format: text

text:
# Brane Worlds and the Cosmic Coincidence Problem

## I Introduction

The energy content of the Universe is nowadays, more than ever, the subject of intense research. The picture emerging is the following ; the total energy density of the Universe equals the critical value $`\rho _c(210^3\mathrm{eV})^4(100\mu \mathrm{m})^4`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$), non-relativistic dark matter (DM) accounts for at most forty percent of it ( $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}0.20.4`$), and the rest is in the form of a smooth - i.e. non-clusterized - component, named Dark Energy (DE) (plus a small amount of baryons, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.05`$). Luminosity-redshift measurements of supernovae Ia , as well as the resolution of the so called age problem , agree with this picture and point towards a DE with negative equation of state $`W=p/\rho `$, where $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ are pressure and energy density, respectively. A viable DE candidate is then Einstein’s cosmological constant ($`W=1`$), but more general fluids with $`W<0`$ have been considered, emerging, for instance, from the dynamics of scalar fields with appropriate potentials. The old cosmological constant problem  now becomes double-faced. On one hand we still have the old puzzle of the cosmological constant – or the scalar field potential– being so tiny compared to any common particle physics scale. On the other hand – and this is the new face of the problem– the presence of DE today in roughly the same amount as DM energy density is embarassing. Indeed, the ratio between the two energy densities scales as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{DM}}{\rho _{DE}}}a^{3W},`$

where $`a`$ is the scale factor of the Universe. So, the approximate equality between the two components today looks quite an amazing coincidence in the cosmic history if DE has $`W0`$ as required by observations.

In principle, brane world scenarios offer a suggestive contact with the DE problem. Indeed, extra spatial dimensions compactified to a size as large as $`100\mu \mathrm{m}`$ have been shown to be a viable possibility, provided that no Standard Model (SM) field propagates through them . It might then be tempting to attribute the observed value of the DE energy density to the Casimir energy associated to some field propagating in these large extra dimensions of size $`r`$, i.e. $`\rho _{DE}B/r^4`$, with $`B`$ a constant typically $`O(10^510^4)`$ (see sect. IV).

If the radius $`r`$ is stabilized, then the energy density behaves exactly as a cosmological constant, and we have made no substantial progress with respect to any of the two problems mentioned above. Indeed, we have no clue about why the Casimir energy would be the only non-vanishing contribution to the cosmological constant and, moreover, the equality between the latter and the matter energy density would appear as fortuitous as before.

In order to gain some insight at least on the cosmic coincidence problem it seems then necessary to make the radius $`r`$ dynamical, so that it may evolve on a cosmological time-scale. But this turns out to be quite dangerous. The ‘radion’ field, whose expectation value fixes $`r`$, couples to the trace of the SM energy momentum tensor with gravitational strength. Moreover, in order to evolve with $`\dot{r}/rH`$ ($`H`$ being the Hubble parameter), it must be extremely light, $`mH_010^{33}\mathrm{eV}`$. It then behaves as a massless Jordan-Brans-Dicke scalar with $`O(1)`$ couplings to matter, whereas present bounds are $`O(10^3)`$ . Thus, the geometric explanation of a dynamical DE looks quite unlikely (see however ).

The purpose of this paper is to show that the above conclusion is indeed premature, and that standard brane world scenarios with large extra dimensions may quite naturally solve the cosmic coincidence problem. Unfortunately, we will add nothing new with respect to the first problem, that of the vanishing of all present contributions to the cosmological constant larger than $`O(100\mu \mathrm{m})^4`$.

The key point in our discussion is the realization that besides large extra-dimensions in the $`10100\mu \mathrm{m}`$ range there could also be smaller ones. Considering for simplicity only two compact subspaces, each caracterized by a single radius, we note that the trace of the four-dimensional energy-momentum tensor couples with the total volume of the compact space, that is with the combination $`r_s^{n_s}r_l^{n_l}`$, where $`r_{s,l}`$ and $`n_{s,l}`$ are the radii and dimensionalities of the two subvolumes, respectively. If we assume a stabilization mechanism that fixes the total volume $`𝒱`$ of the compactified manifold but not its shape, the potentially dangerous combination of radion fields associated with volume fluctuations is made harmless, whereas the orthogonal one, associated with shape deformation, is decoupled from normal matter and may then be ultra-light. As a consequence, $`r_l`$ can grow on a cosmological time-scale (such that the associated Casimir energy $`B/r_l^4`$ decreases) and at the same time $`r_s`$ shrinks so that $`𝒱`$ keeps a fixed value.

The coincidence problem is solved if we associate the dark matter with some stable state living in the extra dimensions, because the resulting cosmological equations exhibit an attractor solution in which the Casimir energy and $`\rho _{DM}`$ are redshifted at the same rate with their ratios fixed at a $`O(1)`$ value.

If the DM candidate has a mass independent on $`r_s`$ then the attractor corresponds to the equation of state of non-relativistic matter, i.e. $`W=0`$, which is disfavoured by cosmological observations.

On the other hand, if the mass of the DM particle is inversely proportional to some power of $`r_s`$, as for a Kaluza-Klein (KK) state ($`m_{DM}=m_{KK}r_s^1`$), then a more interesting behavior is obtained. Indeed, on the attractor now we have

$`\rho _{DM}1/(r_sa^3)\rho _{DE};,`$

which, due to the shrinking of $`r_s`$, decreases slower than $`a^3`$ during the cosmic expansion. Remembering that a fluid with equation of state $`W`$ scales as $`\rho a^{3(W+1)}`$ we see that the energy densities scale now with a negative effective equation of state. Moreover, the values of $`W`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ depend only on the two parameters, $`n_s`$ and $`n_l`$.

The above results rely on naive dimensional reduction, without assuming drastic modifications to the radion kinetic terms as was done for instance in .

For sake of clarity, we summarize our assumptions here. They are;

1) the vanishing of any contributions to the effective 4-dimensional cosmological constant larger than $`O(100\mu \mathrm{m})^4`$ today;

2) a stabilization mechanism for the total volume (rather than for each single radius separately) of the compactified space effective at low energies.

The paper is organized as follows. In sect. II we introduce our setting and derive the effective action after dimensional reduction. In sect. III we discuss a mechanism to stabilize the volume of the compact manifold, allowing at the same time its shape to vary. In sect. IV we will study the dynamics of the modulus associated to shape deformations of the compact manifold, showing that an (attractor) solution exists on which dark energy and dark matter scale at the same ratio and the universe has a negative effective equation of state. Finally, in sect. V we discuss our results.

## II The setting

The starting point is the action

$$S=S_{\mathrm{bulk}}+S_{4+n_s}+S_4.$$
(1)
The bulk action is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{bulk}}=d^{4+𝒩}X\sqrt{𝒢}\left[\frac{R(𝒢_𝒜)}{16\pi G_{4+𝒩}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_B+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(2)
where $`𝒩=n_s+n_l`$ and the $`4+𝒩`$\- dimensional metric is given by

$`ds^2=𝒢_{AB}dX^AdX^B`$ (3)
$`=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +{\displaystyle \underset{i=s,l}{}}b_i(x)^2\gamma _{\alpha _i\beta _i}^{(i)}dy^{\alpha _i}dy^{\beta _i},`$ (4)
where $`\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{},3`$, $`\alpha _i,\beta _i=1,\mathrm{},n_i`$, and $`b_i(x)=r_i(x)/r_i^0`$, with $`r_i^0`$’s the average values of the radii today. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ is the bulk cosmological constant, whereas the dots in eq. (2) represent extra fields living in the bulk which will contribute to the stabilization of the compact volume, as we will discuss in the next section.

Apart from the overall $`b_i`$’s factors, the metrics $`\gamma ^{(i)}`$’s are assumed to be non-dynamical.

$`S_{4+n_s}`$ is the action for the fields living in all the $`4+n_s`$ dimensions. In the following, we will only assume that there is at least one stable KK state, which we will associate to DM.

The SM fields are confined to our four-dimensional brane, with action given by

$$S_4=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[_{SM}(g_{\mu \nu },\psi )+\mathrm{\Lambda }_4\right],$$
(5)
where $`\psi `$ represent SM fields and we have singled out the contributions to the cosmological constant from the brane, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$. The dimensional reduction of $`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ is a straightforward procedure (see for instance ). We define new ‘radion’ variables, $`\varphi _a(x)`$, as $`\mathrm{ln}b_i=A_{ia}\varphi _a`$ with $`i=s,l`$, $`a=1,2`$, and

$$A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒩}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{2}{2+𝒩}}& \sqrt{\frac{n_l}{n_s}}\\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{2+𝒩}}& \sqrt{\frac{n_s}{n_l}}\end{array}\right].$$
(6)
By also rescaling the 4-dimensional metric as

$$g_{\mu \nu }=e^{C_𝒩\varphi _1}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu },$$
(7)
where $`C_𝒩=\sqrt{2𝒩/(2+𝒩)}`$, we obtain the ‘Einstein frame’ action,

$`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}={\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_4}}\stackrel{~}{R}(\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu })`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_p^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _a_\nu \varphi _a+e^{C_𝒩\varphi _1}𝒱\mathrm{\Lambda }_B+\mathrm{}],`$ (9)
where we assumed that both $`R(\gamma ^{(i)})=0`$, as in toroidal compactifications, and $`𝒱=G_{4+𝒩}/G_4`$ is the volume of the compact manifold today.

In the same frame, $`S_4`$ takes the form

$`S_4=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}e^{2C_𝒩\varphi _1}[_{SM}(e^{C_𝒩\varphi _1}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu },\psi )`$ (11)
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }_4],`$
from which we see that only $`\varphi _1`$, which we might call ‘the volumon’, couples to matter. Indeed, from eq. (6) one realizes that $`\varphi _1`$ is the scalar field controlling volume deformations, since

$$e^{C_𝒩\varphi _1}=b_s^{n_s}b_l^{n_l}.$$
(12)
The orthogonal combination, $`\varphi _2`$, controls shape deformations of the compact manifold and does not couple to SM fields directly. On the other hand, it couples to fields living in the bulk, or on the $`4+n_s`$-dimensional brane. In the 4-dimensional language, $`\varphi _2`$ couples – besides the graviton– to non-zero KK states, since their mass terms are proportional to $`1/r_i\mathrm{exp}(A_{i2}\varphi _2)`$ ($`i=s,l`$).

## III Volume stabilization

The field $`\varphi _1`$ couples to the SM as a Jordan-Brans-Dicke scalar, i.e. in a purely metric way. As is well known, this type of couplings enforces the (weak) equivalence principle, but is constrained from gravity tests in the solar system and in the laboratory . A massless $`\varphi _1`$ would modify gravity at an unacceptable level unless $`C_𝒩<O(10^3)`$, which is clearly ruled out in the present model, as $`C_𝒩`$ ranges from 1 ($`n_s=n_l=1`$) to $`\sqrt{2}`$ ($`n_s+n_l\mathrm{}`$). It is then necessary to give a mass to $`\varphi _1`$, that is, to stabilize the volume of the compact manifold. In order to fulfill the experimental bounds, the $`\varphi _1`$ range should be smaller than about a hundred microns, that is, mϕ1

>

103eV

>

subscript𝑚subscriptitalic-ϕ1superscript103eVm_{\phi_{1}}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-3}{\rm eV}. At the same time, we would like to keep $`\varphi _2`$ massless such that it may play the role of dynamical dark energy today, that is, mϕ2

<

H01033eV

<

subscript𝑚subscriptitalic-ϕ2subscript𝐻0similar-tosuperscript1033eVm_{\phi_{2}}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}H_{0}\sim 10^{-33}{\rm eV}. Thus, we are looking for a stabilization mechanism which fixes only the total volume of the compact manifold, allowing the different dimensions to vary accordingly.

A mechanism with this property has been discussed for instance in refs. , and is based on the introduction of a $`U(1)`$ gauge monopole configuration in the extra dimensions, besides the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ and the ‘brane tension’, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$, that we have already introduced.

For definitness, we will first consider a two dimensional torus of radii $`b_l`$ and $`b_s`$, and then we will discuss the extension of the mechanism to higher dimensional manifolds. The key point is that $`U(1)`$ gauge fields can have non-zero magnetic flux through the two-dimensional surface, and the flux is quantized and topological invariant,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }d^2yϵ^{mn}F_{mn}=2\pi k,$$
(13)
where $`m,n=4,5`$, $`ϵ^{45}=ϵ^{54}=1`$, and $`k`$ is an integer. Adding the gauge kinetic term,

$$d^{4+2}X\sqrt{𝒢}\frac{M_{}^2}{4g^2}F_{AB}F^{AB}$$
(14)
($`A,B=0,\mathrm{},5`$), to $`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ and solving the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`F_{AB}`$, a solution can be found of the form

$`F_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu m}=0,F_{mn}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{mn}B}{b_lb_s}},`$

with $`_mB=0`$. $`M_{}`$ in (14) is a mass scale typically $`O(G_6^{1/4})`$. Inserting this solution in eq. (13) we find that flux quantization forces the electromagnetic field to be inversely proportional to the 2-dimensional volume,

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{𝒱b_lb_s}},`$

so that eq. (14) becomes

$$\frac{k^2\pi ^2M_{}^2}{2g^2𝒱}d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}e^{3C_2\varphi _1}.$$
(15)
Like the terms proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ in eq. (9), and to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ in eq. (11), eq. (15) is only sensitive to the volume, that is to $`\varphi _1`$, and not to the shape modulus, $`\varphi _2`$. These contributions give the effective potential for $`\varphi _1`$ in the Einstein frame, which is the appropriate quantity to minimize in order to study stabilization***In the second of refs.  they minimized the effective potential in the frame with metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, where the field $`\varphi _1`$ appears also in front of the Ricci scalar, which should be taken in into account in the minimization. As a consequence, their results on the mass of the scalar field differ significantly from ours., i.e

$$V(\varphi _1)=De^{C_2\varphi _1}+Ae^{3C_2\varphi _1}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_4e^{2C_2\varphi _1},$$
(16)
with

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{k^2\pi ^2M_{}^2}{2g^2𝒱}},D=𝒱\mathrm{\Lambda }_B.`$

Notice that $`A>0`$, which ensures that the potential is bounded from below. Requiring that the contribution of the potential to the cosmological constant vanishes in the minimum, we get the fine tuning condition

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^2=4AD,`$

which forces $`D>0`$, and then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B>0`$. The potential has a minimum only if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4<0`$, that is, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=2\sqrt{AD}`$, in

$`\varphi _1^{\mathrm{min}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_2}}\mathrm{log}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{A}{D}}}.`$

On this minimum, the scalar field $`\varphi _1`$ has a mass

$`m_{\varphi _1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi _1^{\mathrm{min}})/M_p^2`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{3/2}C_2^2}{k\pi }}(r_s^0M_{})^2(r_l^0M_{})^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B}{M_{}^6}}\right)^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}^4}{M_p^2}}.`$ (18)
The above mechanism can be generalized to compact spaces of higher dimensions. In order to stabilize the volume of a $`𝒩`$-dimensional manifold, one needs a $`𝒩1`$-form $`U(1)`$ gauge field, with $`𝒩`$-form field strength $`F^{(𝒩)}`$. Then, the flux (13) generalizes to the topological invariant

$`M_{}^{𝒩2}{\displaystyle __𝒩}F^{(𝒩)}=2\pi k,`$

and the kinetic energy is again inversely proportional to the compact volume . Considering again toroidal compactifications, the $`𝒩`$-dimensional case gives a scalar mass

$$m_{\varphi _1}^2=\frac{2^{3/2}C_𝒩^2}{k\pi }(r_s^0M_{})^{2n_s}(r_l^0M_{})^{2n_l}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_B}{M_{}^{4+𝒩}}\right)^{3/2}\frac{M_{}^4}{M_p^2}.$$
(19)
The bulk cosmological constant is bounded from above by the requirement that it does not induce a bulk curvature radius smaller than $`r_l^0`$ , which gives an upper bound on $`m_{\varphi _1}`$,

mϕ12

<

23/2C𝒩2π(rs0M)3ns/nl(MpM)46/nlM4Mp2,

<

subscriptsuperscript𝑚2subscriptitalic-ϕ1superscript232superscriptsubscript𝐶𝒩2𝜋superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑟𝑠0subscript𝑀3subscript𝑛𝑠subscript𝑛𝑙superscriptsubscript𝑀𝑝subscript𝑀46subscript𝑛𝑙superscriptsubscript𝑀4superscriptsubscript𝑀𝑝2m^{2}_{\phi_{1}}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}\frac{2^{3/2}C_{\cal{N}}^{2}}{\pi}(r_{s}^{0}M_{\star})^{3n_{s}/n_{l}}\left(\frac{M_{p}}{M_{\star}}\right)^{4-6/n_{l}}\frac{M_{\star}^{4}}{M_{p}^{2}}\;, (20)
where we have taken $`k=1`$. Assuming rsM

>

1

>

subscript𝑟𝑠subscript𝑀1r_{s}M_{\star}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}1 and M

>

10TeV

>

subscript𝑀10TeVM_{\star}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10{\rm TeV} we see that the requirement mϕ1

>

103eV

>

subscript𝑚subscriptitalic-ϕ1superscript103eVm_{\phi_{1}}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{-3}{\rm eV} is in no conflict with the bound above for any $`n_l2`$.

Since $`m_{\varphi _1}>H`$ ($`H`$ being the Hubble parameter) for temperatures T

<

M

<

𝑇subscript𝑀T\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}M_{\star}, in the following we will consider the field $`\varphi _1`$ fixed during the late time evolution of the Universe, and will study the dynamics of the light $`\varphi _2`$ field. When $`\varphi _1`$ is constant and massive, the two frames related by eq. (7) are equivalent.

## IV Vamps from extra-dimensions

Integrating the non-zero KK modes out leaves ‘Casimir’ contributions to the free energy proportional to $`1/r_{s,l}^4`$ . For instance, a scalar field compactified on a circle of radius $`r`$ with periodic (antiperiodic) boundary conditions gives a contibution $`5.0610^5/r^4`$ ($`4.7410^5/r^4`$) , whereas a fermion gives $`2.0210^4/r^4`$ ($`1.9010^4/r^4`$). For higher dimensional torii, the numerical coefficients change, but the order of magnitude is the same (on a two-torus with $`r_1=r_2=r`$, we find $`4.8710^5/r^4`$ ( $`1.9510^4/r^4`$) for a scalar (fermion) with periodic boundary conditions.

Consistently with our assumption 1) in the Introduction, we will neglect the $`O(r_s^4)`$ term, since it must be cancelled by the (unknown) mechanism solving the cosmological constant problem. A possible mechanism could be supersymmetry in the bulk or, even without supersymmetry, a particle content in the $`4+n_s`$ brane, cancelling exactly the $`1/r_s^4`$ contribution, in the same spirit of ref. .

Thus, we are left with the Casimir contribution from the ‘large’ dimensions, given by

$$V(\varphi _2)=\frac{B}{r_l^4}=\frac{B}{(r_l^0)^4}\mathrm{exp}\left(4\sqrt{\frac{n_s}{n_l𝒩}}\varphi _2\right),$$
(21)
where we have fixed $`\varphi _1=0`$ and $`B`$ is a $`O(10^410^5)`$ coefficient depending on the particle content and the dimensionality of the $`4+𝒩`$-dimensional bulk, which we require to be positive.

As we have anticipated, the other ingredient of our model is dark matter. We associate it to a stable KK state, whose mass scales as $`O(1/r_s)`$. It will be an example of varying mass dark matter particles, or Vamps, which were discussed in a different context in refs. .

The important point is that the cosmological abundance of this non-relativistic relic will scale in this case as

$$\rho _{DM}r_s^1a^3\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{n_l}{n_s𝒩}}\varphi _2\right)a^3.$$
(22)
Since the runaway potential, eq. (21), pushes the field $`\varphi _2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, the mass of the dark-matter particle increases during the cosmological expansion, and its energy density redshifts less than for common dark matter.

The fact that $`\varphi _2`$ is the canonically normalized version of a radion field is the reason for the exponential dependences in (21) and (22). This is of crucial importance for what follows, because exponentials, once inserted in the cosmological equations, allow scaling solutions, in which $`\rho _{DE}`$ and $`\rho _{DM}`$ redshift at the same rate.

Defining

$$\beta =4\sqrt{\frac{n_s}{n_l𝒩}},\lambda =\sqrt{\frac{n_l}{n_s𝒩}},$$
(23)
the cosmological equations are,

$`\ddot{\varphi _2}+3H\dot{\varphi _2}=\beta V+\lambda \rho _{DM}`$ (24)
$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3M_p^2}}\left(\rho _{DM}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_p^2}{2}}\dot{\varphi _2}^2+V\right)`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6M_p^2}}\left(\rho _{DM}+2M_p^2\dot{\varphi _2}^22V\right).`$ (26)
They admit a solution of the form

$`\varphi _2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\lambda +\beta }}\mathrm{log}a,`$

($`a_0=1`$) which is such that $`\rho _{\varphi _2}\rho _{DM}a^{3(W+1)}`$, with the equation of state

$$W=\frac{\lambda }{\lambda +\beta }=\left(1+4\frac{n_s}{n_l}\right)^1,$$
(27)
and fixed ratio,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\varphi _2}}{\rho _{DM}+\rho _{\varphi _2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{3+\lambda (\beta +\lambda )}{(\beta +\lambda )^2}},`$ (29)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n_l(3n_s𝒩+4n_s+n_l)}{(4n_s+n_l)^2}},`$
independent on the scale factor $`a`$. The solution above is an attractor over solution space if

$$n_s>\frac{n_l(3n_l4)}{163n_l}.$$
(30)
Differently from the case of a cosmological constant, or even from quintessence models with inverse power law potentials, once the attractor is reached $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}`$ become independent on the cosmological era, thus solving the cosmic coincidence problem. Moreover, the equation of state (27) is negative, as required by observations.

The values of $`W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ on the attractor are functions of $`n_s`$ and $`n_l`$ only. In Tab. 1 we list the possible values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$, $`W`$ and of $`H_0t_0`$, $`t_0`$ being the present age of the Universe. We limited the dimensionality of the compact space according to the theoretical prejudice coming from string theory, i.e. $`𝒩6`$.

> | $`n_s`$ | $`n_l`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ | $`W`$ | $`H_0t_0`$ |
> | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
> | 1 - 5 | 1 | $`0.44`$ |  |  |
> | 1 | 2 | 0.83 | $`1/3`$ | 1 |
> | 2 | 2 | 0.68 | -0.20 | 0.83 |
> | 3 | 2 | 0.60 | -0.14 | 0.78 |
> | 4 | 2 | 0.56 | -0.11 | 0.75 |
> | 1-3 | 3 | $`0.92`$ |  |  |
> | 1-2 | 4 | no attractor |  |  |
> | 1 | 5 | no attractor |  |  |

* The values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$, $`W`$, and $`H_0t_0`$ for different values of $`n_s`$ and $`n_l`$ such that $`𝒩=n_s+n_l6`$.

## V discussion

The first noticeable fact about Tab. 1 is that the observed range for the dark energy density, 0.6

<

ΩDE

<

0.8

<

0.6subscriptΩ𝐷𝐸

<

0.80.6\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}\Omega_{DE}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}0.8 uniquely selects the number of ‘large’ extra dimensions to be $`n_l=2`$, the same value that is required by the totally unrelated issue of solving the hierarchy problem with ‘millimeter’ size extra dimensions .

Indeed, at the level of Tab. 1, we have not yet inserted any information about absolute scales, such as $`100\mu \mathrm{m}`$, TeV, $`H_0`$ and so on. We find it a remarkable and inspiring ‘coincidence’ that the observed balance between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}`$ points to the same value, $`n_l=2`$, obtained from scale dependent considerations, such as reproducing $`H_0`$ or solving the hierarchy problem. For $`n_l2`$ we either find that the attractor corresponds to energy densities outside the observed range or that the couplings $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$ lie outside the limit of eq. (30) and correspond to a different –unphysical – attractor.

The values for $`H_0t_0`$ listed in the table are obtained from

$`H_0(t_0t_{\mathrm{att}})={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3(W+1)}}\left(1a_{\mathrm{att}}^{\frac{3}{2}(W+1)}\right),`$

where $`t_{\mathrm{att}}`$ and $`a_{\mathrm{att}}`$ are the time and scale factor when the attractor is reached, assuming $`a_{\mathrm{att}}<10^2`$. Taking the $`95\%`$ confidence level lower limit on $`t_0`$ from globular cluster age estimates, $`t_0>11\mathrm{G}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{r}`$  we obtain the lower bound

$`H_0t_0>(0.710.79)`$

where we have varied $`H_0`$ in the range $`(6370)\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The above bound is inconsistent with a flat, matter-dominated universe (for which $`W=0`$ and $`H_0t_0=2/3`$) while it is satisfied by all the $`n_l=2`$ models in Tab. 1.

Supernovae Ia data, taken at face value, point towards a more negative equation of state than those listed in Tab. 1, typically in the W

<

0.6

<

𝑊0.6W\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}-0.6 range . However, the analyses have been done assuming two fluids with different equations of state, i.e. matter ($`W=0`$) and ‘quintessence’ ($`W=W_x`$), whereas in the present case the two fluids scale with the same, negative, equation of state. Since quintessence begins to dominate the energy density quite recently, the negative equation of state takes over later than in our model, where it has been negative since much previous epochs. As a consequence, the supernovae bounds on the equation of state of the universe should be somehow relaxed in our model compared to quintessence.

Structure formation in a generic model of the type of eq. (26) was studied in  (where also the baryonic component was considered). There, it was shown that the non-zero – and constant– $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}`$ allows the growth of perturbations even if the expansion is accelerated. This behavior is to be contrasted with the usual quintessence or cosmological constant case, where the perturbations freeze out soon after the takeover because in that case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}`$ drops quickly to zero.

The model we have presented in this paper is just the simplest version of a large family. In order to discuss its phenomenological implications thoroughly, one should specify it in detail. Different dependences of the dark matter mass on the small radius could also be envisaged, possibly leading to different predictions for the equation of state. Also, the couplings of the KK sector to the SM are crucial. If the dark matter candidate is not a SM singlet, then its mass variation would induce variations in the gauge coupling constants. Imposing the existing strong constraints on the latter would imply that the $`\varphi _2`$ field was frozen up to a not too distant past and that the attractor became effective quite recently.

It is, anyway, not trivial at all that the simplest choices, that is, tree-level dimensional reduction and the assumption of a $`O(10^4/r_l^4)`$ Casimir energy, lead to a model which solves the cosmic coincidence problem and is –if not fully compatible with– at least very close to the observations. A non-trivial point to consider is the persistence of the behavior of the tree-level solution once radiative corrections are included. The issue can be treated consistently only once a detailed model is given, however we refer the reader to the discussion in ref. , where supersymmetry in the bulk is argued to cancel all dangerous corrections larger than $`O(1/(r_l^0)^2M_p)`$ to the radion mass.

A model-independent prediction of the framework outlined in this paper is the presence of extra dimensions in the $`10100\mu \mathrm{m}`$ range. Whereas for the solution of the hierarchy problem discussed in  this value was allowed, the link with the cosmological expansion discussed in this paper makes it a true prediction. The expected value for $`r_l`$ may be quite close to the present bound of $`200\mu \mathrm{m}`$, obtained from measurements of the Newton’s law at small distances . However, one cautionary remark is due on this point. The predicted value is determined by global observables, i.e. $`H_0`$ and $`\ddot{a_0}/a_0`$. Since the radius and DM are strongly coupled in this model, it is plausible that the local value of $`r_l`$, inside the galactic halo, would be somehow different. It is difficult to estimate the size of this effects, which would require a dedicated numerical study of the halo formation in this model. However, the sign would plausibly go in the direction of shrinking $`r_l`$ inside the halo. This is because the system would use the additional degree of freedom represented by the varying mass, to decrease the gravitational potential in overdense regions, thus expanding $`r_s`$ –and then shrinking $`r_l`$ – with respect to the average universe.

The effect of varying mass dark particles on cosmic perturbations and on the structure of halos will be the subject of a forthcoming publication .

It is a pleasure to thank Tony Riotto for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by European Contracts HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and HPRN-CT-2000-00149.


text:
# 𝐻₃⁺⁺ molecular ion in a strong magnetic field: triangular configuration Physical Review A (accepted)

## I Introduction

Recently, it was announced that the molecular ion $`H_3^{++}`$ in a linear configuration can exist in a strong magnetic field $`B10^{10}G`$ and become even the most stable one-electron system at $`B10^{13}G`$ Turbiner:1999 ; Lopez-Tur:2000 . The goal of this article is to study whether the $`H_3^{++}`$ molecular ion can exist in a certain spatial configuration – the protons form an equilateral triangle while a magnetic field is directed perpendicular to it. This configuration was already studied in Lopez:2000  with an affirmative answer. In the present work we will show that an improper gauge dependence of the trial functions in Lopez:2000  caused a significant loss of accuracy and led to qualitatively incorrect results.

The Hamiltonian which describes three infinitely heavy protons and one electron placed in a uniform constant magnetic field directed along the $`z`$axis, $`𝐁=(0,0,B)`$ is given by

$$=\widehat{p}^2+\frac{2}{R_{ab}}+\frac{2}{R_{ac}}+\frac{2}{R_{bc}}\frac{2}{r_1}\frac{2}{r_2}\frac{2}{r_3}+2(\widehat{p}𝒜)+𝒜^2,$$
(1)
(see Fig.1 for notations), where $`\widehat{p}=i`$ is the momentum, $`𝒜`$ is a vector potential, which corresponds to the magnetic field $`𝐁`$. We assume that the protons $`a,b,c`$ form an equilateral triangle, $`R_{ab}=R_{bc}=R_{ac}=R`$, and the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ is directed perpendicular to it. This configuration of the protons is stable from classical-mechanical point of view, since electrostatic repulsion of the protons is compensated by the Lorentz force. It justifies more the use of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and also adds extra stability to the whole system $`(pppe)`$. A small perturbation of a proton position directed outside the plane perpendicular to the magnetic line can distort the above triangular configuration. However, our calculations show that the presence of the electron can stabilize the configuration, at least, for small perturbations. Thus, the stability of this configuration is of a different nature than the linear one. There it appears to be a consequence of the quasi-one-dimensionality of the problem and the compensation of the proton repulsion by the interaction with one-dimensional electronic cloud Turbiner:1999 ; Lopez-Tur:2000 .

Atomic units are used throughout ($`\mathrm{}`$=$`m_e`$=$`e`$=1) albeit energies are expressed in Rydbergs (Ry). Sometimes, the magnetic field $`B`$ is given in a.u. with $`B_0=2.3505\times 10^9G`$.

## II Optimization of vector potential

It is well known that the vector potential for a given magnetic field, even taken in the Coulomb gauge $`(𝒜)=0`$, is defined ambiguously, up to a gradient of an arbitrary function. This gives rise a feature of gauge invariance: the Hermitian Hamiltonian is gauge-independent as well as the eigenvalues and other observables. However, since we are going to use an approximate method for solving the Schroedinger equation with the Hamiltonian (1), our energies can be gauge-dependent (only the exact ones should be gauge-independent). Hence one can choose the form of the vector potential in a certain optimal way, looking for a gauge which leads to minimal energy for given class of trial functions. In particular, if the variational method is used an optimal gauge can be considered as a variational function and then is chosen by a procedure of minimization.

Let us consider a certain one-parameter family of vector potentials corresponding to a constant magnetic field $`B`$ (see, for example, Larsen )

$$𝒜=B(\xi (yy_0),(1\xi )(xx_0),0),$$
(2)
where $`\xi ,x_0,y_0`$ are parameters. The position of the gauge center, where $`𝒜(x,y)=0`$, is defined by $`x=x_0,y=y_0`$. If the gauge center is at the origin, $`x_0=y_0=0`$, and $`\xi =1/2`$ we get the well-known and widely used gauge which is called symmetric or circular. If $`\xi =1`$, it corresponds to the asymmetric or Landau gauge (see LL ). By substituting (2) into (1) we arrive at the Hamiltonian in the form

$``$ $`=`$ $`^2+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r_3}}+2iB[\xi (yy_0)_x+(1\xi )(xx_0)_y]`$ (3)
$`+B^2[(1\xi )^2(xx_0)^2+\xi ^2(yy_0)^2],`$
where $`R`$ is the size of the triangle side.

The idea of choosing an optimal (convenient) gauge has widely been exploited in quantum field theory calculations. It has also been discussed in quantum mechanics, in particular, in connection with the present problem (see, for instance, Schmelcher  and references therein). Perhaps, the first constructive (and remarkable) attempt to apply this idea was made by Larsen Larsen . In his variational study of the ground state of the $`H_2^+`$ molecular ion it was explicitly shown that gauge dependence on energy can be quite significant. Furthermore even an oversimplified optimization procedure improves the numerical results.

Our present aim is to study the ground state of (1), (3). It can be easily demonstrated that for a one-electron problem there always exists a certain gauge for which the ground state eigenfunction is a real function. Let us fix a vector potential in (1). Assume that we have solved the spectral problem exactly and have found the exact ground state eigenfunction. In general, it is a certain complex function with a non-trivial, coordinate-dependent phase. Considering their phase as gauge phase and then gauging it away, finally, it will result in a new vector potential. This vector potential has the property we want – the ground state eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian (1) is real. It is obvious that similar considerations can be performed for any excited state. In general, for a given eigenstate there exists a certain gauge in which the eigenfunction is real. These gauges can be different for different eigenstates. A similar situation takes place for any one-electron problem.

Dealing with real trial functions has an obvious advantage: the expectation value of the term $`𝒜`$ in (1) or $`B`$ in (3) vanishes when is taken over any real, normalizable function. Thus, without loss of generality, the term $`B`$ in (3) can be omitted. Furthermore, it can be easily shown that, if the original problem possesses axial symmetry with axis coinciding with the direction of the magnetic field, the real ground state eigenfunction always corresponds to the symmetric gauge.

## III Choosing trial functions

The choice of trial functions contains two important ingredients: (i) a search for the gauge leading to the real ground state eigenfunction and (ii) performance of a variational calculation based on real trial functions. The main assumption is that a gauge corresponding to a real ground state eigenfunction is of the type (2) (or somehow is close to it)111It can be formulated as a problem – for a fixed value of $`B`$ and a fixed size of triangle, to find a gauge for which the ground state eigenfunction is real.. In other words, one can say that we look for a gauge of the type (2) which admits the best possible approximation of the ground state eigenfunction by real functions. Finally, in regard to our problem the following recipe of variational study is used: *First of all, we construct an adequate variational real trial function Tur , which reproduces the original potential near Coulomb singularities and at large distances, where $`\xi ,x_0,y_0`$ would appear as parameters. Then we perform a minimization of the energy functional by treating the trial function’s free parameters and $`\xi ,x_0,y_0`$ on the same footing.* In particular, such an approach enables us to find eventually the *optimal* form of the Hamiltonian as a function of $`\xi ,x_0,y_0`$. It is evident that for small interproton distances $`R`$ the electron prefers to be near the center of the triangle (coherent interaction with all three protons), hence $`x_0,y_0`$ should correspond to the center of the triangle. In the opposite limit of large $`R`$ the electron is situated near one of the protons ( a situation of incoherence - the electron selects and then interacts essentially with one proton), therefore $`x_0,y_0`$ should correspond to the position of a proton. We make a natural assumption that the gauge center is situated on a line connecting the center of the triangle and one of the protons, hence

$$x_0=0,y_0=\frac{R}{\sqrt{3}}d,$$

(see Fig.1). Thus, the position of the gauge center is measured by the parameter $`d`$ – the relative distance between the center of triangle and the gauge center. If the gauge center coincides with the center of the triangle, then $`d=0`$. On the other hand, if the gauge center coincides with the position of proton, $`d=1`$.

The above recipe was successfully applied in a study of the $`H_2^+`$-ion in a magnetic field Lopez:1997  and led to prediction of the existence of the exotic ion $`H_3^{++}`$ at $`B10^{10}G`$ in a linear configuration Turbiner:1999 ; Lopez-Tur:2000 .

One of the simplest trial functions satisfying the above-mentioned criterion is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1=e^{\alpha _1(r_1+r_2+r_3)B[\beta _{1x}(1\xi )(xx_0)^2+\beta _{1y}\xi (yy_0)^2]},$$
(4)
(cf. Lopez:1997 ), where $`\alpha _1,\beta _{1x,1y},\xi ,x_0,y_0`$ are variational parameters. The requirement of normalizability of (4) implies that $`\alpha _1,\beta _{1x,1y}`$ are non-negative numbers and $`\xi [0,1]`$. Actually, this is a Heitler-London type function multiplied by the lowest (shifted) Landau orbital associated with the gauge (2). It is natural to assume that the function (4) describes the domain of coherence - small interproton distances and probably distances near the equilibrium. Another trial function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\left(e^{\alpha _2r_1}+e^{\alpha _2r_2}+e^{\alpha _2r_3}\right)e^{B[\beta _{2x}(1\xi )(xx_0)^2+\beta _{2y}\xi (yy_0)^2]},$$
(5)
(cf. Lopez:1997 ), is of the Hund-Mulliken type multiplied by the lowest (shifted) Landau orbital. Here $`\alpha _2,\beta _{2x,2y}`$, $`\xi ,x_0,y_0`$ are variational parameters. Presumably this function dominates for sufficiently large interproton distances $`R`$ giving an essential contribution there. Hence, it models an interaction of a hydrogen atom and protons (charged centers) and can also describe a possible decay mode into them, $`H_3^{++}H+p+p`$. In a similar way one can construct a trial function which would model the interaction $`H_2^++p`$,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\left(e^{\alpha _3(r_1+r_2)}+e^{\alpha _3(r_1+r_3)}+e^{\alpha _3(r_2+r_3)}\right)e^{B[\beta _{3x}(1\xi )(xx_0)^2+\beta _{3y}\xi (yy_0)^2]}.$$
(6)
One can say that this is a mixed Hund-Mulliken and Heitler-London type trial function multiplied by the lowest (shifted) Landau orbital. Here $`\alpha _3,\beta _{3x,3y}`$, $`\xi ,x_0,y_0`$ are variational parameters. It is clear that this function gives a subdominant contribution at large $`R`$ and a certain, sizable contribution to a domain of intermediate distances.

There are two natural ways - linear and non-linear - to incorporate the behavior of the system both near equilibrium and at large distances in a single trial function. A general non-linear interpolation involving the above trial functions is of the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{41}`$ $`=`$ $`(e^{\alpha _4r_1\alpha _5r_2\alpha _6r_3}+e^{\alpha _4r_1\alpha _5r_3\alpha _6r_2}+e^{\alpha _4r_2\alpha _5r_1\alpha _6r_3}+e^{\alpha _4r_2\alpha _5r_3\alpha _6r_1}+`$ (7)
$`e^{\alpha _4r_3\alpha _5r_1\alpha _6r_2}+e^{\alpha _4r_3\alpha _5r_2\alpha _6r_1})e^{B[\beta _{4x}(1\xi )(xx_0)^2+\beta _{4y}\xi (yy_0)^2]}`$
(cf. Lopez:1997 ), where $`\alpha _{4,5,6},\beta _{4x,4y},\xi ,x_0,y_0`$ are variational parameters. In fact, this is a Guillemin-Zener type function multiplied by the lowest (shifted) Landau orbital. If $`\alpha _4=\alpha _5=\alpha _6`$, the function (7) reproduces (4). While if $`\alpha _5=\alpha _6=0`$, it reproduces (5). If $`\alpha _4=\alpha _5`$ and $`\alpha _6=0`$, it reproduces (6). The linear superposition of (4), (5), (6) leads to

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{42}=A_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1+A_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2+A_3\mathrm{\Psi }_3,$$
(8)
where one of the parameters $`A_{1,2,3}`$ is kept fixed, being related to the normalization factor. The final form of the trial function is a linear superposition of functions (7) and (8)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{trial}=A_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1+A_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2+A_3\mathrm{\Psi }_3+A_{41}\mathrm{\Psi }_{41},$$
(9)
where three out of four parameters $`A`$’s are defined variationally. For a given magnetic field the total number of variational parameters in (9) is 20, when $`\xi `$ and $`d`$ are included. Calculations were performed using the minimization package MINUIT of CERN-LIB. Numerical integrations were carried out with relative accuracy $`10^7`$ by use of the adaptive NAG-LIB (D01FCF) routine. All calculations were performed on a PC Pentium-II $`450MHz`$.

## IV Results

Our variational study shows that in the range of magnetic fields $`10^8<B<10^{11}G`$ the system $`(pppe)`$, with the protons forming an equilateral triangle perpendicular to the magnetic line, has a well-pronounced minimum in the total energy (see Table 1 and Fig. 2-5). With a magnetic field increase the total energy gets larger and the size of triangle shrinks but the height of the barrier increases (for example, it grows from $`0.028`$ Ry at $`10^9`$ G to $`0.037`$ Ry at $`10^{10}`$ G). It was checked that the equilibrium configuration remains stable under small deviations of the proton positions but is unstable globally, decaying to $`H+p+p`$ and $`H_2^++p`$. This implies the existence of the molecular ion $`H_3^{++}`$ in a triangular configuration for the range of magnetic fields $`10^8<B<10^{11}G`$.

Our calculations show that the equilibrium position always corresponds to the situation when the gauge center coincides with the center of the triangle, $`d=0`$. Therefore, the optimal vector potential appears in the symmetric gauge, $`\xi =0.5`$ (see Table 1 and discussion above). In Figures 2 and 5 two typical situations of absence of a bound state are presented. At $`B=10^8`$ G a certain irregularity appears on the potential curve but neither $`d=1`$ and $`d=0`$, nor $`d_{min}`$ curves develop a minimum. A similar situation holds for smaller magnetic fields $`B<10^8`$. At $`B=10^{11}`$ G the situation is more complicated. If the gauge center is kept fixed and coincides with the center of the triangle, the potential curve displays a very explicit minimum, which disappear after varying the gauge center position (!). Something analogous to what is displayed in Fig. 5 appears for larger magnetic fields, $`B>10^{11}`$ G. This artifact of the gauge center fixing at $`d=0`$ had led to an erroneous statement in Lopez:2000  about the existence of $`H_3^{++}`$ in a triangular configuration at $`B10^{11}`$ G.

Fig. 3 displays the plots of different potential curves corresponding to the gauge center fixed at the position of one proton, at the center of the triangle and also varying the gauge center at $`B=10^9`$ G. A curve describing the total energy demonstrates a clear, sufficiently deep minimum. As was expected small distances correspond to a gauge center coinciding with the center of the triangle, while large distances are described by a gauge center situated on a proton. It is important to emphasize that the domain of near-equilibrium distances (and approximately up to the position of the maximum) is described by the gauge-center-on-center-of-triangle curve. The well keeps a vibrational state with energy $`E_{vib}=0.0112654`$ Ry. In Fig.4 there are plots of different potential curves corresponding to the gauge center fixed at the position of one proton, at the center of the triangle and also varying the gauge center at $`B=10^{10}`$ G. A curve describing the total energy demonstrates a clear, sufficiently deep minimum. Unlike the situation for $`B=10^9`$ G, this well is unable to keep a vibrational state. Similar to what happens for $`B=10^9`$ G, small distances correspond to a gauge center coinciding with the center of the triangle, large distances are described by a gauge center situated on a proton, the domain of near-equilibrium distances and up to the position of the maximum is described by the gauge-center-on-center-of-triangle curve. It is quite interesting to investigate the behaviour of the gauge center position $`d`$ as well as a gauge ”asymmetry”, $`\xi `$ versus $`R`$. Both plots are of a phase transition-type, with change of behavior near the maximum of the barrier (see Figs. 6-7). The width of the transition domain is $`0.02a.u.`$ (and $`0.1a.u.`$ for $`B=10^{10}`$ G). The evolution of the electronic distributions with respect to the size of the triangle is shown on Figs.8-9 for $`10^9`$ G and $`10^{10}`$ G, respectively. For small and intermediate $`R`$ at $`B=10^9`$ G the distribution is characterized by three more or less equal peaks corresponding to the proton positions. However, it changes drastically after crossing the point of phase transition at $`R3.93`$ a.u. One peak disappears almost completely, while another one reduces its height. At large distances two peaks disappear completely, the distribution is characterized by one single peak, centered approximately at the position of one of the protons. For the case of $`B=10^{10}`$ G the electronic distribution is always characterized by a single peak, which is situated at the center of the triangle at small and intermediate distances. Then at $`R>1.7`$ a.u. the position of the peak shifts to a position of the proton. For both values of the magnetic field at asymptotically large distances the center of the peak coincides exactly with the position of the proton.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank B.I. Ivlev (IF-UASLP, Mexico) for useful conversations. This work was supported in part by DGAPA Grant # IN120199 (México).


text:
# Constraints of mixing matrix elements in the sequential fourth generation model

## 1 Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) is a very successful theory of the elementary particles known today. But it must be incomplete because it has too many unpredicted parameters ($`ninteen!`$) to be put by hand. Most of these parameters are in the fermion part of the theory. We don’t know the source of the quarks and leptons, as well as how to determinate their mass and number theoretically. We have to get their information all from experiment. There is still no successful theory which can be descripted them with a unified point, even if the Grand Unified Theory and Supersymmetry. Perhaps elementary particles have substructure and we need to progress more elementary theories. But this is beyond our current experimental level. On the other hand, the recent measurment of the muon anomalous magnetic moment by the experiment E821  disagrees with the SM expectations at more than 2.6$`\sigma `$ level. There are convincing evdences that neutrinos are massive and oscillate in flavor . It seems to indicate the presence of new physics.

From the point of phenomenology, for fermions, there is a realistic question is number of the fermions generation or weather there are other additional quarks or leptons. The present experiments can tell us there are only three generation fermions with $`light`$ neutrinos which mass are less smaller than $`M_Z/2`$ but the experiments don’t exclude the existence of other additional generation, such as the fourth generation, with a $`heavy`$ neutrino, i.e. $`m_{\nu _4}M_Z/2`$. Many refs. have studied models which extend the fermions part, such as vector-like quark models, sterile neutrino models and the sequential four generation standard model (SM4) which we talk in this note. We consider a sequential fourth generation non -SUSY model, which is added an up-like quark $`t^{^{}}`$, a down-like quark $`b^{^{}}`$, a lepton $`\tau ^{^{}}`$, and a heavy neutrino $`\nu ^{^{}}`$ in the SM. The properties of these new fermions are all the same as their corresponding counterparts of other three generations except their masses and CKM mixing, see tab.1,

In SM4, the qurak mixing matrix can be wretten as,

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}V_{ud}\hfill & V_{us}& \hfill V_{ub}& \hfill V_{ub^{}}\\ V_{cd}\hfill & V_{cs}& \hfill V_{cb}& \hfill V_{cb^{}}\\ V_{td}\hfill & V_{ts}& \hfill V_{tb}& \hfill V_{tb^{}}\\ V_{t^{}d}\hfill & V_{t^{}s}& \hfill V_{t^{}b}& \hfill V_{t^{}b^{}}\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
where $`V_{qb^{}}`$ and $`V_{t^{}q}`$ are the $`4\times 4`$ mixing matrix elements of the fourth generation SM and rest elements are the usual CKM matrix. In this mote, we reviwe our works on the SM4 and put the constraints of the fourth generation mixing matrix elements from rare meson and lepton decays.

## 2 Constriants of some 4th generation quark CKM elements

### 2.1 Constriants of $`V_{t^{}s}^{}V_{t^{}b}`$ from $`BX_s\gamma `$

The rare decay $`BX_s\gamma `$ plays an important role in present day phenomenology. The effective Hamiltonian for $`BX_s\gamma `$ at scales $`\mu _b=𝒪(m_b)`$ is

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}(bs\gamma )=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}C_i(\mu _b)Q_i+C_{7\gamma }(\mu _b)Q_{7\gamma }+C_{8G}(\mu _b)Q_{8G}\right],$$
(2)
where the magnetic–penguin operators

$$Q_{7\gamma }=\frac{e}{8\pi ^2}m_b\overline{s}_\alpha \sigma ^{\mu \nu }(1+\gamma _5)b_\alpha F_{\mu \nu },Q_{8G}=\frac{g}{8\pi ^2}m_b\overline{s}_\alpha \sigma ^{\mu \nu }(1+\gamma _5)T_{\alpha \beta }^ab_\beta G_{\mu \nu }^a$$
(3)
The leading logarithmic calculations can be summarized in a compact form as follows :

$$R_{\mathrm{quark}}=\frac{Br(BX_s\gamma )}{Br(BX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)}=\frac{|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^2}{|V_{cb}|^2}\frac{6\alpha }{\pi f(z)}|C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)|^2,$$
(4)
where

$$f(z)=18z+8z^3z^412z^2\mathrm{ln}z\text{with}z=\frac{m_{c,pole}^2}{m_{b,pole}^2}$$
(5)
is the phase space factor in $`Br(BX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)`$ and $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi `$. In the case of four generation there is an additional contribution to $`BX_s\gamma `$ from the virtual exchange of the fourth generation up quark $`t^{^{}}`$. The Wilson coefficients of the dipole operators are given by

$$C_{7,8}^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)=C_{7,8}^{(\mathrm{SM})\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)+\frac{V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}}{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}C_{7,8}^{(4)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b),$$
(6)
where $`C_{7,8}^{(4)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)`$ present the contributions of $`t^{^{}}`$ to the Wilson coefficients, and $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}`$ and $`V_{t^{^{}}b}`$ are two elements of the $`4\times 4`$ CKM matrix which now contains nine paremeters, i.e., six angles and three phases. We recall here that the CKM coefficient corresponding to the $`t`$ quark contribution, i.e., $`V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}`$, is factorized in the effective Hamiltonian. The formulas for calculating the Wilson coefficients $`C_{7,8}^{(4)}(m_W)`$ are same as their counterpaters in the SM except exchanging $`t^{^{}}`$ quark not $`t`$ quark and the corresponding Fenymann figuers are shown in fig. 1.

With these Wilson coefficients and the experiment results of the decays of $`BX_s\gamma `$ and $`Br(BX_ce\overline{\nu }_e)`$ , we obtain the results of the fourth generation CKM factor $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}`$. There exist two cases, a positive factor and a negative one:

$`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`[C_7^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)C_7^{(\mathrm{SM})\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)]{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}{C_7^{(4)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mathrm{quark}}|V_{cb}|^2\pi f(z)}{|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^26\alpha }}}C_7^{(\mathrm{SM})\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)]{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}{C_7^{(4)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)}}`$
$$V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{()}=[\sqrt{\frac{R_{\mathrm{quark}}|V_{cb}|^2\pi f(z)}{|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^26\alpha }}C_7^{(\mathrm{SM})\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)]\frac{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}{C_7^{(4)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu _b)}$$
(8)
as in tab. 2,

In the numerical calculations we set $`\mu _b=m_b=5.0GeV`$ and take the $`t^{^{}}`$ mass value of 50GeV, 100GeV, 150GeV, 200GeV, 250GeV, 300GeV, 400 Gev.

The CKM matrix elements obey unitarity constraints, which states that any pair of rows, or any pair of columns, of the CKM matrix are orthogonal. This leads to six orthogonality conditions . The one relevant to $`bs\gamma `$ is

$$\underset{i}{}V_{is}^{}V_{ib}=0,$$
(9)
i.e.,

$$V_{us}^{}V_{ub}+V_{cs}^{}V_{cb}+V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}+V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}=0.$$
(10)
We take the average values of the SM CKM matrix elements from Ref. . The sum of the first three terms in eq. (10) is about $`7.6\times 10^2`$. If we take the value of $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(+)}`$ given in Table 2, the result of the left of (10) is much better and much more close to $`0`$ than that in SM, because the value of $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(+)}`$ is very close to the sum but has the opposite sign. If we take $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{()}`$, the result would change little because the values of $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{()}`$ are about $`10^3`$ order, ten times smaller than the sum of the first three ones in the left of (10). Considering that the data of CKM matrix is not very accurate, we can get the error range of the sum of these first three terms. It is about $`\pm 0.6\times 10^2`$, much larger than $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{()}`$. Thus, the values of $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}`$ in the both cases satisfy the CKM matrix unitarity constraints.

### 2.2 Constraints on CKM Factor $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ in SM4

The following three rare $`K`$ meson decays: two semi-leptonic decays $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$, and one leptonic decay $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ can provide certain constraints on the fourth generation CKM factors, $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ , $`\text{Im}V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ and $`\text{Re}V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ respectively.

In the SM4, the branching ratios of the three decay modes mentioned above receive additional contributions from the up-type quark $`t^{}`$

$$Br(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })=\kappa _+\left|\frac{V_{cd}V_{cs}^{}}{\lambda }P_0+\frac{V_{td}V_{ts}^{}}{\lambda ^5}\eta _tX_0(x_t)+\frac{V_{t^{}d}V_{t^{}s}^{}}{\lambda ^5}\eta _t^{}X_0(x_t^{})\right|^2,$$
(11)
$$Br(K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })=\kappa _L\left|\frac{\mathrm{Im}V_{td}V_{ts}^{}}{\lambda ^5}\eta _tX_0(x_t)+\frac{\mathrm{Im}V_{t^{}d}V_{t^{}s}^{}}{\lambda ^5}\eta _t^{}X_0(x_t^{})\right|^2,$$
(12)
$$Br(K_L\mu \overline{\mu })_{\mathrm{SD}}=\kappa _\mu \left[\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(V_{cd}V_{cs}^{}\right)}{\lambda }P_0^{}+\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(V_{td}V_{ts}^{}\right)}{\lambda ^5}Y_0(x_t)+\frac{\mathrm{Re}\left(V_{t^{}d}V_{t^{}s}^{}\right)}{\lambda ^5}Y_0(x_t^{})\right]^2.$$
(13)
where $`\kappa _+,\kappa _L,\kappa _\mu `$,$`X_0(x_t)`$ , $`X_0(x_t^{})`$, $`Y_0(x_t)`$ ,$`Y_0(x_t^{})`$,$`P_0,P_0^{}`$ may be found in Refs. The QCD correction factors are taken to be $`\eta _t=`$ 0.985 and $`\eta _t^{}=`$ 1.0 .

To solve the constrains of the 4th generation CKM matrix factors $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$, $`\mathrm{Im}V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$, we must conculate the Wilson coefficients $`X_0(x_t^{})`$ and $`Y_0(x_t^{})`$. They are the founctions of the mass of the 4th generation top quark, $`m_t^{}`$. Here we give their numerical results according to several values of $`m_t^{}`$, (see table 4)

We found that the Wilson coefficients $`X_0(x_t^{})`$ and $`Y_0(x_t^{})`$ increase with the $`m_t^{}`$. To get the largest constrain of the factors in eq. (11), (12) and (13), we must use the little value of $`m_t^{}`$. Considering that the 4th generation particles must have the mass larger than $`M_Z/2`$ , we take $`m_t^{}`$ with 50 GeV to get our constrains of those three factors.

Then, from (11), (12) and (13), we arrive at the following constraints

$$|V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}|2\times 10^4,$$
(14)
$$|\text{Im}V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}|1.2\times 10^4,$$
(15)
$$|\text{Re}V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}|1.0\times 10^4.$$
(16)
For the numerical calculations, we will take $`|\text{Im}V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}|1.2\times 10^4`$.

It is easy to check that the equation (14) obeys the CKM matrix unitarity constraint, which states that any pair of rows, or any pair of columns, of the CKM matrix are orthogonal.. The relevant one to those decay channels is

$$V_{us}^{}V_{ud}+V_{cs}^{}V_{cd}+V_{ts}^{}V_{td}+V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}=0.$$
(17)
Here we have taken the average values of the SM CKM matrix elements from Ref. . Considering the fact that the data of CKM matrix is not yet very accurate, there still exists a sizable error for the sum of the first three terms. Using the value of $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ obtained from eq. (14), the sum of the four terms in the left hand of (17) can still be close to $`0`$, because the values of $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ are about $`10^4`$ order, ten times smaller than the sum of the first three ones in the left of (17). Thus, the values of $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ remain satisfying the CKM matrix unitarity constraints in SM4 within the present uncertainties.

### 2.3 $`V_{t^{^{}}b}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ from experimental measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}`$

$`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixing proceeds to an excellent approximation only through box diagrams with internal top quark exchanges in SM. In SM, the effective Hamiltonian $`_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Delta }B=2)`$ for $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixing, relevant for scales $`\mu _b=𝒪(m_b)`$ is given by

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}={\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}^2}{16\pi ^2}}M_W^2(V_{tb}^{}V_{tq})^2S_0(x_t)Q(\mathrm{\Delta }B=2)+h.c.`$ (18)
where $`Q(\mathrm{\Delta }B=2)=(\overline{b}_\alpha q_\alpha )_{VA}(\overline{b}_\beta q_\beta )_{VA}`$, with $`q=d,s`$ for $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ respectively and $`S_0(x_t)`$ is the Wilson coefficient which is taken the form

$`S_0(x_t)={\displaystyle \frac{4x_t11x_t^2+x_t^3}{4(1x_t)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_t^3}{(1x_t)^3}}\mathrm{ln}x,`$ (19)
where $`x_t=m_t^2/M_W^2`$. The mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{d,s}`$ can be expressed in terms of the off-diagonal element in the neutral $`B`$-meson mass matrix

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{d,s}`$ $`=`$ $`2|M_{12}^{d,s}|`$ (20)
$`2m_{B_{d,s}}|M_{12}^{d,s}|`$ $`=`$ $`|\overline{B}_{d,s}^0|_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Delta }B=2)|B_{d,s}^0.`$
If we add a fourth sequential fourth generation up-like quark $`t^{}`$, the above equations would have some modification. There exist other box diagrams contributed by $`t^{^{}}`$ (see fig. 2), similar to the leading box diagrams in MSSM. The mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ in SM4 can be expressed

$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}^2}{6\pi ^2}}M_W^2m_{B_d}(\widehat{B}_{B_d}\widehat{F}_{B_d}^2)[\eta _t(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})^2S_0(x_t)+`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`\eta _t^{^{}}(V_{t^{^{}}b}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d})^2S_0(x_t^{^{}})+\eta _{tt^{^{}}}(V_{t^{^{}}b}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d})(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})S_0(x_t,x_t^{^{}})]`$
The new Wilson coefficients $`S_0(x_t^{^{}})`$ present the contribution of $`t^{}`$, which like $`S_0(x_t)`$ in eq. (19) except exchanging $`t^{}`$ quark not $`t`$ quark. $`S_0(x_t,x_t^{^{}})`$ present the contribution of a mixed $`tt^{}`$, which is taken the form

$`S_0(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`xy[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{yx}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x)^2}}\mathrm{ln}x+`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`(yx){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x)(1y)}}]`$
where $`x=x_t=m_t^2/M_W^2`$, $`y=x_t^{^{}}=m_t^{^{}}^2/M_W^2`$. The numerical results of $`S_0(x_t^{})`$ and $`S_0(x_t,x_t^{})`$ is shown on the tab. 5.

The short-distance QCD correction factors $`\eta _t^{^{}}`$ and $`\eta _{tt^{^{}}}`$ can be calculated like $`\eta _c`$ and $`\eta _{ct}`$ in the mixing of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$, which the NLO values are given in refs, relevant for scale not $`𝒪(\mu _c)`$ but $`𝒪(\mu _b)`$. In leading-order, $`\eta _t`$ is calculated by

$`\eta _t^0=[\alpha _s(\mu _t)]^{(6/23)},\alpha _s(\mu _t)=\alpha _s(M_Z)[1+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\beta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(M_Z)}{2\pi }}\mathrm{In}{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z}{\mu _t}})^n],`$ (23)
with its numerical value in tab. 6. The formulae of factor $`\eta _t^{^{}}`$ is similar to the above equation except for exchanging $`t`$ by $`t^{^{}}`$. For simplicity, we take $`\eta _{tt^{^{}}}=\eta _t^{^{}}`$. We give the numerical results in tab.7.

In the last of this section, we give other input parameters necessary in this note. (See the following tab.).

Now, we can put the constraints of the fourth generation CKM factor $`V_{t^{^{}}b}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$ from the present experimental value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}`$. We change the form of eq. (21) as a quadratic equation about $`V_{t^{^{}}b}^{}V_{t^{^{}}d}`$. By solving it , we can get two analytical solution $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(1)}`$ (absolute value is the large one) and $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(2)}`$ (absolute value is the small one). However, experimentally, it is not accurate for the measurement of CKM matrix element $`V_{td}`$. So, we have to search other ways to solve this difficulty. Fortunately, the CKM unitarity triangle, i.e. the graphic representation of the unitarity relation for $`d,b`$ quarks, which come from the orthogonality condition on the first and third row of $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$,

$`V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0,`$ (24)
can be conveniently depicted as a triangle relation in the complex plane, as shown in the following figure. From the above equation, we can give the constraints of $`V_{td}V_{tb}^{}`$,

$$0.005|V_{td}V_{tb}^{}|0.013$$
(25)
Then, we give the final results as shown in the figs. 3.

We must announce that figs. 3 only show the curves with $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(2)}`$ (absolute value is the small one) firstly. Because the absolute value of $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(1)}`$ is generally larger than 1. This is contradict to the unitarity of CKM matrix. So, we don’t think about this solution. From the figs. 3, we found all curves are in the range from $`1\times 10^4`$ to $`0.5\times 10^4`$ when we considering the constraint of $`V_{td}V_{tb}^{}`$. That is to say, the absolute value of $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}`$ is about $`10^4`$ order. This is a very interesting result.

These CKM matrix elements obey unitarity constraints. With the fourth generation quark $`t^{^{}}`$, eq. (9) change to ,

$$V_{ud}^{}V_{ub}+V_{cd}^{}V_{cb}+V_{td}^{}V_{tb}+V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}=0.$$
(26)
We take the average values of the SM CKM matrix elements from Ref. . The sum of the first three terms in eq. (24) is about $`10^2`$ order. If we take the value of $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(2)}`$ the result of the left of (26) is better and more close to $`0`$ than that in SM, when $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(2)}`$ takes negative values. Even if $`V_{t^{^{}}s}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(2)}`$ takes positive values, the sum of (26) would change very little because the values of $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(2)}`$ are about $`10^4`$ order, two orders smaller than the sum of the first three ones in the left of (24). Considering that the data of CKM matrix is not very accurate, we can get the error range of the sum of these first three terms. It is much larger than $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(2)}`$. Thus,in the case the values of $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}`$ satisfy the CKM matrix unitarity constraints.

We can see the order of these 4th generation CKM matrix elements, such as $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}`$ doesn’t contradict to the hierarchy of the CKM matrix elements or the quarks mixing angles. Moreover, it seem to prove the hierarchy. The hierarchy in the quarks mixing angles is clearly presented in the Wolfenstein parameterization of the CKM matrix. Let’s see CKM matrix firstly,

$$V_{\mathrm{CKM}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}V_{ud}\hfill & V_{us}& \hfill V_{ub}& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ V_{cd}\hfill & V_{cs}& \hfill V_{cb}& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ V_{td}\hfill & V_{ts}& \hfill V_{tb}& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1\hfill & \lambda & \hfill \lambda ^3& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ \lambda \hfill & 1& \hfill \lambda ^2& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ \lambda ^3\hfill & \lambda ^2& \hfill 1& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(27)
with $`\lambda =\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =0.23`$. Now, the hierarchy can be expressed in powers of $`\lambda `$. We found, the magnitudes of the mixing angles are about 1 among the $`same`$ generations, $`V_{ud}`$, $`V_{cs}`$ and $`V_{tb}`$. For different generations, the magnitudes are about $`\lambda `$ order between $`1st`$ and $`2nd`$ generation, $`V_{us}`$ and $`V_{cd}`$, as well as about $`\lambda ^2`$ order between $`2nd`$ and $`3rd`$ generation, $`V_{cb}`$ and $`V_{ts}`$. The magnitudes are about $`\lambda ^3`$ order between the $`1st`$ and $`third`$ generation, $`V_{ub}`$ and $`V_{td}`$. Then, there should be an interesting problem: If the fourth generation quarks exist, how to choose the order do the magnitude of the mixing angles concern the fourth generation quarks? Because there is not direct experimental measurement of the fourth generation quark mixing angles, one have to look for other indirect methods to solve the problem. Many refs. have already talked about these additional CKM mixing angles, like the vector-like quark models, the four neutrinos models and the sequential four generations models. For simple, we give a guess for the magnitude of the fourth generation mixing angles. Similar to the general CKM matrix elements magnitude order, the fourth generation ones are about $`\lambda ^4\lambda ^5`$ order between the $`1st`$ and $`4th`$ generation, such as $`V_{t^{^{}}d}`$, as well as $`\lambda ^2\lambda ^3`$ between the $`2nd`$ and $`4th`$ generation, such as $`V_{t^{^{}}s}`$. For the mixing between the $`3rd`$ and $`4th`$ generation quarks, such as $`V_{t^{^{}}b}`$, we take the magnitude as 1 because the mass of the fourth generation quark $`t^{^{}}`$ is the same order, $`10^2`$, as the top quark $`t`$. So $`V_{t^{^{}}b}`$ should take the order of $`V_{tb}`$. Then, the magnitude order of the fourth generation CKM factor $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}`$ is about $`\lambda ^4\lambda ^5`$, i.e. $`<\lambda ^4`$. From figs. 3, we found that the numerical results, $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}^{(2)}`$, satisfy this guess. At last, the factor $`V_{t^{^{}}d}^{}V_{t^{^{}}b}`$ constrained from $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{B_d}`$ does not contradict to the CKM matrix texture. Moreover, it seem to support the existence of the fourth generation.

## 3 Conclusion

In summary, we study the constraints of some 4th generation quark mixing matrix from rare $`K,B`$ decays. We find they satisfy the unitarity conditions of the CKM matrix. We also talk about the texture of the fourth generation CKM matrix. All these constriants could provide a possible signal of new physics.

## Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the the Chinese Postdoctoral Science Foundation and CAS K.C. Wong Postdoctoral Research Award Fund.


text:
# INVARIANTS OF 3-MANIFOLDS FROM REPRESENTATIONS OF THE FRAMED-TANGLE CATEGORY

## 1 Introduction

It is a well-known fact due to Kirby  (most comprehensible proof:  ) that 3-manifolds are in 1:1-correspondence to framed links quotiented by a set of combinatorial moves, the so-called Kirby moves. In this situation, it would be a quite obvious idea to subdivide a standard projection of the framed link by a quadratic grid so that in each small square the link is isotopic to some standard framed tangle and then to represent the tangles by morphisms in the tensor category over a fixed ground vector space $`V`$. Each strand is represented by a copy of $`V`$, the composition in the framed tangle category $`𝔖^{}`$ becomes the composition of linear maps, the juxtaposition of tangles becomes the tensor product of maps; the functor is therefore called a monoidal representation. We will give a sufficient and easily verifiable condition on a monoidal representation of $`𝔖^{}`$ to factorize through the Kirby moves and to generate therefore an invariant of 3-manifolds. A priori this is very difficult to check because in the local version of the Kirby moves due to Fenn and Rourke  (cf. fig. 1 ) there are infinitely many moves parametrized by the number of non-closed strands giving rise to infinitely many conditions on the generating morphism of the representation, the so-called S-matrix representing a single crossing.

Other approaches to this problem are due to Wenzel  and Turaev  and deal with colourings of framed tangles giving up the possibility to construct one single representation and to gain skein relations that already turned out to be very useful in knot theory.

Wenzel defined the Markov traces, a family of Markov-invariant functionals on $`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ . The twists are encoded by modelling each component as a ribbon of several strands; the number of strands is called the colouring of the component, and to calculate the invariant one has to sum up combinations of colourings. Therefore the invariant has no representation properties: Consider a single crossing where the upper strand is coloured red, the lower one green, then the square of the coloured braids does not emerge in the sum of colourings of the squared braid because the colourings do not fit together.

In Turaev’s approach by modular categories, going out from monoidal representation of coloured tangles, there is the same problem, and a new difficulty arises: The objects (strands) are coloured by simple objects.

Consider modules over ground ring $`𝕂`$ . An object $`V`$ is called simple iff the map $`kkid_V`$

is a bijection from $`𝕂`$ to $`End(V)`$ .

This implies that if $`𝕂`$ is a field then $`V𝕂`$ as fields and each tangle $`L`$ is represented by an endomorphism of the ground field; therefore $`Lid=idL`$ so that it is no more possible to localize strands. That means that over a field Turaev’s construction does not work.

At this point the simplest idea would be to construct monoidal representation of the category of framed tangles that factorize through the Kirby moves. For this goal it is necessary to reduce the infinitely many Fenn-Rourke conditions to a finite set of conditions. This is exactly what will be done in section 8, all sections before just recall more or less well-known facts which can be found in the given references.

One main result which will be presented in section 9 is that irreducible representations of $`𝔖^{}`$ that satisfy only the two first pairs of Fenn-Rourke conditions generate invariants of 3-manifolds. But the proof of the existence of such a representation still fails at the moment because there is still no classification of solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation for $`dim(V)3`$.

A part of this paper is part of my diploma thesis at the University of Bonn, and I would like to thank Prof. C.F. Bödigheimer who was my advisor in that time.

## 2 From 3-Manifolds to Framed Tangles

The concept of Dehn surgery became possible by the technique of Heegard decomposition on the one hand and by the existence of a simple set of generators of the surface mapping class groups on the other hand. Since we know that we can get any 3-manifold by gluing two handlebodies along a homeomorphism of their boundaries and that the topological type of the resulting 3-manifold only depends on the isotopy class of the surface homeomorphism, the mapping class group of a surface becomes interesting. A generating set are the Dehn twists along curves on the surface. So we can decompose the homeomorpism and study the effect of a single Dehn twist that consists in eliminating and re-gluing a torus from $`𝕊^3`$

###### Theorem 1

Any compact, orientable 3-manifold can be produced from $`𝕊^3`$ by eliminating of some embedded tori and re-inserting them by gluing along some homeomorphisms of the boundaries (Dehn surgery).

Proof cf.  .

The isotopy class $`[f]`$ of a homeomorphism $`f`$ is encoded by the $`2\times 2`$-matrix of $`f_{}`$ in the fundamental group $``$:

$$𝐑=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ p& 1\end{array}\right)$$

where $`p`$. Therefore $`[f]`$ is determined by $`p`$.

Therefore you can encode $`[f]`$ by the core $`l`$ of the torus and the winding number $`p`$ of the meridian, i.e. by embeddings of ribbons (by a framed link)

###### Theorem 2

Two framed links represent one and the same 3-manifold iff you can link them by a finite sequence of the moves in fig. 1.

Proof. Difficult result of Kirby  , improved by Fenn and Rourke  , the most comprehensible proof is due to Ning Lu  $`\mathrm{}`$

We cite some known results that can be found in , for example.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`M`$ resp. $`M^{}`$ be the 3-manifolds associated to the framed links $`L`$ resp. $`L^{}`$, then $`LL^{}`$ induces the manifold $`M\mathrm{}M^{}`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 4

The trivial link of m components with trivial framing (no twist) induces the manifold $`(𝕊^1\times 𝕊^2)^\mathrm{}m`$.

Given a framed link, we now choose a regular projection of it, i.e. an embedding of the corresponding union of ribbons representing this framed link whose heighth extrema in the projection plane are isolated points and that is ”nearly parallel” to a projection plane, what means that the normal vector of the ribbons differs only slightly from the one of the projection plane. So the ribbons turn always onre and the same side to the observer. Figure 2 illustrates that any framed link has such a projection. By this convention we can represent the framed link only by its core.

Now, we subdivide such a projection by a quadratic lattice in such a way that the part of the framed link within a small sqare of the lattice is isotopic to one of the five standard framed tangles in fig. 3 that generate by composition and juxtaposition the whole category of framed tangles. Then we replace them following the scheme in the figure where each strand is represented by one copy of $`V`$, translating composition and juxtaposition to composition and tensor product of linear maps, $`S`$ and $`U`$ being linear endomorphisms of $`VV`$, while $`b`$ and $`d`$ representing caps and cups are linear maps $`𝕂VV`$ and $`VV𝕂`$, respectively. For a general quadruple $`(S,U,b,d)`$ this assignment, called $`\rho _{S,U,b,d}`$ from now on, is only well-defined on the level of projections. The next theorem will give conditions on it to be still well-defined for framed links.

So in the end, we have got to care about the category of framed tangles. For technical details about this cf.  and , for example. As the framed tangles form a monoidal category we will consider this categorial concept now.

## 3 Monoidal Categories and Monoidal Representations of Framed Tangles

A (strictly) monoidal category is a category $`K`$ endowed with a covariant associative functor $`:K\times KK`$ with unity. Covariant means

$`(ff^{})(gg^{})=(fg)(f^{}g^{})`$,

$`id_Vid_W=id_{VW}`$.

Associativity means on the level of objects that for each three objects $`U,V,W`$ :

$`(UV)W=U(VW)`$

and on the level of morphisms that for each three morphisms $`f,g,h`$ :

$`(fg)h=f(gh)`$.

There is a unity, i.e. an object $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ with:

$`V\mathrm{𝟏}=V=\mathrm{𝟏}V`$ for all objects $`V`$ and

$`fid_\mathrm{𝟏}=f=id_\mathrm{𝟏}f`$ for all morphisms $`f`$.

Examples are

* the tensor category $`𝔈_V`$ over a fixed ground vector space $`V`$,
* the category of tangles $`𝔖`$,
* the category of framed tangles $`𝔖^{}`$.

A functor between two monoidal categories is called monoidal iff it translates the tensor product of the first category into the one of the second category. An example is the obvious forgetful functor $`𝔖^{}𝔖`$. Monoidal functors with image in $`𝔈_V`$ for some $`V`$ we will call monoidal representations. From now on, let $`V`$ be a finite dimensional vector space over a field $`𝕂`$, $`v:=dim_𝕂(V)`$. The standard example will be $`𝕂=`$.

For the following, it will be convenient to have another definition at hand, namely the one of a partial trace of an endomorphism in $`𝔈_V`$.

If we consider the effect of the closure of the last strand in the representation it turns out that it is just taking the sum over the last tensor index, similar for the first strand. So, chosen a basis $`B=e_1\mathrm{}e_m`$ of $`V`$, we define

$`r_B,l_B:End(V^i)End(V^{i1})`$

and for $`AEnd(V^i)`$

$$r_B(A)(e_{j_1}\mathrm{}e_{j_{i1}}):=\underset{k_1\mathrm{}k_{i1},r_i=1}{\overset{m}{}}A_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{i1}r_i}^{k_1\mathrm{}k_{i1}r_i}e_{k_1}\mathrm{}e_{k_{i1}},$$

$$l_B(A)(e_{j_1}\mathrm{}e_{j_{i1}}):=\underset{l_1,k_1\mathrm{}k_{i1}=1}{\overset{m}{}}A_{l_1j_1\mathrm{}j_{i1}}^{l_1k_1\mathrm{}k_{i1}}e_{k_1}\mathrm{}e_{k_{i1}}.$$

$`r_B`$ and $`l_B`$ are called right and left partial trace, respectively, and are in some way a n-th root of the trace.

As it stands, this definition depends on the choice of the basis $`B`$. For technical details as $`Gl(V)\times Gl(V)`$-covariance of partial traces cf.  , for example.

###### Theorem 5

Given linear maps

$`S:VVVV`$ invertible

$`b:VV`$

$`d:VV`$.

If and only if

(i) $`S`$ is a solution of the Yang-Baxter equation (YBE):

$`(Sid_V)(id_VS)(Sid_V)=(id_VS)(Sid_V)(id_VS)`$

(ii) $`d`$ is symmetrical and has an orthonormal basis $`B=\{e_i\}`$; for this basis holds:

$`b(\lambda )=\lambda _ie_ie_i`$

(iii) $`(S^{\pm 1}id_v)(id_vb)=(id_vS^1)(bid_v)`$

(iv) $`r_B(S)=l_B(S)`$

then $`\rho _{S,S^1,b,d}`$ is invariant under isotopies of framed tangles and therefore a monoidal functor $`𝔖^{}𝔈_V`$ (a monoidal representation of $`𝔖^{}`$). In this case we call $`S`$ an S-matrix.

The conditions above are illustrated in the following figure.

Proof. It must be checked that any isotopy of framed tangles can be modelled by the moves corresponding these relations. But an isotopy of a ribbon is in particular an isotopy of its core. So you can use the corresponding result about representations of the (non-framed) tangle category found by Turaev . Each time when there is a move corresponding to a Reidemeister-I-move replace it by the move corresponding to the Whitney trick using only Reidemeister-II and Reidemeister-III moves (cf. fig. 5), let one loop be so big as you want it to be and the other one very small contained within a normal neighborhood of the ribbon, then stop the isotopy for a moment and lead the loop always within this neighborhood along the ribbon to a fixed point of the isotopy where you collect all small loops in this way. Finally, the Whitney trick reduces the number of loop types to two, and the only remaining move is the one in fig. 4, lowest row. And this move is equivalent to the last condition:

Denote a (n,n)-tangle by $`P`$, the tangle we get if we close the last strand of $`P`$ by $`P^{}`$, and the one we get if we close the first strand by $`{}_{}{}^{}P`$. Then

$`\rho _{S,S^1,b,d}(P^{})=r_B(\rho _{S,S^1,b,d}(P))`$ ,

$`\rho _{S,S^1,b,d}(^{}P)=l_B(\rho _{S,S^1,b,d}(P))`$

because in terms of $`b`$ and $`d`$ with the definitions

$`b^{(n)}:=id_{n1}b`$ , $`d^{(n)}:=id_{n1}d`$ ,

$`b^{(1)}:=bid_{n1}`$ , $`d^{(1)}:=did_{n1}`$ ,

one can write $`r(A),l(A)`$ as

$`r_B(A)=b^{(n)}(Aid)d^{(n)}`$ ,

$`l_B(A)=b^{(1)}(idA)d^{(1)}`$ (cf. fig. 6 ) $`\mathrm{}`$

As a consequence of Theorem 5 (ii) the choice of $`b`$ and $`d`$ is uniqely determined by the choice of a basis, and if $`S`$ is a matrix, then the notation $`\rho _S`$ is well-defined.

## 4 A symmetry of S-Matrices

The natural scalar product $`.,._n`$ on $`V^n`$ is defined by

$`v_1\mathrm{}v_n,w_1\mathrm{}w_n_n:=d(v_1,w_1)\mathrm{}d(v_n,w_n)`$ .

Then we have

$`.,._n=\rho (U_n)(id_nT_n)=\rho (U_n)(T_nid_n)`$,

where $`U_n`$ is the tangle in fig. 7, $`T_n`$ the twist in the tensor category converting the order in each tensor product.

###### Theorem 6

Let $`s`$ be the rotation with angle $`\pi `$ in the projection plane, $`F`$ an arbitrary (n,m)-tangle. Then for any monoidal representation $`\rho `$ holds

$`(T_m\rho (F)T_n)^+=\rho (s(F))`$

Proof. $`\rho (F)(v),w_m=\rho (B)(vT_m(w))=T_nv,\rho (s(F))(T_mw)`$

$`=T\rho (s(F))(T_mw),v`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

As $`T^2=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`T`$ is symmetrical, with the definition

$`AEnd(V^n)`$ T-symmetrical $`:T_nA`$ symmetrical we get

###### Corollary 7

Let $`H`$ be a $`s`$-symmetrical tangle, then $`\rho (H)`$ is T-symmetrical; in particular $`S`$ is T-symmetrical $`\mathrm{}`$

In Coefficients this reads: $`(S^{\pm 1})_{ab}^{cd}=(S^{\pm 1})_{dc}^{ba}`$ (” Index rotation ” )

Now we have already (cf. fig. 4 and Theorem 5 (iii))

$`S_{kl}^{pm}=\stackrel{~}{S}_{lm}^{kp}`$ und $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{kl}^{pm}=S_{lm}^{kp}`$

So instead of the two demands in 5 (iii) we can impose equivalently only one sign chose and the index rotation (which is a linear condition). Later, T-symmetry will be used in the proof of Theorem 14.

## 5 S-Matrices and Symmetries of the YBE

It is a known fact that from a solution of the YBE you can derive other solutions:

###### Theorem 8

If $`S:V^2V^2`$ is a solution of the YBE, then also

(i) $`\lambda S,\lambda `$

(ii) $`S^1`$

(iii) $`S^+`$ (the transposed of $`S`$ )

(iv) $`TST`$

(v) $`(QQ)S(Q^1Q^1)`$,

where $`Q`$ is an arbitrary invertible endomorphism $`VV`$ .

Now the T-symmetry found in the previous section sheds some light on how S-matrices react to the transformations in Theorem 8:

* (because of T-symmetry): Transposition = Conjugation with $`T`$
* (if $`S`$ yields a 3-manifold invariant $`\iota _S`$): $`\rho _{S^1}(M)=\rho _S(M)`$,

where $`M`$ is the manifold $`M`$ with orientation inverted
* Scalar multiplication: Assume that $`S`$ and $`\lambda S`$ are both S-matrices, then

$`\lambda S_{ab}^{cd}=\lambda ^1\stackrel{~}{S}_{bd}^{ac}=\lambda ^1S_{ab}^{cd}`$

(second equation: index rotation for $`S`$ , first equation: index rotation for $`\lambda S`$),

and therefore $`\lambda =\pm 1`$, i.e. S-matrices are uniquely scaled up to sign.

## 6 Examples of Monoidal Representations for $`dim_{}(V)=2`$

We use the classification of solutions of the YBE in $`dim(V)=2`$ by Doll  .

It turns out (cf. ) that the only representation of that kind not satisfying the trivializing relation $`S^2=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is generated (in the sense of 8 ) by

$$𝐒=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}k& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& q& 0\\ 0& p& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& k\end{array}\right)$$

where $`k^2pq=1`$.

But in this family of solutions there is no invariance under Kirby moves.

## 7 Gaining Skein Relations

Now we describe the usual procedure to get richer invariants from the above ones. The YBE is homogenous of degree 3 in the entries of $`S`$, all additional conditions are of degree $`2`$, therefore the family of S-matrices forms a subvariety of $`Mat(n^2\times n^2,𝕂)`$ that can be parametrized locally by a polynomial as $`S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$. So you can define an invariant $`\rho `$ with values in the polynomial ring over the ground ring by setting

$`\rho (M)(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n):=\rho _{S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)}(M)`$.

The following theorem describes how you can gain skein relations from algebraic relations of the S-matrix. In the case that all S-matrices of a subvariety as above satisfy these algebraic solutions the skein relations can be transferred to the polynomial invariant associated to this subvariety.

###### Theorem 9

Given a solution $`S`$ a S-matrix, $`\beta `$ a framed braid. For $`A:=\rho _S(\beta )`$, any polynomial relation $`P(A)=0`$, where $`P={\displaystyle \underset{i=m}{\overset{n}{}}}a_iX^i𝕂[X]`$ (Laurent ring), implies

$$\underset{i=m}{\overset{n}{}}a_i\rho _S(L_i)=0,$$

where $`L_i`$ is an arbitrary $`\beta `$-sequence $`\mathrm{}`$

A simple example are Conway sequences where the number of strands is 2 and therefore only potences of the unique generator $`S`$ itself appear. For a fixed $`\beta `$ there is exactly one generating relation, namely the one given by the minimal polynomial of $`A=\rho _S(\beta )`$ , that is in the case of Conway sequences the minimal polynomial of $`S`$.

## 8 Invariance under Fenn-Rourke Moves

From now on, we denote the upper right tangle in fig. 1 by $`tw_n`$; $`tw_1=:tw`$.

Define $`S^{(i,j)}:=id_iSid_j`$, $`tw^{(i,j)}:=id_itwid_j`$, for $`b`$ and $`d`$ analogously.

Define maps $`A_n,B_n:V^nV^n,n_0`$,

$`A_n`$ as in fig. 10, the maps $`B_n`$ analogously as mirror images.

Because of the Theorem of Fenn-Rourke (cf. ) we have to look for a matrix $`S`$ with $`A_n(S)=0n_0,B_1(S)=0`$.

It is easy to see that $`A_{n+2}(S)=0`$ implies $`A_n(S)=0`$. All you have to do is to consider $`A_{n+2}(S)b^{(i)}`$ (cf. fig. 11 ) and to pull the corresponding pair of closed strands down through the tangle. This isotopy does not change the resulting value, namely zero, of the representation. On the other hand, $`b`$ has full rang, so you are done.

Now we give the main theorem concerning invariance under Fenn-Rourke moves.

###### Definition 10

An endomorphism $`E:V^{n+2}V^{n+2}`$ with

($`\alpha `$) $`b^{(i,ni)}E=0=Ed^{(i,ni)}0<i<n`$

($`\beta `$) $`r(E)=0`$

($`\gamma `$) $`E`$ commutes with $`S^{(i,ni)}`$ and $`tw^{(i,n+1i)}0<i<n`$ resp.

$`0<i<n+1`$

is called $`S`$-compatible.

###### Theorem 11

Let there be an $`n_0`$ with

(i) $`B_1(S)=0=B_2(S),A_n(S)=0=A_{n+1}(S)`$,

(ii) The only $`S`$-compatible endomorphism $`E:V^{n+2}V^{n+2}`$ is the trivial endomorphism $`E=0`$.

Then $`A_n(S)=0n_0`$ (and, as above, $`B_1(S)=0`$ ), so $`\rho _S`$ is invariant under Kirby moves and forms therefore a 3-manifold invariant.

Proof. The proof is founded onto two lemmata.

###### Lemma 12

If there is no nonzero $`S`$-compatible endomorphism in the i-th tensor potence then there is also no nonzero $`S`$-compatible endomorphism for $`m>i`$.

Proof of the Lemma. The idea of the proof is: Instead of regarding a given $`v^m\times v^m`$-matrix $`K`$ examine its $`v^n\times v^n`$-submatrices. The conditions ($`\alpha `$),($`\beta `$),($`\gamma `$) for $`K`$ will generate analogous conditions for the submatrices.

Define $`K(i_1\mathrm{}i_{mn1};j_1\mathrm{}j_{mn1}):V^nV^n`$ as in fig. 12:

$`K(i_1\mathrm{}i_{mn1};j_1\mathrm{}j_{mn1})(v),w_n`$

$`:=K(e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_{mn1}}v,e_{j_1}\mathrm{}e_{j_{mn1}}w_m`$ .

The positions of submatrices are as usual according to the v-adic system.

As fig 12 illustrates, ($`\alpha `$),($`\beta `$),($`\gamma `$) are transferred to the submatrices.

Therefore for all $`v^n\times v^n`$-submatrices of $`K`$ the conditions in the definition hold, so they are equal to the zero matrix and therefore $`K`$, too $`\mathrm{}`$

It remains to show that the above differences $`A_n`$ are $`S`$-compatible in each tensor potence $`n`$. This will be guaranteed by the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 13

The maps $`A_n`$ satisfy ($`\alpha `$),($`\beta `$),($`\gamma `$) $`n_0`$.

Proof of the Lemma. (only to show for $`m>n+2`$)

The structure of the underlying induction is:

$`\mathrm{}A_{n1}=0B_{n1}=0A_n=0B_n=0\mathrm{}`$

Instead of $`A_n`$, consider the map $`C_n:=\rho (tw^1)^nA_n`$ (cf. fig. 13 ).

The right tangle in the above figure we call braid twist.

Now for the three conditions:

* ($`\gamma `$) is geometrically obvious.
* ($`\alpha `$) follows inductively from $`A_{n2}=0`$ (pull as above the two closed strands through the tangle; then the upper part is mapped to zero).
* For ($`\beta `$) cf. the following figures (! := to be deleted in the next step as closed component of a Fenn-Rourke move).

In figure 14, the last equation holds because of $`A_1=0`$, in figure 15, the last equation holds because of $`A_{n1}=0`$. Now we have to show $`L:=MN=0`$. Consider $`L:V^{n1}V^{n1}`$ satisfying ($`\alpha `$) because of the induction assumption for $`n2`$, ($`\gamma `$) as above, for ($`\beta `$) apply again $`r`$ to both summands:

In figure 16, the last equation holds because of $`A_1=0`$, in figure 17, the last equation holds because of $`B_{n1}=0`$, the one before because of $`B_2=0`$. The proof for the $`B_n`$ is analogous with mirror images $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 14

Conditions as in Theorem 11, but additionally $`[S,T]=0`$ and instead of (ii)

(ii’) The only map $`H:V^{n+2}V^{n+2}`$ or

$`H:V^{n+3}V^{n+3}`$ with

($`\alpha ^{}`$) $`b^{(i,ni)}H=0`$, $`H`$ symmetrical

($`\beta ^{}`$) $`l(H)=0`$

($`\gamma ^{}`$) H commutes with $`S^{(i,ni)}`$ and $`tw^{(i,n+1i)}0<i<n`$

resp. $`0<i<n+1`$

are the trivial maps $`H=0`$.

Then $`A_m(S)=0`$ as above and $`\rho (S)`$ generates a 3-manifold invariant.

Proof. We have an analogon to the second lemma in the last proof: $`A_m,B_m`$ are obviously T-symmetrical (because both summands are $`s`$-symmetrical). Hence we consider $`X:=T_nA_n`$. $`X`$ is symmetrical. The three conditions can be transferred to $`X`$:

($`\alpha ^{}`$) $`b^{(i,ni)}H=0b^{(ni1,i+1)}(T_nH)=0`$

($`\beta ^{}`$) $`r(H)=0l(T_nH)=0`$

($`\gamma `$) The commutating relations also can be transferred by index changes as in ($`\alpha `$). Here you need that $`S`$ and $`T`$ commute.

There is also an analogon to the first lemma: Here we pass over from $`d^n\times d^n`$\- and $`d^{n+1}\times d^{n+1}`$-matrices inductively to $`d^{n+2}\times d^{n+2}`$-matrices, i.e. if (ii) holds for $`m,m+1`$ then also for $`m+2`$. Again, we subdivide the matrix in blocks satisfying all conditions like in the proof above (excepted the symmetry), so they are antisymmetrical (if such a submatrix, say $`A`$, is not, consider $`(A+A^+)`$ which is a symmetrical matrix and still satisfies all other conditions, in contradiction to assumption (ii) ). On the other hand, we can subdivide the matrix into $`d\times d`$-blocks and ttreat them as entries from the ring of $`d\times d`$-matrices forming a big $`d^{n+1}\times d^{n+1}`$-matrix. Again all conditions can be related to the $`d\times d`$-matrices because every excepted each last condition multiplicate the blocks as wholes. Therefore $`K:V^{n+2}V^{n+2}`$ is symmetrical in the $`d\times d`$-blocks, the $`d^{n+1}\times d^{n+1}`$-blocks are antisymmetrical in the numbers, and (what is equivalent to (ii) for n) the $`d^{n+1}\times d^{n+1}`$-blocks are antisymmetrical with respect to the $`d\times d`$-blocks. So in all $`K`$ is antisymmetrical. Together with the condition that $`K`$ is symmetrical this means $`K=0`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

## 9 An Example

###### Theorem 15

Let $`S`$ be an irreducible S-Matrix with

$`tr(S^{\pm 1})=1`$,

$`A_1(S)=0=B_1(S)`$.

Then $`\rho _S`$ is invariant under Kirby moves and induces therefore a 3-manifold invariant.

Proof. The conditions on the trace are equivalent to $`A_0(S)=0=B_0(S)`$.

Apply Theorem 11:

* $`E`$ does not have full rang (because of $`(\alpha )`$)
* If $`vim(E)`$ then also $`Sv,S^1vim(E)`$ (because of $`(\gamma )`$ )
* Because of irreducibility, in the rational normal form $`S`$ has got only one block; at least one corresponding basis vector is not contained in the image of $`E`$, so no one is

$`im(E)=0`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

## 10 Perspectives and Open Questions

The presented theorems make an algorithm possible that checks solutions of the YBE on the criteria mentionned above. But the question of existence of such a solution is still open. For dim(V)=2 we have a definitely negative answer (not due two the special construction but for the general reasons mentionned above). For dim(V)=3 already the classification of the solutions of the YBE is a nontrivial problem of computer algebra (compare ).

But if there is such an endomorphism the induced invariant $`\iota `$ will distinguish infinitely many 3-manifolds because

$`\iota ((𝕊^1\times 𝕊^2)^\mathrm{}n)=\rho _S({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}0)=(dim(V))^n`$.