text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There is a hierarchy of some 17 orders of magnitude between the Planck scale ($`M_{pl}10^{19}\text{ GeV}`$) and the Electro-weak scale ($`M_{EW}10^2\text{ GeV}`$). The Standard Model (SM) requires an extreme fine tuning to maintain this hierarchy and a lot of recent work has addressed this “Hierarchy Problem”. Supersymmetry, Technicolor and recently, extra dimensions , have been considered to address this problem.

One of the frameworks that addresses the hierarchy problem was proposed by Randall and Sundrum . They propose a 5-dimensional non-factorizable AdS geometry with the metric given by:

$$ds^2=g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2=e^{2k|y|}\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta +dy^2$$
(1)
where, $`k`$ is the AdS curvature, $`y`$ is the co-ordinate in the extra dimension and $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$ is $`diag(1,1,1,1)`$.

The extra dimension is compactified on $`S^1/Z_2`$. The $`Z_2`$ symmetry identifies $`y`$ and $`y`$ and fields are either even or odd with respect to this $`Z_2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)=\pm \mathrm{\Phi }(x,y).$$
(2)
The Lagrangian is constructed to be be $`Z_2`$ invariant. In this setup there are two 3-branes at the $`Z_2`$ orbifold fixed points - the “Planck Brane” at $`y=0`$, and the “TeV Brane” at $`y=\pi R`$. The “warp factor”, $`e^{2k|y|}`$, allows the possibility of generating an exponentially lower Electro-Weak scale, given a high Planck scale; $`M_{EW}e^{k\pi R}M_{pl}`$, with $`R`$ the radius of the compact extra dimension. To generate the required hierarchy we need $`kR12`$ with $`kM_{pl}`$. In the original framework, to solve the hierarchy problem, matter was thought to reside on the TeV brane; later authors have considered matter on the Planck brane also. A generic feature of Randall-Sundrum type theories is that it requires the cosmological constants in the bulk and the two branes to be fine-tuned***Ref.  describes a mechanism to stabilize the radius of the compact extra dimension and reduce the number of fine-tunings to one..

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=6M_5^3k^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\pi R)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{k}}`$ (3)
where $`M_5`$ is the fundamental five-dimensional scale. The four dimensional Planck scale is:

$$M_{pl}^2=\frac{M_5^3}{k}(1e^{2\pi kR}).$$
(4)
In this paper, we work in this framework of Randall and Sundrum.

Grand Unified Theories (GUT) based on $`SU(5)`$ have many compelling features. The quantum numbers of particles in the SM can be neatly explained by considering them to be in the $`10`$ and $`\overline{5}`$ representations. Another motivation to consider GUTs is the apparent unification of gauge couplings at around $`M_{GUT}10^{16}\text{ GeV}`$, in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) .

Our motivation for considering extra dimensional gauge fields is the possibility of bulk gauge fields mediating supersymmetry breaking through Gaugino Mediation . In this scheme, a gauge supermultiplet in the bulk of a flat higher dimensional theory transmits supersymmetry breaking at a TeV from the source brane to the MSSM fields on a second brane. The realization of Gaugino Mediation in the context of the Randall-Sundrum scenario is left for future work.

Motivated by these considerations we consider a setup with $`SU(5)`$ gauge bosons in the bulk of the Randall-Sundrum setup. We consider matter in the $`10`$ and $`\overline{5}`$ representations of $`SU(5)`$ to be localized on a brane. Pomarol  has considered breaking $`SU(5)`$ by a Higgs mechanism on the matter brane in the Randall-Sundrum scenario. In this paper we calculate the proton decay rate due to terms with an $`X`$ boson and also due to non-renormalizable interaction terms containing $`_yX`$.

## 2 The SU(5) Lagrangian

In the following, only terms relevant for proton decay will be shown. The $`SU(5)`$ generators are denoted as $`T^a`$, normalized as $`\{T^a,T^b\}=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}`$ and $`y_0`$ is the position of the matter brane.
The field strength for the bulk gauge field $`A_M^a`$ (of mass dimension $`3/2`$) is defined as:
$`F_{MN}=_MA_N_NA_Mig[A_M,A_N]`$
$`F_{MN}=F_{MN}^aT^a;A_M=A_M^aT^a,etc.`$
and the covariant derivatives for the usual GUT matter multiplets, $`T`$ the $`10`$ of $`SU(5)`$ and $`\overline{F}`$ the $`\overline{5}`$ of $`SU(5)`$ is given by:
$`D_\mu T=_\mu Ti\frac{e}{\sqrt{2M_{pl}}}(A_\mu T+TA_\mu ^T)`$
$`D_\mu F=_\mu Fi\frac{e}{\sqrt{2M_{pl}}}A_\mu F`$.

The $`SU(5)`$ invariant lagrangian is:

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`L_{Bulk}+L_{Brane}`$ (5)
$`L_{Bulk}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr(F^{MN}F_{MN})\right]`$ (6)
$`L_{Brane}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{g}\delta (yy_0)[Tr(\overline{T}i\text{ / }DT)+{\displaystyle \frac{ig_1}{M_{CO}\sqrt{M_{pl}}}}Tr\left(\overline{T}[\gamma ^M,\gamma ^N]F_{MN}T\right)`$ (7)
$`+\overline{F}i\text{ / }DF+{\displaystyle \frac{ig_2}{M_{CO}\sqrt{M_{pl}}}}\left(\overline{F}[\gamma ^M,\gamma ^N]F_{MN}F\right)]`$
where, $`g`$ is the determinant of the 5-dimensional metric Note: $`\sqrt{g}e^{4k|y|}`$, $`\gamma _M=e_M^\alpha \gamma _\alpha `$ ($`e_M^\alpha `$ is the vierbein and $`\gamma _\alpha `$ are the flat space Dirac matrices) and the second and fourth terms above are non-renormalizable interaction terms that are Lorentz and $`SU(5)`$ invariant, suppressed by the cutoff scale $`M_{CO}`$, and $`e`$, $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are $`O(1)`$ coupling constants .

For the Lagrangian to be $`Z_2`$ invariant, $`A_M^a`$ should have the property:

$`A_\mu ^a(x,y)=+A_\mu ^a(x,y)`$ (8)
$`A_5^a(x,y)=A_5^a(x,y)`$ (9)
i.e., $`A_\mu ^a`$ is $`Z_2`$ even and $`A_5^a`$ is $`Z_2`$ odd.

The equations of motion for the $`A_M^a`$ are:

$`_\alpha ^\alpha A_5^a`$ $``$ $`_y_\alpha A^{a\alpha }=0`$ (10)
$`e^{2k|y|}_y\left(e^{2k|y|}\left(_yA^{a\beta }^\beta A_5^a\right)\right)`$ $`+`$ $`e^{2k|y|}_\alpha \left(^\alpha A^{a\beta }^\beta A^{a\alpha }\right)=0.`$ (11)
Using the gauge freedom, we can always set $`_\mu A^{a\mu }=0`$. Then the equation of motion eq. (10) gives $`A_5^a=0`$.Though $`A_5^a`$ is not identically zero off-shell, it will not contribute to proton decay since it is $`Z_2`$ odd and therefore vanishes at the fixed points where $`SU(5)`$ matter is located. In this on-shell gauge eq. (11) becomes:

$$e^{2k|y|}_y\left(e^{2k|y|}_yA^{a\beta }\right)+e^{2k|y|}_\alpha ^\alpha A^{a\beta }=0.$$
(12)
It is helpful to expand into Kaluza-Klein modes§§§Sum over $`n`$ is understood.:

$$A_M(x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}A_M^{(n)}(x)f_n(y)$$
(13)
with the $`f_n`$ a complete set of functions over $`y`$ that satisfy:

$$\frac{1}{2\pi R}\underset{\pi R}{\overset{\pi R}{}}dyf_mf_n=\delta _{mn}.$$
(14)
Eq. (12) can then be split into the two equations:

$`_\alpha ^\alpha A^{(n)\beta }(x)=m_n^2A^{(n)\beta }(x)`$ (15)
$`e^{2k|y|}_y\left(e^{2k|y|}_yf_n(y)\right)+e^{2k|y|}m_n^2f_n(y)=0`$ (16)
where $`m_n`$ is a discrete sequence (KK masses)The $`m_n`$ will be shown to have a gap $`\text{ TeV}`$. determined by the boundary (brane) conditions on the $`f_n`$ due to its $`Z_2`$ property. Eq. (16) can be reduced to the Bessels Differential Equation and the solutions  (with definite $`Z_2`$ even and odd properties, $`f_n^{even}`$ and $`f_n^{odd}`$) contain the Bessels functions, $`J_1`$ and $`Y_1`$.

$`f_n^{even}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{k|y|}}{N_n}}\left[J_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{k}}e^{k|y|}\right)+b_1(m_n)Y_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{k}}e^{k|y|}\right)\right]`$ (17)
$`f_n^{odd}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (y)f_n^{even}(y)`$ (18)
$`N_n^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi R}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\pi R}{}}}dye^{2ky}\left[J_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{k}}e^{ky}\right)+b_1(m_n)Y_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{k}}e^{ky}\right)\right]^2`$ (19)
where $`\theta (y)`$ is the step function and $`b_1(m_n)`$ is a constant that depends on $`m_n`$. In the limit $`m_nk`$ and $`kR1`$, $`N_n`$ is approximated by :

$$N_n\frac{e^{\pi kR}}{\sqrt{2\pi kR}}J_1(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{\pi kR}).$$
(20)
Using the large argument approximation for the Bessels function from eq. (45)

$$N_n\frac{e^{\frac{\pi kR}{2}}}{\pi \sqrt{Rm_n}}.$$
(21)
Since we are interested in analyzing the proton decay rate, let us focus on the terms involving the $`T`$ and $`X`$ bosons in eq. (7)The terms with $`\overline{F}`$ lead to similar contributions as the $`T`$ and will not be explicitly considered here.:

$$L_{Brane}\sqrt{g}\delta (yy_0)\left[\left(\frac{ie}{\sqrt{2M_{pl}}}\right)Tr\left(\overline{T}i\gamma ^MA_MT\right)+\frac{ig_1}{M_{CO}\sqrt{M_{pl}}}Tr\left(\overline{T}[\gamma ^M,\gamma ^N]F_{MN}T\right)\right].$$
(22)
The first term above is contained in the first term in eq. (7). The $`X_M`$ part of $`A_M`$ can lead to proton decay due to $`uue^+\overline{d}`$.

Using eq. (13) in eq. (22), integrating over $`y`$ (which picks out the fixed point values) and bringing to canonical form with $`TTe^{\frac{3}{2}k|y_0|}`$, we get the effective four dimensional lagrangian:

$$L^{(4)}\frac{ie}{\sqrt{2M_{pl}}}\frac{f_n(y_0)}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}Tr(\overline{T}i\gamma ^\alpha A_\alpha ^{(n)}T)+\frac{2ig_1}{M_{CO}\sqrt{M_{pl}}}\frac{(_yf_n)|_{y_0}}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}Tr\left(\overline{T}[\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^5]A_\alpha ^{(n)}T\right).$$
(23)
## 3 SU(5) breaking by the Higgs mechanism

We do not see the $`SU(5)`$ structure at the weak scale and so it has to be broken at a higher scale. There are various ways of breaking $`SU(5)`$ and one of them is by a Higgs confined to the matter brane. Let us consider a Higgs in the adjoint of $`SU(5)`$ localized on the matter brane  and that it gets a VEV, breaking $`SU(5)`$ down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ in the usual manner .

The Higgs mechanism results in a mass term for the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ bosons which effectively can be parametrized as:

$$L_{Brane}\sqrt{g}\delta (yy_0)\frac{v^2}{M_{pl}}A_M^{\widehat{a}}A_{}^{\widehat{a}}{}_{}{}^{M}$$
(24)
where, $`v`$ is the VEV of the Higgs that breaks $`SU(5)`$ to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$. We will not show terms containing the physical Higgs since we are interested in calculating the proton decay contribution due to the gauge bosons. We will work in the Unitary gauge where we only deal with physical particles.

The equation of motion for gauge bosons (eq. (12)), in the presence of such a brane mass term is modified to:

$$e^{2k|y|}_y\left(e^{2k|y|}_yA^{a\widehat{\beta }}\right)+e^{2k|y|}_\alpha ^\alpha A^{a\widehat{\beta }}=2\delta (yy_0)\frac{v^2}{M_{pl}}A^{a\widehat{\beta }}.$$
(25)
Eq. (15) remains unchanged, but eq. (16) is modified to:

$$e^{2k|y|}_y\left(e^{2k|y|}_yf_n(y)\right)+e^{2k|y|}m_n^2f_n(y)=2\delta (yy_0)\frac{v^2}{M_{pl}}f_n(y).$$
(26)
Since the the $`A_\mu `$ are $`Z_2`$ even (see eq. (8)), we require the corresponding $`f_n`$ to satisfy ($`y_0`$ is the matter brane and $`y_0^{}`$ the other brane):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}f_n|_{y_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2v^2}{M_{pl}}}f_n(y_0)`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}f_n|_{y_0^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (28)
Eq. (27) implies for $`b_1(m_n)`$ (the constant defined in eq. (17)):

$$b_1(m_n)=\frac{(1\frac{v^2}{kM_{pl}})J_1(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0})+\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0}J_1^{}(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0})}{(1\frac{v^2}{kM_{pl}})Y_1(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0})+\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0}Y_1^{}(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0})}$$
(29)
and Eq. (28) implies:

$$b_1(m_n)=\frac{J_1(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0^{}})+\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0^{}}J_1^{}(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0^{}})}{Y_1(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0^{}})+\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0^{}}Y_1^{}(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{ky_0^{}})}.$$
(30)
Equating these determines $`m_n`$ as we show next.

### 3.1 Matter on the Planck brane.

For matter on the Planck brane, $`y_0=0`$ and $`y_0^{}=\pi R`$. The matter content on the Planck Brane is that of the MSSM and the gauge couplings apparently unify  in the usual manner\**\**\**The authors of ref.  point out that there may be large threshold corrections that upset gauge coupling unification, but there is still the possibility that the threshold corrections are universal and preserve unification., at around $`M_{GUT}10^{16}\text{ GeV}`$.

Equating eqs. (29) and (30) determines $`m_n`$. Using eq. (43) this equality becomes:

$$\frac{\frac{v^2}{kM_{pl}}J_1(\frac{m_n}{k})+\frac{m_n}{k}J_0(\frac{m_n}{k})}{\frac{v^2}{kM_{pl}}Y_1(\frac{m_n}{k})+\frac{m_n}{k}Y_0(\frac{m_n}{k})}=\frac{J_0\left(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{k\pi R}\right)}{Y_0\left(\frac{m_n}{k}e^{k\pi R}\right)}.$$
(31)
Using eq. (44) for $`\frac{m_n}{k}1`$ on the left hand side, and defining $`u_n=\frac{m_n}{k}e^{k\pi R}`$ the above equation becomes:

$$\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{u_n}{2}\right)k\pi R+\gamma +\frac{v^2}{kM_{pl}}\frac{e^{2k\pi R}}{u_n^2}}=\frac{J_0\left(u_n\right)}{Y_0\left(u_n\right)}$$
(32)
where $`\gamma 0.5772`$.

With no Higgs VEV, i.e. $`v=0`$, the lowest lying mode is the massless zero mode obtained as the limit $`u_n0`$ in the above equation. The corresponding limit for the wavefunction from eq. (17) is $`f_n(y)=\mathrm{constant}`$.

Now we ask whether this “zero-mode” becomes massive due to a non-zero $`v`$. For $`u1`$, the right hand side of eq. (32) can be approximated using eq. (44):

$$\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{u_n}{2}\right)k\pi R+\gamma +\frac{v^2}{kM_{pl}}\frac{e^{2k\pi R}}{u_n^2}}=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{u_n}{2}\right)+\gamma }.$$
(33)
The lowest mode (what was massless in the $`v=0`$ case) that solves this is given by:

$$u_0=\frac{v}{\sqrt{k\pi R}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{kM_{pl}}}e^{k\pi R},$$
(34)
or equivalently,

$$m_0=\frac{v}{\sqrt{\pi M_{pl}R}}.$$
(35)
It should be stressed that this solution for the lowest mode is valid in the limit $`u1`$, i.e., $`v10^3\text{ GeV}`$. Thus the mode that was massless is now lifted to the value given by eq. (35) due to a non-zero $`v`$. We are actually interested in the case when $`vM_{GUT}`$ for which we cannot use the above solution obtained for $`u1`$. A numerical computation of eq. (32) shows that as $`v`$ becomes larger than about $`10^4\text{ GeV}`$ the lowest mode gets fixed at around the first zero of $`Y_0`$, $`u_00.9`$, or equivalently $`m_00.9ke^{k\pi R}\text{ TeV}`$. Thus we see that the zero mode is lifted to a mass of $`\text{ TeV}`$ due to a VEV $`vM_{GUT}`$. The wavefunction of this “zero-mode” is similar to the wavefunction of the first KK mode since their masses are close.

We can see from eq. (32) that the low lying KK modes, $`u_n`$, are close to the zero’s of the Bessel function $`J_0`$, namely, $`u_n\left(n\frac{1}{4}\right)\pi `$ which translates to:

$$m_n\left(n\frac{1}{4}\right)\pi ke^{k\pi R}.$$
(36)
Thus, a non-zero $`v`$ doesn’t significantly change the mass spectrum from the $`v=0`$ case (see for example ref. ). We will estimate the wavefunctions at $`y=0`$ in the next section and we will see that it changes drastically when a VEV is turned on.

### 3.2 Matter on the TeV brane

We will show in the next section that having matter on the TeV brane violates the experimental limit on the proton decay. Phenomenological disadvantages of having matter on the TeV brane with gauge fields in the bulk are discussed in ref. .

## 4 Proton Decay due to Gauge Bosons

The dominant contribution to proton decay comes from tree level exchange of the X and Y bosons such as $`uuX_\mu e^+\overline{d}`$. It should be noted that $`X_5`$ and $`Y_5`$ do not induce proton decay, since, being $`Z_2`$ odd, they vanish at the fixed points (where matter is localized).

The proton decay rate due to the tree level exchange of the $`n`$th KK mode of $`X_\mu `$ given by the first term in eq. (23) is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\frac{\left(ef_n(y_0)\right)^4}{4\left(2\pi M_{pl}R\right)^2}\frac{m_p^5}{M_X^{(n)4}}$$
(37)
where, $`m_p`$ is the Proton mass, $`1\text{ GeV}`$. The tree level contribution due to the $`n`$th KK mode of $`_yX_\mu `$ given by the second term in eq. (23) is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\frac{\left(2g_1_yf_n(y_0)\right)^4}{\left(2\pi M_{pl}R\right)^2\left(M_{CO}\right)^4}\frac{m_p^5}{M_X^{(n)4}}.$$
(38)
Summing over the KK modes gives the total decay rate,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{\tau _p}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\frac{v}{1TeV}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}.$$
(39)
The sum is over the modes that are of mass less than $`v`$ and since the spacing of modes is approximately a TeV, we have cut the sum off at $`\frac{v}{1TeV}`$ above.

If matter is on the TeV brane, eq. (17) implies that $`f_n(\pi R)O(1)`$ with $`m_nn\text{ TeV}`$. Eq. (37) implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}10^{12}\text{ GeV}`$, i.e. $`\tau _p^{(1)}10^{20}`$ yr, and the experimental bound on the proton decay rate††††††The experimental limit on the proton lifetime is (mode dependent) $`\tau _p>10^{31}5\times 10^{32}\mathrm{years}`$  which translates to $`\tau _p10^{64}(\mathrm{GeV})^1`$. is clearly violated. Thus, in agreement with ref.  we conclude that we cannot have matter on the TeV brane.

For matter on the Planck brane, we estimate the value of the wavefunction and its derivative along the extra dimension at $`y=0`$. From eqs. (29) and (17) with $`\frac{m_n}{k}1`$‡‡‡‡‡‡From eq. (36) this means that all these estimates are valid for $`n10^{16}`$ and not for arbitrarily large $`n`$., $`v>m_n`$, $`y_0=0`$ and $`N_n`$ from eq. (21),

$`b_1(m_n)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{2}}\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{kM_{pl}}{v^2}}\right)e^{2\pi kR}`$ (40)
$`f_n(0)`$ $``$ $`e^{2\pi kR}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\sqrt{2}}}\sqrt{2\pi kR}\left({\displaystyle \frac{kM_{pl}}{v^2}}\right)\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ (41)
$`_yf_n(0)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{2}e^{2\pi kR}\pi k\sqrt{2\pi kR}\left(n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}.`$ (42)
Eq. (37) gives the proton decay rate due to the $`n`$th KK mode: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}10^{114}n^2`$ and thus the total decay rate given by eq. (39) due to the first term in eq. (23) is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10^{75}\text{ GeV}`$, i.e. $`\tau _p10^{43}`$ yr.

We calculate next the contribution due to the term with the derivative on the X boson along the extra dimension given by the second term in eq. (23). Using eq. (42) in eq. (38) gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\frac{10^{61}n^2}{M_{CO}^4}`$. With $`M_{CO}10^{16}\text{ GeV}`$ and summing over the KK modes, the total rate due to the second term in eq. (23) is: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10^{86}\text{ GeV}`$ i.e. $`\tau _p10^{54}`$ yr.

Thus the lifetime is far greater than the experimental limit and we conclude that it is acceptable to have matter on the Planck brane.

## 5 Conclusions

We considered a setup based on the Randall-Sundrum scenario which addresses the hierarchy problem. This consists of having a warped geometry compactified on $`S^1/Z_2`$, with the MSSM matter fields localized on one of the fixed points of the orbifold. We considered the implications to proton decay due to $`SU(5)`$ gauge bosons in the bulk.

We considered the situation when $`SU(5)`$ is broken by an adjoint Higgs on the matter brane breaking it down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$. We calculated the proton decay rate due to exchange of $`X`$ bosons and considered the effect of a non-renormalizable interaction term on the brane having a derivative in the $`y`$ direction. Another way of breaking $`SU(5)`$ is by Orbifold breaking which was not considered here. It is possible that the contributions to proton decay can be different in Orbifold breaking due to the different $`Z_2`$ parity properties of the gauge bosons, although we expect the results to be qualitatively similar.

We found that the experimental limit on the proton decay rate does not allow matter to be on the TeV brane. We then calculated the proton decay rate if the $`10`$ and $`\overline{5}`$ matter multiplets of $`SU(5)`$ was on the Planck brane. We showed that this does not violate the experimental limit and thus is a viable setup.

Having matter on the Planck brane implies the hierarchy problem and thus requires Supersymmetry to stabilize the Higgs at the Weak scale. Though it might seem that we lost the original motivation of solving the hierarchy problem, we note here that there is still the attractive feature of generating the Weak scale due to the warped geometry, given the Planck scale. One realization of this is that some dynamics on the TeV brane might break supersymmetry at the TeV scale and then be communicated by the Gauginos in the bulk to the MSSM on the Planck brane. We have not considered the Higgs and Higgsino contributions to Proton Decay here. It would also be interesting to consider if it is possible to have the Higgs in the bulk while satisfying proton decay constraints.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank J. Wells (who suggested this area of work) and W. Goldberger for valuable discussions. I would also like to thank Z. Chacko, E. Dudas, M. Gaillard, J. Giedt, S. Mouslopoulos, Y. Nomura, M. Perelstein and A. Pomarol for their comments. I am grateful to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for financial support. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.

## Appendix

For the readers convenience, we collect here some relations involving Bessels functions that we have used.

$`J_1^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`J_0(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}J_1(x)`$
$`Y_1^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`Y_0(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}Y_1(x).`$ (43)
For $`x1`$:

$`J_0(x)`$ $``$ $`1`$
$`Y_0(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right)+\gamma \right]`$
$`J_1(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}`$
$`Y_1(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi x}}`$
$`J_1^{}(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`Y_1^{}(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right)+\gamma \right]`$ (44)
with $`\gamma 0.5772`$.

For $`x1`$

$$J_1(x)\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi x}}\mathrm{cos}\left(x\frac{3\pi }{4}\right).$$
(45)


format: text

text:
# A quantum stochastic approach to the spectrum of a two-level atom

## 1 Introduction

Quantum stochastic calculus (QSC)  is a noncommutative analogue of the classical Ito’s calculus and it has had many applications in modelling quantum optical systems . In particular, inside QSC a Schrödinger equation for unitary operators can be formulated, the Hudson-Parthasarathy equation (5) , which is well suited to treat the interaction between matter and electromagnetic field within the usual approximation schemes of quantum optics .

The simplest, non trivial matter-field system is a two-level atom stimulated by a laser. The fluorescence spectrum of such a system, in the case of a perfectly monochromatic laser, was obtained by Mollow ; then, the case of a laser with a Lorentzian spectrum was developed by Kimble and Mandel . QSC and Hudson-Parthasarathy equation give not only the way of giving an unified treatment of such a system and of connecting it to the photon-detection theory, but they allow also to explore possible corrections to the dynamics and to obtain modifications of the Mollow spectrum. In the usual treatments, the scattering of the light by the atom is described by the absorption/emission process due to the electric dipole interaction involving only two states of the atom. But even if the absorption/emission process would be forbidden and the atom would be frozen in the up or down level, some scattering of light would remain, due to the response of the atom as a whole; we can call it “direct scattering”. For instance, in a perturbative development in Feynman graphs, scattering processes would be generated also by virtual transitions starting and ending in one of the two states left in the description, but involving as intermediate states the other ones, which have been eliminated in the final description. The use of Hudson-Parthasarathy equation allows, even when the atom is approximated by a two-level system, for the introduction of both the “absorption/emission channel” and the “direct scattering channel”. This modified model, in the case of a perfectly monochromatic laser, has been presented in  and developed in ; the first results for a non monochromatic laser have been obtained in .

In Section 2 we give the mathematical model for the dynamics of the two-level atom interacting with the electromagnetic field, including the polarization of the light and the degeneracy of the up and down levels, which has never been considered before and which has an effect on the angular dependence of the spectrum. We consider the usual dipole interaction and the possible corrections giving the direct scattering; the so called phase diffusion model is used for the laser as in . In Section 3 the general formulae for the spectrum are obtained and its angular dependence is discussed. Then, the total spectrum, integrated over the whole solid angle, is studied. In the case of only the absorption/emission process in the interaction term, we reobtain the Mollow spectrum  for a perfectly monochromatic laser and the Kimble-Mandel spectrum  for a non monochromatic laser with Lorentzian spectrum. In the case of the modified model, when also the direct scattering is included, but the laser is perfectly monochromatic, we reobtain the results of , although there the level degeneracy was not taken into account. According to the values of the various parameters, the fluorescence spectrum can present a well resolved triplet structure as in the Mollow spectrum, but also it can be distorted and made asymmetric by the presence of the new terms. Experiments  confirm essentially the triplet structure; some asymmetry has been found and its origin has been attributed to various causes. The presence of the new terms we have introduced could give a model for treating such an asymmetry. When the laser bandwidth is taken into account, the modified model gives corrections to the spectrum found in  by Kimble and Mandel.

## 2 The model

### 2.1 The unitary atom-field dynamics

#### 2.1.1 Fock space and the Hudson-Parthasarathy equation.

Let us recall the rules of QSC and the Hudson-Parthasarathy equation; this is just to fix our notations, while for the proper mathematical presentation we refer to the book by Parthasarathy .

We denote by $``$ the Boson Fock space over the “one-particle space” $`𝒵L^2(_+)`$, where $`𝒵`$ is a separable complex Hilbert space; we shall see in section 2.1.3 how to choose $`𝒵`$. A vector $`f`$ in $`𝒵L^2(_+)L^2(_+;𝒵)`$ is a square integrable function from $`_+`$ into $`𝒵`$. Let $`\{h_k,k1\}`$ be a c.o.n.s. in $`𝒵`$ and let us denote by $`A_k(t)`$, $`A_k^{}(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kl}(t)`$ the annihilation, creation and gauge (or number) processes associated with such a c.o.n.s.; we can write formally $`A_k(t)=_0^ta_k(s)ds`$, $`A_k^{}(t)=_0^ta_k^{}(s)ds`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kl}(t)=_0^ta_k^{}(s)a_l(s)ds`$, where $`a_k(t)`$, $`a_k^{}(t)`$ are usual Bose fields, satisfying the canonical commutation rules $`[a_k(t),a_l^{}(s)]=\delta _{kl}\delta (ts),\mathrm{}`$. The Fock space $``$ is spanned by the coherent vectors $`e(f)`$, $`fL^2(_+;𝒵)`$, whose components in the $`0,1,\mathrm{},n,\mathrm{}`$ particle spaces are

$$e(f)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}f^2\right)(1,f,(2!)^{1/2}ff,\mathrm{},(n!)^{1/2}f^n,\mathrm{});$$
(1)
in particular the vector $`e(0)`$ is the Fock vacuum. The coherent vectors (1) are normalized and they are the eigenstates of the annihilation operators; indeed, we have $`A_k(t)e(f)=_0^th_k|f(s)se(f)`$. In QSC integrals of “Ito type” with respect to $`A_k(t)`$, $`A_k^{}(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kl}(t)`$ are defined. The main practical rules to manipulate “Ito differentials” are the facts that $`A_k(t)`$, $`A_k^{}(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kl}(t)`$ commute with anything containing the fields only up to time $`t`$ (objects called adapted processes) and that the products of the fundamental differentials satisfy $`A_k(t)A_l^{}(t)=\delta _{kl}t`$, $`A_k(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{rl}(t)=\delta _{kr}A_l(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kr}(t)A_l^{}(t)=\delta _{rl}A_k^{}(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kr}(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sl}(t)=\delta _{rs}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kl}(t)`$; all the other products and the products involving $`t`$ vanish.

Let $``$ be a separable complex Hilbert space (the system space) and let $`R_k`$, $`k1`$, $`S_{kl}`$, $`k,l1`$, $`H`$ be bounded operators in $``$ such that $`H^{}=H`$, $`_kR_k^{}R_k`$ is strongly convergent to a bounded operator, and

$$\underset{kl}{}S_{kl}|h_kh_l|=:S𝒰(𝒵),$$
(2)
$`𝒰()`$ “means unitary operators on $``$”; we set also

$$R:𝒵,R\xi :=\underset{k}{}(R_k\xi )h_k,$$
(3)
$$K=H\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\underset{k}{}R_k^{}R_kH\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}R^{}R.$$
(4)
Then (see reference  Theorem 27.8 p. 228) there exists a unique *unitary* operator-valued adapted process $`U(t)`$ satisfying $`U(0)=1\mathrm{l}`$ and

$$U(t)=\left\{\underset{k}{}R_kA_k^{}(t)+\underset{kl}{}\left(S_{kl}\delta _{kl}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kl}(t)\underset{kl}{}R_k^{}S_{kl}A_l(t)\mathrm{}Kt\right\}U(t).$$
(5)
The Bose fields introduced here represent a good approximation of the electromagnetic field in the so called *quasi-monochromatic paraxial approximation* . Now, $``$ is interpreted as the Hilbert space of the electromagnetic field; $`A_k^{}(t)`$ creates a photon with state $`h_k`$ in the time interval $`[0,t]`$, $`A_k(t)`$ annihilates it, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kk}(t)`$ is the selfadjoint operator representing the number of photons with state $`h_k`$ in the time interval $`[0,t]`$. *The operator $`U(t)`$ represents the evolution operator* for a compound system (say an atom plus the electromagnetic field), *in the interaction picture with respect to the free dynamics of the field.*

#### 2.1.2 The two-level atom.

The experiments  involve or the hyperfine component of the $`D_2`$ line of sodium with up level $`2P_{3/2}`$, $`F=3`$ and down level $`2S_{1/2}`$, $`F=2`$, or the levels $`6s6p{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$, $`F=1`$, and $`6s^2S_0`$, $`F=0`$ of 138Ba; $`F`$ is the total angular momentum.

In order to describe an atom with two degenerate levels as in the experimental situation, we take

$$=^{2F_{}+1}^{2F_++1},F_+=F_{}+1,$$
(6)
where $`F_{}`$ is integer or semi-integer. We denote by $`|F_\pm ,M`$, $`M=F_\pm ,\mathrm{},F_\pm `$, the angular momentum basis in $``$; the parities of the states of the two levels must be opposed, let us say they are $`ϵ_\pm `$, with $`ϵ_+ϵ_{}=1`$. Let us denote by $`P_\pm =_{M=F_\pm }^{F_\pm }|F_\pm ,MF_\pm ,M|`$ the two projection on the up or down states. Then the free energy $`H`$, contained in the quantity (4), must be given by

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\omega _0(P_+P_{}),\omega _0>0,$$
(7)
where the atomic frequency $`\omega _0`$ must already include the Lamb shift.

#### 2.1.3 The photon space.

In the approximations we are considering , the fields behave as monodimensional waves, so that a change of position is equivalent to a change of time and viceversa. Then, the space $`𝒵`$ has to contain only the degrees of freedom linked to the direction of propagation and to the polarization. To describe a spin-1 0-mass particle we use the conventions of Messiah  pp. 550, 1032–1037.

A c.o.n.s. in $`𝒵`$ is given by $`|j,m;\varpi \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{jm}^\varpi `$ , $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, $`m=j,j+1,\mathrm{},j`$, $`\varpi =\pm 1`$; $`jm`$ is the total angular momentum, $`\varpi =+1`$ denotes electrical multipole, $`\varpi =1`$ denotes magnetic multipole and $`(1)^j\varpi `$ is the parity. By using the spherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ and the orbital angular momentum operator $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$, one has

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{jm}^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{j(j+1)}}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}Y_{jm},\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{jm}^{+1}=\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{p}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{jm}^1,$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the direction versor given by $`p_1=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, $`p_2=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, $`p_3=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

#### 2.1.4 The interaction.

Let us consider now the terms with the creation and annihilation operators in the dynamical equation (5); they must describe the absorption/emission process. By asking spherical symmetry, parity conservation and only electrical dipole contribution in $`R`$, we must have

$$R=\alpha \underset{M=F_+}{\overset{F_+}{}}|ϵ_+;F_{};1;F_+,MF_+,M|,\alpha ,\alpha 0,$$
(9)
$$|ϵ_+;F_{};1;F_+,M=\underset{m_1=F_{}}{\overset{F_{}}{}}\underset{m_2=1}{\overset{1}{}}|F_{},m_1|1,m_2;+1F_{},m_1;1,m_2|F_+,M,$$
(10)
where by $`F_{},m_1;1,m_2|F_+,M`$ we denote the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients ( pp. 560–563). The interaction terms containing $`R`$ are responsible for the spontaneous decay of the atom and, as we shall see, $`|\alpha |^2`$ turns out to be the natural line width. Note that

$$R_k=P_{}R_kP_+,R^{}R=|\alpha |^2P_+.$$
(11)
The interaction term containing the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-process must give the residual scattering when the atom is frozen in the up or down level, so we take the unitary operator $`S`$ of the form

$$S=P_+S^++P_{}S^{},S^\pm 𝒰(𝒵).$$
(12)
Then, by spherical symmetry and parity conservation we must have

$$S^\pm =\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}\underset{\varpi =\pm 1}{}|j,m;\varpi \mathrm{exp}\{2\mathrm{}\delta _\pm (j;\varpi )\}j,m;\varpi |,$$
(13)
$`0\delta _\pm (j;\varpi )<2\pi `$; the $`\delta `$’s are the phase shifts for the atom frozen in the up or down level. Quantities like $`\omega _0`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\delta _\pm (j;\varpi )`$ are phenomenological parameters, or, better, they have to be computed from some more fundamental theory, such as some approximation to quantum electrodynamics.

### 2.2 Some dynamical features of the model

#### 2.2.1 The master equation.

Equation (5) already contains the usual Markov approximations; indeed, when the initial state of the field is a coherent vector, then the atomic reduced dynamics turns out to be given by a master equation without need of introducing further approximations . If $`\rho _0`$ is the initial atomic density matrix on $``$ and the coherent vector $`e(f)`$ is the state of the field, then the atomic reduced statistical operator

$$\rho (t;f)=\mathrm{Tr}_{_{}}\left\{U(t)\left(\rho _0|e(f)e(f)|\right)U(t)^{}\right\}$$
(14)
turns out to satisfy the master equation

$$\frac{}{t}\rho (t;f)=\left(f(t)\right)[\rho (t;f)],$$
(15)
where the time dependent Liouvillian turns out to be

$`\left(f(t)\right)[\rho ]=\mathrm{}[H\left(f(t)\right),\rho ]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left([R_k\left(f(t)\right)\rho ,R_k\left(f(t)\right)^{}]+[R_k\left(f(t)\right),\rho R_k\left(f(t)\right)^{}]\right),`$ (16a)
$$R_k\left(f(t)\right)=R_k+h_k|S^+f(t)P_++h_k|S^{}f(t)P_{},$$
(16b)
$$H\left(f(t)\right)=H+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\underset{k}{}\left(S^{}f(t)|h_kR_kh_k|S^{}f(t)R_k^{}\right).$$
(16c)
Note that, when the field is in the Fock vacuum, only spontaneous emission is present; indeed, for $`f(t)=0`$, the Liouvillian (16a) reduces to

$$(0)[\rho ]=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\omega _0[P_+P_{},\rho ]\frac{1}{2}\left|\alpha \right|^2\left(P_+\rho +\rho P_+\right)+|\alpha |^2\underset{m=1}{\overset{1}{}}A_m\rho A_m^{},$$
(16qa)
$$A_m=\underset{m_1=F_{}}{\overset{F_{}}{}}|F_{},m_1F_{},m_1;1,m|F_+,m_1+mF_+,m_1+m|,$$
(16qb)
which describes decay according to the usual selection rules for electric dipole and fixes the meaning of $`|\alpha |^2`$.

#### 2.2.2 The balance equation for the number of photons.

Let us introduce the observables “total number of photons in the time interval $`[0,t]`$” before and after the interaction with the atom

$$N^{\mathrm{in}}(t)=\underset{k}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kk}(t),N^{\mathrm{out}}(t)=U^{}(t)N^{\mathrm{in}}(t)U(t).$$
(16qr)
By using the computations on the increments of the “output fields” given in , we obtain in the present model the balance equation

$$N^{\mathrm{in}}(t)+\frac{1}{2}(P_+P_{})=N^{\mathrm{out}}(t)+\frac{1}{2}U(t)^{}(P_+P_{})U(t).$$
(16qs)
Such an equation says that the number of photons entering the system up to time $`t`$ plus the photons stored in the atom at time 0 is equal to the number of photons leaving the system up to time $`t`$ plus the photons stored in the atom at time $`t`$. An equation for mean values similar to (16qs) has been used for restricting the possible forms of the interaction term in the simpler model studied in .

### 2.3 The laser and the equilibrium state

#### 2.3.1 The phase diffusion model for the laser.

As in  we take as the state of the laser a mixture of coherent vectors $`𝔼\left[|e(f)e(f)|\right]`$ with

$$f(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{}\left(\omega t+\sqrt{B}W(t)\right)\right\}\theta (Tt)\lambda ,\lambda 𝒵,\omega >0,B0,$$
(16qt)
$`W(t)`$ is a standard Wiener process, $`\theta `$ is the usual step function and $`T`$ is a large time; $`T+\mathrm{}`$ in the final results is always understood and $`𝔼`$ means the classical expectation over the Wiener process. Note that this model of the laser implies a Lorentz spectrum of bandwidth $`B`$; indeed, for $`T\mathrm{}`$, one obtains

$$\frac{\mathrm{}\omega }{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}\nu \tau }𝔼[f(t)|f(t+\tau )]\tau =\mathrm{}\omega \lambda ^2\frac{B/(2\pi )}{(\nu \omega )^2+B^2/4}.$$
(16qu)
The whole model is meaningful only for $`\omega `$ not too “far” from $`\omega _0`$.

In order to describe a well collimated laser beam propagating along the direction $`z`$ $`(\theta =0)`$ and with right circular polarization, we take

$$\lambda =\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta \lambda _+,\mathrm{\Omega }>0,\delta [0,2\pi )$$
(16qv)
$$\stackrel{}{\lambda }_+(\theta ,\varphi )=\frac{1_{[0,\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ]}(\theta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \sqrt{3\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{i}+\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{j}\right),$$
(16qw)
where $`1_{[0,\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ]}(\theta )=1`$ for $`0\theta \mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$, $`1_{[0,\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ]}(\theta )=0`$ elsewhere; in all the physical quantities the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 0`$ will be taken. Note that the power of the laser $`\mathrm{}\omega \lambda ^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{}\omega |\alpha |^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2/(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )^2`$ diverges for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 0`$, because we need a not vanishing atom-field interaction in the limit. In the following we shall need the relation

$$j,m;\varpi |\lambda _+=\varpi \sqrt{\frac{2j+1}{12}}\delta _{m,1}$$
(16qx)
The choice of a circular polarization is done in some experiments, because in this way, in the long run, only two states are involved in the dynamics ( p. 206) and the usual theory has been developed for two-states systems ; we shall see that also in our modified model the right circular polarization pushes the atom in the states $`|F_{},F_{}`$, $`|F_+,F_+`$.

#### 2.3.2 The equilibrium state.

By a stochastic unitary transformation, we obtain from (14) and (16qt) an atomic density matrix

$`\widehat{\rho }(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(\omega t+\sqrt{B}W(t)\right)(P_+P_{})\right\}\rho (t;f)`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(\omega t+\sqrt{B}W(t)\right)(P_+P_{})\right\},`$ (16qy)
which satisfies the “Ito’s” master equation

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)=_B\left[\widehat{\rho }(t)\right]t+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\sqrt{B}[P_+P_{},\widehat{\rho }(t)]W(t)$$
(16qz)
and whose mean value satisfies the ordinary master equation

$$\rho (t)=𝔼\left[\widehat{\rho }(t)\right],\frac{}{t}\rho (t)=_B\left[\rho (t)\right].$$
(16qaa)
The time independent Liouvillian entering equations (16qz) and (16qaa) is given by

$$_B[\rho ]=_0[\rho ]+\frac{B}{8}\left([\left(P_+P_{}\right)\rho ,P_+P_{}]+[P_+P_{},\rho \left(P_+P_{}\right)]\right),$$
(16qaba)
$$_0[\rho ]=\mathrm{}[\widehat{H},\rho ]+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}\left([D(h_k)\rho ,D(h_k)^{}]+[D(h_k),\rho D(h_k)^{}]\right),$$
(16qabb)
$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\omega _0\omega )(P_+P_{})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left((S^{}+1\mathrm{l})\lambda |h_kR_kh_k|(S^{}+1\mathrm{l})\lambda R_k^{}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(\lambda |S^+\lambda S^+\lambda |\lambda \right)P_++{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(\lambda |S^{}\lambda S^{}\lambda |\lambda \right)P_{},`$ (16qabc)
where $`D(h)`$ is a kind of *effective dipole operator*

$`D(h)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}h|h_kR_k+h|\left(S^+1\mathrm{l}\right)\lambda P_++h|\left(S^{}1\mathrm{l}\right)\lambda P_{}`$ (16qabac)
$`=\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{1}{}}}h|1,m;+1A_m+\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta {\displaystyle \underset{ϵ=\pm }{}}h|\left(S^ϵ1\mathrm{l}\right)\lambda _+P_ϵ.`$
Now, let us set

$$P_{}=1\mathrm{l}|1,1;+11,1;+1|,\epsilon =\mathrm{Im}S^+\lambda _+|P_{}S^{}\lambda _+,$$
(16qabada)
$$g_\pm =P_{}\left(S^\pm 1\mathrm{l}\right)\lambda _+,\mathrm{\Delta }g=g_+g_{},$$
(16qabadb)
$$\delta _\pm =\delta _\pm (1;+1),s=\delta _+\delta _{},$$
(16qabadc)
We have to ask $`|\epsilon |<+\mathrm{}`$, $`g_\pm <+\mathrm{}`$, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 0`$; roughly speaking, $`S_\pm `$ must introduce small corrections even when the norm of $`\lambda _+`$ diverges. Then, we have

$`P_+`$ $`_B[\rho ]P_+=|\alpha |^2P_+\rho P_+L^{}P_{}\rho P_+P_+\rho P_{}L^{},`$ (16qabadaea)
$`P_{}`$ $`_B[\rho ]P_{}=|\alpha |^2{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{1}{}}}A_mP_+\rho P_+A_m^{}+L^{}P_+\rho P_{}+P_{}\rho P_+L^{},`$ (16qabadaeb)
$`P_{}`$ $`_B[\rho ]P_+=\left(P_+_B\left[\rho ^{}\right]P_{}\right)^{}=L^+P_+\rho P_+P_{}\rho P_{}L^{}`$ (16qabadaec)
$`+\left[\mathrm{}\left(\omega _0\omega +\mathrm{Im}S^+\lambda |S^{}\lambda \right)\frac{1}{2}\left(|\alpha |^2+B+(S^+S^{})\lambda ^2\right)\right]P_{}\rho P_+,`$
$`L^\pm ={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}S^\pm \lambda |h_kR_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\alpha |^2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}(\delta +2\delta _\pm )}A_1,`$ (16qabadaeafa)
$`\left(S^\pm 1\mathrm{l}\right)\lambda _+=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}\delta _\pm }\mathrm{sin}\delta _\pm |1,1;+1+g_\pm ,`$ (16qabadaeafb)
$`\mathrm{Im}S^+\lambda |S^{}\lambda =|\alpha |^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\epsilon \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sin}2s\right),`$ (16qabadaeafc)
$`\left(S^+S^{}\right)\lambda ^2=|\alpha |^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\mathrm{sin}^2s+\mathrm{\Delta }g^2\right),`$ (16qabadaeafd)
Then, one can check that the equilibrium state $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ for the master equation (16qaa) is supported by the two extreme states

$$|1=|F_+,F_+,|2=|F_{},F_{}.$$
(16qabadaeafag)
By using these two states the density matrix $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ is given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }^2d_1& \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{}\left(\delta +2\delta _{}\right)\right]d_2\\ & \\ \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{}\left(\delta +2\delta _{}\right)\right]d_3& 1\mathrm{\Omega }^2d_1\end{array}\right),$$
(16qabadaeafah)
$$\mathrm{d}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{d}_1\\ \mathrm{d}_2\\ \mathrm{d}_3\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{d}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{w}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{w}\mathbf{=}\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(16qabadaeafai)
$$\mathrm{G}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{ccc}1& \mathbf{}1\mathbf{/}2& \mathbf{}1\mathbf{/}2\\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathbf{}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathrm{s}& \mathrm{b}& 0\\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathbf{}^\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathrm{s}& 0& \overline{\mathrm{b}}\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(16qabadaeafaj)
$$b=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+y+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }g^2+\mathrm{sin}^2s\right)\right]\mathrm{}\left(\stackrel{~}{z}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}2s\right),$$
(16qabadaeafak)
$$\stackrel{~}{z}=z\mathrm{\Omega }^2\epsilon ,z=\left(\omega \omega _0\right)/|\alpha |^2,y=B/|\alpha |^2.$$
(16qabadaeafal)
It turns out

$$d_1=\mathrm{Re}d,d_2=d,d_3=\overline{d},$$
(16qabadaeafam)
$$d=\frac{1+y+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }g^2+\mathrm{sin}^2s\right)+\mathrm{}\left(2\stackrel{~}{z}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}s\mathrm{cos}s\right)}{4\stackrel{~}{z}^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2},$$
(16qabadaeafan)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=\left(1+y+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Delta }g^2\right)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(2+2y+2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Delta }g^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}^2s\right).$$
(16qabadaeafao)
## 3 The fluorescence spectrum

### 3.1 Heterodyne detection

#### 3.1.1 The output current.

A way to obtain the spectrum of the stimulated atom is by means of *balanced heterodyne detection*; in such a scheme the light emitted by the atom is made to interfere with the light of a strong monochromatic laser (the local oscillator) and then detected by a couple of photocounters . A mathematical description of such a detection scheme has been given inside the theory of continuous measurements ; the output current of the detector is represented by the operator

$$I(\nu ,h;t)=_0^tF(ts)\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}\nu s}A(h;s)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,A(h;t)=\underset{k}{}h|h_kA_k(t),$$
(16qabadaeafap)
where $`F(t)`$ is the detector response function, say

$$F(t)=k_1\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{4\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{2}t\right),\stackrel{~}{\gamma }>0,$$
(16qabadaeafaq)
$`k_10`$ has the dimensions of a current, $`\nu `$ is the frequency of the local oscillator and $`h𝒵`$, $`h=1`$. Any information on the localization and on the polarization of the detector is contained in $`h`$. We assume that the detector spans a small solid angle, so that $`h`$ is given by

$$h(\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})=\frac{1_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}(\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|}}\stackrel{}{e}(\theta ^{},\varphi ^{}),$$
(16qabadaeafar)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is a small solid angle around the direction $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\{(\theta ,\varphi )\}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|\mathrm{sin}\theta \theta \varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ is a complex polarization vector, $`\left|\stackrel{}{e}(\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})\right|=1`$. Moreover, we assume that the transmitted wave does not reach the detector, i.e. $`\theta >0`$ and so

$$h|\lambda =0.$$
(16qabadaeafas)
From the canonical commutation relations for the fields one has that $`I(\nu ,h;t_1)`$ and $`I(\nu ,h;t_2)`$ are compatible observables for any choice of the times; the same holds in the Heisenberg picture. Then, a theory of continuous observation of $`I(\nu ,h;t)`$, $`t0`$, can be developed  and a probability law for the stochastic process “output current” can be constructed; however, to obtain the spectrum we do not need the full theory, but only the second moment of $`I`$. Here and in the following for the expectation of any operator $`M`$ we shall use the notation

$$M=𝔼\left[\mathrm{Tr}_{_{}}\left\{M\left(\rho _0|e(f)e(f)|\right)\right\}\right].$$
(16qabadaeafat)
#### 3.1.2 The power spectrum.

In the long run the mean of the output power is given by

$$P(\nu ,h)=\underset{T+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{k_2}{T}_0^TU(T)^{}\left(I(\nu ,h;t)\right)^2U(T)t;$$
(16qabadaeafau)
$`k_2>0`$ has the dimensions of a resistance, it is independent of $`\nu `$, but it can depend on the other features of the detection apparatus. As a function of $`\nu `$, $`P(\nu ,h)`$ gives the *power spectrum* observed in the “channel $`h`$”; in the case of the choice (16qabadaeafar) it is the spectrum observed around the direction $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ and with polarization $`\stackrel{}{e}`$.

The mean power $`P(\nu ,h)`$, under condition (16qabadaeafas), can be expressed as

$$P(\nu ,h)=\frac{k_1^2k_2}{4\pi }+k_1^2k_2\mathrm{\Sigma }(x;h),$$
(16qabadaeafav)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x;h)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\pi }_0^+\mathrm{}t\mathrm{}^{qt}\mathrm{Tr}_{_{}}\left\{\stackrel{~}{D}(h)^{}\mathrm{}^{𝒦t}\left[\stackrel{~}{D}(h)\rho _{\mathrm{}}\right]\right\}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(16qabadaeafaw)
$$x=\frac{\nu \omega _0}{|\alpha |^2},\gamma =\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{|\alpha |^2},q=\frac{\gamma +y}{2}+\mathrm{}(xz).$$
(16qabadaeafax)
$$\stackrel{~}{D}(h)=\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta D(h)/(\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(16qabadaeafay)
$$|\alpha |^2𝒦[\rho ]=_B[\rho ]BP_+\rho P_{}+BP_{}\rho P_+;$$
(16qabadaeafaz)
$`D(h)`$ is given by equation (16qabac), $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ by (16qabadaeafah), $`_B`$ by (16qabadaea)–(16qabadaec), $`y`$ and $`z`$ by (16qabadaeafal).

In the expression (16qabadaeafav) of the power the term $`k_1^2k_2/(4\pi )`$ appears, independent of $`\nu `$; it is a white noise contribution due to the detection scheme, coming out mathematically from the canonical commutation relations for the fields and known as “shot noise”. The semigroup $`\mathrm{exp}[𝒦t]`$ is trace preserving, but not positivity preserving, while $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the equilibrium state of $`_B`$, which is a bona-fide Liouvillian, because it can be written in the Lindblad form (16qaba), (16qabb).

#### 3.1.3 Sketch of the proof of equations (16qabadaeafav) and (16qabadaeafaw).

The computations are similar to those of reference , but now not only QSC but also classical stochastic calculus plays a role. Here we give only the main intermediate steps; a more detailed account can be found in , where however the degeneracy of the levels is not considered.

The first step is to rearrange in normal order the field operators involved in (16qabadaeafau); in this way the constant shot noise appears and the spectrum reduces to

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x;h)`$ $`=\underset{T+\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi T}}{\displaystyle _0^T}A_{\mathrm{out}}^{}(h;t){\displaystyle _0^t}A_{\mathrm{out}}(h;s)\mathrm{}^{\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{2}+\mathrm{}\nu \right)(ts)}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (16qabadaeafbaa)
$`=\underset{T+\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi T}}{\displaystyle _0^T}A_{\mathrm{out}}^{}(h;t)\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}\nu t}{\displaystyle _0^T}A_{\mathrm{out}}(h;s)\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}\nu s}\mathrm{}^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{2}|ts|}0;`$ (16qabadaeafbab)
the second expression shows the positivity of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x;h)`$, while the first one is useful for the successive developments. The output fields  are given by $`A_{\mathrm{out}}(h;t)=U(t)^{}A(h;t)U(t)`$ and we have

$$A_{\mathrm{out}}(h;t)=\underset{k}{}h|h_kU(t)^{}\left(\underset{l}{}S_{kl}A_l(t)+R_kt\right)U(t).$$
(16qabadaeafbabb)
The second step is to show, by using (16qabadaeafbabb), (16qy), (16qabac), (16qabadaeafas) and the factorization properties of Fock space, that

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x;h)=\underset{T+\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi T}}{\displaystyle _0^T}t{\displaystyle _0^t}s\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{2}}+\mathrm{}(\nu \omega )\right](ts)\right\}`$
$`\times 𝔼[\mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{}\sqrt{B}[W(t)W(s)]\right\}\mathrm{Tr}_{_{}}\{D(h)^{}C(t,s)D(h)`$
$`\times (\widehat{\rho }(s)|e(f)e(f)|)C(t,s)^{}\}]+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (16qabadaeafbabc)
$`C(t,s)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left[\omega t+\sqrt{B}W(t)\right]\left(P_+P_{}\right)\right\}U(t)U(s)^{}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}\left[\omega s+\sqrt{B}W(s)\right]\left(P_+P_{}\right)\right\}.`$ (16qabadaeafbabd)
Finally an interplay between classical stochastic calculus and the quantum regression theorem, which holds for a dynamic like $`C(t,s)`$, gives the expression (16qabadaeafaw).

#### 3.1.4 The angular distribution of the spectrum.

Let us stress that $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ is supported by the two states $`|1=|F_+,F_+`$, $`|2=|F_{},F_{}`$ and that all the operations involved in (16qabadaeafaw) leave the span of $`|1`$, $`|2`$ invariant. So we are left with computations involving $`2\times 2`$ matrices; from now on we suppress the index $``$ in the trace and we use the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _\pm `$, $`\sigma _z`$, … In particular we have $`P_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm \sigma _z\right)`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(h)=h|1,1;+1D_1+h|g_+P_++h|g_{}P_{},$$
(16qabadaeafbabe)
$$D_1=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta \sigma _{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}\delta _+}\mathrm{sin}\delta _+P_+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta _{}\mathrm{sin}\delta _{}P_{}.$$
(16qabadaeafbabf)
To obtain the angular dependence of the spectrum, let us introduce the states $`h_\pm `$ concentrated around $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ and with right/left circular polarization, given by equation (16qabadaeafar) with $`\stackrel{}{e}=\stackrel{}{e}_\pm `$, where $`\stackrel{}{e}_\pm (\theta ,\varphi )^{}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\varphi )}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\pm \mathrm{sin}\theta )`$. Then, the two angular spectra $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm (x;\theta )`$, which, by the cylindrical symmetry of the problem, do not depend on $`\varphi `$, are given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm (x;\theta )=\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x;h_\pm )=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\pi }_0^+\mathrm{}t\mathrm{}^{qt}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{D_\pm (\theta )^{}\mathrm{}^{𝒦t}\left[D_\pm (\theta )\rho _{\mathrm{}}\right]\right\}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(16qabadaeafbabg)
$$D_\pm (\theta )=\pm \frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi }}\left(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta \right)D_1+\underset{ϵ=\pm }{}g_ϵ(\theta ;\pm )P_ϵ.$$
(16qabadaeafbabh)
The functions $`g_ϵ(\theta ;\pm )=h_\pm |g_ϵ/\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}|}`$ depend on $`S^ϵ`$, but after all they are free parameters of the theory: they are square integrable $`\theta `$-functions, satisfying the constraint $`_0^\pi \mathrm{sin}\theta \left[\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)g_ϵ(\theta ;+)\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)g_ϵ(\theta ;)\right]\theta =0`$, coming from the orthogonality of $`g_ϵ`$ to $`|1,1;+1`$, see (16qabadb).

Then, by integrating over the whole solid angle, one gets the total spectrum

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)=_0^\pi \theta \mathrm{sin}\theta _0^{2\pi }\varphi \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(x;\theta )+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(x;\theta )\right)=\underset{k}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\nu ;h_k),$$
(16qabadaeafbabi)
where $`\{h_k\}`$ is any c.o.n.s. in $`𝒵`$. When one has $`g_ϵ=0`$, as in the usual case, one gets

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm (x;\theta )=\frac{3}{8\pi }\left(\frac{1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}\right)^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(x).$$
(16qabadaeafbabj)
For $`g_ϵ0`$ the $`x`$ and $`\theta `$ dependencies do not factorize. In the experiments one measures something proportional to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(x;\theta )+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(x;\theta )`$ for $`\theta `$ around $`\pi /2`$; this quantity fails to be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)`$ only by the presence of some terms which we expect to be small and which are not qualitatively different from the other terms in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)`$. So, for simplicity, we shall study only the total spectrum (16qabadaeafbabi).

### 3.2 The total spectrum

By choosing in (16qabadaeafbabi) a basis with $`h_1=|1,1;+1`$, $`h_2=\mathrm{\Delta }g/\mathrm{\Delta }g`$, $`h_3=\mathrm{\Delta }g^1\left[g_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }g^2|\mathrm{\Delta }g|g_{}|^2\right]^{1/2}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }g^2g_{}\mathrm{\Delta }g|g_{}\mathrm{\Delta }g\right]`$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\stackrel{~}{D}(h_k)^{}\mathrm{}^{𝒦t}\left[\stackrel{~}{D}(h_k)\rho _{\mathrm{}}\right]\right\}=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{D_1^{}\mathrm{}^{𝒦t}\left[D_1\rho _{\mathrm{}}\right]\right\}+g_{}|\mathrm{\Delta }g\mathrm{Tr}\left\{P_+\rho _{\mathrm{}}\right\}`$ (16qabadaeafbabk)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }g|g_{}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{P_+\mathrm{}^{𝒦t}\left[\rho _{\mathrm{}}\right]\right\}+g_{}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }g^2\mathrm{Tr}\left\{P_+\mathrm{}^{𝒦t}\left[P_+\rho _{\mathrm{}}\right]\right\}.`$
Then, from (16qabadaeafaw), (16qabadaeafbabi), (16qabadaeafbabk), we get the final expression of the *total spectrum*

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\pi }}`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}(v_3+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta _{}\mathrm{sin}\delta _{}+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2v_1\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}s\mathrm{sin}s)(d_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta _{}\mathrm{sin}\delta _{}`$ (16qabadaeafbabl)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2d_1\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}s\mathrm{sin}s)+\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta _{}\mathrm{sin}\delta _+(\mathrm{\Omega }^2c_1\mathrm{sin}s\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}sc_3)`$
$`+\left(d_1+\mathrm{}d_3\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}s\mathrm{sin}s\right)\left(u_3+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2u_1\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}s\mathrm{sin}s\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}g_{}|g_{}+\mathrm{\Omega }^2d_1\mathrm{\Delta }g`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Delta }g|g_+c_1\mathrm{\Omega }^2d_3\mathrm{\Delta }g^2u_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{q}}\mathrm{\Delta }g|g_{}+\mathrm{\Omega }^2d_1\mathrm{\Delta }gv_1+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.],`$
$$\mathrm{v}\mathbf{=}\frac{1}{\mathrm{K}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{w}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{c}\mathbf{=}\frac{1}{\mathrm{K}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{d}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{u}\mathbf{=}\frac{1}{\mathrm{K}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{q}}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(16qabadaeafbabm)
$$\mathrm{K}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{G}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{y}\mathbf{\left(}\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathbf{}1\end{array}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(16qabadaeafbabn)
By integrating over the reduced frequency $`x`$, we get the strength of the spectrum

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)x=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\{d_1(1+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\delta _+)+(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2d_1)(\mathrm{sin}^2\delta _{}+g_{}^2)`$
$`+\mathrm{Re}\left[d_2(\mathrm{}^{2\mathrm{}\delta _{}}1)\right]+\mathrm{\Omega }^2d_1g_+^2\}.`$ (16qabadaeafbabo)
Let us recall that $`|\alpha |^2`$ is the natural line width, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is proportional to the laser intensity, $`z=\left(\omega \omega _0\right)/|\alpha |^2`$ is the reduced detuning, to which also the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{z}=z\mathrm{\Omega }^2\epsilon `$ is linked, $`y=B/|\alpha |^2`$ is the reduced laser bandwidth (16qabadaeafal), $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2|\alpha |^2\epsilon `$ is an intensity dependent shift, $`x=\left(\nu \omega _0\right)/|\alpha |^2`$ and $`\gamma =\stackrel{~}{\gamma }/|\alpha |^2`$ are the reduced frequency and the reduced instrumental width, respectively, and $`q=\mathrm{}(xz)+\left(\gamma +y\right)/2`$ (16qabadaeafax). The other quantities entering all these equations are given by the equations (16qabadb), (16qabadc), (16qabadaeafai)–(16qabadaeafao); in particular, $`s=\delta _+\delta _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g=g_+g_{}`$. Let us note that $`\epsilon `$, $`\delta _\pm `$, $`g_\pm ^2`$, $`g_+|g_{}`$ are parameters linked to the $`S^\pm `$ scattering matrices, satisfying the constraints “$`\left|g_+|g_{}\right|g_+g_{}`$” and “$`\mathrm{\Delta }g=0\epsilon =0`$” (apart from this relation $`\epsilon `$ is an independent parameter of the model). One can check that the spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)`$ is invariant under the transformation: $`xx`$, $`zz`$, $`\epsilon \epsilon `$, $`\delta _\pm \delta _\pm `$, $`g_{}|g_+g_+|g_{}`$.

#### 3.2.1 The case of a monochromatic laser, $`y=0`$.

When the laser bandwidth vanishes the spectrum (16qabadaeafbabl) reduces to the one obtained in , where the polarization of light and the level degeneracy were not considered; if also $`S^\pm =1\mathrm{l}`$ is taken, it reduces to the Mollow spectrum . A particularity of the $`y=0`$ case is that the spectrum can be decomposed into an elastic and an inelastic part, which in turn are proportional to the elastic and inelastic electromagnetic cross sections, as explained in ; for $`y>0`$ such a decomposition has no meaning. Figures 2 and 3 of  compare the spectra (for $`\gamma =0.6`$ and for various detunings and laser intensities) in the Mollow case and in the modified case with $`\delta _+=0.03`$, $`\delta _{}=0.13`$, $`g_\pm ^2=0.005`$, $`g_+|g_{}=0.005`$, $`\epsilon =0.001`$; the two figures have $`xz`$ in the horizontal axis and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ in the vertical one. The parameters have been chosen in such a way that the modified spectrum would not too different from the Mollow one in the resonant case. In plotting the spectrum a factor $`1/2`$ has been inserted by error in the inelastic part, so the two figures have only a qualitative meaning; in any case, one sees the symmetry of the Mollow spectrum which is lost in the modified case.

#### 3.2.2 The case $`S^\pm =1\mathrm{l}`$.

Let us recall that the usual model, with only the absorption/emission process, corresponds to $`\delta _\pm =0`$, $`g_\pm =0`$, $`\epsilon =0`$, $`z=\stackrel{~}{z}`$, $`s=0`$. In this case we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2\pi }\left[\frac{1}{q}v_3d+\left(2v_3+\frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{N}\right)\mathrm{Re}d\right]+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(16qabadaeafbabp)
$$d=\frac{1+y+2\mathrm{}z}{4z^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2},\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=(1+y)(1+y+2\mathrm{\Omega }^2),$$
(16qabadaeafbabq)
$$v_3=\left[2+\gamma +y+2\mathrm{}\left(xz\right)\right]\left[1+\gamma +4y+2\mathrm{}\left(x2z\right)\right]/N,$$
(16qabadaeafbabr)
$`N`$ $`=4\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left[1+\gamma +2y+2\mathrm{}(xz)\right]+\left[2+\gamma +y+2\mathrm{}\left(xz\right)\right]`$ (16qabadaeafbabs)
$`\times \left[1+\gamma +4y+2\mathrm{}\left(x2z\right)\right]\left(1+\gamma +2\mathrm{}x\right).`$
Now, the spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)`$ is invariant under the transformation: $`xx`$, $`zz`$.

If we put also $`\gamma =0`$, which means that the instrumental width is negligible, then one can check that the fluorescence spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)`$ coincides exactly (apart from the different normalization) with the spectrum computed by Kimble and Mandel ; when also the laser bandwidth $`y`$ vanishes, the equations above reduce once again to the Mollow spectrum . One of the more interesting results of Kimble and Mandel is that a not vanishing laser bandwidth renders asymmetric the Mollow spectrum and enhances the side peak near $`\omega _0`$, as shown in the figures of . In our notations, the figures 2, 3, 4 of  give, for $`\gamma =0`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on the z-axis versus $`2(xz)`$ on the x-axis and $`y`$ on the y-axis; figure 2 is for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0.0025`$ and $`z=2.5`$, figure 3 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=25`$ and $`z=0`$, figure 4 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=25`$ and $`z=1.5`$. The figures 5 and 6 of  give, for $`\gamma =0`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on the z-axis versus $`2(xz)`$ on the x-axis and $`2z`$ on the y-axis; figure 5 is for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=25`$, $`y=0.5`$ and figure 6 is for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=2500`$, $`y=10`$.

#### 3.2.3 Low intensity laser.

For a laser of low intensity the spectrum reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }(x)}{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}|_{\mathrm{\Omega }^2=0}=(\gamma +y)\left|c(xz,\gamma +y)\right|^2\left(g_{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma +y}}\left|a(y,z)\right|^2\right)`$
$`+y\left|c(xz,\gamma +y)a(y,z)+c(x,1+\gamma )c(z,1+y)\right|^2`$
$`+\gamma y\left|c(x,1+\gamma )\right|^2\left|c(z,1+y)\right|^2,`$ (16qabadaeafbabt)
$$a(y,z)=c(z,1+y)\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta _{}\mathrm{sin}\delta _{},c(x,\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{}x}.$$
(16qabadaeafbabu)
In this case one sees well why a decomposition in elastic and inelastic parts is not possible for $`y>0`$. Indeed, one has two peaks, one centered at $`\nu =\omega `$ (laser frequency) and one centered at $`\nu =\omega _0`$ (atomic frequency); the first peak can be interpreted as coming from an elastic channel and the second one as coming from an inelastic channel, but the second term in the r.h.s. of (16qabadaeafbabt) gives rise to an interference term between the two channels.

#### 3.2.4 The broadband case.

For a very large bandwidth, $`yx,z,\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, the spectrum becomes independent from the detuning and reduces to

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\pi y}{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)=\left|c(x\eta ,1+\kappa )+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^\mathrm{}\delta _{}\mathrm{sin}\delta _{}\right|^2+\kappa \left|c(x\eta ,1+\kappa )\right|^2+g_{}^2,$$
(16qabadaeafbabv)
where $`c(x,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is given in (16qabadaeafbabu) and

$$\eta =\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\epsilon \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sin}2s\right),\kappa =\gamma +\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\mathrm{sin}^2s+\mathrm{\Delta }g^2\right).$$
(16qabadaeafbabw)
Note the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependent position of the peak, which can be interpreted as a light shift. In the *usual case* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)`$ becomes purely Lorentzian, centered in zero and with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-independent width:

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\pi y}{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)=\frac{1+\gamma }{(1+\gamma )^2+4x^2}.$$
(16qabadaeafbabx)
#### 3.2.5 Plots.

In the general case the total spectrum is given by equations (16qabadaeafbabl)–(16qabadaeafbabn). In figures 1, 2 and 3 we compare the spectrum predicted by the usual model (dashed lines), in which only the absorption/emission channel is present, with the spectrum predicted by our modified model (solid lines), in which both the absorption/emission channel and the direct scattering channel are present. In both models we take $`\gamma =0.6`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=28`$; the usual model is characterized by $`\delta _\pm =0`$, $`g_\pm ^2=0`$, $`\epsilon =0`$, while as an example of modified model we choose $`\delta _+=0.03`$, $`\delta _{}=0.13`$, $`g_+^2=0.0045`$, $`g_{}^2=0.0055`$, $`g_+|g_{}=0.004+\mathrm{}\times 0.002`$, $`\epsilon =0.001`$. We consider three laser detunings $`z=0,2.5,2.5`$ and four laser bandwidths $`y=0,0.5,1,4`$. Our choice of the parameters for the modified model is such that for a monochromatic laser in resonance (figure 1(a)) the modified spectrum is not quantitatively too different from the usual one, but its asymmetry is clear. The differences between the two cases are enhanced by the presence of both the detuning and the bandwidth.

Finally in figure 4 we consider a large bandwidth; however, $`y`$ is not much larger than $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, so that we are not exactly in the case of section 3.2.4. Anyway, only a peak survives and the spectrum is nearly independent from the detuning. In the usual case we see a nearly Lorentzian shape, centered at $`x=0`$ ($`\nu `$ near the atomic frequency $`\omega _0`$) and with a very weak residual $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependence. In the modified case the spectrum is strongly asymmetric and the position of the peak and the width are $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependent.

## References


text:
# A relation between CP violation of low energy and leptogenesis

## 1 Introduction

CP violation at low energy is observed in K and B system. In the future neutrino oscillation experiments , CP asymmetry of the neutrino oscillations $`P(\nu _i\nu _j)P(\overline{\nu _i}\overline{\nu _j})`$ may be also measured. Our question is how low energy CP violation measurements are related to CP violation for Baryon number asymmetry. Fukugita and Yanagida proposed a scenario for Baryon number asymmetry based on the seesaw model. In their scenario, heavy Majorana neutrinos decays give rise to lepton number asymmetry. The asymmetry is converted into Baryon number through spharelon process.  In this scenario, CP violating phases in the seesaw model contribute to both CP violation at low energy and CP violation for lepton number asymmetry. However, this correlation is not trivial. This is partly because there are six independent CP violating phases in the seesaw model and the low energy CP violating observables are just three phases of them. It can be shown that three of the six CP violating sources may contribute to the lepton number asymmetry. We can ask the following question. If CP asymmetry of the neutrino oscillations $`P(\nu _i\nu _j)P(\overline{\nu _i}\overline{\nu _j})`$ is measured, what does it mean about CP violation for leptogenesis. To answer to this question, we must first identify the number of the independent CP violating phases and find which of them contributes to leptogenesis and to neutrino oscillations. The plan of my talk is following. We first review the counting of CP phases in the minimal seesaw model and explicitly construct a parameterization. Then we identify the phases in leptogenesis and CP violation in low energy. Finally we give a specific scenario in which both CP violating phenomena has a correlation.

## 2 The number of independent CP violating phases in the minimal seesaw model

In the seesaw model, we have three sources for lepton mass terms; namely, Charged Lepton Yukawa couplings $`m_l`$, neutrino Yukawa couplings, $`m_D`$ and Majorana mass terms $`M_R`$.

$`=[\overline{\nu _L^0}m_DN_R^0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{N_R^0}^cM_RN_R^0+\overline{l_L}m_ll_R].`$ (1)
By using a suitable basis transformation, we can choose the basis in which $`m_l`$ and $`M_R`$ are real diagonal. In this basis all the CP violation is included into Dirac Yukawa term $`m_D`$. $`m_D`$ is $`n_g\times n_g`$ complex matrix, this contains $`n_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ imaginary part. We can still absorb $`n_g`$ phases. Therefore we obtain $`n_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}n_g`$ independent CP violating phases. For $`n_g=3`$, we have six CP violation phases. These six CP violating sources are identified in weak basis invariant way. The weak basis invariants are non-zero if CP is violated. The six weak basis invariants are given as:

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`ImTr[hHM_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}h^{}M_R],`$
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`ImTr[hH^2M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}h^{}M_R],`$
$`I_3`$ $`=`$ $`ImTr[hH^2M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}h^{}M_RH],`$
$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`ImTr[\overline{h}HM_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{h}^{}M_R],`$
$`I_5`$ $`=`$ $`ImTr[\overline{h}H^2M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{h}^{}M_R],`$
$`I_6`$ $`=`$ $`ImTr[\overline{h}H^2M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{h}^{}M_RH].`$ (2)
where $`h=m_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_D`$, $`H=M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}M_R`$,and $`\overline{h}=m_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_lm_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_D`$.

## 3 CP violating phases for leptogenesis

CP violation for leptogenesis was computed in the base in which the heavy Majorana mass matrix $`M_R`$ is real diagonal. The lepton number asymmetry from the heavy Majorana particles decay is proportional to the following combination.

$`Im[(m_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_D)_{ij}]^2(ij).`$ (3)
This combination is independent of the left-handed rotation; $`m_Dg_Lm_D`$. Therefore it is convenient to use the following parametrization.

$`m_D=UY_\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (4)
where $`U`$ is a unitary matrix and $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a triangular matrix. The explicit parametrization for the unitary matrix is given as:

$`U=U_{23}(\theta _{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{})U_{13}(\theta _{13}^{}{}_{}{}^{},\delta ^{})U_{12}(\theta _{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\times `$
$`diag.(1,exp(i\alpha _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}),exp(i\alpha _{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{})).`$ (5)
The triangular matrix is given as;

$`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Y_1& 0& 0\\ Y_{21}& Y_2& 0\\ Y_{31}& Y_{32}& Y_3\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
Note that the diagonal elements $`Y_1,Y_2`$, and $`Y_3`$ are real. We can easily confirm the decomposition $`m_D=UY_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ counts correctly the independent parameters of $`m_D`$. $`m_D`$ (after removing three diagonal phases from the left) has $`6`$ imaginary parameters and $`9`$ real parameters. $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has $`3`$ imaginary parts and $`6`$ real parts and $`U`$ has $`3`$ angles and $`3`$ phases. Using the decomposition, we can write the CP violation relevant for leptogenesis as,

$`Im[(m_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{}m_D)_{ij}]^2=Im[(Y_{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}{}_{}{}^{}Y_\mathrm{\Delta })_{ij}]^2,ij.`$ (10)
Therefore, CP violation phases for leptogenesis are related to three phases, $`argY_{ij}`$ in $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

## 4 The correlation between CP violation at low energy and leptogenesis

Now we turn to CP violation in neutrino oscillation. The effective mass matrix for light Majorana neutrinos in the seesaw model is given as;

$`m_{eff}=m_D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_R}}m_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}=UY_\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_R}}Y_{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}U^T.`$ (11)
Here the MNS matrix  $`K`$ is determined as:

$`K^{}m_D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_R}}m_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}K^{}=d.`$ (12)
where $`d=diag.(d_1,d_2,d_3)`$, where $`d_1,d_2`$ and $`d_3`$ correspond to the three mass eigenvalues for light neutrinos. The low energy CP violation phases in $`K`$ are one Kobayashi-Maskawa type phase $`\delta `$ and two Majorana phases $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$. Our question is to what extent the CP violation phases in K is sensitive to $`argY_{ij}`$ which contribute to the leptogenesis. In general, the phases in $`K`$ are complicated functions of all of the six phases $`(\delta ^{},\alpha _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{},\alpha _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},arg(Y_\mathrm{\Delta })_{ij})`$. They also depend on heavy Majorana masses $`M_R=diag.(M_1,M_2,M_3)`$ and $`|Y_{ij}|`$. To study the correlation between the low energy phases in $`K`$ and phases for leptogenesis $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, let us examine the equation for diagonalization of the effective Majorana mass matrix, $`m_{eff}=m_D\frac{1}{M_R}m_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}`$.

$`K^{}U(Y_\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_R}}Y_{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}{}_{}{}^{T})U^TK^{}=d`$ (13)
We can see that, in general, $`K`$ depends on the $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Next we ask in what kind of situation, the correlation between a set of low energy phases $`(\delta ,\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ and CP violating phases for leptogenesis $`(arg.Y_{21},arg.Y_{31},argY_{32})`$ is weak and/or strong. A key is the matrix $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{M_R}Y_\mathrm{\Delta }^T`$:

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{Y_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_1}& \frac{Y_1Y_{21}}{M_1}& \frac{Y_1Y_{31}}{M_1}\\ \frac{Y_1Y_{21}}{M_1}& \frac{Y_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_2}+\frac{Y_{21}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_1}& \frac{Y_{21}Y_{31}}{M_1}+\frac{Y_2Y_{32}}{M_2}\\ \frac{Y_1Y_{31}}{M_1}& \frac{Y_{21}Y_{31}}{M_1}+\frac{Y_2Y_{32}}{M_2}& \frac{Y_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_3}+\frac{Y_{32}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_2}+\frac{Y_{31}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M_1}\end{array}\right).`$ (17)
1. The case that the correlation is weak.
If $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{M_R}Y_\mathrm{\Delta }^T`$ are nearly diagonal, the neutrino mixings must be accounted by $`U`$. Therefore, in this case,

$`K^{}U1KU(\alpha _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{},\delta ^{}).`$ (19)
Such situation may be realized if all $`Y_{ij}`$ are the same order and $`M_1>>M_2>>M_3`$. If this is the case, the correlation between the low energy phase and CP violation for leptogenesis may be weak.
2. The case that the correlation is strong.
If $`U1`$ and the elements of $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{M}Y_\mathrm{\Delta }^T`$ are nearly degenerate, we may except $`K`$ directly depends on the phases of $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The case study with hypothesis $`Y_1=m_u,Y_2=m_c,Y_3=m_t`$ and $`U=1`$ is done. See . In this case, all the other parameters $`|Y_{21}|,|Y_{31}|,|Y_{32}|`$ $`M_1,M_2,M_3`$ $`argY_{21},argY_{31},argY_{32}`$ can be determined from the low energy input $`d_1,d_2,d_3`$ (light neutrino masses) and MNS matrix: $`\theta _{12},\theta _{13},\theta _{23}`$ and $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\delta `$. It was shown that the hierarchy $`M_1<<M_2<<M_3`$ is required to obtain large mixing.

## 5 Conclusions

1. There are six independent CP violating phases in the seesaw model. Among them, three contribute to lepton number asymmetry.
2. In the basis where $`M_R`$ and $`m_l`$ are real diagonal, all CP violating sources can be put into Yukawa term $`m_D`$.
3. A convenient parametrization of $`m_D`$ is proposed: $`m_D=UY_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The phases in $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ exhausts the CP violation for lepton number asymmetry, while there are the other three phases in $`U`$.
4. MNS matrix $`K`$ is obtained from $`K^{}(UY_\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{M_R}Y_\mathrm{\Delta }^TU^T)K^{}=d`$. Therefore, in general, the CP violating phases in $`K`$ are sensitive for leptogenesis.
5. The cases with the correlation and without the correlation are discussed qualitatively. In particular, the strong correlation occurs if $`U=1`$. In this case, all the CP violating sources of the standard model come from $`Y_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and low energy CP violation of neutrino sector can be related to leptogenesis phases. There are the other cases the correlation does exist.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank organizers of KEKTC5 and T. Endoh and A. Purwanto for discussion. The work of T. M. is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for scientific research No.13640290 from the Ministry of education, science and culture of Japan. The work of BMN was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) (Portugal) through fellowship SFRH/BD/995/2000; GCB, BMN and MNR received partial support from FCT from Project CERN/P/FIS/40134/2000, Project POCTI/36288/FIS/2000 and Project CERN/C/FIS/40139/2000. We thank the CERN Theory Division for hospitality during the preparation of Ref.