text:
# The Relativistic Rotation

## I Introduction

The special and general theory of relativity which was developed in the beginning of the twentieth century, especially through Einstein’s workein1 ; ein2 ; ein3 , has its roots far back in the past. But the rotational reference systems utilized in the present researches of physics are all classicalmo1 ; ros1 , although there exists the special and general theory of relativity. In the classical rotation, the velocity $`v`$ of one point relative to the center of circle is proportional to its distance $`r`$ from the center of circle and its angular frequency $`\omega _0`$. However, this relationship is not suitable within the special relativistic theory.

The velocity formula of classical rotation is given as $`v=r\omega _0`$. It could be understood from the following three aspects. First, the foundation of experiments, i.e., the experience of daily life. Second, Galilean transformations mo1 . Third, the general conclusion derived from the first and the second points. Following the inference of Galilean transformations, the velocity formula of classical rotation is generally come into existence under any rotational conditions, such as the condition of long-distance and high-velocity. It means that the formula $`v=r\omega _0`$ is self-consistent in classical.

However, the application of Galilean transformations in high-velocity condition is proved early to be not reliablemo1 ; ros1 . It is not correct for the object with high velocity and must be replaced with the principle that could embodies the relativistic properties. Therefore, the extending velocity formula $`v=r\omega _0`$ of classical rotation to arbitrary is suspicious, and it is need to reevaluate. We should start from the special relativistic theory to reconsider the rotation with high velocity.

the proper relativistic metric of rotational reference system should be confirmed. The four-dimension metric of the uniform rotational system is classical in the general theory of relativity nowmo1 ; ros1 . It means the proper relativistic present of the rotational system couldn’t be given in the general theory of relativity. And the uniform rigid rotation is instantaneous and local inertial, so we could research it in the frame of the special theory of relativity.

To perform the relativistic analysis of uniform rotation, the Galilean transformations and its deduced conclusion, i.e., the formula $`v=r\omega _0`$ is extended to be correct in infinite distances, should be discarded. Nevertheless, we hold the opinion as usual experience that the classical formula of rotation is applicable within short distances. In every observational point, what the observer measures is just the rotational velocities in very close distances, while for the rotational velocities far away from the observers, the calculation using the transformation of velocity mo1  in the special theory of relativity is needed.

We analysis the classical rotation firstly, and point out its non-self-consistent disadvantage. A rotational formula of angular velocity with relativistic character is obtained, which approach to classical velocity in the limit of non-relativity. It shows that the classical rotation is only local and slow-velocity approximation of the relativistic one.

## II The Relativistic Rotation

In classical rotation the velocity $`V`$ of one point relative to another point is equal to the product of its angular frequency $`\omega _0`$ and its distance from center point $`R`$.

$$V=R\omega _0$$
(1)
We show in Fig.1 the rotation of a long pole around point $`O`$ with frequency $`\omega _0`$. We assume that the pole is in a part of space so far from all masses that all gravitational effects can be neglected. The distance of point $`A`$ and $`B`$ from center point $`O`$ is $`R`$ and $`2R`$, respectively. Their velocities relative to the center point $`O`$ are $`V_{AO}=R\omega _0`$ and $`V_{BO}=2R\omega _0`$, respectively, in the classical limit. However, if one considers the transformation formula of the velocity in the special theory of relativity, the velocity of point $`B`$ over point $`O`$ becomes

$$V_{BO}^{}=\frac{2R\omega _0}{1+(R\omega _0/c)^2}2R\omega _0.$$
(2)
We can see from formula (2) that the velocity obtained from classical limit can not coincide with the one derived from the relativistic one due to the use of the transformation formula of the velocity in the special theory of relativity. It implies that the classical rotation is not self-consistent in the framework of the special theory of relativity.

No one will suspect the accuracy of classical rotation formula in daily life. In fact, the correction term in the denominator of Eq.2 is nearly equal to zero under the ordinary condition. Nevertheless, when the classical rotation formula is extended to infinite, i.e. $`R\omega _0c`$, the Galilean transformations is still applied but not the special relativity. It is shown that this kind of formula can not fulfill the special theory of relativity. This motivates us to improve the classical rotation.

because the general theory of relativity only gives the principle of equivalence, has nothing to do with the rotational systemmo1 ; ros1 , the relativistic rotational system can not be obtained through it. Therefore, we start from the special theory of relativity to study the rotational system, and to derive the kinematical equation of the relevant rotational system. From the kinematical point of view, the investigation of the rotation based on the special theory of relativity is suitable.

We can see from formula (2) that the velocity (Eq.1) of classical rotation is not correct for the whole description of rotation under the framework of special relativity. In order to obtain the suitable expression of the rotational velocity, we discard the assumption of formula (1) for the whole-description and only consider it as the local approximation. The formula (1) is only suitable in the limit of $`R\omega _0c`$. Furthermore, we think that there is not intrinsic discrepancy between the inertial and noninertial system if the gravitation is not taken into account, and the instantaneous localization of rotational system is approximately regarded as the inertial one. Moreover, the two adjacent systems of instantaneous localization fulfill the principle of special relativity.

Taking point $`A`$ as the reference point, we would determine the velocity of point $`B`$ relative to point $`A`$ in the framework of special relativity using the former conditions.

In Fig.1 the observers at each point would see that the object in very small area rotates uniformly around the point. Assuming that the distance between point $`A`$ and $`B`$ is $`R`$, we now calculate the velocity of point $`B`$ relative to point $`A`$ at the rotating long-pole. Obviously, we could not measure the velocity at point B directly. However, it could be measured via the following method: the distance between point $`A`$ and $`B`$ is divided into $`n`$ equal parts, and each point in every equal parts could be considered as one instantaneous inertial reference system. Therefore, the velocity of the point, where the distance from the original point is $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=R/n`$, could be measured, and the velocity of this point is $`V_1=\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0`$. Then, we would measure the next $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ position, where the distance from the original point is $`2\mathrm{\Delta }R`$, and the velocity of position $`2\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ relative to the position $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ is also $`\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0`$. The measurement is continued until reaching the position of $`R`$, and then, we could calculate the velocity of the last point relative to the beginning point taking advantage of the relativistic velocity transfer formula. Based on the relations of velocity in these instantaneous inertial system, the velocity $`V_n`$ is the very relativistic velocity $`V_{re}`$ when $`n`$ approaches infinite.

The velocity of each point relative to point $`A`$ is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }RV_1& =& \mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0\hfill \\ \hfill 2\mathrm{\Delta }RV_2& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0+V_1}{1+V_1\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0/c^2}\hfill \\ \hfill 3\mathrm{\Delta }RV_3& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0+V_2}{1+V_2\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0/c^2}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& & \\ \hfill n\mathrm{\Delta }R=RV_n& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0+V_{n1}}{1+V_{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0/c^2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
The velocity of inertial system $`B`$ relative to the one of $`A`$ is the value of $`V_n`$ in the limit of $`n`$ approaching infinite. According to formula (3), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill V_n& =& \frac{c^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0}\frac{V_{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0+1+(\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0)^2/c^21}{1+V_{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0/c^2}\hfill \\ & =& \frac{c^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0}\left[1\frac{1(\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0)^2/c^2}{1+V_{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0/c^2}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Defining $`\eta =1(\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0)^2/c^2`$, $`U_i=\frac{V_i\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0}{c^2}`$ we could rewrite formula (4) as

$$U_n=1+\frac{\eta }{1+U_{n1}},\mathrm{},U_2=1+\frac{\eta }{1+U_1},U_1=1\eta $$
(5)
The $`U_n`$ could be expressed in terms of continued fraction

$$U_n=1+\frac{\eta }{2+}\frac{\eta }{2+}\frac{\eta }{2+}\mathrm{}\frac{\eta }{2\eta }$$
(6)
The recursive properties of the continued fraction is as followhar1 ; roc1

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& U_{n,1}=\frac{p_1}{q_1}=\frac{1}{1},U_{n,2}=\frac{p_2}{q_2}=\frac{2\eta }{2},\mathrm{},& \\ & U_{n,i}=\frac{p_i}{q_i},\mathrm{},U_n=U_{n,n}=\frac{p_n}{q_n}& \\ & p_i=2p_{i1}\eta p_{i2},q_i=2q_{i1}\eta q_{i2}(i=3,4,\mathrm{},n)& \end{array}$$
(7)
where the series of $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$ could be solved in terms of the characteristic equation of recursive seriesric1

$$x^22x+\eta =0$$
(8)
The two solutions of formula (8) are

$$x_1=1+\sqrt{1\eta },x_2=1\sqrt{1\eta }$$
(9)
Then, the general solutions of $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$ are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p_i& =& A_1(1+\sqrt{1\eta })^i+A_2(1\sqrt{1\eta })^i\\ q_i& =& A_3(1+\sqrt{1\eta })^i+A_4(1\sqrt{1\eta })^i\end{array}$$
(10)
It is obtained with the original condition of formula (7).

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& A_1=\frac{\sqrt{1\eta }}{2},A_2=\frac{\sqrt{1\eta }}{2}& \\ & A_3=\frac{1}{2},A_4=\frac{1}{2}& \end{array}$$
(11)
Inserting formula (11) into formula (10) and considering the formula (7), we can get

$$U_n=\sqrt{1\eta }\frac{(1+\sqrt{1\eta })^n(1\sqrt{1\eta })^n}{(1+\sqrt{1\eta })^n+(1\sqrt{1\eta })^n}$$
(12)
Inserting $`\eta =1(\mathrm{\Delta }R\omega _0/c)^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=R/n`$ into the former formula (12), the relativistic velocity in the limit of $`n\mathrm{}`$ is

$$\frac{V_{re}}{c}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{U_n}{\sqrt{1\eta }}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{(1+\frac{R\omega _0}{nc})^n(1\frac{R\omega _0}{nc})^n}{(1+\frac{R\omega _0}{nc})^n+(1\frac{R\omega _0}{nc})^n}=\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{R\omega _0}{c})$$

i.e.,

$$V_{re}(R)=c\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{R\omega _0}{c})$$
(13)
which is the expecting formula of relativistic rotation velocity. We calculate numerically the results of formula (3), and the consistent results are reached with formula (13). Comparing with the classical rotation formula (1), We can see that the classical rotation is the approximation of formula (13) in the limit of $`c\mathrm{}`$. For the case far from classical rotation, an additional correction term $`R^3\omega _0^3/c^2`$ is obtained from formula (13) in comparison with formula (1), i.e.,

$$V_{re}R\omega _0R^3\omega _0^3/c^2$$
(14)
Considering the three points ($`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$) in the same line, we could calculate easily the their velocity using the relativistic transfer formula of velocity and formula (13)

$$V_{CA}=\frac{V_{CB}+V_{BA}}{1+V_{CB}V_{BA}/c^2}=c\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{R_{CA}\omega _0}{c})$$
(15)
These show that the velocity relation in formula (13) is self-consistent in the framework of special relativity, and now the relativistic space-time interval are different with the classical onemo1 . It could be expressed in cylindrical coordinates

$$ds^2=dr^2+dz^2+r^2d\varphi ^2+2cr\mathrm{tanh}(r\omega _0/c)d\varphi dtc^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(r\omega _0/c)dt^2$$
(16)
It is also observed from the comparison between formula (1) and (13) that the angular velocity in the classical rotation is only the value in token of the frequency of relativistic rotation, while not the real angular velocity of relativistic rotation. The relativistic angular velocity $`\omega `$ of two points in relativistic rotation is no longer the physical invariable in the classical rotation. It is with respect to not only the token angular velocity but also the distance of the two points, i.e.,

$$\omega (r)=\frac{c\mathrm{tanh}(r\omega _0/c)}{r}$$
(17)
It is obviously $`\omega (r)\omega _0`$ with $`r0`$ and $`\omega (r)0`$ with $`r\mathrm{}`$, which is different with the classical one. In classical rotation reference systems, what could be observed is only within the range from observation point extending to $`c/\omega _0`$. Otherwise, with larger distances, the observation velocity will greater than velocity of light that could not be achieved by realistic objects. Nevertheless, in the relativistic rotation reference systems, the former case could not exist. It could be found from formula (13) that all the velocity are less than velocity of light $`c`$. Furthermore, the discrepancy of angular velocity with the relativistic uniform rotation are generally not observed in the dailylife due to the condition $`R\omega _0c`$.

## III Transverse Doppler effect in relativistic rotation

The expression of transverse Doppler effect can be obtained from special relativity in classical rotation ros1 . For instance, there is a light-source with frequency $`\nu _0`$ at point B in Fig.1. Following the Doppler formula in special relativity and formula (1), the frequency of the light at point A in classical rotation is given as

$$\nu _{classic}=\nu _0\sqrt{1(R\omega _0/c)^2}$$
(18)
However, in relativistic rotation, through the Doppler formula in special relativity and formula (13), the observed frequency of the light at point A is as follow

$$\nu _{relativity}=\nu _0\sqrt{1\mathrm{tanh}^2(R\omega _0/c)}=\nu _0\mathrm{cosh}^1(R\omega _0/c)$$
(19)
For further understanding, we plot in Fig.2 the transverse Doppler shift for classical and relativistic rotations, respectively, for the comparison between formula (18) and (19). The product $`R\omega _0`$ in classical rotation can not greater than velocity of light, otherwise, imaginary number will occur in the frequency. However, in relativistic rotation, this product may greater than the velocity of light, and the properties of $`\nu _{relativity}`$ in equation (19) will not be affected. The difference of these two cases would only exhibit when the value of $`R\omega _0`$ approaches the velocity of light. Expanding the series of formula (18) and (19) to their order with $`R^4`$, We can get their difference

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =\nu _{relativity}\nu _{classic}=\nu _0\frac{(R\omega _0/c)^4}{3}+O(R^4)$$
(20)
It is obviously showed in formula (20) that the discrepancy is hardly observed in ordinary conditions. However, we may observe this discrepancy in the large-scale rotations such as the rotation of galaxy.

## IV summary

The classical rotation which considers the rotation formula (1) as the whole-conditions is not self-consistent in the special relativistic description. We propose the velocity expression (13) of relativistic rotation taking advantage of formula (1) only as the local condition. This velocity is self-consistent for the whole description of rotation. The relativistic rotation can reduce to the classical one in the classical conditions, while greatly different properties are exhibited in comparison with the classical rotation in the relativistic condition, i.e. $`R\omega _0c`$. With the flourish development of astrophysics, the self-consistent relativistic rotation would make one understand the phenomena of celestial rotations more suitably than the classical one. Moreover, the relativistic rotation may provide a feasible way for the basic and theoretical description of rotation.


format: text

text:
# On the ubiquity of Sidon sets11footnote 12000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 11B13, 11B34, 11B05. Key words and phrases. Sidon sets, sumsets, representation functions.

## 1 Sidon sets

Let $`A`$ be a nonempty set of positive integers. The sumset $`2A`$ is the set of all integers of the form $`a_1+a_2,`$ where $`a_1,a_2A`$. The set $`A`$ is called a Sidon set if every element of $`2A`$ has a unique representation as the sum of two elements of $`A`$, that is, if

$$a_1,a_2,a_1^{},a_2^{}A$$

and

$$a_1+a_2=a_1^{}+a_2^{},$$

and if

$$a_1a_2\text{ and }a_1^{}a_2^{},$$

then

$$a_1=a_1^{}\text{ and }a_2=a_2^{}.$$

More generally, for positive integers $`h`$ and $`g`$, the $`h`$-fold sumset $`hA`$ is the set of all sums of $`h`$ not necessarily distinct elements of $`A`$. The representation function $`r_{A,h}(m)`$ counts the number of representations of $`m`$ in the form

$$m=a_1+a_2+\mathrm{}+a_h,$$

where

$$a_iA\text{for all }i=1,2,\mathrm{},h\text{,}$$

and

$$a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_h.$$

The set $`A`$ is called a $`B_h[g]`$-set if every element of $`hA`$ has at most $`g`$ representations as the sum of $`h`$ elements of $`A`$, that is, if

$$r_{A,h}(m)g$$

for every integer $`m`$. In particular, a $`B_2[1]`$-set is a Sidon set, and $`B_h[1]`$-sets are usually denoted $`B_h`$-sets.

Let $`h2`$. Let $`A`$ be a nonempty set of integers, and $`aA.`$ Then $`r_h(m+a)r_{h1}(m).`$ Therefore, if $`r_{A,h1}(m)>g`$ for some $`m(h1)A,`$ then $`r_{A,h}(m+a)>g`$ for every $`aA.`$ It follows that if $`A`$ is a $`B_h[g]`$-set, then $`A`$ is also a $`B_{h1}[g]`$-set. In particular, every $`B_h`$\- set is also a $`B_{h1}`$-set.

Let $`A`$ be a subset of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, and let $`|A|`$ denote the cardinality of $`A`$. Then $`hA\{h,h+1,\mathrm{},hn\}`$. If $`|A|=k`$, then there are exactly $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+h1}{h}\right)`$ ordered $`h`$-tuples of the form $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_h)`$, where $`a_iA`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$ and $`a_1\mathrm{}a_h`$. If $`A`$ is a $`B_h[g]`$-set and $`|A|=k,`$ then

$$\frac{k^h}{h!}<\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+h1}{h}\right)=\underset{mhA}{}r_{A,h}(m)g|hA|<ghn,$$

and so

$$|A|=k<cn^{1/h}$$

for $`c=\left(h!gh\right)^{1/h}.`$ It follows that if $`A`$ is a “large” subset of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\},`$ then $`A`$ cannot be a $`B_h[g]`$-set. In this paper we prove that almost all ”small” subsets of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ are $`B_2[g]`$-sets and almost all ”small” subsets of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ are $`B_h`$-sets.

Notation. If $`\{u_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{v_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are sequences and $`v_n>0`$ for all $`n`$, we write $`u_n=o(v_n)`$ if $`lim_n\mathrm{}u_n/v_n=0`$, and $`u_n=O(v_n)`$ or $`u_nv_n`$ if $`|u_n|cv_n`$ for some $`c>0`$ and all $`n1`$. The number $`c`$ in this inequality is called the implied constant.

## 2 Random small $`B_2[g]`$-sets

We require the following elementary lemma.

###### Lemma 1

If $`n1`$ and $`0jkn`$, then

$$\frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{kj}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^j.$$

Proof. We have

$$\frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{kj}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}=\frac{(nj)!k!}{(kj)!n!}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{j1}{}}\frac{ki}{ni}\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^j$$

since

$$\frac{ki}{ni}\frac{k}{n}$$

for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 1

For any positive integers $`g,k`$, and $`n`$, let $`B_2[g](k,n)`$ denote the number of $`B_2[g]`$-sets $`A`$ contained in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ with $`|A|=k.`$ Then

$$B_2[g](k,n)>\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\left(1\frac{4k^{2g+2}}{n^g}\right).$$

Proof. Let $`A`$ be a subset of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ of cardinality $`k`$. If $`A`$ is not a $`B_2[g]`$-set, then there is an integer $`m2n`$ such that $`r_{A,2}(m)>g,`$ that is, $`m`$ has at least $`g+1`$ representations as the sum of two elements of $`A`$. This means that the set $`A`$ contains $`g+1`$ integers $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{g+1}`$ such that

$$1a_1<\mathrm{}<a_{g+1}\frac{m}{2},$$

and $`A`$ also contains the $`g+1`$ integers $`ma_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},g+1.`$ If $`a_{g+1}<m/2,`$ then

$$|\{a_i,ma_i:i=1,\mathrm{},g+1\}|=2g2.$$

If $`a_{g+1}=m/2,`$ then

$$|\{a_i,ma_i:i=1,\mathrm{},g+1\}|=2g1.$$

Therefore, for each integer $`m`$, the number of sets $`A\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that $`|A|=k`$ and $`r_{A,2}(m)g+1`$ is at most

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g+1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2g2}{k2g2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2g1}{k2g1}\right),$$

and so

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right)B_2[g](k,n)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m2n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g+1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2g2}{k2g2}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m2n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2g1}{k2g1}}\right).`$
Observing that

$$\underset{m2n}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g+1}\right)<\underset{m2n}{}\left(\frac{m}{2}\right)^{g+1}2n^{g+2}$$

and

$$\underset{m2n}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g}\right)<2n^{g+1}$$

and applying Lemma 1, we obtain

$`1{\displaystyle \frac{B_2[g](k,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m2n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g+1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2g2}{k2g2}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2g1}{k2g1}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m2n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g+1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{n}}\right)^{2g+2}+{\displaystyle \underset{m2n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\left[\frac{m1}{2}\right]}{g}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{n}}\right)^{2g+1}`$
$`<2n^{g+2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{n}}\right)^{2g+2}+2n^{g+1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{n}}\right)^{2g+1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4k^{2g+2}}{n^g}}.`$
This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 2

Let $`\{k_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of positive integers such that $`k_nn`$ for all $`n`$ and

$$k_n=o\left(n^{g/(2g+2)}\right).$$

Then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{B_2[g](k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}=1.$$

Proof. This follows immediately from Theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3

Let $`B_2(k,n)`$ denote the number of Sidon sets of cardinality $`k`$ contained in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}.`$ If $`k_n=o\left(n^{1/4}\right),`$ then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{B_2(k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}=1.$$

Proof. This follows immediately from Theorem 2 with $`g=1.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 4

Let $`\{k_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of positive integers such that $`k_nn`$ for all $`n`$ and

$$k_n=o\left(n^{g/(2g+3)}\right).$$

Then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_{kk_n}B_2[g](k,n)}{_{kk_n}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}=1.$$

Proof. It suffices to show that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_{kk_n}\left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)B_2[g](k,n)\right)}{_{kk_n}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}=0,$$

where $`f(k)`$ is defined in the proof of Theorem 1. If $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{\mathrm{}},b_1,\mathrm{},b_{\mathrm{}}`$ are positive real numbers and $`B=\mathrm{max}(b_1,\mathrm{},b_{\mathrm{}}),`$ then

$$\frac{a_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\mathrm{}}}{b_1+\mathrm{}+b_{\mathrm{}}}\frac{a_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\mathrm{}}}{B}\frac{a_1}{b_1}+\mathrm{}+\frac{a_{\mathrm{}}}{b_{\mathrm{}}}.$$

This implies that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_{kk_n}\left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)B_2[g](k,n)\right)}{_{kk_n}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kk_n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4k^{2g+2}}{n^g}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4k_n^{2g+3}}{n^g}}`$
$`=4\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_n}{n^{g/(2g+3)}}}\right)^{2g+3}`$
$`=o(n),`$
and the proof is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can restate our results in the language of probability. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the probability space consisting of the $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$ subsets of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ of cardinality $`k`$, where the probability of choosing $`A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`1/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$. If $`P_{h,g}(k,n)`$ denotes the probability that a random set $`A\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a $`B_h[g]`$-set, then Theorem 2 states that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}P_{2,g}(k_n,n)=1$$

if $`k_n=o\left(n^{g/(2g+2)}\right).`$

Similarly, Theorem 4 states that if $`k_n=o\left(n^{g/(2g+3)}\right)`$ and if $`P_{h,g}(k_n,n)`$ denotes the probability that a random set $`A\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ of cardinality $`|A|k_n`$ is a $`B_h[g]`$-set, then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}P_{2,g}(k_n,n)=1.$$

## 3 Random small $`B_h`$-sets

A set $`A`$ is called a $`B_h`$-set if $`r_{A,h}(m)=1`$ for all $`mhA.`$ Let $`B_h(k,n)`$ denote the number of $`B_h`$-sets of cardinality $`k`$ contained in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}.`$ Since every set of integers is a $`B_1`$-set, and every $`B_h`$ set is a $`B_{h1}`$-set, it follows that

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)=B_1(k,n)\mathrm{}B_{h1}(k,n)B_h(k,n)\mathrm{}$$

We shall prove that almost all “small” subsets of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ are $`B_h`$-sets. The method is similar to that used to prove Theorem 2, but, for $`h3,`$ we have to consider the possible dependence between different representations of an integer $`n`$ as the sum of $`h`$ elements of $`A`$. This means the following: Let $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_h)`$ and $`(a_1^{},\mathrm{},a_h^{})`$ be $`h`$-tuples of elements of $`A`$ such that

$$a_1+\mathrm{}+a_h=a_1^{}+\mathrm{}+a_h^{},$$

$$a_1\mathrm{}a_h,$$

$$a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_h^{},$$

and

$$\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_h\}\{a_1^{},\mathrm{},a_h^{}\}\mathrm{}.$$

If $`h=2,`$ then $`a_i=a_i^{}`$ for $`i=1,2,`$ but if $`h3`$, then it is not necessarily true that $`a_i=a_i^{}`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},h.`$ For example, in the case $`h=3`$ we have $`1+3+4=1+2+5`$ but $`(1,3,4)(1,2,5)`$. In the case $`h=5`$ we have $`1+1+2+3+3=1+2+2+2+3`$ but $`(1,1,2,3,3)(1,2,2,2,3),`$ even though $`\{1,1,2,3,3\}=\{1,2,2,2,3\}.`$

Because of the lack of independence, we need a careful description of a representation of $`m`$ as the sum of $`h`$ not necessarily distinct integers. We introduce the following notation. Let $`A`$ be a set of positive integers. Corresponding to each representation of $`m`$ in the form

$$m=a_1+\mathrm{}+a_h,$$
(1)
where $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_hA`$ and $`a_1\mathrm{}a_h`$, there is a unique triple

$$(r,(h_j),(a_j^{})),$$
(2)
where

1. $`r`$ is the number of distinct summands in this representation,
2. $`(h_j)=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_r)`$ is an ordered partition of $`h`$ into $`r`$ positive parts, that is, an $`r`$-tuple of positive integers such that

$$h=h_1+\mathrm{}+h_r,$$
3. $`(a_j^{})=(a_1^{},\mathrm{},a_r^{})`$ is an $`r`$-tuple of pairwise distinct elements of $`A`$ such that

$$1a_1^{}<\mathrm{}<a_r^{}m$$

and

$$\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_h\}=\{a_1^{},\mathrm{},a_r^{}\},$$
4. $$m=h_1a_1^{}+\mathrm{}+h_ra_r^{},$$

where each integer $`a_j^{}`$ occurs exactly $`h_j`$ times in the representation (1).

There is a one-to-one correspondence between distinct representations of an integer $`m`$ in the form (1) and triples of the form (2). Moreover, for each $`r`$ and $`m`$, the integer $`a_r^{}`$ is completely determined by the ordered partition $`(h_j)`$ of $`h`$ and the $`(r1)`$-tuple $`(a_1^{},\mathrm{},a_{r1}^{})`$. Therefore, for positive integers $`m`$ and $`r`$, the number of triples of the form (2) does not exceed $`\pi _r(h)m^{r1},`$ where $`\pi _r(h)`$ is number of ordered partitions of $`h`$ into exactly $`r`$ positive parts.

###### Theorem 5

Let $`h2.`$ For all positive integers $`kn,`$

$$B_{h1}(k,n)B_h(k,n)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\frac{k^{2h}}{n}$$

and

$$B_h(k,n)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\left(1\frac{k^{2h}}{n}\right).$$

where the implied constants depend only on $`h`$.

Proof. Let $`A`$ be a $`B_{h1}`$-set contained in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}.`$ Then $`hA\{h,h+1,\mathrm{},hn\}.`$ If $`mhA`$ and $`m`$ has two distinct representations as the sum of $`h`$ elements of $`A`$, then there exist positive integers $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ and triples

$$(r_1,(h_{1,j}),(a_{1,j}^{}))\text{and}(r_2,(h_{2,j}),(a_{2,j}^{}))$$
(3)
such that, for $`i=1`$ and 2, we have

$$m=\underset{j=1}{\overset{r_i}{}}h_{i,j}a_{i,j}^{},$$

$$h=\underset{j=1}{\overset{r_i}{}}h_{i,j},$$

and

$$1a_{i,1}^{}<\mathrm{}<a_{i,r_i}^{}m.$$

The number of pairs of triples of the form (3) for fixed positive integers $`m`$, $`r_1h`$, and $`r_2h`$ is at most

$$\pi _{r_1}(h)m^{r_11}\pi _{r_2}(h)m^{r_21}m^{r_1+r_22},$$

where the implied constant depends only on $`h`$. Moreover, since $`A`$ is a $`B_{h1}`$-set, no number can have two representations as the sum of $`h1`$ elements of $`A`$. This implies that

$$\{a_{1,1}^{},a_{1,2}^{},\mathrm{},a_{1,r_1}^{}\}\{a_{2,1}^{},a_{2,2}^{},\mathrm{},a_{2,r_2}^{}\}=\mathrm{},$$

and so the set

$$\{a_{i,j}^{}:i=1,2\text{ and }j=1,\mathrm{},r_i\}$$

contains exactly $`r_1+r_2`$ elements of $`A`$. Therefore, given positive integers $`r_1h`$, $`r_2h`$ and $`mhn`$, there are

$$m^{r_1+r_22}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nr_1r_2}{kr_1r_2}\right)$$

sets $`A`$ for which $`m`$ has two representations as the sum of $`h`$ elements of $`A`$, and in which one representation uses $`r_1`$ distinct integers and the other representation uses $`r_2`$ distinct integers. Summing over $`mhn,`$ we obtain

$$n^{r_1+r_21}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nr_1r_2}{kr_1r_2}\right).$$

Applying Lemma 1, we obtain

$`B_{h1}(k,n)B_h(k,n)`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{r_1,r_2h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{r_1+r_21}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nr_1r_2}{kr_1r_2}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{r_1,r_2h}{}}n^{r_1+r_21}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{n}}\right)^{r_1+r_2}`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{r_1,r_2h}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{r_1+r_2}}{n}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k^{2h}}{n}}.`$
It follows that

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right)B_h(k,n)`$ $`=B_1(k,n)B_h(k,n)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{h}{}}}\left(B_{j1}(k,n)B_j(k,n)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{h}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k^{2j}}{n}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k^{2h}}{n}},`$
and so

$$B_h(k,n)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\left(1\frac{k^{2h}}{n}\right).$$

This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 6

Let $`B_h(k,n)`$ denote the number of $`B_h`$-sets $`A`$ contained in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ with $`|A|=k.`$ Let $`\{k_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of positive integers such that

$$k_n=o\left(n^{1/2h}\right).$$

Then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{B_h(k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}=1.$$

Proof. By Theorem 5,

$$1\frac{B_h(k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}1\left(\frac{k_n}{n^{1/2h}}\right)^{2h},$$

and so

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{B_h(k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}=1.$$

This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Remarks added in proof

A variant of Theorem 3 appears in Nathanson \[2, p. 37, Exercise 14\]. Godbole, Janson, Locantore, and Rapoport  used probabilistic methods to obtain a converse of Theorem 6. They proved that if

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{k_n}{n^{1/2h}}=\mathrm{},$$

then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{B_h(k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}=0.$$

They also analyzed the threshold behavior of $`B_h(k,n)`$, and proved that if

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{k_n}{n^{1/2h}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }>0,$$

then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{B_h(k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}=e^\lambda ,$$

where $`\lambda =\kappa _h\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2h}.`$

It is natural to conjecture that analogous results hold for the function $`B_h[g](k,n)`$, namely, if

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{k_n}{n^{g/(gh+h)}}=0,$$

then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{B_h(k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}=1,$$

and if

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{k_n}{n^{g/(gh+h)}}=\mathrm{},$$

then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{B_h(k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}=0.$$

It should also be possible to describe the threshold behavior of $`B_h(k_n,n)/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)`$ in the case

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{B_h(k_n,n)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k_n}\right)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }>0.$$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The observation  of cosmic ray (CR) events with energy $`E\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{11}`$ GeV (ultra–high energy, UHE) poses at least two distinct problems:

* The energy problem: It is very difficult, if not impossible, to accelerate protons to such energies in any known astrophysical source .
* The propagation problem: Protons with $`E510^{10}`$ GeV can photoproduce pions on the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The GZK effect  implies that protons with $`E10^{11}`$ GeV should have been produced within a few dozen Mpc of Earth. The same conclusion holds for photons \[which get absorbed via $`\gamma _{\mathrm{UHE}}+\gamma _{\mathrm{radio}}e^+e^{}`$, where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{radio}}`$ belongs to the (extra)galactic radio background\] and heavier nuclei (which are broken up by collisions with CMB photons). Current estimates of (extra)galactic magnetic field strengths imply that protons with $`E>10^{10}`$ GeV should point back to their source if they are produced within a few dozen Mpc. There are, however, no known near sources of high–energy particles in the direction of the most energetic events.There have been claims  of statistically significant correlations between the arrival directions of UHECR events and certain kinds of active galactic nuclei (AGN), thought to be possible sources of UHE particles. However, an independent analysis did not confirm this .

Many suggested solutions of “the UHECR puzzle” actually only address the second problem. I will briefly review these ideas in the following section. In sec. 3 I will discuss two approaches that can solve both problems, the main emphasis being on decays of super–massive particles, before concluding in sec. 4.

## 2 Partial solutions

### 2.1 Breaking Lorentz invariance

Calculations of the GZK effect assume that $`\sigma (\gamma pN\pi )(N=n,p)`$ is the same for $`E_\gamma E_{\mathrm{CMB}}10^3`$ eV, $`E_p10^{11}`$ GeV and $`E_\gamma 200`$ MeV, $`E_p=m_p`$. This assumption may be wrong if Lorentz symmetry is violated. This is actually quite an old idea , which has been rediscovered recently . By assuming different limiting velocities for different species of particles one can arrange for a suppression of the GZK effect; one can even avoid it altogether. In this case one would expect a completely smooth spectrum around the GZK cut–off. In particular, one would not expect a bump just below the GZK energy, which seems to be present in both the AGASA and HiRes results . Besides, it seems to me a step backwards to give up one of the basic symmetries underlying our understanding of Nature; it rather reminds me of Bohr’s willingness to give up energy conservation to explain nuclear $`\beta `$ decay spectra. Back then, Pauli’s neutrinos saved the day; I’m confident that the puzzle of the UHECR events can also be solved without giving up well–established principles.

### 2.2 Exotic hadrons as UHECR primaries

If an exotic hadron $`h_E`$ with mass $`m_{h_E}=rm_p`$ is  the primary of the UHECR events, the GZK “cut–off” (better: spectral break) will be pushed upwards by a factor $`r`$. Even the AGASA data can be explained if $`r4`$. On the other hand, if $`h_E`$ is too heavy, it looses energy too slowly in the air shower it initiates when hitting the Earth’s atmosphere. It has been estimated  that the produced shower will only look sufficiently proton–like if $`r\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}50}`$.

There are at least two problems with this scenario. First, acceleration becomes much more difficult to explain. Producing UHE $`h_E`$ particles by first accelerating protons and then colliding them with ambient matter (or photons) will likely over–produce neutrinos and UHE photons, since the (inclusive) cross section for pion production is several orders of magnitude larger than the cross section for $`h_E`$ production; of course, this would also assume that protons can be accelerated to energies well beyond the most energetic observed CR event. Directly accelerating stable $`h_E`$ particles is also problematic, since at least on Earth they only constitute at most a tiny fraction of all matter, so the heavenly accelerator would presumably also “waste” most of its energy on accelerating ordinary protons and electrons. The second problem is that $`h_E`$ particles, being strongly interacting and rather light, should have been produced abundantly in collider experiments; it is difficult to believe that they could have escaped detection.

### 2.3 $`Z`$ bursts

The idea  is that UHE neutrinos are produced somewhere; since they can propagate almost freely through the Universe, this neutrino source may be anywhere within one Hubble radius, 3 Gpc, or so. Within the GZK radius around the Earth, a small fraction of these UHE neutrinos annihilate on relic background antineutrinos to produce $`Z`$ bosons, most of which decay hadronically, giving rise to the observed UHECR events; of course, UHE $`\overline{\nu }`$ annihilating on relic $`\nu `$ also contribute.

One problem with this explanation is that it aggravates the energy problem by several orders of magnitude. One will need UHE neutrinos of at least five times the energy of the most energetic UHECR event, since $`Z`$ bosons decay into typically $`\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}20}`$ hadrons. In order to produce such neutrinos, one needs protons whose energy is higher by at least another factor of five or so, i.e. one would need a source of protons extending to $`E\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{13}`$ GeV. Moreover, the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu ,\mathrm{UHE}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{exp}.\mathrm{UHECR}}`$, i.e. the intensity of this source must be much higher than that needed to directly accelerate the observed UHECR flux.***Such a source could easily over–produce protons just below the GZK cut–off. Indeed, the required UHE neutrino flux is at best marginally compatible with existing limits .

## 3 Complete solutions

### 3.1 Magnetic monopoles as UHECR primaries

This is another old idea  that has been rediscovered recently . The main observation is that magnetic monopoles can actually be accelerated (rather than only deflected) by (extra)galactic magnetic fields. Indeed, this acceleration is quite efficient, partly due to the large effective charge ($`1/\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}`$) of the monopoles. According to current estimates energies beyond $`10^{11}`$ GeV are easily accommodated in this way. Of course, monopoles are stable, so they can have been produced in the very early Universe, most plausibly during a phase transition. The density, or flux, of monopoles required to explain the observed UHECR events is safely below all known bounds , as long as these monopoles do not catalyze nucleon decay.

The biggest difficulty of this model is to explain why the observed events look so much like proton–induced air showers. In order to produce a shower at all, the monopole must be ultra–relativistic, i.e. $`m_M<10^{10}`$ GeV. These monopoles can therefore not be associated with a Grand Unified symmetry; instead one has to postulate the existence of an “intermediate” scale $`𝒪(m_M)`$. Of course, direct monopole searches at colliders imply $`m_Mm_p`$. Simple kinematics then implies that a monopole–induced air shower will penetrate much more deeply into the atmosphere than a $`p`$initiated shower does, unless the cross section for inelastic scattering of a monopole on an air nucleus is much larger than the corresponding cross section for protons. The authors of ref. argue that bound states of monopoles carrying nontrivial $`SU(3)_c`$ charge might conceivably have this property. In this view, successive collisions could increase the length of the color–magnetic QCD string (or flux tube) between the constituents, and hence the area of the bound state. Note that this string can only break into monopole–antimonopole pairs. Since monopoles are heavy, a purely color–magnetic string might therefore store many orders of magnitude more energy, and could correspondingly be many orders of magnitude longer, than the more familiar color–electric string does, which can break up into light $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs. The effective monopole–air cross section can grow quickly through this mechanism, leading to the desired short air shower. Note, however, that the monopoles, being stable, should still reach the Earth (with non–relativistic velocity); detecting these monopoles would be the ultimate test of this explanation.

### 3.2 Decaying superheavy particles

Another exotic possibility is that the UHECR events are due to the decay (or annihilation) of some super–heavy long–lived $`X`$ particle . We obviously need $`m_X\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{12}`$ GeV in order to generate a significant flux of UHECR primaries at $`E310^{11}`$ GeV. Just as obviously, the lifetime of $`X`$ must be at least comparable to the age of the Universe, $`\tau _X\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{10}`$ yrs. This immediately raises two particle physics questions: how can such massive particles be so long–lived, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X/m_X\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{54}`$? And how could such massive particles ever have been created?

One way to ensure the longevity of the $`X`$ particles is to embed them into topological defects. The original proposal  envisioned annihilating monopole–antimonopole pairs as source of UHECR events. This idea has later been refined to the concept of a “cosmic necklace”, (anti)monopoles strung along a cosmic string . Cosmic strings themselves become unstable when they intersect. Such kinds of defects could be formed during a phase transition via the Kibble mechanism .

Note that we now need the scale of symmetry breaking to be $`\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{12}`$ GeV (as opposed to $`\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{10}`$ GeV in the previous subsection). This may be problematic, since with the scale of (four–dimensional) inflation determined to be $`10^{13}`$ GeV, it is quite possible that the post–inflationary Universe never was hot enough to have been in the “unbroken” phase, which would require $`T\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{12}`$ GeV. Moreover, the increasingly well measured CMB anisotropies do not seem to show any evidence that topological defects (like cosmic strings) played a role in structure formation. In these topological defect models the $`X`$ particles could be superheavy gauge or Higgs bosons, and/or their superpartners.

Alternatively the $`X`$ particles could exist as (more or less) free particles in today’s Universe. Such particles might have been created at the end of inflation, when the energy density of the Universe was more than one hundred orders of magnitude higher than it is today. Several production mechanisms have been suggested, e.g. gravitational production due to the rapidly varying metric (which could work for $`X`$ particles as heavy as $`10^{16}`$ GeV) , or in (inclusive) inflaton decays . The $`X`$ particles would then serve as “batteries”, storing energy from this extremely violent early epoch of the Universe and releasing it in our much balmier times.

In order to explain the longevity of such free $`X`$ particles one has to postulate that their couplings to ordinary matter are very strongly suppressed. Some such suppression is actually expected if $`X`$ resides in the “hidden sector” thought to be responsible for the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry , which by definition only has $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$ suppressed couplings to the visible sector, although it is by no means guaranteed that this suppression is sufficient. The relevant couplings could also be suppressed by (approximate) symmetries , or geometrically in brane world scenarios .***It is sometimes claimed  that the required long lifetime of $`X`$ needs severe finetuning. This is not really true, since $`\tau _X`$ could be as large as $`10^{20}`$ yrs  if $`X`$ particles constitute the bulk of Dark Matter. Model builders therefore have some ten orders of magnitude in $`\tau _X`$ to aim for. Of course, the observed UHECR flux determines the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X/\tau _X`$ to within a factor of a few, but this does not require any more finetuning of model parameters than in any other explanation of the UHECR events.

The spectrum of UHECR primaries (and other stable particles) at source is determined by the physics of $`X`$ decays . This is quite nontrivial, as indicated in Fig. 1, which is taken from ref.. The primary few–body $`X`$ decay initiates a generalized parton shower. This is similar to, e.g., the hadronic decay of $`Z`$ bosons, which have been studied in great detail at LEP and SLC. From a theorist’s perspective, a $`Z`$ boson decays into a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, whereas experimentally one observes twenty or so hadrons in the final state. The transition from the two (anti)quarks to the $`𝒪(20)`$ hadrons entails both perturbative and non–perturbative physics. The perturbative part is called a parton shower. It can be envisioned by assuming that the original $`q\overline{q}`$ pair is not produced on–shell, but with initial time–like virtualities of order $`m_Z`$. The showering occurs when these partons move closer to the mass shell by emitting additional partons, mostly gluons, with smaller time–like virtualities.

Similarly, the particles produced in primary $`X`$ decay should be considered to have initial time–like virtualities $`𝒪(m_X)`$. At such high energy scales parton showers are expected to develop quite differently from parton showers at scale $`m_Z`$. To begin with, the existence of a (real, four–dimensional) energy scale $`m_Xm_Z`$ strongly indicates the existence of superparticles, which can stabilize this very large ratio of scales against radiative corrections . Since the superparticle mass scale $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$ TeV $`m_X`$, superparticles can be produced (i.e., will be “active”) in the initial part of the shower development, even if $`X`$ decays primarily into SM particles. Moreover, we know that at energy scales near $`m_X`$ all three gauge interactions are of approximately equal strength. In refs. we therefore included all gauge interactions as well as third generation Yukawa interactions in the description of the parton shower.

When the shower virtuality scale reaches $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, superparticles decouple from the shower and decay; the electroweak gauge and Higgs bosons, as well as top quarks, decouple at essentially the same scale. A careful treatment of these decays is mandatory if one wants to account for the entire energy released in $`X`$ decays. As well known, sparticle decays can be somewhat complicated even at the parton level, involving lengthy decay cascades. We treated these with the help of ISASUSY .

At shower scales between $`m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{had}}1`$ GeV only standard QCD is important for the evolution of the parton shower, as at LEP. At scale $`Q_{\mathrm{had}}`$ the non–perturbative parton $``$ hadron transition occurs. Most hadrons, as well as heavy $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ leptons, eventually decay as well, as indicated in the figure. At the end one is thus left with seven species of particles (plus their antiparticles): protons, electrons, photons, three kinds of neutrinos, and LSPs.

Out of the multitude of particles produced in a far–away $`X`$ decay at most one will be observed on Earth. We therefore “only” have to compute the one–particle inclusive $`X`$ decay spectra into the seven stable decay products. In QCD the notion of fragmentation functions (FFs) has been developed precisely in order to describe single–particle inclusive spectra . These FFs depend on two variables: the energy scale of the shower, here $`m_X`$, and the scaled energy $`x_P=2E_P/m_X`$ of the stable decay product $`P`$ in the $`X`$ rest frame. The $`x`$ dependence of hadronic FFs at some reference scale has to be taken from data, since non–perturbative effects are important here; we used the fits of ref..***Some of these “input” FFs are still not well determined, e.g. those starting from a $`b`$ or $`c`$ quark. The scale dependence of the FFs is described by the appropriate generalization of the well–known DGLAP evolution equations . The decays of superparticles and other massive partons can also be treated in this framework, as long as their energy is much larger than their mass, in which case a collinear treatment is adequate. Finally, at very small $`x`$ color coherence effects should be included .

The main results of this analysis can be summarized as follows :

* For small $`x\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.01}`$, the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,e,\gamma `$ and $`p`$ fluxesAll fluxes are summed over particle and antiparticle, if they are distinct. have essentially fixed ratios, independent of the primary $`X`$ decay mode(s) and of the details of the SUSY spectrum. The $`\nu _\mu `$ flux is largest, exceeding the $`p`$ flux by a factor $`3`$, while the photon and $`e\nu _e`$ fluxes exceed the proton flux by a factor $`2.5`$ and $`2`$, respectively. All these fluxes can be described by a simple power law in this region, $`d\mathrm{\Phi }/dEE^{1.4}`$. These features are due to QCD evolution effects. Note that most $`\nu _{e,\mu },e`$ and $`\gamma `$ at $`x\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.01}`$ originate from pion decays, and are thus subject to the same QCD effects.These effects also imply that the results are largely independent of the necessary extrapolation of the “input” FFs towards small $`x`$, as long as this extrapolation conserves energy and has a milder small$`x`$ behavior than $`x^{1.4}`$. On the other hand, the $`\nu _\tau `$ and lightest superparticle (LSP) fluxes, which decouple much earlier in the shower, are model–dependent even at small $`x`$. Generally they increase more slowly with decreasing $`x`$, and thus become subdominant for $`x\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.01}`$.
* For $`x\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.1}`$ the fluxes at source depend very strongly on the primary $`X`$ decay mode(s), and less strongly (typically at the factor of two level) on details of the SUSY spectrum, the relative ordering of and mass splitting between states being more important than the overall sparticle mass scale. For all $`X`$ decays into MSSM particles the photon flux at source is larger than the proton flux. In case of hadronic $`X`$ decays the ratio $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma /\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ reaches a minimum (slightly above 1) at $`x0.3`$. At larger $`x`$ it increases due to the emission of hard photons early in the shower, illustrating the importance of including electroweak interactions in the description of the shower. At smaller $`x`$ this ratio increases because the ratio of FFs into pions and into protons increases with decreasing $`x`$ . For primary $`X`$ decays into only weakly interacting particles the photon flux at $`x\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.1}`$ exceeds the proton flux by at least one order of magnitude, since in this case hadrons can only be produced after two electroweak branching processes, while photons can be emitted already in the first branching. The $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$ fluxes also exceed the proton flux at large $`x`$; these two neutrino fluxes approach each other at $`x\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.5}`$, where most neutrinos come directly from electroweak branching and decay processes, rather than from pion decays.
* The LSP flux is important even if the primary $`X`$ decay only involves SM particles. For example, Bino–like LSPs carry 2–3% of the total energy if $`X`$ decays into leptons, 5–6% if $`X`$ decays into quarks, 20–30% if $`X`$ decays into squarks, and 30–50% if $`X`$ decays into sleptons. The percentage is higher for $`X`$ decays into $`SU(2)`$ singlet sfermions, since they have shorter supersymmetric decay chains, and also shower less (due to the absence of $`SU(2)`$ couplings).

These fluxes are modified by propagation effects. Even if most relevant $`X`$ decays occur in the halo of our own galaxy, which is expected  if $`X`$ particles can move freely under the influence of gravity, electrons will loose most of their energy in synchrotron radiation on galactic $`\stackrel{}{B}`$fields. Moreover, the propagation distance is so large that oscillations essentially wash out all information about the original neutrino flavor dependence, i.e. approximately equal fluxes of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ will reach Earth independent of the ratios of these fluxes at source.

How can one test this class of models? Given that $`m_X`$ and the source density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X/\tau _X`$ are considered to be free parameters, it is not surprising that one can fit  the observed UHECR flux. These models are even compatible with a GZK spectral break, as indicated by the current HiRes (but not AGASA) data, if $`X`$ particles are distributed more or less uniformly throughout the Universe, as would e.g. be expected if they are confined to cosmic strings. As mentioned earlier, freely moving $`X`$ particles are expected  to have a large overdensity ($`10^4`$ to $`10^5`$) in our galaxy, in which case most relevant $`X`$ decays would occur at distance well below one GZK interaction length. Even in this case the HiRes spectrum can be described by $`X`$ decays, simply by choosing $`m_X`$ such that the spectrum cuts off just above $`10^{11}`$ GeV.

The composition of UHECR primaries is more problematic, however, Observations indicate that most primaries are protons or heavier nuclei, not photons. This follows from an analysis  of the longitudinal shower profile of the most energetic event ever observed; from the large number of muons in the Haverah Park  and AGASA  data; and from the absence of a South–North asymmetry in the AGASA data , which would be expected for photon primaries, since photons with $`E_\gamma >10^{10}`$ GeV split into $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs already high in the Earth’s magnetosphere. In contrast, as mentioned earlier, $`X`$ decay models predict the photon flux at source to be higher than the proton flux. If most sources are at cosmological distances, propagation effects may well suppress $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma `$ at post–GZK energies even more than $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$. However, if most sources reside in the halo of our galaxy, propagation effects on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma `$ are expected to be significant only if the galactic radio background has been underestimated by at least an order of magnitude. I do not know how (im)plausible this might be.

Fitting the observed UHECR flux to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ alone increases the predicted flux of neutrinos and LSPs on Earth by about a factor of three if $`m_X10^{12}`$ GeV; if $`m_X10^{12}`$ GeV, the enhancement amounts to a factor $`2`$ for hadronic primary $`X`$ decays, and to roughly one order of magnitude for leptonic decays.§§§Leptonically decaying $`X`$ particles with $`m_X\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{13}`$ GeV are thus particularly difficult to reconcile with the experimental evidence against photons as main UHECR primaries. Even without this enhancement the neutrino flux might be detectable by future experiments . One can look for long muon tracks as well as high–energy particle showers due to NC and $`\nu _{e,\tau }`$ CC events in neutrino telescopes like IceCube . Another technique, used by the RICE experiment at the South Pole , is to look for coherent Cherenkov emission of radio waves, which is mostly sensitive to electromagnetic showers, i.e. to $`\nu _e`$ CC events. Finally, future air shower detectors like the Pierre Auger array  can look for “horizontal” air showers, which originate too deep in the atmosphere to be due to photons or protons, and for $`\tau `$leptons coming out of the Earth at shallow angles and decaying in the atmosphere. In all cases one has to require $`E>100`$ TeV in order to suppress the atmospheric neutrino background.

Some estimated  event rates per year are collected in Table 1, for two extreme values of $`m_X`$ and two extreme $`X`$ distributions. “Galactic” here means that essentially all relevant sources are closer than one GZK interaction length. In contrast, if $`X`$ particles are distributed homogeneously throughout the Universe, $`X`$ decays occuring at distances well beyond one GZK interaction length contribute to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$, but not to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p`$ (at post–GZK energies). A homogeneous distribution therefore leads to $`10`$ times higher neutrino event rates than a galactic distribution does. Similarly, $`m_X10^{12}`$ GeV leads to an about ten times higher neutrino event rate than $`m_X10^{16}`$ GeV does. The reason is that, in particular for a galactic distribution of $`X`$ particles, models with $`m_X10^{12}`$ GeV only allow to fit the very highest energy end of the UHECR spectrum, leading to significantly smaller fluxes at source. Notice also that the cross sections for $`\nu p`$ scattering grow significantly less rapidly than linearly with energy once $`E_\nu 1`$ TeV . Finally, the ranges in the table indicate the spread between different $`X`$ decay models. For $`m_X10^{16}`$ GeV all relevant particles are at $`x1`$, in which case this model dependence disappears, as mentioned above.

Unfortunately the prediction of a detectable neutrino flux at energies beyond that reached by atmospheric neutrinos is hardly unique for this explanation of the UHECR events. The very GZK effect itself gives rise to extremely energetic neutrinos through the decay of charged pions. Note also that the numbers in table 1 differ by more than two orders of magnitude, i.e. a large range of neutrino fluxes is broadly compatible with $`X`$ decay models. These models generically predict that the neutrino flux extends to somewhat higher energies than the proton flux does . However, testing this prediction would require a fairly accurate measurement of the neutrino flux at energies well beyond $`10^{11}`$ GeV, where the expected event rate in the experiments covered in table 1 is very low.

An unambiguous test of this kind of model could be achieved by detecting the flux of very energetic LSPs. In “bottom–up” scenarios, where the observed UHECR events are explained by the acceleration of protons (or heavier nuclei), very energetic superparticles could only be produced when the accelerated protons (or nuclei) collide with ambient matter. However, the inclusive cross section for pion production is at least seven orders of magnitude larger than that for the production of superparticles. In this kind of model a detectable LSP flux would therefore be accompanied by a huge flux of extremely energetic neutrinos, which would be (comparatively) easily detectable. In contrast, we saw earlier that LSPs are expected to carry a significant fraction of the energy released in $`X`$ decays.

Detecting this UHE LSP flux is difficult, but may not be entirely hopeless . The cross section for LSP–nucleon scattering is estimated  to be 10 to 100 times smaller than the neutrino–nucleus cross section, if the LSP is Bino–like, which is the case in most SUSY models. These LSPs will therefore be absorbed less strongly in the Earth than neutrinos are. For $`E_\nu =10^9`$ GeV only one in a thousand neutrinos impinging on Earth at an angle at least 5 below the horizon can transverse it without interacting. $`\nu _\tau `$s can be regenerated via $`\tau \nu _\tau `$ decays even if they undergo CC scattering, but the emerging $`\nu _\tau `$ will only carry 20% or so of the energy of the original one. If the UHE neutrino “background” comes from $`X`$ decays, one can therefore show that very few events with $`E>10^9`$ GeV can emerge at an angle $`\theta >5^{}`$ below the horizon, and essentially none at $`\theta >10^{}`$. In contrast, if $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }p}=\sigma _{\nu p}/10`$, at $`E_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=10^9`$ GeV the LSP flux will be depleted significantly only at $`\theta >60^{}`$; the depletion becomes altogether negligible for $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }p}=\sigma _{\nu p}/100`$, up to energies well beyond $`10^{10}`$ GeV.

Due to the LSPs’ small flux and cross section, one will need huge targets. These might be provided by space–borne fluorescence detectors like EUSO  and OWL . Table 2 shows estimated  rates of LSP events with $`\theta >5^{}`$ and $`E_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}>10^9`$ GeV, assuming $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }p}=\sigma _{\nu p}/10`$ and a target area of 150,000 km2. Since LSPs can interact either in the atmosphere or in $`10`$ m water–equivalent (w.e.) below it, this corresponds to an approximate target size of 2,000 km3 w.e. . Even in that case the expected event rates are not very large – and we haven’t included any efficiencies yet. Optical observations of air showers are typically only possible on clear, moonless nights, i.e. some 10% of the time. Once this is included, only the most optimistic scenario (a homogeneous distribution of $`10^{12}`$ GeV particles, and an LSP–nucleon scattering cross section near the upper end of the expected range) will give a clear signal in this kind of experiment. However, an enlargement of the target area is at least conceivable, e.g. by simply launching more satellites, or by using a higher orbit (with correspondingly tougher requirements on the optics).

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

In this contribution I discussed particle physics explanations of the post–GZK cosmic ray events. My personal favorite remains the explanation in terms of superheavy late decaying particles, which can solve both the energy and propagation problems. The biggest current challenge of this class of models seems to be how to explain the paucity of photons as primaries in the observed events. A first minnowing of models should be achieved by measuring the flux of neutrinos with $`E_\nu >10^5`$ GeV. A decisive test may require measuring (or excluding) the predicted flux of LSPs with $`E_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^9`$ GeV, which will be difficult, but may be possible using space–based experiments. Proving the existence of such mysterious super–heavy but long–lived particles would revolutionize our understanding of physics. If these models are still viable after the next generation of cosmic ray observatories and neutrino telescopes have presented their data, no effort should be spared to search for these extremely energetic cosmic LSPs.

### Acknowledgements

I thank Cyrille Barbot, Francis Halzen and Dan Hooper for the collaborations that made this report possible. This work was partially supported by the SFB 375 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The quantum properties of black holes is a fascinating subject. Starting with the pioneering work of Bekenstein and Hawking , and continuing into the realms of string theory and quantum gravity , they have been the subject of intense investigation.

An important issue is the extent to which the fundamental quantum and statistical mechanical properties of black holes are fixed by internal consistency and their known macroscopic properties alone; that is, the extent to which these properties are independent of any specific model or theory of quantum gravity.

Interesting steps in this direction were taken recently by semiclassical consideration of the macroscopic oscillation modes of black holes, in an approach reminiscent to Debye’s theory for the heat capacity of solids. Hod  has pointed out that the decaying ‘ringing modes’ (or quasinormal modes) of a Schwartzchild black hole conform with the existence of the Bekenstein-Hawking temperature and imply emission in terms of a fixed area quantum. He further noticed that, in Planck units ($`c=\mathrm{}=G=1`$), this quantum has the numerical value $`4\mathrm{ln}3`$ (a fact later proved analytically ). This suggests a composition of the black hole in terms of three-state objects. Dreyer  proposed that this result could be recovered in loop quantum gravity if the relevant group is taken to be $`SO(3)`$ rather than $`SU(2)`$. These developments have spurred a lot of subsequent activity -.

Although the above considerations are still somewhat speculative, they certainly point to the intriguing possibility of using classical, macroscopic properties of black holes to infer information on their quantum, microscopic nature. It is, therefore, of interest to explore the alternative microscopic scenaria in which these properties can be accomodated. This is the subject of this paper. As we shall see, an equidistant spectrum naturally reproduces thermodynamic and ringing mode properties of black holes, still allowing for at least two distinct possibilities, depending on the quantum statistics of their microscopic constituents.

## 2 The quasinormal mode argument

We summarize here the connection between the decaying ringing modes of a black hole and its area spectrum .

Perturbations in the metric of a black hole of mass $`M`$ decay according to a set of characteristic discrete (complex) frequencies. These frequencies for highly damped modes are known to asymptote to the values

$$\omega _n=\frac{\mathrm{ln}3}{8\pi M}i\frac{2\pi }{8\pi M}\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(1)
The spacing of the imaginary part of these frequencies agrees with the Bekenstein-Hawking temperature of the black hole $`T_{BH}=1/(8\pi M)`$. Hod suggested that the asymptotically constant real part can be semiclassically interpreted as the quantum of energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ emitted by the black hole. Using the standard expression for the area of the black hole $`A=16\pi M^2`$, this implies that the area decreases by a quantum $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A=32\pi M\mathrm{\Delta }M=4\mathrm{ln}3$$
(2)
Hod further observed that, if we consider the black hole as composed of $`N`$ ‘bits’, each contributing a quantum of area $`4\mathrm{ln}3`$ and having 3 internal states, then the total number of states of the black hole would be $`\mathrm{\Omega }=3^N`$ and the entropy would calculate to

$$S=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }=N\mathrm{ln}3=\frac{1}{4}(N4\mathrm{ln}3)=\frac{1}{4}A$$
(3)
in agreement with the Bekenstein-Hawking area-entropy result.

Finally, Dreyer suggested that the three-state ‘bits’ can be spin-1 link representations in the loop quantum gravity formulation. To have the black hole dominated by spin-1 links (rather than spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ ones, which is the standard result), Dreyer proposed a modification of the link group from $`SU(2)`$ to $`SO(3)`$; then only integer-spin representations are allowed, with the lowest nontrivial one, spin-1, dominating.

Discarding half-integer spins can be unwanted, since they are required if the back hole is to couple to half-integer spin (fermionic) fields. Further, Dreyer’s analysis assumes the standard expression for the area and degeneracy contribution of each link to the black hole. Alternative approaches, suggesting an equidistant link area spectrum and a different state counting have been proposed. We shall revisit this analysis by considering these different possibilities.

## 3 The composite black hole model

The spectrum of the area of black holes, and its degeneracy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for a given area, are the important ingredients in their quantum statistics. Their determination involves some version of a quantum gravity model for the black hole.

In a large class of quantum gravity models, black holes are effectively represented as composite systems consisting of a large number of identical components. Each component contributes an elementary area, and the total area of the black hole horizon is the sum of the areas of the components. The full spectrum and degeneracy of the black hole area is determined by the area spectrum and degeneracies of each component, as well as the quantum statistics obeyed by the (identical, but not necessarily indistinguishable) components.

As it turns out, any individual component spectrum and degeneracy will lead to the area-entropy law $`SA`$ for a macroscopic black hole, as long as the components are considered to be somewhat distinguishable . Completely indistinguishable statistics for the components (fermionic or bosonic), on the other hand, lead to the weaker entropy dependence $`SA^c`$, with the exponent $`c<1`$ depending on the area spectrum of the components.

In this paper we shall concentrate on the composite model deriving from loop quantum gravity . In it, the components are horizon-piercing links on a random lattice, each carrying a representation of $`SU(2)`$. As such, their elementary area depends on the quadratic Casimir of the representation, while the degeneracy is the dimensionality of the representation. Labeling the spin $`j`$ of the representation by the integer $`n=2j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, the area spectrum of each component is $`a_n`$ and its degeneracy is $`g_n=n+1`$.

Strictly speaking, the link states are not truly independent, since there is the Gauss law constraint that the total $`SU(2)`$ state of the black hole should be a singlet. The ensuing reduction of the state space, however, proves to be irrelevant for the thermodynamics of macroscopic black holes; in this limit, the link components can be treated as independent.

There are different proposals for the form of the spectrum $`a_n`$. The standard result  is that the area is proportional to the square root of the Casimir, that is,

$$a_n=2\gamma \sqrt{j(j+1)}=\gamma \sqrt{n(n+2)}$$
(4)
with $`\gamma `$ a proportionality constant (related to the so-called Immirzi parameter).

In , on the other hand, it was argued that quantum corrections would additively renormalize the Casimir into $`j(j+1)+\frac{1}{4}=(j+\frac{1}{2})^2`$, which leads to an equidistant spectrum:

$$a_n=2\gamma (j+\frac{1}{2})=\gamma (n+1)$$
(5)
This conforms with the original arguments of Bekenstein  that the horizon area, behaving as an adiabatic invariant, should be integrally quantized, as well as with various more recent proposals for an equidistant area spectrum -.

There are also differing considerations of the statistics obeyed by the components. One of them considers them as partially distinguishable, while another considers them as fully distinguishable. These lead to different statistical ensembles with important physical implications. We shall analyze the alternatives in the sequel.

## 4 Partially distinguishable components

The degeneracy of states of a black hole consisting of many components, according to one counting , is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_n^{N_n}$$
(6)
where $`N_n`$ is the number of components with spin $`j=n/2`$ and $`g_n=n+1`$ the number of internal states of each such component. As we shall explain in the next section, this assigns the components a peculiar partial distinguishability.

The statistical mechanics of a macroscopic black hole can be obtained in a standard way by considering a statistical ensemble of black holes, corresponding to an intensive ‘temperature’ parameter $`\beta `$ dual to the area (this is not the standard temperature parameter, which is dual to the energy). The area partition function becomes

$$Z=\underset{A}{}\mathrm{\Omega }(A)e^{\beta A}=\underset{\{N_n\}}{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_n^{N_n}e^{\beta N_na_n}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{1g_ne^{\beta a_n}}$$
(7)
Note that we also sum over different link numbers, the links being quantum variables that can be created or annihilated.

For a macroscopic black hole the area and degeneracy of states grow large and thus the above partition function must diverge. As we increase the ‘temperature’, that is, decrease $`\beta `$ from infinity, a macroscopic black hole will form at some critical $`\beta _c`$ for which $`Z`$ diverges. Generically, this happens when one of the denominators in (7), corresponding to a specific spin $`n_c`$, diverges; that is,

$$\beta _c=max\{\beta _n\}\beta _{n_c},\mathrm{where}\beta _n=\frac{\mathrm{ln}g_n}{a_n}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(n+1)}{a_n}$$
(8)
At this point a condensate of spins $`j_c=n_c/2`$ forms, while the number of other spins remains finite and of order one. The area and entropy are dominated by the spins of the condensate and we have

$$A=Na_{n_c},S=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{ln}(g_{n_c}^N)$$
(9)
where $`N`$ is the total number of spins in the condensate. The above lead to the entropy law

$$S=\frac{\mathrm{ln}g_{n_c}}{a_{n_c}}A$$
(10)
Conformity with the Bekenstein-Hawking (BH) result $`S=\frac{1}{4}A`$ requires

$$a_{n_c}=4\mathrm{ln}g_{n_c}$$
(11)
Transitions of this black hole to one with different area will be statistically dominated by processes increasing or decreasing the number of spins in the condensate. That is, the emission spectrum of the black hole will exhibit the area quantum

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A=a_{n_c}$$
(12)
Conformity with the ringing mode calculation $`\mathrm{\Delta }A=4\mathrm{ln}3`$, then, implies

$$g_{n_c}=3,a_{n_c}=4\mathrm{ln}3$$
(13)
corresponding to $`n=2`$ (for $`g_n=n+1`$). This picks spin-1 links as the ones dominating the composition of the black hole.

With the standard area spectrum (4), $`a_n=\gamma \sqrt{n(n+2)}`$, the critical point is at $`\beta _c=\beta _1=\mathrm{ln}2/\gamma \sqrt{3}`$. (Note that spin-0 links, which do not contribute to the area, are considered as part of the vacuum and omitted from (7)). This picks spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ components for the condensate and $`g_{n_c}=2`$, thus leading to a disagreement with the ringing mode calculation. The remedy proposed for this problem is to accept only integer spins in the spectrum; that is, consider representations of $`SO(3)`$ rather than $`SU(2)`$ . As stated before, this has the drawback that the discarded half-integer spins are desirable in order to have the black hole couple to fermion fields.

The first main observation of this paper is that the modified, equidistant spectrum (5), $`a_n=\gamma (n+1)`$, remedies this problem without discarding half-integer spins. Indeed, with this spectrum we have

$$\beta _0=0,\beta _1=\beta _3=\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{2\gamma }=\frac{0.3466}{\gamma },\beta _2=\frac{\mathrm{ln}3}{3\gamma }=\frac{0.3662}{\gamma }\mathrm{}$$
(14)
We see that the critical parameter is now shifted to $`\beta _2`$, which picks spin-1 components for the condensate. Note, further, that although spin-0 links now contribute an amount $`a_1=\gamma `$ to the area and thus cannot be considered as part of the vacuum, they are thermodynamically suppressed. Thus, we obtain agreement with the ringing mode calculation while retaining the full $`SU(2)`$ spectrum.

## 5 Fully distinguishable components

The state-counting formula (6) corresponds to a peculiar, partially distinguishable statistics for the components. To make this point clear, consider two links with spins $`j_1`$ and $`j_2`$ and internal states (eigenvalues of the third component) $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ respectively. Formula (6) counts this as a single state, irrespective of which link carries which spin. So the quantum state is invariant under permutation of these two spins:

$$|(j_1,m_1),(j_2,m_2)=|(j_2,m_2),(j_1,m_1)$$
(15)
On the other hand, for two equal spins $`j`$, formula (6) counts all $`(2j+1)\times (2j+1)`$ states as distinct; that is

$$|(j,m_1),(j,m_2)|(j,m_2),(j,m_1)$$
(16)
We see no justification for such a counting. If, indeed, nothing else distinguishes the links except their spin, then quantum mechanics implies that they should be treated as indistinguishable objects, in which case (16) is incorrect and the entropy-area law cannot be recovered. In , however, we have argued that the links are fully distinct because of their connectivity to the lattice representing spacetime outside of the black hole. In this case, they should be treated as completely distinguishable objects. (A similar point of view was put forth by Krasnov in , and also by Rovelli , but was apparently abandoned in subsequent work.)

This leads to different thermodynamics. The partition function of $`N`$ distinguishable links is

$$Z_N=Z_1^N,\mathrm{where}Z_1=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_ne^{\beta a_n}$$
(17)
The full partition function for all possible numbers of links is, thus,

$$Z=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Z_N=\frac{1}{1Z_1}$$
(18)
A macroscopic black hole will, again, form when $`Z`$ diverges. This will happen for the critical value $`\beta _c`$ for which

$$Z_1(\beta _c)=1$$
(19)
Standard thermodynamic arguments lead to the expression for the entropy

$$S=\beta A+\mathrm{ln}Z$$
(20)
At the critical point, $`Z`$ is of order $`A`$; thus, $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$ is a sub-leading logarithmic correction. Such corrections will be present, but cannot be reliably calculated in the ensemble formulation since this implies fluctuations for the total black hole area which would not be there in a true area eigenstate. The leading (thermodynamic) contribution, however, is accurately given by the first term in (20) as

$$S=\beta _cA$$
(21)
Conformity with the standard BH result implies $`\beta _c=\frac{1}{4}`$.

It should be stressed that, now, the black hole state is not dominated by any single spin value; rather, there is a Boltzmann distribution of spins for all possible values. In fact, the probability that any given link carries spin $`j=n/2`$ is given by

$$P_n=g_ne^{\beta _ca_n}=(n+1)e^{\beta _ca_n}$$
(22)
Transition to a black hole of different (lesser) area would involve transitions between different values of spin, as well as the disappearence of links. Therefore, black hole transitions involve quanta of area $`\mathrm{\Delta }A=a_na_n^{}`$, corresponding to transitions, as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }A=a_n`$, corresponding to annihilation of links. Note, further, that spin-0 links cannot contribute zero area in the fully distinguishable picture; this would lead to a thermodynamic collapse of the black hole into a state with an arbitrarily large number of spin-0 links and arbitrarily large entropy.

With the above conditions, it is easy to see that the standard spectrum $`a_n=\gamma \sqrt{n(n+2)}`$ is inconsistent with the quantization of area implied by the ringing mode calculation, since it leads to an essentially continuous area emission spectrum with no apparent quantum. The equidistant spectrum $`a_n=\gamma (n+1)`$, however, is consistent, predicting a quantum of area $`\mathrm{\Delta }A=\gamma `$. This fixes $`\gamma =4\mathrm{ln}3`$. An explicit calculation of $`Z_1`$, on the other hand, leads to

$$\beta _c=\gamma ^1\mathrm{ln}\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}=\frac{0.876}{4}$$
(23)
This differs (although not by much) from the value $`\beta _c=\frac{1}{4}`$ required by the BH area-entropy law.

The only possibility, therefore, is that the spin content is modified. We shall, again, only consider changing the group from $`SU(2)`$ to $`SO(3)`$, seeing no justification for any other modification. Thus, we now label the states in terms of the integer spin $`j=n`$. The degeneracy is $`g_n=2n+1`$. For the spectrum, we must consider a renormalization of the standard result consistent with the requirement for a quantum of area, as explained two paragraphs above. The result (5), $`a_n=2\gamma (j+\frac{1}{2})=\gamma (2n+1)`$, is not satisfactory, since it predicts an area quantum $`2\gamma `$ for transitions but a different area quantum $`\gamma `$ for creation or annihilation of links (for spin-0 links). We thus propose the modified equidistant spectrum

$$a_n=\gamma (n+1),g_n=2n+1;\gamma =4\mathrm{ln}3$$
(24)
This corresponds to a quantum $`\gamma =4\mathrm{ln}3`$ for transitions between different integer spins, and the same quantum for the creation or annihilation of links.

We should stress that the above spectrum is determined only by the requirement of a fixed area quantum. It is still not guaranteed that it will reproduce the correct black holes thermodynamics. To that end, we calculate the single-link partition function:

$$Z_1=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2n+1)e^{\beta \gamma (n+1)}=\frac{e^{\beta \gamma }+1}{(e^{\beta \gamma }1)^2}$$
(25)
The critical point $`Z_1=1`$ is now at $`e^{\beta \gamma }=3`$, or

$$\beta _c=\frac{\mathrm{ln}3}{\gamma }=\frac{1}{4}$$
(26)
This leads to the correct BH area-entropy relation. We therefore conclude that distinguishable components with an equidistant spectrum of integer spins correctly reproduce both the thermodynamics and the ringing mode properties of black holes. No single spin value dominates. The probabilities $`P_n`$ of appearence of the value $`j=n`$ for the spin of a link are

$$P_0=\frac{1}{3},P_1=\frac{1}{3},P_2=\frac{5}{27}\mathrm{}$$
(27)
## 6 Conclusions and discussion

To summarize, we have made two main points:

1. If the standard counting formula for states (6) is assumed, then the equidistant area spectrum as proposed in  naturally explains the domination of spin-1 links and reproduces the ringing mode properties of black holes, without the need to eliminate half-integer spins.

2. If totally distinguishable link statistics are assumed, then an equidistant area spectrum of components, carrying integer spins only, correctly reproduces ringing mode properties, without domination of spin-1 components.

Which, if any, of the above cases is realized must be the subject of further investigation. The successful model should account in a natural way for the properties of black holes carrying charge and angular momentum.

A criticism for an equidistant area spectrum, as advocated in this paper, is that it leads to substantial deviations from the black-body spectrum of Hawking radiation. Indeed, an area and energy quantum implies a discrete emission spectrum with the spacing of spectral lines being of the same order of magniture as the black body thermal frequency.

In fact, the same criticism would apply to the standard loop quantum gravity spectrum and degeneracy (4) and (6). It has been argued that the irrational character of the area eigenvalues (4) creates a spread of possible area quanta under transitions which effectively reproduce a continuum. However, the state of the black hole is dominated by a condensate of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ links, and the number of links with different spin values is of order one. All transitions of the black hole are dominated by processes increasing or decreasing the number of links in the condensate and thus reproduce a discrete emission spectrum. It is unreasonable to expect that the remaining few links account for the bulk of the (continuous) Hawking radiation.

Distinguishable statistics actually cure that, since now the black hole state contains all spins. This still leaves us with a disagreement with the ringing mode result, as stated in the previous section. It seems that to take the ringing mode connection seriously, we must admit an equidistant area spectrum and thus accept the fact that the Hawking radiation spectrum is discrete.

We do not feel that this is damning. The high-frequency exponential part of the spectrum is accurately reproduced, the discreteness there being inconsequential. This is the energy range in which the photons (or other emitted particles) behave essentially like classical particles, whose scattering properties are expected to be accurately reproduced by the classical black hole metric. For frequencies close to the thermal frequency, however, the wavelength of the photons becomes comparable to the size of the black hole and they sense global properties of its geometry. Back-reaction due to geometry change at emission and absorption of such photons is expected to be important, the energy of these photons being of the same order as the energy spacing of the black hole. A deviation from ideal black-body spectrum, which assumes a fixed metric and ignores back-reaction, would seem reasonable.

In summary, the essence of the Hawking radiation argument is that a black hole would be in thermal equilibrium (although an unstable one) with a heat bath at temperature $`T_{BH}=8\pi M`$. Removal of the heat bath would deprive the black hole of all absorption, leaving only the emitted Hawking radiation. This does not necessarily mean that radiation is black-body. A large atom can be in thermal equilibrium with a heat bath of some temperature, but in the abscence of the heat bath it would radiate in its own line spectrum. Perhaps we are facing a similar situation.