text:
# Hysteresis in driven disordered systems: from plastic depinning to magnets

## I Introduction

Since the eighties the depinning of various elastic interfaces, ranging from domain walls in magnets to geological faults, has received great attention. Many elastic interface models with dissipative dynamics display a continuous transition from pinned to sliding at a critical driving force $`F_c`$ . Near this transition the behavior is universal on long length scales, i.e. it does not depend on microscopic details, but only on general properties of the system, such as symmetries, dimensions, range of interactions, and the dynamics. The sliding state is unique and no hysteresis can occur . This class of systems has been studied extensively by renormalization group (RG) methods  and numerical simulations . Meanwhile, a large body of experimental  and numerical work  has shown that many extended condensed matter systems with strong disorder exhibit a spatially inhomogeneous plastic response, when set into motion by an external drive . In this plastic flow regime, topological defects proliferate and the system is broken up in fluid-like regions flowing around pinned solid regions. The elastic restoring forces are replaced by viscous flow on various scales , allowing for hysteretic response. Examples include vortex arrays in disordered superconductors, charge density waves (CDWs) in anisotropic metals, colloids, and many others. Only for weak disorder these extended systems can be described as elastic objects pulled through a quenched random medium by a uniform force $`F`$. Although several mean-field (MF) models of dissipative dynamics with locally underdamped relaxation have been proposed in the literature in various physical contexts  and shown to exhibit hysteresis, very little is known analytically about the behavior of such models in finite dimensions. This article provides first analytical (RG) results for a viscoelastic model that was introduced and previously studied in MF theory by Marchetti and collaborators , and makes an important contribution towards the identification of universality classes for nonequilibrium disordered systems. In  it was shown that in MF theory the model has a critical point, separating continuous from hysteretic dynamics. In this paper we show that in finite dimensions the behavior maps onto critical hysteresis in disordered magnets as modeled by the zero temperature non-equilibrium random field Ising model (RFIM) . By showing that the two models are in fact in the same universality class we obtain the critical exponents for hysteresis in plastic flow in an expansion in $`6ϵ`$ dimensions.

## II The driven viscoelastic model

In Ref.  it is proposed that a description of shear deformations in the plastic regime may be obtained by focusing on the dynamics of coarse-grained degrees of freedom (the solid-like regions) that are allowed to slip past each other. The model of a driven viscoelastic medium is then obtained by replacing the elastic couplings of displacements in the coarse-grained model of an overdamped driven elastic medium with Maxwell-type couplings of velocities . Considering, for simplicity, the overdamped dynamics of a scalar field, the equation of motion for the local displacement at discrete lattice sites $`i`$, $`u(𝐫,t)u_i(t)`$, is

$$\gamma _0\dot{u}_i=\underset{ij}{}_0^t𝑑s\mu _{ij}e^{(ts)/\tau }\left[\dot{u}_j(s)\dot{u}_i(s)\right]+F+F_i(u_i),$$
(1)
where the dot denotes a time derivative, the summation is restricted to nearest neighbor pairs and $`\gamma _0`$ is the friction. If all the nearest-neighbor elastic couplings are equal ($`\mu _{ij}=\mu 0`$), the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (1) is the discrete Laplacian in $`d`$ dimensions. The second term is the homogeneous driving force, $`F`$, and $`F_i(u_i)`$ denotes the pinning force arising from a quenched random potential, $`V_i(u_i)`$, $`F_i(u_i)=dV_i/du_i=h_iY(u_i\beta _i)`$, with $`Y(u)`$ a periodic function with period $`1`$ and $`\beta _i`$ random phases uniformly distributed in $`[0,1]`$. The random pinning forces $`h_i`$ are distributed with probability $`\rho (h)=e^{h/h_0}/h_0`$, of width $`h_0`$. The model can be used to describe pure shear deformations, where the interactions among the degrees of freedom are transverse to the direction of mean motion. As shown in , the integro-differential equation can be transformed into a second order differential equation, given by

$`\tau \ddot{u}_i+\left(\gamma \tau {\displaystyle \frac{F_i}{u_i}}\right)\dot{u}_i={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\eta _{ij}[\dot{u}_j\dot{u}_i]+F+F_i(u_i),`$ (2)
with $`\eta _{ij}=\mu _{ij}\tau `$. The MF critical line $`\eta _c(\tau )`$ separating continuous from hysteretic dynamics was obtained in  and is shown in the inset of Fig. 1.

In this paper we consider the limit $`\tau =0`$, with $`\eta =\mu \tau 0`$, referred to as the viscous limit, and study the critical point along the $`\tau =0`$ line. The MF analysis suggests that that any finite value of $`\tau `$ may be irrelevant and the large scale behavior be generically described by $`\tau =0`$. In this limit the model reduces to

$`\dot{u}_i={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\eta _{ij}[\dot{u}_j\dot{u}_i]+F+F_i(u_i).`$ (3)
We have introduced dimensionless variables by incorporating $`\gamma _0`$ in our unit of time and scaling all forces and velocities by the width $`h_0`$ of the disorder distribution. The relevant dimensionless tuning parameters are then the strength $`\eta `$ of the viscous coupling and the driving force, $`F`$. The MF solution of Eq. (3) for piece-wise parabolic pinning potential was obtained in  and is given by

$$\overline{v}=\frac{1}{T(h_i)}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an average over disorder and $`T(h_i)`$ is the period of the $`i`$-th degree of freedom (i.e. the time over which the displacement $`u_i`$ is incremented by one),

$`T(h)={\displaystyle \frac{1+\eta }{h}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2g+h}{2gh}}\right)\right],\mathrm{for}h2g,`$ (5)
$`T(h)=\mathrm{},\mathrm{for}h>2g,`$ (6)
with $`g=F+\eta \overline{v}`$. The various types of dynamical response are shown in Fig. 1. For strong coupling (relative to disorder), $`\eta >\eta _c`$, a marginally pinned degree of freedom pushes over its neighbors, driving a vertical hysteretic jump in the $`\overline{v}F`$ curve between strongly pinned (slowly moving) and weakly pinned (fast moving) states. For weak coupling ($`\eta <\eta _c`$) most degrees of freedom advance independently and the $`\overline{v}F`$ curve has no macroscopic jumps. In MF the hysteresis disappears at (and below) a special value $`\eta =\eta _c`$, where the $`\overline{v}F`$ curve has a vertical slope. Preliminary results indicate the same for simulations in three dimensions (up to fluctuations). Figure 2 shows a schematic phase diagram for the dynamical model defined by Eq. (3) in the $`(F,\eta )`$ plane. The MF critical point $`(F_c,\eta _c)`$ is obtained from $`\chi =d\overline{v}/dF\mathrm{}`$ and $`d^2\overline{v}/dF^2\mathrm{}`$, where $`\chi `$ is the static response function. As shown in Appendix A, near this critical point the velocity $`\overline{v}v_c`$, with $`v_c=\overline{v}(\eta _c,F_c)`$, obeys a universal scaling law,

$$\overline{v}v_c|r|^\beta 𝒢_\pm \left(\frac{f^{}}{|r|^{\beta \delta }}\right),$$
(7)
where $`r=(\eta \eta _c)/\eta _c`$ and $`f^{}=f\pm v_c\eta _c|r|/(1+\eta _c)`$, with $`f=FF_c(\eta _c)`$, is a (non-universal) rotation between the control variables $`(r,f)`$ and the scaling variables $`(r,f^{})`$. The $`\pm `$ refers to the sign of $`r`$. In MF theory the critical exponents have the values $`\beta _{MF}=1/2`$ and $`\delta _{MF}=3`$.

## III Beyond Mean-Field Theory

### A Formalism

Here we set up the formalism to study fluctuations about MF theory. We use the method of Martin, Siggia and Rose (MSR) to transform the stochastic equation of motion (3) into a field theory. This is done by introducing a generating functional $`Z`$, which contains the sum over the probabilities of all possible paths (i.e. microscopic configurations) which the system follows for different configurations of disorder as the force $`F`$ is slowly increased. The generating functional is written as the exponential of an action, which is then renormalized perturbatively by standard methods. The MSR formalism was first adapted to driven systems by Narayan and Fisher to describe the depinning of an elastic model of CDWs . It was later employed by Dahmen and Sethna to study the hysteretic response of disordered magnets . Here we only give a very sketchy summary of the method and refer to the literature for details. The crucial point is to recognize that the coarse grained local velocities ($`v_i`$ defined below) in the present model play the role of local magnetizations in the RFIM. The formal manipulations then follow closely those of Ref. , although important differences occur in the detailed calculation of the response and correlation functions.

The functional $`Z`$ is defined as a product of $`\delta `$-functions (one for each site), each of which imposes that the dynamics of each $`u_i`$ is described at all times by the equation of motion (3). The $`\delta `$-functions are then rewritten using a standard identity, so that

$$1Z=[du][d\widehat{u}]J[u]e^S,$$
(8)
with $`\widehat{u}_i`$ MSR auxiliary fields. Here $`J[u]`$ is a functional Jacobian chosen so that $`Z`$ integrates to unity and $`S`$ is an action given by

$$S=i_t\widehat{u}_i\left[\dot{u}_i\underset{ij}{}\eta _{ij}[\dot{u}_j\dot{u}_i]FF_i(u_i)\right].$$
(9)
To study perturbatively fluctuations about MF theory we change variables from the $`u_i`$ and $`\widehat{u}_i`$ to the local velocities $`v_i=(1/\eta )_j\eta _{ij}\dot{u}_j`$ by introducing another auxiliary field, $`\widehat{v}_i`$. The MF solution $`(v_0,\widehat{v}_0)`$ is the saddle point of the resulting generating functional. By expanding about this solution and shifting the definition of $`v`$ to $`vv_0`$, (and absorbing a factor $`i`$ in the definition), we obtain the generating functional,

$$\overline{Z}=[dv][d\widehat{v}]e^{S_{\mathrm{eff}}}$$
(10)
with an effective action

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle _t}𝑑t\eta _{ij}^1\widehat{v}_i(t)v_j(t)+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!n!}}{\displaystyle _{t_1}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{t_{m+n}}}u_{mn}(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{m+n})\widehat{v}_j(t_1)\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_j(t_m)v_j(t_{m+1})\mathrm{}v_j(t_{m+n}).`$ (11)
The $`u_{mn}`$ are the linear and nonlinear local response and connected ($`_c`$) correlation functions, of the form

$$u_{mn}=\frac{}{ϵ(t_{m+1})}\mathrm{}\frac{}{ϵ(t_{m+n})}\dot{u}(t_1)\mathrm{}\dot{u}(t_m)_{l,c}.$$
(12)
The suffix $`l`$ in Eq. (12) indicates that the response and correlation functions are obtained by solving the MF equation with fixed local fields $`v_0`$ and an infinitesimal perturbation, $`\eta ϵ(t,t_1)`$, at $`t_1<t`$,

$$(1+\eta )_tu_j(t)=F+\eta v_{0j}+F_j(u_j)+\eta ϵ(t,t_1).$$
(13)
The effective action (11) has the same structure as that of the spin model in Ref. , with local velocities $`v_i`$ replacing local magnetizations. Note that while in the RFIM at fixed field all spins are fixed in time (in the steady state), in the CDW model each phase is subject to a quasiperiodic noise due to its coupling to the neighboring sites that move in a periodic potential even at fixed force. In the calculation done here this additional noise is averaged out and does not seem to affect the scaling results on long length scales. A detailed study whether or not it matters on long length scales in ways not captured by this approach is left to future work.

### B Results

The response function of order $`n`$ is calculated by perturbing the system with $`n`$ $`\delta `$-function pulses of strength $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_n`$ at $`t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_n`$, and evaluating the response at a time $`t>t_n`$. In contrast to the case of driven CDWs , terms of order $`e^{\lambda T(h)}`$, with $`\lambda =h/(1+\eta )`$, cannot be neglected in the calculation, as, even when the mean velocity is very small, a fraction of degrees of freedom may be sliding freely, with corresponding large periods. Furthermore, the response must be evaluated over the entire history to obtain the correct low frequency behavior. An example of such a calculation for the simplest case of the linear response function is shown in Appendix B. Although the details of the calculation for the present model are different from the spin model, we find that the $`u_{mn}`$ of the two models have indeed the same long wavelength and low frequency behavior, i.e. the effective actions of the two models are identical. Consequently, the RG analysis of the viscoelastic model is the same as for the RFIM  and is not reproduced here. (We obtain the same $`ϵ`$-expansion to all orders in $`ϵ`$. Note that while the $`ϵ`$-expansion for the equilibrium RFIM is controversial , and the $`ϵ`$-expansion for the nonequilibrium RFIM has been mapped onto that of the equilibrium RFIM  to all orders in $`ϵ`$, our main result here does not depend on the outcome of this controversy: the mapping of the plastic CDW depinning model onto the hysteretic RFIM is based on mapping the actions of the two models onto each other, by identifying the local velocities in the CDW model with the local magnetizations in the spin model. This mapping holds independently of the subsequent $`ϵ`$\- expansions for the respective critical exponents.) The critical exponents of the two systems are the same and are given in Table 1 . Fourier transforming the fields $`v`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ in both space and time, the quadratic part of the effective action is given by

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^G=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{𝐪,\omega }}\widehat{v}(𝐪,\omega )\left[\eta \eta ^1(q)u_{1,1}(\omega )\right]v(𝐪,\omega )`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{𝐪,\omega }}\widehat{v}(𝐪,\omega )u_{2,0}(\omega )\widehat{v}(𝐪,\omega ),`$
where $`u_{1,0}`$ is trivially zero because we expand around the stationary point. In the long wavelength and low frequency limit, we approximate $`\eta ^1(q)\frac{1}{\eta }+Kq^2`$ and $`u_{1,1}(\omega )u_{1,1}^{\mathrm{stat}}+i\omega a`$, where $`u_{1,1}^{\mathrm{stat}}=\eta \nu ^{}(g_0)/(1+\eta )`$, with $`g_0=\eta v_0+F`$, and $`u_{1,1}^{\mathrm{stat}}`$ and $`a`$ are given in Appendix B. The correlation function is $`u_{2,0}(\omega )2\pi \delta (\omega )\left[\left(\frac{1}{T}\right)^2_h\frac{1}{T}_h^2\right]`$. The bare propagator is given by $`G_{\widehat{v}v}(q,\omega )[i\omega a+\eta Kq^2\chi ^1]`$, where $`\chi =[u_{1,1}^{\mathrm{stat}}1]^1`$ is precisely the static response to a monotonically increasing external force calculated in MF theory. At the MF critical point $`\chi ^1=0`$ and the bare propagator becomes diffusive, $`G_{\widehat{v}v}(q,\omega =0)1/q^2`$, while the correlation function is static, with $`G_{vv}(q,\omega )\delta (\omega )/q^4`$. This behavior is the same as for the RFIM. In contrast, the bare propagator for driven elastic CDWs is diffusive also away from the critical point.

To set up an RG calculation, we need to consider terms beyond Gaussian in the action. To obtain an approximate effective action, we Fourier transform the fields in time, retain only the low frequency limit of the response functions, and then transform back to time. In the static limit, the $`u_{1,2}`$ term has bare value $`u_{1,2}(\omega _1,\omega _2)w`$, with $`w\eta ^2\nu ^{\prime \prime }(g_0)/(1+\eta )`$, and $`u_{1,3}(\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _3)u=\eta ^3\nu ^{\prime \prime \prime }(g_0)/(1+\eta )`$. Note that $`w=0`$ at the MF critical point. We then obtain

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}S_{\mathrm{eff}}^G+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle _t}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{w}{2}}\widehat{v}_i\left[v_i(t)\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6}}\widehat{v}_i(t)[v_i(t)]^3\right\},`$ (16)
which is identical to the effective action for the soft spin RFIM , with the local velocities here playing the role of the local magnetizations in the RFIM. The generic behavior at long time and length scales is therefore identical to that of the RFIM. To perform the coarse-graining transformation, as usual we integrate out modes in the wave vector shell $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/b<q<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`b>1`$), rescale coordinates as $`x=bx^{}`$ and $`t=b^zt^{}`$ and choose the rescaling of the fields so that the quadratic part of the action is unchanged at the critical point ($`\chi ^1=0`$). This requires $`z=2`$ and yields $`u_{mn}^{}=b^{[(m+n)+2]d/2+2n}u_{mn}`$.

If $`d>8`$, all $`u_{mn}`$ other than those yielding quadratic terms in the action renormalize to zero and become irrelevant at large scales, indicating that the MF line for the onset of the vertical jump in the $`\overline{v}F`$ curve (where $`\chi ^1=0`$ and $`w0`$) remains critical . The MF scaling exponents are exact in this case.

| Exponents | Mean-field | $`ϵ`$ expansion |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\beta `$ | $`1/2`$ | $`1/2ϵ/6+𝒪(ϵ^2)`$ |
| $`1/\nu `$ | $`2`$ | $`2ϵ/3+𝒪(ϵ^2)`$ |
| $`\beta \delta `$ | $`3/2`$ | $`3/2+0.0833454ϵ^2`$ |

TABLE I: Universal exponents for the critical point discussed in the text. The exponents $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$ describe how $`\overline{v}`$ scales with $`F`$ and $`\eta `$, respectively. $`\nu `$ is the correlation length exponent.

For $`d<8`$ we need to distinguish two cases, depending on whether $`w^{}b^{4d/2}w`$ is initially finite or zero. A bare action with $`\chi ^1=0`$ and $`w0`$ at the onset line $`F_c(\eta )`$ corresponds to the hysteretic region $`\eta >\eta _c`$. In this case the RG analysis carried out by Dahmen and Sethna for the RFIM shows that $`w`$ flows to $`\mathrm{}`$, suggesting a sharp jump onset in the hysteresis loop for $`\eta >\eta _c`$. A bare action with $`\chi ^1=0`$ and $`w=0`$ corresponds to the critical point of interest here. If the bare $`w`$ is zero, we must consider higher order terms. In particular we find that $`u^{}b^{6d}u`$, while all the higher order response functions are irrelevant for $`d=6ϵ`$. So $`d_c=6`$ is the upper critical dimension and for $`d>6`$ the critical exponents near $`(F_c,\eta _c)`$ are given by MF theory. Below 6 dimensions, $`u`$ is relevant. Corrections to the critical exponents were computed in $`6ϵ`$ dimensions in , the results are summarized in Table 1.

Many open questions remain. First, the RG calculation near $`(F_c,\eta _c)`$ described here applies for $`\eta <\eta _c`$ . More work is needed to extend it above $`\eta _c`$, as well as for a proper understanding of the noise in this region. Secondly, we would like to study the finite range viscoelastic model for general value of $`\tau `$.

We thank Alan Middleton, Jennifer Schwarz for illuminating discussions and help with one of the figures. We also thank Jim Sethna for helpful comments. MCM was supported by NSF through grants DMR97-30678 at Syracuse and PHY99-07949 at ITP, Santa Barbara. KAD acknowledges support from the Materials Computation Center (grant NSF-DMR 99-76550), NSF grant DMR00-72783, and an A. P. Sloan fellowship.

## IV Appendix A: Mean-Field Scaling

Here we derive the scaling behavior near the MF critical point. It is convenient to rewrite the mean velocity as

$$\overline{v}=\frac{\nu (g)}{1+\eta },$$
(17)
by introducing the function $`\nu (g)`$,

$$\nu (g)=_0^{2g}𝑑h\rho (h)\frac{h}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2g+h}{2gh}\right)},$$
(18)
with $`\rho (h)`$ the normalized distribution of pinning strengths. The MF critical point, $`\eta =\eta _c`$, $`F=F_c`$ and $`\overline{v}=v_c`$, is the point where the mean velocity curve has infinite slope. The conditions for the critical point easily are expressed in terms $`\nu (g)`$ by differentiating both sides of Eq. (17) with respect to $`g`$, to obtain

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{v}}{F}}\right)_\eta \mathrm{}\nu ^{}(g)={\displaystyle \frac{1+\eta }{\eta }},`$ (20)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2\overline{v}}{F^2}}\right)_\eta \mathrm{}\nu ^{\prime \prime }(g)=0,`$
where the prime denotes a derivative with respect to $`g`$.

To determine the critical line $`F_c(\eta )`$ where the slope of the $`(\overline{v},F)`$ curve diverges, we solve Eqs. (17), (20) and (20) for $`\eta `$ near $`\eta _c`$. By expanding both sides of Eq. (17) in $`\delta g_c(\eta )=g_c(\eta )g_c`$ and $`\delta \eta =\eta \eta _c`$, and using that $`\nu ^{\prime \prime }(g_c)=0`$, we obtain $`\delta g_c(\eta )\pm \left[\frac{2\delta \eta }{\eta _c^2\nu _c^{\prime \prime \prime }}\right]^{1/2}`$, with $`\nu _c^{\prime \prime \prime }=\nu ^{\prime \prime \prime }(g_c)<0`$. We then use $`\delta F_c(\eta )=\delta g_c(\eta )v_c\delta \eta \eta _c\delta \overline{v}_c\delta \eta \delta \overline{v}_c`$, expand both sides of Eq. (17) and eliminate $`\delta g_c(\eta )`$ between the two equations, to obtain

$$\delta F_c(\eta )=\frac{v_c}{1+\eta _c}\delta \eta \pm \frac{2}{3\eta _c^2(1+\eta _c)}\left[\frac{2}{\nu _c^{\prime \prime \prime }}\right]^{1/2}(\delta \eta )^{3/2}.$$
(21)
Note that the critical line $`F_c(\eta )`$ is rotated as compared to the critical line in the magnetic system.

To obtain the scaling function, we now write $`\overline{v}(F,\eta )=\overline{v}(F_c,\eta _c)+\delta \overline{v}`$ in Eq. (17), expand around the critical point and eliminate $`\delta g`$ in favor of $`\delta \overline{v}`$, $`\delta \eta `$ and $`\delta F`$. Retaining only terms up to cubic in the deviations from the critical point, we obtain a cubic equation for $`\delta \overline{v}`$, given by

$$\frac{\eta _c^4\nu _c^{\prime \prime \prime }}{3!(1+\eta _c)}(\delta \overline{v})^3+\frac{1}{1+\eta _c}\delta \eta \delta \overline{v}+\frac{v_c}{1+\eta _c}\delta \eta +\delta F=0.$$
(22)
We define a rotation from $`(F,\eta )`$ to new scaling variables $`(F^{},\eta )`$, with $`F^{}=F+\frac{v_c}{1+\eta _c}\eta `$. In terms of the new variables Eq. (22) becomes

$$(\delta \overline{v})^3+\frac{6}{\eta _c^4\nu _c^{\prime \prime \prime }}\delta \eta \delta \overline{v}+\frac{6(1+\eta _c)}{\eta _c^4\nu _c^{\prime \prime \prime }}\delta F^{}=0,$$
(23)
whose solution is given by Eq. (7), with $`𝒢_\pm (x)`$ the smallest real root of the cubic equation

$$𝒢_\pm ^3\pm \frac{6}{\eta _c^3\nu _c^{\prime \prime \prime }}𝒢_\pm +\frac{6(1+\eta _c)}{\eta _c^4\nu _c^{\prime \prime \prime }}x=0.$$
(24)
The scaling function satisfies $`𝒢_\pm (0)=\mathrm{constant}`$ and $`𝒢_\pm (x>>1)x^{1/3}`$.

## V Appendix B: Evaluation of the linear response

The linear response function $`u_{1,1}`$ is obtained by perturbing the system with a $`\delta `$-function pulse of strength $`ϵ>0`$ at time $`t_1`$ and evaluating the response $`\dot{u}(t)_{l,c}`$ at time $`t>t_1`$,

$$u_{1,1}(t,t_1)=\frac{\dot{u}(t)_{l,c}}{ϵ(t_1)},$$
(25)
where $`u(t)`$ is obtained by solving Eq. (13) for $`ϵ(t,t_1)=ϵ\delta (tt_1)`$ (to simplify the notation, we drop the subscript $`0`$ on the local field $`v_0`$ in Eq. (13)). The other local response and correlation functions can be evaluated by similar methods.

As shown in Fig. 3, the perturbation has two effects: it yields a discontinuous jump of the displacement at time $`t_1`$ and it causes a shift in the “jump time” $`t_J`$ where the displacement jumps between neighboring wells of the periodic pinning potential. Without loss of generality we assume $`t_Jt_1t_J+T`$, where $`T`$ is the period defined in Eq. (5) and $`t_J`$ is the jump time of the unperturbed solution.

For $`tt_1`$, the perturbed solution can be written as

$$u(t,t_1;t_J)=\mathrm{\Theta }(tt_1)u_{\mathrm{unp}}(t+\delta t_J;t_J),$$
(26)
where $`u_{\mathrm{unp}}(t;t_J)`$ is the unperturbed solution, given by

$$u_{\mathrm{unp}}(t;t_J)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }(t_J+(n+1)Tt)\mathrm{\Theta }(tt_JnT)\left[n+\frac{1e^{\lambda (tt_JnT)}}{1e^{\lambda T}}\right],$$
(27)
with $`\lambda =h/(1+\eta )`$. The shift in jump time $`\delta t_J`$ is determined by requiring $`u(t_J\delta t_J,t_1;t_J)=0`$, with the result,

$`\delta t_J={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\mathrm{ln}\left(1ϵ\alpha e^{\lambda (t_J+Tt_1)}\right),`$ (28)
if $`t_Jt_1T+t_ϵ`$, with $`t_ϵ=\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}(1+ϵ\alpha )`$, and $`\delta t_J=0`$ otherwise, with $`\alpha =\eta (e^{\lambda T}1)/(1+\eta )`$.

The local response is obtained by averaging over a uniform distribution of jump times, as well as over the distribution $`\rho (h)`$ of pinning strengths. The average over jump times of the perturbed velocity is given by

$$\dot{u}_{t_J}=_{t_1T}^{t_1T+t_ϵ}\frac{dt_1}{T}\frac{}{t}\left[\mathrm{\Theta }(tt_1)u_{\mathrm{unp}}(t;t_J)\right]+_{t_1T+t_ϵ}^{t_1}\frac{dt_1}{T}\frac{}{t}\left[\mathrm{\Theta }(tt_1)u_{\mathrm{unp}}(t+\delta t_J;t_J)\right].$$
(29)
Carrying out the integrals , differentiating the response with respect to $`ϵ`$ and evaluating the result at $`ϵ=0`$, we obtain the mean local linear response function, $`\chi _l(tt_1)=u_{1,1}(t,t_1)`$, with

$$\chi _l(t)=\delta (t)\frac{\eta }{1+\eta }+\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\frac{\eta \lambda }{(1+\eta )T}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }(tnT)\mathrm{\Theta }((n+1)Tt)e^{\lambda (tnT)}\left[\left(nTt+\frac{1}{\lambda T}\right)(e^{\lambda T}1)1\right],$$
(30)
where the brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ denote the average over $`\rho (h)`$. For $`t0`$, the response consists of the sum of a $`\delta `$-function contribution and a periodic function. The frequency dependent local response is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_l(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\chi _l(t),`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{1+\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{\zeta i(\omega \omega _s)}},`$ (32)
where the limit $`\zeta 0`$ is intended, $`\omega _s=2\pi s/T`$, with $`s`$ an integer, and

$$g_s=\frac{\eta \lambda e^{\lambda T}}{1+\eta }\frac{(1e^{\lambda T})^2}{\lambda T}\frac{i\omega _s}{(i\omega _s\lambda )^2}.$$
(33)
For small frequency, we can carry out the summation over $`s`$ and find

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_l(\omega )u_{1,1}^{\mathrm{stat}}+i\omega a,$$
(34)
with

$`u_{1,1}^{\mathrm{stat}}={\displaystyle \frac{\eta \nu ^{}(g)}{1+\eta }},`$ (35)
and

$`a=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{1+\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda ^2T}}(e^{\lambda T}e^{\lambda T})`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\lambda ^3T^2}}(e^{\lambda T}1)(1e^{\lambda T}).`$


format: text

text:
# DGP BRANE AS A GRAVITY CONDUCTOR

## I Introduction

A phenomenologically acceptable five dimensional brane world theory with one infinite extra dimension was recently developed in . The low scale of quantum gravity $`M_{}`$ is pulled (renormalized) at the brane by the high scale $`M_{SM}`$ that describes the brane localized standard model. More precisely, the 4D Einstein Hilbert term, with strength $`M_\mathrm{P}^2M_{SM}^2`$, is induced on the brane. This effect ensures that the observer on the brane sees weak 4D gravity (Newton constant $`G_N1/M_\mathrm{P}^2`$) up to the distance $`r_c=M_\mathrm{P}^2/M_{}^3`$. At distances bigger than $`r_c`$ gravity becomes five dimensional. At short distances gravity is modified by quantum corrections at $`M_{}^1`$. Short distance gravity measurements exclude modification of laws of gravity at distances bigger than $``$0.1mm$`1/10^3`$eV . Cosmological observations on the other hand suggest that gravity is not changed to distances of order $`10^{29}`$mm. Thus, present knowledge about gravity constrains the scale of gravity in this class of models to the range

$$10^3\text{eV}<M_{}<10\text{MeV}.$$
(1.1)
Relativistic corrections, and the question how are they encoded in the tensor structure of the graviton propagator were studied in . The cosmological consequences of the model and especially the fact that the model gives rise to the accelerated universe (as observed ) were considered in . The relevance for the solution to the cosmological constant problem was considered in

In the present paper we study how the induced 4D Einstein Hilbert term affects dynamics of the particle of mass $`m`$ at distance $`y_0`$ from the brane. This question is important in order to identify experimental signatures of collider black hole production in this class of models. Since the particle itself induces the metric, there is no static metric in which one could study the behavior of geodesic lines (that describe the motion of test particle). Instead of trying to solve the problem in full relativistic theory, we will limit ourself to Newtonian approximation and use some basic facts about black holes. The result that we find is that the brane repels particles into the bulk where they have lower (bigger in magnitude and negative) self energy.

In the next section we derive and briefly discuss Newtonian potential. In the third section we find the dependence of self energy of a particle as a function of its distance from the brane. Once particle leaves the brane, the gradient of self energy forces it to go from the brane to the bulk. We also describe the process of black hole formation for particles with mass $`m>8\pi ^2M_{}`$. In the fourth section we present the ’electrostatic’ analog derivation of repulsive force for particles with mass $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$. Finally, in discussion, we address questions regarding phenomenological consequences of the repulsive nature of the brane.

## II Newtonian potential

Action for the model  is the sum of the 5D Einstein Hilbert term and induced the 4D term on the brane

$$S=M_{}^3d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{G}_{(5)}+M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2d^4x\sqrt{|g|}R.$$
(2.1)
Here we divide 5D coordinates into 4D part (Greek indices) and extra coordinate $`y`$ like $`X^A=(x^\mu ,y)`$, $`G_{AB}`$ is 5D metric and $`_{(5)}`$ its curvature scalar, $`g_{\mu \nu }(x^\mu )=G_{AB}(x^\mu ,y=0)\delta _\mu ^A\delta _\nu ^B`$ is induced 4D metric (we take straight brane) and $`R`$ corresponding scalar curvature. The tension of the brane is taken to be zero. If we take the limit of slowly varying weak fields, equations of motion reduce to the equations for deviation of the $`g_{00}`$ component from flat space constant value (scalar gravity). The equation for (Euclidean) Green’s function for the scalar gravity case reads

$$\left(\mathrm{}_4(1+r_c\delta (y))_y^2\right)G(xx_0,y,y_0)=\delta ^4(xx_0)\delta (yy_0),$$
(2.2)
which has the solution (see )

$$G(p,y,y_0)=\frac{1}{p}e^{p|yy_0|}\frac{1}{p}e^{p(|y|+|y_0|)}\frac{1}{1+1/r_cp}.$$
(2.3)
Let us evaluate the exact Newtonian potential at the point $`(\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ due to a static source of mass $`m`$ located at the position $`(\stackrel{}{x}^{},y_0)`$. The potential is given as a Fourier transform of the Green’s function (2.3) integrated over the time

$`V(r,y,y_0)={\displaystyle \frac{m}{16\pi ^2M_{}^3}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2+(yy_0)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2+(|y|+|y_0|)^2}}`$ (2.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2rr_c}}e^{(|y|+|y_0|ir)/r_c}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0((|y|+|y_0|ir)/r_c)e^{2ir/r_c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0((|y|+|y_0|+ir)/r_c))).`$ (2.5)
Here $`r=|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(z)`$ is an incomplete gamma function (see appendix). The potential (2.4) can be expanded in powers of $`1/r_c`$

$$V^1=\frac{m}{16\pi ^2M_{}^3}\frac{1}{rr_c}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{r}{|y|+|y_0|}$$
(2.6)
$$V^2=\frac{m}{16\pi ^2M_{}^3}\frac{1}{rr_c}\left(\frac{(|y|+|y_0|)}{r_c}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{r}{|y|+|y_0|}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{r^2+(|y|+|y_0|)^2}{r_c^2}(1\gamma )\left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)\right),$$
(2.7)
where $`\gamma 0.5772`$ is Euler’s constant and superscripts on potential denote terms in expansion. The potential to first order in $`1/r_c`$ was discussed in detail in . Let us briefly discuss potential (2.4). If the mass is on the brane ($`y_0=0`$), the first two terms in (2.4) cancel. The potential on the brane $`(r,y=0)`$, at distances $`rr_c`$, is four dimensional and the Newton’s constant is $`G=1/(32\pi M_{}^3r_c)`$. As $`r/r_c`$ increases towards one, the second term in (2.7) weaken its strength. Finally, for $`rr_c`$ ($`pr_c1`$) the potential becomes purely five dimensional (the first term in equations (2.3),(2.4)). Similar behavior occurs if one looks at the potential at $`(r=0,y)`$. For small $`y`$ it is a weak four dimensional potential with constant $`2G/\pi `$. For $`y/r_c1`$ one can find the form of the potential by expanding (2.4) (see appendix) and again obtain the expected five dimensional behavior. Up to a constant, potentials have the following short distance expansion and asymptotic behavior

$$V(y=0,rr_c)=\frac{m}{32\pi M_{}^3}\frac{1}{rr_c}\left(1+\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{r}{r_c}\mathrm{ln}\frac{r}{r_c}\right),V(y=0,rr_c)=\frac{m}{16\pi ^2M_{}^3r^2},$$
(2.8)
$$V(r=0,yr_c)=\frac{m}{16\pi ^2M_{}^3}\frac{1}{|y|r_c}\left(1+\frac{y}{r_c}\mathrm{ln}\frac{y}{r_c}\right),V(r=0,yr_c)=\frac{m}{16\pi ^2M_{}^3|y|^2}.$$
(2.9)
Similar expansions can be easily obtained for a potential at any ’angle’ in the $`ry`$ plane.

If the mass is in the bulk we have two different cases. For particles on opposite sides of the brane, the first two terms in (2.4) cancel and particles interact via the weak four dimensional gravity at distances $`\sqrt{(|y|+|y_0|)^2+r^2}r_c`$. That means that the brane is shielding one side of the brane from the five dimensional gravitation of sources on the other side of the brane. The effective radius of shielding is $`r_c`$. If the sources are on the same side of the brane, the interaction is dominated by the first two terms in (2.4). Masses, sufficiently far from brane, basically interact via strong five dimensional gravity.

One can illustrate this behavior by plotting the contours of the constant potential of the body as it moves from the bulk towards the brane (Fig.1). At Schwarzschild radius $`g_{00}(1+2V)`$ diverges. Although we don’t have a relativistic solution to the system, one would expect that the Schwarzschild surfaces (black hole horizons) behave as surfaces of constant potential $`V1/2`$.

Figure 1: Surfaces of constant potential $`V=(1/16\pi ^2)m/M_{}`$. Point mass is on $`r=0`$, $`y_0=1,0.5,0.2,10^2,10^3,10^4`$ in units of $`M_{}^1`$. Inset: anisotropic cutoff distance $`ϵ`$ for a mass on the brane

## III Self energy

In this section we will evaluate the classical self energy of the particle of mass $`m`$ in the presence of the DGP brane. Our main assumption, along the lines of , is that the gravity is cut off at distances $`ϵ1/M_{}`$. Classically, gravitational self energy is determined by the cutoff distance and the form of the potential. Since the potential changes with the position, the gravitational self energy of a particle will be a function of its distance from the brane. Gradient of self energy will give rise to a force that will try to move particle to the region of lowest gravitational self energy. For $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$ we will use Newtonian approximation, since the potential is weak at the cutoff distance $`M_{}^1`$. For $`m>8\pi ^2M_{}`$, we will use a Newton-like approximation, which will incorporate some basic facts of general relativity.

### A Case $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$

For $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$ Schwarzschild radius in the bulk $`r_{S5}=(1/M_{})\sqrt{m/8\pi ^2M_{}}`$  is smaller than the cutoff $`M_{}^1`$ so Newtonian approximation is justified. Let us remind how we calculate gravitational self energy of a particle. One wants to find an energy gained by assembling a particle of mass $`m`$. Equivalently, one can find the energy needed to destroy a particle by taking away infitesimal pieces of matter and removing them to infinity, where the potential is defined to be zero. If the force starts to act at a distance $`ϵ`$ from the center of mass distribution of a particle, one then finds the expression for self energy to be

$$W=_0^1(1M)𝑑M_ϵ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dV(r)}{dr}𝑑r=\frac{1}{2}V(ϵ).$$
(3.1)
In our normalization of Newton constant, that leads to self energies in four dimensional theory (on the brane) and five dimensional theory (infinitely far from the brane)

$$W_4=\frac{1}{64\pi }\left(\frac{m}{M_\mathrm{P}}\right)^2\frac{1}{ϵ},W_5=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\left(\frac{m^2}{M_{}^3}\right)\frac{1}{ϵ^2}.$$
(3.2)
If we take that the gravity cutoff $`ϵ`$ is just an inverse scale of gravity $`M_{}`$, then the ratio of self energies in pure 4D and 5D theories is

$$\frac{W_4}{W_5}=\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_\mathrm{P}}\right)^2.$$
(3.3)
In pure four or five dimensional theories energy of the mass density $`\rho (x)`$ is given by $`W=(1/2)\rho (x)V(x)d^nx`$. One can then use Gauss law to relate mass density and divergence of the field. After partial integration energy can be written as an integral over the square of the field $`W|V(x)|^2d^nx`$. By integrating energy stored in the field in pure 4D and 5D theories one again finds expressions (3.2). We must stress here that the discussed theory is neither purely 4D or 5D theory. In particular, for the mass on the brane, Gauss law is not valid (if we call $`r_5`$ the 5D radial distance from the mass at $`y_0=0`$, then the field drops like $`1/r_5^2`$, while the surface area increases like $`r_5^3`$). For this reason we will use (3.1) when calculating self energy of the mass at an arbitrary position in 5D space (one should not use Gauss’ law).

Let us look at the self energy of the particle on the brane. By using prescription (3.1) we find that the self energy is that of a four dimensional particle. However, since our space is not isotropic there is an apparent ambiguity in self energy. It depends on the direction from which we assembled particle. Let us define polar coordinates $`\rho =r^2+y^2`$ and $`\varphi =\mathrm{arctan}(r/y)`$ and assemble particle at $`y_0=0,r=0`$ by bringing infitesimal masses from infinity and direction $`\varphi `$ from the bulk . Self energy of the particle on the brane then varies by a factor $`\pi /2`$ (same as Newton constant) for angles $`0<\varphi <\pi /2`$:

$$W(y_0=0)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\left(\frac{m}{M_\mathrm{P}}\right)^2\frac{\varphi }{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }\frac{1}{ϵ}.$$
(3.4)
Since the self energy must be a well defined quantity, we conclude that the factor $`\varphi /\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ defines the physical cutoff distance when the mass is on the brane. Certainly, the space in question is not isotropic, and we cannot assume that the gravity cutoff surface is a 3-sphere, but rather a surface of constant field strength with average distance from the particle $`1/M_{}`$ (inset to Fig.1). For the arbitrary position of particle $`y_0`$, the expression for self energy to first order in $`1/r_c`$ is

$$W(y_0)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\left(\frac{m^2}{M_{}^3}\right)\left(\frac{1}{ϵ^2}\left(1\frac{1}{1+4(y_0/ϵ)^2+4(y_0/ϵ)\mathrm{cos}\varphi }\right)+\frac{1}{r_cϵ}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{ϵ\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2y_0+ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi }\right)\right).$$
(3.5)
For $`y_0>ϵ`$, dependence on $`\varphi `$ can be neglected and the self energy has the form

$$W(y_0)=W_5\left(1\frac{1}{1+4(y_0/ϵ)^2}\right)+W_4\frac{1}{\pi (y_0/ϵ)}.$$
(3.6)
For $`0<y_0<ϵ`$ (neglecting the small $`1/r_c`$ contribution of 4D self energy) , one gets the same answer by following argument. The first term in (3.5) represents isotropic 5D interaction and should be cut off at the surface of 3 sphere of radius $`ϵ`$. The second term is anisotropic contribution and its cutoff has to be defined so that it doesn’t depend on the angle $`\varphi `$. If we define (angle) dependent cutoff for the second term as $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^2=ϵ^2f(y_0/ϵ,\varphi )`$ one finds that $`f(y_0/ϵ,\varphi )=(2(y_0/ϵ)\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\sqrt{1+4(y_0/ϵ)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi })`$. Plugging this back to (3.5) one obtains the behavior of 5D contribution as in (3.6).

To summarize, at the brane, the particle has 4D self energy, upon leaving the brane, within a couple of $`ϵ`$ distance, it gains the biggest part of its 5D self energy and looses its 4D self energy. The particle at $`y_0>ϵ`$ will feel strong force

$$F_y(y_0)=\frac{dW(y_0)}{dy_0}=\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}\frac{m^2}{M_{}^3}\frac{1}{y_0^3}\left(1\frac{y_0}{r_c}\right).$$
(3.7)
This force will try to push the particle to the bulk where its self energy increases in magnitude by the large factor of $`(M_\mathrm{P}/M_{})^2`$.

### B Case $`m>8\pi ^2M_{}`$

If the mass of the particle is bigger than the scale of gravity $`M_{}`$, we cannot calculate the self energy by cutting off the Newtonian potential at $`ϵM_{}^1`$. The reason is that Schwarzschild radius in the bulk is bigger than the inverse scale $`M_{}`$, and at distances shorter than Schwarzschild radius $`r_{S5}`$ gravity is not weak. In following considerations we will not write negligible corrections of the order of $`1/r_c`$.

Let us calculate the self energy of a 5D black hole by approximating the black hole as an object that gravitates via Newton’s law at distances bigger than event horizon $`r>r_{S5}`$. What happens with potential at distances below event horizon doesn’t influence the energy of the world outside horizon. Again we construct the self energy by assembling black hole at the origin out of infitezimal pieces of matter located at infinity. To assemble the point mass $`M_{}`$ we need to bring matter to a cutoff distance $`M_{}^1`$, since the Schwarzschild radius is smaller then the inverse cutoff. This contribution equals to $`W_5(m=M_{})=M_{}/(32\pi ^2)`$. Work gained in bringing the rest of the mass (from $`M_{}`$ to $`m`$) would be the work done in bringing it only to the Schwarzschild radius. Outside the horizon there is no change in energy no matter how the potential changes below the horizon. Now we introduce a loose definition of the Schwarzschild radius as a radius at which Newtonian potential has the value $`1/2`$. Since the potential energy gained by bringing the mass $`dM`$ from infinity to Schwarzschild radius is by (our) definition $`dM/2`$, the total self energy of a 5D black hole of mass $`m`$ is

$$W(m>M_{},y_0\mathrm{})=W_5(m=M_{})\frac{1}{2}_M_{}^m𝑑M=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}M_{}\frac{1}{2}\left(mM_{}\right).$$
(3.8)
In our simplified model of a black hole, self energy is negative and of the order of (factor of $`1/2`$) the mass of a black hole. It is interesting to note that self energy could, in principle, be equal to the rest mass so that it wouldn’t cost anything to produce it. The situation is reminiscent of the fact that the total mass of universe, Newton’s constant and the Hubble radius conspire in such a way that it might not cost anything to create particles at the center of the universe, since their rest mass energy is of the order of their gravitational (negative) energy.

Let us see how the formation of the black hole happens as we remove a particle of mass $`m>8\pi ^2M_{}`$ from the brane. On the brane, the Schwarzschild radius $`r_{S4}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^1(m/M_{\mathrm{Pl}})`$ is much smaller than the cutoff distance $`M_{}^1`$. For that reason the self energy on the brane is given by $`W_4`$ (3.2). The self energy on the brane is much smaller than the self energy far away from the brane (3.8) and can be neglected. Thus, particles of mass $`m>8\pi ^2M_{}`$ will (as well as particles with $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$) be repelled from the brane to the bulk where their self energy is lower. However, the character of the repelling force will differ from the case of $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$. Let us define the Schwarzschild surface as a surface on which $`V(r,y,y_0)=1/2`$. When the particle is removed from the brane, the Schwarzschild surface expands from a point (actually, the three sphere of radius $`r_{S4}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^1(m/M_{\mathrm{Pl}})`$ ) anisotropically (Fig.1). After the particle reaches a certain value of $`y_0`$, the Schwarzschild surface crosses the three sphere of radius $`M_{}^1`$ that describes the gravity cutoff radius (Fig.2) . This crossing first happens for the value of $`\varphi =0`$. Up to that point the self energy and the force on particle are the same as in the case $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$. After that point we cannot consider $`M_{}`$ self energy cutoff distance and the self energy evolves different from the case $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$. Moving the particle further into bulk, the Schwarzschild surface grows and takes over the $`M_{}`$ sphere at larger angles and finally, for some critical value of $`y_0`$, the $`M_{}`$ sphere becomes completely contained inside the Schwarzschild surface. At that point we can say that the black hole formation is finished and the particle will have (up to corrections of the order of $`M_{}`$) the self energy of a 5D black hole.

Figure 2: The figure shows the formation of the black hole horizon in the $`ry`$ plane. The horizontal axis measures distance from the brane $`y`$ and the vertical axis measures the distance along the brane $`r`$, both in units of $`M_{}^1`$. The mass of the particle is taken to be $`m=16\pi ^2M_{}`$ i.e. twice the critical mass. Solid lines represent Schwarzschild surfaces, dashed lines represent surfaces of three spheres of unit radius and masses are represented by dots. The horizon emerges when the particle is at $`y_0^{\varphi =0}=0.207`$ and completely encloses the $`M_{}`$ sphere one unit farther.

Points where the Schwarzschild surface crosses the $`M_{}`$ sphere for $`\varphi =0,\pi `$ can be expressed from potential (2.4)

$$y_0^{\varphi =0}=\frac{1}{2M_{}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{18\pi ^2M_{}/m}}1\right),y_0^{\varphi =\pi }=y_0^{\varphi =0}+\frac{1}{M_{}}.$$
(3.9)
For $`m8\pi ^2M_{}`$ these expressions become $`y_0^{\varphi =0}2\pi ^2/m`$ and $`y_0^{\varphi =\pi }1/M_{}`$. Thus, the horizon starts forming at $`2\pi ^2/m`$ and is formed precisely $`1/M_{}`$ farther. The force felt by the particle on $`y_0<2\pi ^2/m`$ is the same as in the case $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$ ($`y_0M_{}1`$)

$$F_y(y_0<2\pi ^2/m)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}m^2M_{}y_0.$$
(3.10)
For $`2\pi ^2/m<y_0<1/M_{}`$, neglecting terms of order $`M_{}`$ in self energy, force is approximately

$$F_y(y_0>2\pi ^2/m)\frac{\pi ^2}{y_0^2}.$$
(3.11)
To summarize, for $`m>8\pi ^2M_{}`$, the 5D Schwarzschild radius is bigger than the cutoff $`M_{}^1`$, and one cannot use the Newtonian theory to calculate the self energy of the particle. Modeling a black hole as an object that gravitates with Newtonian potential outside the horizon, we calculated self energy and estimated the force felt by the particle. As in the case $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$ particles are repelled from the brane.

## IV Conductor analogy

In this section we will rederive results of the previous section for particles with $`m<8\pi ^2M_{}`$ from a different point of view. The lagrangian of our theory can be thought of as the lagrangian for a purely 5D theory with specific type of source localized at $`y=0`$. One would expect this correspondence to be valid everywhere except at $`y=0`$ (worldvolume of the source) because the source itself is a kinetic term for the 4D theory. At $`y=0`$, the value of delta function diverges and the 4D kinetic term becomes dominant. Our gravity theory in this approach $`(y0)`$ becomes equivalent to a 5D gravity in the presence of an infinite 3-plane with a specific mass (charge) distribution. In the Newtonian approximation theory is equivalent to the electrostatic setup of a charge near the conducting plane. We will use symbol $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ for the gravitational field and sometimes interchange the terms mass and charge.

Let us take mass $`m`$ at position $`(\stackrel{}{r}=0,y_0)`$ and look at the field at position $`(\stackrel{}{r},y)`$. One can ask what kind of charge distribution on the plane would produce potential (2.4).

Figure 3: Gaussian pillbox for determination of the effective charge distribution $`\rho (r,y_0)`$ induced by the charge $`m`$ at position $`(r=0,y_0)`$

A component of the field in the $`y`$ direction is discontinuous at $`y=0`$ with discontinuity (to a first order in $`1/r_c`$)

$$(E_y^{y=+0}E_y^{y=0})=\frac{m}{4\pi ^2M_{}^3}\frac{|y_0|(r^2+y_0^2)/(2r_c)}{(r^2+y_0^2)^2}$$
(4.1)
Applying the Gauss theorem on the 5D pillbox, as shown in Fig.3, we can find the charge distribution on the plane

$$𝐄=\frac{1}{4M_{}^3}\rho (\stackrel{}{x},y)\rho (r,y_0)=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\frac{m|y_0|}{(r^2+y_0^2)^2}+\frac{m}{2\pi ^2r_c(r^2+y_0^2)}.$$
(4.2)
The first term in the expression for charge density (4.2) represents the distribution of negative charge, sharply peaked around $`r=0`$, i.e. the projection of the charge position on the brane. Its integral over the volume of the brane is independent of $`y_0`$ and equals precisely $`m`$. As $`y_00`$ this term approaches distribution of a point-like charge $`m\delta (\stackrel{}{r})`$. The second term in (4.2) is a small (notice $`1/r_c`$ suppression) distribution of positive charge, much less localized then the negative charge distribution. In order to find the total induced charge density we should integrate the exact expression obtained from the potential (2.4) that is correct to all orders in $`1/r_c`$. The integral of the charge distribution due to the third term in (2.4) can be obtained numerically and is equal to $`m`$. Thus, the total charge induced on the brane due to the charge $`m`$ in the bulk is zero, as one would expect.

Having the charge distribution, we can calculate the interaction energy between the mass and the induced distribution (’image’ distribution of mass $`m`$ and the background distribution of mass $`+m`$). For $`y0`$ our theory is just the 5D Newtonian gravity so the potential energy of interaction is (to first order in $`1/r_c`$)

$$W(y_0)=\frac{1}{2}\rho (x)V(x)𝑑V=\frac{m}{32\pi ^2M_{}^3}\frac{\rho (r,y_0)4\pi r^2dr}{r^2+y_0^2}=\frac{1}{128\pi ^2}\left(\frac{m^2}{M_{}^3}\right)\frac{1}{y_0^2}\left(1\frac{2y_0}{r_c}\right).$$
(4.3)
Cutoff effects in this derivation were neglected, so it is understood that $`y_0>ϵ`$. The result (4.3) coincides with (3.6) and gives the same force (3.7).

Let us summarize what happens in our 5D analog picture. Charge $`m`$ in the bulk induces negative ’image’ charge distribution of total charge $`m`$, localized at the $`r=0`$, and the small uniform background positive mass distribution. The total induced charge on the brane is zero. As charge $`m`$ approaches the brane $`(y_00)`$ image charge distributions tends to the distribution of a point like charge $`m`$, which strongly repels mass $`m`$. Finally, charge $`m`$ and the image $`m`$ annihilate and $`m`$ distributes itself uniformly on the brane. Described process is completely analogous to the behavior of the charge near the conducting plane. The only difference is that in electrostatics charges of the opposite sign attract and in gravity they repel. Thus, mass $`m`$ in the bulk is repelled from the brane by its image $`m`$. In this sense the DGP brane acts as a gravity conductor, shielding the fields and giving rise to a repulsive force. One could imagine constructing tensionless objects with this property that would gravitationally repel masses or act as gravitational dipoles. In cosmological setups the tensionless DGP brane would gravitationally shield (’shadow’) parts of the universe and could modify cosmological evolution.

## V Discussion

In previous sections we showed that the particles are repelled from the brane that induces kinetic term. By analogy with an ordinary wall with a tension , we can loosely say that the induced kinetic term creates localized energy momentum density on the brain in which repulsive tension dominates over attractive energy density. Theories with low scale of gravity predict collider production of black holes. Because of the repulsive nature of the brane, black holes produced in collider experiments would be repelled to the bulk.

The repulsive nature of the brane requires certain localization mechanism for standard model particles. We can distinguish two different cases. In the first case standard model particles are entities that cannot exist independent of the brane. Well known examples are goldstone modes of broken translational invariance (elastic waves of the brane), modes of open strings with endpoints stuck on the brane, or simply fermionic zero modes on the soliton-like wall. In this case, particles feel force but they cannot escape to the bulk. Other possibility is that the standard model particles are entities that exist independent of the brane. Then, we have to introduce localizing potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ that keeps them on the brane. Since on colliders we don’t see events in which particles just disappear, the depth of the localizing potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ would have to be bigger than $`1`$Tev. From the present bound on the size of universal extra dimensions one knows that the range of the localizing potential should be less than 300Gev . Localizing potential can be due to short range (contact) interactions with the matter of the first type, or the brane itself. For phenomenologically acceptable energy densities on the brane, the gravitational attraction can not provide localizing potential. The particle localized on the brane will feel effective potential which is a combination of short distance localizing potential and repulsive potential. With the potential of depth $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$, all particles lighter than $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ will be in stable equilibrium on the brane. Particles heavier than $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ would be in a metastable state on the brane, because their self energy in the bulk is roughly their mass (3.8). Metastable particles can then tunnel through the barrier into the bulk. The brane can, in principle, be populated with both types of particles. Intrinsically brane particles would be stable (with respect to escape to the bulk decay). Particles trapped on the brane, on the other hand, can decay by escape to the bulk. Upon leaving the brane those particles would gain energy of the order of their mass (bulk self energy) in the vicinity of the brane (distance $`1/M_{}`$). The recoil effect of the brane would produce stable particles (goldstone modes, zero modes) with a total energy of the order of the mass of particle that escaped to the bulk. This kind of decay to the bulk would make missing energy signal on colliders smaller than one expected in a scenario with an ordinary brane.

So far, all the discussion has referred to a brane of infitezimal thickness (delta function type brane). Real, physical branes, have finite thickness. It would be interesting to see how the finite thickness affects particle dynamics and if it can provide localization mechanism. Arguments that we used in the derivation of the repulsive force in 5D model, apply equally well to branes in space with more than one extra dimension. To completely understand particle dynamics, one would certainly like to have an exact relativistic solution.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Georgi Dvali, Andrei Gruzinov, Arthur Lue, Gregory Gabadadze and Engelbert Schucking for helpful discussion and reading the manuscript. This work was supported in part by David and Lucille Packard Foundation, grant number 99-1462.

## A incomplete gamma function

Incomplete gamma function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (z)`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (z)=_z^{\mathrm{}}e^tt^{\alpha 1}𝑑t.$$
(1.1)
It satisfies

$$\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(z)=\frac{e^z}{z},\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(z)𝑑z=e^z+z\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(z).$$
(1.2)
For small and large values of argument it has following expansions

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(z)\gamma \mathrm{ln}z+z+𝒪(z^2),z0`$ (1.3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(z)e^z\left(1/z1/z^2+2/z^3+𝒪(1/z^4)\right),z\mathrm{}.`$ (1.4)


text:
# Search for charginos nearly mass degenerate with the lightest neutralino in e⁺e⁻ collisions at centre-of-mass energies up to 209 GeV

## 1 Introduction

During its last three years of running (1998–2000), the ALEPH detector at LEP collected data from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions at centre-of-mass energies between 189 and 209 GeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 628 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ (Table 1). In this letter, a search is performed on these data for the pair production of charginos, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\chi ^+\chi ^{}`$, in the framework of supersymmetric models with $`R`$-parity conservation and with the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$ as the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). In particular, the configuration in which the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ between the charginos and the LSP is less than 5 GeV/$`c^2`$ is studied.

The small-$`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ configuration is possible in the MSSM, the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model , although it requires unusual assumptions to be made for the gaugino mass terms, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$. Indeed, with the usual gaugino-mass unification relation, charginos and neutralinos are nearly mass degenerate only in the deep higgsino region, i.e., for very large $`M_2`$ values. However, it happens for more natural values of the MSSM parameters if the gaugino-mass unification assumption is relaxed. It even becomes common in models with anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking , in which $`M_1`$ is naturally much larger than $`M_2`$.

Charginos generally decay into the stable LSP and a pair of fermions ($`\chi \mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}^{}`$ or $`\chi \mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$). In the small-$`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ configuration, three different final state topologies may occur according to the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$.

1. The mass difference, and therefore the phase space available for the chargino decay, is so small that charginos are long-lived. A search for heavy stable charged particles  is efficient for this topology.
2. The mass difference is sufficiently large for the chargino decay products to trigger the data acquisition. In this case, the final state is characterized by the large amount of missing energy carried by the invisible LSPs, as searched for in Refs. .
3. The mass difference is in between, i.e., large enough for the charginos to decay before leaving the detector, but too small for the decay products to trigger the data acquisition.

The last, intermediate, situation is analysed in this letter. As suggested in Ref. , a search for radiative chargino pair production, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \chi ^+\chi ^{}`$, was performed, where the initial state radiation (ISR) photon is emitted at sufficiently large angle with respect to the incoming beam to be detected, and with sufficiently large energy to activate the trigger system. The relevant topology is therefore an energetic, isolated photon accompanied by a few low-momentum particles from the chargino decays and large missing energy carried by the two neutralinos. This topology has also been searched for by other LEP collaborations  with lower energy data.

This letter is organized as follows. In Section 2, the ALEPH detector elements directly related to the ISR photon search are described, followed by a summary of the signal and background simulation in Section 3. The event selection developed for the ISR photon final state is explained in Section 4, the results are presented in Section 5, and their interpretation in the MSSM, combined with those of the other two topological searches mentioned above, is given in Section 6.

## 2 The ALEPH detector

A complete and detailed description of the ALEPH detector and its performance, as well as of the standard reconstruction and analysis algorithms, can be found in Refs. . Only those items relevant for the final state under study in this letter (an ISR photon accompanied by a few low-momentum particles and substantial missing energy) are described below.

The hermetic electromagnetic calorimeter, a 22-radiation-length-thick sandwich of lead planes and proportional wire chambers with fine readout segmentation, consists of 36 modules, twelve in the barrel and twelve in each endcap. It is used to identify photons and to measure their energies, with a relative resolution of $`0.18/\sqrt{E}+0.009`$ ($`E`$ in GeV), and their positions down to $`13^{}`$ from the beam axis. Unconverted photons are reconstructed as localized energy deposits (clusters) within groups of neighbouring cells in at least two of the three segments in depth of the calorimeter. The longitudinal and transverse distributions of these deposits are required to be consistent with those of an electromagnetic shower. The *impact parameter* with respect to the interaction point is calculated for a given cluster from the barycentres of its energy deposits in each segment. The *compactness* of a cluster is calculated by taking an energy-weighted average of the angle subtended at the interaction point between the barycentre of the whole cluster and the barycentre of its deposit in each segment.

Only those photons with a polar angle such that $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _\gamma |<0.95`$, with an energy in excess of 1 GeV, with an interaction time relative to a beam crossing smaller than 100 ns, with an impact parameter smaller than $`80`$ cm and with a compactness smaller than 1 are considered as ISR photon candidates in this letter. The energy deposits associated with photons from bremsstrahlung of high energy particles in cosmic ray events are rejected by the requirements on interaction time, impact parameter and compactness. Finally, ISR photon candidates are required to be isolated from any reconstructed charged particle by more than $`30^{}`$.

Charged particles are detected in the central tracking system, which consists of a silicon vertex detector, a cylindrical multiwire inner drift chamber (ITC) and a large time projection chamber (TPC). It is immersed in a 1.5 T axial magnetic field provided by a superconducting solenoidal coil surrounding the electromagnetic calorimeter. Photons traversing the tracking material may convert into electron-positron pairs (in 6% of the cases at normal incidence) and can therefore not be identified as depicted above. To identify these photons, pairs are formed of two oppositely charged particle tracks reconstructed with at least four hits in the TPC and extrapolated to a common vertex; at this position the momenta are computed and the invariant mass of the pair is determined assuming electron masses. Photon conversions are identified if this invariant mass is smaller than $`100\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The same acceptance, energy and isolation criteria are applied as to unconverted photons to define an ISR photon candidate.

Other charged particles in the event are called good tracks if they are reconstructed with at least four hits in either the ITC or the TPC, and if they originate from within a cylinder of length 10 cm (for tracks reconstructed with at least four TPC hits) and radius 2 cm (4 cm for tracks reconstructed with no TPC hits) coaxial with the beam and centred at the nominal interaction point.

Global event quantities such as total energy (and therefore missing energy) are determined from an energy-flow algorithm which combines the above measurements supplemented by those of the iron return yoke instrumented as a hadron calorimeter, the surrounding two double layers of muon chambers, and the luminosity monitors, which extend the calorimetric coverage down to 34 mrad. This algorithm provides, in addition, a list of energy-flow particles, classified as photons, electrons, muons, and charged and neutral hadrons, which are the basic objects used in the selection presented in this letter.

Finally, use is made of the hadron calorimeter to improve the energy resolution of photons pointing to cracks between modules of the electromagnetic calorimeter. To do so, the energy of any neutral energy-flow particle is added to that of an ISR photon candidate if it is within $`11.5^{}`$ of the photon direction.

The trigger condition relevant for this analysis consists of a deposit of at least 1 GeV (2.3 GeV) in any single module of the barrel (the endcaps) of the electromagnetic calorimeter. This trigger is fully efficient for ISR photons within the acceptance of the present search.

## 3 Event simulation

Background events expected from Standard Model processes were generated with statistics corresponding to at least 20 times the integrated luminosity of the data. The event generators used for the present analysis are listed in Table 2.

Signal events were simulated with the program SUSYGEN . Charginos were produced with masses ranging from 45 GeV/$`c^2`$ up to the kinematic limit, for mass differences with the LSP between $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ and 5 GeV/$`c^2`$ and with proper decay length $`\lambda =c\tau `$ up to 80 cm. Hadronic decays were modelled as suggested in Ref. . For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<2\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the model of Ref.  was used for the spectral functions, with parameters tuned to agree with the measured hadronic $`\tau `$ decays . In this case, chargino decays to $`\mathrm{e}\nu _\mathrm{e}\chi `$, $`\mu \nu _\mu \chi `$ and $`n\pi \chi `$ ($`n=1,2,3`$) were simulated. For larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ values, the Lund fragmentation scheme was applied, as implemented in SUSYGEN. Initial state radiation was simulated according to the treatment described in Ref. .

## 4 Event selection

Events are selected if they contain at least one ISR photon candidate (a calorimeter photon or a photon conversion) reconstructed with transverse momentum $`p_T^\gamma `$ with respect to the beam axis greater than $`0.035\sqrt{s}`$. This requirement effectively rejects the background from $`\gamma \gamma `$ interactions, further reduced by requiring that no energy be detected within $`14^{}`$ of the beam axis. This last cut is also useful to suppress background from Bhabha scattering.

At least two charged particle tracks with a minimum of four ITC or four TPC hits are required, and at most ten good tracks. The latter cut efficiently reduces the backgrounds from hadronic two- and four-fermion processes. In events from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$, a photon may convert at the ITC/TPC boundary, but fail to be identified by the criteria of Section 2 while still being reconstructed as two charged particles. This background is rejected by requiring that at least one track be reconstructed with at least one ITC hit.

Advantage is taken of the characteristic kinematic features of radiative chargino pair production. The ISR photon energy is required to be smaller than the maximum energy allowed in the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \chi ^+\chi ^{}`$, and the leading charged particle momentum is limited to the maximum allowed chargino momentum. The mass recoiling against the ISR photon must be larger than 100 GeV/$`c^2`$. Sliding upper cuts are applied to the missing transverse momentum and to the energy of the chargino decay products as a function of the hypothetical chargino mass and mass difference with the LSP; these cuts were determined from the simulation of promptly decaying charginos.

## 5 Results and systematic uncertainties

The selection efficiency is shown in Fig. 1a as a function of the generated $`p_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$. For $`p_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ in excess of 15 GeV/$`c`$, the selection efficiency is above 45%. The photon identification criteria described in Section 2 (acceptance, reconstruction, isolation, timing and pointing) are responsible for an efficiency loss of 40%, and the remaining loss is due to the event selection of Section 4. Because the $`p_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ spectrum is peaked at small values, the total selection efficiency is at most 3%.

The dependence of the selection efficiency on $`p_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ is qualitatively identical for all chargino masses studied, but the absolute efficiency level depends also on the chargino decay length and on the available phase space $`Q=\mathrm{\Delta }m_im_i`$, where the sum runs over the chargino decay products.

For instance, the efficiency for promptly-decaying charginos with mass 87 GeV/$`c^2`$ is shown in Fig. 1b as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ for the single pion final state, and is compared to that for charginos with a proper decay length $`\lambda `$ of 30 cm. The higher efficiency for larger decay lengths for very low $`Q`$ is due to the detection of the chargino tracks. For the same $`\lambda `$, at larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, the chargino detection efficiency is lower with respect to the case $`\lambda =0`$ because of the cuts on the reconstructed energy in addition to the photon and on the total visible momentum of the event. The dependence on the proper decay length is displayed in Fig. 1c, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=`$ 140, 150 and 200 MeV/$`c^2`$.

The dependence of the absolute efficiency on the chargino mass (through its effect on the $`p_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ spectrum) is shown in Fig. 1d, for three different final states (electron, muon and single pion), for fixed $`Q`$ values and $`\lambda =0`$. At the same $`Q`$, the decay into an electron is reconstructed less efficiently than the decay into a muon due to the mass of the final state lepton, and the efficiency for the three-body decays is smaller than for the two-body decay to a single pion.

The photon spectrum is also strongly dependent on the field content of the chargino which is different in various regions of the MSSM parameter space. Initial state radiation is enhanced in the gaugino region due to the relative contribution of the $`s`$-channel Z exchange. All the plots shown in Fig. 1 were derived in the gaugino region.

The efficiency includes a $`(5\pm 1)`$% correction for the loss due to the cut on the energy measured within $`14^{}`$ of the beam axis, caused by beam-related background in the forward calorimeters. This correction is determined with events triggered at random beam crossings.

A systematic uncertainty of 0.6% on the efficiency, related to the algorithm of photon reconstruction, is taken into account as described in Ref. . The uncertainty on the number of converted photons is estimated to change the total selection efficiency by up to 0.3%.

Systematic uncertainties from the ISR photon simulation are assessed by comparing the ISR photon transverse momentum spectrum as predicted by the SUSYGEN and KORALZ programs. The distributions obtained from KORALZ for the mass recoiling against the photon and for the polar angle of the photon in single photon events are in agreement with data . The systematic uncertainty on the efficiency of the present selection is estimated by integrating the possible discrepancy of the $`p_T^\gamma `$ distributions between the two generators over the allowed range, which depends on the chargino mass. The systematic uncertainty obtained is at most 10%.

The systematic error on the efficiency due to the limited statistics of the simulated samples is about 3%. The total systematic uncertainty on the selection efficiency is 10%, obtained by adding in quadrature the individual contributions.

The numbers of events observed are in agreement with those expected from Standard Model background sources, dominated by $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, $`\gamma \gamma \tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma (\gamma )\nu \overline{\nu }`$, as shown in Table 3 for several chargino masses and mass differences. These numbers are displayed in Fig. 2 in the $`(m_{\chi ^\pm },\mathrm{\Delta }m)`$ plane. A candidate event that contributes up to $`m_{\chi ^\pm }=84\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, is shown in Fig. 3.

## 6 Interpretation in the MSSM

In order to provide complete coverage of all possible chargino decay lengths, the results of the present analysis, hereafter called the ISR analysis, were combined with those of the search for heavy stable charged particles , needed for very small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ values, and the standard missing-energy search , efficient for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m3`$ GeV/$`c^2`$. No background subtraction was performed and systematic uncertainties were taken into account according to Ref. .

In the MSSM, and in the absence of the assumption of gaugino-mass unification, four parameters are to be considered in the gaugino sector: the soft-breaking gaugino mass terms, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$; the Higgs mixing term, $`\mu `$; and the ratio of the two Higgs-doublet vacuum expectation values, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. To determine 95% confidence level (C.L.) excluded regions in the $`(m_{\chi ^\pm },\mathrm{\Delta }m)`$ plane, a broad scan of these parameters was performed: $`1<\mathrm{tan}\beta <300`$, $`|\mu |<1`$ TeV/$`c^2`$, $`M_2<250`$ TeV/$`c^2`$, and $`M_1`$ chosen so as to cover the range $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<5`$ GeV/$`c^2`$.

The regime in which all sfermion masses are very large is considered first. In this case, the chargino production cross section depends only on the four above-mentioned parameters, and charginos generically decay via $`\chi ^\pm \chi \mathrm{W}^\pm `$.

In the gaugino region ($`M_2|\mu |`$), it is possible to fine-tune $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to make the $`\chi ^\pm \chi \mathrm{W}^\pm `$ coupling vanish, in which case the chargino decay length increases substantially, even for large $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ values. As a result, the ISR analysis is efficient independently of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ only over a limited range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, the extent of which depends on the $`\chi ^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{f}}\overline{\mathrm{f}}^{}`$ couplings. This effect was quantitatively investigated under the assumption of a universal sfermion mass term $`m_0`$. The dependence on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ of the chargino decay length is shown for $`m_{\chi ^\pm }=71\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ in Fig. 4a, for $`m_0=500\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and for various $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ values. The exclusion domain in the ($`m_{\chi ^\pm },\mathrm{\Delta }m`$) plane derived at $`m_0=500\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =21`$ (which corresponds to the maximum decay length for a chargino mass of $`88\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$) is shown in Fig. 4b; the ISR analysis covers the gap between the standard missing energy search and the stable particle analysis. Results independent of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are also shown in Fig. 5 for $`m_0=500\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The standard missing energy search excludes $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ values larger than $`2.3`$ GeV/$`c^2`$, and the ISR analysis $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ values down to 1 to 1.5 GeV/$`c^2`$. The search for heavy stable charged particles is fully efficient in a parameter-independent way only for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<m_\pi `$, but a combination with the ISR analysis allows the exclusion of the intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ range to be achieved, independently of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In the end, a 95% C.L. lower limit on the chargino mass of 88 GeV/$`c^2`$ is set in the gaugino region for heavy sfermions (i.e., for sfermion masses, or $`m_0`$, larger than a few hundred GeV/$`c^2`$).

In the Higgsino region ($`|\mu |M_2`$), the chargino production cross section is smaller than in the gaugino region, but this effect is compensated by a generically larger chargino decay length, together with a reduced influence of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. As a result, the ISR analysis on its own excludes a region larger than in the former case, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ between 150 MeV/$`c^2`$ and 3 GeV/$`c^2`$ (Fig. 6), with only a slight dependence on $`m_0`$. The combination of the three analyses allows a lower limit on the chargino mass to be set at 88 GeV/$`c^2`$ in the Higgsino region. It was checked with a scan on the $`\mu `$ parameter that the 88 GeV/$`c^2`$ mass limit, obtained in the gaugino and Higgsino regions, is generally valid for large sfermion masses.

For small enough sfermion (most importantly slepton) masses, the chargino lifetime can be substantially reduced, even for very small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ values. As a result, the search for heavy stable particles loses efficiency for some parameter configurations as soon as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m>m_\mathrm{e}`$, while the ISR analysis is inefficient for such small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ values. Therefore, the only completely general chargino mass limit is $`m_\mathrm{Z}/2`$, as derived from the Z width measurement at LEP 1 .

In a more constrained version of the MSSM, namely with gaugino- and sfermion-mass unification, charginos degenerate in mass with the lightest neutralino are only possible in the deep Higgsino region. For such large $`M_2`$ values, all sfermions are heavy. An absolute chargino mass lower limit of 88 GeV/$`c^2`$ therefore holds within this framework.

## 7 Conclusions

A search for charginos nearly mass degenerate with the lightest neutralino has been performed using data collected by the ALEPH detector at LEP at centre-of-mass energies between 189 and 209 GeV. No excess of candidate events with respect to Standard Model background predictions was found.

The results have been interpreted in terms of exclusion limits in the framework of the MSSM; in the heavy sfermion scenario the absolute 95% C.L. chargino mass lower limit is $`88\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for any $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, irrespective of the chargino field content.

In the light sfermion scenario, no $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$-independent limit on the chargino mass is set from direct searches. Chargino masses up to $`m_\mathrm{Z}/2`$ are excluded, indirectly, from the measurement of the Z total width at LEP 1.

## Acknowledgements

We wish to congratulate our colleagues from the accelerator divisions for the successful operation of LEP at high energies. We would also like to express our gratitude to the engineers and support people at our home institutes without whom this work would not have been possible. Those of us from non-member states wish to thank CERN for its hospitality and support.