one or both stars. Our radial velocity survey of open clusters with ages from $``$ 3 Myr to $``$ 7 Gyr has been a part of the WIYN Open Cluster Study (WOCS) since 1996. This survey now holds $`20,500`$ spectra of $`4,300`$ stars in 6 open clusters. More than 100 binary orbits have already resulted from this survey, some of which are presented below.

To study the rate and evolution of tidal synchronization, observations of the rotational periods of stars in binaries must be combined with determinations of binary orbital parameters for a binary sample of varying stellar separation (orbital period) and age (see Claret & Cunha 1997). Stellar rotation periods can be determined from periodic variations in stellar light-curves caused by star-spots (Barnes et al. 1999, Stassun et al. 1999). Such photometric time-series studies are underway for the open clusters M35 (age $``$ 0.15 Gyr) and M34 (age $``$ 0.25 Gyr) based on observations with the WIYN 0.9m telescope. A comprehensive time-series study of the PMS cluster NGC2264 (age $``$ 3-5 Myr) already exists (Lamm et al. 2003, Makidon et al. 2003).

## 3. New results on tidal circularization

Figure 2 shows orbital data for binaries in the two open clusters M35 (left) and NGC188 (right, age $``$ 7 Gyr). The plots present orbital eccentricity as a function of log orbital period for 37 main-sequence spectroscopic binaries in M35 and 28 main-sequence spectroscopic binaries in NGC188. In both clusters the shortest period binaries have circular orbits, while the longest period orbits are all eccentric. The well-defined transition between circular and eccentric orbits was established by the CORAVEL (Mayor 1985) and CfA (Mathieu & Mazeh 1988) teams in the mid 1980’s, and led to the definition of the longest period circular orbit as the ”tidal cutoff period” ($`P_C`$, Duquennoy et al. 1992). The tidal cutoff period in M35 ($`P_C=10.3`$ days) and in NGC188 ($`P_C=14.9`$ days) are marked by vertical dashed lines in Fig. 2. The tidal cutoff period is a measure of the tidal circularization rate as a function of binary period integrated over the lifetime of the binary population.

## 4. Tidal circularization on the main-sequence

The tidal cutoff periods for several populations of solar-type binaries has been established over the last two decades. The distribution of tidal cutoff periods with age enables us to study the evolution of tidal circularization from the PMS phase (Melo et al. 2001) and through the main-sequence (Mathieu et al. 1992) and beyond (Verbunt & Phinney 1995). Figure 3 shows our newly derived tidal cutoff periods for M35 and NGC188 (black circles) combined with previously determined cutoff periods (grey circles: 7.7 days among PMS binaries (age $``$ 1 Myr, Melo et al. 2001), 7.0 days in the Pleiades (age $``$ 0.1 Gyr, Duquennoy et al. 1992), 8.5 days in the Hyades/Praesepe (age $``$ 0.6 Gyr, Duquennoy et al. 1992), 12.4 days in M67 (age $``$ 4 Gyr, Latham et al. 1992a), and 18.7 days for the halo sample (age $``$ 13 Gyr, Latham et al. 1992b).

Concurrent with these observations of binary populations, different scenarios have been proposed for the evolution of tidal circularization through the main-sequence:

”No main-sequence tidal circularization”: This model by Zahn & Bouchet (1989) (cf. Fig. 1, horizontal dashed line in Fig. 3) suggests that PMS tidal circularization sets a tidal cutoff period of $``$ 7-8 days and that there is little further circularization throughout the main-sequence phase. Existing data for PMS binaries support a tidal cutoff period of $``$ 7-8 days. However, data for binary populations older than $``$ 1 Gyr clearly show an increase in the tidal cutoff period with age, suggesting significant active main-sequence tidal circularization.

”Hybrid scenario”: While the distribution of tidal cutoff periods continue to suggest active main-sequence circularization beyond $``$ 1 Gyr, they do not exclude the idea that PMS circularization sets the tidal cutoff period for populations younger than $``$ 1 Gyr. The hybrid scenario suggest that the cutoff period of binary populations younger than $``$ 1 Gyr derive from PMS tidal circularization, and that after the passage of $``$ 1 Gyr the integrated main-sequence tidal circularization begins to circularize binaries with orbital periods of $``$ 7-8 days (Mathieu et al. 1992).

The observed tidal cutoff periods for PMS binaries and binaries in the Pleiades and Hyades/Praesepe are in agreement with the hybrid scenario, while the most recent cutoff period in M35 is curiously high by 2-3 days. The significance of this result is not yet clear. While the tidal cutoff periods for M35 and the Hyades/Praesepe are well defined, the cutoff periods for the PMS and Pleiades binary populations are likely lower limits. The cutoff periods for M35 and Hyades/Praesepe might be showing a scatter among tidal cutoff periods due to astrophysical differences in the two binary populations.

New models for the tidal evolution in eccentric late-type main-sequence binaries was recently published by Witte & Savonije (2002) and Savonije & Witte (2002). The tidal dissipation in these models is calculated in the framework of resonant interactions between the harmonic oscillations created by the perturbing potential of the companion star and the stellar eigenmode oscillations. PMS tidal evolution was not considered in these models. At the time of writing this paper we have have not compared these models to the current set of observed tidal cutoff periods.

Tidal cutoff periods for binary populations at ages: $``$ 3-5 Myr (NGC2264), $``$ 250 Myr (M34), and $``$ 2.5 Gyr (NGC6819) will be derived in the near future from ongoing radial velocity surveys on these clusters. The location (in age) of these future cutoff periods are indicated by vertical grey dashed lines in Fig. 3.

## 5. Tidal synchronization

The amount of observational data suitable for testing the rate of synchronization in main-sequence late-type close binaries is sparse. Claret & Cunha (1997a,b) analyzed the validity of the theories of Zahn (1977,1989) and Tassoul & Tassoul (1990,1992) using the binary data from Andersen 1991. Most of the work on synchronization in close binaries has concentrated on early type stars with radiative envelopes where the proposed mechanism for tidal dissipation is significantly different (Witte & Savonije 2001,1999, Giuricin et al. 1984a,b).

Our immediate goal is to study synchronization during the PMS and early main-sequence (age $`<`$ 300 Myr) phases by comparing the rotational periods of stars in binary systems with their orbital velocity.

## 6. Conclusions

Binary populations younger than $``$ 1 Gyr have tidal circularization cutoff periods between $``$ 7-10 days suggesting that a 7-10 day tidal cutoff period is set during PMS phase. After the passage of $``$ 1 Gyr tidal cutoff periods increase with increasing age suggesting active main-sequence circularization. This distribution of tidal cutoff periods with age is in agreement with the hybrid scenario proposed by Mathieu et al. (1992). However, there are currently no theoretical model for tidal circularization that can account for both the observed PMS and main-sequence evolution of tidal cutoff periods.

## References

Andersen, J., 1991, A&A Review, 3, 91

Barnes, S., Sofia, S., Prosser, C. & Stauffer, J. R. 1999, ApJ, 516, 263

Claret, A., Gimenez, A. & Cunha, N.C.S., 1995, A&A, 299, 724

Claret, A. & Cunha, N.C.S. 1997, A&A, 318, 187

Duquennoy, A., Mayor, M. & Mermilliod, J.C. 1992, in ”Binaries as tracers of stellar formation”, Duquennoy & Mayor (eds), p. 52

Giuricin, G., Mardirossian, F. & Mezzetti, M. 1984a, A&A, 131, 15

Giuricin, G., Mardirossian, F. & Mezzetti, M. 1984b, A&A, 135, 393

Goldman, I. & Mazeh, T., 1991, ApJ, 376, 260

Hut, P., 1981, A&A, 99, 126

Krishnamurthi, A., Pinsonneault, M.H., Barnes, S., Sofia, S., 1997, ApJ, 480, 303

Lamm et al. 2003, these proceedings.

Latham, D.W., Mathieu, R.D., Griffin, R.F., Milone, A.E., Davis, R.J. & Mazeh, T. 1992a, in ”Binaries as tracers of stellar formation”, Duquennoy & Mayor (eds), p. 132

Latham, D.W., Mazeh, T., Torres, G., Carney, B.W., Stefanik, R.P., & Davis, R.J. 1992b, in ”Binaries as tracers of stellar formation”, Duquennoy & Mayor (eds), p. 139

Makidon et al. 2003, in prep.

Mathieu, R.D., Duquennoy, A., Latham, W.L., Mayor, M., Mazeh, T. & Mermilliod, J.C., 1992, in ”Binaries as tracers of stellar formation”, Duquennoy & Mayor (eds), p. 278

Mathieu, R.D. & Mazeh, T., 1988, ApJ, 326, 256

Mayor, M., 1985, in IAU colloquium Vol. 88, p. 35

Melo, C. H. F., Covino, E., Alcala, J. M. & Torres, G. 2001, A&A, 378, 898

Savonije, G.J. & Witte, M.G., 2002, A&A, 386, 211

Stassun, K.G., Mathieu, R.D., Mazeh, T., & Vrba, F.J., 1999, AJ, 117, 2941

Tassoul, J.-L. & Tassoul M., 1990, ApJ, 359, 155

Tassoul, J.-L. & Tassoul M., 1992, ApJ, 395, 259

Terndrup, D.M., Pinsonneault, M.H., Sills, A., Yuan, Y., Jones, B.F., Fisher, D. & Krishnamurthi, A. 2000, AJ, 119, 1303

Verbunt, F. & Phinney, E.S., 1995, 296, 709

Witte, M.G. & Savonije, G.J., 1999, A&A, 350, 129

Witte, M.G. & Savonije, G.J., 2001, A&A, 366, 840

Witte, M.G. & Savonije, G.J., 2002, A&A, 386, 222

Zahn, J.-P., 1966, Ann. Astrophys., 29, 489

Zahn, J.-P., 1977, A&A, 57, 383

Zahn, J.-P., 1989, A&A, 220, 112

Zahn, J.-P. & Bouchet, L. 1989, A&A, 223, 112


text:
# Untitled Document

CALT-68-2433 HUTP-03/A020 hep-th/0303063

Gravity Induced $`C`$-Deformation

Hirosi Ooguri1 and Cumrun Vafa1,2

1 California Institute of Technology 452-48, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

2 Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

We study F-terms describing coupling of the supergravity to $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories which admit large $`N`$ expansions. We show that these F-terms are given by summing over genus one non-planar diagrams of the large $`N`$ expansion of the associated matrix model (or more generally bosonic gauge theory). The key ingredient in this derivation is the observation that the chiral ring of the gluino fields is deformed by the supergravity fields, generalizing the $`C`$-deformation which was recently introduced. The gravity induced part of the $`C`$-deformation can be derived from the Bianchi identities of the supergravity, but understanding gravitational corrections to the F-terms requires a non-traditional interpretation of these identities.

1. Introduction

The connection between supersymmetric gauge theories and matrix models (or more generally bosonic gauge theories) has led to exact non-perturbative computation of F-terms starting from perturbative computations in the gauge theory . In the context of gauge theory on flat space, only the planar diagrams are relevant for the computation of F-terms. However if one goes beyond flat space or consider certain deformations, it is expected that the non-planar diagrams become relevant for computing F-terms. In particular in a recent paper , we introduced the notion of the $`C`$-deformation of $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories. Without the deformation, the gluino fields $`𝒲_\alpha `$ in these theories satisfy the chiral ring relation,

$$\{𝒲_\alpha ,𝒲_\beta \}=0,$$

as pointed out in . This relation plays an important role in classifying chiral primary fields in these theories. In , we showed that a self-dual two-form $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be used to deform this relation as

$$\{𝒲_\alpha ,𝒲_\beta \}=F_{\alpha \beta }.$$

In string theory, $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ has the interpretation as the graviphoton field strength of the $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity coupled to the branes. We can view this as the defining property of the gluino fields, modifying the condition that they be Grassmannian variables. We called this the $`C`$-deformation and showed that the non-planar diagrams of matrix models captures the $`F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }`$ dependence of the glueball superpotential.

Another place where non-planar diagrams should enter involves gravitational corrections. In particular it was conjectured in  that certain $`R^2`$ type terms can be computed exactly by studying the non-planar perturbative gauge theory amplitudes with a single handle. They are expressed in terms of the glueball fields and evaluated at the extremum of the superpotential computed by the planar diagrams. This conjecture was motivated by the meaning of topological string amplitudes in the context of low energy effective theories of superstring compactifications \[4,,5,,6,,7\] together with the large $`N`$ duality conjectures , proven in  and embedded in superstrings in . This prediction has already been tested in a number of cases: for the gravitational correction for $`𝒩=4`$ Yang-Mills in the third paper in , and for certain $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge systems in \[10,,11\]. Our aim in this paper is to prove this conjecture.

In , we showed that the effective superpotential of the $`C`$-deformed gauge theory (1.1) is computed by the full matrix model partition function including non-planar diagrams. More explicitly, if we define the glueball superfield $`S_i`$ by

$$S_i=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{Tr}_i𝒲_\alpha 𝒲_\beta ,$$

where $`\mathrm{Tr}_i`$ is over the $`i`$-th gauge group of rank $`N_i`$, their effective superpotential is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\underset{g=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d^4xd^2\theta (F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta })^gN_i\frac{F_g}{S_i}(S),$$

where $`F_g`$ is given by the matrix model partition function computed by a sum over genus $`g`$ diagrams with $`S_i`$ playing the role of the ’t Hooft loop counting parameters. There is another series of gravitational corrections predicted in \[4,,7\], which takes the form,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\underset{g=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}gd^4xd^2\theta 𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\rho \sigma })^{g1}F_g(S),$$

where $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ denotes the $`𝒩=1`$ gravitino superfield. In this paper, we will show that (1.1) continues to hold and (1.1) computes the mixed gravitational/glueball superpotential of the $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory if we postulate that the gluino fields obey the relation

$$\{𝒲_\alpha ,𝒲_\beta \}=2𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^\gamma +F_{\alpha \beta }.$$

If we set the Lorentz violating parameter $`F_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, only planar contribution in (1.1) and genus one contribution in (1.1) survive. From the string theory point of view, the relation arises as follows. The supersymmetry variation of the open string worldsheet with the gravitino background $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ gives rise to boundary terms. We can cancel these boundary terms and restore the supersymmetry if we assume this relation (1.1). This is essentially the same as the way we derived the $`C`$-deformation (1.1) for the graviphoton background.

It turns out that, when $`F_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, the relation (1.1) can also be understood in the conventional framework of supergravity theory — it follows from the supergravity tensor calculus. This is in contrast to the deformation by $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$, which does not have such a conventional interpretation via $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. However, we will point out that a proper interpretation of the gravitational corrections (1.1) requires a non-traditional interpretation of this standard relation. In particular in the case of $`U(1)`$ gauge theories, the traditional interpretation of (1.1) would be that the left-hand side and the right-hand side of the equations vanish separately (the left-hand side being zero is due to the Grassmannian property of $`𝒲_a`$, and this forces the right-hand side to be equal to zero also). However we shall find that preservation of supersymmetry in the presence of constant $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ gravitational background requires only the weaker relation where we postulate (1.1) but do not impose the standard Grassmannian properties on $`𝒲_\alpha `$. Despite this non-traditional interpretation, this seems to be the natural choice since supersymmetry only requires the weaker relation and it is the one that leads to large $`N`$ dualities in superstring theory. In particular without this non-traditional interpretation of the relation (1.1), we shall see that the large $`N`$ superstring duality proposed in  would not hold.

It turns out that there are also planar contributions to superpotential terms of the form $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }S^n`$. However as will be shown in , once one substitutes the expectation value for the glueball field which extremizes the superpotential, this contribution becomes trivial. This is also consistent with the large $`N`$ superstring duality  since there is no $`R^2`$ correction coming from genus $`0`$ on the closed string dual.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we derive the relation (1.1) from the point of view of string theory. In section 3, we derive the same relation from the supergravity tensor calculus. In section 4, we show that this deformation leads to the gravitational corrections (1.1) including the more general situations not necessarily embedded in string theory. We also discuss certain mixed gravitational/gauge interactions which violate Lorentz invariance and which could serve as an experimental signature for the $`C`$-deformation.

2. Deformation of the chiral ring I: string theory perspective

In this section, we consider gravitational corrections to the $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory in four dimensions which is defined as the low energy limit of Type II superstring with D($`N+3`$) branes wrapping on $`n`$ cycles on a Calabi-Yau three-fold and extending in four flat dimensions. We will concentrate on the universal spacetime part of this computation. Even though the string context may appear to be restrictive (in that one is limited to field theories arising from string theory), the more general field theory setup discussed in  can be effectively related to the spacetime part of the string computation, as we have demonstrated in our previous paper . In the string context the perturbative computation is better organized since one worldsheet topology corresponds to many Feynman diagrams. Once we understand what is going on in string theory, we can directly translate each step into the more general field theory context. This is the reason why we start our discussion from the string theory perspective.

The F-terms of the low energy effective theory are given by (1.1) and (1.1), where

$$F_g(S)=\underset{h=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_{g,h}S^h,$$

and $`F_{g,h}`$ is the topological string partition function for genus $`g`$ worldsheet with $`h`$ boundaries ending on D branes wrapping on these cycles.1 For simplicity, we consider the case with a single cycle. Correspondingly, there is only one boundary-counting parameter $`S`$. Generalization to cases with more cycles is straightforward. According to , these topological string partition functions can be computed using the Chern-Simons theory (or its dimensional reduction). In particular, for a specific class of D5 branes wrapping on 2-cycles, the dimensional reduction of the Chern-Simons theory turns out to be a matrix model .

In the previous paper , we explained how the gravitational corrections of the type (1.1) arises from the string theory computation and showed that it can also be obtained from purely gauge theoretical Feynman diagram computation if we deform the chiral ring as (1.1). In this paper, we study the second series of gravitational corrections (1.1). As in the previous paper, we start our discussion on the string worldsheet, which we describe using the covariant quantization of superstring developed in . As demonstrated in , this is the most economical way to establish the relation between topological string amplitudes and the F-terms in Type II superstring compactified on a Calabi-Yau three-fold, which was originally derived in the NSR formalism in \[4,,5\]. In the formalism of , the four-dimensional part of the worldsheet Lagrangian density that is relevant for our discussion is simply given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}X^\mu \overline{}X_\mu +p_\alpha \overline{}\theta ^\alpha +p_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{}\theta ^{\dot{\alpha }}+\overline{p}_\alpha \overline{\theta }^\alpha +\overline{p}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }},$$

where $`p`$’s are $`(1,0)`$-forms, $`\overline{p}`$’s are $`(0,1)`$-forms, and $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$’s are $`0`$-forms. The remainder of the Lagrangian density consists of the topologically twisted $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric sigma-model on the Calabi-Yau three-fold and a chiral boson which is needed to construct the R current. We work in the chiral representation of supersymmetry, in which spacetime supercharges are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& Q_\alpha =p_\alpha \hfill \\ & Q_{\dot{\alpha }}=p_{\dot{\alpha }}2i\theta ^\alpha X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu X_\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ in the second line represents terms containing $`\theta ^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\theta ^2=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^\alpha \theta ^\beta `$. The second set of supercharges $`\overline{Q}_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ are defined by replacing $`p,\theta `$ by $`\overline{p},\overline{\theta }`$. These generate the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry in the bulk. When the worldsheet is ending on D branes and extending in four dimensions, the boundary conditions for the worldsheet variables are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& (\overline{})X^\mu =0,\hfill \\ & \theta ^\alpha =\overline{\theta }^\alpha ,p_\alpha =\overline{p}_\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we assume that the boundary is located at $`\mathrm{Im}z=0`$. These boundary conditions preserve one half of the supersymmetry generated by $`Q+\overline{Q}`$.

In these conventions, the vertex operators for the graviphoton $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ and the gravitino $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ are given by

$$F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta ,$$

and

$$𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\left(p_\alpha X_{\beta \dot{\beta }}\overline{}X_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}+\overline{p}_\alpha X_{\beta \dot{\beta }}X_{\gamma \dot{\gamma }}\right)ϵ^{\dot{\beta }\dot{\gamma }}+𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta (\theta _\gamma \overline{\theta }_\gamma ),$$

respectively. The gluino $`𝒲_\alpha `$ couples to the boundary $`\gamma _i`$ of the worldsheet ($`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$) as

$$_{\gamma _i}𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha .$$

We can make a simple counting of fermion zero modes to determine topology of worldsheets that contribute to a particular F-term. On a genus $`g`$ surface with $`h`$ boundaries, there are $`(2g+h1)`$ zero modes for each $`p_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,2`$). One possible ways to absorb these zero modes, as was done in , is to insert $`2g`$ graviphotons and $`2h2`$ gluinos. In order for these insertions to actually absorb the zero modes, we need two gluinos for each boundary except for one. We cannot insert gluinos on all boundaries since the sum $`_{i=1}^h\gamma _i`$ is homologically trivial and

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha =0.$$

Therefore the topological string computation on genus $`g`$ worldsheet with $`h`$ boundaries gives the combination $`NhS^{h1}(F^2)^g`$, where the factor $`N`$ comes from the gauge group trace on the boundary where the gluino is not inserted, $`h`$ comes from the choice of such a boundary, each boundary with gluino insertion is counted with the factor $`S=\mathrm{Tr}𝒲^2`$, and we have $`2g`$ graviphoton insertions. As we pointed out in , there is more to the story — in order to correctly reproduce the F-term computation, we need to take into account the effect due to the deformation of the chiral ring (1.1) — but the counting of the zero modes is correct as it is. Taking into account the $`C`$-deformation, we found in the previous paper that the F-term contribution from genus $`g`$ worldsheet with $`h`$ boundaries is $`F_{g,h}`$, and it can be expressed as a sum over the matrix model ’t Hooft diagrams of the corresponding topology. This gives rise to the first series of gravitational corrections (1.1).

To understand the second series (1.1), we need to consider two insertions of the gravitino vertex operator (2.1). For simplicity of discussion, let us first turn off $`F_{\alpha \beta }=0`$. There are two possible terms for gravitino vertex operator. Either one uses the first part of the gravitino vertex operator (2.1) which involves only one $`p`$ or the second term which involves two $`p`$’s. We cannot use mixed types, because that will not lead to absorption of all $`p`$ zero modes. Note that both types of terms have one net $`p`$ charge. Thus we can absorb two net $`p`$ zero modes from the two gravitino insertions $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$. To absorb the rest, we will use the gluino fields on the boundary. If we choose $`n`$ boundaries and put two gluinos $`𝒲_\alpha 𝒲^\alpha `$ on each, we have for the condition of the absorption of the $`p`$ zero modes that

$$2n+2=2(2g+h1)n=2g+h2.$$

Since $`nh`$, we have either $`g=0`$ and $`n=h2`$ or $`g=1`$ and $`n=h`$. Namely possible F-terms are $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }S^{h2}`$ from $`g=0`$ and $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }S^h`$ from $`g=1`$.

If we use the first term of the gravitino vertex (2.1), we do not have an option of $`g=1`$ and $`n=h`$ since the gravitino vertex anti-commutes with $`_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha `$ and therefore $`_{i=1}^h_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha =0`$. Namely $`_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha `$ are not linearly independent and we cannot insert the gluino vertex operators on all boundaries. Thus it only contributes to $`g=0`$ and $`n=h2`$, namely to planar diagrams. These planar contributions will be discussed in , where it will be shown to be non-vanishing. However, it will also be shown there that their contributions to the F-terms become trivial when we substitute the extremum value of $`S`$, thus the planar contributions effectively drop out, consistently with the superstring duality in .

If we use the second part of the gravitino vertex operator instead, the $`g=1`$ contribution does not vanish. This is because the second term contains $`(\theta ^\gamma \overline{\theta }^\gamma )`$, and it has nontrivial correlation with $`p_\alpha `$ on the boundary. The sum $`_i_{\gamma _i}p_\alpha `$ does not have to vanish, and we can insert gluino vertex operators on all boundaries. In fact, a simple application of the Cauchy integral formula gives

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{h}{}}_{\gamma _i}𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha 𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta (\theta _\gamma \overline{\theta }_\gamma )𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲_\gamma p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta .$$

This can lead to non-zero result for $`g=1`$ and $`n=h`$, giving rise to the gravitational correction of the form $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }S^h`$ in (1.1). As in our previous paper , there is more to the story. The presence of the gravitino background modifies the chiral ring of the gluino field as

$$\{𝒲_\alpha ,𝒲_\beta \}=2𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^\gamma .$$

Taking this into account, we can reproduce the topological string amplitude $`gF_{g,h}`$ that multiplies to $`𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }S^h`$ in (1.1). On the other hand, this effect does not give contributions to planar diagrams. This is evident from the presence of the factor $`g`$ in $`gF_{g,h}`$.

Let us explain how the deformation (2.1) arises from the string theory perspective. We follow the approach of  and look at the variation of the gravitino vertex operator under $`ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}(Q+\overline{Q})_{\dot{\alpha }}`$. We find

$$\delta \left[𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta (\theta _\gamma \overline{\theta }_\gamma )\right]=2iϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }d\left(Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(p_\beta +\overline{p}_\beta )(\theta _\gamma \overline{\theta }_\gamma )\right),$$

where

$$Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=X_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}+i\theta _\alpha \theta _{\dot{\alpha }}+i\overline{\theta }_\alpha \overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}.$$

Since the integrand of the right-hand side of (2.1) is total derivative and $`\theta _\gamma =\overline{\theta }_\gamma `$ on the boundaries, it would vanish if there are no other operators inserted on the boundaries. The only non-zero contribution comes from the operator product singularity of (2.1) with the gluino vertex operator as

$$\delta \left[𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta (\theta _\gamma \overline{\theta }_\gamma )\right]𝒲^\alpha p_\alpha =4ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }}𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲_\gamma Y_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}p_\beta .$$

Comparing with our previous paper (see eq. (2.21) of  and the subsequent discussion), we find that the boundary terms can be cancelled by imposing the relation (2.1). It is evident from  that, if the graviphoton $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ is turned on, this is further deformed as

$$\{𝒲_\alpha ,𝒲_\beta \}=2𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^\gamma +F_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{mod}\overline{D}.$$

Note that the identity is modulo $`D_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ since that is all we need to cancel the boundary terms.

In the flat supergravity background, the definition of the gluino superfield

$$𝒲_\alpha =\frac{1}{4i}[D^{\dot{\alpha }},D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]$$

and the fact that this superfield is chiral $`D_{\dot{\alpha }}𝒲_\beta =0`$ imply ,

$$\{𝒲_\alpha ,𝒲_\beta \}=0\mathrm{mod}\overline{D}.$$

As shown in  and  using direct field theory analysis, the effective superpotential in this case receives contributions only from planar diagrams, consistently with the topological string computation discussed in the above. In section 4, we will show that the superpotential for the gluino obeying the deformed relation (2.1) is computed by the full partition function of the matrix model including non-planar diagrams and reproduce the gravitational corrections (1.1) as well as (1.1) predicted by the topological string computation  and the large $`N`$ duality .

3. Deformation of the chiral ring II: supergravity perspective

It turns out that the gravitino part of the deformed chiral ring relation (2.1)

$$\{𝒲_\alpha ,𝒲_\beta \}=2𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^\gamma ,$$

can also be understood from the standard supergravity tensor calculus . In fact, the Bianchi identity implies2 We are ignoring the other chiral superfield $`R`$ which appears as the torsion in $`[D_\alpha ,D_{\beta \dot{\beta }}]`$ since it vanishes on-shell.

$$[D^{\dot{\alpha }},D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]_{\beta \gamma }=4i𝒲_\alpha ϵ_{\beta \gamma }8i𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma },$$

where we are considering these operators acting on chiral spinor superfields (which is why we have spinor indices $`\beta \gamma `$ in the above). The second term above arises from the Lorentz action on the spinor field. Let us repeat the derivation of (2.1) in the supergravity background using this relation. We use the fact that $`𝒲_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ is chiral to show

$$\{[D^{\dot{\alpha }},D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}],𝒲_\beta \}=\{D^{\dot{\alpha }},[D_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},𝒲_\beta ]\}=0\mathrm{mod}\overline{D}.$$

Substituting (3.1) to the left-hand side of this equation, we find

$$\{𝒲_\alpha ,𝒲_\beta \}2𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^\gamma =0.$$

again modulo $`\overline{D}`$. This is what we wanted to show. We have found that the gravitino part of the deformation (2.1) is due to the standard supergravity tensor calculus. However a proper understanding of the F-terms (1.1) requires a non-traditional interpretation of this relation, as we shall see below.

4. Non-planar diagrams in the field theory limit

The field theory limit of the above string theory computation is straightforward, and is very similar to our discussion in the previous paper . We will only point out some salient features. In , the graviphoton vertex operator $`F^{\alpha \beta }p_\alpha \overline{p}_\beta `$ disappears in the field theory limit, where $`p=\overline{p}`$. Its effect, however, survives if we include the $`C`$-deformation on the gluino fields. Similarly here, the relevant part of the gravitino vertex operator, the second term in (2.1), vanishes in the field theory limit. Effects of the gravitino background survives in the field theory if we include the $`C`$-deformation for the gluino field, which as we discussed before would be needed if we wish to preserve supersymmetry and in fact follows from the supergravity tensor calculus. Note that here we still have a choice on algebraic properties of the fields, and it is not dictated just from the tensor calculus leading to (3.1). For example consider the case where we consider the $`𝒲_1`$ component of a $`U(1)`$ gauge field and suppose $`𝒲_{111}`$ background is non-zero. Then the chiral relation (3.1) gives

$$(𝒲_1)^2𝒲_{111}𝒲_2=0\mathrm{mod}\overline{D}$$

So far, this is perfectly standard supergravity tensor calculus as discussed in the last section. However, what does one take $`(𝒲_1)^2`$ to be? Usually we set it to zero by the Grassmannian property of the gluino field $`𝒲_\alpha `$, which would then mean that $`𝒲_{111}𝒲_2=0`$ modulo $`\overline{D}`$. It would just mean that this term is not going to appear in any F-term, as it is trivial as a chiral superfield. Thus we would have found no corrections involving mixed gravitational/glueball fields for non-planar diagrams in contradiction with the large $`N`$ duality . This is what one would obtain in the standard, non $`C`$-deformed treatment of Feynman diagrams. However the $`C`$-deformation we consider is the weaker statement which requires (3.1) but does not postulate the additional condition that the gluino fields are Grassmannian variables. In particular we do not require $`(𝒲_1)^2=0`$. This is how we end up getting a non-trivial result from Feynman diagrams, following the discussion in .

Given the relation (2.1), it is straightforward to reproduce the two series of gravitational corrections (1.1) and (1.1) from purely field theory Feynman diagram computations. In our previous paper , we have shown how this is done for the first series (1.1) when we have the $`C`$-deformation,

$$\{𝒲_\alpha ,𝒲_\beta \}=F_{\alpha \beta }.$$

By simply replacing $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`F_{\alpha \beta }+2𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^\gamma `$ and noting,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{Tr}\left[(F_{\alpha \beta }+2𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^\gamma )(F^{\alpha \beta }+2𝒲_\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }𝒲^\gamma )\right]^g\hfill \\ & =N(F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta })^g+4g(F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta })^{g1}(𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^{\alpha \beta \gamma })\mathrm{Tr}𝒲_\alpha 𝒲^\alpha ,\hfill \end{array}$$

we see that the deformation (2.1) generates both types of the F-terms simultaneously.

4.1. Other corrections

Note that the full corrections expected from string theory (including the $`U(1)`$ fields $`𝒲_\alpha `$) to the F-terms can be summarized by the term ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=d^4xd^2\theta d^2\widehat{\theta }\left[(F_{\alpha \beta }+\widehat{\theta }^\gamma 𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma })(F^{\alpha \beta }+\widehat{\theta }_\delta 𝒲^{\alpha \beta \delta })\right]^gF_g(S+\widehat{\theta }^\alpha 𝒲_\alpha +\widehat{\theta }^2N).$$

This includes, in addition to the terms already discussed in this paper and the previous paper , some mixed terms involving the $`U(1)`$ superfield $`𝒲_\alpha `$ and the gravitino superfield of the form,

$$2gd^4xd^2\theta F^{\alpha \beta }𝒲_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒲^\gamma (F^2)^{g1}\frac{F_g}{S}.$$

These terms can also derived easily along the lines we have discussed here and in the previous paper. There is one very interesting aspect of these terms, however, that we wish to point out. In the background of non-zero graviphoton field strength, these terms generate “photon/graviton interactions” which violate Lorentz invariance. As noted in , the non-gravitational F-terms have the property that they screen violation of Lorentz invariance in the graviphoton background. The terms we are finding here after integration over the $`d^2\theta `$ will involve terms like $`F^{U(1)}R`$ where $`F^{U(1)}`$ is the field strength in the gluino multiplet and the indices are contracted appropriately with the Lorentz violating parameter $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$. If $`F_{\alpha \beta }0`$, this generates non-Lorentz invariant mixing of the photon and the graviton. They could give interesting signatures of the $`C`$-deformation, and it would be amusing to see if it is realized in Nature.

Acknowledgments

We thank R. Dijkgraaf, M. Grisaru, and D. Zanon, whose insights have contributed significantly to this paper. We are also grateful to N. Berkovits for valuable discussion.

C.V. thanks the hospitality of the theory group at Caltech, where he is a Gordon Moore Distinguished Scholar.

The research of H.O. was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG03-92-ER40701. The research of C.V. was supported in part by NSF grants PHY-9802709 and DMS-0074329.

References

relax R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “Matrix models, topological strings, and supersymmetric gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 644, 3 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0206255; “On geometry and matrix models,” Nucl. Phys. B 644, 21 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0207106; “A perturbative window into non-perturbative physics,” arXiv:hep-th/0208048; “$`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, deconstruction, and bosonic gauge theories,” arXiv:hep-th/0302011. relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “The $`C`$-deformation of gluino and non-planar diagrams,” arXiv:hep-th/0302109. relax O. Aharony, unpublished, as quoted in, C. Vafa, “Puzzles at large N,” arXiv:hep-th/9804172. relax M. Bershadsky, S. Cecotti, H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Kodaira-Spencer theory of gravity and exact results for quantum string amplitudes,” Commun. Math. Phys. 165, 311 (1994); arXiv:hep-th/9309140. relax I. Antoniadis, E. Gava, K. S. Narain and T. R. Taylor, “Superstring threshold corrections to Yukawa couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B 407, 706 (1993); arXiv:hep-th/9212045. relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Knot invariants and topological strings,” Nucl. Phys. B 577, 419 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9912123. relax C. Vafa, “Superstrings and topological strings at large $`N`$,” J. Math. Phys. 42, 2798 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0008142. relax R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa, “On the gauge theory/geometry correspondence,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3, 1415 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9811131. relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Worldsheet derivation of a large $`N`$ duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 641, 3 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0205297. relax A. Klemm, M. Marino, S. Theisen, “Gravitational corrections in supersymmetric gauge theory and matrix models,” arXiv:hep-th/0211216.  relax R. Dijkgraaf, A. Sinkovics, M. Temurhan, “Matrix models and gravitational corrections,” arXiv:hep-th/0211241. relax R. Dijkgraaf, M. Grisaru, H. Ooguri, C. Vafa and D. Zanon, in preparation. relax R. Dijkgraaf, M. T. Grisaru, C. S. Lam, C. Vafa and D. Zanon, “Perturbative computation of glueball superpotentials,” arXiv:hep-th/0211017. relax E. Witten, “Chern-Simons gauge theory as a string theory,” arXiv:hep-th/9207094. relax N. Berkovits, “Covariant quantization of the Green-Schwarz superstring in a Calabi-Yau background,” Nucl. Phys. B 431, 258 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9404162. relax N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, “$`𝒩=4`$ topological strings,” Nucl. Phys. B 433, 123 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9407190. relax F. Cachazo, M. R. Douglas, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Chiral rings and anomalies in supersymmetric gauge theory,” JHEP 0212, 071 (2002), arXisv:hep-th/0211170. relax See, for example, S. J. Gates, M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel, “Superspace, or one thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry,” Front. Phys. 58, 1 (1983), arXiv:hep-th/0108200.