text:
# Local law-of-the-wall in complex topography: a confirmation from wind tunnel experiments

## Abstract

It is well known that in a neutrally-stratified turbulent flow in a deep constant-stress layer above a flat surface, the variation of the mean velocity with respect to the distance from the surface obeys the logarithmic law (the so-called “law-of-the-wall”). More recently, the same logarithmic law has been found also in the presence of non flat surfaces. It governs the dynamics of the mean velocity (i.e. all the smaller scales are averaged out) and involves renormalized effective parameters. Recent numerical simulations analyzed by the authors of the present Letter show that a more intrinsic logarithmic shape actually takes place also at smaller scales. Such a generalized law-of-the-wall involves effective parameters smoothly depending on the position along the underlying topography. Here, we present wind tunnel experimental evidence confirming and corroborating this new-found property. New results and their physical interpretation are also presented and discussed.

PACS: 83.10.Ji – 47.27.Nz – 92.60.Fm Boundary layer flows, Near wall turbulence

In the realm of boundary layer flows over complex topography, much effort has been devoted in the last few years to investigate both the detailed form of the surface pressure perturbation arising from the interaction between the shear flow and the underlying topography (see, e.g., Refs. ) and its link with the effective parameters describing the large (asymptotic) scale dynamics (see, e.g., Refs. ). The latter regime is selected by observing the flow far enough from the surface and, furthermore, considering solely the mean velocity. It is thus clear that with this approach all information on the dynamics at smaller scale becomes completely lost.
Unlike what happens for the large-scale (asymptotic) dynamics, the description and understanding of statistical properties of flows at ‘intermediate’ scales (a regime which we refer to as “pre-asymptotic”, following Ref. ) seems strongly inadequate. Such regime actually attracts much attention in various applicative domains ranging from wind engineering (e.g., for the safe design and siting of buildings), environmental sciences (e.g., for the simulation of air pollution dispersion) and wind energy exploitation (e.g., for the selection of areas of enhanced wind speed for the economic siting of wind turbines).
This almost unexplored regime is the main concern of the present Letter. A first step in the understanding of the pre-asymptotic dynamics has been done by the present authors in a very recent work , where the analysis of simulations of Navier-Stokes flow fields  over two-dimensional sinusoidal topographies has been performed. More precisely, in the case-studies considered, topography takes a sinusoidal modulation of wavelength $`\lambda `$ (along the $`x`$direction, for the sake of simplicity) and amplitude $`H`$, its surface having an uniform roughness $`z_0`$ (with $`z_0<<H`$). Here, the dominant process governing the dynamics is the interaction between the shear flow and the underlying topography, the effect of which gives rise to a surface pressure perturbation . Such perturbation has a depth of the order of $`H`$ and a downwind phase shift with respect to the topography. The latter is the cause of a net force on the flow, acting in the opposite direction of the flow itself: thus, an enhanced (with respect to the case of flat terrain) transfer of momentum towards the surface takes place.
Far enough from the surface, the averaged (over the periodicity box of size $`\lambda `$) flow will ‘see’ an ‘effective flat surface’ over which the ‘basic’ logarithmic law (the well known “law-of-the-wall” relative to flows over flat terrain ) is restored but now with larger (again with respect to the flat case) effective parameters $`𝗎_{}^{\text{eff}}`$, and $`𝗓_0^{\text{eff}}`$ , on account of the enhanced flux of momentum towards the surface originated by the aforesaid shear-flow – topography interaction.
In Ref. , we pointed out for the first time – as far as we know – that at least in the analyzed WM93 data-set , a generalized law-of-the-wall, is observed:

$$U(x,z)=\frac{u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)}{k}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{z}{z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)}\right)\text{for}z>H$$
(1)
where $`U`$ is the velocity field, $`x`$ is the horizontal position, $`z`$ is the height above the terrain, and $`k`$ is the von Kármàn constant which we will take as $`0.4`$. Notice that the effective parameters, $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$, show a dependence on $`x`$ at scales of the order of $`\lambda `$ (i.e. the flow ‘sees’ some details of the topography and not only its total cumulative effects). This is precisely the pre-asymptotic regime already defined in Ref. .
In the present Letter, our main goal will be to provide a first experimental assessment confirming and corroborating the scenario outlined in Ref. . In fact, the main trouble of numerical simulations of Navier–Stokes equations is that the impact on the results of the closure schemes, through which small scale dynamics is accounted for, cannot be fully controlled . An experimental confirmation is thus desirable.
To start our analysis, we briefly describe the experimental set-up relative to the wind tunnel experiment performed by Gong et al in Ref. . Details on the description of the wind tunnel facility and the basic data acquisition and analysis system are given also in Ref. . The experiment was conducted in the AES (Atmospheric Environment Service, Toronto, Canada) meteorological wind tunnel, which has a working volume of $`2.44m\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.83}m\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}18.29}m`$ (w$`\times `$ h $`\times `$ l). The wave model consisted of sixteen sinusoidal waves with wavelength $`\lambda 610mm`$ and through-to-crest height $`H96.5mm`$ and was placed with its leading edge at distance $`d6.1m`$ downstream from a honeycomb located at the downstream end of the contraction region. The topography can be thus considered as a fraction of the ideal topography described by:

$$h(x,y)=Hsin^2\left(\frac{\pi x}{\lambda }\right)$$
(2)
where $`y`$ is the perpendicular-to-$`x`$-axis direction coordinate.
Two surface roughnesses were considered, corresponding to the natural foam surface (hereafter “smooth case”) and to a carpet cover (“rough case”), respectively. For the smooth case, velocity profile measurements gave $`z_00.03mm`$, while for the rough case $`z_00.40mm`$. The flow was neutrally stratified and can be considered as a perturbation to a stationary horizontally homogeneous infinitely deep unidirectional constant-stress-layer flow above a plane surface of uniform roughness, $`z_0`$. Thus, this basic flow should have a logarithmic mean velocity profile, $`U(z)=(u_{}/\kappa )\mathrm{ln}(z/z_0)`$. The values of $`u_{}`$ were $`0.43m/s`$ and $`0.62m/s`$ for the smooth and the rough case, respectively. The free-stream velocity, $`U_0`$, at approximately $`1m`$ above the floor of the tunnel, was set to about $`10m/s`$ during the measurements both in the smooth and in the rough case. The boundary layer height, $`h_B`$, was evaluated to be $`600mm`$. The rotation of the flow with the height, produced in the numerical simulations  by the Coriolis force, is obviously not present in the wind tunnel experiment and thus the flow is parallel to the $`x`$-axis at all elevations.

Measurements taken over the crests along the hills showed that the flow reached an almost periodic state quite rapidly, after the $`3`$rd or $`4`$th wave. Thus, the perturbed velocity profiles, $`U(x,z)`$, were measured at selected downstream locations between the $`11`$th and $`12`$th wave crests and a very good agreement between the profiles over these two crests was confirmed. This topography can be thus considered as a good approximation to a two-dimensional topography whose shape is described by Eq. (2)
In order to compare the numerical simulations analyzed in Ref.  with the results from the wind tunnel experiments here shortly described, we used the same approach as by Finardi et al.  and Canepa et al. . Accordingly, noticing that in both cases here considered $`U_010m/s`$, we have kept the speeds (including the friction velocities, $`u_{}`$) unchanged, while the wind tunnel lengths (and times) have been multiplied by $`\lambda _W/\lambda _G1000/0.60961640`$, where $`\lambda _W`$ and $`\lambda _G`$ are the wavelengths in the Wood numerical simulations and in the Gong experiment, respectively. With this change of scale, $`h_B1000m`$ and $`\lambda 1000m`$ in both cases, while the roughness lengths become $`0.05m`$ (smooth case) and $`0.66m`$ (rough case), to be compared with the value of $`0.16m`$ of the numerical simulations. The hill height, $`H`$, becomes $`158m`$, to be compared with the values $`20m`$, $`100m`$ and $`250m`$ in the Wood numerical experiments.

The first point to emphasize is that logarithmic laws described by (1) are evident also in the wind tunnel experiments. This can be easily seen in Fig. 1 (the analogous of Fig. 1 in Ref. ), where typical behaviours for the horizontal wind speed profile $`U(z)`$ (see Eq. (1); for the sake of brevity, the dependence on the $`x`$-coordinate is omitted in the notation from now on) as a function of $`z`$ are presented in lin-log coordinates for the rough case and for four values of the $`x`$-coordinate corresponding to: (a) $`x=0`$ (i.e. $`h=0`$), (b) $`x=\lambda /4`$ (i.e. $`h=H/2`$ upwind), (c) $`x=\lambda /2`$ (i.e. $`h=H`$) and (d) $`x=3\lambda /4`$ (i.e. $`h=H/2`$ downwind), respectively. Similar behaviours have been found (but not reported here for the sake of brevity) also for the smooth case. From this figure, clean logarithmic region of the type described by Eq. (1) are evident and both $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ can be measured by least-square fits. Specifically, for the four above positions along the hill, we have obtained the following values of $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$: $`1.73m/s`$, $`0.053m`$ (for $`h=0`$); $`1.38m/s`$, $`0.028m`$ (for $`h=H/2`$ upwind); $`0.95m/s`$, $`0.007m`$ (for $`h=H`$) and $`1.27m/s`$, $`0.022m`$ (for $`h=H/2`$ downwind), respectively. Such values can be compared with those in the absence of any hill: $`u_{}0.62m/s`$ and $`z_00.66m`$.

The results of the least-square fits are summarized in Fig. 2 where both profiles $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)/u_{}1`$ (on the left) and $`\mathrm{ln}(z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)/z_0)`$ (on the right) are shown as a function of $`x/\lambda `$ for both the smooth (above) and the rough (below) case (different scales in the ordinates have been adopted). Notice that both $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)/u_{}1`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)/z_0)`$ have been fitted with the analytical expression (2), relative to the topographic profile, but with a shift of $`\lambda /2`$ (i.e. $`xx+\lambda /2`$ in (2)). More precisely, we suggest the expression:

$$y(x)=yA_y\left[h(x)/H1/2\right]$$
(3)
where $`y(x)`$ stays for either $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)/u_{}1`$ or $`\mathrm{ln}\left(z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)/z_0\right)`$, $`y`$ is the average value of $`y(x)`$ in the interval $`(0,\lambda )`$ and $`h(x)h(x,y)`$ is the topographic shape given in Eq. (2). It should be also stressed that we have considered $`\mathrm{ln}(z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)/z_0)`$ instead of the simpler ratio $`z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)/z_0`$, because the former parameter is more similar to the topography shape than the second one.
It is now interesting to put together the new results here obtained with those of Ref. . This allows to investigate at which degree of accuracy one can express the behaviours of quantities like the average values, $`y`$, and amplitudes, $`A_y`$, of these sinusoidal shapes solely in terms of simple geometrical parameters. Simple considerations suggest to look at the ratio $`H/\lambda `$: this is indeed a rough measure of the hill slope.

The values of $`y`$ are reported in Fig. 3 for both the smooth and the rough case. The dashed lines (a linear fit in $`H/\lambda `$) are obtained considering only the results of numerical simulations, while the values from the wind tunnel experiments are reported with their error bars. These monotonic behaviours are expected on account of the increasing of the (total) transfer of momentum towards the surface arising for increasing slopes. The amplitudes $`A_y`$ are shown in Fig. 4. The dashed lines are a parabolic fit in $`H/\lambda `$ and, as for $`y`$, they have been obtained by only considering the results of the numerical simulations. The values from the wind tunnel experiments are again presented in the same figure. Curves relative to the amplitudes reach a maximum for $`H/\lambda 0.20`$, after that start to decrease. We can argue that two different mechanisms exist and act in competition. The physical key role is played by curvature effects , already invoked in Ref.  to explain the presence of minima (maxima) located above the hill top (valley) for both $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$. To be more specific, let us consider the two opposite limits $`H/\lambda 1`$ and $`H/\lambda 1`$, from which we can easily isolate the two competing mechanisms. Concerning the former limit, we have gentle slopes and it is well known that in this case the flow closely follows the surface contour. Streamlines are (weakly) curved and, as pointed out in Ref. , energy is transferred towards the large scale components above the hill tops, while it blows towards the smaller scales above the valleys. The quantity $`u_{}^{\text{eff}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(x)`$, that is a measure of the energy of turbulence, is thus smaller on the hill top than above the valley. Let us increase (just a little bit) $`H/\lambda `$. The flow again closely follows the surface contour but streamlines are now more curved. As pointed out in Ref. , energy transfer thus increases and, as an immediate consequence, the same happens for the difference between the maximum and the minimum of $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$. But this means an augmentation of its modulation amplitude.
In the second limit $`H/\lambda 1`$, a further important effect arises due to trapping regions placed on the downstream hill slopes. It is in fact well known (see, e.g., ) that, for surface slopes large enough, the flow is not able to follow the contour surface and separates. In this case, in between two hill crests, the flow is essentially trapped and, roughly speaking, streamlines are expunged in the wake region. The dynamical consequence is that the flow streamlines are weakly modulated, and this also happens for the shape of $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$. If we now decrease the ratio $`H/\lambda `$, trapping effects reduce and this means that the wake can penetrate more deeply in the valley, with the consequent increasing of curvature effects and thus of the $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ amplitude.
From the inspection of these two limits, it is thus clear that a maximum in the amplitude should be attained for a certain finite value of $`H/\lambda `$, i.e. when the two competing mechanisms are balanced.
Being the maximum (minimum) of $`\mathrm{ln}z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ directly related to the presence of the maximum (minimum) of $`u_{}^{\text{eff}}(x)`$ (see Ref.  for the discussion of this point) the argumentations above presented hold also for $`\mathrm{ln}z_0^{\text{eff}}(x)`$.

Comparing the values of both amplitudes and mean values of the effective parameters extrapolated from the numerical simulations (i.e. from the linear fits in Figs. 3 and 4) and those from the wind tunnel experiments, we notice that, for the smooth case, experiments are always compatible (within the error bars) with the numerical simulations. This is not always the case for the rough case. We remark that $`u_{}`$ and $`z_0`$ (relative to the flat terrain) are closer to the WM93 case studies in the smooth case than in the rough case. This suggest that the expression of both amplitudes and mean values solely in terms of geometrical quantities like the ratio $`H/\lambda `$ is a reasonable approximation for small variations of the ‘bare’ parameters $`u_{}`$ and $`z_0`$. When the range of variability of the latter two parameters increases, an explicit dependence on them has to be taken into account.

For a better evaluation and understanding of the dependence of $`y`$ and $`A_y`$ on $`H/\lambda `$, $`z_0`$ and $`u_{}`$, the analysis of more numerical and wind tunnel experiments, and possibly in nature, is necessary. Nevertheless, the wind tunnel data here considered give a strong confirmation of the existence of a pre-asymptotic regime characterized by a generalized law-of-the-wall given by Eq. (1) and pointed out for the first time in Ref. . Thus, this phenomenon appears as a real physical property and not a spurious feature produced by some of the approximations (e.g. parameterizations of small-scale, unresolved dynamics) used to solve the Navier-Stokes equations.

Acknowledgements We are particularly grateful to P.A. Taylor for providing us with his data-set relative to the wind tunnel experiments as well as many useful comments and discussions. Helpful discussions and suggestions by E. Fedorovich, D. Mironov, G. Solari, F. Tampieri and S. Zilitinkevich are also acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Constraining the properties of dark energy

## 1 Introduction

Three major lines of evidence point to the existence of a smooth energy component in the universe. Various measurements of the matter density indicate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.3\pm 0.1`$ (e.g., Turner (2000)). Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) results strongly favor a flat (or nearly flat) universe, with the total energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_01.1\pm 0.07`$ Jaffe et al. (2000). Finally, there is direct evidence coming from type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) that the universe is accelerating its expansion, and that it is dominated by a component with strongly negative pressure, $`w=p_X/\rho _X<0.6`$ Riess et al. (1998); Perlmutter et al. (1999). Two out of of three of these arguments would have to prove wrong in order to do away with the smooth component.

Even before the direct evidence from SNe Ia, there was a dark energy candidate: the energy density of the quantum vacuum (or cosmological constant) for which $`p=\rho `$. However, the inability of particle theorists to compute the energy of the quantum vacuum – contributions from well understood physics amount to $`10^{55}`$ times critical density – casts a dark shadow on the cosmological constant. Another important issue is the coincidence problem: dark energy seems to start dominating the energy budget, and accelerating the expansion of the universe, just around the present time. A number of other candidates have been proposed: rolling scalar field (or quintessence), and network of frustrated topological defects, to name a couple. While these and other models have some motivation and attractive features, none are compelling.

In this work we discuss the cosmological consequences of dark energy that allow its nature to be probed. We also discuss relative merits of various cosmological probes, focusing particular attention to a large, well-calibrated sample of SNe Ia that would be obtained by the proposed space telescope SNAP111http://snap.lbl.gov. We parameterize dark energy by its scaled energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ and equation of state $`w`$, and assume a fiducial cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X=1\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.7`$ and $`w=1`$, unless indicated otherwise.

## 2 Cosmological consequences of the Dark Energy

Dark energy is smooth, and if does clump at all, it does so at very large scales only ($`kH_0`$). All of its consequences therefore follow from its modification of the expansion rate

$$H(z)^2=H_0^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_X\mathrm{exp}[3_0^z(1+w(x))d\mathrm{ln}(1+x)]\right].$$

For a given rate of expansion today $`H_0`$, the expansion rate in the past, $`H(z)`$, was smaller in the presence of dark energy. Therefore, dark energy increases the age of the universe. The comoving distance $`r(z)=𝑑z/H(z)`$ also increases in the presence of dark energy. The same follows for the comoving volume element $`dV/d\mathrm{\Omega }dz=r^2(z)/H(z)`$.

At small redshifts $`r(z)`$ is insensitive to $`w`$ for the simple reason that all cosmological models reduce to the Hubble law ($`r=H_0^1z`$) for $`z1`$:

$$r(z)H_0^1\left[z\frac{3}{4}z^2\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_Xwz^2+\mathrm{}\right]\mathrm{for}z1.$$
(1)
At redshift greater than about five, the sensitivity of $`r(z)`$ to a change in $`w`$ levels off because dark energy becomes an increasingly smaller fraction of the total energy density, $`\rho _X/\rho _M(1+z)^{3w}`$. Note also that the volume depends upon dark energy parameters through $`H(z)`$, which contains one integral less than the distance $`r(z)`$. This is the reason why number-count surveys (which effectively measure $`dV/d\mathrm{\Omega }dz`$) are potentially a strong probe of dark energy.

### 2.1 Constraints on (constant) w

Supernovae are perhaps the strongest probes of dark energy, as the relevant observable $`r(z)`$ depends only on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ and $`w`$; moreover, SNe probe the optimal redshift range. A powerful supernova program, such as SNAP, with about 2000 SNe distributed at $`0.2<z<1.7`$, would be able to determine $`w`$ with an accuracy $`\sigma _w=0.05`$.

Number-count surveys are potentially also a very strong probe of dark energy. To estimate the expected number density of objects (galaxies, galaxy clusters etc.), one typically uses the Press-Schechter formalism Press and Schechter (1974). For example, number counts of galaxy clusters either from an X-ray survey or from Sunyaev-Zeldovich survey can serve as a probe of dark energy Haiman et al. (2000). The number of these objects depends upon the growth of structure as well as on cosmological volume, and the former makes the overall constraint complementary to that of SNe Ia. Another example is using halos of fixed rotational speed Newman and Davis (2000) to infer the dark energy dependence of the volume element. In order to obtain constraints on dark energy using number-count surveys, control over modeling and systematic errors will be critical.

CMB anisotropy, which mainly probes the epoch of recombination ($`z1000`$) is weakly sensitive to the presence of dark energy because dark energy becomes inconsequential at such high redshift. The small dependence comes through the distance to the surface of last scattering which slightly increases in the presence of dark energy, moving the acoustic peaks to smaller scales. However, this effect is small:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }l_1}{l_1}=0.084\mathrm{\Delta }w0.23\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2}+0.09\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2}+0.089\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_M}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}1.25\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0},$$

which shows that the location of the first peak is least sensitive to $`w`$. The left panel of Fig. 2 further illustrates this: even the Planck experiment with polarization information would be able to achieve only $`\sigma _w0.25`$ (after marginalization over all other parameters). Nevertheless, CMB constraints are of crucial importance because they complement SNe and other probes, in particular providing the measurement of the total energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

The Alcock-Paczynski shape test and the age of the Universe are also sensitive to the presence of dark energy, but they seem somewhat less promising: the former because of the small size of the effect (around 5%); and the latter because the errors in the two needed quantities, $`H_0`$ and $`t_0`$, are not likely to become small enough in the near future. Finally, large-scale structure surveys have weak direct dependence upon dark energy simply because this component is smooth on observable scales.

### 2.2 Probing $`w(t)`$

There is no a priori reason to assume constant $`w`$, as some models (in particular quintessence) generically produce time-varying $`w`$. Here we discuss how to best constrain $`w(t)`$ (or $`w(z)`$). We find that $`w(z)`$ will be much more difficult to constrain than constant $`w`$ due to additional degeneracies. In order to illustrate prospects for constraining $`w(z)`$, we use SNAP’s projected dataset with 2000 SNe and assume that, by the time this difficult task is seriously attempted, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ will be pinned down accurately by a combination of CMB measurements and large-scale structure surveys.

One of the simplest ways to characterize $`w(z)`$ is to divide the redshift range into $`B`$ redshift bins and assume constant equation of state ratio $`w_i`$ in each. The resulting constraint, however, is poor for $`B3`$ (and ideally one would want many more bins). A better way to proceed is to assume linearly varying $`w(z)`$ expanded around a suitably chosen redshift $`w_1`$ Cooray and Huterer (1999)

$$w(z)=w_1+w^{}(zz_1).$$

We choose $`z_1`$ so as to de-correlate $`w_1`$ and $`w^{}`$. The resulting constraint is shown in the right panel of Fig. 2. The constraint is best at $`z0.4`$ and deteriorates at lower and higher redshifts. Despite the relatively large uncertainty in the slope ($`\sigma _w^{}=0.16`$), this analysis may be useful in constraining dark energy models. The parameterization $`w(z)=w_1\alpha \mathrm{ln}[(1+z)/(1+z_1)]`$ yields comparable constraints.

## 3 Optimal Strategies

Given the importance and difficulty of probing dark energy, it is worthwhile to consider how to optimize data sets in order to obtain tighter constraints. We address the following question: what is the optimal redshfit distribution of SNe Ia in order to best constrain the cosmological parameters?

We choose to minimize the area of uncertainty ellipsoid for $`P`$ parameters, which (in the Fisher matrix formalism Tegmark et al. (1997)) is equivalent to maximizing $`detF`$, where $`F`$ is the Fisher matrix. Making a few simplifying but reasonable assumptions, in Huterer and Turner (2000) we show that $`P`$ parameters are always best determined if SNe are distributed as $`P+1`$ delta-functions in redshifts, two of which are always at the lowest and highest redshifts available. For example, to best constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ and $`w`$ (assuming a flat universe), SNe should be located at $`z=0`$, $`z2/5z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`z=z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ in equal numbers, where $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum redshift available. In Fig. 3 we show the merits of optimal distribution. Note, however, that there are other considerations that may favor a more uniform distribution of SNe in redshift – for example, ability to perform checks for dust and evolution.

## 4 Conclusions

We discussed prospects for constraining dark energy. Dark energy is best probed at redshifts roughly between $`0.2`$ and $`1.5`$, where it is dynamically important. Probes of the low-redshift Universe (supernovae and number counts) seem the most promising, as they only depend upon three cosmological parameters ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ and $`w`$), which will be effectively reduced to two ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ and $`w`$) when precision CMB measurements determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ to better than 1%. CMB is weakly sensitive to the presence of dark energy, but is very important as a complementary probe. Alcock-Paczynski test and the age of the universe seem less promising.

Constraining the equation of state $`w`$ is the first step in revealing the nature of the dark energy. We show that future surveys will be able to determine constant $`w`$ quite accurately. A high-quality sample of 2000 supernovae out to redshift $`z1.7`$ could determine $`w`$ to a precision of $`\sigma _w=0.05`$. A similar accuracy might be achieved by number counts of galaxies and clusters of galaxies out to $`z1.5`$, provided systematics are held in check (e.g., in the case of galaxies, the evolution of the comoving number density needs to be known to better than 5%). Time-varying $`w`$ will be considerably more difficult to pin down because of additional degeneracies that arise in this case. Nevertheless, interesting constraints may be achieved using high-quality data and assuming a slowly-varying $`w(z)`$. Consequently, use of complementary measurements and further development of techniques to constrain dark energy will be of crucial importance.

We would like to thank the organizers for the wonderful conference and the “black hole” drink recipe. This work was supported by DOE at Chicago.


text:
# Enhancement of superconductive critical temperatures in almost empty or full bands in two dimensions: possible relevance to 𝛽-HfNCl, C60 and MgB2

## I Introduction

There are much interests in the anisotropic superconductors. It is definitely influenced by the discovery of the high $`T_c`$ cuprates superconductors in which CuO2 planes are considered to play an essential role.. Many properties are not simply described by the standard classical BCS theory.

Recently a number of compounds having unexpectedly high superconductive critical temperatures ($`T_\mathrm{c}`$) without CuO2 planes were found. These include layered nitride (ZrNCl($`T_\mathrm{c}15K`$ ,HfNCl ($`T_\mathrm{c}25K`$)  , C60 with a field-effect transistor configuration ($`T_\mathrm{c}=52K`$) , and MgB2 ($`T_\mathrm{c}40K`$) . The common feature of these superconductors is notable anisotropy. Therefore it is mandatory to scrutinize the effects of two-dimensionality on superconductivity.

In this paper we address a question of the role of quasi two-dimensionality in superconductivity. We choose a model of two-dimensional electronic band. Significant enhancement of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ was obtained when the band is almost empty or full. This result does not qualitatively depend on the details of the model.

## II Density of states and electron density of the two dimensional band

The band in two dimensions is often modeled by

$$\epsilon (𝐤)2t(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y),$$
(1)
where $`t`$ is the transfer integral of the tight-binding model on the square lattice. This band has the van Hove singularity in the density of states(DOS) at half-filling. There are a number of works that try to explain high $`T_c`$ cuprates by the van Hove singularity.

On the other hand, here we focus on the van Hove singularity at the edge of band, namely a nearly empty band (or an almost full band) is considered. The density of states(DOS) does not diverge, but the $`𝐤`$-dependent density of states $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$ (electron density at the Fermi surface) diverges at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ($`𝐤=0`$) (the bottom of the band) and ($`\pm \pi ,\pm \pi `$) (the top of the band). See Fig. 1. This is the key difference from the case for a degenerate semiconductor which is three dimensional and does not have a van Hove singularity at the band edges. The density of states is given by

$$N(E)=\frac{1}{|\epsilon (𝐤)|}𝑑l=\frac{1}{v}𝑑l,$$
(2)
where $`l`$ is the Fermi surface (line in two dimensions) and $`v`$ is the semiclassical velocity. Here

$$𝐤\mathrm{DOS}=1/|\epsilon (𝐤)|$$
(3)
and it is plotted in Fig. 1. Note that $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$ is diverging near the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point $`𝐤=(0,0)`$ as well as at ($`\pm \pi ,\pm \pi `$) and at $`(\pm \pi ,0),(0,\pm \pi )`$.

These singularities are not seen in DOS since it is integrated on a vanishingly short Fermi line. Instead DOS is almost constant near the band edges. See Fig. 2.

These behaviors near the band edges are rather universal since the band dispersion may be approximated by $`E_{edge}\pm (k_x^2+k_y^2)/2m^{}`$ in general including that of the honeycomb lattice which is relevant to HfNCl( and ZrNCl) and MgB2 where $`m^{}`$ is the effective band mass, $`E_{edge}`$ is the band edge, and $`+`$ and $``$ apply to near the bottom and top of the band respectively. The important point is that if the interactions depend on $`𝐤`$, $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$ has to be considered carefully.

## III BCS formula and screening

With the properties of the band above in mind, we consider the gap equation,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\underset{k^{}}{}\frac{V_{kk^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{}(T)}{2E_k^{}}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{E_k^{}}{2k_BT},$$
(4)
where $`E_k=\sqrt{\{\epsilon (k)\mu \}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k(T)^2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k(T)`$ is the gap order parameter and $`V_{kk^{}}`$ is the interaction. The sum is restricted within the cutoff $`\mu E_c<\epsilon (k^{})<\mu +E_c`$ where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential.

From the gap equation(4) one can obtain $`T_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$. Near $`T_c`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is very small; then (4) is linearized. $`T_c`$ is determined by the linearized equation. The gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ is obtained by iteration of (4).

In the usual BCS interaction one takes $`V`$ a constant if two particles are both within the cutoff and vanishes otherwise. This implicitly assumes point-like electron-electron interactions, namely the screening is perfect. In this case the classical BCS result is

$$T_c1.13E_c\mathrm{exp}(1/NV),$$
(5)
where N is the DOS near the bottom of the band. When one takes physically reasonable value of $`V`$, enhancement of $`T_c`$ can not be expected even if $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$ is large. This is because the Fermi line is a small circle and the range of integration is very small. It offsets the large but uniform $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$. This behavior is totally analogous to the fact that the behavior of DOS –integral of $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$ along the Fermi line– that is not enhanced near the bottom of the band. See Fig. 2.

On the other hand if the interaction depends on $`𝐪=𝐤𝐤^{}`$, i.e. is not a constant in the integral, the effect of the large $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$ is not necessarily canceled by the short length of the Fermi line. Specifically we choose an interaction which is screened and has a peak at $`𝐪=𝐤𝐤^{}=0`$ : ,

$$V_q=\frac{g_q^2}{q^2+q_0^2}.$$
(6)
Here $`g_q`$ is the coupling constant and $`q_0`$ is the inverse of the screening length $`L`$: $`q_01/L`$. The screening length actually depends on $`\mu `$, but we neglect this effect for the sake of simplicity. The attractive interaction (6) depends on $`k`$ and has a peak at $`𝐪=0`$. Thus the effect of the large $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$ can not be totally canceled by the small Fermi line, as discussed above.

## IV Effective interaction

Let us first give an estimate of the effective interaction. For the chemical potential $`\mu =4t+\eta `$ where $`4t`$ is the energy of the bottom of the band in the noninteracting case and $`\eta `$ is small but larger than the cutoff $`E_c`$, one has, from (4),

$`2`$ $`=`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{k_{inf}^{}}^{k_{sup}^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_q^2\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{k^2t\eta }{2k_BT_c})}{k^2+k^22k^{}k\mathrm{cos}\theta +q_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}dk^{}d\theta }{k^2t\eta }}`$
with $`k^2t=\eta ,\eta E_c`$ and $`|k^2t\eta |<E_c`$. This leads to

$$2=\pi g_q^2t\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\kappa }{2k_BT_c})\frac{d\kappa }{\kappa }\frac{1}{A}$$
(9)
with $`k^2t\eta =\kappa `$ and $`A=\kappa ^2+4\eta q_0^2t+\mathrm{}`$. With the preceding conditions, and if $`\eta `$ is large enough versus $`E_c`$, $`A`$ reduces to $`1/4\eta q_0^2t`$. One reverts to the BCS case of $`V`$ constant but with

$$V_{kk^{}}=\frac{g_q^2}{q_0^2},$$
(10)
thus higher $`T_c`$ is expected. This result is also apply when the Fermi energy is near the top of the band (hole doped) as seen by changing the signs of $`t`$ and $`\eta `$.

## V Numerical results

The numerical solution is consistent with the above analysis and gives enhancement of critical temperatures near the bottom of the band. They are plotted in Fig. 3 for a number of screening lengths and cutoffs. They take the maximum values at $`\mu _{op}`$ near the bottom of the band. The decrease of $`T_c`$’s for $`\mu `$ smaller than $`\mu _{op}`$ is due to the semiconductor gap where DOS vanishes. But note that $`T_c`$’s remain finite at the bottom of the band in the noninteracting case. They extend to the band gap region due to the superconductive coherence effect. It is natural that $`T_c`$’s do not depend on the cutoff in this region. The transition temperature $`T_c`$ also decreases for $`\mu `$ larger than $`\mu _{op}`$. This is because the $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$ is getting smaller in this region. Note that if screening is poorer, $`Tc`$ is higher.

We have a typical $`s`$-wave pairings, but the gaps depend on the absolute value of $`k,|𝐤|`$. The maximum and minimum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/T_c`$’s are plotted in Fig. 4. Note that the maxima of the gaps are almost independent of the cutoff. They are about $`1.8Tc`$ which is close to the BCS value $`1.76T_\mathrm{c}`$ at $`\mu 3.4`$. They increase as $`\mu `$ is lowered. On the other hand the minima of the gap depend on the cutoff as expected, since the minima occur at the edge of the cutoff. They are less than the BCS value and decrease as $`\mu `$ is decreased. However, less anisotropic $`s`$ gap is possible in cases with shorter screening lengths.

Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/T_c`$’s approach zero in a similar manner to the $`T_c`$’s. This implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)`$ decay faster than $`T_\mathrm{c}`$.

## VI Medium to high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ anisotropic superconductors

In this Section we briefly discuss the known superconductive properties of some of the anisotropic compounds which have unexpectedly high critical temperatures. Most of the properties are consistent with our results qualitatively.

### A  ZrNCl and HfNCl

It is known that a series of transition-metal nitrides with the rock-salt structure become superconductors, such as TiN, ZrN, HfN and NbN with $`T_\mathrm{c}`$s at 5.5, 10.7, 8.8 and 18.0K, respectively . Among these $`\beta `$-ZrNCl is characterized as a semiconductor with a band gap of $`3`$eV. On lithium intercalation the electrons are transferred from the intercalated lithium atoms to the ZrN layers through chlorine layers, and the empty $`t_{2g}`$ band is partially filled with electrons, giving the metallic behavior. It becomes a superconductor with a $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ of $`15`$K. It is suggested that the superconductivity occurs within the thin two-dimensional ZrN layers separated by the close-packed chlorine layers .

$`\beta `$-HfNCl is isostructual with $`\beta `$-ZrNCl. However, expanded spacings indicate the formation of co-intercalated phases of THF molecules with lithium between the layers . The much higher $`T_\mathrm{c}25`$K of Li0.48(THF)yHfNCl than that of the zirconium analogue ($`T_\mathrm{c}15K`$) may be attributed to more prominent two-dimensionality due to the co-intercalation. Note that $`T_\mathrm{c}=8.8K`$ of HfN the rock-salt structure is lower than that of ZnN (=10.7K). Recently it has been shown that a larger interlayer spacing leads to weaker screening within a layer. This result may explain the above phenomenon.

### B  C60

A crystal of C60 molecules superconducts when doped with alkali metal atoms, which donate electrons to the C60 lattice . The critical temperature range from below 10K to 33K, depending on dopant. Recently, Sch$`\ddot{o}`$n et al.  succeeded in making a field-effect transistor( FET) device on a C60 crystal. This enables to adding holes or electrons into the top layer of a C60 crystal. Doping level is continuously varied by means of the applied gate voltage, without the crystallographic changes. The peaked behaviors of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ are observed in both electron and hole doped cases. The peak value in the hole-dope case is remarkably high $`52`$K. That in the electron-dope case is $`11`$K. The result was discussed in relation to the band structure calculation for the bulk three dimensional solid . The Fermi energy is not near the 3D band edge. However, the energies of the surface states which are pertinent to the present case have tendency to be in the energy gaps of the bulk states. The present situation of the two-dimensional superconductivity requires appropriate new calculations.

### C  MgB2

The critical temperature of MgB2 $`T_\mathrm{c}40`$K is by far the highest in any binary compound. Boron forms layers of honeycomb lattices with magnesium as a space filler. A number of band structure calculations are available. There is no major disagreement in these calculations and indicate that Mg is substantially ionized. The bands at the Fermi energy derive mainly from B orbitals. These are the bonding ($`p_{x,y}`$) $`\sigma `$ bands (2D like), the bonding ($`p_z`$) $`\pi `$ bands(3D like) and the antibonding ($`p_z`$) $`\pi `$ bands(3D like).

There is a close analogy between MgB2 and graphite. They have the same layer structure. Graphite is isoelectronic with MgB2. The 2D-like $`\sigma `$ band of graphite is completely filled and it is not related to the superconductive instability. Graphite becomes superconducting up to $`5`$K, but only when electron-doped (intercalated). On the other hand MgB2 superconducts at stoichiometry at $`T_\mathrm{c}40`$K. This comparison strongly suggests that 2D-like $`\sigma `$ band plays an important role in MgB2. The Fermi energy is near the top of this band. This situation corresponds to the case we investigated above for enhancement of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The other states on the 3D-like bands become superconductive due to interband sctterings.

## VII Conclusions

We study the superconductive properties of the two-dimensional bands which is almost full(hole-doped) or empty(electron-doped). The crucial and specific point is the large electron density $`𝐤\mathrm{DOS}`$ near the top or the bottom of the bands. It is shown that screened interaction leads to enhancement of superconductive critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ from the approximate analysis and the numerical computations. The poorer the screening, the stronger the enhancement of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is.

Since the physical origin of the enhancement of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is rather clear (large electron density), the strong coupling treatment which might be more appropriate for some compounds will not likely to change the results qualitatively.

The present results are not in conflict with most of the known superconductive properties of some of the anisotropic compounds which have unexpectedly high critical temperatures such as $`\beta `$-HfNCl, C60 and MgB2.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank M. Takigawa for a useful discussion. We are grateful to Korea-Japan binational program through KOSEF-JSPS.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Perturbative calculations in quantum field theories are usually plagued by the appearance of divergences. The program of regularisation and renormalisation has shown, however, that these divergences do not lead to inconsistencies (in the absence of quantum anomalies), but that they can be absorbed in a redefinition of the physical input parameters. In the worst case (as for quartic and quadratic divergences) one has to deal with a very strong dependence of the parameters on the ultraviolet cut-off procedure. The knowledge of physics in the far ultraviolet region has to be under control to have a meaningful understanding of the parameters of the theory even at very low energies. In situations where various different mass scales appear one then has to deal with the so-called hierarchy problems: why is one scale small compared to the other? In the standard model of particle physics this concerns the (mass)2 of the Higgs boson (quadratically divergent) and the vacuum energy (quartically divergent). The cosmological constant and the Higgs mass are therefore naturally expected to be of the order of the ultraviolet cutoff, e.g. the Planck scale. Of course, it is not inconsistent to make an ad hoc choice of small values for these quantities, but this would require an extreme fine-tuning of the input parameters that has to be repeated order by order in perturbation theory. Thus the presence of quartic and quadratic divergences appears highly undesirable from a theoretical point of view.

The above theoretical arguments were the main motivation to propose the supersymmetric extension of the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ standard model of strong and electroweak interactions. Supersymmetric field theories are free of quartic and quadratic divergences (provided some additional constraints are fulfilled in the presence of abelian $`U(1)`$ gauge groups), as a result of a cancellation between bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. In the calculation of the vacuum energy e.g. we find that the coefficient of the quartically divergent term is proportional to the number of bosons minus the number of fermions while the coefficient of the quadratically divergent piece is given by the supertrace of (mass)2, STrM2. Both of these vanish in the supersymmetric limit. In fact, supersymmetry does even more than this due to the appearance of so-called non-renormalisation theorems: corrections to the formerly divergent quantities vanish identically in perturbation theory. In Nature however, supersymmetry is broken. Still, there exists the notion of softly broken supersymmetry (e.g. spontaneous breakdown) where quadratic divergences for the Higgs mass are absent and the highest degree of divergence (for field dependent quantities) is logarithmic. Quadratic divergences are cutoff due to the presence of new physical states: supersymmetric partners of the standard model particles. $`M_{\mathrm{susy}}`$, the supersymmetry breakdown scale (representative for the mass of the supersymmetric partners) provides us with a physical cutoff for the potentially quadratically divergent Higgs (mass)2, leading to a finite correction of order $`M_{\mathrm{susy}}^2`$. The quadratic divergence is recovered in the limit $`M_{\mathrm{susy}}\mathrm{}`$. Thus if supersymmetry is supposed to solve the hierarchy problem, we expect supersymmetric partners in the TeV region (and not in the Planck mass region) to provide this physical cutoff. Softly broken supersymmetry with $`M_{\mathrm{susy}}`$ of the order of the weak scale does therefore provide a solution to (at least the technical aspect of) the hierarchy problem of the Higgs mass. In the present paper we adopt the definition of soft supersymmetry breaking terms as defined in ref. . It will be these specific soft terms we will have in mind whenever we will refer to soft breaking terms. With these terms one can show that the corresponding theory does not suffer from quadratic divergences for scalar masses. This is true to all orders in perturbation theory and is not just a reflection of the tuning of a one loop result.

So far our discussion only considered the presence of a finite number of fields. The situation becomes much more complicated in the framework of string theories and/or models of Kaluza Klein compactification where (from the D=4 dimensional field theory point of view) we are dealing with infinitely many fields, and as a consequence with infinitely many new ways to cutoff integrals and fine-tune parameters. In a given theory it is therefore important to control the ultraviolet sensitivity of the parameters. We have to understand whether a given value of a physical parameter is the result of the specific choice of the cut-off or has a more general validity.

Some classes of string theories are believed to be finite in perturbation theory. In the known cases, however, supersymmetry again plays a crucial role in the discussion. A physical cutoff would therefore be either the string tension (i.e. higher excitations of the string) or the scale $`M_{\mathrm{susy}}`$ (i.e. supersymmetric partners). In the present paper we shall not address the case of string theories, but the simpler situation of compactified higher dimensional field theories known under the name of Kaluza-Klein theories. Naively, such theories show an ultraviolet behaviour worse than the corresponding four-dimensional $`(D=4)`$ theories and some amount of supersymmetry is needed again to arrive at ultraviolet insensitivity.

The investigation of the present paper was initiated by claims in the literature  of an amazing ultraviolet softness of such Kaluza-Klein theories. The starting point is represented by supersymmetric theories in $`D>4`$ dimensions (e.g. N=1 in D=5) with specific hard (not soft in the sense discussed above) breaking terms. From our previous discussion we would therefore expect the appearance of e.g. quadratic divergences for scalar mass terms. According to the claim of  these theories give a finite result. This claim is based on the inspection of a one-loop contribution to the vacuum energy. This in fact means that this theory has a better ultraviolet behaviour than the underlying unbroken supersymmetric theory.

We find this a rather miraculous result that deserves further clarification. After all we know that quadratic divergences can be regularised to give a finite result at one loop level and the finite result will rely heavily on the details of the regularisation procedure. The observed miraculous behaviour could thus be the consequence of a special choice of the cut-off procedure. The calculational basis of the claims is a particular mathematical procedure in evaluating the vacuum energy of the D=5 dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory with hard supersymmetry breaking terms. The expression of the vacuum energy is an infinite sum of infinite integrals that are highly divergent. The aforementioned procedure exchanges the sum and the integral to lead to a finite result (this regularisation procedure is called “KK-regularisation”). So far there has been no calculation that goes beyond the use of this procedure and that would clarify the detailed physical assumptions employed in such a regularisation mechanism. It was argued  that it must be the underlying (broken) supersymmetry that leads to this result. Part of the cancellation is in fact due to Supersymmetry. But since the outcome of this calculation is a better ultraviolet behaviour than that of unbroken supersymmetric theory, a more detailed calculation seems to be required.

In the present work we perform such a calculation and we are able to clarify some of the points raised:

* The finite result requires a cancellation in bosonic (and fermionic) sectors respectively (apart from other cancellations due to supersymmetry).
* The regularisation procedure assumes a cancellation between physics above the momentum cutoff ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and physics below this cutoff.
* The ultraviolet finiteness of vacuum energy at one loop level appears as a result of a specific fine-tuning of parameters in the “KK-regularisation”.

As a framework for our calculation and to motivate these statements we consider one particular example  of the models using “KK regularisation” and analyse this regularisation scheme which involves the summing up of the effects of an infinite tower of Kaluza Klein states associated with the extra (compact) dimension. The model  we consider is representative for the class of models considering “KK regularisation”  and we only use it for illustrative purposes. To begin with we will only sum up the effects on the scalar potential of a finite number of Kaluza Klein states and then consider the limit when this number is infinite. This approach has the advantage of showing rather explicitly the origin of the cancellation of the ultraviolet divergences of the scalar potential. We argue that there exists such a cancellation which takes place separately for the bosons and for the fermions, therefore is not related to the presence of supersymmetry (whether broken or not). Rather we show that this is due to a subtle cancellation between the quadratic terms of a finite number of states in the Kaluza Klein tower against the logarithmic contribution of such states of mass larger than the momentum cut-off of the one-loop integrals responsible for the radiative corrections to the scalar potential. In a sense this can also be viewed as a fine-tuning of the coefficients of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependent terms controlling the ultraviolet behaviour, such that the sum of these terms is zero when the number of Kaluza Klein states increases to infinity. As usual (broken) supersymmetry does play a role in the cancellation of quartic and (even part of) the quadratic divergences, as a consequence of an equal number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. But as we just mentioned, the finite character of the scalar potential (and soft masses) is traced back to individual cancellations for bosons and for fermions respectively due to Kaluza Klein states of mass larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the momentum cut-off. Thus the mechanism is not related to the way supersymmetry is broken. The finite character of the potential is the result of a mathematical manipulation and is not necessarily supported by an underlying physical mechanism or a symmetry principle.

In the next section we address the corrections to the scalar potential of the model we investigate, and refer the reader to  for a more detailed description. In Section 3 we discuss the ultraviolet behaviour of the scalar potential. Our conclusions are presented in the last section.

## 2 The scalar potential

The model  which provides the framework of our investigation considers a one-loop expansion of the scalar potential, whose radiative corrections are accounted for by Kaluza Klein modes of the top quark, associated with the extra spatial dimension considered. These states fall in N=2 multiplets, consequence of the enhanced supersymmetry in the 5D “bulk” (broken on the 4D boundary to N=0 by an orbifold-like $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ compactification). The scalar potential of  for the Higgs field $`\varphi `$ is the focus of our investigation, has a rather generic structure with similar expressions found in , and is used to illustrate our analysis. It has the structure

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}Tr\underset{k=l}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{p^2+m_{B_k}^2(\varphi )}{p^2+m_{F_k}^2(\varphi )}$$
(1)
with the Trace over the top hypermultiplet of fixed k level contributing a factor of $`(4N_c)`$ where $`N_c`$ is the number of colours.

In a 4D effective field theory approach, the tower of Kaluza-Klein states should be truncated to a mass scale which should be of the order of the momentum cut-off scale of the loop integral. This means that, at least intuitively, there should be a correlation between the number of states in the tower and the momentum cut-off. To keep our analysis general we first consider the case of an arbitrarily fixed number ($`l`$) of Kaluza-Klein modes, which will prove very useful for gaining an insight into the physical meaning and consequences of the regularisation procedure of summing over an infinite tower of Kaluza Klein states, as explored in .

The field dependent boson and fermion masses in (1) are given by

$$m_{F_k}(\varphi )=\frac{2k}{R}+m_t(\varphi )=\frac{2}{R}(k+\omega ),\omega =\frac{m_t(\varphi )R}{2}$$
(2)
and

$$m_{B_k}(\varphi )=\frac{2k+1}{R}+m_t(\varphi )=\frac{2}{R}(k+\omega ^{}),\omega ^{}=\omega +\frac{1}{2}$$
(3)
and where following  we consider any integer values of $`k`$ between $`\mathrm{}<k<\mathrm{}`$. The use of these mass formulas is again done to illustrate our analysis; other similar possibilities  may be explored, following this approach. The mass splitting between fermions and bosons, following the susy breaking via a Scherk-Schwarz mechanism, is therefore encoded in the difference $`\omega ^{}\omega `$ which for this model is positive. The sign of the scalar potential and also of its second derivative (at $`\varphi =0`$) will crucially depend on the sign of this difference (for this see eq.(1)), with implications for electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism induced by radiative corrections. Thus, the existence of this mechanism is not really a prediction of this class of models, but can rather be traced back to the type of Scherk-Schwarz boundary conditions one chooses for the fermions and for the bosons respectively, leading in some cases to the presence  or the absence  of the electroweak symmetry breaking333This also depends on which zero modes we identify with the Standard Model particles..

The zero mode fermion in (2) identified with the top quark has a mass given by

$$m_t(\varphi )=\frac{2}{\pi R}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\pi R\varphi y_t}{2}$$
(4)
This expression will not be used in our analysis and we present it only for illustrative purposes.

From equations (1), (2) and (3) we find

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{\eta }{R^4}\underset{k=l}{\overset{l}{}}_0^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}𝑑\rho \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\rho ^3\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho ^2+\pi ^2(k+\omega ^{})^2}{\rho ^2+\pi ^2(k+\omega )^2},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{\pi R\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}$$
(5)
where the constant in front of $`V`$ is given by

$$\eta =\frac{4N_c}{2\pi ^6}$$
(6)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as the momentum cut-off of the loop-integral in (1).

Having truncated the tower of Kaluza-Klein states to a finite number, one can safely commute the sum with the integral in eq.(5) without affecting its ultraviolet behaviour. We therefore choose to keep two different cut-off’s, one for the Kaluza-Klein sum (represented by $`l`$, see below) and one for the loop-integral ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or equivalently, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$). Strictly speaking the number of Kaluza-Klein states should however be restricted to those states whose mass is below the momentum cut-off of the loop integral, condition which would lead to

$$m_{B_k,F_k}\frac{2k}{R}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\pi l$$
(7)
where $`l`$ stands for the Kaluza Klein state of the largest mass. Later on we will consider the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) fixed to analyse the physical implications and mathematical subtleties of the “Kaluza-Klein regularisation”.

As a result of summing up the effects of a finite number of Kaluza-Klein states under the momentum integral in eq.(1), (5), we obtain a result with three contributions under the loop-integral. Accordingly, the potential can be written as a sum of three terms, with the $`\varphi `$ dependence hidden in $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$. Thus

$$V(\varphi )=V_0(\varphi )+V_1(\varphi )+V_2(\varphi )$$
(8)
where we have

$$V_0(\varphi )=\frac{\eta }{R^4}_0^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}𝑑\rho \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\rho ^3\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(2\rho )\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \omega ^{})}{\mathrm{cosh}(2\rho )\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \omega )}$$
(9)
and

$$V_1(\varphi )=\frac{\eta }{R^4}_0^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}𝑑\rho \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\rho ^3\mathrm{ln}\frac{\rho ^2+\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2}{\rho ^2+\pi ^2(l+\omega )^2}+(ll)$$
(10)
and finally

$$V_2(\varphi )=\frac{\eta }{R^4}_0^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}𝑑\rho \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\rho ^3\mathrm{ln}\frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(l\pm \omega ^{}\pm i\rho /\pi )]_{}}{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(l\pm \omega \pm i\rho /\pi )]_{}}$$
(11)
where under the last integral the symbol $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }(l\pm \omega ^{}\pm i\rho /\pi )]_{}`$ stands for a product of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s with all possible (four) combinations of plus and minus signs. It is useful for later reference to mention that the numerators ($`\omega ^{}`$ dependent) of the integrands of $`V_0`$, $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$ correspond to bosonic degrees of freedom, while the denominators correspond to the contribution ($`\omega `$ dependent) of the fermions. Details of the exact calculation leading to this result will be given elsewhere .

In the following we analyse each of the three contributions to the scalar potential $`V`$ and investigate their physical implications. $`V_0`$ is part of the scalar potential corresponding to the result of reference  which is finite and ultraviolet insensitive, as we discuss below. The expression of $`V_0`$ simply corresponds to summing over an infinite number of Kaluza Klein states in eq.(1) and is therefore Kaluza-Klein-level independent. It was assumed  that this is the Kaluza-Klein regularised part of the scalar potential.

Contributions $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ to the scalar potential are each vanishing in the limit of an infinite number of Kaluza-Klein states, $`V_1(l\mathrm{})=0`$, and $`V_2(l\mathrm{})=0`$ while keeping $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ fixed, consequence of the vanishing of their integrands respectively . It is however instructive for our purposes to explicitly compute $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ in the general case (of finite $`l`$) to understand the physical implications of taking the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ fixed). This procedure will also clarify whether the breaking of supersymmetry by a Scherk-Schwarz-like boundary condition quoted as the origin of obtaining an ultraviolet finite result for $`V`$ in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$, plays actually any role in the cancellation of ultraviolet (quadratic and logarithmic) terms of the scalar potential to give a finite result.

## 3 Ultraviolet dependence of the scalar potentials

To make our discussion more quantitative, we start with the analysis of $`V_0`$. After performing the integral  for $`V_0`$, one finds

$$V_0(\varphi )=\frac{3\eta }{R^4}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \omega (2k+1))}{(2k+1)^5}\left\{1e^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(2k+1)}\underset{m=0}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(2k+1))^m}{m!}\right\}$$
(12)
where the factor within curly braces is equal to unity in the large $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ limit, to leave only the potential of . Of the latter, only the first (small $`k`$) terms significantly contribute to $`V_0`$. In (12) we used $`\omega ^{}\omega =1/2`$, which has implications for the sign of the potential (eq.(1)) and electroweak symmetry breaking as a result of the relation $`\omega ^{}>\omega `$. Further analysis of this potential and its phenomenological implications have been discussed in .

The result of integrating $`V_1(\varphi )`$ of eq.(10) is given, irrespective of the dependence $`m_t(\varphi )`$, by the following expression

$$V_1=\underset{bosonic}{\underset{}{(𝒱_1(\omega ^{})+\mathrm{\Delta })}}\underset{fermionic}{\underset{}{(𝒱_1(\omega )+\mathrm{\Delta })}}=𝒱_1(\omega ^{})𝒱_1(\omega )$$
(13)
where we used the following notation

$$𝒱_1(\omega ^{})=\frac{\eta }{2R^4}\left\{\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\pi ^4(l+\omega ^{})^4\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2}\right]+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4\mathrm{ln}\left(\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\right)+(ll)\right\}$$
(14)
with terms obtained by the substitution $`ll`$ to account for modes moving in the opposite direction in the compact dimension.

Eq.(13) shows explicitly how some ultraviolet divergent terms accounted for by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ cancel between the bosonic and fermionic contributions, to give $`V_1`$ as the difference between a (remaining) bosonic part which we denote by $`𝒱_1(\omega ^{})`$ and a fermionic one, $`𝒱_1(\omega )`$. One sees for example in the expression of $`V_1`$ how $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ terms (included in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) are cancelled due to the equal number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom, consequence of the initial presence of (now broken) supersymmetry. Additional terms $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4\mathrm{ln}(1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2/\pi ^2(l\pm \omega ^{})^2)`$ are however present in $`(\text{14})`$ for the bosons with similar counterparts for the fermions444obtained by the replacement $`\omega ^{}\omega `$, and their overall coefficient (at fixed $`l`$) is non-zero. For example $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ term has an overall555including bosonic and fermionic contributions. coefficient proportional to $`(\omega ^2\omega ^2)`$. The absence of such terms in the final result for $`V`$ in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ has been assumed  to be due to the so-called “soft nature” of breaking supersymmetry by a Scherk-Schwarz mechanism which would preserve a cancellation between bosonic and fermionic contributions. We argue that this seems not be the case, as terms like $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4\mathrm{ln}(1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2/\pi ^2(l\pm \omega ^{})^2)`$ do not cancel exactly between the bosons and the fermions, for any value, whether finite or infinite of the number $`l`$ of Kaluza Klein states that we summed over.

To understand what really happens we consider the limit of large $`l`$ and fixed momentum cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\pi l\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }R/2`$. In this limit the logarithm in the second term of the bosonic term $`𝒱_1(\omega ^{})`$ can be expanded in a (rapidly convergent) power series, with the first term in the expansion to cancel the quadratic divergence $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ of the first term in $`𝒱_1`$; more explicitly, the second term in (14) which we denote as $`A(l,\omega ^{})`$ has the form

$$A(l,\omega ^{})\frac{1}{2}\frac{\eta }{R^4}\left\{\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4\frac{1}{3}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^6}{\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2}+\mathrm{}\right\}$$
(15)
and its quadratic term666The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ term in the expansion (15) is cancelled in $`V_1`$ after including both bosonic and fermionic contributions. cancels the first term in $`𝒱_1(\omega ^{})`$. This cancellation is independent of the presence of (exact or softly broken) supersymmetry, as it takes place separately for the bosons and for the fermions. The physical interpretation of this mathematical observation is that states of mass larger (!) than the momentum cut-off scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the loop integral ($`2l/R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) cancel the contributions to the quadratic divergence of Kaluza-Klein states of level less or equal to $`l`$ and this takes place separately for bosons and fermions, i.e. independent of the presence/absence of supersymmetry or of the way it is broken.

Summing over an infinite tower of Kaluza Klein states corresponds to the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ and in this case one finds that the quadratic dependence ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$) in the bosonic part $`𝒱_1(\omega ^{})`$ of (14) is lost, and a similar mechanism separately applies for the fermionic part, due to the aforementioned reasons, only to leave a $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4`$ dependence cancelled between the bosonic and fermionic parts. Indeed

$$\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\eta }{R^4}\left\{\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\pi ^4(l+\omega ^{})^4\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2}\right]+(ll)\right\}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\eta }{R^4}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4$$
(16)
where the r.h.s. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4`$ is cancelled between bosons and fermions due to the initial presence of supersymmetry. The vanishing of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ dependence can also be viewed as a fine-tuning of the ($`l`$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ dependent) coefficients of the two terms (momentum cut-off dependent) in eq.(16) such that their sum only contains $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4`$ but no quadratic contributions. In the same limit $`l\mathrm{}`$, the third term in (14) $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4\mathrm{ln}(\pi ^2(l\pm \omega ^{})^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2)`$ is indeed cancelled between bosons and fermions. This last cancellation is in a sense a remnant of the initial presence of supersymmetry which ensured the matching of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom, and again brings in a fine-tuning to zero of the (logarithmic) coefficient of the ultraviolet term $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4[\mathrm{ln}(\pi ^2(l\pm \omega ^{})^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2)(\omega ^{}\omega )]`$ when $`l\mathrm{}`$.

One can argue that it is possible for the presence of quadratic ultraviolet terms in $`V_1`$ to be cancelled by similar terms which may be present in $`V_2`$, to give - for any finite summation, up to level $`l`$ \- a finite, ultraviolet insensitive result. Here we show that this is not the case by using an (approximate777The expression of $`V_2`$ (thus of $`V`$) cannot be integrated analytically to obtain a transparent result for our purposes and this justifies the use of our approximation. In a different approach, one can first compute the integral of $`V`$ and then sum over a finite tower of states. The summation is equally difficult to perform, with the exception of that for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ terms, which shows again that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ terms are present for any finite summation, for both bosons and fermions and do not cancel between these. ) expression for $`V_2`$ valid in the limit of large modulus of $`l+i\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ which does not restrict the relative values of $`l`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, therefore various limits for these quantities may still be taken on the final result to find the ultraviolet behaviour of $`V_2`$. After some algebra the integral of $`V_2`$ can be written as

$`V_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{R^4}}\left\{\pi ^2g(l,\omega ^{})(l+\omega ^{})\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2}}\right)\right]+(\omega ^{}\omega ^{})\right\}`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{R^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4}{2}}\left\{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2+\pi ^2(l+\omega ^{})^2}{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2+\pi ^2(l\omega ^{})^2}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{R^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^5}{5\pi }}\left\{\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\pi (l\omega ^{})}}+\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\pi (l+\omega ^{})}}\right\}(\omega ^{}\omega )`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{R^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4}{2}}\left(l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{[\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2+\pi ^2(l\pm \omega ^{})^2]_{}}{[\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2+\pi ^2(l\pm \omega )^2]_{}}}\right\}`$
where $`g(l,\omega ^{})=[1015l+6l^2+3(5\omega ^{}+4l\omega ^{}+2\omega ^2)]/60`$ and where the substitution $`(\omega ^{}\omega )`$ only applies to terms in front of it, to give the (separate, $`\omega `$ dependent) fermionic contribution. The last term in (17) contains both the fermionic and the bosonic contributions. Ultraviolet divergences of the type $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^5`$ do cancel between the bosonic and fermionic contribution while computing $`V_2`$, but these cancellations are not exact, with remaining (uncancelled) contributions (e.g. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$) vanishing separately for the bosons and fermions, respectively.

In the first curly braces of (17) quadratic terms $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ due to states up to level $`l`$ are cancelled for very large $`l`$ by the first term in the (rapidly converging) power series of the logarithmic contribution. For $`l\mathrm{}`$ the whole (bosonic) term in the first $`\{\}`$ has no $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ dependence, giving only a $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^4`$ contribution cancelled by its fermionic counterpart due to the initial presence of supersymmetry. The cancellation of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ term takes place if the second term in the argument of the logarithm is smaller than unity, which is only possible for Kaluza Klein mass terms larger than the momentum cut-off of the loop-integral888 Note that the sum of quadratic terms in $`V_1+V_2`$ does not vanish for any finite $`l`$.. This is true indeed in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ considered by “Kaluza Klein regularisation”. A similar mechanism also applies to the case of the fermionic contribution.

Other terms in (17) with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{4,5}`$ also vanish separately for the bosons and fermions respectively, in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$, with fixed $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The vanishing in this limit of such ultraviolet terms containing powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ brings in an amount of fine-tuning (to zero) of their ($`l`$ dependent) coefficients. This explains the absence of these terms in $`V_2`$ (and thus in $`V`$) when $`l\mathrm{}`$. To conclude, just as in the case of $`V_1`$, (part of) the ultraviolet behaviour (e.g. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$) of the bosonic (fermionic) part is separately cancelled by bosonic (fermionic) contributions respectively, due to Kaluza-Klein terms of mass larger than the momentum cut-off of the loop integral.

## 4 Conclusions and outlook

We have shown that the procedure of summing up an infinite tower of Kaluza Klein states contributing to the scalar potential of supersymmetric models, used in the literature as a regularisation method seems to have a rather unphysical meaning. Although some ultraviolet terms do cancel between fermionic and bosonic contributions due to the initial presence of supersymmetry, the cancellation of the (remaining) quadratic and logarithmic divergences in this procedure to lead to an ultraviolet finite potential takes place independently for bosons and fermions and is not a feature of softly broken supersymmetry, as initially thought. The cancellation is simply due to considering Kaluza Klein states of masses larger than the momentum cut-off of the one-loop integrals for the bosons and for the fermions respectively, leading us to a conclusion which questions the physical meaning of this regularisation procedure.

“Kaluza-Klein regularisation” employs an ad hoc choice for the cut-off of the quadratic divergence at one loop order, via a subtle mathematical procedure of summing over an infinite number of Kaluza Klein states before performing the one-loop momentum integral. Even so, in contrast to the situation in softly broken Susy, we will still have a strong ultraviolet sensitivity of the Higgs mass since the quadratic dependence has been cancelled at one loop only and will potentially reappear in higher orders in perturbation theory.

Other unanswered questions by this string-inspired “KK regularisation” come from string theory. Unless a full string model is built to justify the summation over an infinite tower of states, one would expect the presence of a (unique) cut-off in the theory below which all masses are situated, and this was not the case in the models addressed. In addition, any regularisation of string origin should also include the effects of possible winding modes with respect to the compact extra dimension, and it is not clear at all that these will render the scalar potential ultraviolet insensitive in a model embedded in a full string set-up. To exemplify, one can think of the heterotic string calculation of string thresholds to the gauge couplings. Such string threshold corrections may be viewed  as the free energy of compactification, thus intuitively related to the scalar potential in our model. These corrections still exhibit (for two-torus compactification) a quadratic dependence on the compactification scale as well as on the string scale . For an effective field theory model the string scale is assimilated to the ultraviolet cut-off, thus an ultraviolet behaviour of the potential stronger than the (ultraviolet insensitive) finite one of the “KK regularisation” should then be expected.

Acknowledgement We would like to thank Graham G. Ross and Stefan Groot Nibbelink for very useful discussions on this work. This work was supported by the University of Bonn under the European Commission RTN programmes HPRN-CT-2000-00131 and 00148.