text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the original formulations of string theory , the compactification radius $`R`$ of the extra dimensions and the string mass $`M_s`$ were considered to be set by the 4-dimensional Planck mass $`M_\mathrm{P}=1.9\times 10^{16}`$ TeV. However, recent studies have shown  that conceivable scenarios of stringy nature may exist for which $`R`$ and $`M_s`$ practically decouple from $`M_\mathrm{P}`$. For example, in the model of Ref. , $`M_s`$ may become as low as of order TeV. In this case, $`M_s`$ constitutes the only fundamental scale in nature at which all forces including gravity unify. This low string-scale effective model could be embedded within e.g. type I string theories , where the Standard Model (SM) may be described as an intersection of higher-dimensional $`Dp`$ branes .

As such intersections may be higher dimensional as well, in addition to gravitons the SM gauge fields could also propagate independently within a higher-dimensional subspace with compact dimensions of order TeV-1 for phenomenological reasons. Since such low string-scale constructions may result in different higher-dimensional extensions of the SM , the actual experimental limits on the compactification radius are, to some extent, model dependent. Nevertheless, most of the derived phenomenological limits in the literature were obtained by assuming that the SM gauge fields propagate all freely in a common higher-dimensional space .

Here, we wish to lift the above restriction and focus on the phenomenological consequences of models which minimally depart from the assumption of a universal higher-dimensional scenario . Specifically, we will consider 5-dimensional extensions of the SM compactified on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, where the SU(2)L and U(1)Y gauge bosons may not both live in the same higher-dimensional space, the so-called bulk. In all our models, the SM fermions are localized on the 4-dimensional subspace, i.e. on a 3-brane or, as it is often called, brane. For each higher-dimensional model, we calculate the effects of the fifth dimension on the electroweak observables and analyze their impact on constraining the compactification scale.

The organization of this note is as follows: in Section 2 we introduce the basic concepts of higher dimensional theories in simple Abelian models. After compactifying the extra dimensions on $`S^1/Z_2`$, we obtain an effective 4-dimensional theory, which in addition to the usual SM states contains infinite towers of massive Kaluza–Klein (KK) states of the higher-dimensional gauge fields. In particular, we consider the question how to consistently quantize the higher-dimensional models under study in the so-called $`R_\xi `$ gauge. Such a quantization procedure can be successfully applied to theories that include both Higgs bosons living in the bulk and/or on the brane. After briefly discussing how these concepts can be applied to the SM in Section 3, we turn our attention to the phenomenological aspects of the models of our interest in Section 4. Because of the limited space, technical details are omitted in this note. A complete discussion, along with detailed analytic results and references, is given in our paper in . Section 5 summarizes our numerical results and presents our conclusions.

## 2 5-Dimensional Abelian Models

As a starting point, let us consider the Lagrangian of 5-dimensional Quantum Electrodynamics (5D-QED) compactified on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold given by

$$(x,y)=\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}(x,y)F^{MN}(x,y)+_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y),$$
(2.1)
where

$$F_{MN}(x,y)=_MA_N(x,y)_NA_M(x,y)$$
(2.2)
denotes the 5-dimensional field strength tensor, and $`_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y)`$ is the gauge-fixing term. The Faddeev-Popov ghost terms have been neglected, because the ghosts are non-interacting in the Abelian case. Our notation for the Lorentz indices and space-time coordinates is: $`M,N=0,1,2,3,5`$; $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$; $`x=(x^0,\stackrel{}{x})`$; and $`y=x^5`$.

In a 5-dimensional theory, the gauge-boson field $`A_M`$ transforms as a vector under the Lorentz group SO(1,4). In the absence of the gauge-fixing and ghost terms, the 5D-QED Lagrangian is invariant under a U(1) gauge transformation:

$$A_M(x,y)A_M(x,y)+_M\mathrm{\Theta }(x,y).$$
(2.3)
To compactify the theory on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold and not to spoil the above property of gauge symmetry, we demand for the fields to satisfy the following equalities:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_M(x,y)& =A_M(x,y+2\pi R),\hfill \\ \hfill A_\mu (x,y)& =A_\mu (x,y),\hfill \\ \hfill A_5(x,y)& =A_5(x,y),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Theta }(x,y)& =\mathrm{\Theta }(x,y+2\pi R),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Theta }(x,y)& =\mathrm{\Theta }(x,y).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.4)
The field $`A_\mu (x,y)`$ is taken to be even under $`Z_2`$, so as to embed conventional QED with a massless photon into our 5D-QED. Notice that all other constraints on the field $`A_5(x,y)`$ and the gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x,y)`$ in (2.4) follow automatically if the theory is to remain gauge invariant after compactification.

Given the periodicity and reflection properties of $`A_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ under $`y`$ in (2.4), we can expand these quantities in Fourier series, e.g.

$$A^\mu (x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}A_{(0)}^\mu (x)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}A_{(n)}^\mu (x)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{ny}{R}\right),$$
(2.5)
where the Fourier coefficients $`A_{(n)}^\mu (x)`$ are the so-called KK modes. Integrating out the $`y`$ dimension we finally obtain the effective 4-dimensional Lagrangian

$`(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{(0)\mu \nu }F_{(0)}^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{(n)\mu \nu }F_{(n)}^{\mu \nu }`$ (2.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{n}{R}}A_{(n)\mu }+_\mu A_{(n)5})({\displaystyle \frac{n}{R}}A_{(n)}^\mu +^\mu A_{(n)5})]+_{\mathrm{GF}}(x),`$
where $`_{\mathrm{GF}}(x)=_0^{2\pi R}𝑑y_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y)`$.

In addition to the usual QED terms involving the massless field $`A_{(0)}^\mu `$, the other terms describe two infinite towers of massive vector excitations $`A_{(n)}^\mu `$ and (pseudo)-scalar modes $`A_{(n)}^5`$ that mix with each other, for $`n1`$. The scalar modes $`A_{(n)}^5`$ play the rôle of the would-be Goldstone modes in a non-linear realization of an Abelian Higgs model, in which the corresponding Higgs fields are taken to be infinitely massive.

The above observation motivates us to seek for a higher-dimensional generalization of ’t-Hooft’s gauge-fixing condition, for which the mixing terms bilinear in $`A_{(n)}^\mu `$ and $`A_{(n)}^5`$ are eliminated from the effective 4-dimensional Lagrangian (2.6). Taking advantage of the fact that orbifold compactification generally breaks SO(1,4) invariance , one can abandon the requirement of covariance of the gauge fixing condition with respect to the extra dimension and choose the following non-covariant generalized $`R_\xi `$ gauge:111For a recently related suggestion, see .

$$_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\xi }(^\mu A_\mu \xi _5A_5)^2.$$
(2.7)
Nevertheless, the gauge-fixing term in (2.7) is still invariant under ordinary 4-dimensional Lorentz transformations. Upon integration over the extra dimension, all mixing terms in (2.6) drop out up to irrelevant total derivatives and the propagators for the fields $`A_{(n)}^\mu `$ and $`A_{(n)}^5`$ take on their usual forms that describe massive gauge fields and their respective would-be Goldstone bosons of an ordinary 4-dimensional Abelian-Higgs model in the $`R_\xi `$ gauge:

(2.8)
Hereafter, we shall refer to the $`A_{(n)}^5`$ fields as Goldstone modes.

Having defined the appropriate $`R_\xi `$ gauge through the gauge-fixing term in (2.7), we can recover the usual unitary gauge in the limit $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ . Thus, for the case at hand, we have seen how starting from a non-covariant higher-dimensional gauge-fixing condition, we can arrive at the known covariant 4-dimensional $`R_\xi `$ gauge after compactification.

The above quantization procedure can now be extended to more elaborate higher-dimensional models. Adding a Higgs scalar in the bulk, the 5D Lagrangian of the theory reads

$$(x,y)=\frac{1}{4}F^{MN}F_{MN}+(D_M\mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D^M\mathrm{\Phi })V(\mathrm{\Phi })+_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y),$$
(2.9)
where $`D_M=_M+ie_5A_M`$ denotes the covariant derivative, $`e_5`$ the 5-dimensional gauge coupling, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)=(h(x,y)+i\chi (x,y))/\sqrt{2}`$ a 5-dimensional complex scalar field, and $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mu _5^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+\lambda _5|\mathrm{\Phi }|^4`$ (with $`\lambda _5>0`$) the 5-dimensional Higgs potential.

We consider $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$ to be even under $`Z_2`$, perform a corresponding Fourier decomposition, and integrate over $`y`$. For $`\mu _5^2<0`$, as in the usual 4-dimensional case, the zero KK Higgs mode acquires a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value (VEV) which breaks the U(1) symmetry. Moreover, it can be shown that as long as the phenomenologically relevant condition $`v<1/R`$ is met, $`h_{(0)}`$ will be the only mode to receive a non-zero VEV $`h_{(0)}=v=\sqrt{2\pi R|\mu _5|^2/\lambda _5}`$.

After spontaneous symmetry breaking, it is instructive to introduce the fields

$$G_{(n)}=\left(\frac{n^2}{R^2}+e^2v^2\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{n}{R}A_{(n)5}+ev\chi _{(n)}\right),$$
(2.10)
where $`e=e_5/\sqrt{2\pi R}`$, and the orthogonal linear combinations $`a_{(n)}`$. In the effective kinetic Lagrangian of the theory for the $`n`$-KK mode ($`n>0`$), $`G_{(n)}`$ now plays the rôle of a Goldstone mode in an Abelian Higgs model, while the pseudoscalar field $`a_{(n)}`$ describes an additional physical KK excitation degenerate in mass with the KK gauge mode $`A_{(n)\mu }`$ ($`m_{a(n)}^2=m_{A(n)}^2=(n^2/R^2)+e^2v^2`$). The spectrum of the zero KK modes is simply identical to that of a conventional Abelian Higgs model. It becomes clear that the appropriate gauge-fixing Lagrangian in (2.9) for a 5-dimensional generalized $`R_\xi `$-gauge should be

$$_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\xi }\left[_\mu A^\mu \xi \left(_5A_5+e_5\frac{v}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\chi \right)\right]^2.$$
(2.11)
All the mixing terms are removed and we again arrive at the standard kinetic Lagrangian for massive gauge bosons and the corresponding would-be Goldstone modes. The CP-odd scalar modes $`a_{(n)}`$ and the Higgs KK-modes $`h_{(n)}`$ with mass $`m_{h(n)}=\sqrt{(n^2/R^2)+\lambda _5v^2/\pi R}`$ are not affected by the gauge fixing procedure. Observe finally that the limit $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ consistently corresponds to the unitary gauge.

A qualitatively different way of implementing the Higgs sector in a higher-dimensional Abelian model is to localize the Higgs field at the $`y=0`$ boundary of the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold by introducing a $`\delta `$-function in the 5-dimensional Lagrangian

$$(x,y)=\frac{1}{4}F^{MN}F_{MN}+\delta (y)\left[(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })V(\mathrm{\Phi })\right]+_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y),$$
(2.12)
where the covariant derivative and the Higgs potential have their familiar 4-dimensional forms. Because the Higgs potential is effectively four dimensional the Higgs field, not having KK excitations as a brane field, acquires the usual VEV. Notice that the bulk scalar field $`A_5(x,y)`$ vanishes on the brane $`y=0`$ as a result of its odd $`Z_2`$-parity and does not couple to the Higgs sector.

After compactification and integration over the $`y`$-dimension, spontaneous symmetry breaking again generates masses for all the KK gauge modes $`A_{(n)}^\mu `$. However, the Fourier modes are no longer mass eigenstates. By diagonalization of the mass matrix the mass eigenvalues $`m_{(n)}`$ of the KK mass eigenstates are found to obey the transcendental equation

$$m_{(n)}=\pi m^2R\mathrm{cot}\left(\pi m_{(n)}R\right)$$
(2.13)
with $`m=ev`$. Hence, the zero-mode mass eigenvalues are slightly shifted from what we expect in a 4D model. The respective KK mass eigenstates can also be calculated analytically .

To find the appropriate form of the gauge-fixing term $`_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y)`$ in (2.12), we follow (2.11), but restrict the scalar field $`\chi `$ to the brane $`y=0`$, viz.

$$_{\mathrm{GF}}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\xi }\left[_\mu A^\mu \xi \left(_5A_5+e_5v\chi \delta (y)\right)\right]^2.$$
(2.14)
As is expected from a generalized $`R_\xi `$ gauge, all mixing terms of the gauge modes $`A_{(n)}^\mu `$ with $`A_{(n)5}`$ and $`\chi `$ disappear up to total derivatives if $`\delta (0)`$ is appropriately interpreted on $`S^1/Z_2`$. Determining the unphysical mass spectrum of the Goldstone modes, we find a one-to-one correspondence of each physical vector mode of mass $`m_{(n)}`$ to an unphysical Goldstone mode with gauge-dependent mass $`\sqrt{\xi }m_{(n)}`$. In the unitary gauge $`\xi \mathrm{}`$, the would-be Goldstone modes are absent from the theory. The present brane-Higgs model does not predict other KK massive scalars apart from the physical Higgs boson $`h`$.

## 3 5-Dimensional Extensions of the Standard Model

It is a straightforward exercise to generalize the ideas introduced in Section 2 for non-Abelian theories. Compactification, spontaneous symmetry breaking and gauge fixing are very analogous to the Abelian case and the non-decoupling ghost sector can be easily included . Hence, in the effective 4D theory, we arrive at a particle spectrum being similar to the Abelian case. In addition, the self-interaction of gauge-bosons in non-Abelian theories leads to self-interactions of the KK modes which are restricted by selection rules reflecting the $`S^1/Z_2`$ structure of the extra dimension.

Turning our attention to the electroweak sector of the Standard Model, its gauge structure SU(2)$`{}_{L}{}^{}`$U(1)Y opens up several possibilities for 5-dimensional extensions, because the SU(2)L and U(1)Y gauge fields do not necessarily both propagate in the extra dimension. Such a realization may be encountered within specific stringy frameworks, where one of the gauge groups is effectively confined on the boundaries of the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold .

However, in the most frequently investigated scenario, SU(2)L and U(1)Y gauge fields live in the bulk of the extra dimension (bulk-bulk model). In this case, as has been presented in Section 2, both a localized (brane) and a 5-dimensional (bulk) Higgs doublet can be included in the theory. For generality, we will consider a 2-doublet Higgs model, where the one Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ propagates in the fifth dimension, while the other one $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ is localized. The phenomenology of electroweak precision variables is not sensitive to details of the Higgs potential but only to their vacuum expectation values $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, or equivalently to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ and $`v^2=v_1^2+v_2^2`$.

An even more minimal 5-dimensional extension of electroweak physics constitutes a model in which only the SU(2)L-sector feels the extra dimension while the U(1)Y gauge field is localized at $`y=0`$ (bulk-brane model). In this case, the Higgs field being charged with respect to both gauge groups has to be localized at $`y=0`$ in order to preserve gauge invariance of the (classical) Lagrangian. For the same reason, a bulk Higgs is forbidden in the third possible model in which SU(2)L is localized while U(1)Y propagates in the fifth dimension (brane-bulk model).

In all these minimal 5-dimensional extensions of the SM we assume that the SM fermions are localized at the $`y=0`$ fixed point of the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold. The coupling of such a fermion to a gauge boson restricted to the same brane $`y=0`$ has its SM value. On the other hand, the effective interaction Lagrangian describing the coupling of a fermion to the Fourier modes of a bulk gauge-boson has the generic form

$$_{\mathrm{int}}(x)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \left(g_V+g_A\gamma ^5\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(A_{(0)\mu }+\sqrt{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{(n)\mu }\right).$$
(3.1)
Again, the coupling parameters $`g_V`$ and $`g_A`$ are set by the quantum numbers of the fermions and receive their SM values. Because the KK mass eigenmodes generally differ from the Fourier modes, their couplings to fermions $`g_{V(n)}`$ and $`g_{A(n)}`$ have to be calculated for each model individually, after the appropriate basis transformations relating the weak to mass eigenstates have properly been taken into account.

## 4 Effects on Electroweak Observables

In this section, we will concentrate on the phenomenology and present bounds on the compactification scale $`M=1/R`$ of minimal higher-dimensional extensions of the SM calculated by analyzing a large number of high precision electroweak observables. To be specific, we proceed as follows. We relate the SM prediction $`𝒪^{\mathrm{SM}}`$  for an electroweak observable to the prediction $`𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ for the same observable obtained in the higher-dimensional SM under investigation through

$$𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}=𝒪^{\mathrm{SM}}\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}\right).$$
(4.1)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ is the tree-level modification of a given observable $`𝒪`$ from its SM value due to the presence of one extra dimension. In five dimensions, all the tree-level modifications can be expanded in powers of the typical scale factor $`X=\frac{1}{3}\pi ^2m_Z^2R^2`$. On the other hand, to enable a direct comparison of our predictions with the electroweak precision data , we include SM radiative corrections to $`𝒪^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. However, we neglect SM- as well as KK-loop contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ as higher order effects.

As input SM parameters for our theoretical predictions, we choose the most accurately measured ones, namely the $`Z`$-boson mass $`M_Z`$, the electromagnetic fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ and the Fermi constant $`G_F`$. While $`\alpha `$ is not affected in the models under study, $`M_Z`$ and $`G_F`$ generally deviate from their SM form. To first order in $`X`$, $`M_Z`$ and $`G_F`$ may be parameterized as

$$M_Z=M_Z^{\mathrm{SM}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_ZX\right),G_F=G_F^{\mathrm{SM}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_GX\right),$$
(4.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G`$ are model-dependent parameters. For example, one finds

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_Z=\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^4\beta ,\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_w,\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\widehat{\theta }_w\}.$$
(4.3)
for the bulk-bulk, brane-bulk and bulk-brane models, with respect to the SU(2)L and U(1)Y gauge groups.

The relation between the weak mixing angle $`\theta _w`$ and the input variables is also affected by the fifth dimension. Hence, it is useful to define an effective mixing angle $`\widehat{\theta }_w`$ by $`\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_w=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta X\right),`$ such that the effective angle still fulfills the tree-level relation

$$G_F=\frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_w\mathrm{cos}^2\widehat{\theta }_wM_Z^2},$$
(4.4)
of the Standard Model.

For the tree-level calculation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$, it is necessary to consider the mixing effect of the Fourier modes on the masses of the Standard-Model gauge bosons as well as on their couplings to fermions. In addition, we have to keep in mind that the mass spectrum of the KK gauge bosons also depends on the model under consideration.

Within the framework outlined above, we compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ for the following high precision observables to first order in $`X`$: the $`W`$-boson mass $`M_W`$, the $`Z`$-boson invisible width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(\nu \overline{\nu })`$, $`Z`$-boson leptonic widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(l^+l^{})`$, the $`Z`$-boson hadronic width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(\mathrm{had})`$, the weak charge of cesium $`Q_W`$ measuring atomic parity violation, various ratios $`R_l`$ and $`R_q`$ involving partial $`Z`$-boson widths, fermionic asymmetries $`A_f`$ at the $`Z`$ pole, and various fermionic forward-backward asymmetries $`A_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(0,f)}`$. For example, for the invisible $`Z`$ width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z(\nu \overline{\nu })}^{\mathrm{HDSM}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_w\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\beta 1\right)^21& \text{for the bulk-bulk model,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_w& \text{for the brane-bulk model,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{cos}^2\widehat{\theta }_w& \text{for the bulk-brane model.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.5)
Employing the results of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒪^{\mathrm{HDSM}}`$ and calculating all the electroweak observables considered in our analysis by virtue of (4.1), we confront these predictions with the respective experimental values. We can either test each variable individually or perform a $`\chi ^2`$ test to obtain bounds on the compactification scale $`M=1/R`$, where

$$\chi ^2(R)=\underset{i}{}\frac{\left(𝒪_i^{\mathrm{exp}}𝒪_i^{\mathrm{HDSM}}\right)^2}{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪_i\right)^2},$$
(4.6)
$`i`$ runs over all the observables and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪_i`$ is the combined experimental and theoretical error.

Figure 1 summarizes the lower bounds on the compactification scale $`M=1/R`$ coming from different types of observables for the bulk-bulk model. In this model, we present the bounds as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\beta `$ parameterizing the Higgs sector. In Table 1, we summarize the bounds obtained by our global fits for the two bulk-brane models. The bounds resulting for different confidence levels are given in Table 2.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

By performing $`\chi ^2`$-tests, we obtain different sensitivities to the compactification radius $`R`$ for the three models under consideration: (i) the SU(2)$`{}_{L}{}^{}`$U(1)Y-bulk model, where all SM gauge bosons are bulk fields; (ii) the SU(2)L-brane, U(1)Y-bulk model, where only the SU(2)L fields are restricted to the brane, and (iii) the SU(2)L-bulk, U(1)Y-brane model, where only the U(1)Y gauge field is confined to the brane. The strongest bounds hold for the often-discussed bulk-bulk model no matter if the Higgs boson is living in the bulk or on the brane. For the bulk-brane models, we observe that the bounds on $`1/R`$ are significantly reduced by an amount even up to 1.4 TeV for 3$`\sigma `$ if the SU(2) bosons are the only fields that propagate in the bulk.

The lower limits on the compactification scale derived by the present global analysis indicate that resonant production of the first KK state may be accessed at the LHC, at which heavy KK masses up to 6–7 TeV  might be explored. In particular, if the $`W^\pm `$ bosons propagate in the bulk with a compactification radius $`R3`$ TeV-1, one may even be able to probe resonant effects originating from the second KK state, and so differentiate the model from other 4-dimensional new-physics scenaria.

In addition, we have paid special attention to consistently quantize the higher-dimensional models in the generalized $`R_\xi `$ gauges. Specifically, we have been able to identify the appropriate higher-dimensional gauge-fixing conditions which should be imposed on the theories so as to yield the known $`R_\xi `$ gauge after the fifth dimension has been integrated out.222After  had been communicated, we became aware of , which also discusses the $`R_\xi `$ gauge before compactification in fermionless non-Abelian theories.

### Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung and Forschung (BMBF, Bonn, Germany) under the contract number 05HT1WWA2.


format: text

text:
# Cosmological Nucleosynthesis in the Big-Bang and Supernovae

## 1 Big-Bang Cosmology

Recent progress in cosmological deep survey has clarified progressively the origin and distribution of matter and evolution of Galaxies in the Universe.

The origin of the light elements among them has been a topic of broad interest for its significance in constraining the dark matter component in the Universe and also in seeking for the cosmological model which best fits the recent data of cosmic microwave background (CMB) fluctuations. This paper is concerned with neutrinos during Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). In particular, we consider new insights into the possible role which degenerate neutrinos may have played in the early Universe $`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ .

There is no observational reason to insist that the universal lepton number is zero. It is possible, for example, for the individual lepton numbers to be large compared to the baryon number of the Universe, while the net total lepton number is small $`LB`$. It has been proposed recently $`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ that models based upon the Affleck-Dine scenario of baryogenesis might generate naturally lepton number asymmetry which is seven to ten orders of magnitude larger than the baryon number asymmetry. Neutrinos with large lepton asymmetry and masses $`0.07\text{ eV}`$ might even explain the existence of cosmic rays with energies in excess of the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff .$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ It is, therefore, important for both particle physics and cosmology to carefully scrutinize the limits which cosmology places on the allowed range of both the lepton and baryon asymmetries.

### 1.1 Lepton Asymmetric Big-Bang Model

Although lepton asymmetric BBN has been studied in many papers $`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ (and references therein), there are several differences in the present work: For one , we have included finite temperature corrections to the mass of the electron and photon .$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ Another is that we have calculated the neutrino annihilation rate in the cosmic comoving frame, in which the Møller velocity instead of the relative velocity is to be used for the integration of the collision term in the Boltzmann equations .$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$

Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos drop out of thermal equilibrium with the background thermal plasma when the weak reaction rate becomes slower than the universal expansion rate. If the neutrinos decouple early, they are not heated as the particle degrees of freedom change. Hence, the ratio of the neutrino to photon temperatures, $`T_\nu /T_\gamma `$, is reduced. The biggest drop in temperature for all three neutrino flavors occurs for $`\xi _\nu 10`$. This corresponds to a decoupling temperature above the cosmic QCD phase transition. $`\xi _\nu `$ is the neutrino degeneracy parameter defined by $`\xi _\nu =\mu _\nu /T_\nu `$, where $`\mu _\nu `$ is the chemical potential and $`T_\nu `$ is the neutrino temperature. Finite $`\xi _\nu `$ leads to a lepton asymmetric (L $``$ 0) Universe.

Non-zero lepton numbers affect nucleosynthesis in two ways. First, neutrino degeneracy increases the expansion rate. This increases the 4He production. Secondly, the equilibrium n/p ratio is affected by the electron neutrino chemical potential, $`\mathrm{n}/\mathrm{p}=\mathrm{exp}\{(\mathrm{\Delta }M/T_{np})\xi _{\nu _e}\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is the neutron-proton mass difference and $`T_{np}`$ is the freeze-out temperature for the relevant weak reactions. This effect either increases or decreases 4He production, depending upon the sign of $`\xi _{\nu _e}`$.

A third effect emphasized in this paper is that $`T_\nu /T_\gamma `$ can be reduced if the neutrinos decouple early. This lower temperature reduces the energy density of neutrinos during BBN, and slows the expansion of the Universe. This decreases 4He production.

Figure 1 highlights the main result of this study, where we take $`\xi _{\nu _\mu }=\xi _{\nu _\tau }`$. For low $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$$`h_{50}^2`$ models, only the usual low values for $`\xi _{\nu _e}`$ and $`\xi _{\nu _{\mu ,\tau }}`$ are allowed. Between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h_{50}^2`$ 0.188 and 0.3, however, more than one allowed region emerges. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h_{50}^2\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.4`$ only the large degeneracy solution is allowed. Neutrino degeneracy can even allow baryonic densities up to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h_{50}^2=1`$.

### 1.2 Cosmic Microwave Background

Several recent works $`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ have shown that neutrino degeneracy can dramatically alter the power spectrum of the CMB. However, only small degeneracy parameters with the standard relic neutrino temperatures have been utilized. Here, we have calculated the CMB power spectrum to investigate effects of a diminished relic neutrino temperature.

The solid line on Fig. 2 shows a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4`$ model for which $`n=0.78`$, where n is the power index of primordial fluctuations. This fit is marginally consistent with the data at a level of $`5.2\sigma `$. The dotted line shows the matter dominated $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ best fit model with $`n=0.83`$ which is consistent with the data at the level of $`3\sigma `$. The main differences in the fits between the large degeneracy models and our adopted benchmark model are that the first peak is shifted to slightly higher $`l`$ value and the second peak is suppressed. One can clearly see that the suppression of the second acoustic peak is consistent with our derived neutrino-degenerate models. In particular, the MAXIMA-1 results are in very good agreement with the predictions of our neutrino-degenerate cosmological models. It is clear that these new data sets substantially improve the goodness of fit for the neutrino-degenerate models .$`^{\text{?)}}`$ Moreover, both data sets seem to require an increase in the baryonic contribution to the closure density as allowed in our neutrino-degenerate models .$`^{\text{?, }\text{?}\text{)}}`$

### 1.3 Baryon Inhomogeneous Big-Bang Model

The biggest advantage of the baryon inhomogeneous Big-Bang nucleosynthesis model $`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ is to allow larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^20.05`$, which well covers the constraint from recent CMB data $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.0220.030`$, still satisfying the light element abundance constraints.

Let us consider what kind of observational signature is expected in this model. Nuclear reaction flow stops at the A = 7 nuclear systems in the homogeneous Big-Bang nucleosynthesis model because of the instability of 8Be. In the baryon inhomogeneous model, however, the nucleosynthesis occurs in an environment of proton-neutron segregated inhomogeneous distribution. Therefore, the radioactive nuclear reactions play the significant roles in the production of intermediate-to-heavy mass elements via unstable nuclei 8Li(838 ms), 9Li(178.3 ms), 7Be(53.29 d), 10Be($`1.51\times 10^6y`$), 8B(770 ms), 12B(20.20 ms), 11C(20.385 m), 14C(5730 y), 15C(2.449 s), 13N(9.965 m), 16N(7.13 s), 14O(70.606 s), etc.

$`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}(^3\mathrm{H},\gamma )^7\mathrm{Li}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^8\mathrm{Li}(\alpha ,\mathrm{n})^{11}\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^{12}\mathrm{B}(\beta \nu )`$ (1)
$`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^{13}\mathrm{C}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^{14}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^8\mathrm{Li}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^9\mathrm{Li}(\beta \nu )^9\mathrm{Be}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^{10}\mathrm{Be}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )`$ (2)
$`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{Be}(\beta \nu )^{11}\mathrm{B}\mathrm{},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}(^3\mathrm{H},\mathrm{n})^9\mathrm{Be}(^3\mathrm{H},\mathrm{n})^{11}\mathrm{B}.`$ (3)
The two reaction chains (1) and (2) play the key roles in the production of heavy neutron-rich isotopes $`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ in the neutron-rich zones. Since 7Li is the heaviest element to be created in the homogeneous Big-Bang nucleosynthesis model, all nuclear reactions for the production of heavier elements have ever been ignored in the previous calculations. We however found that the reaction chain (3) is extremely important for the production of 9Be in the baryon inhomogeneous Big-Bang nucleosynthesis models .$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ With these reactions being included in the network of the baryon inhomogeneous Big-Bang models, the 9Be abundance increases by three orders of magnitude to N(Be)/N(H) $`10^{14}`$ which approaches the current observational level.

## 2 Supernova Explosion

Stars with various masses provide a variety of production sites for intermediate-to-heavy mass elements. Very massive stars $`10M_{}`$ culminate their evolution by supernova (SN) explosions which are presumed to be most viable candidate for the still unknown astrophysical site of r-process nucleosynthesis. We discuss in this section the neutrino-driven winds from Type II SN explosion of very massive stars. Although there is still a room for the prompt explosion $`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ to account for one part of the r-process nucleosynthesis, we concentrate on the gravitaional core-collpase Type II SNe here.

Even in the nucleosynthesis of heavy elements, initial entropy and density at the surface of proto-neutron stars are so high that nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE) favors production of abundant light nuclei. In such explosive circumstances of so called hot-bubble scenario, not only heavy neutron rich nuclei but light unstable nuclei play a significant role.

The study of the origin of r-process elements is also critical in cosmology. It is a potentially serious problem that the cosmic age of the expanding Universe derived from cosmological parameters may be shorter than the age of the oldest globular clusters. Since both age estimates are subject to the uncertain cosmological distance scale, an independent method has long been needed. Thorium, which is a typical r-process element and has half-life of 14 Gyr, has recently been detected along with other elements in very metal-deficient stars. If we model the r-process nucleosynthesis in these first-generation stars, thorium can be used as a cosmochronometer completely independent of the uncertain cosmological distance scale.

### 2.1 Neutrino-Driven Winds in Type-II Supernovae

Recent measurements using high-dispersion spectrographs with large Telescopes or the Hubble Space Telescope have made it possible to detect minute amounts of heavy elements in faint metal-deficient (\[Fe/H\] $``$ -2) stars .$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ The discovery of r-process elements in these stars has shown that the relative abundance pattern for the mass region 120 $``$ A is surprisingly similar to the solar system r-process abundance independent of the metallicity of the star. Here metallicity is defined by \[Fe/H\] = log\[N(Fe)/N(H)\] - log\[N(Fe)/N(H)\]. It obeys the approximate relation t/1010yr $``$ 10\[Fe/H\]. The observed similarity strongly suggests that the r-process occurs in a single environment which is independent of progenitor metallicity. Massive stars with 10$`M_{}M`$ have a short life $`10^7`$ yr and eventually end up as violent supernova explosions, ejecting material into the intersteller medium early on quickly from the history of the Galaxy. However, the iron shell in SNe is excluded from being the r-process site because of the observed metallicity independence.

Hot neutron stars just born in the gravitational core collapse SNeII release most of their energy as neutrinos during the Kelvin-Helmholtz cooling phase. An intense flux of neutrinos heat the material near the neutron star surface and drive matter outflow (neutrino-driven winds). The entropy in these winds is so high that the NSE favors a plasma which consists of mainly free nucleons and alpha particles rather than composite nuclei like iron. The equilibrium lepton fraction, $`Y_e`$, is determined by a delicate balance between $`\nu _e+np+e^{}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^+`$, which overcomes the difference of chemical potential between $`n`$ and $`p`$, to reach $`Y_e`$ 0.45. R-process nucleosynthesis occurs because there are plenty of free neutrons at high temperature. This is possible only if seed elements are produced in the correct neutron-to-seed ratio before and during the r-process.

Although Woosley et al. $`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ demonstrated a profound possibility that the r-process could occur in these winds, several difficulties were subsequently identified. First, independent non relativistic numerical supernova models $`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ have difficulty producing the required entropy in the bubble S/k $``$ 400. Relativistic effects may not be enough to increase the entropy dramatically .$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ Second, even should the entropy be high enough, the effects of neutrino absorption $`\nu _e+np+e^{}`$ and $`\nu _e+A(Z,N)A(Z+1,N1)+e^{}`$ may decrease the neutron fraction during the nucleosynthesis process. As a result, a deficiency of free neutrons could prohibit the r-process .$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$

In order to resolve these difficulties, we have studied $`^{\text{?, }\text{?}\text{)}}`$ neutrino-driven winds in a Schwarzschild geometry under the reasonable assumption of spherical steady-state flow. The parameters in the wind models are the mass of neutron star, $`M`$, and the neutrino luminosity, $`L_\nu `$. The entropy per baryon, S/k, in the asymptotic regime and the expansion dynamic time scale, $`\tau _{dyn}`$, which is defined as the duration time of the $`\alpha `$-process when the temprature drops from T $``$ 0.5 MeV to 0.5/e MeV, are calculated from the solution of hydrodynamic equations. Then, we carried out r-process nucleosynthesis calculations in our wind model. We found $`^{\text{?)}}`$ that the general relativistic effects make $`\tau _{dyn}`$ much shorter, although the entropy increases by about 40 % from the Newtonian value of S/k $``$ 90. By simulating many supernova explosions, we have found some interesting conditions which lead to successful r-process nucleosynthesis, as to be discussed in the following sections.

### 2.2 R-process Nucleosynthesis

Previous r-process calculations $`^{\text{?, }\text{?}\text{)}}`$ had complexity that the seed abundance distribution was first calculated by using smaller network for light-to-intermediate mass elements, and then the result was connected further to another r-process network in a different set of the computing run. For this reasaon it was less transparent to interpret the whole nucleosynthesis process. This inconvenience happened because it was numerically too heavy to run both $`\alpha `$-process and r-process in a single network code for too huge number of reaction couplings among $`3000`$ isotopes. Our nucleosynthesis calculation $`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ is completely free from this complexity because we exploited fully implicit single network code which is applied to a sequence of the whole processes of NSE - $`\alpha `$-process - r-process.

Let us remind the readers that there were at least three difficulties in the previous theoretical studies of the r-process. The first difficulty among them is that an ideal, high entropy in the bubble S/k $``$ 400 $`^{\text{?)}}`$ is hard to be achieved in the other simulations .$`^{\text{?, ?, ?, ?)}}`$

The key to resolve this difficulty is found with the short dynamic time scale $`\tau _{dyn}`$ 10 ms in our models $`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ of the neutrino-driven winds. As the initial nuclear composition of the relativistic plasma consists of neutrons and protons, the $`\alpha `$-burning begins when the plasma temperature cools below T $``$ 0.5 MeV. The 4He$`(\alpha \alpha ,\gamma )^{12}`$C reaction is too slow at this temperature, and alternative nuclear reaction path 4He$`(\alpha n,\gamma )^9`$Be$`(\alpha ,n)^{12}`$C triggers explosive $`\alpha `$-burning to produce seed elements with A $``$ 100 .$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ Therefore, the time scale for nuclear reactions is regulated by the 4He$`(\alpha n,\gamma )^9`$Be. It is given by $`\tau _N\left(\rho _b^2Y_\alpha ^2Y_n\lambda (\alpha \alpha n^9\mathrm{Be})\right)^1`$. If the neutrino-driven winds fulfill the condition $`\tau _{dyn}<\tau _N`$, then fewer seed nuclei are produced during the $`\alpha `$-process with plenty of free neutrons left over when the r-process begins at T $``$ 0.2 MeV. The high neutron-to-seed ratio, $`n/s100`$, leads to appreciable production of r-process elements, even for low entropy S/k $``$ 130, producing both the 2nd $`(A130)`$ and 3rd $`(A195)`$ abundance peaks and the hill of rare-earth elements $`(A165)`$ (Fig. 3).

The three body nuclear reaction cross section for 4He$`(\alpha n,\gamma )^9`$Be is one of the poorly determined nuclear data which may alter the r-process nucleosynthesis yields. The inverse process has recently been studied experimentally by Utsunomiya et al. ,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ and photodisintegration cross section of 9Be has been measured with better precision than those of the previous experiments. Applying the principle of the detailed balance to this process, one can estimate the cross section for 4He$`(\alpha n,\gamma )^9`$Be. They found that the thermonuclear reaction rate is almost twice as big as that of Woosley and Hoffman $`^{\text{?)}}`$ but in resonable agreement with recent compilation of Angulo et al. .$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ However, there still remain several questions on the consistency between their result and electron-scattering experiments, on the contribution from the narrow resonance $`J^\pi =5/2^{}`$ (2.429 MeV), etc. It is also a theoretical challenge to understand the reaction mechanism and the resonance structure because two different channels, 8Be + n and 5He + $`\alpha `$, contribute to this process.

Therefore, we show two calculated results in Fig. 4: The solid line displays the result obtained by using the Woosley and Hoffman cross section ,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ assuming a 8Be + n structure for 9Be. We also calculated the r-process by multiplying this cross section by factor of 2 (long-dashed line). This makes a drastic change in the r-process yields in the 3rd $`(A195)`$ abundance peak. More theoretical and experimental studies of the 4He$`(\alpha n,\gamma )^9`$Be reaction are highly desired.

### 2.3 Neutrino-Nucleus Interactions

Neutrino interactions with nucleons and nuclei take the key to resolve the second difficulty which was pointed out in sect. 1. The difficulty is that the effects of neutrino absorptions $`\nu _e+np+e^{}`$ and $`\nu _e+A(Z,N)A(Z+1,N1)+e^{}`$ during the $`\alpha `$-process may induce the deficiency of free neutrons and break down the r-process conditions .$`^{\text{?)}}`$ These two types of neutrino interactions control most sensitively the electron fraction and the neutron fraction, as well, in a neutron-rich environment. In order to resolve this difficulty, we have updated the electron-type neutrino capture rates for all nuclei and electron-type anti-neutrino capture rate for free proton .$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$

The new r-process calculation proves to be almost invariant. One can understand this robustness of the succesful r-process in the following way: The specific collision time for neutrino-nucleus interactions is given by

$$\tau _\nu 201\times L_{\nu ,51}^1\times \left(\frac{ϵ_\nu }{\mathrm{MeV}}\right)\left(\frac{r}{100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}}\right)^2\left(\frac{\sigma _\nu }{10^{41}\mathrm{cm}^2}\right)^1ms,$$
(4)
where $`L_{i,51}`$ is the individual neutrino or antineutrino luminosity in units of $`10^{51}`$ ergs/s, $`ϵ_i=<E_i^2>/<E_i>`$ in MeV $`(i=\nu _e,\overline{\nu }_e,etc.)`$, and $`\sigma _\nu `$ is the averaged cross section over neutrino energy spectrum. At the $`\alpha `$-burning site of r $``$ 100 km for $`L_{\nu ,51}10`$, $`ϵ_{\nu _e}=12\mathrm{MeV}`$, and $`\sigma _\nu 10^{41}cm^2`$, $`\tau _{\nu _e}`$(r=100 km) turns out to be $`240`$ ms. This collision time is larger than the expansion dynamic time scale; $`\tau _{dyn}`$ 10 ms $``$ $`\tau _{\nu _e}`$(r=100 km) $`240`$ ms. Because there is not enough time for $`\nu _e`$’s to interact with n’s in such rapidly expanding neutrino-driven wind, the neutron fraction is insensitive to the neutrino absorptions.

One might wonder if our dynamic time scale $`10`$ ms is too short for the wind to be heated by neutrinos. Careful comparison between proper expansion time and specific collision time for the neutrino heating is needed in order to answer this question. Otsuki et al. $`^{\text{?)}}`$ have found that the supernova neutrinos transfer their kinetic energy to the wind most effectively just above the neutron star surface at $`10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}r<20\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}`$. Therefore, one should refer the duration time for the wind to reach the $`\alpha `$-burning site, $`\tau _{\mathrm{heat}}`$, rather than $`\tau _{\mathrm{dyn}}`$. One can estimate this heating time scale

$$\tau _{\mathrm{heat}}=_{r_i}^{r_f}\frac{dr}{u},$$
(5)
where u is the fluid velocity of the wind. By setting the radius of neutron star surface $`r_i=10`$ km and $`r_f=100`$ km, we get $`\tau _{\mathrm{heat}}`$ 30 ms. The collision time $`\tau _\nu `$ is given by Eq. (4) by setting $`L_{\nu ,51}10`$, $`ϵ_\nu =(ϵ_{\nu _e}+ϵ_{\overline{\nu }_e})/2=(12+22)/2=17`$ MeV, r $``$10 km, and $`\sigma _\nu 10^{41}cm^2`$. Let us compare $`\tau _{\mathrm{heat}}`$ and $`\tau _\nu `$ to one another: $`\tau _\nu 3.4\mathrm{ms}\tau _{\mathrm{heat}}30\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}.`$ We can thus conclude that there is enough time for the expanding wind to be heated by neutrinos even with short dynamic time scale for the $`\alpha `$-process, $`\tau _{\mathrm{dyn}}10`$ ms.

### 2.4 Roles of Light Neutron-Rich Nuclei

The r-process is thought to proceed after the pile up of seed nuclei produced in the $`\alpha `$-process at higher temperatures $`T_952.5`$. Since charged-particle reactions, which reassemble nucleons into $`\alpha `$-particles and $`\alpha `$-particles into heavier nuclei (i.e. $`\alpha `$-process), are faster than the neutron-capture flow which is regulated by beta-decays, the light-mass neutron-rich nuclei were presumed to be unimportant.

However, Terasawa et al. $`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ have recently found that even light neutron-rich nuclei progressively play the significant roles in the production of seed nuclei. Nuclear reaction network used in the previous studies $`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$ includes only limited number of light unstable nuclei, 3H, 7Be, 8,9B, 11,14C, 13N, 15O, 18,20F, 23,24Ne, and so on. We therefore need to extend the network code so that it covers all radioactive nuclei to the neutron-drip line. We take the rates of charged particle reactions from those used in the Big-Bang nucleosynthesis calculations $`^{\text{?, ?, ?)}}`$ and the NACRE compilation .$`^{\text{?)}}`$

Let us briefly discuss preliminary result of the r-process calculation, using the extended reaction network .$`^{\text{?)}}`$ At early epoch of the wind expansion, t $``$ a few dozens ms, both temperature and density are so high that the charged particles interact with one aother to proceed nucleosynthesis around the $`\beta `$-stability line in the light-mass region A $``$ 20. There are plenty of protons and $`\alpha `$-particles as well as neutrons at this epoch, and the main reaction flow is triggered by $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}(\alpha \mathrm{n},\gamma )^9\mathrm{Be}`$ :$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$

$`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}(\alpha \mathrm{n},\gamma )^9\mathrm{Be}(\alpha ,\mathrm{n})^{12}\mathrm{C}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^{13}\mathrm{C}(\alpha ,\mathrm{n})`$ (6)
$`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^{17}\mathrm{O}(\alpha ,\mathrm{n})^{20}\mathrm{Ne}\mathrm{or}{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}(\alpha ,\gamma )^{20}\mathrm{Ne}\mathrm{}`$
However, at relatively later epoch even after the $`\alpha `$-rich freeze out, a new reaction path $`^{\text{?)}}`$

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}(\alpha ,\gamma )^7\mathrm{Li}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^8\mathrm{Li}(\alpha ,\mathrm{n})^{11}\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^{12}\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )`$ (7)
$`{}_{}{}^{13}\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^{14}\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )^{15}\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{e}^{}\nu )^{15}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{}`$
also takes some appreciable flux of baryon number to continuously supply the seed nuclei. The classical r-process like flow, (n,$`\gamma `$) followed by beta decay, has already started from light nuclei. This is a very different result from the previous picture that the r-process starts from only intermediate-mass seed nuclei $`A100`$.

Since we do not have much information of $`(2n,\gamma )`$ reactions, we did not include 6He, 8He, 11Li, 14Be, 17,19Be, 22C, etc. The yields of even the most neutron-rich isotopes were found to be abundant in this calculation ,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ and we plan to study the possible role of the (2n,$`\gamma `$) reactions. There are several branching points between (n,$`\gamma `$) and $`(\alpha `$,n) reactions. They are at $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{C}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{24}\mathrm{O}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{36}\mathrm{Mg}`$, etc. Exerimetal studies to measure these reaction cross sections are highly desirable.

## 3 Quest for Nuclear Data and Astrophysics Data

Our result in Fig. 3 reproduces fairely well the observed second abundance peak (A $``$ 130), the hill of rare-earth elements (A $``$ 165), and the third peak (A $``$ 195). However, there are several defects, too. The first defect is a shift of the third abundance peak around A $``$ 195 by a couple of mass units. This is a common feature found in the previous r-process calculations ,$`^{\text{?, ?, ?)}}`$ too. These elements are the beta-decay products of extremely neutron-rich unstable nuclei on the neutron magic N = 126. Peak position depends on the timing of freezeout of the r-process. Therefore, a particular combination of environmental evolution of neutron-number density, $`N_n`$, and temperature, $`T_9`$, as well as the expansion dynamic time scale, $`\tau _{dyn}`$, might match the freeze out so that it results in the right position of abundance peak .$`^{\text{?)}}`$

The second defect is the deficiency of abundance right above or below the peak elements, i.e. at A $``$ 90, 120, 150, 190, and 210. These deficiencies seem related to yet unseen effects of deformation or strucure change of unstable nuclei surrounding the neutron magic numbers N = 50, 82, and 126. Further extensive theoretical studies and observational challenge to determine the masses, lives, and beta Q-values of these nuclei are highly desired.

The third defect is the underproduction of actinoid elements, Th-U-Pu (A = 230 $``$ 240), by more than one order of magnitude. The observed high abundance level of these nuclei might suggest an existence of a new magic number around N = $`150160`$: Xenon 129Xe75 and platinum 195Pt117 are the typical r-process elements on the second and third abundance peaks, which are decay products from extremely neutron-rich unstable nuclei with neutron magic numbers N = 82 and 126, respectively. From these observations we estimate that the waiting point nucleus is located by shifting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$N $``$ 7 or 9 units from the peak element. Applying the same shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$N $``$ 7 or 9 to 232Th142 and 238U146, we could assume a new magic number around N = $`150160`$ which may lead to the fourth abundance peak at A = 230 $``$ 240. Actually, in the very light nuclear systems, a new magic number N = 16 was found $`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ in careful experimental studies of the neutron separation energies and interaction cross sections of extremely neutron-rich nuclei. Since these possibilities were not taken into account in the present and previous calculations, the deficiency of actinoids might be improved by modernizing nuclear mass formula including such effects. Another possibility is to make actinoid elements in neutron star mergers or the mergers of the neutron star and black hole binaries which have extremely small lepton fraction, $`Y_e0.2`$ .$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ However, these processes do not virtually produce any intermediate-mass nuclei including iron, which contradicts with the fact that the observed iron abundance is proportional to the r-process and actinoid elements over the entire history of Galactic evolution $`10^{10}`$ yr.

Since we discuss only material ejected from the proto-neutron star behind the shock, it does not make any serious problem to see the underproduction in mass region A $``$ 90. Most of these intermediat-mass nuclei are ejected from the exploded outer shells in supernovae.

## Acknowledgment

This paper has been supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Researches 10044103, 10640236, 12047233 and 13640313 of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan.


text:
# Approximating Ropelength by Energy Functions

## 1. Thickness and ropelength

We measure the *ropelength* of a knot as the quotient of its length by its *thickness*. The thickness is the radius of the largest embedded normal tube (called the thick tube) around the knot. Ropelength is a mathematical model of how much physical rope it would take to tie the knot. In \[CKS01\] we showed that in any knot or link type there is a ropelength minimizer, and that minimizers are necessarily $`C^{1,1}`$ curves. But still, explicit examples of tight (ropelength minimizing) links are known only in very special cases.

One way to define the thickness of a link (following \[GM99\]) is to consider circles through three points on the link. For any three distinct points $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ in $`^3`$, we let $`r(x,y,z)`$ be the radius of the (unique) circle through these points (setting $`r=\mathrm{}`$ if the points are collinear). Also, if $`T_x`$ is a unit vector at $`x`$, we let $`r(T_x,y)`$ be the radius of the circle through $`y`$ tangent to $`T_x`$ at $`x`$. Note that

$$r(T_x,y)=\frac{xy^2}{2\sqrt{xy^2(T_x(xy))^2}}.$$

Now let $`L`$ be a link in $`^3`$, that is, a disjoint union of simple closed curves. We define the *thickness* $`\tau (L)`$ of $`L`$ as

$$\tau (L):=\underset{\begin{array}{c}x,y,zL\\ xyzx\end{array}}{inf}r(x,y,z).$$

This quantity vanishes when $`L`$ fails to be $`C^{1,1}`$, so from now on we will restrict attention to $`C^{1,1}`$ links.

The infimum in the definition of $`\tau `$ is always achieved when (at least) two of the three points approach each other \[GM99, CKS01\]: we have

$$\tau (L)=\underset{yx}{inf}r(T_xL,y),$$

where $`T_xL`$ denotes the tangent vector to the $`C^1`$ curve $`L`$ at $`x`$. We can equivalently \[CKS01\] define the thickness in terms of the *medial axis* (see \[ACK01\]) of $`L`$. The medial axis is the set of points in space which fail to have a unique nearest point in $`L`$. Then the thickness $`\tau (L)`$ is exactly Federer’s *reach* \[Fed59\] of $`L`$, the distance from $`L`$ to its medial axis.

Gonzalez and Maddocks \[GM99\] considered the quantity

$$\tau _x^{\mathrm{GM}}(L):=\underset{y,z}{inf}r(x,y,z)=\underset{y}{inf}r(T_yL,x).$$

which they called the “global radius of curvature” but which could well be termed the *local thickness* of the link $`L`$ at the point $`xL`$. However, it seems more natural to define local thickness in terms of higher-order contact at $`x`$:

$$\tau _x(L):=\underset{yx}{inf}r(T_xL,y).$$

Either definition is a local thickness in the sense that

$$\tau (L)=\underset{x}{inf}\tau _x(L)=\underset{x}{inf}\tau _x^{\mathrm{GM}}(L).$$

However, $`\tau _x(L)`$ has a nice geometric interpretation as the radius of the largest sphere which, staying tangent to $`L`$ at $`x`$, can be rotated completely around $`L`$ without touching $`L`$ at any other point.

Given a circle $`C`$ of radius $`r`$, consider the set of points in space whose distance to $`C`$ is less than $`r`$. Following Dan Asimov, we will call this a *bialy* (or more precisely an open solid bialy), with *neck* at the center of $`C`$ and *axis* normal to $`C`$. A bialy is an open solid torus of revolution whose major and minor radii are equal. Given a point $`x`$ on $`L`$, the bialys with neck at $`x`$ and axis along $`T_xL`$ are nested, and it is clear that $`\tau _x(L)`$ is radius of the largest one which avoids $`L`$.

We now check that our definition of local thickness also agrees with the notion of *local feature size* from the theory of medial axes. Let $`r(T_xL,T_yL)`$ denote the radius of the sphere tangent to both $`T_xL`$ and $`T_yL`$ (the smallest such sphere if these vectors are cocircular). Then it is clear from our discussion above that

$$\tau _x(L)=\underset{y}{inf}r(T_xL,T_yL),$$

since the interiors of all spheres of radius $`r`$ tangent at $`x`$ fill out the bialy at $`x`$.

A formal definition of medial axis is the following. Suppose $`L`$ is a compact subset of $`^3`$. Then for any point $`p^3`$, we can consider the distance to $`p`$ as a function $`d_p:L`$. It achieves its minimum $`d(p,L)`$ on some set $`\mathrm{min}(d_p)L`$. Then the medial axis is $`M(L):=\{p^3:\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{min}(d_p)>1\}`$, the set of $`p`$ for which this minimum is achieved at more than one point. At a point $`pM`$, the *local feature size* is simply the distance $`d(p,L)`$ to $`L`$. At a point $`xL`$, the *local feature size* is

$$\mathrm{lfs}(x):=inf\{d(p,L):pM,x\mathrm{min}(d_p)\}.$$

(We note that this definition, intended for use when $`L`$ is a curve or surface, is only one of many inequivalent definitions for local feature size that have been given in the computer science literature.)

In terms of these definitions, we are now ready to state our first proposition:

###### Proposition 1.1.

The local thickness $`\tau _x(L)`$ of a link $`L`$ is also the local feature size of $`L`$ at $`x`$.

###### Proof.

The medial axis $`M(L)`$ is exactly the set of centers $`p`$ of spheres which are tangent to $`L`$ at two or more points, and whose interiors avoid $`L`$. The local feature size at $`pM`$ (or at the points of tangency along $`L`$) is the radius of the corresponding sphere. But the local thickness at $`x`$ is also the radius of the smallest bitangent sphere tangent at $`x`$. ∎

## 2. Smooth approximations to ropelength

We can approximate the infimum in the definition of ropelength with $`L^p`$ energies. For a link $`L`$ of length $`1`$, we define

$$R_x^p(L):=_{yL}r(T_xL,y)^p𝑑s,R^p(L):=\left(_xR_x^p(L)𝑑s\right)^{1/p}.$$

We extend this energy to links of arbitrary length so that it is scale-invariant. Aside from this rescaling, the energy $`R^p(L)`$ is the same as the energy $`U_{p,2}(L)`$ suggested in \[GM99\].

Then clearly $`R^p(L)`$ is bounded above by the ropelength $`R(L)`$, and in fact

$$\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}R^p(L)=R(L).$$

For $`p1`$, it also follows from Hölder’s inequality that $`R^p(L)R^1(L)`$. The examples in \[CKS01\] show that tight links (ropelength minimizers) need not be smoother than $`C^{1,1}`$. However, since the energies $`R^p`$ smooth out the hard-shell potential involved in a thickness constraint, we expect that minimizers for the energies $`R^p`$ should be smooth.

Diao, Ernst and Janse van Rensburg \[DEJvR98\] have listed several properties that one might desire for knot-energy functionals. For any $`p1`$, we conjecture that the energy $`R^p`$ is “basic” in the sense that the absolute minimum is achieved uniquely by the round circle (for which $`R^p=2\pi `$). It would suffice to prove this conjecture for the special case $`p=1`$.

For $`p<2`$, the quantity $`R^p`$ is not very useful as a knot energy, because it does not have an infinite barrier to self-crossings. It is straightforward to check that the energy of two skew lines which approach a right-angled crossing becomes infinite if and only if $`p2`$.

The following conjecture would imply that, for $`p2`$, $`R^p`$ is “charge” and “tight”, meaning that it approaches infinity for sequences of links which approach a curve with a self-intersection, or in which a knotted arc shrinks to zero size.

###### Conjecture 2.1.

For $`p2`$, the energy $`R^p`$ is bounded below by some monotonic function of ropelength (so $`R^p`$ approaches infinity for any sequence of links with fixed length and thickness approaching zero).

We will prove part of this conjecture, enough to conclude that $`R^p`$ is “charge”.

###### Proposition 2.2.

If $`L_0`$ is the smooth limit of smooth links $`L_n`$, and $`L_0`$ has a self-crossing, then for $`p>2`$ the energies $`R^p(L_n)`$ approach infinity.

###### Proof.

Let $`K/2`$ be an upper bound for the curvature of $`L_0`$, so that $`K`$ bounds the curvature of $`L_n`$ for large $`n`$. There is also a uniform bound $`T`$ on the third derivatives. The thickness of $`L_n`$ approaches $`0`$.

Let $`L`$ be any of the $`L_n`$ with $`n`$ large enough that its thickness $`\tau `$ satisfies

$$\tau <\frac{1}{4K},\tau <<1/T.$$

Since $`\tau <1/K`$, the thickness is achieved by a doubly critical pair of points $`x,y`$, with $`L`$ perpendicular to the segment $`\overline{xy}`$ at both ends. Picking an appropriate coordinate system, we can assume that $`x=(0,0,\tau )`$ and $`y=(0,0,\tau )`$, with $`T_xL=(1,0,0)`$ and $`T_yL=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,0)`$ for some angle $`\varphi `$. We can then expand $`L`$ in Taylor series near $`x`$ and $`y`$ as:

$`\alpha (s)`$ $`=`$ $`(s,k_1s^2,\tau +k_2s^2)+𝒪(s^3),`$
$`\beta (t)`$ $`=`$ $`(t\mathrm{cos}\varphi +k_3t^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,t\mathrm{sin}\varphi k_3t^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\tau k_4t^2)+𝒪(t^3),`$
where the $`k_i`$ are components of the curvature vector, so $`|k_i|<K`$, and the constants in the first omitted terms depend only on $`T`$. The tangent vector at $`x=\alpha (s)`$ is $`(1,2k_1s,2k_2s)+𝒪(s^2)`$. Thus for $`y=\beta (t)`$ we can compute

$$r(T_xL,y)=\tau +s^2\left(\frac{1}{4\tau }k_2\right)+t^2\left(\frac{1}{8\tau }(2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )+\frac{k_4}{2}\right)st\left(\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{2\tau }+k_2\right)+𝒪(s^3,t^3).$$

This gives

$$r(T_xL,y)\tau \left(1+C(|s|+|t|)^2+𝒪(s^3,t^3)\right),$$

where $`C=1/(4\tau ^2)+K/\tau `$. Since $`K\tau <1/4`$, we have $`C<1/(2\tau ^2)`$. Now pick some small length $`a=\tau ^q`$, and consider the integral defining $`R^p(L)`$ taken over just the ranges $`0s,ta`$. We get

$`R^p(L)^p`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^a}{\displaystyle _0^a}r^p𝑑s𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`\tau ^p{\displaystyle \left(1pC(s+t)^2+𝒪(s^3,t^3)\right)𝑑s𝑑t}`$
$`=`$ $`\tau ^p\left(a^2pC(\frac{7}{6}a^4)+𝒪(a^5)\right)`$
$``$ $`\tau ^p\left(\tau ^{2q}p\tau ^{4q}/\tau ^2+𝒪(\tau ^{5q})\right)`$
Now if $`q>1`$, the first term dominates the others. (We should note that a more careful analysis would confirm that the constants in the term of order $`\tau ^{5q}`$ are still uniformly bounded in terms of $`T`$.) For $`1<q<p/2`$, this expression diverges to infinity as $`\tau 0`$, as desired. ∎

For $`p2`$, we expect that $`R^p`$ is also “strong”, in the sense of allowing only a finite number of link types under any given energy level, but this seems hard to prove.

## 3. Numerical simulations

We have earlier reported \[KS97\] on numerical simulations, conducted using Brakke’s Evolver \[Bra92\], of knots minimizing the Möbius-invariant energy of \[FHW94\]. We have recently used the Evolver for numerical simulations of tight (ropelength minimizing) links, using a discretization, for polygonal approximations, of the energies $`R^p`$ introduced here. These simulations will be described in more detail in a forthcoming paper.

As an example of the results, we describe here a trefoil knot, shown in Figure 1,

which seems to be a local mininum for ropelength. This trefoil is embedded in space as a $`(3,2)`$–torus knot, as opposed to the $`(2,3)`$–torus knot which gives the (presumed) global minimum. Its symmetry group in $`^3`$ is $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}2\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ in the Conway/Thurston notation for $`2`$-orbifolds: that is, it is generated by the rotations of order $`2`$ around three orthogonal axes.

Numerically we have computed a family of very similar curves $`\gamma _p`$ with this symmetry which are critical points for the energies $`R^p`$. Presumably, they are global minima if the symmetry is fixed. But without enforcing the symmetry, they seem to be unstable saddle points for $`R^p`$ when $`p512`$ but stable local minima when $`p1024`$. (We have only tested powers $`p`$ which are powers of $`2`$.) In Figure 2 we plot the curvature and torsion of $`\gamma _{4096}`$, as functions of arclength along the curve.

Presumably, the limit of these curves as $`p\mathrm{}`$ is a curve $`\gamma `$ which is a local minimum for ropelength. This limit curve is interesting in that it seems to include two straight segments. The thick tube around these arcs does not contact that around any other part of $`\gamma `$. Presumably, at the ends of these segments, where the tubes do contact, the curvature of $`\gamma `$ jumps discontinously to some positive value (close to $`1`$ if we normalize to $`\tau =1`$). Thus $`\gamma `$ would be an example of a ropelength-critical knot which is not $`C^2`$ smooth.

The only links so far proved to be tight are certain examples from \[CKS01\]. In these links, each component is planar, is piecewise circular (or straight), but fails to be $`C^2`$ unless it is a circle. No explicit tight knots are known. It seems unlikely that any of them would be more than piecewise smooth. But our conjectured local-minimum trefoil gives the clearest example yet where a discontinuity in curvature should happen.


text:
# On the polarization effects in (𝑝,𝑛) reactions between the 𝐴=48 isobarical states

A b s t r a c t

Isotopical dependence of spin-orbit splitting discovered by us in spectra of heavy nuclei close to doubly magic ones is checked in polarization effects arising in charge exchange $`(p,n)`$ reaction between the $`A=48`$ isobarical states.

Basing on the analysis of existing experimental data in nuclei close to doubly magic nuclides 208Pb and 132Sn and on different theoretical approaches it was shown in  that for similar orbitals the neutron spin-orbit splitting in $`N>Z`$ nuclei is larger than the corresponding proton splitting. It was also demonstrated in  that different theoretical approaches lead to a larger neutron as compared to proton splittings of $`1d`$ and $`1p`$ orbits in 48Ca, where the corresponding experimental data on energies of single particle levels are incomplete due to strong fragmentation effects. It was shown in particular in , that in terms of phenomenological potential the spectra of single particle states, including the spin-orbit splittings, may be reproduced by the average potential of the form

$`\widehat{U}(r,\widehat{\sigma },\tau _3)=V_0\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{NZ}{A}}\tau _3\right)f(r)+V_{ls}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{ls}{\displaystyle \frac{NZ}{A}}\tau _3\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{df}{dr}}\widehat{𝐥}\widehat{𝐬}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\tau _3)}{2}}U_{Coul},`$ (1)
$`f(r)=\left[1+\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rR}{a}}\right)\right]^1,R=r_0A^{1/3}`$ (2)
with $`V_0=51.5`$ MeV, $`r_0=1.27`$ fm, $`V_{ls}=33.2\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}^2`$, $`a0.6`$fm, $`\beta =1.39`$ and $`\beta _{ls}0.6`$; $`\tau _3=1`$ for neutrons and $`\tau _3=+1`$ for protons. Introducing the quantities $`t_3=\tau _3/2`$, $`T_3=(NZ)/2`$ and making in the spirit of  the substitution $`T_3t_3\widehat{𝐓}\widehat{𝐭}`$, where $`\widehat{𝐓}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐭}`$ are isospin vector operators for the core and nucleon, we obtain the nuclear part of potential (1) in the isotopic-invariant form (Lane potential), suitable for description of both the diagonal in $`t_3`$ (single particle spectra and elastic scattering) and non-diagonal (($`pn)`$-reactions leading to isobaric analogue states) processes:

$`\widehat{U}=V_0\left(12\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐓}\widehat{𝐭}}{A}}\right)f(r)+V_{ls}\left(12\beta _{ls}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐓}\widehat{𝐭}}{A}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{df}{dr}}\widehat{𝐥}\widehat{𝐬}.`$ (3)
A spin-orbit term in a potential leads to polarization effects in scattering. We see from (2) that while the polarization in elastic scattering depends on the parameter combination of the form $`V_{ls}\left(1\beta _{ls}\frac{(NZ)}{A}t_3\right)V_{ls}`$, similar effects in charge-exchange reactions with excitation of isoanalogue states are proportional to $`\beta _{ls}V_{ls}`$, and are thus defined by the isovector mean spin-orbit field parameter $`\beta _{ls}`$, as the $`V_{ls}`$ parameter is well known. Thus we can check the conclusions of Ref.  concerning the $`\beta _{ls}`$ value and based on nuclear spectra using the data from $`(p,n)`$ quasielastic scattering. One can find corresponding information about the polarization effects in the 48Ca region in Ref. , where the 48Ca$`(p,n)`$ 48Sc reaction with polarized protons leading to the 0+ (6.67 MeV) isoanalogue state was studied, but with theoretical analysis based on microscopical approach for description of nuclear structure and in terms of nucleon-nucleon amplitudes (DWIA). Here we proceed in terms of the Lane model basing on spin-orbit parameters defined in  and using the Born approximation for the description of scattering. Similar problems for other target nuclei were also studied in this approach in .

It is well known that in the Born approximation polarization effects arising from the spin-orbit potential disappear . Thus to describe these effects one needs to introduce an imaginary part (absorption) into the optical potential, that really means the account of effects beyond the Born approach. We must also include in the real and imaginary parts of the potential the dependence on the incident energy, which was rather high ($`E=134`$MeV) in . In ,  the following proposition in the case of volume absorption is presented for the $`V_0`$ parameter: $`V_0=V_0^{}(10.0058E)`$ with $`V_0^{}=52`$MeV, that is rather close to the value of $`51.5`$MeV obtained by us in . In this case the corresponding absorption term in the optical potential was proposed in  in the form of $`iW_Vf(r)`$ with $`W_V`$(MeV)$`=3.3(1+0.03E)`$. Surface absorption is usually given as $`iW_S(df/dr)`$. For small values of transferred momentum (small angles) both variants of absorption must result in similar descriptions of the scattering process. In the case of $`aR`$ this leads to $`W_S(R/3)W_V`$. So, as an absorption term we use the combination of the form

$`iW_V[\alpha (1\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{R}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}]f(r)`$ (4)
with $`0\alpha 1`$, that leads to polarization effects, independent on $`\alpha `$ at small scattering angles, but strongly dependent on $`\alpha `$ at large values of transferred momentum. Thus, for the description of polarization effects we use the optical potential of the form (2), but with

$`V_o51.5(10.0058E)i3.3(1+0.03E)[\alpha (1\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{R}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}],`$ (5)
adopting similar energy dependences for isoscalar and isovector terms of the central nuclear potential.

In Fig.1 one can see the results of our calculations for the analyzing power $`A`$ in the case of $`(p,n)`$ reaction on 48Ca leading to the isoanalogue state

$`A_{th}={\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{}/d\omega d\sigma _{}/d\omega }{d\sigma _{}/d\omega +d\sigma _{}/d\omega }};|A|1`$ (6)
together with experimental data and results of microscopical calculations from . Here $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ are cross sections with the polarization vector $`\stackrel{}{\epsilon }`$ of protons parallel or antiparallel to $`[\stackrel{}{k}_i\times \stackrel{}{k}_f]`$. We see that in the case of surface absorption $`(\alpha =0)`$ our calculations that use the corresponding spin-orbit parameters from  demonstrate good agreement with the experiment up to high values of the scattering angle. At the same time, introduction of the energy dependence into the spin-orbit parameter $`V_{ls}`$, analogous to that for the central nuclear field, leads to poor agreement with the experiment on the analyzing power.

Our calculations with $`\alpha =0`$ give the magnitude of differential cross section for the 48Ca$`(p,n)`$ 48Sc (I.A.S.) reaction on unpolarized protons at zero angle equal to $`7.7`$mb/sr, very weakly increasing with increase of the parameter ”$`\alpha `$”, this cross section sharply diminishes with the increase of the scattering angle and has some structure at $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{c.m.}20^0`$. The value presented above may be compared with the magnitude of cross section at zero angle measured in  ($`7`$ mb/sr), as well as with the theoretical prediction  based on microscopical theory ($``$ 7.5 mb/sr).

The following conclusions should be made:

* Experimental data on the isotopical dependence of spin-orbit splitting in nuclei are consistent with the data on polarization effects in $`(p,n)`$ quasielastic scattering. The mean field parameters defined in  that describe the proton and neutron spin-orbit splittings in nuclei close to 132Sn and 208Pb, in particular the $`\beta _{ls}`$ one, well reproduce experimental data for $`(p,n)`$ quasielastic scattering on 48Ca.
* Good description of analyzing power at high energy of incident protons with the spin-orbit parameters borrowed from low energy spectroscopy is consistent with supposition about the weak energy dependence of the mentioned optical model parameters.
* Satisfactory description of cross section for the $`(p,n)`$ reaction leading to isoanalogue state points to the correct parameterization of the energy dependence of isovector terms in the central nuclear potential used by us.
* The obtained results unambiguously demonstrate a considerable contribution of the surface absorption $`((1\alpha )0.5)`$ in nuclei.

The author is grateful to B. Fogelberg, H. Mach, V.E. Bunakov and K.A. Mezilev for numerous and useful discussions on the problems of spin-orbit splitting in nuclei.

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation of Fundamental Research (grant No.00-15-96610).