text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Grand Unified Theory (GUT) gives us a simple and elegant understanding of the quantum numbers of quarks and leptons, and the success of gauge coupling unification in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model strongly supports this idea. Although the Grand Unified Theory at high energy scale has been widely accepted, there are some problems in GUT: the grand unified gauge symmetry breaking mechanism, the doublet-triplet splitting problem, and the proton decay problem, etc.

Recently, a new scenario proposed to address above questions in GUT has been discussed extensively . The key point is that the GUT gauge symmetry exists in 5 or higher dimensions and is broken down to the 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetric Standard Model like gauge symmetry for the zero modes due to the discrete symmetries in the brane neighborhoods or on the extra space manifolds, which become non-trivial constraints on the multiplets and gauge generators in GUT . The attractive models have been constructed explicitly, where the supersymmetric 5-dimensional and 6-dimensional GUT models are broken down to the 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetric $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)^{n3}`$ model, where $`n`$ is the rank of GUT group, through the compactification on various orbifolds and manifolds. The GUT gauge symmetry breaking and doublet-triplet splitting problems have been solved neatly by the discrete symmetry projections. Other interesting phenomenology, like $`\mu `$ problems, gauge coupling unifications, non-supersymmetric GUT, gauge-Higgs unification, proton decay, etc, have also been discussed .

On the other hand, deconstrution was proposed about one year ago . Deconstruction is interesting because it provides a UV completion of the higher dimensional theories. A lot of phenomenological and formal issues in deconstruction scenarios have been discussed. These include the extensions of the Standard Model, gaugino mediated supersymmetry breaking, low energy unification, GUT breaking, electroweak symmetry breaking, anomaly inflow, the description of little string theories in terms of gauge theory, a single gauge group description of extra dimensions in the large number of color limit, models with noncommutative geometry, warped background geometry, topological objects, Seiberg-Witten curves, and even the deconstruction of time and gravity, etc . By the way, the arrays of gauge theories, where an infinite number of gauge theories are linked by scalars, were discussed previously .

In this paper, we would like to discuss the deconstruction of gauge symmetry breaking by the discrete symmetry on extra space manifold. If we know how to deconstruct those higher dimensional theories, we can have a lot of good features in deonstruction scenarios, for example, the gauge symmetry breaking, the doublet-triplet splitting, suppressing the proton decay, the gauge-Higgs unification (In the deconstruction language, bifundamental fields and $`SU(2)_L`$ Higgs unification.). For simplicity, we do not consider supersymmetry. First, we consider the Higgs mechanism deconstruction scenario in which the gauge bosons obtain the masses via the VEVs of the bifundamental link Higgs fields. We shall deconstruct the non-supersymmetric $`SU(5)`$ breaking by the discrete symmetry on the space-time $`M^4\times S^1`$ and $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ where $`M^4`$ is the 4-dimensional Minkowski space-time. We also explain the subtle point on how to exactly match the continuum results with the latticized results on the quotient space $`S^1/Z_2`$ and $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. In addition, it seems to us that the Higgs mechanism deconstructions of the gauge symmetry breaking by discrete symmetry on the space-time $`M^4\times S^1`$ and $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ might not be the real deconstructions. The key point is that, the bifundamental field $`U_i`$, which is the Schwinger line integral along the fifth dimension, should be considered as the gauge field $`A_5`$. However, the mass spectrum and the 5-dimensional wave functions for the KK modes of $`A_5`$ can not match those for $`U_i`$ in the Higgs mechanism deconstruction scenario by counting the massless modes333One might consider the axial gauge $`A_5=0`$ in the 5-dimensional theory. However, only part of the scalars from $`U_i`$ fields are eaten by the massive gauge bosons after the gauge symmetry breaking, and most of the physical scalars from $`U_i`$ fields can obtain masses via Higgs mechanism. Therefore, the 5-dimensional gauge field $`A_5`$ in the axial gauge ($`A_5=0`$) can not match the bifundamental fields $`U_i`$ in the Higgs mechanism deconstruction scenario, too. . Therefore, we propose the effective deconstruction scenario where we add the mass term for each field by hand which comes from the latticization of the kinetic term of that field along the fifth dimension. In the effective deconstruction scenario, similar to the gauge symmetry breaking by the discrete symmetry on extra space manifold, we can define the discrete symmetry on theory space and discuss the gauge symmetry breaking. Moreover, we show that the continuum results match the effective deconstruction results exactly. As an application, we discuss the $`G^N`$ unification where $`G^N`$ is broken down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)^{n3}`$ ($`n`$ is the rank of group $`G`$) by the bifundamental link fields and the doublet-triplet splitting can be achieved. With the general $`G^N`$ unification, we wish we can solve the tough problems in the traditional 4-dimensional GUT models.

Let us explain our terminology. The exactly match between the $`nth`$ KK mode of a bulk field in the continuum case and the corresponding state in the deconstruction case means that the $`nth`$ mass eigenvalue and eigenvector of the field in the deconstruction scenario are the same as the mass and 5-dimensional wave function of the $`nth`$ KK mode of the corresponding bulk field when $`N>>n`$.

## 2 Higgs Mechanism Deconstruction of $`SU(5)`$ Breaking on $`M^4\times S^1`$ by Wilson Line

In this section, we would like to deconstruct the non-supersymmetric $`SU(5)`$ breaking on the space-time $`M^4\times S^1`$ by Wilson line in the Higgs mechanism deconstruction scenario. And we want to point out that one can discuss any other GUT groups similarly because the fundamental group of $`S^1`$ is $`Z`$, i. e., $`\pi _1(S^1)=Z`$ .

### 2.1 $`SU(5)`$ Breaking on $`M^4\times S^1`$ by Wilson Line

Let us consider the 5-dimensional space-time which can be factorized into a product of the ordinary 4-dimensional Minkowski space-time $`M^4`$ and the circle $`S^1`$. The corresponding coordinates are $`x^\mu `$, ($`\mu =0,1,2,3`$), $`yx^5`$, and the radius for the fifth dimension is $`R`$. The gauge fields are denoted as $`A_M(x^\mu ,y)`$ where $`M=0,1,2,3,5`$. Because $`Z_2\pi _1(S^1)`$, we can define the $`Z_2`$ parity operator $`P`$ for a generic bulk multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y+2\pi R)=\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }P^{ł_\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)(P^1)^{m_\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (1)
where $`\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }=\pm 1`$ and $`P^2=1`$. By the way, if the gauge group $`G`$ is $`SU(5)`$, for a 5-plet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the fundamental representation, $`ł_\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, and for a 24-plet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the adjoint representation, $`ł_\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }=1`$.

Denoting the field $`\varphi `$ with parity $`P`$=$`\pm `$ by $`\varphi _\pm `$, we obtain the KK mode expansions

$`\varphi _+(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi _+^n(x^\mu )e^{i\frac{ny}{R}},`$ (2)
$`\varphi _{}(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi _{}^n(x^\mu )e^{i\frac{(n+1/2)y}{R}}.`$ (3)
Now, let us discuss the $`SU(5)`$ breaking. Under parity $`P`$, the gauge fields $`A_M`$ transform as

$`A_M(x^\mu ,y+2\pi R)`$ $`=`$ $`PA_M(x^\mu ,y)P^1.`$ (4)
And we choose the following matrix representation for parity operator $`P`$, which is expressed in the adjoint representation of $`SU(5)`$

$$P=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,+1,+1).$$
(5)
So, upon the $`P`$ parity, the gauge generators $`T^A`$ where A=1, 2, …, 24 for $`SU(5)`$ are separated into two sets: $`T^a`$ are the gauge generators for the Standard Model gauge group, and $`T^{\widehat{a}}`$ are the other broken gauge generators

$$PT^aP^1=T^a,PT^{\widehat{a}}P^1=T^{\widehat{a}}.$$
(6)
And the masses for $`A_M^a`$ and $`A_M^{\widehat{a}}`$ are $`n/R`$ and $`(n+1/2)/R`$, respectively. In addition, if we add a pair of Higgs 5-plets $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ in the bulk, then for each 5-plet, the doublet mass is $`n/R`$ and the triplet mass is $`(n+1/2)/R`$ if $`\eta _{H_u}=\eta _{H_d}=+1`$. In short, for the zero modes, the gauge group $`SU(5)`$ is broken down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$, and we can solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem. The parities and masses of the fields in the $`SU(5)`$ gauge and Higgs multiplets are given in Table 1.

### 2.2 Higgs Mechanism Deconstruction

We consider the $`SU(5)^{N+1}`$ gauge theory with bifundamental fields $`U_i`$ as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& SU(5)_0& SU(5)_1& SU(5)_2& \mathrm{}& SU(5)_{N1}& SU(5)_N\\ & & & & & & \\ U_0& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& 1& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ U_1& 1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ U_{N1}& 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\\ U_N& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\end{array}.$$

And the effective action is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{1}{4g^2}TrF_i^2+Tr[(D_\mu U_i)^{}D^\mu U_i]+\mathrm{}\right)},`$ (7)
where the covariant derivative is $`D^\mu U_i_\mu U_iiA_\mu ^iU_i+iU_iA_\mu ^{i+1}`$ and the dots represent the higher dimensional operators that are irrelevant at low energies.

The bifundamental fields $`U_i`$ obtain the vacuum expectation values (VEV) either from a suitable renormalizable potential or from some strong interactions. In order to obtain the deconstruction of the Wilson line gauge symmetry breaking, we choose the following VEVs for $`U_i`$

$`<U_i>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2}),\mathrm{for}i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1,`$ (8)
$`<U_N>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2}).`$ (9)
We would like to explain the VEV for $`U_N`$, which is different from the VEV for $`U_i`$ where $`i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$. In general, we can take that the VEV for $`U_N`$ is the same as that for $`U_i`$. And the masses for gauge bosons are given by the mass terms $`\frac{1}{2}_{i=0}^Ng^2v^2(A_\mu ^{\beta (i+1)}A_\mu ^{\beta i})^2`$, where $`A_\mu ^{\beta (N+1)}=A_\mu ^{\beta 0}`$ for $`\beta =a`$ and $`A_\mu ^{\beta (N+1)}=A_\mu ^{\beta 0}`$ for $`\beta =\widehat{a}`$ due to the Wilson line gauge symmetry breaking (See Table 1). However, in the Higgs mechanism deconstruction scenario, we take $`A_\mu ^{\beta (N+1)}=A_\mu ^{\beta 0}`$ for $`\beta =a`$ and $`\beta =\widehat{a}`$, so, the last term in above mass terms is $`\frac{1}{2}g^2v^2(A_\mu ^{\beta 0}A_\mu ^{\beta N})^2`$ for $`\beta =a`$, and $`\frac{1}{2}g^2v^2(A_\mu ^{\beta 0}+A_\mu ^{\beta N})^2`$ for $`\beta =\widehat{a}`$. This correct mass term can be obtained by choosing the suitable VEV for $`U_N`$, which is the Eq. (10) in our model. By the way, we emphasize that the VEV for $`U_N`$ in Eq. (10) is similar to the matrix representation for parity operator $`P`$ in Eq. (5), which breaks the $`SU(5)`$ gauge symmerty.

Thus, the $`(N+1)\times (N+1)`$ mass matrix for the Standard Model gauge boson or the column vector $`(A_\mu ^{a0},A_\mu ^{a1},A_\mu ^{a2},\mathrm{},A_\mu ^{aN})`$ is

$$M_{SM}^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}2& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& 2& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & & \mathrm{}& \\ 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
The mass spectrum or eigenvalue is

$`M_n^2=4g^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{N+1}}),`$ (11)
where $`N/2nN/2`$ or $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. And the corresponding $`nth`$ eigenvector is

$`\alpha _n=(\alpha _n^0,\alpha _n^1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n^N),`$ (12)
where

$`\alpha _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N+1}}}\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{2jn\pi }{N+1}}),j=0,1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (13)
Noticing that $`R=(N+1)/(gv)`$, we obtain that the $`nth`$ eigenvector matches the 5-dimensional wave function ($`e^{i\frac{ny}{R}}`$) of the $`nth`$ KK mode for $`A_\mu ^a`$ in the last subsection, and for $`n<<N`$, the $`nth`$ mass (eigenvalue) matches the mass of the $`nth`$ KK mode for $`A_\mu ^a`$. So, they exactly match.

And the mass matrix for the non-Standard Model gauge boson or the column vector $`(A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}0},A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}1},A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}2},\mathrm{},A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}N})`$ is

$$M_{NSM}^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}2& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& +1\\ 1& 2& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & & \mathrm{}& \\ +1& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
The mass spectrum or eigenvalue is

$`M_n^2=4g^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{(n+1/2)\pi }{N+1}}),`$ (15)
where $`N/2nN/2`$ or $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. And the corresponding $`nth`$ eigenvector is

$`\alpha _n=(\alpha _n^0,\alpha _n^1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n^N),`$ (16)
where

$`\alpha _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N+1}}}\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{j(2n+1)\pi }{N+1}}),j=0,1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (17)
Noticing that $`R=(N+1)/(gv)`$, we obtain that the $`nth`$ eigenvector matches the 5-dimensional wave function ($`e^{i\frac{(n+1/2)y}{R}}`$) of the $`nth`$ KK mode for $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}`$ in the last subsection, and for $`n<<N`$, the $`nth`$ mass (eigenvalue) matches the mass of the $`nth`$ KK mode for $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}`$. Thus, they exactly match, and we want to emphasize that there is no massless mode for $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}i}`$.

In addition, we can discuss the deconstruction of Higgs fields $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$. We assume that under the $`ith`$ gauge group $`SU(5)_i`$, there is a pair of Higgs 5-plets $`H_u^i`$ and $`H_d^i`$ where $`i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. And we consider the following potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(|U_i(H_u^i)^{}|^2+|H_u^{i+1}U_i|^2+|U_iH_d^i|^2+|(H_d^{i+1})^{}U_i|^2)`$ (18)
$`\sqrt{2}g^2v{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(H_u^{i+1}U_i(H_u^i)^{}+(H_d^{i+1})^{}U_iH_d^i+H.C.),`$
where for simplicity, we define $`H_u^{N+1}H_u^0`$ and $`H_d^{N+1}H_d^0`$. The above potential for a pair of Higgs 5-plets $`H_u^i`$ and $`H_d^i`$ comes from the deconstruction of $`(D_5H_u)^{}D_5H_u`$ and $`(D_5H_d)^{}D_5H_d`$ in 5-dimensional theory, and the coefficients are determined by the normalization which is compatible with that of gauge fields. In short, we obtain that the mass matrix for the doublet $`H_u^{iD}`$ or $`H_d^{iD}`$ is the same as that for the Standard Model gauge boson in Eq. (10), and the mass matrix for the triplet $`H_u^{iT}`$ or $`H_d^{iT}`$ is the same as that for the non-Standard Model gauge boson in Eq. (14). Therefore, similar to the discussions for $`A_\mu ^a`$ and $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}`$, the deconstruction results match the continuum results in Table 1. And then, we solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem.

Furthermore, by counting the number of massless modes, we can prove that the bifundamental fields $`U_i`$ can not match the gauge fields $`A_5`$ because $`U_i`$s are Higgs fields. The correct deconstruction of the $`A_5`$ fields should have 12 massless modes, but, the $`U_i`$s field will have at least $`12(2N+1)`$ massless modes that are the Goldstone bosons and give masses to the longitudinal components of massive gauge bosons.

In short, the gauge group is broken down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ for the zero modes, and the deconstruction results match the continuum results except for $`A_5`$ and $`U_i`$.

## 3 Higgs Mechanism Deconstruction of $`SU(5)`$ Breaking on $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$

In this section, we would like to discuss the non-supersymmetric $`SU(5)`$ breaking on the space-time $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. By the way, the $`SU(5)`$ breaking on the space-time $`M^4\times S^1/Z_2`$ can be discussed similarly.

### 3.1 $`SU(5)`$ Breaking on $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$

Our convention is similar to that in the subsection 2.1. The orbifold $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ is obtained by $`S^1`$ moduloing the following equivalent classes:

$$yy,y^{}y^{},$$
(19)
where $`y^{}`$ is defined as $`y^{}y\pi R/2`$.

For a generic bulk multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)`$ which fills a representation of the gauge group $`G`$, we can define two parity operators $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ for the $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_2^{}`$ symmetries, respectively

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)=\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }P^{ł_\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)(P^1)^{m_\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y^{})`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y^{})=\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(P^{})^{ł_\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y^{})(P^{}_{}{}^{}1)^{m_\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (21)
where $`\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }=\pm 1`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\pm 1`$.

Denoting the field $`\varphi `$ with ($`P`$, $`P^{}`$)=($`\pm ,\pm `$) by $`\varphi _{\pm \pm }`$, we obtain the KK mode expansions

$`\varphi _{++}(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{\delta _{n,0}}\pi R}}}\varphi _{++}^{(2n)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2ny}{R}},`$ (22)
$`\varphi _+(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}\varphi _+^{(2n+1)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)y}{R}},`$ (23)
$`\varphi _+(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}\varphi _+^{(2n+1)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)y}{R}},`$ (24)
$`\varphi _{}(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}\varphi _{}^{(2n+2)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+2)y}{R}}.`$ (25)
The 4-dimensional fields $`\varphi _{++}^{(2n)}`$, $`\varphi _+^{(2n+1)}`$, $`\varphi _+^{(2n+1)}`$ and $`\varphi _{}^{(2n+2)}`$ acquire masses $`2n/R`$, $`(2n+1)/R`$, $`(2n+1)/R`$ and $`(2n+2)/R`$ upon the compactification. Zero modes are contained only in $`\varphi _{++}`$ fields, thus, the matter content of massless sector is smaller than that of the full 5-dimensional multiplet. Moreover, only $`\varphi _{++}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ fields have non-zero values at $`y=0`$, and only $`\varphi _{++}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ fields have non-zero values at $`y=\pi R/2`$.

Under parity $`P`$, the gauge fields $`A_M`$ transform as

$`A_\mu (x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`PA_\mu (x^\mu ,y)P^1,`$ (26)
$`A_5(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`PA_5(x^\mu ,y)P^1.`$ (27)
And under parity $`P^{}`$, the gauge field transformations are similar to those under $`P`$.

We choose the following matrix representations for parity operators $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ that are expressed in the adjoint representation of SU(5)

$$P=\mathrm{diag}(+1,+1,+1,+1,+1),P^{}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,+1,+1).$$
(28)
So, under $`P^{}`$ parity, the $`SU(5)`$ gauge generators $`T^A`$ where A=1, 2, …, 24 for SU(5) are separated into two sets: $`T^a`$ are the gauge generators for the Standard Model gauge group, and $`T^{\widehat{a}}`$ are the other broken gauge generators

$$PT^aP^1=T^a,PT^{\widehat{a}}P^1=T^{\widehat{a}},$$
(29)
$$P^{}T^a(P^{})^1=T^a,P^{}T^{\widehat{a}}(P^{})^1=T^{\widehat{a}}.$$
(30)
Therefore, the masses for gauge fields $`A_\mu ^a`$, $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}`$, $`A_5^a`$ and $`A_5^{\widehat{a}}`$ are $`2n/R`$, $`(2n+1)/R`$, $`(2n+2)/R`$ and $`(2n+1)/R`$, respectively. For the zero modes, the gauge group is $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$. Including the KK modes, the gauge groups at $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi R/2`$ are $`SU(5)`$ and $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$, respectively.

Moreover, assuming that there exists a pair of Higgs 5-plets $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ in the bulk and $`\eta _{H_u}=\eta _{H_d}=+1`$, we obtain that for each 5-plet, the doublet mass is $`2n/R`$, and the triplet mass is $`(2n+1)/R`$. So, we solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem. The parities and masses of the fields in the $`SU(5)`$ gauge and Higgs multiplets are given in Table 2.

### 3.2 Higgs Mechanism Deconstruction

We consider the $`SU(5)^N\times (SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1))`$ gauge theory with bifundamental fields $`U_i`$ ($`i=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$), $`U_c`$ and $`U_w`$ as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& SU(5)_0& SU(5)_1& SU(5)_2& \mathrm{}& SU(5)_{N1}& SU(3)& SU(2)& \hfill U(1)_Y\\ & & & & & & & & \\ U_0& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& 1& \mathrm{}& 1& 1& 1& \hfill 0\\ U_1& 1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \mathrm{}& 1& 1& 1& \hfill 0\\ U_2& 1& 1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \mathrm{}& 1& 1& 1& \hfill 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ U_c& 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& 1& \hfill \frac{1}{3}\\ U_w& 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& 1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \hfill \frac{1}{2}\end{array}.$$

This kind of models has been discussed recently in Ref .

The effective action is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\underset{i=0}{\overset{N2}{}}\left(\frac{1}{4g^2}TrF_i^2+Tr[(D_\mu U_i)^{}D^\mu U_i]+\mathrm{}\right)}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}TrF_c^2+Tr[(D_\mu U_c)^{}D^\mu U_c]+\mathrm{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}TrF_w^2+Tr[(D_\mu U_w)^{}D^\mu U_w]+\mathrm{}.`$
Because we consider the Higgs mechanism deconstruction of $`SU(5)`$ breaking on the space-time $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$, at GUT scale, we should take the same gauge couplings for all the gauge groups $`SU(5)^N\times (SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1))`$.

And we choose the following VEVs for $`U_i`$, $`U_c`$ and $`U_w`$

$`<U_i>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2}),\mathrm{for}i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1,`$ (32)
$$<U_c>=\mathrm{diag}(v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2}),<U_w>=\mathrm{diag}(v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2}).$$
(33)
The $`(N+1)\times (N+1)`$ mass matrix for the Standard Model gauge boson is

$$M_{SM}^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 2& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ & & & \mathrm{}& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 2& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(34)
However, the mass spectrum and eigenvector of above mass matrix do not exactly match those of $`A_\mu ^a`$ in the last subsection because of the fixed point. The subtle point is similar to that in the brane models on $`M^4\times S^1/Z_2`$ or $`M^4\times R^1/Z_2`$ where the brane tension at fixed point on the quotient space is half of that on the covering space . And on the covering space $`S^1`$, the mass matrix for the Standard Model gauge boson is similar to that in Eq. (10), then the continuum results and the deconstruction results do exactly match. In short, the $`nth`$ column eigenvector $`\alpha _n`$ and eigenvalue $`M_n^2`$ should satisfy the following equation

$`(M_{SM}^2)_{ij}\alpha _n^j=\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _{0i}+\delta _{Ni})\right]M_n^2\alpha _n^i.`$ (35)
The mass spectrum or eigenvalue is

$`M_n^2=4g^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{2N}}),`$ (36)
where $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. And the corresponding $`nth`$ eigenvector is

$`\alpha _n=(\alpha _n^0,\alpha _n^1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n^N),`$ (37)
where

$`\alpha _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{N+1}}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{2jn\pi }{2N}}),j=0,1,\mathrm{},N.`$ (38)
Noticing that $`R=2N/(gv)`$, we obtain that the $`nth`$ eigenvector matches the 5-dimensional wave function ($`\mathrm{cos}(2ny/R)`$) of the $`nth`$ KK mode for $`A_\mu ^a`$ in the last subsection ($`\varphi _{++}`$), and for $`n<<N`$, the $`nth`$ mass (eigenvalue) matches the mass of the $`nth`$ KK mode for $`A_\mu ^a`$ in the last subsection.

The $`N\times N`$ mass matrix for the non-Standard Model gauge boson is

$$M_{NSM}^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 2& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ & & & \mathrm{}& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 2& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(39)
Similarly, the mass spectrum and eigenvector of above matrix do not match those of $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}`$ in the last subsection due to the fixed point. On the covering space $`S^1`$, the mass matrix is reducible and the irreducible mass matrix is similar to that in Eq. (48). Thus, the continuum results and the deconstruction results do exactly match on the covering space $`S^1`$. In short, the $`nth`$ eigenvector $`\alpha _n`$ and eigenvalue $`M_n^2`$ should satisfy the following equation

$`(M_{NSM}^2)_{ij}\alpha _n^j=\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{0i}\right]M_n^2\alpha _n^i,`$ (40)
where $`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$. The mass spectrum or eigenvalue is

$`M_n^2=4g^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)\pi }{4N}}),`$ (41)
where $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$. And the corresponding $`nth`$ eigenvector is

$`\alpha _n=(\alpha _n^0,\alpha _n^1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n^{N1}),`$ (42)
where

$`\alpha _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{N}}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{j(2n+1)\pi }{2N}}),j=0,1,\mathrm{},N1.`$ (43)
Noticing that $`R=2N/(gv)`$, we obtain that the $`nth`$ eigenvector matches the 5-dimensional wave function ($`\mathrm{cos}((2n+1)y/R)`$) of the $`nth`$ KK mode for $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}`$ in the last subsection ($`\varphi _+`$), and for $`n<<N`$, the $`nth`$ mass (eigenvalue) matches the mass of the $`nth`$ KK mode for $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}`$ in the last subsection.

In addition, we would like to discuss the deconstruction of 5-dimensional fields $`\varphi _+`$ and $`\varphi _{}`$ because we will have this kind of field expansions when we discuss the effective deconstruction scenario in the next section. So, let us give the mass matrix, eigenvalues and eigenvectors here.

The $`N\times N`$ mass matrix for the deconstruction of 5-dimensional field $`\varphi _+`$ is

$$M_+^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}2& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 2& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ & & & \mathrm{}& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 2& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(44)
The mass spectrum or eigenvalue is

$`M_n^2=4g^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)\pi }{4N}}),`$ (45)
where $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$. And the corresponding $`nth`$ eigenvector is

$`\alpha _n=(\alpha _n^1,\alpha _n^2,\mathrm{},\alpha _n^N),`$ (46)
where

$`\alpha _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{N}}}\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{j(2n+1)\pi }{2N}}),j=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$ (47)
The $`(N1)\times (N1)`$ mass matrix for the deconstruction of 5-dimensional field $`\varphi _{}`$ is

$$M_{}^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}2& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 2& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0\\ & & & \mathrm{}& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 2& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(48)
Because the field $`\varphi _{}`$ vanishes at the fixed point, we would like to emphasize that the mass spectrum and eigenvector for the physical field are the eigenvalue and eigenvector of above mass matrix. The mass spectrum or eigenvalue is

$`M_n^2=4g^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)\pi }{2N}}),`$ (49)
where $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N2`$. And the corresponding $`nth`$ eigenvector is

$`\alpha _n=(\alpha _n^1,\alpha _n^2,\mathrm{},\alpha _n^{N1}),`$ (50)
where

$`\alpha _n^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{N}}}\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{j(n+1)\pi }{N}}),j=1,2,\mathrm{},N1.`$ (51)
Moreover, we can discuss the deconstruction of Higgs fields $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$. We assume that under the $`ith`$ gauge group $`SU(5)_i`$, there is a pair of Higgs 5-plets $`H_u^i`$ and $`H_d^i`$ where $`i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$, and for the $`Nth`$ gauge group, there is a pair of Higgs doublets $`H_u^{ND}`$ and $`H_d^{ND}`$. And we consider the following potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N2}{}}}(|U_i(H_u^i)^{}|^2+|H_u^{i+1}U_i|^2+|U_iH_d^i|^2+|(H_d^{i+1})^{}U_i|^2)`$ (52)
$`\sqrt{2}g^2v{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N2}{}}}(H_u^{i+1}U_i(H_u^i)^{}+(H_d^{i+1})^{}U_iH_d^i+H.C.)`$
$`+2g^2(|U_w(H_u^{(N1)D})^{}|^2+|H_u^{ND}U_w|^2+|U_wH_d^{(N1)D}|^2+|(H_d^{ND})^{}U_w|^2)`$
$`\sqrt{2}g^2v(H_u^{ND}U_w(H_u^{(N1)D})^{}+(H_d^{ND})^{}U_wH_d^{(N1)D}+H.C.).`$
This potential for a pair of Higgs 5-plets $`H_u^i`$ and $`H_d^i`$ comes from the deconstruction of $`(D_5H_u)^{}D_5H_u`$ and $`(D_5H_d)^{}D_5H_d`$ in 5-dimensional theory, and the coefficients are determined by the normalization which is compatible with that of gauge fields. So, we obtain that the mass matrix for the doublet $`H_u^{iD}`$ or $`H_d^{iD}`$ is the same as that for the Standard Model gauge boson in Eq. (34), and the mass matrix for the triplet $`H_u^{iT}`$ or $`H_d^{iT}`$ is the same as that for the non-Standard Model gauge boson in Eq. (39). Therefore, similar to the discussions for $`A_\mu ^a`$ and $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}`$, the deconstruction results match the continuum results in Table 2 exactly. And then, we solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem.

Furthermore, by counting the number of massless modes, we can prove that the bifundamental fields $`U_i`$ can not match the gauge fields $`A_5`$ because $`U_i`$s are Higgs fields. The correct deconstruction of the $`A_5`$ fields should have 0 massless modes, but, the $`U_i`$s field will have at least $`24N`$ massless modes that are the Goldstone bosons and give masses to the longitudinal components of massive gauge bosons.

In short, the gauge group is broken down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ for the zero modes, and the deconstruction results match the continuum results except for $`A_5`$ and $`U_i`$.

## 4 Gauge Symmetry Breaking by the Discrete Symmetry on the Theory Space in the Effective Deconstruction Scenario

It seems to us that the Higgs mechanism deconstructions of the gauge symmetry breaking by discrete symmetry on the space-time $`M^4\times S^1`$ or $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ in the last two sections might not be the real deconstructions. The key point is that, the bifundamental field $`U_i`$, which is the Schwinger line integral along the fifth dimension, should be considered as the field $`A_5`$. However, the mass spectrum and the 5-dimensional wave function for the KK modes of $`A_5`$ can not match those for $`U_i`$ in the Higgs mechanism deconstruction scenario in above two sections by counting the massless modes. In order to have exact match, we propose the effective deconstruction scenario and discuss the gauge symmetry breaking by the discrete symmetry on theory space.

Before we propose the effective deconstruction scenario, let us consider the 5-dimensional $`SU(5)`$ theory with a pair of Higgs 5-plets $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ on the space-time $`M^4\times S^1`$. If we latticized the fifth dimension with $`N+1`$ sites, we obtain the following mass terms for the fields $`A_M^i`$, $`H_u^i`$, $`H_d^i`$ from the latticized kinetic terms of the fields along the fifth dimension, i. e., $`_5\varphi ^5\varphi `$ for a generic bulk field $`\varphi (x^\mu ,y)`$

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{2\pi R}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_M^{i+1}A_M^i)^2+|H_u^{i+1}H_u^i|^2+|H_d^{i+1}H_d^i|^2\right)`$ (53)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{2\pi R}}\right)^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_M^N\mathrm{\Gamma }A_M^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)^2+|H_u^N\eta _{H_u}\mathrm{\Gamma }H_u^i|^2`$
$`+|H_d^{i+1}\eta _{H_d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1H_d^i|^2),`$
where the subscript $`M`$ denotes $`0,1,2,3,5`$ ($`\mu `$ and $`5`$), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a $`5\times 5`$ matrix and is a generator of $`Z_n`$ group, which is a subgroup of $`\pi _1(S^1)=Z`$, i. e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^n=1`$. Of course, there exist some other terms, but we are not interested in them here. It is not hard for one to prove that the 5-dimensional $`SU(5)`$ gauge theory on $`M^4\times S^1`$ is equivalent to the 4-dimensional $`SU(5)^{N+1}`$ gauge theory with above effective potential and other terms in the large $`N`$ limit, i. e., $`N+\mathrm{}`$. In addition, we would like to point out that the $`SU(5)^{N+1}`$ gauge theory with above effective potential preserve only the $`SU(5)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gauge symmetry, where the gauge group $`SU(5)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the commutant of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`SU(5)`$, mathematically speaking,

$$SU(5)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\{gSU(5)|g\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }g\}.$$
(54)
Of course, the Lagrangian is not $`SU(5)^{N+1}`$ gauge invariant, and then, the theory is non-renormalizable. However, this latticized theory is correct because from the point of view of 4-dimensional effective theory, the 5-dimensional $`SU(5)`$ gauge theory on $`M^4\times S^1`$ preserve only the $`SU(5)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gauge symmetry for the zero modes, the gauge symmetries for the non-zero KK modes of 5-dimensional gauge fields are completely broken, and the 5-dimensional theory is non-renormalizable.

Therefore, we can consider the $`SU(5)^{N+1}`$ gauge theory where in particular the gauge fields $`A_5`$ or the corresponding link fields $`U_i`$ do not have the VEVs, and we introduce above effective potential for the mass terms by hand. In this approach, we can consider the discrete symmetry on theory space and discuss the gauge symmetry breaking. Moreover, the continuum results exactly match the deconstruction results. Because we add the mass terms by hand and our theory is an effective theory, we call this deconstruction scenario as effective deconstruction scenario. However, we would like to emphasize that the effective deconstruction scenario is the non-renormalizable theory, and how to construct a renomalizable effective deconstruction scenario deserves further study and is out of the scope of this paper.

### 4.1  Deconstruction of $`SU(5)`$ Breaking on $`M^4\times S^1`$ by Wilson Line

Considering the $`SU(5)^{N+1}`$ gauge theory with bifundamental link fields $`U_i`$ given in Eq. (2.2) in subsection 2.2, and assuming that there exists one pair of Higgs 5-plets $`H_u^i`$ and $`H_d^i`$ under the gauge group $`SU(5)_i`$ where $`i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, we choose the following effective potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{2\pi R}}\right)^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_\mu ^{i+1}A_\mu ^i)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(U_{i+1}U_i)^2`$ (55)
$`+|H_u^{i+1}H_u^i|^2+|H_d^{i+1}H_d^i|^2)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{2\pi R}}\right)^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_\mu ^N\mathrm{\Gamma }A_\mu ^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(U_N\mathrm{\Gamma }U_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)^2`$
$`+|H_u^N\eta _{H_u}\mathrm{\Gamma }H_u^i|^2+|H_d^{i+1}\eta _{H_d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1H_d^i|^2),`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,+1,+1),`$ (56)
and $`\eta _{H_u}=\eta _{H_d}=+1`$. So, we obtain that the parities of all the fields are the same as those in the subsection 2.1 (see Table 1), and the deconstruction results exactly match the continuum results.

### 4.2  Deconstruction of $`SU(5)`$ Breaking on $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$

We consider the $`SU(5)^{4N}`$ gauge theory with bifundamental fields $`U_i`$ as follows444For convenience to define $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_2^{}`$ symmetries, we define half $`U_i`$ as $`U_i^{}`$ in the previous sections. Because we consider the non-supersymmetric theory, there is no anomaly problem.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& SU(5)_0& SU(5)_1& SU(5)_2& \mathrm{}& SU(5)_{N1}& SU(5)_N\\ & & & & & & \\ U_0& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& 1& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ U_1& 1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ U_{N1}& 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\end{array}.$$

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& SU(5)_N& SU(5)_{N+1}& SU(5)_{N+2}& \mathrm{}& SU(5)_{2N1}& SU(5)_{2N}\\ & & & & & & \\ U_N& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& 1& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ U_{N+1}& 1& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ U_{2N1}& 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\end{array}.$$

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& SU(5)_{2N}& SU(5)_{2N+1}& SU(5)_{2N+2}& \mathrm{}& SU(5)_{3N1}& SU(5)_{3N}\\ & & & & & & \\ U_{2N}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& 1& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ U_{2N+1}& 1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ U_{3N1}& 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\end{array}.$$

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& SU(5)_{3N}& SU(5)_{3N+1}& SU(5)_{3N+2}& \mathrm{}& SU(5)_{4N1}& SU(5)_0\\ & & & & & & \\ U_{3N}& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& 1& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ U_{3N+1}& 1& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \mathrm{}& 1& 1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ U_{4N1}& 1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\end{array}.$$

On the theory space, there are $`4N`$ sites and $`4N`$ bifundamental link fields. And we would like to add one pair of Higgs 5-plets $`H_u^i`$ and $`H_d^i`$ on the $`ith`$ site. Moreover, we introduce the following effective potential for the mass terms

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{4N1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2N}{\pi R}}\right)^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_\mu ^{i+1}A_\mu ^i)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(U_iU_{i+1})^2`$ (57)
$`+|H_u^{i+1}H_u^i|^2+|H_d^{i+1}H_d^i|^2).`$
So, the mass matrix for each field is similar to that in Eq. (10).

Now, let us discuss the discrete symmetries on the theory space. We define that $`i^{}i+3N`$ for $`0i<N`$ and $`i^{}iN`$ for $`Ni<4N`$. The $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_2^{}`$ symmetries on theory space are defined by the following equivalent classes

$$i4Ni\mathrm{for}Z_2,i^{}4Ni^{}\mathrm{for}Z_2^{}.$$
(58)
For a generic multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x^\mu )`$ ($`i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},4N`$) which fills a representation of the gauge group $`SU(5)_i`$, we can define two parity operators $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ for the $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_2^{}`$ symmetries, respectively

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x^\mu )`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{4Ni}(x^\mu )=\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }P^{ł_\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x^\mu )(P^1)^{m_\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (59)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^i^{}(x^\mu )`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{4Ni^{}}(x^\mu )=\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(P^{})^{ł_\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }^i^{}(x^\mu )(P^{}_{}{}^{}1)^{m_\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (60)
where $`\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }=\pm 1`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\pm 1`$.

Denoting the physical field $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ with ($`P`$, $`P^{}`$)=($`\pm ,\pm `$) by $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\pm \pm }`$, we obtained the physical fields $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{\pm \pm }^{(n)}(x^\mu )`$ expansion in terms of the site fields $`\varphi ^j(x^\mu )`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{++}^{(2n)}(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{4N1}{}}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{j2n\pi }{2N}})\varphi ^j(x^\mu ),`$ (61)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+^{(2n+1)}(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{4N1}{}}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{j(2n+1)\pi }{2N}})\varphi ^j(x^\mu ),`$ (62)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+^{(2n+1)}(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{4N1}{}}}\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{j(2n+1)\pi }{2N}})\varphi ^j(x^\mu ),`$ (63)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{}^{(2n+2)}(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{4N1}{}}}\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{j(2n+2)\pi }{2N}})\varphi ^j(x^\mu ),`$ (64)
The physical fields $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{++}^{(2n)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+^{(2n+1)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+^{(2n+1)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{}^{(2n+2)}`$ acquire masses $`\frac{4N}{\pi R}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2n\pi }{4N})`$, $`\frac{4N}{\pi R}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{(2n+1)\pi }{4N})`$, $`\frac{4N}{\pi R}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{(2n+1)\pi }{4N})`$ and $`\frac{4N}{\pi R}\mathrm{sin}(\frac{(2n+2)\pi }{4N})`$, respectively, where $`n=0,1,2`$, …, $`2N1`$. In the large $`N`$ limit, or $`N+\mathrm{}`$ or $`n<<N`$, the physical fields $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{++}^{(2n)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+^{(2n+1)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+^{(2n+1)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{}^{(2n+2)}`$ acquire masses $`2n/R,(2n+1)/R,(2n+1)/R`$ and $`(2n+2)/R`$, respectively. Therefore, the deconstruction results exactly match the continuum results. In addition, zero modes are contained only in $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{++}^{(2n)}`$ fields, thus, the matter content of massless sector is smaller than that of the full multiplets in the theory. Moreover, only $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{++}^{(2n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+^{(2n+1)}`$ fields have non-zero values at $`i=0`$ and $`i=2N`$, and only $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{++}^{(2n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+^{(2n+1)}`$ fields have non-zero values at $`i=N`$ and $`i=3N`$.

Under $`Z_2`$ parity $`P`$, the fields $`A_\mu ^i`$, $`U_i`$, $`H_u^i`$ and $`H_d^i`$ transform as

$`A_\mu ^{4Ni}(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`PA_\mu ^i(x^\mu )P^1,`$ (65)
$`U^{4Ni}(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`PU^i(x^\mu )P^1,`$ (66)
$`H_u^{4Ni}(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`PH_u^i(x^\mu ),`$ (67)
$`H_d^{4Ni}(x^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1H_d^i(x^\mu ).`$ (68)
And under parity $`P^{}`$, the gauge field and Higgs field transformations are similar to those under $`P`$.

We choose the following matrix representations for parity operators $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ that are expressed in the adjoint representation of $`SU(5)`$

$$P=\mathrm{diag}(+1,+1,+1,+1,+1),P^{}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,+1,+1),$$
(69)
and then, we obtain that the parities of all the fields are the same as those in the subsection 3.1 (see Table 2), and the deconstruction results exactly match the continuum results.

## 5 $`G^N`$ Unification

$`G^N`$ unification has been discussed previously where each gauge group $`G`$ is broken by the Higgs fields in its adjoint representation , or the gauge group $`G^N`$ is broken by introducing more than one link Higgs field between the first two sites recently . The doublet-triplet splitting are also considered in the deconstruction of $`SU(5)`$ on the disc $`D^2`$ . In this section, we would like to briefly discuss the $`G^N`$ unification where $`G^N`$ is broken down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)^{n3}`$ by the bifundamental link fields in which $`n`$ is the rank of group $`G`$. We shall discuss the scenario with $`G=SU(5)`$ as an example, and similarly, one can discuss the scenario with $`G=SU(6),SO(10),E_6`$, etc, for $`\pi _1(S_1)=Z`$ . The discussions for the doublet-triplet splitting are primitive here, and the natural solution to the doublet-triplet splitting problem in a supersymmetric scenario will be presented elsewhere .

### 5.1 $`SU(5)_0\times SU(5)_1`$

The set-up is similar to that in the subsection 2.2 for $`N=1`$. We choose the VEVs of $`U_0`$ and $`U_1`$ as

$`<U_0>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2}),`$ (70)
$`<U_1>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2}).`$ (71)
The mass matrix for the Standard Model gauge boson is

$$M_{SM}^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 2\\ 2& 2\end{array}\right),$$
(72)
and the mass matrix for the non-Standard Model gauge boson is

$$M_{NSM}^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 0\\ 0& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(73)
It is easy to check that only the Standard Model gauge bosons have zero modes and the non-Standard Model gauge bosons are massive.

Now, let us discuss the doublet-triplet splitting. Suppose that $`H_u^i`$ and $`H_d^i`$ are in the fundamental and anti-fundamental representations of $`SU(5)_i`$ respectively, where $`i=0,1`$. With the following potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2(|U_0(H_u^0)^{}|^2+|H_u^1U_0|^2+|U_0H_d^0|^2+|(H_d^1)^{}U_0|^2)`$ (74)
$`+2g^2(|U_1(H_u^1)^{}|^2+|H_u^0U_1|^2+|U_1H_d^1|^2+|(H_d^0)^{}U_1|^2)`$
$`\sqrt{2}g^2v(H_u^1U_0(H_u^0)^{}+(H_d^1)^{}U_0H_d^0+H.C.)`$
$`\sqrt{2}g^2v(H_u^0U_1(H_u^1)^{}+(H_d^0)^{}U_1H_d^1+H.C.),`$
we obtain that the mass matrix for the doublet $`H_u^{iD}`$ or $`H_d^{iD}`$ is the same as that for the Standard Model gauge boson in Eq. (72), and the mass matrix for the triplet $`H_u^{iT}`$ or $`H_d^{iT}`$ is the same as that for the non-Standard Model gauge boson in Eq. (73). Therefore, we solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem.

The possible interesting model is that we put three 5-plets ($`\overline{5}`$) fermions under $`SU(5)_0`$, and three 10-plets ($`10`$) fermions under $`SU(5)_1`$. Then, the proton decay is suppressed at least at one loop level. Of course, there might exist anomaly in the model. One way to avoid anomaly is that, we consider supersymmetry and three link fields that are in the fundamental and anti-fundamental representations of $`SU(5)_0`$ and $`SU(5)_1`$, respectively.

### 5.2 $`SU(5)_0\times SU(5)_1\times SU(5)_2`$

The set-up is similar to that in the subsection 2.2 for $`N=2`$. However, we choose the following VEVs of $`U_0`$, $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$, which can also give the correct mass matrices for gauge boson and Higgs fields

$`<U_i>=\mathrm{diag}(v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2},v/\sqrt{2}),\mathrm{for}i=0,1,2.`$ (75)
The mass matrix for the Standard Model gauge boson is

$$M_{SM}^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& 1& 1\\ 1& 2& 1\\ 1& 1& 2\end{array}\right),$$
(76)
and the mass matrix for the non-Standard Model gauge boson is

$$M_{NSM}^2=g^2v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& +1& +1\\ +1& 2& +1\\ +1& +1& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(77)
It is easy to check that only the Standard Model gauge bosons have zero modes and the non-Standard Model gauge bosons are massive.

Now, let us discuss the doublet-triplet splitting. Suppose that $`H_u^i`$ and $`H_d^i`$ are in the fundamental and anti-fundamental representations of $`SU(5)_i`$ respectively, where $`i=0,1,2`$. With the following potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2(|U_0(H_u^0)^{}|^2+|H_u^1U_0|^2+|U_0H_d^0|^2+|(H_d^1)^{}U_0|^2)`$ (78)
$`2g^2(|U_1(H_u^1)^{}|^2+|H_u^2U_1|^2+|U_1H_d^1|^2+|(H_d^2)^{}U_1|^2)`$
$`+2g^2(|U_2(H_u^2)^{}|^2+|H_u^0U_2|^2+|U_2H_d^2|^2+|(H_d^0)^{}U_2|^2)`$
$`\sqrt{2}g^2v(H_u^1U_0(H_u^0)^{}+H_u^2U_1(H_u^1)^{}+H_u^0U_2(H_u^2)^{}+H.C.)`$
$`\sqrt{2}g^2v((H_d^1)^{}U_0H_d^0+(H_d^2)^{}U_1H_d^1+(H_d^0)^{}U_2H_d^2+H.C.),`$
we obtain that the mass matrix for the doublet $`H_u^{iD}`$ or $`H_d^{iD}`$ is the same as that for the Standard Model gauge boson in Eq. (76), and the mass matrix for the triplet $`H_u^{iT}`$ or $`H_d^{iT}`$ is the same as that for the non-Standard Model gauge boson in Eq. (77). Thus, we solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem.

The possible interesting model is that we put one family ($`\overline{5}+10`$) fermions under one $`SU(5)`$ gauge group, and define the $`Z_3`$ symmetry on the model.

## 6 Discussion and Conclusion

An interesting question is how to realize the Yukawa couplings in the deconstruction scenarios. If the 5-dimensional theory is non-supersymmetric, we can consider the 5-dimensional Yukawa couplings or 3-brane localized Yukawa couplings. In the deconstruction scenarios, we need to introduce the Yukawa couplings on all the sites for the first case. For the second case, we introduce the Yukawa couplings only on the corresponding particular site for that 3-brane. For example, if the 3-brane localized Yukawa couplings is on the 3-brane at $`y=0`$ in the 5-dimensional theory, we only introduce the Yukawa couplings on the $`0th`$ site. In addition, if the 5-dimensional theory is supersymmetric, we can only consider the Yukawa couplings (superpotential) on the observable 3-brane at the fixed point because the 5-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry is 4-dimensional $`N=2`$ supersymmetry, and then, the bulk Yukawa couplings are forbidden. In the deconstruction scenarios, we introduce the Yukawa couplings (superpotential) on the corresponding site for the observable 3-brane at the fixed point.

In this paper, we deconstruct the non-supersymmetric $`SU(5)`$ breaking by discrete symmetry on the space-time $`M^4\times S^1`$ and $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ in the Higgs mechanism deconstruction scenario. And we explain the subtle point on how to exactly match the continuum results with the latticized results on the quotient space $`S^1/Z_2`$ and $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. Because it seems to us that the Higgs mechanism deconstruction scenario might not be the real deconstruction, we propose the effective deconstruction scenario and discuss the gauge symmetry breaking by the discrete symmetry on theory space in this approach. However, for simplicity, we do not consider supersymmetry and only discuss GUT group $`SU(5)`$. So, it is interesting to consider supersymmetry and discuss other GUT breaking, for instance, $`SU(6)`$, $`SO(10)`$, and $`E_6`$, etc. Moreover, we can study the deconstruction of the extra space manifolds like the two-torus $`T^2`$, the disc $`D^2`$ and the annulus $`A^2`$, and discuss the general gauge symmetry and supersymmetry breaking by the discrete symmetry on the general theory space in the effective deconstruction scenario. It seems to us that we will have the link fields and Higgs unification, suppress the proton decay by R-symmetry, solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem and $`\mu `$ problem.

As an application, we suggest the $`G^N`$ unification where $`G^N`$ is broken down to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)^{n3}`$ by the bifundamental link fields and the doublet-triplet splitting can be achieved. Furthermore, we can consider the general link fields, for example, $`(10,\overline{10})`$ for $`SU(5)_0\times SU(5)_1`$. In short, with the general $`G^N`$ unification, we wish we can solve the tough problems in the traditional 4-dimensional GUT models.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank W. Liao for helpful discussions. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DOE-EY-76-02-3071.


format: text

text:
# Schwarzschild black holes and propagation of electromagnetic and gravitational waves. Presented by E. Malec at the XXV International School of Theoretical Physics, Particles and Astrophysics - Standard Models and Beyond 10 - 16 September 2001 Ustroń, Poland

## 1 Introduction

Quasinormal modes are scattering-type solutions of the Schrödinger equation which satisfy a quite peculiar boundary condition - that at both ”ends” the waves are purely outgoing. They are being studied in the context of general relativity (the Schrödinger equation emerges there through the standard separation of the time dependence in a wave equation) in the course of the last thirty years (-). Much is known about their eigenvalues and their temporal evolution in the case of Schwarzschild black holes and neutron stars. An exhaustive review on that topic is ; see also . An observer located at a fixed space position would find that quasinormal modes oscillate in time and their amplitude exponentially decays. The period of oscillations and damping coefficients carry unique information about the mass and the angular momentum.

Perturbation of a spherically symmetric spacetime geometry  can be described - as far as the backreaction can be neglected - by a linear wave equation ( \-  ). The interesting fact is that a (compact support) perturbation of a spacetime geometry may result in the appearance of an outgoing radiation that coincides in a bounded region of spacetime with a linear combination of quasinormal modes. At some intermediate time - later on the so-called tail term dominates - the perturbation is dominated by the fundamental mode, since the latter is damped weaker than the other quasinormal modes. The oscillation periods and damping coefficients do not depend on perturbations; this feature can be used in order to identify the source of the gravitational field .

It is of interest to know how much energy can be carried by quasinormal modes. Their energy can be estimated by the so-called diffused energy - the energy loss that is due to the backscattering. In this paper we present recent results in this direction. The order of the rest of this paper is as follows:

i) Space-time curvature and two patterns of propagation of massless fields;

ii) Vibrations of a spacetime - an example;

iii) Recent results on the energy diffusion in the Schwarzschild spacetime;

iv) Dependence of backscatter on the frequency of waves;

v) Discussion;

vi) Lessons from numerics.

## 2 What is backscattering?

Let an outgoing null cone $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a`$ originate from $`(a,0)`$. Assume that a flash of radiation is initially purely outgoing  and that its support is contained in an annular region $`(a,b)`$, $`b\mathrm{}`$. Then, depending on whether or not the spacetime is curved, the following can be observed.

i) In the flat Minkowski spacetime a wave remains purely outgoing. No radiation can be found in the interior of the cone (Fig. 1). In this case no backscatter (, ) occurs (in the Hadamard’s terminology: the type B Huyghens principle holds true).

ii) A wave backscatters in a curved, e.g. Schwarzschild, spacetime. Some energy, denoted later as $`\delta E_a`$, diffuses inward through $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a`$ and is lost from the main stream (Fig 2).

One can shortly state that waves propagate in a curved spacetime like electromagnetic waves in a medium with a varying refraction index. A fraction of the radiation scatters off the curvature of the geometry and a part of the initial energy never reaches infinity.

## 3 Damped oscillations

Figure 3  shows a picture that is typical in the case of perturbations that have compact support. An initial perturbation is depicted in Fig. 3(a). Some time after the initial pulse runs through the observer, he (or she) can observe that an oscillatory (single frequency) radiation dominates. As pointed out before, the period and damping coefficients are independent on the perturbation.

There are two interconnected problems that can made difficult the identification of the dominant mode. First, in the asymptotic zone, $`t>>2m`$, the tail terms dominate , since they decay as some power of $`1/t`$. Second, the amplitude of the oscillations quickly decreases, as exemplified by Fig. 3(b).

## 4  Quantitative estimates of the backscattered energy.

We specialize, beginning from this section, to spherically symmetric spacetimes. The backscattered (diffused) energy will be found from the energy conservation and some potential estimates. Let us point out that our intention is to derive a bound from above on the fraction of the backscattered energy; this bound should be independent of the details of the initial pulse of the outgoing radiation. The only information that is required, is the mass $`m`$ of the central object and the initial position $`a`$ of the inner boundary of the outgoing radiation. (In the case of nonspherical spacetimes one presumably would need also the information about the total angular momentum.)

The idea that it is possible to bound the backscattered energy entirely in terms of initial energy and initial position was first put on trial in the example of the massless scalar field ( \- ; a recent work is ). The Theorem formulated below summarizes results that have been obtained while implementing a programme that was formulated in the case of electromagnetic radiation in (, ) and then modified in  and . While the analytic part concerning the electromagnetic radiation is fairly satisfactory (any further progress would most likely involve advanced numerical methods), the work on the gravitational radiation is not finished. Preliminary results on the polar modes are given in  while the investigation of axial modes is in progress.

Theorem.

Assume a flash of dipole electromagnetic radiation (quadrupole gravitational radiation - axial or polar) that is initially purely outgoing and that has support in an annular region $`(a,b)`$, $`b\mathrm{}`$. Let the initial energy be $`E_a(0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m/a`$.

Then the fraction of the diffused energy $`\delta E_a/E_a(0)`$ satisfies the inequality

Here

i) (the case of electromagnetic radiation) for $`a10\frac{m}{3}`$, $`0.3=C(0)C(\stackrel{~}{m})C(10/3)1.7`$

$`C(\stackrel{~}{m})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10080((1+2\stackrel{~}{m})^4\stackrel{~}{m}^4)}}(2760\stackrel{~}{m}^5+828\stackrel{~}{m}^4+`$
$`44\stackrel{~}{m}^3+2352\stackrel{~}{m}^6+2016\stackrel{~}{m}^4\mathrm{ln}(12\stackrel{~}{m})+`$
$`2688\stackrel{~}{m}^6\mathrm{ln}(12\stackrel{~}{m})4032\stackrel{~}{m}^5\mathrm{ln}(12\stackrel{~}{m})`$
$`360\stackrel{~}{m}^3\mathrm{ln}(12\stackrel{~}{m})+6\stackrel{~}{m}+36\stackrel{~}{m}^2\mathrm{ln}(12\stackrel{~}{m})`$
$`30\stackrel{~}{m}^2+3\mathrm{ln}(12\stackrel{~}{m})18\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{ln}(12\stackrel{~}{m}));`$
ii) (axial gravitational waves )  $`1.05=C(0)C(\stackrel{~}{m})=\mathrm{?}`$ ;

iii) (polar gravitational waves)  $`55/2=C(0)C(\stackrel{~}{m})=\mathrm{?}`$ (conjecture: $`C(0)<4`$).

Sketch of the proof

### 4.1  Preliminaries.

A Schwarzschildean line element reads (we neglect the backreaction effect):

$$ds^2=(1\frac{2m}{R})dt^2+\frac{1}{1\frac{2m}{R}}dR^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(2)
The radial terms of the multipole expansion satisfy the following (reduced) wave equations (, , ),

$$(_0^2+_r^{}^2)\mathrm{\Psi }_l=V(R)\mathrm{\Psi }_l.$$
(3)
In the the case of lowest multipoles we have

i) $`l=1`$ and $`V(R)=(1\frac{2m}{R})\frac{2}{R^2}`$ (dipole term, electromagnetism);

ii) $`l=2`$ and $`V(R)=(1\frac{2m}{R})\frac{6}{R^2}\left(1\frac{m}{R}\right)`$ (quadrupole term, axial gravitational waves);

iii) $`l=2`$ and $`V(R)=(1\frac{2m}{R})\frac{6}{R^2}\left(1\frac{2m}{R}+\frac{21m^2(1+\frac{m}{R})}{4R^2(1+3m/(2R))^2}\right)`$ (quadrupole term, polar gravitational waves).

In what follows we shall deal only with the electromagnetic case; the other two cases can be treated similarly. Although the calculations become more complex, basic scheme is the same.

The most general solution of the dipole electromagnetic radiation in the Minkowski spacetime is given by

$$_0\left(f(Rt)g(R+t)\right)+\frac{f(Rt)+g(R+t)}{R},$$
(4)
where the $`f`$-related part describes the outgoing radiation while $`g`$ is responsible for the ingoing wave. For any initial data, one can uniquely determine $`f`$ and $`g`$ and in this way specify the outgoing and ingoing initial pulses.

We invoke to the above decomposition in order to specify what is meant by in- or out- directed waves in the Schwarzschild spacetime. Define the Regge-Wheeler variable $`r^{}(R)R+2m\mathrm{ln}(\frac{R}{2m}1)`$. Then having initial data, one can construct functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ in a similar way as in the Minkowski spacetime. If from the  construction follows that $`g=0`$, then we will say that the radiation is purely outgoing. In such a case it is useful to define

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(R,t)_r^{}f(r^{}t)+\frac{f(r^{}t)}{R(r^{})},$$
(5)
and to seek a solution of the dipole wave equation, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r^{},t)`$, having the following form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}+\delta .$$
(6)
We would like to point out that at $`t=0`$ the function $`\delta `$ vanishes up to the first time derivative , $`\delta =0`$ and $`_0\delta =0`$. One finds that the evolution equation reads

$$(_0^2+_r^{}^2)\delta =(1\frac{2m}{R})\left[\frac{2}{R^2}\delta +\frac{6mf}{R^4}\right].$$
(7)
### 4.2  Main steps of the proof.

The energy of the electromagnetic field that is contained in the annulus $`(R(t),\mathrm{})`$ reads

$$E_{R(t)}=2\pi _{R(t)}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left(\frac{(_0\mathrm{\Psi })^2}{1\frac{2m}{r}}+(1\frac{2m}{r})(_r\mathrm{\Psi })^2+\frac{2(\mathrm{\Psi })^2}{r^2}\right)$$

#### 4.2.1  Bound on $`f`$ in terms of the initial energy.

Lemma 1. Define $`\eta _R1\frac{2m}{R}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}m/a`$ and $`yR/a`$. Let $`f(a)=0`$, and $`a10m/3`$. Then

$$|\frac{f^2(R,0)}{R^2}|\frac{E_a(0)}{8\pi }a\eta ^2(R)F(\stackrel{~}{m},y),$$
(8)
where

$`F(\stackrel{~}{m},y)y1+{\displaystyle \frac{16\stackrel{~}{m}^4}{3(y+2\stackrel{~}{m})^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{16\stackrel{~}{m}^4}{3(1+2\stackrel{~}{m})^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16\stackrel{~}{m}^3}{(y+2\stackrel{~}{m})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\stackrel{~}{m}^4}{(1+2\stackrel{~}{m})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{24\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{(y+2\stackrel{~}{m})}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{24\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{(1+2\stackrel{~}{m})}}+8\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{y2\stackrel{~}{m}}{12\stackrel{~}{m}}}.`$
This is essentially a Sobolev-type estimate. For the proof see .

#### 4.2.2 Estimate of an ”energy” of $`\delta `$

This ”energy” denoted as $`H`$ is not conserved - there is a volume-dependent term in the integral form of this ”energy” evolution law. It appears to be, however, a useful quantity. $`H`$ is defined by

$$H(R,t)_R^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left(\frac{(_0\delta )^2}{\eta _r}+\eta _r(_r\delta )^2+\frac{2\delta ^2}{r^2}\right);$$
(10)
this integral is done on a fixed Cauchy hypersurface $`t=const`$. One can prove

Lemma 2. Let the support of initial data be $`(a,b)`$, $`a10m/3`$, $`b\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$H(a_t,t)36m^2\left[_0^t𝑑s\left(_{a_s}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\frac{f^2\eta _r}{r^8}\right)^{1/2}\right]^2,$$
(11)
where the $`t`$-integration follows along $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{a,(a_t,t)}`$ while the $`r`$integration is done on a fixed Cauchy slice.

The crucial point in the proof of Lemma 2 is that

$$H(a_t,t)=\frac{\delta E_a(t)}{2\pi }12_0^t𝑑s_{a_s}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r_0\delta \frac{f}{r^4};$$
(12)
dropping out the nonpositive $`\delta E_a`$ terms and using the Schwarz inequality yields the lemma .

#### 4.2.3 The energy conservation and bounding of the diffused energy (the energy “loss”)

Define $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{R_0,(R,t)}`$ \- a segment of an outgoing null geodesic that connects $`(R_0,t=0)`$ with $`(R,t)`$. Further, let us introduce

$$h_{}(R,t)=\frac{1}{1\frac{2m}{R}}(_0+_r^{})\delta ;$$
(13)
this corresponds to this component of the ”reduced” strength field tensor that is directed inward.

The rate of the energy change along $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a`$ is given by

$`(_0+_r^{})E_a=`$
$`2\pi (1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{R}})[(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{R}})({\displaystyle \frac{_0\mathrm{\Psi }}{1\frac{2m}{R}}}+_R\mathrm{\Psi })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{R^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }^2]=`$
$`2\pi (1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{R}})[(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{R}})(h_{}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{R^2}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{R^2}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}+\delta )^2];`$ (14)
but $`f=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=0`$ while their first derivatives vanish on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a`$. The integration of (14) along $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_a`$ gives the energy that diffused through the segment $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{a,a(t)}`$,

$`\delta E_a(t)E_a(0)E_a(t)=`$
$`2\pi {\displaystyle _a^{a(t)}}dr[(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}})h_{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta ^2}{r^2}}].`$ (15)
¿From the $`H`$-conservation law and Lemma 2 one gets

$$\frac{\delta E_a}{2\pi }36m^2\left[_0^t𝑑s\left(_{a_s}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\frac{f^2\eta _r}{r^8}\right)^{1/2}\right]^2;$$
(16)
here $`\delta E_alim_t\mathrm{}\delta E_a(t)`$.

The ”electromagnetic” part of the main Theorem follows from the preceding bounds.

## 5 Dependence of the backscatter on the frequency of waves

The backscattering depends on the relative width of support. That is well known from the numerical analysis of Vishveshwara ), but the first - up to our knowledge - proof appeared in . Below we sketch the main results. When support of the initial radiation is very narrow, $`\kappa =(ba)/a<<1`$, then

$$\frac{\delta E_a}{E_a(0)}C\left(\frac{2m}{a}\right)^2\kappa ,$$

In the limit $`\kappa 0`$ $`\frac{\delta E_a}{E_a(0)}0`$; the backreaction is negligible. We would like to point that this argument works for all $`a>2m`$, in contrast to the main Theorem.

The question arises: how do we interpret this? The similarity theorem  of Fourier transform theory states that compression of support of a function corresponds to expansion of the frequency scale. It means that

$$\underset{\kappa 0}{lim}\frac{E(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_c)}{E_a(0)}0;$$
(17)
above $`E(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_c)`$ is the electromagnetic energy of modes with frequencies smaller than a fixed frequency, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_c`$. Thus we can conclude that the high frequency radiation is essentially unhindered by the backscattering while long waves can be backscattered.

## 6 Discussion

The diffused energy $`\delta E_a`$ bounds from above the sum $`\delta E_{qmt}+\delta E_f`$ where $`\delta E_{qmt}`$ is the energy carried by the quasinormal modes and the tail, and $`\delta E_f`$ is the energy of that radiation that falls to a black hole or hits the surface of a star. Below we present several data that estimate from above the total fraction of the backscattered energy. A more detailed calculation would show that the last contribution, $`\delta E_f`$, dominates, so that we expect that $`\delta E_{qmt}/E_a(0)`$ can be a small fraction of the number given in forthcoming examples.

In the first group of examples we consider the case, when the initial pulse is close to the Schwarzschild radius $`R=2m`$;

i) $`a=10m/3`$ (e. g., a surface of a supercompact neutron star ): $`\frac{\delta E_a}{E_a(0)}<0.5`$;

ii) $`a=4m`$ (e. g., a supercompact neutron star ): $`\frac{\delta E_a}{E_a(0)}<0.3`$;

iii) $`a=5m`$ (a standard neutron star): $`\frac{\delta E_a}{E_a(0)}<0.13`$.

It is instructive to notice that this effect is very weak in the case of other astronomical objects. For the Sun for instance : $`\frac{\delta E_a}{E_a(0)}10^{13}`$, while for white dwarves: $`\frac{\delta E_a}{E_a(0)}<10^7`$. Our estimates allow one also to answer the question that was raised in the literature (see, e.g., ), how strongly gravitational field of a galactic interior can damp the outgoing radiation? One can infer from the preceding examples that the effect may matter only, if there is a black hole in the interior of a galaxy.

## 7 What can be learned from numerics?

We summarize shortly the main conclusions that can be obtained through a numerical analysis.

i) If a radiating source is close to a horizon, then the damping can be quite strong. We found, in accordance with expectations, that the backscatter is strong deep inside the photon sphere. There are known examples in which from 20 percent (electromagnetism) to 49 percent (gravitational polar modes) of the initial energy gets diffused ; that should go to 100 % if a very compact source is infinitely close to the event horizon.

ii) The efect depends on the width of a”renormalized” ($`(ba)/\eta _a`$) support of initial energy. The backscatter is strongest, when the width is of the order of $`a`$ \- comparable to the areal distance from the center.

iii) The present analytic estimates are not exact. They are expected to yield, in combination with appropriate numerical methods, more satisfactory results.

Acknowledgements.

This work has been suported in part by the KBN grant 2 PO3B 010 16. One of the authors (EM) thanks Gerhard Schäfer for many discussions.


text:
# Discovery of two infrared supernovae: a new window on the SN searchBased on observations obtained at the ESO-NTT in La Silla, at the ESO-VLT in Paranal and at the Italian Telescopio Nazionale Galileo (TNG) operated on the island of La Palma by the Centro Galileo Galilei of the CNAA (Consorzio Nazionale per l’Astronomia e l’Astrofisica) at the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.

## 1 Introduction

Some recent surveys aimed at detecting SNe (in the optical) have found that starburst galaxies do not show evidence for an enhanced SN rate, when the rate is normalized to the B luminosity of the galaxies, i.e. starburst and quiescent have the same SN rate in terms of SNu111$`1\mathrm{S}\mathrm{N}\mathrm{u}=1\mathrm{S}\mathrm{N}(100\mathrm{y}\mathrm{r})^1(10^{10}\mathrm{L}_{}^\mathrm{B})^1`$ (Richmond et al. richmond (1998)). This result is puzzling, since the presence of a burst of star formation should boost the SN rate much more than the optical luminosity (in addition to the fact that the optical luminosity is diluted by the quiescent, evolved stellar population). One possible explanation for the shortage of SNe in star forming galaxies is that most SNe are obscured by the large amount of dust which generally affects starburst systems. In the following we will focus on the latter scenario.

A survey for SNe in the infrared, where dust extinction is greatly reduced, would allow one to detect the obscured SNe which are possibly missed in optical monitoring campaigns. This strategy was first proposed by Van Buren & Norman (vanb89 (1989)) and discussed more recently also by Mattila & Meikle (mattila (2000)). The first K-band (2.2$`\mu `$m) monitoring campaign was attempted by Van Buren et al. (vanb94 (1994)). They discovered SN1992bu by comparing four near-IR images of NGC3690 (this SN was not confirmed spectroscopically). More recently, a search in the K-band was attempted by Grossan et al. (grossan (1999)); they failed in detecting any new SN and they ascribe their negative result to the poor resolution of their camera.

We started a K-band ($`2.1\mu `$m) monitoring campaign of a sample of $`35`$ Luminous Infrared Galaxies (LIRGs) aimed at detecting obscured SNe elusive in optical surveys. LIRGs are galaxies characterized by far-IR (FIR) luminosities in excess of $`10^{11}\mathrm{L}_{}`$. According to optical and IR studies the main energy source of this class of objects seems to be starburst activity, at least up to luminosities of $`10^{12.5}\mathrm{L}_{}`$ (e.g. Sanders & Mirabel sanders (1996), Genzel et al. genzel (1998)). The contribution to the IR luminosity from hidden active galactic nuclei (AGNs) is matter of debate. However, if most of their luminosity is powered by star formation, then the inferred star formation activity would imply an average rate of about one SN per year per object, within our sample (Mattila & Meikle mattila (2000)).

The survey, started in late 1999, was carried on with the NTT-ESO, TNG222The Italian Galileo National Telescope and Kuiper/Steward333University of Arizona telescopes. In this paper we report the discovery of two infrared SNe: SN2001db (Maiolino et al. maiolino01 (2001)) and SN1999gw (Cresci et al. cresci (2002)), and provide a preliminary estimate of the SN production in Luminous Infrared Galaxies. A more detailed description of our survey and more accurate estimate of SN rate will be given in a forthcoming paper (Mannucci et al. in prep.).

## 2 SN2001db

### 2.1 Observations

#### 2.1.1 Imaging

The infrared imaging observations were obtained with SOFI, the near-IR camera (Lidman et al. lidman (2000)) at the NTT ESO telescope, in the Ks band (see Tab.1). NGC3256 was observed for the first time on January 9, 2001, and subsequently three more times: February 8, March 18, and April 1. Each observation consisted of a series of 15 images, 60 seconds each, alternated with 15 images sampling the near sky for an optimal removal of the background. The total on-source integration time was therefore 15 minutes per epoch, obtained under sub-arcsec seeing conditions. The data reduction was carried out with a “home” package developed by our team (Hunt et al. hunt94 (1994)). The images obtained during the monitoring in 2001 were compared with an archival image obtained with SOFI on November 28, 1999.

In Fig.1 we show the archival SOFI image of NGC3256 (left) and the first image obtained in 2001 (right) where SN2001db has been detected. The magnitude of the SN at the discovery epoch was Ks=$`16.03\pm 0.20`$ 444The difference with respect to the magnitude given in Maiolino et al. (maiolino01 (2001)) is due to a better subtraction of the background light.. The SN is located at R.A.(J2000) = 10h27m50s.4, Decl.(J2000) = –43 54 21′′, i.e. offset 5′′.7 to the West and 5′′.7 to the South of the Ks nucleus of the galaxy (uncertainty on the relative position about 0′′.4). In Tab.2 and in Fig.2 (upper panel) we give the Ks-band light curve, both in terms of relative and absolute magnitude (assuming a distance modulus of 33.06).

Photometric measurements performed on ESO archival images (Feb 1993) and FORS images (Apr 2001, May 2001) imply m$`{}_{V}{}^{}>`$22 for the SN (Fig.2 lower panel).

### 2.2 Optical spectroscopy

The spectroscopic follow-up was performed both in the optical and in the infrared.

The optical spectrum was obtained with FORS1 (Szeifert szeifert (2002)) at the ESO VLT-UT1 on May 16, 2001 (i.e. when the SN was at least 4 months old) with the grism GRIS\_300V and a spectral resolution of 500. The 15m exposure was split in two different integrations, to allow an optimum subtraction of cosmic rays. Background was removed by interpolating the spectrum above and below the galaxy (after standard flat-fielding and bias subtraction).

Fig.3 (upper panel) shows the optical spectrum of the SN2001db. There are several narrow emission lines most of which are probably to ascribe to HII regions and SNRs in the environment of SN2001db. As mentioned above, the continuum is not due to the SN2001db but is dominated by background emission from the host galaxy. The spectrum clearly shows a broad component of H$`\alpha `$ (FWHM $``$5000 km/s) which is a clear signature of the SN. The signatures of the SN are better observed if the contribution of the the underlying background continuum is removed (by using as a template the contiguous regions of the galaxy intercepted by the slit and properly re-scaled). The resulting spectrum is shown in Fig.3 (lower panel). The H$`\alpha `$ has a strongly asymmetric profile, whose peak is blueshifted by about 2000 km/s with respect to the parent galaxy (see Schlegel schlegel (1990) for a discussion on the blueshift), but it also has a prominent red tail, a profile similar to that observed in type IIL and IIP SNe (Filippenko filippenko (1997)). No other SN signatures are found in the blue part of the spectrum. A summary of the properties of all the broad lines associated to the SN is given in Tab. 2. We note that the profile of the broad component of \[Ca II\] 7324Å and CaII 8662Å is not as asymmetric as the other broad lines. At the same redshift of the peak of the broad H$`\alpha `$ we have also detected the FeII 7155Å line.

### 2.3 Infrared spectroscopy

The infrared spectrum was obtained in the J band with ISAAC (Cuby et al. cuby (2002)) at the ESO VLT-UT1 on April 21, 2001. Observations were performed with the $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ slit and with the low resolution grating (set at the 4th order), giving a spectral resolution of 500. The observations were obtained with a set of single integrations of 30 seconds each (10 times 3 sec), by moving the object along the slit to obtain an optimal sky subtraction, for a total of 45 minutes of integration. Finally, the spectra obtained at different positions along the slit, were subtracted from each other to remove the background, then flat fielded, aligned, co-added and calibrated. The atmospheric trasmission features were corrected as described in Maiolino et al. (maiolino96 (1996)).

Fig.4 shows the infrared ISAAC spectrum extracted from an aperture of 1′′. Here the broad component of Pa$`\beta `$ is more prominent, relative to the narrow component, with respect to H$`\alpha `$. The profile of the broad component of Pa$`\beta `$ is nearly identical to that of H$`\alpha `$. There are also indications of a broad component of Pa$`\gamma `$ and HeI 1.0083$`\mu `$m, but assessing the reality of these features is difficult because it is at the edge of the spectrum. Pa$`\beta `$ might be characterized by an absorption on the blue side (i.e. a P-Cygni profile) which might be filled by the \[FeII\] line. However, the flux of the latter line is a factor of $``$3 higher than the companion \[FeII\]1.3206$`\mu `$m, as expected by atomic constants, thus it is unlikely that \[FeII\]1.2567$`\mu `$m is affected by a significant absorption feature beneath its profile. Most likely Pa$`\beta `$ does not have a P-Cygni signature, similarly to H$`\alpha `$. It is worth noting that the strong \[FeII\] emission relative to Pa$`\beta `$ (narrow) indicates that the underlying emission is not simply due to HII regions, but must be contributed significantly also by SN remnants.

### 2.4 Extinction

The Balmer decrement for the narrow components of H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ is $`12`$. This implies, for a Galactic extinction curve, an equivalent screen extinction $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}=4.2`$ mag. If dust is mixed with the emitting gas the real optical depth is even higher555Note that the “pure” mixed case would give a maximum H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratio of $`4.1`$, implying that at least part of the absorption is ascribed to a simple foreground screen of dust.. The Na I interstellar absorption doublet at $``$5890Å has an equivalent width of 5.87 Å. However we note that due to the blending with the near HeI $`\lambda `$5876Å emission line, the equivalent width of Na D has been underestimated. According to the relations of Barbon et al. (barbon90 (1990)) and Benetti (priv. comm.), and after assuming a Galactic extinction curve, EW(Na D)$``$5.87Å implies an equivalent screen extinction $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}34.9`$ mag.

We can exploit the ratio of the broad component of Pa$`\beta `$ and H$`\alpha `$ to constrain directly the reddening affecting the SN. We will assume that during 25 days elapsed between the infrared and the optical spectrum the line flux has not changed significantly (e.g. Danziger et al. danziger (1991), Xu et al. xu (1992), Benetti et al. benetti (1998)); afterwards we will discuss the case of rapid line variability. The observed ratio between the broad components of Pa$`\beta `$ and H$`\alpha `$ is 1.73. The case B recombination gives an intrinsic ratio Pa$`\beta `$/H$`\alpha =0.06`$, which would imply an extinction of $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}=6.7`$ mag. Yet, in type II SNe the intrinsic ratio Pa$`\beta `$/H$`\alpha `$ appears to be lower than in the case B, although only a few simultaneous observations of Pa$`\beta `$ and H$`\alpha `$ are available for type II SNe. The Pa$`\beta `$/H$`\alpha `$ ratio observed in 1987A was about 0.12 (Xu et al. xu (1992)). By interpolating the data obtained by Fassia et al. (fassia00 (2000)) at different epochs we obtain a similar ratio Pa$`\beta `$/H$`\alpha =0.09`$, once corrected for foreground reddening. If we conservatively assume Pa$`\beta `$/H$`\alpha =0.12`$, the observed value in SN2001db gives an extinction toward the SN of $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}=5.3`$ mag.

To discuss the quick variability case we assume that the hydrogen line flux has decreased at the same rate of the continuum. In this case the line flux cannot have changed by more than 40%, which gives a lower limit on the inferred optical extinction of $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}>4.6`$ mag or $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}>5.7`$ mag for an intrinsic ratio of 0.12 and 0.06 (case B) respectively.

Summarizing, we derive that the optical extinction toward the SN is larger than $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}>3`$ (lower limit inferred above from the Na D absorption and narrow Balmer decrement) and most likely in the range 4.6 to 6.7 mag. In the following we assume $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}5.6`$ mag, with an uncertainty of about 1 mag.

Note that the upper limit on the V magnitude of the SN also provides a constraint on the extinction when compared with the light curve of SN templates (Fig. 2). With an extinction $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}<2`$ mag the SN would have been detected in the optical image of April 17. This lower limit on the extinction $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}>2`$ is fully consistent with the value inferred above.

In this section we have adopted a Galactic “standard” extinction curve, but there are indications that starbust galaxies might have different extinction curves. Calzetti et al. (calzetti (2000)) estimated the extinction curves for a sample of starburst galaxies. These extinction curves apply mostly for the ”mixed” case and, therefore, are probably inappropriate for our SN. However, aware of this caveat, we have also tried to estimate the extinction by using the extinction curves given in Calzetti et al. (calzetti (2000)) and obtained (accounting also the uncertainties in the reddening curves) a visual extinction ranging from 4.1 to 8.4 mag.

In the compilation given in Mattila & Meikle (mattila (2000)) and in Schmidt et al. (schmidt (1994)) the extinction AV of core collapsed SNe is generally lower than $`1.5`$ mag, with the exception of SN 1973R for which Schmidt et al. estimate $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}=2.7`$ mag. The distribution of extinctions in these two compilations is shown in Fig. 5. If these compilations are representative, then the extinction inferred for the IR SN 2001db is probably the highest among the SNe so far discovered (Fig. 5).

### 2.5 Supernova type and age

The lack of any absorption blueward of the line peak (i.e. the typical P-Cygni profile) may dis-favor a type IIP. However, since the continuum is dominated by the background emission of the parent galaxy, the lack of P-Cygni absorption is more difficult to assess. Based on Fig.3 (lower panel), we cannot exclude the presence of an absorption feature blueward of the H$`\alpha `$ with an EW less than $``$ 2Å. The shape of the broad hydrogen lines (strongly asymmetric and with blueshifted peak) does not favor a type IIn. The available photometric points also do not discriminate between type IIL and IIP. In Fig.2 we report the light curves of SN1980k and SN1999em taken as representative of type IIL and type IIP, respectively (data from Dwek et al. dwek (1983), Barbon et al. barbon82 (1982), Hamuy et al. hamuy (2001)). Both the optical and infrared light curves have been extinguished by an A$`{}_{V}{}^{}=5.6`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{K}=0.56`$), as obtained in the former section. The infrared observations can be roughly fit both with the light curve of SN1980k offset by 65 days, and with the light curve of the SN1999em offset by 90 days and 1.0 mag. The average K-band light curve for type II SNe obtained by Mattila & Meikle (mattila (2000)) is nearly identical to the SN1980k light curve in Fig.2, but offset by 55 days.

It is interesting to note that, in any case, the V-band magnitude of the SN was most likely fainter than 20 at its maximum (see Fig.2) and, therefore, it would have been missed by most of the optical SN search programs (e.g. Richmond et al. richmond (1998)).

## 3 SN1999gw

The infrared imaging observations were obtained with the ARNICA near-IR camera (Hunt et al. hunt96 (1996)) at TNG telescope in the Ks band (see Tab.1). UGC4881 was observed for the first time on December 16, 1999 and subsequently three more times: January 12 and February 12, 2000 and on February 8, 2001 with the NICS camera (Baffa et al. baffa (2001)).

The observing strategy and data reduction were analogous to SN2001db. The total on–source integration time for each epoch was 15 min. In Fig.6 (left) we show the ARNICA image of UGC4881, where the SN was detected. The right panel of Fig.6 shows the difference between the image of December 1999 and the image of February 2001, after properly matching the PSF of the two images by means of the ISIS software (Alard alard (2000)). SN1999gw is clearly detected in emission. Some residuals are observed on the nucleus south of the SN (i.e. UGC4881A), where the steeply rising surface brightness prevents an accurate subtraction of the PSF. The magnitude of the SN on December 1999 was Ks=$`17.45\pm 0.20`$. The SN was located at R.A.(J2000) = 09h15m54.7s, Decl(J2000) = +44 19 55′′, being offset 3.5′′ to the North of the Ks nucleus of UGC4881A. In Tab.1 and in Fig. 7 we give the Ks-band light curve (the absolute magnitude is derived by assuming a distance modulus of 36.22).

In Fig. 7 we overplot the average light curve derived by Mattila & Meikle (mattila (2000)), which fits fairly well the photometric points of SN1999gw if the date of discovery is close to the maximum.

## 4 The infrared SN rate

Our monitoring program is still in progress. A final, detailed summary of our survey and its implications on the SN rate will be provided in a forthcoming paper (Mannucci et al. in prep.). Here we compare the number of SNe detected during our survey with the number of SNe expected by applying the current estimates of SN rates, expressed in SNu (Cappellaro et al. cappellaro (1999)), to our sample of galaxies. So far, our program has detected 4 SNe. One of these is a type Ia (SN1999gd, Li li (1999)), which was also detected in the optical. Another SN was a type II (SN2000bg, Sato & Li sato (2000)), also detected in the optical. The other two SNe, SN1999gw and SN2001db, were discussed in this paper.

By assuming the conversion from blue luminosity to SN rate (all types) given in Cappellaro et al. (cappellaro (1999)), i.e. $`\mathrm{SNr}10^{12}(\mathrm{L}_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{L}_{})\mathrm{yr}^1`$, we would have expected to detect $`0.5`$ SNe. Since we have detected 4 SNe, we roughly infer a SN production which is about an order of magnitude higher than estimated by conventional optical surveys.

This high SN rate reflects both the higher extinction affecting the B light of LIRGs (which is the normalizing factor of SNu) and the enhanced star formation in the galaxies of our sample. The enhanced SN rate obtained by our IR survey partly reconciles the contractictory results on starbursts obtained by optical surveys, which were discussed in the Introduction.

Note that a SN rate higher than expected by the blue luminosity is also obtained by the two SNe detected in the optical, implying that the high SN rate inferred by our study is not only due to obscuration. An important difference of our study, with respect to previous surveys, is that our sample is characterized by a much stronger starbursting activity; more specifically, if the star formation is estimated through the far-IR luminosity, the galaxies in our sample are characterized by a star formation rate which is about one order of magnitude higher than in the sample of Richmond et al. (richmond (1998)). Probably, the failure of previous studies in detecting an enhanced SN rate in starburst galaxies is partly to ascribe also to the selected sample, which consisted mostly of “mild” starbursts.

Altough higher than found in optical surveys, the SN rate measured by us is still not as high as expected by the large staformation rate inferred from the far-IR luminosity of the galaxies in our sample. Indeed, if most of the far-IR luminosity is due to star formation, and we adopt the conversion from LFIR to SN rate given in Mattila & Meikle (mattila (2000)), i.e. $`\mathrm{SNr}2.7\times 10^{12}(\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{FIR}}/\mathrm{L}_{})\mathrm{yr}^1`$, we find that our survey has detected only about 20% of the expected SNe.

There are various possible scenarios which could explain the shortage of SN detections. One possibility is that most SNe are so embedded into the dust to be significantly obscured even in the near-IR. More specifically, in order to reduce the expected number of SNe by a factor of $``$5 (i.e. the fraction of missing SNe) they should be, on average, fainter by 3.0 magnitudes in K, implying that they should be absorbed by $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{K}>3.0`$, or $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}>30`$. Another possibility is that most SNe occur in the nucleus (i.e. within the central 2′′); in this case our limited angular resolution would have prevented disentangleing them from the peaked nuclear surface brightness of these galaxies, even when the PSF between multi-epoch images are optimally matched. In support to this scenario recent mid-IR studies have found growing evidence that a large fraction of the starburst activity occurs in the nuclear region (Soifer et al. soifer (2001)). The possibility that most SNe occur in the nuclear region can be tested through near-IR monitoring from space (e.g. NICMOS on HST), which would provide higher angular resolution and more stable PSF. Alternatively, nuclear SNe could be disentangled spectroscopically through the detection of the broad hydrogen lines characteristics of type II SNe, by periodically monitoring the (near-IR) spectra of the nuclei of the galaxies in our sample. The discovery of a nuclear SN by Aretxaga et al. (aretxaga (1999)) through the detection of broad hydrogen lines has shown the feasibility of the latter approach in the optical.

Finally, the assumption that the high far-IR luminosity is tracing an enhanced star formation rate might be incorrect. In particular, obscured AGNs may contribute substantially to the IR luminosity of these galaxies (Sanders & Mirabel sanders (1996)). Note that heavily obscured AGNs may be present even if not identified spectroscopically and may be totally obscured even in the X-rays (Marconi et al. marconi (2000), Maiolino et al. maiolino98 (1998)).

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented the discovery of SN 1999gw and SN 2001db obtained within the framework of a near-IR ($`\lambda 2.1\mu `$m) search for obscured SNe in Luminous Infrared Galaxies. The spectroscopic follow-up of SN2001db indicates that this was a type II SN, extinguished by A$`{}_{V}{}^{}4.66.7`$. Interesting enough this SN, the first one to be discovered in IR and spectroscopically confirmed, would have been missed by ordinary optical surveys.

Preliminary estimates of the SN rate indicate that the SN production in Luminous Infrared Galaxies is $`10^{11}(\mathrm{L}_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{L}_{})\mathrm{yr}^1`$, about an order of magnitude higher than expected by the relation between LB and SN rate found in optical studies. This result confirms that optical surveys miss a significant fraction of the SNe, especially in obscured systems such as starburst galaxies. However, simple first order estimates, based on the far-IR luminosity, indicate that our near-IR survey is still largely incomplete, and that $``$ 80% of the SNe are missed. Some possible explanations for this issue are: 1) most SN are more obscured than $`\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{V}>30`$ mag; 2) the number of expected SNe as inferred from the LFIR is overestimated because hidden AGNs dominated the luminosity; 3) most of the SNe occur in the nuclear region and the limited angular resolution prevents their discovery.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to S. Mattila, P. Meikle and N. Panagia for useful comments. The near-IR survey partly presented in this paper is the result of the efforts of a larger collaboration which also includes V. Ivanov, A. Alonso-Herrero and N. Nagar. We thank the ESO staff, on La Silla and on Paranal, as well as the TNG staff for their help during the observations. We thank the ESO General Director for allocating Director Discretionary Time to this project. M. Della Valle and R. Maiolino are grateful to the Paranal and La Silla ESO observatories and to the ESO Santiago Science Office for their kind hospitality during this research program, within the framework of the Visiting Scientist Program. This work was partially supported by the the Italian Space Agency (ASI).