text:
# Relic neutrino masses and the highest energy cosmic rays

## I Introduction

Big bang cosmology predicts the existence of a background gas of free photons and neutrinos. The measured cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation supports the applicability of standard cosmology back to photon decoupling which occured approximately one hundred thousand years after the big bang. The relic neutrinos, on the other hand, have decoupled when the universe had a temperature of one MeV and an age of just one second. Thus, a measurement of the relic neutrinos, with a predicted average number density of

$$n_{\nu _i}_0=n_{\overline{\nu }_i}_0=\frac{3}{22}\underset{\mathrm{CMB}}{\underset{}{n_\gamma _0}}56\mathrm{cm}^3,$$
(1)
per light ($`m_{\nu _i}1`$ MeV) neutrino species $`i`$, would provide a new window to the early universe. Their predicted number density is comparable to the one of the microwave photons. However, since neutrinos interact only weakly, the relic neutrinos have not yet been detected directly in laboratory experiments Stodolsky:1975aq ; Smith:1983jj ; Shvartsman:1982sn ; Langacker:1983ih ; Ferreras:1995wf ; Hagmann:1999kf ; Duda:2001hd .

Recently, an indirect detection possibility for relic neutrinos has been discussed Fargion:1999ft ; Weiler:1999sh . It is based on so-called Z-bursts resulting from the resonant annihilation of ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos (UHEC$`\nu `$s) with relic neutrinos into $`Z`$ bosons Weiler:1982qy ; Roulet:1993pz ; Yoshida:1997ie  (cf. Fig. 1). On resonance, the corresponding cross section is enhanced by several orders of magnitudes. If neutrinos have non-vanishing masses $`m_{\nu _i}`$ – for which there is rather convincing evidence in view of the apparent observation of neutrino oscillations Fukuda:1998mi ; Fukuda:1998tw ; Fukuda:1998ub ; Fukuda:2000np ; Ambrosio:2001je ; Cleveland:1998nv ; Hampel:1999xg ; Abdurashitov:1999zd ; Fukuda:2001nj ; Fukuda:2001nk ; Altmann:2000ft ; Ahmad:2001an ; Athanassopoulos:1995iw ; Athanassopoulos:1996wc ; Athanassopoulos:1996jb ; Athanassopoulos:1998pv ; Athanassopoulos:1998er ; Aguilar:2001ty ; Declais:1995su ; Apollonio:1999ae ; Boehm:2000gk ; Eitel:2000by ; Armbruster:2002mp ; Avvakumov:2002jj  – the respective resonance energies, in the rest system of the relic neutrinos, correspond to

$`E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{2m_{\nu _i}}}=4.210^{21}\mathrm{eV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{eV}}{m_{\nu _i}}}\right),`$ (2)
with $`M_Z`$ denoting the mass of the Z boson. These resonance energies are, for neutrino masses of $`𝒪(1)`$ eV, remarkably close to the energies of the highest energy cosmic rays observed at Earth by collaborations such as AGASA Takeda:1998ps , Fly’s Eye Bird:yi ; Bird:wp ; Bird:1994uy , Haverah Park Lawrence:cc ; Ave:2000nd , HiReS Kieda00 , and Yakutsk Efimov91  (for a review, see Ref. Nagano:2000ve ). Indeed, it was argued Fargion:1999ft ; Weiler:1999sh  that the ultrahigh energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) above the predicted Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff Greisen:1966jv ; Zatsepin:1966jv  around $`410^{19}`$ eV are mainly protons (and, maybe, photons) from Z decay. In this way, one possibly also solves one of the outstanding problems of ultrahigh energy cosmic ray physics Bhattacharjee:2000qc , namely the apparent observation of cosmic rays with energies above the GZK cutoff, in an elegant and economical way without invoking new physics beyond the Standard Model, except for neutrino masses. The GZK puzzle hinges on the fact that nucleons with super-GZK energies have a short attenuation length of about $`50`$ Mpc, due to inelastic interactions with the cosmic microwave background, while plausible astrophysical sources for those energetic particles are much farther away Sigl:1994eg ; Elbert:1995zv . Ultrahigh energy neutrinos produced at cosmological distances, on the other hand, can reach the GZK zone unattenuated and their resonant annihilation on the relic neutrinos could just result in the observed cosmic rays of the highest energies. Moreover, at present this annihilation process may be the only way to detect the relic neutrino background, a basic ingredient of our cosmological picture.

The Z-burst hypothesis for the ultrahigh energy cosmic rays was discussed in many papers Waxman:1998yh ; Yoshida:1998it ; Blanco-Pillado:2000yb ; Gelmini:1999qa ; Gelmini:2000ds ; Weiler:1999ny ; Crooks:2001jw ; Gelmini:2000bn ; Pas:2001nd ; Fargion:2000pv ; Fodor:2001qy ; Fodor:2001rg ; McKellar:2001hk ; Ringwald:2001mx ; Kalashev:2001sh ; Gelmini:2002xy . The required UHEC$`\nu `$ fluxes were estimated in Ref. Waxman:1998yh  for different spectral indices. In Ref. Yoshida:1998it , particle spectra were determined numerically for case studies which supported the Z-burst scenario. The effect of possible lepton asymmetries was studied in Ref. Gelmini:1999qa . In Ref. Pas:2001nd , the analysis of the Z-burst mechanism was advocated as one of the few possibilities for an absolute neutrino mass determination.

In the present paper, we present the details of (and extend) our recent quantitative investigation of the Z-burst scenario Fodor:2001qy  (see also Refs. Fodor:2001rg ; Ringwald:2001mx ), where we have determined the required mass of the heaviest relic neutrino as well as the necessary ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrino flux via a maximum likelihood analysis. But before we start this enterprise, we shall briefly review the current knowledge of the absolute scale of neutrino masses.

Neutrinos almost certainly have non-vanishing masses and mix. This follows from the apparent observation of neutrino oscillations whose evidence is compelling for atmospheric neutrinos Fukuda:1998mi ; Fukuda:1998tw ; Fukuda:1998ub ; Fukuda:2000np ; Ambrosio:2001je , strong for solar neutrinos Cleveland:1998nv ; Hampel:1999xg ; Abdurashitov:1999zd ; Fukuda:2001nj ; Fukuda:2001nk ; Altmann:2000ft ; Ahmad:2001an , and so-far unconfirmed for neutrinos produced in the laboratory and studied by the LSND collaboration and others Athanassopoulos:1995iw ; Athanassopoulos:1996wc ; Athanassopoulos:1996jb ; Athanassopoulos:1998pv ; Athanassopoulos:1998er ; Aguilar:2001ty ; Declais:1995su ; Apollonio:1999ae ; Boehm:2000gk ; Eitel:2000by ; Armbruster:2002mp ; Avvakumov:2002jj . However, neutrino oscillations are sensitive only to the mass (squared) splittings $`\mathrm{}m_{ij}^2=m_{\nu _i}^2m_{\nu _j}^2`$, not to the individual masses, $`(m_{\nu _4}>)m_{\nu _3}>m_{\nu _2}>m_{\nu _1}`$, themselves. Only a lower bound on the mass of the heaviest neutrino can be derived from these observations, e.g.

$$m_{\nu _3}\sqrt{\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.04}\mathrm{eV}$$
(3)
from the atmospheric mass splitting in a three neutrino flavour scenario and

$$m_{\nu _4}\sqrt{\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2}\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.4}\mathrm{eV}$$
(4)
from the still allowed value of the LSND mass splitting in a four flavour scenario, respectively (for a recent compilation of global analyses on mass splitting and mixing parameters, see for example Refs. Fogli:2001vr ; Bahcall:2001zu ; Gonzalez-Garcia:2002dz  and references therein).

For an investigation of the absolute scale of neutrino masses one has to exploit different types of experiments, such as the search for mass imprints in the endpoint spectrum of tritium beta ($`\beta `$) decay or the search for neutrinoless double beta ($`0\nu 2\beta `$) decay. At present, these direct kinematical measurements of neutrino masses provide only upper limits, e.g.

$$m_\beta \sqrt{\underset{i}{}|U_{ei}|^2m_{\nu _i}^2}<2.2÷2.5\mathrm{eV}(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.),$$
(5)
with $`U`$ being the leptonic mixing matrix, for the effective mass measured in tritium $`\beta `$ decay Weinheimer:1999tn ; Lobashev:1999tp ; Bonn:2001tw ; Lobashev:2001uu , and

$$m_\nu \left|\underset{i}{}U_{ei}^2m_{\nu _i}\right|<0.33÷1.35\mathrm{eV}(90\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.)$$
(6)
for the Majorana neutrino mass parameter Aalseth:1999ji ; Baudis:1999xd ; Aalseth:2000ud ; Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2001yx ; Aalseth:2002rf  appearing in $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay. The recently reported evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay and correspondingly deduced parameter range Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2002ke

$$m_\nu =(0.11÷0.56)\mathrm{eV}(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.)$$
(7)
has been seriously challenged by Refs. Feruglio:2002af ; Aalseth:2002dt . Combining the experimental constraints from oscillations and from tritium $`\beta `$ decay, one infers upper bounds on the mass of the heaviest neutrino Barger:1998kz ,

$$m_{\nu _3}<\sqrt{m_\beta ^2+\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}\text{ }<\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}\mathrm{eV},$$
(8)
in a three flavour, and

$$m_{\nu _4}<\sqrt{m_\beta ^2+\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2}\text{ }<\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.8}\mathrm{eV},$$
(9)
in a four flavour scenario, respectively. For further recent investigations of the relationship between oscillation phenomena, $`\beta `$ decay and $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay, in particular with respect to the neutrino mass spectrum, one may also consult Refs. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2001gr ; Vissani:2001ci ; Bilenky:2001rz ; Bilenky:2001xq ; Farzan:2001cj ; Osland:2001pm ; Czakon:2002uh ; Pascoli:2001vr  and references cited therein.

Further information on the absolute scale of neutrino masses can be obtained through cosmological and astrophysical considerations. Neutrinos in the $`0.1÷1`$ eV mass range have cosmological implications since they represent a non-negligible part of dark matter. This gives the opportunity to put upper limits on neutrino masses from cosmology Gershtein:1966gg ; Dolgov:2002wy . Analyses of galaxy clustering, including recent CMB measurements and other cosmological constraints, give an upper bound

$$\underset{i}{}m_{\nu _i}<1.8÷4.4\mathrm{eV}$$
(10)
on the sum of the neutrino masses Croft:1999mm ; Fukugita:2000as ; Gawiser:2000yg ; Wang:2001 . From the spread of arrival times of neutrinos from supernova SN 1987A, coupled with the measured neutrino energies, a time-of-flight limit of $`m_\beta <23`$ eV can be derived Loredo:1988mk ; Kernan:1995kt , which, however, is not competitive with the direct limit (5).

It is extremely welcome that the Z-burst scenario opens a further and timely window to the absolute neutrino mass scale, since the opportunities to determine this crucial quantity are rare at present. In addition, its verification would give us an indirect detection of the so elusive relic neutrinos and, finally, offer an explanation of the origin of the highest energy cosmic rays.

The organization of the present paper is as follows. In Section II we describe our determination of the proton and photon spectra at Earth, which originate from Z-bursts taking place mainly at extragalactic distances. We discuss in detail the main ingredients in the predictions of the spectra, such as the details of Z production and hadronic decay, the propagation of nucleons and photons through the diffuse extragalactic photon background, the diffuse flux of ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos, and the relic neutrino number density, as well as their anticipated uncertainties. The comparison of the Z-burst spectra with the observed ultrahigh energy cosmic ray spectrum is presented in Section III. The required absolute neutrino mass, as well as the necessary ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrino flux, are determined via a maximum likelihood analysis for various assumptions about the nature of the background of ordinary cosmic rays from unresolved astrophysical sources and variations of the diffuse extragalactic photon background notably in the radio band. On the basis of these studies we find that the Z-burst determinations of the mass of the heaviest neutrino as well as of the neutrino flux are fairly robust. We find a required neutrino mass range of $`0.08`$ eV $`m_\nu 1.3`$ eV at the 68 % confidence level, if the background of ordinary cosmic rays is of extragalactic origin. This range narrows down considerably if a particular universal radio background is assumed, e.g. to $`0.08`$ eV $`m_\nu 0.40`$ eV for a large one. In Section IV we discuss the implications of our findings for future laboratory studies such as the tritium beta decay and neutrinoless double beta decay, as well as for astrophysical and cosmological neutrino investigations. This section contains also our conclusions.

## II Z-burst spectra

Our comparison of the Z-burst scenario with the observed UHECR spectrum proceeds as follows. First, we determine the probability of Z production as a function of the distance from Earth. Secondly, we exploit collider experiments to derive the energy distribution of the produced protons and photons in the laboratory (lab) system. Thirdly, we consider the propagation of the protons and photons, i. e. we determine their energy losses due to pion and/or $`e^+e^{}`$ production through scattering on the diffuse extragalactic background photons and due to their redshift. The last step is the comparison of the predicted and the observed spectra and the extraction of the required mass of the heaviest relic neutrino and of the necessary UHEC$`\nu `$ flux.

Our prediction of the differential proton flux, i.e. the number of protons arriving at Earth with energy $`E`$ per units of energy ($`E`$), of area ($`A`$), of time ($`t`$) and of solid angle ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$),

$$F_{p|Z}(E)=\frac{\mathrm{d}N_{p|Z}}{\mathrm{d}E\mathrm{d}A\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(11)
from Z-bursts can be summarized as

$`F_{p|Z}(E)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dE_p{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}dr`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{d}E_{\nu _i}F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)n_{\overline{\nu }_i}(r)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{d}E_{\overline{\nu }_i}F_{\overline{\nu }_i}(E_{\overline{\nu }_i},r)n_{\nu _i}(r)]`$
$`\times \sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}(s)\mathrm{Br}(Z\mathrm{hadrons}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N_{p+n}}{\mathrm{d}E_p}}`$
$`\times (){\displaystyle \frac{}{E}}P_p(r,E_p;E),`$
with the following important building blocks: the UHEC$`\nu `$ fluxes $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)`$ at the energies $`E_{\nu _i}`$ ($`E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}`$) and at the distance $`r`$ of Z production to Earth, the number density $`n_{\nu _i}(r)`$ of the relic neutrinos, the Z production cross section $`\sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}(s)`$ at centre-of-mass (cm) energy squared $`s=2m_{\nu _i}E_{\nu _i}`$, the branching ratio $`\mathrm{Br}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})`$, the energy distribution $`\mathrm{d}N_{p+n}/\mathrm{d}E_p`$ of the produced protons (and neutrons) with energy $`E_p`$, and the probability $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ that a proton created at a distance $`r`$ with energy $`E_p`$ arrives at Earth above the threshold energy $`E`$.

A similar expression as Eq. (II) holds for the differential photon flux from Z-bursts,

$`F_{\gamma |Z}(E)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dE_\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}dr`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{d}E_{\nu _i}F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)n_{\overline{\nu }_i}(r)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{d}E_{\overline{\nu }_i}F_{\overline{\nu }_i}(E_{\overline{\nu }_i},r)n_{\nu _i}(r)]`$
$`\times \sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}(s)\mathrm{Br}(Z\mathrm{hadrons}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N_\gamma }{\mathrm{d}E_\gamma }}`$
$`\times (){\displaystyle \frac{}{E}}P_\gamma (r,E_\gamma ;E).`$
Here, the photon propagation function $`P_\gamma (r,E_\gamma ;E)`$ gives the expected number of detected photons above the threshold energy $`E`$ if one photon started from a distance of $`r`$ with energy $`E_\gamma `$. Note, that the $`P_\gamma `$ function has a different interpretation than the $`P`$-function of protons. This arises from the fact that the number of photons – in distinction to the number of protons – is not conserved during their propagation.

The building blocks related to Z-production and decay – $`\sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}`$, the hadronic branching ratio, and the momentum distributions $`\mathrm{d}N_i/\mathrm{d}E_i`$ – are very well, and the propagation functions $`P_i`$ are fairly well determined, whereas the first two ingredients, the flux of UHEC$`\nu `$s, $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)`$, and the radial distribution of the relic neutrino number density $`n_{\nu _i}(r)`$, are much less accurately known. In the following we shall discuss all these ingredients in detail.

### II.1 Z production and decay

At LEP and SLC millions of Z bosons were produced and their decays analyzed with extreme high accuracy. Due to the large statistics, the uncertainties of our analysis related to Z decay turned out to be negligible.

Let us start with a review of the Standard Model neutrino annihilation cross section. The s-channel Z-exchange annihilation cross section into any fermion anti-fermion ($`f\overline{f}`$) pair is given by (see e. g. Refs. Roulet:1993pz ; Gondolo:1993rn )

$$\sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}^Z(s)=\frac{G_F^2s}{4\pi }\frac{M_Z^4}{(sM_Z^2)^2+M_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}N_{\mathrm{eff}}(s),$$
(14)
where $`s`$ is the cm energy squared, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ is the total width of the Z boson, and $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective number of annihilation channels,

$`N_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)={\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\theta (s4m_f^2)\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_f\left(18T_{3f}q_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+8q_f^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\right).`$
Here the sum is over all fermions with $`m_f<\sqrt{s}/2`$, with charge $`q_f`$ (in units of the proton charge), isospin $`T_{3f}`$ ($`1/2`$ for $`u,c`$ and neutrinos; $`1/2`$ for $`d,s,b`$ and negatively charged leptons), and $`n_f=1(3)`$ for leptons (quarks ($`q`$)). With $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23147(16)`$ for the $`\mathrm{sin}^2`$ of the effective Weinberg angle and $`G_F=1.16639(1)\times 10^5`$ GeV<sup>-2</sup> for the Fermi coupling constant Groom:2000in , formula (14) gives, at the $`Z`$-mass,

$`\sigma (\nu _i\overline{\nu }_iZ^{}\mathrm{all}q\overline{q})_{s=M_Z^2}`$ $`=`$ $`314.9\mathrm{nb},`$ (16)
$`\sigma (\nu _i\overline{\nu }_iZ^{}\mathrm{all}f\overline{f})_{s=M_Z^2}`$ $`=`$ $`455.6\mathrm{nb},`$ (17)
with a branching ratio $`\sigma (\nu _i\overline{\nu }_iZ^{}\mathrm{all}q\overline{q})/\sigma (\nu _i\overline{\nu }_iZ^{}\mathrm{all}f\overline{f})_{s=M_Z^2}=0.6912`$, in good agreement with the experimental result Groom:2000in ,

$$\mathrm{Br}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})=(69.89\pm 0.07)\%.$$
(18)
Later we shall exploit the following simplification which arises due to the fact that the cross section (14) is sharply peaked at the resonance cm energy squared $`s=M_Z^2`$. Correspondingly, it acts essentially like a $`\delta `$-function in the integration over the energies $`E_{\nu _i}`$ of the incident neutrinos in Eqs. (II) and (II), and we can assume that the UHEC$`\nu `$ fluxes are constant in the relevant energy region. Thus, introducing the energy-averaged annihilation cross section Weiler:1982qy ; Weiler:1999sh ,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{M_Z^2}\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}(s)=2\pi \sqrt{2}G_F=40.4\mathrm{nb},$$
(19)
which is the effective cross section for all neutrinos within $`1/2\delta E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}/E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z/M_Z=2.7\%`$ of their peak annihilation energy, we can write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dE_{\nu _i}F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i})\sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}(s=2m_{\nu _i}E_{\nu _i})`$
$`E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}})\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}.`$
In view of the expected rapid decrease of the UHEC$`\nu `$ flux at increasing energies (cf. Section II.3), we neglect $`t`$-channel W- and Z-exchange annihilation processes. On resonance, the $`s`$-channel Z-exchange processes completely overwhelm them. Fairly above the resonant energies, on the other hand, they eventually dominate but are probably unobservable due to the lack of an appreciable UHEC$`\nu `$ flux.

Next, we turn to the energy distribution of the protons and photons in Z decay. We combined existing published and some improved unpublished data on the momentum distribution,

$$𝒫_p(x)\frac{\mathrm{d}N_p}{\mathrm{d}x},x\frac{p_p}{p_{\mathrm{beam}}},$$
(21)
of protons ($`p`$) (plus antiprotons ($`\overline{p}`$)) in Z decays Akers:1994ez ; Abreu:1995cu ; Buskulic:1994ft ; Abe:1999qh ; Opal:unp , see Fig. 2 (top). The experimental data, ranging down to $`x810^3`$, were combined with the predictions from the modified leading logarithmic approximation (MLLA) Azimov:1985np ; Azimov:1986by ; Fong:1991nt  at low $`x`$. The $`p+\overline{p}`$ multiplicity is $`N_p=_0^1dx𝒫_p(x)=1.04\pm 0.04`$ in the hadronic channel Groom:2000in .

In the cm system of the Z production the angular distribution of the hadrons is determined by the spin $`1/2`$ of the primary quarks and thus proportional to $`1+w^2=1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ (here $`\theta `$ is the angle between the incoming neutrinos and the outgoing hadrons (cf. Schmelling:1995py )). The energy distribution of the produced protons with energy $`E_p`$ entering the Z-burst spectrum (II),

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}N_p}{\mathrm{d}E_p}=\frac{2}{E_\nu }\frac{\mathrm{d}N_p}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{E_\nu }𝒬_p(y),$$
(22)
with $`y=2E_p/E_\nu `$, is finally obtained after a Lorentz transformation from the cm system to the lab system,

$`𝒬_p(y)={\displaystyle \underset{+,}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}dw(1+w^2)`$ (23)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{1w^2}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\pm yw\sqrt{y^2(1w^2)(2m_p/M_Z)^2}}{\sqrt{y^2(1w^2)(2m_p/M_Z)^2}}}\right|`$
$`𝒫_p\left({\displaystyle \frac{wy\pm \sqrt{y^2(1w^2)(2m_p/M_Z)^2}}{1w^2}}\right),`$
where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass. The first line comes from the angular distribution, the second line is the Jacobian and the third one is the momentum distribution at the inverted momentum. The scaled energy distribution $`𝒬_p`$, as defined in Eq. (22) and given by Eq. (23), is displayed in Fig. 2 (bottom).

Neutrons produced in Z decays will decay and end up as UHECR protons. They are taken into account according to

$$𝒬_{p+n}(y)=\left(1+\frac{N_n}{N_p}\right)𝒬_p(y),$$
(24)
where the neutron ($`n`$) (plus antineutron ($`\overline{n}`$)) multiplicity, $`N_n=_0^2dy𝒬_n(y)`$, is $`4\%`$ smaller than the proton’s Biebel01 .

Photons are produced in hadronic Z decays via fragmentation into neutral pions, $`Z\pi ^0+X2\gamma +X`$ (cf. Fig. 1). The corresponding scaled energy distribution in the lab system, defined analogously to Eq. (22), reads

$$𝒬_\gamma (y)=_1^1dw\frac{2}{1+w}𝒬_{\pi ^0}\left(\frac{2y}{1+w}\right),$$
(25)
where the scaled energy distribution $`𝒬_{\pi ^0}(y)`$, with $`y=2E_{\pi ^0}/E_\nu `$, is given by Eq. (23), with $`m_pm_{\pi ^0}`$ and $`𝒫_p𝒫_{\pi ^0}`$, the momentum distribution of pions in hadronic Z decay. For the latter distribution, we take the measured one of charged pions $`𝒫_{\pi ^\pm }`$ from hadronic Z decay Akers:1994ez ; Abreu:1995cu ; Buskulic:1994ft ; Abe:1999qh ; Opal:unp  (cf. Fig. 2 (top)), normalized such that $`N_\gamma =_0^2dy𝒬_\gamma (y)=20.97`$ Groom:2000in . Note, that the distributions $`𝒬_i`$, $`i=p,\gamma `$, presented in Fig. 2 (bottom), compare favorably with the ones presented in Ref. Gelmini:2002xy  based on the event generator PYTHIA Sjostrand:1994yb .

Electrons (and positrons) from hadronic Z decay are also relevant for the development of electromagnetic cascades. They stem from decays of secondary charged pions, $`Z\pi ^\pm +Xe^\pm +X`$ (cf. Fig. 1), and their scaled energy distribution in terms of $`y=2E_e/E_\nu `$ reads

$`𝒬_{e^\pm }(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑w{\displaystyle _0^2}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xw+\sqrt{x^2+(2m_e/m_\pi )^2}}}`$
$`\times 𝒬_{\pi ^\pm }\left({\displaystyle \frac{2y}{xw+\sqrt{x^2+(2m_e/m_\pi )^2}}}\right)𝒫_e(x),`$
where $`𝒫_e`$ is the momentum distribution of the electrons in the rest system of the charged pion. The energy distribution $`𝒬_{e^\pm }`$ is also displayed in Fig. 2 (bottom).

### II.2 Propagation of nucleons and photons through the diffuse extragalactic photon background

The cosmic microwave background is known to a high accuracy. It plays the key role in the determination of the probability $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ that a proton created at a distance $`r`$ with energy $`E_p`$ arrives at Earth above the threshold energy $`E`$, suggested in Ref. Bahcall:2000ap  and determined for a wide range of parameters in Ref. Fodor:2001yi . The propagation function $`P_p`$ takes into account the fact that protons of extragalactic (EG) origin and energies above $`410^{19}`$ eV lose a large fraction of their energy due to pion and $`e^+e^{}`$ production through scattering on the CMB and due to their redshift Greisen:1966jv ; Zatsepin:1966jv . In the present analysis we have included new results for $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ which include now variations in the cosmological parameters, in extension to the already published form Fodor:2001yi  exploited in Ref. Fodor:2001qy . In our analysis we go, according to

$$\mathrm{d}z=(1+z)H(z)\mathrm{d}r/c,$$
(27)
out to distances $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (cf. (II)) corresponding to redshift $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=2`$ (cf. Ref. Waxman:1995dg ). We use the expression

$$H^2(z)=H_0^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]$$
(28)
for the relation of the Hubble expansion rate at redshift $`z`$ to the present one. Uncertainties of the latter, $`H_0=h`$ 100 km/s/Mpc, with $`h=(0.71\pm 0.07)\times _{0.95}^{1.15}`$ Groom:2000in , are included. In Eq. (28), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, are the present matter and vacuum energy densities in terms of the critical density. As default values we choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, as favored today. Our results turn out to be pretty insensitive to the precise values of the cosmological parameters.

The simulations needed for the computation of $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ require large computer power. We have used a farm of personal computers (PCs) consisting of 128 parallel $`1.7`$ GHz Pentium 4 processors – normally devoted to QCD lattice calculations Fodor:2002zi  – and have exploited about 3 hours CPU time to determine $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ in a range of $`r4000`$ Mpc, $`10^{18}`$ eV $`E_p10^{26}`$ eV, and $`10^{18}`$ eV $`E10^{26}`$ eV, for each fixed value of the cosmological parameters. The simulation was carried out in small ($`10`$ kpc) steps in $`r`$. For each step, the statistical energy losses due to pion/$`e^+e^{}`$ production and redshift are taken into account Fodor:2001yi . In this connection, the advantage of our formulation of the Z-burst spectrum (cf. (II)) in terms of the probability $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ becomes evident. We have to determine the latter only once and for all. Without the use of $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$, we would have to perform a simulation for any variation of the input spectrum, notably for any change in the neutrino mass. Our maximum likelihood analysis, involving the neutrino mass as a free parameter, would thus require excessive computer power – on the order of 300 hours on the above PC farm for fixed cosmological parameters. Since $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ is of universal usage, we have decided to make the corresponding numerical data for the probability distribution $`()P_p(r,E_p;E)/E`$ available for the public via the World-Wide-Web URL

http://www.desy.de/~uhecr .

The determination of the photon propagation function $`P_\gamma (r,E_\gamma ;E)`$, entering the photon flux prediction (II), was done as follows. In distinction to the case of the proton propagation function, we used here the continuous energy loss (CEL) approximation which largely simplifies the work and reduces the required computer resources – we have estimated the necessary CPU time for a full simulation on the PC farm mentioned above to 1000 hours per fixed set of the cosmological parameters. In the CEL approximation, the energy (and number) of the detected photons is a unique function of the initial energy and distance, and statistical fluctuations are neglected. A full simulation of the photon propagation function will be the subject of a later work.

The processes that are taken into account are pair production on the diffuse extragalactic photon background (cf. Fig. 3 (top)), double pair production and inverse Compton scattering of the produced pairs. We comment also on synchrotron radiation in a possible extragalactic magnetic field (EGMF). For the energy attenuation length of the photons due to these processes, we exploited the values quoted in Ref. Lee:1998fp  (see also Ref. Protheroe:1996ft ) and the further ones presented in Fig. 3 (bottom) which incorporate various assumptions about the poorely known universal radio (URB) (from Ref. Protheroe:1996si ) and infrared (IRB) backgrounds. We shall analyse later the dependence of the neutrino mass and other fit parameters on these variations. Note, that, in view of the recent URB estimates in Ref. Protheroe:1996si , the ones presented in Fig. 3 (top)), which are based on Ref. Clark:1970 , can be referred to as “minimal” URB.

The computation of the photon propagation function $`P_\gamma (r,E_\gamma ;E)`$ was carried out in the following way. The energy attenuation of photons in the CEL approximation was calculated according to

$`dE=E\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}r}{l_z(E)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{1+z}}\right),`$ (29)
where $`l_z(E)=(1+z)^3l_0(E(1+z))`$ is the energy attenuation length at redshift $`z`$. The number of photons was assumed to be constant at ultrahigh energies $`\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{18}`$ eV, due to the small inelasticities in this energy range. Below, it was increased in a way to maintain energy conservation (except for the redshift contribution):

$`\mathrm{d}N_\gamma =N_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}r}{l_z(E)}}.`$ (30)
The $`P_\gamma (r,E_\gamma ;E)`$ function was then obtained by integration of these equations. In the ultrahigh energy region – which is most relevant for us since we perform our fit to the cosmic ray data there – the approximation described above gives the photon flux quite reliable, while at lower energies it yields an upper bound.

### II.3 UHEC$`𝝂`$ fluxes

Presently unknown ingredients in the evaluation of the Z-burst spectra (II) and (II) are the differential fluxes $`F_{\nu _i}`$ of ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos (see e. g. Refs. Protheroe:1999ei ; Gandhi:2000kq ; Learned:2000sw  for recent reviews). Present experimental upper limits on these fluxes are rather poor (cf. Fig. 4 and Refs. Seckel:2001 ; Yoshida:2001 ).

What are the theoretical expectations for diffuse UHEC$`\nu `$ fluxes? More or less guaranteed are the so-called cosmogenic neutrinos which are produced when ultrahigh energy cosmic protons scatter inelastically off the cosmic microwave background radiation Greisen:1966jv ; Zatsepin:1966jv  in processes such as $`p\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }n\pi ^+`$, where the produced pions subsequently decay Beresinsky:1969qj ; Berezinsky and Zatsepin (1970). These fluxes (for recent estimates, see Refs. Yoshida:1993pt ; Protheroe:1996ft ; Yoshida:1997ie ; Engel:2001hd ) represent reasonable lower limits, but turn out to be insufficient for the Z-burst scenario. Recently, theoretical upper limits on the ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrino flux have been given in Refs. Waxman:1999yy ; Mannheim:2001wp ; Bahcall:2001yr . Per construction, the upper limit from “visible” hadronic astrophysical sources, i. e. from those sources which are transparent to ultrahigh energy cosmic protons and neutrons, is of the order of the cosmogenic neutrino flux and shown in Fig. 4 (“WB”; cf. Refs. Waxman:1999yy ; Bahcall:2001yr ). Also shown in this figure (“MPR”) is the much larger upper limit from “hidden” hadronic astrophysical sources, i. e. from those sources from which only photons and neutrinos can escape Berezinsky (1979); Mannheim:2001wp . Even larger fluxes at ultrahigh energies may arise if the hadronic astrophysical sources emit photons only in the sub-MeV region – thus evading the “MPR” bound in Fig. 4 – or if the neutrinos are produced via the decay of superheavy relic particles Gelmini:2000ds ; Crooks:2001jw ; Ellis:1990iu ; Ellis:1992nb ; Gondolo:1993rn ; Berezinsky:1997hy ; Kuzmin:1997cm ; Birkel:1998nx ; Sarkar:2001se , for which also the fragmentation function of the decay is of major interest Berezinsky:1998ed ; Berezinsky:2001up ; Toldra:2002yz ; Toldra:2002sn ; Barbot:2002ep ; Ibarra:2002rq , or topological defects Bhattacharjee:2000qc ; Berezinsky:2000az .

In this situation of insufficient knowledge, we take the following approach concerning the flux of ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos, $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)`$. It is assumed to have the form

$$F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)=F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},0)(1+z)^\alpha ,$$
(31)
where $`z`$ is the redshift and where $`\alpha `$ characterizes the cosmological source evolution (see also Refs. Yoshida:1997ie ; Yoshida:1998it ; Kalashev:2001sh ). The flux at zero redshift, $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},0)F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i})`$, is left open. For hadronic astrophysical sources it is expected to fall off power-like, $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i})E_{\nu _i}^\gamma `$, $`\gamma \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, at high energies. Due to this fact and because of the strong resonance peaks in the $`\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i`$ annihilation cross section (14) at the resonance energies (2), the Z-burst rate will be only sensitive to the flux at the resonant energy of the heaviest neutrino. Of course, the latter may be nearly degenerate with the other neutrino mass eigenstates, $`m_{\nu _i}m_\nu `$, as it is the case for $`m_{\nu _3}\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.1}`$ eV in a three flavour scenario. Correspondingly, our later fit to the UHECR data will be sensitive only to

$$F_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}=\underset{i}{}\left[F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}})+F_{\overline{\nu }_i}(E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}})\right],$$
(32)
where the sum extends over the number of mass eigenstates which are quasi-degenerate with the heaviest neutrino. Note, finally, that, independently of the production mechanism, neutrino oscillations result in a uniform $`F_{\nu _i}`$ mixture for the different mass eigenstates $`i`$.

### II.4 Neutrino number density

The dependence of the relic neutrino number density $`n_{\nu _i}`$ on the distance $`r`$ is treated in the following way.

The question is whether there is remarkable clustering of the relic neutrinos within the local GZK zone of about 50 Mpc. It is known that the density distribution of relic neutrinos as hot dark matter follows the total mass distribution; however, with less clustering Ma:1998aw ; Primack:2000iq . In fact, for $`m_\nu \text{ }<\text{ }1`$ eV, one expects pretty much that the neutrino number density equals the big bang prediction (1Primack:2001 . To take above facts into account, the shape of the $`n_{\nu _i}(r)`$ distribution is varied, for distances below 100 Mpc, between the standard cosmological homogeneous case (1) and that of the total mass distribution obtained from peculiar velocity measurements daCosta:1996nt ; Dekel99  (cf. Fig. 5 (top)). These peculiar measurements suggest relative overdensities of at most a factor $`f_\nu =2÷3`$, depending on the grid spacing (cf. Fig. 5 (bottom)). A relative overdensity $`f_\nu =10^2÷10^4`$ in our neighbourhood, as it was assumed in earlier investigations of the Z-burst hypothesis Fargion:1999ft ; Weiler:1999sh ; Waxman:1998yh ; Yoshida:1998it ; Blanco-Pillado:2000yb ; McKellar:2001hk , seems unlikely in view of these data. Our quantitative results turned out to be rather insensitive to the variations of the overdensities within the considered range.

For scales larger than 100 Mpc the relic neutrino density is taken according to the big bang cosmology prediction, $`n_{\nu _i}=56(1+z)^3`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>. Possible uniform neutrino density enhancements due to eventual lepton asymmetries, as advocated in Ref. Gelmini:1999qa , are negligible in view of the recent, very stringent bounds on the neutrino degeneracies Kneller:2001cd ; Dolgov:2002ab . In any case, such uniform enhancements change only the normalization of the Z-burst spectra and have no effect on their shape. Therefore, they could possibly milder the required UHEC$`\nu `$ flux, but the value of the neutrino mass inferred from the Z-burst scenario is not affected by them.

## III Determination of the required neutrino mass and the necessary UHEC$`\nu `$ flux

### III.1 Generalities

The predicted spectra of protons and photons from Z-bursts, (II) and (II), can now be compared with the observed UHECR spectrum (cf. Fig. 6). Our analysis includes published UHECR data of AGASA Takeda:1998ps , Fly’s Eye Bird:yi ; Bird:wp ; Bird:1994uy , Haverah Park Lawrence:cc ; Ave:2000nd , and HiReS Kieda00 , as well as unpublished one from the World Wide Web pages of the experiments on 17/03/01 (for a review, see Ref. Nagano:2000ve ). Due to normalization difficulties we did not use the Yakutsk Efimov91  results. We shall take into account the fact that above $`410^{19}`$ eV less than $`50\%`$ of the cosmic rays can be photons at the $`95\%`$ confidence level (C.L.) Ave:2001xn  (see also Refs. Ave:2000nd ; Shinozaki:2001 ).

As usual, each logarithmic unit between $`\mathrm{log}(E/\text{eV})=18`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(E/\text{eV})=26`$ is divided into ten bins. The predicted number of UHECR events in a bin is taken as

$$N(i)=_{E_i}^{E_{i+1}}dE\left[F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}(E)+F_{p(+\gamma )|Z}(E)\right],$$
(33)
where $`810^{16}`$ m$`{}_{}{}^{2}`$ s $``$ sr is the total exposure (estimated from the highest energy events and the corresponding fluxes) and where $`E_i=10^{(18+i/10)}`$ eV is the lower bound of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ energy bin. The first term in Eq. (33), $`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}`$, corresponds to the diffuse background of ordinary cosmic rays from unresolved astrophysical sources. Below the GZK cutoff, it should have the usual and experimentally observed power-law form Nagano:2000ve . The second term represents the sum of the proton and photon spectra, $`F_{p|Z}+F_{\gamma |Z}`$, Eqs. (II) and (II), from Z-bursts.

The separation of the flux into two terms (one from the power-law background and one from the Z-burst) is physically well motivated. The power-law part below the GZK cutoff is confirmed experimentally and, for extragalactic sources, it should suffer from the GZK effect. In the Z-burst scenario, cosmic rays are coming from another independent source (Z-bursts), too. What we observe is the sum of the two. As the detailed fits in the next section will show, the flux from Z-bursts is much smaller in the low energy region than the flux of the power-law background. Correspondingly, the low energy part of the spectrum (between $`10^{18.5}`$ and $`10^{19.3}`$ eV) has very little influence on the Z-burst fit parameters, notably on the neutrino mass.

We shall study several possibilities for the background term $`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}`$.

The first one is based on the assumption that the diffuse background of ordinary cosmic rays even above the GZK cutoff at $`410^{19}`$ eV consists of protons which are produced in our neighborhood – within our galactic halo or at least within the GZK zone of about 50 Mpc. We shall refer to this possible cosmic ray background in the following as the “halo background”. We should note, however, that there are no apparent suitable astrophysical sources within the GZK distance to which the highest energy events point Sigl:1994eg ; Elbert:1995zv  – a fact which is difficult to reconcile with the halo background model.

For the halo background, no GZK attenuation is included. The spectrum is assumed to have the usual power-law behavior which describes the data well for smaller energies Takeda:1998ps ; Nagano:2000ve  (cf. Fig. 6 (top)),

$`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}(E;A,\beta )=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{1\mathrm{eV}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{1\mathrm{eV}}}\right)^\beta (\mathrm{Halo}\mathrm{bk}^{}\mathrm{d}).`$
A similar background model, however with a fixed power-law index $`\beta =3.23`$, as found by AGASA to fit the data from $`10^{17.6}÷10^{19}`$ eV (cf. Table V in Ref. Nagano:2000ve ), has been exploited in a recent Z-burst simulation Gelmini:2002xy .

In the second case, we assume that the diffuse background of ordinary cosmic rays comes from protons which originate from uniformly distributed, extragalactic sources – hence we name it “extragalactic background”. In view of the observed distribution of arrival directions of UHECRs, this assumption seems to be phenomenologically more realistic than the halo background model. Though there are some peculiarly clustered events, the overall distribution at present statistics seems to be practically uniform Dubovsky:1998pu ; Berezinsky:1999rp ; MedinaTanco:1999gw .

The extragalactic background suffers of course from GZK attenuation. Correspondingly, we take the above power-law (III.1), $`AE_p^\beta `$, as an injection spectrum and take its modification due to the interactions with the CMB photons into account with the help of the proton propagation function $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$,

$`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}(E;A,\beta )=`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dE_p{\displaystyle _0^{R_{\mathrm{max}}}}dr\left(1+z(r)\right)^3`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{A}{1\mathrm{eV}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_p}{1\mathrm{eV}}}\right)^\beta `$
$`\times (){\displaystyle \frac{P_p(r,E_p;E)}{E}}(\mathrm{EG}\mathrm{bk}^{}\mathrm{d}).`$
The predicted spectrum of the extragactic background protons shows an accumulation at around the GZK scale $`410^{19}`$ eV and a sharp drop beyond (see Fig. 6 (bottom)).

As far as the Z-burst spectra entering our prediction (33) are concerned, we proceed as follows. We shall mainly concentrate on the case where there is only one relevant neutrino mass scale $`m_\nu `$, either because there are three neutrino types with nearly degenerate neutrino masses, $`m_{\nu _i}m_\nu `$, or there is one neutrino which is much heavier than the other ones such that the contribution of the latter to the cosmic ray spectrum can be neglected since the corresponding resonance energies are much larger and the UHEC$`\nu `$ fluxes are expected to fall with increasing energy. Therefore, we fit only one neutrino mass parameter $`m_\nu `$. In this case, the spectra (II) and (II) for protons and photons from Z-bursts can be written as

$`F_{i|Z}(E;B,m_\nu )=`$
$`B{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dE_i{\displaystyle _0^{R_{\mathrm{max}}}}dr\left(1+z(r)\right)^{3+\alpha }\delta _n(r)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\nu }{M_Z^2}}𝒬_i\left(y={\displaystyle \frac{4m_\nu E_i}{M_Z^2}}\right)`$
$`\times (){\displaystyle \frac{P_i(r,E_i;E)}{E}},i=p,\gamma ,`$
where $`\alpha `$ is the cosmological evolution parameter, $`\delta _n(r)`$ is the mass density fluctuation field (cf. Fig. 5 (bottom)), normalized to one, and $`𝒬_i`$ are the boosted momentum distributions from hadronic Z decay, normalized to $`N_{p+n}=2.04`$, for $`i=p`$, and to $`N_\gamma =2N_{\pi ^0}+N_{\pi ^\pm }=37`$, for $`i=\gamma `$. We are left here with two fit parameters, the mass $`m_\nu `$ of the heaviest neutrino and the overall normalization $`B`$, which may be expressed, on account of Eqs. (II.1) and (32), in terms of the original quantities entering Eqs. (II) and (II), as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{}}=\mathrm{Br}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})R_{\mathrm{max}}n_{\nu _i}_0\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}E_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}F_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}.`$ (37)
Note, that the neglection of finite width effects, $`1/2\delta E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}/E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z/M_Z=2.7\%`$, in our implementation (III.1) of the Z-burst spectra is perfectly adequate in view of the relative errors $`\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}50}`$ % which we will find later from our fits.

The expectation value for the number of events in a bin is given by Eq. (33). To determine the most probable value for $`m_{\nu _j}`$ we use the maximum likelihood method and minimize Fodor:2001za  the $`\chi ^2(\beta ,A,B,m_{\nu _j})`$,

$`\chi ^2=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{E_i}{\mathrm{eV}}\right)=18.5}{\overset{\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{E_i}{\mathrm{eV}}\right)=26.0}{}}}2\left[N(i)N_\mathrm{o}(i)+N_\mathrm{o}(i)\mathrm{ln}\left(N_\mathrm{o}(i)/N(i)\right)\right],`$
where $`N_\mathrm{o}(i)`$ is the total number of observed events in the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ bin. Since the Z-burst scenario results in a quite small flux for lower energies, we take the lower bound just below the “ankle”: $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=10^{18.5}`$ eV. Our results are insensitive to the definition of the upper end (the flux is extremely small there) for which we choose $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/\text{eV})=26`$. The uncertainties of the measured energies are about 30% which is one bin. By means of a Monte Carlo analysis, we take these uncertainties into account and include the corresponding variations in our final error estimates.

For comparison with recent work on the Z-burst scenario Kalashev:2001sh , we have done also fits with no background component, $`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}=0`$ in Eq. (33), and a larger lower end, $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{min}}/\text{eV})=19.4÷20.0`$. Such a scenario, with $`E_{\mathrm{min}}\text{ }<\text{ }E_{\mathrm{GZK}}410^{19}`$ eV, was advocated in Ref. Kalashev:2001sh  as appropriate to explain all UHECR data above the GZK cutoff by the Z-burst model and to attribute all UHECR data below the cutoff to ordinary astrophysical extragalactic sources.

### III.2 Fit results

Qualitatively, our analysis can be understood as follows. In the Z-burst scenario a small relic neutrino mass needs a large incident neutrino energy $`E_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}`$ (2) in order to produce a Z. Large $`E_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}`$ results in a large Lorentz boost, thus large $`E_p`$ resp. $`E_\gamma `$. In this way the shape of the detected energy ($`E`$) spectrum determines the mass of the relic neutrino. The sum of the necessary UHEC$`\nu `$ fluxes $`F_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}`$, on the other hand, is determined by the over-all normalization $`B`$.

Our fitting procedure involves four parameters: $`\beta ,A,B`$ and $`m_\nu `$. The minimum of the $`\chi ^2(\beta ,A,B,m_\nu )`$ function is $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ at $`m_{\nu \mathrm{min}}`$ which is the most probable value for the mass, whereas the 1 $`\sigma `$ (68%) confidence interval for $`m_\nu `$ is determined by

$$\chi ^2(\beta ^{},A^{},B^{},m_\nu )\chi _o^2(m_\nu )=\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+1.$$
(39)
Here $`\beta ^{}`$, $`A^{}`$, $`B^{}`$ are defined in such a way that the $`\chi ^2`$ function is minimized in $`\beta ,A`$ and $`B`$, at fixed $`m_\nu `$.

As already mentioned, presently there is no evidence that the observed highest energy cosmic rays are photons. Let us start therefore with the assumption (cf. Ref. Fodor:2001qy ) that the ultrahigh energy photons from Z-bursts can be neglected in the fit in comparison to the protons. This is certainly true for a sufficiently large universal radio background, e. g. on the level of the maximal one estimated in Ref. Protheroe:1996si  and/or for a sufficiently strong extragalactic magnetic field $`𝒪(10^9)`$ G. We shall refer to this scenario in the following as “strong” UHE$`\gamma `$ attenuation. Our best fits to the observed data from this scenario (cf. Table 1) can be seen in Fig. 7, for evolution parameter $`\alpha =0`$. We find a neutrino mass of $`m_\nu =3.46_{1.34(2.32)}^{+1.73(4.03)}`$ eV for the case that the UHECR background protons are of halo type (III.1), $`m_\nu =0.20_{0.12(0.18)}^{+0.19(0.61)}`$ eV, if they are of extragalactic type (III.1), and $`m_\nu =0.40_{0.16(0.27)}^{+0.32(0.87)}`$ eV, if there are are no background protons above $`10^{19.7}`$ eV, respectively. The first numbers are the 1 $`\sigma `$, the numbers in the brackets are the 2 $`\sigma `$ errors. This gives an absolute lower bound on the mass of the heaviest neutrino of $`m_\nu >0.02`$ eV at the 95% C.L., which is comparable to the one obtained from the atmospheric mass splitting in a three flavour scenario, Eq. (3).

The surprisingly small uncertainties are based on the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis described in Section III.1. The inclusion of the already mentioned 30 % uncertainties in the observed energies by a Monte Carlo analysis increases the error bars by about 10 %. Note, that the relative errors in the extragalactic and in the no background cases are of the same order. This shows that the smallness of these errors does not originate from the low energy part of the background component.

The fits are rather good: for 21 non-vanishing bins and 4 fitted parameters they can be as low as $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=15.64`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=25.82`$ in the halo and the extralactic background case, respectively, whereas in the no background case, for $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=10^{19.7}`$ eV, we have 9 bins with 2 fitted parameters and a $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=8.03`$, see Table 1. In the latter case, however, which was advocated strongly in Ref. Kalashev:2001sh , a remarkable dependence of the fitted mass on the value of $`E_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is observed. The $`\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sigma `$ fits are shown in Fig. 8. As it should be, the spread is small in the region where there are data, whereas it can be quite large in the presently unexplored ultrahigh energy regime. Finally, let us mention that, both in the “halo” as well as in the extragalactic background cases, the $`\chi ^2`$ fits without a Z-burst component (cf. Fig. 6) are far worse: we find $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=41.37`$ in the former, and $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=38.25`$ in the latter, for 21 non-vanishing bins and 2 fitted parameters. This finding suggests that the power-law background terms alone cannot describe the data.

In addition to the case of strong UHE$`\gamma `$ attenuation, corresponding to a large universal radio background or a large extragalactic magnetic field, let us consider now the case of a “minimal” URB. Here, we assume a vanishing EGMF and exploit, as in Ref. Lee:1998fp , a universal radio background on the level of the one from Ref. Clark:1970  (cf. Section II.2 and Fig. 3 (top)). The corresponding fits, for our three background scenarios, can be seen in Fig. 9 and Table 2. Note, that our best fits are still compatible with the already mentioned upper limits on the photon fraction of the observed ultrahigh energy cosmic rays Ave:2000nd ; Ave:2001xn ; Shinozaki:2001 . We observe that the value of the neutrino mass found in both the halo background scenario, with $`m_\nu =3.71_{1.12(1.96)}^{+1.40(3.27)}`$ eV, as well as in the extragalactic background scenario, with $`m_\nu =0.77_{0.30(0.51)}^{+0.48(1.36)}`$ eV, are compatible, at about the 2 $`\sigma `$ level, with the corresponding values found in the case of strong UHE$`\gamma `$ attenuation. As before, in the “no” background scenario, we find a strong dependence of the fitted mass on the value of $`E_{\mathrm{min}}`$.

Besides the no UHECR background scenario, the Z-burst determination of the neutrino mass seems reasonably robust. Its robustness with regard to changes of presently unknown quantities within their anticipated variations is further illustrated in Tables 3 and 4 and in Fig. 10. For a wide range of cosmological source evolution ($`\alpha =3÷3`$), Hubble parameters $`h=0.61÷0.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=2÷5`$, for variations of the possible relic neutrino overdensity in our GZK zone within the limits discussed in Section II.4, and for different assumptions about the diffuse extragalactic photon background, the results remain within the above error bars. The main uncertainties concerning the central values originate from the different assumptions about the background of ordinary cosmic rays. In the case that the ordinary cosmic rays above $`10^{18.5}`$ eV are protons and originate from a region within the GZK zone of about 50 Mpc (“halo”), the required mass of the heaviest neutrino seems to lie between $`2.1`$ eV $`m_\nu 6.7`$ eV at the 68 % C.L. ($`\alpha 0`$, cf. below), if we take into account the variations between the minimal and moderate URB cases and the strong UHE$`\gamma `$ attenuation case (cf. Fig. 10). Note, that a value of $`m_\nu =0.07`$ eV, as studied recently in Ref. Gelmini:2002xy  in a simulation of the Z-burst scenario in the context of a halo background model, seems to lie more than 3 $`\sigma `$ away from our best fit values. The much more plausible assumption that the ordinary cosmic rays above $`10^{18.5}`$ are protons of extragalactic origin leads to a required neutrino mass of $`0.08`$ eV $`m_\nu 1.3`$ eV at the 68 % C.L. ($`\alpha 0`$) (cf. Fig. 10).

We performed a Monte Carlo analysis studying higher statistics. In the near future, the Pierre Auger Observatory Guerard:1999ym ; Bertou:2000ip  will provide a ten times higher statistics, which reduces the error bars in the neutrino mass to about one third of their present values.

Let us consider next in more detail the $`\gamma `$ ray spectra from Z-bursts, notably in the $`100`$ GeV region. As illustrated in Fig. 11, the EGRET measurements of the diffuse $`\gamma `$ background in the energy range between 30 MeV and 100 GeV Sreekumar:1998  put non-trivial constraints on the evolution parameter $`\alpha `$. Whereas different values of $`\alpha `$ lead to very similar spectra in the ultrahigh energy region – which determines the neutrino mass – they are easily discriminated in $`<`$$``$ TeV photons. Only evolution parameters $`\alpha \text{ }<\text{ }0`$ seem to be compatible with the EGRET measurements (cf. Fig. 11), quite independently of different assumptions about the URB. These numerical findings are in fairly good agreement with other recent simulations Kalashev:2001sh .

The necessary UHEC$`\nu `$ flux at the resonant energy $`E_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}`$ is obtained via Eq. (37) from the fitted overall normalization $`B`$,

$$E_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}F_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}=8.610^{16}\frac{1}{\mathrm{m}^2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{sr}}\frac{D_{H_0}}{R_{\mathrm{max}}}hB,$$
(40)
where $`D_{H_0}=c/H_0=310^3h^1`$ Mpc is the present size of the universe and where, on account of Eqs. (27) and (28), the ratio of the maximally considered distance of Z production, $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and the size of the universe is given by

$$\frac{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{D_{H_0}}=\underset{0}{\overset{z_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}dz\frac{1}{(1+z)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.$$
(41)
This ratio is of order one; it equals $`0.73`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=2`$. The required fluxes are summarized in Fig. 12, together with some existing upper limits and projected sensitivities of present, near future and future observational projects. They appear to be well below present upper limits and are within the expected sensitivity of AMANDA Barwick00 ; Hundertmark:2001 , RICE Seckel:2001 , and Auger Capelle98 . Clearly, these fluxes are higher than the ones advocated in Ref. Yoshida:1998it  based on local neutrino overdensities $`f_\nu =10^2÷10^4`$ on scales of about $`5`$ Mpc. However, since we also took into account a background from ordinary cosmic rays, our normalization of the Z-burst component is different and correspondingly our fluxes are somewhat less than a factor of $`f_\nu `$ higher. They are consistent with the ones found in Refs. Kalashev:2001sh ; Gelmini:2002xy . As far as power-law extrapolations of the fluxes, $`F_\nu E^\gamma `$, below the resonance energy are concerned, we find, in agreement with Refs. Yoshida:1998it ; Blanco-Pillado:2000yb ; Kalashev:2001sh , that indices $`\gamma \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.5}`$ are excluded by the Fly’s Eye limits Baltrusaitis:1985mt  (cf. Fig. 12).

The required neutrino flux, for power-law extrapolations with index $`\gamma \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ to lower energies, is larger than the theoretical upper limit from “hidden” hadronic astrophysical sources, from which only photons and neutrinos can escape (cf. Fig. 4 (“MPR”)). From an analysis of the assumptions behind this limit (Mannheim:2001wp, ) one finds that one has to invoke hidden astrophysical sources whose photons somehow don’t show up in the diffuse $`\gamma `$ ray background measured by EGRET Ringwald:2001mx ; Kalashev:2001sh . In general, astrophysical sources for the required UHE neutrinos should be distributed with $`\alpha <0`$, accelerate protons up to energies $`\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^{23}`$ eV, be opaque to primary nucleons and emit secondary photons only in the sub-MeV region. It is an interesting question whether such challenging conditions can be realized in BL Lac objects, a class of active galactic nuclei for which some evidence of zero or negative cosmological evolution has been found (see Ref. Caccianiga:2001  and references therein) and which were recently discussed as possible sources of the highest energy cosmic rays Tinyakov:2001nr . Alternatively, one may invoke top-down scenarios Bhattacharjee:2000qc  for the sources of the highest energy cosmic neutrinos such as unstable superheavy relic particle decays Gelmini:2000ds ; Crooks:2001jw ; Ellis:1990iu ; Ellis:1992nb ; Gondolo:1993rn ; Berezinsky:1997hy ; Kuzmin:1997cm ; Birkel:1998nx ; Sarkar:2001se  or topological defect decays Berezinsky:2000az .

It should be stressed that, besides the neutrino mass, the UHEC$`\nu `$ flux at the resonance energy is one of the most robust predictions of the Z-burst scenario which can be verified or falsified in the near future. In this connection it is worthwhile to recall (cf. Section II.4) that the current limits on neutrino degeneracies Kneller:2001cd ; Dolgov:2002ab  do not allow a remarkable uniform enhancement due to lepton asymmetries which otherwise would be welcome for a relaxation of the huge flux requirement Gelmini:1999qa .

## IV Discussion and Conclusions

We have presented a detailed comparison of the predicted spectra from Z-bursts – resulting from the resonant annihilation of ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos with relic neutrinos – with the observed ultrahigh energy cosmic ray spectrum, extending our earlier study Fodor:2001qy . The mass of the heaviest relic neutrino turned out to have to lie in the range $`2.1`$ eV $`m_\nu 6.7`$ eV on the 1 $`\sigma `$ level, if the background of ordinary cosmic rays above $`10^{18.5}`$ eV consists of protons and originates from a region within a distance of about 50 Mpc. In the phenomenologically most plausible case that the ordinary cosmic rays above $`10^{18.5}`$ are protons of extragalactic origin one is lead to a required neutrino mass in the range $`0.08`$ eV $`m_\nu 1.3`$ eV at the 68 % C.L.. We have also analysed a case where there is no background of ordinary cosmic rays above, say, $`10^{19.7}`$ eV. Here, we find $`0.24`$ eV $`m_\nu 2.6`$ eV. The above neutrino mass ranges include variations in presently unknown quantities, like the amount of neutrino clustering, the universal radio background, and the extragalactic magnetic field, within their anticipated uncertainties. If it turns out that the highest energy cosmic rays are extragalactic protons rather than photons one has to invoke a large universal radio background and/or large extragalactic magnetic field to suppress the photons from Z-bursts. In this case and for our extragalactic background scenario, the neutrino mass range narrows down to $`0.08`$ eV $`m_\nu 0.40`$ eV, with a best fit value of $`m_\nu =0.20`$ eV.

It is remarkable, that the mass ranges required in the Z-burst scenario coincide nearly perfectly with the present knowledge about the mass of the heaviest neutrino from oscillations and tritium $`\beta `$ decay from Eqs. (3) and (8), $`0.04\mathrm{eV}\text{ }<\text{ }m_{\nu _3}\text{ }<\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}`$ eV, in a three flavour or, from Eqs. (4) and (9), $`0.4\mathrm{eV}\text{ }<\text{ }m_{\nu _4}\text{ }<\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.8}`$ eV, in a four flavour scenario. Our values, in the extragalactic background scenario, are still compatible with a hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum, with the largest mass suggested by the atmospheric neutrino oscillation, $`m_{\nu _3}\sqrt{\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}0.04÷0.08`$ eV. However, our best fit values point more into the direction of a quasi-degenerate scenario, $`m_{\nu _i}m_\nu \sqrt{\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$. It is amusing to observe that the recently reported evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay, with $`0.11\mathrm{eV}m_\nu 0.56`$ eV, if true, would point also into the same direction Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2002ke .

The above neutrino masses are in a range which can be explored by near-future laboratory experiments, like the KATRIN tritium $`\beta `$ decay experiment Osipowicz:2001sq , with a projected sensitivity of $`m_\beta \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.3}`$ eV within $`6÷7`$ years, or the $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay experiments NEMO-3 Marquet:2000eq  and CUORE Alessandrello:2002sj , which aim at $`m_\nu \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.1}`$ eV, and their next-generation follow-up projects GENIUS Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:1998td  and EXO Danilov:2000pp , with $`m_\nu \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.01}`$ eV. Our mass range also compares favourably with the expected sensitivity $`_i(g_{\nu _i}/2)m_{\nu _i}\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.3}`$ eV of near-future global cosmological analyses involving also new CMB measurements Croft:1999mm ; Hu:1998mj , as well as $`m_\beta \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.75}÷1.8`$ eV expected from neutrino observations from supernovae explosions Beacom:2000ng ; Arnaud:2002gt .

From our fits, we could also determine the necessary ultrahigh energy neutrino flux at the resonance energy. Its prediction, in the context of the Z-burst scenario, turned out to be of similar robustness as the prediction of the mass of the heaviest neutrino. It was found to be consistent with present upper limits and detectable in the near future by the already operating neutrino telescopes AMANDA and RICE, and by the Pierre Auger Observatory, presently under construction. A search at these facilities is the most promising and timely step in testing the Z-burst hypothesis. One does not have to wait for future projects such as EUSO Catalano:2001mm  for this critical investigation.

The required neutrino fluxes are enormous. If such tremendous fluxes of ultrahigh energy neutrinos are indeed found, one has to deal with the challenge to explain their origin. It is fair to say, that at the moment no convincing astrophysical sources are known which meet the requirements for the Z-burst hypothesis, i.e. which have no or a negative cosmological evolution, accelerate protons at least up to $`10^{23}`$ eV, are opaque to primary nucleons and emit secondary photons only in the sub-MeV region. Ideas to create the required neutrino fluxes from the decays of superheavy particles or topological defects do not seem to be too appealing since they invoke further new physics beyond neutrino masses.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank S. Barwick, O. Biebel, S. Bludman, W. Buchmüller, P. Di Bari, M. Kachelriess, K. Mannheim, H. Meyer, W. Ochs, K. Petrovay, S. Sarkar, F. Schrempp, D. Semikoz, G. Sigl, and E. Waxman for useful discussions. We thank the OPAL collaboration for their unpublished results on hadronic Z decays. This work was partially supported by Hungarian Science Foundation grants No. OTKA-T34980/T29803/T22929/M28413/OMFB-1548/OM-MU-708.


format: text

text:
# Fermi Surface Renormalization in Two Spatial Dimensions

## Abstract

We discuss the renormalization induced by interactions of a two-dimensional truncated Fermi surface $`\left(FS\right)`$ model.Using a field theoretical renormalization group method we calculate the critical renormalized physical chemical potential $`\mu _R`$. We show that it either vanishes or approaches a non-zero value. We argue that the vanishing of $`\mu _R`$ is indicative of a further truncation of the $`FS`$ we started with and might well represent an insulating spin liquid phase.

Strongly interacting fermion systems continue to attract great interest. This was mainly motivated by the appearance of the high temperature superconductors and by the realization that these materials have, at low and optimal dopings, many anomalous properties. Besides, at zero doping they are antiferromagnetic Mott insulators and it is therefore clear that strong correlation effects play a decisive role in this phenomenon.

Metallic systems are readily characterized by their Fermi Surface$`\left(FS\right)`$ and by their low-lying fermionic excitations. However in one spatial dimension$`\left(d=1\right)`$, in the framework of a Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid, the $`FS`$ is well defined but the low- lying excited states are bosonic modes,. The quasiparticles are therefore destroyed by the interactions in $`d=1`$. Nevertheless the non-interacting Fermi momentum $`k_F`$ continues to be a relevant physical parameter and it is non-renormalizable not to violate Luttinger´s theorem  . Thus in the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid particle-hole excitations continue to exist at $`2k_F`$ and the interacting single-particle Green´s function is such that $`\mathrm{I}mG`$ shows a change of sign at the unrenormalized $`k_F`$.

We want to consider in this work what should happen to the $`FS`$ of strongly interacting fermions in $`d=2`$. The importance of performing a proper $`FS`$ renormalization was also emphasized recently by Kopietz and Busche who treat the Fermi surface as a renormalization group$`\left(RG\right)`$ fixed point manifold. Earlier on the the renormalization of the Fermi surface for $`2d`$ electrons near a van Hove singularity was discussed by Gonzalez, Guinea and Vozmediano Here we approach this problem using a field theoretical $`RG`$ method which allows us to deal with these questions in a direct way. In higher dimensions the renormalization of $`FS`$ does not necessarily imply the violation of Luttinger´s theorem.

To initiate our discussion we consider one-particle fermionic states described by the renormalized lagrangian density

$$\text{L}=Z\left(x\right)\psi _\sigma ^{}\left(x\right)\left[i_t+\frac{^2}{2}+\mu _0\left(x\right)\right]\psi _\sigma \left(x\right)+$$

$$_{\overline{x}}U_0\left(x\overline{x}\right)Z\left(x\right)Z\left(\overline{x}\right)\psi _{}^{}\left(x\right)\psi _{}^{}\left(\overline{x}\right)\psi _{}\left(\overline{x}\right)\psi _{}\left(x\right)$$
(1)
where $`\mu _0`$ is the bare chemical potential, $`U_0`$ is the bare coupling function and $`Z\left(x\right)`$ is a local charge renormalization parameter. Here the word bare is used in a field theory context and does not mean non-interacting. Since *L* is exact the Green´s function which result from it are already renormalized. The spatial dependence of both $`U_{0\text{ }}`$and $`Z`$ in our model reflect the fact that we use a truncated $`2d`$ Fermi surface which consists of four symmetrical patches centred around $`(\pm k_F,0)`$ and $`(0,\pm k_F)`$ in $`𝐤`$-space as our unrenormalized $`FS`$. As we show in Figure $`1`$ inside each patch in our model there are flat sectors in the border regions which are continuously connected to a curved arc around its center. This model was used before to describe two-dimensional quasiparticles states sandwiched by one-particle states with one-dimensional energy dispersion law to simulate the “cold” and “hot” spots respectively. As a result of the momentum space anisotropy the bare parameters become local functions of momenta and the regularization is no longer isotropic and simple.

Following renormalization theory let us rewrite our lagrangian density in a more convenient form:

$$\text{L}=\psi _\sigma ^{}\left(i_t+\frac{^2}{2}+\mu \left(\omega \right)\right)\psi _\sigma _{\overline{x}}U\left(x\overline{x}\right)\psi _{}^{}\left(x\right)\psi _{}^{}\left(\overline{x}\right)\psi _{}\left(\overline{x}\right)\psi _{}\left(x\right)$$

$$+\psi _\sigma ^{}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }Z\left(x\right)\left(i_t+\frac{^2}{2}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0\left(x\right)\right]\psi _\sigma +$$

$$_{\overline{x}}\mathrm{\Delta }U_0\left(x\overline{x}\right)\psi _{}^{}\left(x\right)\psi _{}^{}\left(\overline{x}\right)\psi _{}\left(\overline{x}\right)\psi _{}\left(x\right)$$
(2)
where $`\mu \left(\omega \right)=\frac{1}{2}k_F^2\left(\omega \right)`$ is the renormalized chemical potential parameter and $`\omega `$ is an energy scale parameter. Besides, we have that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0\left(x\right)=Z\left(x\right)\mu _0\left(x\right)\frac{1}{2}k_F^2\left(\omega \right),$$
(3)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }Z\left(x\right)=Z\left(x\right)1$$
(4)
and finally

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_0\left(x\overline{x}\right)=U_0\left(x\overline{x}\right)Z\left(x\right)Z\left(\overline{x}\right)U\left(x\overline{x}\right)$$
(5)
Here $`\mu \left(\omega \right)`$ is not directly associated with the physical Fermi momentum which is associated with the number density. In fact as we will see later $`\mu \left(\omega \right)0`$ as we let $`\omega 0`$. Let us now use *L* to calculate perturbatively the renormalized one-particle irreducible function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\left(2\right)}(𝐩,p_0;\omega )`$ for $`𝐩`$ in the vicinity of the $`FS`$ point $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right),k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)})`$. Up to order $`O\left(U^2\right)`$ we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\left(2\right)}(𝐩,p_0;\omega )=p_0+k_F\left(\omega \right)\left(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_R(𝐩,p_0;\omega ),$$
(6)
where the renormalized self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R`$ is determined by the Feynman diagrams shown in Figure $`2`$.

The last two diagrams of $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R`$ are originated by the counterterms of the renormalized lagrangian and will be defined in detail later on. Our convention here is to associate the crossed dot with the bare coupling function $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_0(𝐩_1,𝐩_4)`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_0(𝐩_1,𝐩_4)=Z\left(𝐩_1\right)Z\left(𝐩_4\right)U_0(𝐩_1,𝐩_4)U$$

$$\frac{4\lambda \left(\omega \right)}{2\pi ^2k_F\left(\omega \right)}U^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }\right)\delta _{𝐩_1+𝐩_2=\mathrm{𝟎}}+$$

$$\frac{\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{2\pi ^2k_F\left(\omega \right)}U^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }\right)\delta _{𝐩_1=𝐩_3}\delta _{𝐩_1=𝐩_4=(0,2k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)})}+\mathrm{}$$
(7)
As a result of this it turns out that diagram $`\left(d\right)`$ reduces to

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\left(d\right)}(𝐩,p_0;\omega )=\frac{U^2\left(\omega \right)}{2\pi ^4}\lambda \left(\omega \right)\left(\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)\right)\left(\frac{3\lambda \left(\omega \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(8)
Since diagrams $`\left(a\right)`$ and $`\left(b\right)`$ produce

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\left(a+b\right)}(𝐩,p_0;\omega )=\frac{2\lambda ^2\left(\omega \right)}{\pi ^2}U\frac{3U^2}{64\pi ^4}\left(\frac{\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)^2(p_0+k_F\left(\omega \right)(p_y+$$

$$+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)})$$

$$[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }+p_0i\delta }{k_F\left(\omega \right)\left(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)+p_0i\delta }\right)$$

$$+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }p_0i\delta }{k_F\left(\omega \right)\left(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)p_0i\delta }\right)]+\mathrm{}$$
(9)
and since diagram $`\left(c\right)`$ gives simply

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{\left(c\right)}(𝐩,p_0;\omega )=\mathrm{\Delta }Z(\frac{\overline{p}}{\omega };\omega )\left(p_0\frac{p^2}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0(\frac{\overline{p}}{\omega };\omega ),$$
(10)
with $`\overline{p}\left(\omega \right)=k_F\left(\omega \right)\left(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)`$ the renormalized $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\left(2\right)}(𝐩,p_0;\omega )`$ in the vicinity of $`𝐩^{}=(\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right),k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)})`$ becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\left(2\right)}(𝐩,p_0;\omega )=(p_0+k_F\left(\omega \right)(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}))[1+$$

$$\frac{3U^2}{64\pi ^4}\left(\frac{\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)^2(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }p_0i\delta }{k_F\left(\omega \right)\left(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)p_0i\delta }\right)$$

$$+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }+p_0i\delta }{k_F\left(\omega \right)\left(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)+p_0i\delta }\right))]\frac{2\lambda ^2\left(\omega \right)}{\pi ^2}U$$

$$+\mathrm{\Delta }Z(\frac{\overline{p}}{\omega };\omega )\left(p_0\frac{p^2}{2}\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0(\frac{\overline{p}}{\omega };\omega )$$

$$\frac{U^2\left(\omega \right)}{2\pi ^4}\lambda \left(\omega \right)\left(\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)\right)\left(\frac{3\lambda \left(\omega \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(11)
To determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _0`$ we now define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\left(2\right)}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\left(2\right)}(𝐩,\omega ;\omega )=\omega `$, with $`\omega 0`$. From this prescription we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Z\left(\frac{\overline{p}}{\omega }=0;\omega \right)=\frac{3U^2}{32\pi ^4}\left(\frac{\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(12)
and, similarly,

$$\mu _0=\frac{1}{2}k_F^2\left(\omega \right)+\frac{2\lambda ^2\left(\omega \right)}{\pi ^2}U\left(\omega \right)[1+$$

$$+\frac{U\left(\omega \right)}{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{2\lambda \left(\omega \right)}\right)\left(\frac{3\lambda \left(\omega \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }\right)+\mathrm{}]$$
(13)
If we now replace these results back into the equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\left(2\right)}`$ , we find for $`𝐩𝐩^{}`$ and $`p_0\omega `$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{\left(2\right)}(𝐩,p_0;\omega )=(p_0+k_F\left(\omega \right)(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}))[1+$$

$$\text{}\frac{3U^2}{64\pi ^4}\left(\frac{\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)^2$$

$$(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\omega }{k_F\left(\omega \right)\left(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)p_0i\delta }\right)$$

$$+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\omega }{k_F\left(\omega \right)\left(p_y+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)+p_0i\delta }\right))+\mathrm{}]$$
(14)
Consequently at $`p_0=0`$ and $`𝐩𝐩^{}`$ the renormalized self-energy is such that

$$\mathrm{I}m\mathrm{\Sigma }_R(𝐩,p_0=0;\omega )=\frac{3U^2}{64\pi ^4}\left(\frac{\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)^2k_F\left(\omega \right)(p_y+$$

$$+k_F\left(\omega \right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(\omega \right)}{2k_F\left(\omega \right)}\left)\right[\frac{\pi }{2}\theta \left(\overline{p}\right)+\theta (\overline{p})]+\mathrm{}$$
(15)
Thus the imaginary part of the renormalized Green´s function $`\mathrm{I}mG`$ changes sign at $`\overline{p}\left(\omega \right)=0`$. Since from our previous result we also have that

$$\mathrm{R}e\mathrm{\Sigma }_R\left(\overline{p}=0,p_0=0;U\left(\omega \right);\omega \right)=0$$
(16)
we can define a dimensionless renormalized chemical potential $`\overline{\mu }\left(\omega \right)`$ through

$$\mu _0=\omega Z_\mu \left(\omega \right)\overline{\mu }\left(\omega \right)=Z_\mu \left(\omega \right)\frac{1}{2}k_F^2\left(\omega \right),$$
(17)
where, using our perturbative results

$$Z_\mu \left(\omega \right)=1+\frac{U\left(\omega \right)}{\pi ^2}\left(\frac{2\lambda \left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)^2[1+$$

$$\frac{U\left(\omega \right)}{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\lambda \left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{2\lambda \left(\omega \right)}\right)\left(\frac{3\lambda \left(\omega \right)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }\right)+\mathrm{}]$$
(18)
To go beyond this two-loop result we can invoke the renormalization group (RG). In this way, since $`\omega d\mu _0/d\omega =0`$ it follows immediately that

$$\omega \frac{d\overline{\mu }\left(\omega \right)}{d\omega }=\left(1+\gamma _\mu \right)\overline{\mu }\left(\omega \right),$$
(19)
where $`\gamma _\mu =d\mathrm{ln}Z_\mu \left(\omega \right)/d\mathrm{ln}\omega `$.

In general we have that $`Z_\mu =Z_\mu (\omega ;\frac{\lambda \left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)};\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\omega \right)}{k_F\left(\omega \right)};U\left(\omega \right))`$. To perform a full calculation of $`\gamma _\mu `$ is a difficult problem. However if we assume that the renormalized coupling and the ratios of the Fermi surface parameters are fixed point values we can use our perturbative results to find

$$\gamma _\mu =\frac{U^2}{\pi ^4}\left(\frac{\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }}{k_F}\right)^{}\left(\frac{\lambda }{k_F}\right)^{}\left(\frac{3\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }}{k_F}\right)^{}=\gamma _\mu ^{}$$
(20)
If we then replace this into the $`RG`$ equation for $`\overline{\mu }\left(\omega \right)`$ we find

$$\overline{\mu }\left(\omega \right)=\overline{\mu }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\left(\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)^{\left(1\gamma _\mu ^{}\right)}$$
(21)
Hence the renormalized chemical potential parameter $`\mu \left(\omega \right)=\frac{1}{2}k_F^2\left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)^{\gamma _\mu ^{}}`$ , for a non-trivial fixed point $`U^{}`$ , is nullified by the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _\mu ^{}`$ when $`\omega 0`$. Note that even if $`\mu \left(\omega \right)0`$ the physical potential which we define more generally as $`\mu _R(\frac{\mu }{\omega };U\left(\omega \right))`$ might not be.To test this assumption we use the ansatz

$$\mu _R(\frac{\mu }{\omega };U\left(\omega \right))=\mu f(\mathrm{exp}t;U\left(\omega \right))$$
(22)
with $`t=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu }{\omega }\right)`$. Since $`\mu _R(\frac{\mu }{\omega };U\left(\omega \right))`$ satisfies the $`RG`$ equation

$$\left[\omega \frac{}{\omega }+\beta \left(U\right)\frac{}{U}+\omega \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mu \left(\omega \right)}{\omega }\mu \frac{}{\mu }\right]\mu _R(\frac{\mu }{\omega };U\left(\omega \right))=0$$
(23)
it then follows that the function $`f`$ is determined by

$$\left[\frac{}{t}+\stackrel{~}{\beta }\left(U\right)\frac{}{U}+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_\mu \left(U\right)\right]f(\mathrm{exp}t;U)=0$$
(24)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }\left(U\right)=\frac{\beta \left(U\right)}{1\omega \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mu \left(\omega \right)}{\omega }}$$
(25)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_\mu \left(U\right)=\frac{\omega \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mu \left(\omega \right)}{\omega }}{1\omega \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mu \left(\omega \right)}{\omega }}$$
(26)
The general solution for $`f`$ is of the form

$$f(\mathrm{exp}t;U)=f(1;U(t;U))\mathrm{exp}_0^t𝑑\overline{t}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_\mu \left(U(\overline{t};U)\right)$$
(27)
where

$$\frac{U(t;U)}{t}=\stackrel{~}{\beta }\left(U(t;U)\right),$$
(28)
with $`U\left(t=0;U\right)=0`$. If we consider the limit $`\mu 0`$ or $`t\mathrm{}`$, assuming again that the physical system is brought to a critical condition with $`UU^{}`$, the physical chemical potential reduces to

$$\underset{\mu 0}{lim}\mu _R(\frac{\mu }{\omega };U\left(\omega \right))=\mu f(1;U^{})\left(\frac{\mu }{\omega }\right)^{\frac{^{\gamma _\mu ^{}}}{1\gamma _\mu ^{}}}\mu ^{\frac{1}{1\gamma _\mu ^{}}}$$
(29)
Therefore only if $`1>\gamma _\mu ^{}`$ , $`\mu _R(\frac{\mu }{\omega };U^{})0`$ when $`\mu 0`$. Note that the existence of a non-trivial infrared$`\left(IR\right)`$ stable $`U^{}`$ is a necessary condition for a non-zero $`\mu _R`$. Since we already proved the existence of such fixed points elsewhere a non-zero $`\mu _R`$ is clearly attainable for appropriate renormalized $`FS`$ parameters. Moreover if we use our earlier estimate $`U^{}=\frac{8\pi ^2}{3}\left(\frac{k_F}{\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^{}`$ , the latter inequality becomes $`\left(\frac{k_F}{3\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^{}>\frac{64}{9}\left(\frac{\lambda }{\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^{}.`$ Thus the $`FS`$ will suffer a further truncation in $`𝐤`$-space wherever this inequality is satisfied. This result is very suggestive in view of the observation that in the pseudogap phase of the underdoped high temperature superconductors the $`FS`$ is indeed truncated and there should be an insulating phase associated with the momentum space region where the charge gap acquires a non-zero value. That insulating state might well be the spin liquid proposed by Furukawa, Rice and Salmhofer earlier on.

In conclusion we showed that in two spatial dimensions the Fermi surface is renormalized by interactions. If the physical system approaches criticality with non-trivial $`IR`$ coupling fixed points the renormalized physical potential $`\mu _R`$ can either vanish or acquire a non-zero value. The vanishing of $`\mu _R`$ is indicative that the Fermi surface can suffer a further truncation and the resulting insulating state might well be an insulating spin liquid phase.

###### Acknowledgement 1

I wish to thank T. Busche, L. Bartosch and P.Kopietz for very useful discussions which motivated this work.

Figure $`1`$: Truncated $`2d`$ Fermi Surface.

Figure $`2`$: Self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R`$ diagrams up to two-loops.