format: text

text:
# Fractal Geometry For Images Of Continuous Map Of p-Adic Numbers And p-Adic Solenoids Into Euclidean Spaces

## 1 Introduction

The hierarchical structure of $`p`$-adic numbers and fractals, as well as the symmetries of self-similar fractals, point to a close relationship between these objects that has been repeatedly noted . A clear example of this kind is the homeomorphism of the Cantor set onto the ring $`𝐙_2`$ . However, as far as we know, explicit formulas for the embeddings of various subsets of $`𝐐_p`$ into Euclidean spaces and the fractal properties of the corresponding images have received little attention. At the same time, the topology of these objects as strange attractors  is similar to that of the $`p`$-adic solenoids $`𝐓_p`$ and therefore, the construction of the embeddings of $`𝐓_p`$ , say, into the three-dimensional Euclidean space $`𝐑^3`$ is also of interest.

In this paper we construct the continuous mappings $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}:𝐐_p𝐂`$, depending on the parameters $`s,a𝐂`$ and the number m, which can be $`a`$ positive integer or $`\mathrm{}`$. It turns out that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{1/3}^{(0)}(𝐙_2)`$ is a Cantor set and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{1/2}^{(0)}(𝐙_3)`$ is a Sierpiriski carpet. It is shown that for some $`s_0>0`$, the condition $`s<s_0`$ ( $`a<(1s)^1`$) determines the sets of mappings $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}`$ that are the embeddings.

These sets of embeddings possess the following property. Given $`s`$ and $`a`$, there exist additively invariant metrics in $`𝐐_p`$ and $`𝐓_p`$ such that the mappings $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}`$ a preserve the Hausdorff dimensions of arbitrary subsets. This property proves to be convenient when studying the Hausdorff measures of the sets. This property proves to be convenient when studying the Hausdorff measures of the sets $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐐_p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}(𝐓_p)`$ because the Hausdorff measures in the spaces $`𝐐_p`$ and $`𝐓_p`$, with the corresponding metrics. are simply the Haar measures. Moreover, it turns out that the Haar measure of any set in $`𝐐_p`$ coincides with the fractal measure of its image (see formula(22)). This property and the fact that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is a series of continuous additive characters in $`𝐐_p`$ make it possible to apply group-theory methods when calculating the integrals with respect to the fractal measure. This can serve as an effective means for solving some problems of quantum mechanics and diffusion or diffraction on such fractals .

We prove that for an embedding $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ there is a dynamic system 222By a dynamic system in $`𝐑^n`$ we mean an autonomous system of $`n`$ first-order equations that satisfies the conditions of the existence and uniqueness theorem such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}(𝐓_p)`$ is an invariant set of this system and any integral trajectory lying in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}(𝐓_p)`$ densely winds around this set. In addition, this mappings $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(\mathrm{})}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}`$, are inter-related. In the present paper, we construct an injective homomorphism $`j`$ of the additive group $`𝐐_p`$ into the group $`𝐓_p`$ such that $`j(𝐐_p)`$ is dense in $`𝐓_p`$ and prove the existence of a Lipschitz mapping $`J:𝐂𝐑^3`$ commuting with $`j`$ (see formula (41)) whose restriction to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐐_p)`$ is a local isometry.

## 2  Hausdorff measures (basic definitions)

Here we present some relevant material concerning Hausdorff measures in a form that is suitable for the subsequent presentation. For an arbitrary metric space $`(M,\rho )`$ , we define the $`\delta `$-dimensional outer Hausdorff measure$`h^\delta `$ by setting $`AM`$,

$`h^\delta (A)=\underset{\epsilon +0}{lim}h_\epsilon ^\delta (A)=\underset{\epsilon +0}{lim}inf\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}}\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{i})^\delta :{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{i}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{A},\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{i})\epsilon \},`$ (1)
where $`\delta `$ is a fixed positive number and $`\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{B})sup\{\rho (\mathrm{x},\mathrm{y}):\mathrm{x},\mathrm{y}\mathrm{B}\}`$ . Then $`h^\delta `$ is a measure countably additive and regular in the sense of Borel . By definition, the Hausdorff dimension of a subset $`AM`$ is the number

$`D_h(A)=inf\{\delta :h^\delta (A)=0\}=sup\{\delta :h^\delta (A)=\mathrm{}\}.`$ (2)
In particular, it follows that if $`h^\delta (A)>0`$ and the measure $`h_\mathrm{A}^\delta ()h^\delta (A)`$ is $`\sigma `$-finite, then $`\delta =D_h(A)`$. By the local Hausdorff dimension at a point $`xA`$, we mean the number $`D_h^L(x)=inf(D_h(AU_x)),`$ where $`inf`$ extends over all open neighborhoods $`U_x`$ of the point $`x`$.

Convention . Irrespective of the nature of the set $`X`$, for arbitrary non-negative real-valued functions $`F`$ and $`G`$ on $`X`$, we write $`F\stackrel{L}{}G`$ or $`xXF(x)\stackrel{L}{}G(x)`$ wherever there exists $`C>0`$ such that $`xXF(x)CG(x)`$. If the relations $`F\stackrel{L}{}G`$ and $`G\stackrel{L}{}F`$ hold simultaneously, then $`F\stackrel{L}{}G`$ and we say that F and G are equivalent 333Actually, the symbols $`\stackrel{L}{}`$ and $`\stackrel{L}{}`$ define order and equivalence relations, respectively. . When interpreting constants as trivial functions, we write $`c\stackrel{L}{}1`$ instead of $`0<c<\mathrm{}`$. For any $`F,G`$, and $`H\stackrel{L}{}F`$. the following elementary relations hold: $`a,b,\alpha >0`$

$`\mathrm{min}(F,H)\stackrel{L}{}H,\mathrm{max}(F,H)\stackrel{L}{}F,`$
$`aF+bG\stackrel{L}{}\mathrm{max}(F,G)\stackrel{L}{}\mathrm{max}(F,G\pm H)\stackrel{L}{}(F^\alpha +G^\alpha )^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}.`$ (3)
Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:MN`$ be a mapping of the metric spaces $`(M,\rho )`$ and $`(N,d)`$ and let $`d^\mathrm{\Phi }d(\mathrm{\Phi }(),\mathrm{\Phi }())`$ Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a Lipschitz mapping if $`d^\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{L}{}\rho `$. In this case. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is called an L-contraction. If $`d^\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{L}{}\rho `$. then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is, a Lipschitz embedding and the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ to $`\mathrm{Ran}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is also a Lipschitz mapping: such a mapping is called a Lipschitz isometry or L-isometry.

###### Definition 1

For given pseudometrics $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ on a set $`M`$, the quantity

$`\kappa _{1,2}=\underset{x,yM}{sup}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1(x,y)\rho _2(x,y)}{\rho _1(x,y)+\rho _2(x,y)}}\right)`$ (4)
( where we set $`0/0=0`$) is called the divergence of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$.

Obviously, $`\kappa _{1,2}1`$ and, moreover, it can be shown that $`\kappa _{1,2}<1`$ if and only if $`\rho _1\stackrel{L}{}\rho _2`$. It is easy to prove that the following assertion holds.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$\- be metrics on $`M`$, let $`\kappa _{1,2}`$ be their divergence, and $`h_1^\delta ,D_1,D_1^L`$ and $`h_2^\delta ,D_2,D_2^L`$ denote the corresponding $`\delta `$-dimensional measures and global and local Hausdorff dimensions. Then the inequality

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\kappa _{1,2}}{1+\kappa _{1,2}}}\right)^\delta h_1^\delta (F)h_2^\delta (F)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\kappa _{1,2}}{1\kappa _{1,2}}}\right)^\delta h_1^\delta (F),`$ (5)
holds, whence follows that if $`\rho _1\stackrel{L}{}\rho _2`$, then $`h_1^\delta \stackrel{L}{}h_2^\delta `$ and we have $`FM,D_{h,1}(F)=D_{h,2}(F)`$ and $`D_{h,1}^L(x)=D_{h,2}^L(x)xF`$.

In view of 1, Theorem 1 and Theorem 2.10.45 of  imply the next theorem.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`(M,\rho )`$ be a metric space. Introduce a metric $`d`$ in $`𝐑\times M`$ by the formula $`d((x,a),(y,b))=\mathrm{max}(xy,\rho (a,b)),x,y𝐑a,bM`$. Then for every Borel set $`A𝐑`$ and every $`BM`$ with $`h^\delta (B)<\mathrm{}`$ , we have

$$h^{\delta +1}(A\times B)\stackrel{L}{}h^1(A)h^\delta (B).$$

## 3  Hausdorff measures in $`𝐐_p`$ and $`𝐓_p`$

In this section, $`𝐐_p`$ and $`𝐓_p`$ are regarded as completions of $`𝐐`$ with respect to the corresponding additively invariant metrics. Each element $`x`$ of the $`p`$-adic number field $`𝐐_p`$ is uniquely representable as a formal series ,

$`x={\displaystyle \underset{n=v}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_np^n={\displaystyle \underset{n=v}{\overset{1}{}}}a_np^n+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_np^n`$ (6)
with coefficients $`a_n\{0,1,\mathrm{},p1\}`$ where $`v<\mathrm{}`$ and $`p`$ is a fixed prime number. 444 Actually, the part of $`p`$ can be played by any positive integer because we do not use the existence of inverse elements the ring $`𝐐_p`$ anywhere.  This series absolutely converges in the $`p`$-adic norm defined $`x`$ by the relation $`x=p^{\alpha v(x)}`$ for some $`\alpha >0`$ and $`v(x)=v`$ is called the logarithmic norm of $`x`$. The first sum on the right-hand side of (6) is denoted as $`\{x\}_p`$ and is the fractional part of $`x`$. and the other is denoted as $`[x]_p`$ and is the integral part of $`x`$. In this case, $`\{x\}_p𝐐[0,1)`$ and $`\{x\}_p𝐐[0,1)`$ , where $`𝐙_p=\{x𝐐_p:x1\}`$ is the ring of integer $`p`$-adic numbers. Any number $`q𝐐`$ can be expanded uniquely as a series (6) and $`𝐐_p`$ is the completion of $`𝐐`$ . The norm $``$ possesses the property of ultrametricity, $`x,y𝐐_p`$, we have

$`xy\mathrm{max}(x,y).`$ (7)
The norm with $`\alpha =1`$ is denoted by $`_p`$ and the others are denoted simply as $`_p^\alpha `$. All of these norms depending on a are topologically equivalent ; however, the corresponding Hausdorff measures are different (see below). The standard Haar measure$`\chi `$ in $`𝐐_p`$ is chosen such that

$`\chi (𝐙_p)={\displaystyle \underset{𝐙_p}{}}𝑑\chi =1.`$ (8)
###### Theorem 3

The Hausdorff measure $`h^{1/\alpha }`$ on $`(𝐐_p,_p^\alpha )`$ is the standard regular Haar measure $`\alpha >0`$ and, consequently, the local and global Hausdorff dimensions of $`(𝐐_p,_p^\alpha )`$ coincide and are equal to $`1/\alpha `$.

Proof. By construction, $`h^\delta `$ is an invariant measure $`\delta >0`$ and, therefore, the uniqueness of $`\chi `$ implies that it suffices to show that, for instance, $`h^{1/\alpha }(𝐙_p)=\chi (𝐙_p)=1`$. Because $`𝐙_p`$ consists of exactly $`p^M`$ disjoint balls of diameter $`p^{M\alpha }M𝐍`$, we have $`h^{1/\alpha }(𝐙_p)1.`$ We now show that $`h^{1/\alpha }(𝐙_p)1.`$ Indeed, by the semiadditivity of $`\chi A𝐐_p,\epsilon >0`$ , the inequality

$`\chi (A)inf\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}}\chi (U_i):{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}U_iA,\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{U}_\mathrm{i})\epsilon \},`$ (9)
holds, where $`U_i`$, are open balls in $`𝐐_p`$. On the other hand, it follows from the properties of norm (7) that any subset $`B𝐐_p`$ $`\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{B})=\mathrm{r}`$ is contained in the open (and, simultaneously, closed) ball $`U=\{x:xx_0_p^\alpha r,x_0B\}`$ with $`\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{U})=\mathrm{r}`$ and this, together with the relation $`\chi (U)=\mathrm{diam}^{1/\alpha }(\mathrm{U})`$, which is valid for any ball $`U`$, implies that $`h_\epsilon ^{1/\alpha }`$ coincides with the right-hand side of inequality (9) and, consequently, we have $`h^{1/\alpha }(𝐙_p)\chi (𝐙_p)`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

Let us consider $`𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ as a direct product of additive groups and introduce a metric in this group by fixing some $`\alpha >0`$ and setting $`a,b𝐑andx,y𝐙_p`$

$`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ((a,x),(b,y))=\mathrm{max}(ab,xy_p^\alpha ).`$ (10)
It is clear that $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha `$ is an invariant metric and the topology generated by it coincides with that of the direct, product of groups.

###### Definition 2

Let $`B`$ denote the subgroup $`\{(n,n):n𝐙\}`$ of the group $`𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$. Then the quotient group $`𝐓_p=(𝐑\times 𝐙_p)/B`$ is called a $`p`$-adic solenoid 555 This definition differs from the one in , where $`B=\{(n,n):n𝐙\}`$. However, since the mapping $`xx`$ is automorphism of the additive group $`𝐙_p`$. the corresponding quotient groups are isomorphic. .

It can be shown  that $`𝐓_p`$ is a connected compact Abelian group. We can define an invariant metric $`\rho _\alpha `$ on $`𝐓_p`$ that is compatible with the topology as the quotient metric according to the standard scheme. namely, $`f,g𝐓_p`$, we set

$`\rho _\alpha (f,g)=inf\{\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ((a,x),(b,y)):(a,x)f,(b,y)g\}.`$ (11)
The construction below gives a concrete realization of $`𝐓_p`$.

###### Theorem 4

Consider the product $`[0,1)\times 𝐙_p`$ and define addition in it by the following rule: $`f=(\xi ,x),g=(\eta ,y)[0,1)\times 𝐙_p`$

$`f+g=(\xi +\eta [\xi +\eta ],x+y+[\xi +\eta ]),`$ (12)
where $`[\xi +\eta ]`$ is the integral part of the real number $`\xi +\eta `$. For a fixed $`\alpha >0`$, we define a metric $`\rho _\alpha `$ by setting

$`\rho _\alpha (f,g)=\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{}_\alpha (fg),\mathrm{}_\alpha (gf)),`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (f)=\mathrm{max}(\xi ,x_p^\alpha )`$. Then the resulting Abelian group with the topology induced by the metric is algebraically and isometrically isomorphic $`𝐓_p`$ with metric (11).

Proof. The algebraic isomorphism is established in practically the same way as in the proof of theorem 10.15 . It follows from (10), (11) and the definition of subgroup $`B`$ that the metric on $`𝐓_p`$ satisfies the relation

$$\rho _\alpha (f,0)=inf\{\mathrm{max}(\xi n,x+n_p^\alpha ).:n𝐙\},$$

However, because $`x𝐙_p`$, the inequality $`x+n_p^\alpha 1`$ holds, the infimum in the above formula can be extended over the set $`n=0,1`$. Taking into account that $`(f)=(1\xi ,x1)`$ for $`\xi 0`$, we can easily show that the metrics do, in fact, coincide. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using Theorem (4) and the facts that $`x𝐙_p\rho _\alpha ((0,x),0)=x_p^\alpha `$ and $`\{x\}_p=0`$, and, also, that the set $`\{\{x\}_p:x𝐐_p\}`$ is dense in $`[0,1)`$ (in the usual topology), we can prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 5

The mapping $`j:𝐐_p𝐓_p`$, associating the element $`(\{x\}_p,[x]_p)𝐓_p`$ with each $`x𝐐_p`$, is an injective homomorphism of the additive group $`𝐐_p`$ into $`𝐓_p`$ and is also a local isometry from $`(𝐐_p,_p^\alpha )`$ into $`(𝐓_p,\rho ^\alpha )\alpha >0`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{Ran}(𝐐)\mathrm{Ran}(𝐐_p)`$ is dense in $`𝐓_p`$. Because $`𝐓_p`$ is complete (in view of the compactness ), $`𝐓_p`$ is the completion of $`𝐐`$ with respect to the metric $`\rho ^\alpha `$ 666 Note that although $`j`$ is not an embedding ( $`\mathrm{Ran}(𝐐_p)`$$`𝐓_p`$ ), the restriction of $`j`$ to $`p^M𝐙_p`$ is an (L-) isometry $`M𝐍(𝐙)`$..

The $`p`$-adic solenoid $`𝐓_p`$ is a compact Abelian group  and, therefore, there is a finite Haar measure $`\chi `$ on it that is unique and invariant. Let us show that the Hausdorff measure $`h_\delta `$ on$`(𝐓_p,\rho _\alpha )`$ for $`\delta =\alpha ^1+1`$ coincides (to within a finite nonzero multiplier) with $`\chi `$ on all Borel subsets of $`𝐓_p`$.

Since $`\rho _\alpha `$ is an invariant metric, it suffices to prove that $`U_{1/2}=\{y𝐑\times 𝐙_p:\rho _\alpha (y,0)<1/2\}h_\delta (\varphi (U_{1/2}))\stackrel{L}{}1`$, where ($`\varphi `$ is the canonical projection of $`𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ onto $`𝐓_p`$.

However, because $`a,bB𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ we have $`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha (a,b)1`$ for $`ab`$, the restriction of $`\varphi `$ to $`U_{1/2}`$ is an isometry. Therefore, applying the relation $`U_{1/2}=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\times p^{n_\alpha }𝐙_p`$ for some $`n_\alpha >0`$, we conclude, in view of Theorem (2), that

$$h_\delta (\varphi (U_{1/2}))=\widehat{h}_\delta ((1/2,1/2)\times \{x𝐙_p:x_pp^1\})\stackrel{L}{}p^{n_\alpha }\stackrel{~}{h}_{1/\alpha }(𝐙_p).$$

Here $`\widehat{h}_\delta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\delta `$ denote the Hausdorff measures in $`𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ and $`𝐓_p`$, respectively. Thus, as in the case of $`𝐐_p`$, the local and global Hausdorff dimensions of $`(𝐓_p,\rho _\alpha )`$ coincide and are equal to $`\alpha ^1+1`$.

## 4 Continuous mappings of $`𝐐_p`$ into $`𝐂`$

C Given $`n𝐙`$ and $`m\overline{𝐍}𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ , we define the complex-valued functions$`\chi _n^{(m)}()`$ on $`𝐐_p`$ by the formula

$`\chi _n^{(m)}(x)=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i2\pi }{p}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}x_{nk}p^k),`$ (14)
where $`x_n`$ is the $`n`$th coefficient in the expansion of $`x`$ into series (6). It is easy to show that $`\chi _n^{(m)}()`$ are continuous. Note that $`\chi _n^{(\mathrm{})}()`$ coincides with the continuous additive character $`\chi _{\frac{1}{p^{n+1}}}()`$ on $`𝐐_p`$ .

###### Definition 3

For every $`s\mathrm{U}_1\{\mathrm{z}𝐂:\mathrm{z}<1\}`$ and $`m\overline{𝐍}`$ , we define a continuous mapping $`m\overline{𝐍}`$ by setting $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}:𝐐_p𝐂`$

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1s^{v(x)}}{1s}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=v(x)}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}s^n\chi _n^{(m)}(x)=[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}](x)+\{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}\}(x),x𝐐_p.`$ (15)
Here $`[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}](x)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}s^n\chi _n^{(m)}(x)`$ is the ”integral part” $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)`$ and $`\{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}\}=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}](x)`$ is the ”fractional part” of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)`$.

Obviously, the mapping $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ is well defined and for any fixed $`x𝐐_p`$, formula (15) defines a function of $`s`$ which is holomorphic in the circle $`\mathrm{U}_1`$. In addition, taking into account that the coefficients of series (6) are zero (periodic ) beginning with some $`q𝐍(𝐐)`$ , we can show that the following interesting property holds: $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{()}^{(m)}(q)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{()}^{(m)}(0)`$ is a polynomial (a rational function) for $`m<\mathrm{}`$ and $`\varrho ()\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{()}^{(\mathrm{})}(q)`$ is an entire function (a meromorphic function, i.e., a ratio of entire functions) for $`m=\mathrm{}`$, where

$$\varrho (s)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1p^ks)$$

.

In the case $`m<\mathrm{}`$ , the proof of this assertion follows from the periodicity of $`\chi _n^{(m)}(q)`$ with respect to $`n`$ for $`n>n_q+m`$. If $`m=\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$\chi _n^{(\mathrm{})}(q)=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi \{q/p^{n+1}\}_p)=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi q/p^{n+1})\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi [q/p^{n+1}]_p)$$

, $`q𝐐`$ and, therefore, it is possible to construct the analytic continuation with the aid of the Taylor expansion of $`\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi q/p^{n+1})`$, using the periodicity of $`\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi [q/p^{n+1}]_p)`$ with respect to $`n`$ for $`n>n_q`$. 777The analytic properties of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{()}^{(m)}(x)`$ for $`x𝐐_p\backslash 𝐐`$ are unknown to the author. However, if in expansion (6), say, we set $`x_n=_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}\delta _{n,2^k}`$ for $`x𝐐_2`$, then $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(0)}(x)=2_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}s^{2^k}`$ and it can be shown  that $`\mathrm{U}_1`$ is a holomorphy domain of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{()}^{(0)}(x)`$ . . It is easy to prove that $`x𝐐_p`$, we have the relations

$`\{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}\}(x)=\{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}\}(\{x\}_p),\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}([x]_p)=[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}]([x]_p),[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}](p^mx)=[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}](p^m[x]_p),`$ (16)
The following basic property of the mapping (the scaling) $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ also holds: $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ -scaling:

$`x𝐐_p\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(px)=s\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)+1=p^{\frac{1}{D_s}}e^{i\mathrm{arg}(s)}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)+1,`$ (17)
where $`D_s=\mathrm{log}_p^1(s)`$ is called the scaling dimension of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ . This relation follows from the fact that $`\chi _{n+k}^{(m)}(p^kx)=\chi _n^{(m)}(x),k𝐙`$. Furthermore, by applying (16) , (17), we can show that the set $`\mathrm{Ran}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ is self-similar $`\mathrm{Ran}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$.More precisely, let $`B_l^n\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(\{x𝐐_p:xl_pp^n\})`$, then

$`B_l^n={\displaystyle \underset{\overline{l}=0}{\overset{p^m1}{}}}\{z_{l,\overline{l}}^n+e^{i\mathrm{arg}(s)mn}p^{\frac{mn}{D_s}}B_{\overline{l}}^0\},`$ (18)
$`n𝐙,l𝐐_p`$. Here $`z_{l,\overline{l}}^n`$ are shifts of$`𝐂`$ depending on $`l,\overline{l}`$ and $`n`$. Thus, every $`B_l^n`$ can be obtained from $`p^m`$ sets $`B_{\overline{l}}^0`$ by means of continuous motions of the plane $`𝐂`$ (shifts and rotations) and a scaling transformation.

Now, we find the conditions under which the mappings $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ become embeddings. To this end, we define the number

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(m)}=inf\{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(y):x,y𝐐_p:xy_p=1\}.`$ (19)
Using the fact that $`\chi _0^{(m)}(x)\chi _0^{(m)}(y)2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /p)`$ for$`xy_p=1`$. we can derive the inequality

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(m)}}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{p}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{s}{1s}}.`$ (20)
It follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(m)}>0`$ for

$$s<s_0=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi /p)}{1+\mathrm{sin}(\pi /p)}$$

###### Theorem 6

Let $`s`$ and $`m`$ be such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(m)}>0`$, then $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ is an L-isometry from $`(𝐐_p,_p^{D_s^1})`$ into $`(𝐂,)`$ and, therefore, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ is an embedding 888 Using the compactness of $`𝐙_p`$, property (17) and the completeness of $`𝐐_p`$ and $`𝐂`$, we can show that if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ is an injective mapping, then it is an embedding ..

Proof. The proof can be derived from the inequality below, which is a consequence of (17), and definition (14), namely, $`x,y𝐐_p`$ we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(m)}s^{v(xy)}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(y){\displaystyle \frac{2}{1s}}s^{v(xy)}\text{.}\mathrm{}`$ (21)
It follows from Theorems 1 and 6 that if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(m)}>0`$, then the local and global Hausdorff dimensions of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐐_p)`$ are equal to $`D_s`$. These theorems also imply that $`h^{D_s}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐙_p))\stackrel{L}{}1`$. Therefore, we can introduce a fractal measure $`\mu _f`$ on $`𝐐_p`$, by the formula

$`\mu _f(B)={\displaystyle \frac{h^\delta (B\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐐_p))}{h^\delta (\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐙_p))}}B𝐂.`$ (22)
The restriction of this measure to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐙_p)`$ coincides with the multifractal measure $`\mu _f^0`$  of the set $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐙_p)`$. Moreover, the assertion below holds.

###### Theorem 7

Let $`\chi ()`$ be the standard Haar measure in $`𝐐_p`$. In this case, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(m)}>0`$, then

$`\mu _f()=\chi ((\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)})^1()).`$ (23)
Proof. Because $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}`$ is an embedding, the clusters $`B_l^n`$ defined in (18) do not intersect. Therefore. if $`m<\mathrm{}`$, then the self-similarity of the set $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐐_p)`$ implies that $`h^{D_s}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(B))=h^{D_s}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐙_p))\chi (B)`$ for all open sets B. The proof of the theorem in the case m = $`\mathrm{}`$ follows from Theorem (1) and the lemma below.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`\rho _m`$ be pseudometrics on $`𝐐_p`$ denned by the formula $`\rho _m(x,y)=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(y)`$ $`x,y𝐐_p`$ and let $`\kappa _{m,\mathrm{}}`$ be the divergence of $`\rho _m`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$. Then

$`\kappa _{m,\mathrm{}}<{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{(1s)(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(m)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(\mathrm{})})}}p^m.`$
Proof of the lemma. Note that in view of scaling (17), the supremum in formula (4) can be bounded over all $`x,y`$ such that $`xy_p=1`$ and. therefore, the denominator in (4) is greater than or equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(m)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{(\mathrm{})}`$. On the other hand, since $`x𝐐_p`$

$`\chi _n^{(\mathrm{})}(x)\chi _n^{(m)}(x)=1\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i2\pi }{p}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=m+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}x_{nk}p^k)<2\pi p^m`$ (24)
it is easy to show that the numerator in (4) is always less than $`4\pi p^m/(1s)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$Thus. Theorem 7 permits the integration technique in $`𝐐_p`$  to be applied for calculating integrals with respect to the fractal measure $`\mu _f`$ or $`\mu _f^0`$. For instance, it is possible to calculate the integrals of arbitrary polynomials in $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ with respect to $`\mu _f^0`$, for $`z𝐂`$. Indeed, it can be proved

$`<z^L\overline{z}^{\overline{L}}>{\displaystyle \underset{𝐂}{}}z^L\overline{z}^{\overline{L}}𝑑\mu _f^0(x)={\displaystyle \underset{𝐙_p}{}}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x))^L(\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)})^{\overline{L}}𝑑\chi (x)={\displaystyle \underset{n,\overline{n}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_{n,\overline{n}}^{L,\overline{L}}s^n\overline{s}^{\overline{n}}.`$ (25)
holds. Furthermore, $`C_{n,\overline{n}}^{L,\overline{L}}𝐍`$ for $`m=0,\mathrm{}`$. In particular, for $`m=\mathrm{}`$, the expression $`C_{n,\overline{n}}^{L,\overline{L}}`$ is the number of representations $`n=n_0+\mathrm{}+n_L`$ and $`\overline{n}=\overline{n}_0+\mathrm{}+\overline{n}_{\overline{L}}`$ such that $`_{k=0}^Lp^{n_k}=_{k=0}^{\overline{L}}p^{\overline{n}_k}\mathrm{mod}(p)`$. Applying this formula, we can show that, say, $`<z^p>=<\overline{z}^p>=1`$ and $`<z^L\overline{z}^{\overline{L}}>=(1s^2)^L\delta _{L,\overline{L}}`$ for $`L,\overline{L}<p`$.

Laying aside the problem of strict mathematical justification, we indicate one more possible application of Theorem 7. Consider a quantum particle on the fractal $`𝐅=\mathrm{Ran}(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)})`$. In this case, $`L^2(𝐂,\mu _f)`$ can be regarded as a Hilbert space of quantum state. Assume that the Schrodinger equation for energy eigenvalues $`E`$ can be written in the form 999 This quantum system can be thought of as an electron moving in a plane and situated in a deep potential well supported by a fractal $`F`$. Then, in the strong coupling limit, it can be assumed that the wave function is completely localized on $`F`$ and the kernel $`K`$ is determined by overlap-type integrals (see, e.g., ). .

$`E\mathrm{\Psi }(z)={\displaystyle K(z\stackrel{´}{z})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{´}{z})𝑑\mu _f(\stackrel{´}{z})},`$ (26)
Using Theorem 7 , we can pass to an equivalent equation in $`L^2(𝐐_p,\chi )`$ with the kernel$`K(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(y))`$ for $`x,y𝐐_p`$. Evidently, in the general case, this does not give any new results because the kernel $`K`$ is translation-invariant in $`𝐂`$, whereas $`\mu _f`$ is not. Conversely, $`\mu _f`$ is invariant in $`𝐐_p`$, whereas $`K`$ is not. However. applying (17), we can write the kernel in the form

$`K(xy_p^\alpha (\chi _{v(xy)}^{(m)}(xy)1)O^{x,y}(s)),`$ (27)
where $`O^{x,y}(s)s/(1s)x,y𝐐_p`$. Hence, for$`s1`$ the kernel depends solely on $`xy`$ and, therefore, the Fourier transformation for $`𝐐_p`$  brings the Hamiltonian to a diagonal form. In addition for $`p=2,3`$, the relation $`\chi _{v(x)}^{(m)}(x)1=2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /p)`$ can be applied to prove that the spectrum of the Hamiltonian (in this approximation) has the form $`\{E_n=\stackrel{~}{K}(p^n):n𝐙\}`$and all eigenfunctions. except for the ground state, are strictly localized (i.e., they are compactly supported ). Here $`\stackrel{~}{K}()`$ is the Fourier image of the function $`K(2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /p)_p^\alpha )`$. Applying formulas(14,15) and the $`p`$-adic integration technique, and consecutively expanding (27) into power series in $`s`$ (but for fixed $`a`$), we can find the Fourier images of the coefficients of the series at least in the case $`m=\mathrm{}`$ and $`p=2,3`$. Thus, there appears to be a possibility of calculating subsequent corrections to the spectrum and wave functions using perturbation theory. Note that the foregoing equally applies to the diffusion problem on the fractal $`𝐅`$.

## 5 Continuous mappings of $`𝐓_p`$ into $`𝐑^3`$

For arbitrary $`n𝐙`$ and $`m\overline{𝐍}𝐍\{\mathrm{}\}`$ , we define some complex-valued continuous functions $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n^{(m)}()`$ on$`𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ by setting $`(\xi ,x)𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n^{(m)}(\xi ,x)=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi \xi {\displaystyle \frac{\theta (p^{mn}x_p)}{p^{\mathrm{min}(n,m)+1}}})\chi _n^{(m)}(x).`$ (28)
Here the Heaviside function $`\theta ()`$ is the indicator of the set $`[0,\mathrm{}]`$. It is easy to show that the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n^{(m)}()`$ satisfy the relation

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n^{(m)}(\xi +l,xl)=\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n^{(m)}(\xi ,x),`$ (29)
$`l𝐙,(\xi ,x)𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$, i.e., they are constant on the cosets of group $`B`$ (see Definition 2). Note that $`f=(\xi ,x)𝐓_p\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n^{(\mathrm{})}(\xi ,x)=\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(p^{n1)})}(f)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{(q)}()`$ are continuous additive characters on $`𝐓_p`$  (in view of Remark 4).

###### Definition 4

For every $`s\mathrm{U}_1`$ and $`m\overline{𝐍}`$, we define the continuous mapping $`\omega _s^{(m)}:𝐑\times 𝐙_p𝐂`$, by the formula

$`\omega _s^{(m)}(\xi ,x)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}s^n\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n^{(m)}(\xi ,x).(\xi ,x)𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ (30)
Note that $`x𝐙_p`$ the relation

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(x)=\omega _s^{(m)}(0,x).`$ (31)
holds. For given $`a𝐂`$, we introduce the mapping $`\sigma _a:𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂𝐑^3`$ by defining the correspondence $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂(e^{i2\pi \xi },z)(x_1,x_2,x_3)𝐑^3`$ according to the formulas

$`x_1+ix_3=e^{i2\pi \xi }a\left(1+\mathrm{Re}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{a}}\right)\right),x_2=a\mathrm{Im}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{a}}\right),`$ (32)
where $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the unit circle in $`𝐂`$. We now define a mapping from $`𝐓_p`$ into $`𝐑^3`$ as the composition of $`\sigma _a`$ a mapping from $`𝐓_p`$ $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂`$ is constructed below. To this end, we consider $`𝐓_p`$ and $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂`$ as quotient spaces with respect to the action of the group $`𝐙`$ on$`𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ and $`𝐑\times 𝐂`$, namely, $`𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ $`𝐑\times 𝐂`$, the action on $`𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ and $`𝐑\times 𝐂`$ is defined as shifts by the elements $`(n,n)B`$ and $`(n,0)𝐙\times \{0\}`$, respectively. Let $`{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{s}^{(m)}id\times \omega _s^{(m)}:𝐑\times 𝐙_p𝐑\times 𝐂`$, where $`id`$ is the identity mapping. It is easy to see that property (29) guarantees the existence of the continuous quotient mapping $`\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}:𝐓_p𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂`$, as well as a mapping $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}:𝐓_p𝐑^3`$, such that the diagram
is commutative. Here $`\varphi `$ and $`\phi `$ are the corresponding canonical projections. Moreover, it can be shown that the actions of the group $`𝐙`$ on $`𝐑\times 𝐙_p`$ and $`𝐑\times 𝐂`$ are compatible in the sense that $`f𝐓_p`$ the relation

$`{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{s}^{(m)}(\varphi ^1(f))=\phi ^1(\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}(f)).`$ (33)
holds. We introduce an invariant metric $`\widehat{d}`$ on $`𝐑\times 𝐂`$ such that

$$\widehat{d}((\xi _1,z_1),(\xi _2,z_2))=\mathrm{max}(\xi _1\xi _2,z_1z_2)(\xi _1,z_1),(\xi _2,z_2)𝐑\times 𝐂$$

The metric $`d`$ on $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂`$ is defined as the quotient metric of $`\widehat{d}`$ following the same scheme as in (11). Then it is not difficult to prove that $`(e^{i2\pi \xi _1},z_1),(e^{i2\pi \xi _2},z_2)𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂`$ (here we assume that $`\xi _1,\xi _2[0,1)`$),

$`d((e^{i2\pi \xi _1},z_1),(e^{i2\pi \xi _1},z_2))=\mathrm{max}(\underset{n=0,\pm 1}{inf}(\xi _1\xi _2+n),z_1z_2).`$ (34)
Because $`\varphi ,\phi `$ and the restriction of $`\sigma _a`$ to any bounded set in $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂`$ are L-contractions, if we show that $`{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{s}^{(m)}`$ is an L-contraction. then this implies that $`\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}`$ are L-contractions as well. Moreover. if $`{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{s}^{(m)}`$ is an L-isometry. then so is $`\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}`$ . Using (33), we can show that $`f,g𝐓_p`$, there are $`(\xi ,x)f,(\eta ,y)g`$ such that, $`\epsilon >0`$, the chain of inequalities

$`\rho _\alpha (f,g)\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ((\xi ,x),(\eta ,y))\stackrel{L}{}\widehat{d}(_{}\omega _s^{(m)}(\xi ,x),_{}\omega _s^{(m)}(\eta ,y))d(\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}(f),\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}(g))+\epsilon .`$
holds. It is also obvious that if the restriction of $`\sigma _a`$ to $`\mathrm{Ran}(\phi _{}\omega _s^{(m)})`$ an L-isometry, then the mapping $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}`$ is also. To find the conditions under which $`{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{s}^{(m)}`$ is an L-contraction or an L-isometry, we introduce the following two numbers:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s^m=\underset{x,y𝐙_p,\xi 𝐑}{inf}(s^{v(xy)}(\omega _s^{(m)}(\xi ,x)\omega _s^{(m)}(\xi ,y))),`$ (35)
$`\gamma _{s,a}^m=\underset{(\xi ,x)𝐑\times 𝐙_p}{inf}(\mathrm{Re}(\omega _s^{(m)}(\xi ,x)/a)).`$ (36)
It is easy to show that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s^m`$ satisfies the same inequality as the one in (20) and, hence, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s^m>0`$ for $`s<s_0`$. Furthermore, it can be proved that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{\mathrm{}}`$ (see below). The above-mentioned conditions follow from the chain of inequalities below:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s^m\mathrm{max}(\xi \eta ,xy_p^{\frac{1}{D_s}})\stackrel{L}{}\mathrm{max}(\xi \eta ,\mathrm{\Delta }_s^mxy_p^{\frac{1}{D_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{p(1s)}}\xi \eta )`$
$`\mathrm{max}(\xi \eta ,\omega _s^{(m)}(\xi ,x)\omega _s^{(m)}(\eta ,y))`$
$`\mathrm{max}(\xi \eta ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1s)}}(xy_p^{\frac{1}{D_s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{p}}\xi \eta ))\stackrel{L}{}\mathrm{max}(\xi \eta ,xy_p^{\frac{1}{D_s}}),`$
the first and last being the consequences of relations (2); the others were obtained analogously to (21). An elementary geometric consideration implies that the restriction of aa to any compact set in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a\{z𝐂:\mathrm{Re}\left(z/a\right)>1\}`$ is an L-isometry and, furthermore, $`\mathrm{Ran}(\mathrm{}_s^{(m)})\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$ for $`\gamma _{s,a}^m<1`$. Thus, we have proved the following theorem.

###### Theorem 8

$`\widehat{\rho }_\alpha ,\rho _\alpha ,\widehat{d}`$ and $`d`$ be the metrics in $`𝐑\times 𝐙_p,𝐓_p,𝐑\times 𝐂`$ and $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂`$, respectively. Let $`𝐑^3`$ be endowed with the standard Euclidean metric and let $`\alpha =D_s^1`$. Then for any $`m\overline{𝐍}`$ and $`s\mathrm{U}_1`$. the following assertions hold:
$`1)`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{s}^{(m)}`$ is an L-contraction and, therefore, $`\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}`$ are also L-contractions:
$`2)`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s^m>0`$, then $`{}_{}{}^{}\omega _{s}^{(m)}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}`$ are L-isometries and addition $`\gamma _{s,a}^m<1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}`$ is an L-isometry.

It follows immediately that if $`s`$ and $`a`$ are such that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s^m>0`$ and $`\gamma _{s,a}^m<1`$, then the mapping $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}`$ a continuous embedding of $`𝐓_p`$ in $`𝐑^3`$ and the local and global Hausdorff dimensions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}(𝐓_p)`$ are equal to $`D_s+1`$.

Next, we describe the geometric structure of the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}(𝐓_p)`$. To this end, we note that $`(𝐓_p,\rho _\alpha )`$ can be regarded as the total space of the locally trivial fiber bundle $`(𝐓_p,𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏})`$ with the projection $`\chi _0:𝐓_p𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, such that $`\chi _0(\xi ,x)=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi \xi )𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏},(\xi ,x)𝐓_p`$ and fibers $`\chi _0^1(\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi \xi ))=(\xi ,𝐙_p)`$ isometric to $`(𝐙_p,_p^\alpha )`$. It is easily seen that the mapping $`\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}`$ is a fiber morphism of the bundle $`(𝐓_p,𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏})`$ into the trivial bundle $`(𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times \mathrm{D}(r_s),𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏})(𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐂,𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏})`$ (where $`\mathrm{D}(r_s)`$ is a closed disk of radius $`r_s=(1s)^1`$ ). In this case. the fibers are the sets $`\omega _s^{(m)}(\xi ,𝐙_p)\mathrm{D}(r_s)`$ for every fixed $`\xi `$ and if $`\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}`$ is an L-isometry, then these sets are fractals with global and local dimensions equal to $`D_s`$. Moreover, it follows from (31) that the fiber with $`\xi =0`$ is isometric to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐙_p)`$. For simplicity, we assume that $`a>r_s`$, Then $`\sigma _a`$ is the standard embedding of $`(𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times \mathrm{D}(r_s),𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏})`$ in a solid torus in $`𝐑^3`$ (a torus together with its interior) and the fibers are mapped isometrically onto disks lying in the plane turned around the $`x_2`$ -axis through an angle $`2\pi \xi `$ relative to the plane $`x_3=0`$.

Let us define the action of an element $`t`$ of the group $`𝐑`$ on $`f𝐓_p`$ as the shift $`ff_t=f+\varphi (t,0)`$ and consider the orbits of this group in $`𝐓_p`$. It can be shown  that each orbit is a dense subset in $`𝐓_p`$. Because the mappings $`\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}`$ are L-contractions, the images of these orbits are continuous curves that also wind densely around $`\mathrm{}_s^{(m)}(𝐓_p)𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}\times \mathrm{D}(r_s)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}𝐑^3`$ , respectively.

It turns out that in the case $`m=\mathrm{}`$ the images of the orbits of the group $`𝐑`$ are smooth curves that are trajectories of a dynamic system.

###### Theorem 9

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ be an L-isometry. Then there is a global Lipschitz vector field $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:𝐑^3𝐑^3`$ such that $`f𝐓_p`$,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}(f))=2\pi \left(L_{(2)}\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}(f)+p^1\mathrm{Re}\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{(\mathrm{})}(f)(L_{(3)}+iL_{(1)})\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{s/p,+0a}^{(\mathrm{})}(f)\right).`$ (37)
The action of the one-parameter homeomorphism group $`U_t:𝐑^3𝐑^3`$, generated by the equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{dt}}𝐫=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐫),$$

is compatible with the action of $`𝐑`$ in $`𝐓_p`$ in the sense that $`f𝐓_p,t𝐑`$,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}(f_t)=U_t\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}(f).`$ (38)
Here $`(L_{(k)})_{i,j}=\epsilon _{i,j,k}`$, where $`\epsilon _{i,j,k}`$ is the Levi-Civita symbol and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s/p,+0a}^{(\mathrm{})}(f)\underset{\epsilon +0}{lim}\mathrm{\Omega }_{s/p,\epsilon a}^{(\mathrm{})}(f)`$.

Proof. First, we show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{|\mathrm{Ran}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})})}`$ is an L-contraction. Obviously, it is sufficient to prove that $`((\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})})^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{s/p,+0a}^{(\mathrm{})})_{|\mathrm{Ran}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})})}`$ is an L- -contraction. However, this is a direct consequence of the fact that $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})})^1`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s/p,+0a}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ are L-contractions for $`(𝐓_p,\rho _\alpha )`$ if $`\alpha =D_s^1`$ ( $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s/p,+0a}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is an L-contraction since $`\rho _{\alpha +1}\stackrel{L}{}\rho _\alpha `$). The existence of a Lipschitz mapping $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined throughout $`𝐑^3`$ and satisfying (37) is now ensured by the Kirszbraun theorem . It follows immediately from formulas (28,30) that $`t𝐑,x𝐙_p`$ the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\omega _s^{(\mathrm{})}(t,x)={\displaystyle \frac{i2\pi }{p}}\omega _{s/p}^{(\mathrm{})}(t,x).`$ (39)
hold. With the help of (32), it can be deduced from this equation that $`f𝐓_p`$ and $`t𝐑`$ we have

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}(f_t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}(f_t)).$$

According to theory of differential equations , this implies formula (38). $`\mathrm{}`$Let us mention another specific peculiarity of the case $`m=\mathrm{}`$. It follows from formulas (14,15,28,30) that $`x𝐐_p`$,

$`[\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(\mathrm{})}](x)=\omega _s^{(\mathrm{})}(\{x\}_p,[x]_p).`$ (40)
This implies the above-mentioned relation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_s^{\mathrm{}}`$. Moreover, using Theorem 5 and the Kirszbraun theorem , we can now prove that if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is an L-isometry, then there exists an L-contraction $`J:𝐂𝐑^3`$ such that $`J`$ isometrically maps every cluster $`B_l^0=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(\mathrm{})}(\{x𝐐_p:xl_p<1\}`$ onto the image of the $`\{l\}_p`$-fiber $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}((\{l\}_p,𝐙_p))`$ and we have

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(\mathrm{})}j=J\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(\mathrm{})}.`$ (41)
## 6  Explanation of the figures

Due to the rapid convergence of series (6) and (15) and, also, because even not very large positive integers form a sufficiently dense network in $`𝐙_p`$, the computer construction of the sets $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(m)}(𝐙_p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,a}^{(m)}(𝐓_p)`$ encounters no fundamental difficulties. Figure 1.1 represents a Cantor set and. for the sake of clarity, a segment, whose length is proportional to one of the numbers $`e_i=1,3,5,7,2,6,10,14`$ is associated with each point if the point of the image has the form $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{1/3}^{(0)}(e_iy^2)`$ for $`y𝐙_p`$ (for these numbers, see ). The set in Fig. 1.10 is obviously the Sierpiriski triangle. It can be seen from Fig. 1.9 that the boundaries of the connected components of the set $`𝐂\backslash \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{1/3}^{(0)}(𝐙_6)`$ consist of Koch curves (note that $`p`$ is not a prime number: see footnote 3). Finally, Fig. 1.4 can serve as an illustration of the fact that $`𝐙_4`$ is homeomorphic to $`𝐙_2`$. Figure 2a demonstrates an embedding of $`𝐓_2`$ into $`𝐑^3`$ with the parameters $`s=1/2.2,a=i2`$ and $`m=0`$. and the Cantor structure of this set can be distinctly seen. Figure 2b illustrates an embedding of $`𝐓_3`$ ($`s=s_00.020.46,a=5/2`$ and $`m=\mathrm{}`$ ). Fibers for which the values of $`\xi `$ are multiples of $`1/81`$ are represented and, therefore, Fig. 2b can simultaneously be regarded as the image of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s^{(\mathrm{})}(3^4𝐙_3)`$ under the mapping J (see formulas (40, 41)); this image is, in fact, shown in Fig. 1.12. In conclusion, we note that additional general constructions, such as a-adic numbers and solenoids (see ), can also be treated in a similar way, at least for m = $`\mathrm{}`$. It seems, in this case, that constructing an embedding of $`𝐀/𝐐`$ in $`𝐑^3`$, for instance (where $`𝐀`$ is the adele ring ), could be interesting.

The research was partially supported by the RFBR grant 01-02-17682-a and by the INTAS grant 00-00334.


text:
# New Deformation of 𝒩=4 Super-Yang-Mills Theory

## 1 Introduction

Today, more and more physicists have believed that the supersymmetry (SUSY), which is treated as maximum symmetry allowed by S-matrix, is fundamental symmetry of action of quantum field theory. During the past two decades, many SUSY models, such as supergravity, super Yang-Mills theory (SYM) (and consequently, the supersymmetric version of standard model (SSM)) have been widely studied. All of these SUSY models include large number of field degrees of freedom, and most of them are out of our current observable world. For instance, in SSM, besides of well-known standard model particles: gluon, quark, lepton, …, there are also their superpartners: gluino, squark, slepton, …. However, all of these superpartners were not found by current experiment. Traditionally, it is believed that those missed degrees of freedom are very heavy when SUSY is spontaneously broken. So that they did not be observed in current experiment spectrum. Unfortunately, so far we still can not find a simple and wide-accepted mechanism to spontaneously break SUSY even though large number of remarkable results have been achieved. Consequently, we still can not satisfactorily interpret how these particles are missed. This may be because the mechanism of SUSY spontaneously breaking is very complicated, but are there other possibilities? This is just purpose of this paper.

Our work was motivated by Maldacena’s conjecture on Ads/CFT corresponds, which states that $`𝒩=4`$ SYM in four dimension is dual to IIB string theory on $`Ads_5\times S_5`$. This conjecture provides a principle method to deal with strong coupling case of quantum field theory. In particular, it seem to emerge a possibility, that we can directly calculate nonperturbative effect of QCD from QCD. This purpose has been partly achieved in some literature. For example, the spectrum of glueball has been calculated and agree with result of lattice QCD. However, it is still very difficult to deal with interaction of state involving quarks. The essential reason is that, in $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, fermion fields are adjoint representation of gauge group rather than fundamental representation of gauge group. The usual method to construct SSM from SYM is to add extra chiral supermultiplets, which are fundamental representation of gauge group and represent quark, lepton and their superpartners. Unfortunately, we can not obtain this type of chiral superfields from string theory and its dimensional reduction. It seem to imply that the quark and lepton 111In this paper, quark and lepton denote spin $`1/2`$ fermion which belong to fundamental representation of gauge group. can not be defined (perturbatively at least) in string theory. However, whether can quark or lepton be generated by vector multiplet itslef via deformation of SYM or spontaneously breaking of SYM? We will suggest a new deformation of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM in this paper and show that this can indeed be achieved.

Our idea is originated by knowledge of group theory: The adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$ group can be generated by directly multiplication of $`N`$ and $`\overline{N}`$ representation of $`SU(N)`$ group. Then vector spuermultiplet of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM can be decomposed into a scalar field, four spin $`1/2`$ fermions and a vector field. Here all of these scalar field and fermions are fundamental representation of gauge group. This idea proposes a simple algebra deformation on $`𝒩=4`$ SYM and the deformation indeed yields similar field degrees of freedom of SM-like model or of QCD-like model. R-symmetry, furthermore, will correspond to generation symmetry of SM-like model, or flavor symmetry of QCD-like model. The simple dimensional analysis requires a scale parameter $`M`$ appearing in deformation model. It indicates that the deformation model will be low energy effective model, and its Lagrangian will be expanded in power of $`1/M^2`$. When energy is much lower than scale $`M`$, only part of Lagrangian is survived. Thus this method provides a natural mechanism to “spontaneously break” SUSY. Meanwhile, the new scalar fields in deformed model are no longer Higgs bosons, rather, they are Goldstone bosons corresponding to SUSY spontaneously breaking, or even they do not appear as dynamical degrees of freedom in certain condition.

In the next section, we propose a simple algebra deformation on $`𝒩=4`$ SYM. It yields a low energy effective theory. In section 3, We discuss some properties of this deformation model. Section 4 is devoted a brief summary and discussion.

## 2 New Deformation of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM

The supermultiplets of $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory contains a spin-1 gauge boson $`A_\mu ^a`$, four spin $`1/2`$ Majorana spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A^a`$ and six scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}^a`$ (they belong to an antisymmetric tensor representation of $`SU(4)`$ group so that $`A,B`$ are antisymmetric). Here $`A,B=1,2,3,4`$ denote indexes of $`SU(4)`$ R-symmetry, $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},N^21`$ denote indexes of adjoint representation of gauge group. The Lagrangian density of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM can compactly be written in the manifestly $`SU(4)`$-invaraint form

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{AB}{}}Tr\{(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{AB})(D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{AB})^{}\}+i{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}Tr\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_A/D\mathrm{\Psi }_A\right)`$ (1)
$`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \underset{AB}{}}Tr\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_A\gamma _5[\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB},\mathrm{\Psi }_B]\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{ABCD}{}}Tr\left([\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB},\mathrm{\Phi }_{CD}]^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\theta }{64\pi ^2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\rho \sigma }^a,`$
where

$`D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_A+i[A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Psi }_A],`$
$`D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}+i[A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}].`$ (2)
The Majorana spinor fields and scalar fields in the vector supermultiplets can be decomposed to a set of scalar fields $`\phi _i`$ and four sets of Majorana spinors $`\lambda _{Ai}`$,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{Aij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\varphi _i\lambda _{Aj}+\lambda _{Ai}\varphi _j{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}\varphi _l\lambda _{Al}\delta _{ij}),`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Aij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\varphi _i\overline{\lambda }_{Aj}+\overline{\lambda }_{Ai}\varphi _j{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}\varphi _l\overline{\lambda }_{Al}\delta _{ij}),`$ (3)
$`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`M^2(\overline{\lambda }_{Aj}\gamma _5\lambda _{Bi}\overline{\lambda }_{Bj}\gamma _5\lambda _{Ai}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_{AB}U_{ij}(\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}})Z_{AB}\delta _{ij},`$
where $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ are indexes of gauge group,

$`\varphi _i={\displaystyle \frac{\phi _i}{\sqrt{_l\phi _l^2}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varphi _i^2=1,`$
$`U_{ij}=\delta _{ij}2\varphi _i\varphi _j`$ $``$ $`U^1=U,`$ (5)
and $`Z_{AB}`$ is central charge associating with extended supersymmetric algebra

$`\{Q_{Aa},Q_{Bb}\}=e_{ab}Z_{AB}e=i\sigma _2=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0,1}{1,0}}\right).`$ (6)
Since $`\lambda _A`$ are fundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$ gauge group, its gauge transformation $`\lambda _A\lambda _A^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }(x)\lambda _A(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=1)`$ makes $`\lambda _{Ai}`$ no longer be Majorana spinor in general gauge. In this paper, it is convenient to adopt a specific version of Wess-Zumino gauge (hereafter we call it as SWZ gauge) in which $`A_\mu `$ is antisymmetric, i.e., its nonzero elements form an adjoint representation of $`SO(N)`$ subgroup of $`SU(N)`$ group. In SWZ gauge, $`\lambda _A`$ will be Majorana spinor, and the covariant derivative

$`D_\mu \lambda _A`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \lambda _A+iA_\mu \lambda _A,`$
$`D_\mu \overline{\lambda }_A`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \overline{\lambda }_Ai\overline{\lambda }_AA_\mu `$ (7)
are well-defined. In addition, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$ is Majorana spinor, eq. (2) requires that $`\varphi `$ is real field in SWZ gauge.

Now inserting eq. (2) into Lagrangian of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, we can derive effective Lagrangian of deformation model.

1. Using the properties of Majorana spinors, $`\overline{\lambda }_{Ai}\gamma _\mu \lambda _{Aj}=\overline{\lambda }_{Aj}\gamma _\mu \lambda _{Ai}`$, and defining $`_{ij}=\varphi _i\varphi _j`$, we have $`\overline{\lambda }_A/A\lambda _A=\overline{\lambda }_A(/)\lambda _A=\overline{\lambda }_A(/)\lambda _A=0`$. So that

$`Tr\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_A/D\mathrm{\Psi }_A\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\lambda }_A/D\lambda _A+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}})\overline{\lambda }_A\gamma _\mu (^\mu ^\mu )\lambda _A`$ (8)
$`+(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}})\overline{\lambda }_A(/\lambda _A)+\overline{\lambda }_A(/A+/A)\lambda _A.`$
The kinetic term of spinor $`\lambda _A`$ can be diagonalized via field redefinition

$`\lambda _A(1+a)\lambda _A,`$ (9)
with $`a=1+\sqrt{\frac{N}{2(N1)}}`$. Then eq. (8) becomes

$`Tr\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_A/D\mathrm{\Psi }_A\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\lambda }_A/D\lambda _A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+2a)\overline{\lambda }_A\gamma _\mu (D^\mu U^{}UU^{}D^\mu U)\lambda _A`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\overline{\lambda }_A/D\lambda _A(1+2a)\overline{\lambda }_A\gamma _\mu (U^{}D^\mu U)\lambda _A,`$
where

$`D_\mu U=_\mu U+iA_\mu UiUA_\mu .`$ (11)
Furthermore, in order to make the coupling between spinor and gauge boson be standard form, we can let that

$`A_\mu =A_\mu ^{}+ibU^{}D_\mu ^{}U,b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N1}{2N}}}\right),`$ (12)
where

$`D_\mu ^{}U=_\mu U+iA_\mu ^{}UiUA_\mu ^{}.`$ (13)
Then finally we have

$`Tr\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_A/D\mathrm{\Psi }_A\right)=\overline{\lambda }_A/D^{}\lambda _A`$ (14)
2. Inserting eq. (2) into $`F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }`$ and $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\rho \sigma }^a`$, and using eq. (12), we have

$`Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+2b+2b^2)Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }^{}F^{\mu \nu }\right)2b(1+b)Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }^{}U^{}F^{\mu \nu }U\right)`$ (15)
$`2b^2Tr\left(D_\mu ^{}U^{}D_\nu ^{}UD^\mu U^{}D^\nu UD_\mu ^{}U^{}D^\mu UD_\nu ^{}U^{}D^\nu U\right)`$
$`+4ibTr\left(F_{\mu \nu }^{}D^\mu U^{}D^\mu U\right)`$
$`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(12b+10b^2)ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }^{}F_{\rho \sigma }^{}\right)`$
$`+2b(15b)ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }^{}U^{}F_{\rho \sigma }^{}U\right)`$
3. $`Tr\{(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{AB})(D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{AB})^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}Tr\left(D_\mu ^{}U^{}D^\mu U\right)+\text{four fermion}`$ (16)
terms (suppressed by $`M^4`$)
with
$$f^2=\underset{AB}{}(1+2b)^2|Z_{AB}|^2$$
.
4. The deformation of $`\sqrt{2}\{(\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB})_{ij}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Ajk}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_{Bki}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Aki}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_{Bjk}]\}`$ only yields some four fermion terms which is suppressed by $`M^2`$.
5. The deformation of the term $`_{ABCD}Tr\left([\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB},\mathrm{\Phi }_{CD}]^2\right)`$ is nothing other than generating four fermion terms (suppressed by $`Z^2/M^4`$), six fermion terms (suppressed by $`Z/M^6`$) and eight fermion terms (suppressed by $`M^8`$).

Finally, the Lagrangian of deformation model is written

$``$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\overline{\lambda }_A/D\lambda _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\theta }{64\pi ^2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\rho \sigma }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{4}}Tr\left(D_\mu U^{}D^\mu U\right)`$ (17)
$`b(1+b)Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}bTr\left(F_{\mu \nu }D^\mu U^{}D^\nu U\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{4}}Tr\left(D_\mu U^{}D_\nu UD^\mu U^{}D^\nu UD_\mu U^{}D^\mu UD_\nu U^{}D^\nu U\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\theta }{8\pi ^2}}b(15b)ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr\left(F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }\right)`$
$`+\text{four fermion terms (suppressed by }M^2\text{ and }M^4\text{)}`$
$`+\text{six fermion terms (suppressed by }M^6\text{)}`$
$`+\text{eight fermion terms (suppressed by }M^8\text{)}`$
## 3 Characterization of The Deformation Model

In this section we discuss some important properties of the deformation model parametered by Lagrangian (17).

### Gauge invariance

The Lagrangian (17) is manifest gauge invariant under the following gauge transformation

$`\lambda _A`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)\lambda _A,\mathrm{\Omega }(x)SU(N),`$
$`U`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }U\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{},`$
$`A_\mu `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }A_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^{}.`$ (18)
In the previous section, the Lagrangian (17) is written in SWZ gauge. It can be written in general gauge via the above gauge transformation. In general gauge, however, $`\lambda _A`$ is neither Majorana spinor nor Dirac spinor.

### Symmetry breaking, Low energy limit

Two dimensional parameters, $`M`$ and $`Z_{AB}`$, present in Lagrangian (17). So that this deformation model no longer is a renormalizable theory, rather, it is a low energy effective model. In other words, it includes the coupling of multi fermions and is similar to extended Nambu-Jola-Lasinio model. In Lagrangian (17), although the supersymmetry has become highly nonlinear, it is still kept. The conformal invariance, however, has been broken when dimensional parameters are introduced in deformation (2).

Another interesting issue is low energy limit of this deformation model, i.e., for energy scale $`\mu M`$ or $`M\mathrm{}`$. In this limit, the terms on multi fermion coupling can be ignored. Then the supersymmetry is manifest broken in low energy limit and we obtain a SM-like model except for the terms associating coupling of scalar fields. Up to the gauge transformation 3), there are $`N`$ scalar field in this deformation model. They are dynamical degrees of freedom of deformation model. However, the coupling among them fields are nonlinear and their decay constant $`f`$ is dimensional. Therefore, these scalar fields are not Higgs bosons in this SM-like model (for $`M\mathrm{}`$), rather, they become Goldstone bosons corresponding to SUSY breaking.

Since there is another dimensional parameter $`Z=\sqrt{_{AB}\left|Z_{AB}\right|^2}`$ in deformation model, the limit of $`M\mathrm{}`$ is not unique. In general, there are three possible limits:

1. $`Z\mu M`$. From kinetic term of scalar fields we can see that the physical scalar fields are obtained via field rescaling $`\varphi \varphi /f\varphi /Z`$. Then dynamics is dominant by Goldstone bosons in this case.
2. $`Z\mu M`$. In this case, both of the interaction of Goldstone bosons and one of other fields are important.
3. $`ZM\mu `$. This case is very interesting and important. All interaction associating Goldstone bosons are frozen out in this case. Then remain dynamics is parametered by the following Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\overline{\lambda }_A/D\lambda _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\theta }{64\pi ^2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\rho \sigma }^a`$ (19)
$`f^2Tr\left([A_\mu ,<>][A^\mu ,<>]\right).`$
Here $`<>`$ denotes expectation value of $``$. It can acquire a non-vanish value, and then, gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken (detail discussion see next subsection). In this limit, therefore, $`𝒩=4`$ SYM reduces to a SM-like model.

### Gauge symmetry spontaneously breaking

In original $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, the condition of SUSY unbroken,

$`[\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB},\mathrm{\Phi }_{CD}]=0,`$ (20)
allows many degenerate vacuums. In particular, it allows that the vacuum expectation value of scalar fields takes some nonzero values. For example, we can set $`<>=c_iT^i`$ and require at least one of real coefficients $`c_i`$ nonzero, where $`T^i`$ are symmetric generators of $`SU(N)`$ group. From decomposition (2) we can see that this is indeed a supersymmetric vacuum. It is well-know as a special direction is taken in isospin space, and gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken partly. Consequently, part of gauge bosons acquires a mass and others (one of parallel to this direction) still remain massless. The former corresponds to a Higgs vacuum, and the later corresponds to a confine vacuum. This mechanism, as showing in many literature, reveals a method to spontaneously break gauge symmetry but without extra Higgs bosons. In addition, since we focus our attention on the case with $`Z\mathrm{}`$ (or $`f\mathrm{}`$), we must expect that the expectation value $`<>`$ (or $`<\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}>`$) is small fluctuation only and is restricted as $`Z<>m_W`$.

### Generation and masses of fermions

It is different from supersymmetry and conformal invariance, that R-symmetry of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM is remained in deformation model even when the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$ is taken. In low energy limit, R-symmetry become generation symmetry of SM-like model, or we can call it as general “ flavour” symmetry. It indicates that there should be four generation in the SM-like model. All of these fermion are massless. However, it is because our decomposition (2) is too simple. If we replace decomposition of scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB}`$ by

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`M^2e^{ia(\varphi _i\varphi _j)}(\overline{\lambda }_{Aj}\gamma _5\lambda _{Bi}\overline{\lambda }_{Bj}\gamma _5\lambda _{Ai})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_{AB}\stackrel{~}{U}_{ij}(\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}})Z_{AB}\delta _{ij},`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{ij}=e^{ia(\varphi _i\varphi _j)}U_{ij}`$ and real constant $`a`$. Then Yukawa coupling terms of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM will yield mass term of fermions,

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB})_{ij}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Ajk}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_{Bki}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Aki}\gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_{Bjk}]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(N1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}2\right)Z_{AB}\overline{\lambda }_A<e^{ia(\varphi _i\varphi _j)}>\gamma _5\lambda _B+\mathrm{},`$
when expectation value $`<e^{ia(\varphi _i\varphi _j)}>`$ does not vanish. We can see that the mass gap among different generation is created by central charge $`Z_{AB}`$, and the mass gap among different fermions in same generation is created by expectation value $`<e^{ia(\varphi _i\varphi _j)}>`$. Since $`<Z>m_W`$, the masses of heavier fermions are also order to $`m_W`$.

### Toward QCD

If $`<>=0`$, we achieve a theory with asymptotically freedom. In other words, Lagrangian (19) exactly becomes Lagrangian of QCD with four flavors massless fermions. Even though gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken by a nontrivial SUSY vacuum, the theory possesses a confine vacuum (and a Higgs vacuum). It is difficult to separate the confine theory from whole theory and beyond the scope of this present paper. Alternately, there is another simple method to obtain a QCD-like model via deformation of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM.

To replace eq. (2) by the following decomposition

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{Aij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\varphi _i\lambda _{Aj}+\lambda _{Ai}\varphi _j),`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Aij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\varphi _i\overline{\lambda }_{Aj}+\overline{\lambda }_{Ai}\varphi _j),`$ (23)
$`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{AB})_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`M^2(\overline{\lambda }_{Aj}\gamma _5\lambda _{Bi}\overline{\lambda }_{Bj}\gamma _5\lambda _{Ai}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_{AB}U_{ij}(\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}})Z_{AB}\delta _{ij},`$
and impose condition $`_l\varphi _l\lambda _{Al}=0`$ as traceless condition of spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$, we obtain a rather simple deformation model

$``$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\overline{\lambda }_A/D\lambda _A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\theta }{64\pi ^2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\rho \sigma }^a`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{AB}{}}|Z_{AB}|^2Tr\left(D_\mu U^{}D^\mu U\right)`$
$`+\text{four fermion terms (suppressed by }M^2\text{ and }M^4\text{)}`$
$`+\text{six fermion terms (suppressed by }M^6\text{)}`$
$`+\text{eight fermion terms (suppressed by }M^8\text{)}.`$
It must be stressed that the condition $`_l\varphi _l\lambda _{Al}=0`$ can be imposed only for $`N>2`$. The reason is follows: In order to keep spinor $`\lambda _{Al}`$ as independent dynamical degrees of freedom, not all of scalar fields $`\varphi _i`$ are independent, i.e., they must be solution of equation $`_l\varphi _l\lambda _{Al}=0`$. Notice that Majorana $`\lambda _{Al}=(eQ_{Al}^{},Q_{Al})^\mathrm{T}`$ (where $`Q_{Al}`$ are Weyl spinor) have two independent components. If we want to obtain nonzero solution of $`\varphi _i`$ for $`N=2`$, equation $`_l\varphi _l\lambda _{Al}=0`$ requires det$`|Q_{A1},Q_{A2}|=0`$. Then not all of $`\lambda _{Al}`$ will be independent.

For $`N3`$, it is always possible to find some $`\varphi _i`$ which satisfy equation $`_l\varphi _l\lambda _{Al}=0`$ and keep all of Majorana spinor $`\lambda _{Al}`$ independent. If we now take the limit $`ZM\mathrm{}`$ and $`<>=0`$, we still achieve QCD with four massless flavors. However, we can take another special limit: $`Z=0,M\mathrm{}`$. This limit also yields an theory with asymptotically freedom and with four flavor massless fermions no matter whether expectation value $`<>`$ vanishes or not. This theory, in terms of Ads/CFT corresponds, can help us to calculate low energy behaviour of QCD from QCD directly.

## 4 Conclusion and Discussion

To conclude, we propose a new algebraic deformation of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM via decomposing fermion fields and scalar fields in vector supermultiplets. This decomposition generates degrees of freedom of usual quarks and leptons and a scale is introduced in the decomposition. The deformation model is a low energy effective (Nambu-Jona-Lasinio-like) model. In appropriate limit, supersymmetry is broken and the deformation model reduces to a SM-like model, or a QCD-like model. The scale, meanwhile, corresponds to scale of supersymmetry breaking. In the SM-like model, four generation fermions are required and the mass gaps among these generation are created by central charge $`Z_{AB}`$ of supersymmetry algebra. There are no Higgs bosons. The gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken by nontrivial supersymmetric vacuum. This mechanism indeed yields masses of part of gauge bosons and mass gap among fermions of same generation. We also show how to obtain a QCD-like model via deformation of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM.

The essential idea of supersymmetry is symmetry between fermion and boson. However, in traditional SUSY model we have to introduce extra bosons or fermions as superpartner of known fermions or bosons for achieving supersymmetry. On the contrary, in this paper, we reveal a mechanism that SUSY can be a symmetry between known fermions and bosons. Then it is not necessary to introduce extra chiral supermultiplet when we construct SSM from SYM. It also indicates that we do not need so many dynamical degrees of freedom in any SUSY models.

There is problem on fermion mass matrix $`𝒲_{AB,ij}=Z_{AB}<e^{ia(\varphi _i\varphi _j)}_{ij}>`$. It is $`(4\times 4)(N\times N)`$ dimension matrix and is antisymmetric for R-symmetry indexes $`A,B`$ as well as gauge group indexes $`i,j`$. This matrix has $`2N`$ real, positive and different eigenvalues. So that every two generation fermions are degenerated. This result is not supported by spectrum of standard model. However, it should be pointed out that the decomposition eqs. (2), (3) and (3) are not unique. There are many other possibilities. For example, we can take decomposition of Majorana spinor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{Aij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2M^{}}}}Z_{AB}\varphi _i\lambda _{Bj}+\mathrm{}.`$ (25)
This decomposition adds an extra term $`_CZ_{AC}Z_{CB}\delta _{ij}/M^{}`$ to mass matrix $`𝒲_{AB,ij}`$. Then diagonalization on this term releases the degeneration among those fermions and may push mass of the fourth generation fermion to very heavy if $`M^{}<M`$. It also means that a complete study on this type of deformation of $`𝒩=4`$ is still needed.

In this paper, our study on deformation of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM can be easily extended to other $`𝒩`$ values. Of course, it is unambiguous that $`𝒩=4`$ SYM is very special. It plays a role connecting superstring theory in ten dimensions and standard model in four dimensions. In addition, our study can be extended to two different directions:

1. The idea of Ads/CFT corresponds can be used in this deformation model. For example, an important issue is to find the corresponding deformation of supergravity in 5-d Ads space. Then we can calculate strong coupling limit of standard model by Ads/CFT corresponds. In particular, it provides a feasible method to calculate meson dynamics in low energy from QCD directly. Another interesting issue is to study holographic renormalization group of the deformation model.
2. If we take gauge group of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM including $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ group, such as $`SU(5)`$, we can study whether we can obtain a complete standard model via deformation of SYM with extended supersymmetry. This deformation may be more complicated than one suggested in this paper, but essential idea is still that the matter fields should be generated by decomposition of superpartner of gauge bosons.

The studies on these aspects will be seen in future papers.

The deformation of this paper is entirely algebraic. It is not doubted that this deformation on $`𝒩=4`$ SYM acquires considerable success. However, we believe that this deformation should be inspired by certain underlying dynamical mechanism. Unfortunately, it has to still be an unsolved problem so far.


text:
# KYUSHU-HET 59 Can ICARUS and OPERA 𝜈_𝜏 appearance experiments detect new flavor physics ?

## Abstract

In this letter we explore whether we have a chance to observe a flavor-changing effect in $`\tau `$ appearance experiments ICARUS and OPERA.

neutrino oscillation, exotic interactions, OPERA, ICARUS, CNGS

The atmospheric neutrino anomaly atm  and the solar neutrino deficit solar  are well described by the neutrino oscillation. Therefore many experiments are being planed to observe the oscillation directly and some of them are now carried out K2K . For example, the atmospheric neutrino anomaly is very naturally explained by the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation and for the direct measurement of this oscillation (transition) there are two experiments proposed at CERN, ICARUS ICARUS  and OPERA OPERA , that aim at observation of tau neutrino appearance events and they will start to take data in 2005 CNGSWeb ; Neutrino2000Rubbia .

Moreover it is expected that almost all the oscillation parameters will be determined by oscillation experiments in near future (see for example JHFSK ). Though in studies of those experiments their main concerns are how well they can determine the oscillation parameters, it is also pointed out that a long baseline experiment can probe new types of flavor changing interactions with the oscillation manner Grossman ; NewPhysMatter ; HSV ; OSY . Among such new effects to probe the $`\mu `$-$`\tau `$ flavor-changing effects is most important since in many models to explain a large mixing for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation, large $`\mu `$-$`\tau `$ flavor changing interactions are accompanied. In the previous OSY , we investigated the feasibility to observe such exotic interactions in oscillation experiments and showed that the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ channel works most effectively to explore the $`\mu `$-$`\tau `$ flavor violating interactions 111In Ref.OSY  we also propose the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ disappearance channel for the search of the same interaction, however it is obvious for the appearance channel to get an advantage against the disappearance channel because of the statistical error. . Fortunately, ICARUS and OPERA use this channel and hence in this work we examine the performance of ICARUS and OPERA for the new interaction search in the three-generation framework.

First we briefly review the key idea for exotic interaction search in an oscillation experiment. In the following, we consider only the $`\mu `$-$`\tau `$ flavor violating effects. In a long baseline experiment, what we really observe are the signals caused by the secondary charged particles such as muons. That is, we do not observe neutrinos themselves. In other words neutrinos are unobserved intermediate states. Therefore, if there are some kinds of new interactions that can induce the completely same final states as the standard model does, then the interference between these two amplitudes takes place. It means that the effect of new interactions appears with the strength of not the square of the exotic coupling but itself.

The contribution of the new interactions can be divided into three stages, neutrino beam production, its propagation, and its detection. First we refer to the production process. The neutrino beam of the CNGS CNGSWeb  facility is produced by pion decay. In this case we can parametrize the effect of the exotic interactions in pion decay as the shift in the muon neutrino state from pure flavor eigenstate, $`|\nu _\alpha `$, to mixed state, $`|\nu _\alpha ^s`$ Grossman , because the helicity states of the muon and the neutrino are fixed in this decay:

$`|\nu _\mu ^s=U_{\mu \alpha }^s|\nu _\alpha ,U_{\mu \alpha }^s=(0,1,ϵ_{\mu \tau }^s)`$ (1)
where $`ϵ_{\mu \tau }^s`$ denotes the ratio of the coupling of the exotic decay of pions, $`\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu _\tau `$, to the standard one. Next, during the beam propagation from CERN to GranSasso, the neutrinos feel the matter effect due to not only an ordinary interaction but also the new ones, which can be interpreted as the shift of the potential NewPhysMatter :

$`H_{\mathrm{matter}}^{}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{a}{2E_\nu }}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ_{\mu \tau }^m\\ 0& ϵ_{\mu \tau }^m& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (2)
where $`a2\sqrt{2}G_Fn_eE_\nu `$ is the standard matter effect whose origin is the weak interaction, $`n_e`$ is the electron number density, and $`E_\nu `$ is the neutrino energy. Finally at the detection process neutrinos are also affected by the new flavor-changing interactions. To parametrize these effect, in principle, will be very complicated since we have to deal with the hadronic process. However, in this letter, we assume for simplicity that we regard the neutrino state at the detection process as the flavor mixed state, $`|\nu _\alpha ^d`$ Grossman , just like source state,

$`|\nu _\tau ^d=U_{\tau \alpha }^d|\nu _\alpha ,U_{\tau \alpha }^d=(0,ϵ_{\mu \tau }^d,1).`$ (3)
If more precise treatment in the detection process are required, we have to take into account the parton distribution and give $`ϵ^d`$s the energy dependences OSY . Note that all $`ϵ`$’s are complex numbers, i.e., $`ϵ_{\mu \tau }^{s,m,d}=|ϵ_{\mu \tau }^{s,m,d}|e^{i\varphi ^{s,m,d}}`$ Grossman .

Then we estimate the shift of the event number induced by the new physics in ICARUS and OPERA, and consider the condition that the difference from the standard model becomes significant. Because of low statistics and high neutrino energy, these two experiments are not assumed to see their energy spectra and we follow the assumption.

We set the condition for the criterion to insist the observation of new physics that the deviation of the number of event caused by the new interactions, $`|N_\tau ^{\mathrm{NP}}|`$, is grater the error for the number of event expected by standard interaction, $`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. Here $`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ and $`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{NP}}`$ are

$`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ $`=C{\displaystyle 𝑑E_\nu f_{\nu _\mu }(E_\nu )P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{SM}}(E_\nu )\sigma _{\nu _\tau }(E_\nu )\mathrm{eff}(E_\nu )},`$ (4)
$`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{NP}}`$ $`=C{\displaystyle 𝑑E_\nu f_{\nu _\mu }(E_\nu )\{P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }(E_\nu )P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{SM}}(E_\nu )\}\sigma _{\nu _\tau }(E_\nu )\mathrm{eff}(E_\nu )}.`$ (5)
Here $`f_{\nu _\mu }`$ is the muon neutrino flux and $`\sigma _{\nu _\tau }`$ is the charged current cross section for tau neutrino, and they are given in Ref.CNGSWeb . $`C`$ is defined as $`N_{\mathrm{pot}}M_{\mathrm{det}}[\mathrm{kton}]N_\mathrm{A}\times 10^9`$, where $`N_A`$ is the Avogadro’s number, $`N_{\mathrm{pot}}`$ is the total number of proton on target in the beam production, and $`M_{\mathrm{det}}`$ is the detector mass. Incidentally ICARUS has a mass of 5ktons and that of OPERA is 1.8ktons. The standard oscillation probability without exotic interactions, $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ and that with the new physics effects, $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }`$ can be approximated as

$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{SM}}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{31}^2}{4E}}L\right)^2,`$ (6)
$`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }`$ $`=P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{SM}}`$
$`+2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\left(Re[ϵ_{\mu \tau }^s]Re[ϵ_{\mu \tau }^d]\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{31}^2}{4E}}L\right)^2`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\left(Im[ϵ_{\mu \tau }^s]+Im[ϵ_{\mu \tau }^d]\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{31}^2}{4E}}L\right)`$ (7)
$`+4\mathrm{sin}^32\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}Re[ϵ_{\mu \tau }^m]\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{4E}}L\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{31}^2}{4E}}L\right),`$
where $`\theta _{ij}`$’s are the lepton mixing angles defined with the following mixing matrix

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c_{23}& s_{23}\\ 0& s_{23}& c_{23}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{13}& 0& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ 0& 1& 0\\ s_{13}e^{i\delta }& 0& c_{13}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ s_{12}& c_{12}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
$`\delta m_{31}^2`$ is the larger mass difference, and $`L`$ is the baseline length, 732km. To derive eq.(7), we treat $`\delta m_{21}^2`$ and $`ϵ`$ as the perturbations and adapt high energy approximation $`\delta m_{31}^2LE_\nu `$, which is now appropriate assumption, and then extract terms of $`𝒪(ϵ,\delta m_{31}^2)`$. The detail of this derivation is given in Ref.OSY ; OS-1 . We use the detection efficiency, $`\mathrm{eff}(E_\nu )`$, estimated in Ref.ICARUS ; OPERA . The condition that we set in the beginning of this paragraph, the number of events induced by new physics is larger than the error in the standard oscillation assumption, can be described as follows:

$`\sqrt{\sigma _{\mathrm{sta}}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_\tau ^{\mathrm{SM}}}{\lambda _\alpha }}\right)^2\sigma _{\mathrm{par}}^{2}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}+\sigma _{\mathrm{sys}}^2}<|N_\tau ^{\mathrm{NP}}|.`$ (9)
There are three kinds of errors with different origins: (i) The statistical one, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{sta}}`$, which is estimated by $`\sqrt{N_\tau ^{\mathrm{SM}}}`$. (ii) The errors coming from the uncertainties of the oscillation parameters. These are represented as the second term in the square root of eq.(9) according to the error propagation prescription, where $`\lambda _\alpha `$ is one of $`n`$ parameters included in $`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{par}}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$ is its uncertainty. Exactly speaking, this treatment works well only when $`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ depends linearly on all the parameters. In general, dependence of $`\lambda _\alpha `$s is not so simple. However since here the oscillation probability can be approximated as $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13}(\delta m_{32}^2L/4E_\nu )^2`$ in almost all energy region referred now, by regarding $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13}(\delta m_{32}^2)^2`$ as one parameter included in $`N_\tau ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, this method can be justified approximately. It is expected that the precision of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23})`$, becomes 1% and that of $`\delta m_{31}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta m_{31}^2)`$, reduced to be 3% in the next-generation-experiments JHFSK . Moreover the uncertainty of $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}`$ does not affect the error estimation because of the smallness of $`\theta _{13}`$. From these consideration the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{par}}`$ is calculated as

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{par}}^2`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13})(\delta m_{32}^2)^2`$
$`+2(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13})(\delta m_{32}^2)\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta m_{32}^2).`$ (10)
(iii) The systematic error, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{sys}}`$, which is given in Ref.ICARUS ; OPERA ; Neutrino2000Rubbia . The ICARUS collaboration reports the relation between the detection efficiency and the background event rate, and give some studies with different event selection rules in Ref.ICARUS . Among them, we pick out two cases, and refer as ICARUS-A and B. The efficiencies and errors for these cases are given in Table 1.

Now, we show our results. Here, we expect that the CERN proton beam will achieve $`4.5\times 10^{19}`$ pot per year and assume 5 year running. The total error in each experiment is indicated in Table 1. For numerical calculation we use the following theoretical parameters:

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}=1/2,\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}=1/\sqrt{2},\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}=0.1,$$

$$\delta m_{31}^2=3\times 10^3[\mathrm{eV}^2],\delta m_{21}^2=5\times 10^5[\mathrm{eV}^2],$$
(11)
$$\delta =\pi /2.$$

Since eq.(7) is good approximation in this context, we can expect the numerical results do not depend on $`\delta m_{21}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$, $`\delta `$, and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$.

We firstly categorize the flavor-changing interactions into two classes by Lorentz and $`SU(2)_L`$ properties. The first one corresponds to the case that there exists an effective flavor-changing interaction of singlet/triplet type, say

$`(\overline{l}_\tau \tau ^2C\overline{q})(qC^{}\tau ^2l_\mu )+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{and}/\mathrm{or}(\overline{l}_\tau \tau ^aC\overline{q})(qC^{}\tau ^al_\mu )+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.(\overline{\nu }_\tau \gamma ^\sigma \mu )(\overline{d}\gamma _\sigma u)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (12)
where $`l`$, $`q`$ are the lepton and quark doublets respectively and $`\tau ^a`$ is the Pauli matrix and here $`C`$ denotes charge conjugation. This type of an interaction is induced by the exchange of $`SU(2)_L`$ singlet and/or triplet scalar BG ; OSY . New physics effects are expected to be the same order of magnitude at the source, the matter and the detector for this case. In this case, there is a constraint for $`ϵ`$’s from $`SU(2)_L`$ counter part process of eq.(12) like $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\pi ^0`$ BG . Isospin breaking effect somewhat relaxes the limit. However after all, we have to set the $`ϵ_{\mu \tau }^s𝒪(10^2)`$. Therefore we set $`|ϵ_{\mu \tau }^{s,m,d}|=0.01`$ for the new physics parameters. The left plot of Fig.1 shows dependence of the region that satisfy the condition eq.(9). The inside of this contour represents that we can observe the new effect at $`1\sigma `$ confidence level. The right one is a section of the left one at $`ϵ_{\mu \tau }^m=0.01i`$, though there the contours denote the difference of the event number due to the new effect from the expected number with standard oscillation assumption. These behaviors can be very well understood by eq.(7). It strongly depends on the phases of the exotic interaction couplings. In some regions the total effect can exceed the range of the error.

Next, we assume that $`|ϵ_{\mu \tau }^s|=0.01`$ and $`|ϵ_{\mu \tau }^{m,d}|=0`$. This parameter set corresponds the situation that the new interaction is doublet type, namely,

$`(\overline{l}_\tau C\overline{d}_R)(qC^{}\mu _R)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.(\overline{\nu }_\tau \mu _R)(\overline{d}_Ru_L)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$ (13)
This is induced by the $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet intermediation. From the relation PionDecay ,

$`\overline{u}\gamma _5d={\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_u+m_d}}_\sigma (\overline{u}\gamma ^\sigma \gamma _5d),`$ (14)
the doublet mediation amplitude gets the enhancement factor, $`m_\pi ^2/(m_u+m_d)`$, in the pion decay process. On the contrary there is no such an enhancement on the propagation and detection processes. Therefore $`ϵ_{\mu \tau }^s`$ is much bigger than $`ϵ_{\mu \tau }^{m,d}`$ and hence only $`ϵ_{\mu \tau }^s`$ can contribute to the oscillation phenomenon. This enhancement allows us to search the smaller exotic coupling, which included in the elementary process, by $`𝒪(10^2)`$ than that in the singlet and triplet cases, eq.(12). In this case there is a constraint on the effective coupling from the $`SU(2)_L`$ counter process, $`\tau ^{}\mu ^{}+\pi ^0`$, namely $`ϵ_{\mu \tau }^s𝒪(10^2)`$. The results of this calculation are presented in Fig.2. This is also well understood by eq.(7). In the region around $`\varphi ^s=\pm \pi /2`$ the gaps from the standard oscillation expectation become large. However, they do not reach $`1\sigma `$ level of significant even if the events of ICARUS and OPERA are combined.

Finally, we discuss the sensitivity for different oscillation parameters from eq.(11). As we noted again and again, eq.(7) is a very good approximation in this context. It shows that the sensitivity does not depend on the sub-leading oscillation parameters, $`\delta m_{21}^2`$, $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$, $`\delta `$, and also independent of $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$ since all terms depend only on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{13}`$. According to the fact that the statistical error is dominant among the three kinds of errors, the condition eq.(9) reduces to $`P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{SM}}>\sqrt{P_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{\mathrm{SM}}}`$. From eqs.(6) and (7), it is found that this inequality depends essentially on two parameters, $`\delta m_{31}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}`$. For example even if $`\delta m_{31}^25\times 10^3`$ eV2, though the event number itself increases, we have almost same sensitivity as that with $`\delta m_{31}^2=3\times 10^3`$ eV2. Note that here $`\delta m_{31}^2L/4E1`$ 222 Of course, if the expected number is very small then the error due to the parameter uncertainty and the systematic error become important. Therefore in such a case the plot for the sensitivity has slightly different shape. For example, if $`\delta m_{31}^21\times 10^3`$eV2, the decrease of the event number will spoil the sensitivity..

To conclude, we summarize the results of the paper. We roughly evaluated the feasibility to search the new physics with ICARUS and OPERA, and got the following conclusions.

* There is a possibility for the observation of the new interaction effects whose magnitude is $`|ϵ_{\mu \tau }^{s,m,d}|𝒪(10^2)`$. This value is around the current bound.
* The effects strongly depend on the phases of the couplings.
* To explore much smaller $`ϵ`$, more statistics is necessary. For this purpose, it is important to raise the efficiency even if the some background events contaminate the total tau events.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to T. Morozumi for useful discussion. The work of J.S. is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, Government of Japan, No.12047221, No.12740157.