format: text

text:
# Hierarchical radiative fermion masses and flavor changing processes in an 𝑈(1)_𝑋 horizontal symmetry model

## I INTRODUCTION

In this work a continuous horizontal local symmetry $`U(1)_X`$ is considered. Assuming that only the third charged fermion family becomes massive at tree level, the light fermion masses are produced radiatively, generated at one and two loops. Instead of assuming a specific texture for the mass matrices, explicit one and two loop contributions are calculated and the mass matrix texture are obtained from these calculations. The textures arise because of the scalar field content of the model, which in turn are a consequence of the required gauge symmetry.

The new scalar fields needed to produce the light fermion masses mediate flavor changing processes and contribute to the anomalous magnetic moment of the fermions. The contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment and flavor changing processes are drawn for the leptons to show that no experimental bound is violated.

So, the radiative generation of hierarchical masses is possible within a model which do not need new exotic fermions and, at the same time is consistent with the experimental bounds on rare processes. Even though the $`U(1)_X`$ breaking scale is not known the scalar masses which arise from the numerical fit are not in contradiction with well known estimations on the scale of new physics, and the scalar contributions to rare decays and anomalous magnetic moments still allow for the search of new gauge boson effects.

The analysis of the model in question to generate the masses and mixing angles of the quark sector is already reorted in Masas-RMF

This paper is organized in the following way: In section II an explicit description of the model is given, section III presents the analytical calculations for fermion masses and later the scalar contributions to lepton anomalous magnetic moment and rare decay branching ratios, while in section IV the numerical fit results are shown. Comments and conclusions are presented in section V.

## II The Model

Only three fermion families are assumed, those of the Standard Model (SM), and then no exotic fermions need to be introduced to cancel anomalies. The fermions are classified, as in the SM, in five sectors f = q,u,d,l and e, where q and l are the $`SU(2)_L`$ quark and lepton doublets respectively and u,d and e are the singlets, in an obvious notation. In order to reduce the number of parameters and to make the model free of anomalies, the values X of the horizontal charge are demanded to satisfy the traceless conditionZEP1

$$X(f_i)=0,\pm \delta _f,$$
(1)
where $`i=1,2,3`$ is a family index, with the constraint

$$\delta _q^22\delta _u^2+\delta _d^2=\delta _l^2\delta _e^2.$$
(2)
Eq. (1) guarantees the cancellation of the \[U(1)X\]3 anomaly as well as those which are linear in the U(1)X hypercharge ($`[SU(3)_C]^2U(1)_X,[SU(2)_L]^2U(1)_X,[Grav]^2U(1)_X`$ and $`[U(1)_Y]^2U(1)_X`$). Eq. (2) is the condition for the cancellation of the U(1)Y\[U(1)X\]2 anomaly. A solution of Eq. (2) which guarantees that only the top and bottom quarks acquire masses at tree level is given by (“doublets independent of singlets”, see Ref. ZEP1 )

$$\delta _l=\delta _q=\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _u=\delta _d=\delta _e=\delta .$$
(3)
To avoid tree level flavor changing neutral currents mediated by the standard Z boson, the mixing between the standard model Z boson and its horizontal counterpart is not allowed. Consequently the SM Higgs scalar should have zero horizontal charge. As a consequence, and since a non-zero tree-level mass for the top and bottom quarks is required, the horizontal charges of these quarks should satisfy

$`X(q_3)+X(u_3)=0\text{ and}`$ $`X(q_3)+X(d_3)=0`$ (4)
in order for the Yukawa couplings in Eq. (6) to be invariant, but then Eqs. (1) and (3) demand that they vanish,

$$X(u_3)=X(q_3)=X(d_3)=0,$$
(5)
which in turn implies $`X(l_3)=X(e_3)=0`$ (this defines the third family). The assignment of horizontal charges to the fermions is then as given in Table 1. The $`SU(3)_CSU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ quantum numbers of the fermions are the same as in the Standard Model.

To generate the first and second family charged fermion masses radiatively new irreducible representations (irreps) of scalar fields should be introduced, since the gauge bosons of $`G=G_{SM}U(1)_X`$ do not perform transitions between different families. Families are of course distinguishable (non degenerated), only below the scale of the electroweak symmetry breaking, when they become massive.

Looking for scalars which make possible the generation of fermion masses in a hierarchical manner, the irreps of scalar fields are divided into two classes. Class I (II) contains scalar fields which acquire (do not acquire) vacuum expectation value (VEV).

A suitable choice of scalars should be made in order to avoid induced VEVs, through couplings in the potential, for class II scalars. In the model considered below class II scalars have no electrically neutral components, so they never get out of their class. In this model four irreps of scalars of class I and eight irreps of scalars of class II are introduced, with the quantum numbers specified in Table 1(a). Notice that just the minimum number of class I scalars are introduced; i.e., only one Higgs weak isospin doublet to achieve Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SSB) of the electroweak group down to the electromagnetic $`U(1)_Q`$, one $`SU(2)_L`$ singlet $`\varphi _2`$ used to break $`U(1)_X`$, and two weak isospin triplets ($`\varphi _9`$ and $`\varphi _10`$) which produce very small contributions to the electroweak SSB. In this way the horizontal interactions affect the $`\rho `$ parameter only at higher orders.

With the above quantum numbers the Yukawa couplings that can be written may be divided into two classes, those of the D type which are defined by Fig. 1, and those of the M type which are defined in Fig. 1. The Yukawa couplings can thus be written as $`L_Y=L_{Y_D}+L_{Y_M}`$, where the D Yukawa couplings are

$$L_{YD}=Y^u\overline{q}_{L3}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1u_{R3}+Y^d\overline{q}_{L3}\varphi _1d_{R3}+Y^\tau \overline{l}_{3L}\varphi _1\tau _R+h.c.,$$
(6)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }i\sigma _2\varphi ^{}`$, while the M couplings compatible with the symmetries of the model are

$`L_{YM}=Y_Q[q_{1L}^{\alpha T}C\varphi _{3\{\alpha \beta \}}q_{2L}^\beta +q_{3L}^{\alpha T}C\varphi _{3\{\alpha \beta \}}q_{3L}^\beta +q_{2L}^{\alpha T}C\varphi _{4\{\alpha \beta \}}q_{3L}^\beta `$
$`+d_{2R}^TC\varphi _5d_{1R}+d_{3R}^TC\varphi _5d_{3R}+d_{3R}^TC\varphi _6d_{2R}+u_{2R}^TC\varphi _7u_{1R}+u_{3R}^TC\varphi _7u_{3R}+u_{3R}^TC\varphi _8u_{2R}]`$
$`+Y_l[l_{2L}^{\alpha T}C\varphi _{9\{\alpha \beta \}}l_{3L}^\beta +l_{1L}^{\alpha T}C\varphi _{10\{\alpha \beta \}}l_{2L}^\beta +l_{3L}^{\alpha T}C\varphi _{10\{\alpha \beta \}}l_{3L}^\beta +\mu _R^TC\varphi _{11}\tau _R+`$
$`e_R^TC\varphi _{12}\mu _R+\tau _R^TC\varphi _{12}\tau _R]+h.c.`$ (7)
In these couplings C represents the charge conjugation matrix and $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are weak isospin indices. Color indices have not been written explicitly. By simplicity and economy only one Yukawa constant $`Y_Q`$ is assumed for all the quark M couplings and, another one, $`Y_l`$ for the lepton sector. Notice that $`\varphi _{3\{\alpha \beta \}}`$ and $`\varphi _{9\{\alpha \beta \}}`$ are represented as

$$\varphi _3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi ^{4/3}& \varphi ^{1/3}\\ \varphi ^{1/3}& \varphi ^{2/3}\end{array}\right)\text{ and }\varphi _9=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi ^0& \varphi ^+\\ \varphi ^+& \varphi ^{++}\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
where the superscript denotes the electric charge of the field (and corresponding expressions for $`\varphi _4`$ and $`\varphi _{10}`$).

Scalar fields which are not SU(2)L doublets do not participate in D type Yukawa terms, they however contribute to the mass matrix of the scalar sector and in turn determine the magnitude of the radiatively generated masses of fermions, as is shown below.

The most general scalar potential of dimension $`4`$ that can be written is

$`V(\varphi _i)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i^2\varphi _i^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\lambda _{ij}\varphi _i^2\varphi _j^2+\eta _{31}\varphi _1^{}\varphi _3^{}\varphi _3\varphi _1+\stackrel{~}{\eta _{31}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}^{}\varphi _3^{}\varphi _3\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}`$
$`+\eta _{41}\varphi _1^{}\varphi _4^{}\varphi _4\varphi _1+\stackrel{~}{\eta _{41}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}^{}\varphi _4^{}\varphi _4\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}+\kappa _{91}\varphi _1^{}\varphi _9^{}\varphi _9\varphi _1+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{91}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}^{}\varphi _9^{}\varphi _9\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}`$
$`+\kappa _{10,1}\varphi _1^{}\varphi _{10}^{}\varphi _{10}\varphi _1+\stackrel{~}{\kappa _{10,1}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}^{}\varphi _{10}^{}\varphi _{10}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}+{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}ij\\ i,j1,2\end{array}}{}}\eta _{ij}\varphi _i^{}\varphi _j^2+(\rho _1\varphi _5^{}\varphi _6\varphi _2+`$
$`\rho _2\varphi _7^{}\varphi _8\varphi _2+\lambda _1\varphi _5^{}\varphi _1^\alpha \varphi _{3\{\alpha \beta \}}\varphi _1^\beta +\lambda _2\varphi _7^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}^\alpha \varphi _{3\{\alpha \beta \}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}^\beta +\lambda _3Tr(\varphi _3^{}\varphi _4)\varphi _2^2+`$
$`\lambda _4\varphi _5\varphi _6\varphi _7\varphi _2+\lambda _5\varphi _5\varphi _6^{}\varphi _7^{}\varphi _8+y_l\varphi _{12}^{}\varphi _{11}\varphi _2+`$
$`\zeta _1\varphi _{12}^{}\varphi _1^\alpha \varphi _{10\{\alpha ,\beta \}}\varphi _1^\beta +Y_rTr\left(\varphi _{10}^{}\varphi _9\right)\varphi _2^2+\epsilon _1\varphi _5\varphi _6^{}\varphi _{12}^{}\varphi _{11}+\epsilon _2\varphi _7^{}\varphi _8\varphi _{12}\varphi _{11}^{}+h.c.),`$ (9)
where $`Tr`$ means trace and in $`\varphi _i^2\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i`$ an appropriate contraction of the $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`SU(3)_C`$ indices is understood. The gauge invariance of this potential requires the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\delta `$ to be hold.

The VEVs of the class I scalar fields are

$`\varphi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_1\end{array}\right),`$ $`\varphi _2=v_2,`$ (12)
$`\varphi _9=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_9& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\varphi _{10}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_{10}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (17)
$`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ achieve the symmetry breaking sequence

$$G_{SM}U(1)_X\stackrel{<\varphi _2>}{}G_{SM}\stackrel{<\varphi _1>}{}SU(3)_CU(1)_Q,$$
(18)
while the VEVs $`v_9`$ and $`v_{10}`$ are extremely small and allow production of Majorana type mass contributions to the neutrino mass matrix. With these contributions the 3 left handed neutrinos acquire masses, whose differences are consistent with recent analysis NusBib  and there is no need to introduce right handed neutrinos. In this case the mass matrix has the following form

$$\varphi _3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& v_{10}/2& 0\\ v_{10}/2& 0& v_9/2\\ 0& v_9/2& v_10\end{array}\right)$$
(19)
The scalar field mixing arises after SSB from the terms in the potential that couple two different class II fields to one class I field. After SSB the mass matrix for the scalar fields of charge $`2/3`$ ($`\varphi _4`$,$`\varphi _3`$, $`\varphi _5`$,$`\varphi _6`$) is written as

$`M_{2/3}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}s_4^2& \lambda _3^{}v_2^2& 0& 0\\ \lambda _3v_2^2& s_3^2& \frac{\lambda _1^{}v_1^2}{2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{\lambda _1v_1^2}{2}& u_5^2& \rho _1v_2\\ 0& 0& \rho _1^{}v_2& u_6^2\end{array}\right)`$ (24)
and analogous ones for the $`4/3`$ and $`1`$ charge sectors.

## III Analytical Results

### III.1 The Masses

A description of the mechanism to produce the charged fermion masses follows.

In general there could be mass contributions of two types as depicted in Fig. 1. In the present model however, only the Fig. 2 diagrams for the charge $`1/3`$ quark mass matrix elements and similar ones for the charge $`2/3`$ and $`1`$ sectors do contribute (these type of diagrams were first introduced in ma ); in the Fig. 2 diagrams the cross means tree level mixing and the black circle means one loop mixing. The diagrams in Fig. 3a and 3b should be added to the matrix elements (1,3) and (3,1), respectively.

In the one loop contribution to the mass matrices for the different charged fermion sectors only the third family of fermions appears in the internal lines. This generates a rank 2 matrix, which once diagonalized gives the physical states at this approximation. Then using these mass eigenstates the next order contribution are computed, obtaining a matrix of rank 3. After the diagonalization of this matrix the mass eigenvalues and eigenstates are obtained (A quark mass mechanism with some similar features to the one proposed here is given in ma ).

Notice that due to the scalar mixing, in all the loop diagrams of Fig. 2 and 3, the divergences cancel out in each one of these diagrams as is physically expected, giving rise to finite contributions to the mass matrices.

Explicitly, the non vanishing contributions from the diagrams of Fig. 2 to the mass terms $`\overline{d}_{iR}d_{jL}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{(1)}+h.c.`$ read at one loop

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^{(1)}=3m_b^{(0)}\frac{Y_I^2}{16\pi ^2}\underset{k}{}U_{1k}U_{4k}f(M_k,m_b^{(0)}),$$
(25)
and similar ones for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{32}^{(1)}`$, where $`m_b^{(0)}`$ is the tree level contribution to the b quark mass, the 3 is a color factor, U is the orthogonal matrix which diagonalizes the mass matrix of the charge $`2/3`$ scalars, $`(\varphi _4,\varphi _3,\varphi _5,\varphi _6)^T=U(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3,\sigma _4)^T,`$ where $`\sigma _i`$ are the eigenfields with eigenvalues $`M_i`$, and

$$f(a,b)\frac{1}{a^2b^2}[a^2ln\frac{a^2}{b^2}],$$

which is just a logarithmic contribution when $`a^2b^2`$. The resulting second rank mass matrix at this level is thus

$$M_d^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^{(1)}& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{23}^{(1)}\\ 0& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{32}^{(1)}& m_b^{(0)}\end{array}\right).$$
(26)
At effective two loops we obtain the following expressions:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{(2)}=3{\displaystyle \frac{Y_I^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,i}{}}m_i^{(1)}(V_{dL}^{(1)})_{2i}(V_{dR}^{(1)})_{2i}U_{2k}U_{3k}f(M_k,m_i^{(1)}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}^{(2)}=3{\displaystyle \frac{Y_I^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,i}{}}m_i^{(1)}(V_{dL}^{(1)})_{3i}(V_{dR}^{(1)})_{2i}U_{2k}U_{3k}f(M_k,m_i^{(1)})`$
$`+3{\displaystyle \frac{Y_I^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,i}{}}m_i^{(1)}(V_{dL}^{(1)})_{2i}(V_{dR}^{(1)})_{2i}U_{1k}U_{3k}f(M_k,m_i^{(1)}),`$ (27)
and the corresponding ones for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^{(2)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}^{(2)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{31}^{(2)}`$, the k (i) index goes from 1 to 4 (from 2 to 3), $`V_{dL}^{(1)}`$ and $`V_{dR}^{(1)}`$ are the unitary matrices which diagonalize $`M_d^{(1)}`$ of equation (26) and $`m_i^{(1)}`$ are the eigenvalues. Therefore at two loops the mass matrix for d quarks becomes:

$$M_d^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{(2)}& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^{(2)}& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{13}^{(2)}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}^{(2)}& m_2^{(1)}& 0\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{31}^{(2)}& 0& m_3^{(1)}\end{array}\right).$$
(28)
For the up quark and charged lepton sectors the procedure to obtain the masses is completely analogous.

The CKM matrix takes the form

$$V_{CKM}=(V_{uL}^{(2)}V_{uL}^{(1)})^{}V_{dL}^{(2)}V_{dL}^{(1)},$$
(29)
where the unitary matrices $`V_{uL}^{(1)}`$ and $`V_{uR}^{(1)}`$ diagonalize $`M_u^{(1)}`$, and $`V_{uL}^{(2)}`$ and $`V_{uR}^{(2)}`$ diagonalize $`M_u^{(2)}`$, with an analogous notation used for the down sector.

It is important to mention here that the textures, particularly the zeros in the scalar and fermion mass matrices (Eqs. 24 and 28) are neither accidental nor imposed; they are just a direct consequence of the mass mechanism and of the gauge symmetry of the model.

### III.2 Rare Decays and Anomalous Magnetic Moments

Considering two equally charged fermions the process $`f_1f_2\gamma `$ is written as BLee

$$iM(l_1(p_1)l_1(p_2)+\gamma )=i\overline{u}_2(p_2)\left(ϵ^\mu \gamma _\mu F_1^V(0)\delta _{f_1f_2}+\frac{\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu ϵ^\mu }{m_1+m_2}(F_2^V(0)+F_2^A(0)\gamma _5)\right)u_1(p_1)$$
(30)
where $`F_2^{A(V)}`$ gives the anomalous magnetic moment (electric dipole moment) for the fermion $`f_1`$ when $`f_1=f_2`$. The diagrams for the processes are shown in figure 4, in these diagrams $`\sigma `$ stands for a mass eigenstate scalar field.

The respective evaluation of these diagrams gives

$`iA_1={\displaystyle \frac{Y_l^2q_e}{16\pi ^2}}N(m_\sigma ,m_i)\overline{e}_{2R}i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu ϵ_\mu e_{1L}`$ and $`iA_2={\displaystyle \frac{Y_l^2q_e}{16\pi ^2}}N(m_\sigma ,m_i)\overline{e}_{2L}i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu ϵ_\mu e_{1R}`$ (31)
where $`N(m_\sigma ,m_i)=\frac{m_i}{m_\sigma ^2}\left[ln\frac{m_\sigma ^2}{m_i^2}\frac{1}{2}\right]`$, the relation $`m_\sigma m_i`$ is assumed to be held and the second amplitude comes from the diagrams where $`L`$ and $`R`$ are interchanged. Notice that due to scalar field mixing the contribution of these loops are finite as those in the mass case.

Due to the fermion mixing matrices structure (see the numerical results) the diagrams that make the largest contribution to the AMM of the leptons are; for the electron, the diagram with the muon inside the loop, and for the muon and tau, the diagrams with the tau as the inner fermion. The expression for the scalar contribution to the muon AMM is

$`a_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu Y_l^2}{16\pi ^2}}(V_{eL}^l)_{22}(V_{eR}^l)_{22}(G^{\mu _R}+G^{\mu _L})`$ (32)
where

$`G^{\mu R}={\displaystyle \underset{k,i}{}}U_{1k}^lU_{4k}^l(V_{eL}^l)_{3i}(V_{eR}^{l+})_{i3}N(m_{\sigma _k},m_i)`$
$`G^{\mu L}={\displaystyle \underset{k,i}{}}U_{4k}^lU_{1k}^l(V_{eR}^l)_{3i}(V_{eL}^{l+})_{i3}N(m_{\sigma _k},m_i)`$ (33)
and analogous expression (with a suitable indices change) are held for the $`e`$ and $`\tau `$ leptons.

For the branching ratios of flavor changing decays the following expressions are obtained

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e+\gamma )=(m_\mu +m_e)^2\frac{m_\mu Y_l^4}{(16)^3\pi ^5}\left(1\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }\right)^2\left(1\frac{m_e^2}{m_\mu ^2}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \left(|(V_{eL}^l)_{22}(V_{eR}^l)_{11}G^{\mu _Le_R}|^2+|(V_{eL}^l)_{11}(V_{eR}^l)_{22}G^{\mu _Re_L}|^2\right)\\ \hfill \frac{m_\mu ^3Y_l^4}{(16)^3\pi ^5}\left(|G^{\mu _Le_R}|^2+|G^{\mu _Re_L}|^2\right)\end{array}$$
(34)
with

$`G^{\mu _Re_L}={\displaystyle \underset{k,i}{}}U_{1k}^lU_{3k}^l(V_{eR}^l)_{2i}(V_{eL}^{l+})_{i3}N(m_{\sigma _k},m_i)`$
$`G^{\mu _Le_R}={\displaystyle \underset{k,i}{}}U_{4k}^lU_{2k}^l(V_{eL}^l)_{2i}(V_{eR}^{l+})_{i3}N(m_{\sigma _k},m_i)`$ (35)
and analogous expressions for $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and $`\tau e\gamma `$.

The scalar fields ($`\varphi _9,\varphi _{10},\varphi _{12},\varphi _{11}`$) allow tree level flavor changing decays due to the mixing among themselves, e.g. Fig. 5. In particular, the processes which could be compared with experimental bounds are $`\tau 3\mu `$, $`\tau 2\mu e`$, $`\tau 2e\mu `$, $`\tau 3e`$, $`\mu 3e`$, with diagrams like those in Fig. 6. For these processes the available phase space should be evaluated, and it is well known that for one particle of mass $`M`$ and momentum $`P`$ decaying to three particles with momenta $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ and masses $`m_1,m_2`$ and $`m_3`$ spearman  the branching ratio is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }(Pp_1p_2p_3)=\frac{2m_1m_2m_3}{(2\pi )^3n_f!}𝑑E_1𝑑E_2\mathrm{\Theta }(E_1,E_2)|M|^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \text{ which in this case reads}\\ \hfill =\frac{\alpha ^2Y_l^4}{4(2\pi )^3n_f!}\left|\underset{k}{}\frac{𝔑(U^l(k))}{m_{\sigma _k}^2}\right|^2𝑑E_1𝑑E_2\mathrm{\Theta }(E_1,E_2)\\ \hfill E_1(m^2+m_1^2m_2^2m_3^22mE_1).\end{array}$$
(36)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(E_1,E_2)`$ represents the available phase space for the process, $`\alpha `$ and $`𝔑(U^l(k))`$ are shown in Table 2. The fermion mixing matrix structure was taken into account and only the largest contributions are evaluated. From the numerical fit the lepton mixing matrices have the form

$`V=`$ $`V_{eR}^lV_{eL}^l`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda & \lambda \\ \lambda & 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda & \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (40)
with $`\lambda 10^4`$.

## IV Numerical Evaluation

### IV.1 Experimental Values

Since quarks are confined inside hadrons, their masses cannot be directly measured. So, the quark mass parameters in the SM Lagrangian depend both on the renormalization scheme adopted to define the theory and on the scale parameter $`\mu `$ where the theory is being tested. In the limit where all quark masses are zero, the SM has an $`SU(3)_LSU(3)_R`$ chiral symmetry which is broken at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 1`$GeV. To determine the quark mass values SM perturbation theory must be used at an energy scale $`\mu >>\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$ where non perturbative effects are negligible.

For illustration, the allowed ranges of quark massespdg  in the modified minimal subtraction scheme $`(\overline{MS})`$ arenari :

$`m_u(1.GeV)`$ $`=`$ $`26.8MeV.`$
$`m_d(1.GeV)`$ $`=`$ $`412MeV.`$
$`m_s(1.GeV)`$ $`=`$ $`81230MeV.`$
$`m_c(m_c)`$ $`=`$ $`1.11.4GeV.`$
$`m_b(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`4.14.4GeV.`$
$`m_t(Exp)`$ $`=`$ $`173.8\pm 5.2GeV`$
To find the relative magnitude of different quark masses in a meaningful way, one has to describe all quark masses in the same scheme and at the same scale. In this analysis the quark masses are calculated at an energy scale $`\mu _m`$ such that $`M_Z<\mu _m<M_Xv_2`$, where $`M_X`$ is the mass scale and where $`U(1)_X`$ is spontaneously broken. Since in this model there is no mixing between the Standard Model Z boson and its horizontal counterpart, $`v_2`$ could be as low as the electroweak breaking scale. For simplicity, assume that these calculations are meaningful at the electroweak breaking scale and from the former values for the quark masses calculate, in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme, the quark masses at the $`m_Z`$ scalefritzsch . Those values calculated in the cited reference are presented in Table 3(a).

On the other hand, the CKM matrix elements are not ill defined and they can be directly measured from the charged weak current in the SM. For simplicity the assumption was made that they are real, and as discussed in Ref.fusaoka , they are almost constant in the interval $`M_Z<\mu <`$ a few TeV. Their current experimental value pdg  and the estimated ones are given in Table 3.

### IV.2 Evaluation of the Parameters

In order to test the model using the least possible number of free parameters, let the scalar mass matrices be written in the following form:

$`M_{2/3}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_+& b& 0& 0\\ b& a_+& c_+& 0\\ 0& c_+& a_+& d_+\\ 0& 0& d_+& a_+\end{array}\right)`$ and $`M_{4/3}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_{}& b& 0& 0\\ b& a_{}& c_{}& 0\\ 0& c_{}& a_{}& d_{}\\ 0& 0& d_{}& a_{}\end{array}\right).`$ (49)
Using the central value of the CKM elements in the PDG bookpdg  and the central values of the six quark masses at the Z mass scalefritzsch , the $`\chi ^2`$ function is built in the parameter space. Diagonalization of involved matrices is achieved using LAPACK lapack  routines, and the $`\chi ^2`$ function is minimized using MINUIT from the CERNLIB packagesminuit ; both Monte Carlo and standard routines were used in the minimization process. The tree level masses of the top, bottom and tau were restricted to be around the central values $`\pm `$ 10 % in order to assure consistency with the assumption that radiative corrections are small. The numerical values for the parameters are shown in Table 4. With the numeric values which minimize $`\chi ^2`$ numerical values for $`m_q(m_t)`$ with $`q=u,d,c,s,t,b`$, and $`(CKM)_{ij}`$ with $`i,j=1,2,3`$ are shown in Table 3(a).

For the sake of comparison, the same calculations but now using the central values of the six quark masses at the $`M_t`$ scale fusaoka  are repeated. The numerical results are presented in Table 5 and 6.

The results for the charged leptons case using the mass data by fusaoka  are shown in Tables 7 and 8.

The apparently impressive correspondence between the estimated lepton masses in this model and the Fusaoka (et. al) calculation is due to the large number of free parameters, which in the numerical fit are not as constrained as in the quarks case.

Two more comments should be made: First, the values for the parameters in the square mass matrices of scalar fields are of order $`10^{17}(\text{MeV})^2`$ (see Table 4), so, the scalar physical masses are of order $`10^3`$ TeV. Second, the rounding errors allow us to take safely up to five significative figures in the masses and in the CKM matrix elements.

As can be seen from Tables 3 and 5, even under the assumption that the CKM matrix elements are real, the numerical values are in good agreement with the allowed experimental results.

### IV.3 Anomalous Magnetic Moments and Rare Decays Evaluation

Using the parameter values from the mass fit, the numerical evaluation of scalar contributions to magnetic moments of the charged leptons and the branching ratio of the rare decays were made, and they are shown in Tables 9 and 10, respectively.

## V CONCLUSIONS

By introducing a $`U(1)_X`$ gauge flavor symmetry and enlarging the scalar sector, a mechanism and an explicit model able to generate radiatively the hierarchical spectrum of charged fermions masses and CKM mixing angles is presented. The horizontal charge assignment to particles is such that no new fermions (beyond the known three generations of quarks and leptons) are needed. Also, at tree level only the t and b quarks and $`\tau `$ lepton get masses, and to generate radiatively the masses for the light families, some new exotic scalars are introduced. All of these new scalars are electrically charged, so they can not acquire VEV as is required in the loop graphs.

The numerical results are presented in Tables 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10. Even though the $`U(1)_X`$ mass scale is not known, the two sets of results for the quarks case do not differ by much and they agree fairly well with the experimental values, meaning that the mass scale associated with the horizontal symmetry may be in the range $`100GeV<M_X<1.0TeV`$, at the same time no experimental bound on rare decays or AMM is violated.

A closer look to the analysis shows that the quark mass hierarchy in being translated to the quotient $`v_1/v_2`$ which is the hierarchy between the electroweak mass scale and the Horizontal $`U(1)_X`$ mass scale. In this way the viability that new physics exists at the electroweak mass scale, or just above it, is shown and may help to explain the long-lasting puzzle of the enormous range of quark masses and mixing angles.

Since quarks carry baryon number $`B=1/3`$, the color sextet scalars must have $`B=2/3`$ (the scalar singlets $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ have B=0); in this way $`L_{Y_M}`$ is not only $`U(1)_X`$ invariant but conserves color and baryon number as well. On the other hand, $`V(\varphi )`$ does not conserve baryon number (the term $`\lambda _4\varphi _5\varphi _6\varphi _7\varphi _2`$ violates baryon number). Anyway, in the worst of the situations, since the offending term does not enter in the mass matrix for the Higgs scalars, it may be removed in more realistic models by the introduction of a discrete symmetry.

The results are encouraging; even under the assumption that the CKM matrix is real, and without knowing exactly the $`U(1)_X`$ mass scale, the numerical predictions are in the ballpark, implying also a value of order 10 for the Yukawa coupling $`Y_Q`$, and masses for the exotic scalars being of order $`10^3`$ TeV. Thus this model presents a clear mechanism able to explain the mass hierarchy and mixing of the fermionic fields.

Finally, in the work presented here, the Higgs scalar used to produce the SSB of the SM gauge group down to $`SU(3)_C\times U(1)_Q`$ has zero horizontal charge, and as a consequence the standard $`Z`$ boson does not mix with the horizontal counterpart.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of the authors (A. Z.) acknowledges the hospitality of the theory group at CERN and useful conversations with Marcela Carena and Jean Pestieau.

## VI BIBLIOGRAPHY


text:
# The Virasoro Algebra and Sectors with Infinite Statistical Dimension

## 1 Introduction

The notion of statistical dimension of superselection sectors, introduced by Doplicher, Haag, and Roberts in  is one of the most important concepts emerging in the formulation of Quantum Field Theory in therms of local nets of operator algebras ( see  for a general reference on this subject). The deep connection with Jones’ theory on index for subfactors , established by Longo  is a remarkable illustration of the relevance of this notion.

For an irreducible representation $`\pi `$ of the algebra of observables $`𝒜`$ satisfying the DHR selection criterion the finiteness of the (statistical) dimension $`d(\pi )`$ is equivalent to the existence of a conjugate representation $`\overline{\pi }`$ corresponding to the particle-antiparticle symmetry , a condition which is very natural on physical grounds. In fact for local nets over a four dimensional Minkowski space-time no example of (irreducible) sector with infinite dimension is known and the possibility that in this context the existence of such sectors can be excluded for physically reasonable algebras of observables is still open.

The situation is different in the case of conformal nets on $`S^1`$, i.e. nets associated to chiral components of 2D conformal field theories, where irreducible representations with infinite dimension seem to appear naturally. Examples have been found by Fredenhagen  and Rehren has given arguments indicating that for the nets generated by the Virasoro with central charge $`c1`$ most of the irreducible representations should have infinite dimension . Moreover the analysis of these representations in a model independent framework has been initiated in

In this note we show (Theorem 4.4), in agreement with the arguments in , that the representations of the Virasoro algebra with central charge $`c=1`$ and lowest weight $`h0`$, $`hj^2`$, $`j\frac{1}{2}`$ give rise to representations with infinite dimension of the corresponding conformal net $`𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}`$.

Our strategy of proof differs from the one adopted in  where (partial) computation of fusion rules is used to infer infinite dimension. Part of the fusion rules for the Virasoro algebra with $`c=1`$ have been recently computed by Rehren and Tuneke  but we shall not use their results.

Instead of the fusion structure we use a formula, which appeared in , giving the dimension the restriction of a representation of a net $`𝒜`$ to a subsystem $`𝒜`$ (Proposition 3.1 in this note) and well known results on the representation theory of the Virasoro algebra . As another interesting application of this formula we show, generalizing a result in , that for finite index subsystems of certain rational nets twisted sectors always exist (Proposition 3.3).

## 2 Conformal nets, their representations and subsystems

Let $``$ be the set of nonempty, nondense, open intervals of unit circle $`S^1`$.

A conformal net on $`S^1`$ is a family $`𝒜=\{𝒜(I)|I\}`$ of von Neumann algebras, acting on a infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space $`_𝒜`$, satisfying the following properties:

* Isotony.

$$𝒜(I_1)𝒜(I_2)\mathrm{for}I_1I_2,I_1,I_2.$$
(1)
* Locality.

$$𝒜(I_1)𝒜(I_2)^{}\mathrm{for}I_1I_2=\mathrm{},I_1,I_2.$$
(2)
* Conformal covariance. There exists a strongly continuous unitary representation $`U`$ of $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,)`$ in $`_𝒜`$ such that

$$U(\alpha )𝒜(I)U(\alpha )^1=𝒜(\alpha I)\mathrm{for}I,\alpha \mathrm{PSL}(2,),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,)`$ acts on $`S^1`$ by Moebius transformations.
* Positivity of the energy. The conformal Hamiltonian $`L_0`$, which generates the restriction of $`U`$ to the one-parameter group of rotations has non negative spectrum.
* Existence of the vacuum. There exists a unique (up to a phase) $`U`$-invariant unit vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒜`$.
* Cyclicity of the vacuum. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for the algebra $`𝒜(S^1):=_I𝒜(I)`$

Some consequences of the axioms are :

* Reeh-Schlieder property. For every $`I`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic and separating for $`𝒜(I)`$.
* Haag duality. For every $`I`$

$$𝒜(I)^{}=𝒜(I^c),$$
(4)
where $`I^c`$ denotes the interior of $`S^1\backslash I`$.
* Factoriality. The algebras $`𝒜(I)`$ are type $`\mathrm{III}_1`$ factors.

A conformal net $`𝒜`$ is said to be split if given two intervals $`I_1,I_2`$ with the closure of $`I_1`$ contained in $`I_2`$, there exists a type I factor $`𝒩(I_1,I_2)`$ such that

$$𝒜(I_1)𝒩(I_1,I_2)𝒜(I_2).$$
(5)
Moreover, if for every $`I,I_1,I_2`$ with $`I_1,I_2`$ obtained by removing a point from $`I`$ we have

$$𝒜(I_1)𝒜(I_2)=𝒜(I),$$
(6)
then $`𝒜`$ is said to be strongly additive. The split property and strong additivity do not follow from the axioms of conformal nets but they are satisfied in many interesting models.

A representation of a conformal net $`𝒜`$ is a family $`\pi =\{\pi _I|I\}`$ where $`\pi _I`$ is a representation of $`𝒜(I)`$ on a fixed Hilbert space $`_\pi `$, such that

$$\pi _J|_{𝒜(I)}=\pi _I\mathrm{for}IJ.$$
(7)
Irreducibility, direct sums and unitary equivalence of representations of conformal nets can be defined in a natural way, see . The unitary equivalence class of an irreducible representation $`\pi `$ on a separable Hilbert space is called a sector and denoted $`[\pi ]`$. The identical representation of $`𝒜`$ on $`_𝒜`$ is called the vacuum representation and it is irreducible. The corresponding sector is called the vacuum sector.

If $`_\pi `$ is separable then $`\pi `$ is automatically locally normal, namely $`\pi _I`$ is normal for each $`I`$ and hence $`\pi _I(𝒜(I))`$ is a type $`\mathrm{III}_1`$ factor. A representation $`\pi `$ is said to be covariant if there is a strongly continuous unitary representation $`U_\pi `$ on $`_\pi `$ of the universal covering group $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{PSL}(2,)}`$ of $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,)`$ such that

$$\mathrm{Ad}U_\pi (\alpha )\pi _I=\pi _{\alpha I}\mathrm{Ad}U(\alpha ),$$
(8)
where $`U`$ has been lifted to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{PSL}(2,)}`$. If a covariant representation $`\pi `$ is irreducible then there is a unique $`U_\pi `$ satisfying Eq. (8). Hence, in this case, the corresponding generator of rotations $`L_0^\pi `$ is completely determined by $`\pi `$. Given a covariant representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ on a separable Hilbert space $`_\pi `$ one has the (isomorphic) inclusions $`\pi _I(𝒜(I))\pi _{I^c}(𝒜(I^c))^{},I`$ . Then the Jones (minimal) index $`[\pi _{I^c}(𝒜(I^c))^{}:\pi _I(𝒜(I))]`$ is independent of $`I`$ and the statistical dimension $`d(\pi )`$ of $`\pi `$ is defined by

$$d(\pi )=[\pi _{I^c}(𝒜(I^c))^{}:\pi _I(𝒜(I))]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(9)
The relation of this definition with the one in  is given by the index-statistics theorem .

A conformal subsystem of a conformal net $`𝒜`$ is a family $`=\{(I)|I\}`$ of nontrivial von Neumann algebras acting on $`_𝒜`$ such that:

$`(I)𝒜(I)\mathrm{for}I;`$ (10)
$`U(\alpha )(I)U(\alpha )^1=(\alpha I)\mathrm{for}I,;`$ (11)
$`(I_1)(I_2)\mathrm{for}I_1I_2,I_1,I_2.`$ (12)
We shall use the notation $`𝒜`$ for conformal subsystems. Note that $``$ is not in general a conformal net since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not cyclic for the algebra $`(S^1):=_I(I)`$ unless $`=𝒜`$. However one gets a conformal net $`_0`$ by restriction of the algebras $`(I),I,`$ and of the representation $`U`$ to the closure $`_{}`$ of $`(S^1)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since the map

$$b(I)b|_{_{}}_0(I)$$

is an isomorphism for every $`I`$, we shall, as usual, use the symbol $``$ instead of $`_0`$, specifying, if necessary, when $``$ acts on $`_𝒜`$ or on $`_{}`$.

Given a conformal subsystem $`𝒜`$ the index of the subfactor $`(I)𝒜(I)`$ does not depend on $`I`$ and is denoted $`[𝒜:]`$.

## 3 Restricting representations

We now consider restriction of representations. Given a subsystem $`𝒜`$ and a representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ one can define a representation $`\pi ^{rest}`$ by

$$\pi _I^{rest}=\pi _I|_{(I)}I.$$
(13)
Then the following holds  (cf. also \[23, Section 3\]). We include the proof for the convenience of the reader.

###### Proposition 3.1.

For every conformal subsystem $`𝒜`$ and covariant representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ on a separable Hilbert space we have

$$d(\pi ^{rest})=[𝒜:]d(\pi ).$$
(14)
###### Proof.

For $`I`$ we have $`d(\pi ^{rest})^2=[\pi _{I^c}((I^c))^{}:\pi _I((I))]`$. Consider the inclusions

$$\pi _I((I))\pi _I(𝒜(I))\pi _{I^c}(𝒜(I^c))^{}\pi _{I^c}((I^c))^{}.$$

Then, the multiplicativity of the index  implies that $`d(\pi ^{rest})^2`$ is equal to

$$[\pi _{I^c}((I^c))^{}:\pi _{I^c}(𝒜(I^c))^{}][\pi _{I^c}(𝒜(I^c))^{}:\pi _I(𝒜(I))][\pi _I(𝒜(I)):\pi _I((I))].$$

Since $`\pi _I`$ is an isomorphism for every $`I`$ we have

$`[\pi _{I^c}((I^c))^{}:\pi _{I^c}(𝒜(I^c))^{}]`$ $`=[\pi _{I^c}(𝒜(I^c)):\pi _{I^c}((I^c))]`$
$`=[𝒜:]`$
and similarly

$$[\pi _I(𝒜(I)):\pi _I((I))]=[𝒜:].$$

It follows that

$$d(\pi ^{rest})^2=[𝒜:]^2d(\pi )^2.$$

###### Remark 3.2.

If $`NM`$ is an inclusion of infinite factors acting on a separable Hilbert space and $`\rho `$ is a (normal, unital) endomorphism of $`M`$ one can define an endomorphism $`\rho ^{rest}`$ of $`N`$ by

$$\rho ^{rest}:=\gamma \rho |_N,$$
(15)
where $`\gamma `$ is Longo’s canonical endomorphism . As discussed in  the mapping $`\rho \rho ^{rest}`$ (called $`\sigma `$ restriction in ) corresponds in a natural way to the restriction of representations of a net. In fact a similar argument to the one used in the proof of the previous proposition shows that

$$d(\rho ^{rest})=[M:N]d(\rho ).$$
(16)
Here the dimension $`d(\rho )`$ of an endomorphism $`\rho `$ of a factor $`M`$ is given by the square root of the index of the subfactor $`\rho (M)M`$.

Let $`I_1,I_2`$ have disjoint closures, let $`I_3,I_4`$ be the interiors of the connected components of $`S^1/(I_1I_2)`$ and let $`𝒜`$ be a conformal net on $`S^1`$. The inclusion

$$𝒜(I_1)𝒜(I_2)(𝒜(I_3)𝒜(I_4))^{}$$
(17)
is called a 2-interval inclusion. A conformal net $`𝒜`$ is said to be completely rational if it is split, strongly additive and there is a 2-interval inclusion with finite index $`\mu _𝒜`$ (in this case every 2-interval inclusion has the same index ). It has been shown in  that a completely rational net has finitely many sectors which are all covariant with finite dimension. Furthermore the following holds

$$\mu _𝒜=\underset{i}{}d(\pi _i)^2,$$
(18)
where for each sector of $`𝒜`$ a representation $`\pi _i`$ has been chosen.

We now consider a conformal subsystem $``$ of a completely rational net $`𝒜`$ such that the index $`[𝒜:]`$ is finite. Then $``$ is completely rational  and the index $`\mu _{}`$ is given by (\[14, Proposition 24.\])

$$\mu _{}=[𝒜:]^2\mu _𝒜.$$
(19)
We say that a sector of $``$ is untwisted if it is contained in $`\pi ^{rest}`$ for some irreducible representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ on a separable Hilbert space. If it is not untwisted we say that it is twisted.

For every sector of $``$ we choose a corresponding representation $`\sigma _i`$ of $``$. Let $`𝒰`$, ($`𝒯`$) be the set of untwisted (twisted) sectors of $``$. We define

$`\mu _{}^{u}{}_{}{}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{[\sigma _i]𝒰}{}}d(\sigma _i)^2,`$ (20)
$`\mu _{}^{t}{}_{}{}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{[\sigma _i]𝒯}{}}d(\sigma _i)^2.`$ (21)
Clearly $`\mu _{}=\mu _{}^{u}{}_{}{}^{}+\mu _{}^{t}{}_{}{}^{}`$. In the case where $`𝒜`$ is an orbifold inclusion, namely $``$ is the fixed points net for the action of a (non trivial) finite group $`G`$ of internal symmetries of $`𝒜`$, it has been shown by Xu  that the set of twisted sectors is not empty. Actually Proposition 3.1 implies the existence of such sectors even when there is no underlying group action.

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $``$ be a proper conformal subsystem of a completely rational net $`𝒜`$, with finite index $`[𝒜:]`$. Then the set of twisted sectors of $``$ is not empty and in fact $`\mu _{}^{t}{}_{}{}^{}2`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi _i,i=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$ be inequivalent irreducible representations exausting all sectors of $`𝒜`$ and let $`\pi _0`$ be the vacuum representation. The set $`𝒰`$ of untwisted sectors of $``$ can be decomposed into disjoint subsets $`𝒰_i,i=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$ in the following way: $`𝒰_0`$ is the set of sectors of $``$ which are contained in $`\pi _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡}}`$ and $`𝒰_k,k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ is the the set of sectors contained in $`\pi _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡}}`$ but not in $`\pi _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡}},i=0,\mathrm{},k1`$. It follows from Proposition 3.1 and Eq. (19) that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d(\pi _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡}})^2`$ $`=[𝒜:]^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d(\pi _i)^2`$
$`=[𝒜:]^2\mu _𝒜`$
$`=\mu _{}.`$
Therefore

$`\mu _{}^{t}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=\mu _{}\mu _{}^{u}{}_{}{}^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d(\pi _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{[\sigma _k]𝒰}{}}d(\sigma _k)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{[\sigma _k]𝒰_i}{}}d(\sigma _k))^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}({\displaystyle \underset{[\sigma _k]𝒰_i}{}}d(\sigma _k)^2)`$
$`({\displaystyle \underset{[\sigma _k]𝒰_0}{}}d(\sigma _k))^2{\displaystyle \underset{[\sigma _k]𝒰_0}{}}d(\sigma _k)^22,`$
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $`𝒰_0`$ has two or more elements when $`𝒜`$. ∎

## 4 Virasoro algebra and infinite dimension

We begin this section with the following easy consequence of Proposition 3.1

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $``$ be a conformal subsystem of a net $`𝒜`$ with infinite index $`[𝒜:]`$. Assume that there exists a covariant representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ on a separable Hilbert space whose restriction to $``$ is irreducible. Then $`[\pi ^{rest}]`$ is a covariant sector of $``$ with infinite statistical dimension.

We now come to the sectors of the conformal net $`𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}`$ generated by the Virasoro algebra with $`c=1`$. We shall use the fact that $`𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}`$ can be considered has a conformal subsystem of the net $`𝒜`$ generated by a $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ current $`J(z)`$. The net $`𝒜`$ is defined has follows, see  for more details. The Hilbert space $`_A`$ carries a strongly continuous unitary representation $`U`$ of $`\mathrm{PSL}(2,)`$ with positive energy and a unique (up to a phase) $`U`$-invariant unit vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ current $`J(z),zS^1`$ is defined as operator valued distribution on $`_𝒜`$. Namely the operators

$$J(u)=\frac{dz}{2\pi i}J(z)u(z)uC^{\mathrm{}}(S^1)$$
(22)
have a common invariant dense domain $`𝒟`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is also $`U`$-invariant. For each $`\psi 𝒟`$ the mapping $`uJ(u)\psi `$ is linear and continuous from $`C^{\mathrm{}}(S^1)`$ to $`_𝒜`$. Moreover the vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for the polynomial algebra generated by the smeared currents $`J(u),uC^{\mathrm{}}(S^1)`$.

The current $`J(z)`$ satisfies the canonical commutation relations

$$[J(z_1),J(z_2)]=\delta ^{}(z_1z_2),$$
(23)
where the Dirac delta function $`\delta (z_1z_2)`$ is defined with respect to the complex measure $`\frac{dz}{2\pi i}`$, the hermiticity condition

$$J(z)^{}=z^2J(z),$$
(24)
and the covariance property

$$U(\alpha )J(u)U(\alpha )^{}=J(u_\alpha ),uC^{\mathrm{}}(S^1),$$
(25)
where $`u_\alpha (z):=u(\alpha ^1z)`$. For every real test function $`uC^{\mathrm{}}(S^1)`$ the operator $`J(u)`$ is essentially self-adjoint and the unitaries $`W(u):=\mathrm{e}^{iJ(u)}`$ satisfy the Weyl relations

$$W(u)W(v)=W(u+v)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{A(u,v)}{2}},$$
(26)
where $`A(u,v):=\frac{dz}{2\pi i}u^{}(z)v(z)`$. For every $`I`$ the local von Neumann algebra $`𝒜(I)`$ is defined by

$$𝒜(I)=\{W(u)|uC^{\mathrm{}}(S^1)\mathrm{real},\mathrm{supp}uI\}^{\prime \prime }$$
(27)
and one can show that the family $`𝒜(I),I`$ is a conformal net on $`S^1`$. Next we define the conformal subsystem $`𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}`$ generated by the Virasoro algebra with central charge $`c=1`$. First consider the (formal) Fourier expansion of the U(1)-current

$$J(z)=\underset{n}{}J_nz^{n1},$$
(28)
where the Fourier modes $`J_n,n`$ satisfy

$`[J_n,J_m]=n\delta _{n+m,0}`$ (29)
$`J_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=J_n.`$ (30)
One can define an energy-momentum tensor $`T(z)`$ by the Sugawara construction

$$T(z)=\frac{1}{2}:J(z)^2:=\frac{1}{2}(J_+(z)J(z)+J(z)J_{}(z)),$$
(31)
where,

$$J_+(z)=J(z)J_{}(z)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}J_nz^{n1}.$$
(32)
The Fourier modes in the expansion

$$T(z)=\underset{n}{}L_nz^{n2}$$
(33)
satisfy the Virasoro Algebra

$$[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{n+m}+\frac{c}{12}n(n^21)\delta _{n+m,0}$$
(34)
with central charge $`c=1`$, and the hermiticity condition

$$L_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=L_n.$$
(35)
According to our previous notations (the closure of) $`L_0`$ is the positive self-adjoint generator of the restriction of $`U`$ to the one-parameter subgroup of rotations.

For $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(S^1)`$ the operator

$$T(f)=\frac{dz}{2\pi i}T(z)f(z)$$
(36)
is well defined on $`𝒟`$ and is essentially self-adjoint when $`z^1f(z)`$ is real. The conformal subsystem $`𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}𝒜`$ is then defined by

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}(I)=\{\mathrm{e}^{iT(f)}|fC^{\mathrm{}}(S^1),z^1f(z)\mathrm{real},\mathrm{supp}fI\}^{\prime \prime },I.$$
(37)
Representations of the net $`𝒜`$ have been studied in . For every $`q`$ one can define a covariant irreducible representation (BMT-automorphism) $`\alpha _q`$ on $`_q=_𝒜`$ such that

$$\alpha _{q}^{}{}_{I}{}^{}(W(u))=\mathrm{e}^{q{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}}z^1u(z)}}W(u),$$
(38)
for $`I`$, $`uC^{\mathrm{}}(S^1)`$ with support in $`I`$. Such representations have dimension $`d(\alpha _q)=1`$ and correspond to (unitary) positive energy representations of the Lie algebra (29) with lowest weight $`q`$ . Note that $`\alpha _0`$ is the vacuum representation of $`𝒜`$. Analogously to each representation of the Virasoro algebra (34) with central charge $`c=1`$ and lowest weight $`h_+`$ one can associate a covariant irreducible representation $`\pi _h`$ of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}`$ which can be realized has a subrepresentation of $`\alpha _{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{rest}`$ if $`h=\frac{1}{2}q^2`$, see . The characters of the representations $`\alpha _q`$, $`q`$, are given by (see e.g. \[13, Section 2.2.\] )

$$\chi _q(t)=\mathrm{Tr}(t^{L_0^{\alpha _q}})=t^{\frac{1}{2}q^2}p(t)t(0,1),$$
(39)
where $`p(t)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1t^n)^1`$. Moreover, for the representations $`\pi _h`$, $`h_+`$ and $`t(0,1)`$, by the results in  the following hold

$`\chi ^h(t):=\mathrm{Tr}(t^{L_0^{\pi _h}})=t^{j^2}(1t^{2|j|+1})p(t),h=j^2,j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (40)
$`\chi ^h(t):=\mathrm{Tr}(t^{L_0^{\pi _h}})=t^hp(t),hj^2,j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (41)
###### Lemma 4.2.

$`[𝒜:𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}]=\mathrm{}.`$

###### Proof.

As a consequence of Proposition 3.1 we have $`[𝒜:𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}]=d(\alpha _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{rest})`$. Moreover it follows from the equality $`\chi _0(t)=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}\chi ^{j^2}(t)`$ that

$$\alpha _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{rest}=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}\pi _{j^2}$$

and this implies infinite index. ∎

###### Lemma 4.3.

(cf. \[13, Theorem 6.2.\]) If $`h=\frac{1}{2}q^2`$, $`q\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, then $`\pi ^h=\alpha _{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{rest}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`h=\frac{1}{2}q^2`$ $`\pi ^h`$ is a subrepresentation of $`\alpha _{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{rest}`$ on a $`U_{\alpha _q}`$-invariant subspace $`_h_q`$. Moreover, if $`q\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ then $`\chi ^h(t)=\chi _q(t)`$ and hence $`_h=_q`$. Accordingly we have $`\pi ^h=\alpha _{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{rest}`$. ∎

The following theorem is a direct consequence of Proposition 4.1 and the previous two lemmata.

###### Theorem 4.4.

If $`[\pi _h]`$ belongs to the continuum sectors of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{Vir}}`$, i.e. $`h_+`$, $`hj^2`$, $`j\frac{1}{2}`$, then it has infinite statistical dimension.

###### Remark 4.5.

It has been shown by Rehren  that if $`h=j^2`$, $`j`$, then $`d(\pi _h)=2|j|+1`$ and the same formula is expected to hold for every $`j\frac{1}{2}`$.

Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank Roberto Longo for some stimulating conversations. He also thanks Roberto Conti and Karl-Henning Rehren for useful comments on the manuscript.

This work was essentially completed when the author was at the Dipartimento di Matematica of the Università di Roma Tre thanks to a Post-Doctoral grant of this University.


text:
# Observational Constraints on Dark Radiation in Brane Cosmology

## I INTRODUCTION

Brane-world cosmology is of considerable current interest. In such scenarios, our universe is a submanifold embedded in a higher-dimensional spacetime. Physical matter fields are confined to this submanifold, while gravity can reside in the higher-dimensional spacetime. This paradigm was first proposed Arkani ; Shiu  as a means to reconcile the mismatch between of the scales of particle physics and gravity. It lowers the scale of gravity to the weak scale by introducing large extra dimensions. Although this eliminates the hierarchy between the weak scale and the Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, it generates a new hierarchy between the weak scale and the size of the extra dimensions. Randall and Sundrum Randall  have shown that a possible solution to this new hierarchy problem can be achieved by introducing noncompact extra dimensions. This compactification is an alternative to the standard Kaluza-Klein (KK) scheme. In their model, our universe is described as a three-brane embedded in a five-dimensional anti-de Sitter space $`AdS_5`$ (the bulk). This guarantees the usual 4-dimensional Newtonian limit in our brane world.

The cosmological evolution of such brane universes has been extensively investigated. Exact solutions have been found by several authors Kraus ; Binetruy ; Hebecker ; Ida ; Mukohyama ; Vollick . These solutions reduce to a generalized Friedmann equation on our brane which can be written as

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G_\mathrm{N}}{3}\rho \frac{K}{a^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_4}{3}+\frac{\kappa _5^4}{36}\rho ^2+\frac{\mu }{a^4}.$$
(1)
Here, $`a(t)`$ is the scale factor at cosmic time $`t`$, and $`\rho `$ is the total energy density of matter on our brane.

In equation (1), several identifications of cosmological parameters were required in order to recover standard big-bang cosmology. For one, the first term on the right hand side is obtained by relating the four-dimensional gravitational constant $`G_\mathrm{N}`$ to the five-dimensional gravitational constant, $`\kappa _5`$. Specifically,

$$G_\mathrm{N}=\kappa _5^4\lambda /48\pi ,$$
(2)
where $`\lambda `$ is the intrinsic tension of the brane and $`\kappa _5^2=M_5^3`$, where $`M_5`$ is the five dimensional Planck mass. Secondly, the four-dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ is related to its five-dimensional counterpart $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=\kappa _5^4\lambda ^2/12+3\mathrm{\Lambda }_5/4.$$
(3)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$ should be negative in order for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ to obtain its presently observed small value.

Standard big-bang cosmology does not contain the fourth and fifth terms of Eq. (1). The fourth term arises from the imposition of a junction condition for the scale factor on the surface of the brane. Physically, it derives from a singular behavior in the energy-momentum tensor which originates in the fact that physical matter fields are confined to the brane. This $`\rho ^2`$ term would decay rapidly as $`a^8`$ in the early radiation dominated universe. Hence, it is not likely to be significant during the later nucleosynthesis and photon decoupling epochs of interest here.

The fifth term, however, is of considerable interest for the present discussion. It scales just like radiation with a constant $`\mu `$. Hence, it is called the dark radiation. This term derives from the electric (Coulomb) part of the five-dimensional Weyl tensor Shiromizu . The coefficient $`\mu `$ is a constant of integration obtained by integrating the five-dimensional Einstein equations Kraus ; Binetruy ; Hebecker ; Ida ; Mukohyama ; Vollick . Both positive and negative $`\mu `$ are possible mathematically. Its magnitude and sign can depend on the choice of initial conditions when solving the five-dimensional Einstein equation. Hence, even the sign of $`\mu `$ remains an open question Maeda .

Dark radiation should strongly affect both big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Hence, such observations can be used to constrain both the magnitude and sign of the dark radiation. A brief analysis of this was made in literature Binetruy . In the present work, we seek to explore these constraints in more detail utilizing the most recent light-element abundance constraints and the latest combined CMB power spectrum data sets.

## II BBN constraint

The observed primordial light-element abundances constrain the conditions during the BBN epoch from the time of weak reaction freezeout ($`t1`$ sec, $`T1`$ MeV) to the freezeout of nuclear reactions ($`t10^4`$ sec, $`T10`$ keV). The present status the observational constraints have been reviewed in a number of papers (cf. Olive -pinns ). The primordial helium abundance is obtained by measuring extragalactic $`\mathrm{HII}`$ regions in low-metallicity irregular galaxies. The primordial heluim abundance $`Y_p`$ so deduced tends to reside in one of two possible values (a low value $`Y_p0.230`$, Olive  and a high value $`Y_p0.245`$ Thuan ). In view of this controversy, we adopt a conservative range for the primordial 4He abundance:

$$0.226Y_p0247.$$
(4)
Primordial deuterium is best determined from its absorption line in high redshift Lyman $`\alpha `$ clouds along the line of sight to background quasars. For deuterium there is a similar possibility for either a high or low value. For the present discussion, however, we shall adopt the generally accepted low value for D/H tytler00 ; omera .

$$2.9\times 10^5\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}4.0\times 10^5$$
(5)
The primordial lithium abundance is generally inferred from old low-metallicity halo stars. Such stars exhibit an approximately constant (“Spite plateau”) lithium abundance as a function of surface temperature which is taken to be the primordial abundance. There is, however, some controversy pinns  concerning the depletion of 7Li on the surface of such halo stars. If destruction has occurred, the true primordial 7Li abundance is higher than the plateau value. For the present purposes, therefore, we adopt a conservative 7Li abundance constraint:

$$1.67\times 10^{10}\text{7}\text{Li}/\mathrm{H}4.75\times 10^{10}.$$
(6)
The constraints on positive extra energy density during the BBN epoch based upon primordial light-element abundances have been recently studied by many authors in context of numbers of neutrino families, lepton asymmetry, or dark energy (cf. Olive ; Orito ; Yahiro ). The main effect of such additional background energy density is to increase the universal expansion rate. This causes the neutron to proton ratio to be larger because the weak reactions freeze out at a higher temperature and because there is less time for neutrons to decay between the time of weak-reaction freezeout and the onset of BBN. Consequently, adding excess energy density during BBN yields a larger 4He abundance since most of the free neutrons are converted into 4He nuclei. D/H also increases largely because the reactions destroying deuterium fall out of nuclear statistical equilibrium while the deuterium abundance is higher Smith . Similarly, there is less time for the destructive reaction $`\text{7}\text{Li}(p,\alpha )\text{4}\text{He}`$. This causes 7Li to be more abundant for $`\eta 3\times 10^{10}`$. However, there is also less time for the $`\text{4}\text{He}(\text{3}\text{He},\gamma )\text{7}\text{Be}`$ reaction to occur. This causes 7Li to be less abundant for $`\eta 3\times 10^{10}`$. On the other hand, when the extra energy component is negative (i.e. negative dark radiation), the opposite results occur.

Figure 1 illustrates the dependence of the nucleosynthesis yields with the dark radiation content. In the following, we will quote the dark radiation content as a fraction of the background photon energy density just before and the onset of the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and BBN epochs. We have included the current 2$`\sigma `$ uncertainties nollett00  arising from the input nuclear reaction rates in our present analysis of the BBN model predictions.

For dark radiation in the range of 0 to $`+11\%`$ of the background photon energy density, the cosmological bounds on the baryon-to-photon ratio $`\eta `$ come from the 4He upper bound and the D/H upper bound. With negative dark radiation the allowed range for $`\eta `$ expands because the 4He mass fraction and D/H have opposite dependences on $`\eta `$. The addition of more than 2% negative dark radiation reduces the expansion rate and the helium abundance sufficiently so that the adopted 4He constraint is satisfied for all values of $`\eta `$ which satisfy the D/H constraint. For negative dark radiation in the range of $`2\%112\%`$ of the background photon energy density, the constraint on $`\eta `$ comes only from D/H upper and lower limits. Between 112 and 123% negative dark radiation, the constraint on $`\eta `$ comes from the lower bounds on 4He and D/H.

Similarly, the conservative 7Li abundance constraint adopted here does not significantly constrain the dark radiation component. The shaded region on Figure 2 shows allowed values of the dark radiation fraction, $`\rho _{DR}/\rho _\gamma `$, where $`\rho _\gamma `$ is the total energy density in background photons just before the BBN epoch at $`T=1`$MeV. Note, that only a small ($`11\%`$) positive dark radiation contribution is allowed while substantial negative dark radiation (up to 123%) is allowed and even preferred by the BBN constraints.

## III CMB Constraint

Next we examine the possible imprint of a dark radiation on the CMB angular power spectrum. It is well known that the CMB spectrum is sensitive to many cosmological parameters which have almost no effect on BBN. For simplicity, therefore, we have fixed most cosmological parameters to their optimum values and explore the effects of varying the dark radiation content and baryon to photon ratio $`\eta `$. In spite of the name dark “radiation” it has no interaction (e.g. Compton scattering) with other matter fluids. Moreover, we make the further simplifying assumption that it has no intrinsic fluctuation. Cosmological perturbation theory in a five dimensional universe is now extensively under consideration Sasaki -Koyama . Ultimately, one must take the five dimensional (geometrical) perturbative effects into account when calculating the CMB angular power spectrum. In this present paper, however, we only address the dominant effect on the background expansion rate.

We have calculated CMB power spectra using the CMBFAST code of Seljak . The $`\chi ^2`$ goodness of fit to the combined BOOMERANG boom , DASI dasi , and MAXIMA-1 max  data sets was evaluated using the widely employed offset log-normal procedure of Bond . The available experimental offsets and window functions were utilized. As a benchmark zero dark-radiation model, we have made a search for a global optimal fit to the combined CMB data set for a flat $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ cosmology (with ionization parameter $`\tau =0`$). We find a best fit for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.233`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.767`$, $`h=0.726`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0214`$ ($`\eta _{10}=5.75`$), $`n=0.9334`$. We have also marginalized over the experimental calibration uncertainties and the COBE normalization using Gaussian priors based upon published experimental uncertainties. This fit gives a $`\chi ^2`$ of 30.03 for 31 degrees of freedom. For the present purposes, we restrict our consideration to this parameter set as an optimum 4-dimensional standard cosmology. We then study variations in the goodness of fit as a function of the dark radiation fraction at the photon decoupling epoch and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=\eta _{10}/268`$. In addition, the normalization was optimized for each choice of these two parameters.

The most distinguishable effects of the dark radiation is their influence on the location and amplitude of the acoustic peaks in the CMB power spectrum Hu1 . Adding positive dark radiation moves the epoch of matter radiation equality to a later epoch. It prevents the growth of perturbations inside the horizon and leads to a decay in the gravitational potential. This increases the amplitude of the CMB acoustic oscillations by the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. The net result of adding positive dark radiation is therefore an enhanced CMB anisotropy. The opposite is true if negative dark radiation is added.

As a second feature, a more rapid expansion rate due to positive dark radiation causes the epoch of photon decoupling to occur earlier so that the horizon size is smaller at the surface of photon last scattering. Therefore the $`l`$-values for the acoustic peaks are slightly larger or smaller depending upon whether the dark radiation term is positive or negative.

Figure 3 illustrates effects of both positive and negative dark radiation on the CMB angular power spectrum. This shows the bench-mark zero dark-radiation model together with $`\pm 3\sigma `$ components of dark radiation. These limits correspond to a ratio of dark radiation to photon energy density of $`+24\%`$ and $`35\%`$ at the photon decoupling epoch. Correcting for photon heating at the pair annihilation epoch, these limits expand by a factor of $`(11/3)^{4/3}=3.85`$ for the dark-radiation fraction just before the BBN epoch. Hence, these limits would be +92% and -135% of the photon energy density just before nucleosynthesis.

The final effect on the power-spectrum depends upon the normalization, and is somewhat counter intuitive. From Figure 3 we see, for example, that a fit with a dark radiation fraction of -35% of the photon energy density at the CMB epoch increases (rather than decreases) the amplitude of the first acoustic peak by $``$10% and shifts the location of the first and third peaks to smaller $`l`$ values. The increase in the acoustic peak amplitudes is a result of having shifted the normalization to optimize the goodness of fit. Note, that the effects of positive or negative dark radiation are not the same as simply adding or subtracting photons. This is because dark radiation does not behave like relic photons or neutrinos. Dark radiation does not interact either gravitationally or via Compton scattering with the other matter fields. Also, in the present analysis, it does not fluctuate. Hence, the effects of dark radiation on the power spectrum are in principle distinguishable from the effects of normal electromagnetic radiation.

Figure 2 shows the contours of the dark radiation fraction and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ allowed by nucleosynthesis and the CMB. This shows that the combined nucleosynthesis and CMB constraints severely limit the possible sign and amplitude of the dark radiation. The combined $`2\sigma `$ 95% confidence limit from the concordance of both constraints corresponds to $`41\%\rho _{DR}/\rho _\gamma +10.5\%`$ for $`4.73\eta _{10}5.56`$ (or $`0.0176\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.0207`$).

## IV discussion

We have considered the cosmological constraints on the magnitude and sign of the dark radiation term of the brane-world generalized Friedmann equation (1). If the sign of the dark radiation is positive then it behaves like additional relativistic particles and enhances the expansion rate. This kind of effect has been recently well studied Yahiro  in the context, for example, of additional neutrino flavors or degeneracy and is tightly constrained. We have reexamined this effect for both positive and negative dark energy. We include the nuclear reaction uncertainties in the BBN model predictions. For positive dark radiation the observational upper bound for primordial 4He and D/H allows at most $`\rho _{DR}/\rho _B0.03`$ ($`\rho _{DR}/\rho _\gamma 0.16`$) at the BBN epoch. This limit is consistent with the estimate (on thermally generated dark radiation due to bulk graviton production described in Hebecker .

Such extra energy also affects the power spectrum of CMB fluctuations, but it is too small to be constrained by current CMB measurements. We therefore conclude that BBN places the most stringent constraint on positive dark radiation.

On the other hand, a wider range of dark radiation density relative to the background photon energy density is allowed in the case of negative dark radiation. We deduce an absolute BBN upper limit of 123% negative dark radiation. This maximal value is allowed for $`\eta 5.09\times 10^{10}`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.019`$). This $`\eta `$ value, however, is $`1\sigma `$ less than the values consistent with the combined BOOMERANG, DASI, and MAXIMA-1 data sets. For the combined CMB and BBN analysis, we deduce that only a maximum of 41% contribution of negative dark radiation is allowed at the 95% confidence level.

We should, however, point out several caveats to the present work. One is that if one wishes to avoid a naked singularity in the bulk dimension, then there is a relation Maeda  between the curvature $`K`$ and the dark radiation $`\mu `$ when the sign of $`\mu `$ is negative,

$$\mu \frac{K^2l^2}{4},\text{for }\mu <0,$$
(7)
where $`l`$ is the five dimensional curvature length scale which relates to the five dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_54/l^2`$. If one accepts this cosmic censureship hypothesis, then only minuscule quantities of negative dark radiation are allowed if one wishes to maintain the five dimensional Planck mass above the TeV scale. Hence, the present limits on negative dark radiation only apply if one wishes to accept either a much lower value for $`M_5`$ or a naked singularity in the bulk dimension.

We note that there is an independent constraint cline  on the five-dimensional Planck mass from the quadratic term in equation (1). If one applies the same BBN constraint that not more than 3% of the background energy density can be in this term at the time of weak-reaction freezeout, then the condition

$$\frac{(\kappa _5^4\rho ^2/36)}{(8\pi G_N/3)}0.03\rho ,$$
(8)
implies a limit of $`M_510`$ TeV.

As another caveat we note that ultimately this analysis should be repeated with the inclusion of cosmological perturbations in the dark radiation. The evolution of cosmological perturbations in a brane universe is now being investigated by many authors Sasaki -Koyama . The main difficulty with this subject comes from the fact that even four dimensional perturbation equations on our brane have fifth dimensional curvature corrections. Ultimately, one must solve the cosmological perturbations in the bulk. Langlois Langlois  has proposed that these perturbations from the bulk appear like source terms in the four dimensional perturbation equations. They are similar to “active seeds” in the context of topological defects. Therefore, it seems unlikely that these source terms could provide a dominant contribution to the CMB anisotropies. In this discussion, therefore, we have ignored these perturbations and concentrated on the zeroth order effect of “dark radiation” which appears in equation (1).

Finally we note that although the the acoustic peaks are very useful indicators of the dark radiation, they are also sensitive to other cosmological parameters, especially $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Hence, one should ultimately do a combined likelihood analysis including other constraints on cosmological parameters to test for the significance of the dark radiation component in the CMB.

## V Conclusion

We conclude that the constraints on BBN alone allow for $`1.23\rho _{\mathrm{DR}}/\rho _\gamma 0.11`$ in a dark radiation component. In order to compute the theoretical prediction of CMB anisotropies exactly, one must eventually solve the perturbations including the contribution from the bulk. However, we have shown that the CMB power spectrum can be used to constrain the dominant expansion-rate effect of the dark-radiation term in the generalized Friedmann equation. If the constraint from effects of dark radiation on the expansion rate are included, the allowed concordance range range of dark radiation content reduces to $`0.41\rho _{\mathrm{DR}}/\rho _\gamma 0.105`$ at the 95% confidence level.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of the authors (MY) would like to thank K. Ghoroku for helpful discussions on the theoretical implications of dark radiation. This work has been supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (10640236, 10044103, 11127220, 12047233) of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan. Work at the University of Notre Dame was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Nuclear Theory Grant DE-FG02-95-ER40934.