text:
# Incompatibility of a comoving Ly𝛼 forest with supernova-Ia luminosity distances

## 1 Introduction

In Newtonian gravitational theory, confined to positive masses as active and passive sources, gravitation is an exclusively attractive type of interaction. In general relativity Einstein (1917) showed by introduction of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that gravitation may be repulsive as well (if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$). Homogeneous and isotropic general-relativistic world models including the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term have been reconsidered in recent years for a variety of reasons.

In the 1990’s a tightly constrained world model including a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term (the so-called Bonn-Potsdam model; henceforth BP-model) was derived by fitting quasar absorption lines (Hoell & Priester 1991a,b; Hoell et al. 1994; Liebscher 1994; Liebscher et al. 1992a,b). The BP-model was based on the assumption that Ly$`\alpha `$-forest quasar absorption lines situated between the Ly$`\alpha `$ and Ly$`\beta `$ emission lines reproduce the redshifts of comoving galaxy-populated shells (called ‘bubble walls’ by the authors) in the universe. The authors considered as virtues that their model does not require dark matter (except the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-fluid) and has a long age ($`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ years) providing ample time for galaxy formation. If fixing the matter content by the baryons predicted through big-bang nucleosynthesis, it leads to a large Hubble constant $`H_0`$. Large values of $`H_0`$ were claimed in the early days of the HST key project on the distance scale.

During the last few years also other groups went on the ‘$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ band waggon’. One reason is the apparent need for a nearly flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$) universe inferred from cosmic microwave background observations (Lineweaver 1998, de Bernardis et al. 2000). Since the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term in Einstein’s field equation is equivalent to the presence of a fluid with an energy density constant in space and time it can be used to fill the universe with ‘missing energy’. Nucleosynthesis constraints limit the amount of baryonic matter far below one in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ units and peculiar-motion observations suggest that also the attractive dark matter falls short to make the universe flat (Zehavi & Dekel 1999).

Recently, the repulsive effect of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ may have been detected more directly. Observations of supernovae of type Ia, taken as cosmic ‘standard candles’, appear to require the presence of an accelerating component in the expanding universe (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999).

In view of this added evidence for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, one may ask whether the seemingly pioneering Q-approach can be reconciled with the new data. However, since the original BP-model significantly differs from published fits of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ models to the SN data (Perlmutter et al. 1999; from now on we use the term ‘SN models’ for all models that fit the SN data) we employ a more general approach, which for our fits is nevertheless based on the same data sets as published BP and SN models. Rather than only taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as representing a repulsive component, we allow for fluids which have in common that the equation of state of each fluid yields proportionality between energy density $`ϵ`$ and pressure $`𝒫`$. This form of the equation of state includes the classical cosmological matter components dust, radiation and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fluid, but also encompasses more general repulsive and attractive components.

## 2 Theoretical background

### 2.1 World models

We here briefly describe the framework of the multifluid world models, which will be fit to the SN and quasar data. Further details, in particular on their classification, are given in Thomas & Schulz (2001).

We assume the Cosmological Principle, i.e. homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, leading to the Robertson-Walker (RW) line element. Inserting this into Einstein’s field equation leads to the Friedmann equations

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}(ϵ+3𝒫)$$
(1)
and

$$H^2(t)\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}ϵ\frac{k}{a^2}$$
(2)
$`H(t)`$ is the Hubble parameter at time $`t`$, the vacuum velocity of light is set $`c=1`$. $`ϵ=ϵ_i`$ denotes the total energy density of the universe, which we consider as the added contributions of $`N`$ ideal fluid components, each with an energy density $`ϵ_i`$. The energy density of each fluid is correlated to its pressure $`𝒫`$ via an equation of state $`𝒫=𝒫(ϵ)`$, for which we assume

$$𝒫=(\gamma 1)ϵ.$$
(3)
The constants $`\{\gamma _i\}`$ specify different fluid components. This simple form encompasses the well known cosmic fluids like (e.g. Kolb & Turner 1990)

* dust ($`𝒫=0;\gamma =1`$),
* radiation and any other extremely relativistic matter ($`𝒫=ϵ/3;\gamma =4/3`$),
* the constant-density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-fluid ($`𝒫=ϵ;\gamma =0`$),
* a network of slow cosmic strings ($`𝒫=ϵ/3;\gamma =2/3`$) or
* domain walls ($`𝒫=(2/3)ϵ;\gamma =1/3`$).

The term “dust” should not be confused with the solid-particle component of the interstellar medium as is common in astronomy. We here follow the practice of relativists to designate non-relativistic ($`𝒫=0`$) incoherent matter as dust. In particular, dust includes all baryonic matter and cold dark matter in its simplest form.

Apart from dust and radiation the physical background of cosmic fluids with equation of state (3) is hardly understood. Therefore, in case of $`\gamma 1`$ or $`4/3`$ we use the designation exotic fluid.

We confine the parameter of the equation of state to the range

$$0\gamma 2\text{implying}c_sc$$
(4)
where the speed of sound $`c_s`$ is restricted not to surpass the velocity of light $`c`$.

In standard world models, positive as well as negative values of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have been considered. Since in the fluid description $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ corresponds to a constant density, it is suggestive to allow for positive and negative energy densities of other $`\gamma `$ fluids in our phenomenological approach as well.

After introducing the normalized density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$, the normalized scale factor $`x(t)`$ and the parameter of state $`\alpha _i`$ by the equations111By $`H_0,a_0,\mathrm{and}ϵ_{i0}`$ we denote the values of $`H(t)`$, $`a(t)`$ and $`ϵ_i=ϵ_i(t)`$ at the present epoch $`t=t_0`$.

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i\frac{8\pi G}{3H_0^2}ϵ_{0i},x(t)\frac{a(t)}{a_0}\mathrm{and}\alpha _i23\gamma _i$$

Eqs. (1), (2) obtain the more suitable form

$$\ddot{x}=\frac{H_0^2}{2x}\underset{i}{}\alpha _i\mathrm{\Omega }_ix^{\alpha _i}$$
(5)
$$\dot{x}^2=H_0^2\left(\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_ix^{\alpha _i}+1\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right)$$
(6)
To arrive at Eq. (6) one has to use the present-epoch ($`t=t_0`$) version of Eq. (2) to eliminate the curvature index $`k`$

$$k=a_0^2H_0^2\left(\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_i1\right).$$
(7)
Henceforth we call components with $`\alpha >0`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-like, those with $`\alpha <0`$ dustlike because of their dynamical similarity to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-fluid ($`\alpha =2`$) and cosmic dust ($`\alpha =1`$), respectively.

According to Eq. (5), fluids obeying $`\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha >0`$ accelerate the cosmic expansion, we call them repulsive. Analogously, attractive fluids are characterized by $`\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha <0`$.

### 2.2 Method to fit the SN-Ia luminosity distances

We here assume that the corrections for extinction by intervening material, waveband width and shift (K correction) as well as peak magnitude via the shape of light-curve have been appropriately applied so that the SNe-Ia can be utilized as relative standard candles as discussed in Perlmutter et al. (1997, 1999). In a geometrical cosmological model the result of light propagation between an observer at $`z=0`$ receiving light from an emitter at redshift $`z`$ is subsumed under the term ‘luminosity distance’, which can be used like an Euclidean distance that leads to inverse-square light dilution. For a given model, parameterized by a set of fluid parameters $`\{(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\alpha _i)\}`$ luminosity distance or the corresponding distance module are functions of $`z`$. Since the absolute peak magnitude of the SNe is assumed to be known to a constant, one can compare the observed variation of apparent peak magnitude with $`z`$ with the shape of theoretical distance-module curves given by

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`C+5\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+z}{\sqrt{\left|_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i1\right|}}}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}(f)\mathrm{}\hfill & k=1\hfill \\ f\mathrm{}\hfill & k=0\hfill \\ \mathrm{sinh}(f)\mathrm{}\hfill & k=1\hfill \end{array}\right\}\right)`$ (11)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`f(z)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+z^{})^1\sqrt{\left|_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i1\right|}\mathrm{d}z^{}}{\sqrt{_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i\left(\left(1+z^{}\right)^{\alpha _i}1\right)+1}}}.`$ (12)
Here $`m`$ is the corrected apparent magnitude and $`C`$ is a constant.

The supernova data set is given in Perlmutter et al. (1999). It contains redshift and magnitude data of 42 high redshift SN ($`0.172<z<0.830`$) and additionally of 18 low redshift SN ($`0.014<z<0.101`$) which are needed to calibrate the method (cf. Perlmutter et al. 1997).

We adopted this relatively homogeneous set as representative for a demonstration of the SN-method. Graphs and results of the measurements by Riess et al. (1998, 1999) show these to be pleasingly similar. Further SN luminosity distances are rapidly accumulating and will provide stronger constraints in the future. However, it is not our goal to look for the ‘ultimate’ fitting model. Rather we want to obtain a typical range of fitting models that include our more general fluids.

In order to obtain best-fit values for the fluid parameters we minimized the function

$$\chi ^2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{60}{}}\frac{\left(m(z_j,\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N)m_j\right)^2}{\sigma _j^2}.$$
(13)
In contrast to the Q-method described below, we note that the apparent magnitude of the SNe only contains information about the integrated effect of cosmic evolution since the SN explosion has happened. Due to this smearing-out effect the evaluation of parameters is not tightly constrained.

### 2.3 Q-method to fit the Ly$`\alpha `$-forest

The basic idea underlying the Q-method is that the Ly-$`\alpha `$-forest is caused by intersections of the quasar light with the boundaries of an inhomogeneous bubble structure of the (baryonic) matter (Hoell & Priester 1991a,b; Hoell et al. 1994; Liebscher 1994; Liebscher et al. 1992a,b). The differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ between the redshifts $`z`$ of two absorption-lines are observed to be small, so that they are taken as infinitesimal. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ can be directly converted into the model-dependent cosmic expansion rate $`H(z)`$ at $`z`$, the epoch of the twin absorption, if the distance between the absorbing bubble walls (the void diameter) is known. The BP group assumed a constant void diameter $`R_\mathrm{B}`$ in the comoving frame. With these presumptions (and using the abbreviation $`y1+z`$), one finds in close analogy to the Q-procedure (as described, e.g., in Liebscher et al. 1992a)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }z^2=R_\mathrm{B}^2a_0^2H_0^2\left(\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_iy^{(2\alpha _i)}+\left(1\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right)y^2\right).$$
(14)
In the present case we minimize the function

$$\chi ^2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{14}{}}\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }z^2(z_j,\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_N,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N)\mathrm{\Delta }z_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)^2}{\sigma _j^2}.$$
(15)
The data set we used is given in Liebscher et al. (1992a). There are 12 absorption-line differences derived from the spectra of four quasars with $`2.25<z<4.35`$ together with the data of two nearby voids at $`z=0.08`$ and $`z=0.03`$, respectively.

In another work (Liebscher et al. 1992b) the BP-group published further absorption line data, however the cosmic parameters obtained from the enlarged data sample remain nearly the same.

The advent of space-based and ground-based high-resolution spectrographs led to Lyman forest data at lower $`z`$ than available for the BP-group (Weymann et al. 1998, Christiani et al. 2000, Kim et al. 2001). However, we have refrained to extract mean $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ values from these measurements, leaving this tedious task to defenders of the Q-method. It is shown below that the data set employed here leads to by far sufficient constraints for the Q-method to unveil strong differences with the SN-method.

## 3 Results of the fits

### 3.1 SN-Ia data

For the derivation of cosmic parameters we considered various cosmic fluids given by $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\alpha )`$ or $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\alpha _i\}`$ in addition to incoherent dust with density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ (the background radiation component could be usually neglected because of the low redshifts). The $`\chi ^2`$ values are not normalized and only meaningful within the same group of fits.

#### Case 1: Dust + exotic component.

With only one arbitrary exotic fluid the best fit yields ($`\nu `$ denotes the degrees of freedom of the fit)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.86\pm 0.58`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`1.38\pm 0.73`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`2\pm 1.9`$
$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`102,\nu =58.`$
Interpreting the resulting $`\alpha 2`$ as pointing towards $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as dark energy component is premature. The amount of uncertainty in $`\alpha `$ suggests that nearly any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-like fluid can be fit to the data. For instance, when fixing $`\alpha =1`$ we found no difference in $`\chi ^2`$ :

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.65\pm 0.41`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`2.41\pm 1.11`$
$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`102,\nu =58.`$
With increasing $`\alpha `$ the age of the universe in the best-fit models decreases ($`\alpha =1<20\mathrm{Gyr},\alpha =2<15\mathrm{Gyr}`$) and concomittingly $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ decreases.

#### Case 2: Dust fixed+free exotic component.

The dust densities derived from the above fits are high compared to values usually derived with other methods (e.g. Zehavi & Dekel 1999). If one assumes lower dust densities, $`\alpha `$ decreases (albeit remaining positive) thereby weakening the tendency to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as repulsive fluid. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$ (a typical result from observations of peculiar velocities) we found $`\alpha =0.6`$, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.03`$ (closer to nucleosynthesis constraints for baryons) the result was $`\alpha =0.5`$ (cf. Tab. 1).

#### Case 3: Flat models.

With no restriction for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ but considering only flat universes the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-fluid turns out to be the best-fit exotic fluid:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.30\pm 0.04`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`2\pm 0.04`$
$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`104,\nu =58.`$
Now, in contrast to case 1 the minimum of $`\chi ^2`$ is rather well defined and, statistically, there is no likely alternative to a dark-energy component close to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fluid. We nevertheless emphasize that - when relaxing the assumption of flatness - closed world models lead to slightly better (lower $`\chi ^2`$) fits (compare Fig. 1).

Among the fluid parameter sets leading to world models compatible with the observations, we found models without a big bang (however, all best fit models start with a big bang). If we want to transfer the cosmological standard model of the formation of light elements to non-big-bang universes, we have to require an epoch characterized by physical conditions similar to those in the nucleosynthesis epoch of a successful big-bang model. One of the necessary conditions would be a temperature exceeding $`10^9`$ K, which forces the minimum of the scale factor to fall short of $`x_{\mathrm{min}}<10^9`$. This condition rules out successfully fitting non-big-bang models.

However, the situation changes when allowing for more than one exotic fluid. For instance, we found flat models with two exotic fluids (plus dust) that fit the data and reach a minimum $`x_{\mathrm{min}}<10^9`$. A particular example is given by the following parameters:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.3`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{5.9\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{5.90003\hspace{0.17em}10}^{14},\alpha _1=3`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }_1,\alpha _2=1.5`$
$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`102,\nu =58.`$
In this model we have also included the component of cosmic background radiation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma `$ because of the desired high temperatures and the correspondingly small $`x`$ (high $`z`$) at which the dynamical effect of the radiation component (or any classical relativistic component) is strongly enhanced although negligible today.

### 3.2 Quasar data

Fitting the quasar data with a model consisting of dust and only one arbitrary exotic fluid we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0162\pm 0.0003`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`1.100\pm 0.001`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`1.87\pm 0.01`$
$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`10,\nu =11.`$
This model favours a low dust content and a repulsive fluid with properties close to that of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-fluid. When attributing the dust component exclusively to the baryon content predicted by big-bang nucleosynthesis it requires a large $`H_0`$. In comparison to the SN fits it appears most striking that the minimum of $`\chi ^2`$ is sharp and other $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-like fluids are practically ruled out.

We attempted to fit models including cold dark matter, e.g. by fixing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$, but found no match with the data ($`\chi ^2>\mathrm{100\hspace{0.17em}000}`$). This statement no longer holds if more than one exotic fluid is invoked. In this more general case we found models when fixing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$, for parameters of state of the exotic fluids in the range $`\alpha _{1/2}<1`$ and $`\alpha _{1/2}>0`$. One example is the model

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.3`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.060,\alpha _1=1.56`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`1.879,\alpha _2=1`$
$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`11,\nu =11.`$
All best-fit models with one exotic fluid are nearly flat, whereas exactly flat (within the parameter errors) models were not found to fit to the data. Exactly flat models with two exotic fluids exist. Thereby for each of the exotic fluids the parameter of state must obey $`\alpha _{1/2}0.58`$. An example is given by the following parameters:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.037`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.082,\alpha _1=0.58`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\alpha _2=2`$
$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`11,\nu =11.`$
The ages of the universe in those fitting models that start with a big bang is high in comparison to those of SN-world models ($`35\mathrm{Gyr}`$ for $`H_0=65\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Mpc}`$). For successful models with an exotic fluid and no big bang the same holds as for the corresponding SN-models: they do not contain an epoch with $`x_{\mathrm{min}}<10^9`$ ruling out the possibility of light-element nucleosynthesis in the same way as in standard-big-bang universes.

### 3.3 Comparison of the results

For the case of world models consisting of dust and one exotic fluid both methods agree in the requirement of a repulsive fluid leading to an accelerated universe even for low $`z`$. Within the framework of generalized ideal fluids presented in Thomas & Schulz (2001) such a repulsive fluid could be either $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-like with positive energy density or dustlike with negative density (cf. Sect. 2.1). Both the SN luminosity distance and the quasar absorption-line method lead to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-like exotic repulsive fluid. In both cases, the data themselves can be fit sufficiently well with models containing only one exotic component.

However, as Fig. 1 shows, the SN-method does not allow to decide which equation of state describes the exotic fluid. A large part of the degeneracy in the exotic component is caused by the relatively low redshifts so far reached by SN observations. Therefore at first glance, the Q-method, reaching to comparatively high redshifts close to $`z4.5`$, appears to be superior to narrow down the exotic component. Caution has to be applied to this suggestive conclusion because the fits of both methods differ significantly.

Typically, the SN data lead to closed models with large dust densities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ (allowing for cold dark matter). Despite presence of a repulsive component these models yield a relatively low age of the universe - roughly between 10 and 20 Gyr ($`H_0=65\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Mpc}`$). As pointed out above, the kind of accelerating component is hardly constrained: nearly any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-like component can be tuned to match the observations. Only when a flat geometry is required this degeneracy breaks down and the SNe Ia point towards $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as dark-energy fluid.

On the other hand, the quasar models usually turn out to be nearly flat, require low dust densities, which exclude substantial amounts of cold dark matter. They lead to values of the age of the universe of at least 30 Gyr ($`H_0`$ as above). Furthermore, there is a strong tendency to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as repulsive component rather than something ‘more exotic’.

Actually, the SN models are not compatible with the Q-method and vice versa. For illustration the upper part of Fig. 3 shows the absorption-line redshift differences predicted by the SN models, the lower part shows the SN-luminosity residuals predicted by the Q-models. In order to fulfil the conditions set by both methods with one model, one is forced to consider at least two repulsive fluids. For example, the following model “SN+Q”, which is also shown in Fig. 3, fits both data sets:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.5`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`2.44,\alpha _1=0.8`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`0.12,\alpha _2=1.5`$
$`\chi _{\mathrm{SN}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`102`$
$`\chi _\mathrm{Q}^2`$ $`=`$ $`11.`$
The kinematical differences of the SN-models and the Q-models are illustrated in Fig. 4, for which we have chosen the model “b” of Tab. 1 and “D” of Tab. 2 as representative examples for SN-models and Q-models, respectively. The figure shows $`f(x)\dot{x}^2(x)`$, e.g. the expansion rate of the models as a function of the scale factor $`x`$. In the range of the absorption line data ($`0.2<x<0.35`$) the Q-models expand slowly, as compared to the SN-models, leading to relatively small absorption line differences for given sizes of comoving bubbles. In most SN-models the same comoving bubbles would produce much larger differences of the lines (cf. Fig. 3, upper panel). SN models cannot fit a slow observed evolution of bubble-wall differences because the development of brightness of the supernovae for $`0.5<x<1`$ with redshift $`z`$ forces a rapid expansion. In the Q-models the supernovae would simply be too dark.

The nearly static phase at $`x0.2`$ strongly contributes to the high ages of the Q-models.

### 3.4 Remark on void evolution

We attempted to reconcile the SN world models with a bubble-wall Ly$`\alpha `$-forest via assuming various void evolution models. To this end we replaced the constant void-parameter $`R_\mathrm{B}`$ in the Q-method by an ansatz $`R_\mathrm{B}(z)=a_1z^{b_1}+a_2z^{b_2}`$. However, this approach yielded bad fits with at least ten times larger chisquares than the Q-fits.

This result does not appear surprising in view of the fact that a comoving Ly$`\alpha `$-forest requires an extended nearly static epoch in the Q-fits (e.g. see Fig. 4). To force agreement with the rapidly expanding SN models cannot even be achieved by our double-power-law ansatz.

## 4 Discussion

Unless we are invoking complicated multi-parameter models, the Q-models and the SN fits with world models composed out of $`𝒫ϵ`$ \- fluids have been shown to be incompatible. One possibility would be that Robertson-Walker models themselves are inadequate approximations to an inhomogeneous universe. However, this unsolved problem reviewed by Krasinski (1997) is beyond the scope of the present work.

Taking for granted the standard view that RW models are fair approximations of the global behavior of the universe we confine the discussion to possible pitfalls inherent to the Q-approach or to the SN fitting procedure.

### 4.1 The Q-approach

The Q-approach rests on at least two assumptions: (i) voids and their ‘bubble walls’ are stable structures, whose comoving average size is constant from $`z=0`$ to at least $`z=4.4`$; (ii) the locations of the bubble walls are uniquely determined by the quasar absorption lines selected by the Bonn-Potsdam group.

(i) During its early linear phase, the size of a small cosmic perturbation will be constant in a comoving frame (Padmanabhan 1993). However, the comoving size of a void will grow nonlinearly when its density contrast exceeds an appreciable fraction of unity (Friedmann & Piran 2000). Since current voids have a density contrast of about $`(0.8)`$, they have already reached the nonlinear stage (El-Ad & Piran 2000). Insofar it appears to be a critical point that the Q-method has not yet been applied together with a self-consistent model of void evolution.

(ii) In a comprehensive review, Rauch (1996) summarized the complicated history of analysis of the Ly$`\alpha `$-forest. A general absence of “voids” in the “typical” forest (lines of column density below $`10^{14}`$ cm-2) is claimed by statistical studies. Backed by numerical simulations of structure formation, the Ly-forest lines are considered to originate in an interconnected web of material sheets and filaments. These simulations utilize appreciable amounts of dark matter, which is at variance with the low-density baryonic Q-models. At low redshift, there appears to be a trend that the Ly$`\alpha `$ absorbers trace the large-scale distribution of galaxies (although absorption systems within voids were also found). However, the Q-approach, as proposed by the BP group, assumes that coincidence of galaxy sheets and absorber sheets has persisted since epochs at large redshifts. This contrasts with current belief of strong evolution at relatively low redshift.

Summarizing, there is disagreement between the BP-group and other workers in this field about the origin of the Lyman-forest in a cosmological context.

### 4.2 SNe-Ia as standard candles

In the Perlmutter et al. (1999) sample the evidence for an accelerating component could vanish if there were a systematic effect making SNe at high redshift dimmer by $`0.25`$ mag relative to those at low $`z`$. Such a dimming might be caused by (i) material between the SNe Ia and the earth. Alternatively (or in addition) the possibility of (ii) intrinsic differences between high-$`z`$ and low-$`z`$ SNe has to be considered. (i): Since SNe with obvious reddening are not used for deriving luminosity distances Aguirre & Haiman (2000) discussed the possibility of ’neutral‘ intergalactic solid particles making SNe appear fainter without reddening their spectrum. It turned out to be a theoretical possibility, which, if causing the total SNe dimming, should show up in future measurements of the cosmic far infrared background. (ii) Systematic differences in the spectra of low-$`z`$ and high-$`z`$ SNe have not been found. Comparison of light-curves even showed the widening with $`z`$ (“time dilation”) due to cosmological expansion (Leibundgut et al. 1996). There was concern about significantly shorter rise time of high-$`z`$ compared to low-$`z`$ SNe (Riess et al. 1999), which was, however, narrowed down to $`<2\sigma `$ agreement by Aldering et al. (2000). Despite a controversy on the progenitors and early stages of their explosion history, the empirically observed homogeneity seems so far to be fairly well established. Some key tests are nevertheless still to be made, one of which being a significant extension of the sample to $`z1.3`$. A potential shape of the magnitude-$`z`$ curve as for a transition from decelerated to accelerated expansion could hardly be mimicked by systematic or evolutionary effects (Livio 2000).

## 5 Summary and conclusions

We have compared the methods to derive world models from a kind of luminosity distance-redshift relation given by SNe Ia observations (the SN approach) and, on the other hand, from Ly$`\alpha `$-forest lines when one assumes that these arise in galaxy-populated walls and filaments around cosmic voids (the Q-approach). While the original authors essentially focused on world models with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plus normal incoherent matter (and radiation, which, however, only plays a role at dense stages of the universe, e.g. near a big bang) we allowed for a more general class of cosmic fluids only restricted by an equation of state $`𝒫ϵ`$.

However, even within this more general approach world models fit to SNe Ia cannot be reconciled with those fit to the quasar Ly$`\alpha `$ redshift distribution222Only less reasonable multi-parameter models can be adjusted to fit both approaches.. A minimum-component Q-model tends to a baryonic universe with correspondingly low $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as repulsive component. It is therefore incompatible with a number of independent observations that suggest a universe with dark-matter content $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}0.3`$. Structure formation is an open issue in the Q-scenario, although the large ages of the Q-models combined with a long period of low expansion may ease galaxy formation.

Simple dust+dark energy models fit to the SN-data tend to be closed and require non-baryonic dark matter. There is no strong case for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as dark-energy component unless the models are forced to be flat. Generally, there is a wide range of world models fitting the SN-Ia data, which can be reconciled with a dark-matter dominated attractive $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$, a nearly flat universe, structure formation and current age constraints.

Despite apparent independent support for the SN-method, it is not our intention to weigh the pros and cons of either method. The main conclusion is that there is a deep incompatibility between the Q- and the SN method, even if allowing for rather general world models.

This suggests that at least one of the two methods is doubtful or based on systematic errors requiring critical scrutiny on the underlying assumptions (see Sects. 2.2 and 2.3). For the Q-method it is mainly the bold identification of the low-column-density Lyman forest to represent a comoving ‘cell structure’ of the galaxy distribution (Sect. 4.1). For the SN-method, although more strongly based on empirical calibration, there are still suspicions on some remaining systematic effect (Sect. 4.2).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

The results of the super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrino experiment  provide compelling evidence of lepton flavour violation. Combined with recent data from reactor antineutrino studies , these strongly suggest a large near-maximal mixing $`(\theta _{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }\pi /4)`$ and consequent oscillations between very lightly massive mu and tau neutrinos. The latest analysis implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2|m_{\nu _\mu }^2m_{\nu _\tau }^2|3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }>0.88`$. Unless the two neutrinos are closely degenerate, their masses may be expected to have the same order of magnitude as their mass difference. The long-standing deficit of solar neutrinos  may also be explained by neutrino oscillations, though the presence of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ oscillations at a high level is still an open question.

Neutrino oscillations imply the violation of individual lepton flavour numbers and raise an interesting possibility of observing processes with a violation of lepton flavour between two charged leptons, such as $`\mu e\gamma `$, or $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ . In the Standard Model these processes are strongly suppressed due to the GIM mechanism. However, in the supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model, new mechanisms with virtual superpartner loops may enhance  these rare decay processes. Of course, once superpartners are discovered, it will be possible to probe lepton flavour violation directly in their production and decay processes . For example, it has been demonstrated that sneutrino or charged slepton pair production at future $`e^+e^{}`$ (and/or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$) colliders may provide a more powerful tool to search for supersymmetric lepton flavour violation (SLFV) than the said rare decay processes .

In this note we point out that sneutrinos and charged sleptons may not only be directly pair-produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, but can also be decay products of other supersymmetric particles, like charginos and neutralinos, decaying via cascades. The latter may contribute to the signal as well as background for SLFV processes. Therefore, a detailed account of these is needed in assessing the sensitivity of future colliders to SLFV. We find that off-diagonal chargino pair-production, overlooked earlier, can make a significant contribution to the SLFV signal already at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, and further that the role of neutralinos in decay chains is quite important and needs to be taken into account. At a CM energy of 800 GeV the diagonal pair production of the heavier chargino may also need to be included. We provide detailed studies of the SLFV signal at these two energies for two representative points of the parameter space of the MSSM. Significance contours are drawn in the parameter plane with the sneutrino mass difference as one axis and the sine of twice the sneutrino mixing angle as the other.

## 2 Signatures of slepton mixing

Within the framework of a seesaw mechanism , it is reasonable to suppose that masses and mixings in the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ system are caused by very heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos with masses that are upwards of $`10^{10}`$ GeV. Then flavour violating mixings get radiatively induced  in the charged slepton and sneutrino sectors via renormalization group equations. In such a scheme a substantial $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing leads to  large $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau `$ mixings. In this paper we do not discuss these theories; we concentrate on the question how well SLFV can be probed at future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders in a model independent way.

For nearly degenerate sleptons, additional SLFV contributions to rare decay processes are suppressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}/m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ through the superGIM mechanism. As a result, constraints from the yet unobserved radiative decays $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\tau \mu \gamma `$, $`\tau e\gamma `$ are not very stringent . On the other hand, in decays of sleptons, this kind of supersymmetric lepton flavour violation is suppressed only as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ . Since $`m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ is typically of the order $`10^2`$$`10^3`$, one may expect spectacular signals  for possible discovery in future $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider experiments.

To be more specific, let us take a pure 2-3 intergeneration mixing between $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau `$, generated by a near-maximal mixing angle $`\theta _{23}`$, and let us ignore any mixings with $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$. This means that scalar mass matrices are not diagonal in the same basis as fermion mass matrices. For example, the scalar neutrino mass matrix $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$, restricted to the 2-3 generation subspace, can be written in the fermion mass-diagonal basis as

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2}& 0\\ 0& m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}`$ are the physical masses of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3`$ respectively. In the following we take the mixing angle $`\theta _{23}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}=|m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_3}|`$ as free, independent parameters. The same goes for the charged slepton sector, modulo standard LR mixing, where $`\theta _{23}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}`$ are then the corresponding parameters for charged sleptons.§§§One can give a parallel discussion for the $`e`$-$`\tau `$ mixing case , replacing $`\mu `$ by $`e`$ everywhere. If we work in the mass eigenstate basis for all fields, the slepton mixing matrix will appear in interaction vertices of sleptons with leptons and charginos/neutralinos. As a result, the SLFV signals can be looked for in decays of sleptons, for example

$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_i^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_i^+\tau ^+\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,`$
$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i^c\tau ^+\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ (2)
with $`i=2,3`$, or in decays of charginos and/or neutralinos

$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\tau ^+\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ (3)
$`e^+e^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau ^+\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0f\overline{f}^{}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ escapes detection. The signature therefore would be $`\tau ^\pm \mu ^{}+jets+E/_T`$, $`\tau ^\pm \mu ^{}+\mathrm{}+E/_T`$, or $`\tau ^\pm \mu ^{}+E/_T`$, depending on hadronic or leptonic $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decay mode.

Hisano et al.  first proposed and discussed the search for SLFV signals (through $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau `$ mixing) at an assumed $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ linear collider with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and $`𝑑t=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ considering only the pair-production of sneutrinos and of charged sleptons, eq.(2). The final states, generated by SLFV and analyzed by them, were

$$(\mathrm{A}):\tau \mu +4j+E/_T,(\mathrm{B}):\tau \mu l+2j+E/_T,(\mathrm{C}):\tau \mu l\overline{l}+2j+E/_T$$
(5)
(with $`l=e,\mu `$ and$`j=`$jets coming from chargino decays) for which the corresponding backgrounds were small and under control. They found that only the signal (A) is viable in an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider whereas the other two processes would be difficult to observe due to small rates. The observability of signal (B) is better at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider, whereas the signal (C) is less promising in this collider too. In their analysis they assumed $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=100`$ GeV.

However, if the chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$ is not much heavier, as is the case in a substantial region of the MSSM parameter space, then off-diagonal chargino pair production $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ can take place for the linear collider CM energy $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$. The heavier chargino can decay via the SLFV chain, eq.(3), and the chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ pair production can also lead to the same final states as in eq.(5) providing a new source for the signal in addition to those discussed in Ref.. Moreover, the production of two charginos in $`e^+e^{}`$ collision has both the $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel exchange contributions and hence expected somewhat larger cross sections at higher collider energies. Other production processes, like $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$, may also be open at higher energies (depending on the mass pattern) and contribute to the same final states not only via the SLFV mechanisms shown in eqs.(3) and (4), but through lepton flavour conserving decay chains as well. The main difference between our study and that of the Hisano et.al  is that realistically we have taken into account additional contributions to SLFV coming from chargino production. We have also considered background from production of supersymmetric particles which were not considered in Ref. . Moreover, since we allow two jets in (A) to overlap, we also consider an important SM background coming from $`\overline{t}tg`$ production followed by semileptonic top decays. We note that recently possible signals of the SLFV in chain decays of neutralinos produced at the LHC have been discussed .

To illustrate the phenomenology of the SLFV process, we estimate the signal and background rates for two representative points  in the MSSM parameter space given in terms of two mSUGRA scenarios chosen for detailed case studies at the ECFA/DESY linear collider workshop:

$`RR1:m_0=100;M_{1/2}=200;A_0=0;\mathrm{tan}\beta =3;\mathrm{sgn}(\mu )=+`$
$`RR2:m_0=160;M_{1/2}=200;A_0=600;\mathrm{tan}\beta =30;\mathrm{sgn}(\mu )=+`$ (6)
Here the masses and $`A_0`$ are in GeV, and standard notation is used. The masses of corresponding chargino, neutralino and slepton states are shown in Table 1 along with the relevant branching ratios which are used in our calculations. The listed branching ratios are for the case of no slepton mixing; the effect of mixing is calculated below. The lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is nearly a bino while $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ are largely winos, thereby being almost degenerate. For these MSSM points, the squarks are heavier than 300 GeV.

A glance at Table 1 shows that in the case of RR2 (i.e. for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) the lightest chargino decays only leptonically (without SLFV it decays into $`\chi _1^0\tau \nu _\tau `$). As a result, the signature of SLFV in $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production would be one muon and three taus plus missing energy. Such a signal might be extremely difficult to extract from background with four taus or with two muons and two taus for realistic tau identification efficiencies. This question calls for full experimental simulations which are clearly beyond the scope of our analysis. Since the process in eq.(3) will not contribute to the final states listed in eq.(5), it can be neglected, as done in Ref.. For the case RR1, however, the lightest chargino has a large branching ratio for hadronic decays. Therefore taking into account the process eq.(3) in addition to eq.(2) may significantly improve sensitivity of an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider to SLFV processes. As it turns out that processes with one or both $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decaying leptonically are overwhelmed by background, in our analyses we consider only signature (A) in eq.(5). Allowing two quark jets to overlap, in the next section we discuss the final states with $`\tau ^\pm \mu ^{}+3jets`$ for signal and background processes in scenario RR1.

## 3 Collider signals

We perform our study of SLFV in a linear collider, such as the proposed TESLA , with a CM energy $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ and 800 GeV and an integrated luminosity $`𝑑t=501000\mathrm{fb}^1`$. To study the signal and as well as corresponding background rates we use simple parton level Monte Carlo simulation, where each parton is treated as a jet. The viability of this SLFV signal is studied both for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV.

(a) $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ case:

In this case, given the mass spectrum of Table 1, the off-diagonal $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ pair is the only possibility for the SLFV signal in chargino production. Starting with the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ state, slepton flavour violation can occur in the heavier chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ long cascade decay chain. The entire decay sequence is shown as follows:

1. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$ $``$ $`\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{2,3},\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{2,3}\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{}`$ (7)
2. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$ $``$ $`\mu ^++\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{2,3},\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{2,3}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{}.`$ (8)

There is, of course, another sequence with the charges reversed. The other process for signal (A), which was discussed in , is the following:

1. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i^c`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\tau ^+;\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i^c`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\mu ^{};\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+q^{},`$ (9)

where $`i=2,3`$. Notice that in eqs.(7,8) the slepton flavour violating decay occurs in two ways leading to the the same final state so that eventually the signal rate gets doubled.

The cross section corresponding to signal processes S1 and S2 can be written as

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\tau \mu +3jets)\chi _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\times \sigma _0\times ϵ_{BR}\times ϵ_{\tau _{id}},$$
(10)
whereas, for S3, it is given by

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\tau \mu +3jets)\chi _{23}(34\chi _{23})\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\times \sigma _0\times ϵ_{BR}\times ϵ_{\tau _{id}}.$$
(11)
The SLFV effect is taken into account  by the factors $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and

$$\chi _{23}=\frac{x_{23}^2}{2(1+x_{23}^2)},x_{23}=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}/\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the decay width of the sneutrino, which is 0.42 GeV for our choice of parameter space and assumed to be independent of flavour. The difference between eq.(10) and eq.(11) is due to the correlated slepton pair production in the process S3.

In the above expressions $`\sigma _0`$ is the corresponding sparticle pair-production cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ collision and $`ϵ_{BR}`$ is the product of relevant branching ratios for the corresponding decay chains assuming no SLFV. The value of $`ϵ_{BR}`$ are easily obtained by consulting Table 1. For example for S1 we get $`ϵ_{BR}=0.0075`$ where the factor 2 accounting two possible cases of $`\chi _2^\pm \chi _1^{}`$ is included. The other factor, $`ϵ_{\tau _{id}}`$, is the $`\tau `$ lepton selection efficiency. In our calculation we have considered decays of the $`\tau `$ through its hadronic decay modes to products such as $`\pi \nu _\tau `$, $`a_1\nu _\tau `$ and $`\rho \nu _\tau `$ with a total branching ratio of 64%. We have normalized final decay distributions appropriately taking the polarization of the $`\tau `$ . Here the $`\tau `$ is mostly left handed as it couples to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$ through gauge interaction, whereas the right handed coupling is suppressed by its mass as it couples through higgsino part of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$. Assuming the $`\tau `$ identification efficiency 0.70  for these decay modes, we get for the parameter $`ϵ_{\tau _{id}}=0.45`$ including its branching ratios to hadronic decay modes. Note that in full MC simulations one could further improve the signal to background ratio by imposing a cut on the impact parameter of the muon since the muon in the background processes comes in most cases from the decay of a $`\tau `$ which travels some distance from the production vertex before it decays . However, we have not used such a cut in the present study.

A point to be noted is that in the chargino decay processes either the $`\tau `$ (eq.7) or the $`\mu `$ (eq.8) is the leading lepton. The energy distribution of each of these leptons is flat between a maximum and a minimum value. This feature will be exploited to suppress possible background.

Since we allow (unlike Ref.) two jets to overlap, the most dominant Standard Model background to the signal $`\tau \mu +3jets`$ comes from

$$e^+e^{}t\overline{t}g$$
(13)
production followed by semileptonic decays of two top quarks. We have computed this process at tree level using MADGRAPH  with energy and isolation cuts discussed below. There are also flavour-conserving SUSY processes that contribute significantly to the background. In the following we list those processes with their possible decay chains:

1. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$ $``$ $`\tau ^++\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau ;\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^{}(\mu ^{})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+;\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{}.`$ (14)
2. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$ $``$ $`\tau ^+(\mu ^+)+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau ;\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+;\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{}.`$ (15)
3. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i^c`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\tau ^+;\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{};`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i^c`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\tau ^{}(\mu ^{});\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{}.`$ (16)
4. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2^{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2^+`$ $``$ $`\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0;\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau ^+(jets)\tau ^{}(\mu ^{});`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{};\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{}.`$ (17)

In eq.(17) the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2`$ is the heavier physical state after the mixing between $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R`$. Notice that in all background cases B1–B4 the $`\mu `$ comes from $`\tau `$ decay after the $`\tau \tau X`$ events are produced.

(b)$`\sqrt{s}=800\mathrm{GeV}`$ case:

Because of the higher energy, many new sparticle production channels containing heavier states of charginos and neutralinos open now, contributing both to signal and background processes. Cross sections of these are typically $`𝒪`$(fb). Note that the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i^c`$ pair-production will be suppressed at higher $`\sqrt{s}`$ since it is an $`s`$-channel mediated process. As far as our signal is concerned, a new source is the diagonal heavier chargino($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$) pair-production. One of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$ will decay through the flavour violating mode as shown in eqs.(7,8) while the other $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ will decay sequentially to 2 jets and $`E/_T`$ as shown below:

1. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$ $``$ $`\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{2,3},\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{2,3}\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}Z\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0q\overline{q}^{}\nu \overline{\nu },\text{o}r\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu \overline{\nu }q\overline{q}^{}`$ (18)
2. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$ $``$ $`\mu ^++\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{2,3},\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{2,3}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+q+\overline{q}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}Z\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0q\overline{q}^{}\nu \overline{\nu },\text{o}r\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu \overline{\nu }q\overline{q}^{}`$ (19)

In the case of background processes, there are also new sources which cannot be neglected. We find four additional processes leading to the same final states:

1. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}Z,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}h^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau \nu _\tau q\overline{q},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+Z,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+h^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mu \nu _\mu q\overline{q}`$ (20)
2. $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+W\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0q\overline{q}^{}q\overline{q}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau ^+\tau ^{}(\mu ).`$ (21)
3. $`e^+e^{}\chi _2^0\chi _4^0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ $``$ $`\chi _1^0\tau ^+\tau ^{}(\mu ^{}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0`$ $``$ $`\chi _1^\pm W^{}\chi _1^0q\overline{q}^{}q\overline{q}^{}`$ (22)
4. $`e^+e^{}\chi _3^0\chi _4^0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ $``$ $`\chi _1^\pm W^{}\chi _1^0\mu \nu q\overline{q}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0`$ $``$ $`\chi _1^\pm W^{}\chi _1^0\tau \nu q\overline{q}^{}`$ (23)

## 4 Expected signal and background rates

We have used the following selection cuts for our events using simple parton level simulation:

1. The $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$ are selected with the restriction $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu |<`$ 0.99 and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _\tau |<`$ 0.96. This cut has been applied to avoid leptons which are very close to the beam direction . We have put a selection cut on $`E_\tau >`$ 2 GeV.
2. The selection cut on the missing energy is applied as $`|\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{}{\theta }_{miss}|<`$ 0.90 in order to avoid missing energy which is along the beam pipe .
3. We select leptons to be isolated if the visible energy around the cone $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.4`$ is less than the maximum (10% of $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$, 1 GeV). Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\mathrm{},j)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (\mathrm{},j)^2}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\mathrm{},j)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (\mathrm{},j)`$ being the differences of azimuth and pseudorapidity respectively, between any lepton and one of the jets.
4. As mentioned before, we have treated partons as jets without including showering and fragmentation effects. We consider two jets as isolated if they pass the selection cuts $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{R}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j,j)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (j,j)^2}>0.6`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (j,j)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (j,j)`$ are the differences of azimuth and pseudorapidity respectively between any two jets. We accept those jets which are not too close to the beam pipe, i.e. with $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{jet}|<`$ 0.95, and have energy $`E_j>0.05(\sqrt{s}2m_t)`$. The last cut originates from the necessity to regulate the IR singularity of the QCD background process, eq.(13).
5. The final muon energy cut is applied to reduce the backgrounds of eqs.(1417) and eqs.(2123). For these background processes, the $`\mu `$ always comes from $`\tau `$ decay. Therefore, this $`\mu `$ is expected to have less energy than the $`\mu `$ of the signal process. For example, in the case of the signal process S1, the maximum and minimum energies of the $`\tau `$ and the $`\mu `$ are given by:

$`E_\tau ^{(max,min)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_\tau ^{rest}(1\pm \beta _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }})\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$
$`E_\mu ^{(max,min)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_\mu ^{rest}(1\pm \beta _{\stackrel{~}{\nu }})\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ (24)
where

$$E_\tau ^{rest}=\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}};E_\mu ^{rest}=\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}}$$
(25)
are the $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$ energies in the rest frames of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, respectively, and $`\beta `$’s and $`\gamma `$’s are the respective CM boost parameters. For the case of eq.(8), $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$ have to be interchanged in the above expressions. These maximum and minimum energies depend on massive particles involved in the initial and final states of two body decay subprocesses. Therefore, putting a cut on the energy of $`\mu `$, such as $`E_\mu >25`$ GeV, reduces substantially these backgrounds.

Note that the dominant SM background, eq.(13), contains two b-quark jets coming from top decays in contrast to the signal processes which contain jets initiated by light quarks. Therefore, further background suppression could be achieved by imposing a veto to the events containing tagged b jets. However, we have not used this criteria in our analysis as it requires a detailed MC simulation including detector effects which is beyond the scope of the present paper.

Applying the selection cuts, as described by 1-5 above, we have estimated the signal and background rates for the scenario RR1.

(a) $`\sqrt{s}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ case:

In Table 2 we show the expected cross sections for the signal and background processes (all cross sections are in ab). The numbers in the first row correspond to the raw production cross sections including branching ratio and $`\tau `$ identification factors, whereas the numbers in consecutive rows show the effect of kinematic cuts described above. Therefore, by using eq.(10) the total signal cross sections for S1 and S2 turn out to be:

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\tau \mu +3jets)\chi _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\times 0.128\mathrm{fb},$$
(26)
whereas for signal S3, using eq.(11), it is

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\tau \mu +3jets)\chi _{23}(34\chi _{23})\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\times 0.508\mathrm{fb}.$$
(27)
In comparison, the total cross section for the background is 0.282 fb which includes 0.075 fb from SUSY processes listed in Table 2 and 0.207 fb from the QCD process eq.(13) after all cuts. Using Poisson distributions, the significance is $`\sigma _d=\frac{N}{\sqrt{N+B}}`$ where N and B is the number of signal and background events respectively for a given luminosity. In Fig.1 we have shown the region (to the right of the curve) in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}`$ plane that can be explored or ruled out at a 3$`\sigma `$ level by the linear collider of energy 500 GeV for the given integrated luminosity. We have drawn the contours for three luminosity options, namely 50 fb-1, 500 fb-1 and 1000 fb-1, whereas the dashed line shows the reach of the process $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i^c`$ alone, eq.(9), using our cuts and assuming luminosity of 500 fb-1. Comparing the dashed line with line B we see that that the chargino contribution, eq.(7,8) increases the sensitivity range to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}`$ by 10-20% while the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}`$ does not change appreciably.

(b) $`\sqrt{s}=800\mathrm{GeV}`$ case:

Here we have generated events using our parton level simulation and applied the same selection criteria, as discussed earlier. Our estimated signal and background rates are given in Table 3. We find that the total signal rate in this case is 0.231 fb where the contribution from both off diagonal and as well as diagonal chargino production is 0.123 fb and from sneutrino production it is 0.108 fb. On the other hand, the background cross section is 0.315 fb, which includes 0.145 fb from SUSY processes, as given by Table 3, and 0.17 fb from the QCD process eq.(13). Using eqs.(10) and (11), we can isolate the region which can be probed or ruled out at a linear collider CM energy of 800 GeV. This is shown for two luminosity options in Fig. 2 in the same plane as in Fig.1; the luminosity of 50 $`fb^1`$ is not sufficient to exclude any region in the figure for this CM energy.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed the detection of SLFV at a future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider. We assumed the dominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing as suggested by super-Kamiokande atmospheric results. In the MSSM, the SLFV in left-handed sleptons is induced radiatively, leading to second and third generation slepton mixing, and to a final state with $`\tau \mu +3jets+E/_T`$ in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions as a most interesting signal. The physics potential of exploring SLFV at an $`e^+e^{}`$ LC has been analyzed for two reference points in the supersymmetry parameter space: RR1 with low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, and RR2 with high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, and for two CM energies $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ and 800 GeV. The novel feature of our analysis is the inclusion of diagonal and non-diagonal chargino and neutralino pair production processes to the SLFV signal and background. The calculations have been performed at the parton-level Monte Carlo simulations including realistic experimental cuts. The SM background from the QCD process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}g`$ has been included as well.

For the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ scenario (RR1) we find that, though the sneutrino pair production process is the dominant one, the chargino pair production processes are not negligible contributing more to the signal than to the background. As a result, the sensitivity of the linear collider to the SLFV in the parameter space of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}`$ plane is increased. We also find that operating at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, where only non-diagonal $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$ chargino pairs can be produced, is the most optimal for the RR1 scenario. Increasing the CM energy to 800 GeV reduces the sensitivity mainly due to the decrease of sneutrino cross section not compensated by opening $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}`$. The latter also contributes significantly to the background (B5) at $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV, thereby diluting the SLFV signal at that energy. Thus $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV does not seem to be a viable CM energy option for studying SLFV in the RR1 scenario.

For the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ scenario (RR2), only the $`\mu +3\tau +E/_T`$ final states might signal SLFV processes. However, only detailed Monte Carlo simulations including all experimental aspects may tell us if such final states can realistically be reconstructed.

Acknowledgements
We thank M. Drees, H. Martyn, M.M. Nojiri, X. Tata and P. Zerwas for helpful discussions. MG is also thankful to V.Ravindran for fruitful discussion. The authors acknowledge the hospitality of the DESY theory group. MG was supported by Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation during the initial phase of this work. The work of JK has partially been supported by the KBN Grant No. 2 P03B 060 18. Work supported in part by the European Commission 5-th framework contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149.

Figure 1: The significance contours (for the SUSY point RR1 mentioned in the text) in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}`$ plane for $`\sqrt{s}=`$500 GeV and for different luminosity options, contours A, B and C being for 50 fb-1, 500 fb-1 and 1000 fb-1, respectively. The dashed line is for only $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }^c`$ contribution with luminosity 500 fb-1. The upper-right side of these contours can be explored or ruled out at the 3$`\sigma `$ level.

Figure 2: The same as in Fig.1 for $`\sqrt{s}=`$800 GeV and two luminosities 500 fb-1 and 1000 fb-1