text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The well-known success of the gauge coupling unification in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) likely supports the attractive idea of supersymmetric grand unified theory (SUSY-GUT). On the other hand, we know there are some obstacles in constructing a realistic SUSY-GUT. One of the biggest problems is the so-called DT splitting problem. Generically in SUSY-GUTs, there are color triplet partners of the MSSM Higgs, and the nucleon decay via dimension five operators becomes too rapid. In order to suppress this proton decay, the color triplet partners must have very large mass $`(M_{\mathrm{GUT}}10^{16}\text{GeV})`$, in contrast to the doublet Higgs whose mass has to be of order the weak scale $`M_\mathrm{W}10^2\text{GeV}`$. Some ideas to solve this problem have been proposed : the sliding-singlet mechanism, the missing partner mechanism, the Dimopoulos-Wilczek (DW) mechanism, the GIFT mechanism, and via orbifold boundary condition.

Among these ideas, the first mechanism is the smartest solution which realizes the DT splitting dynamically. Although it was shown that the originally proposed $`SU(5)`$ model cannot act effectively if SUSY breaking effect is considered, some authors have proposed $`SU(6)`$ extensions in which this mechanism acts without destabilization due to SUSY breaking. In this paper, we abstract the essence of this sliding singlet mechanism in $`SU(6)`$ models and generalize it to apply to many other unified theories. Actually in $`E_6`$ unification it is found that for many directions of VEV of the adjoint Higgs this mechanism may act. Corresponding to these breaking patterns, we construct some $`E_6`$ Higgs sectors in which the DT splitting problem is indeed solved through this mechanism. Several concrete models are propose in the context of the SUSY-GUT in which an anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ gauge symmetry, whose anomaly is cancelled by the Green-Schwarz mechanism, plays an important role in solving various problems in SUSY scenario. And we examine whether the already proposed realistic quark and lepton sector is compatible with such a Higgs sector or not. Note that this $`E_6`$ group is interesting as a unified group, in the sense that the SUSY flavor problem can be solved in $`E_6`$ SUSY-GUT with anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ and non-abelian horizontal gauge symmetry.

In section 2, we briefly review the sliding singlet mechanism in the context of $`SU(5)`$ and $`SU(6)`$. In section 3, we generalize this mechanism to the general gauge group. In section 4, we construct some concrete Higgs sectors.

## 2 The Sliding Singlet Mechanism

In this section, We review the present status of the sliding singlet mechanism. For this purpose, we sometimes omit details, which are described in each references.

### 2.1 $`SU(5)`$

The sliding singlet mechanism was originally proposed in the context of $`SU(5)`$, in which the following terms are allowed in the superpotential;

$$W_{\text{ss}}=\overline{H}(A+Z)H.$$
(2.1)
Here, the adjoint Higgs $`A(\mathrm{𝟐𝟒})`$ is assumed to have the VEV $`A=\mathrm{diag}(2,2,2,3,3)v`$ which breaks $`SU(5)`$ into $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(2)`$L$`\times U(1)`$Y ($`G`$SM), and the (anti)fundamental Higgs $`H(\mathrm{𝟓})`$ and $`\overline{H}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$ contain the MSSM doublet Higgs, $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$, respectively. Since the doublet Higgs have non-vanishing VEVs $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ to break $`SU(2)`$L$`\times U(1)`$Y into $`U(1)`$EM, the minimization of the potential,

$$V_{\text{SUSY}}=\left|F_H\right|^2+\left|F_{\overline{H}}\right|^2=\left(\left|\overline{H}\right|^2+\left|H\right|^2\right)\left|3v+Z\right|^2,$$
(2.2)
leads to the vanishing doublet Higgs mass $`\mu =(A+Z)_\mathrm{𝟐}=3v+Z=0`$ by sliding the VEV of the singlet Higgs $`Z(\mathrm{𝟏})`$111 Here, the contributions to the potential from $`F_A`$ and $`F_Z`$ are neglected, because they are of order $`(\overline{H}H)^2`$. In this sense, the doublet Higgs mass $`\mu `$ does not vanish exactly but may become of order SUSY breaking scale $`M_{\mathrm{SB}}`$. . For these VEVs, $`A+Z=\mathrm{diag}(5,5,5,0,0)v`$, the color triplet partners of doublet Higgs have a large mass $`5v10^{16}\text{GeV}`$.

Unfortunately, it is known that if SUSY breaking is taken into account, this DT splitting is failed. For example, the soft SUSY breaking mass term $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2\left|Z\right|^2`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{m}M_{\mathrm{SB}})`$ shifts the VEV $`Z`$ by an amount of $`\delta Z\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}^2v}{H^2+\stackrel{~}{m}^2}M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ to minimize the potential. Thus the doublet-triplet splitting is spoiled by SUSY breaking effect in this mechanism. 222 The soft term $`\stackrel{~}{m}ZF_Z`$ also destabilizes the sliding singlet mechanism because this term alters the contribution of $`F_Z`$ to the scalar potential as $`\left|\overline{H}H+\stackrel{~}{m}Z\right|^2`$, that is the order of $`M_{\mathrm{SB}}^2M_{\mathrm{GUT}}^2(M_{\mathrm{SB}}^4)`$ if $`H`$ is order of the weak scale. Such a term is induced by loop effects through the coupling between $`Z`$ and the color triplet Higgs. Therefore, even if the terms $`\stackrel{~}{m}ZF_Z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2|Z|^2`$ are absent at the tree level, this problem cannot be avoided.  This is caused by the fact that the terms $`|F_H|^2+|F_{\overline{H}}|^2`$ give only a mass of order $`H`$ to $`Z`$, which are the same order as (or smaller than) the SUSY breaking contribution. Since this mass parameterizes the stability of $`Z`$ against other contributions to the potential, e.g. SUSY breaking effects $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2|Z|^2`$, soft terms of order $`M_{\mathrm{SB}}`$ easily shift the VEV from that in the SUSY limit by a large amount.

It is obvious that this problem can be solved if we take the large VEVs $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ (larger than $`\sqrt{M_{\mathrm{SB}}M_{\mathrm{GUT}}}`$) which give larger mass to $`Z`$ and stabilize the VEV of $`Z`$ against SUSY breaking effects. Of course, it is not consistent with the experiments to take such large VEVs for SM doublet Higgs. But for other Higgs, for example, that breaks a larger gauge group into the SM gauge group, we can take such large VEV. This is an essential idea of Sen.

### 2.2 $`SU(6)`$

$`SU(6)`$ is the simplest candidate for the above purpose, and some authors examine the possibility. The relevant part of the superpotential is written in a similar form as (2.1), where $`A(\mathrm{𝟑𝟓})`$ has a VEV $`A=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,1,1)v`$ which breaks $`SU(6)`$ into $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(3)`$L$`\times U(1)`$ and $`H(\mathrm{𝟔})`$ ($`\overline{H}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}})`$) denotes (anti)fundamental Higgs which has a VEV in $`SU(5)`$ singlet component. Note that the simplest extension, in which one pair of (anti)fundamental Higgs is introduced, cannot act effectively. This is because

* the $`F`$-term of $`Z`$ gives a contribution of $`𝒪(M_{\mathrm{GUT}}^4)`$ to the scalar potential.
* the term $`\overline{H}AH`$ gives a contribution to the $`F`$-flatness condition of $`A`$ which destabilizes the required form of VEV of $`A`$, if $`A`$ is determined from $`F_A`$.
* this term also gives mass terms of 5 and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ of $`SU(5)`$, $`\overline{H}AH`$ and $`\overline{H}AH`$.
* one pair of doublet of (anti)fundamental Higgs is the Nambu-Goldstone (NG) mode and unphysical.

The first two and the last one are resolved if one of the pair of (anti)fundamental Higgs has vanishing VEV. Thus, (2.1) is altered as

$$W_{\text{ss}}=\overline{H^{}}(A+Z)H+\overline{H}(A+Z)H^{},$$
(2.3)
where primed fields have vanishing VEVs. Because of the third reason, at least one more pair of (anti)fundamental Higgs is required.

For example in Ref., four pairs are introduced and the relevant part of the superpotential is given as

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`W(A)+W(\overline{H}_i,H_i)`$ (2.4)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}a_i\overline{H^{}}_i(A+Z_i)H_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\overline{a}_i\overline{H}_i(A+\overline{Z}_i)H_i^{},`$
where $`a_i`$ and $`\overline{a}_i`$ are coupling constants and $`W(A)`$ and $`W(\overline{H}_i,H_i)`$ are some sets of terms which give the desired VEV (as one of discrete vacua) to $`A`$ and $`\overline{H}_i,H_i`$ respectively. This gives following mass matrix of $`\mathrm{𝟓}\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ of $`SU(5)`$:

$$M_I=\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & I_A& I_{\overline{H}_1^{}}& I_{\overline{H}_2^{}}& I_{\overline{H}_1}& I_{\overline{H}_2}& \\ \overline{I}_A& (\mathrm{}& M_I& \overline{a}_1\overline{H}_1& \overline{a}_2\overline{H}_2& 0& 0& )\mathrm{}\\ \overline{I}_{H_1^{}}& a_1H_1& 0& 0& 2\alpha _Ia_1v& 0\\ \overline{I}_{H_2^{}}& a_2H_2& 0& 0& 0& 2\alpha _Ia_2v\\ \overline{I}_{H_1}& 0& 2\alpha _I\overline{a}_1v& 0& c\left|H_2\right|^2& cH_1H_2^{}\\ \overline{I}_{H_2}& 0& 0& 2\alpha _I\overline{a}_2v& cH_1^{}H_2& c\left|H_1\right|^2\end{array}.$$
(2.5)
Here $`\alpha _\mathrm{𝟐}=0`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{𝟑}=1`$, which are realized by the sliding singlet mechanism, and $`M_\mathrm{𝟑}=0`$ because $`\mathrm{𝟑}_A`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_A`$ are NG modes by breaking $`SU(6)SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times U(1)`$. $`M_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`c`$ are determined from $`W(A)`$ and $`W(\overline{H}_i,H_i)`$, respectively. From this mass matrix, it can be found that there are two massless modes for $`I=\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and one for $`I=\mathrm{𝟑}`$. Since one pair of 5 and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ of $`SU(5)`$ are absorbed by the Higgs mechanism, only one pair of doublets remains massless and therefore the DT splitting is realized. In this model, the massless modes come from a linear combination of the primed fields.

Note that, due to the large VEVs of $`H_i`$ and $`\overline{H}_i`$, this hierarchy is stable against the SUSY breaking corrections, which means that all the elements of the mass matrix have corrections due to SUSY breaking at most $`𝒪(M_{\mathrm{SB}})`$.

Another example was proposed in Ref. in the context of $`SU(6)\times SU(2)`$. The relevant part is similar as previous model except the absence of the indices $`i`$ of the singlet Higgs. The indices of the (anti)fundamental Higgs are understood as those of the symmetry $`SU(2)`$. This symmetry guarantees that the doublet components of $`H_2`$ and $`\overline{H}_2`$ are massless even if they do not have non-vanishing VEVs. This means that the doublets are not NG modes and therefore physical modes. In this model, the SM doublet Higgs comes from the unprimed fields which have non-vanishing VEVs, in contrast to the previous model.333 In order to give masses to the primed fields, some additional terms, e.g. $`\overline{H}_i^{}H_i^{}`$, are needed.

The author of Ref. mentions that this is because the symmetry $`SU(2)`$ relates the doublets to NG modes in $`H_1`$ and $`\overline{H}_1`$. To be more precise, the doublets and the NG modes belong to a single multiplet of the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry to which the mass parameter $`(A+Z)`$ respect. However, in the spirit of the sliding singlet, it may be more appropriate to say that the mass parameter $`(A+Z)`$ gives the same value for the doublets as for the $`SU(5)`$ singlet components of $`H_1`$ and $`\overline{H}_1`$, which must vanish due to the non-vanishing VEVs. This observation makes it possible to apply the sliding singlet mechanism in more general case.

## 3 Generalization

Now, we examine how we can generalize the sliding singlet mechanism.

The essential idea of the sliding singlet mechanism is following.

* If the mass parameter of a certain component is guaranteed to be the same value as that of the other component which has a non-vanishing VEV and the later vanishes dynamically due to the VEV, the former also vanishes. And if the non-vanishing VEVs are sufficiently large, the mass hierarchy is stable against possible SUSY breaking effects.

It is the case that a doublet component and a singlet component with non-vanishing VEV belong to a single multiplet of the symmetry to which the mass terms respect, e.g. $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(3)`$L$`\times U(1)`$ for the previous $`SU(6)`$ example in Ref.. In this case, the DT splitting problem can be solved.

Moreover, if the mass parameter depends only on the VEVs of adjoint Higgs and singlet Higgs, the above condition for the sliding singlet mechanism to act can be easily examined. This is because the mass parameter for each component is determined by each quantum number of $`U(1)`$ which are fixed by the non-vanishing VEV of the adjoint Higgs. Therefore, if the charge of the doublet Higgs component is the same as that of the singlet component which has non-vanishing VEV, then the massless doublet Higgs can be realized by the sliding singlet mechanism. This perspective holds for any gauge group, even if the mass term involves non-renormalizable terms.

It is obviously important to know the charges for the SM singlet and the doublet Higgs under the $`U(1)`$ generator which are fixed by the non-vanishing VEV of the adjoint Higgs. If a GUT group $`G`$ includes $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(2)`$L$`\times U(1)`$Y$`\times U(1)^{r4}`$ as a subgroup, where $`r`$ is the rank of $`G`$, the $`U(1)`$ generator must be a linear combination of $`r3`$ $`U(1)`$ generators. Therefore, it is helpful to know the charges of these $`U(1)`$ generators in order to classify the models in which sliding singlet mechanism acts effectively. We present the charges for $`SU(6)`$ unification group in Table 1, and for $`E_6`$ unification group in Table 2444 We denote each representation of $`G`$SM, $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{\frac{1}{6}}`$, $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{\frac{2}{3}}`$, $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{\frac{1}{3}}`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{\frac{5}{6}}`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0`$, and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0`$ as $`Q`$, $`U`$, $`D`$, $`L`$, $`E`$, $`N`$, $`X`$, $`G`$, and $`W`$, respectively, and the conjugate representation of a representation $`R`$ by $`\overline{R}`$. .

From Table 1, we can see that there is one possible breaking pattern, $`V_612Y`$ direction, i.e. $`A\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,1,1)`$, for the sliding singlet mechanism to act in the mass terms of $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}`$. In other words, only for the $`U(1)`$ generated by the generator of this direction, the singlet and doublet of $`G`$SM have the same charge.

On the other hand, as seen in Table 2, there are many possible breaking patterns for the generalized sliding singlet mechanism in $`E_6`$ models. Actually there are infinite possibilities because there is only one relation, namely, the charge of a singlet is equal to that of a doublet, and three independent $`U(1)`$’s in $`E_6`$ unified models. If we impose two relations, the $`U(1)`$ can be fixed except for the normalization. For example, we require that the charge of a singlet is equal to the charges of two doublets. Because there are two singlets and three doublets of SM gauge group in a single field $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ of $`E_6`$, there are several solutions as in Table 2. Essentially there are three solutions ( Model I, II, and III in Table 2). The Model I gives the DW type of VEV which breaks $`E_6`$ into $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}\times U(1)_V^{}`$, and the models in Ref. are classified as this case. The breaking pattern of Model II is that $`E_6`$ is broken into $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(3)`$L$`\times U(1)\times SU(2)`$E, where $`SU(2)`$E rotates two $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$s and 1s of $`SU(5)`$ in 27 of $`E_6`$ as the doublets. This produces similar models as in Ref. if $`SU(2)`$E is identified as the symmetry $`SU(2)`$ in Ref.. The Model III preserves $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(3)`$L$`\times SU(2)`$RE$`\times U(1)`$, where $`SU(2)`$RE denotes the $`SU(2)`$ sub-group of $`SU(3)`$R under which the component of 3 which belongs to the doublet of both $`SU(2)`$R and $`SU(2)`$E is singlet. If we require that $`SU(2)_E`$ symmetry is not broken by the VEV of the adjoint Higgs and the charge of a singlet is equal to the charge of a doublet, then in addition to Model II, Model IV is satisfied with the requirements. In the Model IV, $`E_6`$ is broken into $`SO(10)`$F$`\times U(1)`$.

From the above observation, models in which the DT splitting is realized through the sliding singlet mechanism may be constructed for each breaking pattern, because some doublet components $`L`$ and/or $`\overline{L}`$ in 27 have the same charge as some singlet components $`N`$. However, as illustrated in the previous section, this is not a sufficient condition. Actually we have to take care of the following points in constructing models:

* the massless mode may be an unphysical NG mode.
* other part of superpotential may give a large mass to the would-be massless mode.
* an effort to avoid the above two obstructions may yield unwanted additional massless modes.

In the next section, we try to construct several models in which DT splitting is realized.

## 4 Models

Here we construct concrete models corresponding to the breaking patterns listed in Table 2 in the context of anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ gauge symmetry. Since, in GUTs with anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ gauge symmetry with generic interaction, positively charged fields have vanishing VEVs, they naturally play the role of the primed fields.

### 4.1 Model I: $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(2)`$L$`\times SU(2)`$R $`\times U(1)_{BL}`$$`\times U(1)`$$`_\mathrm{V}^{}`$

Recently we proposed a $`E_6`$ unified scenario in which the DT splitting problem is solved by the DW mechanism. In Ref., we emphasized that the sliding singlet mechanism is also workable in the model but focused on the DW mechanism. However, according to the new perspective proposed in the previous section, the DT splitting in the model can be understood only by using the generalized sliding singlet mechanism.

We consider the Higgs sector defined by Table 3, where lowercase letters denotes the anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charge, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Froggatt-Nielsen field.

From this table, we can lead the relevant superpotential to determine VEVs555 See Ref. and its references.  :

$$W=W_A^{}+W_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}+W_C^{},$$
(4.1)
where

$`W_A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A^{}(A+A^3+A^4+A^5)`$ (4.2)
$`W_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}(1+A+Z_i+A^2+AZ_i+Z_i^2)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (4.3)
$`W_C^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{C}(1+A+Z_i+\mathrm{}+(\overline{C}\mathrm{\Phi })^2)C^{}.`$ (4.4)
Combining with the $`D`$-flatness conditions, we can see the following VEVs

$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\overline{C}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^a\lambda ^r`$ (4.5)
$`\mathrm{𝟏}_{\overline{C}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^a\lambda ^{2r}`$ (4.6)
$`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_A\lambda ^a`$ (4.7)
$`\text{Other VEVs}=0`$ (4.8)
are indeed one of vacua of this model. Here, $`r=\frac{2a\varphi \overline{c}}{3}`$, $`\lambda `$ is the ratio of the VEV of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to the cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the diagonal part of the VEV of $`A`$ points to the direction $`V+4Y`$, $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_A=\tau _2\times \mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,0,0)v`$ (DW form), which breaks $`E_6`$ into $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(2)`$L$`\times SU(2)`$R $`\times U(1)_{BL}`$ $`\times U(1)_V^{}(G_A)`$. Here, $`\tau _2`$ denotes the second Pauli matrix.

For these VEVs, the sliding singlet mechanism acts in $`W_{\overline{\varphi }^{}}`$ as mentioned in the previous section. One of the $`F`$-flatness conditions from $`W_{\overline{\varphi }^{}}`$,

$`F_{\mathrm{𝟏}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+A+Z_i+A^2+AZ_i+Z_i^2)_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (4.9)
makes the mass terms of doublet components in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`SO(10)`$ vanishing. This is because they have the same charges as $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (which happen to be zero666 Because of the zero, the DW mechanism can act in $`SO(10)`$ model if only $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ contributes the doublet mass terms. In order to forbid the dangerous terms, e.g. $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, the additional symmetry, e.g. $`Z_2`$ parity, is required in $`SO(10)`$ model. On the other hand, in $`E_6`$ model, the prohibition can be realized dynamically. ) of $`U(1)`$ which determined by $`A`$, i.e. $`U(1)_{BL}`$, and therefore the mass parameters become the same value as for $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\times \mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which vanishes due to Eq.(4.9). Note that because $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A`$ has non-vanishing VEV, we have to examine carefully the other $`F`$-flatness conditions of $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}`$ in which the VEV $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A`$ appears. As we pointed out in Ref. , because of the $`E_6`$ group theoretical reason and the $`F`$-flatness condition (4.9), the $`F`$-term is factorized as

$$F_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}}=(1+Z_i+A)(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_A\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi })=0$$
(4.10)
in this vacuum. Therefore, in this model, the sliding singlet mechanism acts for the singlets in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A`$, namely, the factor $`(1+Z_i+A)`$ in Eq. (4.10) vanishes by sliding the singlet VEV $`Z_i`$. Actually, in the model in Table 3, two $`E`$ fields of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A`$, which have the same $`U(1)`$ charges as $`N`$ in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A`$, respectively, become massless, though they are absorbed by the Higgs mechanism. In order to confirm that only one pair of doublet is massless, we have to check all mass matrices explicitly. Straightforward calculation shows it, but we would like to skip it here. And we just mension that we have constructed a model which solves the DT splitting problem by using the generalized sliding singlet mechanism. We stress that, in this model, the massless Higgs doublets come from a single multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕})`$. To be more precise, they come from $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which is not related to any NG modes by the remaining symmetry $`G_A`$. This situation is quite different from the $`SU(6)`$ cases in which by the sliding singlet mechanism a pair of doublets becomes massless but is absorbed by the Higgs mechanism. Note that in mass terms generated from $`W_C^{}`$, generally the sliding singlet mechanism does not act, since the VEV of $`\overline{C}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ respects only $`G`$SM.

And, as mentioned in Ref., this Higgs sector is compatible with the matter sector proposed in Ref.. This is because the main modes of doublet Higgs come from a fundamental representation field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕})`$ and not from an anti-fundamental fields $`\overline{C}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}})`$. This fact results in comparatively large Yukawa couplings which are important to realize large top Yukawa coupling and to avoid too small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

### 4.2 Model II: $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(3)`$L$`\times U(1)\times SU(2)`$E

This breaking pattern is similar as that of the SU(6) models in §2.2, and therefore the reason that the massless doublet Higgs appear can be understood in the similar way.

We consider the Higgs sector defined by Table 3. Though we adopt the same anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charges as in Table 3, we take different number of the singlet Higgs fields. The difference between the previous vacuum and this vacuum is essentially that in this vacuum, the diagonal part of the VEV of $`A`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}+\mathrm{𝟏})_A`$, points to the direction $`5V^{}+3V48Y`$, which breaks $`E_6`$ into $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(3)`$L$`\times U(1)\times SU(2)`$E. For this vacuum, possible candidates for the NG mode in the representation $`L`$ ($`\overline{L}`$) are from the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ($`\overline{C}`$) and not from $`A`$. Therefore, at least one of the two $`L`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the NG mode, namely becomes massless. On the other hand, the two $`L`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are doublet under the the symmetry $`SU(2)`$E, that leads to the both of the $`L`$ must be massless. One of the two $`L`$ is absorbed by the Higgs mechanism, but the other $`L`$ becomes a physical massless mode 777 On the other hand, because the mass term of $`\overline{C}`$ does not respect $`SU(2)`$E due to the term $`\overline{C}(\overline{C}\mathrm{\Phi })^2C^{}`$, one linear combination of the two $`\overline{L}`$ of $`\overline{C}`$ have a non-vanishing mass parameter. .

On the other hand, according to the new perspective proposed in the previous section, this can be understood in the different way. Namely, the vanishing mass term is caused by the $`F`$-flatness condition (4.9). This condition makes the two mass terms for $`\overline{L}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}}\times L_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`\overline{L}_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}}\times L_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ also vanishing, due to their same charges as $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Because $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A`$ has non-vanishing VEV, we have to take care of the $`F`$-flatness condition of $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}`$,

$$F_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}}=(1+A+Z_i+A^2+AZ_i+Z_i^2)\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }+(1+Z_i+A)\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(4.11)
Note that in this breaking pattern, this $`F`$-term is not factorized. (This is because the charge of $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not vanish in this vacuum, but that vanishes in the previous vacuum.) The first term in Eq. (4.11) vanishes by the sliding singlet mechanism because $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the same $`U(1)`$ charge as $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therefore the second term must vanish by itself and the VEV of a singlet field again slides to satisfy this relation. The coefficient $`(1+Z_i+A)`$ of the second term is equivalent to that of the term $`\overline{L}_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_AL_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, because $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A`$ has vanishing $`U(1)`$ charge and $`L_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ has the same $`U(1)`$ charge as $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Because of these effects, the two $`L_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ become massless. One of the two $`L_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are absorbed by the Higgs mechanism and the other becomes a physical massless doublet Higgs. Because the other part does not contribute to the mass of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and it can be checked straightforwardly that there are no additional massless modes, the DT splitting is realized.

In this model, the massless $`L`$ comes from $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the massless $`\overline{L}`$ comes from a certain linear combination, the main mode of which comes from a primed field. This is because positively charged fields (primed fields) have smaller couplings and therefore smaller masses than negatively charged fields (unprimed fields). Unfortunately we do not know a realistic quark and lepton sector compatible with this model, in contrast to the model in the previous subsection. The biggest difference is that the main component of the $`\overline{L}`$ Higgs comes from the primed fields and not from unprimed fields in this model. And therefore, the top Yukawa coupling is suppressed because the Higgs $`\overline{L}`$ has positive charge. It is the essential reason for this suppression that the sliding singlet mechanism does not act for $`\overline{L}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$. To avoid this situation, it is important to take the same $`U(1)`$ charge of $`\overline{L}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ as that of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$.

In the following, we examine models in which $`\overline{L}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ has the same charge as $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$.

### 4.3 Model III: $`SU(3)`$C$`\times SU(3)`$L$`\times SU(2)`$RE$`\times U(1)`$

This is the last breaking pattern in which the sliding singlet mechanism acts for two doublet components in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$. Because one of them is $`\overline{L}`$, large top Yukawa coupling can be expected to be realized. Here we consider the same Higgs sector as in §4.1 and §4.2 defined by Table 3 except for the number of singlet fields. The relevant superpotential is given by (4.1)-(4.4). The essential difference is that the VEV of the diagonal component of $`A`$ points to the direction $`5V^{}9V+24Y`$.

Because the contribution to mass of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ comes only from $`W_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}}`$, we concentrate on this interaction. The component fields which have the same $`U(1)`$ charges as $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are $`\overline{L}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$, $`L_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$, and $`E_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$, and they are massless by the sliding singlet mechanism, though the component fields $`L_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ are absorbed by the Higgs mechanism. The component field which has the same $`U(1)`$ charge as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`L_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$, so we have to examine whether the sliding singlet mechanism acts for $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in this model. In the $`F`$-flatness condition

$$F_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}=(1+A+Z_i+A^2+AZ_i+Z_i^2)\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }+(1+A+Z_i)\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_A\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(4.12)
the coefficient of the first term does not vanish because the component $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the different charge from $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therefore, the above $`F`$-flatness condition means just that the sum of the two terms must vanish, namely, the sliding singlet mechanism does not act for the component $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The remaining task is to check that there are no additional massless modes, which can be done straightforwardly, and we skip it here. In this model, the massless Higgs $`\overline{L}`$ comes from $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the main mode of massless Higgs $`L`$ comes from a primed field.

Unfortunately we have not found a realistic quark and lepton sector compatible with this model, in contrast to the model in §4.1. This is because, in the context of anomalous $`U(1)_A`$, primed fields, which have positive anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charges, tend to have suppressed coupling constant, and therefore the bottom and $`\tau `$ Yukawa couplings become too small. In order to avoid this, the massless doublet Higgs should belong to unprimed fields. However, it is difficult to construct such a model without extra massless modes, in this breaking pattern. One of the reason is that the sliding singlet mechanism acts for the $`L`$ mode in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which is absorbed by the Higgs mechanism. To avoid this situation, we can change the direction of $`U(1)`$ so that the sliding singlet mechanism acts to $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ modes in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, but this vacuum is nothing but that of the DW type. It is another possibility that the massless Higgs $`L`$ comes from $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\overline{C}}`$. To realize this situation, we can apply the sliding singlet to the $`\overline{C}`$ field. However, in that situation, there appear several undesired massless modes, which spoils the success of the gauge coupling unification.

### 4.4 Model IV: $`SO(10)`$F$`\times U(1)`$

For this breaking pattern, even if the sliding singlet mechanism acts well, the DT splitting can not be realized, although the doublet Higgs indeed become massless. This is because the triplet Higgs in 16$``$27 also become massless. In terms of $`SO(10)`$F$`\times U(1)`$, it is possible to give a large mass to the triplet Higgs while the doublet remains massless, through the missing partner mechanism similar as $`SU(5)`$F$`\times U(1)`$ case. However, it is difficult to embed this $`SO(10)`$F$`\times U(1)`$ model into a $`E_6`$ model. This topic is discussed in detail in Ref..

## 5 Summary and Discussion

In this paper, we extracted the essence of the sliding singlet mechanism in which SUSY breaking effect does not spoil the doublet-triplet splitting. And we generalized the sliding singlet mechanism. The essential point in this mechanism is that the sliding singlet mechanism makes the doublet components massless which have the same $`U(1)`$ charges as the SM singlet components which have non-vanishing VEVs.888Conversely, components with different charges from the SM singlet component become massive, that has been used to make pseudo NG modes massive in the literature.  By choosing the $`U(1)`$ which is determined by the VEV of the adjoint Higgs field, we can build various GUTs in which the generalized sliding singlet mechanism acts. In this paper, we examined various $`E_6`$ GUTs by using anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ gauge symmetry, by which we can construct GUT models with generic interactions (including even higher dimensional interactions). Since in $`E_6`$ group there are three $`U(1)`$ which commute with the SM gauge group, we can select two of three doublets in the fundamental representation $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ to become massless by the sliding singlet mechanism, though one of the three is enough to realize the DT splitting. Among the various GUTs we examined in this paper, it is the most promising model in which the $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$ components in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ of $`SO(10)`$ in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ of $`E_6`$ become massless by the sliding singlet mechanism. This vacuum is nothing but the Dimopoulos-Wilczek type vacuum. To make the $`\overline{L}`$ component in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ massless by the sliding singlet mechanism is important to realize large top Yukawa coupling. For this purpose, it is enough that $`\overline{L}`$ in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ becomes massless by the sliding singlet mechanism, namely, the charge of $`\overline{L}`$ is taken to be the same as that of the SM singlet in $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$. The concrete condition is that $`(a,b,c)=(\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4}+\frac{3}{2}c,c)`$ in the notation in Table 2. Because $`L`$ component in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ is absorbed by the Higgs mechanism, it is better that the other $`L`$ component in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ becomes massless independently by some mechanism. Of course, to realize DT splitting, it is enough that $`\overline{L}`$ component Higgs is guaranteed to be massless, because there must be its massless partner $`L`$. However, in that case, the main component of the partner $`L`$ tends to come from positively anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charged field (primed field), because positively charged fields have smaller masses than negatively charged fields. And positively charged Higgs $`L`$ leads to small down-type quark Yukawa couplings and therefore too small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

The generalized sliding singlet mechanism has opened the new possibility to build various GUT models in which DT splitting is realized. The DW type vacuum is the most promising vacuum in $`E_6`$ GUTs even in the sense of the sliding singlet mechanism, though the other possibilities may become also interesting. We hope that such an observation gives us a key leading to the real GUT which describes our world.

## Acknowledgement

N.M. is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.


format: text

text:
# Spacetime Embedding Diagrams for Spherically Symmetric Black Holes

## 1 Introduction

Embedding diagrams are excellent tools for presenting complicated curvature information in a simple visual format. In general relativity, they can be used to aid the development of intuition needed to deal with curved spacetimes. They can thus be extremely useful tools for educators. However, such diagrams (as in figure 1) are often used to convey only information about the spatial curvature of constant-time slices, as opposed the spacetime curvature information that controls, for example, the relative acceleration of nearby geodesics.

In the above diagram the equatorial plane (the radial and one angular dimension) of a Schwarzschild black hole is embedded in three dimensional Euclidean space. This type of embedding conveys a certain amount of information about the spatial curvature of the exterior of the black hole, but it includes neither information about spacetime curvature nor in fact about any curvature in the interior. In contrast, diagrams such as figure 2 below were presented in  and display spacetime curvature by showing the $`r,t`$ plane (i.e., the slice $`\theta ,\phi =constant`$) of the Kruskal extension embedded in 2+1 Minkowski space. This diagram was explained in  and an overview will be recalled below. Here we use the technique of  to create such embedding diagrams for a variety of black hole spacetimes. For earlier work involving the embedding of the associated 3+1 spacetimes into higher dimensional flat spaces see

Note that figure 1 relies on a 2-dimensional reduction where both remaining dimensions are spacelike. In order to depict spacetime curvature, it is natural to embed a $`(1+1)`$ dimensional reduction into Minkowski space. In particular, this was done in figure 2. Embeddings of totally geodesic surfaces containing a timelike direction are dynamic in the sense that they are capable of displaying timelike geodesics and other particle trajectories .

Such diagrams are appropriate for an audience with knowledge of special relativity and familiarity with both Minkowski space and $`(1+1)`$ spacetime diagrams. The diagrams may be used to educate students at this level about general relativity and curved spacetime, or they can provide an additional perspective for physicists already familiar with the subject. We are particularly interested in properties of black hole horizons.

The diagrams described here include regions on both sides of a horizon. We describe the general construction and derive conditions for its success in section 2. We then construct diagrams for the de-Sitter, Schwarzschild-de Sitter, Schwarzschild-anti de Sitter, and Reissner-Nordstrom spacetimes. These cases were chosen in order to explore the embedding process for spherically symmetric spacetimes with multiple horizons. We will see that in general our construction is unable to smoothly embed a region of the spacetime containing both horizons. Instead, one must embed the spacetime in patches containing only one horizon. For the Reissner-Nordstrom case, a smooth embedding is only obtained for the outer horizon, and even then only when $`Q<\sqrt{8/9}M`$, as defined in section 4.

## 2 The Embedding Process

The embedding process is a generalization of that described in Appendix A of  for the Kruskal black hole. For this reason, we will refer to the Kruskal case often as a familiar point of reference. For spacetimes with more than one horizon, we will focus on each horizon separately.

We have chosen a class of 3+1 spacetimes that are both spherically symmetric and static, at least outside of some horizon. The spherically symmetric condition makes it possible to set $`\theta =const`$ and $`\phi =const`$ to obtain a 1+1 dimensional reduction which retains significant geometric information. In particular, such a slice is a totally geodesic surface, meaning that geodesics in the induced metric on the slice coincide with geodesics in the full spacetime.

Let us consider metrics of the form:

$$ds^2=\varphi dt^2+\varphi ^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\phi ^2`$. For our purposes, the metric can be reduced to

$$ds^2=\varphi dt^2+\varphi ^1dr^2.$$
(2)
Since we have restricted ourselves to static metrics, $`\varphi `$ is a function of $`r`$ only. We henceforth use units such that both the speed of light, $`c`$, and Newton’s constant, $`G`$, are equal to one. Although (1) is not the most general form of a spherically symmetric metric, it represents a class of metrics for which the energy density is equal to the radial pressure, $`\rho =p`$ ($`T_1^1=T_0^0`$)—a class that includes many interesting examples.

As long as $`\varphi >0`$, changes in $`t`$ are timelike and the spacetime is indeed static. If, however, at any point $`\varphi =0`$ we encounter a coordinate singularity similar to that seen in a static coordinate system at the horizon of a black hole. Such locations are clearly Killing horizons, as $`|_t|`$ vanishes. One may verify that this is indeed a smooth horizon so long as $`\varphi `$ is a smooth function of $`r`$ at the coordinate singularity. The horizon is degenerate if and only if $`_r\varphi =0`$. We will see that our method yields an embedding when $`_r\varphi 0`$ and $`_r^2\varphi <0`$ at the horizon.

Recall that we wish to embed our reductions into $`(2+1)`$ Minkowski space with metric:

$$ds^2=dT^2+dX^2+dY^2.$$
(3)
We break up Minkowski space into four sections, defined by two intersecting planes $`X=\pm T`$ and numbered I, II, III, and IV as in Fig. 2 (with the coordinate Y coming out of the page).

We define a system of hyperbolic cylindrical coordinates $`(\rho ,\psi ,Y)`$ in each section. These coordinates are so named because $`Y`$ will remain a linear coordinate, as in cylindrical coordinates. For region I these are:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{X^2T^2}`$
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{X}}\right).`$
In region II, they become:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{T^2X^2}`$
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{X}{T}}\right).`$
Coordinates in regions III and IV can be obtained by reflection of regions I and II. In region I, the metric (3) becomes

$$ds^2=\rho ^2d\psi ^2+d\rho ^2+dY^2.$$
(4)
This is one illustration of the well-known fact that the planes $`X=\pm T`$ are horizons in Minkowski space.

Suppose now that one compares this with a 1+1 spacetime of the form (2) near a zero of $`\varphi `$. With foresight let us suppose that $`_r\varphi =2\kappa `$ at this zero, so that in the leading approximation we have $`\varphi =2\kappa r`$. Then if we introduce $`\rho =\frac{1}{\kappa }\sqrt{2\kappa r}`$ and $`\psi =t\kappa `$, the metric (2) takes the form $`ds^2=\rho ^2d\psi ^2+d\rho ^2`$, matching the first two terms of (4). This is just the usual result that any smooth non-degenerate horizon is locally like the above horizon in 1+1 Minkowski space; i.e. in any slice $`Y=constant`$. This similarity is apparent in the familiar Penrose diagram (figure 4) for the Kruskal spacetime. We refer to the quadrants surrounding any singularity of this nature as I,II,III,IV in analogy with figure 3, though for the remainder of this section we will speak only of region I unless otherwise noted.

Our intention is to go beyond this leading approximation and achieve an exact equality over some finite region of the spacetime by comparing (2) with some more interesting hypersurface $`Y=Y(\rho ,\psi )`$.

It is clear that any metric of the form (2) has a Killing field corresponding to a $`t`$ translation; in other words that a transformation of the form $`(t,r)(t+\delta t,r)`$ is length preserving. In (2), the timelike distance between two events along a curve of constant $`r`$ separated by $`\delta t`$ is $`\delta t\sqrt{\varphi }.`$ However in Minkowski space (4) a boost $`(\psi ,\rho ,Y)(\psi +\delta \psi ,\rho ,Y)`$ translates points by $`\rho \delta \varphi `$. To match these Killing fields we must again set

$$\psi =t\kappa $$
(5)
for some constant $`\kappa `$. Since the above transformations must move points through the same proper time, we must also have

$$\rho =\frac{1}{\kappa }\sqrt{\varphi }.$$
(6)
The particular surface $`Y=Y(\rho ,\psi )`$ is then determined by setting the full distance elements equal. After our identifications above, this is equivalent to requiring agreement on a slice of constant $`t=\psi /\kappa `$:

$$d\rho ^2+dY^2=\varphi ^1dr^2.$$
(7)
Using equation (6), one may solve for $`dY`$:

$$dY=\pm \sqrt{\frac{1\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dr}\right)^2}{\varphi }}dr.$$
(8)
For convenience, we take $`Y=0`$ at the horizon $`r=r_h`$. In region I we will choose the positive sign to yield

$$Y=_{r_h}^r\sqrt{\frac{1\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dr}\right)^2}{\varphi }}𝑑r.$$
(9)
Proceeding similarly in region II one again arrives at exactly111One might have expected that additional minus signs would arise in region II, but this turns out not to be the case in the final expression for $`Y`$. (8) and (9). Now, $`r`$ is a smooth function on the spacetime so, if the if the embedding is to be smooth (and in particular if $`dY/dr`$ is to be real) we must require that $`1\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dr}\right)^2`$ change signs when $`\varphi `$ does; i.e., at the horizon. Thus we find

$$\kappa =\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\varphi }{dr}|_{r=r_h},$$
(10)
which is exactly what was used in the leading approximation above. One could also take $`\kappa `$ to have the opposite sign, but it is useful for us to fix a convention using (10).

We should note that our notation does not match that of , where our constant $`\kappa `$ was called $`1/\kappa `$. To interpret this constant, recall  that the surface gravity of a Killing horizon is given by the expression:

$$\kappa ^2=\frac{1}{2}(^a\xi ^b)(_a\xi _b),$$

where $`\xi ^a`$ is the stationary Killing field. Evaluating this for the metric (2) for $`\xi `$ a time translation one finds that the surface gravity is

$$\kappa =\pm \frac{1}{2}\frac{d\varphi }{dr}|_{r=r_h}.$$
(11)
By convention, the surface gravity is usually taken positive, but in any case we see that it agrees with our embedding constant $`\kappa `$ up to the above sign. Since the embedding constant $`\kappa `$ is unique, we will be unable to embed any section of a spacetime having several horizons with distinct values of $`|_r\varphi |`$. However, we will see below that such spacetimes can typically be embedded in patches, with each patch containing only one horizon.

Finally, in order to yield an embedding, the quantity

$$\frac{1\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dr}\right)^2}{\varphi }$$

under the square root in the integrand of (9) must be positive in a neighborhood of the horizon. Near the horizon we may use the approximations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dr}}\right)_{r=r_h}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2\varphi }{dr^2}}\right)_{r=r_h}(rr_h)+O\left((rr_h)^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2\kappa +\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2\varphi }{dr^2}}\right)_{r=r_h}(rr_h)+O\left((rr_h)^2\right),`$
and

$$\varphi =0+2\kappa (rr_h)+O\left((rr_h)^2\right).$$

Substitution of these expressions into the integrand of (9) yields:

$$\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}\left(\frac{d^2\varphi }{dr^2}\right)|_{r=r_h}+O(rr_h)},$$

so that we produce an embedding when

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{dr^2}|_{r=r_h}<0.$$
(13)
In the complimentary case $`_r^2\varphi |_{r=r_h}>0`$, the argument of the square root is negative on both sides of the horizon for $`\kappa =\frac{1}{2}_r\varphi `$. By choosing another value for $`\kappa `$, one may embed a neighborhood of any point with $`\varphi 0`$, but our method will not produce a smooth embedding of the horizon itself. In either case, embeddings can fail at points when $`_r\varphi =\pm 2\kappa `$ as $`1\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dr}\right)^2`$ may change sign.

For a Kruskal black hole one finds $`\kappa =\frac{1}{4M}`$ and the complete embedding (in region I) is:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}}`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`4Mt`$
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{2M}^r}\sqrt{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8M^3}{r^3}}\right)}`$
as described in . The embedding equations for the other three regions differ only by occasional negative signs. The resulting embedding diagram was already displayed in figure 2 and is explained in detail in .

## 3 Spacetimes with a cosmological constant

In seeking interesting examples beyond the Kruskal black hole, it is natural to investigate spacetimes with a cosmological constant. In this section, we construct the $`rt`$ embedding diagrams for the Schwarzschild-de Sitter and Schwarzschild-Anti de Sitter spacetimes. First, however, it is of interest to examine how our techniques apply to de Sitter (dS) and anti-de Sitter spaces (AdS) themselves.

Let us begin with de Sitter space. In static coordinates, the metric takes the form

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$

where $`a^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the usual cosmological constant. Thus, $`\varphi =1\frac{r^2}{a^2}`$. Since $`_r\varphi 0`$ and $`_r^2\varphi <0`$ at $`r=a`$, we may apply the method of section 2. The surface gravity is $`\kappa =1/a`$, and the resulting diagram is shown on the left in figure 5. In our method, the full diagram is formed by patching together 6 distinct regions. However, the end result is clear from the fact that the 1+1 dimensional reduction of dSn+1 is just 1+1 de Sitter space222This result is in turn clear from the representation of dSn+1 as a hyperboloid in (n+1)+1 Minkowski space.. The usual embedding diagram of 1+1 de Sitter is shown on the right in figure 5.

On the other hand, one might consider anti de-Sitter space (characterized by a negative cosmological constant) in the static form:

$$ds^2=\left(1+\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)dt^2+\frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(14)
The translation $`_t`$ has no Killing horizon, so there is no preferred value of the embedding constant $`\kappa `$. However, comparing (8) and (14) we see that we can embed the surface only for $`\frac{r^2}{a^4}<4\kappa ^2`$, at which point $`\frac{dY}{dr}`$ vanishes. The result is shown in figure 6.

### 3.1 Schwarzschild de-Sitter Spacetime

Let us now add a black hole to de Sitter space. Using the conventions above, the metric for the radial plane of the resulting Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime is given by

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)^1dr^2,$$
(15)
where $`\varphi =1\frac{2M}{r}\frac{r^2}{a^2}`$. This $`\varphi `$ has an even number of positive real zeros representing horizons and an odd number of (unphysical) negative real zeros. The case with no horizons is not of interest, so we focus on the case with two horizons at $`r_{BH}`$ and $`r_{cosmo}`$ with $`r_{BH}<r_{cosmo}`$. These are usually interpreted as the black hole and cosmological horizons respectively. Since the second derivative $`_r^2\varphi `$ is negative for all $`r>0`$, a neighborhood of either horizon may be embedded by our technique.

We rely upon a numerical solution to produce the final diagrams, and we choose $`a=10`$ and $`M=1`$ as illustrative values. It follows that $`r_{BH}=2.091488484`$ and $`r_{cosmo}=8.788850662`$. Since there are two horizons we will need two patches to completely represent the spacetime. Using (10), we can easily find both values of $`\kappa `$:

$`\kappa _{BH}`$ $`=`$ $`.2076918626`$ (16)
$`\kappa _{cosmo}`$ $`=`$ $`.07494249985`$ (17)
We refer to these patches as the “black hole patch” and the “cosmological patch” according to which horizon they smoothly embed. Note that $`|\frac{\kappa _{BH}}{\kappa _{cosmo}}|>1`$, a condition true for all non-extremal choices of $`a`$ and $`M`$. As a result the black hole patch can extend all the way to the cosmological horizon without encountering a point where $`_r\varphi =2\kappa _{BH}`$. The cosmological patch, in contrast, will always encounter a point where $`_r\varphi =2\kappa _{cosmo}`$ and it will fail to extend to the black hole horizon.

The embedding is straightforward. The black hole patch is shown in figure 7. The region around the black hole horizon resembles that of the Schwarzschild case, while the intermediate regions (I and III) pinch off to form crossed null planes as one approaches the cosmological horizon. This demonstrates that $`r=r_{cosmo}`$ is a null surface, though we cannot demonstate the smoothness of this surface. The null planes can be seen analytically as, when $`_t`$ is timelike, the tangent line to the intersection of our surface with any constant $`Y`$ plane has slope

$$\frac{dT}{dX}=\frac{\frac{dT}{dt}}{\frac{dX}{dt}}=\mathrm{coth}(\kappa t).$$

As one approaches any point on the black hole horizon away from the bifurcation surface, one has $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$ so that the slope of our $`Y=const`$ slices approaches $`\pm 1`$.

In the cosmological patch (figure 8) of Schwarzschild de-Sitter, the diagram near the cosmological horizon has a structure similar to that of its de-Sitter space counterpart (figure 5). However, when one moves away from $`y=0`$ one reaches a point where $`_r\varphi =2\kappa `$ and the embedding terminates.

We illustrate the two (overlapping) patches used by shading the corresponding parts of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter Penrose diagram in figure 9.

### 3.2 Schwarzschild Anti de-Sitter Spacetime

The addition of a black hole to Anti de-Sitter space creates a horizon of non-zero surface gravity. The full (3+1) metric is:

$$ds^2=\left(12M/r+\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)dt^2+\frac{1}{\left(12M/r+\frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(18)
Thus $`\varphi =1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{r^2}{a^2}`$ which, for any $`M`$ and $`a`$, has a single positive real root and two complex roots. One may check that $`_r^2\varphi <0`$ at this horizon. Thus our construction will yield a smooth embedding, and the above patch will cover the spacetime out to the next value of $`r`$ for which $`_r\varphi =\pm 2\kappa `$, which exists (for $`r>r_h`$) for any value of $`2M`$ and $`a`$. The result is shown in figure 10. The Penrose diagram for this spacetime is shown in figure 11.

## 4 Reissner-Nordstrom Spacetime

The Reissner-Nordstrom spacetime is a black hole with an electric (or magnetic) charge $`Q`$. The addition of this charge changes the Schwarzschild solution to

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\phi ^2\right),$$

where $`\varphi =\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)`$. Again, $`\varphi `$ will have two roots. These occur at $`r_+=M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2}`$ and $`r_{}=M\sqrt{M^2Q^2}`$. This time, however, $`_r^2\varphi `$ is not of definite sign. It is negative for $`r>\frac{3Q^2}{2M}`$, but positive for $`r<\frac{3Q^2}{2M}`$. The value $`r=\frac{3Q^2}{2M}`$ is always larger than $`r_{}`$, and becomes larger than $`r_+`$ for $`Q>\sqrt{8/9}M`$. Thus we can smoothly embed only the outer horizon333As usual, an appropriate choice of $`\kappa `$ will allow us to locally embed the surface at any point for which $`\varphi 0`$, but the corresponding patch will never contain the inner horizon., and that only for black holes not too close to extremality.

As one might expect in this situation, a smoothly embedded patch around the outer horizon will never be able even to approach the inner horizon. Thus will be the case whenever one considers two horizons separated by a region where $`_t`$ is timelike. To see this, note that $`\varphi `$ must have a minimum between the two horizons, where of course $`_r\varphi =0`$. But at the outer horizon we have $`_r\varphi =2\kappa >0`$ and $`_r^2\varphi >0`$. Thus, moving inward from the outer horizon $`_r\varphi `$ must increase at first and then later decrease to zero before one approaches the inner horizon. Somewhere along the way $`_r\varphi `$ takes on the value $`2\kappa `$ and the embedding terminates. The same would be true for a patch that smoothly embeds a region near the inner horizon (though, as stated above, none exists for Reissner-Nordstrom).

In contrast, our patch does yiel;d a smooth embedding for all $`r>r_+`$. An associated diagram (for $`Q<\sqrt{8/9}M`$) is shown in figure 12. Upon initial inspection, the outer patch of this embedding (figure 12) looks much like the Schwarzschild black hole. The Penrose diagram (figure 13) for the Reissner-Nordstrom case also exhibits a periodic structure but this time in a timelike direction. Again, we have shaded this diagram to indicate the region shown in figure 12.

## 5 Discussion

In the above work we have analyzed the embedding process of  in detail. This procedure embeds spherical reductions of spherically symmetric static spacetimes into 2+1 Minkowski space. The resulting embedding diagrams directly show the behavior of radial geodesics (both timelike and spacelike) and other dynamic worldlines in the original spacetime.

We have constructed a number of examples which illustrate the issues involved in constructing embedding diagrams for spacetimes with more than one horizon. The technique generically does not embed patches containing more than one horizon, though in some cases a patch containing one horizon can approach a second horizon. When this occurs, the embedding diagram makes the null character of the static Killing field clear at the second horizon. What is unclear from the diagram is that the spacetime is smooth at this second horizon. We have also analyzed conditions under which an embedding terminates before reaching a second horizon.

Most importantly, we have analyzed the embedding process in detail and found that, for metrics of the form (1), a patch containing a horizon (i.e., a zero of $`\varphi `$) can be embedded by this technique when $`_r\varphi 0`$ and $`_r^2\varphi <0.`$ This result is easily generalized to the generic case. An arbitrary static spherically symmetric metric can be written in the form

$$ds^2=g_{tt}dt^2+g_{rr}dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\psi ^2).$$
(19)
Repeating the calculations of section 2 for the metric (19), one finds that the embedding becomes

$$\psi =t\kappa ,\rho =\frac{1}{\kappa }\sqrt{g_{tt}},Y=_{r_h}^r\sqrt{g_{rr}+\frac{1}{4\kappa ^2g_{tt}}\left(\frac{dg_{tt}}{dr}\right)^2}𝑑r,$$
(20)
with the conditions for success near a given horizon being that, again, $`\kappa 0`$ must be the surface gravity and that $`_r^2g_{tt}`$ must be positive.

The reader will note that we can considered the most commonly discussed black hole solutions with the exception of the extremal cases. Extreme black holes have vanishing surface gravity, which is incompatible with the explicit construction given here. This is due to our mapping the black hole horizon to a bifurcate horizon in 2+1 Minkowski space. One may be able to obtain an embedding of the region near e.g. the future horizon of some extreme black holes by starting with our procedure and taking a limit. The results of section 4 indicate that this is unlikely in the Reissner-Norstrom case, but the exploration of other extreme black holes may provide interesting material for future work.


text:
# NON-LINEAR QUANTUM MECHANICS AND HIGH ENERGY COSMIC RAYS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The apparent presence of highly energetic cosmic rays is seen by many to be enigmatic. The free path of cosmic particles is limited by their interaction with the background thermal radiation and the free path shortens with energy. As there are no known near sources of very high energy particles, none should be seen above a certain energy cutoff, know as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff . Observations however suggest their presence, though the question is still not entirely settled . The presumed presence has been taken as tangible evidence of otherwise observationally unaccessible new fundamental physics, such as quantum gravity or noncommutative geometry , though less speculative explanations have also been brought forth .

In these theories the presence of high-energy cosmic rays is possible due to a modified momentum-energy dispersion relation with terms beyond the usual quadratic one (here $`p`$ is the modulus of the momentum).

$$E^2=p^2+m^2+\alpha _3p^3+\alpha _4p^4+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
Since most fundamental physical theories that transcend the standard model tend to modify the dispersion relation, the presence of cosmic rays above the GKZ limit does not in general single out any particular theory and must be considered as just a general hint of the necessity of some modification of our fundamental ideas (the observationally acceptable limits on the coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ could however rule out some particular theories).

In this note we wish to point out that one such possible modification is fundamental non-linearity in quantum mechanics. The quadratic dispersion relation is a direct consequence of second order linear theories, and non-linearities would naturally produce higher order terms. Under the proposed conception, classical space-time and low-energy linear quantum mechanics are emergent features of some underlying pre-geometric physical reality. It is now believed that high-energy cosmic rays are possible probes of such a reality. Thus quantum non-linearities, if present, should result in non-linear effective wave equations for these particles, and consequently modified dispersion relations. This conception is an alternative to non-commutative space-time, and we shall point out some of the contrasts below.

## 2 QUANTUM NON-LINEARITIES

There is by now no dearth of proposals for non-linear quantum mechanics  (this is far from an exhaustive list) and many of these could lead to a non-standard dispersion relation. However, with the exception of , these are non-relativistic low-energy theories, first order in the time derivative. It is not clear how relevant they are for the high-energy regime of cosmic rays. In any case one has to compare the dispersion relation of these theories to the version of $`E^2=m^2+p^2`$ linear in $`E`$ which would be, introducing explicitly the velocity of light $`c`$ and disregarding the rest energy,

$$E=\frac{p^2}{2m}+mc^2\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{k+1}\frac{13\mathrm{}(2k3)}{2^kk!}\left(\frac{p}{mc}\right)^{2k}.$$
(2)
One has also to take into account that non-relativistic equations generally do not generate terms beyond the first in (2) making comparison problematic. If such an equation is the non-relativistic limit of a relativistic equation, then keeping terms of higher order in $`v/c`$ should restore the other terms in (2). Consider now, as an example, the Doebner-Goldin  equation

$$i\mathrm{}_t\psi =(\mathrm{}^2/2m)\mathrm{\Delta }\psi +iD\mathrm{}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\psi }\psi }{\overline{\psi }\psi }\right]\psi +R(\psi )\psi ,$$
(3)
where $`R(\psi )`$ is any real function of homogeneous degree zero ($`R(\lambda \psi )=R(\psi )`$). In particular for $`R(\psi )=f\left(\frac{i\mathrm{}\psi }{\psi }\right)`$ the dispersion relation would be (assuming $`c=1`$ again)

$$E=\frac{p^2}{2m}+f(p)$$

and since $`f`$ can be arbitrary (2) can be modified. This suggests that if the Doebner-Goldin equations can be obtained as non-relativistic limits of relativistic equations, the latter generically would have a modified dispersion relation (1). The particular choices of $`f`$ considered in detail by the authors do not create terms in powers of $`p`$ beyond the second and so are not candidates for theories of the type considered here. The Doebner-Goldin equation is particularly interesting as it is related to current algebra which also describes many usual linear quantum systems. Reference  deals with relativistic equations. However these are mostly equations equivalent to linear ones by so-called non-linear gauge transformations so these of course have normal dispersion relations. The few examples in  of non-linear equation not equivalent to linear ones are close generalizations of those that are, and also have standard dispersion relations. On the whole it seems that we lack concrete non-linear theories tailored to the appropriate high-energy regime of cosmic rays.

Experimental upper bounds on the suppression factor for non-linear effects are of the order of $`10^{20}`$ . Such small factors are already familiar in fundamental physics. One such is the weakness of gravity in relation to the electro-weak and strong forces, another is the smallness of the cosmological constant. To appreciate the second point consider the Plank time $`\tau =\lambda /c=(G\mathrm{}/c^3)^{1/2}/c=5.39\times 10^{44}s`$ and the present estimate of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2.036\times 10^{35}s^2`$. The ratio of two times $`\tau /\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is approximately $`10^{60}`$. We are not suggesting that the suppression of presumed quantum non-linearities have the same origin as these other effects, only that such small factors are indeed present in the fundamental physical features of our universe.

As already mentioned, it is now widely accepted that the smooth manifold structure of space-time is an emergent feature of a rather different pre-geometric reality. Whether this be described by quantum gravity, M-theory, or some other more speculative frameworks (see  for a (already dated) compendium of possibilities) does not matter much for the qualitative consequence of a modified dispersion relation. In such a pre-geometric scenario, there is no compelling reason to think that quantum mechanics be the usual linear one. If we are willing to give up the conventional manifold model of space-time, why insist on the conventional linear model of (quantum) mechanics? Linear quantum mechanics may be just one more emergent feature that a future theory must explain. There are indications that the linearity of quantum mechanics is tied to relativistic causality , so if the latter is an emergent feature, the former could also be.

Many objections have been raised to non-linear quantum mechanics, mainly arguing that such theories violate relativistic causality . Various proposals have been brought forth to circumvent this . If however we admit non-linearities at the same level as the emergence of a causal space-time from some pre-geometric reality, then such objections have no force as the causal structure itself is then also not well defined. Non-linearities would become apparent as we probe the pre-geometric regime. As many have already suggested, one possible such probe could be high-energy particles traversing the universe. The emergent space-time may not even be Lorentz invariant, the cosmological frame of isotropic background radiation being privileged. Another possibility is deformed Lorentz symmetry with new rotation and boost transformations without a privileged frame . In all such situations, objections based on strict relativistic causality lose their force. Non-linear quantum mechanics in these setting does not need any of the specific mechanisms so far introduce to bring it into conformity with relativity. Similar views have also been expressed by T. P. Singh . It is somewhat suggestive that Mavromatos and Szabo  have derived effective non-linear equations for $`\mathrm{D0}`$ branes in matrix $`M`$-theory; thus a fundamental linear theory can leads to effective non-linearities. Though our suggestion is the reverse of this, that fundamental non-linearity leads to effective low-energy linear quantum mechanics, it is satisfying to see linearity and non-linearity so related at the Planck level.

Now, it is not a priori clear what one should mean by non-linear quantum mechanics. Up to now this has meant using non-linear operators for evolution or measurements in place of the linear ones, and keeping at least some of the usual feature of linear quantum mechanics, such as wave-functions, Hilbert space, use of complex amplitudes, and so on. No one apparently has addressed the problem of quantization in non-linear terms, yet it is this that is needed to address the pre-geometric problem. One can say however that once a manifold space-time and low-energy linear quantum mechanics have emerged, there would be small modifications, stemming from such a different quantization process, to the usual quantum mechanical formulae used to calculate physical quantities. Reciprocally one can say that if one is forced to use such modified calculations one has, prima facie, passed over to a non-linear theory.

From this point of view the burden of showing plausibility for the non-linear hypothesis is different from that for the other considered alternatives. The modified dispersion relation (1) is needed to calculate cross sections for interaction of a high-energy particle with the background radiation. This is normally meant as a linear quantum calculation using a modified plane-wave. One can however read it in a different manner: as an already non-linear quantum mechanical calculation. In a classical commutative geometry, the dispersion relation (1) cannot be extracted from a plane wave $`e^{i(Etpx)}`$ by a linear second order differential operator (in non-commutative geometries it’s possible ), but it can be by a non-linear one. Under such a view, one need not show that non-linear quantum mechanics leads to modified dispersion relations; a modified dispersion relations is non-linear quantum mechanics. Of course this remark relies on speculations about the details of the emergence process leading to classical space-time, second order theories, and low-energy linear quantum mechanics, but at present date no more can be said.

Non-linearities in classical physics lead to many emergent phenomena, solitons and shock waves being among the most striking. It may be that pre-geometric quantum non-linearity is just the ingredient needed to simply and naturally let emerge the world as we know it.

### Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Scientífico e Tecnológico (CNPq).