text:
# Exclusive 𝐵→𝐾^∗ℓ⁺ℓ⁻ decay with polarized 𝐾^∗ and new physics effects

## 1 Introduction

Rare $`B`$ meson decays, induced by flavor–changing neutral current (FCNC) $`bs(d)`$ transitions, provide potentially stringiest tests of the Standard Model (SM) in flavor sector. These transitions take place in the SM at loop level, is very sensitive to the gauge structure of the SM. Moreover $`bs(d)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay is known to be very sensitive to the various extensions of the SM. New physics effects manifest themselves in rare $`B`$ meson decays in two different ways, either through new contributions to the Wilson coefficients existing in the SM or through the new structures in the effective Hamiltonian which are absent in the SM. Note that $`bs(d)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition has been extensively studied in framework of the SM and its various extensions .

The rare inclusive decays are theoretically much cleaner than the exclusive decays, which require the knowledge of form factors, are also more difficult to measure. However, FCNC exclusive semileptonic decays, in particular $`BK^{}(K)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ will be measured precisely in the future experiments at CLEO and B–factories LHC, HERA etc. As has already been noted, new physics effects in the rare $`B`$ meson decays can appear in two different ways, either through new contributions to the existing in the in the SM through the new operators in the effective Hamiltonian which are absent in the SM. Using these approaches, the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay was studied in  using the most the most general form of effective Hamiltonian that includes all possible form of interactions. It was shown that different physical observables like branching ratio, forward–backward asymmetry etc. are very sensitive to the new Wilson coefficients. One efficient way in establishing new physics effects beyond the SM is taking into account polarization effects. Along these lines these effects have been studied for the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay in , . It is shown in  that there exists region of new Wilson coefficients in which the decay rate agrees with the SM prediction while lepton polarization does not. In other words, in this region of new Wilson coefficients new physics effects can be established by measuring lepton polarization only but not the branching ratio.

In this connection there follows the following question. How sensitive is the branching ratio to the new Wilson coefficients when $`K^{}`$ meson is polarized longitudinally or transversally? The goal of the present work is to find an answer to this question.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, using a general form of four–Fermi interaction we derive the model independent expressions for the longitudinal, transversal and normal polarizations of leptons. In section 3 we investigate the dependence of the branching ratios on the four–Fermi interactions when $`K^{}`$ meson is polarized transversally or longitudinally.

## 2 Theoretical background

In this section we calculate the branching ratio of the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay when $`K^{}`$ meson is polarized transversally or longitudinally, using the most general, model independent four–Fermi interactions. The effective Hamiltonian for the $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transition in terms of twelve model independent four–Fermi interactions can be written as

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G\alpha }{\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{ts}V_{tb}^{}\{C_{SL}\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}Lb\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}+C_{BR}\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}Rb\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}`$
$`+C_{LL}^{tot}\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_L+C_{LR}^{tot}\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_R+C_{RL}\overline{s}_R\gamma _\mu b_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_L`$
$`+C_{RR}\overline{s}_R\gamma _\mu b_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_R+C_{LRLR}\overline{s}_Lb_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\mathrm{}_R+C_{RLLR}\overline{s}_Rb_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\mathrm{}_R`$
$`+C_{LRRL}\overline{s}_Lb_R\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}_L+C_{RLRL}\overline{s}_Rb_L\overline{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}_L+C_T\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}`$
$`+iC_{TE}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}\},`$
where the chiral projection operators $`L`$ and $`R`$ in (2) are defined as

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _5}{2}},R={\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}},`$
and $`C_X`$ are the coefficients of the four–Fermi interactions, and part of these coefficients exist in the SM as well. The first two of these coefficients, $`C_{SL}`$ and $`C_{BR}`$, are the nonlocal Fermi interactions which correspond to $`2m_sC_7^{eff}`$ and $`2m_bC_7^{eff}`$ in the SM, respectively. The following four terms in this expression are the vector type interactions with coefficients $`C_{LL}`$, $`C_{LR}`$, $`C_{RL}`$ and $`C_{RR}`$. Two of these vector interactions containing $`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ and $`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ do also exist in the SM in combinations of the form $`(C_9^{eff}C_{10})`$ and $`(C_9^{eff}+C_{10})`$, respectively. Therefore one can say that $`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ and $`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ represent sum the contributions from SM and the new physics, whose explicit forms can be written as

$`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}C_{10}+C_{LL},`$
$`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}+C_{10}+C_{LR}.`$
The terms with coefficients $`C_{LRLR}`$, $`C_{RLLR}`$, $`C_{LRRL}`$ and $`C_{RLRL}`$ describe the scalar type interactions. The remaining two terms with the coefficients $`C_T`$ and $`C_{TE}`$, obviously, describe the tensor type interactions.

Exclusive decay $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ is described in terms of matrix elements of the quark operators over meson states, which are parametrized in terms of form factors. It follows from Eq. (2) that, in order to calculate the amplitude of the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay the following matrix elements are needed

$`K^{}\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B,`$
$`K^{}\left|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu (1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B,`$
$`K^{}\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B,`$
$`K^{}\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\right|B.`$
These matrix elements are defined as follows:

$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)=`$
$`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\lambda q^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{2V(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}\pm i\epsilon _\mu ^{}(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2)`$
$`i(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu (\epsilon ^{}q){\displaystyle \frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_B+m_K^{}}}iq_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2m_K^{}}{q^2}}(\epsilon ^{}q)\left[A_3(q^2)A_0(q^2)\right],`$
$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu (1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)=`$
$`4ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\lambda q^\sigma T_1(q^2)\pm 2i\left[\epsilon _\mu ^{}(m_B^2m_K^{}^2)(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu (\epsilon ^{}q)\right]T_2(q^2)`$
$`\pm 2i(\epsilon ^{}q)\left[q_\mu (p_B+p_K^{})_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2m_K^{}^2}}\right]T_3(q^2),`$
$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\right|B(p_B)=`$
$`iϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\{2T_1(q^2)\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }(p_B+p_K^{})^\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}(m_B^2m_K^{}^2)[T_1(q^2)T_2(q^2)]\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }q^\sigma `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{q^2}}[T_1(q^2)T_2(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2m_K^{}^2}}T_3(q^2)](\epsilon ^{}q)p_K^{}^\lambda q^\sigma \}.`$
where $`q=p_Bp_K^{}`$ is the momentum transfer and $`\epsilon `$ is the polarization vector of $`K^{}`$ meson. In order to ensure finiteness of (2) and (2) at $`q^2=0`$, we assume that $`A_3(q^2=0)=A_0(q^2=0)`$ and $`T_1(q^2=0)=T_2(q^2=0)`$. The matrix element $`K^{}\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B`$ can be calculated from Eq. (2) by contracting both sides of Eq. (2) with $`q^\mu `$ and using equation of motion. Neglecting the mass of the strange quark in this matrix element, we get element

$`K^{}(p_K^{},\epsilon )\left|\overline{s}(1\pm \gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b}}\left[2im_K^{}(\epsilon ^{}q)A_0(q^2)\right].`$ (5)
In deriving Eq. (5) we have used the exact relation

$`2m_K^{}A_3(q^2)=(m_B+m_K^{})A_1(q^2)(m_Bm_K^{})A_2(q^2).`$
Taking into account Eqs. (25), the matrix element of the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay can be written as

$`(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})={\displaystyle \frac{G\alpha }{4\sqrt{2}\pi }}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$ (6)
$`\times \{\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}[2Aϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\lambda q^\sigma iB\epsilon _\mu ^{}+iC(\epsilon ^{}q)(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu +iD(\epsilon ^{}q)q_\mu ]`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{}\left[2Eϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p_K^{}^\lambda q^\sigma iF\epsilon _\mu ^{}+iG(\epsilon ^{}q)(p_B+p_K^{})_\mu +iH(\epsilon ^{}q)q_\mu \right]`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\left[iQ(\epsilon ^{}q)\right]+\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _5\mathrm{}\left[iN(\epsilon ^{}q)\right]`$
$`+4\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\left(iC_Tϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\right)\left[2T_1\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }(p_B+p_K^{})^\sigma +B_6\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }q^\sigma B_7(\epsilon ^{}q)p_{K^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }q^\sigma \right]`$
$`+16C_{TE}\overline{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}[2T_1\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(p_B+p_K^{})^\nu +B_6\epsilon _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }q^\nu B_7(\epsilon ^{}q)p_{K^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }q^\nu ]\}.`$
The auxiliary functions in Eq. (6) are given by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{LR}^{tot}+C_{RL}+C_{RR}){\displaystyle \frac{V}{m_B+m_K^{}}}4(C_{BR}+C_{SL}){\displaystyle \frac{T_1}{q^2}},`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{LR}^{tot}C_{RL}C_{RR})(m_B+m_K^{})A_14(C_{BR}C_{SL})(m_B^2m_K^{}^2){\displaystyle \frac{T_2}{q^2}},`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{LR}^{tot}C_{RL}C_{RR}){\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{m_B+m_K^{}}}4(C_{BR}C_{SL}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\left[T_2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2m_K^{}^2}}T_3\right],`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`2(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{LR}^{tot}C_{RL}C_{RR})m_K^{}{\displaystyle \frac{A_3A_0}{q^2}}+4(C_{BR}C_{SL}){\displaystyle \frac{T_3}{q^2}},`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LR}^{tot}+C_{RR}C_{LL}^{tot}C_{RL}){\displaystyle \frac{V}{m_B+m_K^{}}},`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LR}^{tot}C_{RR}C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{RL})(m_B+m_K^{})A_1,`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LR}^{tot}C_{RR}C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{RL}){\displaystyle \frac{A_2}{m_B+m_K^{}}},`$ (7)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`2(C_{LR}^{tot}C_{RR}C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{RL})m_K^{}{\displaystyle \frac{A_3A_0}{q^2}},`$
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`2(C_{LRRL}C_{RLRL}+C_{LRLR}C_{RLLR}){\displaystyle \frac{m_K^{}}{m_b}}A_0,`$
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`2(C_{LRLR}C_{RLLR}C_{LRRL}+C_{RLRL}){\displaystyle \frac{m_K^{}}{m_b}}A_0,`$
$`B_6`$ $`=`$ $`2(m_B^2m_K^{}^2){\displaystyle \frac{T_1T_2}{q^2}},`$
$`B_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{q^2}}\left(T_1T_2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2m_K^{}^2}}T_3\right).`$
The form of Eq. (6) reflects the fact that its difference from the SM case is due to the last four structures, namely, scalar and tensor type interactions. The next task to be considered is calculation of the branching ratio of the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay, when $`K^{}`$ is polarized transversally or longitudinally. From matrix element (6)it is easy to derive the invariant dilepton mass spectrum for the $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay corresponding to the transversally and longitudinally polarized $`K^{}`$ meson:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm }{ds}}={\displaystyle \frac{G^2\alpha ^2\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|^2}{2^{14}\pi ^5}}m_B\sqrt{\lambda (1,r,s)}v\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ,`$ (8)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`256m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}\left[\left(\sqrt{\lambda }m_B^2A^{}B^{}\right)\left(\sqrt{\lambda }C_TT_1\pm 2C_{TE}T_1(1r)sB_6C_{TE}\right)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}m_B^2s\left[\left(3v^2\right)\left|B\sqrt{\lambda }m_B^2A\right|^2+2v^2\left|F\sqrt{\lambda }m_B^2E\right|^2\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{256}{3}}m_B^4\left[v^2\left|C_T\right|^2+4\left(32v^2\right)\left|C_{TE}\right|^2\right]\left|sB_62(1r)T_1\right|^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1024}{3}}\lambda m_B^4\left|T_1\right|^2\left[\left(32v^2\right)\left|C_T\right|^2+4v^2\left|C_{TE}\right|^2\right]`$
$`\pm `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2048}{3}}\sqrt{\lambda }m_B^4\left\{2(1r)(3v^2)\right|T_1|^2\text{Re}(C_TC_{TE}^{})`$
$``$ $`s\text{Re}\left([v^2C_T^{}C_{TE}+(32v^2)C_TC_{TE}^{}]B_6^{}T_1\right)\},`$
and,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm }{ds}}={\displaystyle \frac{G^2\alpha ^2\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|^2}{2^{14}\pi ^5}}m_B\sqrt{\lambda (1,r,s)}v\mathrm{\Delta }_0,`$ (10)
where,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0={\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\lambda m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}\left(F+m_B^2(1r)G+m_B^2sH\right)N^{}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\lambda m_B^4\left\{sv^2\right|Q|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\lambda m_B^2(3v^2)|C|^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(1rs)(3v^2)\text{Re}(BC^{})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[(1rs)(3v^2)+3s(1v^2)\right]\text{Re}(FG^{})2s(1v^2)\text{Re}(FH^{})`$
$`+`$ $`s|N|^2+m_B^2s^2(1v^2)|H|^2+2m_B^2s(1r)(1v^2)\text{Re}(GH^{})\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3r}}m_B^2\left\{(\lambda +4rs)(3v^2)\right|B|^2+\lambda m_B^4[\lambda (3v^2)3s(s2r2)(1v^2)]|G|^2`$
$`+`$ $`[\lambda (3v^2)+8rsv^2]\left|F|^2\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64}{r}}m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}\left(B_6C_{TE}\left[(\lambda +4rs)B^{}\lambda m_B^2(1rs)C^{}\right]\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{r}}\lambda m_B^4m_{\mathrm{}}\text{Re}\left(B_7C_{TE}\left[\lambda m_B^2C^{}(1rs)B^{}\right]\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3r}}m_B^4s\left\{\lambda ^2m_B^4\right|B_7|^2+4(\lambda +4rs)|B_6|^24\lambda m_B^2(1rs)\text{Re}(B_6B_7^{})`$
$``$ $`16[\lambda +4r(1r)]\text{Re}(B_6T_1^{})+8\lambda m_B^2(1+3rs)\text{Re}(B_7T_1^{})`$
$`+`$ $`16(1+3rs)^2\left|T_1|^2\right\}\times \left\{v^2\right|C_T|^2+4(32v^2)\left|C_{TE}|^2\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{128}{r}}m_B^2m_{\mathrm{}}\left\{\left[\lambda +4r(1r)\right]\text{Re}(C_{TE}T_1B^{})\lambda m_B^2(1+3rs)\text{Re}(C_{TE}T_1C^{})\right\}.`$
In Eqs. (8) and (10) subscripts $`\pm `$ and $`0`$ denote polarization of the $`K^{}`$ meson, $`v=\sqrt{14m_{\mathrm{}}^2/(m_B^2s)}`$ is the lepton velocity, $`\lambda (1,r,s)=1+r^2+s^22r2s2rs`$, $`r=m_K^{}^2/m_B^2`$ and $`s=q^2/m_B^2`$.

## 3 Numerical analysis

We first present the main input parameters which have been used in the present work whose values are: $`\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|=0.0385`$, $`\alpha ^1=129`$, $`G_F=1.17\times 10^5GeV^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B=4.22\times 10^{13}GeV`$, $`C_9^{eff}=4.344,C_{10}=4.669`$. This value of the Wilson coefficient $`C_9^{eff}`$ corresponds only to short distance contribution. In addition to the short distance contribution, it is well known that $`C_9^{eff}`$ also receives long distance contributions associated with the real $`\overline{c}c`$ intermediate states, i.e., with the $`J/\psi `$ family. In this work we restricted ourselves only to short distance contributions. As far as $`C_7^{eff}`$ is concerned, experimental results fixes only the modulo of it. For this reason throughout our analysis we have considered both possibilities, i.e., $`C_7^{eff}=0.313`$, where the upper sign corresponds to the SM prediction. The values of the input parameters which are summarized above, have been fixed by their central values.

In performing numerical calculations we also need the explicit form of the form factors and for this purpose we have used the results of  (see also ) where the radiative corrections to the leading twist contribution and $`SU(3)`$ breaking effects are also taken into account. In this work the $`q^2`$ dependence of the form factors are given in terms of three parameters as

$`F(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{F(0)}{1a_F{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2}}+b_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_B^2}}\right)^2}},`$
where the values of parameters $`F(0)`$, $`a_F`$ and $`b_F`$ for the $`BK^{}`$ decay are listed in Table 1.

We present our numerical results in a series of graphs. In Figs. (1) and (2) the dependence of the branching ratio $`^\pm (BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ on the new Wilson coefficients is depicted, where superscripts $`\pm `$ correspond to the polarization of $`K^{}`$ meson. From these figures we observe that the branching ratio in both cases depends quite strongly on the on tensor interaction. From Fig. (1) we see that branching ratio $`^+`$ is sensitive to the vector interactions with coefficients $`C_{RR}`$ and $`C_{RL}`$, while $`^{}`$ is more sensitive to the coefficient $`C_{LL}`$. It further follows from these figures that terms proportional to $`C_{RL}`$, $`C_{RR}`$ give constructive contribution to the branching ratios $`^+`$ and the ones proportional to $`C_{LL}`$, $`C_{LR}`$ do so to the branching ratio $`^{}`$, respectively. For both cases the contribution coming from scalar part is quite small. From these figures we also see that $`^{}>^+`$. This fact can easily be understood from Eq. (10). In SM, in the limit $`m_{\mathrm{}}0`$ we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\left|2C_9m_B\left[(1+r)A_1\sqrt{\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{V}{1+r}}\right]+8C_7{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{s}}\left(T_2\sqrt{\lambda }T_1\right)\right|^2`$
$`+`$ $`4m_B^2\left|C_{10}\right|^2\left|(1+r)A_1\sqrt{\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{V}{1+r}}\right|^2,`$
from which it obviously follows that $`^{}>^+`$.

For the $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay, apart from the magnitudes of the branching ratios $`^+`$ and $`^{}`$, which become smaller compared to the muon case, all results obtained for the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ case remain valid for the $`\tau `$ lepton case as well; i.e., $`^+`$ and $`^{}`$ depend strongly on $`C_{RR}`$, $`C_{RL}`$ and $`C_{LL}`$, $`C_{LR}`$, respectively.

In Fig. (3) the dependence of the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay on the new Wilson coefficients when $`K^{}`$ meson is polarized longitudinally, is studied. This figure depicts that the branching ratio is very sensitive to all type of vector and tensor interactions. Note that, for simplicity all new Wilson coefficients in this work are assumed to be real and varied in the region between -4 and +4. From this figure we see that when $`C_{LL}`$ and $`C_{RL}`$ increases from -4 to +4, the branching ratios increases and decreases, respectively, while the dependence of the branching ratio on the tensor interactions have a rather symmetrical form on both sides of the origin. In other words up to zero values of the tensor interaction coefficients the branching ratio decreases (for the $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ case this symmetry point is slightly shifted) and it increases from 0 to +4.

Depicted in Fig. (4) is the dependence of the branching ratio on the new Wilson coefficients when $`K^{}`$ is transversally polarized $`(_T=^++^{})`$. Obviously this figure for muon decay channel demonstrates strong dependence on tensor interaction coefficients and on the coefficient $`C_{LL}`$. In the case of $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay this branching ratio is strongly dependent on tensor interactions.

Finally, in Figs. (5) and (6) we present the dependence of another physically measurable quantity, namely the ratio of the branching ratios $`_L/_T`$ on new Wilson coefficients. From these figures we conclude that dominant contribution for the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay comes from $`C_{RL}`$. So if in future experiments a larger value for this ratio is observed than the SM prediction, this result can be attributed solely to the vector interaction with coefficient $`C_{RL}`$, whose range is $`4C_{RL}0`$. However if in these experiments smaller values for the same ratio is measured, this departure from the SM prediction can be explained with the help of different mechanisms. Experimentally measured value can give us information which mechanism is responsible for such a discrepancy. For the $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ case, a measurement of the same ratio which yields $`_L/_T>1.3\times (_L/_T)_{SM}`$ indicates the existence of new vector type interaction with coefficient $`C_{LR}`$. It should be noted here that all these calculations are performed for the choice of $`C_7^{eff}=0.313`$. Numerical analysis for this choice shows that all conclusions which have been made for the $`C_7^{eff}=+0.313`$ case remains valid, apart from a slight decrease in the magnitude of the branching ratios.

It follows from all these discussions that, the branching ratios when $`K^{}`$ meson has $`\pm `$ and zero helicities and the ratio of the branching ratios when $`K^{}`$ meson is polarized longitudinally and transversally, are very sensitive to the presence of different new Wilson coefficients. Experimental measurement of the branching ratio for the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`BK^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decays when $`K^{}`$ meson has different polarizations, can give quite valuable information about new physics.

## Figure captions

Fig. (1) The dependence of the branching ratio $`^+`$ on the new Wilson coefficients for the $`BK^{}\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ decay. The superscript $`+`$ corresponds to the polarization of $`K^{}`$ meson.
Fig. (2) The same as in Fig. (1), but for the $``$ polarization of $`K^{}`$ meson.
Fig. (3) The dependence of the branching ratio $`_L`$ on the new Wilson coefficients for the $`BK^{}\mu ^{}\mu ^+`$ decay. The subscript $`L`$ denotes the longitudinal polarization of the $`K^{}`$ meson.
Fig. (4) The same as in Fig. (3), but for the case when $`K^{}`$ meson is polarized transversally.
Fig. (5) The dependence of the ratio of the branching ratios $`_L/_T`$ on new Wilson coefficients for the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay.
Fig. (6) The same as in Fig. (5), but for the $`BK^{}\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decay.


format: text

text:
# 1 solutions for the powers in three different IRQFP regimes.

PM/01–14

hep-ph/0103270

Comment on
“Infrared Fixed Point Structure in Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model with Baryon and Lepton Number Violation”

Y. Mambrinia, G. Moultakab

a CEA/DIF/DPTA/SPN
B.P. 12 F–91680 Bruyères–le–Châtel, France

b Physique Mathématique et Théorique, UMR No 5825–CNRS,
Université Montpellier II, F–34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.

## Abstract

We reconsider the Infrared Quasi Fixed Points which were studied recently in the literature in the context of the Baryon and Lepton number violating Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (hep-ph/0011274). The complete analysis requires further care and reveals more structure than what was previously shown. The formalism we develop here is quite general, and can be readily applied to a large class of models.

Submitted to Phys.Rev. D

Scenarios with R-parity violation, and in particular baryon or lepton number violation within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model ($`\overline{)}R_p`$-MSSM), have attracted attention in the past few years. In a recent work, Ananthanarayan and Pandita have carried out a study of the Infrared Fixed Point structure of baryon/lepton number violating couplings in such scenarios  . Issues related to the Infrared Fixed Points, and in particular to the Infrared Quasi Fixed Points (IRQFP) of the running Yukawa type couplings, can provide generic information about the electroweak scale physics irrespectively of any high energy physics assumptions. While IRQFPs are always present due to the Landau pole in the running of the Yukawa couplings, or equivalently due to a perturbativity bound on those couplings, exact fixed points occur only in physically simplified configurations (projecting on some subset of Yukawa couplings and neglecting some gauge couplings). Of course when exact fixed points exist it is interesting to study their relation to the IRQFP as is done in . However one should keep in mind that such a relation need not exist theoretically, not to mention that one expects anyway the IRQFP regime to be physically more relevant than the one due to exact fixed points, as was initially shown in . In the present comment we concentrate exclusively on the IRQFP structure. In ref., the general analytical forms for the Yukawa couplings, derived in , were applied to the special case of the $`\overline{)}R_p`$-MSSM with the following (squared) running Yukawa couplings $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_t,\stackrel{~}{Y}_b,\stackrel{~}{Y}_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{Y},\stackrel{~}{Y}^{},\stackrel{~}{Y}^{\prime \prime }`$ (see  for notations). These analytical expressions contain denominators of the form $`1+a_{jj}\stackrel{~}{Y}_j(0)_0^t(\mathrm{})_j`$. The authors of  then claimed that “in the regime where the Yukawa couplings $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_t(0),\stackrel{~}{Y}_b(0),\stackrel{~}{Y}_\tau (0),\stackrel{~}{Y}(0),\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}(0),\stackrel{~}{Y}^{\prime \prime }(0)\mathrm{}`$ with their ratios fixed, it is legitimate to drop 1 in the denominators…”. This is in general a wrong statement. “Neglecting 1” can happen to be justified in special cases, but this can be seen only a posteriori and at the expense of a more careful study. For instance it was indeed proven to be correct in the R-parity conserving MSSM ($`R_p`$-MSSM) in the $`t/b/\tau `$ sector , but to be incorrect in the next to minimal $`R_p`$-MSSM . The reason is simple to understand from the analytical structure involved. The relevant Renormalization Group Equations (RGE) governing the running of the Yukawa type couplings to one-loop order are of the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\stackrel{~}{Y}_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k(t)({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}g_i^2(t){\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}a_{kl}\stackrel{~}{Y}_l(t))`$ (1)
where $`t`$ denotes the scale evolution parameter, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k`$ the squared Yukawa couplings, $`g_i^2`$ the squared gauge couplings, and where $`c_{ki}`$ and $`a_{kl}`$ are constant coefficients depending on the model.

The general solution for such a system (valid for any number of Yukawa couplings labeled by $`k`$) reads

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_k(t)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{Y}_k(0)u_k(t)}{1+a_{kk}\stackrel{~}{Y}_k(0)_0^tu_k(t^{})𝑑t^{}}$$
(2)
where the auxiliary functions $`u_k`$ are given by

uk(t)=Ek(t)

[-0.07cm]
j≠k
(1+ajjY~j(0)0tuj(t)𝑑t)akj/ajjsubscript𝑢𝑘𝑡subscript𝐸𝑘𝑡

[-0.07cm]
j≠k
superscript1subscript𝑎𝑗𝑗subscript~𝑌𝑗0superscriptsubscript0𝑡subscript𝑢𝑗superscript𝑡differential-dsuperscript𝑡subscript𝑎𝑘𝑗subscript𝑎𝑗𝑗u_{k}(t)=\frac{E_{k}(t)}{\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$\prod$ \\
[-0.07cm]
${}_{j\neq k}$}}~{}(1+a_{jj}\tilde{Y}_{j}(0)\int_{0}^{t}u_{j}(t^{\prime})dt^{\prime})^{a_{kj}/a_{jj}}} (3)
and the functions $`E_k(t)exp[_0^t_ic_{ki}g_i^2(t^{})dt^{}]`$ are fully determined by the well-known running gauge couplings which need not be written more explicitly here. In the case of , $`k=1,\mathrm{},6`$ and the $`u_k`$’s correspond to $`F_t,F_b,F_\tau ,F,F^{},F^{\prime \prime }`$ studied therein. It is easy to see from the structure of Eq.(3) that when some of (or all) the initial values $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k(0)Y^0\mathrm{}`$, the $`u_k`$’s should have the form

$$u_k\frac{u_k^{\mathrm{QFP}}}{(Y^0)^{p_k}}$$
(4)
where the $`u_k^{\mathrm{QFP}}`$’s are initial condition independent functions, $`p_k0`$ a set of values which depend on the model under consideration and on the choice of the subset of Yukawas having large initial conditions. When for a given $`j`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_j(0)\mathrm{}`$, it is obvious that “1” can be safely dropped in $`1+a_{jj}Y_j^0_0^tu_j(t^{})𝑑t^{}`$ only if $`p_j<1`$, while if $`p_j>1`$, “1” becomes the leading contribution, the $`j^{th}`$ sector then drops out completely from the expression of $`u_k`$ in (3) and the IRQFP value of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_j(t)0`$. It can also happen that $`p_j=1`$, in which case discarding “1” requires the knowledge of the actual numerical contribution of the $`Y^0`$ independent term $`a_{jj}_0^tu_j^{\mathrm{QFP}}`$.

We turn now to the determination of the powers $`p_k`$ in the case of $`\overline{)}R_p`$-MSSM. This is necessary for a correct study of the IRQFP regimes and has been overlooked in ref. . We start off from Eqs.(18–23) of 111 There are unfortunately some misprints in these equations, the relevant ones for us are: (1) In Eq.(19), the power of the third term in the denominator should read 1 instead of 1/6, (2) In Eq.(21) $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{\prime \prime },F^{\prime \prime }`$ should read $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{},F^{}`$ (in their Eq.(8) $`\lambda _{233}^{\prime \prime }`$ should read $`\lambda _{333}^{}`$)..

Denoting by $`p_t,p_b,p_\tau ,p_0,p_1,p_2`$ the powers corresponding respectively to $`F_t,F_b,F_\tau ,F`$, $`F^{},F^{\prime \prime }`$, one obtains the following system,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}p_t\hfill \\ p_b\hfill \\ p_\tau \hfill \\ p_0\hfill \\ p_1\hfill \\ p_2\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0\hfill & \frac{1}{6}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{6}\hfill & \frac{1}{3}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{6}\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{4}\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & \frac{1}{3}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & 1\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{6}\hfill & 1\hfill & \frac{1}{4}\hfill & \frac{1}{4}\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{3}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{3}\hfill & \frac{1}{3}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \frac{1}{3}\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}(1p_t)\theta [1p_t]\delta _t\hfill \\ (1p_b)\theta [1p_b]\delta _b\hfill \\ (1p_\tau )\theta [1p_\tau ]\delta _\tau \hfill \\ (1p_0)\theta [1p_0]\delta _0\hfill \\ (1p_1)\theta [1p_1]\delta _1\hfill \\ (1p_2)\theta [1p_2]\delta _2\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(5)
where the Heaviside $`\theta `$-function ($`\theta (x_{>0},x_{<0})=(1,0)`$) accounts for the possibility of the $`p_i`$’s being larger or smaller than one, and $`\delta _n`$ ($`n=t,b,\tau ,0,1,2`$) takes the value $`0(1)`$ when the corresponding initial $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_n(0)`$ is finite (infinite). We illustrate in table 1 the solutions of Eq.(5) for three different sets of values of the $`\delta _n`$’s. In the first case $`\delta _{t,b,2}=1`$, that is the initial conditions for only $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_t,\stackrel{~}{Y}_b,\stackrel{~}{Y}^{\prime \prime }`$ are taken infinitely large. This corresponds to the case studied in  where $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{Y},\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}`$ were put to zero in order to study the exact (attractive) IR fixed point. As one can see from the table, all the powers but $`p_1(=1)`$ turn out to be strictly smaller than one, so that ”1” can indeed be safely neglected in the corresponding contributions. Moreover, since in the case we consider $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}(0)`$ is not taken infinitely large, the contribution of $`F^{}`$ will drop out anyway, being suppressed by a factor $`1/(Y^0)^{p_1}`$ where $`Y^0`$ is the large initial condition. So in retrospect, the legitimacy of dropping ”1” in this case was a lucky situation. \[The reason is that the reduced matrix of the system $`p_t,p_b,p_\tau `$ satisfies a sufficient condition to forbid $`p_i>1`$, namely that the sum of the matrix elements in each row is less than 1.\] We thus agree with the authors of ref.  on this part of their study, including the numerical estimate of the IRQFP values. The point is that such configurations do not prevail for more general initial conditions. In the second case of table 1, where we keep finite either $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\tau (0)`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}(0)`$ (but not necessarily both), $`p_\tau ,p_1`$ are found to be both greater than one. Clearly here, neglecting one in Eq.(3) in the $`\tau `$ sector, when $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\tau (0)\mathrm{}`$, (or in the “prime” sector when $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}(0)\mathrm{}`$) leads to a wrong result! Moreover, $`p_\tau ,p_1>1`$ has a physically interesting consequence: the IRQFP values $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\tau ^{\mathrm{QFP}}(t),\stackrel{~}{Y}^{\mathrm{QFP}}(t)`$ are zero, as can been seen from Eqs.(2, 4). This is at variance with what Eq.(39) of ref. would have implied. There is thus a much richer structure than stated in , in the sense that the Yukawa couplings in the IRQFP regime can be naturally driven to the hyperplane which has the exact infrared fixed points without a prior projection on this hyperplane as an initial condition. This behavior is actually more general than in the case $`\delta _{t,b,2}=1`$. It holds even when all initial conditions are taken infinite ($`\delta _{all}=1`$). The latter case, considered in , is even more tricky to handle, since it leads to two different sets of solutions for Eq.(5) as can be seen from table 1. These solutions correspond to two different behaviors in the IRQFP limit. However, due to the uniqueness of the running Yukawa’s for given initial conditions (no singularities are encountered when running from the GUT scale down to the electroweak scales), one of these solutions should be spurious. The correct solution turns out to be (1). This is found consistently, both from analytical considerations which we do not describe here, and from a numerical study illustrated in figure 1. Solution (2) would have required all the Yukawa couplings to become $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^0`$ independent when the latter goes increasingly large, while in solution (1) the couplings $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\tau `$ are expected to decrease to zero. Figure 1 exhibits clearly the features of solution (1), where the logs of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\tau `$ decrease linearly as expected and with rates close to the expected ones (respectively $`.25`$ and $`.35`$). The behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{\mathrm{QFP}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\tau ^{\mathrm{QFP}}`$ contradicts Eq.(39) of ref. . Moreover, the fact that $`p_\tau `$ and $`p_1`$ are greater than one means that it is the $`F^{\mathrm{QFP}}`$ and $`F_\tau ^{\mathrm{QFP}}`$ contributions (and not the associated “1”’s !) that should be dropped out in the right-hand side of Eqs.(40)–(45) of ref. .

Finally, we note that comments similar to the above, hold as well in relation to the recent work .


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

It was the main achievement of the Hot Big Bang Cosmology to predict the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation as one of the observable relics witnessing the thermal history of the expanding universe. The discovery of the CMB has in turn disfavored alternative cosmologies like the conformal-invariant Hoyle-Narlikar type cosmology . The latter has recently been generalized and successfully applied to a description of luminosity distances for high redshift supernovae  without the need for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term thus solving one of the major problems of the Standard Cosmology . In this Conformal Cosmology, the Hubble law is explained by the cosmic evolution of elementary particles masses. The question arises about the origin of the CMB in the context of the Conformal Cosmology. In the present work we consider the simplest scenario where the origin of the CMB is the primordial creation of longitudinal vector bosons which have a singular behavior of the integral of motion in the vicinity of the cosmological singularity .

In this paper, we give a systematic description of the cosmological creation of massive vector bosons and fermions in the Standard Model of strong and electroweak interactions. Our consideration of this problem differs from other calculations  by i) the conformal symmetry , ii) the reparametrization - invariance , and iii) the holomorphic representation of quantized fields .

The conformal symmetry was introduced in the theory of gravitation by Weyl in 1918 , based on the fact that we can measure only a ratio of two intervals. However, the original Weyl theory of a vector field had the defect of an ambiguous physical time as marked by Einstein in his comments to Weyls work. The conformal invariant theory of gravitation with an unambiguous physical time has been considered in Ref.  on the basis of the conformal invariant theory of a massless scalar (dilaton) field  with a negative sign.

The dilaton theory of gravitation is mathematically equivalent to the Einstein theory, and all solutions of the one theory can be constructed from those of the other by conformal transformations. In particular, the homogeneous approximation in Einstein’s theory corresponds to the lowest order of the reparametrization - invariant perturbation theory in the flat space-time in the conformal invariant theory, where the homogeneous dilaton field scales all masses including the Planck mass. The corresponding Conformal Cosmology  describes the cosmic evolution of all masses  with respect to the observable conformal time instead of the cosmic evolution of the scale factor in the Standard Cosmology.

The considered perturbation theory keeps the main symmetry of all metric gravitation theories- the invariance with respect to reparametrizations of the ”coordinate time”. Just this invariance leads to the energy constraint that connects the total energy of all fields in the universe with the energy of the dilaton and converts it into the evolution parameter of the history of the universe.

The content of the paper is the following. In Section 2, we formulate the conformal - invariant version of the Standard Model (SM) unified with the dilaton version of Einsteins General Relativity (GR) theory. Section 3 is devoted to the reparametrization - invariant perturbation theory as the basis of the Conformal Cosmology. In Section 4, we derive equations of the cosmological creation of vector bosons and fermions. In Section 5, we solve these equations for the early universe in the rigid state. We summarize the results of this work in the Resumè of Section 6 and give our conclusions in the final Section 7.

## 2. Conformal General Relativity

### 2.1. Conformal - invariant unified theory

We consider a version of the conformal-invariant unified theory of gravitational, electroweak and strong interactions as the Standard Model where the dimensional parameter in the Higgs potential is replaced by the dilaton field $`w`$ the dynamics of which is described by the negative Penrose-Chernikov-Tagirov action. The corresponding action takes the form

$$W_\mathrm{C}=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[_{\mathrm{\Phi },w}+_g+_l+_{l\mathrm{\Phi }}\right],$$
(1)
where

$$_{\mathrm{\Phi },w}=\frac{|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2w^2}{6}R_\mu w^\mu w+D_\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(D^{\mu ,}\mathrm{\Phi })^{}\lambda \left(|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2y_h^2w^2\right)^2$$
(2)
is the Lagrangian of dilaton and Higgs fields with $`D_\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(_\mu ıg\frac{\tau _a}{2}A_\mu \frac{ı}{2}g^{}B_\mu \right)\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_+& \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_0& \end{array}\right);(|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2=\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0).$$
(3)
The Lagrangians of the gauge fields is

$$_g=\frac{1}{4}\left(_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+g\epsilon _{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c\right)^2\frac{1}{4}\left(_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu \right)^2,$$
(4)
and the Lagrangian of leptons

$$L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _{e,L}& \\ \hfill e_L& \end{array}\right);e_R,\nu _{e,R},$$
(5)
is given by

$$_l=\overline{L}ı\gamma ^\mu \left(D^Fıg\frac{\tau _a}{2}A_\mu +\frac{ı}{2}g^{}B_\mu \right)L+\overline{e}_Rı\gamma ^\mu \left(D_\mu ^F+ıg^{}B_\mu \right)e_R+\overline{\nu }_Rı\gamma ^\mu _\mu \nu _R,$$
(6)
where $`D^F`$ is the Fock derivative. The Lagrangian describing the masses of the leptons is

$$_{l\phi }=y_e\left(e_R\mathrm{\Phi }^+L+\overline{L}\mathrm{\Phi }e_R\right)y_\nu \left(\overline{\nu }_R\mathrm{\Phi }_C^+L+\overline{L}\mathrm{\Phi }_C\nu _R\right),\mathrm{\Phi }_C=ı\tau _2\mathrm{\Phi }_C^+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0& \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{}& \end{array}\right),$$
(7)
which includes the possibility of a finite neutrino mass, $`y_f`$ are dimensionless parameters.

This theory is invariant with respect to conformal transformations, and it is given in the Weyl space of similarity with the relative standard of the measurement of intervals given by the ratio of two intervals

$$r=\frac{ds^2}{ds_{\mathrm{scale}}^2}.$$
(8)
The space of similarity is the manifold of Riemannian spaces connected by the conformal transformations.

The ratio (8) in the geometry of similarity depends on nine components of the metric tensor, the relative standard measurement of intervals allows us to remove the scale variable $`|{}_{}{}^{(3)}g|`$ from the metric tensor. Therefore, we use the conformal-invariant Lichnerowicz variables  and the measurable conformal-invariant space-time interval

$$(ds^L)^2=g_{\mu \nu }^Ldx^\mu dx^\nu ,g_{\mu \nu }^L=g_{\mu \nu }|{}_{}{}^{(3)}g|^{1/3},|{}_{}{}^{(3)}g_{}^{L}|=1,$$
(9)
with the notation $`f_n^L=f_n|{}_{}{}^{(3)}g|^{n/6}`$, where $`(n)`$ is the conformal weight being equal to $`(1,3/2,0,2)`$ for the scalar, spinor, vector, and tensor field respectively. The Lichnerowicz interval depends on nine components of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^L`$.

The formulation of GR in terms of the Lichnerowicz variables reveals that the equivalence principle is violated in a direct unification of GR and SM where the gravitational coupling constant and inertial masses of particles are formed by different fields, i.e. when the scale component of metric and the Higgs field are treated as independent scalar fields. A possible solution to this problem is given in the following subsection.

### 2.2. Conformal Higgs Mechanism

In the contrast to the direct unification of GR and SM, the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses is incorporated into the conformal invariant Higgs mechanism through the dilaton-Higgs mixing

$$w=\varphi ch\chi ,\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\varphi 𝐧_ish\chi ,(\mathrm{𝐧𝐧}^+=1).$$
(10)
The modulus of dilaton-Higgs mixing $`\varphi `$ simultaneously forms the gravitational coupling constant and inertial masses of particles.

After applying the transformation (10) the Lagrangian in the action (1) takes the form

$$_C=\frac{\varphi ^2}{6}R+\frac{\varphi }{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}^\nu \varphi \right)+\varphi ^2_\mu \chi ^\mu \chi +\overline{}_{SM},$$
(11)
where $`\overline{}_{SM}`$ is the SM Lagrangian with the Higgs potential

$$_{Higgs}=\lambda \varphi ^4\left(sh^2\chi y_h^2ch^2\chi \right)^2.$$
(12)
The extrema of this potential with respect to $`\chi `$ can be found from the condition

$$\frac{_{Higgs}}{\chi }=4\lambda \varphi ^4(1y_h^2)sh\chi ch\chi \left(sh^2\chi (1y_h)^2y_h^2\right)=0,$$
(13)
which leads to two solutions

$$\chi _1=0,|sh\chi _2|=\frac{y_h}{\sqrt{1y_h^2}}.$$
(14)
The last solution corresponds to the spontaneous SU(2) symmetry breaking in the SM. The problem is to show that the present day value of the modulus of the dilaton-Higgs mixing $`\varphi (t_0,x)=\phi _0`$ far from heavy masses is equal to the Newton constant

$$\phi _0=M_{\mathrm{Planck}}\sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi }}.$$
(15)
This means, that

$$y_h=\frac{m_h}{\phi _0}10^{17}.$$
(16)
In terms of the notations $`\phi _0\chi =H`$ and $`\phi _0y_h=\overline{M}_h`$ we obtain in the limit of the infinite Planck mass the renormalizable version of the SM with the Higgs potential

$$\lambda (H^2\overline{M}_h^2)^2+O(\frac{1}{M_{\mathrm{Planck}}}).$$
(17)
On the other hand, if $`\lambda =0`$, then the SU(2) breaking solution is $`\chi =`$ const, and we obtain the Higgs free SM version .

In the following, we consider the problem of cosmological particle creation in the framework of the dilaton theory (1).

## 3. The Energy Constrained Perturbation Theory

### 3.1. Conformal Cosmology

The cosmological applications of conformal gravity are based on the perturbation theory  that begins from the homogeneous approximation for the dilaton and metrics

$$\varphi ^L(t,x)=\phi (t),[g_L^{00}(t,x)]^{1/2}=N_0(t),g_{ij}^L=\delta _{ij}+h_{ij},$$
(18)
where the conformal - invariant interval reads

$$ds_0^2=d\eta ^2dx_i^2,d\eta =N_0(t)dt.$$
(19)
We keep only independent local field variables which are determined by a complete set of initial values. All nonphysical variables (for which the initial values depend on other data) are excluded by the local constraint. In particular, the local part of the dilaton is excluded by the local energy constraint, i.e. the equation for the metric component $`g_L^{00}`$, and is converted into the Newtonian interaction potential. The first step of the perturbation theory is to consider the independent ”free” fields in the linear approximation of their equations of motion. The global part of the dilaton $`\phi (t)`$ should be considered as independent variable as its two initial values (the field and its momentum) cannot be determined by the one energy constraint only . The latter is the consequence of the invariance of the theory with respect to reparametrizations of the ”coordinate time” $`t\overline{t}=\overline{t}(t)`$.

The substitution of the ansatz (19) into the action (1) leads to the action of free fields in terms of physical variables

$$W_0=\underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}𝑑t\left[\phi \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\dot{\phi }}{N_0}V_0+N_0L_0\right],$$
(20)
where $`V_0`$ is a finite spatial volume and

$$L_0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{V_0}{}d^3xN_0\left(_\chi +_{\mathrm{vec}}^{}+_{\mathrm{vec}}^{||}+_{\mathrm{rad}}+_\mathrm{s}+_\mathrm{h}\right),$$
(21)
is the total Lagrangian of free fields. In particular,

$$_\chi =\phi ^2\left(\frac{\dot{\chi }_i^2}{N_0^2}+\chi _i\left[\stackrel{}{}^24\lambda (y_h\phi )^2\right]\chi _i\right)$$
(22)
is the Lagrangian of the Higgs field and

$`_{\mathrm{vec}}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{v}_i^2}{N_0^2}}+v_i^{}\left[\stackrel{}{}^2(y_v\phi )^2\right]v_i^{}\right),`$
$`_{\mathrm{vec}}^{||}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(y_v\phi )^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{v}_i^{||}}{N_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[\stackrel{}{}^2(y_v\phi )^2\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{v}_i^{||}}{N_0}}+v_i^{||2}\right)`$ (23)
are Lagrangians of the transversal ($`_{\mathrm{vec}}^{}`$) and longitudinal ($`_{\mathrm{vec}}^{||}`$) components of the W- and Z- bosons . The Lagrangian of the fermionic spinor fields is given by

$$_s=\overline{\psi }\left(y_s\phi i\frac{\gamma _0}{N_0}_0+i\gamma _j_j\right)\psi ,$$
(24)
where the rôle of the masses is played by the homogeneous dilaton field $`\phi `$ multiplied by dimensionless constants $`y_{v,s}`$. $`_{rad}`$ is the Lagrangian of massless fields (photons $`\gamma `$, neutrinos $`\nu `$) with $`y_\gamma =y_\nu =0`$, and

$$_h=\frac{\phi ^2}{24}\left(\frac{\dot{h}^2}{N_0^2}(_ih)^2\right)$$
(25)
is the Lagrangian of gravitons as weak transverse excitations of spatial metric for which $`h_{ii}=0;_jh_{ji}=0`$. The last two equations follow from the unit determinant of the three-dimensional metric (9) and from the momentum constraint .

To find the evolution of all fields with respect to the proper time $`\eta `$, we use the Hamiltonian form of the action (1) in the approximation (19)

$$W_0^E=\underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}𝑑t\left(\left[\underset{V_0}{}d^3x\underset{f}{}p_f\dot{f}\right]\dot{\phi }P_\phi N_0\left[\frac{P_\phi ^2}{4V_0}+H(\phi ,f,p_f)\right]\right),$$
(26)
where the Hamiltonian $`H(\phi ,f,p_f)`$ is a sum of the Hamiltonians of free fields, with $`f`$ and denoting the field of particle species $`f`$ and $`p_f`$ its conjugate momentum.

The variation of the action with respect to the homogeneous lapse-function $`N_0`$ yields the energy constraint

$$\frac{\delta W_0}{\delta N_0}=0\phi ^2=\frac{\overline{H}(\phi )}{V_0}:=\rho (\phi ),$$
(27)
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the conformal time $`\eta `$. The fact that the dilaton, which scales all the elementary particle masses, has a nonzero derivative entails the cosmic evolution of the size of atoms similar to the Hoyle-Narlikar cosmology . The cosmic evolution of the dilaton leads to a rescaling of the energy levels of atoms and to the observed redshift $`z`$ of atomic line spectra

$$z+1=\phi (\eta _0)/\phi (\eta _0d/c)1+(d/c)H_0,$$

of a star at the distance $`d`$ from the Earth where $`H_0=(\mathrm{log}\phi )^{}|_{\eta _0}`$ is the conformal cosmology definition of the Hubble parameter. With these definitions, the present-day value of the dilaton $`\phi _0=\phi (\eta _0)`$ can be determined from the present-day value of density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\rho (\phi _0)/\rho _c`$, where $`\rho _c=3M_{\mathrm{Planck}}^2H_0^2/(8\pi )`$,

$$\phi _0=\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{1/2}M_{\mathrm{Planck}}\sqrt{\frac{3}{8\pi }}.$$
(28)
Thus, the energy constrained theory obeys the Freedmann equation of the cosmological evolution

$$\eta (\phi _0,\phi _I)=\pm \underset{\phi _I}{\overset{\phi _0}{}}\frac{d\phi }{\sqrt{\rho (\phi )}}$$
(29)
that connects the geometric interval with the dynamics of the dilaton as evolution parameter. In accordance with the Dirac quantization of relativistic constrained systems the geometric time (29) is always positive .

### 3.2. Holomorphic Representation of Quantized Fields

In order to determine the observational energy density (27) we have to diagonalize the Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{\varsigma ,J}{}\omega _\varsigma ^J(\phi )\widehat{N}_\varsigma ^J,$$
(30)
where $`\varsigma =k,f,\sigma `$ stands for momenta, species, and spins, respectively. $`\widehat{N}_\varsigma ^J`$ are the number operators for bosons ($`J=B`$) and fermions ($`J=F`$), given by

$`\widehat{N}_{}^{B}{}_{\varsigma }{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_\varsigma ^+a_\varsigma +a_\varsigma a_\varsigma ^+),`$ (31)
$`\widehat{N}_\varsigma ^{(J=F)}`$ $`=`$ $`(a_\varsigma ^+a_\varsigma d_\varsigma d_\varsigma ^+).`$ (32)
We introduce the representation of particles as holomorphic field variables

$$f(t,\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{k}{}\frac{C_f(\phi )\mathrm{exp}(ik_ix_i)}{V_0^{3/2}\sqrt{\omega _f(\phi ,k)}}\overline{f}_J(t,k),$$
(33)
where

$`\overline{f}_B(t,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\left(a_\sigma ^+(k,t)ϵ_\sigma (k)+a_\sigma (k,t)ϵ_\sigma (k)\right),`$ (34)
$`\overline{f}_F(t,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\left(d_\sigma ^+(k,t)v^{}(k)+a_\sigma (k,t)u_\sigma (k)\right),`$ (35)
and $`\omega _f(\phi ,k)=\sqrt{k^2+y_f^2\phi ^2}`$ are the one-particle energies for particle species $`f=h,\gamma ,v,s,\chi `$ with the dimensionless mass parameters $`y_f`$ and

$$C_h(\phi )=\frac{\sqrt{12}}{\phi },C_\gamma (\phi )=C_\mathrm{s}(\phi )=1,C_v^{}=1,C_v^{||}=\frac{\omega _v}{y_v\phi },C_\chi (\phi )=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\phi }.$$

The coefficients ($`C_h,C_v^{||},C_\chi `$) exhibit the mass singularity of gravitons, longitudinal components of massive vector fields , and the Higgs fields. These mass singularities lead to the intensive cosmological creation of the corresponding particles that follows from the first terms of the action (26) when represented in terms of holomorphic variables

$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{V_0}{}}d^3x{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}p_f\dot{f}\right]_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varsigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}(a_\varsigma ^+\dot{a}_\varsigma a_\varsigma \dot{a}_\varsigma ^+){\displaystyle \underset{\varsigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}(a_\varsigma ^+a_\varsigma ^+a_\varsigma a_\varsigma )\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\varsigma (\phi ),`$ (36)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{V_0}{}}d^3x{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}p_f\dot{f}\right]_F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\varsigma }{}}ı(d_\varsigma \dot{d}_\varsigma ^++a_\varsigma ^+\dot{a}_\varsigma )+{\displaystyle \underset{\varsigma }{}}ı(a_\varsigma ^+d_\varsigma ^+d_\varsigma a_\varsigma )\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\varsigma (\phi ).`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma (\phi )`$ are terms responsible for particle creation,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_h(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(\phi )\mathrm{ln}(\phi _I),`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{\omega _v})\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{\omega _I}),`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{||}(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_h(\phi )\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}(\phi ),`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi (\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_h(\phi )+\mathrm{\Delta }_v^{}(\phi ),`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma \left[\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_s\phi }{k}}\right)\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_s\phi _I}{k}}\right)\right],\sigma =\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (42)
where $`\phi _I`$ and $`\omega _I`$ are initial data.

## 4. Cosmological Pair Creation

### 4.1. Bogoliubov Quasiparticles

The local equations of motion for the system (26) can be written as

$$ı\frac{d}{d\eta }\chi _\varsigma =ı\chi _\varsigma ^{}=\widehat{H}_\varsigma (\phi )\chi _\varsigma ,$$
(43)
where

$$\widehat{H}_\varsigma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega _\varsigma ,\hfill & ı\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ^{}\hfill \\ & \\ ı\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ^{},\hfill & \omega _\varsigma \hfill \end{array}\right),\chi _\varsigma ^{(B)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_\varsigma ^+& \\ \hfill a_\varsigma & \end{array}\right),\chi _\varsigma ^{(F)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d_\varsigma ^+& \\ \hfill a_\varsigma & \end{array}\right),$$
(44)
for bosons $`(B)`$ and fermions $`(F)`$, respectively. Exact solutions of these equations of motion were obtained by their diagonalization with the Bogoliubov transformations

$$\chi _\varsigma =\widehat{O}_\varsigma \psi _\varsigma ,ı\psi _\varsigma ^{}=[ı\widehat{O}{}_{\varsigma }{}^{1}\widehat{O}_{\varsigma }^{}+\widehat{O}{}_{\varsigma }{}^{1}\widehat{H}_{\varsigma }^{}\widehat{O}_\varsigma ]\psi _\varsigma \overline{H}{}_{\varsigma }{}^{}\psi _{\varsigma }^{},$$
(45)
where $`\overline{H}_\varsigma `$ is required to be diagonal

$$\overline{H}{}_{\varsigma }{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \overline{\omega }_\varsigma ,& \hfill 0\\ & \\ \hfill 0,& \hfill \overline{\omega }_\varsigma \end{array}\right);det\widehat{O}_\varsigma =1;\psi _\varsigma ^{(F)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_\varsigma ^+& \\ \hfill c_\varsigma & \end{array}\right),\psi _\varsigma ^{(B)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_\varsigma ^+& \\ \hfill b_\varsigma & \end{array}\right).$$
(46)
The Bogoliubov parametrizations for the coefficients are

$`b_\varsigma ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(r_\varsigma )e^{i\theta _\varsigma }d_\varsigma ^++ı\mathrm{sin}(r_\varsigma )e^{i\theta _\varsigma }a_\varsigma ,`$
$`c_\varsigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(r_\varsigma )e^{i\theta _\varsigma }a_\varsigma +ı\mathrm{sin}(r_\varsigma )e^{i\theta _\varsigma }d_\varsigma ^+,`$ (47)
and the Hermitian conjugate for fermions, and

$`b_\varsigma ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(r_\varsigma )e^{i\theta _\varsigma }a_\varsigma ^+ı\mathrm{sin}(r_\varsigma )e^{i\theta _\varsigma }a_\varsigma ,`$
$`b_\varsigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(r_\varsigma )e^{i\theta _\varsigma }a_\varsigma +ı\mathrm{sinh}(r_\varsigma )e^{i\theta _\varsigma }a_\varsigma ^+`$ (48)
for bosons. For each $`\varsigma `$ we get two equations for the two unknown functions $`r_\varsigma ,\theta _\varsigma `$

$`[\omega _\varsigma \theta _\varsigma ^{}]\mathrm{sinh}(2r_\varsigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ^{}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _\varsigma )\mathrm{cosh}(2r_\varsigma ),`$
$`r_\varsigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ^{}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _\varsigma )`$ (49)
for bosons, and

$`[\omega _\varsigma \theta _\varsigma ^{}]\mathrm{sin}(2r_\varsigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ^{}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _\varsigma )\mathrm{cos}(2r_\varsigma ),`$
$`r_\varsigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ^{}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _\varsigma )`$ (50)
for fermions.

The diagonalization procedure has two immediate consequences: (i) integrals of motion of the type of numbers of the Bogoliubov quasiparticles are obtained and (ii) the possibility to choose the initial states as corresponding to the vacuum of the Bogoliubov quasiparticles (the well-known squeezed vacuum )

$$b_\varsigma |0>_{\mathrm{sq}}=0.$$
(51)
In the case of the vacuum initial data (51), the Bogoliubov equations (49) are closed by Eq. (27) for evolution of the universe

$$\phi ^2=\frac{1}{V_0}\underset{\varsigma }{}\omega _\varsigma (\phi ){}_{\mathrm{sq}}{}^{}<0|\widehat{N}_\varsigma |0>_{\mathrm{sq}}=\rho (\phi ).$$
(52)
The number of particles created during the time $`\eta `$ is

$$𝒩_\varsigma ^{(B)}(\eta )={}_{\mathrm{sq}}{}^{}<0|\widehat{N}_\varsigma ^{(B)}|0>_{\mathrm{sq}}\frac{1}{2}=\mathrm{sinh}^2r_\varsigma (\eta )$$
(53)
for bosons, and

$$𝒩_\varsigma ^{(F)}(\eta )={}_{\mathrm{sq}}{}^{}<0|\widehat{N}_\varsigma ^{(F)}|0>_{\mathrm{sq}}+\frac{1}{2}=\mathrm{sin}^2r_\varsigma (\eta )$$
(54)
for fermions respectively.

### 4.2. The redshift representation

To compare with the present-day cosmological data $`\rho _0`$ and $`\phi _0`$, it is useful to rewrite the Bogoliubov equations (49) in terms of the redshift $`z`$ and the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ defined as

$$z+1=\frac{\phi _0}{\phi },\mathrm{\Omega }(z)=\frac{\rho }{\rho _c}.$$
(55)
Then Eq. (52) for the evolution of the universe takes the form (we take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ from now on)

$$H(z):=\frac{\phi ^{}}{\phi }=\frac{z^{}}{z+1}=(z+1)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }(z)}H_0,$$
(56)
where $`H_0=\phi _0^{}/\phi _0`$ is a value of the present-day Hubble parameter. All equations can be rewritten in the terms of z-factor, in particular, the Bogoliubov equations (49) for bosons become

$$\mathrm{sinh}(2r_\varsigma )[\frac{\omega _\varsigma }{z^{}}\frac{d}{dz}\theta _\varsigma ]=\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _\varsigma )\mathrm{cosh}(2r_\varsigma )\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ,$$

$$\frac{d}{dz}r_\varsigma =\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _\varsigma )\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ,$$
(57)
where $`z^{}`$ is determined by eq. (56).

### 4.3. The vacuum initial values

In the case of the early universe, we have a large current Hubble parameter (56) or small one-particle energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\omega `$. To analyze the Bogoliubov equations (49) in this case, we change variables $`(r,\theta C,𝒩)`$

$`\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _\varsigma )\mathrm{sinh}(2r_\varsigma )`$ $`=`$ $`C_\varsigma ,`$
$`\mathrm{sinh}(2r_\varsigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{𝒩(𝒩+1)}.`$ (58)
Then, equations (49) take the form

$`𝒩_\varsigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ^{}}{2\omega _\varsigma }}\right)C_\varsigma ^{},`$
$`𝒩_\varsigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ^{}\sqrt{4𝒩_\varsigma (𝒩_\varsigma +1)C_\varsigma ^2}.`$ (59)
In the limit of the early universe ($`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\omega `$), Eqs. (4.3.) reduce to

$`C_\varsigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒩_\varsigma }{d\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{4𝒩_\varsigma (𝒩_\varsigma +1)C_\varsigma ^2}.`$ (60)
A general solution of these equations is

$`2𝒩_\varsigma +1\mathrm{cosh}(2r_\varsigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{C_\varsigma ^2}{2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma },`$
$`C_\varsigma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}.`$ (61)
From equations (4.3.) it follows that the vacuum initial state (51) $`𝒩_\varsigma (\eta =0)=0`$ entails that $`C_\varsigma (\eta =0)=0`$. In terms of $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ this corresponds to the initial values for the cosmic evolution

$$r_\varsigma (\eta =0)=0,\theta _\varsigma (\eta =0)=\frac{\pi }{4}.$$
(62)
The solution (4.3.) to eq. (4.3.) for $`\omega =0`$ can be treated as the Goldstone mode that rejects the symmetry breaking with respect to translations in time. The numbers of created particles for the large Hubble limit are determined by the vacuum solutions

$$r_\varsigma =\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma ,\theta _\varsigma =\frac{\pi }{4}.$$
(63)
In accordance with equations (53) and (54), we have

$$𝒩_\varsigma ^{(B)}=\mathrm{sinh}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma (\phi ),𝒩_\varsigma ^{(F)}=\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\varsigma (\phi ).$$
(64)
In particular, the number of created fermions is equal to

$$𝒩_{s,k,\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{k^2+y_s^2\phi \phi _I}{\omega _s(\phi )\omega _s(\phi _I)}\right).$$
(65)
It is easy to see that the relativistic limit of large momenta prevents the cosmological creation of all particle species except for gravitons and longitudinal bosons in accordance with their mass singularity .

## 5. Early Universe Scenario

### 5.1. Rigid state

From the action (1) considered in this work one can see that at the beginning of time $`\eta 0`$, the dilaton goes to zero $`\phi 0`$ together with the potential energy, whereas the kinetic energy of gravitons goes to infinity as $`1/\phi ^2`$, $`𝒩_h1/\phi ^2`$. This behavior is well known  from anisotropic homogeneous excitations of the metrics in a universe with the rigid equation of state (the Kasner stage). This corresponds to the behavior of the conformal density (55)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Rigid}}(z+1)^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Rigid}}1,$$
(66)
and the evolution of the universe (56)

$$H(z):=\frac{\phi ^{}}{\phi }=\frac{z^{}}{z+1}=(z+1)^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Rigid}}}H_0.$$
(67)
The solution of this equation takes the form

$$\phi ^2(\eta )=\frac{\phi _0^2}{(z+1)^2}=\phi _I^2\left[\frac{\eta +\eta _I}{\eta _I}\right],$$
(68)
where the subscript “I” denotes values at the initial time $`\eta _I`$. For definiteness, we list the values of the initial Hubble parameter $`H_I`$, initial time $`\eta _I`$, initial z-factor $`(z_I+1)`$, and initial vector boson mass $`m_v(z_I)`$

$$H_I=H(z_I)=\frac{1}{2\eta _I}=(z_I+1)^2H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Rigid}}},z_I+1=\frac{\phi _0}{\phi _I},m_v(z_I)=\frac{m_v}{z_I+1}.$$
(69)
To isolate the point of singularity, we shall consider the beginning of time $`\eta =0`$ in Eq. (68) with the initial value $`\phi _I`$ for dilaton as the beginning of the creation of the primordial vector bosons.

In the anisotropic era, the Bogoliubov equations (49) for the numbers of created vector bosons (longitudinal $`(||)`$, and transversal $`()`$) can be rewritten in terms of dimensionless variables for time and momentum

$$\tau =\eta /\eta _I,x=\frac{q}{m_v(z_I)},$$
(70)
and the vector boson disperson relation

$$\omega _v=H_I\gamma _v\sqrt{1+\tau +x^2},$$
(71)
where $`\gamma _v=\frac{m_v(z_I)}{H_I}`$ is the vector boson mass parameter. The corresponding Bogoliubov equations (49) for the number of created bosons in the anisotropic (rigid state) era are defined by the functions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _v^{}}{\omega _v}}=H_I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+\tau +x^2)}},`$ (72)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{||}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}}{\phi }}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}=H_I\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1+\tau +x^2)}}\right].`$ (73)
The initial values are given by (62), see also Appendix A. The form of these equations shows us that the parameter value $`\gamma _v=1`$ is distinguished. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Rigid}}=1`$ this value corresponds to $`z_I+1=(m_v/H_0)^{1/3}3.4\times 10^{14}`$. At this high redshift $`H_I=m_v(z_I)=k_B2.76`$ K, i.e. the dilaton field changed so rapidly as to create vector mesons which were light enough in that era to form upon annihilation the CMB the temperature of which is an invariant of the cosmic evolution. In the following we study the cosmological creation of vector bosons for the universe in the rigid state.

### 5.2. Creation of vector bosons by the anisotropic universe

We have calculated the number of created bosons during their lifetime $`\tau _L=\eta _L/\eta _I`$. To estimate roughly this time $`\eta _L`$, we use the lifetime of W-bosons in the Standard Model at this moment

$$\eta _L+\eta _I=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{m_W(z_L)\alpha _{QED}},$$

where $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle, $`\alpha _{QED}=1/137`$, and $`z_L`$ is the z-factor at this time. Using Eqs. (68), (69)), and the equality $`\eta _Im_W(z_L)=(\gamma _v/2)(z_I+1)/(z_L+1)`$, we rewrite the previous equation in terms of the z-factor

$$\tau _L+1=\frac{(z_I+1)^2}{(z_L+1)^2}=\frac{(z_L+1)}{(z_I+1)}\frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{\gamma _v\alpha _{QED}},$$
(74)
The solution of this equation (74) is

$$\tau _L+1=\left(\frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{\gamma _v\alpha _{QED}}\right)^{2/3}\frac{16}{\gamma _v^{2/3}},$$
(75)
and for the timelife of created bosons we have

$$\tau _L=\frac{\eta _L}{\eta _I}\frac{16}{\gamma _v^{2/3}}1.$$
(76)
In the following we consider the case $`\gamma _v=1`$ for which $`\tau _L=15`$.

The numerical solutions of the Bogoliubov equations (49) for the time dependence of the vector boson distribution functions $`𝒩^{||}`$ and $`𝒩^{}`$ are given in Fig. 1 (left panels) for the momentum $`x=1.25`$. We can see that the longitudinal function is greater than the transversal one.

The momentum dependence of these functions at the time $`\tau =14`$ is given on the right panels of Fig.1. Upper panel shows us the intensive cosmological creation of the longitudinal bosons in comparison with the transversal ones. This fact is in agreement with the mass singularity of the longitudinal vector bosons discussed in Refs. .

One of the features of this intensive creation is a high momentum tail of the momentum distribution of longitudinal bosons which leads to a divergence of the density of created particles defined as

$$n_v(\eta _L)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑qq^2\left[𝒩^{||}(q,\eta _L)+2𝒩^{}(x,\eta _L)\right].$$
(77)
The divergence is a defect of our approximation, where we neglected all interactions of vector bosons, that form the collision integral in the kinetic equation for the distribution functions.

In order to obtain a finite result for the density we suggest to multiply the primordial distributions $`𝒩^{||}(x,\eta _L)`$ and $`𝒩^{}(x,\eta _L)`$ with the Bose - Einstein distribution $`(k_B=1)`$

$$(\frac{q}{T},\frac{m_v(\tau )}{T},\frac{\mu (\tau )}{T})=\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\omega _v(\tau )\mu (\tau )}{T}\right]1\right\}^1,$$
(78)
where $`T`$ is considered as the regularization parameter. Then, the density is given as

$$n_v(T,\eta _L)=\frac{T^3}{2\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑yy^2(y,\gamma _T,\gamma _\mu )\left[𝒩^{||}(\frac{y}{\gamma _T},\eta _L)+2𝒩^{}(\frac{y}{\gamma _T},\eta _L)\right]$$
(79)
for each vector boson $`(v=W^\pm ,Z^0)`$, where

$$\gamma _T=\frac{m_v(z_I)}{T},\gamma _\mu =\frac{\mu (z_I)}{T}.$$
(80)
The problem is to find the value of this density.

Our calculation presented on Fig.1 signals that the density (79) is established very quickly in comparison with the lifetime of bosons, and in the equilibrium there is a weak dependence of the density on the time (or z-factor). This means that the initial Hubble parameter $`H_I`$ almost coincides with Hubble parameter at the point of the saturation $`H_s`$.

For example we calculated the values of integrals (77) for the regularization parameter

$$T=m_v(z_I)=H_I.$$
(81)
This choice corresponds to $`\gamma _v=\gamma _T=1,\mu =m_v`$. The result of the calculation is

$$\frac{n_v}{T^3}=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\left\{[1.877]^{||}+2[0.277]^{}=2.432\right\},$$
(82)
where we denote the contributions of the longitudinal and transverse bosons by the labels $`(||,)`$.

After the time $`\tau _L`$ primordial bosons decay. The final product of the decay of the primordial bosons includes photons. If one photon goes from the annihilation of the products of decay of $`W^\pm `$ bosons, and another photon - from $`Z`$ bosons, we can expect the density of photons in the Conformal Cosmology with the constant temperature and a static universe

$$\frac{n_\gamma }{T^3}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\left\{2.432\right\}.$$
(83)
By the comparison of this value with the present-day density of the cosmic microwave radiation

$$\frac{n_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}}{T_{\mathrm{CMB}}^3}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\left\{2\zeta (3)=2.402\right\}.$$
(84)
we can estimate the regularization parameter $`T`$. One can see that this parameter is the order of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background

$$T=T_{\mathrm{CMB}}=2.73\mathrm{K}.$$
(85)
We can speak about thermal equilibrium for the primordial bosons with a temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, if the inverse relaxation time

$$\eta _{\mathrm{rel}}^1(z_I)=\sigma _{\mathrm{scat}}n_v(T_{\mathrm{eq}})$$
(86)
where the scattering cross-section of bosons in the considered region is proportional to the inverse of their squared mass

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{scat}}=\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{scat}}}{m_v^2(z)}$$
(87)
is greater than the primordial Hubble parameter $`H_I`$. This means that the thermal equilibrium will be maintained

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{scat}}n_v(T_{\mathrm{eq}})=\frac{2.4\gamma _{\mathrm{scat}}}{\pi ^2}T_{\mathrm{eq}}^3=H(z_I)m_v^2(z_I)=H(0)m_v^2(0).$$
(88)
The right hand side of this formula is an integral of motion for the evolution of the universe in the rigid state. The estimation of this integral from the present values of the Hubble parameter and boson mass gives the value

$$\left[m_W^2(z_I)H(z_I)\right]^{1/3}=\left[m_W^2(0)H_0\right]^{1/3}=2.76\mathrm{K}.$$
(89)
Thus we conclude that the assumption of a quickly established thermal equilibrium in the primordial vector boson system may be justified since $`TT_{\mathrm{eq}}`$. The temperature of the photon background emerging after annihilation and decay processes of $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z`$ bosons is invariant in the Conformal Cosmology and the simple estimate performed above gives a value surprisingly close to that of the observed CMB radiation.

A more detailed investigation of the kinetic processes which govern the transition from the primordial vector boson era to the photon era can be based on a solution of the corresponding kinetic equations  and will be given elsewhere.

### 5.3. The baryon asymmetry

The baryon asymmetry of the universe appears as a result of the polarization of the Dirac vacuum of quarks by transversal bosons in accordance with the selection rule of the Standard Model

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }B=\mathrm{\Delta }n_w+\mathrm{\Delta }n_z,$$
(90)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n_W=\frac{4\alpha _{QED}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}J^W,J^W=_0^{\eta _\mathrm{l}^\mathrm{W}}d\eta \frac{d^3x}{4\pi }{}_{\mathrm{sq}}{}^{}<0|E_i^WB_i^W|0>{}_{\mathrm{sq}}{}^{},$$
(91)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }n_Z=\frac{\alpha _{QED}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}J^Z,J^Z=_0^{\eta _\mathrm{l}^\mathrm{Z}}d\eta \frac{d^3x}{4\pi }{}_{\mathrm{sq}}{}^{}<0|E_i^ZB_i^Z|0>_{\mathrm{sq}}$$
(92)
are the topological winding number functionals of the primordial $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z`$ bosons, and $`E_i`$, $`B_i`$ are the electric and magnetic field strengths. The squeezed vacuum gives a nonzero value for these quantities

$$\frac{d^3x}{4\pi }{}_{\mathrm{sq}}{}^{}<0|E_i^vB_i^v|0>{}_{\mathrm{sq}}{}^{}=\frac{V_0}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dk|k|^3C_v(\eta ,k),$$
(93)
where $`C_v(\eta ,k)`$ is given by the equation (4.3.) for the transversal bosons. We estimated $`J^W/V_0T^31.44`$ and $`J^Z/V_0T^32.41`$ for $`\gamma _v=1`$ and a timelife of the bosons $`\tau _L^W15`$, $`\tau _L^Z30`$, using the T-regularization (78).

Thus, we can see that the baryon asymmetry can be explained by the topological winding number functional of the primordial bosons and the superweak interaction of $`d`$ and $`s`$-quarks $`(d+ss+d)`$ with CP-violation, experimentally observed in the decays of $`K`$ mesons . A more detailed consideration of the baryon asymmetry phenomenon will be presented in a subsequent paper.

## 6. Resumé

We have considered the simplest Cold Universe Scenario where the physical reason of CMB is the cosmic creation of primordial longitudinal vector bosons. Among the matter fields there is only one longitudinal component of the vector bosons with a singular behavior of the integral of motion at this region. To see this singularity, we consider only the mass term for the time component $`v_0`$ that is proportional to the time derivative of the longitudinal component (due to the constraint $`v_0\dot{v}_{||}`$). The toy Lagrangian of the conformal universe filled in these bosons takes the form

$$=_\phi +_{||}=\left(\frac{d\phi }{d\eta }\right)^2+\phi ^2(\eta )\left(\frac{dv_{||}}{d\eta }\right)^2$$
(94)
with the equations of motion

$$\frac{d^2(\phi )}{d\eta ^2}+2\phi \left(\frac{dv_{||}}{d\eta }\right)^2=0,$$
(95)
$$\frac{d}{d\eta }\left[\phi ^2(\eta )\frac{dv_{||}}{d\eta }\right]=0.$$
(96)
The last equation entails the existence of an integral of motion

$$[\phi ^2(\eta )\frac{dv_{||}}{d\eta })]=P_v.$$
(97)
In terms of this integral of motion the Lagrangian (94) and the energy of matter takes the form of the rigid state

$$_{||}=\frac{P_v^2}{\phi ^2(\eta )},$$
(98)
whereas the equation of motion for the dilaton (95) becomes trivial for the square of the dilaton

$$\frac{d^2(\phi ^2)}{d\eta ^2}=0.$$
(99)
A solution of this classical equation is defined by an initial position $`\phi _I`$ and velocity $`H_I`$ of the dilaton

$$\phi ^2(\eta )=\phi _I^2(1+2H_I\eta )$$
(100)
$`H_I`$ coincides with the initial Hubble parameter $`\phi _I^{}/\phi _I`$.

The numerical solution of the exact Bogoliubov equations shows us that the temperature equilibrium is established so quickly that the z-factor and the Hubble parameter almost do not change. The latter determine the temperature of the primordial bosons as the integral of motion

$$T_{\mathrm{eq}}=[H_0m_W^2(0)]^{1/3}=2.76\mathrm{K},$$
(101)
which almost coincides with the present-day value of the cosmic microwave radiation.

Thus, in the context of the relative standard of measurements and the Conformal Cosmology, the estimations of temperature and density of the primordial vector bosons show us that the origin of the cosmic microwave radiation and the observable matter in the universe can be seen in the decay of the primordial vector bosons into photons, leptons, and quarks. These primordial vector bosons are created by the conformal universe at the time $`\eta _I=10^{12}`$ that corresponds to the initial z-factor

$$z_I+1=\frac{m_W(0)^{1/3}}{H_0^{1/3}}3.5\times 10^{14}.$$
(102)
It is worth to emphasize that in the considered model of the Conformal Cosmology , the temperature (101) is a constant. In Conformal Cosmology, we have the mass history

$$m_{\mathrm{era}}(z)=\frac{m_{\mathrm{era}}(0)}{(1+z)}=T_{\mathrm{eq}}$$
(103)
with the constant temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eq}}=2.73\mathrm{K}=2.35\times 10^{13}`$ GeV, where $`m_{\mathrm{era}}(0)`$ is a characteristic energy (mass) of an era of the universe evolution.

Eq. (103) has the important consequence that all those physical processes which concern the chemical composition of the universe and which depend basically on Boltzmann factors with the argument $`(m/T)`$ cannot distinguish between the Conformal Cosmology an the Standard Cosmology due to the relations

$$\frac{m(z)}{T(0)}=\frac{m(0)}{(1+z)T(0)}=\frac{m(0)}{T(z)}.$$

This formula makes transparent that in this order of approximation a $`z`$-history of masses with invariant temperatures in the rigid state of Conformal Cosmology is equivalent to a $`z`$-history of temperatures with invariant masses in the radiation stage of the Standard Cosmology. We expect therefore that the Conformal Cosmology allows us to keep the scenarios developed in the Standard Cosmology in the radiation stage for, e.g. the neutron-proton ratio and primordial element abundances.

Recall that the theoretical foundation of the radiation stage in the Standard Cosmology became problematic in the light of the new Supernova data on the present-day accelerating evolution of the universe at the dominance of the inflation stage. In this situation it is difficult to explain in the Standard Cosmology the status of the radiation stage that follows the primordial inflation stage and is followed by a short matter era which in turn is terminated by the present-day inflation stage. On the other hand, in the Conformal Cosmology a unique permanent rigid state can explain the primordial creation of matter from the vacuum, the primordial element abundances, and the recent acceleration witnessed by distant type Ia supernovae .

An important new feature of the Conformal Cosmology relative to the Standard one is the absence of the Planck era, since the Planck mass is not a fundamental parameter but only the present-day value of the dilaton field .

## 7. Conclusion

We have considered a unified theory of all interactions in a space-time with the Weyl relative standard of measurement. The laws of nature, i.e. the equations of motion, in this theory are conformal invariant and do not contain any dimensional parameter, whereas the initial data violate the conformal symmetry. We have shown that this unified theory leads to a conformal version of the Standard Cosmology which is free of those problems related to the expansion of the universe. In the Conformal Cosmology, instead of a z-history of the temperature we have obtained a z-history of masses at constant temperature where the number of created particles is determined by the initial data of the universe.

We have shown that the conformal symmetry, the reparametrization-invariant perturbation theory and the mass-singularity of the lomgitudinal components of vector bosons lead to the effect of an intensive creation of these bosons with the temperature $`(m_W^2H_0)^{1/3}2.73\mathrm{K}`$ and a density which resembles physical properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation. We have derived a similar enhancement of particle creation in the case of the Higgs field, but we do not consider this case in detail because its existence is not experimentally proven yet.

According to the scenario outlined in this work, the primordial boson radiation is created during a conformal time interval of $`2\times 10^{12}\mathrm{sec}`$ and subsequent annihilation and decay has formed all the matter in the universe.

The further z-history of the conformal universe repeats that of the Friedmann universe, with a remarkable difference : instead of the z-dependence of the temperature in an expanding universe with constant masses (Standard Cosmology), we have a z-history of masses in a static universe with almost constant temperature of the photon background in Conformal Cosmology.

The Conformal Cosmology provides definite solutions to the problems of Standard Cosmology. The Minkowski flat space has no horizon problem. The problems of the Planck age also do not exist as the Planck mass is not a fundamental parameter of the theory but only the ordinary present-day value of the dilaton field.

In the present paper we have added to this appealing concept of Conformal Cosmology a physical mechanism explaining the origin of the matter content of the universe by pair creation of longitudinal vector bosons from the dilaton field which, in particular, gives a surprisingly good estimate for the temperature of the CMB radiation.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to A.V. Efremov, V.P. Karasev, V.V. Kornyak, and E.A. Kuraev for fruitful discussions. DP, SV, and AG thank RFBR (grant 00-02-81023 Bel 2000$`\mathrm{\_}a`$) for support.

## Appendix A

The Bogoliubov equations for the Higgs field $`(\chi )`$ and vector bosons ($`v`$) in terms of dimensionless variables and parameters (70)-(72) take the form

$$\left[\frac{\gamma _v}{2}\sqrt{(1+\tau )y_\chi ^2+x^2}+\frac{d}{d\tau }\theta _\chi \right]\mathrm{tanh}(2r_\chi )=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{(1+\tau )y_\chi ^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\left[(1+\tau )y_\chi ^2+x^2\right]}\right]\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _\chi ),$$

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }r_\chi =\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{(1+\tau )y_\chi ^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\left[(1+\tau )y_\chi ^2+x^2\right]}\right]\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _\chi ),$$

$$\left[\frac{\gamma _v}{2}\sqrt{(1+\tau )+x^2}\frac{d}{d\tau }\theta _v^{||}\right]\mathrm{tanh}(2r_v^{||})=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{(1+\tau )}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\left[(1+\tau )+x^2\right]}\right]\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _v^{||}),$$

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }r_v^{||}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{(1+\tau )}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\left[(1+\tau )+x^2\right]}\right]\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _v^{||}),$$

$$\left[\frac{\gamma _v}{2}\sqrt{(1+\tau )+x^2}\frac{d}{d\tau }\theta _v^{}\right]\mathrm{tanh}(2r_v^{})=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{1}{(1+\tau )+x^2}\right]\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _v^{}),$$

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }r_v^{}=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{1}{(1+\tau )+x^2}\right]\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _v^{}),$$

where $`y_\chi ^2`$ is defined as

$$y_\chi ^2=4\lambda \frac{y_h^2}{y_v^2}.$$

The creation of t-quarks with the mass

$$m_t=\frac{y_v}{y_s}m_W:=\gamma _sm_W(\gamma _s2),$$

is described by $`r_t,\theta _t`$ with the equations

$$\left[\frac{\gamma _v}{2}\sqrt{\gamma _s^2(1+\tau )+x^2}\frac{d}{d\tau }\theta _t\right]\mathrm{sin}(2r_t)=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{1}{(1+\tau )+x^2/\gamma _s^2}\right]\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _t)\mathrm{cos}(2r_t),$$

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }r_t=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{1}{(1+\tau )+x^2/\gamma _s^2}\right]\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _t),$$

and the density

$$\frac{<n_t(\eta _L)>}{T^3}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{A}^{1/2}\gamma _v}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑xx^2_t(x)\mathrm{sin}^2r_t(\tau _L),$$

where

$$_t(x)=\left[\mathrm{exp}\left\{\gamma _T(\sqrt{\gamma _s^2(1+\tau _L)+x^2}\sqrt{\gamma _s^2(1+\tau _L)})\right\}+1\right]^1.$$