text:
# Observing Nucleon Decay in Lead Perchlorate

## I Introduction

Studies of nucleon decay (see, e.g., pati73 ; georgi74 ; babu00 ; babu01 ; applequist01 ) are among the most important in physics, in that they provide direct tests of fundamental theories of particle physics. The different particle theories make rather different predictions as to what the nucleon decay half-lives might be, and even which decay modes would be expected to dominate. Although a number of searches for nucleon decay have been performed in the large detectors that exist, no convincing evidence has yet been presented for its existence. The best limits from these studies have involved decay modes in which protons decay to relativistic charged leptons (see, e.g., pdg ), either as individual protons or as protons in nuclei, as the resulting Cherenkov radiation would produce definitive signatures, typically of order 1033 y. However, nucleon decays in composite nuclei totsuka86 ; ejiri93 ; suzuki93 ; kamyshkov02  might produce clear evidence for the existence of such effects that could not be obtained from decay of isolated protons. Furthermore, these might allow extension of the existing limits of the decay branches in some instances, even with relatively small detectors.

In this study we focus on the n $``$ $`\nu +\overline{\nu }+\nu `$ decay, which has a less well-known half-life because its decay can often be masked by backgrounds, and would in any event be difficult to detect via the means used to observe nucleon decay into relativistic leptons. It is not necessarily expected to be the dominant mode of decay, but it is the least-well-determined mode, so is the primary limitation to the mode-independent half-life. Moreover, there are non-standard models in which unusual decay modes may turn out to be the dominant ones (see, e.g., pati83 ). In some models the three neutrino decay mode can emerge naturally as the dominant one mohapatra02 .

Decays of the three neutrino mode were searched for a decade ago, berger91 , then their limit was improved to its current experimental value of 5x1026 y pdg . Recent suggestions for studying this decay mode have included signatures that would result from decay of a neutron in the O in H2O suzuki93  of Super-Kamiokande and in the C in the CH2 kamyshkov02  of KamLAND. These suggestions both involve signals that would be generated by rather weak branches resulting from nucleon decay.

## II Signals from Lead Perchlorate

In this paper we study two nuclides, 208Pb and 35Cl which, we show, would produce special responses to neutron decay. We present the signatures that might result in the n $``$ $`\nu \overline{\nu }\nu `$ decay. We find that 208Pb would have good sensitivity to this mode, but 35Cl, while not producing as strong a limit, would exhibit an unusually definitive signature. Both nuclei are part of a planned detector, lead perchlorate, LPC, Pb\[ClO4\]2, that will be part of OMNIS, the Observatory for Multiflavor NeutrInos from Supernovae boyd02 . LPC is a colorless liquid that is highly soluble in water. The properties of such a mixed liquid have been studied extensively elliott00 ; it was found that the LPC will produce Cherenkov light from relativistic particles, e.g., electrons and muons, that might be produced in many nucleon decays. In addition, each neutron produced by neutron emission from a nucleus within the detector will be captured on the 35Cl within tens of $`\mu `$s, producing 8.6 MeV of $`\gamma `$-rays. An energetic $`\gamma `$-ray will also produce Cherenkov light, with a pattern that is indistinguishable from that from the relativistic leptons in LPC.

In general we can write the following expression for the neutron decay lifetime, $`\tau _n`$, as

$$\tau _n/Br>N_nϵ_nR_{det}ϵ_1ϵ_2^n,$$
(1)
where Nn is the number of neutrons in, e.g., 208Pb or 35Cl, $`ϵ_n`$ is the fraction of those that can decay into detectable signatures, Rdet is the observed event rate, and $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ are the detection efficiencies for the two (or more) signatures of the decay. The factor $`ϵ_2^n`$ accounts for the possibility of multiple neutron emission from decay of a neutron in 208Pb, each with detection efficiency $`ϵ_2`$. The factor Br is the branching ratio for the decays that go to the specific decay mode being studied. In 208Pb decay, this could, e.g., refer to the branching ratio for producing one neutron and a subsequent $`\gamma `$-ray with sufficient energy to be observed; we have assumed Eex $`<`$ 3 MeV in the daughter nucleus for this criterion to be satisfied, as virtually every level with excitation energy above that will produce at least one 3 MeV $`\gamma `$-ray nucdatasheets . In 35Cl decay, Br refers to a decay to states that will produce a $`\gamma `$-ray with at least 3 MeV of energy together with decay to the 34Cl ground state. (34Cl has an isomeric state at 0.146 MeV, to which roughly half of the highly excited states will ultimately decay. However, it has a much longer half-life than the 1.5 s half-life of the ground state, so will be assumed not to be useful for the present discussion.)

In order to estimate the probability of observing decays from 208Pb and 35Cl we will have to consider the probability of population of sufficiently highly excited states in the daughter nuclei: 207Pb and 34Cl. Generally the more deeply bound the nucleon that decays the larger will be the excitation energy in the daughter nuclide. The nuclide that decays will be a nuclide in the parent nucleus, so the resulting “state” of the initial nucleus, 208Pb or 35Cl, minus one neutron will map onto actual states in the daughter nuclide (assuming the neutron decay leaves the resulting nucleus intact; a reasonable assumption for the decay mode that produces three particles that interact only through the weak interaction). However, consider the energy $`E_{decay}`$ of the neutron decay products (e.g. the 3 neutrinos) when the final nucleus A-1 is excited to the excitation energy $`E_{exc}`$. Then $`E_{decay}=M_n(S_n+E_{exc})`$, where $`S_n`$ is the neutron separation energy in the parent nucleus A. The energy in parentheses is just the binding energy of the neutron that decayed. Then, all other things being equal, extremely large values of $`E_{exc}`$ will be suppressed by the decrease of the phase space of the 3 neutrinos. This will tend to favor the excitation energies of the states in the daughter being similar to the binding energy of the neutron that decayed. Of course, this argument also assumes that the recoil kinetic energy of the residual nucleus will be negligible.

### II.1 The n $`\nu \overline{\nu }\nu `$ decay mode in 208Pb.

As discussed above, the signature of this nucleon decay would be given by the specific properties of the residual nuclei resulting from the decay. In this case, 208Pb would first become 207Pb. What would happen next would depend on the excitation energy of the states in 207Pb that were populated compared to the one-neutron emission threshold, the two-neutron emission threshold, etc., in 207Pb. Subsequent neutron emissions will be much more rapid than electromagnetic de-excitations, so subsequent neutron emissions would occur instead of de-excitations of the daughter nuclei as long as the states populated were above the neutron-decay threshold. The excitation energy in the post-decay 207Pb will depend on the binding energy of the nucleon that decayed. This energy would be expected to be as much as several tens of MeV in lead, but would be weighted toward lower values by the preponderance of higher spin nuclear orbits, hence higher occupation numbers, near the Fermi surface. Thus a reasonable range to assume for the excitation energy in 207Pb might be an asymmetric distribution ranging from essentially zero (if a valence neutron decayed) to as much as 20 MeV, with an even higher-energy tail of the distribution extending to several more tens of MeV, but with the highest energies suppressed. The one-neutron (two-neutron) emission threshold in 207Pb is 6.74 MeV (14.83 MeV). Decays of neutrons in the highest-energy occupied shells would presumably primarily populate states below the one-neutron-emission threshold in 207Pb. Although these states would decay by emitting $`\gamma `$-rays, 207Pb is stable. Thus the $`\gamma `$-rays would be the only signature of the neutron decays to the low-lying states, providing a less-than-compelling signature of nucleon decay. However, a fairly large fraction of the neutron decays in 208Pb would produce at least one neutron emission. These states would produce 207-jPb plus j neutrons, with j being at least one.

The branchings into the particle and $`\gamma `$-ray emission channels at a given excitation energy of the daughter nucleus 207Pb have been calculated. The relevant transmission coefficients were determined with the same inputs used in the NON-SMOKER statistical model code rath00 ; rath01 , which is often used for astrophysical calculations, and has been found to be accurate over a wide mass range kola92 ; rath97 . In addition to single-particle emission, two-particle emission can be calculated, specifically for the case at hand, the two-neutron emission. For two-particle emission each transition was followed from a level with given spin and parity in 207Pb to a definite level with given spin and parity in 206Pb, then probabilities for subsequent neutron emission were determined by summing over neutron emission to all possible final states in 205Pb. Up to 20 low-lying experimentally known levels were used in each nucleus involved, and a theoretical level density rath97  was employed above the last known state. The relative probability of one- and two-neutron emission as a function of excitation energy in 207Pb is shown in Fig. 1. Spins from $`\frac{1}{2}`$ to $`\frac{29}{2}`$ and both parities were considered in 207Pb. The transitions to the states of different spin were weighted only with $`2J+1`$. In order to obtain the correct decay probability, the calculated probabilities have to be folded with the function that describes how the 207Pb levels of a given excitation energy are populated in the primary decay event, as described above. The basic features of the present results will remain although the actual distribution of strength would be expected to be distorted somewhat due to the folding with the population derived from $`\nu \overline{\nu }\nu `$ decay.

As can be seen from Fig. 1, the neutron channel dominates the possible decays above the neutron emission threshold. Only up to about 9 MeV is the decay governed by photon emission. Although the proton emission threshold is at 7.5 MeV, there is no significant proton emission up to 40 MeV in excitation due to the high Coulomb barrier; it is still only 20% of all decays at 48 MeV of excitation energy. Although the two-neutron emission channel opens at 14.83 MeV, it remains insignificant up to 30 MeV in excitation energy reaching 40% of all transitions at 48 MeV. It should be noted that the solid curve in Fig. 1 contains the sum of one- and two-neutron emission. Therefore, emissions of single and double neutrons contribute equally at the highest calculated energy, each comprising 40% of all decay possibilities. Thus the population of excitation energies close to the neutron separation energy can be probed by measuring $`\gamma `$-rays, whereas higher excitation energies are accessible by two-neutron decay.

The lowest lying 82 neutrons in 208Pb would be sufficiently strongly bound that their decay would be very likely to populate states at least above the one-neutron emission threshold. Some of the remaining 44 neutrons would also be likely to produce daughter states above that threshold. Their ordering is h9/2, f7/2, f5/2, p3/2, i13/2, and p1/2, and their approximate binding energies are 12, 11, 8, 8, 8, and 7 MeV respectively beref . It seems reasonable to assume that decay of the neutrons in the last three orbitals would populate states below the one-neutron emission threshold. Thus 106 of the 126 neutrons in 208Pb would be expected to populate states above the one-neutron emission threshold in 207Pb. An additional concern, though, is that the decays of neutrons in the most tightly bound states, i.e., those dominated by the 1s1/2, 1p3/2, 1p1/2, 1d5/2, 2s1/2, and 1d3/2 orbitals, might result in states in 207Pb that would decay by proton or $`\alpha `$-particle emission. Their binding energies are 40, 35, 35, 32, 31, and 29 MeV respectively beref . However, our emission probability calculations described above suggest that only the states having 1s1/2 neutrons would be expected to exhibit such decays; we have subtracted the two neutrons in that orbital from consideration. Thus 104 neutrons in 208Pb can decay to produce detectable signatures.

The upshot is that this nucleon decay mode would have a high probability, roughly 104/126 (so that $`ϵ_n`$ (see eq. 1) is 104/126=0.825), for producing at least one neutron in coincidence with a fairly high-energy $`\gamma `$-ray, but emission of several neutrons in coincidence with a $`\gamma `$-ray would also have a relatively high probability. We have assumed 50% for the sum of the probabilities of events in which at least one neutron and a detectable ($`>`$ 3 MeV) $`\gamma `$-ray are emitted. We note that states above 4 MeV of excitation in 207Pb have a high probability, at least 50% nucdatasheets , of producing a $`\gamma `$-ray of at least 3 MeV in energy.

We assume 1 kT of lead perchlorate admixed with 20% water (0.41 kT of lead); that has 5.9x1029 208Pb nuclei, or 6.1x1031 neutrons in 208Pb that would be expected to populate states above the one-neutron emission threshold of 207Pb and decay subsequently by neutron emission. If the fraction of the 104 neutrons assumed that decay by single or multiple neutron emission is 100%, the probability for detection of at least one neutron is 50% (it will be considerably higher for multiple neutron emission), the probability for producing a detectable $`\gamma `$-ray is 50% and its detection efficiency is 50%, then the probability that a neutron decay event from one of the 104 neutrons assumed to be detectable will be observed is 12.5%. If the lifetime for this decay branch is 1030 years then, under these circumstances, 7-8 events per year would be observed. Note that we have assumed that only the 208Pb would contribute; it is likely that the other lead isotopes would produce similarly detectable decays, producing up to a factor of 2 enhancement. Furthermore, the assumed efficiencies are conservative. Thus this mode could have its lifetime extended by searching for these decays in lead, provided the background events could be managed.

The most obvious background signal that has several neutrons that wouldn’t be vetoed by a cosmic ray shield would involve production of those neutrons by an energetic cosmic ray in the surrounding rock. One might then get a $`\gamma `$-ray if one of the neutrons could inelastically excite a nucleus. However, this background could be eliminated easily, as the LPC detector could be surrounded by moderator, so that none of the neutrons getting into it would have enough energy to inelastically excite a nucleus.

A more serious background would result from neutrinos produced in the Earth’s upper atmosphere inelastically exciting 208Pb via the neutral-current interaction to levels from which it could emit one or more neutrons, going to nuclei that might themselves emit more neutrons. This background would be impossible to reject on an event-by-event basis. However, its yield could be estimated as a function of the energy of the incident neutrino by measuring the number of charged-current interactions as a function of energy (as determined by the energy of the recoiling lepton) that would produce similar numbers of neutrons in coincidence with the $`\gamma `$-ray. One could then infer the yield from the neutral-current interactions on the basis of the relative magnitudes of the two types of cross sections and the energy distribution of the charged-current interactions.

### II.2 The n $`\nu \overline{\nu }\nu `$ decay mode in 35Cl.

The abundance of 35Cl is 75% of natural Cl, and there are 2 Cl atoms per Pb atom in LPC. Thus it is also useful to see if nucleon decay in 35Cl might produce a definitive signature. Neutron decay in 35Cl would sometimes produce 34Cl in a highly excited state. However, the one-proton emission threshold for 34Cl is at 5.14 MeV, far below the one-neutron emission threshold at 11.51 MeV. Indeed, there are apparently no bound levels in 34Cl even close to 11.51 MeV. Thus the result of neutron decay to 34Cl will be $`\gamma `$-ray decays to the ground state of 34Cl. Note, though, that 34Cl has an isomeric state at 0.146 MeV; so roughly half of the energetic $`\gamma `$-rays would go to that state.

The relative branchings into different decay channels of 34Cl were calculated using the same methods as described above for 207Pb. The results are shown in Fig. 2. The situation for 34Cl is different than for 207Pb, however, because of the lower Coulomb barrier and a proton separation energy that is lower than the neutron separation energy. Neutron emission is relatively unimportant at all calculated excitation energies. The excited nucleus 34Cl will de-excite via $`\gamma `$-transitions for excitation energies up to about 9.5 MeV, where proton emission accounts for 50% of all emissions. Proton emission quickly rises to nearly 100% by 11.9 MeV and the falls off at high energies due to increased $`\alpha `$ emission. Two-neutron emission is completely negligible at all calculated energies. As with 207Pb, a quantitative description of the emission requires the knowledge of the population of the excited states by the decay, but would not be expected to differ qualitatively from the results shown here.

The ground state of 34Cl, however, $`\beta `$-decays with a half-life of 1.53 s. Thus a coincidence between the energetic $`\gamma `$-rays (assumed detection efficiency = 50%) and the $`\beta ^+`$-decay would identify a candidate event for neutron decay in 35Cl. The end point energy of the $`\beta ^+`$ is 4.47 MeV, so most of the $`\beta ^+`$s will be produced with sufficient energy to be detected from their Cherenkov radiation (assumed detection efficiency = 70%). The isomeric state has a much longer half-life (32 m), so we have assumed that would not produce a useful coincidence for determining nucleon decay (reducing the useful event yield by half). None the less, nucleon decay in 35Cl could be identified by observing $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$s in coincidence, with enough events detected to confirm the half-life of 34Cl. The relatively long half-life of 34Cl would demand that the materials used in OMNIS LPC modules be as pure as possible to minimize accidental coincidences.

Again assuming 1 kT of lead perchlorate admixed with 20% water, there will be 1.8x1030 35Cl nuclei. Of the 18 neutrons in 35Cl those in the 1s1/2, 1p3/2, and 1p1/2 orbits (binding energies = 36, 27, and 23 MeV respectively beref ), would probably decay to sufficiently highly-excited states in 34Cl that they would emit a proton, neutron, or $`\alpha `$-particle, and not end up in 34Cl. The remaining three orbitals, d5/2, s1/2, and d3/2 have binding energies of roughly 17, 14, and 10 MeV beref . The one-neutron separation energy in 35Cl is 12.64 MeV; removal of a valence neutron, presumably from a d3/2 dominated state, would require that much energy, and would tend to populate the ground state of 34Cl. Thus, presumably, decay of neutrons in 35Cl states having strong 1d5/2 or 2s1/2 neutron configurations would tend to populate states in 34Cl of sufficient excitation energy to emit a detectable, $`>`$ 3 MeV, $`\gamma `$-ray. Thus, about 8 neutrons per 35Cl nucleus, or 1.4x1031 neutrons in the 35Cl, (the product Nn $`ϵ_n`$ in eq. 1) would have appropriate binding energy to decay to states in 34Cl that could produce a $`\gamma `$-ray above 3 MeV in energy, so would have a high probability of being detected. If the detection efficiency for the $`\beta `$ is assumed to be 70%, and the lifetime for this decay process is 1030 years, one would expect to observe 3-4 events per year from neutron decay in 35Cl. Although this decay mode would not produce as strong a limit on nucleon decay as would the lead, its signature would be considerably more definitive than that from the lead, because its backgrounds are so much more readily identifiable.

The primary background for decay of a neutron in 35Cl comes from neutrinos produced in the Earth’s atmosphere, but such events would not be able to simulate nucleon decay events. Although once the neutron was knocked out of the 35Cl, the resulting $`\gamma \beta `$ coincidence would be the same as for the neutron decay event, the atmospheric neutrino would emit a neutron, which would be detected to give its characteristic 8.6 MeV $`\gamma `$-ray. This is a considerably greater energy than could be produced by any of the $`\gamma `$-rays resulting from the de-excitations in 34Cl; thus that neutron could be used to veto this type of background event.

### II.3 Monte-Carlo simulations of detectors to determine detection efficiencies

The limit that can be achieved from any process such as the decays described above clearly depends on the detection efficiency. Thus we have run simulations of the events from decays of 35Cl based on the GEANT geant  detector simulation software. As planned, the LPC detector will consist of multiple independent cylindrical modules having radii of 2 m and heights, which are adjustable in the simulations, ranging from 1 to 2 m. The GEANT simulations were based on a single module. The interior of the cylinder was assumed to be viewed by photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) at both ends. Current design plans are to use an LPC solution of concentration, also adjustable in the simulations, of 75% to 80% LPC by weight.

From the decay of a neutron in 35Cl, GEANT generated both the $`\gamma `$-rays from the de-excitation of the 34Cl nucleus and the resultant $`\beta ^+`$ from the decay of the 34Cl. The initial starting state for 34Cl was randomly chosen from the energy levels that were below the proton separation energy. $`\gamma `$-rays were then generated to simulate the de-excitation of the 34Cl nucleus from the selected starting state down to either the ground state or the isomer. The number and energies of the generated $`\gamma `$-rays were based on data on the levels and $`\gamma `$-rays for the 34Cl nucleus. Events that decayed to the isomeric state were rejected. The fraction of the events that de-excite down to the ground state was found to be $`57.6\pm 0.2`$%.

The 34Cl decay time is chosen by randomly selecting whether a decay will occur during the 1 ms time unit, and was repeated until a decay occurred. The chance for a decay within a time unit was based on the half-life of 34Cl. If the decay time took longer than 40 s, the total accumulated time was set to zero and the decay test continued.

The kinematics for the $`\beta ^+`$ were generated after the $`\gamma `$-rays were generated and tracked. The initial energy of the $`\beta ^+`$ was selected from a lookup table and the decay time was added to the initial time of flight. A Gaussian profile was used for the initial energy distribution of the positron. The parameters for the Gaussian were derived from a fit to the $`\beta ^+`$ energy spectrum calculated using the RADLST program radlst .

Upon entering a PMT, a photon’s energy and time of flight were stored. As $`\beta ^+`$s and $`\beta ^{}`$s have a large RMS multiple scattering in LPC, any patterns in the Cherenkov radiation are destroyed. However, an event can be identified by the number of PMTs that have fired in a localized area within a specified time window. The requirement imposed to identify $`\gamma `$-rays and $`\beta ^+`$s required three PMTs to fire in a localized cluster within a 20 ns window.

To estimate the efficiency for detecting neutron decay in the 35Cl in LPC, 10,000 events were generated in a 100 cm deep tank with an 80% solution of LPC by weight. The attenuation length of the LPC was taken to be 4.2 m elliott00 . The mean efficiency for detecting the $`\gamma `$-rays from the de-excitation of the 34Cl nucleus over the volume of the detector was found to be $`57.0\pm 0.8`$%. For detecting the $`\beta ^+`$s, the mean efficiency was found to be $`75.2\pm 0.9`$%, making the mean efficiency for detecting a coincidence between the $`\gamma `$s and the $`\beta `$s to be $`42.6\pm 0.8`$%. For a 200 cm deep tank with an 80% LPC solution, the mean detection efficiency for $`\gamma `$s, $`\beta ^+`$s, and coincidences was found to be $`42.6\pm 0.7`$%, $`60.6\pm 0.9`$%, and $`25.6\pm 0.5`$% respectively. Thus the efficiencies assumed above are consistent with those determined from the Monte-Carlo simulations. For the 200 cm deep tank, the neutron detection efficiency was found to be $`87.6\pm 0.9`$%.

The position of a nucleon decay event can be deduced from the time difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$t between hits at the two ends of the tank. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$t can be defined in a variety of ways, e.g. by taking it to be the time difference between the peaks of the signals, either from the $`\gamma `$s or the $`\beta ^+`$s, from the two sides of the module, or by attempting to average early hits to utilize the leading edges of the signals on the two sides to do the timing. The first approach can be confused somewhat by the arrival of photons scattered from the opposite side, whereas the latter can be complicated by limited statistics. Either approach seems to allow localization of events to about $`\pm 10`$ cm. Spatial localization is important, as it allows use of a position dependent neutron detection efficiency, so can allow greater emphasis on events that occur in the center of the detector, which will have a greater efficiency for detecting the veto neutron, than those at the edges, which will have a lesser efficiency.

## III Conclusions

Given that the suggested searches for nucleon decay would be conducted in a supernova neutrino detector, these searches would have a long time, probably more than 20 years, to run. Thus the suggested experiments have the potential to improve greatly the existing limits on the n $`\nu +\overline{\nu }+\nu `$ decay mode.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work began at an Aspen Institute summer workshop. It has continued under the support of US Department of Energy grant DE-FG03-88ER40397, NSF grant PHY-0099476, and the Swiss NSF (grant 2000-061031.02). TR acknowledges support by a PROFIL professorship by the Swiss NSF (grant 2024-067428.02).


format: text

text:
# Neutrino mixing and Lorentz invariance

\[

## Abstract

We use previous work on the Hilbert space for mixed fields to derive deformed dispersion relations for neutrino flavor states. We then discuss how these dispersion relations may be incorporated into frameworks encoding the breakdown of Lorentz invariance. We consider non-linear relativity schemes (of which doubly special relativity is an example), and also frameworks allowing for the existence of a preferred frame. In both cases we derive expressions for the spectrum and end-point of beta decay, which may be used as an experimental probe of the peculiar way in which neutrinos experience Lorentz invariance.

\]

The subject of neutrino oscillations has now matured from an insightful prediction by Bruno Pontecorvo  and the early results of Homestake  to a structured framework backed by a wealth of new quantitative data . These advances have been paralleled by much progress on the theoretical front, both in the phenomenological pursuit of more refined oscillation formulae and in efforts to give the theory a sound formal structure within Quantum Field Theory (QFT).

A major outstanding question is that of the existence of a Hilbert space for the flavor states . Pontecorvo’s treatment of flavor states as Quantum Mechanical superpositions is forbidden by the Bargmann super-selection rules  (see, however, Ref.). This problem only found its resolution with a full QFT treatment . In the resulting picture, flavor states – rather than mass eigenstates – constitute the real physical entities. On this basis oscillation formulae were derived which exhibit corrections with respect to the usual ones .

In this letter we elaborate on the curious fact that neutrino flavor states don’t satisfy the standard dispersion relations $`E^2k^2=m^2`$, where $`E`$ is energy, $`k`$ momentum and $`m`$ rest mass. This follows trivially from the fact that flavor states are superpositions of mass eigenstates, which do satisfy standard dispersion relations, but with different masses.

Such a peculiarity leads to a formal connection between neutrino oscillations and a very different field. Deformed dispersion relations have been used as a phenomenological framework for quantum gravity , capable of explaining high-energy cosmic ray anomalies , and of establishing an observer independent border between the classical and quantum pictures of space-time .

Thus it is possible to employ a formalism describing violations of Lorentz invariance in quantum gravity to examine how neutrino flavor states must experience some form of breakdown of standard Lorentz invariance. Deformed dispersion relations signal either the presence of a preferred frame  or a non-linear realization of Lorentz invariance  (for simplicity we exclude the possibility of quantum groups). We consider how neutrino flavor states might fit both possibilities, focusing mainly on the second.

We restrict ourselves to the simplest case, i.e. two-flavor mixing in the Pontecorvo approximation, and leave the full QFT treatment and the extension to three flavors to a longer publication . We identify the non-linear Lorentz transformations which leave the neutrino deformed dispersion relations frame-independent. We then use these results to work out energy conservation formulae, with and without a preferred frame. These lead to distinct predictions for the spectrum of beta decay, which may thus be used as a test of Lorentz invariance. We also discuss the meaning of a possible negative mass squared, as suggested by some observations .

Consider the mixing relations for two flavors:

$`\nu _e(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _1(x)+\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _2(x)`$ (1)
$`\nu _\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _1(x)+\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _2(x)`$ (2)
Without loss of generality we take $`0\theta \frac{\pi }{4}`$ and $`m_2>m_1`$. As explained in , it is possible to define a vacuum state, creation and annihilation operators, and a Hilbert space for flavor states. The properly defined flavor states  are then eigenstates of the flavor charge and of the momentum operators 111For example, the electron neutrino state is defined by $`Q_e|\nu _e=|\nu _e`$ and $`𝐏_e|\nu _e=𝐤|\nu _e`$, with $`Q_e=d^3x\nu _e^{}(x)\nu _e(x)`$ and $`𝐏_e=d^3𝐱\nu _e^{}(x)(i)\nu _e(x)`$.. Obviously they are not eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, however it makes sense to consider the expectation value of $`H`$ on the flavor states and define from it dispersion relations. In this paper we consider the simplest case, i.e. we limit ourselves to the usual Pontecorvo states, which are a good approximation for the full QFT flavor states when the masses are sufficiently close to each other. We then have

$`|\nu _e`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta |\nu _1+\mathrm{sin}\theta |\nu _2`$ (3)
$`|\nu _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta |\nu _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta |\nu _2`$ (4)
If we compute the expectation value of the Hamiltonian on the flavor states (4) we find the result:

$`E_e`$ $``$ $`\nu _e|H|\nu _e=\omega _{k,1}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\omega _{k,2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (5)
$`E_\mu `$ $``$ $`\nu _\mu |H|\nu _\mu =\omega _{k,2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\omega _{k,1}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (6)
where $`H|\nu _i=\omega _i|\nu _i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) and

$$\omega _{k,i}=\sqrt{𝐤^2+m_i^2}.$$
(7)
Since the sum of two square roots is generally not a square root, we find that, except for trivial cases, flavor states do not satisfy the usual dispersion relations. Obviously the energies in Eq. (6) are only expectation values subject to fluctuations but it is nevertheless sensible to consider the modified Lorentz transformation for the classical limit of the theory.

It is immediately obvious that the minimal energy of a flavor state is achieved at zero momentum and is

$`m_e`$ $``$ $`E_e(𝐤=0)=m_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +m_2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (8)
$`m_\mu `$ $``$ $`E_\mu (𝐤=0)=m_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +m_1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (9)
However this “mass” is not the kinematic invariant, since the dispersion relations Eq. (6) are no longer invariant under the usual Lorentz transformations. Instead, if we are to avoid introducing a preferred frame, neutrinos must feel a non-linear representation of the Lorentz group as constructed by . The dispersion relations Eq. (6) may be put in the form used in that work:

$`E_e^2f_e^2(E_e)𝐤^2g_e^2(E_e)=M_e^2`$ (10)
$`E_\mu ^2f_\mu ^2(E_\mu )𝐤^2g_\mu ^2(E_\mu )=M_\mu ^2`$ (11)
from which the recipes given in  are straightforward to apply. Eq. (6) leads to

$`\left(E_e^2\omega _1^2\mathrm{cos}^4\theta \omega _2^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta \right)^2=4\omega _1^2\omega _2^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta \mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$ (12)
$`\left(E_\mu ^2\omega _2^2\mathrm{cos}^4\theta \omega _1^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta \right)^2=4\omega _1^2\omega _2^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta \mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$ (13)
and, for example, Eq. (12) can be rewritten as a quadratic equation in $`𝐤^2`$, of the form $`A𝐤^4+B𝐤^2+C=0`$, with

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^22\theta `$ (14)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2E_e^2\left(1+\mathrm{cos}^22\theta \right)`$ (15)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`E_e^42E_e^2\stackrel{~}{m}_+^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^4`$ (16)
and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\pm ^2=m_1^2\mathrm{cos}^4\theta \pm m_2^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta `$. Assuming first that $`\theta \pi /4`$, its solutions are

$`𝐤_\pm ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_e^2\left(1+\mathrm{cos}^22\theta \right)2\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta \pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2\mathrm{cos}^22\theta }}`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`E_e^2\mathrm{sin}^42\theta \left(E_e^2+(m_2^2m_1^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta \right)`$ (18)
Since $`E`$ is a monotonically growing function of $`k`$ with minimum $`m_e`$, the discriminant satisfies $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, so that the roots are guaranteed to be real. The physically relevant solution is $`𝐤_{}^2`$ (e.g. study the special case $`m=m_1=m_2`$). Comparing (17) and (10) leads to:

$`2f_e^2(E_e)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2(2\theta )}}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{E_e^2+\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )}}{E_e}}\mathrm{tan}^2(2\theta )`$
$`g_e^2(E_e)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (21)
$`M_e^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{}^2}{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2\mathrm{cos}^4\theta m_2^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }{\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )}}`$ (22)
Notice that $`M_e^2<0`$ for

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta >\sqrt{m_1/m_2}$$
(23)
This does not imply causality violations, since it can be shown (directly from Eq. (6)) that the neutrino velocity (defined either as $`v=p/E`$ or as $`v=dE/dp`$) is a monotonically growing function of its momentum, with $`v<1`$. However other aspects of tachyonic behavior will be identified later.

The case of maximal mixing $`\theta =\pi /4`$ has to be treated separately. Then $`A=0`$ in Eq. (14), collapsing the order of the equation. One then finds trivially

$`f_e^2(E_e)`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2m_2^2}{4E_e^2}}\right)^2`$ (24)
$`g_e^2(E_e)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (25)
$`M_e^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{2}}`$ (26)
Similar expressions, but with $`m_1m_2`$, apply to muon neutrinos. In the whole parameter space $`M_\mu ^2>0`$.

It is now possible to identify the non-linear realization of the Lorentz group which leaves these dispersion relations invariant. They are generated by the transformation $`U(E,𝐤)=(Ef,𝐤g)`$ applied to the standard Lorentz generators ($`L_{ab}=p_a\frac{}{p^b}p_b\frac{}{p^a}`$):

$$K^i=U^1[p_0]L_0^iU[p_0].$$
(27)
This amounts to requiring linearity for the auxiliary variables $`\stackrel{~}{E}=Ef(E)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{k}=kg(E)`$. The resulting non-linear transformations for $`E`$ and $`k`$ are a non-linear representation of the Lorentz group ensuring that the deformed dispersion relations found for flavor states are valid in all frames. For $`\nu _e`$ the transformation (27) only exists for

$$E_e^2E_{min}^2=(m_2^2m_1^2)\frac{\mathrm{sin}^42\theta }{4\mathrm{cos}2\theta }$$
(28)
However, if $`M_e^20`$, one has $`E_{min}<E_e(k=0)=m_e`$, so that the transformation exists for all allowed values of $`E_e`$. This is not the case if $`M_e^2<0`$. Then one must impose $`|k|>k_{min}=\sqrt{M_e^2}`$ to have a well defined transformation (27). Since this condition is frame-independent, no conflict with the principle of relativity arises (notice also that $`E0`$ always transforms into $`E0`$).

The ugly alternative to non-linear realizations is that neutrino flavor states are subject to the usual linear Lorentz transformations, so that their deformed dispersion relations select a preferred frame (typically the cosmological frame). With or without the introduction of a preferred frame, flavor states are at odds with conventional Lorentz invariance.

We now explore the physical implications of these peculiarities, taking as an example beta decay: $`AB+e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e`$ where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two nuclei (e.g. 3H and 3He). Given that the nuclei and the electron satisfy linear Lorentz transformations, and that $`E_ef_e(E_e)`$ transforms linearly (cf. Eq. (27)), the only covariant law of energy conservation is

$$E_A=E_B+E+E_ef_e(E_e).$$
(29)
where $`E`$ is the electron energy, and as before the subscript $`e`$ refers to the electron neutrino. If, on the contrary, we insist upon the standard law

$$E_A=E_B+E+E_e$$
(30)
we have introduced a preferred frame, and are in conflict with the principle of relativity.

These two choices are reflected in different predictions for the endpoint of $`\beta `$ decay, that is, the maximal kinetic energy ($`K_{max}`$) the electron can carry away. This is constrained by the available energy $`Q=E_AE_Bmm_Am_Bm`$, where $`m`$ is the electron mass. For the tritium decay, $`Q=18.6`$ KeV. $`Q`$ is shared between the (unmeasured) neutrino energy and the (measured) electron kinetic energy $`K`$. If the neutrino were massless, then $`K_{max}=Q`$. If the neutrino were a mass eigenstate (say with $`m_e=m_1`$), then $`K_{max}=Qm_1`$.

Under the effects of flavor mixing, the answer depends crucially on how flavor states conflict with Lorentz invariance. If there is a preferred frame in nature (and Eq. (30) is valid) then

$$K_{max}=Qm_e=Q(m_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +m_2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )$$
(31)
since the minimal neutrino energy is given by Eq. (8). The spectrum is proportional to the phase volume factor $`EpE_ep_e`$, so that

$$\frac{dN}{dK}=CEp(QK)\sqrt{(QK)^2f_e^2(QK)M_e^2}$$
(32)
where $`E=m+K`$ and $`p=\sqrt{E^2m^2}`$ are the electron’s energy and momentum. Here $`C`$ is a constant and we have neglected the Coulomb interaction between the final particles. We have illustrated this possibility in Fig. 1 (for clarity we have chosen wildly unrealistic parameters).

However if we reject the existence of preferred frames, the statement of energy conservation must be Eq. (29). Then, if $`M_e^20`$, the endpoint of $`\beta `$ decay is $`K_{max}=QM_e`$, since the minimum of $`E_ef_e(E_e)`$ is $`M_e`$, the kinematic invariant defined by Eq. (10). The $`\beta `$ spectrum is now proportional to the phase volume factor $`EpE_ef_e(E_e)p_e`$, so that:

$$\frac{dN}{dK}=CEp(QK)\sqrt{(QK)^2M_e^2}$$
(33)
in contradiction with Eq. (32). The only measurable parameter is now $`M^2`$, and in Fig. 2 we plotted the contours in $`\{\mathrm{tan}(\theta ),m_1/m_2\}`$ space along which the likelihood is aligned. This is to be contrasted with oscillation experiments, which are sensitive to $`\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$. We have also plotted in Fig.1 predictions for $`M_2^2=0,\pm 1`$ KeV. We see that the tail of the spectrum is distinctly different from the case where there is a preferred frame.

The case $`M_e^2<0`$ merits special consideration. It does not imply faster than light propagation, or the need for a preferred frame. Upon closer inspection, however, we find that $`E_ef_e(E_e)`$ is not bounded from below. Furthermore, imposing the condition $`E_ef_e(E_e)0`$ (in the same way that we have imposed $`k>k_{min}`$ before) violates Lorentz invariance. Thus we obtain an unstable theory (with $`K_{max}=\mathrm{}`$) unless we are prepared to accept preferred frames (or a maximal boost parameter for any given frame).

Thus, at the level of interactions, the case $`M_e^2<0`$ has to violate the principle of relativity. The minimum of $`Ef(E)`$ is zero, so that the endpoint of $`\beta `$ decay is $`K_{max}=Q`$. Eq. (33) is still valid, and in this case one observes an excess (rather than a deficiency) of events near the endpoint, as compared to the zero mass case. This seems currently to be favored by observations .

The limiting case $`M_e=0`$, is on the contrary consistent with the principle of relativity. Such a neutrino does not behave like a massless particle: it travels slower than light, and has a rest frame (unlike the case $`M_e^2<0`$). One can impose the condition $`E_\nu f_\nu (E_\nu )0`$ without violating Lorentz invariance. So the end point of $`\beta `$ decay is $`K_{max}=Q`$, and Eq. (33) is valid, so that the zero mass, no-mixing case is perfectly mimicked as far as $`\beta `$ decay is concerned.

To conclude, all these predictions are significantly different from those obtained by giving primacy to the mass (rather than flavour) eigenstates . Then the $`\beta `$ spectra is

$$\frac{dN}{dK}=CEpE_e\underset{i}{}|U_{ei}|^2\sqrt{E_e^2m_i^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(E_em_i)$$
(34)
(where $`E_e=QK`$ and $`U_{ei}=(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$). The end point is at $`K=Qm_1`$ and the spectrum has an inflexion at $`K=Qm_2`$. We have also plotted this possibility in Fig. 1.

In summary, we have investigated how flavor states cannot satisfy standard dispersion relations, and studied the implications for the principle of relativity. We found that although we may introduce a preferred frame to describe these states, this is not necessary as long as we are prepared to consider non-linear realizations of the Lorentz group. The only exception is the region of parameter space defined by Eq. (23), where, contrary to all appearances, one needs a preferred frame to enforce stability.

Having laid down all possibilities, we then computed the spectrum and endpoint of $`\beta `$ decay. We found a distinct prediction in each case, a matter of great interest given prospective experimental improvements . Thus the unusual interplay between Lorentz invariance and neutrino flavor mixing is an issue to be decided by experimentalists.

Acknowledgements We thank K. Baskerville for help in connection with this paper. M. B. thanks the ESF network COSLAB and EPSRC for support.


text:
# 2+1 gravity and Doubly Special Relativity

## I Introduction

Recently a proposal has been much discussed concerning how quantum theories of gravity may be tested experimentally. The doubly or deformed special relativity proposal ($`DSR`$)111Aspects of $`DSR`$ theories have been proposed or studied more than once in the past, only to be forgotten and then rediscovered again. Early formulations were by Snyder snyder  and Fock fock . During the 1990’s the mathematical side of the subject was developed under the name of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré symmetry qP , kappaP . The recent interest is due to the proposal that the effects of such theories may be both testable and derivable from some versions of quantum gravity, see for example Amelino-Camelia:2000ge Magueijo:2001cr . is that quantum gravity effects may lead in the limit of weak fields to modifications in the kinematics of elementary particles characterized by Amelino-Camelia:2000ge Magueijo:2001cr

1. Preservation of the relativity of inertial frames.
2. Non-linear modifications of the action of Lorentz boosts on energy-momentum vectors, preserving a preferred energy scale, which is naturally taken to be the Planck energy, $`E_p`$. In some cases $`E_p`$ is a maximum mass and/or momentum that a single elementary particle can attain.
3. Non-linear modifications of the energy-momentum relations, because the function of $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ that is preserved under the exact action of the Lorentz group is no longer quadratic. This could result in Planck scale effects such as an energy-dependent speed of light and modifications of thresholds for scattering, that may be observable in present and near future experiments.
4. Modifications in the commutators of coordinates and momentum and/or non-commutativity of space-time coordinates.

Theories with these characteristics are invariant under modifications of the Poincaré algebra, called generically $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebras, where $`\kappa `$ is a dimensional parameter that measures the deformations, usually taken to be proportional to the Planck mass.

In a recent paper Amelino-Camelia:2003xp , it was argued that quantum gravity in $`2+1`$ dimensions Staruszkiewicz , Deser:tn  with vanishing cosmological constant must be invariant under some version of a $`\kappa `$-Poincaré symmetry. The argument there depends only on the assumption that quantum gravity in $`2+1`$ dimensions with the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ must be derivable from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ limit of $`2+1`$ quantum gravity with non-zero cosmological constant. The argument is simple and algebraic, the point is that the symmetry which characterizes quantum gravity in $`2+1`$ dimensions with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ is actually quantum deformed de Sitter to $`SO_q(3,1)`$, with the quantum deformation parameter $`q`$ given by Witten:1988hc , Regge  Buffenoir:2002tx

$$z=\mathrm{ln}(q)l_{Planck}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(1)
The limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ then affects both the scaling of the translation generators as the De Sitter group is contracted to the Poincaré group, and the limit of $`q1`$. It is easy to see that because the ratio $`\kappa =\mathrm{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/z=G_{2+1}^1`$, where $`G^{2+1}`$ is Newton’s constant in $`2+1`$ dimensions, is held fixed, the limit gives the $`\kappa `$-deformed symmetry group in $`2+1`$ dimensions. The conclusion is that the symmetry algebra of $`2+1`$ dimensional quantum gravity with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is not Poincaré, it is a $`\kappa `$-deformed Poincaré algebra. This means that the theory must be a $`DSR`$ theory.

Quantum gravity in $`2+1`$ dimensions has been the subject of much study in both the classical and quantum domain, beginning with the work of Deser, Jackiw and ’t Hooft Deser:tn Matschull:2001ec . If that theory is a $`DSR`$ theory than the features just listed above must be present, and this could not have been easily missed by investigators.

Indeed, all of the listed features have been seen in the literature on $`2+1`$ gravity. In the next section we review some of the long standing results in $`2+1`$ gravity and show how they may be understood using the langauge of $`DSR`$ theories. To clinch the relation, in section 3 we exhibit an explicit mapping between the phase space of quantum gravity in $`2+1`$ dimensions coupled to a single point particle, studied in Matschull:1997du , and the algebra of symmetry generators of a $`DSR`$ theory.

The observation that $`2+1`$ gravity provides examples of $`DSR`$ theories can help the study of both sides of the relation. The language of $`DSR`$ theories and their foundations in terms of general principles can unify and explain some results in the literature of $`2+1`$ dimensional gravity that, when first discovered, seemed strange and unintuitive. We can now see that some of the features of $`2+1`$ gravity are neither strange nor necessarily unique to $`2+1`$ dimensions, because they follow only from the general requirement that the transformations between different inertial frames preserve an energy scale.

Furthermore, what one has in the $`2+1`$ gravity models, such as those with gravity coupled to $`N`$ point particles, is a class of non-trivial $`DSR`$ theories that are completely explicit and solvable, both classically and quantum mechanically. The existence of these examples answers a number of questions and challenges that have been raised concerning $`DSR`$ theories. Some authors have argued ahluwalia  that $`DSR`$ theories are just ordinary special relativistic theories rewritten in terms of some non-linear combinations of energy and momentum, while, conversely, others have argued that they must be trivial because interactions cannot be consistently included. Both criticisms are shown wrong by the existence of an explicit and solvable class of $`DSR`$ theories, with interactions, given by quantum gravity in $`2+1`$ dimensions coupled to point particles and fields.

Furthermore, we see that in $`2+1`$ dimensions the apparent problem of the freedom to choose the basis of the symmetry algebra of a $`DSR`$ theory is resolved by the fact that the choice of the coupling of matter to the gravitational field picks out the physical energy and momentum. We see in section 3 below that for the case of minimal coupling of gravity to a single point particle the basis picked out is the classical basis.

Finally, one can ask whether the fact that $`2+1`$ gravity is a $`DSR`$ theory has any implications for real physics in $`3=1`$ dimensions. In the final section of the paper we present a heuristic argument that it may.

## II Signs of $`DSR`$ in $`2+1`$ gravity

In this section we point out where effects characteristic of $`DSR`$ have been discovered already in the literature on $`2+1`$ dimensional gravity. We consider only the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

* It is important first to note that Newton’s constant in $`2+1`$ dimensions, denoted here by $`G`$, has dimensions of inverse mass (with only $`c=1`$ and no $`\mathrm{}`$ involved)222$`G`$ is identified with inverse of the $`\kappa `$ deformation parameter of $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra.. Thus, if the asymptotic symmetry group knows about gravity, it will have to preserve the scale $`G^1`$. Of course, in theories with sufficiently short range interactions the asymptotic symmetry group does not depend on the coupling constants. But in $`2+1`$ gravity the presence of matter causes the geometry of spacetime to become conical and this deforms the asymptotic conditions in a way that depends on $`G`$. Further, since $`\mathrm{}`$ is not involved in the definition of the mass scale, $`G^1`$, the deformation affects also the algebra of the classical phase space. This is the main reason why $`2+1`$ gravity is a $`DSR`$ theory.
* In $`2+1`$ gravity coupled to point particles, the hamiltonian, $`H`$, whose value is equal to the $`ADM`$ mass, and hence is measured by a surface term, is bounded from both above and below Matschull:1997du , Matschull:2001ec ,

$$0H\frac{1}{4G}$$
(2)
This can be understood in the following way. In $`2+1`$ dimensions the spacetime is flat, except where matter is present. A particle, or in fact any compactly supported distribution of matter, is surrounded by an asymptotic region, which is locally flat, and whose geometry is thus characterized by a deficit angle $`\alpha `$. A standard result is that Deser:tn , t Hooft , Buffenoir:2002tx , Matschull:1997du , Matschull:2001ec , Ashtekar:1993ds

$$\alpha =8\pi GH$$
(3)
But a deficit angle $`\alpha `$ must be less than or equal to $`2\pi `$. Hence there is an upper limit on the mass of any system, as measured by the hamiltonian. The upper limit holds for all systems, regardless of how many particles there are and what their relative positions or motions are.

This upper mass limit must be preserved by the asymptotic symmetry group. Hence the asymptotic symmetry group cannot be the ordinary Poincaré group, it must be a $`DSR`$ theory with a maximum energy.
* It has further been shown that the spatial components of momentum of a particle in $`2+1`$ gravity are unbounded Matschull:1997du . This, together, with a bounded energy, implies a modified energy-momentum relation.
* The phase space of a single point particle in $`2+1`$ gravity was constructed by Matschull and Welling in Matschull:1997du  and it was found that a classical solution is labelled by a three dimensional position $`𝒴_\mu `$, $`\mu =0,1,2`$ and momentum $`p_\mu `$. They find explicitly that the energy momentum relations and the action of the Poincaré symmetry are deformed, in a way that preserves a fixed energy scale. They indeed make explicit reference to the work of Snyder snyder , which was an early proposal for $`DSR`$.
* Furthermore, Matschull and Welling find that the spacetime coordinates $`𝒴_\mu `$ of a particle are non-commutative under the classical Poisson brackets,

$$[𝒴_\mu ,𝒴_\nu ]=2Gϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }𝒴_\rho .$$
(4)
This property was found in Matschull:2001ec  to extend to systems of $`N`$ particles.
* Matschull and Welling also find that the components of the energy-momentum vector for a point particle in $`2+1`$ gravity live on a curved manifold, which is $`2+1`$ dimensional Anti-de Sitter spacetime. This was shown in Kowalski-Glikman:2002jr , Kowalski-Glikman:2003we  to be a feature of $`DSR`$ theories333Although in reference Kowalski-Glikman:2002jr , Kowalski-Glikman:2003we  the momentum space for a class of $`DSR`$ theories was shown to be de Sitter spacetime. We discuss below the difference between positively and negatively curved momentum spaces.
* Ashtekar and Varadarajan Ashtekar:1993ds  found a relationship between two definitions of energy relevant for $`2+1`$ gravity, which is reminiscent of non-linear redefinitions of the energy used in changing bases between different realizations of $`DSR`$ theories. The case they studied has to do with $`3+1`$ gravity, with two Killing fields, one rotational and one axial. One first dimensionally reduces to $`2+1`$ dimensions, in which case the dynamics of GR in $`3+1`$ is expressed as a scalar field coupled to $`2+1`$ dimensional $`GR`$. The ADM Hamiltonian $`H`$ still exists and still is bounded from above as in (2). But in the presence of the additional, rotational Killing field, the theory can be represented by a scalar field evolving in a flat reference Minkowski spacetime, with the ordinary hamiltonian

$$H_{flat}=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr\left[\dot{\varphi }^2+(_r\varphi )^2\right]$$
(5)
$`H_{flat}`$ is of course unbounded above. They find the relationship between them is

$$H=\frac{1}{4G}\left(1e^{4GH_{flat}}\right)$$
(6)
This exact relation is in fact present in the literature on $`DSR`$ Kowalski-Glikman:2002jr . It holds in the a presentation of the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra known as the “bicrossproduct” basis. In that case $`H_{flat}=E`$ is, as in the present case, the zeroth component of an energy momentum vector and $`H`$ is the “physical rest mass,$`m_0`$ defined by,

$$\frac{1}{m_0}=\underset{p0}{lim}\frac{1}{p}\frac{dE}{dp}|_{E=p_0}$$
(7)
It is intriguing that this is the inertial mass, while, for the solutions with rotational symmetry, the $`ADM`$ energy is the active gravitational mass. Since they are both expressed in terms of the zeroth component of the energy-momentum vector by the same equation, they coincide on the subset of solutions on which they are both defined, which are the rotationally invariant solutions. This appears to be a direct demonstration of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass, within this context.

Indeed, this observation suggests that the Ashtekar-Varadarajan form of the $`ADM`$ mass is more general than their calculation shows. Indeed it is not hard to see that this is the case. Let us study the free scalar field in $`2+1`$ dimensional Minkowski spacetime, with no condition of rotational symmetry. This system is not a dimensional reduction of general relativity, only a subspace of solutions, those with rotational symmetry, are related to general relativity. But it still may serve as a useful example of a DSR theory. Of course the theory has full Poincaré invariance, with momentum generators $`P_i`$ and boost generators $`K_i`$ satisfying the usual Poincaré algebra. But eq. (6) implies that they form with $`H`$ a $`DSR`$ algebra

$`\{K_i,H\}`$ $`=`$ $`(14GH)P_i`$
$`\{K_i,P_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4G}}\delta _{ij}\mathrm{ln}[14GH]`$ (8)
with the other commutators undeformed. The physical energy momentum relations are deformed to

$$P_i^2+m^2=\frac{1}{16G^2}[\mathrm{ln}(14GH)]^2$$
(9)
* Recent calculations Bais:2002ye  indicate that quantum deformations of symmetries play a role in gravitational scattering of particles in 2+1 dimensions.

All of these pieces of evidence show that $`2+1`$ gravity coupled to matter can be understood as a $`DSR`$ system.

Of course, the $`2+1`$ dimensional model system is not completely analogous to real physics in $`3+1`$ dimensions. But this result answers cleanly several queries and criticisms that have been levied against the $`DSR`$ proposal.

First, some authors have suggested that $`DSR`$ theories are physically indistinguishable from ordinary special relativity ahluwalia . They argue that in some cases, one can arrive at a $`DSR`$ system from a non-linear mapping of energy-momentum space to itself. These results show that argument fails, for there is no doubt that the model system of point particles in $`2+1`$ gravity is physically distinguishable from the model system of free particles in flat $`2+1`$ dimensional spacetime. This is here a clean result, with no quantization ambiguities, because the deformation parameter $`\kappa =1/4G`$ is entirely classical and the modification is of the structure of the classical phase space. The two phase spaces are not isomorphic, when gravity is turned on, the phase space is curved, but when $`G=0`$ the phase space is flat.

This is clear also for the multiparticle system, where there are non-trivial interactions, depending on $`G`$, which make the system measurably distinct from the free particle case with $`G=0`$.

The multiparticle system in $`2+1`$ gravity also serves as an example of a counterintuitive property of some $`DSR`$ models in $`3+1`$ gravity. This is that the upper mass limit $`M_{upper}=1/4G`$ is independent of the number of particles in the system. This of course cannot be the case in the real world, so it is good to know that there are implementations of $`DSR`$ in $`3+1`$ dimensions that do not have an upper mass limit for systems of many particles, or where the upper mass limit grows with the number of particles or the mass of the total system, in such a way as to not violate experience Magueijo:2002am .

However, it is also good to know that there is a model system, which is sensible physically, in which this non-intuitive feature is completely realized. Moreover it suggests the start of a physical answer to one of the puzzling questions about $`DSR`$ models. This is that the addition of energy and momentum in $`DSR`$ theories is non-linear. This can be understood as a consequence of the non-linear action of the Lorentz group, for example it follows from the fact that the energy-momentum space has non-zero curvature. It appears to remain even in realizations of $`DSR`$ that remove the mass limit for composite systems.

Some physicists have criticized the $`DSR`$ proposal by pointing out that the non-linear corrections to addition of energy-momentum vectors for a system of two particles can be interpreted by saying that there is a binding energy between pairs of particles that does not depend on the distance between them, but depends only on the individual energies and momenta.

This may be counter-intuitive, but it is precisely the what happens in $`2+1`$ dimensions. Because spacetime is locally flat, each particle contributes a deficit angle to the overall geometry that affects all the other particles’ motions, no matter how far away. The result is that there is a binding energy that is independent of distance.

This suggests a speculative remark: might there be even in $`3+1`$ dimensions a small component of the binding energy of pairs of particles, of order $`l_pM_1M_2`$, which is independent of distance? Might this be interpreted as a kind of quantum gravity effect?

In the last section we make some speculative remarks concerning the question of whether these results have any bearing on real physics in $`3+1`$ dimensions.

## III Phase space of DSR in 2+1 dimensions

In this section we will compare the phase space of 2+1 dimensional DSR with that of 2+1 dimensional gravity with one particle. Let us start with the former.

### III.1 Phase spaces of DSR

As in $`3+1`$ dimensions, the starting point to find the phase space of DSR theory in the 2+1 dimensional case is the $`2+1`$ dimensional $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra kappaP , the quantum algebra whose generators are momenta444The Greek indices run from 1 to 3, the Latin ones from 1 to 2, while the capital ones from 0 to 3. $`p_\mu =(p_0,p_i)`$ and Lorentz algebra generators $`J_\mu =(M,N_i)`$ boosts. Taking the co-algebra of the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré quantum algebra and using the so-called “Heisenberg-double construction” crossalg , luno , Kowalski-Glikman:2002jr  it is possible to derive the position variables, conjugate to momenta, $`x_\mu `$, as well as the brackets between them and the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra generators.

This (quantum) algebraic construction has a geometrical counterpart, described in Kowalski-Glikman:2002ft , Kowalski-Glikman:2003we . Here the manifold on which momenta live is de Sitter space (in the case at hand the 3 dimensional one). The positions and the Lorentz transformations are symmetries acting on the space of momenta. Thus they form the three dimensional de Sitter algebra $`SO(3,1)`$. It is convenient to define the de Sitter space of momenta as a three dimensional surface

$$\eta _0^2+\eta _1^2+\eta _2^2+\eta _3^2=\kappa ^2$$
(10)
in the four dimensional Minkowski space with coordinates $`(\eta _0,\mathrm{}\eta _3)`$. The physical momenta $`p_\mu `$ are then the coordinates on the surface (10). This means that we can think of $`\eta _A=\eta _A(p_\mu )`$ as of the given functions of momenta, for which the equation (10) is identically satisfied. In the DSR terminology, the choice of a particular coordinate system on de Sitter space corresponds to a choice of the so called DSR basis (see Kowalski-Glikman:2002jr , Kowalski-Glikman:2003we ). It turns out that in order to relate DSR to the 2+1 gravity one has to choose the so called classical basis, characterized by $`\eta _\mu =p_\mu `$. This choice will be implicit below, however we find it more convenient to write down the formulas below in terms of the variables $`\eta _A`$.

The algebra of symmetries of the de Sitter space of momenta (10) can be most easily read off by writing down the action of these symmetries on the four-dimensional Minkowski space with coordinates $`\eta _A`$ and then pulling them down to the surface (10). Let us note however that while it is easy to identify the Lorentz generators $`J_\mu =(M,N_i)`$ as the elements of the $`SO(2,1)`$ subalgebra of the $`SO(3,1)`$, it is a matter of convenience which linearly independent combination of generators is to be identified with positions (i.e. the generators of translation in momentum space.) Technically speaking we are free to choose the decomposition of $`SO(3,1)`$ into the sum of $`SO(2,1)`$ and its remainder.

In the case of the DSR phase space, the action of the symmetries is given by

$$[M,\eta _i]=ϵ_{ij}\eta _j,[N_i,\eta _j]=\delta _{ij}\eta _0,[N_i,\eta _0]=\eta _i,$$
(11)
$$[J_\mu ,\eta _3]=0,$$
(12)
with $`J_\mu `$ satisfying the algebra

$$[M,N_i]=ϵ_{ij}N_j,[N_i,N_j]=ϵ_{ij}M$$
(13)
$$[x_0,\eta _3]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _0,[x_0,\eta _0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _3,[x_0,\eta _i]=0,$$
(14)
$$[x_i,\eta _3]=[x_i,\eta _0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _i,[x_i,\eta _j]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\delta _{ij}(\eta _0\eta _3),$$
(15)
Note that it follows from these equations that

$$[x_0,x_i]=\frac{1}{\kappa }x_i,[x_i,x_j]=0.$$
(16)
It is worth mentioning also that such a decomposition is possible in any dimension. In particular in the 3+1 case the bracket (16) descries the so-called $`\kappa `$-Minkowski type of non-commutativity.

One can repeat this geometric construction in the case when the momenta manifold is the anti de Sitter space

$$\eta _0^2+\eta _1^2+\eta _2^2\eta _3^2=\kappa ^2.$$
(17)
Now the symmetry algebra is $`SO(2,2)`$, having again the three dimensional Lorentz algebra $`SO(2,1)`$ described by (11), (12) as its subalgebra. The algebra of positions, which we denote $`y_\mu `$ (i.e. translations of momenta) changes only slightly and now reads

$$[y_0,\eta _3]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _0,[y_0,\eta _0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _3,[y_0,\eta _i]=0,$$
(18)
$$[y_i,\eta _3]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _i,[y_i,\eta _0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _i,$$

$$[y_i,\eta _j]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\delta _{ij}(\eta _0\eta _3),$$
(19)
From (18), (19) it follows that

$$[y_0,y_i]=\frac{1}{\kappa }y_i+\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}N_i,[y_i,y_j]=\frac{2}{\kappa ^2}ϵ_{ij}M.$$
(20)
We see that the bracket (20) does not describe the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski type of non-commutativity. Since the non-commutativity type is related to the co-algebra structure of the quantum Poincaré algebra, this result indicates that along with the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra there exists another quantum Poincaré algebra with the same algebra, but different co-algebra, which we expect to be related to the former by a twist555This expectation is based on the classification of Poisson structures on Poincaré group presented in zakrzewski1997 .

### III.2 Phase space of 2+1 gravity

The phase space algebra of one particle in 2+1 dimensional gravity is the algebra of asymptotic charges. This algebra has been carefully analyzed by Matschull and Welling in Matschull:1997du . They find that the physical momentum manifold is anti de Sitter space and that $`\eta _\mu =p_\mu `$, as stated above. This means that 2+1 gravity seems to pick the classical basis of DSR as the one having physical relevance. Further, Matschull and Welling employ a particular decomposition of the $`SO(3,1)`$ algebra, in which the positions $`𝒴_\mu `$ act on momenta as right multiplication and have the following brackets with $`\eta _A`$.

$$[𝒴_0,\eta _3]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _0,[𝒴_0,\eta _0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _3,[𝒴_0,\eta _i]=\frac{1}{\kappa }ϵ_{ij}\eta _j$$
(21)
$$[𝒴_i,\eta _3]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\eta _i,[𝒴_i,\eta _0]=\frac{1}{\kappa }ϵ_{ij}\eta _j,$$

$$[𝒴_i,\eta _j]=\frac{1}{\kappa }\left(ϵ_{ij}\eta _0\delta _{ij}\eta _3\right).$$
(22)
Comparing the expressions (18), (19) with (21), (22) we easily find that these decompositions are related by

$$𝒴_0=y_0\frac{1}{\kappa }M,𝒴_i=y_i\frac{1}{\kappa }\left(N_iϵ_{ij}N_j\right).$$
(23)
It can be also easily checked that

$$[𝒴_\mu ,𝒴_\nu ]=\frac{2}{\kappa }ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }𝒴^\rho .$$
(24)
Thus the DSR anti de Sitter phase space is (up to a trivial reshuffling of the generators) equivalent to the phase space of a single particle in 2+1 gravity.

It is an open problem whether one can get de Sitter space as a manifold of momenta from 2+1 quantum gravity. It would be interesting to see if this is the case. If so, there exist two kinds of phase spaces of a particle in a 2+1 gravitational field corresponding to two DSR phase space algebras presented above.

## IV Implications for physics in $`3+1`$ dimensions

We present here an argument that suggests that the results of this paper, and of those we reference, concerning $`2+1`$ dimensional quantum gravity coupled to point particles may have implications for real physics in $`3+1`$ dimensions.

The main idea is to construct an experimental situation that forces a dimensional reduction to the $`2+1`$ dimensional theory. It is interesting that this can be done in quantum theory, using the uncertainty principle as an essential element of the argument.

Let us consider a system of two relativistic interacting elementary particles in $`3+1`$ dimensions, whose masses are less than $`G^1`$. In the center of mass frame the motion will be planar. Let us consider the system as described by an inertial observer who travels perpendicular to the plane of the system’s motion, which we will call the $`z`$ direction. From the point of view of that observer, the system is in an eigenstate of total longitudinal momentum, $`\widehat{P}_z^{total}`$, with some eigenvalue $`P_z`$. Since the system is in an eigenstate of $`\widehat{P}_z^{total}`$ the wavefunction of the center of mass will be uniform in $`z`$.

Further, since there was initially zero relative momentum between the particles in the $`z`$ direction it is also true in the observers frame that

$$P_z^{rel}=P_z^1P_z^2=0.$$
(25)
This implies of course $`P_z^1=P_z^2=P_z^{total}/2`$. Then the above applies as well to each particle, i.e. their wavefunctions are uniform in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction as their wavefunctions have wavelength $`2L`$ where

$$L=\frac{\mathrm{}}{P_z^{total}}$$
(26)
At the same time, we assume that the uncertainties in the transverse positions are bounded a scale $`r`$, such that $`r2L`$.

Then the wavefunctions for the two particles have support on narrow cylinders of radius $`r`$ which extend uniformly in the $`z`$ direction.

Finally, we assume that the state of the gravitational field is semiclassical, so that to a good approximation, within $`𝒞`$ the semiclassical Einstein equations hold.

$$G_{ab}=8\pi G<\widehat{T}_{ab}>$$
(27)
Note that we do not have to assume that the semiclassical approximation holds for all states. We assume something much weaker, which is that there are subspaces of states in which it holds.

Since the wavefunctions are uniform in $`z`$, this implies that the gravitational field seen by our observer will have a spacelike Killing field $`k^a=(/z)^a`$.

Thus, if there are no forces other than the gravitational field, the scattering of the two particles described semiclassically by (27) must be the same as that of two parallel cosmic strings. This is known to be described by an equivalent $`2+1`$ dimensional problem in which the gravitational field is dimensionally reduced along the $`z`$ direction so that the two “cosmic strings” which are the sources of the gravitational field, are replaced by two punctures.

The dimensional reduction is governed by a length $`d`$, which is the extent in $`z`$ that the system extends. We cannot take $`d<L`$ without violating the uncertainty principle. It is then convenient to take $`d=L`$. Further, since the system consists of elementary particles, they have no intrinsic extent, so there is no other scale associated with their extent in the $`z`$ direction. We can then identify $`z=0`$ and $`z=L`$ to make an equivalent toroidal system, and then dimensionally reduce along $`z`$. The relationship between the four dimensional Newton’s constant $`G^{3+1}`$ and the three dimensional Newton’s constant $`G^{2+1}=G`$, which played a role so far in this paper is given by

$$G^{2+1}=\frac{G^{3+1}}{2L}=\frac{G^{3+1}P_z^{tot}}{2\mathrm{}}$$
(28)
Thus, in the analogous $`2+1`$ dimensional system, which is equivalent to the original system as seen from the point of view of the boosted observer, the Newton’s constant depends on the longitudinal momenta.

Of course, in general there will be an additional scalar field, corresponding to the dynamical degrees of freedom of the gravitational field. We will for the moment assume that these are unexcited, but exciting them will not affect the analysis so long as the gravitational excitations are invariant also under the killing field and are of compact support.

Now we note that, if there are no other particles or excited degrees of freedom, the energy of the system can to a good approximation be described by the hamiltonian $`H`$ of the two dimensional dimensionally reduced system. This is described by a boundary integral, which may be taken over any circle that encloses the two particles. But this is bounded from above, by (2). This may seem strange, but it is easy to see that it has a natural four dimensional interpretation.

The bound is given by

$$M<\frac{1}{4G^{2+1}}=\frac{2L}{4G^{3+1}}$$
(29)
where $`M`$ is the value of the ADM hamiltonian, $`H`$. But this just implies that

$$L>2G^{3+1}M=R_{Sch}$$
(30)
i.e. this has to be true, otherwise the dynamics of the gravitational field in $`3+1`$ dimensions would have collapsed the system to a black hole! Thus, we see that the total bound from above of the energy in $`2+1`$ dimensions is necessary so that one cannot violate the condition in $`3+1`$ dimensions that a system be larger than its Schwarzschild radius.

Note that we also must have

$$M>P_z^{tot}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{L}$$
(31)
Together with (30) this implies $`L>l_{Planck}`$, which is of course necessary if the semiclassical argument we are giving is to hold.

Now, we have put no restriction on any components of momentum or position in the transverse directions. So the system still has symmetries in the transverse directions. Furthermore, the argument extends to any number of particles, so long as their relative momenta are coplanar. Thus, we learn the following.

Let $`^{QG}`$ be the full Hilbert space of the quantum theory of gravity, coupled to some appropriate matter fields, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Let us consider a subspace of states $`^{weak}`$ which are relevant in the low energy limit in which all energies are small in Planck units. We expect that this will have a symmetry algebra which is related to the Poincaré algebra $`𝒫^{3+1}`$ in $`3+1`$ dimensions, by some possible small deformations parameterized by $`G^{3+1}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Let us call this low energy symmetry group $`𝒫_G^{3+1}`$.

Let us now consider the subspace of $`^{weak}`$ which is described by the system we have just constructed . It contains two particles, and is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{P}_z^{tot}`$ with large $`P_z^{tot}`$ and vanishing relative longitudinal momenta. Let us call this subspace of Hilbert space $`_{P_z}`$.

The conditions that define this subspace break the generators of the (possibly modified) Poincaré algebra that involve the $`z`$ direction. But they leave unbroken the symmetry in the $`2+1`$ dimensional transverse space. Thus, a subgroup of $`𝒫_G^{3+1}`$ acts on this space, which we will call $`𝒫_G^{2+1}𝒫_G^{3+1}`$.

We have argued that the physics in $`_{P_z}`$ is to good approximation described by an analogue system in of two particles in $`2+1`$ gravity. However, we know from the results cited in the previous sections that the symmetry algebra acting there is not by the ordinary $`2+1`$ dimensional Poincaré algebra, but by the $`\kappa `$-Poincaré algebra in $`2+1`$ dimensions, with

$$\kappa ^1=\frac{4G^{3+1}P_z^{tot}}{\mathrm{}}$$
(32)
In particular, there is a maximum energy given by

$$M_{max}(P_z^{tot})=\kappa =\frac{M_{Planck}^2}{4P_z^{total}}$$
(33)
This gives us a last condition,

$$MP_z^{total}<\frac{M_{Planck}^2}{4}$$
(34)
which is compatible with the previous conditions. Thus, when all the conditions are satisfied, the deformed symmetry algebra must be identified with $`𝒫_G^{2+1}`$.

Now we can note the following. Whatever $`𝒫_G^{3+1}`$ is, it must have the following properties:

* It depends on $`G^{3+1}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, so that it’s action on each subspace $`_{P_z}`$, for each choice of $`P_z`$, is the $`\kappa `$ deformed $`2+1`$ Poincaré algebra, with $`\kappa `$ as above.
* It does not satisfy the rule that momenta and energy add, on all states in $``$, since they are not satisfied in these subspaces.
* Therefore, whatever $`𝒫_G^{3+1}`$ is, it is not the classical Poincaré group.

Thus the theory of particle kinematics at ultra high energies is not Special Relativity, and the arguments presented above suggest that it might be Doubly Special Relativity.

## V Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Giovanni Amelino-Camelia and Artem Staroduptsev for discussions.


text:
# Two-Fluxon Dynamics in Annular Josephson Junction

## I Introduction

A magnetic flux quantum (fluxon) in long Josephson junction (LJJ) is a well-known physical example of a sine-Gordon soliton. Ring-shaped (annular) LLJs serve as the ideal setting to study the fluxon dynamics, as it is not perturbed by boundary conditions at edges, which is the case for linear LLJs Davidson et al. (1985). Due to the magnetic-flux quantization in a superconducting ring, the number of fluxons initially trapped in an annular junction is conserved. An effective tool, which makes it possible to create an effective spatially periodic potential for a fluxon trapped in the annular LJJ, is external dc magnetic field directed parallel to the ring’s plane Gronbech-Jensen et al. (1991a). If $`\theta `$ is the angular fluxon coordinate along the ring, the effective potential is $`U(\theta )H\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`H`$ is the strength of the magnetic field. The minimum of the potential is located at the spot where the fluxon’s magnetic moment is directed along the external field. The dynamics of a single fluxon in the spatially periodic potential has been an object of intensive theoretical and experimental investigations McLaughlin and Scott (1978); Mkrtchyan and Schmidt (1979); Golubov et al. (1988); Kivshar and Malomed (1989); Ustinov (1996); Martucciello and Monaco (1996); Ustinov et al. (1997); Carapella and Costabile (2001); Goldobin et al. (2001).

The objective of the present work is to study, both theoretically and experimentally, dynamics of two fluxons with equal polarities trapped in the annular LJJ. The system is schematically shown in Fig. 1. This problem is distinguished by the interplay of the above-mentioned effective periodic potential acting on each fluxon and direct interaction (repulsion) between them.

The interaction between two fluxons in LJJs was first studied theoretically by Karpman et al. (see Ref. Karpman et al., 1981 and references therein). These authors found an analytic expression for the interaction force between fluxons in the case of a small relative velocity, which corresponds to the “nonrelativistic” approximation when the relative velocity is much smaller than the limit velocity in the LJJ (the Swihart velocity). However, in the situation relevant to experiment, the latter condition is not met, in the general case. In this paper, we aim to develop an analytical description of the interaction valid in the general (“relativistic”) case. The theory will be based on an asymptotic method for weakly interacting solitons in non-integrable systems Gorshkov and Ostovsky (1981); Kivshar and Malomed (1989); Malomed (2002). The analysis will be followed by direct simulations and presentation of experimental results.

The theoretical model for the annular LJJ in the external magnetic field was proposed in Ref. Gronbech-Jensen et al. (1991a). It is based on the following extended (perturbed) sine-Gordon (sG) equation for the superconducting phase difference $`\phi `$ between electrodes of the junction:

$$\phi _{xx}\phi _{tt}\mathrm{sin}\phi =\alpha \phi _t+\gamma +h\mathrm{sin}(qx).$$
(1)
Here $`x`$ is the coordinate along the ring, which is normalized to the Josephson penetration depth $`\lambda _J`$, the time $`t`$ is normalized to the inverse plasma frequency $`\omega _0^1`$, $`\alpha `$ is a dissipation coefficient due to the quasiparticle tunnelling across the junction, and $`\gamma `$ is the bias current density (which is necessary in order to compensate losses due to dissipation), normalized to the critical current density $`j_c`$ of the junction. As usually, the bias current is assumed to be uniformly distributed along the ring. Further, $`q2\pi /L`$, where $`L`$ is the normalized circumference of the junction, and $`h`$ is the strength of the external magnetic field $`H`$, normalized by a sample-specific geometric factor Gronbech-Jensen et al. (1991a); Martucciello and Monaco (1996). If $`N`$ fluxons are trapped in the ring, Eq. (1) is supplemented by the boundary condition

$$\phi (L+x,t)=\phi (x,t)+2\pi N.$$

The paper is organized as following. The single-fluxon dynamics in the annular LJJ is reviewed in Sec. II.1. In Sec. II.2, the derivation of an effective force of interaction between two fluxons, valid in the general (relativistic) case, is presented. Result of numerical calculations are displayed in Sec. III. In Sec. III.1, we analytically consider a special case of an ostensible resonance in the two-fluxon system. In Sec. IV, we present experimental results for two fluxons trapped in an annular LJJ.

## II Theory

### II.1 The basic model

In our theoretical approach, we assume, as it is usually done, that the fluxons are well separated from each other, $`|\xi _1\xi _2|1`$, where $`\xi _{1,2}`$ are coordinates of their centers. In this case the two-soliton state may be represented by a linear combination of two single-soliton solutions:

$$\phi =\phi _1+\phi _2,$$
(2)
where

$$\phi _n=4\mathrm{arctan}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x\xi _n(t)}{\sqrt{1\dot{\xi }_n^2}}\right)+2\pi (n1)$$
(3)
is the single-soliton solution of the unperturbed sG equation, and $`\dot{\xi }_n`$ is the velocity of the $`n`$-th soliton. The last term in Eq. (3) is an arbitrary shift of the background phase (which is always possible if it is a multiple of $`2\pi `$), which is chosen for convenience in what follows below.

Before discussing the interaction of two fluxons, we briefly recall known results for a single fluxon trapped in an annular LJJ. This fluxon may be considered as a quasiparticle obeying the well-known equation of motion McLaughlin and Scott (1978); Gronbech-Jensen et al. (1991b):

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\dot{\xi }}{\sqrt{1\dot{\xi }^2}}\right)+\frac{\alpha \dot{\xi }}{\sqrt{1\dot{\xi }^2}}+\frac{\pi h}{4}\mathrm{sech}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{L}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(q\xi \right)=\frac{\pi \gamma }{4}.$$
(4)
It is tantamount to the equation of motion for a relativistic pendulum in a lossy medium under the action of constant torque. This equation has solutions of two types. The first type gives rise to $`|\xi (t)|`$ growing infinitely. It describes progressive motion (rotation) of the fluxon around the ring, with a nonzero mean value of the velocity $`\dot{\xi }`$. Solutions of the second type correspond to small oscillations of the fluxon around the minimum of the effective potential with the frequency

$$\omega _0=\left[\frac{\pi ^2}{2L}\mathrm{sech}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{L}\right)\sqrt{h^2\gamma ^2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{L}\right)}\right]^{1/2},$$
(5)
the average velocity being zero. This state exists if $`|\gamma |`$ is below the critical value,

$$\gamma _c^{(1)}=h\mathrm{sech}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{L}\right).$$
(6)
In the presence of dissipation $`(\alpha 0)`$, the oscillations are damped, and in the stationary state the fluxon is at rest. On the other hand, the progressive motion remains possible if the dissipation is not too strong. The fluxon moves with the average velocity, which, in the first approximation, is given by the McLaughlin-Scott formula McLaughlin and Scott (1978),

$$<\dot{\xi }_0>=\left(1+\frac{4\alpha }{\pi \gamma }\right)^{1/2}.$$
(7)
Equation (7) determines the current-voltage characteristics of the junction with a single trapped fluxon.

In the case of two trapped fluxons, we assume that they are quasiparticles interacting with a certain force (see below), and all the forces in Eq. (4) act on each fluxon separately. In this case, three different dynamical regimes are expected: (i) oscillations of both fluxons (“O-O” regime, i.e., a zero-voltage state), (ii) rotation of both fluxons (“R-R” regime), (iii) rotation of one fluxon and oscillations of the other one (“R-O” regime). Note that in R-O regime oscillations take place even in the presence of dissipation, because the fluxon whose average velocity is zero is periodically excited by collisions with the rotating one. All the regimes are implied to be quasi-stationary states due to the stabilized effect of the dissipation.

### II.2 The interaction force

In order to find the interaction force between two fluxons, we use the center-of-mass reference frame (C-frame). In this frame, the two solitons move with velocities $`\pm u`$, where

$$u=\frac{1\dot{\xi }_1\dot{\xi }_2\sqrt{1\dot{\xi }_1^2}\sqrt{1\dot{\xi }_2^2}}{\dot{\xi }_1\dot{\xi }_2}.$$

In the subsequent calculation, we set $`\xi _1<\xi _2`$.

To calculate an effective potential of the interaction between fluxons, which will then produce the interaction force, we start with the Hamiltonian of the unperturbed sG equation for the infinitely long system:

$$H=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x\left(\frac{1}{2}\phi _t^2+\frac{1}{2}\phi _x^2+1\mathrm{cos}\phi \right).$$
(8)
For the calculation of the Hamiltonian (8), we divide the space into two parts. The left (right) part occupies the space from $`\mathrm{}`$ ($`+\mathrm{}`$) to the midpoint between the two fluxons, $`a(\xi _1+\xi _2)/2`$. We perform the actual calculation for the left part only, as for the right part the calculation is quite similar.

In the left part, we substitute the solution as the linear combination (2), where $`\phi _2`$ is considered as a small perturbation, as the two fluxons are assumed to be well separated. Then, the Hamiltonian is written, in the first approximation, as

$$H_{\mathrm{left}}=H_1+\delta H_{\mathrm{left},\mathrm{int}},$$

where $`H_1=8/\sqrt{1u^2}`$ is the Hamiltonian of the unperturbed sG soliton, and the interaction term is of the first order with respect to the weak field $`\phi _2`$,

$$\delta H_{\mathrm{left},\mathrm{int}}=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{a}{}}𝑑x\left(\phi _{1,x}\phi _{2,x}+\phi _{1,t}\phi _{2,t}+\phi _2\mathrm{sin}\phi _1\right)$$
(9)
(recall the subscripts $`x`$ and $`t`$ stand for the corresponding partial derivatives). Substituting the expression valid for a moving soliton, $`\phi _{n,t}=\dot{\xi }\phi _{n,x}`$, and integrating by parts, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta H_{\mathrm{left},\mathrm{int}}=(1u^2)\phi _{1,x}\phi _2|_{\mathrm{}}^a+\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{a}{}}𝑑x\phi _2\left(\phi _{1,xx}+\phi _{1,tt}+\mathrm{sin}\phi _1\right).\end{array}$$
(10)
The integral term in Eq. (10) is zero as the bracketed expression is the sine-Gordon equation proper (this way to nullify the integral terms is known in the general analysis of the interaction between separated solitons Malomed (2002)). The contribution to the first term in Eq. (10) at the left limit, $`x=\mathrm{}`$, is zero too because both $`\phi _{1,x}`$ and $`\phi _2`$ decay exponentially at infinity. In order to calculate the contribution from the upper limit, we use the asymptotic form of $`\phi _{1,x}`$ ($`\phi _2`$) at large values of $`x`$ (which is also a known point in the general analysis of the soliton-soliton interaction Malomed (2002)):

$$\phi _{1,x}=\frac{4}{\sqrt{1u^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x\xi _1}{\sqrt{1u^2}}\right),$$

$$\phi _2=4\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x\xi _2}{\sqrt{1u^2}}\right).$$
(11)
After the substitution of the expressions (11) into Eq. (10) and calculation of the nonvanishing contribution to the first term from the right limit, $`x=a`$, and then getting back from the C-frame to the laboratory reference frame (L-frame), we arrive at an expression for the interaction potential for two moving fluxons in the infinitely long junction,

$$\delta H_{\mathrm{int}}=32\frac{\sqrt{1u^2}}{\sqrt{1V^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|\xi _1\xi _2|}{\sqrt{1u^2}}\right),$$
(12)
where the contribution of the right half space is taken into account and

$$V=\frac{1+\dot{\xi }_1\dot{\xi }_2\sqrt{1\dot{\xi }_1^2}\sqrt{1\dot{\xi }_2^2}}{\dot{\xi }_1+\dot{\xi }_2}$$
(13)
is the velocity of the center-of-mass of the two-fluxon set in L-frame. In the case of equal velocities, the potential (12) reduces to the well-known result of Karpman et al. Karpman et al. (1981).

The potential (12) gives rise to two forces acting on each soliton, due to the ring geometry of the system, which should be added to the individual forces in Eq. (4),

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(F_{\mathrm{int}}\right)_1=\left(F_{\mathrm{int}}\right)_2=\frac{1}{8}\frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Delta }x}\delta H_{\mathrm{int}}^{\mathrm{ring}}=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{4}{\sqrt{1V^2}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }X}{1u^2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{L\mathrm{\Delta }X}{1u^2}\right)\right],\end{array}$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }X=|\xi _1\xi _2|`$, and $`8`$ is for the effective mass of the fluxon in the present notation. Equations (4) and (14) describe the dynamics of the two-fluxon system in an annular LJJ. These equations of motion we solved numerically by means of the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method.

## III Numerical calculations

In order to verify the theory presented above, we checked numerical solutions of the quasi-particle equations of motion against direct simulations of the full equation (1). Here we present results for fixed values $`\alpha =0.02`$ and $`L=20`$, while the bias current $`\gamma `$ was varied in steps of $`0.002`$.

The general behavior of the system can be described as the following. While $`\gamma `$ increases form zero, both fluxons originally stay pinned in the effective potential induced by the magnetic field, so that the voltage across the junction is zero. At a critical value of the current $`\gamma _c`$, the system switches to the R-O regime, in which one of the fluxons rotates, while the other one oscillates due to periodic collisions with the moving fluxon. This state is stable up to another critical point, $`\gamma <\gamma _s`$. On the other hand, decreasing the bias current leads to a transition to the regime with both fluxons pinned (zero voltage) at a different value, $`\gamma =\gamma _r`$.

At $`\gamma >\gamma _s`$, the system operates in R-R regime with both fluxons rotating. Further increase of the bias current does not change the state of the system, up to a large value of the current, at which the junction switches to the “whirling” (alias resistive) state, with uniform rotation of the phase in all the system. When decreasing the bias current, the system switches first to the R-O regime, and then to the zero-voltage state.

Typical current-voltage (I-V) characteristics, which display all these states and transitions, are presented in Fig. 2. Points shown by dots correspond to the numerical solution of the full equation (1), while the lines depict solutions of the quasi-particle model based on Eqs. (4) and (14). As is seen, the analytical quasi-particle model making use of the expression (14) for the interaction forces is in good agreement with direct simulations.

The comparison of the critical values $`\gamma _c`$ of the bias current, obtained from the full simulations and from the analytical model, is shown in Fig. 3. A small difference between them can be attributed to the fact that, in the O-O regime, the actual distance between the pinned fluxons is small, hence the assumption of far separated fluxons does not apply in this case. Indeed the numerical simulations show that the distance between the fluxons in static case changes, depending on the magnetic field, in range of $`0.81.5`$.

For small currents, the I-V curve of the R-O and R-R regimes, found from the direct simulations of Eq. (1), feature additional small steps, which are due to resonant generation of radiation by the fluxons moving in the periodic potential Ustinov (1996).

The comparison of the other critical value of the bias current, $`\gamma _s`$ (which corresponds to the first step of the I-V characteristics), again as found from the direct simulations and analytical model, is shown, versus the magnetic field, in Fig. 4. At small values of the magnetic field, these dependencies agree very well. However, for $`h>0.45`$ the curve generated by the direct simulations goes down with the increase of the field. Actually, in this region the parameters $`\gamma `$ and $`h`$ are too large to apply the perturbation theory. With the further increase of $`h`$, $`\gamma _s`$ decreases until it becomes equal to $`\gamma _c`$. For a still stronger field, the system switches from the O-O regime directly to the whirling state.

On the other hand, the curve produced by the analytical approximation continues to go up with the field until $`h=0.5`$. For fields larger than $`0.5`$, the system resonantly switches from the R-O regime to the R-R one, but at so large values of the field the quasi-particle model based on the perturbation theory becomes completely irrelevant.

### III.1 A resonance condition

An noteworthy feature of the two-fluxon dynamics in the R-O regime is a possibility of a resonance between the natural frequency of oscillations of the trapped fluxon, and periodic excitation due to its collisions with the rotating one. The resonance condition is obtained by equating the frequency of small oscillations $`\omega _0`$, given by Eq. (5), and the rotation frequency $`\omega _r=q<\dot{\xi }_r>`$, where $`\dot{\xi }_r`$ is the velocity of the rotating fluxon, which can be obtained from Eq. (7). This yields

$$h=\gamma _{\mathrm{res}}\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{L}\right)\sqrt{1+\frac{64\pi ^2}{L^2(\pi \gamma _{\mathrm{res}}+4\alpha )^2}},$$
(15)
where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{res}}`$ is the value of the bias current corresponding to the resonance.

This dependence for $`L=20`$ and $`\alpha =0.02`$ is plotted in Fig. 5 by dots.

The line corresponds to the critical current of the two fluxon state found from full numerical simulations of Eq. (1) for the same length. It may be expected that this resonance would result in a resonant switching from R-O to R-R regime and drop of the critical current of the first step $`\gamma _s`$ vs. magnetic field $`h`$. However, at low magnetic fields the system switches to the R-O branch at higher current than the current corresponding to the resonance. At large magnetic field it switches directly to R-R branch, because the total perturbation (field + bias current) is too strong. Here the perturbation approach is not any more applicable; the numerical solution of the analytical model reflects the resonance behavior by a drop on $`\gamma _s(h)`$ dependence (solid line in Fig. 4). With increase of the junction length $`L`$ the the intersection point of the curves $`\gamma _c(h)`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{res}}(h)`$ moves upward in bias current, while its dependence on magnetic field is very weak.

## IV Experiment

Measurements of the I-V characteristics of the two-fluxon state were performed in long annular Nb-Al-AlOx-Nb junctions. Due to the magnetic flux quantization in a superconducting ring, the number of initially trapped fluxons (solitons) is conserved. Trapping of a magnetic flux in the junction was achieved while cooling the sample below the critical temperature $`T_c^{\mathrm{Nb}}=9.2`$ K of niobium, in the presence of a small bias current passing through the junction. The number of trapped fluxons was determined from the highes voltage of the highest resonant branche on the current-voltage characteristics (Fig. 6). Experiments were performed by applying the bias current $`I`$ from top to the bottom electrode of the junction and measuring the dc voltage generated due to the motion (rotation, in terms of the theoretical consideration) of the trapped fluxons. The results presented below were obtained for a junction with the mean diameter $`100\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and ring’s width $`3\mu \mathrm{m}`$. The circumference (length of the annular junction) in the normalized units was $`L=28.5`$, and the effective loss parameter was estimated as $`\alpha =0.03`$. The measurements were performed at 4.2 K.

At zero magnetic field, depinning of a single-fluxon was observed, as a switching from the zero voltage state to the single-fluxon step of the I-V curve (in the state with one trapped fluxon), at the current $`I_c`$ that was smaller by a factor $`65`$ than the critical current for the same junction, measured without trapped fluxons. This fact indicates a high degree of homogeneity of the junction (a strong local inhomogeneity would give rise to a much larger value of the fluxon-depinning critical current).

We measured I-V curves of the state with two trapped fluxons for different strengths of the applied magnetic field. One of these curves is shown in Fig. 6. The experimental curves qualitatively agree with our analysis illustrated by Fig. 2. Two branches of the I-V curve are observed. The first branch, at around $`65\mu `$V corresponds to the R-O regime and the second one at about $`130\mu `$V to R-R regime.

Figure 7 shows the measured value of the switching current for the transition from the R-O regime to the R-R one, versus the external magnetic field. The curve is quite similar to the calculated dependence $`\gamma _s(h)`$ (dots in Fig. 4), which was obtained above from direct integration of the full sine-Gordon model (1).

## V Summary

We have reported results of theoretical and experimental studies of two-fluxon dynamics in an long annular Josephson junction in presence of the external magnetic field. An analytical expression for the interaction force between two fluxons moving at different arbitrary velocities has been derived. Solution of the system of two coupled quasi-particle equations of motion for the fluxons, taking into account the interaction force, demonstrates good agreement with direct numerical simulations of the two-fluxon state in the full sine-Gordon model including all the perturbation factors.

Three distinct dynamical regimes of the two-fluxon state have been thus identified. First, both fluxons may be pinned in the potential induced by the magnetic field. There is some discrepancy in the prediction of the critical current, which destroys this static regime, between the quasi-particle model and direct simulations, due to the fact that the separation between the two trapped fluxons is rather small, while the analytical model assumes them to be well separated.

In the second regime, one of the fluxons rotates around the junction, while the other one oscillates in the potential well. For this (R-O) regime, the maximum current is very accurately predicted by the quasi-particle model, if compared to direct numerical results. For this case, we have also investigated the possibility of the resonant excitation of the trapped fluxon by periodic collisions with the rotating one.

In the third regime, both fluxons rotate. The corresponding I-V curves found by direct simulations demonstrate several additional small steps, which are due to resonant generation of small-amplitude plasma waves by fluxons moving in the periodic potential, which has been analyzed earlier Ustinov (1996) for the single-fluxon case.

The method developed in this work to calculate, in the general case, the effective interaction force acting between two moving solitons, may find application to other soliton-bearing systems.

###### Acknowledgements.

A.A.A. is grateful to F.Kh. Abdullaev and E.N. Tsoy for usefull discussions. We also wish to thank A. Kemp for help during experiment. B.A.M. appreciated hospitality of Physikalisches Institut III, of Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.