text:
# Quantum Superarrivals

## Abstract

A curious effect is uncovered by calculating the time evolving probability of reflection of a Gaussian wave packet from a rectangular potential barrier while it is perturbed by reducing its height. A time interval is found during which this probability of reflection is larger (“superarrivals”) than in the unperturbed case. This nonclassical effect can be explained by requiring a wave function to act as a “field” through which an action, induced by the perturbation of the boundary condition, propagates at a speed depending upon the rate of reducing the barrier height.

PACS number(s): 03.65.Bz

In recent years a number of interesting investigations have been reported on the wave-packet dynamics. Here we study it from a hitherto unexplored perspective. The reflection/transmission probabilities for the scattering of wave packets by various obstacles are usually considered from static or unperturbed potential barriers. Generally, the time-independent (asymptotic) values attained after a complete time evolution are calculated. Here an interesting effect is pointed out that occurs during the time evolution. For this we consider the dynamics of a wave packet scattered from a barrier while its height is reduced to zero before the asymptotic value of reflection probability is reached.

For an unperturbed barrier, the reflection probability for an initially localized wave packet $`\psi \left(x,t=0\right)`$ is calculated by considering the wave packet as a superposition of plane waves and by writing

$$\left|R_0\right|^2=\left|\varphi \left(p\right)\right|^2\left|R\left(p\right)\right|^2𝑑p$$
(1)
where $`\left|R\left(p\right)\right|^2`$ is the reflection probability corresponding to the plane wave component $`exp(ipx)`$ and $`\varphi (p)`$ is the Fourier transform of an initial wave packet $`\psi (x,t=0)`$. Since a wave packet evolves in time, $`\left|R_0\right|^2`$ defined by Eq. (1) denotes the time-independent value of reflection probability pertaining to a wave packet, which is attained in the asymptotic limit ($`t_{\mathrm{}}`$) of the time evolution. Thus $`|R_0|^2`$ can be expressed in the following form

$$\left|R_0\right|^2=_{\mathrm{}}^x\left|\psi (x,t_{\mathrm{}})\right|^2𝑑x$$
(2)
where $`\psi (x,t_{\mathrm{}})`$ is an asymtotic form of the wave packet attained by evolving from $`\psi (x,t=0)`$ and by being scattered from a rectangular potential barrier of finite height and width. Note that $`x`$ lies at the left of the initial profile of the wave packet such that $`_{\mathrm{}}^x\left|\psi \left(x,t=0\right)\right|^2𝑑x`$ is negligible. Equivalence between the expressions (1) and (2) in the limit of large $`t`$ (compared to the time taken by the packet to get reflected from the barrier) has been checked numerically. At any instant before the constant value $`\left|R_0\right|^2`$ is attained, the time evolving reflection probability in the region $`\mathrm{}<xx`$ is thus given by

$$\left|R(t)\right|^2=_{\mathrm{}}^x\left|\psi (x,t)\right|^2𝑑x$$
(3)
Now, suppose that during the time evolution of this wave packet, the barrier is perturbed by reducing its height to zero within a very short interval of time that is small compared to the time taken by the reflection probability to attain its asymptotic value $`\left|R_0\right|^2`$. We compute the effects of this “sudden” perturbation on $`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$. The salient features are as follows: (a) A finite time interval is found during which $`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$ shows an enhancement ( “superarrivals”) in the perturbed case even though the barrier height is reduced. This time interval and the amount of enhancement depend on the rate at which the barrier height is made zero. (b) We show that the phenomenon of superarrivals is inherently quantum mechanical by demonstrating that superarrivals disappear in the classical treatment of the problem. (c) The origin of superarrivals may be understood by considering the wave function to act as a “field” through which a disturbance from the “kick” provided by perturbing the barrier travels with a definite speed.

In order to demonstrate the above features we begin by writing the initial wave packet (in the units of $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`m=1/2`$)

$$\psi \left(x,t=0\right)=\frac{1}{\left[2\pi \left(\sigma _0\right)^2\right]^{1/4}}exp\left[\frac{\left(xx_0\right)^2}{4\sigma _0^2}+ip_0x\right]$$
(4)
which describes a packet of width $`\sigma _0`$ centered around $`x=x_0`$ with its peak moving with a group velocity $`v_g=2p_0=\frac{p}{m}`$ towards a rectangular potential barrier. The point $`x_0`$ is chosen such that $`\psi \left(x,t=0\right)`$ has a negligible overlap with the barrier. For computing $`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$ given by Eq. (3) the time dependent Schrodinger equation is solved by using the numerical methods developed by Goldberg, Schey and Schwartz. In such a treatment the parameters are chosen in order to ensure that the spreading of a packet is negligible. Here we choose $`x_0=0.3`$, $`\sigma _0=0.05/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`p_0=50\pi `$. The barrier is centered around $`x_c=0`$ with a width taken to be 0.016. For such a width, height of the barrier (V) before perturbation is chosen to be $`V=2E`$, where $`E`$ is the expectation value of the energy of the wave packet given by $`p_0^2+\frac{1}{4}\sigma _0^2`$. This choice ensures that: (1) The reflection probability is close to $`1`$ since we are interested only in the reflection probability. (2) At the same time $`V`$ is not too large . This ensures that the reduction of the barrier height is not too fast.

$`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$ is computed according to Eq. (3) by taking various values of $`x^{}`$ satisfying the condition $`x^{}=x_03\sigma _0/\sqrt{2}`$. The computed evolution of $`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$ corresponds to the building up of reflected particles with time. More precisely, it means that a detector located within the region $`\mathrm{}<x<x^{}`$ measures $`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$ by registering the reflected particles arriving in that region up to various instants. First, we compute $`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$ for the wave packet scattered from a static barrier $`V=2E`$. The relevant curve is shown in Figure 1 which tends towards a time-independent value which is the stationary state reflection probability $`\left|R_0\right|^2`$ given by Eq.(1), or equivalently by Eq.(2). Next, we proceed to study the consequence of reducing the barrier height from $`V=2E`$ to $`V=0`$. The time evolution of $`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$ in this case is studied by varying the ways in which the barrier height is reduced.

In the specific cases studied, the potential $`V`$ goes to zero linearly within a switching off time $`ϵ`$ starting at time $`t=t_p`$ chosen to be $`8\times 10^4`$ (note that numbers denoting the various instants are in terms of time steps; for example, $`t=8\times 10^4`$ corresponds to 400 time steps). Here $`ϵt_0`$, $`t_0`$ being the time required for $`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$ to attain the asymptotic value $`\left|R_0\right|^2`$. The short time span $`ϵ`$ over which the perturbation takes place is given by $`[t_p,t_p+ϵ]`$. $`t_p`$ is chosen such that at that instant the overlap of the wave packet with the barrier is significant. Figure 1 shows the evolution of $`\left|R(t)\right|^2`$ for various values of $`ϵ`$. Varying $`ϵ`$ signifies changing the time span over which the barrier height goes to zero which in turn means different rates of reduction. Figure 1 reveals that

$$\left|R_p(t)\right|^2=\left|R_s(t)\right|^2tt_d$$
(5)
$$\left|R_p(t)\right|^2>\left|R_s(t)\right|^2t_d<tt_c$$
(6)
$$\left|R_p(t)\right|^2<\left|R_s(t)\right|^2t>t_c$$
(7)
where $`t_c`$ is the instant when the two curves cross each other, and $`t_d`$ is the time from which the curve corresponding to the perturbed case starts deviating from that in the unperturbed case. Here $`t_c>t_d>t_p`$.

As the barrier height is made zero, one does not expect at any time an increase in the reflected particle flux compared to that in the unperturbed case. Nevertheless, the inequality (6) shows that there is a finite time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }tt_ct_d`$ during which the probability of finding reflected particles is more (superarrivals) in the perturbed case than when the barrier is left unperturbed (see Figure 1). A detector placed in the region $`x<x^{}`$ would therefore register more counts during this time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ even though the barrier height had been reduced to zero prior to that. This effect is essentially quantum mechanical. In order to explicitly show this, we consider an initial distribution of particles given by the spreads in both position and momentum corresponding to a Gaussian wave packet. Such particles are now assumed to obey the classical equation of motion. We solve numerically the Liouville equation in this same time-varying situation in order to obtain the time-dependent number density of particles at the detector. Our results are plotted in Figure 2 where we show that there are no superarrivals for three different values of $`ϵ`$.

In order to have a quantitative measure of superarrivals we define the parameter $`\eta `$ given by

$$\eta =\frac{I_pI_s}{I_s}$$
(8)
where the quantities $`I_p`$ and $`I_s`$ are defined with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ during which superarrivals occur

$$I_p=_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\left|R_p(t)\right|^2𝑑t$$
(9)
$$I_s=_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\left|R_s(t)\right|^2𝑑t$$
(10)
We plot the variation of $`\eta `$ with respect to $`ϵ`$ for three different detector positions in Figure 3. The effect of reducing the barrier width on the magnitude of superarrivals is shown in figure 4.

The results obtained from Figures 1–4 can be summarized as follows: (a) There exists a finite time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ during which an increase in the reflection probability (superarrivals) occurs for the perturbed cases compared to the unperturbed situation. (b) Superarrivals are inherently nonclassical. (c) The magnitude of superarrivals $`\eta `$ is appreciable only in cases where the wave packet has some significant overlap with the barrier during its switching off. Both $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (duration of superarrivals) fall off with increasing $`ϵ`$. (d) Superarrivals given by $`\eta `$ gradually reduce to zero upon decreasing the barrier width, while keeping the initial barrier height $`B`$ fixed. (e) Superarrivals persist, as we have checked, even if the detector is placed at a distance $`x^{}`$ greater than $`8\sigma `$ to the left of the initial position of the centre of the wave packet $`x_0`$.

Next, we consider the question as to how fast the influence of barrier perturbation travels across the wave packet (signal velocity $`v_e`$). Note that even in a classical theory the information content of a wave packet does not always propagate with the group velocity $`v_g`$ of a wave packet which is usually identified with the velocity of the peak of a wave packet. Profiles of the quantum wave packet are plotted at various instants in Figure 5. An incident packet gets distorted upon hitting the time-varying barrier. It splits into two pieces, one of which moves towards the right (transmitted particles). The reflected packet has a secondary peak shifted towards the left. It is thus not possible to uniquely define a group velocity $`v_g`$ for the reflected packet in this case.

The action due to a local perturbation (reduction of barrier height) propagates across the wave packet with a signal velocity $`v_e`$ which affects the time evolving reflection probability that can be measured at different points. Thus a distant observer who records the growth of reflection probability becomes aware of the perturbation of the barrier (occuring from an instant $`t_p`$) at the instant $`t_d`$ when the time varying reflection probability starts deviating from that in the unperturbed case. Then $`v_e`$ is given by

$$v_e=\frac{D}{t_dt_p}$$
(11)
We compute $`v_e`$ and $`v_g<p>/m`$ for a range of parameters and plot $`v_e/v_g`$ versus $`ϵ`$ in Figure 6. Both $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (the duration of superarrivals) and $`v_e`$ (the signal velocity) decrease with increasing $`ϵ`$ (or, decreasing rate of perturbation). The magnitude of superarrivals ($`\eta `$) also decreases with increasing $`ϵ`$ (Figure 3). From such behaviours of $`\eta `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`v_e`$ we infer the following explanation for the origin of superarrivals. The barrier perturbation imparts a “kick” on the impinging wave packet which spits, and a part of it is reflected with a distortion. A finite disturbance proportional to this “kick” or the rate of perturbation propagates from the reducing barrier to the reflected packet, which results in a proportional magnitude of superarrivals $`\eta `$. Note that information about the barrier perturbation reaches the detector at the instant $`t_d`$ with a velocity $`v_e`$ which decreases with the decreasing magnitude of impulse imparted to a wave packet. These results therefore suggest that information about the barrier perturbation propagates with a definite speed across the wave function which plays the role of a “field”.

To sum up, superarrivals stem essentially from the objective reality of a wave function acting as a “field” which mediates the propagation of a physical disturbance induced by the barrier perturbation. This disturbance propagates with a speed that varies according to the rate at which the barrier is perturbed. Thus the phenomenon of superarrivals has a distinct quantum mechanical significance. Its ramifications call for further studies. In particular, different types of perturbations may be studied to probe the viability of single particle experiments for demonstrating this effect.

D. H. acknowledges helpful discussions with Shyamal Sengupta and Brian Pippard. The support provided by the Dept. of Science and Technology, Govt. of India is also acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are many oft-stated reasons for believing that the standard model of elementary particles is incomplete. One is the large number of “fundamental” parameters, of order 20, for the “old” standard model. And this number increases to about 30 for the “new” standard model, which includes parameters describing neutrino masses and mixings. Either way, one expects the future, better theory to contain fewer parameters, implying that there should exist relationships between the existing standard-model parameters. The search for possible relationships is the topic of this note.

It is most likely that such relationships are very complicated and indirect. Therefore the attempt to find them with the information at hand can and should be viewed with deep suspicion and skepticism. But if there is a nonvanishing chance, however small, that simple, discoverable relationships do exist, then it would seem that there is little to lose by supposing that this is the case and engaging in the pursuit. It is this attitude, with eyes wide open, that we adopt here.

Existence of such relationships will be most likely if the amount of “new physics” between accessible energies, at and below the electroweak scale, and ultrahigh energies, at or beyond the grand-unification (GUT) or Planck scale, is minimized . Therefore an implicit assumption taken here is that new physics at energies between electroweak and GUT scales is absent or of minimal importance. This in turn implies that the “hierarchy problem”, i.e. why the quadratically divergent Higgs-boson mass is so small, is resolved at a level deeper than supersymmetry at the electroweak scale, perhaps at the same level as for the resolution of the “cosmological constant problem”. We shall return to this point in Section 6.

Existence of simple relationships between standard model parameters may also imply that the dynamics of the future theory is relatively simple. Otherwise, why should any such simple relationship exist? This is an additional stimulant for attempting the search.

Our considerations will proceed in three stages. The starting point will be a review of the standard model parameters and of the “gaugeless limit”, which expresses in a way the conventional wisdom on how the standard model is constructed. We then discuss an intermediate version which relates parameters in the gauge sector to those in the Higgs sector. Our final, most speculative step is to relate them all to parameters in the gravitational sector.

## 2 Standard Model Parameters

The standard model parameters include the three gauge coupling constants, which we here assume evolve from a common source at the GUT scale characterized by a GUT fine-structure constant $`\alpha _{\mathrm{gut}}1/40`$ or so. Many of the remaining parameters lie in the Higgs sector. The two most important are the strength $`v`$ of the Higgs condensate (the $`vev`$) and the strength $`\lambda `$ of the elastic scattering amplitude of the Higgs boson with itself. In addition there are many Yukawa coupling constants $`h_i`$ of the Higgs fields to quarks and leptons, responsible for their masses and mixings, including CP violating effects. By far the largest of these couplings is that of the Higgs boson to the top quark, which we simply denote by $`h`$. In this note we lack the sophistication to consider the myriad of smaller couplings, and will effectively set them to zero.

We shall keep both parameters from the gravitational sector. The scale of the Planck mass $`M`$, which determines Newton’s constant, will be considered equivalent to the GUT, grand-unification scale, because again we will lack the sophistication to distinguish them. However we shall not neglect the cosmological-constant scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu ^4`$, with $`\mu 30cm^17\times 10^4eV`$.

Finally, we shall have nothing to say about the parameter $`\theta `$, which controls CP violation in the strong-interaction QCD sector, and will set it to zero.

## 3 The Gaugeless Limit

At electroweak energy scales and above, all gauge couplings are small, and it is a reasonable approximation, both for phenomenological and conceptual purposes, to set them to zero, most efficiently by letting $`\alpha _{\mathrm{gut}}0`$. The dynamics left behind is that of the Higgs sector, which is brutally exposed in all of its intrinsic ugliness. The intermediate bosons become massless, allowing rapid decay cascades of all quarks to the up quark. All leptons, including the electron, decay to neutrinos via (longitudinal) $`W`$ emission. The longitudinal $`W`$’s remain coupled in the gaugeless limit, emerging as the massless Goldstone modes associated with spontaneous symmetry breaking .

This gaugeless limit quite accurately expresses (in reverse) the textbook picture of how the standard-model electroweak dynamics works: first the Higgs mechanism in isolation is constructed; then the effect of the gauge interactions is included. But it is possible that this two-step approach is in the long run better viewed as a linked, single step. Something like this is expressed in the “second gaugeless limit”, to which we now turn.

## 4 The Second Gaugeless Limit

If standard-model parameters are linked, it should be the case that if $`\alpha _{\mathrm{gut}}`$ is set to zero, other standard-model parameters are changed. In searching for simple ways this might occur, we shall ask that the limiting theory is not pathological.

An example of one such limit can be obtained by starting with the assumption (true in supersymmetric theories, and in some sense in Coleman-Weinberg scenarios of radiatively induced symmetry breaking) that the quartic Higgs coupling $`\lambda `$ is proportional to $`g^2`$, or $`\alpha _{\mathrm{gut}}`$:

$$\lambda g^2\alpha _{\mathrm{gut}}.$$
(1)
Then in order for the Higgs mass $`\mu ^2\lambda v^2`$ to remain finite, we must have

$$v^2g^2\alpha _{\mathrm{gut}}^1.$$
(2)
If one demands that fermion masses remain finite and nonvanishing, then the Yukawa couplings $`h`$ must be proportional to the gauge couplings $`g`$:

$$h^2g^2\alpha _{\mathrm{gut}}.$$
(3)
Evidently, the gauge boson masses

$$m_{W,Z}^2g^2v^2$$
(4)
also remain finite and nonvanishing.

The net result in this “second gaugeless limit” is a noninteracting theory of massive quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, and Higgs bosons. Conceptually, it is a radical departure from the conventional picture, if only because the Higgs Yukawa coupling constants are proportional to gauge couplings. How does this occur? Is it through symmetries, or dynamics, or geometry, or some combination? Examples of this kind of behavior do exist in the literature, in terms of attempts to relate the couplings through an assumed cancelation of divergent radiative corrections between gauge and Higgs sectors .

It is especially interesting that in this second gaugeless limit the dependence of the standard model Lagrangian density on the coupling constants $`gh`$ is extremely simple. After appropriate field redefinitions, the residual dependence is an overall multiplicative factor $`1/g^2`$ in front of the bosonic Lagrangian, with no dependence at all within the fermionic sector (in the limit of only the top quark possessing mass). To see this, one simply rescales the gauge potentials $`A`$ in the familiar way, and does the same with the Higgs fields $`\varphi `$ as well

$$gAA$$
(5)
$$g\varphi \varphi .$$
(6)
If one wishes, one may also rescale the fermion fields in the same way,

$$\psi g^1\psi $$
(7)
in which case the $`g`$-dependence of the entire Lagrangian density is simply an overall coefficient $`g^2`$.

## 5 A Third Gaugeless Limit

We now go still further and look for connections between the gauge/Higgs parameters and the gravitational sector. Our starting point is within the gauge sector, and can be motivated by the hypothesis that gauge bosons originate at the GUT scale as composites of other degrees of freedom. In more familiar contexts, this is expressed as a compositeness condition ,

$$Z_3=\frac{g}{g_0}0,$$
(8)
where the limit $`g_0\mathrm{}`$ implies compositeness: the probability $`Z_3`$ of finding a bare boson within the physical boson becomes zero in the limit.

The observed coupling $`g`$ is typically related to $`g_0`$ as follows

$$\frac{1}{g^2}=\frac{1}{g_0^2}+c\mathrm{log}c\mathrm{log},$$
(9)
where the logarithm is typically an integral over contributions from the boson’s constituents. We now adopt the same structure, but using gravitational parameters as arguments of the logarithm:

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _{\mathrm{gut}}}=\frac{4\pi }{g^2}\frac{c_g}{4\pi }\mathrm{}n\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}.$$
(10)
If the coefficient $`c_g`$ of the logarithm is chosen to be three, there is good numerical agreement. But no claim of a “derivation” of that coefficient, however, is implied, nor indeed of the functional form.

Once the gauge couplings are expressed in such a way, it becomes reasonable to assume that the Higgs couplings are also expressed in a similar way

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\lambda }}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_\lambda }{4\pi }}\mathrm{}n{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{h^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_h}{4\pi }}\mathrm{}n{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}}.`$ (11)
Only the Higgs $`vev`$ remains to be estimated. Given the dependence of the other couplings upon the gravitational parameters, a natural choice is the rather well-known relation

$$v^2M\mu $$
(12)
or, if one wishes

$$v^2M\mu \mathrm{}n\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}.$$
(13)
In this variant, the “second gaugeless limit”, is attained in the limit

$`M`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}`$
$`\mu `$ $``$ $`0`$ (14)
$`0`$ $`<`$ $`M\mu <\mathrm{}.`$ (15)
If one chooses to omit the logarithm in Eq. (13), then one obtains in the limit a noninteracting theory of massless quarks, leptons, Higgs bosons, and gauge bosons. Clearly both the massless and massive options should be considered.

Numerically, one has for the value of the $`v^2`$

$$v^26\times 10^4\mathrm{GeV}^2.$$
(16)
If one uses the Planck scale for $`M`$ in Eq. (12), we obtain

$$M\mu 10^7\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(17)
which is a little too large. On the other hand, if the GUT scale of, say, $`3\times 10^{15}`$ GeV is used in Eq. (13), then

$$M\mu 10^310^4\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(18)
which is a little too small. Inclusion of unknown coefficients and/or the logarithm can in principle provide the needed numerical agreement. More important than that is to find even a hint of such behavior from an underlying theory.

The above speculations can be expressed in differential form, in terms of Gell-Mann-Low equations . Our basic premise is that the GUT scale gauge and Higgs couplings are sensitive to the value of the cosmological constant. This sensitivity is to be expressed in terms of familiar-looking equations

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{dg^2}{d\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _gg^4+\mathrm{}`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{dh^2}{d\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _hh^4+\mathrm{}`$ (19)
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{d\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _\lambda \lambda ^2+\mathrm{}.`$
While these look like the usual renormalization-group equations, they are not. They express the dependence of the usual running coupling constants, evaluated at the GUT scale, upon the value of the cosmological constant. While the general form of the dependence has been assumed to be the same, these “cosmological $`\beta `$-functions” differ in detail; in particular the sign is changed for the gauge couplings but not for the Higgs couplings.

We may also write a Gell-Mann-Low equation for the Higgs $`vev`$. Without the logarithm we have

$$\mu \frac{dv^2}{d\mu }=v^2+\mathrm{}$$
(20)
and with the logarithm

$$\mu \frac{dv^2}{d\mu }=v^2(1\beta _gg^2)+\mathrm{}.$$
(21)
No matter which way this idea is expressed, the main question is whether such a dependence of standard model parameters on the cosmological constant is credible. In its favor are the rough numerical agreements, which we at least regard as unforced. Also perhaps in favor of this scenario is the feature that the dynamics becomes trivial, including the vanishing of the $`vev`$, in the limit of vanishing of the cosmological constant. This is an avenue for at least reducing the electroweak hierarchy problem to that of understanding the nature of the cosmological constant. And it clearly demands that the role of the cosmological constant in the future theory be a central one.

## 6 A Possible Connection to Cosmology

Recently there has been a line of argument  which utilizes analogies of the standard model vacuum and its excitations with that of quantum liquids, in particular with 3He-A. In this visualization, it is rather natural to expect a nearly vanishing vacuum pressure, characteristic of an infinite liquid in equilibrium at zero temperature. It is not much of a stretch to thereby obtain a vanishing vacuum energy (cosmological constant) as well in that limit. If the liquid has a boundary, to be identified with an event horizon, then there will be corrections, leading to a nonvanishing but small cosmological constant. A rather concrete example of this general idea has been provided by the picture of a black hole recently put forth by Chapline et al. They assume that a phase transition occurs on the horizon between the conventional exterior Schwarzschild black-hole spacetime and an unconventional interior black-hole spacetime, taken to be static de Sitter space. This interior space possesses a cosmological constant, which scales as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu ^4R^2$$
(22)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the black hole. With the coupling constant relations obtained in the previous section, this would imply that the standard model parameters within the black hole differ from those outside, in such a way that for infinite radius the gauge couplings and particle masses vanish. In the opposite limit of a Planck-radius black hole, the gauge couplings become strong and the particle masses approach the Planck scale. If our universe contains a similar de Sitter horizon , then the standard model parameters will scale in a similar way. In particular, because of the above behavior of the cosmological constant, the electroweak vacuum energy $`v^4`$ will scale as

$$v^4M^2\mu ^2M^3R^1.$$
(23)
There will have to be a close connection between cosmology in the large, in particular horizon structure, and the existence and nature of the Higgs condensate . This is reinforcement for the arguments regarding the electroweak hierarchy problem made in the introductory section of this note.

## 7 Concluding Comments

These ideas are of course extremely speculative. Their value is in proportion to what further, if anything, can be done with them. We do find encouragement in the numerics, and in the simplicity and cogency of the relations which have been presented, especially with respect to the Gell-Mann-Low equations for the couplings. In the case of the renormalization group equations of the standard model, the coefficients are simple and calculable by essentially perturbative techniques. Perhaps there is an analogously simple scheme (but radically different in its physics!!) to be found. And the fact that the logarithmic factors, $`\mathrm{log}M^2/\mu ^2`$, associated with gauge and Higgs couplings only appear as a multiplier of the entire standard-model Lagrangian density might indicate that they are some kind of extra-dimensional phase volume. However, implementation of this idea in more concrete terms is beyond the scope of this note.

## 8 Acknowledgments

I thank my colleagues at SLAC and Stanford University for useful criticisms, and especially acknowledge most useful discussions with S. Brodsky, H. Davoudiasl, C. Taylor, G. Chapline, S. Dimopoulos, and R. Laughlin.