text:
# Dipole fluid as a basic model for the equation of state of ionic liquid in the vicinity of their critical point

## Introduction

There is the strong indication for existence of the liquid-gas critical point in ionic liquids like molten NaCl. The main model for such systems is called Primitive Model or its restricted version where the characteristics (mass, diameter etc.) of the opposite charges are the same. Because of formation of associated ionic pairs the derivation of mean field equation of state in rigorous thermodynamic approach is yet unsolved. The existence of additional constraints, so called sum rules mart , makes the problem of finding thermodynamically consistent mean field theory hard to solve comparing with the molecular liquid case. The various approaches have been proposed recently for the derivation of equation of state (EOS) for the RPM. Mostly they are based either on the improvements of classical Debye-Hückel (DH) dh  and Bjerrum bj  theory of association or Mean Spherical Approximation (MSA) msa  taking into account the association and various effective interactions. For the reviews of the results see fish ; fishlev ; st2 ; gg ; ws .

The location of the critical point for RPM varies in dependence of the interactions included into free energy. It is accepted that the following dimensionless parameters for the temperature $`T`$, particle number density $`n`$ and pressure $`P`$ are used:

$$T^{}=\frac{k_BT}{q^2/a},\rho ^{}=na^3,P^{}=\frac{P}{q^2/a^4}$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is the ionic diameter $`q`$ is the absolute value of the charge. The characteristic value for $`T_c^{}`$ takes the values in the interval $`0.05T_c^{}0.08`$. The situation with the critical density $`\rho _c`$ is less definite. Its value varies from $`\rho _c=0.02`$ to $`\rho _c=0.08`$. It should be noted that most of the analytical results predict low density ($`\rho _c=0.026`$) and ”high temperature” ($`T_c^{}=0.060.08`$) critical point. It cannot be excluded that such low value for $`\rho _c^{}`$ is connected with small association taken into account with the help of thermodynamic perturbation theory. However the reliability of such type estimates is not quite clear. Therefore the development of the alternative approach grounded on the dipole fluid model seem to be expedient.

The Monte Carlo (MC) simulation studies champ ; mc ; gr  performed in recent years give ”high density” $`\rho _c=0.070.08`$ and low temperature $`T_c^{}=0.040.05`$ critical point.

In the present paper we estimate the critical characteristics of the ionic molten in the framework of the dipole fluid approach. We will also show that the change of molecular parameters due to rotations influences essentially the location of the critical point.

## I Qualitative analysis of the critical behavior of the dipole liquid

NaCl is the simplest example of ionic liquid. In solid state it is ionic crystal. Above the melting point the positions of ions become unfixed, but this liquid remains strongly dissociated. Due to thermal expansion at increasing temperature the dissociation degree diminishes and the molten salt passes to a dipole liquid. At further increasing temperature and decreasing the molten density the dissociation degree grows again and the molten salt becomes completely ionized system. Thus, at some temperature $`(T_1,T_2)`$ and density $`(n_1,n_2)`$ intervals the molten NaCl can be considered as a dipole liquid. Further the additional arguments for this assumption will be given.

Let us consider the general properties of this liquid and, in particular, its main critical parameters: the critical temperature and density. The interparticle interaction in dipole system takes the form:

$$U(1,2)=U_w(1,2)+U_{dd}(1,2)$$
(2)
where the first term describes the Van-der-Waals interaction between molecules and

$$U_{dd}=\frac{1}{ϵr_{12}^3}\left(\stackrel{}{d_1}\stackrel{}{d_2}3\frac{(\stackrel{}{d_1}\stackrel{}{r_{12}})(\stackrel{}{d_2}\stackrel{}{r_{12}})}{r_{12}^2}\right)$$
(3)
the proper dipole-dipole interaction, $`r_{12}=|𝐫_1𝐫_2|`$ is the interparticle spacing. Note that the dipole moment of a pair is some function of the equilibrium distance between ions in a pair:

$$𝐝_i=d(r_d)𝐧_i,𝐧_+=\frac{𝐫_+^{(i)}𝐫_{}^{(i)}}{|𝐫_+^{(i)}𝐫_{}^{(i)}|},$$

$`i=1,2`$, $`ϵ`$ is dielectric permittivity.

Because of the dipole-dipole interactions are relatively weak the angular distribution of dipole moments $`\stackrel{}{d_i}`$ is close to isotropic one. More exactly we assume that the two particle distribution function $`g(\stackrel{}{d_1},\stackrel{}{d_2})`$ can be approximated by the first two terms in the expansion:

$$g(\stackrel{}{d_1},\stackrel{}{d_2})=1\beta U_{dd}(1,2)+\mathrm{},\beta =\frac{1}{k_BT}.$$
(4)
The approximation of such a kind allows us to exclude the orientational degrees of freedom in the configurational integral with the help of the perturbation theory. In fact this procedure is equivalent to the usage of the isotropic potential

$$\begin{array}{cc}U(r_{12})=<U(1,2)>=U_w(r_{12})U_d\left(\frac{\sigma }{r_{12}}\right)^6\hfill & ,\hfill \\ U_d=\frac{2}{3}\beta \frac{<<d^2>>^2}{ϵ^2\sigma ^6}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(5)
Here $`\sigma a_++a_{}2a`$, $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$ are the diameters of ions Na and Cl correspondingly and for simplicity we put $`a_+=a_{}`$ and neglect the difference in masses of the ions, $`<<\mathrm{}>>`$ denotes the average with internal partition function of a pair. It is easy to check that the inequality $`|U_w(r_{12})|<<U_d\left(\frac{\sigma }{r_{12}}\right)^6`$ takes place at all $`r_{12}`$. Therefore further the contribution $`|U_w|`$ will be ignored.

It is essential, that the averaging procedure restricts the applicability region of the potential (5) by interparticle spacings $`\sigma r_{12}`$ which gives the size of the ”averaged” dipole of order $`2a`$. Though the value of $`\sigma `$ may be slightly less than $`2a`$ since rotating dipoles are not the same as hard spheres of diameter $`2a`$. It is quite clear in view of scattering cross section for the hard rotating dumbells. At this level $`\sigma `$ should be considered as the parameter (in general temperature dependent) of the dipole-dipole potential. The procedure of its fixing in the critical point will be discussed further.

To describe the properties of the molten NaCl within the interval, where it can be considered as a dipole liquid, we can use the potential with hard wall:

$$U(r_{12})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & ,r_{12}<\sigma \hfill \\ U_d\left(\frac{\sigma }{r_{12}}\right)^6\hfill & ,\sigma r_{12}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Such a potential leads to the Van-der-Waals equation of state

$$P=\frac{n_dk_BT}{1n_db}A(T)n_d^2,$$
(7)
where

$$A(T)=\pi \underset{\sigma }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U(r,T)r^2𝑑r=\frac{\pi \sigma ^3}{3}U_d,b=\frac{2\pi }{3}\sigma ^3$$
(8)
and $`n_d`$ is the pair number density. Therefore the overall density is $`n=2n_d`$. In dimensionless form (7) and (8) read as:

$$P^{}=\frac{\rho ^{}T^{}}{2b\rho ^{}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}(T^{})}{4}\rho ^^2,$$
(9)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{A}(T^{})=\frac{2\pi }{9T^{}\sigma ^3}<<r_d^2>>^2$$
(10)
Here all spatial parameters is given in units of $`a`$. The value of parameter $`<<r_d>>`$ depends on the internal structure of the pair. Though by the order of magnitude $`<<r_d>>1`$, nevertheless from dip  it follows that the characteristic values of dipole moments correspond to $`<<r_d>><\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$.

Since $`\sigma `$ is connected with the size of the pair we model its temperature dependence via relation:

$$\sigma =<<r_d>>\delta $$
(11)
where $`\delta `$ is the fitting parameter.

Note that $`\sigma `$ is temperature dependent which we assume the same as that for $`<<r>>`$. The functions $`<<r^n>>`$ will be determined below. Note that the vapor phase contacting with the liquid one is the gas of dipole molecules. The van der Waals EOS is appropriate approximation for EOS for such vapor phase. Thus we can get the the critical parameters of this system using the van der Waals theory of the critical point.

The equation (7) leads to the following equations for the critical temperature and density (note that $`n_d=n/2`$, where $`n`$ is the total number density):

$$T_c^{}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{9\sigma ^3}<<r_d^2>>,\rho _c^{}=\frac{1}{\pi \sigma ^3},$$
(12)
The estimates for these parameters are straightforward if we put $`\sigma =2`$, and take into account that due to small dipole moment of NaCl $`<<r_d^2>>=1`$ (in units of $`a`$):

$$T_c^{}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{36}0.04,\rho _c^{}=\frac{1}{8\pi }0.04,P_c^{}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{1536\pi }310^4$$
(13)
$$Z_c=\frac{P_c^{}}{\rho _c^{}T_c^{}}=\frac{3}{16}0.19$$

which are in satisfactory agreement with the values

$$T_c^{}=0.055,\rho _c^{}=0.026P_c^{}=3.610^4,$$
(14)
$$Z_c=0.25$$

obtained within extended Debye-Hückel-Bjerrum theory fishlev  augmented with ion-dipole interaction. Our value of the critical density is greater due to the neglecting the dissociation of the dipole pairs.

Now we need to consider the dipole pair as itself since the parameters of the potential (6) actually are the averages over the internal partition function of a pair and therefore are the temperature dependent functions.

## II The dissociation of the rotating dipole liquid

In previous section the model of undissociated ionic liquid consisting of rotating dipoles has been introduced. Here we investigate the internal structure of the bound pair of ions. We take into account the fact that the energy of interaction of a pair should include centrifugal energy together with Coulombic potential as in standard problem of two bodies interacting via central field.

The dissociation temperature for NaCl-molten is determined by the effective potential of an ion within a rotating dipole which includes the centrifugal energy:

$$kT_dU_{eff}=\frac{q^2}{r}\frac{L^2}{2I},$$
(15)
where $`I=\mu r^2`$ is the moment of inertia of the charge with reduced mass $`\mu =\frac{m_+m_{}}{m_++m_{}}=m/2`$. At such high temperatures all degrees of freedom are all in equilibrium and we can use the estimate

$$E_{rot}=\frac{L^2}{2I}=kT.$$
(16)
Note that the equilibrium distance between ions in a pair, which is determined by the minimum of effective potential (15) with the help of (16), is

$$a_{eq}=\frac{1}{2T^{}},$$
(17)
which is exactly the Bjerrum size of the pair $`R^{Bj}`$ bj  (see also fishlev ). The choice of (17) as the size of the ionic pair is inappropriate from the physical point of view at low temperatures $`T^{}<<1`$ fishlev . It is natural that with lowering $`T`$ the size of a pair should become smaller tending to $`a`$ at $`T0`$. That is why it was suggested to use it for $`1/T^{}2`$ only.

Let us consider this question within the picture formulated above. To be more correct we will include the rotational energy into association constant, which is proportional to the internal partition function of the pair fishlev ; gg :

$$K(T^{},R)=4\pi \underset{a}{\overset{R}{}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta U_{eff})r^2𝑑r$$
(18)
In 2D case one can put $`R=\mathrm{}`$ because of the logarithmic growth of the electrostatic potential and get the estimation of Kosterlitz-Thouless temperature of dissociation kt . In 3D case there is the problem with upper cutoff in such an approach where the association constant is identified with internal partition function of the ionic pair.

To define the size of a pair following Bjerrum we investigate the extremal points of the integrand in (18). Doing so we get two solutions:

$$R_{}(T^{})=\frac{1\sqrt{116T^{}\lambda }}{4T^{}},R_+(T^{})=\frac{1+\sqrt{116T^{}\lambda }}{4T^{}}$$
(19)
where

$$\lambda =\frac{L^2/2I_0}{q^2/a},I_0=\mu a^2.$$

Here $`R_+`$ is solution of the Bjerrum type (minimum of the integrand in (18)), which as has been said above is inappropriate. $`R_{}`$ is another solution corresponding to the maximum of the integrand, which has quite reasonable values and correct behavior at low $`T^{}`$. It is easy to check that asymptotically for low values of the temperature $`T^{}`$ the value of $`K(T^{})`$ is formed mainly by the maximum of the integrand. In addition the appropriate limiting behavior to the hard-core contact at formal limit $`T^{}0`$ is hold provided that $`\lambda =1/2`$. This value of $`\lambda `$ is in full accordance with the virial theorem land . All these facts confirms that we can treat the quantity $`R_{}`$ as the size of the pair even at ”high” temperatures $`T^{}0.1`$. In addition $`R_{}`$ never exceeds $`2`$, i.e. the interparticle the distance when the influence of other pairs and charges on the effective potential can be neglected (see Fig. 1).

So we put $`R_{}`$ as the physical cutoff for (18). The existence of such length scale was noted in fishlev  basing on the the numerical analysis of the function $`K(T^{},R)/K(T^{},R^{Bj})`$, though only Coulomb potential was included in Boltzmann factor. It gives the rate at which $`K(T^{},R)`$ rises very rapidly to its plateau value. In our case we find the same behavior of $`K(T^{},R)`$ at small temperatures, $`T^{}<0.04`$ (see Fig. 2).

Finally we see that there is the natural temperature interval for dipole fluid which is bounded from above by the temperature

$$T_{upper}^{}\frac{1}{8}$$
(20)
Therefore for $`T<T_{upper}^{}`$ the dipole is stable as itself. Note that the existence of the temperature (20) reminds Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in 2D case. In particular, the centrifugal energy introduced above plays the role analogous to the chemical potential  *”… required to create a pair of particles of equal and opposite charge at a distance $`r_0`$ apart …”* in Kosterlitz-Thouless model kt . However, in contrast to 2D case in 3D case there is no any divergence in the size of the pair and therefore in its polarizability, but its derivative on the temperature has singular behavior. In other words the temperature derivative of the polarizability is singular but not the polarizability itself. This inference might seem as mere an artifact of introducing the upper cut off in (18). But it should be noted that taking dielectric permittivity $`ϵ`$ as the order parameter, which is directly connected with polarizability, we get exactly the divergence of its temperature derivative even in mean field approximation. This may serve as additional support for the conjecture of intensive breaking of the dipole pairs at the critical point observed in some numerical experiments champ .

The existence of the interaction between dipoles and the free charges provides additional instability mechanism for their dissociation thus reducing the temperature of ”ideal” dissociation (20) because of the polarization of the dipole in the external field of dipole-dipole potential (6) and Coulombic field of free charges. The consideration given above states that there are two characteristic transition in the dipole-dipole fluid: 1) ”dipole liquid - dipole gas” critical point of van der Waals type; 2) the smeared dissociation ”transition” from associated state to almost completely dissociated one. This smeared transition can be characterized by the temperature on the binodal at which the degree of dissociation is 1/2.

The interaction between translational degrees of freedom of the ions is characterized by the critical temperature of the liquid-gas transition, while internal, rotational degrees of freedom are involved into dissociation of such dipole fluid. These degrees of freedom will strongly interact if the corresponding potentials will be of the same magnitude i.e. $`T_cT_d`$. The additional confirmation of coincidence of such transitions is the high degree of dissociation above the critical point observed in numerical experiments g ; champ  and theoretical models gg , which incorporate dielectric permittivity resulting from the existence of the dipole pairs. This means that $`T_d`$ cannot be less than $`T_c`$. All said above means that in such situation we can not rely on (7) since appropriate EOS should incorporate all relevant interactions which lead to phase separation. In particular the critical temperature is sensitive to the temperature dependence of the parameter $`A(T)`$.

The condition for the dissociation of a pair in external electrostatic field is:

$$<𝐝𝐄>=<<U_{eff}>>,$$
(21)
where

$$𝐝=𝐝_0+𝐝_{ind}$$
(22)
is the dipole moment, which consists of proper and induced dipole moments. Obviously,

$$<𝐝_0𝐄>=0,<𝐝_{ind}𝐄>=\chi <𝐄^2>$$
(23)
Here $`\chi `$ is the polarizability of a pair. The averaging over the thermal equilibrium gives:

$$<𝐄^2>=\frac{3k_BT}{\varkappa V_{ph}},$$
(24)
where $`\varkappa `$ is the dielectric susceptibility of the medium and $`V_{ph}`$ is the characteristic volume . It is connected with the polarizability of the cavity. According to the definition:

$$\varkappa =\frac{ϵ1}{4\pi }=\frac{1}{2}\chi \rho ^{}$$
(25)
So we get the equation for the temperature in dimensionless form:

$$\frac{6}{\rho ^{}V_{ph}}T^{}=<<U_{eff}>>$$
(26)
Within the proposed approach we put $`V_{ph}=\frac{4\pi }{3}l_c^3`$ where $`l_c`$ is the radius of first coordination sphere. This is the minimal volume for which the conception of continuity of the medium can be applied. By the order of magnitude $`l_c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.5}a`$. The solution of (26) gives the dependence $`T^{}(\delta )`$. In order to fix the value of $`\delta `$ in the critical point which determine the size of the pair we should equate $`T^{}(\delta )`$ and $`T_c^{}(\delta )`$ obtained above. This way we get:

$$T_c^{}=0.048,\rho _c^{}=0.054,P_c^{}=4.810^4,\sigma =1.8,Z_c=0.19,$$
(27)
which are close to those obtained above (13). In notations of fishlev , $`\sigma =2a_2`$. In this work the estimate for the parameter $`a_2`$ from simple geometric considerations was given: $`0.825a_21.565`$. Thus our estimate is in this interval. From the results obtained above we can infer that the dipole fluid of rotating dipoles in the vicinity of its liquid-gas critical point is about to dissociate. Sure our consideration is incomplete since it does not take into account the existence of free charges.

Finally we estimate the Ginzburg number by the formula used for the molecular liquids land :

$$Gi=\left(\frac{r_0}{\xi _0}\right)^6$$
(28)
where $`r_0=<<r>>a`$ is the interparticle spacing within ionic pair and $`\xi _0`$ is the amplitude of the correlation length for density fluctuations. Since the density fluctuations are connected with the ones for dipole pairs we put it to be equal $`\xi \sigma `$. Using the parameters of the critical point found in (27) we get the estimate:

$$Gi0.04$$
(29)
## Discussion

The ionic and dipole liquids form two natural approximations to describe the critical properties of the systems similar the molten NaCl. In our paper we have estimated the main critical parameters for liquid with hard dipole as well as consider the influence of the effects arising due to softness of a dipole molecule. In particular the last is very important to describe the dielectric properties of a system near the critical point. Besides, the variation of molecule parameters due to the rotations allows us to determine the equilibrium size of a ionic pair.

It is not excluded that the quantum corrections to internal states of the dipole pairs will also slightly change the estimates. In particular the temperature dependence of the vibrational contributions to the heat capacity can also be studied. The following step is to construct the equation of state for small ”soft” dipole molecules and to take into account the dissociation process with the help of perturbation theory. The combination of such an approach with that developed in kmt  on the basis of ionic liquid allows to narrow the region of the most probable values for the critical parameters.

Our estimate for the critical temperature correlates with the known analytical results. Note that most of the analytical approaches based on EOS for low density Coulombic system (DH, MSA etc.) where the dissociation is taken into account perturbatively.

Within the dipole liquid approach we have obtained the estimate for the Ginzburg temperature and have shown that it less than one for the simple liquid by a factor $`10^210^1`$. The approximation of the dipole liquid allows us to analyze in the evident form the contribution of the polarizational effects kmt . One can show that the lasts lead to the further considerable decrease of the Ginzburg temperature.

Note also the possibility for the appearance of new inhomogeneous phase near the critical point of ionic liquids. Since the dissociation temperature $`T_d`$ is near $`T_c`$, the system can desintegrate on the regions with the essentially different values of the ionization degree $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$: the drops of ionic and dipole liquids. As a consequence the region with the Ising-like behavior cannot be reached. This scenario needs in very careful investigation. These and other questions will be the subjects of further works.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors cordially thank to Professor V.M. Adamyan for fruitful discussion of obtained results.


format: text

text:
# The X-Ray Jet in the Crab Nebula: Radical Implications for Pulsar Theory?

## 1 Introduction

Magnetic collimation of astrophysical jets was proposed over 20 years ago (Blandford 1976, Lovelace 1976, Benford 1978). Since then, however, there has been considerable debate as to how well it works. Heyvaerts and Norman (1989) and Chiueh, Li, and Begelman (1991) proved that given enough time, all rotating, axisymmetric magnetized flows are collimated by the toroidal magnetic field that is inscribed by the rotation. On the other hand, it was argued (Eichler 1993, Begelman & Li 1994, Tomimatsu 1994, Bogovalov 1997, 2001, Beskin, Kuznetsova & Rafikov 1998, Chiueh, Li & Begelman 1998) that the collimation is so slow (logarithmic) that in practice it could take an exponentially large radius to collimate appreciably, so that all but a small core near the axis would remain uncollimated. Moreover, if the magnetic field dominates the flow, collimation would come at the expense of kink instability. The slowness of the collimation and/or its questionable stability was felt by some to make it unattractive.

For relativistic outflows with Lorentz factor $`\gamma 1`$, the problem is particularly severe. Firstly, the radius of curvature of the flow lines scales as $`1/\gamma ^2`$, so that for large enough $`\gamma `$, the radius of curvature is not only exponentially large, but exponential large with a huge exponent. Secondly, even if the flow started at modest $`\gamma `$, if it were magnetized, even a small degree of collimation would imply acceleration (Begelman & Li 1994) to larger $`\gamma `$, which places even more severe limits on collimation.

However, the remarkable image of the Crab Nebula in the X-rays recently obtained by the CHANDRA Observatory (Weisskopf et al. 2000) convincingly shows a very well defined polar jet. It appears to be a) very well collimated but b) only a small part ($`10^210^1`$ by visual inspection) of the total energy, which is mostly expelled in an apparently equatorial disk. This vindicates both the contentions that a) magnetic collimation can work and that b) it only works on the inner core of an ultra-relativistic outflow. Stability worries may be minimized if most of the jet has been collimated only within its most recent dynamical timescale.

The question is now whether theory can accurately account for the proportions of the polar jet relative to the total pulsar wind, whether the predicted Lorentz factor of the jet is consistent with observational limits on relativistic beaming, and whether the implications of the pulsar wind observations are consistent with the theory of pulsar magnetospheres.

In this paper we consider these questions. We show that the conventional view of the Crab pulsar would allow too miniscule a jet to be consistent with the observed one. We then show that relaxing the usual beliefs about the Crab pulsar and assuming only that the pair luminosity must be less than the gamma ray luminosity allows a jet fraction at most $`10^2\gamma _0^{4/3}`$, just barely consistent with the observations even for $`\gamma _01`$. Here $`\gamma _0`$ is the Lorentz factor at the base of the flow. In the following sections, we show that the jet luminosity scales relative to the total as $`(\gamma _0\sigma _{eq})^{4/3}`$, where $`\sigma _{eq}`$ is the ratio of Poynting flux to particle kinetic energy output at the equator at the base of the flow. We note in the discussion section the implications of this for theories of the Crab pulsar.

## 2 Basic equations

We first review the basic theory of relativistic, magnetized winds. At large distances (in fact beyond the fast magnetosonic point) one can consider the flow as a purely poloidal ($`v_\phi =0`$) flow in a purely toroidal magnetic field (cf. Li 1996). Indeed conservation of the angular momentum implies that the azimuthal velocity goes to zero with radius while the contribution of the poloidal field to the force balance becomes eventually negligible because the poloidal field falls off faster than the toroidal one. In ultrarelativistic flows, hoop stress and electrical force nearly cancel each other so that the poloidal field pressure, while much less than either term in magnitude, is negligible only far enough from the light cylinder to be smaller than their difference. However, this distance still lies well within the termination shock, and the logarithm of the ratio between the two will be shown to play a role. The momentum conservation equation is given by

$$\rho (\gamma 𝐯)\gamma 𝐯=\rho _e𝐄+𝐣\times 𝐁,$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\rho `$ is the proper mass density, $`𝐯`$ the plasma velocity, $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ are the electric and magnetic field strengths, correspondingly and $`\rho _e`$ and $`𝐣`$ are the charge and current densities, correspondingly. Under the above assumptions one can write

$$𝐯=v𝐥;𝐁=B𝐞_\phi ;𝐄=𝐯\times 𝐁=vB𝐭;$$
$`(2)`$
where $`𝐥`$ is the longitudinal unit vector along the magnetic surface, $`e_\phi `$ is the azimuthal unit vector and $`𝐭=𝐥\times 𝐞_\phi `$ is the unit vector in the transverse direction. Ee take the speed of light to be unity. With the Maxwell equations, we can present the current and charge densities in the form

$$4\pi 𝐣=\times 𝐁=\frac{1}{r}(rB)\times 𝐞_\phi ;$$
$`(3)`$
$$4\pi \rho _e=[𝐁\times 𝐯]=\frac{v}{r}𝐭(rB)B𝐭vvB(𝐞_\phi [\times 𝐥]),$$

where $`r`$ is the cylindrical radius.

The cross-field equation may be obtained by taking the dot product of Eq.(1) with $`𝐭`$ and using the above expressions for $`\rho _e`$ and $`j`$. After simple algebra, we obtain

$$\rho (\gamma ^21)𝐭(𝐥)𝐥=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left\{v^2B^2(𝐞_\phi [\times 𝐥])\frac{B}{r\gamma }𝐭\frac{rB}{\gamma }\right\},$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\gamma =(1v^2)^{1/2}`$ is the flow Lorentz factor. Taking into account the definition of the curvature radius of the flux line

$$\frac{1}{R_c}𝐭(𝐥)𝐥=𝐭[𝐥\times [\times 𝐥]]=𝐞_\phi [\times 𝐥],$$

one can write finally

$$\frac{\gamma ^21}{R_c}\left(1+\frac{1}{\sigma }\right)=𝐭(\mathrm{ln}\frac{rB}{\gamma }),$$
$`(5)`$
where the ratio of the Poynting flux to the kinetic energy flux is

$$\sigma =\frac{EB}{4\pi \rho v\gamma ^2}=\frac{B^2}{4\pi \rho \gamma ^2}.$$
$`(6)`$
One can see from Eq.(5) that in an ultrarelativistic wind, $`\gamma 1`$, the flow lines are nearly straight and collimation is possible, if possible at all, only near the axis (Tomimatsu 1994, Chiueh et al. 1998, Bogovalov 2001).

The Lorentz factor of the flow should be determined from the energy conservation along the flux tube. This equation may be obtained by taking the dot product of the momentum equation (1) with the longitudinal vector $`𝐥`$. However one can instead simply write down the energy flux per unit poloidal flux

$$\frac{\rho \gamma ^2v+\frac{EB}{4\pi }}{B_p}=\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡}.$$

Taking into account conservation of the mass flow within the field line tube, we define a quantity $`\eta (\mathrm{\Psi })`$ that is conserved along each surface $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by

$$\rho v\gamma \eta (\mathrm{\Psi })B_p.$$
$`(7)`$
Making use of this equation and the relation

$$E=r\mathrm{\Omega }B_p,$$
$`(8)`$
one can write the energy equation as

$$\gamma +\frac{r^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2B_p}{4\pi \eta (\mathrm{\Psi })v}\mu (\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
$`(9)`$
Here the poloidal flux function is defined from the poloidal field strength by

$$𝐁_p=\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{\Psi }\times 𝐞_\phi .$$

It follows from Eq.(9) that plasma accelerates if $`r|\mathrm{\Psi }|`$ decreases (Begelman & Li 1994). In both radial flows and cylindrical ones the Lorentz factor remains constant. (Note that in the case of interest one need not introduce the poloidal field at all but instead define $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as a stream function (cf. Contopoulos 1995). We retained the standard definitions to provide a simple comparison with the previous works.)

The asymptotic transfield and energy equations were found by expanding the full set of MHD equations in $`1/r`$ by Begelman & Li (1994), Tomimatsu (1994), Bogovalov (1997, 2001), Chiueh et al (1998), Bogovalov & Tsinganos (1999). One can show that their equations are equivalent to Eqs.(5, 9). Examining the neglected terms one can see that these equations are valid at $`r\gamma R_L`$ where $`R_L=c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the light cylinder radius and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the angular velocity of the pulsar. This condition arises because the neglected poloidal field stress $`(B_p^2(r/R_L)^4`$) should be compared in the relativistic case not with the hoop stress ($`B_\phi ^2(r/R_L)^2`$) but with $`B_\phi ^2E^2=B_\phi ^2/\gamma ^2`$. This condition is equivalent to the condition $`RR_f`$, where $`R_f`$ is the radius of the fast magnetosonic point (Beskin et al. 1998).

## 3 The flow near the axis

Close enough to the axis, a jet may be formed if flow lines turn through even a small angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \theta `$. Let us consider the flow near the axis. To specify the conserving fluxes one should know the flow structure in the near zone. Note that at distances exceeding $`R_L`$ the flow fills all the space and plasma density and other parameters vary at the angular scale $`\theta 1`$. One can naturally assume that close enough to the axis, $`\theta 1`$, both plasma density and the initial Lorentz factor are close to the values at the axis. Therefore we can take as a good approximation $`\eta (\mathrm{\Psi })=\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡}`$ and $`\gamma _0=\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡}`$. The flow lines of the pulsar wind are practically straight inside the fast magnetosonic point (but outside the light cylinder) and the flow is nearly quasiradial in this region. An example of such a flow is provided by the well-known split monopole solution (Michel 1973)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{eq}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_{eq}\theta ^2,B_\phi =\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{eq}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta }{cR},𝐄=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
$`(10)`$
Here $`R`$ and $`\theta `$ are spherical radius and polar angle, correspondingly, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{eq}`$ is the total (equatorial) poloidal flux. This solution is valid within the fast magnetosonic point. Taking into account that $`\mathrm{\Psi }\theta ^2`$ at $`\theta 1`$ in any quasiradial flow, one can describe any such a flow near the axis by an equivalent split monopole solution. Note that even in flows that are eventually collimated (e.g., Eichler 1993) the outflows well within the collimation scale reduce to (10), which represents the precollimated state.

The energy integral $`\mu `$ should in principle be determined by the conditions at the fast magnetosonic point. Careful considerations show that deviations from quasiradial propagation remain small at this point in high $`\sigma `$ flows (Begelman & Li 1994, Tomimatsu 1994, Beskin et al 1998). Though these deviations are crusial for determining the position of this point, one can safely neglect them in the angular distribution of the parameters. Substituting equation (10) into equation (9), one gets

$$\mu =\gamma _0+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{eq}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{4\pi \eta v_0}.$$

Expressing back $`\theta `$ via $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, we find the approximate energy integral as

$$\mu (\mathrm{\Psi })=\gamma _0\left\{1+\sigma _{eq}\left(2\mathrm{\Psi }/\mathrm{\Psi }_{eq}(\mathrm{\Psi }/\mathrm{\Psi }_{eq})^2\right)\right\}\gamma _0\left(1+2\sigma _{eq}\mathrm{\Psi }/\mathrm{\Psi }_{eq}\right),$$
$`(11)`$
where $`\sigma _{eq}`$ is the ratio of the Poynting to the matter energy flux at the equator. Because we are only interested in the flow near the axis, the ”equatorial” values should be considered not as true values at the equator of the flow but as values at the equator of the split monopole flow that coincides close to the axis with the flow of interest.

From here on we will use the small angle approximation $`\psi \mathrm{\Psi }/\mathrm{\Psi }_{eq}1`$, $`rz`$ etc. We will consider the flow as ultrarelativistic, $`\gamma 1`$, because a Poynting dominated flow beyond the fast magnetosonic point is necessarily ultrarelativistic. Note that Poynting flux decreases toward the axis, the initial ratio of the Poynting flux to the kinetic energy flux being

$$\sigma _0=2\sigma _{eq}\psi .$$
$`(12)`$
Thus, close enough to the axis, $`\psi <(2\sigma _{eq})^1`$, the flow is matter dominated. This part of the flow is collimated already at the distance $`RR_f`$ (Bogovalov 2001). We are interested in collimation of a wider flux tube where the flow is Poynting dominated.

Note that decreasing of the Poynting flux toward the axis may be understood from a rather simple consideration that demonstrates that this feature is quite general and not a specific feature of Michel’s solution. It follows immediately from equation (8) that the electric field decreases toward the axis. The toroidal magnetic field $`B_\phi r^1jr𝑑r`$ also decreases unless the current density $`j`$ is singular at the axis. Therefore the Poynting flux $`EB_\phi /4\pi `$ decreases toward the axis. Our expression (11) for $`\mu (\psi )`$ may be considered simply as expansion of general energy flux in small $`\psi `$.

The shape of the flux surfaces is conveniently described in cylindrical coordinates by the function $`r(\psi ,z)`$ instead of $`\psi (r,z)`$. Then, e.g.,

$$B_p=\frac{1}{r}|\psi |\frac{1}{r}\frac{\psi }{r}=\left(r\frac{r}{\psi }\right)^1.$$

In the small angle approximation the curvature radius may be presented as

$$R_c=\left(\frac{^2r}{z^2}\right)^1.$$

It follows immediately from Eqs (6, 8) that $`\sigma rB/\gamma `$ when $`\eta (\psi )=\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡}`$. Transforming derivatives to independent variables $`r`$ and $`\psi `$, one can write Eq.(5) as

$$\gamma ^2\frac{r}{\psi }\frac{^2r}{z^2}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+\sigma )}{\psi }.$$
$`(13)`$
The energy equation (9) is now written, with the aid of Eq.(11), as

$$\gamma +\frac{\sigma _{eq}\gamma _0}{v}r|\psi |=\gamma _0(1+2\sigma _{eq}\psi ).$$

Taking into account that $`\gamma ^3\gamma _0\sigma _0`$ beyond the fast magnetosonic point (see, e.g., Beskin et al. 1998), one can substitute $`v=1`$ into the denominator of the second term in the left-hand side of this equation and write finally

$$\gamma =\gamma _0\left[1+\sigma _{eq}\left(2\psi r\left(\frac{r}{\psi }\right)^1\right)\right].$$
$`(14)`$
The system of equations is completed by the expression for $`\sigma `$ (see Eqs.(6, 7, 12)):

$$\sigma =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2r^2B_p}{4\pi \eta \gamma }=\sigma _{eq}r|\psi |\frac{\gamma _0}{\gamma }=\sigma _{eq}r\frac{\gamma _0}{\gamma }\left(\frac{r}{\psi }\right)^1.$$
$`(15)`$
## 4 Collimation of the flow

Bogovalov (2001) very recently showed numerically that in the case of $`\gamma _0^2\sigma _{eq}`$ the flow within the tube $`\psi <(2\sigma _{eq})^1`$ is collimated into a cylindrical jet at the distance of the order of the radius of the fast magnetosonic point. One can see that within this flux tube $`\sigma _01`$ and the fraction of the energy carried by the jet is only $`\sigma _{eq}^2`$. This is insufficient to explain the observed jet in the Crab nebula. Here we consider whether a larger fraction of the poloidal flux (and, correspondingly, of the total energy) may collimate at larger radii.

The initial radial flow (10) may be presented near the axis as $`r=\sqrt{2\psi }z`$. Let us look for small deviations from this radial flow,

$$r=\sqrt{2\psi }z(1y);y(\psi ,z)1.$$

The approximate collimation condition will be defined as follows. We shall solve the equations retaining only terms of the lowest order in $`y`$ and if we find $`y1`$ for some poloidal field line, we conclude that this line collimates.

### 4.1 The case $`\psi <(2\sigma _{eq})^1`$

It follows from Eq.(11) that under the condition $`\psi <(2\sigma _{eq})^1`$ the flow is matter dominated. One can approximate this case by assuming $`\sigma 1`$, which is formally correct for $`\psi (2\sigma _{eq})^1`$. In this case the flow evidently does not accelerate, $`\gamma \gamma _0`$, and $`\sigma `$ varies insignificantly, $`\sigma \sigma _0`$, as long as deviation of the flow from the purely radial one is small, $`y1`$. Linearizing Eq.(13), one gets with the aid of Eq.(12)

$$z\gamma _0^2\frac{^2(zy)}{z^2}=2\sigma _{eq}.$$

The solution to this equation is

$$y=\frac{2\sigma _{eq}}{\gamma _0^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{z}{R_f}.$$

The initial point was chosen to be $`R_f`$ because the equations are valid only at $`zR_f`$ and there is no collimation at $`zR_f`$ (Begelman & Li 1994). One can see that if

$$2\sigma _{eq}<\frac{\gamma _0^2}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{R}{R_f}},$$
$`(16)`$
where $`R`$ is the radius of the termination shock, the flow is not collimated at all. If the reverse is true, i.e. if

$$2\sigma _{eq}>\frac{\gamma _0^2}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{R}{R_f}},$$
$`(17)`$
the flow collimates at $`\psi <(2\sigma _{eq})^1`$. At $`2\sigma _{eq}\gamma _0^2`$ the flow tube $`\psi <(2\sigma _{eq})^1`$ collimates already at $`zR_f`$, which agrees with the results by Bogovalov (2001). At the condition (17) more flow than this may collimate but as will be seen below, such additional collimation invariably introduces acceleration, thus invalidating the approximation of the constant $`\gamma `$.

### 4.2 The case $`\psi >(2\sigma _{eq})^1`$, no acceleration

In this region we can take $`\sigma 1`$. Let us first assume that the flow is not accelerated significantly and show that this implies no further collimation. Substituting $`\gamma =\gamma _0`$ and $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ into Eq.(13) and linearizing it, one gets

$$z\psi \frac{^2(zy)}{z^2}=\frac{1}{\gamma _0^2}.$$
$`(18)`$
The solution to this equation is

$$y=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{z}{R_f}}{\gamma _0^2\psi }.$$
$`(19)`$
Because in the region of interest $`\sigma _01`$ even a small deviation from the radial flow may result in significant growth of $`\gamma `$. The linearized energy equation (14) reads

$$\gamma =\gamma _0\left(14\sigma _{eq}\psi ^2\frac{y}{\psi }\right).$$
$`(20)`$
Our approximation $`\gamma \gamma _0`$ is valid as long as the second term in the brackets remains small as compared with unity. Substituting the solution (19), one can see that our assumption of constant $`\gamma `$ is already violated at $`RR_f`$ if $`4\sigma _{eq}\gamma _0^2`$; this case will be considered in the next subsection. By Eq.(20) the solution (19) is valid at

$$4\frac{\sigma _{eq}}{\gamma _0^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{z}{R_f}<1.$$
$`(21)`$
If it is valid until the termination shock, $`y`$ remains less than unity for any $`\psi >(2\sigma _{eq})^1`$, so we come back to condition (16). If the reverse is true, the acceleration becomes significant at

$$z_0=R_f\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\gamma _0^2}{4\sigma _{eq}}\right)<R.$$
$`(22)`$
At this point $`y1`$. However, beyond this point collimation may ensue. So let us consider collimation in the accelerating flow.

### 4.3 The case $`\psi >(2\sigma _{eq})^1`$, accelerating flow

Now one can neglect the first term in Eq.(20) and, substituting the Lorentz factor so obtained into Eqs.(13, 15) and neglecting the higher order terms in $`y`$, one obtains

$$16\gamma _0^2\sigma _{eq}^2\psi ^5z\left(\frac{y}{\psi }\right)^3\frac{^2(zy)}{z^2}=\frac{y}{\psi }+\psi \frac{^2y}{\psi ^2}.$$
$`(23)`$
The solution to this equation with logarithmic accuracy (i.e. neglecting terms of $`[\mathrm{ln}(R/R_f)]^1`$) is

$$y=\frac{\left((3/2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{z}{R_0}\right)^{1/3}}{2\psi (\gamma _0\sigma _{eq})^{2/3}}.$$
$`(24)`$
Here $`R_0=R_f`$ if $`4\sigma _{eq}\gamma _0^2`$ and $`R_0=z_0`$ if $`\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{R}{R_f}\right)^1<4\sigma _{eq}/\gamma _0^2<1`$. The fraction of the collimated flux may be estimated from the condition $`y1`$ as

$$\psi _c=\frac{\left((3/2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^{1/3}}{2(\gamma _0\sigma _{eq})^{2/3}}.$$
$`(25)`$
### 4.4 Energy considerations

Substitution of Eq.(24) into Eq.(20) yields

$$\gamma =2\left(\frac{3}{2}\gamma _0\sigma _{eq}\mathrm{ln}\frac{z}{R_0}\right)^{1/3},$$
$`(26)`$
which is consistent with the results by Tomimatsu (1994) and Beskin et al. (1998). In principle, the flow may accelerate up to the Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{max}(\psi )=\gamma _0\sigma _0=2\gamma _0\sigma _{eq}\psi `$. At the collimation point defined from Eq.(24) as a point where $`y1`$, one obtains $`\gamma \gamma _{max}(\psi )`$. So when a flux line turns through an angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \theta `$, a significant fraction of the Poynting flux is transferred to the plasma and there should be $`\sigma 1`$ in the collimated part of the flow. The collimation (and acceleration) process has enough time to be nearly completed only within the small fraction (25) of the poloidal flux. Outside this flux tube the flow slowly accelerates according to Eq.(26). However, when the flow enters the termination shock, most of the energy still remains in the form of Poynting flux.

Because Poynting flux decreases toward the axis of the flow, the fraction of the energy carried by the jet is small. Integrating the energy flux (11), one gets $`\dot{E}_{jet}/\dot{E}_{tot}=1.5\psi _c^2`$. So the jet carries the fraction of the total energy

$$\frac{\dot{E}_{jet}}{\dot{E}_{tot}}=\frac{3\left((3/2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^{2/3}}{8(\gamma _0\sigma _{eq})^{4/3}}.$$
$`(27)`$
## 5 Discussion

The fraction of the collimated flux is determined by the parameter $`\gamma _{max}=\gamma _0\sigma _{eq}`$, which is Michel’s (1969) magnetization parameter. This parameter is determined by the amount of plasma emitted by the pulsar. The density of the plasma generated within the pulsar magnetosphere is conveniently normalized by the Goldreich-Julian charge density:

$$n=\frac{\kappa \rho _{GJ}}{e}=\frac{\kappa B\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi ec},$$

where $`B`$ is the magnetic field in the magnetosphere, $`\kappa `$ the multiplicity factor. Within the light cylinder the field is nearly dipolar, $`B=\mu /R^3`$, where $`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment of the star, and conservation of the mass flux implies $`nB`$. Beyond the light cylinder $`n1/R^2`$. The Poynting flux in the pulsar wind may be expressed via the magnetic field at the light cylinder, $`B_L=\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^3/c^3`$, as

$$W=\frac{cB_L^2}{4\pi }\left(\frac{R_L}{R}\right)^2.$$

Now one can estimate the magnetization parameter as

$$\gamma _{max}=\frac{W}{mnc^3}=\frac{eB_L}{2mc\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}=1.3\times 10^3\frac{\mu _{30}}{\kappa _4P^2},$$
$`(28)`$
where $`\mu =10^{30}\mu _{30}`$ G$``$cm<sup>3</sup>, $`\kappa =10^4\kappa _4`$ and $`P`$ is in seconds. For the Crab pulsar, where $`P=0.033`$ s and $`\mu _{30}=5`$, we have

$$\gamma _{max}=\frac{610^6}{\kappa _4}.$$
$`(29)`$
From the observed amount of radio emitting electrons (those with the energy $`>100`$MeV) one can get an upper limit for the injection rate of these electrons about $`10^{41}`$ s<sup>-1</sup>, which corresponds to $`\kappa 310^6`$. If the pulsar ejects a larger amount of pairs, their energy in the nebula should be less than $`100`$ MeV.

The standard models of plasma production in pulsars (see, e.g., the review by Arons 1983) typically predict $`\kappa 10^310^4`$ and $`\gamma _0100`$. Different modifications were proposed to explain the observed powerful gamma radiation (Cheng, Ho & Ruderman 1986, Usov & Melrose 1996, Lyubarskii 1996); these models predict significantly larger plasma production. However, we are not aware of models predicting $`\kappa >\mathrm{few}\times 10^6`$. If protons are also emitted by the pulsar, the corresponding magnetization parameter is reduced by a factor $`m/m_p`$. However theoretical arguments (Arons 1983) favor $`\kappa _p1`$.

It is very difficult to place limits on the wind parameters directly from observations. Limitations found by Wilson & Rees (1978) who studied induced scattering of the radio emission in the pulsar wind were obtained on the assumption that the cyclotron frequency near the light cylinder is less than the radiation frequency. However the reverse is true in the case of the Crab pulsar (Barnard 1986, Lyubarskii & Petrova 1996). The scattering rate in the magnetized plasma is small if the pulsar radiates only waves polarized perpendicularly to the local magnetic field (Blandford & Scharlemann 1976, Lyubarskii & Petrova 1996). In this case the scattering begins only beyond the polarization limiting radius, which lies, in the Crab case, well outside the light cylinder.

Because pairs are produced by gamma radiation, one can reasonably conclude that the pair luminosity does not exceed the gamma luminosity. This places the limit $`\sigma _{eq}>100`$. One can see from Eq.(27) that $`\dot{E}_{jet}/\dot{E}_{tot}10^2`$ even at $`\sigma _{eq}=100`$ and $`\gamma _0=1`$.

Although the fraction of total luminosity that emanates from the jet is not yet published, and in any case is not quite the same as the fraction of mechanical output that emerges in the jet, visual inspection seems to imply that $`10^2`$ is a conservative guess. The implication that $`\sigma _{eq}`$ is at most $`10^2`$ and $`\gamma _01`$ runs counter to conventional pulsar wisdom. Probably observed constraints on relativistic beaming will provide an even sharper constraint on $`\sigma _{eq}`$ and $`\gamma _0`$, making the observed jet even more confusing for conventional pulsar theory. However, since existing theory for pulsar magnetospheres is not rigorous, perhaps it needs to be reexamined. The jet may be formed via hoop stress collimation of the the pulsar wind only if the wind is much more mass-loaded than previously believed. The alternative possibility, that the jet is formed already near or within the pulsar magnetosphere, $`RR_L`$, also requires serious modifications to the conventional picture of the pulsar magnetosphere.

We thank the Israeli Science Foundation and the Arnow Chair of Physics for their generous support.


text:
# The inclusive 𝑏→𝑠𝛾 decay in the noncommutative standard model

## 1 Introduction

It is believed that the nature of the space-time changes at very short distances of the order of the Planck length. The noncommutativity approach in the space-time is a possible candidate to describe the physics at the Planck scale. The noncommutative (NC) structure into space-time can be introduced by taking NC coordinates $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ which satisfy the equation

$`[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{x}_\nu ]=i\theta _{\mu \nu },`$ (1)
where $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is a real and antisymmetric tensor with the dimensions of length-squared. Here $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ can be treated as a background field relative to which directions in space-time is distinguished.

The noncommutative field theory is equivalent to the ordinary one except that the usual product is replaced by the $``$ product

$`(fg)(x)=e^{i\theta _{\mu \nu }_\mu ^y_\nu ^z}f(y)g(z)|_{y=z=x}.`$ (2)
The commutation of the Hermitian operators $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ (see eq. (1)) holds with this new product, namely,

$`[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{x}_\nu ]_{}=i\theta _{\mu \nu }.`$ (3)
The quantum field theory over noncommutative spaces  has been reached a great interest in recent years with the re-motivation due to the string theory arguments . Noncommutative field theories (NCFTs) are difficult to handle since they have non-local structure and the Lorentz symmetry is explicitly violated . The violation of the Lorentz symmetry is due to the constants $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ in eq. (1). Since $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is antisymmetric, the vectors $`\theta _i=ϵ_{ijk}\theta ^{jk}`$ and $`\theta _{0i}`$ are constant three-vectors in preferred directions in a given Lorentz frame.

NCFTs have been studied extensively in the literature. There has been a lot of work done on the renormalizability of NCFT’s . The unitarity in noncommutative theories and the unitarity properties of spontaneously broken noncommutative gauge theories have been discussed in  and  respectively. Bounding noncommutative QCD due to the Lorentz violation has been studied in  and it was concluded that the collider limits were not competitive with low energy tests of Lorentz violation for bounding the scale of space-time noncommutativity. Furthermore, noncommutativity among extra dimensions for QED have been examined in . The noncommutative quantum electrodynamics (NCQED) have been studied in  and the explicit calculation of electric dipole effects and anomalous magnetic moments have been done in . In the case of non-abelian case, the field theory is formulated on noncommutative spaces as theories on commutative spaces, by expressing the noncommutativity using the $``$ product as in eq.(2) . The method proposed in  has been applied to the full Standard Model (SM) in  and recently a unique model for strong and electroweak interactions with their unification has been constructed in . In a recent work , the SM forbidden $`Z\gamma \gamma `$ and $`Zgg`$ decays in the NCSM has been studied.

In our work, we study the possible structures appearing for the process $`bs\gamma ^{}`$ in the NCSM up to the first order in $`\theta `$, using the consistent formalism of NCSM . Here the additional vertices of quarks with the scalar particles (in our case the scalar particle is the unphysical Higgs boson $`\varphi ^\pm `$) is proportional to the parameter $`\theta _{\mu \nu }p^\mu q^\nu `$ where $`p`$ ($`q`$) is quark $`(\varphi ^\pm )`$ four momentum vector. However, for the vertices of quarks with the vector particles, here W boson or photon with four momentum $`q`$, there exist new factors $`\theta _{\alpha \mu }p^\alpha /q`$ and $`\theta _{\alpha \mu }q^\alpha /p`$ in addition to $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }p^\alpha q^\beta \gamma _\mu `$. The similar behavior appears for $`\varphi \varphi \gamma `$ and $`WW\gamma `$ vertices. Furthermore there are quark-quark-$`\varphi \gamma `$ and quark-quark-$`W\gamma `$ four point interactions which do not exist in the commutative SM. Therefore new structures appear, in addition to the ones which are based on the assumption that NC effects enters in to the expressions as an exponential factor $`e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }p^\mu q^\nu }`$, which is consistent in approximate phenomenology (see  and references therein).

## 2 The noncommutative effects on the $`bs\gamma ^{}`$ decay

The inclusive $`bs\gamma ^{}`$ process appears at least in the loop level (see Fig. 1 and 2). Now, we present the possible structures appearing for this process in the NCSM up to the first order in $`\theta `$:

$`Q_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}(k_\mu /kk^2\gamma _\mu )Lb,`$
$`Q_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{8\pi ^2}}m_b\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }k^\nu Rb,`$
$`Q_3`$ $`=`$ $`m_b\overline{s}\stackrel{~}{k}_\mu Rb,`$
$`Q_4`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}(k_\mu /\stackrel{~}{k}k^2\theta _{\nu \mu }\gamma _\nu )Lb,`$
$`Q_5`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{s}(\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu /k\stackrel{~}{p}.k\gamma _\mu )Lb,`$
$`Q_6`$ $`=`$ $`m_b\overline{s}(k_\mu \stackrel{~}{p}.kk^2\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu )Rb,`$
$`Q_7`$ $`=`$ $`m_b\overline{s}(\theta _{\nu \mu }\gamma _\nu /k/\stackrel{~}{k}\gamma _\mu )Rb,`$
$`Q_8`$ $`=`$ $`m_b\overline{s}(k_\mu /k/\stackrel{~}{k}k^2\gamma _\mu /\stackrel{~}{k})Rb,`$
$`Q_9`$ $`=`$ $`m_b\overline{s}(k_\mu /k/\stackrel{~}{p}k^2\gamma _\mu /\stackrel{~}{p})Rb,`$
$`Q_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \theta }k_\beta \stackrel{~}{k}_\alpha \overline{s}\gamma _\theta Lb,`$
$`Q_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \theta }k_\beta \stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha \overline{s}\gamma _\theta Lb,`$
$`Q_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(k^2ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \sigma }k_\mu k_\theta ϵ_{\theta \alpha \beta \sigma })\theta _{\beta \sigma }\overline{s}\gamma _\alpha Lb,`$
$`Q_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`m_bk_\theta ϵ_{\mu \theta \beta \sigma }\theta _{\beta \sigma }\overline{s}Rb`$ (4)
where $`L(R)=\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}(\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2})`$, $`p`$ ($`k`$) is the four momentum vector of $`b`$ quark (photon $`\gamma ^{}`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_\mu =\theta _{\mu \nu }q^\nu `$. Here the first two structures exist in the commutative SM (CSM) and the others are due to the noncommutative effects. Notice that in the structures the $`s`$ quark mass is neglected. For the real photon case, namely the $`bs\gamma `$ decay, the structures $`Q_2`$, $`Q_3`$, $`Q_5`$, $`Q_7`$, $`Q_{10}`$, $`Q_{11}`$ and $`Q_{13}`$ appear and the decay width for this process in the $`b`$-quark rest frame reads as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CSM}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{New}`$ (5)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CSM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha _{em}m_b^5}{32\pi ^4}}|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_2(x_i)|^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{new}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha _{em}m_b^3}{16\pi ^4}}(ϵ_{\nu \alpha \beta \sigma }k_\nu p_\alpha \theta _{\beta \sigma }Re[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_2^{}(x_i){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_7(x_i)](Im[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_2(x_i){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_5^{}(x_i)]`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`2Im[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_2(x_i){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_7^{}(x_i)]+Re[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_2^{}(x_i){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_{11}(x_i)])p.\stackrel{~}{k},`$
with $`i=u,c,t`$ and $`x_i=\frac{m_i^2}{m_W^2}`$. Here $`A_j(x_i)=V_{ib}V_{is}^{}C_j^{NC}(x_i)`$ and $`C_j^{NC}(x_i)`$ are the coefficients corresponding to the existing structures. The coefficient $`C_2^{NC}(x_i)`$ is the well known Wilson coefficient $`C_7(x_i)`$.

It is obvious that the main contribution to the decay width comes from the CSM since the new part due to the NCSM is proportional to the extremely small parameter $`\theta `$. This new part is responsible for time-space and space-space noncommutativity. With the definitions $`(\theta _T)_i=\theta _{0i}`$ and $`(\theta _S)_i=ϵ_{ijk}\theta ^{jk}`$, $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$, in the $`b`$-quark rest frame, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{New}`$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{new}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\alpha _{em}m_b^3}{16\pi ^4}}(Re[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_2^{}(x_i){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_7(x_i)]\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{\theta _S}(Im[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_2(x_i){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_5^{}(x_i)]`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`2Im[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_2(x_i){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_7^{}(x_i)]+Re[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_2^{}(x_i){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_{11}(x_i)])\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{\theta _T}.`$
This expression shows that the space-space noncommutativity is carried by the coefficients $`C_2^{NC}(x_i)`$ and $`C_7^{NC}(x_i)`$. In the case of real coefficients $`C_{5,7,11}^{NC}(x_i)`$, $`C_2^{NC}(x_i)`$ and $`C_{11}^{NC}(x_i)`$ play the main role for the time-space noncommutativity, since the imaginary parts of $`A_j(x_i)`$ are coming from the CKM matrix elements, which are extremely small.

In conclusion, the NC part of the decay width of the process under consideration is not easy to detect using present and even future sensibly arranged experiments. However, it brings a new source for the CP violating effects in addition to the complex CKM matrix elements in the SM, $`V_{ub}`$ in our case. With the consistent calculations of the coefficents of this process and the precise experimental results of CP violating asymmetry, it would be possible to test the noncommutative effects and to predict the noncommutative direction $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_S`$, if the the matrix $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ has constant components across the distances that are large compared with the NC scale.

## 3 Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA/GEBIP).


text:
# New Observational Bounds to Quantum Gravity Signals

## Acknowledgments

D.S. would like to acknowledge partial support from DGAPA–UNAM Project No IN 112401 and CONACYT project 32272-E. L.U acknowledges partial support from DGAPA–UNAM Project No IN-117000 and CONACYT project 32431-E. We thank J. Hirsch for useful conversations and R. Lehnert for pointing out some problems in an earlier version, together with relevant suggestions.


text:
# Vector Condensation at Large Chemical Potential

## 1 Introduction

There has been much interest recently in the phase structure of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and QCD–like theories. An overview has been given at this workshop . Here the phase diagram not only depends on temperature and density, but also on the number of flavors $`N_f`$, and colors $`N_c`$. Most of our knowledge on the QCD phase diagram at finite temperature derives from lattice simulations . Lattice studies of the high density, low temperature region are however seriously obstructed by a complex fermion determinant . No such difficulties exist for $`N_c=2`$, and hence predictions for two–color QCD can be compared with numerical solutions from the lattice. Such a theory with $`N_f`$ flavors has a global $`SU(2N_f)`$ symmetry. There are color–singlet diquark states which play the role of baryons. Interestingly, it has been predicted that at sufficiently high baryon chemical potential, spin-1 diquark states will condense. Indeed there appears to be preliminary evidence for this phenomenon from lattice calculations . With this physical application in mind we shall study a vector field transforming in the adjoint representation of a global $`SU(2)`$ group . The chemical potential is chosen along one of the generator’s direction (the “baryon charge” operator), and breaks the global symmetry explicitly to $`U(1)\times Z_2`$. Apparently condensation of a vector field singles out a direction in space, the rotational $`SO(3)`$–invariance is spontaneously broken to an $`SO(2)`$ subgroup.

Introduction of a chemical potential explicitly breaks the Lorentz invariance, and in such a situation the relation between broken symmetries and Goldstone modes (gapless excitations) is of special interest. Here the particle–physics textbook folklore that every broken generator corresponds to a Goldstone boson does not apply. Instead, following Nielsen and Chadha, one should properly distinguish between two types of Goldstone modes, depending on whether in the long–wavelength limit their energy varies with an odd (type I) or even (type II) power of momentum. The following inequality holds:

$$N_{bg}N_I+2N_{II},$$
(1)
between the numbers of broken generators $`N_{bg}`$, and type I/II Goldstone modes $`N_{I/II}`$ . In order to elucidate these aspects in case of the vector condensation, we proceed with constructing the simplest effective Lagrangian for a vector field.

## 2 A lagrangian model for vector condensation

We introduce a vector field $`A_\nu ^a,a=1,2,3`$ of mass $`m`$ transforming under the adjoint representation of a global $`SU(2)`$ symmetry. The Lagrangian, endowed with a potential of fourth order in the field, reads:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}A_\mu ^aA^{a\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\left(A_\mu ^aA^{a\mu }\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{4}}\left(A_\mu ^aA^{a\nu }\right)^2,`$ (2)
with $`F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a`$, and metric convention $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(+,,,)`$. Here we confine ourselves to positive $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$. Stability of the potential furthermore demands $`\lambda >\lambda ^{}`$. The effect of a nonzero chemical potential associated to a given conserved charge - related to the generator $`B=T_3`$ \- can be readily included  by modifying the derivatives acting on the vector fields:

$$_\nu A_\rho _\nu A_\rho i[B_\nu ,A_\rho ],$$
(3)
with $`B_\nu =\mu \delta _{\nu 0}BV_\nu B`$ where $`V=(\mu ,\stackrel{}{0})`$. The chemical potential thus resembles an external field in temporal direction. The kinetic term can then be cast in the form

$`_{kinetic}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_\rho ^a𝒦_{ab}^{\rho \nu }A_\nu ^b`$ (4)
with

$`𝒦_{ab}^{\rho \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ab}\left[g^{\rho \nu }^2^\rho ^\nu \right]4i\gamma _{ab}\left[g^{\rho \nu }V{\displaystyle \frac{V^\rho ^\nu +V^\nu ^\rho }{2}}\right]`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`2\chi _{ab}\left[VVg^{\rho \nu }V^\rho V^\nu \right],`$
where

$$\gamma _{ab}=\mathrm{Tr}\left[T^a[B,T^b]\right],\chi _{ab}=\mathrm{Tr}\left[[B,T^a][B,T^b]\right].$$
(6)
For $`B=T^3`$ we have

$$\gamma _{ab}=\frac{i}{2}ϵ^{ab3},\chi _{11}=\chi _{22}=\frac{1}{2},\chi _{33}=0.$$
(7)
The chemical potential induces a “magnetic-type” mass term for the vectors at tree-level. The symmetries of the potential are more easily understood using the following Euclidean notation:

$$\phi _M^a=(A_M^1,A_M^2),\psi _M=A_M^3,$$
(8)
with $`A_M=(iA_0,\stackrel{}{A})`$ and metric signature ($`+,+,+,+`$). In these variables the potential reads:

$`V_{Vector}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\left[|\stackrel{}{\phi }_0|^2+\psi _M^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\mu ^2}{2}}|\stackrel{}{\phi }_I|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\left[|\stackrel{}{\phi }_M|^2+\psi _M^2\right]^2`$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{4}}\left[\stackrel{}{\phi }_M\stackrel{}{\phi }_N+\psi _M\psi _N\right]^2`$
with $`I=X,Y,Z`$ while $`M,N=0,X,Y,Z`$ and repeated indices are summed over. At zero chemical potential $`V_{Vector}`$ is invariant under the $`SO(4)`$ Lorentz transformations while only the $`SO(3)`$ symmetry is manifest at non zero $`\mu `$. As noted above, the chemical potential explicitly breaks the global $`SU(2)`$ symmetry to $`U(1)\times Z_2`$. Note that for the special parameter choice $`\lambda ^{}=0`$, the potential alone is invariant under an $`SO(6)`$ rotation group.

It is apparent, that due to the presence of the term proportional to $`(m^2\mu ^2)`$, we have to distinguish the cases $`\mu m`$ and $`\mu >m`$.

### 2.1 The Symmetric Phase: $`0<\mu m`$

Here the $`SO(4)`$ Lorentz and $`SU(2)`$ symmetries are explicitly broken to $`SO(3)`$ and $`U(1)`$ respectively by the chemical potential. All fields have a vanishing expectation value in the vacuum: $`<\stackrel{}{\phi }_M>=<\psi _M>=0`$. The curvatures of the potential on the vacuum (the masses) are:

$`M_{\phi _0^a}^2=M_{\psi _M}^2=m^2,M_{\phi _I^a}^2=m^2\mu ^2.`$ (10)
We obtain the dispersion relations by diagonalizing the 12 by 12 matrix $`𝒦`$ (5). This leads to 3 physical vectors (i.e. each of the following states has 3 components) with the dispersion relations:

$`E_\phi ^{}=\pm \mu +\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2+m^2},E_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2+m^2}.`$ (11)
We observe that for $`\mu m`$ the 3 physical components associated with $`E_{\phi ^+}`$ will become massless signaling an instability. Indeed, for higher values of the chemical potential larger than $`m`$ a vector condensation sets in.

### 2.2 The Spin-Flavor Broken Phase: $`\mu >m`$

In this phase at the global minimum of the potential we still have $`<\phi _0^a>=<\psi _M>=0`$. However there emerges a condensate:

$$<\phi _X^1>=\sqrt{\frac{\mu ^2m^2}{\lambda \lambda ^{}}}.$$
(12)
We have a manifold of equivalent vacua which are obtained rotating the chosen one under a $`Z_2\times U(1)\times SO(3)`$ transformation. The choice of the vacuum partially locks together the Lorentz group and the internal symmetry while leaving unbroken only the subgroup $`Z_2\times SO(2)`$. Two generators associated to the Lorentz rotations are now spontaneously broken together with the $`U(1)`$ generator.

To proceed with the calculation of the dispersion relation of the vector states in the broken phase we first have to evaluate the curvatures of the potential on the new vacuum. The explicit formulas can be found elsewhere . We find in general three states with null curvature. An exception occurs for the choice $`\lambda ^{}=0`$ in which case there are five zero curvature states. To explain this behavior we note that for $`\lambda ^{}=0`$ the potential possesses an enhanced $`SO(6)`$ global symmetry which breaks to $`SO(5)`$ when the vector field condenses. The associated five states would correspond to the ordinary Goldstone modes in the absence of an explicit Lorentz breaking. Now the symmetry breaking pattern of our theory is $`SO(3)\times U(1)\times Z_2SO(2)\times Z_2`$ and we find the three expected gapless excitations irrespective of the parameters of the potential.

In Fig.1 we show how the mass gaps evolve as a function of the chemical potential $`\mu `$. In the unbroken phase, for $`\mu m`$ all gaps are threefold degenerate and the splitting of the states of different baryon charge is clearly visible. For $`\mu >m`$ the modes with nonvanishing gap split further. The dashed lines are twofold degenerate ($`SO(2)`$–vectors) while the solid lines correspond to $`SO(2)`$ scalar states. There are three gapless modes, whose dispersion relations however show some subtleties.

### 2.3 Dispersion relations and Goldstone counting

The gapless states also fall into a doublet forming an $`SO(2)`$ vector and an $`SO(2)`$ singlet. Their dispersion relations at small momenta have the form

$`E_{\phi _V^+}^2=v_{\phi _V^+}^2\stackrel{}{p}^2+𝒪(p^4),E_{\phi _S^+}^2=v_{\phi _S^+}^2\stackrel{}{p}^2+𝒪(p^4),`$ (13)
where we introduced the “superfluid velocities” $`v_{\phi _V^+},v_{\phi _S^+}`$. One can easily show that these velocities can be expressed directly in terms of the curvatures in the directions orthogonal to the gapless modes as follows:

$$v_{\phi _V^{}}^2=\frac{M_{\phi _Y^2}^2}{M_{\phi _Y^2}^2+4\mu ^2},v_{\phi _S^{}}^2=\frac{M_{\phi _X^1}^2}{M_{\phi _X^1}^2+4\mu ^2}.$$
(14)
It now turns out, that always $`M_{\phi _X^1}^20`$. Therefore the scalar state will always have a linear dispersion relation $`Ep`$. Not so the $`SO(2)`$ vector states. In the case of enhanced potential symmetry $`SO(6)`$, the curvature $`M_{\phi _Y^2}^2`$ vanishes and with it the velocity $`v_{\phi _V^{}}^2`$. The dispersion relation hence becomes a quadratic one, $`Ep^2`$, the $`SO(2)`$ state turns into a type II Goldstone boson. We emphasize, that were Lorentz invariance unbroken, the curvatures $`M_i^2`$ would precisely be masses and there would be a Goldstone for each flat direction of the potential. Obviously the chemical potential prevents the emergence of extra Goldstone bosons in the case $`\lambda ^{}=0`$. Simply the full Lagrangian (kinetic plus potential terms) does not share the potential’s larger symmetry. Still, the additional flat directions of the potential have a physical effect: they are responsible for turning some of the Goldstones into type II modes. This appears to be a perfectly general phenomenon for the type of kinetic term that arises at finite chemical potential. Finally we count: for $`\lambda ^{}0`$ there are three broken generators and three type I Goldstones, hence $`N_{bg}=N_I`$, the standard situation. For $`\lambda ^{}=0`$ we have still three broken generators, but on the right hand side of the Nielsen–Chadha inequality (1) we count $`1\times `$ type I $`+2\times 2`$ type II $`=5`$. This is larger than the number of broken generators, which appears to be a novel observation. We note that five is precisely the number of broken generators of the potential symmetry group, which would correspond to the breaking pattern $`SO(6)SO(5)`$.

We finally point out that the choice of coupling constants discussed here gives rise to the “polar” phase with a real order parameter. In principle, an interaction with negative $`\lambda ^{}`$ might give rise to “ferromagnetic” type phases characterized by a complex order parameter and a different symmetry breaking pattern .

## 3 Where to find vector condensates – some examples

We already mentioned the condensation of vector fields in two–color QCD, which has been the main focus of our work. In three color QCD at high quark chemical potential the 2SC phase allows a spin-1 diquark condensate with albeit smaller gap than the spin-0 condensate. This case has been recently investigated . We also note that spin–1 condensation is expected to give rise to a rich phenomenology of vortices , which have been discussed in the context of atomic Bose–Einstein condensates.

In the color–flavor locked phase of color superconducting quark matter, the possiblilities of condensation of vector states in presence of a nonvanishing isospin chemical potential are as yet unexplored.

## Acknowledgments

The work of F.S. is supported by the Marie–Curie Fellowship under contract MCFI–2001–00181. W.S. has been supported in part by DAAD and NORDITA.


text:
# References

Disclaimer

> This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof of The Regents of the University of California and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.

It has been argued by Dine et al. and Choi et al.  that CP is a gauge symmetry in string theory and that explicit breaking is therefore forbidden both perturbatively and nonperturbatively. They have shown that this is certainly true for weakly coupled heterotic orbifolds, the principal topic of this note. Thus, we envision spontaneous CP violation through complex scalar vacuum expectation values (vevs).

Compactification Moduli.  One possible source is scalar fields corresponding to compactification moduli of the six-dimensional compact space. These are Kähler moduli (denoted with a “T”) and complex structure moduli (denoted with a “U”). Ibáñez and Lüst  have enumerated the possibilities for $`Z_N`$ and $`Z_M\times Z_N`$ orbifolds, based on the results of :

$`\text{case 1:}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`SL(2,Z)_T^3\times SL(2,Z)_U^n`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{ln}(T^I+\overline{T}^I){\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{ln}(U^I+\overline{U}^I)`$
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`0:Z_7,Z_8^{},\mathrm{}`$
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`1:Z_6,Z_8,\mathrm{}`$
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`3:Z_2\times Z_2`$ (1)
$`\text{case 2:}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`SL(2,Z)_T\times SL(2,2,Z)_T\times SL(2,Z)_U^n`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(T^1+\overline{T}^1)\mathrm{ln}det(T+\overline{T}){\displaystyle \underset{I=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{ln}(U^I+\overline{U}^I)`$ (2)
$`T\mathrm{is}2\times 2,n=0:Z_6^{},n=1:Z_4`$
$`\text{case 3:}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`SL(3,3,Z)_T:Z_3`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}det(T+\overline{T}),T\mathrm{is}3\times 3`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the target-space modular duality group. It can be seen that each case has 3 diagonal Kähler moduli $`(I=1,2,3)`$:

$$T^IT^{II}$$
(4)
which transform under an $`SL(2,Z)^3`$ subgroup of the duality group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$`T^I`$ $``$ $`T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{I}={\displaystyle \frac{a^IT^Iib^I}{ic^IT^I+d^I}},`$ (5)
$`a^Id^Ib^Ic^I=1,a^I,b^I,c^I,d^I𝐙`$
Enforcing this symmetry on the field theory limit leads to modular invariant supergravity. This symmetry constrains the stabilization of these moduli, and hence possible CP violating phases originating from $`\mathrm{arg}(T^I)`$ .

FI induced vevs.  Cancelation of the trace anomaly associated with an anomalous $`U(1)_X`$ by the GS mechanism  leads to an FI term  for the D-term of $`U(1)_X`$:

$$D_X=\underset{i}{}K_iq_i^X\varphi ^i+\xi ,\xi =\frac{g_H^2\text{tr}Q_X}{192\pi ^2}m_P^2$$
(6)
where $`g_H`$ is the unified coupling at the string scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$ and $`m_P=1/\sqrt{8\pi G}=2.44\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck mass. The fields $`\varphi ^i`$ which acquire nonvanishing vevs will be (following ) referred to as Xiggs fields in what follows.

In  it was shown that the presence of a $`U(1)_X`$ factor in the gauge group $`G`$ is generic for semi-realistic orbifold models. For the class of standard-like orbifolds studied there, only 7 of 175 models did not have a $`U(1)_X`$. In the semi-realistic free fermionic models  a $`U(1)_X`$ is also generic.

In , the scalar potential $`V`$ for SUGRA with a $`U(1)_X`$ was studied for vacuum configuations satyisfying $`V=V/\varphi ^i=0`$. Supersymmetry breaking was characterized by

$$|W|^2=|\delta |^2,K_{i\overline{j}}F^i\overline{F}^{\overline{j}}=\alpha e^K|\delta |^2$$
(7)
According to expectations, it was found that $`V=V/\varphi ^i=0`$ together with reasonable supersymmetry breaking scale requires

$$D_X|\delta |^2|\xi |$$
(8)
For canonical $`K=_i|\varphi ^i|^2`$ and $`\varphi ^i=v^i,`$

$`D_X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i^X|v_i|^2+\xi `$ (9)
$`q_i^X`$ $``$ $`1|v^i|\sqrt{|\xi |}`$ (10)
Research in progress  has shown that (8,10) hold in cases more complicated than those studied in .

Based on (10), in  the $`U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_X`$ was defined as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_X=\sqrt{|\xi |}$$
(11)
For the class of models studied there it was found that for the 168 of 175 cases where $`\xi 0`$,

$$\frac{g_H}{8.00}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_X}{m_P}\frac{g_H}{4.63}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_H}{m_P}$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_H0.216\times g_Hm_P`$ is the approximate string scale obtained in . With $`g_H1`$ we have that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_X0.1\times m_P`$ is a generic prediction.

The result of this is that nonrenormalizable operators should contribute significantly to the (effective) Yukawa couplings of the lighter quarks, since they are only down by $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_X/m_P)^n10^n,n>0`$. Given $`\lambda _{u,d}/\lambda _t10^5`$ after running to the high scale, it is difficult to believe that nonrenomalizable operators would not play a role, generically speaking. Operators with $`1n4`$ would typically be present. Models with flat directions where this is not the case may be able to be found; for example, the 7 of 175 without a $`U(1)_X`$ found in . However, if this is not the case generically, one can take the point of view that these models do not well represent “predictions” of string theory. That is, one can argue that in the absence of a dynamical vacuum selection mechanism in string theory, one should fall back on what is generic in extracting “predictions.”

For these reasons, it was argued in  that FI induced vevs are more likely to be the dominant source of CP violation in string-derived models. These vevs are generically complex. Indeed, (9) is completely “phase-blind,” leading to massless pseudoscalars termed D-moduli in . Efforts are underway  to stabilize these moduli by including various terms in $`V`$ (intentionally) neglected in . Until this can be achieved, there is no dynamical reason to take the phases to be real. In  it was demonstrated that the generic case leads to nonzero KM phase.

Relevant orders.  Renormalizing to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_X\mathrm{\Lambda }_H10^{17}`$ GeV,

$$\frac{m_u}{m_t}10^5$$
(13)
for moderate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. But for $`T^I`$ stabilized at self-dual values, we do not get such a hierarchy from trilinear Yukawas. A natural source of such a hierarchy is the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_X`$. I.e., nonrenomalizable superpotential couplings can give effective Yukawa couplings from Xiggs vevs. The hierarchy is generically

$$\frac{\lambda _{eff}}{\lambda _{tri}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_X}{m_P}\right)^n$$
(14)
where $`n`$ counts dimensionality beyond trilinear. To get (13) we need $`n5`$. Thus, the structure of the Yukawas requires that we consider operators of rather large dimension in order to develop predictions in a realistic theory. The smallness of $`m_u,m_d,m_s`$ requires that we work well beyond leading order to make firm conclusions about, say, $`V_{ub}`$ vs. experiment. Not only should we work to higher orders in the superpotential couplings, but also in the Kähler potential since Xiggs vevs could give kinetic mixing which is not that small. E.g., $`Kk_{ijk}\varphi _iu_j^{}u_k,jk`$. Such higher order terms are not well-understood and are not protected by nonrenormalization theorems. For the latter reason we will generally need to study supergravity loop corrections to any Kähler coupling extracted from string amplitudes at the string scale.

Note that all of these effects are highly dependent on the choice of Xiggs vevs. Which flat direction do we lead our expansion about? The results of  seem to suggest that the degeneracy is so great that we likely have the flexibility to tune the KM phase to any value we like. String theory has provided us with an empirical framework to match experimental data, while at the same time rendering our description quantum mechanically consistent in the ultraviolet limit with gravity included. But can we do better? Can we extract predictions?

Consider what Binétruy, Gaillard and Wu (BGW) did to extract predictions for the T-moduli phase . They included nonperturbative effects from the hidden sector, coupled $`T^I`$ to the gaugino condensate superfield $`U`$ in the Veneziano-Yankielowicz lagrangian $`_{VY}`$ and imposed reparameterization symmetries. We must envision a similar analysis to stabilize the D-moduli if we are to stabilize them and predict Xiggs phases. The mixed anomaly

$$\text{tr}Q_X0\text{tr}T^aT^aQ_X0$$
(15)
implies Xiggs couplings through gauge interactions with the hidden sector. A study of these effects is in progress.

Phase predictions from D-moduli stabilization.  This is a modification of the linear multiplet toy model of . The desire is to lift vacuum degeneracy by coupling D-moduli to matter condensates of the hidden sector condensing group $`G_C`$. As just mentioned, such couplings are expected from the mixed trace anomaly matching condition $`\text{tr}T^aT^aQ_X0,`$ where $`T^a`$ is a generator of $`G_C`$. The notation in what follows is defined in .

We continue to have

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`k(L)+G(A,B,\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{A},\overline{B},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$
$`k(L)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}L+g(L)`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|A_i|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|B_i|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_i|^2`$ (16)
On the other hand the superpotential now takes the form

$`W(A,B,\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Pi })`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{W}(A,B,\mathrm{\Phi })+\stackrel{˘}{W}(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Pi })`$
$`\widehat{W}(A,B,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{ijk}A_iB_j\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$
$`\stackrel{˘}{W}(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Pi })`$ $`=`$ $`c_\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha `$ (17)
The functional $`c_\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is left unspecified at this point. The fields $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha `$ are chiral superfields corresponding to hidden sector matter condensate operators.

We implement dynamical supersymmetry breaking through the form of the Veneziano-Yankielowicz lagrangian assumed in

$$_{VY}=\frac{E}{8R}U\left[b^{}\mathrm{ln}(e^{K/2}U)+\underset{\alpha }{}b^\alpha \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha \right]+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(18)
where $`U`$ is the chiral superfield corresponding to the hidden sector gaugino bilinear condensate operator. We have no T-moduli appearing explicitly, no threshold corrections, and the only GS term is the one required to cancel the $`U(1)_X`$ anomaly. Following the BGW formulation with these simplifications one obtains for the scalar potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{1+f}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}D_aD_a+(\mathrm{}g^{}2)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}u}{4}}e^{K/2}W\right|^2`$ (19)
$`+\left|e^{K/2}(\widehat{W}_I+WG_I){\displaystyle \frac{b^{}u}{4}}G_I\right|^2`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{}g^{}}{16\mathrm{}^2}}\right)\left[(1+2\mathrm{}b^{})|u|^2\mathrm{}e^{K/2}(W\overline{u}+\overline{W}u)\right]`$
Here, $`\mathrm{}=L|,u=U|`$.

We restrict our attention to the submanifold of the vacuum manifold where $`D_X`$ is the only nonvanishing D-term, and $`a_i=b_i=0`$, with $`a_i=A_i|`$, $`b_i=B_i`$. In this case the vacuum image of $`V`$ is, after straightforward manipulations, given by

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_H^2D_X^2+\widehat{V}`$ (20)
$`\widehat{V}`$ $`=`$ $`e^K\sigma ^2\left[b_c^2(v^22+\mathrm{}g^{})+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{}g^{}}{2\mathrm{}^2}}\right)(2+3\mathrm{}b^{}+\mathrm{}b_c)\right]`$ (21)
where we take $`\mathrm{}`$ at its vev and

$`v_i`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _i,v=\left[{\displaystyle |v_i|^2}\right]^{1/2}`$
$`D_X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i|v_i|^2+\xi ,g_H^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{1+f}}`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`k(\mathrm{})+v^2,b_c=b^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}b^\alpha `$
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_cg_H^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}}{b_c}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{4c_\alpha (v)}{b^\alpha }}\right|^{b^\alpha /b_c}`$ (22)
From these expressions it is not hard to work out $`V_i=V/v_i`$:

$$V_i=\overline{v}_i\left[g_H^2D_Xq_i+\sigma ^2b_c^2e^K+\widehat{V}\right]+\mu _i\widehat{V}$$
(23)
where

$$\mu _i=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{b^\alpha }{b_c}\frac{}{v_i}\mathrm{ln}c_\alpha (v)$$
(24)
Notice that all of the quantities in (23) are real except $`\overline{v}_i`$ and $`\mu _i`$. Thus, the phase of $`v_i`$ will be related to $`\mu _i`$. We expect that this provides the necessary constraint to lift pseudoscalar D-moduli. More precisely,

$$\mathrm{arg}v_i=\mathrm{arg}\mu _i\text{mod}\pi $$
(25)
For minimization with vanishing cosmological constant we require $`V=V_i=0`$, which implies $`\widehat{V}D_X^2`$. To have low scale supersymmetry breaking we demand $`|D_X|1`$, so from (23) $`|D_X|\sigma ^21`$. Then for $`v_i0`$ eq. (23) implies

$$g_H^2D_Xq_i+b_C^2\sigma ^2e^K=𝒪(\sigma ^4)$$
(26)
unless $`v_i<\sigma ^2`$. Thus the delicate cancelation of $`𝒪(\sigma ^2)`$ terms implied by (25) can, for reasonable splittings of $`q_i`$, only be achieved for one choice of charge $`q_i`$, just as was the case in . Since the term $`\mu _i\widehat{V}`$ in (23) is roughly $`𝒪(\sigma ^4)`$, the result of  for which $`q_i`$ gets vevs $`v_i\sigma ^2`$ is unchanged: the minimum $`q_i`$ must be the set getting $`v_i\sigma ^2`$ vevs for positive mass-squared. To conclude,

$`|v_i|`$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }_Xq_i=q\hfill \\ \sigma q_iq\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{q_i\},\mathrm{\Lambda }_X=\sqrt{\xi }`$ (30)
since $`D_X=_iq_i|v_i|^2+\xi \sigma ^2\xi `$. From (23) we have

$$v^2=\frac{\xi }{q}\frac{b_C^2\sigma ^2e^K}{q^2g_H^2}+𝒪(\sigma ^4)$$
(31)
We next suppose in (17)

$$c_\alpha (v)=\underset{A}{}c_{\alpha A}(v),c_{\alpha A}(v)=\lambda _{\alpha A}\underset{i}{}(v_i)^{p_{iA}^\alpha }.$$
(32)
Then it is easy to check that (24) yields

$$v_i\mu _i=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{b^\alpha }{b_c}\frac{\underset{A}{}p_{iA}^\alpha c_{\alpha A}(v)}{_Ac_{\alpha A}(v)}$$
(33)
Consequently we can rewrite the minimization constraint which follows from (23) as (exactly)

$$0=|v_i|^2\left[g_H^2D_Xq_i+b_c^2\sigma ^2e^K+\widehat{V}\right]+\widehat{V}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{b^\alpha }{b_c}\frac{\underset{A}{}p_{iA}^\alpha c_{\alpha A}(v)}{_Ac_{\alpha A}(v)}$$
(34)
In the case where the sum in (32) has only a single term, the $`c_{\alpha A}(v)`$ cancel in (34) and no phase constraints exist. Thus, a non-monomial polynomial assumption for $`c_\alpha (v)`$ is required for phase stabilization.

As an example, consider the case of only two fields $`\varphi ^1,\varphi ^2`$ of charges $`q_1=q_2q`$ and a single matter condensate field with superpotential coupling

$$\stackrel{˘}{W}(\varphi ,\pi )=c(\varphi )\pi ,c(\varphi )=\lambda _1\varphi _1+\lambda _2\varphi _2$$
(35)
We can go to U-gauge by writing

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1(x)\\ \varphi _2(x)\end{array}\right)=e^{i(\theta (x)+\phi _+)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\phi _{}}\mathrm{cos}\eta & e^{i\phi _{}}\mathrm{sin}\eta \\ e^{i\phi _{}}\mathrm{sin}\eta & e^{i\phi _{}}\mathrm{cos}\eta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}d(x)\\ h(x)+v\end{array}\right)$$
(36)
where $`\theta (x)=d(x)=h(x)=0`$ and

$`v_1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi _1}v\mathrm{cos}\eta ,v_2=e^{i\phi _2}v\mathrm{sin}\eta ,`$
$`\phi _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\phi _1\pm \phi _2)`$ (37)
Here, $`\theta (x)+\phi _+`$ is eaten by the $`U(1)_X`$ vector boson, while the scalar $`h(x)+v`$ acquires a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_X`$ mass and fills out the massive $`U(1)_X`$ vector multiplet. $`\phi _{}`$ is the phase we would like to stabilize and $`d(x)`$ is the complex scalar D-modulus field. $`\eta `$ is the mixing angle to the mass eigenstate basis which we would also like to stabilize. It is not hard to check that (23) gives

$$0=b_c(\lambda _1|v_1|^2+\lambda _2\overline{v}_1v_2)(qg_H^2D_X+b_c^2\sigma ^2e^K+\widehat{V})+b^\alpha \lambda _1\widehat{V}$$
(38)
and a similar equation with $`12`$, and then 2 conjugate equations. Manipulations on these four equations lead simply to

$$\frac{v_1\overline{v}_2}{\overline{v}_1v_2}=\frac{\overline{\lambda }_1\lambda _2}{\lambda _1\overline{\lambda }_2}\phi _1\phi _2=2\phi _{}=\mathrm{arg}(\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1})\text{mod}\pi $$
(39)
It is also straightforward to check

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\eta =\frac{b^\alpha \widehat{V}(|\lambda _1|^2|\lambda _2|^2)+b_cv^2|\lambda _1|^2(qg_H^2D_X+b_c\sigma ^2e^K+\widehat{V})}{2b_cv^2|\lambda _2|^2(qg_H^2D_X+b_c\sigma ^2e^K+\widehat{V})}$$
(40)
Thus $`d(x)`$ is stabilized and the phase and mixing are determined. In particular, the phase $`\phi _{}`$ is not an independent source of CP violation, but is determined by whatever mechanism determines the phases of $`\lambda _i`$.

If we embed this toy into a string-inspired model, the source of $`\mathrm{arg}(\lambda _2/\lambda _1)`$ would be the phase of T-moduli. For example, suppose the modular weight of $`\pi `$ is $`q_\pi ^I`$ while for the fields $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ we have $`q_{1,2}^I`$. Then treating $`\varphi _{1,2},\pi `$ as untwisted fields we have

$$\lambda _i\underset{I}{}[\eta (t^I)]^{2(q_i^I+q_\pi ^I1)}(i=1,2)$$
(41)
Then

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}\lambda _i\underset{I}{}[\eta (t^I)]^{2(q_2^Iq_1^I)}$$
(42)
From (39) we have

$$\phi _1\phi _2=2\underset{I}{}(q_2^Iq_1^I)\mathrm{arg}(\eta (t^I))\text{mod}\pi $$
(43)
If $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ are untwisted with different compact space $`SO(6)`$ weights (H-momenta), say $`(1,0,0)`$ and $`(0,1,0)`$ resp., then

$$\phi _1\phi _2=2\left[\mathrm{arg}(\eta (t^2))\mathrm{arg}(\eta (t^1))\right]\text{mod}\pi $$
(44)
For $`t^1=e^{i\pi /6}`$, $`t^2=1`$,

$$\mathrm{arg}(\eta (t^1))=\pi /24,\mathrm{arg}(\eta (t^2))=0$$
(45)
and hence

$$\phi _1\phi _2=\frac{\pi }{12}\text{mod}\pi .$$
(46)
In the case of twisted fields $`\varphi _1`$ or $`\varphi _2`$, the linear coupling in (35) implies that $`\pi `$ is also twisted by the point group selection rule. In this case a major revision to (18) would be required because of mixing under $`SL(2,Z)_T^3`$. A mixing of $`\pi `$ with other operators would not give the right sort of anomalous modular transformation for $`_{YV}`$ which could be canceled by $`_{GS}`$.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the organizers of the CP Violation Conference at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Their hospitality is very much appreciated and was of assistance in the preparation of this work. I would further like to express my appreciation for my fruitful collaboration with Mary K. Gaillard, and would like to acknowledge her role in the development of ideas reported here. Conversations with Brent D. Nelson, Thomas Dent and Gordon Kane also proved influential on the ideas expressed here.

This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0098840. Additional support was provided by the organizers of the CP Violation Conference and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.