text:
# Segre and Rees products of posets, with ring-theoretic applications

## 1. Introduction

We describe constructions of finite partially ordered sets (posets for short) that generalize situations arising in commutative algebra to a combinatorial setting. For all constructions the principal question asked is: “Does this construction preserve the Cohen-Macaulay property ?” The posets that are relevant for the commutative algebra situation are those that occur as intervals in affine semigroup posets. A result of Peeva, Reiner and Sturmfels  shows that an answer to our principal question for the class of intervals in affine semigroup posets will give a corresponding answer to the question whether certain ring theoretic constructions preserve the Koszul property.

The ring-theoretic constructions that motivate this study are weighted Segre products (see ) and Rees algebras. We define poset-theoretic analogues of these constructions and prove that the Cohen-Macaulay property is preserved. As corollaries we obtain that weighted Segre products of affine semigroup rings preserve the Koszul property.

The following theorem and its corollaries are our main results. Further definitions and background is given in Section 2.

Segre products of posets: Let $`f:PS`$ and $`g:QS`$ be poset maps. Let $`P_{f,g}Q`$ be the induced subposet of the product poset $`P\times Q`$ consisting of the pairs $`(p,q)P\times Q`$ such that $`f(p)=g(q)`$. Recall that the product poset $`P\times Q`$ is ordered by $`(p,q)(p^{},q^{})`$ if $`pp^{}`$ and $`qq^{}`$. In the language of category theory the poset $`P_{f,g}Q`$ is the pullback of $`f:PSQ:g`$.

We will be concerned only with the case when $`S=:=\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ is the set of natural numbers equipped with its natural order. For a pure poset $`P`$ the rank function serves as an example of a poset map from $`P`$ to $``$. In case $`P`$ is a pure poset with rank function $`f=\mathrm{rk}`$ we write $`P_gQ`$ for $`P_{\mathrm{rk},g}Q`$ and call $`P_gQ`$ the Segre product of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ with respect to $`g`$ (or, the $`g`$-weighted Segre product  of $`P`$ and $`Q`$).

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be pure posets. Let $`\mathrm{rk}:P`$ be the rank function of $`P`$ and $`g:Q`$ be a strict poset map such that $`g(Q)\mathrm{rk}(P)`$. If $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are Cohen-Macaulay over the field $`k`$, then the Segre product $`P_gQ`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$. If $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are homotopically Cohen-Macaulay, then so is $`P_gQ`$.

Theorem 1 is a special case of a more general result for simplicial complexes, see Theorem 8 below.

Rees products of posets: Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be pure posets with rank functions $`\mathrm{rk}`$. Let $`PQ`$ be the poset on the ground set $`\{(p,q)P\times Q|\mathrm{rk}(p)\mathrm{rk}(q)\}`$ with order relation

$$(p,q)(p^{},q^{})\stackrel{\text{def}}{}pp^{},qq^{}\text{ and }\mathrm{rk}(p^{})\mathrm{rk}(p)\mathrm{rk}(q^{})\mathrm{rk}(q).$$

We call $`PQ`$ the Rees product of $`P`$ and $`Q`$. Note that it is not in general an induced subposet of the product $`P\times Q`$. However, as will be shown, it is nevertheless a special case of the Segre product. Thus, using Theorem 1 we prove

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be pure posets. If $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are Cohen-Macaulay over the field $`k`$ and $`Q`$ is acyclic over $`k`$, then the Rees product $`PQ`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$. If $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are homotopically Cohen-Macaulay and $`Q`$ is contractible, then $`PQ`$ is homotopically Cohen-Macaulay.

Affine semigroup rings: Theorem 1 has the following ring-theoretic consequence, explained and further discussed in Section 4.

###### Corollary 3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^e`$ be two homogeneous affine semigroups. Assume that the semigroup rings $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ and $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ are Koszul. Let $`g`$ be a grading of $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$. Then the weighted Segre product $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_gk[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ with respect to $`g`$ is Koszul.

Similarly, Theorem 2 has the following consequence, which can also be deduced by ring-theoretic arguments from a result of Backelin and Fröberg \[2, Proposition 3\].

###### Corollary 4.

Let $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ and $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ be Koszul affine semigroup rings. Let $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_i`$ and $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]_i`$ denote their $`i`$-th graded components and set $`𝔪_\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{i1}k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_i`$. Then the $`k`$-algebra

$$k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]=\underset{i0}{}𝔪_\mathrm{\Lambda }^i_kk[\mathrm{\Gamma }]_i$$

is Koszul.

Note that for $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]=k[t]`$ the Rees product $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ is the Rees ring $`[k[\mathrm{\Lambda }],𝔪_\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ of $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ with respect to its maximal ideal $`𝔪_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 2. Tools from Topological Combinatorics

We begin with a review of some basic definitions.

A chain $`C`$ in a poset $`P`$ is a linearly ordered subset, its length $`\mathrm{}(C)`$ is one less than its number of elements. A poset $`P`$ is pure if all maximal chains have the same length. For each element $`pP`$ of a pure poset $`P`$ the length of a maximal chain in $`P_p:=\{qPqp\}`$ is called the rank $`\mathrm{rk}(p)`$ of $`p`$ in $`P`$.

A poset $`P`$ is called bounded if there is a unique minimal element $`\widehat{0}`$ and a unique maximal element $`\widehat{1}`$ in $`P`$. For two elements $`xy`$ in $`P`$ we write $`[x,y]`$ for the closed interval $`\{z|xzy\}`$ in $`P`$, and similarly $`(x,y)`$ for the open interval $`\{z|x<z<y\}`$. Clearly, $`[x,y]`$ is a bounded poset. A poset $`P`$ is called graded if it is both bounded and pure. Let $`\widehat{P}:=P\{\widehat{0},\widehat{1}\}`$ denote $`P`$ augmented by new bottom and top elements $`\widehat{0}`$ and $`\widehat{1}`$. Thus, $`\widehat{P}`$ is graded iff $`P`$ is pure.

A map $`f:PQ`$ is a poset map \[resp. a strict poset map\] if $`x<y`$ implies $`f(x)f(y)`$ \[resp. $`f(x)<f(y)`$\] for all $`x,yP`$.

We write $`\mathrm{\Delta }(P)`$ for the simplicial complex of all chains of $`P`$. By $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i(P;k)`$ we denote the $`i`$-th reduced simplicial homology group of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(P)`$ with coefficients in $`k`$. Also, if convenient we identify $`P`$ with the geometric realization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(P)`$.

A poset $`P`$ is called Cohen-Macaulay over the field $`k`$ if for all $`x<y`$ in $`\widehat{P}`$ the reduced simplicial homology $`\stackrel{~}{H}_i((x,y);k)`$ vanishes for $`i\mathrm{rk}(y)\mathrm{rk}(x)2`$. A poset $`P`$ is called homotopically Cohen-Macaulay if for all $`x<y`$ in $`\widehat{P}`$ the interval $`(x,y)`$ is homotopy equivalent to a wedge of spheres of dimension $`\mathrm{rk}(y)\mathrm{rk}(x)2`$. Cohen-Macaulay posets are pure.

The Cohen-Macaulay-over-a-field-$`k`$ property for posets is a special case of a property defined for all finite simplicial complexes. This general notion of Cohen-Macaulayness is in turn equivalent to a particular instance of the ring-theoretic Cohen-Macaulay concept. For this connection with Commutative Algebra, see Stanley .

The construction of Segre products of posets generalizes a well known concept; namely, Segre products of posets subsume rank selection of posets. For a pure poset $`P`$ with rank function $`\mathrm{rk}`$, let $`S\mathrm{rk}(P)`$ be a set of ranks of the poset $`P`$. The rank-selected subposet of $`P`$ determined by $`S`$ is the induced subposet $`P_S`$ of all elements $`x`$ of $`P`$ such that $`\mathrm{rk}(x)S`$.

In the late 1970’s, rank selection was shown to preserve Cohen-Macaulayness over $`k`$ by Baclawski, Munkres, Stanley and Walker. See e.g. . Complete references are given in \[4, p. 1858\], where also a proof of the homotopy version is sketched.

###### Proposition 5.

\[3, Thm. 6.4\] \[4, Thm. 11.13\] Let $`P`$ be a Cohen-Macaulay poset over the field $`k`$ and let $`S\mathrm{rk}(P)`$. Then the rank-selected subposet $`P_S`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$. If $`P`$ is homotopically Cohen-Macaulay, then so is $`P_S`$.

In order to realize rank selection as a Segre product, let $`Q`$ be the chain on $`|S|`$ elements $`\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$. Let $`S=\{s_1<\mathrm{}<s_r\}`$ and let $`g`$ be the map that sends $`iQ`$ to $`s_i`$. Then it is easily seen that $`P_gQP_S`$. Unfortunately, Theorem 1 does not give a new proof of Proposition 5, but rather uses this fact as an essential point in the argumentation.

As a second tool we need another result, which is due to Baclawski  for Cohen-Macaulayness over $`k`$ and to Quillen  for homotopical Cohen-Macaulayness. Both versions are proved in slightly greater generality in .

###### Proposition 6.

\[3, Thm. 5.2\], \[17, Cor. 9.7\] Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be pure posets and $`f:PQ`$ a rank-preserving and surjective poset map. Assume that for all $`qQ`$ the fiber $`f^1(Q_q)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$. If $`Q`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$, then so is also $`P`$. The same is true with “Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$” everywhere replaced by “homotopically Cohen-Macaulay”.

We also need the following result on barycentric subdivisions, which can be obtained from the fact that Cohen-Macaulayness is invariant under homeomorphisms.

First recall a few definitions. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a simplicial complex then we can consider $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a poset, namely as the partially ordered set of its faces ordered by inclusion. Denote by $`(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ this face poset. The simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }((\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$ is called the barycentric subdivision of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and is well know to be homeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Proposition 7.

A poset $`P`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$ (resp. homotopically Cohen-Macaulay) if and only if the poset $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(P))`$ has the same property.

## 3. Proofs and comments

In this section we prove the main poset theoretic theorems and discuss some related questions.

The $`g`$-weighted Segre product $`P_gQ`$ of two pure posets $`P`$ and $`Q`$ was defined in Section 1. Note that $`P_gQ`$ is also pure, and that $`\mathrm{rk}_{P_gQ}(p,q)=\mathrm{rk}_Q(q)`$, for all $`(p,q)P_gQ`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{rk}(P_gQ)=\mathrm{rk}(Q)`$.

Proof of Theorem 1. Let

$$f:(\mathrm{\Delta }(P_gQ))(\mathrm{\Delta }(Q))$$

be the poset map that sends each chain $`(p_0,q_0)<\mathrm{}<(p_{\mathrm{}},q_{\mathrm{}})`$ to its projection $`q_0<\mathrm{}<q_{\mathrm{}}`$. This map is surjective and rank-preserving. For an element $`c=(q_0<\mathrm{}<q_{\mathrm{}})`$ in $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(Q))`$, the fiber $`f^1((\mathrm{\Delta }(Q))_c)`$ consists of all subchains of chains $`(p_0,q_0)<\mathrm{}<(p_{\mathrm{}},q_{\mathrm{}})`$ for which $`\mathrm{rk}(p_i)=g(q_i)`$ for all $`i`$. Setting $`S=\{g(q_0),\mathrm{},g(q_{\mathrm{}})\}`$, then clearly $`f^1((\mathrm{\Delta }(Q))_c)`$ is isomorphic to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(P_S))`$.

By Proposition 5 we know that $`P_S`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$ (resp. homotopically Cohen-Macaulay), since $`P`$ is. Also, Proposition 7 shows that since $`P_S`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$ (resp. homotopically Cohen-Macaulay) then so is also $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(P_S))`$. Hence, we get from Proposition 6 that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(P_gQ))`$ is Cohen-Macaulay. The assertion now follows via Proposition 7. $`\mathrm{}`$

We don’t see any reasonable way to go beyond Theorem 1 in its poset version. Consider these obstacles:

* If $`g(Q)\mathrm{rk}(P)`$ is not required, then if $`P`$ is a chain we can realize arbitrary lower order ideals in $`Q`$ as Segre products $`P_gQ`$.
* If $`g`$ is not strict, then a counterexample to the conclusion of the theorem can be constructed as follows. Let $`P`$ be a two element antichain, let $`Q=\{x<y\}`$ be a two element chain, and let $`g(x)=g(y)=0`$. Then $`P_gQ`$ is the disjoint union of two chains of length $`1`$, and hence the poset is not Cohen-Macaulay.

However, there is a rather straight-forward generalization of the Segre product to simplicial complexes.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ be simplicial complexes on vertex sets $`V_1`$ resp. $`V_2`$, with $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_2dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=d1`$. Assume that there are maps $`g_i:V_i\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ such that:

1. $`g_1`$ restricts to a bijection on each maximal face of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$,
2. $`g_2`$ is injective on each maximal face of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

Define a simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1_{g_1,g_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ on the vertex set $`V_1\times V_2`$ as having faces

$$\{(x_1,y_1),\mathrm{},(x_k,y_k)\}$$

for all $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_k\}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ such that $`g_1(x_i)=g_2(y_i)`$ for all $`i`$.

###### Theorem 8.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$ (resp. homotopically Cohen-Macaulay), then so is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1_{g_1,g_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$.

###### Proof.

Essentially the same proof as for Theorem 1 goes through. Instead of “rank-selected subposets” one has here to use “type-selected subcomplexes”, for which the preservation of Cohen-Macaulayness is also known, see \[4, p. 1858\]. ∎

In our opinion, even the following specialization of Theorem 1, to what might be called “unmixed Segre products”, is somewhat unexpected from the combinatorial point of view.

###### Corollary 9.

Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be pure posets and let $`\mathrm{rk}`$ denote the rank function for either poset. If $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$ then the poset $`P_{\mathrm{rk}}Q=\{(p,q)|\mathrm{rk}(p)=\mathrm{rk}(q)\}`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$. If $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are homotopically Cohen-Macaulay, then so is $`P_{\mathrm{rk}}Q`$.

###### Example 10.

Let $`M_n`$ denote the poset of all minors (square submatrices) of an $`n\times n`$ matrix. As a special case of Corollary 9 one sees that this poset of minors is Cohen-Macaulay. Namely, if $`B_n`$ denotes the Boolean lattice of all subsets of $`[n]:=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, then $`M_n`$ is clearly isomorphic to the Segre square $`B_n_{\mathrm{rk}}B_n=\{(A,B)A,B[n],|A|=|B|\}B_n\times B_n`$. Such Segre powers (of infinite posets) previously appeared in the work of Stanley, see \[18, Example 1.2\].

The number of $`(n2)`$-spheres in the wedge giving the homotopy type of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(M_n\{\widehat{0},\widehat{1}\})`$, or equivalently $`(1)^n\mu (\widehat{0},\widehat{1})`$ where $`\mu (\widehat{0},\widehat{1})`$ is the value of the Möbius function over $`M_n`$, is equal to the number of pairs of permutations of $`[n]`$ having no common ascent. This set of permutation-pairs is well studied (see ). In  one can find a recurrence relation for these numbers which is exactly the defining relation for the Möbius number of the Segre square of $`B_n`$.

A second way to obtain this enumerative result is via the theory of lexicographic shellability . A natural labeling rule for $`B_n_{\mathrm{rk}}B_n`$ is to give a covering $`(A_1,B_1)(A_2,B_2)`$ the label $`(a,b)`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the unique elements of $`A_2A_1`$ and $`B_2B_1`$, respectively. This is clearly an EL-labeling, and the falling chains are labeled by pairs of permutations with no common ascent.

A third approach is via the rank-selected $`\alpha `$\- and $`\beta `$-invariants $`\alpha _J`$ and $`\beta _J`$ of $`B_n`$, as defined by Stanley \[19, p.131\]. One gets that

$$(1)^n\mu (\widehat{0},\widehat{1})=\underset{J[n1]}{}\alpha _J\beta _J.$$

This expression for $`\mu (\widehat{0},\widehat{1})`$ of $`B_n_{\mathrm{rk}}B_n`$ follows from \[6, Theorem 5.1 (iii)\], and is more generally true for Segre squares of all Gorenstein\* (i.e., Cohen-Macaulay and Eulerian) posets. Since the Boolean lattice is lexicographically shellable there is a simple interpretation of $`\alpha _J`$ and $`\beta _J`$. For lexicographically shellable posets $`\beta _J`$ counts the number of maximal chains whose descent set is equal to $`J`$ and $`\alpha _J`$ counts the number of maximal chains whose descent set is contained in $`J`$. If one uses the labeling $`\lambda `$ of cover relations in $`B_n`$ where $`\lambda (AB)`$ is the unique element of $`BA`$, then maximal chains correspond to permutations in $`S_n`$. Thus $`{\displaystyle \underset{J[n1]}{}}\alpha _J\beta _J`$ counts pairs of permutations $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ such that the descent set of the first is contained in the descent set of the second. Equivalently, it counts pairs $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ of permutations such that at a place where $`\sigma `$ has a descent the permutation $`\tau `$ has an ascent. Now, if we reverse the permutations (when written as words) this set bijects to pairs of permutations with no common ascent.

We now turn to the Rees product $`PQ`$ of two pure posets $`P`$ and $`Q`$, defined in Section 1. Note that $`PQ`$ is also pure, and that $`\mathrm{rk}_{PQ}(p,q)=\mathrm{rk}_P(p)`$, for all $`(p,q)PQ`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{rk}(PQ)=\mathrm{rk}(P)`$.

###### Lemma 11.

Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be pure posets. Furthermore, let $`\stackrel{~}{Q}:=(Q\times C_n)_{[0,n]}`$, where $`n=\mathrm{rk}(P)`$, $`C_n`$ is a chain of $`n+1`$ elements, and the subscript denotes rank-selection to the elements of rank at most $`n`$ in the direct product. Then the Rees product $`PQ`$ is isomorphic to the (unweighted) Segre product $`P\stackrel{~}{Q}`$.

###### Proof.

The elements of $`P\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ are of the form $`(p,q,i)`$, where $`\mathrm{rk}(p)=\mathrm{rk}(q)+i`$, $`0in`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{rk}(q)\mathrm{rk}(p)`$. Now we have $`(p,q,i)(p^{},q^{},i^{})`$ if and only if $`pp^{}`$, $`qq^{}`$ and $`ii^{}`$. Thus by $`\mathrm{rk}(p)=\mathrm{rk}(q)+i`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}(p^{})=\mathrm{rk}(q^{})+i^{}`$ we infer that $`\mathrm{rk}(p)\mathrm{rk}(q)\mathrm{rk}(p^{})\mathrm{rk}(q^{})`$. Thus the projection map onto the first two coordinates is an isomorphism from $`P\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ to the Rees product $`PQ`$. ∎

Proof of Corollary 2. Let $`C_n`$ denote a chain of $`n+1`$ elements, where $`n=\mathrm{rk}(P)`$. By results of Baclawski  and Walker , a direct product of two posets which are Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$ (resp. homotopically Cohen-Macaulay) is again Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$ (resp. homotopically Cohen-Macaulay) if both posets are acyclic over $`k`$ (resp. contractible). Thus $`Q\times C_n`$ is Cohen-Macaulay if $`Q`$ is Cohen-Macaulay and acyclic over $`k`$ (resp. contractible). By Proposition 5 then also $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, and finally it follows from Theorem 1 that $`P\stackrel{~}{Q}PQ`$ is Cohen-Macaulay. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 12.

Let $`B_n\{\mathrm{}\}`$ be the Boolean lattice of all subsets of $`[n]`$ with the empty set removed. Let $`C_n`$ be a chain of $`n`$ elements. Both $`B_n\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`C_n`$ are homotopically Cohen-Macaulay and contractible. By Corollary 2 we therefore know that $`R_n=(B_n\{\mathrm{}\})C_n`$ is homotopically Cohen-Macaulay.

Attempts to compute the exact homotopy type of the poset $`R_n`$ have led to a problem that we state at the end of Section 5.

## 4. Affine semigroup rings

Our initial motivation for this work comes from the study of the Koszul property for affine semigroup rings in commutative algebra. In this section we explain this motivation and the ring-theoretic consequences of our main results.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ be an affine semigroup (i.e., a finitely generated additive sub-semigroup containing $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}}`$). For $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _d)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we set $`\underset{¯}{𝐱}^\lambda =x_1^{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}x_d^{\lambda _d}`$. For a field $`k`$ the semigroup-ring $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ is the subalgebra of the polynomial ring $`k[^d]=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ generated by all monomials $`\underset{¯}{𝐱}^\lambda `$ for $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The semigroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is equipped with the structure of a partially ordered set by setting $`\lambda \gamma `$ if there is a $`\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`\lambda +\rho =\gamma `$. Clearly, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ is the unique minimal element of the semigroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ regarded as a poset. In the sequel we will always assume that the elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ span $`^d`$ as a vector space. Then as posets all intervals in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are pure if all elements of a minimal generating set lie on an affine hyperplane; in this situation we also say $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is homogeneous. Note, that by the commutativity of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ it follows that every lower interval $`[\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda ]`$ is self-dual as a poset. Also, in the poset $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ every interval is isomorphic to a lower interval: $`[\mu ,\lambda ][\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda \mu ]`$.

We call a $`k`$-algebra $`A`$ standard graded if as a $`k`$-vector space $`A_iA_i`$, $`A_0=k`$, $`A_iA_jA_{i+j}`$ and $`A`$ is as an algebra generated by $`A_1`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is homogeneous then $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ is a standard graded algebra.

A standard graded $`k`$-algebra $`A=_iA_i`$ is called Koszul if $`k`$ has a linear resolution over $`A`$; or equivalently, if $`\mathrm{Tor}_i^A(k,k)_j=0`$ for $`ij`$ (see  for a comprehensive survey on Koszul rings). Via the bar resolution and work of Laudal and Sletsjøe , Peeva, Reiner and Sturmfels  observe the following relation between the Koszul property and Cohen-Macaulayness for affine semigroup rings:

###### Proposition 13 ().

For an affine semigroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and a field $`k`$ the following are equivalent:

* the ring $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ is Koszul;
* the interval $`(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda )`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay poset over $`k`$, for all $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$;
* the interval $`(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda )`$ is pure and has homology concentrated in dimension $`\mathrm{rk}(\lambda )2`$, for all $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Using this lemma, we now draw the ring-theoretic conclusions of our work in earlier section. For this we first review the required ring-theoretic concepts.

Weighted Segre products: Let $`A=_{i0}A_i`$ and $`B=_{i0}B_i`$ be two graded $`k`$-algebras. Also, let $`B=_{i0}B_i^{}`$ be another grading of $`B`$ as a $`k`$-algebra; i.e., $`B_i^{}B_j^{}B_{i+j}^{}`$. Assume that as $`k`$-vector spaces $`B_i=_{j0}B_iB_j^{}`$. The weighted Segre product $`A^{}B`$ of $`A`$ and $`B`$ with respect to the grading $`B=_{i0}B_i^{}`$ is the $`k`$-subalgebra of $`AB`$ generated by the elements $`abAB`$ such that $`aA_i`$ and $`bB_i^{}`$ for $`i`$. If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are standard graded $`k`$-algebras then $`A^{}B`$ is generated as a $`k`$-algebra by $`_{i0}A_i(B_i^{}B_1)`$. The concept of a weighted Segre product first appeared in work of Crona , where weighted Segre products of polynomial rings are considered. Since our results on weighted Segre products apply to affine semigroup rings only, we from now on we confine ourselves to this setting.

Let $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ and $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ be two affine semigroup rings for the homogeneous affine semigroups $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^e`$. Let $`f`$ be the standard grading for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let $`g:\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be some grading (i.e., semigroup map with $`g(\gamma )>0`$ for all $`\gamma 0`$).

The weighted Segre product of the affine semigroups $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with respect to the grading $`g`$, is the affine semigroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_g\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d+e}`$ of all pairs $`(\lambda ,\gamma )`$ with $`f(\lambda )=g(\gamma )`$. One easily sees that the semigroup-ring $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }_g\mathrm{\Gamma }]k[^{d+e}]`$ is (isomorphic to) the weighted Segre product $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_gk[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ (in the sense of the previous paragraph) of the affine semigroup rings $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ and $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$. The semigroup ring $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_gk[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ is again homogeneous with grading induced by $`(\lambda ,\gamma )h(\gamma )`$, where $`h`$ is the standard grading for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

We can now derive Corollary 3 from Theorem 1.

Proof of Corollary 3. It is easily seen that if $`(\lambda ,\gamma )\mathrm{\Lambda }_g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then the lower interval $`[\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},(\lambda ,\gamma )]`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is isomorphic to the $`g`$-weighted Segre product of posets $`[\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda ]_g[\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\gamma ]`$. Hence, Theorem 1 implies Corollary 3 via Proposition 13. $`\mathrm{}`$

We describe some special cases.

* Segre product: If $`g`$ is the standard grading of $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ then $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_gk[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ is the usual Segre product $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ of rings. It is known that in general the Segre product of two Koszul rings is again Koszul (Backelin & Fröberg ).
* Veronese-ring: If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$ and $`g(1)=s`$ then $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_gk[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ is the $`s`$-th Veronese ring of $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$. Again it is known that in general a Veronese ring of a Koszul ring is Koszul (Backelin & Fröberg ).
* Polynomial rings: If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=^d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=^e`$ then for a grading $`g:\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated in a fixed $`g`$-degree the ring $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_gk[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ is Koszul (Crona ).

Rees products: Let $`A`$ be a ring and $`I`$ an ideal in $`A`$. Then the Rees ring $`[A,I]`$ is the direct sum $`_{i0}t^iI^i`$, where $`t`$ is an additional indeterminate and $`I^0=A`$. Here we consider the case when $`A=_{i0}A_i`$ is a standard graded $`k`$-algebra and $`I=𝔪_A=_{i1}A_i`$. We also generalize the construction in the following way. Let $`B=_{i0}B_i`$ be another standard graded $`k`$-algebra. Then we define the Rees product $`AB`$ as the $`k`$-algebra $`_{i0}𝔪_A^i_kB_i`$. If $`B=k[t]`$ is the polynomial ring in a single variable the Rees product $`AB`$ is the Rees ring $`[A,𝔪_A]`$.

Essentially the same arguments that show that Rees rings of a Koszul algebra with respect to the maximal ideal are Koszul also show that the Rees product $`AB`$ preserves Koszulness.

###### Proposition 14.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be Koszul standard graded $`k`$-algebras. Then $`AB`$ is Koszul.

###### Proof.

Consider the Segre product $`R=A(Bk[t])`$. It is easily seen that the projection on $`AB`$ is a $`k`$-algebra isomorphism. Moreover, by  we know that Segre products preserve Koszulness, as do tensor products. Thus $`R`$ is a Koszul $`k`$-algebra. ∎

We consider the case when $`A=k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ and $`B=k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ are standard graded affine semigroup rings for semigroups $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^e`$. One checks that $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ is the affine semigroup ring $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{d+e}`$ is the affine semigroup generated by $`(\lambda ,\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}})`$ and $`(\lambda ,\gamma )`$ for elements $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of degree $`1`$. Clearly, Proposition 14 implies that for Koszul $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ and $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ the Rees product $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ is Koszul as well. But we want to present an alternative derivation of this fact by using the poset Rees product in order to give the motivation for our poset theoretic construction.

Proof of Corollary 4. Let $`\mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the rank functions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and let $`(\lambda ^{},\gamma ^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated be elements $`(\lambda ,\gamma )`$ where $`\mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda \mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma `$, it follows that $`\mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$ for all $`(\lambda ^{\prime \prime },\gamma ^{\prime \prime })(\lambda ^{},\gamma ^{})`$. Moreover, this also implies that $`(\lambda ^{\prime \prime },\gamma ^{\prime \prime })(\lambda ^{},\gamma ^{})`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda ^{}\mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^{}\mathrm{rk}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$. Thus

$$[\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},(\lambda ^{},\gamma ^{})][\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda ][\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\gamma ].$$

Now, by Proposition 13 we get that $`[\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda ]`$ and $`[\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\gamma ]`$ are Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$. Having a least and a maximal elements implies that $`[\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\gamma ]`$ is contractible. Thus by Corollary 2 it follows that $`[\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda ][\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\gamma ]`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$. Another application of Proposition 13 then proves the assertion. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5. Some open problems

The connection between topological combinatorics and ring theory via semigroup posets offers several interesting open problems. In closing we list a few.

In the following $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$ is a homogeneous affine semigroup, ordered in the usual way. Let $`\mathrm{rk}`$ be the rank function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a poset. Then the dimension $`dim((\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda ))`$ of the order complex of the open interval $`(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda )`$ is $`\mathrm{rk}(\lambda )2`$.

Let us call $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Cohen-Macaulay over a fixed field $`k`$ (resp. homotopically Cohen-Macaulay), if all intervals $`(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda )`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$ (resp. homotopically Cohen-Macaulay). Clearly, Cohen-Macaulayness over $`k`$ depends on the characteristic of the field $`k`$ only, and this property is equivalent to Koszulness of the ring $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ (by Proposition 13).

1. Ring-theoretic work of Avramov and Peeva  implies the following fact: Suppose that there exists a $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and an $`i>0`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{rk}(\lambda )2i}((\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda );k)0.$$

Then for all $`j>0`$ there exists some $`\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and some $`j^{}j`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{rk}(\lambda ^{})2j^{}}((\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda ^{});k)0.$$

Question: Does this have a combinatorial explanation?

Moreover, given $`\lambda `$, $`i`$ and $`j`$ it would be interesting to know lower and upper bounds on $`\mathrm{rk}(\lambda ^{})`$, and on $`j^{}`$.
2. Question: Is there an affine semigroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is Cohen-Macaulay over some field $`k`$ but not Cohen-Macaulay over some other field $`k^{}`$ ? Is there an affine semigroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is Cohen-Macaulay over some field $`k`$ but not homotopically Cohen-Macaulay ?

Moreover, in case the answer to the first question is yes, it is interesting to know whether either or both of the sets of characteristics for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is or is not Cohen-Macaulay can be infinite.
3. Work of Conca, Herzog, Trung and Valla  shows that for every $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and field $`k`$ there exists $`r>0`$ such that the rank-selected subposet $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r=\{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }r\text{ divides }\mathrm{rk}(\lambda )\}`$ has the property that all lower intervals $`(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}},\lambda )`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r`$ are Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$.

Question: Does this have a combinatorial explanation?

There is an analogous result for bigraded affine semigroups. Let $`f:\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ be a map of semigroups such that $`f^1((0,1))f^1((1,0))`$ is a generating set of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ consisting only of elements of rank $`1`$. For $`\gamma ^{}^2`$ denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^{}`$ the affine semigroup of all $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`f(\lambda )`$ is a multiple of $`\gamma ^{}`$. Then (by ) there is a $`\gamma ^2`$ such that for all $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ – this order relation is taken in $`^2`$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^{}`$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $`k`$. Of course, in general $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^{}]`$ does not even have to be homogeneous.

Question: Does this have a combinatorial explanation? Is there a version of this result for the property “homotopically Cohen-Macaulay”?
4. Let again $`f:\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ be a map of semigroups such that $`f^1((0,1))f^1((1,0))`$ is a generating set of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ consisting only of elements of rank $`1`$. A result by Blum  says that if $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ is Koszul then for $`\gamma ^2`$ the affine semigroup ring $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ]`$ is Koszul as well. (Here we use the notation from Problem (3).)

Question: Does this have a combinatorial explanation?

Let us see how this result relates to weighted Segre products. For weighted Segre products we are given maps $`\mathrm{rk}:\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`g:\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{rk}`$ is the rank function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`g`$ is a strictly monotone map of affine semigroups. These two together give a map $`f:=(\mathrm{rk},g):\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=f(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_2)\{(a,a)|a\}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1_g\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ is the affine semigroup $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_2)_\mathrm{\Gamma }:=f^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated by a single element $`\gamma `$ then $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_2)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a diagonal in the sense of  and  — except that $`f`$ usually does not fulfill that $`f^1((0,1))f^1((1,0))`$ is a generating set of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$.

We can also interpret this result as a result about the weighted Segre product of two affine semigroup rings $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ and $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$. Suppose that $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ is standard bigraded (i.e. graded with grading in $`^2`$ and generated by elements of degree $`(1,0)`$, and $`(0,1)`$) and $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ is bigraded in $`^2`$ by some grading $`g`$. Then the obvious extension of the symbol $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_gk[\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ to this situation gives $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ]`$ if we take $`k[\mathrm{\Gamma }]=k[t]`$ and grade $`t`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Question: Is there a result about the preservation of Koszulness for weighted Segre products of bigraded Koszul algebras ?

Question: Is there a result about the preservation of Cohen-Macaulayness for weighted Segre products of bigraded posets ?
5. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d`$ denote the affine semigroup generated by all vectors $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _d)^d`$ such that $`\lambda _i=d`$, except $`(1,\mathrm{},1)`$. It has been shown for $`d=3`$ that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, or equivalently that $`k[\mathrm{\Lambda }_d]`$ is Koszul . For $`d4`$ the question is still open.

Question: Is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_d`$ Cohen-Macaulay for all $`d`$ ?
6. Define the Rees product $`R_n`$ as in Example 12. Being homotopically Cohen-Macaulay we know that $`R_n`$ is homotopy equivalent to a wedge of spheres of dimension $`n1`$. We conjecture that the number of spheres in this wedge is the derangement number $`D_n`$, i.e., the number of permutations in the symmetric group $`S_n`$ without fixed points. For $`n7`$ we have verified by computer that the homology of $`R_n`$ is concentrated in top dimension and is free of rank $`D_n`$. Since the poset is homotopically Cohen-Macaulay this implies the conjecture for $`n7`$.

The evidence for this conjecture, other than computation for small cases, is a natural relationship with another poset, which has already been seen to have that homotopy type. Namely, let $`K_n`$ be the set of words of pairwise distinct letters over $`[n]`$ (i.e. an element of $`K_n`$ is a sequence $`a_1\mathrm{}a_k`$ where $`a_i[n]`$ and $`a_ia_j`$ for $`1i<jk`$). We order $`K_n`$ by subword order: $`a_1\mathrm{}a_kb_1\mathrm{}b_l`$ if and only if there are indices $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_kl`$ such that $`a_1\mathrm{}a_k=b_{i_1}\mathrm{}b_{i_k}`$. By results of  and  it follows that $`K_n`$ is homotopy equivalent to a wedge of $`D_n`$ spheres of dimension $`n1`$. The two posets are related by the poset map $`\varphi :K_nR_n`$ which sends $`a_1\mathrm{}a_k`$ to $`(\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_k\},j)`$, where $`j1`$ is the number of descents in $`a_1\mathrm{}a_k`$. Does this map relate the two posets homotopically?

For $`(A,i)R_n`$ the lower fiber $`\varphi ^1((R_n)_{(A,i)})`$ is the the order ideal $`I_{A,i}`$ generated by all words which use all letters in $`A`$ and have $`i1`$ descents. This ideal is, as examples show (see Table 1), in general not contractible. However, it seems to have reduced Euler-characteristic $`0`$ – which would suffice since both our posets are Cohen-Macaulay. Clearly, $`I_{A,i}`$ as a poset only depends on $`i`$ and the cardinality of $`A`$. Thus it suffices to consider the case $`A=[n]`$. The following table lists the homology groups $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(I_{[n],i},𝐙)`$. Note that we only list explicitly those homology groups that are non-zero.

| $`n\backslash i`$ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 0 |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2 | 0 | 0 |  |  |  |  |
| 3 | 0 | $`\stackrel{~}{H}_1=\stackrel{~}{H}_2=𝐙`$ | 0 |  |  |  |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |  |  |
| 5 | 0 | $`\stackrel{~}{H}_3=\stackrel{~}{H}_4=𝐙`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{H}_3=\stackrel{~}{H}_4=𝐙^6`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{H}_3=\stackrel{~}{H}_4=𝐙`$ | 0 |  |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | $`\stackrel{~}{H}_4=\stackrel{~}{H}_5=𝐙^{13}`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{H}_4=\stackrel{~}{H}_5=𝐙^{13}`$ | 0 | 0 |

Table 1. Homology groups of $`I_{[n],i}`$.

## 6. Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Jürgen Herzog for helpful hints and discussions.


format: text

text:
# Uncertainties in limits on TeV-gravity from neutrino-induced showers

## I Introduction

It has been proposed that in models of TeV-scale gravity tev , ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos colliding with atmospheric nuclei could form black holes (BHs) in the atmosphere Feng:2001ib . (For a review on nonperturbative gravitational events at trans-Planckian energies and references, see e.g. Ref. Cavaglia:2002si .) The products of BH decay would then be detected as extensive air showers (EASs) of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays (UHECRs).

One of the signatures of BH formation in the atmosphere atmosphere ; Ahn:2003qn  would be the observation of deeply penetrating quasi-horizontal EASs. Semiclassical calculations of BH cross sections suggest an interaction length for neutrino-nucleon events in air of the order of $`10^5`$ g cm-2, about two orders of magnitude lower than the standard model (SM). This is considered enough to generate deeply penetrating horizontal air showers with little background from the SM. The nonobservation of these deeply penetrating horizontal air showers can set an upper bound on the BH cross section Anchordoqui:2001cg ; Anchordoqui:2002vb ; Anchordoqui:2003jr . Since the semiclassical BH cross section is inversely proportional to the fundamental gravitational scale $`M_D`$, a lower bound on $`M_D`$ follows. For a number of extra dimensions $`n5`$, the estimated lower bound on the gravitational scale is $`M_D>1.01.4`$ TeV Anchordoqui:2003jr .

Limits on the fundamental gravitational scale from air showers depend on two main assumptions: i) the existence of a cosmogenic neutrino flux; and ii) the accuracy of estimates for the cross section for BH formation. The cosmogenic neutrino flux is not known with good precision. Many models have been proposed to estimate the flux, which varies by more than an order of magnitude (see e.g. Refs. cosmoflux ; Protheroe:1995ft ; Engel:2001hd ). Flux constraints made from experiments are quite generous in their range Fodor:2003ph . In addition, microscopic BH formation at trans-Planckian energies blackhole  is not understood nor has it been observed in particle collisions. Recent work assumes that the cross section for BH formation at parton level is approximately the semiclassical black disk (BD) area with Schwarzschild radius $`r_s(M)`$, where $`M`$ is the center of mass (c.m.) energy of the collision. However, a rigorous calculation of the BH cross section is still an open question.

The detection of microscopic BH formation in particle collisions would confirm TeV-gravity models. However, nonobservation of these events does not necessarily rule out TeV-gravity at this stage. A more stringent constraint on $`M_D`$ cannot be set until the neutrino flux and the physical process of BH formation are better understood. Microscopic BHs might not form in the atmosphere even if the gravitational scale is of order of the TeV. Therefore, constraints on $`M_D`$ from nonobservation of atmospheric BH events are not as stringent as what was previously considered. The perturbative predictions, on which current collider bounds are based collider ; Giudice:2003tu , seem to be a much stronger basis than those invoking strong gravitational effects.

In this article we revisit and discuss lower bounds on $`M_D`$ from nonobservation of BH-induced EASs in more detail, and find how various uncertainties may reduce these bounds.

## II Cross section

The total cross section for a neutrino-nucleon BH event in $`(n+4)`$-dimensions is obtained by summing the neutrino-parton cross section of BH formation $`\sigma _{\nu iBH}(xs,n,M_D)`$ over the parton distribution functions (PDFs) $`q_i(x,Q^2)`$ Brock:1993sz :

$$\sigma _{\nu pBH}(s,x_m,n,M_D)=\underset{i}{}_{x_m}^1𝑑xq_i(x,Q^2)\sigma _{\nu iBH}(xs,n,M_D),$$
(1)
where $`Q^2`$ is the four-momentum transfer squared, $`\sqrt{x}`$ is the fraction of the nucleon momentum carried by the parton, $`\sqrt{sx_m}=M_{BH,min}`$, the minimal BH mass where semiclassical description is valid, and the parton cross section $`\sigma _{\nu iBH}(xs,n,M_D)`$ is given by

$$\sigma _{\nu iBH}(xs,n,M_D)=F\frac{1}{M_D^2}\left[\frac{2^n\pi ^{n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n+3}{2}\right)}{(2+n)}\right]^{\frac{2}{n+1}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{xs}}{M_D}\right)^{\frac{2}{n+1}},$$
(2)
where $`F`$ is a form factor.

It should be noted that $`M_{BH,min}`$ is not necessarily equal to the minimum allowed mass of the BH, $`\overline{M}`$, and $`M_{BH,min}\overline{M}M_D`$ . $`M_{BH,min}`$ and $`\overline{M}`$ depend on quantum gravity physics and cannot presently be determined. $`x_m`$ is generally assumed to be a constant parameter of order one. For spherically symmetric BHs a justification for this choice is provided by the following semiclassical argument Anchordoqui:2003jr : For $`M_{BH,min}/M_D3`$ and $`n5`$, the Hawking entropy of the BH is larger than 10, and therefore strong gravitational effects can be neglected. The semiclassical results based on Eq. (1) are then extrapolated for $`M_{BH,min}/M_D3`$ with the assumption that the BH or its Planckian progenitor decays on the brane, whatever the quantum theory of gravity may be. As $`\overline{M}`$ and $`M_D`$ are not necessarily equal, caution is required in extrapolating down the semiclassical results to $`M_{BH,min}\overline{M}M_D`$, where the physics is unknown and quantum effects are important Giudice:2001ce . The entropy estimation is based on Hawking’s semiclassical theory and is not valid at energies a few times above the fundamental scale. For example, it has been shown that the existence of a minimum length could dramatically increase the value of $`\overline{M}`$, and thus also increase $`x_m`$ Cavaglia:2003qk . Finally, the estimate simply refers to static spherically symmetric BHs, and may be drastically affected if the geometry of the BH or its Planckian progenitor is different.

The form factor depends in principle on the energy of the process, on the gravitational scale, on the geometry and number of extra dimensions, and on the geometry and physical properties of the gravitational object. Some of the physical parameters that can affect the form factor are angular momentum, charge, geometry of the trapped surface, quantum corrections to classical gravity, unknown effects of super-Planckian particle physics, structure and topology of the compactified dimensions. With the lack of further insight, most authors simply set $`F=1`$. Yoshino and Nambu (YN) Yoshino:2002tx  numerically investigated the formation of the BH apparent horizon. In the YN approach $`F`$ is a numerical factor depending on the number of extra dimensions ranging from $`0.65`$ ($`n=0`$) to $`1.88`$ ($`n=7`$). YN gives a relation between the impact parameter and the mass of the BH which is formed in the collision. The result is that the mass of the BH decreases as the impact parameter increases up to a maximum value. This behavior affects the computation of the total cross section by requiring the lower bound of the integral in Eq. (1) to depend on the impact parameter. The total cross section in the YN approach is Anchordoqui:2003jr

$$\sigma _{\nu pBH}^{}(s,x_m,n,M_D)=\underset{i}{}_0^12z𝑑z_{x_m^{}}^1𝑑xq_i(x,Q^2)\sigma _{\nu iBH}(xs,n,M_D),$$
(3)
where $`z`$ is the impact parameter normalized to its maximum value and $`x_m^{}=x_m/y^2(z)`$, $`y(z)`$ being the fraction of c.m. energy that is trapped into the BH. The YN approach lowers the BD cross section (Fig. 1).

The YN result still relies on a number of assumptions that may affect the final estimate. (For recent criticisms, see Ref. Vasilenko:2003ak .) The incoming partons, for example, are modeled as classical neutral point-like particles. Partons carry color and EM charge, and it has been shown that the physics of collisions between charged particles is quite different from that of uncharged ones Casadio:2001wh . Moreover, it is not clear what constitutes the energy that is not trapped inside the horizon. Recent studies seem to suggest that gravitational emission can account only for a part of the missing BH energy Berti:2003si . This could signal that the physics of trans-Planckian collisions is more complex than the simple semiclassical picture.

Another source of uncertainty in Eq. (1) and Eq. (3) comes from the ambiguity in the definition of the momentum transfer for a BH event Emparan:2001kf . The latter is usually chosen to equal the BH mass or the inverse of the Schwarzschild radius. However, there are no definite arguments to prefer either one or to exclude alternative choices. The uncertainty due to the ambiguity in the definition of the momentum transfer is evaluated as $`1020`$% Anchordoqui:2001cg .

Finally, a minor but additional source of uncertainty in the total cross section is due to the PDFs. Different sets of PDFs are defined in the literature. The PDFs are not known for momentum transfer higher than a given value (see, e.g. Ref. Pumplin:2002vw ), which is lower than the momentum transfer expected in BH formation. Equation (1) and Eq. (3) are calculated by imposing a cut-off at this energy. They also suffer from uncertainties at any momentum transfer that can contribute to the reduction in the total cross section. The minimum uncertainty on the BH total cross section due to the PDFs can be estimated for a given distribution. The CTEQ6 distribution gives an uncertainty of $`34`$%, a value that does not include the uncertainty due to the cutoff on the momentum transfer nor the uncertainty introduced by the use of different sets of PDFs. The MRST distribution Martin:2003tt  for $`M_D=1.0`$ TeV and $`M_{BH,min}/M_D=3`$ gives results about $`1015`$% lower than the CTEQ distribution.

## III Effect of cross section uncertainties on $`M_D`$ bounds

The BD approximation may be different than the actual cross section due to these uncertainties. To give a concrete example of how the determination of the cross section affects the $`M_D`$ bounds, let us look at a case where the parton cross section is arbitrarily reduced by a constant factor of order one. The cause of this reduction could be any one or a combination of the uncertainties previously discussed.

Consider high energy primary neutrinos with energy $`E_\nu =10^610^8`$ TeV, $`M_{\mathrm{BH},\mathrm{min}}=3M_D`$ and $`n=5`$. For the sake of simplicity, we temporarily neglect the YN results and consider Eq. (1). This is sufficient for a rough estimation. The total cross section (1) for $`M_D=1`$ TeV and $`F=1`$ lies within the shaded band of the total cross section for $`M_D=0.72`$ TeV and $`F=1\pm 2/3`$. This is shown graphically in Fig. 2. Therefore, what is interpreted as the $`M_D=1.0`$ TeV bound in the naive BD approximation can actually be a less stringent bound if the parton cross section is two-thirds smaller: $`M_D=0.72`$ TeV, the lower bound from collider experiments derived from virtual graviton exchange collider ; Giudice:2003tu . The situation is made even more complicated by the presence of the unknown parameter $`M_{BH,min}`$. Increasing $`M_{BH,min}`$ corresponds to decreasing the BH cross section. The lower bound on the eleven-dimensional $`M_D`$ for $`M_{BH,min}/M_D=5`$ is approximately half the bound for $`M_{BH,min}/M_D=1`$.

## IV Number of events and neutrino flux

The uncertainties in the BH cross section listed above apply to BH formation by UHECR events as well as by particle colliders. In cosmic ray events, however, the unknown neutrino flux adds further uncertainties. In the YN approach, the number of neutrino-nucleon BH events detected by a cosmic ray detector in time $`T`$ is Anchordoqui:2003jr :

$$N=N_AT\underset{i}{}𝑑E_\nu _0^12z𝑑z_{x_m^{}}^1𝑑xq_i(x,Q^2)\sigma _{\nu iBH}(xs,n,M_D)\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dE_\nu }A(yE_\nu ),$$
(4)
where $`A(yE_\nu )`$ is the experiment acceptance for an air shower energy $`yE_\nu `$, $`N_A`$ is Avogadro’s number, and $`d\mathrm{\Phi }/dE_\nu `$ is the source flux of neutrinos.

The cosmogenic neutrino flux is considered to be the most reliable source of neutrinos. In this model berezinsky1  neutrinos are produced from ultrahigh energy protons interacting with the ubiquitous cosmic microwave background. However, this is not fully guaranteed as the existence of the cosmogenic neutrino flux relies on the assumption that cosmic rays with energies above $`10^8`$ TeV are extragalactic protons. Neither the source nor composition of cosmic rays above $`10^8`$ TeV are known (see, e.g., Ref. Ave:2000nd ; Olinto:2000sa ). If these are heavy nuclei or photons, or Lorentz invariance is violated lorentzv , there may be no cosmogenic neutrino flux at ultrahigh energies. Even if UHECRs are protons from extragalactic sources, cosmological evolution, spatial distribution, abundance, and injection spectrum of UHECR sources can change the cosmogenic neutrino flux by an order of magnitude. In order to derive a conservative lower bound on $`M_D`$, the lower end of plausible cosmogenic neutrino fluxes should be used in Eq. (4).

Here we consider a model that gives a relatively low neutrino flux in agreement with observations 111We thank Todor Stanev for providing the data.. The flux is calculated following the procedure of Ref. Engel:2001hd . The source spectrum is proportional to $`E^{2.6}\times \mathrm{exp}(E/E_c)`$, where $`E_c=10^{8.5}`$ TeV is the cutoff energy, and normalized to the cosmic ray luminosity at $`10^7`$ TeV. There is no cosmological evolution and the redshift integration is from $`z=0.058.00`$. The parameters used are consistent with observations: A spectral index of 2.6 is the best fit to the highest energy data DeMarco:2003ig  and the cutoff energy is limited by the highest energy cosmic ray event observed to date. Since the ultrahigh energy proton sources are unknown, their evolution cannot be determined. No evolution is a reasonable assumption for the lower end of the neutrino flux that should be considered. Our model flux is in good agreement with the lower bound obtained from cosmic ray data analysis Fodor:2003ph . Figure 3 compares this flux to two other fluxes, by Protheroe and Johnson (PJ) Protheroe:1995ft  and Engel, Seckel, and Stanev (ESS) Engel:2001hd . Our flux is lower by at least an order of magnitude than the PJ flux on the most relevant range of neutrino energies.

The sensitivity of the detector for horizontal air showers also affects the computation of the lower bounds on $`M_D`$. For example, the Pierre Auger Observatory Auger  uses 1.2 m high water Cherenkov detectors whereas AGASA AGASA  uses 5 cm thick scintillators. From purely geometrical arguements, AGASA’s detection capability rapidly goes down at large zenith angle. On the other hand, AGASA has a lower detector trigger threshold which gives higher sensitivity at lower energies. Scaling the aperture by the experiment size is an approximation that should be further improved.

## V Realistic bounds on $`M_D`$

The effect of the cosmogenic neutrino flux on $`M_D`$ lower bound is best illustrated by comparing the conservative flux of Sect. IV and the PJ flux. We performed a systematic analysis of the number of events using the above cosmogenic neutrino fluxes for different experiments (AGASA Yoshida , HiRes Abu-Zayyad:1999xa , RICE Kravchenko:2001id ) and different choices of parameters in the total cross sections from Eq. (1) and (3). For simplicity we used the apertures given by Refs. Anchordoqui:2001cg ; Anchordoqui:2002vb ; Anchordoqui:2003jr . Though RICE is an experiment looking into “ice showers” rather than EASs, the technique used in EAS experiments is applicable. The use of the PJ flux gives a lower bound of $`M_D1.01.4`$ TeV, which is comparable to and sometimes more stringent than collider bounds. The most optimistic case with our model flux is when $`Q=M_{BH}`$ and $`M_{BH,min}=M_D`$. The lower bounds on the fundamental scale range from $`M_D=0.3`$ ($`M_{BH,min}=M_D`$) to $`M_D<0.2`$ TeV ($`M_{BH,min}=5M_D`$). These limits are much lower than the collider limits 222The computations were performed using the CTEQ6 PDFs and YN approximation. The use of MRST PDFs give results identical within an uncertainty of 0.05 TeV and the BD approximation increases $`M_D`$ by $`0.050.15`$ TeV. collider ; Giudice:2003tu .

We also considered changing the cosmological evolution of the conservative flux to be that of Ref. Waxman:1995dg , i.e.

$$\begin{array}{cc}(1+z)^3(z<1.9)\hfill & \\ (1+1.9)^3(1.9<z<2.7)\hfill & \\ (1+1.9)^3\mathrm{exp}[(2.7\mathrm{z})/2.7](2.7<\mathrm{z}).\hfill & \end{array}$$
(5)
This increases the flux by about an order of magnitude. It is lower than the ESS flux for $`E_\nu 10^6`$ TeV, and is considerably less by a couple of factors than the PJ flux in all energy ranges. The lower bounds increase by about 0.4 TeV, but are still below the collider bounds.

## VI Conclusions

We have reviewed the method of constraining the fundamental Planck scale from nonobservation of EASs and discussed the uncertainties on the $`M_D`$ lower bound coming from the BH cross section and neutrino flux. The major source of uncertainties in the cross section is due to the lack of a definite theory of trans-Planckian scattering. Trans-Planckian gravity is not known at present to formulate a reliable model for BH formation. The BD approximation and its variants seem to provide a reasonable model for the BH formation cross section at parton level. However, the naive BD cross section relies on a number of crude assumptions and suffers from uncertainties that cannot be estimated. Neglected quantum gravity effects are expected to be relevant.

A conservative estimation of $`M_D`$ lower bounds is obtained by taking into account these caveats and considering the range of cosmogenic neutrino fluxes which are compatible with observations. The conclusion is that in the absence of independent determination of the cosmogenic neutrino flux and of reliable theoretical computation of the BH cross section, nonobservation of BH-induced deeply penetrating EASs gives lower bounds on the fundamental gravitational scale less stringent than present collider bounds.

## Acknowledgements

We thank T. Stanev for helpful discussions and providing the flux data, and L. Anchordoqui, M. Ave, A. Chou, U. D’Alesio, H. Goldberg, S. C. Park, T. Weiler, T. Yamamoto, H. Yoshino, and R. P. Mashimaro for helpful discussion. M. C. thanks M. Anselmino and the Department of Theoretical Physics of the University of Torino for kind hospitality. This work was supported in part by the NSF through grant AST-0071235 and DOE grant DE-FG0291-ER40606 at the University of Chicago and at the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics by grant NSF PHY-0114422. KICP is a NSF Physics Frontier Center.

## Note added in Proof

Recent work by Hossenfelder Hossenfelder:2004  calculates the BH cross section suppression from minimal length at LHC. It is found that the ratio between the total cross section with and without minimal length effects is approximately 0.19 for the expected LHC energy, and increasing at higher energies. This result strenghtens our arguments of section II, namely that the presence of a minimum length may substantially reduce the BD cross section.

In addition, progress in neutrino flux estimates with cosmic ray primaries other than protons have shown how uncertain the neutrino flux can be (see hep-ph/0409316 and hep-ph/0407618).


text:
# Effects of New Physics on CP Violation in B Decays

## 1 Introduction

With $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_d}`$ agreeing with CKM fit, New Physics (NP) seems absent in $`B_d`$ mixing, but $`bs`$ transitions seem fertile. The large $`K\pi /\pi \pi `$ ratio shows the importance of penguins. More intriguing Browder  is the hint of $`S_{\varphi K_S}<0`$, although $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_d}`$. Belle’s 2003 result Browder ; phiKs  is 3.5$`\sigma `$ from 0.74. Despite BaBar’s change in sign, this is still a strong indication for NP in $`bs`$ penguins.

$`B_s`$ mixing has been “just around the corner” since the 1990s. It eliminates the second quadrant for $`\varphi _3`$ in the CKM fit, but this would no longer hold if NP lurks. The litmus test for NP would be to find $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}0`$, hopefully in the near future. Another clear sign for NP would be wrong helicity photons in $`bs\gamma _L`$, which can be tested via measuring $`S_{B_s\varphi \gamma }`$, or by measuring $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$. However, there is now hope to reconstruct Browder  $`B_d`$ vertex from $`K_S`$ at B factories, allowing one to measure $`S_{B_dK_S\pi ^0\gamma }`$ where $`K_S\pi ^0`$ comes from $`K^0`$.

The present is already bright for NP search in $`bs`$ transitions, and the future can only be brighter! To elucidate the possibilities lying ahead for us, we focus on models that bring in just 1 extra CP phase in $`bs`$. The first model is that of a 4th generation AH . The second is large $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ mixing ACH ; CHN  with SUSY.

## 2 4th Generation

It is peculiar that, since the early HWS  discussions of impact of 4th generation on $`bs\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, where $`\lambda _t^{}V_{t^{}s}^{}V_{t^{}b}r_se^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_s}`$ was taken as real for convenience, the literature that followed mostly ignored the possibility of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s0`$.

It is true that $`\lambda _t\lambda _c\lambda _t^{}0.04\lambda _t^{}`$for $`r_s=|\lambda _t^{}||\lambda _u|\lambda ^50.0006`$. For a typical operator $`O_i(\mu )`$, its coefficient is changed from $`\lambda _tC_i^{\mathrm{SM}}(\mu )\lambda _tC_i^{\mathrm{SM}}(\mu )+\lambda _t^{}C_i^{\mathrm{new}}(\mu )`$. By simple rearrangement one gets,

$`\lambda _tC_i^{\mathrm{SM}}+\lambda _t^{}C_i^{\mathrm{new}}=\lambda _cC_i^{\mathrm{SM}}+\lambda _t^{}(C_i^{\mathrm{new}}C_i^{SM}),`$ (1)
where the first term is the usual SM contribution. The second term is the genuine 4th generation effect. It vanishes for $`m_t^{}m_t`$ or $`\lambda _t^{}0`$, as required by GIM. What has been popular, besides ignoring $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$, is to absorb $`\lambda _t^{}`$ into the definition of $`C_i^{\mathrm{new}}`$. This is rather bad practice.

We have 3 new parameters, $`m_t^{}`$, $`r_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$, where we are most interested in the latter. The constraints from $`^{\mathrm{expt}}(BX_s\gamma )=(3.3\pm 0.4)\times 10^4`$, which agrees with SM3, is rather weak. $`B_s`$ mixing is strongly dependent on $`m_t^{}`$. Choosing SM parameters such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}^{\mathrm{SM3}}=17.0\mathrm{ps}^1`$, the bound of $`14.9\mathrm{ps}^1`$ disfavors $`0r_s0.03`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_s>0`$, because $`t^{}`$ effect is destructive. The allowed parameter space is larger for lower $`m_t^{}`$, but the most forgiving zone is when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s\pi /2`$ or $`3\pi /2`$, i.e. purely imaginary, when $`t^{}`$ effects add in quadrature to SM3!

One interesting test ground for SM4 is $`bs\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ HWS , since the EW or Z penguin has strong $`m_t^{}`$ dependence like $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$. Unlike $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, however, several modes are now measured. The first measurement of $`BK\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ was on the high side of SM3, which motivated our study of SM4 AH . Now the number has come down, and both $`BK\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ and $`K^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ are not in disagreement with SM.

In any case, the exclusive rates have larger hadronic uncertainties, so let us focus on the inclusive, where the current Belle result of $`(BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})=(6.1\pm 1.4_{1.1}^{+1.3})\times 10^6`$ is slightly higher than SM3 expectation of $`4.2\times 10^6`$, partly because NNLO result dropped by 40%. In Fig. 1 we plot $`(BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ contours in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$-$`r_s`$ plane, for $`m_t^{}=`$ 250 and 350 GeV. For $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_s>0`$, $`BX_sl^+l^{}`$ is less than $`4.2\times 10^6`$ hence less favored. The behavior for $`\pi /2<\mathrm{\Phi }_s<3\pi /2`$ is rather similar to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, but provides more stringent bounds since $`B_s`$ mixing is not yet measured. Furthermore, it will more readily improve. In a way, one may say that if NNLO result for SM3 remains low, if refined experiment still gives $`5\times 10^6`$, SM4 may be called for. Again we note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s\pi /2`$ or $`3\pi /2`$ is more accommodating, and allows for larger $`r_s`$. However, there is no further information in $`m_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}^2`$ spectrum, and, constrained by the observed rate, $`𝒜_{FB}`$ is as in SM3.

The highlight for SM4, by considering CP phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$, is prospect for sizable $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$, where any nonvanishing value would indicate NP. We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}=2|M_{12}|`$ and $`M_{12}=|M_{12}^B|e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_S}}`$. As the box diagrams can contain none (SM3), one or two $`t^{}`$ legs, we have

$`M_{12}=|M_{12}|e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}}r_s^2e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }_s}A+r_se^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_s}B+C`$ (2)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are explicit functions of $`m_t`$ and $`m_t^{}`$ and $`C`$ is the usual SM3 contribution. This allows us to understand the change of “periodicity” of $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$ vs. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$ in Fig. 2, which plots both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ (left) and $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$ for $`m_t^{}=`$ 250, 300 GeV for several $`r_s`$ values. The straight lines are the SM3 expectations. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ this is slightly above experimental bound. Thus, only the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$ range where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ falls a little below the straight line is ruled out.

We offer several observations on prospects for $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$ by inspection of Fig. 2: (1) Even small $`r_s`$ values can give sizable $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$; (2) Both signs are possible; (3) Largest if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ is “just around the corner”, i.e. to be measured soon. This last point makes SM4 very interesting at the Tevatron Run II. As discussed, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ hovers around SM3 expectation for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s\pi /2`$ or $`3\pi /2`$, when all constraints are most accommodating because they add in quadrature to SM3 effects, except in the direct measure of CP phase, $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$. One has the ideal situation that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ is most measurable, while $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$ can vary between $`\pm 1`$.

## 3 Light $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒔𝒃}_{\mathrm{𝟏}𝑹}`$ Squark

The 4th generation is not effective on EM and strong penguins, because $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ effects are very soft for such loops. Furthermore, the chirality is the same as SM3, i.e. left-handed, hence only the usual right-handed helicity photons appear in $`bs\gamma `$. The scenario of a light $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_{1R}`$ squark, however, can touch all these aspects as well as $`B_s`$ mixing, though it does not affect $`bs\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$.

Large $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ mixing can be related, in the context of SUSY-GUT, to HLMP  the observed near maximal $`\nu _\mu `$-$`\nu _\tau `$ mixing. While this is attractive in itself, we prefer not to assume the behavior at high scale, but to look at what data demands. The 2003 average for $`S_{\varphi K_S}=0.15\pm 0.33`$ is still 2.7$`\sigma `$ from SM expectation of 0.74. As this would be a large NP $`bs`$ CP violation effect, it would demand (i) large effective $`s`$-$`b`$ mixing, and the presence of a (ii) large new CP phase. Furthermore, to allow for $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_d}`$, the (iii) new interaction should be right-handed KhaKou . We find it extremely interesting that all three aspects are brought about naturally by the synergies of Abelian flavor symmetry (AFS) and SUSY. We will see that AFS brings in large $`s_R`$-$`b_R`$ mixing, and SUSY makes this dynamical, and also activating one new CP phase in $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$ mixing.

Focusing only on the 2-3 down sector, the normalized $`d`$ quark mass matrix has the elements $`\widehat{M}_{33}^{(d)}1`$, $`\widehat{M}_{22}^{(d)}\lambda ^2`$, while taking analogy with $`V_{cb}\lambda ^2`$ gives $`\widehat{M}_{23}^{(d)}\lambda ^2`$. But $`\widehat{M}_{32}^{(d)}`$ is unknown for lack of right-handed flavor dynamics. With effective AFS Nir , however, the Abelian nature implies $`\widehat{M}_{23}^{(d)}\widehat{M}_{32}^{(d)}\widehat{M}_{33}^{(d)}\widehat{M}_{22}^{(d)}`$, hence $`\widehat{M}_{32}^{(d)}1`$ is deduced. This may be the largest off-diagonal term, but its effect is hidden within SM. With SUSY, the flavor mixing extends to $`\stackrel{~}{s}_R`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}_R`$, which we parametrize as

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_{RR}^{2(sb)}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_{22}^2\hfill & \stackrel{~}{m}_{23}^2e^{i\sigma }\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{m}_{23}^2e^{i\sigma }\hfill & \stackrel{~}{m}_{33}^2\hfill \end{array}\right]R\left[\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_2^2\end{array}\right]R^{},$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{ij}^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$, the common squark mass, and

$`R=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\sigma }& \mathrm{cos}\theta e^{i\sigma }\end{array}\right].`$ (6)
There is just one ACH  CP phase $`\sigma `$, which is on equal footing with the KM phase $`\delta `$ as both are rooted in the quark mass matrix. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{LR}^2=(\stackrel{~}{M}_{RL}^2)^{}\stackrel{~}{m}M`$ is suppressed by quark mass, while $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{LL}^2`$ is CKM suppressed.

The presence of large flavor violation in squark masses pushes SUSY scale to above TeV, even after one decouples $`d`$-flavor ACH . Interestingly, the near democratic nature of Eq. (3) allows, by some fine tuning, one squark to be driven light by the large mixing. We denote this squark $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_{1R}`$, and take its mass at 200 GeV for illustration (so $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_{2R}`$ would have mass $`2\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$). The presence of right-handed $`s_R\stackrel{~}{b}_R\stackrel{~}{g}`$ couplings doubles the operators $`O_i`$ by flipping chirality, to $`O_i^{}`$. We calculate coefficients $`c_i`$ and $`c_i^{}`$ in mass basis, and evaluate matrix elements in naive factorization. The most interesting effect occurs to photonic and gluonic dipole penguins, in particular $`c_{11}^{}`$ and $`c_{12}^{}`$. Let us now just discuss the salient results, which are plotted in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3(a) shows that $`bs\gamma `$ is rather accommodating. This is because the right-handed effect adds only in quadrature to $`bs\gamma `$ rate ACH . We cannot account for $`B\eta ^{}K`$ rate, but Fig. 3(b) shows that $`B\varphi K_S`$ rate can in principle be brought up for $`\mathrm{cos}\sigma <0`$, while it is known that the standard gluonic dipole penguin ($`c_{12}`$) suppresses the rate. It is amusing that if one takes the two rates together as constraints, purely imaginary $`\sigma `$ is preferred, which is further born out from CP measurables.

Fig. 3(c) plots the enigmatic $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$ vs. $`\sigma `$. It is interesting that the low $`\stackrel{~}{sb}_{1R}`$ mass, together with a low $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ mass of 500 GeV, can HLMP ; KhaKou  bring $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$ negative for $`\sigma \pi /2`$. However, as seen from Fig. 3(d), $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}`$ stays above $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_d}0.74`$ hence is positive KhaKou . This is due to right-handed interactions. More specifically, one has

$`𝒜(\overline{B}^0\varphi \overline{K}^0)\left\{\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{q^2}}\stackrel{~}{S}_{\varphi K}(c_{12}+c_{12}^{})\right\},`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ are several terms $`a_i+a_i^{}`$, and $`𝒜(\overline{B}^0\eta ^{}\overline{K}^0)`$ is even more complicated, but the crucial point is a sign change for the $`c_{12}^{}`$ term. Pseudoscalar production picks up the sign of the axial current!

Besides elucidating how $`S_{\varphi K_S}<0`$ while $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_d}`$ can be maintained, Eq. (5) also shows the elements in enhancing the effect of $`c_{12}^{}`$. Lowering squark and gluino masses enhances $`c_{12}^{}`$, but we also have the hadronic parameters $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\varphi K}/q^2`$. We resort to these for further enhancement rather than lowering $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ further.

Having zoomed into $`\sigma 65^{}`$ as “preferred”, we were surprised to find, contrary to our earlier thought ACH , that the lighter gluino makes $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}\stackrel{>}{}70`$ ps-1 rather difficult to avoid CHN , even though $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$ could vary through 0 to 1. Reminded by the sluggish start of Tevatron Run II, it seems that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}\stackrel{>}{}70`$ ps-1 would have to await LHCb or BTeV. What is worse, even with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ measured some years from now, the very fast $`B_s`$ oscillations would make, with the exception of perhaps $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }_{B_s}`$ itself, much of the CP program in $`B_s`$ decay rather difficult.

We are, however, intrigued by a very recent development. BaBar has made a first attempt Browder  at measuring $`S_{K_S\pi ^0}`$, “reconstructing” the $`B^0`$ vertex by extrapolating $`K_S`$ momentum onto the boost, i.e. $`B`$ direction, a knowledge that is unique to B factories. They find $`S_{K_S\pi ^0}=0.48_{0.47}^{+0.38}\pm 0.10`$, which is in agreement with our results shown in Fig. 3(e). The features are similar to $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}`$ of Fig. 3(d), since both are $`PP`$ final states. What excites us is the prospect for measuring mixing dependent CP in $`BK^0\gamma `$, formerly thought impossible, but now hopeful with this “$`K_S`$ vertexing” technique. We note that

$$S_{M^0\gamma }=\frac{2|c_{11}c_{11}^{}|}{|c_{11}|^2+|c_{11}^{}|^2}\xi \mathrm{sin}\left(2\varphi _{B_d}\phi _{11}\phi _{11}^{}\right),$$
(8)
where $`\xi `$ is the CP of reconstructed $`M^0`$ final state, and $`\varphi _{B_d}=\varphi _1`$, $`\phi _{11}^{()}`$ are the phases of $`B_d`$ mixing and $`c_{11}^{()}`$, respectively. For $`BK^0\gamma `$ with $`K^0`$ decaying to CP eigenstate $`K_S\pi ^0`$, Eq. (6) can be completely calculated, with little hadronic uncertainty, which we plot in Fig. 3(f).

The finiteness of this single measurable justifies the luminosity upgrades of B factories, currently being contemplated, because it provides a clean measure and confirmation of the type of NP. The measurables such as $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$, $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}`$ and $`S_{K_S\pi ^0}`$, tantalizing as they might be, are plagued by hadronic parameters such as $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\varphi K}/q^2`$. We note, finally, that $`S_{K_S\pi ^0\gamma }(\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0\gamma )`$ is close to impossible to measure at hadronic machines, for not knowing $`B`$ direction, and having too many photons.

SuperB upgrades should invest on a large Silicon Vertex Detector.


text:
# The Reality in Bohmian Quantum Mechanics or Can You Kill with an Empty Wave Bullet?

## 1 INTRODUCTION

I have my most vivid memories of Jim Cushing from “Bohmian conference” in 1995 which took place in Bielefeld, Germany and had the title “Quantum Theory without Observers”. The majority of participants were devoted Bohmians and most of the talks and discussions were about meaning and achievements of Bohmian quantum mechanics . At that time I already was an enthusiastic proponent of the Many-Worlds interpretation (MWI) , and Bohmian interpretation, which close to the MWI, was very intriguing for me. Illuminating discussions with Jim Cushing led me to think more about Bohmian Interpretation.

I am still a strong proponent of the MWI . The main reason for this is not the philosophical advantage of the plurality of worlds, but a desire to view physics as a theory of everything. The main obstacle for this is the collapse of the quantum wave. Collapse introduces randomness into physics, it puts limits on predictive power of physics. There is no attractive proposal for a physical theory of collapse, and, moreover, it seems impossible to define when collapse occur. I get used to the idea of plurality of worlds, but a theory without collapse and with a single world is clearly a better theory of everything. In some sense, Bohmian quantum mechanics is such theory. (Note, however, that Bohm himself never viewed his theory in that way. I had elaborate discussion with him in South Carolina in 1989 in which he explained that his theory is another step in the evolution of physics and there will never be the final theory of everything.) The main reason (apart from nonlocality of Bohmian mechanics) why I still prefer the MWI, is that it does not really eliminate the plurality of worlds. The formalism still has many, many “empty wave” worlds in which I walk, eat, slip and, in particular, write papers. Nevertheless, Bohmian mechanics achieves something that no other theory was able to do: to single out in a pretty natural way a single world out of the plurality of worlds in the MWI. (Note that in some special cases the Bohmian world might slightly differ from the world of the MWI ).

In the MWI, the Wave Function of the Universe is decomposed into superposition of branches in which the shape of the wave function yield a sensible picture, and the time evolution of the wave function of a branch yields a sensible story (with possible further branching). It is postulated that our experience corresponds to all branches with sensible stories.

In the Bohmian mechanics, or, at least, in my approach to Bohmian mechanics, it is postulated that our experience corresponds to Bohmian positions. Bohmian positions correspond to a sensible picture in three dimensions which evolves in time and yields a sensible single story. The same arguments which start from the locality of known interactions (which are frequently named as decoherence theory) yield plurality of particular sensible stories in the MWI and a single story (usually identical to one of the MWI stories) in the Bohmian mechanics.

In my approach our experience is related solely to Bohmian positions and not to the quantum state (the wave function). It is not a new approach: it seems to me that it is the pilot wave approach as Bell  understood it, and maybe De Broglie imagined it. Bedard  attributes this view also. to Holland , Maudlin  and Albert .

In this paper I am going to analyze the significance of empty waves in the light of recent results about position measurements which do not show Bohmian positions. I will conclude with discussion of the interpretation, advocating minimalistic approach according to which our experience supervene only on Bohmian positions (and not on the quantum wave). I add a short discussion of Bedard’s arguments against minimalistic interpretation in the appendix.

## 2 Can an empty wave kill?

Consider a gedanken experiment in which a bullet splits its quantum wave at a “beam splitter” into two equal weight wave packets, one moving toward a cat, while another misses the cat. For simplicity, we consider equal, uniform density, spherical wave packets. Consider a situation that the Bohmian position of the bullet is inside the wave packet that misses the cat, see Fig. 1. It was generally believed that in this situation we should not worry about cat’s health. However, recently, there were several works showing that empty waves can have observable effects. Hardy  discussed empty waves in the interaction free measurements , Englert et al.  discovered “Surrealistic Bohmian trajectories” in which an empty wave leaves a trace of its trajectory and Aharonov et al.  showed that in protective measurements  one can observe the shape of the quantum wave, while the Bohmian particle is essentially at rest and does not visit the regions where the value of the wave function is measured.

Fig. 1. A bullet is fired toward a cat, but after the beamsplitter only an empty wave of a bullet comes toward him. Bohmian particle position, signified by a black dot travels away with the other part of the quantum wave.

An empty wave can, in the future, reach the Bohmian position of the particle and cease to be “empty”. Clearly, at this stage it can lead to observable changes, i.e. to change Bohmian trajectory. Bell  pointed out that usually it will be a dominant influence. Consider the two wave packets of the “bullet” which are forced to overlap again (as in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer without second beam-splitter), see Fig. 2. At the point of the overlap, the empty wave “grabs” the Bohmian particle. Indeed, this result can be immediately seen from Bell’s presentation of Bohm’s theory in the form of the pilot wave where the velocity of Bohmian position of a particle depends on the current density and the wave density at the location of the Bohmian particle:

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\stackrel{}{j}}{\rho },$$
(1)
where $`\rho (\stackrel{}{x})=|\psi (\stackrel{}{x})|^2`$, and $`\stackrel{}{j}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2im}\{\psi ^{}\stackrel{}{}\psi \psi \stackrel{}{}\psi ^{}\}`$. The velocity in the region of the overlap of the two wave packets is given by

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\stackrel{}{j_1}+\stackrel{}{j_2}}{\rho _1+\rho _2}=\frac{\stackrel{}{v_1}+\stackrel{}{v_2}}{2},$$
(2)
where indexes “1” and “2” correspond to the two wave packets. The horizontal component of the velocity of the Bohmian particle vanishes during the time it is inside both wave packets. So, from the moment of the overlap starts the competition between the two wave packet: which one will keep the point inside it longer? When one wave packet leaves, the point continue to move with the velocity of the second wave packet and it remains inside it. Since at the beginning of the overlap, the Bohmian position is at the boundary of the empty wave packet and it is inside the other one, the empty wave has longer way to go and it always “wins” the competition: the empty wave “grabs” the Bohmian particle.

Fig. 2. Trajectory of a Bohmian particle in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer without second beamsplitter. At the meeting point of empty and nonempty wave packets, the Bohmian particle “changes hands” and continues to move with what was before an empty wave.

The situation is different if the empty wave bullet on its way “kills” an “empty wave” cat, see Fig. 3. Even if the physics is such that the bullet goes through the cat without significant delay and the empty wave packet of the bullet comes in time to overlap with the non-empty wave packet, the empty wave does not grab the Bohmian particle in this case. Indeed, the velocity of the Bohmian particle in the region of the overlap is

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\stackrel{}{j_1}}{\rho _1}=\stackrel{}{v_1},$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{}{v_1}`$ is the velocity of the non-empty wave packet. The reason is that at the time of the overlap of the wave packets of the bullet, the wave packets of some parts of the cat’s body do not overlap. The wave packets of these parts, entangled with an empty wave bullet, move relative to the case of the undisturbed cat. The Bohmian positions of the particles in the cat’s body are that of an uninjured cat, and therefore, the wave packets of some particles of the body entangled with the empty wave packet of the bullet do not contain the Bohmian particle inside it. In the configuration space of all involved particles (of the bullet and of the cat) there are two wave packets but the Bohmian position belongs only to one of them.

Fig. 3. Trajectory of Bohmian particle in a modified experiment. When the empty wave “kills” on its way, it does not influences the Bohmian trajectory in the future even if it overlaps with the nonempty wave as it was in Fig. 2.

## 3 Surrealistic trajectories

The examples presented above are not too surprising (although we are not used in Newtonian mechanics to change in velocity without interaction as in Fig. 2): the empty wave influences other objects only when it cease to be an empty wave. A really surprising result was discovered by Englert et al. . They realized that if (instead of killing a cat) the bullet will flip spins on its way, then the Bohmian trajectory will be as if the wave packets move in a free space, see Fig. 4. Nevertheless, the flipped spins show a different trajectory. There were many discussions regarding the meaning and significance of this example . When I first heard about this result, I did not believe it until I checked it myself.

Fig. 4. Surrealistic trajectories. The trace of flipped spins and the actual trajectory of Bohmian particle are different. Which one is “surrealistic” is a matter of interpretation. (Note that flipped quantum waves of spins are only in one branch of the universal wave function, the branch corresponding to particular detection of the particle in the detector on the left.

My modification of this idea is to consider a very fast particle moving in a special bubble chamber in which the bubbles are developed slowly. During the time the particle moves inside the interferometer, the quantum states of electrons of excited atoms which later create the bubbles have no enough time to move out of the Bohmian positions of the electrons that are at rest at this time. The electron Bohmian positions are at rest because the excited states do not contribute to the Bohmian velocity when the Bohmian position of the wave packet of the particle moves in another place. The result of the experiment (which can be seen only much later) is a trace of bubbles corresponding to one trajectory while the trajectory of the Bohmian position is the other one, Fig. 5. The bubbles show the trajectory of the empty wave!

Fig. 5. The trace of (slow developing) bubbles shows trajectory which is different from the trajectory of the Bohmian particle. (Again, these are the bubbles of the branch of the wave function corresponding to a particular world.) This is an example in which the “world” of the MWI is different form the “world” of Bohmian Mechanics: in the Bohmian world the particle moved in the left arm of the interferometer, while in the (postselected) MWI world it moved in the right arm.

## 4  Protective Measurements

Another situation in which position measurements do not show Bohmian positions are weak measurements  and in particular, weak adiabatic measurements of position of a particle in nondegenerate energy eigenstates. Such measurements are called protective measurements . In protective measurements we find, at the end, the wave function of the particle. In many energy eigenstates the Bohmian particle does not move, so it seems that the local values of the wave function obtained in the experiment arise without the Bohmian particle being at the vicinity of this location. However, it is not obvious that the measuring interaction in the process of the protective measurement does not move the Bohmian positions in such a way that the results of protective measurements could be explained as the time average of the presence of the Bohmian particle in a particular place. There have been an extensive analysis of this question and it has been shown that it is not the case, i.e. that the spacial profile of the wave function is obtained without the Bohmian particle being present in most of the regions of the non-vanishing wave function.

Consider a particle in a potential well, whose initial wave function is the ground state, Fig. 6. We assume that Bohmian position is in point $`A`$ and we want to measure the density of the quantum wave at point $`B`$. If we introduce an adiabatic and weak perturbation of the potential which eventually goes to zero, we know that the wave function coincides at any moment with the ground state of the instantaneous Hamiltonian (we assume that the ground state is always nondegenerate). Our assumptions about the perturbation which is required for performing protective measurement of the density of the wave function at the vicinity of $`B`$ ensure that the change in the wave function is small at all times and eventually vanishes. The lemma proved by Aharonov et al.  tells us that the change in particle position is likewise small at all times. Thus, the perturbation of the potential at the vicinity of $`B`$ due to the measurement will not change the Bohmian position significantly (which was originally at $`A`$) and will not bring it to $`B`$. So, for a Bohmian particle in a given position, we can probe the wave function in most other positions without the particle ever being present there.

Fig. 6. Ground state of a particle in a one-dimensional box. We can measure the density of particle’s quantum wave at the vicinity of $`B`$ while the Bohmian position remains at the vicinity of $`A`$.

## 5 Conditions for observable effects of empty waves

To summarize above examples let us state clearly the conditions at which empty waves cause an observable effect. There are three conditions:

i) Counterfactually, the wave should cause an observable effect if at the particular time the Bohmian particle was inside it (i.e. the wave packet was a non-empty wave). The meaning of “observable effect” is that some other system changes significantly its quantum state.

ii) At the time of the observation of the effect, the Bohmian particle should be inside the wave. (At this later time the wave is not in the interaction region, so the direct effect is absent, and we still can consider it as an effect caused by an empty wave.)

iii) The change of the quantum waves of other objects (the “observable effect” of (i)) should be such that the spacial densities of their quantum waves are not changed significantly: they should not leave the locations of the Bohmian positions of the undisturbed objects.

Trivially, (i) takes place in all our examples: in Surrealistic trajectories spins are flipped, in the bubble chamber experiment the bubbles leave an observable trace and in the protective measurement, the pointer of the measuring device changes its state.

Figures 4 and 5 show that condition (ii) is satisfied both in the spin and in the bubble chamber experiments. In both cases, at the end of the experiment, the Bohmian particles inside the wave packet which was an empty wave packet before.

In the experiment with spins, the spacial wave function of the spin particles remains without any change, i.e. (iii) is fulfilled. In the bubble chamber experiment there is some change in the spacial wave function of the particle, but it is insignificant. Indeed, (iii) is fulfilled due to the condition of the fast moving particle and slow developing bubbles.

In the analysis of protective measurement, there is a difficulty with defining “empty” and “non-empty” wave packets. We have to divide the quantum wave of the particle into two parts: one includes point $`A`$, the location of the Bohmian particle, and another includes point $`B`$ where the measurement is performed. The problem is that, while the total wave function is essentially constant, the wave packet which is the part of the complete wave evolves in a nontrivial way. In particular, whatever part including $`B`$ we take, it will very soon evolve and reach $`A`$, i.e., it will cease to be an empty wave. This explains how (ii) is fulfilled in protective measurements. The basic property of weak measurements is that the position of the pointer of the measuring device has large quantum uncertainty (it is necessary for having small value of the conjugate momentum which appears in the interaction Hamiltonian). Thus, protective measurements fulfill property (iii).

So, can an empty wave of a bullet kill? The answer is that only a very special bullet can do this. First, it should later reach the location of its Bohmian position. It sounds as a difficult, but not impossible task. Second, it should not cause immediate change of Bohmian positions of particles in the cat’s body, i.e., until the bullet reaches its Bohmian position. This tells us that the bullet cannot be a usual bullet, which makes holes immediately after it passes through the body. One might imagine that the bullet is just a single very fast particle. But then property (i) can hardly be satisfied. A single particle passing through a body does not kill.

## 6 Interpretation

In Surrealistic Bohm trajectories  as well as in the other examples described above, a seemingly correct experiment shows one trajectory, while calculations yield that Bohmian trajectory is different. Nevertheless, I do not see a direct contradiction with the minimalistic approach to Bohmian theory in which our experience supervene solely on Bohmian position. I believe that a Bohmian proponent has a good defense in the following argument: conceptually, in the framework of the Bohmian theory these experiments are not good verification measurements. Prediction of Bohmian theory for the motion of the particle is a vector function of time $`\stackrel{}{r}(t)`$. To test it we have to test the location of the particle at different times. Since “reality” corresponds only to Bohmian positions, we have to read the locations using Bohmian positions of the measuring device at that time. In all our surprising examples Bohmian particles of measuring devices moved only much later, not at the time in which the particle position was observed. When the Bohmian position of the measuring device was measured at the same time (as in the example presented in Fig. 2), no surprising behavior was observed. So, the Bohmian picture in which our experience supervene on Bohmian positions is consistent. There are no experiments in which a “good” measurement of position (a measurement that records the position of a particle at a particular time using Bohmian positions of the measuring devices), shows results which are inconsistent with calculated Bohmian positions.

Still, these surprising examples make Bohmian approach less attractive: We see that there are important causal structures which cannot be explained using Bohmian positions alone, without explicit description of the quantum wave. For me it adds to the objections of the proponent of the MWI to the Bohmian approach. It leaves in the formalism the structure of all parallel worlds, but claims that they are not related to our experience. But in these empty worlds the wave in the shape of Lev Vaidman might also write a paper in the empty wave copy of the Foundations of Physics Journal, so how You, the reader, know that this is not such an empty wave world?

## 7 Appendix: Bedard’s Arguments

The abstract of Bedard’s paper is:

> According to the traditional presentation of Bohm’s interpretation we have immediate epistemic access to particle properties but not wave function properties, and mental states, pointer states, and ink patterns supervene on particle properties alone. I argue that these claims do not make physical sense, and I offer an alternative account that does.

What I accept or postulate (in the framework of my understanding of Bohmian mechanics) is that mental states supervene on particle properties alone. My motivation is not to get “classicality” as Bedard suggests: the experiments show that Nature does not follow the laws of classical physics, so there is no reason to put physics into a classical picture. My reason to turn to Bohm is to find a way of seeing a single world corresponding to the formalism of the physical theory of the universe, since I see that many physicists and philosophers have considerable difficulty with accepting numerous parallel worlds which we do not observe directly.

Bedard’s arguments have already been criticized by Dickson . As far as I can understand his philosophical jargon my refutation of Bedard is similar, but I believe it will be helpful to write here my arguments too.

Bedard’s objection is that Bohmian positions at a single moment and without additional information of the properties of the particles are not enough to describe the reality. This is a correct statement, but Bohmians do not claim the opposite. The task of Bohmian (as well as any other) interpretation is to find correspondence between the mathematical formalism of the physical theory and our experience. Since conscious experience requires some period of time, we have to consider trajectories at some period of time and not just an instantaneous configuration for describing (defining) objects. Thus, an object made out of electrons only, in a configuration of a (real) cat made of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., will cease to have the configuration of a cat long time before it can be perceived as a cat. The configuration of Bohmian particles have the shape of a cat for a considerable time if, and only if, they related to the right kind of particles and they have appropriate quantum wave. It is possible to imagine Universe with different physical interactions in which my last statement is not true. But for physical interaction we have in our Universe it is true. Philosophical arguments of Dickson tell us that the situation in our Universe is relevant. Except for some very specific situations which are difficult to arrange and which probably were never arranged in real laboratories, everything we see or perceive in some other way is described correctly by trajectories of Bohmian particles.

Bedard claims that there are problems also with color and television screen pictures. I do not think that it is so: I expect no conceptual problem with defining Bohmian positions for photons. However, I can also avoid this discussion using the research of perception by our brains made by Aicardi et al.  in order to answer the criticism of Albert and myself  of a Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber collapse proposal . We pointed out that in a Stern-Gerlach experiment in which the particle with the spin hits a fluorescent screen, the GRW collapse might not take place until the light from the screen comes to our eyes in spite of the fact that macroscopic number of atoms become excited in this process. Aicardi et al. answered that inside the brain, in the process of perception, numerous cells move macroscopic distance depending on what we see, so at least inside the brain one can find the shape of Bohmian particles corresponding to what we have seen. Thus, it is feasible that our mental states supervene on particle positions alone.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank Halina Abramowicz, Yakir Aharonov, Noam Erez and Shelly Goldstein for helpful discussions. This research was supported in part by grant 62/01 of the Israel Science Foundation.