text:
# Higgs Boson Decays in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model with Radiative Higgs Sector CP Violation

## I Introduction

The soft CP violating Yukawa interactions in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) cause the CP–even and CP–odd neutral Higgs bosons to mix via loop corrections . Although the mixing is a radiative effect, the induced CP violation in the MSSM Higgs sector can be large enough to affect the Higgs phenomenology significantly at present and future colliders .

In the light of the possible large CP–violating mixing, we have studied in Ref.  all the dominant two–body decay branching fractions of the three neutral Higgs bosons based on the mass matrix derived by Pilaftsis and Wagner . The mass matrix, however, is not applicable for large squark mass splitting. In the present work, we re–evaluate all the two–body decay modes of the neutral Higgs bosons with the newly–calculated mass matrix  which is valid for any values of the soft–breaking parameters. Furthermore, we extend the work significantly by including the Higgs–boson decay modes containing virtual gauge bosons and those into squark pairs and, also by taking into account the squark–loop contributions to the gluon–gluon decay modes. In addition, we study the dominant decay modes of the charged Higgs boson in the presence of the non–trivial CP–violating mixing.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we give a brief review of the calculation  of the loop–induced CP–violating mass matrix of the three neutral Higgs bosons. We also consider the constraints by the electron electric dipole moment (EDM) on the space of the relevant supersymmetric parameters. In Sec. III we discuss the effects of the CP phases on the neutral Higgs boson decays. The effects of the CP phases on the charged Higgs boson decays are discussed in Sec. IV. Finally, we summarize our findings in Sec. V.

## II CP Violation in the MSSM Higgs Sector

The loop–corrected mass matrix of the neutral Higgs bosons in the MSSM can be calculated from the effective potential

$`V_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_1^2\left(\varphi _1^2+a_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_2^2\left(\varphi _2^2+a_2^2\right)\left|m_{12}^2\right|\left(\varphi _1\varphi _2a_1a_2\right)\mathrm{cos}(\xi +\theta _{12})`$ (1)
$`+\left|m_{12}^2\right|\left(\varphi _1a_2+\varphi _2a_1\right)\mathrm{sin}(\xi +\theta _{12})+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{g}^2}{8}}𝒟^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2}}\mathrm{Str}\left[^4\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)\right],`$ (2)
with $`𝒟=\varphi _2^2+a_2^2\varphi _1^2a_1^2`$, $`\widehat{g}^2=(g^2+g^2)/4`$, and $`\varphi _i`$ and $`a_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are the real fields of the neutral components of the two Higgs doublets:

$`H_1^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\varphi _1+ia_1\right),H_2^0={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\xi }}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\varphi _2+ia_2\right).`$ (3)
The parameters $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ are the SU(2)L and U(1)Y gauge couplings, respectively, and $`Q`$ denotes the renormalization scale. All the tree–level parameters of the effective potential (1) such as $`m_1^2,m_2^2`$ and $`m_{12}^2=\left|m_{12}^2\right|\mathrm{e}^{i\theta _{12}}`$, are the running parameters evaluated at the scale $`Q`$. The potential (1) is then almost independent of $`Q`$ up to two–loop–order corrections. The super–trace is to be taken over all the bosons and fermions that couple to the Higgs fields.

The matrix $``$ in Eq. (1) is the field–dependent mass matrix of all modes that couple to the Higgs bosons. The dominant contributions in the MSSM come from third generation quarks and squarks because of their large Yukawa couplings. The field–dependent masses of the third generation quarks are given by

$`m_b^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|h_b|^2\left(\varphi _1^2+a_1^2\right),m_t^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|h_t|^2\left(\varphi _2^2+a_2^2\right),`$ (4)
where $`h_b`$ and $`h_t`$ are the bottom and top Yukawa couplings, respectively. The corresponding squark mass matrices read:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+m_t^2\frac{1}{8}\left(g^2\frac{g^2}{3}\right)𝒟& h_t^{}\left[A_t^{}\left(H_2^0\right)^{}+\mu H_1^0\right]\\ h_t\left[A_tH_2^0+\mu ^{}\left(H_1^0\right)^{}\right]& m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2+m_t^2\frac{g^2}{6}𝒟\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
$`_{\stackrel{~}{b}}^2`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+m_b^2+\frac{1}{8}\left(g^2+\frac{g^2}{3}\right)𝒟& h_b^{}\left[A_b^{}\left(H_1^0\right)^{}+\mu H_2^0\right]\\ h_b\left[A_bH_1^0+\mu ^{}\left(H_2^0\right)^{}\right]& m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2+m_b^2+\frac{g^2}{12}𝒟\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2`$ are the real soft SUSY–breaking squark-mass parameters, $`A_b`$ and $`A_t`$ are the complex soft SUSY–breaking trilinear parameters, and $`\mu `$ is the complex supersymmetric Higgsino mass parameter.

The mass matrix of the Higgs bosons (at vanishing external momenta) is then given by the second derivatives of the potential, evaluated at its minimum point

$`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,a_1,a_2)=(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,a_1,a_2)=(v\mathrm{cos}\beta ,v\mathrm{sin}\beta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}),`$ (12)
where $`v=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}246\mathrm{GeV}`$. The massless state $`G^0=a_1\mathrm{cos}\beta a_2\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ is the would–be–Goldstone mode to be absorbed by the $`Z`$ boson. We are thus left with a mass–squared matrix $`_H^2`$ for three physical states, $`a(=a_1\mathrm{sin}\beta +a_2\mathrm{cos}\beta ),\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. This matrix is real and symmetric, i.e. it has 6 independent entries. The diagonal entry for the pseudoscalar component $`a`$ reads:

$`_H^2|_{aa}=m_A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{|h_t|^2m_t^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}g(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{|h_b|^2m_b^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}g(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{b}}^2\right\},`$ (13)
where $`m_A`$ is the loop–corrected pseudoscalar mass in the CP invariant theories. The CP–violating entries of the mass matrix, which mix $`a`$ with $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, are given by

$`_H^2|_{a\varphi _1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\mathrm{sin}\beta }}[g(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2)(X_t\mathrm{cot}\beta 2|h_t|^2R_t)\widehat{g}^2\mathrm{cot}\beta \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}}]`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{b}}}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}[g(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)(X_b+2|h_b|^2R_b^{})+(\widehat{g}^22|h_b|^2)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2}}]\},`$
$`_H^2|_{a\varphi _2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\mathrm{sin}\beta }}[g(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2)(X_t+2|h_t|^2R_t^{})+(\widehat{g}^22|h_t|^2)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}}]`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{b}}}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}[g(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)(X_b\mathrm{tan}\beta 2|h_b|^2R_b)\widehat{g}^2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2}}]\}.`$
where $`g(x,y)=2[(x+y)/(xy)]\mathrm{log}(x/y)`$. The size of these CP–violating entries is determined by the re–phasing invariant quantities

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}(A_t\mu \mathrm{e}^{i\xi })}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}},\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}(A_b\mu \mathrm{e}^{i\xi })}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2}},`$ (18)
which measure the amount of CP violation in the top and bottom squark–mass matrices. In the CP–conserving limit, both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ vanish, leading to $`|m_{12}^2|\mathrm{sin}(\xi +\theta _{12})=0`$. The definition of the mass–squared $`m_A^2`$ and the dimensionless quantities $`X_{t,b}`$, $`R_{t,b}`$ and $`R_{t,b}^{}`$, as well as the other CP–preserving entries of the mass matrix squared $`_H^2`$, can be found in Ref. . The real and symmetric matrix $`_H^2`$ can now be diagonalized with an orthogonal matrix $`O`$;

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ \varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right)=O\left(\begin{array}{c}H_1\\ H_2\\ H_3\end{array}\right).`$ (25)
Our convention for the three mass eigenvalues is $`m_{H_1}m_{H_2}m_{H_3}`$.

The loop–corrected neutral–Higgs–boson sector depends on various parameters from the other sectors of the MSSM; $`m_A`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mu `$, $`A_t`$, $`A_b`$, the renormalization scale $`Q`$, and the real soft–breaking masses, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$, and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$, as well as on the complex gluino–mass parameter $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ through one–loop corrections to the top and bottom quark masses . Noting that the size of the radiative Higgs sector CP violation is determined by the rephasing invariant combinations $`A_t\mu \mathrm{e}^{i\xi }`$ and $`A_b\mu \mathrm{e}^{i\xi }`$, see Eq. (18), we take for our numerical analysis the following set of parameters:

$`|A_t|=|A_b|=1\mathrm{TeV},|\mu |=2\mathrm{TeV},`$ (26)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{D}}=|M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}|=0.5\mathrm{TeV},\xi +\mathrm{Arg}(\mu )=\mathrm{Arg}(M_{\stackrel{~}{g}})=0,`$ (27)
under the constraint;

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{Arg}(A_t\mu \mathrm{e}^{i\xi })=\mathrm{Arg}(A_b\mu \mathrm{e}^{i\xi }).$$
(28)
We vary the common phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as well as $`m_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the following numerical studies. Our choice of relatively large magnitudes of $`|A_t\mu |=|A_b\mu |`$ enhances CP–violation effects in the MSSM Higgs sector *** Our choice of the set of parameters satisfies the necessary condition to avoid a color and electric–charge breaking (CCB) minimum in the direction $`|\stackrel{~}{Q}|=|\stackrel{~}{U}|=|H_2^0|`$ : $`|A_t|^23(M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2+m_2^2)`$. But, according to the more general study , our relatively large values of $`|A_{t,b}|`$ and $`|\mu |`$ compared to those of $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ could give rise to a dangerous CCB minima in the potential which could be deeper than the electro–weak vacuum. Therefore, a detailed study of the CCB minima in the presence of the non–trivial CP–violating mixing among the neutral Higgs bosons deserves further analysis. .

Before studying the CP–violation effects on the neutral and charged Higgs–boson decays, it is worthwhile to examine the present experimental constraints on the above parameter values (27). The charginos, neutralinos, and squarks of the first two generations are sufficiently heavy for the parameter set (27). The lightest squark is the lighter top squark $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$, the mass of which can be as low as 200 GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0^\mathrm{o}`$. The CP–violating phase could weaken the LEP lower limit on the lightest Higgs boson mass significantly . In our analysis we show our results when the lightest Higgs–boson mass is above 70 GeV.

The one–loop effective couplings of the CP–odd components of the Higgs boson to the gauge bosons give rise to the electron and neutron EDM’s  at two–loop level. The effects could be significant for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ at large $`|A_t|,|A_b|`$ and $`|\mu |`$ so that some region of our parameter space is already excluded by the present $`2\sigma `$ upper bounds on the electron and neutron EDM’s : $`|d_e|<0.5\times 10^{26}e`$cm and $`|d_n|<1.12\times 10^{25}e`$cm, respectively . The dark–shaded region in Fig. 1 is excluded by the electron EDM constraint in the ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`m_A`$) plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$ and $`10`$. The unshaded regions give $`m_{H_1}<70`$ GeV. The EDM constraints are avoided only :n the lightly shaded region. The excluded region becomes larger for larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Even for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$ as shown in Fig. 1, some parameter space with small $`m_A`$ and large CP–violating phase can be excluded by the EDM constraint.

It should be noted, however, that the strong two–loop EDM constraints due to the one–loop effective couplings of the CP–odd components of the Higgs bosons to the gauge bosons may not be valid if there appears cancellation among different EDM contributions. Such cancellations may occur between one– and two–loop contributions, or among two–loop contributions themselves . In fact, the excluded regions of Fig. 1 disappear if such cancellation takes place at 50 % (20 %) level for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$). In this paper, we show our results for the whole parameter space (27).

## III Neutral Higgs Boson Decays

In this section we discuss the phenomenological consequences of the CP–violating Higgs–boson mixing on the total decay widths and decay branching fractions of the neutral Higgs bosons. We choose $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$ throughout this section, which leads larger CP–violating effects than the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ case .

The most important decay channels of the Higgs bosons are two–body decays into the heaviest fermions and bosons because the Higgs couplings are proportional to the particle masses. We refer to Ref.  for explicit forms of the two–body decay widths of each Higgs boson and the relevant interaction Lagrangians.

The Higgs boson decays into virtual gauge bosons $`V^{()}V^{()}`$ are also important for the Higgs bosons of the intermediate mass region, $`110`$ GeV $`m_H`$ $`150`$ GeV . Because of the importance of these 3–body and 4–body decay modes, we extend the previous work  to include the Higgs–boson decays into virtual gauge boson pairs and those into a lighter Higgs boson and a virtual $`Z`$ boson. The partial decay width of $`H_iV^{()}V^{()}`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_iV^{()}V^{()})={\displaystyle \frac{G_Fm_{H_i}^3\delta _V(\mathrm{cos}\beta O_{2i}+\mathrm{sin}\beta O_{3i})^2}{16\sqrt{2}\pi }}`$ (29)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\omega _i}}dx{\displaystyle _0^{(\sqrt{\omega _i}\sqrt{x})^2}}dy{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ__V^2\lambda ^{1/2}(\omega _i,x,y)(\lambda (\omega _i,x,y)+12xy)}{\omega _i^3\pi ^2[(x1)^2+ϵ__V^2][(y1)^2+ϵ__V^2]}},`$ (30)
where $`ϵ__V=\mathrm{\Gamma }_V/m_V`$, $`\omega _i=m_{H_i}^2/m_V^2`$, $`\delta _W=2`$, $`\delta _Z=1`$, and $`\lambda (x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^22xy2yz2zx`$. For $`m_{H_i}>2m_V`$, $`1/[(x1)^2+ϵ^2]`$ can be approximated by $`\pi /ϵ\delta (x1)`$ and the expression of Ref.  is recovered for small $`ϵ`$. On the other hand, the partial decay width of $`H_iH_jZ^{()}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_iH_jZ^{()})=\frac{G_Fm_{H_i}^3g_{_{H_iH_jZ}}^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi }_0^{(\sqrt{\omega _i}\sqrt{\omega _j})^2}dx\frac{ϵ_Z\lambda ^{3/2}(\omega _i,\omega _j,x)}{\omega _i^3\pi [(x1)^2+ϵ_Z^2]},$$
(31)
where $`g_{_{H_iH_jZ}}=O_{1i}(\mathrm{cos}\beta O_{3j}\mathrm{sin}\beta O_{2j})O_{1j}(\mathrm{cos}\beta O_{3i}\mathrm{sin}\beta O_{2i})`$.

For the parameter set (27), the decays of two heavy Higgs bosons into sfermion pairs are kinematically allowed and their decay widths are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_i\stackrel{~}{f}_j^{}\stackrel{~}{f}_k)=\frac{N_C}{16\pi m_{H_i}}|g_{\stackrel{~}{f}_j\stackrel{~}{f}_k}^i|^2\lambda ^{1/2}(1,m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_j}^2/m_{H_i}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_k}^2/m_{H_i}^2),$$
(32)
where $`N_C=3(1)`$ for squarks (sleptons). Finally, the Higgs boson decay width into a gluon pair including the sfermion contribution to the decay width is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_igg)=\alpha _s^2\frac{m_{H_i}}{32\pi ^3}\left(|S_i^g(m_{H_i}^2)|^2+|P_i^g(m_{H_i}^2)|^2\right),$$
(33)
where the dimensionless form factors $`S_i^g(s)`$ and $`P_i^g(s)`$ are given by

$`S_i^g(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f=t,b}{}}\left\{g_{sff}^i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{m_f}}F_{sf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{4m_f^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,2}{}}g_{\stackrel{~}{f}_j\stackrel{~}{f}_j}^i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{f}_j}^2}}F_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{4m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2}}\right)\right\},`$ (34)
$`P_i^g(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f=t,b}{}}g_{pff}^i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{m_f}}F_{pf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{4m_f^2}}\right).`$ (35)
The couplings $`g_{sff}^i`$, $`g_{pff}^i`$, and $`g_{\stackrel{~}{f}_j\stackrel{~}{f}_j}^i`$ and the functions $`F_{sf}`$, $`F_{pf}`$, and $`F_0`$ are given, for example, in .

Figure 2 shows the dominant partial branching fractions of the lightest Higgs boson decays with respect to the mass $`m_{H_1}`$ for five different values of the CP phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ : $`\mathrm{\Phi }=180^\mathrm{o}`$, $`150^\mathrm{o}`$, $`120^\mathrm{o}`$, $`90^\mathrm{o}`$, and $`60^\mathrm{o}`$. The lightest Higgs boson mass is found to be less than 120 GeV and, as a result, the main decay channels are $`b\overline{b}`$ (upper solid line), $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ (dashed line), $`c\overline{c}`$ (dotted line), and $`gg`$ (lower solid line). We note that the pattern of the branching fractions of the main decay channels, $`H_1b\overline{b}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, is almost independent of the CP phase. However, for larger $`m_{H_1}`$, the branching fraction of the decay $`H_1W^{()}W^{()}`$ becomes comparable to that of the two–gluon channel for $`\mathrm{\Phi }=120^\mathrm{o}`$ and it can be as large as that of the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel for $`\mathrm{\Phi }=90^\mathrm{o}`$ It is worthwhile to note that the decay mode $`H_1\gamma \gamma `$ with $`m_{H_1}130`$ GeV is crucial for the detection of the lightest Higgs boson at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) despite its very low branching fraction. A detailed analysis of the dependence of this important decay mode on the CP phases is to be reported elsewhere ..

On the other hand, the partial branching fractions for the $`H_{2,3}`$ decays are very sensitive to the CP phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and strongly dependent on their masses $`m_{H_{2,3}}`$ as clearly shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The upper solid line in each frame is for $`H_{2,3}b\overline{b}`$ and the lower solid line for $`H_{2,3}gg`$. The dashed line is for $`H_{2,3}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, the dotted-line for $`H_{2,3}c\overline{c}`$, and two dash–dotted lines are for the channels $`H_2W^{()}W^{()}`$ (upper line) and $`Z^{()}Z^{()}`$ (lower line), respectively. In addition, the thick solid line shows the branching fractions for $`H_{2,3}t\overline{t}`$, the thick dashed line is for $`H_{2,3}H_1Z^{()}`$, and the thick dotted-line is for $`H_{2,3}H_1H_1`$. Finally, the thick dash–dotted lines are for the $`\stackrel{~}{t}_i\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_j}`$ decay channels. The decay channels forbidden in the CP invariant theories are marked by filled stars in the legend. These channels become significant as the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ differs from $`180^\mathrm{o}`$, being the most dominant channels of the heavy Higgs bosons for non–trivial values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Relegating the detailed descriptions of the 2–body decay channels of the heavy Higgs bosons to Ref. , it is worthwhile to summarize a few interesting features of the decay modes into virtual vector boson pairs and those into top–squark pairs :

* The decays $`H_2W^{()}W^{()}`$ could become the second dominant channel for $`M_{H_2}2M_W`$ for a large range of nontrivial $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. And the branching fraction of the same decay channel for the heaviest Higgs boson, $`H_3W^{()}W^{()}`$, is also sizable for the similar range of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.
* The decay channel $`H_2\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, forbidden in the CP invariant theories, overwhelms all the other decay channels for the most range of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, once the mode is kinematically allowed. On the contrary, the branching fraction of the decay channel $`H_3\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ decreases as $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ differs from $`180^\mathrm{o}`$, exhibiting a typical two–state mixing between two Heavy Higgs bosons for large $`m_A`$.
* For the parameter set (27), the non–diagonal decay channels into $`H_3\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ dominate almost all the other decay channels of $`H_3`$ once the channel is kinematically allowed when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ differs significantly from $`180^\mathrm{o}`$. The dominance of these channels can be clearly seen near the right end of each frame in Fig. 4 with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=90^\mathrm{o}`$ and $`60^\mathrm{o}`$.

The dominance of the top–squark channels in the heavy Higgs-boson decays is mainly due to the large values of $`|A_t|`$ and $`|\mu |`$ in Eq. (27), which enhance the Higgs–boson couplings to the top squarks. For the particular parameter set (27), two top squarks mix with each other (almost) maximally, leading to a significant suppression of the coupling of CP–even Higgs bosons to non–diagonal top squarks.

## IV Charged Higgs Boson Decays

Below the $`H^+t\overline{b}`$ decay threshold, the decay channel $`H^+W^{+()}H_1`$, involving the lightest Higgs boson, constitutes one of the major decay channels of the charged Higgs boson together with the decay channel $`H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$. The fermionic decay channels $`H^+t\overline{b}`$ and $`\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$ are not affected by the CP–violating neutral Higgs mixing. On the contrary, the coupling of the $`H^\pm W^{}H_1`$ vertices depend strongly on the mixing among neutral Higgs bosons such that the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can affect the branching fractions of the charged–Higgs–boson decays.

The interaction of the charged Higgs boson with a neutral Higgs boson and a $`W`$ boson in the presence of the CP–violating neutral–Higgs–boson mixing is described by the Lagrangian

$$_{H^\pm W^{}H_i}=\frac{ig}{2}\left(\mathrm{sin}\beta O_{2i}\mathrm{cos}\beta O_{3i}+iO_{1i}\right)\left(H_i\stackrel{}{^\mu }H^+\right)W_\mu ^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(36)
in contrast to which the couplings of the neutral Higgs fields to vector bosons are determined by the Lagrangian

$$_{H_iVV}=gm_W(\mathrm{cos}\beta O_{2i}+\mathrm{sin}\beta O_{3i})H_i\left[W_\mu ^+W^\mu +\frac{1}{2c_W^2}Z_\mu Z^\mu \right].$$
(37)
Note that if the $`H_iVV`$ couplings are suppressed, the $`H^\pm W^{}H_i`$ couplings are enhanced and vice versa because of the orthogonality of the mixing matrix $`O`$: $`O_{1i}^2+O_{2i}^2+O_{3i}^2=1`$. It was recently shown  that the experimental lower limits from the processes $`e^+e^{}ZH_1`$ and $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }H_1`$ on $`m_{H_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ could be significantly relaxed with the suppression of the $`H_1VV`$ couplings due to the CP–violating neutral Higgs–boson mixing. In this case, the decay channel $`H^\pm W^{\pm ()}H_1`$ plays a crucial role in confirming the existence of the CP–violating neutral–Higgs–boson mixing because this mode must be enhanced due to the orthogonality relation.

The explicit forms of the two– and three–body decay widths of the fermionic modes, $`H^+t^{()}\overline{b},\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$, can be found in Ref. . So, we present in the present work just the expression of the decay width of $`H^+W^{+()}H_i`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+W^{+()}H_i)=\frac{g^2m_{H^\pm }\left|g_{_{H^\pm W^{}H_i}}\right|^2}{64\pi ^2}_0^{(1\kappa _{_{H_i}})^2}dx\frac{\gamma __W/\kappa __W\lambda ^{3/2}(1,x,\kappa _{_{H_i}}^2)}{(x\kappa __W^2)^2+\kappa __W^2\gamma __W^2},$$
(38)
where $`g_{_{H^\pm W^{}H_i}}=\mathrm{sin}\beta O_{2i}\mathrm{cos}\beta O_{3i}+iO_{1i}`$, $`\kappa _x=m_x/m_{H^\pm }`$, and $`\gamma __W=\mathrm{\Gamma }__W/m_{H^\pm }`$. For the charged Higgs–boson mass $`m_{H^\pm }m_{H_i}+m_W`$, the decay width simplifies in the narrow–width approximation to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+W^+H_i)=\frac{G_Fm_{H^\pm }^3\left|g_{_{H^\pm W^{}H_i}}\right|^2}{8\sqrt{2}\pi }\lambda ^{3/2}(1,\kappa __W^2,\kappa _{_{H_i}}^2).$$
(39)
For our numerical analysis of the charged–Higgs–boson decays, we take $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$ and the parameter set (27) as in the analysis for the neutral Higgs–boson decays. Fig. 5 (a) shows the branching fraction $`(H^+W^{+()}H_1)`$ on the plane of $`m_{H^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The allowed region is divided into 4 parts according to the values of the branching fraction; $`0.4`$ (filled squares), $`0.1<0.4`$ (filled circles), $`0.04<0.1`$ (filled triangles), and $`<0.04`$ (dots). The partial branching fraction $``$ is enhanced with large CP violating phase such that this mode could be significant for larger $`m_{H^\pm }`$ in the CP non–invariant case in contrast to the CP invariant case ($`\mathrm{\Phi }=180^\mathrm{o}`$). The total decay width of the charged Higgs boson is shown in Fig. 5 (b) as a function of $`m_{H^\pm }`$. Each line corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Phi }=180^\mathrm{o}`$(thick line), $`\mathrm{\Phi }=80^\mathrm{o}`$(dash–dotted line), $`\mathrm{\Phi }=70^\mathrm{o}`$(dotted line), $`\mathrm{\Phi }=60^\mathrm{o}`$(dashed line), and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=40^\mathrm{o}`$(solid line). In the region with $`\mathrm{\Phi }80^\mathrm{o}`$ and $`m_{H^\pm }300`$ GeV, the total decay width is also significantly affected by the CP phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We show the branching fractions of the charged Higgs boson in Fig. 5 (c) and (d) as a function of $`m_{H^\pm }`$ for two representative values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$: $`\mathrm{\Phi }=180^\mathrm{o}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=70^\mathrm{o}`$. The thick solid line is for $`H^+t^{()}\overline{b}`$, the solid line for $`H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$, and the dashed line for $`H^+W^{+()}H_1`$. We find that the decay channel $`H^+W^{+()}H_1`$ is strongly enhanced as the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ differs from $`180^\mathrm{o}`$, and the channel becomes the most dominant decay mode of the charged Higgs boson for $`m_{H^\pm }300`$ GeV when the values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are less than $`70^\mathrm{o}`$.

To summarize, the charged Higgs boson decays into a $`W`$ boson and a neutral Higgs boson are closely related to the neutral Higgs boson decays into gauge boson pairs due to the orthogonality of the mixing matrix $`O`$ in Eq. (25). As a result, the neutral and charged Higgs–boson decays, significantly affected by the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, are complementary in confirming the loop–induced CP violation in the MSSM Higgs sector.

## V Conclusions

Based on the new calculation of the mass matrix of the neutral Higgs bosons which is valid for any values of the relevant SUSY parameters, we have re–evaluated the decays of the Higgs bosons in the MSSM with radiative Higgs–sector CP violation. The present work extends the previous one  by including all the neutral Higgs–boson decay modes containing virtual gauge bosons and those into top–squark pairs, implementing squark–loop contributions to the two–gluon decay channel. We also study the decays of the charged Higgs boson in the presence of the non–trivial CP–violating mixing. In addition, we have discussed possible constraints from the electron EDM measurements on the CP phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

We have found that the branching fractions of the main decay channels of the lightest Higgs boson, whose mass is less than 120 GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =4`$, are insensitive to the CP phase(s) and the Higgs boson mass. However, the sub–dominant decay channel $`H_1V^{()}V^{()}`$, which is sensitive to the CP phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, can become quite significant as the CP phase differs from $`180^\mathrm{o}`$. On the other hand, the decays of the heavy neutral Higgs bosons, which are almost degenerate for $`m_{H^\pm }>2m_Z`$, depend very strongly on the phase. Below the thresholds of the decays into top–quark and top-squark pairs, the main decay channels of the heavy Higgs bosons consist of bottom–quark and tau–lepton pairs, (virtual) gauge bosons, Higgs and (virtual) $`Z`$ bosons, and Higgs bosons. The relative importance of those decay channels depends significantly on the size of the CP–violating mixing. The decay channels $`H_it\overline{t},\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_1},\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ overwhelm all the other decay channels once these channels are kinematically allowed. The relative importance of these decay modes also depends crucially on the the CP phase(s) and the heavy Higgs–boson masses. Finally, the charged–Higgs–boson decays into a (virtual) $`W`$ boson and a lightest neutral Higgs boson become dominant when the neutral Higgs–boson decays into gauge boson pairs are suppressed and the charged–Higgs–boson mass is less than 300 GeV.

To conclude, the radiative Higgs sector CP violation induced from the third–generation sfermion sectors could alter the patterns of the neutral and charged Higgs–boson decays significantly from those in the CP invariant theories.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank A. Pilaftsis for helpful discussion on the EDM constraints. The work of S.Y.C. was supported by a grant from the Korean Research Foundation Grant (KRF–2000–015–DS0009). The work of J.S.L. was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).


format: text

text:
# Inclusive dijet photoproduction and the resolved photon at THERA

## Inclusive dijet photoproduction and the <br>resolved photon at THERA

M. Wing

*McGill University, Montreal*

wing@mail.desy.de

### Abstract

## Abstract

A future $`ep`$ facility, THERA, where electrons of 250 GeV and protons of 920 GeV are collided could provide valuable information on the structure of the photon. With an increase in the centre-of-mass energy of a factor of 3 and an extension of the minimum photon energy fraction carried by the interacting parton of a factor of 10 compared to HERA, a new kinematic regime in the study of the photon will be opened. Inclusive dijet production has been studied and the potential gains the new collider would bring are discussed. The differences between current parametrisations of the photon structure in this new kinematic region are shown to be up to $`50\%`$. Comparisons of THERA’s capabilities are made with what HERA can currently produce and how it complements $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders addressed.

## 1 Introduction

Using the proton accelerator ring from HERA and the lepton accelerator chain for the proposed linear collider, TESLA, a centre-of-mass energy for $`ep`$ collisions of $``$ 1 TeV could be achieved . The proposed facility, THERA, using protons of 920 GeV and leptons of 250 GeV would, due to the increase in lepton beam energy, greatly extend the kinematic regime currently accessible to HERA .

The measurement of jet photoproduction in $`ep`$ collisions allows the structure of the photon, emitted from the incoming lepton, to be probed. In Leading Order (LO) quantum chromodynamics (QCD), two types of processes contribute to jet photoproduction: the direct photon process, in which the photon itself interacts with a parton from the proton and the resolved photon process in which the photon acts as a source of partons, one of which interacts with a parton from the proton. Examples of these processes are shown in Fig. 1, where Fig. 1a shows the boson-gluon fusion direct process and Fig. 1b gluon-gluon fusion resolved process. As can be seen from Fig. 1, photoproduction processes depend on both the structure of the photon and proton; the cross-section, $`d\sigma _{\gamma pcd}`$ for the production of two partons being,

$$d\sigma _{\gamma pcd}=\underset{ab}{}_{x_p}dx_p_{x_\gamma }dx_\gamma f_{pb}(x_p,\mu ^2)f_{\gamma a}(x_\gamma ,\mu ^2)d\widehat{\sigma }{}_{\mathrm{𝑎𝑏}\mathrm{𝑐𝑑}}{}^{},$$
(1)
where $`f_{pb}(x_p,\mu ^2)`$ describes the proton parton density of a parton of momentum fraction, $`x_p`$, $`f_{\gamma a}(x_\gamma ,\mu ^2)`$ the photon parton density of a parton of momentum fraction, $`x_\gamma `$, both at some renormalisation and factorisation scale, $`\mu ^2`$, and $`d\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{𝑎𝑏}\mathrm{𝑐𝑑}}`$ is the perturbatively calculable short distance cross-section. As next-to-leading (NLO) order programs reasonably describe jet production, one can choose a region of phase space where the proton structure is well constrained and the only uncertainty, as can be seen in Eq. 1, is then the photon structure function. It is noted (although not studied further) that dijet production at HERA and THERA could also provide information on the proton structure using high transverse energy or (very) forward jets. This would provide information on the parton densities at high values of $`x_p`$ at large scales, as in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions, which are not well constrained by the $`F_2^p`$ DIS measurements.

Measurements of the photon structure function, $`F_2^\gamma `$, at $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments have constrained the quark density in the region $`10^3<x_\gamma <0.5`$ . Photoproduction can provide further constraints on the quark density at high $`x_\gamma `$ and on the gluon density at all $`x_\gamma `$. In jet photoproduction, unlike in $`e^+e^{}`$ scattering, there is direct access to the gluon density in the photon at LO. The poorly constrained gluon density is expected to become more significant with decreasing $`x_\gamma `$. Measurements have been made at HERA, which probe these uncertain parts of the structure of the photon . An electron beam energy of a factor of 10 higher for THERA than for HERA gives an extension in the minimum $`x_\gamma `$ also by a factor of 10 . THERA would lead to an extension of the kinematic range into a region where accurate measurements of the gluon density could be made and the rise in the structure function, $`F_2^\gamma `$, thoroughly tested.

## 2 Photoproduction from HERA to THERA

Currently at HERA, the highly asymmetric beam energies provide problems in measuring resolved photon processes. In general, there is a strong tendency for events to be very forward in the proton beam direction. This means that many events fall outside the acceptance of the current detectors or are mixed up with the proton remnant making their measurement difficult. This is particularly acute in the case of resolved photon processes in which jets are generally produced in the forward direction; direct photon processes generally being central. The reduced asymmetry THERA would provide will significantly change the topology of photoproduction events. Direct photon events would then be concentrated in the rear direction and resolved photon processes in the central and forward parts of the detector. This would then increase the acceptance for resolved photon events and hence improve the measurements.

Measurements of dijet photoproduction at HERA can be (somewhat artificially) categorised into those with low transverse energy jets, low$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$, and those with high$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ which start at around 5 GeV and 10 GeV, respectively. The advantage of the low$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ measurements is the increased resolved photon cross section, in particular at low$`x_\gamma `$. The measurements suffer, however, from a lack of understanding of soft underlying physics which either leads to results with large systematic uncertainties or inconclusive comparisons with theory. At high$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$, the effect of soft underlying physics is greatly reduced, but so is the resolved cross section at low$`x_\gamma `$. This can be seen by considering the observable $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$, which is the fraction of the photon’s energy producing the two jets of highest transverse energy ;

$$x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}=\frac{E_T^{\mathrm{jet1}}\mathrm{e}^{\eta ^{\mathrm{jet1}}}+E_T^{\mathrm{jet2}}\mathrm{e}^{\eta ^{\mathrm{jet2}}}}{2yE_e},$$
(2)
where $`\eta ^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is the pseudorapidity of the jet and $`E_e`$ is the electron energy and $`y`$ the fraction of the electron’s energy carried by the photon.

Recent results from HERA are shown for low$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ events ($`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}>6`$ GeV) in Fig. 2a and for high$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ events ($`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}>14`$ GeV) in Fig. 2b. Shown are the detector-level distributions for $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ compared to Monte Carlo (MC) models. In Fig. 2a, the data is compared to MC models with and without multiparton interactions (MPI). Here it can be seen that the MC without MPI greatly underestimates the data at low$`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$, and that a significantly increased cross-section is observed in the MC with the inclusion of MPI. The data is, however, still poorly described by the MC at this low$`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ region for jets of low$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$. In Fig. 2b, the data compares well, over the full $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ range, with MC models containing no MPI, due to the increased $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$. The significant decrease in the number of low$`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ events at high$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is also apparent.

With the increased lepton beam energy THERA could provide the optimum scenario in which measurements could be made at relatively high$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ and low$`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$.

## 3 Cross section definition

A realistic approach has been performed to evaluate the extent to which dijet production at THERA can yield new information on the structure of the photon. Therefore a kinematic range has been considered which could possibly be measured rather than choosing the full phase space. The kinematic region is based on a high$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ measurement from the ZEUS collaboration .

To define the region to be photoproduction, a value of the photon virtuality, $`Q^2`$, of less than 1 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ has been applied. Currently at HERA, the requirement that the scattered lepton is not seen in the calorimeter implicitly leads to the condition on the photon virtuality. To achieve the same $`Q^2`$ requirement with the increased lepton beam energy, the angle of scatter will be much smaller. This would mean that the calorimeter (or some other detector) would need to be positioned very close (in fact to within $`0.5^{}`$) to the beam-pipe in the rear direction to achieve the same $`Q^2`$ requirement using the anti-tag condition. The inelasticity, $`y`$, is chosen to be within the region, $`0.2<y<0.85`$, which corresponds to a photon-proton centre-of-mass energy of between 429 GeV and 884 GeV. The jets are required to have transverse energies, $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet1},2}>14,11`$ GeV in the region of pseudorapidity, $`1<\eta ^{\mathrm{jet}}<2`$. Increasing the cut on the transverse energy was also considered. Allowing the jets to go more forward in pseudorapidity would increase the resolved photon cross section and would hopefully be possible depending on the detector configuration. At HERA where the proton beam energy is very much greater than the lepton beam energy, there are very few jets with a pseudorapidity less than -1. At THERA the distribution of jets would be more symmetric in pseudorapidity and relaxing this cut to, say -2 or -2.5 would also be an option. For this analysis, the value of -1 is retained to try and enhance the (more forward going) resolved photon component in a part of phase space which could definitely be measured. Extension and modification of these requirements could be considered in future studies.

For studying the potential of $`ep`$ collisions at $`1`$ TeV, the cross sections were produced using NLO code from Frixione and Ridolfi . As the proton structure function is well constrained in the region of $`x_p`$ under study (approximately $`10^2<x_p<10^1`$), only the CTEQ-4M  parton distribution function was considered. The renormalisation and factorisation scales, $`\mu `$, were set to be equal to $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet1}}`$. To test the sensitivity of the cross sections, three photon parton density parametrisations were used; GS96-HO , GRV-HO  and AFG-HO . Jets are defined using the longitudinally invariant $`k_T`$-clustering algorithm  in the inclusive mode .

## 4 Results

The kinematic requirements for the analysis performed at HERA restrict the minimum $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ to be $`0.07`$, where both jets are of minimum transverse energy and have a pseudorapidity of 2. At THERA the minimum $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is reduced by the same factor as the lepton beam energy is increased to $`0.008`$. Figure 3a shows the cross-sections in $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ for HERA and THERA for the kinematic region stated. At HERA, the events are concentrated at high$``$$`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ arising predominantly from direct photon events. At THERA, the events are concentrated at low$``$$`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ characteristic of resolved photon events, with a very small cross-section at $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$$`>`$0.75 which is taken to be a direct photon enriched region. Having seen that THERA greatly improves the potential for studying the resolved photon, it is then interesting to see if the new kinematic region shows sensitivity to the current parametrisations of the structure of the photon. Results for the three different photon parton density parametrisations are shown in Fig. 3a and their relative difference in Fig. 3b. It can be seen that the prediction using the GS96-HO parametrisation gives the highest and using the AFG-HO parametrisation the lowest cross section. The prediction with GS96-HO is up to $`35\%`$ higher than that of GRV-HO and $`50\%`$ higher than that of AFG-HO at low$``$$`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$. The difference between the results based on the three parton density parametrisations decreases with increasing $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$. It should be noted that at the lowest values of $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ shown here, there exist no measurements from LEP at the scale considered ($`200\mathrm{GeV}^2`$).

As can be seen from Eq. 2, the minimum $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ increases with increasing $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$. The relative fraction of low to high$``$$`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and hence resolved photon to direct photon processes also decreases with increasing $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$. Nevertheless, differences between the predictions with GS96-HO and AFG-HO are up still to $`30\%`$ at a minimum cut-off in the transverse energy of the leading jet of 29 GeV.

Cross-sections as a function of the transverse energy of the leading jet, $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet1}}`$, in different regions of pseudorapidity of the jets are shown in Fig. 4. It is shown that the differences between the three predictions are concentrated at low$`E_T^{\mathrm{jet1}}`$ and forward pseudorapidity. At more central and rear values of pseudorapidity and higher transverse energies, the predictions converge.

The cross-section as a function of the pseudorapidity of the second jet, $`\eta _2^{\mathrm{jet}}`$, is expected to be sensitive to the structure of the photon . In Fig. 5, this cross section is shown in three regions of pseudorapidity of the first jet, $`\eta _1^{\mathrm{jet}}`$. Again, it can be seen that the predictions differ most significantly, up to $`50\%`$, when both jets are forward. It can also be seen that in the region where both jets are forward the direct photon enriched region, $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}>0.75`$, is negligible. As for the cross section in $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$, the predictions for the GRV-HO and AFG-HO parametrisation are very similar in shape and differ in magnitude by roughly $`10\%`$. At higher transverse energies, $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet1}}>`$ 29 GeV, a difference of $`30\%`$ persists when both jets are forward.

To assess the significance of the differences observed between the predictions with the three different parametrisations, the renormalisation and factorisation scale uncertainties were evaluated. The cross sections using the GRV-HO parametrisation were calculated with the scale doubled and halved. For the cross-sections as a function of $`\eta _2^{\mathrm{jet}}`$, the relative differences to the central values are shown. The differences are of the order of $`1015\%`$, which is small compared with the differences between the parametrisations. A difference of $`15\%`$ was also observed for the cross-section as a function of $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$.

There exist many other calculations of jet photoproduction at HERA  all of which (including the one used in this article) have been shown to agree within $`510\%`$ . From this and the estimation of the scale uncertainty, it can be seen that the differences in the photon parton denisty parametrisations are much larger than other uncertainties.

## 5 Discussion

The potential of THERA with respect to what can be done at HERA and at LEP in the field of the photon structure is as follows. For a given transverse energy, it can achieve lower values of $`x_\gamma `$ than is accessible at either of the current facilities. THERA would have the potential to measure the structure of the photon in the region where the structure function is predicted to rise with decreasing $`x_\gamma `$. Indications for the rise have be seen at LEP and HERA although the measurements have large errors. THERA would, however, be able to make more precise measurements by being able to achieve the factor of 10 smaller in the minimum $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{obs}}`$ for a given $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ compared with HERA. It has also been shown elsewhere that the accessible maximum average transverse energy of a dijet system is 2-3 times larger at THERA than at HERA with roughly 150 GeV and 225 GeV being reachable at the $`ep`$ and $`\gamma p`$ options, respectively .

Forward detectors would also be desirable for measurements of the proton structure function at high $`x_p`$. For studying values of $`x_p>0.5`$, for example, jets of $`E_T^{\mathrm{jet}}`$ greater than roughly 20 GeV would need to be detected at pseudorapidity values, $`\eta ^{\mathrm{jet}}=3`$. Jets of this energy would be produced copiously; considering those more central would require much larger energy.

Heavy quarks in dijet production have also been studied as a tool for constraining the structure of the photon and are discussed in detail elsewhere .

With respect to the linear collider, TESLA, lower values of $`x_\gamma `$ can also be reached at THERA but only at very forward values of pseudorapidity . Development of a detector for THERA which can measure jets in the forward direction would therefore be very desirable. THERA would also complement a linear collider in the measurement of the structure of the photon in much the same way as HERA complements LEP; for example in directly constraining the gluon density and testing the universality of the parton distribution functions.

## 6 Summary

It has been shown that cross sections in the kinematic region open to THERA with a centre-of-mass energy of $``$ 1 TeV have a large sensitivity to the structure of the photon. Three currently available parametrisations lead to cross sections which vary by up to $`50\%`$ in certain regions of the phase space considered. THERA would provide a new kinematic region in the measurement of the structure of the photon and complement measurements from the proposed linear collider.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank S. Frixione and G. Ridolfi for making their NLO code freely available on the web and in particular S. Frixione who answered many questions on how to use the code such that I could use it for this study.


text:
# Two-photon Diffraction and Quantum Lithography

## Abstract

We report a proof-of-principle experimental demonstration of quantum lithography. Utilizing the entangled nature of a two-photon state, the experimental results have bettered the classical diffraction limit by a factor of two. This is a quantum mechanical two-photon phenomenon but not a violation of the uncertainty principle.

Classical optical lithography technology is facing its limit due to the diffraction effect of light. However, this classical limit can be surpassed, surprisingly, by utilizing the quantum nature of entangled multi-photon states . In an idealized experimental situation, the minimum width of the entangled N-photon diffraction pattern can be N times narrower than the width of a classical diffraction pattern. The working principle of the effect has been discussed theoretically by Boto et al ; and by Scully from a different approach . In particular, one can consider two-photon entangled states. For a two-particle maximally entangled EPR state, the value of an observable for either single subsystem is indeterminate. However, if one subsystem is measured to be at a certain value for an observable, the value of that observable for the other subsystem is determined with certainty . Because of this peculiar quantum nature, the two-photon diffraction pattern thus can be narrower than given by the classical limit under certain conditions. This effect has been experimentally observed by Kim and Shih .

We wish to report a proof-of-principle quantum lithography experiment in this letter. By using entangled photon pairs in Young’s two-slit experiment, we found that under certain experimental conditions, the two-photon interference-diffraction pattern has spatial interference modulation period smaller and diffraction pattern width narrower, by a factory of two, than in the classical case.

One of the principles of the geometrical optics is that “light propagates in straight line”. If this were always true, one could obtain the image of a physical object, for example, a physical slit, with an unlimitedly small size by applying a perfect lens system. Unfortunately, light is also a wave. The minimum size of the image one can make is determined by the wave property of the light: diffraction. The physics is very simple: according to Huygens’s principle, each point on the primary wavefront serves as the source of spherical secondary amplitudes (wavelets) and advances with the speed and frequency equal to those of the primary wave. The wavelets from a physical slit will meet at any point in space with

different phases. The superposition of the wavelets will determine the size of the image. The intensity distribution of light can be calculated by considering an integral of the wavelets coming from the physical object.

Figure 1 schematically shows a classic one-dimensional optical diffraction by a single slit. A well collimated laser beam passes the slit and then its intensity distribution is analyzed in the Fourier transform plane (or in the far-field zone). This distribution, which is the diffraction pattern of a single slit, is well-known to be $`\mathrm{sinc}^2(\beta )`$, where the parameter $`\beta =(\pi a/\lambda )\mathrm{sin}\theta (\pi a/\lambda )\theta `$, $`a`$ is the width of the slit, and $`\theta `$ is the angle shown in Fig. 1 . When $`\beta `$ reaches $`\pi `$, the superposition of the wavelets results in a minimum intensity. The $`\mathrm{sinc}^2(\beta )`$ pattern determines the minimum width one can obtain. Usually, this minimum width is called the “diffraction limit”.

To surpass the diffraction limit, our scheme is to utilize the entangled nature of an N-particle system. To understand the physics of this scheme, consider a gedankenexperiment which is illustrated in Fig. 2(a). An entangled photon pair can be generated anywhere in region $`V`$; however, photons belonging to the same pair can only propagate (1) oppositely and (2) “almost” horizontally (quantitative discussion will be given later) as indicated in the figure. Two slits are placed symmetrically on the left and right sides of the entangled photon source. A photon-counting detector is placed into the far-field zone (or the Fourier transform plane, if lenses are placed following the slits) on each side, and the coincidences between the “clicks” of both detectors are registered. The two detectors are scanning symmetrically, i.e., for each coincidence measurement, both detectors have equal x-coordinates. A two-photon joint detection is the result of the superposition of the two-photon amplitudes, which are indicated in the figure by straight horizontal lines . To calculate two-photon diffraction, we need to “superpose” all possible two-photon amplitudes. Different from the classical case, it is a double integral involving the two slits and the two-photon amplitudes (parallel lines in Fig. 2). The two-photon counterpart of the classical intensity, the joint detection counting rate, is now $`\mathrm{sinc}^2(2\beta )`$, which gives narrower distribution than the classical pattern by a factor of two. Now if we “fold” the symmetrical left and right sides of the experimental setup together and replace the two independent detectors with a film that is sensitive only to two-photon light (two-photon transition material), then in principle, we have two-photon lithography.

If one replaces the single slit in the above setup with a double-slit, Fig. 2(b), it is also interesting to see that under the half-width diffraction pattern, the double-slit two-photon spatial interference pattern has a higher modulation frequency, as if the wavelength of the light were reduced to one-half. To observe the two-photon interference, one has to “erase” the first-order interference by reinforcing an experimental condition: $`\delta \theta >\lambda /b`$ where $`\delta \theta `$ is the divergence of the light, $`b`$ is the distance between the two slits, and $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength.

The heart of this gedankenexperiment is a special two-photon source: the pair has to be generated in such a desired entangled way as described above. We have found and demonstrated that, under certain conditions, the two-photon state generated via spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC) satisfies the above requirements. The working principle, as well as the report of a real experiment, will be given below.

The schematic setup of the experiment is illustrated in Fig. 3. It is basically the “folded” version of a double-slit interference-diffraction experiment shown in Fig. 2(b).

The $`458`$ nm line of an Argon Ion laser is used to pump a $`5mm`$ BBO ($`\beta BaB_2O_4`$) crystal, which is cut for degenerate collinear type-II phase matching  to produce pairs of orthogonally polarized signal (e-ray of the BBO) and idler (o-ray of the BBO) photons. Each pair emerges from the crystal collinearly, with $`\omega _s\omega _i\omega _p/2,`$ where $`\omega _j`$ ($`j=s,i,p`$) are the frequencies of the signal, idler, and pump, respectively. The pump is then separated from the signal-idler pair by a mirror M, which is coated with reflectivity $`R1`$ for the pump and transmissivity $`T1`$ for the signal-idler. For further pump suppression, a cutoff filter F is used. The signal-idler beam passes through a double-slit , which is placed close to the output side of the crystal, and is reflected by two mirrors, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, onto a pinhole P followed by a polarization beam splitter PBS. The signal and idler photons are separated by the beam splitter and are detected by the photon counting detectors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, respectively. The output pulses of each detector are sent to a coincidence counting circuit with a $`1.8ns`$ acceptance time window for the signal-idler joint detection. Both detectors are preceded by $`10nm`$ bandwidth spectral filters centered at the degenerate wavelength, $`916nm`$. The whole block containing the pinhole, PBS, the detectors, and the coincidence circuit can be considered as a two-photon detector. Instead of moving two detectors together as indicated in Fig. 2, we rotate the mirror $`M_1`$ to “scan” the spatial interference-diffraction pattern relative to the detectors.

One important point to be emphasized is that the double-slit must be placed as close as possible to the output surface of the BBO crystal. Only in this case, can the observed diffraction pattern be narrower than in the classical case by a factor of 2, see Eq. (10). Otherwise, it will be close to $`\sqrt{2}`$ as suggested in Ref. .

Figure 4 reports the experimental results. In our experiment, the width of each slit is $`a=0.13mm`$. The distance between the two slits is $`b=0.4mm`$. The distance between the slits and the pinhole P is $`4m`$. Figure 4 shows the distribution of coincidences versus the rotation angle $`\theta `$ of mirror $`M_1`$. The spatial interference period and the first zero of the envelope are measured to be $`0.001`$ and $`\pm 0.003`$ radians, respectively.

For comparison, we also measured the first-order interference-diffraction pattern of a classical light with $`916nm`$ wavelength by the same double-slit in the same experimental setup, see Fig. 5. The spatial interference period and the first zero of the envelope are measured to be $`0.002`$ and $`\pm 0.006`$ radians, respectively.

In both “classical” and “quantum” cases, we obtain similar standard Young’s two-slit interference-diffraction pattern, $`\mathrm{sinc}^2[(\pi a/\lambda )\theta ]\mathrm{cos}^2[(\pi b/\lambda )\theta ]`$; however, whereas the wavelength for fitting the curve in Fig. 5 (classical light) is $`916nm`$, for the curve in Fig. 4 (entangled two-photon source) it has to be $`458nm`$. Clearly, the two-photon diffraction “beats” the classical limit by a factor of 2.

To be sure that we observed the effect of the SPDC photon pair with wavelength of $`916nm`$ but not the pump laser beam with wavelength of $`458nm`$, we remove or rotate the BBO crystal $`90`$-degree to a non-phase-matching angle and examine the coincidence counting rate. The coincidences remain zero during the $`100`$ second period, which is the data collection time duration for each of the data points, even in high power operation of the pump laser. Comparing this with the coincidence counting rate with BBO under phase-matching, see Fig. 4, there is no doubt that the observation is the effect due to the SPDC.

To explain the result, we have to take into account the quantum nature of the two-photon state. SPDC is a nonlinear optical process in which pairs of signal-idler photons are generated when a pump laser beam is incident onto an optical nonlinear material . Quantum mechanically, the state can be calculated by the first-order perturbation theory  and has the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle \underset{s,i}{}}F(\omega _s,\omega _i,𝐤_s,𝐤_i)a_s^{}(\omega (𝐤_s))a_i^{}(\omega (𝐤_i))0,`$ (1)
where $`\omega _j`$, kj (j = s, i, p) are the frequencies and wavevectors of the signal (s), idler (i), and pump (p), respectively, $`F(\omega _s,\omega _i,𝐤_s,𝐤_i)`$ is the so-called biphoton amplitude, the pump frequency and wavevector $`\omega _p`$ and kp can be considered as constants, $`a_s^{}`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ are creation operators for the signal and idler photons, respectively. The biphoton amplitude contains $`\delta `$-functions of the frequency and wavevector,

$$F(\omega _s,\omega _i,𝐤_s,𝐤_i)\delta \left(\omega _s+\omega _i\omega _p\right)\delta \left(𝐤_s+𝐤_i𝐤_p\right).$$
(2)
The signal or idler photon could be in any modes of the superposition (uncertain); however, due to Eq. (2), if one photon is known to be in a certain mode then the other one is determined with certainty.

The phase matching conditions resulting from the $`\delta `$-functions in Eq. (2),

$$\omega _s+\omega _i=\omega _p,𝐤_s+𝐤_i=𝐤_p,$$
(3)
play important role in the experiment. The transverse component of the wavevector phase matching condition requires that

$$k_s\mathrm{sin}\alpha _s=k_i\mathrm{sin}\alpha _i,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\alpha _i`$ are the scattering angles inside the crystal. Upon exiting the crystal, Snell’s law thus provides:

$$\omega _s\mathrm{sin}\beta _s=\omega _i\mathrm{sin}\beta _i$$
(5)
where $`\beta _s`$ and $`\beta _i`$ are the exit angles of the signal and idler with respect to $`𝐤_p`$ direction. Therefore, in the degenerate case, the signal and idler photons are emitted at equal, yet opposite, angles relative to the pump, and the measurement of the momentum (wavevector) of the signal photon determines the momentum (wavevector) of the idler photon with unit probability and vice versa. In the collinear case, which we use in our experiment, the scattering angles of the signal and idler photons are close to zero and occupy the range $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, which is determined by the sizes of the crystal and the pump beam, see .

The coincidence counting rate $`R_c`$ is given by the probability $`P_{12}`$ of detecting the signal-idler pair by detectors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ jointly,

$`P_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left|E_1^{()}E_2^{()}E_2^{(+)}E_1^{(+)}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\left|0\left|E_2^{(+)}E_1^{(+)}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2,`$ (7)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the two-photon state of SPDC and $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$ are fields on the detectors. The effect of two-photon Young’s interference can be easily understood if we assume for simplicity that signal and idler photons always go through the same slit and never go through different slits. This approximation holds if the variation of the scattering angle inside the crystal

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta b/D,$$
(8)
where $`D`$ is the distance between the input surface of the SPDC crystal and the double-slit. In this case, the state after the slits can be written as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=|0+ϵ[a_s^{}a_i^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _A)+b_s^{}b_i^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _B)]|0,$$
(9)
where $`ϵ1`$ is proportional to the pump field and the nonlinearity of the crystal, $`\phi _A`$ and $`\phi _B`$ are the phases of the pump field at region A (upper slit) and region B (lower slit), and $`a_j^{}`$ ($`b_j^{}`$) are the photon creation operators for photons passing through the upper slit (A) and the lower slit (B). In our experiment, the ratio $`(b/D)/\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 30`$ and Eq. (8) is satisfied well enough. Moreover, even the ratio $`(a/D)/\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is of order of 10, which satisfies the condition for observing two-photon diffraction:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta a/D.$$
(10)
In Eq. (6), the fields on the detectors are given by:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_1^{(+)}=a_s\mathrm{exp}(ikr_{A1})+b_s\mathrm{exp}(ikr_{B1})\\ E_2^{(+)}=a_i\mathrm{exp}(ikr_{A2})+b_i\mathrm{exp}(ikr_{B2})\end{array}$$
(11)
where $`r_{Ai}`$ ($`r_{Bi})`$ are the optical path lengths from region A (B) to the ith detector. Substituting Eqs. (9) and (11) into Eq. (6), we get

$`R_cP_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^2\left|\mathrm{exp}(ikr_A+i\phi _A)+\mathrm{exp}(ikr_B+i\phi _B)\right|^2`$ (12)
$``$ $`1+\mathrm{cos}[k(r_Ar_B)],`$ (13)
where we define $`r_Ar_{A1}+r_{A2}`$. We have assumed $`\phi _A=\phi _B`$ in Eq. (13).

In the far-field zone (or the Fourier transform plane), interference of the two amplitudes from Eq. (9) gives

$$R_c(\theta )\mathrm{cos}{}_{}{}^{2}[(2\pi b/\lambda )\theta ].$$
(14)
Eq. (14) has the form of a standard Young’s two-slit interference pattern, except having the modulation period one-half of the classical case or an equivalent wavelength of $`\lambda /2`$.

To calculate the diffraction effect of a single slit, we need an integral of the effective two-photon wavefunction over the slit width. Quite similarly to Eq. (14), it gives

$$R_c(\theta )\mathrm{sinc}^2[(2\pi a/\lambda )\theta ].$$
(15)
Eq. (15) has the form of standard single-slit diffraction pattern, except having half of the classical pattern width.

The combined interference-diffraction coincidence counting rate for the double-slit case is given by

$$R_c(x)\mathrm{sinc}^2[(2\pi a/\lambda )\theta )\mathrm{cos}{}_{}{}^{2}[(2\pi d/\lambda )\theta ],$$
(16)
which is a product of Eq. (14) and Eq. (15).

The experimental observations have confirmed the above quantum mechanical predictions.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated the possibility of quantum lithography by using an entangled two-photon state generated from a specially designed spontaneous parametric down conversion. One may not see advantages from the above proof-of-principle experimental demonstration. The results from the two-photon diffraction measurement is equivalent to that of using the pump laser beam directly. The advantage, however, is in the case of large number of entangled particle states. We have considered quantum lithography based on our entangled N-photon scheme ($`N3`$). In these cases one can “beat” the classical limit by a factor of $`N`$ and keep the “pump” laser beam wavelength close to one-half that of the entangled photon beam.

The authors thank Y.H. Kim, J.P. Dowling, D.V. Strekalov, M.O. Scully and H.S. Pilloff for helpful discussions. This work was supported, in part, by ARDA-NSA, ONR, and NSF. M.V. Chekhova acknowledges the support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant No. 99-02-16419.


text:
# Black Brane World Scenarios This talk is based on works in collaboration with W.S. Bae, Y.M. Cho, Y. Kim and S.-J. Rey.

## Abstract

We consider a brane world residing in the interior region inside the horizon of extreme black branes. In this picture, the size of the horizon can be interpreted as the compactification size. The large mass hierarchy is simply translated into the large horizon size, which is provided by the magnitude of charges carried by the black branes. Hence, the macroscopic compactification size is a quantity calculable from the microscopic theory which has only one physical scale, and its stabilization is guaranteed from the charge conservation.

In this talk, we will pay attention to the interior region bounded by a degenerated horizon of extreme black branes. The interior region possesses all of the features needed for large extra dimension (ADD) as well as Randall-Sundrum (RS) scenarios provided that the interior region is regular. Since the interior region has finite volume while it asymptotes to the infinitely long AdS throat, the central region inside the near horizon region acts like a domain wall embedded in anti-de Sitter space ($`AdS_5`$) like the RS brane. The massless 4D graviton is clearly localized to the central region, reproducing the correct 4D Newtonian gravity.

The size of the horizon can be interpreted as the compactification size in that the four-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{pl}`$ is determined by the fundamental scale $`M_{}`$ of the higher-dimensional theory and the size of the horizon $`r_H`$ via the familiar relation $`M_{pl}^2M_{}^{2+d}r_H^d`$ and the effective gravity on a 3-brane residing in the central region has a transition from the four-dimensional to the higher-dimensional gravity around distances of the size of the horizon. This scenario gives a natural explanation of the large mass hierarchy between the four-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{pl}`$ and the weak scale $`m_{EW}`$. The large mass hierarchy is translated into the large size of the horizon. The large size of the horizon, i.e., the small compactification scale is provided with the large magnitude of charge carried by the black branes, that is, winding number or R-R charge. Hence, the macroscopic compactification size now is a quantity calculated from the microscopic theory and its stabilization is guaranteed from the charge conservation.

We will consider two types of black brane solutions. Firstly, we will show a global black brane solution which is a black hole like defect solution to a scalar theory with global $`O(d)`$ symmetry coupled to higher dimensional gravity and is a $`p`$-dimensional extended object surrounded by a degenerated horizon. This solution is perfectly regular everywhere. Secondly, we will consider the supergravity solution of the D3-brane. Its interior region interpolates between the singularity and the near horizon region. When the singularity is smoothed out by stringy effects, the graviton is localized in the central region. Further, even in the existence the gravity could be trapped, under the assumption of the unitary boundary condition for the graviton states.

The scalar theory with global $`O(d)`$ symmetry coupled to $`D`$-dimensional gravity, of which potential has minimum on the $`(d1)`$-sphere with radius $`v^2`$ allows a black hole like extended defect solution, which we will call as ‘global black $`p`$-brane’. The global black $`p`$-brane is a $`p`$-dimensional extended object surrounded by a degenerated horizon. This object is very similar to the black $`p`$-brane solutions of supergravity and string theories. However, this solution is perfectly regular everywhere, that is, either inside or outside of the horizon.

Here, we will not write down the Einstein’s equations of motion and the scalar field equation of motion, and we will skip the procedure to find the global black brane solution. These are treated in detail in Refs.. We will begin just with a brief description for the spacetime of the global black brane. We introduce the following Schwartzschild-type metric ansatz:

$$ds^2=e^{2N(r)}B(r)\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +\frac{d^2r}{B(r)}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2,$$
(1)
where $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is a general Ricci-flat metric on the brane, which satisfies $`(p+1)`$D Einstein equations $`\overline{R}_{\mu \nu }(\overline{g})=0`$. We have looked into the behavior of solutions at a few regions because it seems almost impossible to find exact analytic solutions. Outside the core, the behavior of metric functions is controlled by the ratio between the scalar field energy density ($`8\pi G_D/r^2`$) and the cosmological constant ($`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$). In the far region where the cosmological constant dominates over the field energy density. The metric (1) has the form of

$`ds^2B_{\mathrm{}}r^2\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{B_{\mathrm{}}r^2}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2,`$ (2)
where $`B_{\mathrm{}}2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|/(p+d)(p+d1)`$. This corresponds to $`D`$-dimensional anti-de Sitter space ($`AdS_D`$) and can be changed to the form found in Refs. using the proper radial distance $`\chi (^r𝑑r^{}/\sqrt{B(r^{})})`$ as

$`ds^2e^{2\sqrt{B_{\mathrm{}}}\chi }\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +d\chi ^2+e^{2\sqrt{B_{\mathrm{}}}\chi }d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2.`$ (3)
The horizon occurs in a region where the field energy density and the cosmological constant are comparable, and the spacetime is approximated by

$$ds^2B_H[\sigma (rr_H)]^{2(1\alpha )}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +\frac{dr^2}{B_H(rr_H)^2}+r_H^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2,$$
(4)
where $`\sigma `$ is $`1`$ for the interior region ($`r<r_H`$) and $`+1`$ for the exterior region ($`r>r_H`$) and the curvature scale of this spacetime and the horizon size are given by

$`k^2`$ $``$ $`B_H(1\alpha )^2={\displaystyle \frac{2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}{(p+1)(p+d1)}},`$ (5)
$`r_H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p+d1)(8\pi G_Dd+2)}{2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}}.`$ (6)
It is easy to see relation between the near horizon solution and the cigar-like warped spacetime obtained in Refs.. Introducing a new radial coordinate $`\chi `$($`>0`$) defined by $`\mathrm{exp}(k\chi )\sqrt{B_H}[\sigma (rr_H)]^{1\alpha }`$, the metric Eq.(4) is rewritten as

$$ds^2\mathrm{exp}\left(2k\chi \right)\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +d\chi ^2+r_H^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2.$$
(7)
Hence, among solutions obtained in Refs., the meaningful solution with respect to the Randall-Sundrum scenario can naturally be interpreted as the near horizon geometry of a black $`p`$-brane. The two solutions (2) and (7), which seemed to be disjointed in Refs., can be matched to each other. On the other hand, in the region between the brane core and the near horizon where the cosmological constant is negligible compared to the field energy density (if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M_{}`$, this region overwhelm the near horizon region), the shape of spacetime is largely dependent on dimension of transverse space. When $`d=2`$, the geometry of this region will resemble the Cohen-Kaplan spacetime. When $`d3`$, the solution in this region will be close to the global monopole metric . While we have not cleared up whether the solutions obtained in separated regions can be connected mutually or not, numerical works explicitly show that such black brane solutions exist.

The interior region is of interest, because it possesses all of the features needed for RS scenario, that is, it asymptotes to AdS space and its volume is finite and concentrated near the brane.

In the RS scenario, the necessary condition to have the usual Newtonian gravity on the brane is the existence of a massless 4D graviton localized on the brane. From now on, we will consider only $`p=3`$. The existence of the massless graviton state is evident because Einstein’s equations of motion always allows solutions with a general Ricci flat metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ and the massless 4D graviton is simply the usual gravitational wave solution of linearized 4D vacuum Einstein equation. And the boundness of the massless graviton is equivalent to the condition that the 4D Planck scale $`M_{pl}`$ is finite. Examination of the 4D effective action yields the brane world Planck scale:

$`M_{pl}^2=M_{}^{d+2}{\displaystyle 𝑑z^d\sqrt{g_D}g^{00}}M_{}^{2+d}r_H^d.`$ (8)
Thus, it is now clear that a massless state of the 4D graviton is bounded. The relation (8) tells that the 4D Planck scale is determined from the fundamental scale $`M_{}`$ and the horizon size $`r_H`$ via the familiar relation from usual Kaluza-Klein theories. This implies that the horizon size $`r_H`$ can be interpreted as the effective size of $`d`$ compact extra dimensions, even though the interior region infinitely extends. From the point of view of one who lives in infinitely extended higher dimensional spacetime, this seems indeed a correct interpretation, clearly the interior region takes only a finite part with volume $`r_H^d`$ of the infinite transverse space and the apparent infinite extent of the interior region is simply a result of the warping of the finite region of extra space by the gravity of the brane itself. This interpretation could be cleared up through a complete analysis of the effective 4D gravity.

In order to see the effective gravity on the brane, we introduce the perturbations by replacing $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ with $`\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x,z)`$ in Eq.(1). Imposing the RS gauge on $`h_{\mu \nu }`$, we can easily find the linearized field equation for $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. Making a change of variables $`\xi =^r\sqrt{g^{00}(r^{})g_{rr}(r^{})}𝑑r^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=Kh_{\mu \nu }`$ and separating $`\stackrel{~}{h}(\xi ,\mathrm{\Omega })=ϵ_{\mu \nu }e^{ipx}R_m\mathrm{}(\xi )Y_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the linearized field equation can always be written into the form of an analog non-relativistic Schrödinger equation:

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\xi ^2}}+V_{eff}(\xi )\right]R_m\mathrm{}(\xi )=m^2R_m\mathrm{}(\xi ),`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{with}`$ $`V_{eff}(\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{K^{\prime \prime }(\xi )}{K(\xi )}}+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+d2){\displaystyle \frac{g_{00}(\xi )}{r(\xi )^2}},`$ (10)
where $`Kr^{(d1)/2}g_{00}^{3/4}`$ and $`Y_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional spherical harmonics. Here $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant polarization tensor and $`m(=\sqrt{pp})`$ is the mass of continuum modes. The zero-mode wave function, with $`m=\mathrm{}=0`$, is easily identified as $`R_{00}(\xi )=K(\xi )`$. All of the important physics follows from a qualitative analysis of the effective potential.

The Newtonian potential generated by a point source of mass $`m^{}`$ localized on the brane then is

$`U(|\stackrel{}{x}|)=G_4{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{|\stackrel{}{x}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{M_{}^{d+2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}{\displaystyle _{m0}}𝑑mm^\delta |R_m\mathrm{}(0)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m|\stackrel{}{x}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}|}}.`$ (11)
$`m^\delta `$ is contribution from more than one extra dimensions for measures of relevant density of states. If the extra dimensions are noncompactified, then $`\delta =d1`$, simply. The factor of $`m^{d1}`$ is just the $`d`$-dimensional plane wave continuum density of states (up to a constant angular factor). In our case, $`d1`$ extra dimensions are compactified to $`S^{d1}`$ with radius $`r_H`$. The modes with small $`\mathrm{}`$ behave as plane waves only in the radial direction, while the modes with large $`\mathrm{}`$ do in the full extra dimensions. Thus, $`\delta `$ will depend on $`\mathrm{}`$, that is, $`\delta =0`$ for modes with small $`\mathrm{}`$ but $`\delta =d1`$ for sufficiently large $`\mathrm{}`$.

In the original warped bulk model of Randall-Sundrum type scenario, the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ had always been identified with the fundamental scale for naive naturalness reasons. However, given our ignorance regarding the cosmological constant problem, we do not feel any strong prejudice forcing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be of the order of the fundamental scale $`M_{}^2`$. We will simply treat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a parameter; we know only that $`r_H`$ must be smaller than $`1`$mm from the present-day gravity measurements if it should be interpreted as a compactification size. We will consider two limiting values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|M_{}^2M_{pl}^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|10^{660/d}\mathrm{GeV}^2M_{}^2m_{EW}^2`$. We will call the first limit as Randall-Sundrum (RS) limit and the second limit as large extra dimension (ADD) limit.

In the RS limit, the interior region is well approximated by the near horizon geometry Eq.(7) because both the core radius $`r_c(\sqrt{\lambda }v)^{1/2}`$ and the horizon size $`r_H`$ are of the order of the fundamental scale and so $`8\pi G_D/r^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ are comparable in whole interior region. In this regime, since both curvature scales of $`AdS_5`$ and $`S^{d1}`$ are of the order of the fundamental scale, the extra space effectively reduces to one-dimensional space because one who lives in the bulk could not observe the extra $`S^{d1}`$ through low-energy processes under the fundamental scale. Then the 3-brane looks like a one-sided RS-brane embedded in a $`AdS_5`$ bulk spacetime. Hence the physics on the brane will be nearly the same with that of RS scenario. A difference arises due to massive KK modes with $`\mathrm{}0`$ living in the $`AdS_5`$. However, this correction is strongly suppressed due to the repulsive centrifugal potential. Thus, the low-energy physics on the brane are imperceptibly different from those in the RS scenario.

In the ADD limit, the phenomenologically acceptable size of the horizon (cosmological constant) is $`r_H10^{30/d17}`$cm ($`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|10^{660/d}\mathrm{GeV}^2`$) with $`M_{}M_{EW}10^3`$GeV and $`M_{pl}10^{18}`$GeV. Then the AdS region takes extremely tiny portion of the transverse space and the intermediate region, in which $`8\pi G_D/r^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$, between the core and the AdS region occupy most volume of transverse space.

The geometry of the intermediate region can be approximated by that of Cohen-Kaplan solution  when $`d=2`$ and those of global monopole spacetime  when $`d3`$. It is easy to explicitly calculate the potential Eq.(10) using the Cohen-Kaplan and the global monopole metric. The explicit calculations show that, when $`d=2,3`$, the potential is attractive or zero in the intermediate region. However, it is not needed to specify details of the the shape of the central region of the potential, because the potential is not repulsive in the intermediate region and the central region is localized within the the AdS length scale $`k^1`$. Then the leading corrections to the long-range gravitational potential are in fact identical to those in the RS limit, as shown in Ref.. The short distance gravity is dominated by continuum modes with $`mk`$ and $`\mathrm{}1`$ and $`(4+d)`$D gravity appears at distances $`|\stackrel{}{x}|r_H`$. Hence, in this regime, the brane world gravity behaves like that of RS limit except that it experience a transition from $`1/|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ to $`1/|\stackrel{}{x}|^{d+1}`$ around the distances of the size of the horizon, which is now much bigger than the weak scale, i.e., $`r_Hm_{EW}`$. Hence, the behavior of the gravity on the brane is exactly what we would expect by interpreting the size of the horizon as a “compactification radius”.

When $`d4`$, the physics will be quite different from that of when $`d=2,3`$ due to the repulsive potential in the intermediate region. Since the hight of the potential is $`V_{eff}(r_c)M_{EW}^2`$, the continuum modes with mass $`mM_{EW}`$ have suppressed wave functions near the core and so, for distances $`|\stackrel{}{x}|M_{EW}^1`$, the gravity behaves as in RS limit and is nearly four-dimensional. On the other hand, for distances $`|\stackrel{}{x}|m_{EW}`$, the gravity is $`D`$-dimensional. This regime is phenomenologically interesting because the physics on the brane seems very distinct from both the RS and the ADD scenarios, in that the gravity is maintained to be four-dimensional down to distances of $`m_{EW}^1`$, despite introducing the large extra dimensions to obtain the 4D Planck scale. Furthermore, there are no light moduli fields associated with the large size of $`S^{d1}`$ because they are strongly suppressed near the 3-brane.

In the ADD limit, we have obtained not only the phenomenology of theories with large extra dimensions for $`d=2,3`$ but also somewhat distinct one for $`d4`$. In both cases, the hierarchy problem could be resolved via the large horizon size $`r_H`$ in the sense of the conventional large extra dimension scenarios. However, there still remains a hierarchy between $`M_{EW}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$, because such large size of the horizon is provided by only the tiny bulk cosmological constant. This hierarchy could be stable in the sense that small changes of $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ have small effects to the physics on the brane as expected in ADD scenarios. An unpleasant point is the fact that $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ is a Lagrangian parameter that is not free from the radiative correction due to various bulk fields and needs to be stabilized by a symmetry, such as supersymmetry. In absence of a clear stabilization mechanism, it however seems natural $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ to be of the order of the fundamental scale. From this aspect, the Randall-Sundrum limit only seems to be natural.

At this point, an immediate question is whether the such large size of the horizon (or equivalently the small compactification scale) can be calculated in the theory that has only one physical scale of the order of the weak scale. The answer seems to be positive. Usually the size of the horizon of an extreme black brane is determined by the magnitude of charge (equivalently mass) carried by the black brane. It does not seem uncommon to have solutions with huge magnitude of charge; the world around us abounds with solutions that has much larger charge than the electron’s.

Up to now, we have considered only brane solutions with unit winding number. This was because the conditions of spherical symmetry and regularity at the origin allows only solutions with unit winding number when $`d3`$. While cylindrically symmetric solutions with arbitrarily large winding number $`n`$ are allowed when $`d=2`$. The solutions with winding number $`n`$ can easily be obtained simply replacing $`8\pi G_D`$ with $`8\pi G_Dn^2`$ in the solution with unit winding number for $`d=2`$. Then the radius of the horizon is given from Eq.(6) in terms of unrescaled parameters by $`r_H^2=16\pi v^2n^2/M_{}^4|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$. We assume all scales to be in the same order with the fundamental scale, that is, intrinsically there exist only one physical scale. Then the horizon size is given by $`r_HnM_{}^1`$ simply. Putting $`M_{}m_{\mathrm{EW}}10^3`$GeV and demanding that $`r_H`$ and $`n`$ are chosen to reproduce the observed four-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{pl}10^{18}`$GeV yields $`n10^{15}`$. Hence, the global black brane solution with large winding number of $`n10^{15}`$ seems to provide a dynamical determination of the hierarchy between the four-dimensional Planck scale and the weak scale without requiring any additional small scale from the theory that has intrinsically only one physical scale. Furthermore, the such large compactification size is now stabilized via the charge conservation law.

The interior region of the D3-brane interpolates between the singularity and the AdS throat. The similar analysis of the graviton states to that for the global black brane shows that even in the existence of the singularity the massless graviton can be localized in the central region of the interior region under the unitary boundary condition. However, since we do not have a detailed understanding of the singularity, we will not be able to make any rigorous claim whether such boundary conditions are what we want. Thus, we will only assume that the singularity is smoothed out by the true short-distance theory of gravity, namely, string theory. Essentially the source for the R-R field strength is sitting at the singularity. Since the only known source for R-R 5-form field strength is D3-brane, we are naturally expected to see a stack of D3-branes when we probe the singularity with energy over the string scale.

The analog Schrödinger potential resembles with that for the global black brane with $`d=2`$. And so the gravity on a 3-brane residing in the central region behaves like what we would expect by interpreting the horizon size $`r_H`$ as a compactification radius. Since the effective Planck scale is determined via the relation $`M_{pl}^2=r_H^6/(24\pi ^3g_s^2l_s^8)`$ and the size of the horizon is given by $`r_H^4=4\pi l_s^4g_sN`$, the hierarchy between the string scale $`l_s^1`$ and the four-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{pl}`$ can be provided with the R-R charge of the amount of $`N=\left(2\pi ^{3/2}l_s^2g_s^{1/2}M_{pl}^2\right)^{2/3}`$. If we naively assume that the string scale is of the order of the weak scale, i.e., $`l_sm_{EW}`$, then the amount of the R-R charge needed to generate the hierarchy is $`N10^{22}`$ and the size of the horizon is $`10^{12}`$cm.

Perhaps the deepest consequence of the above picture is that it gives a natural explanation of the large mass hierarchy and gives a good reason of why string theory would necessarily choose such type of compactification geometry. The large mass hierarchy is translated into the large size of the horizon. The large size of the horizon, i.e., the large compactification size can be calculated in string theory that has only one physical scale $`l_s`$ and is determined by the amount of the R-R charge $`N`$ carried by the D3-brane. Furthermore, the stabilization of such large compactification size is strictly supported by the conserved D3-brane charges.

We don’t need to compactify whole spacetime introducing the compactification manifold. The geometry needed for the Randall-Sundrum type brane world can be obtained simply from the noncompact ten-dimensional spacetime by means of formation of a large cluster of D3-branes.

Let us conclude with some discussions. The above picture may provide new perspectives on problems associated to the brane world scenarios. Both non-Ricci flat metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ and metric dependent on the extra dimensional coordinates $`z^i`$, i.e., $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }(x,z)\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x,z)`$, correspond to excitations upon the extremal black brane background, which is the ground state of the black $`p`$-brane. That is, in the existence of such excitations the black brane becomes now non-extremal and its Hawking temperature is not zero. Thus, such excitations will be diluted through Hawking radiation. First, the continuum modes are one of such excitations. The analysis on the singular behavior of the continuum modes at the horizon should be reexamined because it has done on the rigid AdS background, while in the existence of such excitation we lose the AdS background. Second, the Poincaré invariance in the longitudinal direction will persist even in the presence of the quantum corrections to the brane tension because the quantum corrections also will be diluted, so that no 4D cosmological constant generated. Third, this picture provides a new physical mechanism that can solve the cosmological flatness problem. Even though our world brane was highly bent initially, the bending should have been diluted as the black brane Hawking radiates and evolves toward the extremal one. Since the entropy density of our universe is minutely small, our world brane seems to be embedded in the interior region of very near-extremal black brane. Finally, the another flatness problem associated with the approximate Lorentz invariance in the longitudinal direction also can be resolved because the bulk curvature will be diluted via Hawking process.

We wish to acknowledge discussions with H.M. Lee, J.D. Park and S. Yi.