text:
# Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States

## 1 Introduction

The study of wealth and income distributions has a long history. Pareto  proposed in 1897 that wealth and income distributions obey universal power laws. Subsequent studies have often disputed this conjecture (see a systematic survey in the World Bank research publication ). Mandelbrot  proposed that the Pareto law applies only asymptotically to the high ends of the distributions. Many researchers tried to deduce the Pareto law from a theory of stochastic processes. Gibrat  proposed in 1931 that income and wealth are governed by multiplicative random processes, which result in a log-normal distribution. These ideas were later followed, among many others, by Montroll and Shlesinger . However, already in 1945 Kalecki  pointed out that the log-normal distribution is not stationary, because its width increases in time. Modern econophysicists  also use various versions of multiplicative random processes in theoretical modeling of wealth and income distributions.

Unfortunately, numerous recent papers on this subject do very little or no comparison at all with real statistical data, much of which is widely available these days on the Internet. In order to fill this gap, we analyzed the data on income distribution in the United States (US) from the Bureau of Census and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Ref. . We found that the individual income of about 95% of population is described by the exponential law. The exponential law, also known in physics as the Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution, is characteristic for a conserved variable, such as energy. In Ref. , we argued that, because money (cash) is conserved, the probability distribution of money should be exponential. Wealth can increase or decrease by itself, but money can only be transferred from one agent to another. So, wealth is not conserved, whereas money is. The difference is the same as the difference between unrealized and realized capital gains in stock market.

Unfortunately, we were not able to find data on the distribution of money. On the other hand, we found data on wealth distribution in the United Kingdom (UK), which are presented in this paper. Also presented are the income distribution data for the UK and for the individual states of the USA. In all of these data, we find that the great majority of population is described by an exponential distribution, whereas the high-end tail follows a power law.

## 2 Wealth distribution in the United Kingdom

In this section, we discuss the cumulative probability distribution of wealth $`N(w)`$=(the number of people whose individual wealth is greater than $`w`$)/(the total number of people). A plot of $`N`$ vs. $`w`$ is equivalent to a plot of person’s rank in wealth vs. wealth, which is often used for top reach people . We will use the power law, $`N(w)1/w^\alpha `$, and the exponential law $`N(w)\mathrm{exp}(w/W)`$, to fit the data. These distributions are characterized by the exponent $`\alpha `$ and the “temperature” $`W`$. The corresponding probability densities, $`P(w)=dN(w)/dw`$, also follow a power law or an exponential law. For the exponential law, it is also useful to define the temperatures $`W^{(2)}`$ (also known as the median) and $`W^{(10)}`$ using the bases of 1/2 and 1/10: $`N(w)(1/2)^{w/W^{(2)}}(1/10)^{w/W^{(10)}}`$.

The distribution of wealth is not easy to measure, because people do not report their total wealth routinely. However, when a person dies, all assets must be reported for the purpose of inheritance tax. Using these data and an adjustment procedure, the British tax agency, the Inland Revenue (IR), reconstructed wealth distribution of the whole UK population. In Fig. 1, we present the 1996 data obtained from their Web site . The left panel shows the cumulative probability as a function of the personal total net capital (wealth), which is composed of assets (cash, stocks, property, household goods, etc.) and liabilities (mortgages and other debts). The main panel illustrates in the log-log scale that above 100 k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$ the data follow a power law with the exponent $`\alpha =1.9`$. The inset shows in the log-linear scale that below 100 k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$ the data is very well fitted by an exponential distribution with the temperature $`W_{UK}=59.6`$ k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$ ($`W_{UK}^{(2)}=41.3`$ k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$ and $`W_{UK}^{(10)}=137.2`$ k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$).

The right panel of Fig. 1 shows the so-called Lorenz curve  for wealth distribution. The horizontal and vertical coordinates are the cumulative population $`x(w)`$ and the cumulative wealth $`y(w)`$:

$$x(w)=_0^wP(w^{})𝑑w^{},y(w)=_0^ww^{}P(w^{})𝑑w^{}/_0^{\mathrm{}}w^{}P(w^{})𝑑w^{}.$$
(1)
The points represent the actual data, whereas the solid line is calculated for a purely exponential distribution :

$$y=x+(1x)\mathrm{ln}(1x).$$
(2)
One can see that the data systematically deviate from the exponential law because of the wealth concentrated in the power-law tail; however, the deviation is not very big. The so-called Gini coefficient , which measures the inequality of wealth distribution, has increased from 64% in 1984 to 68% in 1996 . This value is bigger than the Gini coefficient 50% for a purely exponential distribution . The inequality of the US income distribution was also increasing during that time period .

## 3 Income distribution in the United Kingdom

We obtained the data on the yearly income distribution in the UK for 1997/8 and 1998/9 from the Web site of the IR . The data for 1994/5, 1995/6, and 1996/7 were taken from the Annual Abstract of Statistics derived from the IR . The data for these 5 years are presented graphically in Fig. 2. In the upper inset of the left panel, the original raw data for the cumulative distribution are plotted in log-linear scale. For not too high incomes, the points form straight lines, which implies the exponential distribution $`N(r)\mathrm{exp}(r/R)`$, where $`r`$ stands for income (revenue), and $`R`$ is the income “temperature”. However, the slopes of these lines are different for different years. The temperatures for the years 1994/5, 1995/6, 1996/7, and 1997/8 differ from the temperature for 1998/9, $`R_{UK}^{(98/9)}=11.7`$ k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$ ($`R_{UK}^{(2)}=8.1`$ k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$ and $`R_{UK}^{(10)}=26.9`$ k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$), by the factors 0.903, 0.935, 0.954, and 0.943. To compensate for this effect, we rescale the data. We divide the horizontal coordinates (incomes) of the data sets for different years by the quoted above factors and plot the results in log-log scale in the main panel and log-linear scale in the lower inset. We observe scaling: the collapse of points on a single curve. Thus, the distributions $`N_i(r)`$ for different years $`i`$ are described by a single function $`f(r/R_i)`$. The main panel shows that this scaling function $`f`$ follows a power law with the exponent $`\alpha =2.0`$-2.3 at high incomes. The lower inset shows that $`f`$ has an exponential form for about 95% of individuals with lower incomes. These results qualitatively agree with a similar study by Cranshaw . He proposed that the $`P(r)`$ data for lower incomes are better fitted by the Gamma distribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)r^\beta \mathrm{exp}(r/R)`$. For simplicity, we chose not to introduce the additional fitting parameter $`\beta `$.

We must mention that the individuals with income below a certain threshold are not required to report to the IR. That is why the data in the lower inset do not extend to zero income. We extrapolate the straight line to zero income and take the intercept with the vertical axis as 100% of individuals. Thus, we imply that the IR data does not account for about 25-27% of individuals with income below the threshold.

The Lorenz curve for the distribution of the UK income is shown in the right panel of Fig. 2. We treat the number of individuals below the income threshold and their total income as adjustable parameters, which are the horizontal and vertical offsets of the coordinates origin relative to the lowest known data point. These parameters are chosen to fit the Lorenz curve for the exponential law (2) shown as the solid line. The fit is very good. The horizontal offsets are 28-34%, which is roughly consistent with the numbers quoted for the lower inset of the left panel.

## 4 Income distribution in the United States

We obtained the data on distribution of the yearly individual income in 1998 for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia that constitute the USA from the Web site of the IRS . We plot the original raw data for the cumulative distribution of income in log-linear scale in the upper inset of the left panel of Fig. 3. The points spread significantly, particularly at higher incomes. For example, the fraction of individuals with income greater than 1 M$ varies by an order of magnitude between different states. However, after we rescale the data in the manner described in the preceding section, the points collapse on a single curve shown in log-log scale in the main panel and log-linear scale in the lower inset. The open circles represent the US average, obtained by treating the combined data for all states as a single set. We observe that the distribution of higher incomes approximately follows a power law with the exponent $`\alpha =1.7\pm 0.1`$, where the $`\pm 0.1`$ variation includes 70% of all states. On the other hand, for about 95% of individuals with lower incomes, the distribution follows an exponential law with the average US temperature $`R_{US}=36.4`$ k$ ($`R_{US}^{(2)}=25.3`$ k$ and $`R_{US}^{(10)}=83.9`$ k$). The temperatures of the individual states differ from $`R_{US}`$ by the amounts shown in Table 1. For example, the temperature of Connecticut (CT) is 1.25 times higher and the temperature of West Virginia (WV) is 0.78 times lower than the average US temperature.

The Lorenz plot for all states is shown in the right panel of Fig. 3 together with the solid curve representing Eq. (2). The majority of points are well clustered and are not too far from the solid curve. The exceptions are Wyoming (WY) with much higher inequality and the Washington state (WA) with noticeably lower inequality of income distribution. The average US data, shown by open circles, is consistent with our previous results . Unlike in the UK case, we did not make any adjustment in the US case for individuals with income below the threshold, which appears to be sufficiently low.

## 5 Discussion

We found scaling in the cumulative probability distributions $`N(r)`$ of individual income $`r`$ derived from the tax statistics for different years in the UK and for different states in the US. The distributions $`N_i(r)`$ have the scaling form $`f(r/R_i)`$, where the scale $`R_i`$ (the temperature) varies from one data set $`i`$ to another, but the scaling function $`f`$ does not. The function $`f`$ has an exponential (Boltzmann-Gibbs) form at the low end, which covers about 95% of individuals. At the high end, it follows a power (Pareto) law with the exponents about 2.1 for the UK and 1.7 for the US. Wealth distribution in the UK also has a qualitatively similar shape with the exponent about 1.9 and the temperature $`W_{UK}=60`$ k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$. Some of the other values of the exponents found in literature are 1.5 proposed by Pareto himself ($`\alpha =1.5`$), 1.36 found by Levy and Solomon  for the distribution of wealth in the Forbes 400 list, and 2.05 found by Souma  for the high end of income distribution in Japan. The latter study is similar to our work in the sense that it also uses tax statistics and explores the whole range of incomes, not just the high end. Souma  finds that the probability density $`P(r)`$ at lower incomes follows a log-normal law with a maximum at a nonzero income. This is in contrast to our results, which suggest that the maximum of $`P(r)`$ is at zero income. The disrepancy may be due to the high threshold for tax reporting in Japan, which distorts the data at the low end. On the other hand, if the data is indeed valid, it may reflect the actual difference between the social stuctures of the US/UK and Japan.

The income temperature for the UK in 1998/9 was $`R_{UK}=11.7`$ k$`\mathrm{\pounds }`$ and for the US in 1998 was $`R_{US}=36.4`$ k$. Using the exchange rate as of December 31, 1998 to convert pounds into dollars , we find that the UK temperature was $`R_{UK}=19.5`$ k$, which is 1.87 times lower than the US temperature. The difference in temperatures indicates nonequilibrium, which can be exploited to create a thermal machine . The gain (profit) produced by such a thermal machine is proportional to the difference in temperatures. In agreement with the second law of thermodynamics, money would flow from a high-temperature system to a low-temperature one. This may explain the huge trade deficit of the USA in global international trade with other, lower-temperature countries. The variation of temperatures between different states of the USA is shown in Table 1.

We are grateful to Ted Cranshaw, who kindly sent us his unpublished study of income distribution in the UK  and data , and Bertrand Roehner, who suggested to study income distributions in the states of the USA and sent us link .


format: text

text:
# IRSI-DARWIN: How to see through the interplanetary dust cloud

## Abstract

ESA has identified interferometry as one of the major goals of the Horizon 2000+ programme. Infrared interferometers are a highly sensitive astronomical instruments that enable us to observe terrestrial planets around nearby stars. In this context the Infrared Space Interferometry Mission (IRSI)/ DARWIN is studied. The current design calls for a constellation of $`6`$ free flying telescopes using $`1.5\mathrm{m}`$ mirrors, plus one hub and one master spacecraft. As the baseline trajectory an orbit about the second collinear libration point of the Earth-Sun system has been selected. The thermal radiation from the interplanetary dust cloud that surrounds the Sun, the so-called zodiacal infrared foreground, is a major concern for any high-sensitivity infrared mission. The most reliable information about this radiation comes from the measurements by NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) mission. There are various ways to detect faint terrestrial planets despite the bright foreground. We find that, using integration times in the order of $`30\mathrm{h}`$, the baseline mission scenario is capable of detecting earth-sized exo-planets out to $`14\mathrm{pc}`$. We seize the suggestion that increasing the heliocentric distance of the instrument would make the observing conditions even better. A dust model that was fitted to the COBE measurements shows that an observing location of DARWIN in the outer solar system would potentially reduce the zodiacal foreground by a factor of $`100`$, effectively increasing the number of potential target stars by almost a factor of $`30`$.

## Introduction

Since the mid-1990s the search for extra-solar, terrestrial planets (exo-planets hereafter for brevity), and the possibility of life on them has received much attention. ESA as well as NASA are studying space-based telescopes that will enable the scientific community to conduct such a search. The most promising technology that will allow the detection of exo-planets and the search for biologic activity on their surface is space-based infrared nulling interferometry. Nulling interferometry allows to superimpose the light from a star seen from slightly different angles so that the starlight is reduced, but light from possible sources close to the star is enhanced. ESA is studying an infrared interferometer named DARWIN as a candidate cornerstone mission . The NASA mission proposal is called Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) . In addition to the search for exo-planets such an interferometer could also be used for general purpose astronomical imaging and spectroscopy with extremely high spatial resolution.

One of the main problems for the detection and analysis of Earth-sized exo-planets using an infrared telescope is the cloud of cosmic dust particles that surrounds the Sun. These dust particles are heated by the Sun and thus emit thermal radiation, called the zodiacal infrared radiation. DARWIN has to look through the solar system dust cloud. Since we are looking for a planet with a peak of emission at a wavelength near the maximum of the local zodiacal foreground, we will see a considerable amount of foreground radiation. In analogy to the atmospheric seeing for ground-based telescopes, which is caused by fluctuations in the Earth’s atmosphere, the infrared foreground in the solar system causes an “interplanetary seeing”. While a constant foreground brightness can easily be subtracted from the observations, the photon noise that is generated by all light sources is a random, unpredictable brightness fluctuation. This fluctuation is proportional to the square root of the number of photons from the source. If the number of observed photons from the target exo-planet is in the order of the square root of the number of photons from the foreground, the planet’s signal cannot any longer be clearly detected. In order to minimise the foreground, DARWIN will observe mainly into the anti-Sun direction, where the zodiacal foreground is less prominent. As a baseline, DARWIN’s observation window is defined to include directions less than $`45^{}`$ off the anti-Sun direction . But even in the anti-Sun direction, the zodiacal foreground is much brighter than a distant exo-planet. Since the number of collected photons increases with time, the ratio of the planet’s signal to the photon noise (signal-to-noise ratio, $`\mathrm{SNR}`$) is proportional to the square root of the observation time. Thus, the easiest way to detect a planet behind a bright foreground are long duration observations. Since observation time is a precious resource for a space telescope, a trade-off between observation time and other possibilities to improve the interplanetary seeing has to be made. One conceivable option is to increase the telescopes’ diameter . With a larger diameter still the same foreground brightness is observed, but the planet’s signal is increased proportional to the area of the light-collecting surface.

Alternatively, the telescope can be placed at a larger heliocentric distance , where the infrared radiation from the dust is reduced owing to the lower interplanetary dust density and lower dust temperatures. The current baseline mission design  calls for an observing location at the second co-linear Lagrange point of the Earth-Sun system. At this point, called $`\mathrm{L}_2`$, the Earth’s and the Sun’s gravity plus the centrifugal force caused by the Earth’s orbital motion cancel each other. A spacecraft placed at this point will be in instable equilibrium, i.e., it will stay there for a long time with minimum control. The advantage of putting DARWIN at $`\mathrm{L}_2`$ is the relatively short distance to Earth (roughly $`1.5`$ million $`\mathrm{km}`$), the stable thermal environment, and the abundant availability of solar power. The zodiacal infrared foreground at $`1\mathrm{AU}`$ 111$`1\mathrm{AU}`$: one astronomical unit equals the distance from the Earth to the Sun, however, is a draw-back for putting a highly sensitive infrared observatory at $`\mathrm{L}_2`$. It is believed that at a distance of $`5\mathrm{AU}`$ the interplanetary infrared foreground becomes comparable to other sources of noise, like light from the central star that is not perfectly cancelled. Because dust in the Solar System is mainly concentrated close to the ecliptic plane of the planets, still another possibility to reduce the infrared foreground is to put the telescope on an orbit that is inclined with respect to the ecliptic plane. On such an orbit the telescope would cross the ecliptic plane twice and reach the maximum separation from the ecliptic plane for a short time one quarter of a revolution later. The propellant allocation needed for a change of the orbital inclination is, however, quite substantial.

How much foreground radiation is expected for observations at larger distances from the Sun or on inclined orbits? So far infrared observations have been performed only close to the Earth. The most complete and accurate survey of the sky at infrared wavelength between $`1.25`$ and $`240\mu \mathrm{m}`$ has been performed by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite. Using the data obtained by COBE, a model of the zodiacal infrared radiation has been developed , that allows to extrapolate the expected foreground radiation to larger distances and inclined orbits. One has to be careful, however, to use such an extrapolation, because it is only well constrained close to the observing location of COBE, i.e. at $`1\mathrm{AU}`$ distance from the Sun and in the ecliptic plane. To acquire more accurate information on the zodiacal foreground, in situ measurements of the infrared radiation should be performed. In lack of data from other observing locations we use the extrapolation of the COBE data, in order to estimate how much foreground radiation can be expected if DARWIN is placed at solar distances of $`1`$, $`3`$, or $`5\mathrm{AU}`$, or on orbits with $`30^{}`$ or $`60^{}`$ inclination with respect to the ecliptic plane.

## Interplanetary Seeing as Function of the Selected Orbit

The amount of foreground radiation received by an instrument at a given observing location depends on the direction to which the instrument is pointing. The foreground brightness measured for a given pointing direction is the sum of the emission from all dust grains that are located in the line of sight. For a pointing direction close to the Sun, for example, a strong foreground is expected, because parts of the line of sight lie within regions where the dust density as well as the dust temperature is high. The model calculations  allow us to determine the expected brightness for any pointing direction, which can be expressed using two angles: the ecliptic latitude $`\beta _{\mathrm{ECL}}`$, which is equal to $`0^{}`$ for a pointing in the ecliptic plane, and the difference of the ecliptic pointing longitude and the ecliptic longitude of the Sun position $`\lambda _{\mathrm{ECL}}\lambda _{\mathrm{ECL},\mathrm{sun}}`$. On a map in the $`(\lambda _{\mathrm{ECL}}\lambda _{\mathrm{ECL},\mathrm{sun}},\beta _{\mathrm{ECL}})`$ coordinate system the Sun is located at $`(0^{},\beta _{\mathrm{ECL},\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{c}})`$, where $`\beta _{\mathrm{ECL},\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{c}}`$ is the ecliptic latitude of the observing location.

The maps of the infrared sky at wavelengths of $`10`$ and $`20\mu \mathrm{m}`$ are shown in figure 2, for observing locations in the plane of the ecliptic at solar distances of $`1`$, $`3`$, and $`5\mathrm{AU}`$. It is evident from the maps that the further the telescope is located from the Sun, the colder the sky gets. At Earth’s distance ($`1\mathrm{AU}`$), all of the sky is brighter than $`1\mathrm{MJy}\mathrm{sr}^1`$. An improvement can be observed at $`3\mathrm{AU}`$, where $`84\%`$ of the sky are darker than $`1.0\mathrm{MJy}\mathrm{sr}^1`$ at a wavelength of $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$. At $`20\mu \mathrm{m}`$, however, the whole sky is still bright. A much improved situation can be seen at a distance of $`5\mathrm{AU}`$ from the Sun: at the $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$ wavelength, $`96\%`$ of the sky are darker than $`1.0\mathrm{MJy}\mathrm{sr}^1`$, and $`83\%`$ are even darker than $`0.1\mathrm{MJy}\mathrm{sr}^1`$. Also at a longer wavelength of $`20\mu \mathrm{m}`$ the foreground is reduced: a fraction of $`70\%`$ of the sky is darker than $`1.0\mathrm{MJy}\mathrm{sr}^1`$.

It can be seen from the in-ecliptic sky maps that the infrared brightness is concentrated around the plane of the ecliptic, i.e. $`\beta _{\mathrm{ECL}}=0^{}`$. Can the foreground be reduced by putting the telescope to an orbit that is inclined with respect to the ecliptic plane? Figure 3 shows sky maps of the expected foreground infrared brightness as seen from observing locations $`30^{}`$ and $`60^{}`$ above the plane of the ecliptic. At $`+30^{}`$ above the ecliptic, the Sun appears at a pointing direction of $`\beta _{\mathrm{ECL}}=30^{}`$, as can be seen by the brightest spot in figures 3 (a) and (c). From the maps it is evident that at $`30^{}`$ the foreground is not reduced below $`1.0\mathrm{MJy}\mathrm{sr}^1`$ at any spot on the sky. Only at $`60^{}`$ above the ecliptic the foreground is reduced below $`1.0\mathrm{MJy}\mathrm{sr}^1`$ for $`38\%`$ of the sky at a wavelength of $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$. Still, the sky is everywhere brighter than $`0.1\mathrm{MJy}\mathrm{sr}^1`$.

## Discussion and Conclusion

How to see through the interplanetary dust cloud? There is no unique answer to this question, but there are a number of options. In general the avoidance of a high foreground radiation level caused by the cloud has to be traded-off against more difficult operations, less available power, and longer transfer time to the observing location. In the current baseline mission scenario for DARWIN, the zodiacal foreground is the dominant source of noise. Sufficiently long integrated observation times allow to increase the SNR to any level required for planet detection or spectroscopy. Long observation times, however, limit the number of observations that can be performed during the mission. The advantages of the current mission design are the short transfer to the observing location (about 100 days), the operations of the spacecraft are straight forward, and solar power is abundantly available. The number of target stars that can be observed within the mission duration can be increased by increasing the diameter of the telescopes’ mirrors. We find from the extrapolation of the COBE results that another way to increase the number of potential targets is to increase the heliocentric distance of the instrument. While increasing the operational and transfer demands, this option would reduce the foreground level by up to three orders of magnitude. We summarise the maximum target distances for various observing locations in table 1.

In order to assess quantitatively the reduction in infrared foreground for DARWIN at the different observing locations, we determine the brightness $`I_\nu ^{(\mathrm{max})}`$ of the brightest spot in DARWIN’s observation window222within $`45^{}`$ of the anti-Sun direction. As a worst case scenario, we assume that this brightness is the infrared foreground for all observations. The results given in table 1 have been calculated assuming a telescope diameter of $`1.5\mathrm{m}`$, an Earth-sized exo-planet at $`1\mathrm{AU}`$ from its Sun-like central star, an observing wavelength of $`\lambda =10\mu \mathrm{m}`$, an interferometric transmission of $`20\%`$, and a telescope etendue of $`1.096\lambda ^2`$. Also three different observation requirements have been considered: (a) detection of an exo-planet requires a spectral resolution of $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =1`$ and $`SNR=10`$, (b) spectroscopy of $`\mathrm{CO}_2`$ features requires $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =15`$ and $`\mathrm{SNR}=10`$, and (c) spectroscopy of $`\mathrm{O}_3`$ features requires $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =20`$ and $`\mathrm{SNR}=20`$. Requirements (a), (b), and (c) have been abbreviated “det.”, “$`\mathrm{CO}_2`$”, and “$`\mathrm{O}_3`$” in the table, respectively. For each observation requirement we have calculated the maximum target distance for an observation time of $`30\mathrm{h}`$.

From table 1 it is evident that the baseline mission scenario is capable of exo-planet detection as well as spectroscopy of atmospheric $`\mathrm{CO}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{O}_3`$. Bearing in mind that already within $`6.5\mathrm{pc}`$ one can find more than $`100`$ stars, it is obvious that DARWIN will have a adequate number of potential targets. It is clear that the observation conditions get even better if the instrument is moved to larger distances from the Sun. Already at $`3\mathrm{AU}`$, the maximum observation distance increases by a factor of three. Since the number of stars increases with the third power of the maximum observation distance, this translates into an increase in the number of potential targets by a factor of $`27`$! At $`5\mathrm{AU}`$ the maximum observation distance theoretically increases by another factor of $`2`$. But at such low zodiacal foreground levels, probably other sources of noise like light from the central star that is not perfectly cancelled or detector noise dominate the zodiacal foreground noise. If zodiacal foreground was the only source of noise, $`\mathrm{O}_3`$ spectroscopy would be possible for a target planet $`25\mathrm{pc}`$ away. While increasing the instrument’s distance from the Sun to $`3`$ or $`5\mathrm{AU}`$ would decrease the infrared foreground by more than $`2`$ or $`3`$ orders of magnitude, respectively, increasing the inclination of the instrument’s orbit to $`60^{}`$ leads to an improvement by one order of magnitude only. Furthermore an orbit inclination change requires more propellant than an increase of the orbit’s size , effectively reducing the available payload mass. It is obviously more advantageous to increase the solar distance than the vertical distance from the ecliptic plane.

The uncertainty in the modelling of the interplanetary infrared foreground has been discussed in the introduction. The results presented here rely on a model of the interplanetary dust and temperature distribution that is constrained only near the Earth’s orbit. A better understanding of the zodiacal foreground for DARWIN is only possible if the infrared brightness is directly measured from the proposed observing locations. The advances in detector technology that allow passive cooling systems to be employed, as well as electric propulsion systems that will be flight-tested in 2002/2003 by SMART-1, render a small-satellite mission equipped with an infrared camera to explore the infrared environment at $`5\mathrm{AU}`$ feasible. Such a precursor mission would serve two purposes: (1) help to make a good decision where to put the DARWIN instrument, and (2) map the distribution of interplanetary dust, and thus to improve our understanding of pristine Solar System material.


text:
# hep-ph/0103256CERN-TH/2001-085FISIST/06-2001/CFIF Charged-Lepton-Flavour Violation in the CMSSM in View of the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment

## 1 Theoretical Framework

The observation of neutrino oscillations  implies that the individual lepton numbers $`L_{e,\mu ,\tau }`$ are violated, suggesting the appearance of processes that violate charged-lepton-number, such as $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\mu 3e`$, $`\mu e`$ conversion on heavy nuclei , $`\tau \mu \gamma `$  and $`K_L^0\mu e`$ . The present experimental upper limits on these processes are $`(\mu e\gamma )<1.2\times 10^{11}`$ , $`(\mu ^+e^+e^+e^{})<1.0\times 10^{12}`$ , $`(\mu ^{}Tie^{}Ti)<6.1\times 10^{13}`$ , $`(\tau \mu \gamma )<1.1\times 10^6`$  and $`(K_L^0\mu ^\pm e^{})<4.7\times 10^{12}`$ . On the other hand, in minimal GUT models where the small neutrino masses are generated by the see-saw mechanism with massive singlet neutrinos $`\nu _R`$, and there are no new lighter particles, the amplitudes for charged-lepton-flavour violation are proportional to inverse powers of the heavy singlet neutrino mass $`M_{\nu _R}`$, and the rates for rare decays are extremely suppressed .

However, the observation of an apparent discrepancy between the measured value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $`a_\mu (g_\mu 2)/2`$, and the value predicted in the Standard Model  suggests the appearance of new physics at the TeV scale in the lepton sector, with superseymmetry being one of the favoured options . Moreover, there is a striking resemblance between the effective operators that generate $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\delta a_\mu `$:

$`_{eff}=e{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{}_j}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{}}_i\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }(A_M^{L,ij}P_L+A_M^{R,ij}P_R)\mathrm{}_j`$ (1)
resulting in

$`\mathrm{Br}(\mu e\gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{48\pi ^3\alpha }{G_F^2}}(|A_M^{L,12}|^2+|A_M^{R,12}|^2)`$ (2)
and

$`\delta a_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{2}}(A_M^{L,22}+A_M^{R,22}).`$ (3)
Hence, if these quantities are dominated by either the $`A_M^L`$ or the $`A_M^R`$, there is a direct relation between them:

$$(\mu e\gamma )=\frac{192\pi ^3\alpha }{G_F^2m_\mu ^4}\times (\delta a_\mu )^2\times ϵ^2,$$
(4)
where the lepton mixing factor $`ϵA_M^{L/R,12}/A_M^{L/R,22}`$. We see explicitly from (4) that the apparent measurement of $`\delta a_\mu `$ enables the rate for $`\mu e\gamma `$ to be predicted, in the context of any model of lepton flavour violation motivated by the observations of neutrino oscillations which is able to predict $`ϵ`$.

One example of a theory where this connection can be made is supersymmetry . In a supersymmetric model, the amplitudes for processes violating charged lepton number are suppressed by inverse powers of the supersymmetry-breaking scale, which is thought to be at most $`1`$ TeV. In particular, in the presence of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$-$`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$-$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$) mixing, the diagrams of Fig. 1 are generated, which are isomorphic to the corresponding flavour-conserving diagrams contributing to $`\delta a_\mu `$. If the dominant supersymmetric contribution to $`g_\mu 2`$ comes from the chargino-sneutrino diagram Fig. 1(b) involving left-handed leptons, one expects the chargino diagrams also to dominate $`\mu e\gamma `$ ***When the right-handed sleptons also contribute significantly to the lepton-flavour-violating masses, the neutralino–slepton diagrams of Fig. 1(a) also contribute to $`\mu e\gamma `$, modifying the correlation between $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`g_\mu 2`$.. Taking the BNL E821 measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment  at its face value fixes the overall mass scale of the sparticles circulating in the loops in Fig. 1, and a supersymmetric GUT model of $`\nu _\mu `$-$`\nu _e`$ mixing can be used to calculate the amount of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$-$`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$-$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ mixing, i.e., the factor $`ϵ`$ in (4), enabling the rate for $`\mu e\gamma `$ to be predicted.

Connections to other processes violating charged-lepton flavour, such as $`\mu 3e`$ and $`\mu e`$ conversion on nuclei, can be made in a similar way, though less directly. Among these processes, $`\mu e`$ conversion is particularly promising, since the present experimental sensitivity may be improved by several orders of magnitude in future experiments such as MECO  and PRISM . These processes receive important contributions from photon and $`Z`$ ‘penguin’ diagrams, which are related to those for $`\mu e\gamma `$ via a virtual gauge boson coupling to an $`e^+e^{}`$ or a quark-antiquark pair, but also from box diagrams and their supersymmetric analogues. The dominant photonic contribution yields  $`(\mu TieTi)5.6\times 10^3(\mu e\gamma )`$, but this ratio may receive substantial corrections from subdominant contributions, which we take into account in our calculations. Finally, we also mention the possibility in supersymmetric theories of observing charged-lepton-flavour violation in $`K_L^0\mu e`$ decay . This involves the mixing of squarks as well as that of sleptons, thus providing additional information. The rate is small in the CMSSM with right-handed neutrinos, but might be observable using a future intense proton source, if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large Larger rates are also possible in supersymmetric models with broken $`R`$ parity , a possibility not considered in this paper..

In all these processes, the magnitudes of the rates depend on the masses and mixings of sparticles. Excessive rates for charged-lepton-flavour violation are generically predicted in models with non-universal scalar masses at the GUT scale. Thus we consider constrained MSSM (CMSSM) models that respect this universality, such as minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) , gauge-mediated supersymmetry  and no-scale models . In such models, even though there are no off-diagonal contributions to the sfermion mass matrix at $`M_{GUT}`$, renormalization effects due to lepton Dirac Yukawa couplings within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) with massive neutrinos spoil this diagonal form , making these processes observable.

In this paper, we calculate these quantum corrections in the context of the most natural mechanism for obtaining sub-eV neutrino masses, namely the see-saw mechanism . This involves Dirac neutrino masses $`m_{\nu _D}`$ of the same order as the charged-lepton and quark masses, and heavy Majorana masses $`M_{\nu _R}`$, leading to a light effective neutrino mass matrix:

$$m_{eff}=m_{\nu _D}(M_{\nu _R})^1m_{\nu _D}^T.$$
(5)
Neutrino-flavour mixing may then occur through either the Dirac and/or the Majorana mass matrices, which may also feed flavour violation through to the charged leptons.

In general, the Dirac neutrino and charged-lepton Yukawa couplings, $`\lambda _{\nu _D}`$ and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ respectively, cannot be diagonalized simultaneously. Since both these sets of lepton Yukawa couplings appear in the renormalization-group equations, the lepton Yukawa matrices and the slepton mass matrices cannot be diagonalized simultaneously at low energies, either. In the basis where $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ are diagonal, the slepton-mass matrix acquires non-diagonal contributions from renormalization at scales below $`M_{GUT}`$, of the form:

$`\delta m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(3+a^2)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_N}}\lambda _{\nu _D}^{}\lambda _{\nu _D}m_{3/2}^2,`$ (6)
where $`a`$ is related to the trilinear mass parameter: $`A_{\mathrm{}}am_0`$, where $`m_0`$ is the common assumed value of the scalar masses at the GUT scale.

Different oscillation scenarios for the atmospheric and solar neutrino deficits , e.g., those with small/large neutrino mixing angles and with eV or much lighter neutrinos, predict in general different rates for lepton-flavour violation. Typically, the larger the $`\nu _\mu `$-$`\nu _e`$ mixing and the larger the neutrino mass scale, the larger the rates. Thus, models of degenerate neutrinos with bimaximal mixing lead to significantly larger effects than, for instance, hierarchical neutrinos with a small vacuum mixing angle. Just-so vacuum solutions to the solar neutrino deficit with $`\delta m^210^{10}`$ eV2 typically predict small rates if the neutrino masses are hierarchical, even if the (1-2) mixing angle is large.

## 2 Sample Models of Neutrino Masses and Mixing

In order to illustrate our estimates of the expected effects, we calculate the rates for rare processes violating charged-lepton number in representatives of two different types of models, one with small and one with large $`\mu `$-$`e`$ mixing. The first model (A) is based on Abelian flavour symmetries and symmetric fermion mass matrices , and leads to the following pattern of charged-lepton masses $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$, neutrino Dirac masses $`m_{\nu _D}`$, charged-lepton mixing $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ and Dirac mixing $`V_{\nu _D}`$ :

$`m_{\mathrm{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{ϵ}^7& \overline{ϵ}^3& \overline{ϵ}^{7/2}\\ \overline{ϵ}^3& \overline{ϵ}& \overline{ϵ}^{1/2}\\ \overline{ϵ}^{7/2}& \overline{ϵ}^{1/2}& 1\end{array}\right),m_{\nu _D}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{ϵ}^{14}& \overline{ϵ}^6& \overline{ϵ}^7\\ \overline{ϵ}^6& \overline{ϵ}^2& \overline{ϵ}\\ \overline{ϵ}^7& \overline{ϵ}& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
$`V_{\mathrm{}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \overline{ϵ}^2& \overline{ϵ}^{7/2}\\ \overline{ϵ}^2& 1& \overline{ϵ}^{1/2}\\ \overline{ϵ}^{7/2}& \overline{ϵ}^{1/2}& 1\end{array}\right),V_{\nu _D}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \overline{ϵ}^4& \overline{ϵ}^7\\ \overline{ϵ}^4& 1& \overline{ϵ}\\ \overline{ϵ}^7& \overline{ϵ}& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
where $`\overline{ϵ}`$ is a (small) expansion parameter related to the Abelian symmetry-breaking scale. In this model, even a charged-lepton matrix with large (2-3) mixing always predicts small $`\mu e`$ mixing, as a result of fixing the charged-lepton mass hierarchies .

As a second possible model (B), we discuss the case of bimaximal mixing appearing in . In the basis where the charged-lepton mass matrix is diagonal, the neutrino mixing matrix is:

$$V_{\nu _D}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)$$
(21)
corresponding to a neutrino mass matrix of the form

$$m_{eff}=m\left[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2ϵ_B& \delta & \delta \\ \delta & ϵ_B& ϵ_B\\ \delta & ϵ_B& ϵ_B\end{array}\right)\right],$$
(22)
where the mass parameters in this texture are related to the mass eigenvalues by

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`m_3/2,`$ (23)
$`ϵ_B`$ $`=`$ $`(m_2+m_1)/4m,`$ (24)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}(m_1m_2)/4m.`$ (25)
In our analysis we assume hierarchical neutrinos, but the case of degenerate neutrinos can be treated similarly. This would lead to different predictions, since the neutrino mass scales change, typically with larger rates for charged-lepton-flavour violation. Hence our results for model (B) are quite conservative.

## 3 Supersymmetric Calculations

We have calculated the rates for processes violating charged lepton number in both frameworks, including complete sets of one-loop sparticle diagrams. We parametrize the universal soft supersymmetry-breaking masses by the GUT-scale parameters $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$, for sfermions and gauginos respectively, and use the renormalization-group equations of the CMSSM to calculate the low-energy sparticle masses . Other relevant free parameters of the MSSM are the trilinear coupling $`A`$, the sign of the Higgs mixing parameter $`\mu `$, and the ratio of Higgs vev’s, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Here we consider only $`\mu >0`$, since this is the sign favoured by $`g_\mu 2`$. The physical charged-slepton masses are found by numerical diagonalization of the following matrix:

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{\mathrm{}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{LL}^2& m_{LR}^2\\ m_{RL}^2& m_{RR}^2\end{array}\right)$$
(26)
where all the entries are $`3\times 3`$ matrices in flavour space. Using the superfield basis where the Yukawa coupling matrix $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ is diagonal, we can write:

$`m_{LL}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^\delta )^2+\delta m_{\nu _D}^2+m_{\mathrm{}}^2M_Z^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}sin^2\theta _W)\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (27)
$`m_{RR}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{e_R}}^\delta )^2+m_{\mathrm{}}^2M_Z^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ (28)
$`m_{RL}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(A_e^\delta +\delta A_e\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )m_{\mathrm{}}`$ (29)
$`m_{LR}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{RL}^2`$ (30)
where $`(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^\delta )^2,(m_{\stackrel{~}{e_R}}^\delta )^2`$ and $`A_e^\delta `$ denote the diagonal contributions to the corresponding matrices, obtained by numerical integration of the renormalization-group equations, and $`\delta m_{\nu _D}^2`$ and $`\delta A_l`$ denote the off-diagonal terms that appear because $`\lambda _{\nu _D}`$ and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ may not be diagonalized simultaneously - see (6). Analogously, for sneutrinos we have

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2=(m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^\delta )^2+\delta m_{\nu _D}^2+\frac{1}{2}M_Z^2cos2\beta $$
(31)
The mixing parameter $`ϵ`$ in (4) is given in terms of the parameters of this matrix. In the simplified case where the lepton-number-violating mass terms are in the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}_L}`$ sector, so that the chargino-sneutrino diagram dominates both $`g_\mu 2`$ and $`\mu e\gamma `$, assuming that the sparticle masses have (approximately) a common value $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, and making a naive mass-insertion approximation, one would find

$$ϵ\frac{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2)_{12}}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2},$$
(32)
but this is only indicative, and we use complete formulae in our results below.

We start by fixing the elements of the Yukawa coupling matrices at the GUT scale to be consistent with the experimental values of the fermion masses and the absolute values of the CKM matrix elements . This is done by choosing appropriate coefficients of order one in the entries of the lepton matrices. In the notation of , we choose for model (A):

$$C_{12}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.77},C_{23}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.79},$$
(33)
and for model (B):

$$C_{12}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.75},C_{23}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.13},$$
(34)
with the unspecified coefficients taken as unity. These coefficients do not change significantly for the two values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ considered in the present work.

We then use the full Yukawa coupling matrices in the renormalization-group equations, including the effects of $`\lambda _{\nu _D}`$ on the CMMSM parameters at the see-saw mass scale . We have checked that our results using the full matricial forms for the Yukawa couplings do not differ significantly from the common approach of considering diagonal Yukawa matrices and neglecting the lighter generations. We check our results by constructing the slepton mass matrices in the superfield base where the $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ are diagonal and inserting the non–diagonal elements induced by the presence of $`\lambda _{\nu _D}`$ on the renormalization-group equations between the GUT and see-saw mass scales. Finally, we use the full matricial forms for all the parameters which appear in the vertices in the diagrams of Fig. 1, and the results of  to calculate the rates for $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\mu e`$ conversion, and those of  to calculate the rate for $`K_L^0\mu e`$.

## 4 Constraints on the CMSSM

We display in the remaining figures the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ planes in the CMSSM for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,30`$, assuming $`\mu >0`$ as suggested by the sign of $`\delta a_\mu `$, and $`A_0=0`$. The experimental constraints on the CMSSM are taken from , where further details of their implementation can be found. We note in particular that the following choices are used here for the pole mass of the top quark: $`m_t=175`$ GeV, and for the running mass of the bottom quark: $`m_b(m_b)_{SM}^{\overline{MS}}=4.25`$ GeV. We combine the constraints given in  with the contours suggested by the neutrino mass textures introduced above for $`(\mu e\gamma )`$ in Fig. 2, for $`(\mu ^{}Tie^{}Ti)`$ in Fig. 3, and for $`(K_L^0\mu ^\pm e^{})`$ in Fig. 4.

The dark (brick-red) shaded regions in the $`(m_0,m_{1/2})`$ planes in these figures are excluded  because the lightest supersymmetric particle is the lighter $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$, which is disallowed by the astrophysical requirement that cold dark matter be electrically neutral. The light (turquoise) shaded regions are those where the LSP is the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$, and its cosmological relic density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ lies in the favoured range $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.3`$ . Lower values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ would be possible if there are other sources of cold dark matter, whereas larger values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$, which occur generically at larger values of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$, are excluded by cosmology.

We display as (red) dash-dotted lines mass contours for the lightest CMSSM Higgs boson: $`m_h=113,117\mathrm{GeV}`$, as calculated in . This range corresponds roughly to values of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ that are compatible, within theoretical errors, with the LEP Higgs ‘signal’ at $`m_H=115_{0.7}^{+1.3}`$ GeV , for our default choices of $`A_0,m_t`$ and $`m_b(m_b)_{SM}^{\overline{MS}}`$. There is good overall consistency between $`m_h`$ and the other constraints for $`10<\mathrm{tan}\beta <55`$, but we do not insist on the range $`113\mathrm{GeV}m_h117\mathrm{GeV}`$, in view of the theoretical uncertainties and because the LEP Higgs ‘signal’ might turn out to be a false alarm, in which case $`m_h`$ could be larger.

The medium dark (green) shaded regions in panels (b) and (d) are excluded by our implementation of the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint. As described in , we use the latest NLO QCD calculations for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and allow values of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ that, after including the expected theoretical errors due to the scale choice and model dependences, may fall within the 95% confidence level range $`2.33\times 10^4<(bs<\gamma )<4.15\times 10^4`$. In the panels (a) and (c) of the figures, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, there is no relevant constraint from $`bs\gamma `$, and we display as a dashed line the LEP lower limit $`m_{\chi ^\pm }>104`$ GeV. There is a similar constraint in the panels (b) and (d), for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, which is omitted for clarity.

To complement our summary of , we note that the regions allowed by the E821 measurement of $`a_\mu `$ at the 2-$`\sigma `$ level  are shown in the figures as light (pink) shaded regions with solid black line boundaries . Also shown as black dashed lines are the regions favoured by $`a_\mu `$ at the 1-$`\sigma `$ level. We emphasize the impressive consistency between the constraints from $`a_\mu `$, $`m_h`$, $`bs\gamma `$ and cosmology for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$. As discussed in , combining all the other constraints with the 1-$`\sigma `$ range for $`a_\mu `$, one finds quite small allowed regions of the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane centred on: $`(250,100)`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ (see panels (a) and (c)) and $`(350,170)`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ (see panels (b) and (d)).

## 5 Results for Processes Violating Charged-Lepton Number

Fig. 2 displays the predictions for $`(\mu e\gamma )`$ in texture (A) (panels (a) and (b)) and texture (B) (panels (c) and (d)). We see that texture (A) generically predicts that $`(\mu e\gamma )`$ should occur within one or two (two or three) orders of magnitude of the present experimental upper limit if $`a_\mu `$ lies within the 1(2)-$`\sigma `$ range suggested by E821 . Within this model, the experimental upper limit on $`(\mu e\gamma )<1.2\times 10^{11}`$ excludes a domain of the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane, close to the origin, that may be compared to that excluded by slepton searches at LEP. When $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$, it also has a similar effect to that of the upper limit on the supersymmetric contribution to $`g_\mu 2`$. For larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 30`$, the constraint due to the present upper limit on $`(\mu e\gamma )`$ is intermediate between the $`g_\mu 2`$ and $`bs\gamma `$ constraints. In model (B), we find values of $`(\mu e\gamma )`$ that are characteristically about an order of magnitude smaller than in model (A) in the parameter region allowed by cosmology  and $`g_\mu 2`$ .

As already mentioned, the rate for $`\mu ^{}Tie^{}Ti`$ conversion is linked to that for $`(\mu e\gamma )`$, with a proportionality coefficient $`5.6\times 10^3`$ if $`\mu ^{}Tie^{}Ti`$ is dominated by photon exchange. However, this is not necessarily the case, since $`Z^0`$ exchange and box diagrams may also contribute, rendering the ratio $`(\mu ^{}Tie^{}Ti)/(\mu e\gamma )`$ non-universal. Accordingly, we plot in Fig. 3 the predictions of texture (A) (panels (a) and (b)) and texture (B) (panels (c) and (d) for $`(\mu ^{}Tie^{}Ti)`$. We see that there are large domains of the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane where these textures suggest that $`(\mu ^{}Tie^{}Ti)>10^{16}`$, which is the sensitivity of the proposed MECO experiment . In model (A), these include all the regions allowed by $`g_\mu 2`$ at the 2-$`\sigma `$ level, and, in model (B), most of the allowed region. We infer that the physics interest of this proposal is greatly enhanced by the recent result on $`g_\mu 2`$ from E821 .

Finally, we plot in Fig. 4 the corresponding model predictions for $`(K_L^0\mu ^\pm e^{})`$. This process is very interesting , because it combines flavour violation in the quark and lepton sectors. For this same reason, one expects rather small values of $`(K_L^0\mu ^\pm e^{})`$, far below the present experimental upper limit. However, again for this same reason, there is clearly even more uncertainty in the predictions for $`(K_L^0\mu ^\pm e^{})`$ than there was already for $`(\mu e\gamma )`$ and $`(\mu ^{}Tie^{}Ti)`$. The sensitivity to the lepton mass texture is seen clearly by comparing panels (a, b) and (c, d) of Fig. 4. Nevertheless, we note that $`(K_L^0\mu ^\pm e^{})>10^{18}`$ in a significant fraction of the parameter region favoured by $`g_\mu 2`$ at the one-$`\sigma `$ level. Thus, we think that this process is of potential interest at an intense proton source.

## 6 Conclusions

We have argued in this paper that the BNL E821 measurement of $`g_\mu 2`$ , taken at face value, may be used to normalize predictions for the charged-lepton-number-violating processes $`\mu e\gamma ,\mu e`$ conversion and $`K_L^0\mu ^\pm e^{}`$, within a supersymmetric GUT framework. We have illustrated our argument with a couple of specific textures for fermion masses that are consistent with the data on neutrino oscillations. In these examples, we find that $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay may appear at a rate within one or two (two or three) orders of magnitude of the present experimental upper limit if $`g_\mu 2`$ lies within its present one- (two-)$`\sigma `$ range. These models also make us optimistic that $`\mu e`$ conversion on heavy nuclei may be accessible to the next round of experiments . The prospects for observing $`K_L^0\mu ^\pm e^{}`$ decay are not so rosy, but this decay might also be accessible to some future round of experiments with an intense proton source.

The discovery of neutrino oscillations has been a major breakthrough in flavour physics. If confirmed, the deviation of $`g_\mu 2`$ from the SM prediction would be a breakthrough towards new physics at the TeV scale. Their combination suggests not only that the conservation of charged lepton number is not sacred, but also that its violation may soon be observable. If so, this would be an invaluable new window on the physics of lepton flavour, as well as on physics at the TeV scale. It would provide a bridge between neutrino oscillations and accelerator physics, as well as yield novel information on lepton mixing.

We encourage strongly the most sensitive possible experiments to probe the violation of charged lepton number.

## Acknowledgements

The research of D. F. C. has been supported by F.C.T. PRAXIS XXI/BD/9416/96. The research of M.E.G was supported by the European Union under TMR contract No. ERBFMRX–CT96–009. We thank Keith Olive and J. C. Romão for valuable discussions related to this analysis.


text:
# Resonance superfluidity in a quantum degenerate Fermi gas

## Acknowledgements

We thank J. Cooper, E. Cornell, D. Jin, C. Wieman, and B. DeMarco for very stimulating discussions. Support is acknowledged for M.H. from the National Science Foundation, for S.K. from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences via the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division, for M.C. from the INFM and SNS, Pisa (Italy), and for R.W. from the APART fellowship, Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Note Added: A similar treatment has recently been proposed by Timmermans et al. .