text:
# Confinement, Chiral Symmetry Breaking, and Axial Anomaly from Domain Formation at Intermediate Resolution

## 1 Introduction

The question of how confinement happens in Quantumchromodynamics (QCD)  is an old one. An appealing proposal due to ’t Hooft and Mandelstam  is the dual superconductor picture of the QCD vacuum. In this scenario the formation and subsequent condensation of Abelian magnetic monopole degrees of freedom at low resolution leads to a linearly confining potential between heavy color charges for distances larger than the resolution. Unfortunately, in QCD there are nor fundamental monopoles neither are there classical solutions of finite action exhibiting long-lived magnetic monopoles . A possibility of defining magnetic monopoles by the point-like singularities of a (partial) Abelian gauge fixing  renders the monopoles to be gauge variant objects. On the other hand, lattice simulations working in Abelian gauges and subsequent projection onto Abelian fields reproduce the bulk of the tension $`\sigma `$ of the confining string between static color charges. Moreover, within Abelian projection it is claimed that the generation of the string tension is mostly due to the monopole dynamics. The purpose of this work is to develop a framework in which ad hoc Abelian projection is not needed to explain the low energy features of QCD. Rather, it will turn out to be a consequence of the dynamics of suitable vacuum fields. Thereby, the old idea of a dynamical origin of Higgs fields in pure gauge theories , general renormalization group arguments, and the recently advocated expressibility of Abelian gauge fixed pure lattice QCD in terms of an adjoint Higgs model  serve as motivations. To define a chiral field and an adjoint scalar (hencefore referred to as Higgs field), which are relevant for the vacuum dynamics at intermediate resolution, we appeal to Polyakov’s loop-space approach to gluodynamics . Both fields are defined in a nonlocal way as functional integrals over (degenerate) loops with a common base point $`x`$. The extension of these loops is determined by their invisibility at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, that is, the locality of the so-defined fields. The resulting field possesses zero curvature. In order to find the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ at which classical Higgs-field configurations become relevant in the vacuum one can make contact with the gauge invariant field strength correlator . This quantity has been measured in full QCD and SU(3) gluodynamics on a lattice . The formation of magnetic monopoles, and hence the onset of chiral symmetry breaking  and the axial U(1) anomaly, are argued to be a consequence of the randomness of Higgs condensation at this scale. Condensation of monopoles is observed with probes of momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c<\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. It follows from the ignorance of translational symmetry breaking in relevant, classical configurations at higher resolution and the fact that vacuum fields viewed at any resolution have to have a small action. Monopoles then are reduced to their cores, and hence they become massless. As already stated by Polyakov , the process of monopole condensation (and hence the confinement of color charge) goes together with the restoration of the apparently broken gauge symmetry.

The paper is set up as follows: In the next section nonlocal definitions of vacuum describing fields in terms of fundamental field strength are made. Thereby, the fundamental fields live on (degenerate) loops of common base point $`x`$ which are required to be invisible at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. Because of its chiral definition the connection on the loop has vanishing curvature at this resolution. The definition of the Higgs field is in analogy to that of the chiral field. Section 3 establishes the connection between Higgs VEV and the gauge invariant field strength correlator . From this and the use of lattice results the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is evaluated numerically. The largeness of this scale as compared to the perturbatively determined mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ of the theory may influence the theoretical side of QCD sum rules  (vacuum average of operator product expansion (OPE)). In Section 4 it is argued for pure SU(2) gluodynamics (for simplicity) that the random condensation of the Higgs field implies the formation of (topologically unstable) domain boundaries of positive energy density. This, in turn, means that the energy density within the domains must be negative to maintain vanishing action. Regions, where three or more domains come together are of exceptionally high positive energy and therefore exceptionally high instability. From topological arguments we obtain magnetic (anti)monopoles at points where four or more domains meet. An immediate consequence of the presence of magnetic (anti)monopoles is the breaking of chiral symmetry and the proliferation of the axial U(1) anomaly at the (large) resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ when including dynamical quarks in the theory. The condensation of (anti)monopoles, as it is observed at lower resolution, follows from the fact that the Higgs condensate and the (anti)monopole gauge fields are weakly varying and the failure to resolve the domain walls. (Anti)monopole condensation is equivalent to the restoration of apparently broken gauge and translational symmetries and goes together with the formal masslessness of these objects. Section 5 summarizes the results and gives the conclusions.

## 2 Definition of vacuum fields

For the definition of low energy fields, which potentially describe the vacuum, we appeal in this section to Wilson’s ideas about the grain coarsing of spacetime  and to Polyakov’s approach to gauge field dynamics in terms of chiral fields . At resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ the partition function $`Z_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ of a theory, defined in terms of local fields $`\varphi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ and an action $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$, is the same as the partition function $`Z`$ at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, defined in terms of local fields $`\varphi `$ and the continuum action $`S`$

$$Z_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}=\underset{\varphi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(S_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}\right)=\underset{\varphi }{}\mathrm{exp}\left(S\right)=Z.$$
(2.1)
Fields $`\varphi _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ summed over in $`Z_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ fluctuate at length scales $`|xy|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1`$ and higher. In the case of gauge theories the classical continuum action has to be extended by a gauge fixing term and the corresponding Faddeev-Popov determinant. Due to (2.1) the definition of relevant fields at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ in terms of continuum fields involves some kind of averaging over (euclidean) volumes of size $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^4`$. Therefore, we expect this definition to be nonlocal. Since an analytical grain coarsing leading to $`S_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ is unfeasible some guess on the definition of the relevant fields must be made. Here, we use the ideas of ref.  about stringy objects in gauge theories to define local fields at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. The basic quantity is the (euclidean) Wilson loop $`W(C)`$ of contour $`C`$ with base point $`x`$

$$W(C)𝒫\mathrm{exp}[_C𝑑y_\mu A_\mu ],$$
(2.2)
where $`𝒫`$ demands path ordering, and the contour $`C`$ is parametrized by a dimensionless variable $`s`$ which may conveniently be chosen to measure the normalized length of the curve. Hence, we have

$$y_\mu (s=0)=y_\mu (s=1)=x_\mu .$$
(2.3)
Note that our fundamental gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is defined to be an anti-selfadjoint operator. It is obtained by multiplying the gauge field in perturbative definition by $`ig`$, where $`g`$ is the gauge coupling.

The anti-selfadjoint connection $`a_\mu (s,C)`$ on the loop $`C`$ is defined to be a chiral field:

$`a_\mu (s,C)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W(C)}{\delta y_\mu (s)}}W^1(C)`$ (2.4)
$`=`$ $`S(x,y(s))F_{\mu \nu }(y(s)){\displaystyle \frac{dy_\nu (s)}{ds}}S(y(s),x)`$ (2.5)
where $`W^1(C)`$ is the Wilson loop defined by (2.2) when running through the countour $`C`$ backwards, $`F_{\mu \nu }_\nu A_\mu _\mu A_\nu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$, and

$$S(x,y(s))𝒫\mathrm{exp}[_x^{y(s)}𝑑y_\mu A_\mu ].$$
(2.6)
Using the Yang-Mills equations, it was shown in  that $`a_\mu (s,C)`$ has vanishing curvature on the loop

$$\frac{\delta a_\mu (s,C)}{\delta y_\nu (s^{})}\frac{\delta a_\nu (s^{},C)}{\delta y_\mu (s)}+[a_\mu (s,C),a_\nu (s^{},C)]=0$$
(2.7)
for $`s^{}s`$. Furthermore, one has

$$\frac{\delta a_\mu (s,C)}{\delta y_\mu (s)}=0.$$
(2.8)
To implement grain coarsing we define on the operator level at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ a local, anti-selfadjoint field $`\alpha _\mu (x)`$ as follows:

$`\alpha _\mu (x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\begin{array}{c}y(0)=x\\ \text{max}|y(s)x|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1\end{array}}^{\begin{array}{c}y(1)=x\end{array}}}𝒟y{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑sa_\mu (s,C)`$ (2.12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\begin{array}{c}y(0)=x\\ \text{max}|y(s)x|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1\end{array}}^{\begin{array}{c}y(1)=x\end{array}}}𝒟y{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑sS(x,y(s))F_{\mu \nu }(y(s)){\displaystyle \frac{dy_\nu (s)}{ds}}S(y(s),x),`$ (2.16)
where a normalization factor, which gives $`\alpha _\mu `$ the canonical mass dimension 1, has been absorbed into the integration measure $`𝒟y(s)`$. So (2.12) defines a local field $`\alpha _\mu (x)`$ by integrating the chiral loop field $`a_\mu (s,C)`$ over all loops which do not leave a sphere of radius $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1`$ about the base point $`x`$. This is the implementation of the demand that the field $`\alpha _\mu `$ is local at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. Note that $`\alpha _\mu `$ transforms homogeneously under gauge transfromations of the fundamental field $`A_\mu `$.

In order to make contact with the lattice measurement of the gauge invariant field strength correlator  it will turn out later that we have to constrain the functional integration over all loops to an integration over (nearly) degenerate loops constituted by (nearly) straight lines connecting the base point $`x`$ with points on the sphere and vice versa. Evaluating the partition function at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, this seems to be reasonable as long as the relevant configurations***We do not notationally distinguish between operators and classical fields at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. $`\alpha _\mu `$ do not vary much over distances $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1`$. We will denote this constrained functional integration by a measure $`𝒟^{}y`$.

A properties similar to (2.7) belonging to the loop field $`a_\mu (s,C)`$ is inherited by the local field $`\alpha _\mu (x)`$ if only contributions from one and the same loop are considered in the commutator term. The analogue of (2.8) is always valid. This can be seen as follows: On the one hand, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{}_\nu \alpha _\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y(0)=x}^{y(1)=x}}𝒟^{}y{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta a_\mu (s,C)}{\delta y_\kappa (s^{})}}\stackrel{~}{}_{x_\nu }y_\kappa (s^{})`$ (2.17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y(0)=x}^{y(1)=x}}𝒟^{}y{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta a_\mu (s,C)}{\delta y_\kappa (s^{})}}\delta _{\kappa \nu }`$ (2.18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y(0)=x}^{y(1)=x}}𝒟^{}y{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta a_\mu (s,C)}{\delta y_\nu (s^{})}}.`$ (2.19)
On the other hand, disregarding cross terms from distinct lines (see Fig. 1) in the commutator $`[\alpha _\mu (x),\alpha _\nu (x)]`$, we have

$$[\alpha _\mu (x),\alpha _\nu (x)]=_{y(0)=x}^{y(1)=x}𝒟^{}y_0^1𝑑s_0^1𝑑s^{}[a_\mu (s,C),a_\nu (s^{},C)].$$
(2.20)
Hence, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{}_\nu \alpha _\mu (x)\stackrel{~}{}_\mu \alpha _\nu (x)+[\alpha _\mu (x),\alpha _\nu (x)]=0,\stackrel{~}{}_\mu \alpha _\mu (x)=0,$$
(2.21)
which shows that $`\alpha _\mu `$ is a vacuum field. Note the difference between the derivatives $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. The former operates on vanishing distances while the latter resolves only distances of the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1`$.

Having constructed at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ a field $`\alpha _\mu (x)`$, which is pure gauge, it is natural to ask what other field operators relevant for the vacuum description one can define in the above spirit. If there is a resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ from which on the vacuum drastically changes its appearance, this transition must be described by a scalar quantity $`\varphi `$. Moreover, imposing Abelian gauges, the potential reformulation of the YM action into a Georgi-Glashow model, as advertised in ref. , and an old consideration by Kleinert  suggest that this scalar field is an adjoint one. Mass dimension four is the lowest possible for the definition of a scalar in terms of field strength. So we defineWe have $`F_{\mu \nu }(y(s))\frac{dy_\mu (s)}{ds}\frac{dy_\nu (s)}{ds}=0=F_{\mu \mu }(y(s))`$. Thus a definition of $`\varphi `$ in terms of a single field strength tensor and only tangential vectors is impossible. On the other hand, a scalar construction involving a bilocal product of field strength does not necessitate the use of tangential vectors.

$`\varphi ^2(x)`$ $``$ $`\varphi ^a(x)\varphi ^b(x){\displaystyle \frac{t_a}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_b}{2}}`$ (2.22)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{y(0)=x}^{y(1)=x}}𝒟^{}y{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑sF_{\mu \nu }(x)S(x,y(s))F_{\mu \nu }(y(s))S(y(s),x),`$ (2.23)
where $`t_a`$ denote the generators of the gauge group in the fundamental representation (tr $`t_at_b=2\delta _{ab}`$), and a normalization factor, which gives $`\varphi `$ the canonical mass dimension 1, has been absorbed into the integration measure $`𝒟^{}y`$. Note that although already $`\varphi (x)`$ transforms homogeneously under gauge transformations of the fundamental fields, as does the r.h.s. of (2.22), it is necessary to have the square of $`\varphi `$ on the l.h.s. to avoid a contradiction when taking the color trace and the vacuum average on both sides of the equation. Definition (2.22) can be rewritten as

$$\varphi ^2(x)=\lambda (x)_{|zx|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1}d^4zF_{\mu \nu }(x)S(x,z)F_{\mu \nu }(z)S(z,x).$$
(2.24)
The scalar singlet factor $`\lambda (x)`$ is of mass dimension two. Taking the color trace and the vacuum average of the r.h.s. of (2.24), a genuine $`x`$ dependence of $`\lambda `$ signals the breaking of translational invariance at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ due to the so-defined classical field configuration $`\varphi ^a\varphi ^a`$. In Section 4 this will be argued to happen due to the random condensation of $`\varphi `$. Note that in the vacuum average of the r.h.s. of (2.24) only physical fluctuations of the fundamental fields which are of “hardness” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ contribute in an essential way to the spacetime integral. Only these fluctuations contribute sizably to the correlator at the respective distance $`|zx|`$. This is a realization of Wilson’s “integrating out higher scales”.

## 3 Evaluation of the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$

To estimate the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ we consider the gauge invariant quantity obtained by taking the trace and the vacuum average on both sides of (2.24). The result can be written as follows

$`\varphi ^a\varphi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`2\times \lambda (x){\displaystyle _{|zx|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1}}d^4z\text{tr}F_{\mu \nu }(x)S(x,z)F_{\mu \nu }(z)S(z,x)`$ (3.25)
$``$ $`2\times \lambda (x){\displaystyle _{|zx|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1}}d^4zF_{\mu \nu ,\mu \nu }(z^2)`$ (3.26)
$``$ $`2\times \lambda (x){\displaystyle _{|zx|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1}}d^4z\left\{12[D(w^2)+D_1(w^2)]+6w^2_{w^2}D_1(w^2)\right\},`$ (3.27)
where $`wzx`$. The last line is due to ref.  where the invariants $`D`$ and $`D_1`$ have been introduced in a parametrization of the gauge invariant field strength correlator $`F_{\mu \nu ,\mu \nu }(z^2)`$. Moreover, the same generators $`t^a/2`$ have been used on the l.h.s. and r.h.s. of (3.25).

Although there has been a very interesting analytical investigation of $`F_{\mu \nu ,\mu \nu }(z^2)`$ in terms of vacuum fields saturated by constrained instanton solutions  we appeal to direct lattice information in the present work. Measurements of $`D`$ and $`D_1`$ on a lattice with gauge group SU(3) and $`N_F=4`$ dynamical fermions of the common physical masses $`m_q18`$ MeV and $`m_q36`$ MeV at a lattice resolution of $`a0.11`$ fm have been performed in ref. . We will refer to these cases as (i) and and (ii), respectively. In refs.  $`D`$ and $`D_1`$ were measured for pure SU(3) gluodynamics. This case will be referred to as (iii). It should be mentioned at this point that dynamical quarks to a certain extend spoil the zero curvature property of the field $`\alpha _\mu (x)`$ in pure gluodynamics since the sourceless Yang-Mills equations have been used to derive (2.7).

The following functions were fitted:

$`D(w^2)`$ $`=`$ $`A_0\mathrm{exp}[|w|/\lambda _A]+{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{|w|^4}}\mathrm{exp}[|w|/\lambda _a],`$ (3.28)
$`D_1(w^2)`$ $`=`$ $`A_1\mathrm{exp}[|w|/\lambda _A]+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{|w|^4}}\mathrm{exp}[|w|/\lambda _a].`$ (3.29)
In terms of an operator product expansion (OPE) of the correlator $`F_{\mu \nu ,\mu \nu }`$ it is apparent that the terms in (3.28) containing $`|w|^4`$ are chiefly due to renormalon-free (that is unsummed) perturbative contributionsTo zeroth order in $`\alpha _s`$ one obtains $`D(w^2)=0`$ and $`D_1(w^2)=\frac{4g^2}{\pi ^2|w|^4}`$ .. Since the formation of composites is a genuinely nonperturbative feature and since the definition (3.25) would be ill if one carried along the power-law like behavior we restrict ourselves to the purely exponential decay of the correlator. It is an easy exercise to perform the $`z`$ integration in (3.25). The result is

$`{\displaystyle _{|zx|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1}}d^4zF_{\mu \nu ,\mu \nu }(z^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ^2\{12[A_1+A_0](6\lambda _A^4\lambda _A\mathrm{exp}[1/(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\lambda _A)](\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^3+3\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^2\lambda _A+6\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1\lambda _A^2+6\lambda _A^3))`$ (3.31)
$`3{\displaystyle \frac{A_1}{\lambda _A}}(24\lambda _A^5\lambda _A\mathrm{exp}[1/(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\lambda _A)](\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^4+4\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^3\lambda _A+12\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^2\lambda _A^2+24\lambda _A^4))\}.`$
To estimate the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ we demand

$$\varphi ^a\varphi ^a(x)\rho =2\times \lambda (x)_{|zx|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1}d^4zF_{\mu \nu ,\mu \nu },$$
(3.33)
where due to the translationally invariant integral in (3.33) $`\rho (x)`$ is proportional to $`\lambda (x)`$. The ambiguity of the local magnitude of $`\lambda (x)`$ in the definition (2.22) is then parametrized in terms of the dimensionless quantity $`\xi \frac{\rho }{\lambda }`$. By means of (3.33) we obtain the following implicit definition of the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(\xi )`$

$$f(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(\xi ))\xi 2\times _{|zx|\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1}d^4zF_{\mu \nu ,\mu \nu }=0.$$
(3.34)
To numerically evaluate this equation we take the central values from  and  for the parameters $`\lambda _A^1,A_1,A_0`$ which, when expressed in physical units, are

$`(i):\lambda _A^1=0.588\text{GeV},`$ $`A_0=2.367\times 10^2\text{GeV}^4`$ $`,A_1=2.72\times 10^3\text{GeV}^4;`$ (3.35)
$`(ii):\lambda _A^1=0.689\text{GeV},`$ $`A_0=4.966\times 10^2\text{GeV}^4`$ $`,A_1=6.49\times 10^3\text{GeV}^4;`$ (3.36)
$`(iii):\lambda _A^1=0.895\text{GeV},`$ $`A_0=1.957\times 10^1\text{GeV}^4`$ $`,A_1=4.1\times 10^2\text{GeV}^4.`$ (3.37)
The first observation is that for all cases (i)–(iii) the large range of $`\xi `$ values $`0.2\xi 5.0`$ there is a unique zero of $`f(\xi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. Second, the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(\xi )`$ varies rather slowly (see Fig. 2). For example, for (i) a factor 25 in $`\xi `$ implies a factor $``$ 3.1 in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. Apart from the arguments of Section 2, this seems to give additional support to the definition (3.25).

Naturally, the formation scale of a Higgs condensate roughly coincides with the value of this condensate. We will use this fact in Section 4 to argue that Abelian projection is dynamical for resolutions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. Resorting to $`\xi 1`$ §§§This corresponds to the demand that Higgs condensation is described by a single scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$., we have

$$(i):\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(\xi 1)2.4\text{GeV};(ii):\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(\xi 1)3.1\text{GeV};(iii):\mathrm{\Lambda }_b(\xi 1)4.2\text{GeV}.$$
(3.38)
The most realistic case (i) corresponds to a condensation scale which is much higher than perturbatively determined scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ which, depending on the number of active quark flavors and the renormalization scheme, range between 200–500 MeV. It is tempting to extrapolate to more realistic, that is, smaller quark masses. However, since $`N_F=4`$ and equal quark masses were assumed we feel that the uncertainty of such an extrapolation is too high for a conclusive statement. Hopefully, the results of more realistic lattice data simulations will soon become available. From (i) and (ii) in (3.38) it is clear that even at small quark mass $`m_q`$ the condensation scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ depends rather strongly on it.

If the condensation scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ in realistic QCD is higher than 1 GeV one would expect the standard operator product expansion (OPE) used in QCD sum rules  to be affected. At this scale one usually evaluates QCD sum rules . There, the power corrections to a gauge invariant current correlator, introduced via the vacuum average of the corresponding OPE, start at dimension four. This is a consequence of the perturbative calculation of Wilson coefficients. If there is a condensation of a Higgs field at the typical sum rule scale, as it is suggested by the above, the description of the non-perturbative QCD vacuum solely in terms of averages over local operators constructed from fundamental fields may not be sufficient since a composite scalar $`\varphi `$ creates power corrections $`\varphi ^a\varphi ^a/Q^2`$. In other words, the separation of nonlocal, potentially non-perturbative short distance effects into perturbatively calculated Wilson coefficients, which yield logarithmic factorsNote, however, that the summation of certain perturbative diagrams leads to ambiguities (UV renormalons) which formally cause dimension two power corrections ., is then not guaranteed to lead to an adequate discription at resolution $`Q1`$ GeV. In refs.  and  power corrections due the short distance dynamics of small-size strings and instantons, respectively, have been argued to exist. In ref.  the introduction of $`Q^2`$ power corrections due to non-perturbative short-distance effects was based on phenomenological grounds using the concept of a tachyonic gluon mass $`\lambda `$. It was found that a value as high as $`|\lambda |=0.7`$ GeV is compatible with phenomenology in a variety of channels ($`\rho ,\pi `$, scalar gluonium). Another approach to a short-distance dimension-two condensate in QCD defined in terms of fundamental fields has been proposed in refs. . On the other hand, it was shown in ref.  that the ad hoc subtraction of the Landau pole in the running coupling $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ leads to a soft power correction $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2/Q^2`$. Attempts to develop a phenomenology of these long distance, power-two corrections were reported in refs. . It is stressed at this point that the formation of a Higgs condensate at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ freezes the perturbative running of the coupling to the value at this scale. So in the context of the present work there is a more profound alteration of the running of the coupling than a simple subtraction of the Landau pole.

## 4 How magnetic monopoles may form and condense

Based on the above in this section we try to understand how the dual Meissner effect may be realized. In order to make the discussion simple we first consider pure SU(2) gluodynamics. Generalizations to SU(3) are straightforward.

Taking it as a fact that the vacuum below resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is characterized by the dynamics of a Higgs field $`\varphi ^a`$ and a field $`\alpha _\mu `$, which is pure gauge, one may construct a Georgi-Glashow like model with the curvature term for the gauge field missing:

$$_{vac}=\frac{1}{2}D_\mu \varphi ^aD_\mu \varphi ^aV(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a).$$
(4.39)
Thereby, $`D_\mu \varphi ^a\stackrel{~}{}_\mu \varphi ^aig\epsilon ^{abc}\alpha _\mu ^b\varphi ^c`$, and $`V`$ is some gauge invariant potential. Note that the connection $`\alpha _\mu `$ in this section is defined according to the perturbative convention, that is, one obtains $`\alpha _\mu `$ used here by multiplying $`\alpha _\mu `$ of Section 2 with $`i/g`$. In the background of $`\alpha _\mu `$-fluctuations close to zero the apparent formation of a scalar condensate at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ proceeds from condensation seeds. With these seeds present the growth of (3-dimensional) bubbles of constant Higgs field (constant color direction and modulus) sets in. Thereby, the color orientation inside a particular bubble is unrelated to that in the neighbouring bubble. Eventually, bubble edges collide. The probability that the Higgs directions of neighbouring bubbles coincide is exactly zero. Consequently, there are ”discontinuities” of the color orientation of the Higgs field over length scales of the order of the resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1`$ across the bubble boundary. From the kinetic part of (4.39) we have finite and positive energy density $`\epsilon `$ along the boundaries. This can most easily be seen as follows: Imposing the unitary gauge $`\varphi ^a=|\varphi |\delta ^{3a}`$ globally, one can shift the ”discontinuity” of the Higgs direction into a ”discontinuity” of the field $`\alpha _\mu `$Within the collision zone the homogenity of the fields $`\alpha _\mu `$ and $`\varphi `$ is destroyed. The contributions of undegenerated loops should become important, and $`\alpha _\mu `$ is lifted from zero to a nonvanishing pure gauge configuration.. Without restriction of generality we assume that the boundary between two neighbouring bubbles $`A`$ and $`B`$ lies in the $`x_1,x_2`$-plane and that the Higgs field in $`A`$ already is $`\varphi ^a=|\varphi |\delta ^{3a}`$. The gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ reaching the global gauge $`\varphi ^a=|\varphi |\delta ^{3a}`$ in the vicinity of the boundary is given as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\theta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(x_3)\mathrm{𝟏}+\theta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(x_3)U_B,U_Bin_\kappa \tau _\kappa ^\pm ,$$
(4.40)
where $`\tau ^\pm =(\stackrel{}{t}/2,i\mathrm{𝟏})`$, the components of $`n`$ ($`n_\kappa n_\kappa =1,\kappa =1,2,3,4`$) can be determined from the direction of the Higgs field in $`B`$, and $`\theta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ denotes a softened theta function for resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$

$$\theta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}(x_3)\theta (x_3+\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1/2)\theta (x_3+\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1/2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_bx_3+\theta (x_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1/2).$$
(4.41)
The corresponding $`\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ function can be obtained from $`\theta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ by differentiation and omission of terms which contain ordinary delta functions as factors. Using (4.40), (4.41) and the fact that $`\alpha _\mu `$ is pure gauge, one obtains

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2|\varphi |^2\left\{\left(\alpha _\mu ^1\right)^2+\left(\alpha _\mu ^2\right)^2\right\}`$ (4.42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\varphi |^2(\delta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b})^2\left(n_1^2+n_2^2\right)=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^4\left(n_1^2+n_2^2\right),(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1/2x_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1/2),`$ (4.43)
where in the last line we have set the Higgs field modulus equal to the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. Note that $`n_3`$ (or $`n_4`$) is cyclic in (4.42) which signals the residual U(1) symmetry.

The vacuum manifold of the theory is the coset space $`M=SU(2)/U(1)`$. It has the topology of a 2-sphere, and therefore it is simply connected. Two points can always be continuously connected, and hence there is no topological stabilization of the boundary between two domains. This means that localized energy density along the boundary at the time of collision can flow apart . However, this happens due to approaching Higgs directions in a vicinity of the collision zone. At another boundary of the bubble, say, $`A`$ the same process occurs but there with the Higgs field pointing in a different direction. After some time this implies localization of positive energy along a new domain boundary.

Now the positive energy along the domain boundaries must be countered by negative energy inside the domains to yield a vanishing action of the configuration. Negative energy is plausible since the formation of a Higgs condensate goes with a reduction of entropy density. This difference in energy density between the vacuum resolved at long and short distances was already incorporated in the bag models of hadrons  by means of the bag constant $`B`$. Recall that the introduction of $`B`$ is necessary to cure the non-conservation of bag four-momentum which is due to the violation of translational invariance by the bag boundary. We will soon argue that the presence of negative energy inside the domains, represented by a weakly varying Higgs condensate, also enforces a restoration of the (classical) translational and gauge symmetry at lower resolution.

So far we only considered the boundary between two domains. Regions of exceptionally high, positive energy and therefore exceptionally high instability of the Higgs condensate are those where several domains come together. They can be string-like (3 domains meet along one edge) or point-like (generically 4 domains meet). As in the case of two colliding domains strings are not stable topologically since any closed curve on $`M`$ can be continuously deformed to a point . In the case of four or more domains coming together one cannot shrink the corresponding surface in $`M`$ to a point (the second homotopy group $`\pi _2(M)`$ is non-trivial). So the cores of these regions are topologically stable  and are characterized by a vanishing Higgs condensate. The more walls come together in a small region the more profound the destruction of the Higgs condensate in that region is. The entire gauge group is restored there, and we have magnetic monopoles or antimonopoles\**\**\**The properties (2.21) of the gauge field $`\alpha _\mu `$ far away from the cores are satisfied asymptotically also by the classical gauge field of the ’t Hooft/Polyakov (anti)monopole .. In Fig. 2 a snapshot of a spatial slice of the domain structure of the vacuum at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is depicted.

An immediate consequence of the formation of magnetic monopoles and antimonopoles has been pointed out in the work of ref. . There, it was argued that static, zero magnetic charge configurations such as the superposition of a ’t Hooft/Polyakov monopole and an antimonopole induce a nonvanishing spectral density of normalizable zero modes in the representation of the massless fermionic propagator in this background. According to  this implies a flavor independent breaking of chiral symmetry. This is in contrast to chiral symmetry breaking due to the instanton. Moreover, the nonvanishing magnetic charge density is essential for the proliferation of the axial U(1) anomaly which prohibits the corresponding massless meson in the spectrum . So already at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, which is much higher than the confinement scale, chiral symmetry breaking and the effects of the axial U(1) anomaly set in.

What about the condensation of monopoles? From the above it is clear that the average core sizes $`R`$ of the (anti)monopoles are larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^1`$ which is comparable to the width of the domain boundaries. Furthermore, the long-range gauge field of the (anti)monopoles and the weak variation of the Higgs condensate inside the domains imply that these fields survive a grain coarsing to lower resolution. This is not the case for the domain boundaries. As the resolution is tuned down the walls apparently cease to exist. To keep the configuration at vanishing action in this process the domains must shrink. At a critical resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^1<R`$ the walls vanish entirely, but not yet the cores of the monopoles. The only way to keep the action approximately at zero is a situation where the cores are arbitrarily close to one another to produce a vanishing energy density in the vacuum. This must be interpreted as the condensation of magnetic charges. Since monopoles are reduced to their cores they then can be considered massless. The relevant configurations at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ are translationally invariant, and the gauge symmetry is restored everywhere since the Higgs field vanishes globally. Phenomenologically, one expects $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}0.3`$ GeV. So, in agreement with a statement by Polyakov , the phenomenon of quark confinement goes together with the restoration of an apparently broken gauge symmetry.

To conclude this section let us remark on the relation between Abelian projection and the above picture in QCD. So far we have only considered the vacuum fields of the (anti)monopoles far away from a core or inside a core. At intermediate distance from the core the constraint of nonvanishing curvature for the gauge field might be slightly violated, and gauge field fluctuations may propagate. Moreover, the presence of dynamical quarks also causes the curvature to be nonvanishing as was pointed out in the last section. In the following we speculate that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ 1 GeV in QCD. It will be clear that qualitative implications do not depend on the exact value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$.

In unitary gauge, $`\varphi ^a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\delta ^{3a}+\delta ^{8a})|\varphi |`$, off-diagonal gluons aquire a mass

$$m_W=g(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)|\varphi |\sqrt{4\pi \alpha _s(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b.$$
(4.44)
Thereby, the running of $`\alpha _s`$ is frozen at the value $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)`$ for resolution lower than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. Diagonal gluons (photons) remain massless. Taking $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=1\text{GeV})=0.4`$ ††††††This value stems from a determination in the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme with four-loop evolution and three-loop matching at the flavor thresholds ., one obtains $`m_W=2.24`$ GeV. So at resolution $``$1 GeV the dynamics of propagating gluons is Abelian to a very high degree. Moreover, photons are Debye-screened on distances comparable to the average monopole separation. At resolutions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ this distance vanishes and the (anti)monopoles become massless, so photons do not propagate at all. To estimate the mass of the two neutral Higgs particles let us assume that the dynamics of domain creation is goverened by a standard Higgs potential

$$V(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a)=\beta (\varphi ^a\varphi ^a\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^2)^2\gamma .$$
(4.45)
To fix the parameters $`\beta ,\gamma `$ we impose

$$V(0)=0,V(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b,\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)=B,$$
(4.46)
where $`B`$ is the bag constant. This gives $`\beta =B/(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^4)`$ and $`\gamma =B`$. Moreover, the mass of the neutral scalars is $`m_H=2\sqrt{B}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. In ref.  the bag constant $`B0.02`$ GeV4 was determined from first principles of the bag model and by using the QCD trace anomaly. We obtain $`m_H280`$ MeV. According to this rough estimate, from a kinematical point of view these neutral scalars can be excited and propagate. However, they must be radiated off massive, highly virtual gluons which makes their appearance very unlikely. Nevertheless, it is tempting to speculate on the potential contribution of neutral Higgs excitations to the dark matter content of the universe. This issue will not be investigated further here.

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

Let us summarize the results of this work: Inspired by general renormalization group arguments  and the recently advocated expressibility of Abelian gauge fixed gluodynamics in terms of a Georgi-Glashow-like model  we have used Polyakov’s ideas  about chiral fields on the loop to define the corresponding vacuum fields in terms of fundamental fields in a nonlocal way. Appealing to lattice information on the gauge invariant field strength correlator , the resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ at which Higgs condensation can be observed in the vacuum was estimated for theories with and without dynamical fermions. It turned out that the values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ are much larger than the perturbatively determined scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ of the respective theories. This may have implications on the evaluation of OPE vacuum averages in the framework of QCD sum rules. Conventionally, Wilson coefficients, which carry nonlocal information on the scale of the external momentum probing the vacuum (usually $``$ 1 GeV), are calculated perturbatively. Our results seem to indicate, however, that the vacuum behaves highly non-perturbatively at this resolution already. Hence, the validity of a perturbative expansion of Wilson coefficients is questionable. This was stated in a similar way already in ref. .

Subsequently, it was argued that the randomness of the Higgs condensation implies the formation of domains which are bounded by positive energy walls. These walls are not stable and subject to constant rearrangement. For the action to remain zero it is necessary to have negative energy inside the domains. At locations where four or more domains meet the Higgs condensate is destroyed, and one has (topologically) stable magnetic (anti)monopoles. Together with the results of ref.  this implies that the onset of chiral symmetry breaking and the proliferation of the axial U(1) anomaly happens at the large resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ already. Describing the vacuum at resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ in terms of a chiral gauge field and a Higgs field, the condensation of (anti)monopoles at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c<\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ is a consequence of the weakly varying Higgs condensate, the long-range vector field of the (anti)monopole, and the fact that the width of the domain walls is smaller than the size of the cores of (anti)monopoles. Potentially propagating gluonic excitations were shown to be Abelian in nature. At resolution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ these excitation are completely Debye-screened due to the masslessness and the vanishing distance between (anti)monopoles. At higher resolutions there is a finite screening length comparable to the average distance between (anti)monopoles. On the other hand, the propagation of neutral Higgs excitations over large distances can not be excluded. However, the excitation of such particles seems to be extremely unlikely. Further quantitative investigations are needed to decide whether these Higgs particles can contribute to the dark matter content of the universe in a sizable way.

## Note added

After completion of this work the author has become aware of a potential identification of the field $`\varphi /\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ with the field $`\widehat{n}`$ used in the nonlinear sigma model approach of Refs.. The author would like to thank L. D. Faddeev for the corresponding remark.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the following people for useful conversations and discussions: O. Grandjean, F. V. Gubarev, A. Hoang, B. Pötter, M. I. Polikarpov, G. Schierholz, L. Stodolsky, P. van Baal, P. Weisz, and V. I. Zakharov. The author is indebted to V. I. Zakharov for a critical reading of the manuscript and the hinting on useful literature.


format: text

text:
# An Adaptive Optics Survey for Companions to Stars with Extra-Solar Planets

## 1. Introduction

The Lick Adaptive Optics System is a Shack-Hartmann Laser Guide star AO system on the Lick Observatory Shane 3m telescope at Mt Hamilton, California (Max et al. 1997). For these observations, we used the system in natural guide star mode, with the bright star serving as wavefront reference. Under good conditions, the system produces diffraction limited images (0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$15 FWHM) with a strehl ratio of 0.7 in the K band (2.2 $`\mu `$m).

The AO system feeds a 256$`\times `$256 pixel infrared camera, IRCAL (Lloyd et al. 2000), which reimages the field of view at 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$076 per pixel. The camera incorporates a cold focal plane with an occulting finger to obtain high dynamic range images. For this program, we typically take a few minutes of integration of unsaturated images to obtain coverage close to the star, and deep exposures in coronagraphic mode to detect faint companions at larger separations.

We have selected targets from those stars with radial velocity planets, or with radial velocity trends from the Lick and Keck radial velocity surveys.

## 2. Results

HD 155423 (see Fig 1) shows substantial scatter in precision radial velocity measurements. High resolution imaging shows HD 155423 is a hierarchical triple, with a 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$2 close binary (8AU projected separation) M3 dwarf pair, separated 1$`.^{\prime \prime }`$5 from the F8 dwarf primary.

A faint object was previously discovered near 16 Cyg A, but was not known to be physically associated (Hauser & Marcy 1999). We have confirmed by proper motion measurements that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$K=5.4 object is a physically associated M5 dwarf (see Fig 1). Radial velocity measurements show a shallow linear trend.

HD 114762 has a radial velocity companion with an 84 day period and M$`\mathrm{sin}i`$=11 MJup (Latham et al. 1989). We have detected a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$K=7.3 companion 3$`.^{\prime \prime }`$3 from the primary (see Fig 1). JHK photometry and follow up Keck AO/NIRSPEC spectroscopy (McLean et al. 2000) reveal the companion to be a late M subdwarf. The physical association of this companion is confirmed by proper motion over a 2 year baseline (Patience et al. 1998).

Radial velocity measurements of HR 6623 show a nearly linear trend over 13 years (see Fig 1). This would classify this object as a poorly determined single lined spectroscopic binary. AO imaging resolves the companion, which is an M5 dwarf. Further radial velocity and astrometric observations will allow accurate mass determinations.

Tau Boo hosts an M$`\mathrm{sin}i`$ = 3.9 MJup, 3.3 day period planet, and shows radial velocity residuals (see Fig 1). It has an M2V companion that was discovered in 1849 at 10$`.^{\prime \prime }`$3. At present it is at 2$`.^{\prime \prime }`$82, with 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$01 per year of orbital motion. Although it has been suggested that there may be additional companions in the system (Wiedemann, Deming, & Bjoraker 2000), we do not detect any additional companions, and attribute the velocity residuals to the stellar companion.

### Acknowledgments.

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under a cooperative agreement with the Center for Adaptive Optics, Agreement No. AST-987678. Work on the Lick adaptive optics system was performed in part under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Contract number W-7405-ENG-48

## References

Cochran, W., Hatzes, A., Butler, R. P. & Marcy, G. W. 1997, ApJ, 483, 457

Hauser, H. M. & Marcy, G. W. 1999, PASP, 111, 321

Latham, D., Stefanik, R., Mazeh, T., et al. 1989, Nature, 339, 38

Lloyd, J. P., Liu, M. C., Macintosh, B. A., Severson, S. A., Deich, W. T. S. & Graham J. R. 2000, in Proc. SPIE 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, (Washington: SPIE)

Max, C. E., Olivier, S. S., Friedman, H. W., et al., Science, 277, 1649

McLean, I. S. Wilcox, M. K., Becklin, E. E. et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, L45

Patience, J., Ghez, A. M., White, R. J. et al. 1998, BAAS, 193, 9708

Wiedemann, G., Deming, D., Gjoraker, G. 2000, astro-ph/0007216


text:
# FPU 𝛽 model: Boundary Jumps, Fourier’s Law and Scaling

## Abstract

We examine the interplay of surface and volume effects in systems undergoing heat flow. In particular, we compute the thermal conductivity in the FPU $`\beta `$ model as a function of temperature and lattice size, and scaling arguments are used to provide analytic guidance. From this we show that boundary temperature jumps can be quantitatively understood, and that they play an important role in determining the dynamics of the system, relating soliton dynamics, kinetic theory and Fourier transport.

Transport in low dimensional systems has enjoyed renewed interest due to new efforts to understand why some theories have a bulk limit for transport coefficients and others do not. The FPU $`\beta `$ model, in particular, provides a classic example of a system with no bulk limit . Steady state transport is typically generated by imposing boundary conditions on surfaces of the system of interest, that provide the necessary behavior, such as shearing, heat flow and so forth. A physical and ubiquitous feature of these boundary-driven non-equilibrium steady states are surface discontinuities in certain observables. In fluids that are being sheared, a slip velocity develops at the boundary reflecting the fact that the fluid just inside the system does not move with the same velocity as the walls. In systems undergoing heat flow, as in the FPU model we study here, a ‘surface resistance’ or boundary jump in temperature develops. We will show that these surface effects can be quantitatively understood, and that the interplay of surface and volume effects can be used to define dynamical regimes, characterized by different scaling properties. To provide a more complete picture, we compute both the temperature and size dependence of the thermal conductivity $`\kappa `$, as well as the speed of sound and other kinetic theory quantities. From the behavior of $`\kappa `$, we will also see that the presence of a constant thermal gradient does not guarantee that Fourier’s law, specifically the linear relation between the heat flow $`J`$ and $`T`$, $`J=\kappa T`$, is valid. (We refer to the relation $`J=\kappa T`$ as Fourier’s law, even in the absence of the bulk limit.) The role of solitons can also be understood.

Heat flow is generated by applying hot ($`T_2^0`$) and cold ($`T_1^0`$) sources to the different boundaries of the system. However, in general there will be a mismatch between the surface temperature $`T_i^0`$ and temperature just inside the system, $`T_i`$, denoted $`\delta T_i=|T_iT_i^0|`$. Consequently, the input temperature difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T_2^0T_1^0`$, can be decomposed into the two surface jumps, $`\delta T_1`$, $`\delta T_2`$, and the gradient contribution: $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=𝑑xT+\delta T_1+\delta T_2`$. The jumps $`\delta T_i`$ can be expressed as $`\delta T_i=\eta T|_i`$, where $`T_i`$ is the internal temperature gradient extrapolated to the surface $`i`$, and $`\eta `$ is on the order of the mean free path at that temperature $`\lambda _i`$ . Hence we write $`\delta T_i=\alpha \lambda _iT|_i`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a constant corresponding to the efficacy of the boundary thermostats as they couple to the system. In this work, it will turn out that the boundary jumps become important in the near equilibrium regime, so that they are symmetric, $`\delta T_1\delta T_2`$, and the gradient is constant, $`T_i=T`$. Thus we are led to the general near–equilibrium relationship, using the length $`L`$ between the thermostats,

$$\left[2\alpha \lambda +L\right]T=\mathrm{\Delta }T.$$
(1)
Seemingly simple, this relation can be used to derive many properties of the FPU model, and others in general.

In this letter we examine the FPU $`\beta `$ Hamiltonian, $`\stackrel{~}{H}=_{k=1}^L\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_k^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2(\stackrel{~}{q}_{k+1}\stackrel{~}{q}_k)^2+\frac{\beta }{4}(\stackrel{~}{q}_{k+1}\stackrel{~}{q}_k)^4\right].`$ Under the rescaling $`\stackrel{~}{p}_k=p_k^{}\omega ^2\sqrt{m^3}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{q}_k=q_k^{}\omega \sqrt{m}`$, we obtain the conventional form of the FPU $`\beta `$ model,

$$H_\beta =\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{L}{}}\left[p_k^2+(q_{k+1}^{}q_k^{})^2+\frac{\beta }{2}(q_{k+1}^{}q_k^{})^4\right],$$
(2)
where $`H_\beta =\stackrel{~}{H}/(m^2\omega ^4)`$. It is important to note that the temperature and the coupling are not independent parameters, but changing the temperature is equivalent to changing the coupling $`\beta `$. This can be seen by the further rescaling $`p_k^{}=p_k/\sqrt{\beta }`$, $`q_k^{}=q_k/\sqrt{\beta }`$, which leads to a unique, dimensionless, Hamiltonian $`HH_{\beta =1}=\beta H_\beta `$. Since we have rescaled the momenta $`p_k^2=\beta p_k^2`$, the temperatures in the two formulations $`H`$ and $`H_\beta `$ are related by $`T=\beta T^{}`$. So the most general physics can be obtained by using $`H_\beta `$ around a fixed temperature (for instance $`T^{}=1`$) but with different couplings $`\beta `$, or by using $`H`$ at various temperatures $`T`$. In this study we use $`H`$ and probe temperatures from $`10^4`$ to $`10^4`$, where $`T_k=p_k^2`$ (ideal gas thermometer), using $`L`$ sites and either free ($`q_0=q_1`$, $`q_L=q_{L+1}`$) or fixed ($`q_1=q_L=0`$) boundary conditions. Perhaps surprisingly, these conditions have an effect on the measured transport properties.

Heat flow is generated when thermostats are coupled to the boundaries of the system. The system evolves according to Hamilton’s equations of motion except at the boundaries, where we use Nosé-Hoover (NH) thermostats or demons (see , Eqs. (3)). The NH thermostats are observed not to thermalize the boundaries for large temperature gradients, a problem particularly acute for small lattices. The demons, on the other hand, do not suffer from this problem and hence provide a resolution to the problem recently studied in . We have considered a range of coupling strengths as well as thermostatting one or more sites on each edge. Irrespective of the form of the boundary thermostats, we note that their introduction breaks global momentum conservation, $`\dot{P}_{tot}0`$, while it is conserved on average; $`\dot{P}_{tot}=0`$. The equations of motion, on the other hand, are still invariant with respect to the translations $`q_kq_k+c`$ for free or periodic boundary conditions, where $`c`$ is an arbitrary constant. This disparity arises from the fact the the equations of motion for the whole system are no longer Hamiltonian.

The definition of heat current $`J`$ depends on the form of the discrete gradient in the Hamiltonian and continuity equations. For instance, we may choose $`h_k=p_k^2/2+U(q_{k+1}q_k)`$ (where $`H=_kh_k`$, $`U(x)=x^2/2+x^4/4`$) and $`\dot{h}_k+J_{k+1}J_k=0`$, leading to the consistent form $`J_k=p_kU^{}(q_kq_{k1})`$. Regardless of the form chosen, the measurement of $`J`$ is the same. We then use Fourier’s law, $`J=\kappa (T,L)T`$, to obtain $`\kappa `$. In Fig. 1 (NH-fixed), we reproduce the analysis of , plotting $`\kappa `$ using the boundary temperatures $`(T_1^0,T_2^0)=(2.4,15.2)`$ to obtain $`\kappa (8.8,L)`$ and compare this to the results obtained using demons and also the free boundary condition results using the same $`(T_1^0,T_2^0)`$. This figure raises several significant points. First, the NH results do not thermalize the boundaries for smaller $`L`$, which accounts for the disagreement with the demon results. There is also a clear difference between the fixed or free boundaries. Free boundary conditions are found to result in the diffusion of the entire system in a Brownian manner: $`q^2t`$, an essential difference. The differences in $`\kappa `$ disappear as we increase the system size since the temperature gradients become small and we reach the near equilibrium regime. For small $`L`$, while $`T`$constant, the system does not obey Fourier’s law. We return to this in Fig. 4 below. Consequently, referring to these points as $`\kappa `$ is not entirely correct.

In Fig. 2 (top), we plot the $`T`$ dependence of $`\kappa `$ over 6 orders of magnitude for selected lattice sizes $`L`$ with the fixed boundary conditions. To obtain these results, we first verified that Fourier’s law $`J=\kappa (T,L)T`$ is satisfied, by plotting $`J`$ versus $`T`$ for various gradients. Only then, can we extract the conductivity $`\kappa `$ correctly. The dotted and dashed lines represent the behavior we expect from the following arguments: At high $`T`$, the quartic term for $`q_k`$ in the Hamiltonian $`H`$ dominates over the quadratic term in $`q_k`$, as can be seen from the virial theorem, for instance. Therefore, in this asymptotic region, the Hamiltonian has the scaling property, $`H/T=H^{}/T^{}`$ under the rescalings $`p_k=(T/T^{})^{1/2}p_k^{}`$, $`q_k=(T/T^{})^{1/4}q_k^{}`$. In other words, the physics at different temperatures is related by simple kinematical rescalings. Applying this rescaling to the thermal conductivity, we derive $`\kappa =J/T=(T/T^{})^{1/4}\kappa ^{}`$, which well describes the behavior $`\kappa T^{1/4}(T1)`$ we have obtained.

The low temperature limit can be viewed as the weak coupling limit ($`\beta 1`$) of $`H_\beta `$. Near the harmonic limit, we expect (and verify) the speed of sound $`c_s`$ and heat capacity $`C_V`$ to be unity. Hence kinetic theory suggests that $`\kappa \lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the mean free path. The mean free path in this limit is on order of $`\lambda 1/\beta `$, so that $`\kappa 1/T`$. We also find that the size dependence of $`\kappa `$ has a power law behavior that is independent of the temperature, which is consistent with the previous results . Consequently, we expect and find

$`\kappa \{\begin{array}{cc}1.2L^\delta T^1\hfill & (T0.1)\hfill \\ 2L^\delta T^{1/4}\hfill & (T50)\hfill \end{array},\delta =0.37(3).`$ (3)
This provides a much more global picture of heat transport in the FPU model than previously known.

The excitations in the FPU model are known to be solitonic. The ‘sound speed’ $`c_s`$ can be measured by examining how an initial perturbation in the center of the system propagates, as a function of lattice size $`L`$ and temperature $`T`$. In Fig. 2 (bottom) we plot this together with the velocity behavior suggested from solitons, namely, $`2T=c_s^3\sqrt{c_s^21}`$. The agreement is quite good aside from a weak $`L`$ dependence which is not described by this approach.

Consider now some consequences of Eq. (1). Kinetic theory indicates that $`\kappa =\lambda c_sC_v`$. Since $`C_v1`$ for all temperatures we measured, we have $`\lambda \kappa /c_s`$. Hence, at low $`T`$, $`\lambda 1/T`$, and the boundary jumps eventually dominate the thermal profile. The transition to this regime occurs when $`L2\alpha \lambda =2\alpha \kappa `$ (we show below that $`\alpha 1`$), or using Eq. (3), $`T_c2L^{1\delta }`$. To delineate this behavior, we study the system at various central temperatures, $`T`$, with fixed relative differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/Tr=0.4`$ in Fig. 3. For $`T<T_c`$, boundary jumps dominate Eq. (1), so that $`J=\mathrm{\Delta }T/(2\alpha )=(r/2\alpha )TT/4`$. Notice here that in this regime, $`J`$ should be independent of $`L`$. This is indeed observed in Fig. 3 (bottom). The transition also is characterized by $`\lambda L`$, which means that excitations (solitons) now move freely across the system without interaction. This indicates the onset of the harmonic limit which is characterized by a flat temperature profile. We can use Eq. (1) to compute how fast we approach the harmonic limit: $`T=(r/2\alpha \kappa )T=0.2T^2L^\delta `$. Hence the system approaches the harmonic limit like $`T^2`$. We have explicitly measured this behavior for several $`L`$ and confirm it.

A frequently used argument surmises that for fixed boundary temperatures, the behavior of $`\kappa (T,L)`$ can be obtained from the behavior of $`J`$ by assuming that $`T`$ scales like $`1/L`$ (see for example ). Our results demonstrate that such an argument in general is not applicable due to the presence of boundary jumps which cannot be ignored. It should be emphasized that the importance of jumps is unrelated to the absence of a bulk limit.

At higher temperatures, boundary jumps compete with the heat flow inside. Here $`c_s`$ and $`\kappa `$ both behave at $`T^{1/4}`$, so that $`\lambda `$ is independent of $`T`$. Consequently, $`T=r/(2\alpha \lambda +L)T=[0.4/(L+3L^\delta )]T`$ and $`J=\kappa T=[0.8/(L^{1\delta }+3)]T^{5/4}`$. In Fig. 3, we show both $`T`$ and $`J`$ as a function of $`T`$ and see that the predicted behavior is consistent with measurements. The agreement includes not only the power law, but the prefactors as well, both for low and high $`T`$.

Recently we have derived a formula for the temperature profile $`T(x)`$ in models where $`\kappa (T)`$ displays power law behavior, $`\kappa const./T^\gamma `$, in the temperature range of interest: $`T(x)=T_1[1(1(T_2/T_1)^{1\gamma })x/L]^{1/(1\gamma )}.`$ In the present study, in looking at temperatures near T=8.8 in Fig. 2, $`\kappa `$ is nearly temperature independent over more than a decade in temperature. Hence we expect $`T(x)=T_1+(T_2T_1)x/L+𝒪(\gamma )`$ to develop almost no curvature for very large gradients, and hence the shape of $`T(x)`$ is not a good measure of the validity of Fourier’s law. In Fig. 4 we plot $`J/\kappa T`$ as a function of the measured $`T`$. The dashed line represent the expected result when Fourier’s law holds. One can see that as the gradient increases, noticeable systematic violations of Fourier’s law develop. For the selected points, we plot the temperature profiles in Fig. 4 (bottom), demonstrating the nearly linear behavior. Similar behavior is also seen at higher temperatures, since $`\kappa T^{1/4}`$ is a weak power law. Hence in contrast the the $`\varphi ^4`$ model, where noticeable curvature in $`T(x)`$ develops when Fourier’s law is broken, the FPU model demonstrates that nearly constant temperature gradients do not imply Fourier heat flow. It should noted that one will underestimate the thermal conductivity if the Fourier’s law is applied in this regime to obtain the conductivity.

In order to compute the coefficient $`\alpha `$, we must analyze the behavior of the boundary jumps $`\delta T/\lambda `$ as a function of $`T`$. In Fig. 5, we combine results from various lattice sizes and temperatures, as well as from stochastic boundary conditions (see for instance Figs. 1 in ref.  and 2-4 in ref. ). In Fig. 5, we plot $`\delta T/\lambda `$ and see that this behaves as $`T`$. In addition we show the behavior extracted from stochastic boundary conditions as well as from previous calculations in the FPU, which are quite consistent with our results. We then extract the parameter $`\alpha =0.8(1)`$ for the demons. A necessary consequence is that the temperature profiles cannot be shape invariant in the way discussed in . While the same scaling is found for different thermostats, the coefficient $`\alpha `$ can be different. For NH demons (LLP) used in , $`\alpha _{NH}=2.0(3)`$ and for stochastic boundary conditions (KM) in , it is much larger, $`\alpha _S=40(6)`$, as evidenced in the large boundary jumps seen in .

We have seen that the interplay of surface and volume effects in Eq. (1) can be used to understand transport properties. Since the conductivity in this model has no bulk limit, the transport depends not only on the method used to thermalize the boundaries, but also on the boundary conditions themselves. Nevertheless, one can understand the temperature dependence at low and high temperatures. We have been able to map out $`\kappa (T,L)`$ and provide an analytical understanding in the asymptotic regimes. The FPU model also provides an example of a theory where Fourier’s law breaks down, but the temperature profile retains a nearly constant gradient. This can be understood in terms of the weak temperature dependence of the conductivity. The boundary jumps also display a very systematic behavior over many decades in $`T`$, independent of the types of thermostats (dynamics or stochastic) or of the lattice size. This dependence on $`T`$ also shows that the temperature profiles cannot be shape invariant unless the boundary jumps are explicitly taken into account.

We acknowledge support from grants at Keio University and DOE grant DE-FG02-91ER40608.


text:
# Neutrinos Confronting Large Extra Dimensions

## 1 Introduction

The possibility that the physical space has more than three dimensions has attracted a great deal of attention recently. Refs.  pioneered the idea that the presence of extra compact spatial dimensions, some of which may be as large as fractions of millimeter, could lower the ”fundamental” Planck scale $`M_{}`$, *i.e.* the Planck scale in the higher-dimensional space-time, down to the TeV energy range, alleviating thereby the hierarchy problem. If the number of new dimensions is $`n`$ and we assume that all of them have the same radii of the size $`R`$, the four-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{Pl}`$ is related to the fundamental Planck scale through $`M_{Pl}^2M_{}^{n+2}R^n`$. Given the experimental fact that no deviations from the Newton law has shown up down to $`R1`$ mm , it is immediately clear from this relation that one extra dimension would not be enough for the solution of the hierarchy problem. On the other hand, for $`n=2`$ one gets $`R0.1`$ mm, which is in an interesting range in view of the gravitational force experiments discussed in .

The basic assumption of the extra dimension scenario is that all the fields charged under the Standard Model (SM) gauge group are localized on a brane, the familiar 3+1-dimensional space-time, embedded in the 4+$`n`$-dimensional space, called the bulk . Gravitons and other particles with no SM interactions are not confined to the brane but are free to propagate in the bulk as well. This brane-bulk structure is suggested by some string theoretical observations.

The large extra dimension scenario is particularly intriguing from the neutrino physics point of view. The right-handed chiral components of neutral leptons ($`\nu _R`$), if they exist, are the only SM particles that can live in the bulk . The Yukawa coupling between $`\nu _L`$, residing on the brane, and $`\nu _R`$ is suppressed by a factor $`M_{}/M_{Pl}`$, providing a new and elegant explanation for the lightness of neutrinos. Perhaps the most natural conventional explanation is due to the seesaw mechanism, which requires the existence of a new mass scale around $`10^{12}`$ GeV or higher. In the extra dimension scheme such a high mass-scale is neither needed nor naturally appears, but small neutrino masses follow from the suppression of the Yukawa couplings due to the large bulk volume.

The existence of the bulk neutrinos has another interesting consequence. The bulk neutrinos $`\nu _{lR}(l=e,\mu ,\tau )`$ appear in four dimensions as Kaluza-Klein excitations having Dirac mass terms with the left-handed bulk components $`\nu _{lL}`$ that originate in the quantized internal momenta in compact extra dimensions. The existence of these new degrees of freedom enrich the neutrino spectrum and the neutrino oscillation patterns. Theoretical and phenomenological aspects of this scenario have been addressed in several recent papers (see *e.g.* ).

The localization of the SM fields on the brane may be explained in terms of non-perturbative effects in string theory . An alternative and perhaps more intuitive approach is achieved in the context of an effective field theory. In this method one introduces a five-dimensional scalar field (for $`n=1`$) with an effective potential that has a domain wall type profile in the extra dimension . The origin of the scalar field is usually left unspecified. For example the so-called radion may be a natural, though not the only, possibility for such a scalar field. The radion field is associated to the extra dimension components of the metric tensor and therefore is always present in the model.

The discussion in this paper is based on the observation that the scalar field responsible for the localization of the SM fermions must form two kinks, *i.e.* a kink and an anti-kink (or any number of such kink/anti-kink pairs), in order to be continuous in a compactified extra dimension. That kind of profile leads to interesting consequences since in addition to the “usual” brane, where the SM world resides, there necessarily exists at some distinct point of the extra dimension another brane, a mirror brane. In the mirror brane there live particles whose gauge interactions are identical to those of the SM particles but with reversed chiralities, that is, they are mirror particles . Besides gravity, the ordinary brane and the mirror brane can communicate with each other only via possible inert neutrinos, that is, the right-handed ordinary neutrinos $`\nu _{lR}`$ and the left-handed mirror neutrinos $`N_{lL}`$ that live in the bulk.

We will study in this paper the neutrino sector of the brane-mirror brane scenario. We neglect for simplicity any flavour mixing and consider neutrino masses and mixing within a single family of neutrinos and mirror neutrinos. The neutrino sector under study thus consists of the fields $`\nu _L`$, $`\nu _R`$, $`N_L`$ and $`N_R`$. In Sec. 2 a concrete realization of our scheme is constructed. In its framework we derive an effective Lagrangian from which the neutrino mass matrix is obtained. Unlike in many previous works, our mass matrix is finite since we integrate out the massive Kaluza-Klein modes. In Sec. 3 we study numerically the generic constraints neutrino data set upon the various fundamental parameters of the model, such as the size of the extra dimension, the mass of the sterile neutrino the model predicts and the fundamental mass scale (the vev of the Higgs doublet) of the mirror brane. Sec. 4 is devoted to discussion of the obtained results. Concluding remarks are presented in Sec. 5.

## 2 Theory

Let us now construct our model for a two-brane world, where one of the branes traps the SM fermions and the other one the mirror fermions. The gauge inert states, the right-handed neutrino $`\nu _R`$ and the left-handed mirror neutrino $`N_L`$, are assumed to propagate freely in the whole higher-dimensional bulk. For the localization mechanism of the gauge-active fermions, based on effective field theory approach, we follow Refs. . For simplicity and clarity we restrict ourselves in the following to the case where there is only one extra dimension, but the extension of the analysis to the cases of several extra dimensions is quite straightforward.

We assume the extra dimension to be compactified on a circle of radius $`R`$. The coordinate system reads $`z=(x^\mu ,y)`$, where $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$ and $`yy+2\pi R`$. The scalar field responsible for the localization of fermions on the 4-dimensional membranes is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is assumed to have two kinks, one at $`y=0`$ where its value grows from $`f`$ to $`+f`$ and another one at $`y=y_{}`$ where its value drops back to $`f`$. Between the kinks $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is supposed to remain constant. Fermions are localized on a finite-width wall around the points in the fifth dimension where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ as, heuristically speaking, their position-dependent masses are there the smallest. Outside these positions field fluctuations are strongly suppressed due to higher masses .

The five-dimensional spinors are decomposed as

$$L=\left(\begin{array}{c}N_R^{}\\ \nu _L^{}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _R^{}\\ N_L^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\nu _L^{}`$ and $`\nu _R^{}`$ are related to the ordinary neutrinos and $`N_L^{}`$ and $`N_R^{}`$ to mirror neutrinos. These fields are functions of the five-dimensional space-time. The appropriateness of our notation will become clear towards the end of this section.

We assume the relevant part of the brane-world action to be of the form

$$S=d^4xdy[\overline{L}(i\mathrm{\Gamma }^A_Am+\mathrm{\Phi })L+i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }^A_A\mathrm{\Psi }+(\kappa H^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}L+h.c.)],$$
(2)
where $`A=0,\mathrm{},4`$, $`m`$ is a mass parameter, $`\kappa `$ is a dimensionful Yukawa coupling, and $`H`$ is the neutral component of the standard SU(2)-doublet Higgs field. The gamma matrices are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma ^\mu \\ \overline{\sigma }^\mu & 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }^4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right),$$

and all the fields are taken to be periodically continuous, *e.g.* $`L(x,0)=L(x,2\pi R)`$. The term $`\overline{L}\mathrm{\Phi }L`$ takes care of the localization of the active neutrinos on the branes. In general the action could also include Dirac and Majorana mass terms for bulk neutrinos , but we neglect them in the present discussion. It should also be remarked that the presence of the inert neutrinos in the bulk is an assumption, because we have omitted in the action the term $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$, which would have localized the inert neutrinos on the branes.

The equation of motion for $`L`$ is

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }^A_AL=(m\mathrm{\Phi })L,$$
(3)
where a term $`\kappa ^{}H\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has been neglected as in classical approximation $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. Supposing that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$, and writing $`N_R^{}=N_R(x)g_R(y)`$ and $`\nu _L^{}=\nu _L(x)g_L(y)`$, one ends up with

$`ig_L(y)\sigma ^\mu _\mu \nu _L`$ $`=`$ $`N_R(_y+m\mathrm{\Phi }(y))g_R(y),`$
$`ig_R(y)\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu N_R`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _L(_y+m\mathrm{\Phi }(y))g_L(y).`$ (4)
The left-hand side of Eqs. (4) being classically zero, it is trivial to see that $`g_{L,R}(y)`$ have solutions behaving so that $`g_R(y)`$ tends to confine near $`y=y_{}`$ and $`g_L(y)`$ near $`y=0`$. In other words, since $`\nu _L`$ and $`N_R`$ really get localized on different branes, the chosen action reproduces exactly the features that we have been looking for. The consistency of the theory requires that $`_0^{2\pi R}𝑑y(\mathrm{\Phi }(y)m)=0`$, which for thin branes reduces to $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\pi m/f`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =2\pi y_{}/R`$. Slightly more contrived considerations, which we shall not present here, reveal that the Higgs field has a twin-peaked profile with maxima at $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_{}`$. One may thus approximate (somewhat symbolically, *cf.* the appendix of Ref. )

$$\nu _L^{}=\sqrt{\delta (y)}\nu _L(x),N_R^{}=\sqrt{\delta (yy_{})}N_R(x),H=\sqrt{\delta (y)}h_{}(x)+\sqrt{\delta (yy_{})}h_+(x),$$
(5)
where $`h_{}(h_+)`$ can be viewed as a vev of the Higgs field in “our” brane (the mirror brane). By substituting these, together with the familiar Kaluza-Klein expansion

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _R^{}(x,y)\\ N_L^{}(x,y)\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{Rn}(x)\\ N_{Ln}(x)\end{array}\right)e^{iny/R},$$
(6)
to the original action, one has finally

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\{iN_R^{}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu N_R+i\nu _L^{}\sigma ^\mu _\mu \nu _L+{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[i\nu _{Rn}^{}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \nu _{Rn}+iN_{Ln}^{}\sigma ^\mu _\mu N_{Ln}`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{in}{R}}(\nu _{Rn}^{}N_{Ln}N_{Ln}^{}\nu _{Rn})+u(h_{}^{}\nu _{Rn}^{}\nu _L+h_+^{}N_{Ln}^{}N_Re^{in\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }+h.c.)]\},`$
where

$$u=\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{2\pi R}},$$
(8)
and $`\kappa `$ is taken to be real.

The first six $`n`$-dependent terms of the action (7) disappear due to the equations of motion of the Kaluza-Klein excitations $`\nu _{Rn}`$ and $`N_{Ln}`$ (with $`n0`$),

$`N_{Ln}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iR}{n}}(i\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \nu _{Rn}+uh_{}^{}\nu _L),`$
$`\nu _{Rn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iR}{n}}(i\sigma ^\mu _\mu N_{Ln}+uh_+^{}N_Re^{in\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }).`$ (9)
The remaining two terms of the action then yield

$`_{n0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}[(iu^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{n}}h_+h_{}^{}N_R^{}\nu _Le^{in\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }+h.c.)+u{\displaystyle \frac{R}{n}}h_{}\nu _L^{}\sigma ^\mu _\mu N_{Ln}`$ (10)
$`u{\displaystyle \frac{R}{n}}h_+N_R^{}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \nu _{Rn}e^{in\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }],`$
or, by applying Eqs. (9) again,

$`_{n0}`$ $`=`$ $`u^2s(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )R(h_+h_{}^{}N_R^{}\nu _L+h.c.)+{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}iu^2{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{n^2}}h_{}\nu _L^{}\sigma ^\mu _\mu (h_{}^{}\nu _L)`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}iu^2{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{n^2}}h_+N_R^{}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu (h_+^{}N_R),`$
where terms including higher derivatives of $`\nu _{Rn}`$ and $`N_{Ln}`$ have been neglected, and

$$s(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )=i\underset{n0}{}\frac{e^{in\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }}{n}=\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\theta (\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 0).$$
(12)
This on-shell Lagrangian could be equivalently obtained by integrating out the massive Kaluza-Klein excitations.

Note that since $`h_\pm ^{}`$ are constants in the leading order, they can well be taken out of the derivatives in Eq. (11). Examinations show that the values of $`h_\pm `$ are essentially dependent on the widths of the ordinary and mirror branes. The quantity $`h_+`$ can be considered here as a free parameter while $`h_{}`$ is bound by the usual Higgs scalar expectation value $`|h_{}|=174`$ GeV.

Combining finally Eq. (11) and Eq. (7) (for $`n=0`$) with suitable rescalings of the fields so that the kinetic terms take the canonical form, one ends up with a Lagrangian

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`iN_R^{}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu N_R+i\nu _L^{}\sigma ^\mu _\mu \nu _L+i\nu _{R0}^{}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \nu _{R0}+iN_{L0}^{}\sigma ^\mu _\mu N_{L0}`$
$`+u^2s(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )R(n_+n_{}h_+h_{}^{}N_R^{}\nu _L+h.c.)+u(n_{}h_{}^{}\nu _{R0}^{}\nu _L+n_+h_+^{}N_{L0}^{}N_R+h.c.),`$
where

$$n_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\pi ^2}{3}u^2R^2|h_\pm |^2}},$$

and the identity $`_{n0}n^2=\pi ^2/3`$ has been used. In this Lagrangian, where all the massive Kaluza-Klein modes are integrated out, only the lowest order effects of the extra dimension (*i.e.* field rescalings and mass terms) are kept.

## 3 Neutrino phenomenology

According to the Lagrangian $`_{eff}`$ the neutrino mass term of the model is given by

$$_M=(\overline{\nu }_L\overline{\nu }_R\overline{N}_R\overline{N}_L)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& a& b& 0\\ a& 0& 0& 0\\ b& 0& 0& c\\ 0& 0& c& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L\\ \nu _R\\ N_R\\ N_L\end{array}\right),$$
(14)
where

$$a=un_{}|h_{}|,b=u^2s(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )Rn_+n_{}|h_+h_{}|,c=un_+|h_+|,$$
(15)
with appropriate redefinitions of the fields, and we have associated $`\nu _R`$ and $`N_L`$ with the zero modes of the respective Kaluza-Klein states. More familiarly the mass Lagrangian can be presented in the form

$$_M=\frac{1}{2}\overline{𝒩}_R^cM𝒩_L+h.c.,$$
(16)
where $`𝒩_L^T=(\nu _L\nu _L^cN_L^cN_L)`$, and $`M`$ is the matrix appearing in Eq. (14).

As one can see from the results above, the dependence of the neutrino mass Lagrangian on the fundamental parameters of the theory, such as the radius $`R`$, the values of the scalar, $`h_\pm `$, the coupling $`\kappa `$, and the relative positions of the brane and mirror brane (*i.e.* $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$), is quite non-trivial and difficult to analyse analytically. We will therefore study numerically the generic constraints the present neutrino data sets on the model by varying unknown parameters within conceivable range of values and plotting the ensuing predictions for various measurable quantities.

Let us start the phenomenological analysis by diagonalizing the neutrino mass matrix obtained above. Since $`M`$ is real and symmetric, the diagonalization can be performed by an orthogonal matrix $`O`$. (We consider here just one neutrino family. The different families may have different mixing angles.)

If we define

$$O=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \\ \mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \mathrm{cos}\beta & \mathrm{cos}\beta & \mathrm{sin}\beta & \mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha \end{array}\right),$$
(17)
with

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{a^2+b^2c^2}{2\sqrt{(a^2+b^2+c^2)^24a^2c^2}},\mathrm{sin}^2\beta =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{a^2b^2c^2}{2\sqrt{(a^2+b^2+c^2)^24a^2c^2}},$$
(18)
we obtain

$$O^TMO=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_+& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& m_+& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& m_{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& m_{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\sigma _1m_+& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \sigma _2m_+& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \sigma _3m_{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \sigma _4m_{}\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
where the eigenvalues are

$$m_\pm =\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\left(a^2+b^2+c^2\pm \sqrt{(a^2+b^2+c^2)^24a^2c^2}\right)},$$
(20)
and $`\sigma _i`$’s are sign factors. Note that if $`b=0`$, matrix $`O`$ can be presented in a much simpler form. This case, however, is realized only in the special case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\pi `$, *i.e.* when the two branes are in opposite locations in the fifth dimension.

The mass eigenstates are given by

$$\chi _i=\underset{j}{}\left(O_{ij}^T(𝒩_L)_j+\sigma _iO_{ij}^T(𝒩_R^c)_j\right),$$
(21)
in terms of which the mass Lagrangian reads

$$_M=\frac{1}{2}m_+(\overline{\chi }_1\chi _1+\overline{\chi }_2\chi _2)\frac{1}{2}m_{}(\overline{\chi }_3\chi _3+\overline{\chi }_4\chi _4).$$
(22)
By defining

$$\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\chi _1+\chi _2),\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\chi _3\chi _4),$$
(23)
one has finally

$$_M=m_+\overline{\psi }\psi m_{}\overline{\varphi }\varphi .$$
(24)
The neutrino sector thus consists of two Dirac neutrinos, as was expected as the theory conserves, by construction, lepton number.

From Eqs. (17), (21) and (23) it follows that the ordinary left-handed neutrino $`\nu _L`$ is the following superposition of the mass eigenstate neutrinos:

$$\nu _L=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \varphi _L+\mathrm{sin}\alpha \psi _L.$$

The superposition orthogonal to this combination is the inert field $`N_L`$. As $`\nu _L`$ is the only active neutrino living in our brane, only the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ can be experimentally probed. The other angle $`\beta `$ parametrizes the mixing between the right-handed fields $`\nu _R`$ and $`N_R`$, and is therefore a measurable quantity only in the mirror world.

There exist several empirical constraints on the masses and mixing angles of neutrinos, coming from laboratory experiments, astrophysical observations and cosmological considerations. In our case, where flavour mixings are neglected, mixings occur between an active and a sterile neutrino of each family. It turns out that the existing laboratory bounds on the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ between the electron neutrino and a heavier neutrino in various mass ranges of the heavier neutrino mass are in general ineffective in our model. This is because the mass of the extra neutrino turns out to be quite low for a plausible choice of the model parameters. The only relevant laboratory constraints are due to the electron neutrino mass measurement in the tritium beta decay experiments  and the neutrino oscillation experiments. The upper limit of the electron neutrino mass from the beta decay experiment is

mνe

<

2.3eV.

<

subscript𝑚subscript𝜈𝑒2.3eVm_{\nu_{e}}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}2.3\ {\rm eV}. (25)
As far as the electron neutrino is concerned the most stringent oscillation limit comes from the Bugey disappearance experiment . This limit has been approximated as follows in our numerical calculation:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}^22\alpha <0.1\hfill & \text{for}100\mathrm{eV}^2>|\delta m^2|>2\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}^22\alpha <0.02\hfill & \text{for}2\mathrm{eV}^2>|\delta m^2|>0.04\mathrm{eV}^2,\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}^22\alpha <0.1\hfill & \text{for}0.04\mathrm{eV}^2>|\delta m^2|>0.01\mathrm{eV}^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
The active-sterile mixing can also be constrained by cosmological arguments. If the mixing is too large, neutrino oscillations, acting as an effective interaction, would bring the sterile neutrino in equilibrium before neutrino decoupling, and the resulting excess in energy density would endanger the standard scheme for the nucleosynthesis of light elements (BBN) . This leads to the following bound for $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ mixing :

$$\begin{array}{cc}|\delta m^2|\mathrm{sin}^22\alpha <5\times 10^8\text{eV}^2\hfill & \text{for}|\delta m^2|<4\text{eV}^2,\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}^22\alpha <10^8\hfill & \text{for}|\delta m^2|>4\text{eV}^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
This bound is, however, avoided if there was a suitable net lepton number in the early universe .

With applying these constraints, we search the allowed regions of the parameter space numerically using a Monte Carlo analysis where we have varied three unknown parameters: the radius of the extra dimension $`R`$, the mirror brane Higgs value $`h_+`$ and the mirror brane position parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$. The extra dimension radius is varied from the Planck scale to a millimeter scale and the mirror brane Higgs value between $`10^5`$ MeV and $`10^{10}`$ MeV. We consider these parameter ranges wide enough for a representative analysis. Both $`R`$ and $`h_+`$ are randomized so that their logarithms are evenly distributed. For the position parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ an even distribution between 0 and $`\pi `$ has been taken.

In addition to these parameters the action depends on the dimensionful coupling $`\kappa `$. The natural scale for it could possibly be set by the higher-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{}`$, and therefore we write (with $`M_{Pl}^2=M_{}^3R`$)

$$\kappa =\frac{\kappa ^{}}{\sqrt{M_{}}}=\kappa ^{}\left(\frac{R}{M_{Pl}^2}\right)^{1/6},$$
(28)
where $`\kappa ^{}`$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. Its value is not really known, but a plausible choice would be a number relatively close to unity. We have performed our analysis for the values $`\kappa ^{}=1`$ and $`\kappa ^{}=0.01`$.

A central parameter in the scheme is obviously the size $`R`$ of the extra dimension. From the experiments that probe the effects of gravity in short distances one knows that

R

<

1mm.

<

𝑅1mmR\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}1\ {\rm mm}. (29)
From the dependence of the elements of the mass matrix $`M`$ on $`R`$ follows an upper bound on the larger mass eigenvalue $`m_+`$ as a function of $`R`$, as presented in Fig. 1. When the limit (29) is saturated, the largest allowed value is $`m_+10`$ eV, but larger values are allowed for a smaller $`R`$.

## 4 Results and discussion

Let us now proceed to our numerical results. In Fig. 2 we present a scatter plot in the $`(R,\mathrm{sin}\alpha )`$-plane, obtained by allowing the model parameters vary as indicated above, with and without taking the cosmological constraint, Eq. (27), into account (marked in the plot by crosses and dots, respectively). Fig. 2a corresponds to the case $`\kappa ^{}=0.01`$. Let us now look at the general features displayed by this figure. Comparison of Eqs. (8), (15) and (28) implies that $`a,cb`$ for small values of $`R`$. From Eq. (18) it can then be inferred that, depending on the relative sizes of $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$, either $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha 1`$ ($`h_+<h_{}`$) or $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha 0`$ ($`h_+>h_{}`$). In other words, for small values of the size $`R`$ of the extra dimension, the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ has values either close to 0 or close to $`\pi /2`$, the other values being forbidden. The small values of $`\alpha `$ correspond to the case where $`a<c`$, that is, where the ordinary active neutrino $`\nu _L`$ is predominantly the lighter mass eigenstate $`\varphi _L`$ and the sterile mirror neutrino $`N_L`$ is predominantly the heavier state $`\psi _L`$. The values of $`\alpha `$ close to $`\pi /2`$ in turn correspond to the situation where $`a>c`$, and $`\nu _L`$ is predominantly the heavier state $`\psi _L`$ and the sterile mirror neutrino $`N_L`$ is predominantly the lighter state $`\varphi _L`$, the both neutrino masses now being below the experimental limit m±

<

2.3

<

subscript𝑚plus-or-minus2.3m_{\pm}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}2.3 eV.

It is important to note that the size of the extra dimension, $`R`$, is bounded from below in our scenario. This is an obvious consequence of the fact that the quantities $`a`$ and $`c`$ increase with decreasing $`R`$, and the mass of the predominantly active neutrino state $`\nu _L`$, whose mass experiments test, is determined mainly by these quantities, since for small $`R`$ $`a,cb`$. In the case of $`\kappa ^{}=0.01(1.0)`$ the lower limit is R

>

4×107(5×105)

>

𝑅4superscript1075superscript105R\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}4\times 10^{-7}(5\times 10^{-5}) mm. More generally the lower limit of $`R`$ is obtained from

$$\frac{\kappa ^{}h_{}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}<(RM_{Pl})^{1/3}\times 2.3\text{eV},$$
(30)
as long as κ

<

0.1

<

superscript𝜅0.1\kappa^{\prime}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}0.1 (*cf.* the solid line in Fig. 1).

When the cosmological constraint, Eq. (27), is taken into account (crosses in Figs. 2a and 2b), large values of $`R`$ are favoured (R

>

3×102

>

𝑅3superscript102R\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}3\times 10^{-2} mm), unless the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ is very close to 0 or $`\pi /2`$. This is because for smaller $`R`$ the squared mass difference $`m_+^2m_{}^2`$ tends to increase, jeopardizing the fulfillment of the cosmological condition. Let us note that in the parameter space covered by our Monte Carlo analysis, the cases allowed by the cosmological condition are concentrated to the region of large mixing angle $`\alpha `$, *i.e.* to the case where the active neutrino is heavier than the sterile one. Nevertheless, also the small values of the mixing angle are allowed, *i.e.* the case where the sterile neutrino can be relatively heavy, albeit with quite a small part of the parameter space.

The step-like behavior of the scatter plot in the region $`10^5`$ mm

<

R

<

103

<

absent𝑅

<

superscript103\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}R\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-3} mm is due to the oscillation constraint, Eq. (26). As remarked before, this bound together with the upper bound of 2.3 eV of the electron neutrino mass, is the only laboratory constraint that is effective for our model. The reason is the relatively small values of the inert neutrino mass the theory allows, as displayed by Fig. 1.

Fig. 2b is the same scatter plot as in Fig. 2a, except that now $`\kappa ^{}=1`$. A comparison with the previous case reveals the interesting fact, namely that for a large values of the coupling $`\kappa ^{}`$ only the large mixing angles $`\alpha `$ are allowed. This can be understood as follows. The ratio of the mass matrix elements $`a`$ and $`c`$,

$$\frac{a}{c}=\frac{n_{}|h_{}|}{n_+|h_+|}=\frac{|h_{}|}{|h_+|}\sqrt{\frac{1+\pi ^2u^2R^2|h_+|^2/3}{1+\pi ^2u^2R^2|h_{}|^2/3}},$$
(31)
is approximately equal to 1 when the product $`u^2R^2`$ is large enough. From Eq. (18) one can deduce that in this case sin2α

>

1/2

>

superscript2𝛼12\sin^{2}\alpha\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}1/2. In the case $`\kappa ^{}=1`$ one is practically always in this regime, taken into account the lower limit for $`R`$ from the electron neutrino mass measurement. In the previous case of $`\kappa ^{}=0.01`$ this regime is reached, because of the smaller value of $`u`$, only at the upper end of the allowed $`R`$ range, as can been seen in Fig. 2a. The lower bound for $`R`$, still given by the experimental upper limit for the electron mass, is now larger than in the case of $`\kappa ^{}=0.01`$ since the neutrino mass (for small $`b`$) is proportional to $`\kappa ^{}`$, as seen from Eqs. (15), (20) and (28). When $`R`$ is increased, all possibilities from $`\nu _L\psi _L`$ to the maximal mixing $`\nu _L=(\varphi _L+\psi _L)/\sqrt{2}`$ become open. At low $`R`$ cosmology forces $`\nu _L`$ to be very close to the heavier mass state $`\psi _L`$, but when R

>

3×102

>

𝑅3superscript102R\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}3\times 10^{-2} mm, $`\nu _L`$ may develop a large $`\varphi `$ component as well.

Fig. 3 presents the region in the parameter space $`(\mathrm{sin}^22\alpha ,\delta m^2)`$ (with $`\delta m^2=m_+^2m_{}^2`$) reached by our model in the case $`\kappa ^{}=1`$. The only constraint taken into account here is the upper bound 2.3 eV for electron neutrino mass. We have checked that the inclusion of other laboratory bounds do alter Fig. 3, but only cuts $`1`$% more points from the region which is anyway excluded by oscillation experiments. The line between the cosmologically allowed (lower part) and excluded (upper part) regions has been drawn to Fig. 3, too. For $`\kappa ^{}=0.01`$ the allowed region would extend to larger mass differences, with virtually no change in cosmologically allowed region. As one can see, our model allows for all the active-sterile mixing schemes discussed as possible solutions to the solar neutrino and atmospheric neutrino anomalies. In particular the so-called SMA solution ($`|\delta m^2|(310)\times 10^6\text{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\alpha (0.21.3)\times 10^2`$) of the solar neutrino anomaly can be realized in this model. Note, however, that the solar LMA solution is excluded by cosmology bound.

## 5 Conclusions

We have investigated a five-dimensional model with two four-dimensional branes, a brane for ordinary SM particles and another brane for mirror particles. By looking at neutrino masses and mixings, we have shown that confrontation of the predictions of the model with data constrains the extra dimension physics remarkably. The experimental upper bounds on the masses of the known neutrinos directly restrict the extra dimension size, independently of how neutrinos actually mix. The value of brane-bulk neutrino coupling $`\kappa ^{}`$ determines the minimal value of extra dimension size $`R`$, a larger coupling corresponding to a larger $`R_{\mathrm{min}}`$. The nature of neutrino mixing depends crucially on the coupling $`\kappa ^{}`$. For $`\kappa ^{}1`$ the predominantly active neutrino, *i.e.* the ordinary neutrino, is never lighter than the predominantly sterile neutrino. For smaller values, $`\kappa ^{}0.01`$, also the opposite situation is allowed. In both cases active and sterile neutrino can mix maximally when $`R`$ is large enough.

As may be seen from Fig. 1, also the largest possible mass $`m_+^{\mathrm{max}}`$ of the heavier neutrino (of each flavour) depends essentially on $`\kappa ^{}`$, a smaller $`\kappa ^{}`$ (*i.e.* a smaller $`R_{\mathrm{min}}`$) enabling $`m_+^{\mathrm{max}}`$ to be higher. For $`\kappa ^{}=0.01`$ the maximal neutrino mass is $`1`$ keV. However, already for $`\kappa ^{}10^3`$ the neutrino mass may be of the order of 1 MeV with $`R_{\mathrm{min}}10^{10}`$ mm. Therefore the issue of the value of $`\kappa ^{}`$ is emphasized.

If also cosmological constraints are taken into account, the room for allowed neutrino mixings is largely suppressed. With cosmological bound the model clearly favor large radius R

>

102

>

𝑅superscript102R\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-2} mm. Only mixing angles very close to $`\pi /2`$ (and equally to 0 for some values of $`\kappa ^{}`$) make exception, all the radii down to the minimal one being then allowed. In this case no direct method exists for observing mirror brane neutrinos.

The model we have studied is the simplest possible in the sense that only one extra dimension is introduced. This kind of approach is not fully realistic since it is known that the hierarchy problem cannot be accounted for unless the number of extra dimensions is at least two. It is clear that with more than one extra dimension the brane-bulk structure becomes much more complicated than in the five-dimensional case we have studied in this paper, increasing the flexibility in the values of the model parameters. Nevertheless, we expect that our model exhibits the generic features that also appear in higher-dimensional treatments.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Academy of Finland under the project no. 40677.