text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Utilizing extra dimensions has shed new insights into various phenomenological aspects of the physics in four dimensions. In particular, Arkani-Hamed and Schmaltz have proposed an interesting mechanism, which is refered to as “fat brane scenario”, to generate small parameters naturally in the effective four dimensional theories from higher dimensional theories . These small parameters are obtained by a small overlap of wave functions, even if the parameters in a fundamental theory are of order unity. This mechanism has been applied to various phenomenological issues so far, such as the fermion mass hierarchy , the doublet-triplet splitting , and the sfermion mass generation .

In this paper, we discuss the fermion mass hierarchy and the flavor mixings in the fat brane scenario. As mentioned above, some people has already considered this issue , so it is necessary to clarify the difference between our setup and the others. The setup of authors  is as follows. A Higgs field lives in the bulk and its zero mode wave function is flat. The matter fields also live in the bulk and its zero mode wave functions are Gaussian and localized at different points in extra dimensions. The fermion mass hierarchy is generated by an overlap between the matter wave functions. The setup of authors  is that the matter and Higgs live in the bulk and both zero mode wave functions are Gaussian and are localized at different points in extra dimensions. The fermion mass hierarchy is generated by an overlap between the matter and Higgs wave functions. On the other hand, our setup is slightly different from these two setups in that Higgs fields are localized on a brane.111This setup has also been considered in Ref. . The difference between their setup and ours is that they considered that the form of the zero mode wave functions of matter fields are exponential, but Gaussian in our case. As for the matter fields, our setup is the same as these two setups. The fermion mass hierarchy is determined by the values at a brane where Higgs fields are localized. We find various types of the matter configurations in a five dimensional supersymmetric (SUSY) theory, which yield the fermion mass matrices consistent with experimental data.

We also discuss the sfermion mass spectrum. Sfermion masses are generated by the overlap between the wave functions of matter filefds and the chiral superfileld with nonzero vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the F-component localized on the SUSY breaking brane. If SUSY breaking is located far from the matter fields, the sfermion mass spectrum is similar to the gaugino mediation scenario since the gaugino masses receive only the volume suppression but the sfermion masses receive additional exponential suppression. In this case, the degeneracy solution to SUSY flavor problem is expected as in the gaugino mediation. In Ref. , we have proposed that if SUSY breaking brane is located between the first and the second generations, the sfermion mass spectrum becomes the decoupling solution. But in , the flavor mixings were neglected in determining the matter configuration for simplicity. In this paper, this point is improved. We estimate the sfermion masses and the mixings and see whether the decoupling solution can be realized when we take into account both of the fermion masses and their flavor mixings. More interestingly, if SUSY breaking is located at the same point where Higgs fileds are localized, the sfermion masses are propotrtional to Yukawa couplings. In this case, the alignment solution to SUSY flavor problem is expected. Thus, which type of the sfermion spectra is realized depends on the relative location between a SUSY breaking brane and the brane where Higgs fileds are localized in our framework.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we discuss the fermion mass hierarchy and the flavor mixings. We find various types of the matter configurations consistent with the experimental data in a five dimensional SUSY theory. In section 3, corresponding to the fermion masses found above, the sfermion mass spectrum is also discussed. Summary of our paper is given in the last section.

## 2 Fermion masses and mixings

In this section, we discuss the fermion masses and the flavor mixings in a five dimensional SUSY theory. Let us consider the up-type Yukawa coupling, for example,

$`W=\delta (y){\displaystyle 𝑑yQ_i(x,y)\overline{U}_j(x,y)H_u(x)},`$ (1)
where $`x`$ denotes the coordinate of four dimensional Minkowski space-time, $`y`$ is a fifth spatial coordinate of five dimensions. $`i,j`$ are the generation indices. The order one coefficient is implicit. $`Q_i`$ and $`\overline{U}_i`$ are the chiral superfield which transform as $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐},1/6)`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏},2/3)`$ under the Standard Model (SM) gauge groups, $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. We assume here that the matter fields live in the bulk and Higgs fields are localized on a brane at $`y=0`$. On a thick wall, a zero mode wave function of the matter superfield with the left (or right)-handed chirality is localized, and the matter superfield with an opposite chirality is not localized.222For readers interested in the localization mechanism of the chiral superfields, see an appendix in Ref. . Integrating out the fifth dimensional degrees of freedom, we obtain the effective Yukawa coupling in four dimensions at the compactification scale as,

$`(y_{\mathrm{eff}})_{ij}\mathrm{exp}[a^2(y_{Q_i}^2+y_{\overline{U}_j}^2)],`$ (2)
where we assume the form of the zero mode wave function of the matter superfields to be Gaussian such as $`\mathrm{exp}[a^2(yy_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i})^2]`$, where $`M_{}`$ is the five dimensional Planck scale and $`a`$ is the width of the matter zero mode wave functions. $`y_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}`$ is the coordinate where the matter superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(=Q_i,\overline{U}_i,\overline{D}_i,\mathrm{})`$ is localized. As is clear from (2), the information of Yukawa hierarchy is interpreted as the configuration of the matter fields in the extra dimensions.

In the following subsections, we consider various types of fermion mass matrices, which well describe the fermion mass hierarchies and the flavor mixings, and discuss whether these mass matrices can be realized from the fat brane point of view. Note that some of these mass matrices have been discussed in the context of five or six dimensional SUSY orbifold Grand Unified Theories (GUT) .

### 2.1 “Anarchy type” fermion mass matrices

At first, let us consider the following matter configuration in the fifth dimensional coordinate.

$`\begin{array}{ccc}q_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & u_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & d_1^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ q_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & u_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & d_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ q_3^20,\hfill & u_3^30,\hfill & d_3^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ l_1^20,\hfill & e_1^23\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_1^20,\hfill \\ l_2^20,\hfill & e_2^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_2^20,\hfill \\ l_3^20,\hfill & e_3^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & n_3^20,\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
where $`q_i`$ means the coordinate in units of $`a^1`$ where $`Q_i`$ is localized, for instance. The configuration (9) generates the following mass matrices for up, down quark sectors and the charged lepton sector:

$`m_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_u,m_dϵ\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ& ϵ& ϵ\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,m_lϵ\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,`$ (19)
where $`ϵ\lambda ^2`$, and $`\lambda `$ is the Cabibbo angle, $`\lambda 0.2`$. The above mass matrices suggest the small tan$`\beta `$, and generate the fermion mass hierarchies,

$`m_t:m_c:m_u1:ϵ^2:ϵ^4,`$ (20)
$`m_b:m_s:m_dm_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:ϵ:ϵ^2.`$ (21)
The mass matrices of the left-handed neutrino and the right-handed neutrino sectors are

$`m_\nu ^D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,m_N\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)M_R,`$ (28)
where $`M_R`$ is around $`10^{1516}`$ GeV. It is because the Majorana mass term in our model is assumed to be generated by a nonzero VEV of the singlet $`S`$ field333 The field $`S`$ have the lepton number in two units. Thus its VEV might derive a massless Majoron, naively. To discuss a Majoron is beyond the scope of this paper. We simply asuume here, for example, the lepton number is explicitly broken in some sectors and avoid a massless Majoron.  localized on the brane at $`y=0`$ with the term,

$`\delta (y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_{}}}S(x)N_i(x,y)N_j(x,y).`$ (29)
Integrating out the fifth dimensional degrees of freedom and taking the VEV of $`S`$ to be $`M_{}`$, we obtain $`M_R\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}a^10.8\times a^1`$. In the fat brane scenario, $`a^1`$ is at most $`L_c^110^{16}`$GeV, so $`M_R8.0\times 10^{15}`$ GeV. This is somewhat large compared to $`M_R10^{14}`$GeV which is the suitable magnitude for the neutrino oscillation experiments, but taking into account $`O(1)`$ coefficients in neutrino mass matrices, the value, $`10^{15}`$GeV, is sufficient. From these matrices, the mass matrix of three light neutrinos $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$ via see-saw mechanism  is obtained as

$`m_\nu ^{(l)}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu ^D(m_\nu ^D)^t}{m_N}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{H_u^2}{M_R}}.`$ (33)
By diagonalizing these matrices, the CKM  and the MNS  mixing matrices are obtained,

$`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ& ϵ^2\\ ϵ& 1& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right),V_{\mathrm{MNS}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (40)
They can naturally explain why the flavor mixing in the quark sector is small while the flavor mixing in the lepton sector is large . The above mass matrices and flavor mixings are roughly consistent with the experimental data, and explicit values of $`O(1)`$ coefficients of mass matrices can really induce the suitable magnitudes of fermion masses and flavor mixing angles . The random coefficients have suggested the probabilities of fermion masses and flavor mixings . If we would like to obtain the suitably large (small) Cabibbo angle ($`U_{e3}`$), and small $`m_{d,e}`$, of order the power of $`\lambda `$, the matter configuration should be modified. We will show two examples of the improved fermion mass matrices in the following two subsections.

The configuration corresponding to the large tan$`\beta `$ case is also realized by changing the locations of $`\overline{D}_{1,2,3}`$ and $`\overline{E}_{1,2,3}`$ in (9) as,

$`\begin{array}{ccc}q_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & u_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & d_1^20,\hfill \\ q_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & u_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & d_2^20,\hfill \\ q_3^20,\hfill & u_3^30,\hfill & d_3^20,\hfill \\ l_1^20,\hfill & e_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_1^20,\hfill \\ l_2^20,\hfill & e_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & n_2^20,\hfill \\ l_3^20,\hfill & e_3^20,\hfill & n_3^20.\hfill \end{array}`$ (47)
This configuration is more interesting than the previous configuration since the localization patterns for $`Q_i,\overline{U}_i,\overline{E}_i`$ and $`\overline{D}_i,L_i`$ are the same as for the generation index. This implies that this case can be embeded into the SU(5) GUT. The mass matrices for up, down quark sectors and the charged lepton sector are given by

$`m_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_u,m_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ& ϵ& ϵ\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,m_l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_d.`$ (57)
Since the difference between the matrices (19) and (57) only exists in an overall factor, the arguments for the fermion mass hierarchies and the flavor mixings are the same as those of the small tan$`\beta `$ case.

Here we would like to stress the importance of the configurations found above. They are simpler than other configurations in the literatures  in the following points:

1. The configurations are obtained in a five dimensional theory,
2. The width of the wave functions is common to all the matter fields,
3. The distribution of the matter superfields is very simple.

### 2.2 Improved mass matrices I

From the view point of order estimation, the mass matrices discussed in the previous subsection gives rather small Cabibbo angles and rather large $`U_{e3}`$. As discussed in Ref. , there are two improvements of the “Anarchy type” of fermion mass matrices. In our framework, these improvements can be easily done by changing the locations of $`\overline{D}_1,L_1`$ and $`\overline{N}_1`$ in (9). Let us show the first example of the improvements here. The configuration is given by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}q_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & u_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & d_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill \\ q_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & u_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & d_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ q_3^20,\hfill & u_3^30,\hfill & d_3^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ l_1^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & e_1^23\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_1^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ l_2^20,\hfill & e_2^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_2^20,\hfill \\ l_3^20,\hfill & e_3^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & n_3^20.\hfill \end{array}`$ (64)
This configuration is simple enough as that of “Anarchy type”. The mass matrices for up, down quark sectors and the charged lepton sector from this configuration are

$`m_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_u,m_dϵ\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,m_lϵ\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,`$ (74)
The mass hierarchies in the down quark sector and the charged lepton sector are modified as

$`m_t:m_c:m_u1:ϵ^2:ϵ^4,`$ (75)
$`m_b:m_s:m_dm_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:ϵ:ϵ^3,`$ (76)
This suggests the suitable order of magnitudes of $`m_e`$ and $`m_d`$.

The mass matrices of the left-handed neutrino sector and the right-handed neutrino sector are given by

$`m_\nu ^D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,m_N\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)M_R.`$ (83)
The mass matrix of three light neutrinos $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$ via see-saw mechanism is given by

$`m_\nu ^{(l)}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu ^D(m_\nu ^D)^t}{m_N}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{H_u^2}{M_R}}.`$ (87)
Here we assume the rank of $`2\times 2`$ submatrix for the second and the third generations in $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$ is reduced. Otherwise, the large mixing between the first and the second generations cannot be realized. When this rank reduction of the submatrix is assumed in (17), the CKM and the MNS matrices are obtained as

$`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ& ϵ^2\\ ϵ& 1& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right),V_{\mathrm{MNS}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& ϵ\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).`$ (94)
This type of the MNS matrix is so-called bi-maximal one.

The configuration corresponding to the large tan$`\beta `$ case is easily obtained by changing the locations of $`\overline{D}_{1,2,3}`$ and $`\overline{E}_{1,2,3}`$ in (64) as

$`\begin{array}{ccc}q_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & u_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & d_1^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ q_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & u_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & d_2^20,\hfill \\ q_3^20,\hfill & u_3^30,\hfill & d_3^20,\hfill \\ l_1^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & e_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_1^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ l_2^20,\hfill & e_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & n_2^20,\hfill \\ l_3^20,\hfill & e_3^20,\hfill & n_3^20.\hfill \end{array}`$ (101)
The corresponding mass matrices of the up and down quark sectors and the charged lepton sector are

$`m_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_u,m_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,m_l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_d.`$ (111)
This case can be embeded into the SU(5) GUT. The results for the fermion mass hierarchies and the flavor mixings are the same as those of the small tan$`\beta `$ case.

### 2.3 Improved mass matrices II

The second example of the improvements shows the changes of the locations of $`\overline{D}_{1,2,3},L_{1,2,3}`$ and $`\overline{N}_{1,2,3}`$ in (9). The matter configuration is

$`\begin{array}{ccc}q_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & u_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & d_1^23\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill \\ q_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & u_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & d_2^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill \\ q_3^20,\hfill & u_3^30,\hfill & d_3^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill \\ l_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & e_1^23\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill \\ l_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & e_2^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ l_3^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & e_3^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & n_3^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ.\hfill \end{array}`$ (118)
The resulting mass matrices for up, down quark sectors and the charged lepton sector are

$`m_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_u,m_dϵ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,m_lϵ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,`$ (128)
and those of the left-handed neutrino sector and the right-handed neutrino sector are given by

$`m_\nu ^Dϵ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)H_d,m_Nϵ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)M_R.`$ (135)
Then, the mass matrix of three light neutrinos $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$ via the see-saw mechanism is given by

$`m_\nu ^{(l)}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\nu ^D(m_\nu ^D)^t}{m_N}}ϵ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{H_u^2}{M_R}}.`$ (139)
Above mass matrices are the same as those of improvement I except for the overall factors. The fermion mass hierarchies of quarks and leptons are the same as those of improvement I. The flavor mixing matrices, $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$, are also the same as those of the improvement I. The difference between improvement I and II exists in the value of tan$`\beta `$. Compairing to the improvement I, the small tan$`\beta `$ is prefer in the improvement II.

We can also find another configuration by changing the locations of $`\overline{D}_{1,2,3}`$ and $`\overline{E}_{1,2,3}`$ in (128),

$`\begin{array}{ccc}q_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & u_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & d_1^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill \\ q_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & u_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & d_2^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ q_3^20,\hfill & u_3^30,\hfill & d_3^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ l_1^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & e_1^23\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_1^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill \\ l_2^20,\hfill & e_2^22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ,\hfill & n_2^20,\hfill \\ l_3^20,\hfill & e_3^2\mathrm{ln}ϵ,\hfill & n_3^20.\hfill \end{array}`$ (146)
This configuration is nothing but that of the improvement I (64).

## 3 Sfermion Masses

In this section, we would like to discuss the sfermion mass spectrum, especially the squark mass spectrum. In extra dimensions, the sfermion masses correlate with the fermion masses by introducing SUSY breaking brane because the sfermion masses are determined by the overlap of wave functions of the matter fields and the chiral superfields with nonvanishing F-term VEV on SUSY breaking brane. Since we have determined the matter configuration consistent with experimental data in the previous section, the sfermion mass spectrum can be calculated and predicted.

The gaugino masses are generated at tree level since we assume that the gauge supermultiplets live in a thick wall throughout this paper,

$`\delta (yL){\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{X(x)}{M_{}^2}W^\alpha (x,y)W_\alpha (x,y)}M_\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{F}{M_{}^2L_c}},`$ (147)
where $`W_\alpha `$ is the field strength tensor superfield and $`L_c`$ is the width of the thick wall which should be considered as the compactification length in our framework. The gaugino masses should be around 100 GeV, so we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{M_{}}}100(M_{}L_c).`$ (148)
In our previous paper, we have proposed the mechanism to generate the sfermion masses in the fat brane scenario . Let us briefly review the scenario. A brane, we call “SUSY breaking brane”, is introduced at $`y=L`$, where the chiral superfields $`X`$ with nonvanishing F-term VEV ($`X=\theta ^2F`$) is assumed to be localized. The extra vector-like superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}`$ with mass $`M<M_{}`$ are also introduced and assumed to be localized on a SUSY breaking brane. We consider here the following superpotential,

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (yL){\displaystyle 𝑑y[\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{M_{}}}X(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x,y)\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}(x)+M\mathrm{\Phi }(x)^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}(x)]},`$ (149)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}\mathrm{exp}[a^2(Ly_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i})^2]X(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}(x)+M\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}(x),`$ (150)
where $`\lambda `$ is a dimensionless constant of order unity. Below the scale $`M`$, we can integrate out the massive superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}`$, then the superpotential vanishes and the effective Kähler potential receives the correction at tree level,

$`\delta K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}\mathrm{exp}[a^2\{(Ly_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i})^2+(Ly_{\mathrm{\Phi }_j})^2\}]X^{}X\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_j.`$ (151)
The sfermion masses coming from (151) at the compactification scale are

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{ij}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}\mathrm{exp}[a^2\{(Ly_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i})^2+(Ly_{\mathrm{\Phi }_j})^2\}]{\displaystyle \frac{|F|^2}{M^2}}.`$ (152)
It is crucial that the scale suppressing the Kähler potential is replaced with $`M<M_{}`$ not so as to be negligibly small.444Without introducing the extra vector-like superfields, the sfermion masses are negligibly small due to the exponential suppression . Note that $`F<M^2`$ is assumed in this argument and also the overall sign of the Kähler potential is assumed to be positive.

Before discussing the sfermion masses, we would like to mention A-terms in our scenario. In our scenario, A-terms are induced, for instance, from the term

$`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{X}{M_{}^2}Q_i\overline{U}_jH_u}.`$ (153)
By integrating out the fifth dimensional degrees of freedom, it turns out immediately that A-terms are vanishing unless the SUSY breaking brane is located at the same point where Higgs fields are localized. Nonvanishing A-parameters are expressed by

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{F}{M_{}^2a}}(y_{\mathrm{eff}})_{ij}.`$ (154)
It is remarkable that in our framework A-parameters are necessarily proportional to Yukawa coupling constants.

If SUSY breaking brane is located apart from the brane where Higgs fields are localized, the sfermion masses (152) are negligibly small compared to the gaugino masses (147) since the sfermion masses receive the additional exponential suppression factor. This boundary condition is similar to the gaugino mediation scenario . Therefore, the degeneracy solution to SUSY flavor problem is expected as in the gaugino mediation scenario.

In , we have proposed the decoupling solution in the fat brane scenatio. Now, we shall discuss this scenario. If a pair of vector-like superfields are introduced for each matter chiral superfield $`Q_i,\overline{U}_i,\overline{D}_i\mathrm{}`$, we obtain the Kähler potential with no flavor mixings. We consider here this case, for simplicity. Sfermion masses generating from the Kähler potential with no flavor mixings are

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_i^2=(\mathrm{exp}[a^2(Ly_{\mathrm{\Phi }_i})^2])^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}{\displaystyle \frac{|F|^2}{M^2}}.`$ (155)
Now, we apply this mechanism to three types of the matter configuration found in the previous section and discuss whether the decoupling solution can be realized or not. Let us begin with the “Anarchy” model. Since the decoupling solution requires that the masses of the first and the second generations should be of $`𝒪(10\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$ and that of the third generation be around $`𝒪(100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$ for naturalness, namely,

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_3}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{U}_3}100\mathrm{GeV}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\mathrm{exp}[(aL)^2]100\mathrm{GeV},`$ (157)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_1}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{U}_1}10\mathrm{TeV}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\mathrm{exp}[(aL\sqrt{2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}ϵ})^2]10\mathrm{TeV}.`$
Using Eqs. (148) and (157),

$`M{\displaystyle \frac{(M_{}L_c)M_{}}{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}\mathrm{exp}[(aL)^2]`$ (158)
is obtained, From Eqs. (157) and (157),

$`aL2.22`$ (159)
is obtained. Eq. (158) can be further rewritten by using Eq. (159) as

$`M7.18\times 10^3{\displaystyle \frac{(M_{}L_c)M_{}}{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}.`$ (160)
Taking $`M_{}10^{18}`$ GeV, $`L_c^1a^110^{16}`$ GeV, various scales in our theory are obtained,

$`L^14.50\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV},M7.18\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV},\sqrt{F}10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (161)
As mentioned above, $`F<M^2`$ is satisfied. Other sfermion masses are calculated,

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_2}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{U}_2}\stackrel{~}{m}_{D_{1,2,3}}10^1\times {\displaystyle \frac{10^{22}}{7.18\times 10^{16}}}\mathrm{exp}[(2.2217561.977883)^2]13.12\mathrm{TeV}.`$ (162)
We note that we have an another choice for the decoupling solution requirement, namely, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_2}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{U}_2}\stackrel{~}{m}_{D_{1,2,3}}10\mathrm{TeV}`$. In this case, the squark masses of the first generation $`Q_1`$ and $`\overline{U}_1`$ become 3.8 TeV, which is smaller than 10 TeV. Therefore, this choice is not plausible for the decoupling solution.

As for the sfermion mass spectrum of Improvement I, they are almost same as that of “Anarchy” model except for the right-handed sdown mass because the difference in the quark sector between two configurations Eqs. (9) and (64) is the location of the right-handed down chiral superfield. As for the Improvement II, the differences in the quark sector between the “Anarchy type” and the Improvement II are the locations of $`\overline{D}_{1,2,3}`$. In particular, since $`\overline{D}_1`$ is localized a little apart from a SUSY breaking brane, the mass of $`\overline{D}_1`$ becomes slightly small. The sfermion masses spectra are summarized in the Table 1.

We give some comments on the sfermion mass spectrum. First, as seen in Ref. , the mass of the right-handed sbottom $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{D}_3}`$ is around 10 TeV for all models, which is somewhat large from the viewpoint of the decoupling solution. This means that the large tan$`\beta `$ is preferable. Second, the mass of the right-handed sdown $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{D}_1}`$ is somewhat small in Improvement II because the right-handed down chiral superfield $`\overline{D}_1`$ is localized far apart from the SUSY breaking brane compared to the location where other matter chiral superfields of the first and the second generations. Third, since these sfermion mass spectrum is determined at the compactification scale, the third generation sfermion mass squareds might be driven negative at the weak scale through the two-loop renormalization group effects of the heavy first-two generation sfermion masses . To avoid this, we have to add the extra fields with negative SUSY breaking mass squareds . We do not discuss this point in detail in this paper. Finally, the sfermion mass spectrum from the fermion masses for (47) and (101) are not viable as the decoupling solutions because $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{D}_{1,2}}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{D}_2}`$ becomes the order of 100 GeV.

Another interesting sfermion spectrum can be obtained if the SUSY breaking brane is put on the same point where the Higgs fields are localized and the vector-like superfields are introduced on the SUSY breaking brane. In “Anarchy” model with small tan$`\beta `$, for instance, we obtain the squark mass matrices

$`M_u^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+m_u^2& m_u(a_u\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )\\ m_u(a_u\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )& \stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{U}}^2+m_u^2\end{array}\right),`$ (165)
$`M_d^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+m_d^2& m_d(a_d\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )\\ m_d(a_d\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )& \stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{D}}^2+m_d^2\end{array}\right),`$ (168)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{U}}^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\right)^2,\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{D}}^2ϵ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\right)^2,`$ (175)
$`a_{u,d}A_{u,d}/y_{u,d}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}},`$ (176)
and $`m_u`$, $`m_d`$ are the fermion mass matrices in Eqs. (19). Also, we omitted the elements coming from $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ D-terms since the discussion below is not changed. We shall discuss the possibility of the realization of the alignment solution555In order to be preserve the alignment solution against the quantum corrections, an additional mechanism might be needed in our scenario.  to SUSY flavor problem . In the sfermion martrices $`M_u^2,M_d^2`$, if the off-diagonal elements are smaller than the diagonal ones, we can obtain the alignment solution since both of the sfermion mass squareds and the fermion mass squareds in each diagonal element take the same form and these can be simultaneously diagonalized. In the above case, the dominant terms in the diagonal elements are $`\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2,\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{U}}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{D}}^2`$. As for the off-diagonal elements, we note that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta ϵm_t/m_b10^1`$ in the present case. Assuming that the sfermion masses $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q,\overline{U},\overline{D}}^2`$ are around 1 TeV, we need the constraint from $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q,\overline{U}}^2`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\right)1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}.`$ (177)
This can be rewritten as

$`a_{u,d}{\displaystyle \frac{10^7}{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (178)
Assuming that $`\mu 100\mathrm{GeV}`$,

$`\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta 10\mathrm{GeV},\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta 1\mathrm{TeV}`$ (179)
are obtained. Which term dominates in the off-diagonal elements depends on the value of $`M_{}a`$ in (178). If $`a_{u,d}`$ are dominant, the conditions to obtain the alignment solution are

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q,\overline{U}}^2>m_ua_u,\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q,\overline{D}}^2>m_da_d.`$ (180)
Most stringent constraint coming from the top quark sector is

$`1\mathrm{TeV}^2>{\displaystyle \frac{10^9}{\sqrt{M_{}a}}}\mathrm{GeV}^2M_{}a>10^6,`$ (181)
which provides a lower bound of the width of the wave functions.

The slepton mass matrix is

$`M_e^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2+m_l^2& m_l(a_e\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )\\ m_l(a_e\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )& \stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{E}}^2+m_l^2\end{array}\right),`$ (184)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\right)^2,\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{E}}^2ϵ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\right)^2,`$ (191)
$`a_eA_e/y_e{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}},`$ (192)
and $`m_l`$ is given in (19).

The squark mass matrices with the large tan$`\beta `$ case are written by

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{U}}^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\right)^2,\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{D}}^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\right)^2,`$ (199)
$`a_{u,d}`$ are the same as in the small tan$`\beta `$ case and $`m_u`$ and $`m_d`$ are the fermion mass matrices in Eqs. (57). We can repeat the discussion on the alignment solution. In the large tan$`\beta `$ case. the constraint for the width of the wave functions becomes $`M_{}a>10^2`$. This constraint is always satisfied since $`a>M_{}^1`$ in the fat brane scenario.

The slepton mass matrix is

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\right)^2,\stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{E}}^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F}{M}}\right)^2,`$ (206)
$`a_e`$ is the same as the small tan$`\beta `$ case and $`m_l`$ is given in (57).

It is important to note that which type of the sfermion mass spectrum is realized depends on the relative location between the SUSY breaking brane and the brane where Higgs fields are localized. Thus, our framework provide a unified picture of the mechanism for generating the sfermion masses.

## 4 Summary

We have discussed the fermion masses and the mixings in the fat brane scenario of a five dimensional SUSY theory. In extra dimensions, the information of Yukawa hierarchy is interpreted as that of the location where the matter fields are localized. There have been many configurations consistent with the experimental data, which corresponds to the way to embed the matter fields and Higgs fields in extra dimensions. We have considered the case in this paper that the matter fields live in the bulk and Higgs fields are localized on the brane. We have found various types of the matter configurations which yields the mass matrices consistent with the fermion mass hierarchy and the flavor mixings. The configurations found in this paper are very simple compared to others in the literature  in that

1. The configurations are obtained in a five dimensional theory,
2. The width of the wave functions is common to all the matter fields,
3. The distribution of the matter superfields is very simple.

We have also discussed three types of the sfermion spectrum in our framework. If SUSY breaking brane is located far apart from the region where the matter fields are localized, the sfermion mass spectrum is similar to the gaugino mediation scenario . The degeneracy solution to SUSY flavor problem is expected. If SUSY breaking brane is located between the points where the first and the second generations are localized, the decoupling spectrum proposed in  is realized. If the SUSY breaking brane is located at the same point where Higgs fields are localized, the sfermion masses are proportional to Yukawa couplings. This case might suggests the alignment solution  to SUSY flavor problem. We emphasize that our framework provides a unified picture of the mechanism for generating the sfermion masses. Which scenario is realized depends on the relative location of the SUSY breaking brane and the brane where Higgs fields are localized.

As a future direction, it is interesting to study in detail the slepton mass spectrum and their mixings in our framework.

Acknowledgments

N.H. is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan (No.12740146) and N.M. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists (No.08557).


format: text

text:
# Quasicanonical Gibbs distribution and Tsallis nonextensive statistics

## 1 Introduction

Nonextensive statistical mechanics introduced by Tsallis  has been developed and applied by many authors -; see  for a recent review. Particularly, various aspects of the nonextensive statistics and thermodynamics have been studied by Abe and Rajagopal . Derivation of power law canonical distributions from first principles of statistical mechanics has been analyzed by Almeida ; see also .

The entropic parameter $`q`$ of Tsallis statistics is associated to the measure of nonextensivity, with the usual extensivity recovered at $`q=1`$. In Tsallis formalism, $`q`$ appears in the definition of entropy which generalizes the usual Boltzmann-Gibbs-Shannon entropy.

In this paper we show that a nonextensivity characterized by a parameter naturally arises from the consideration of the microcanonical Gibbs distribution. Namely, in Sec. 2 we consider a subsystem weakly interacting with a system containing big but finite number $`M`$ of particles which we call quasithermostat. It appears that the resulting equilibrium distribution function and the associated entropy (Sec. 3) reproduce exactly those of Tsallis statistics, with $`q11/M`$. In the (thermodynamic) limit, $`M\mathrm{}`$, the usual canonical Gibbs distribution is recovered.

Recently, Beck  have studied application of Tsallis formalism to turbulent flows and achieved a very good agreement with experimental measurements. Particularly, it is worthwhile to emphasize that no fitting parameters have been used by Beck to reproduce histogram of the acceleration of a test particle advected by the turbulent flow, while some other authors have used four free parameters in some ad hoc modified exponential function, for this purpose (see  for details). The main idea underlying Tsallis statistical mechanics approach to turbulence is to introduce fluctuation of temperature or fluctuation of energy dissipation  described by $`\chi ^2`$ distribution of order $`m`$.

In this paper we show that the relevance of $`\chi ^2`$ distribution can be understood in terms of normal random momenta of particles in the quasithermostat, with $`m=3M`$ representing the total number of random variables (Sec. 4).

Some aspects of fluctuations and time scale hierarchy in dilute gas and weak inhomogeneous systems are presented in Sec. 5.

In this paper we show the importance of the time scale hierarchy and fluctuating probability distribution functions in understanding Tsallis distribution, which is viewed as the average value of fluctuating canonical Gibbs distribution over the random parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$.

## 2 Quasicanonical Gibbs distribution

We start with the classical microcanonical Gibbs distribution, $`f_L(x,a,E)`$, which describes isolated equilibrium system of $`L`$ classical particles with total energy $`E`$,

$$f_L(x,a,E)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }(a,E)}\delta (H(x,a)E),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(a,E)=\delta (H(x,a)E)𝑑x`$, $`H(x,a)`$ is Hamiltonian of the system, $`a`$ denotes external parameters, $`dx=_{1iL}dx_i`$, and $`x_i=(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$ are phase-space coordinates of the particles.

In the closed system of $`L`$ particles we select a subsystem of $`N1`$ particles which is surrounded by the subsystem of $`LN=M`$ particles. Assuming $`MN`$, neglecting the interaction energy between the subsystems, and taking the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$, from the microcanonical distribution (1) one can derive, following one of the known procedures, the usual canonical Gibbs distribution,

$$f_N(x,a,T)=\frac{1}{Z}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{H_N(x,a)}{kT}\right],$$
(2)
where $`Z=\mathrm{exp}\left[H_N(x,a)/kT\right]𝑑x`$ is the classical statistical integral. Here, $`k`$ is Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ is an absolute temperature of the subsystem of $`M=\mathrm{}`$ particles (called thermostat); $`dx=_{1iN}dx_i`$.

It is worthwhile to note that the canonical Gibbs distribution comes also as the only physically relevant solution of supersymmetry condition in the context of topological quantum field theory approach to Hamiltonian systems .

Below, we follow some procedure assuming that the number of particles in thermostat is finite, $`M<\mathrm{}`$. Such a thermostat can be referred to as a quasithermostat.

The total Hamiltonian is represented by

$$H(x,y)=H_N(x)+H_M(y)+H_{\mathrm{int}}(x,y),$$
(3)
where $`x`$ and $`y`$ denote phase-space coordinates of particles in the considered subsystem and in the quasithermostat, respectively, and $`H_{\mathrm{int}}(x,y)`$ characterizes interaction between the subsystem and quasithermostat. Herebelow, we drop dependence on the external parameters to simplify notation.

Since the total system is closed, it is described by the microcanonical distribution,

$$f_{N+M}(x,y,E)=C\delta (H(x,y)E),$$
(4)
provided that it is normalized, $`f_{N+M}(x,y,E)𝑑x𝑑y=1`$; $`dy=_{1iM}dy_i`$. Note that the numbers $`M`$ and $`N`$ are additive integrals of motion. To obtain the distribution function describing the considered subsystem one should integrate out phase-space coordinates $`y`$ of the quasithermostat,

$$f_N(x)=C\delta (EH_N(x)H_M(y)H_{\mathrm{int}}(x,y))𝑑y,$$
(5)
For big $`N`$ and weak short-range interactions one can ignore the interaction energy, $`H_{\mathrm{int}}(x,y)H_N(x)`$, in the above expression. By representing Hamiltonian of the quasithermostat as a sum of the kinetic and potential energy,

$$H_M(y)=K_M(\stackrel{}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{p}_M)+U_M(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{r}_M),$$
(6)
where we take for simplicity

$$K_M(p)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_i^{2}}{2m}$$
(7)
and $`U_M(r)=_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }(|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j|)`$ for point-like particles of mass $`m`$, we can rewrite (5) as

$$f_N(x)=C\delta (EH_N(x)U_M(r)z^2)\delta (zK_M^{1/2})𝑑z𝑑p𝑑r,$$
(8)
where new variable $`z`$ has been used; $`dp=_{1iM}d\stackrel{}{p}_i`$, $`dr=_{1iM}d\stackrel{}{r}_i`$. Performing the integral over $`z`$ with the use of

$$\delta \left(zK_M^{1/2}(p)\right)𝑑pz^{3M1},$$
(9)
and general property of Dirac delta function,

$$\delta (g(z))𝑑z=\underset{k}{}\frac{\delta (zz_k)}{|g^{}(z_k)|}dz,g(z_k)=0,$$
(10)
we get, up to normalization constant,

$$f_N(x)=C\left(EH_N(x)U_M(r)\right)^{\frac{3M}{2}1}𝑑r.$$
(11)
We rearrange this as follows

$$f_N(x)=C(1\frac{H(x)}{EU_M(r)})^{\frac{3M}{2}1}\times $$

$$\times \left(EU_M(r)\right)^{\frac{3M}{2}1}dr,$$
(12)
where we have denoted, for brevity, $`H(x)H_N(x)`$.

Denoting the kinetic energy per particle by

$$\frac{3}{2\beta }=\frac{K_M(p)}{M},$$
(13)
which tends to constant for big $`M`$, we obtain that for $`MN`$,

$$EU_M(r)\frac{3M}{2\beta },$$
(14)
which does not depend on $`r`$.

Inserting (14) into (12) and performing the integral over $`r`$ we obtain, up to normalization constant,

$$f_N(x)=C\left(1\frac{2}{3M}\beta H(x)\right)^{\frac{3M}{2}1}.$$
(15)
We note that to obtain the canonical Gibbs distribution (2) it remains to take the (thermodynamic) limit,

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(1\frac{2}{3M}\beta H(x)\right)^{\frac{3M}{2}1}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta H(x)\right]$$
(16)
and identify $`\beta ^1=kT`$.

However, we are interested specifically in the case when $`M`$ is finite so that we do not take the above (thermodynamic) limit, and turn to analysis of the distribution function (15).

For $`M1`$ we make the approximation $`3M/213M/2`$. Then, denoting

$$q1=\frac{2}{3M}0,$$
(17)
we have from (15)

$`f_N(x,a)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_q}}\left(1(q1)\beta H(x,a)\right)^{\frac{1}{q1}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_q}}\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\beta H(x,a)].`$ (18)
Here, we have introduced $`Z_q=\mathrm{exp}_q[\beta H(x,a)]𝑑x`$ due to the normalization condition, $`f_N𝑑x=1`$, $`q`$-exponential is defined by $`\mathrm{exp}_s[z]=(1+sz)^{1/s}`$, $`s=q1`$, and we have restored dependence on the external parameters $`a`$. In view of the fact that the number $`M`$ is taken to be big but finite, i.e. $`q1`$, the normalized distribution function (2) can be referred to as the quasicanonical Gibbs distribution.

The obtained distribution function (2) strongly resembles the distribution function in Tsallis nonextensive statistics , where $`q`$ is called entropic parameter.

We remind that $`q`$-exponential, $`\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z]`$, reduces to the ordinary exponential, $`\mathrm{exp}[z]`$, at $`q1`$, so that the canonical Gibbs distribution is recovered.

Typical plots of $`\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z]`$ at various $`q`$ are presented in Fig. 1. In the physical context, to avoid the negative and increasing values of $`\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z]`$ one must restrict positive $`z`$ by a suitable condition (the high-energy cut-off).

Some useful formulas with $`q`$-exponential are:

$$d\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\pm z]/dz=\pm (\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\pm z])^{2q},$$
(19)
$$\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\pm z]𝑑z=\pm q^1(\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\pm z])^q,$$
(20)
$$\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z]=\left(\mathrm{exp}_{1q}[z]\right)^1,$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z_1]\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z_2]=\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z_1+z_2+(q1)z_1z_2],$$
(22)
the $`q`$-Poisson integral,

$$z^ne_{q1}^{cz^2}dz=z^{n+1}{}_{2}{}^{}F{}_{1}{}^{}(\frac{n+1}{2},\frac{1}{1q},\frac{n+3}{2},(q1)cz^2),$$
(23)
and

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}z^ne_{q1}^{cz^2}dz=\frac{1}{2}(ccq)^{(n+1)/2}\times $$

$$\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{q+n(q1)+1}{2(1q)}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left(\frac{1}{1q}\right),$$
(24)
for $`n>1`$, $`\frac{q+n(q1)+1}{2(1q)}>0`$, $`\frac{n+1}{2}\frac{1}{1q}>0`$, and real $`c`$, where $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_1`$ is hypergeometric function and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Euler gamma function.

The reflection of the $`q`$-axis with respect to the point $`q=1`$, maps $`\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z]`$ to $`\mathrm{exp}_{1q}[z]=(1+(1q)z)^{1/(1q)}`$ which is often used in the literature as a definition of the $`q`$-exponential.

Also, it is remarkable to note that the slightly generalized $`q`$-exponential,

$$\mathrm{exp}_{q1,b}[z](1+(q1)z)^{1/(q1)+b},$$
(25)
can be represented as a power of the $`q`$-exponential,

$$(1+(q1)z)^{c/(q1)}=(\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z])^c,$$
(26)
for the parameter $`c=1+(q1)b`$. For example, $`(1+(q1)z)^{1/(q1)+1}=(1+(q1)z)^{q/(q1)}=(\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z])^q`$, so that for small $`q1`$ we have $`\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z](\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z])^q`$.

Note that $`(\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z])^c`$ corresponds to the scaling of $`z`$ in the $`q1`$ limit, namely, $`(\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z])^c\mathrm{exp}[cz]`$, while in general $`(\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z])^c\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[cz]`$.

In contrast to the canonical case, the distribution function (2) depends not only on the temperature ($`\beta ^1`$) but also on the total number of particles in quasithermostat displayed by the parameter $`q`$. Also, the property (22) of $`q`$-exponential leads to a non-factorizable character of the distribution function (2).

Using the identity $`\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z]=\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z]\}`$ and the new variable $`z_q=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z](q1)^1\mathrm{ln}(1+(q1)z)`$, one can formally rewrite $`q`$-exponential in the usual exponential form, $`\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[z]=\mathrm{exp}[z_q]`$. This allows to reformulate any $`q`$-exponential distribution function, e.g., (2), in a factorizable form with respect to $`z_q`$. Consequently, one can formally achieve an additive character of Tsallis formalism with respect to such ”$`q`$-deformed“ entities $`z_q`$.

Almeida  has derived Tsallis distribution (2) from the first principles of statistical mechanics using the parametrization

$$\frac{d\theta }{dE}=q1,$$
(27)
where $`\theta 1/\beta `$ is the statistical temperature. Tsallis parameter $`q`$ is given a physical interpretation in terms of heat capacity of the heat bath due to the fact that $`\theta `$ is related to the temperature of the heat bath. For an infinite heat capacity (thermostat), $`q=1`$, one recovers canonical Gibbs distribution while for finite heat capacity (quasithermostat), $`q1`$, one gets power law distributions.

The microcanonical approach meets this viewpoint as it establishes dependence of $`q`$ on the number of particles $`M`$ of the quasithermostat which evidently characterizes its heat capacity, $`d\theta /dE1/M`$. It is worthwhile to note however that in general the form of the dependence $`\theta (E)`$ in the l.h.s. of Eq. (27) seems to be not fixed by first principles of statistical mechanics. The linear dependence, $`\theta (E)=(q1)E`$, does yield Eq. (27) while a quadratic dependence would require yet another parameter. In contrast, the used microcanonical approach with the kinetic energy in the form (7) suggests only one parameter, $`M`$, which we relate to $`q`$ via Eq. (17).

## 3 The entropy

The entropy associated to the distribution function $`f_N=f_N(H(x,a),\beta ,q)`$ defined by (2) can be readily obtained, up to a factor and constant term.

First, we identically rewrite Eq. (2) as

$$f_N=\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\beta F_q(\beta (q1)F_q)H(x,a)],$$
(28)
where we have denoted

$$F_q=\beta ^1\mathrm{ln}_{q1}Z_q^1,$$
(29)
and $`q`$-logarithm is an inversion of $`q`$-exponential, $`\mathrm{ln}_s[z]=(z^s1)/s`$, $`s=q1`$.

Some useful formulas with $`q`$-logarithm are:

$$\underset{q1}{lim}\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z=\mathrm{ln}z,\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z^1=\mathrm{ln}_{1q}z,$$
(30)
$$\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z^p=p\mathrm{ln}_{p(q1)}z,z\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z=z^q\mathrm{ln}_{1q}z,$$
(31)
$$d\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z/dz=z^{q2}=z^1(1+(q1)\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z),$$
(32)
$$\mathrm{ln}_{q1}zdz=q^1z(\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z1),$$
(33)
and

$$\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z_1z_2=\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z_1+\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z_2+(q1)\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z_1\mathrm{ln}_{q1}z_2,$$
(34)
Then, with the use of the inverse function,

$$H=\rho (f_N)=(\beta F_q\mathrm{ln}_{q1}f_N)/(\beta (q1)F_q),$$
(35)
the normalization condition, $`f_N𝑑x=1`$, the thermodynamic heat, $`\delta Q=H(x,a)(\delta f_N)𝑑x`$, and the integrability condition, $`dQ=T(\beta )dS_q`$ one can obtain (cf. )

$$S_q(a,T)=f_N\mathrm{ln}_{q1}f_Ndxf_N^q\mathrm{ln}_{1q}f_Ndx.$$
(36)
Here, the representation

$$S_q=T^1(\beta )_0^{f_N}(\rho (z)+\mathrm{const})𝑑z𝑑x$$
(37)
with a suitable constant has been used. The integrability factor is found to be $`T(\beta )=(q\beta q(q1)F_q)^1`$.

With $`\beta ^1=kT`$, we obtain

$$\delta Q=\left(\frac{q}{kT}q(q1)F_q\right)dS_q.$$
(38)
In the discrete case characterized by microstates with energies $`E_n`$, the obtained quasicanonical distribution function (2) and the entropy (36) are written as

$$f_n=\frac{1}{Z_q}\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\beta E_n],$$
(39)
$$Z_q=\underset{n=1}{\overset{W}{}}\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\beta E_n],\underset{n=1}{\overset{W}{}}f_n=1,$$
(40)
$$S_q=\underset{n=1}{\overset{W}{}}f_n\mathrm{ln}_{q1}f_n\underset{n=1}{\overset{W}{}}f_n^q\mathrm{ln}_{1q}f_n$$
(41)
$$\frac{_{n=1}^W(f_n^qf_n)}{q1}=\frac{_{n=1}^Wf_n^q1}{q1}.$$

The entropy (41) coincides with Tsallis entropy , with $`q`$ treated as an entropic parameter, and reduces to Boltzmann-Gibbs-Shannon entropy, $`S=f_n\mathrm{ln}f_n`$, at $`q1`$. It is remarkable to note that either $`f_n`$ and $`f_n^q`$ can be used for the averaging in Eq. (41) provided a suitable choice of $`q`$.

It is well known that by extremizing the (convex) entropy (41) under suitable constraints  one obtains Tsallis distribution (39).

Due to the property (34) of $`q`$-logarithm the entropy (41) is non-additive,

$$S_q(A,B)=S_q(A)+S_q(B|A)+(q1)S_q(A)S_q(B|A),$$
(42)
where we use the conditional entropy for statistically dependent systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ (e.g., subsystems with long-range interactions) based on the conditional distribution function $`f(A,B)=f(A|B)f(B)=f(B|A)f(A)`$.

In the case $`A`$ and $`B`$ are statistically independent in a conventional sense (e.g., subsystems with short-range interactions), we have formally $`S_q(A|B)=S_q(A)`$ and $`S_q(B|A)=S_q(B)`$.

We note that the $`(q1)`$ term in Eq. (42) is non-zero even for such ”statistically independent” systems contrary to a naive expectation that the statistical independence should imply an additive character of the entropy $`S_q`$. The origin of this implication seems to be due to the fact that here the parameter $`q`$ does not depend by construction on a scale or correlation parameter, such as a correlation length, which allows one to determine a statistical independence of the systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ in a physical context (when the systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ are separated by distances much bigger than the correlation length their evolutions are physically independent).

Formally, for a constant parameter $`q1`$ the systems appear to be always statistically dependent on each other. Deeper analysis is required for a consistent formulation of the statistical independence within the framework of non-additive formalism (42).

## 4 Normal random momenta and fluctuating statistical temperature

Recently, Beck  have studied application of Tsallis formalism to turbulent flows and indicated that the factor of Tsallis equilibrium distribution function (39) can be obtained by averaging Boltzmann factor of the canonical Gibbs distribution ,

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }E_n}f(\stackrel{~}{\beta })𝑑\stackrel{~}{\beta }=(1(q1)\beta E_n)^{\frac{1}{q1}},$$
(43)
where $`1q=2/m`$ and

$$f(\stackrel{~}{\beta })=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{m}{2})}\left(\frac{n}{2\beta }\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }^{\frac{m}{2}1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{m\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{2\beta }\right]$$
(44)
is the probability density of the $`\chi ^2`$ distribution of order $`m`$ (the distribution of sum of squares of $`m`$ normal random variables with mean zero and unit variance), with the average $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }f(\stackrel{~}{\beta })𝑑\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\beta `$ and the relative variance $`(\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2)/\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2=2/m`$. This is viewed as the result of fluctuation of temperature or fluctuation of energy dissipation  and has been found of particular relevance for nonequilibrium systems. Beck have used an assumption that the time scale on which $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ fluctuates is much bigger than that of kinetic relaxation of the system. This provides a quasistatic behavior of the system with respect to variation of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$.

We see that $`\chi ^2`$ randomization and averaging of the canonical Gibbs distribution over random $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ leads to Tsallis distribution.

It seems that the relevance of $`\chi ^2`$ distribution (44) to relate Boltzmann and Tsallis factors is not due to a coincidence. By comparing this approach  with the above obtained results (17) and (2), we see that the number of random variables is $`m=3M`$, which is exactly the total number of components of three-dimensional momenta $`p_i`$ of $`M`$ particles constituting the quasithermostat. Since the quasithermostat is assumed to be in a quasi-equilibrium state we can treat the momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ (microscopic characteristics) to be normal random variables with mean zero and unit deviation as a simplest model. Hence, the kinetic energy (7) is $`\chi ^2`$ distributed due to its definition. We associate the kinetic energy of particles in quasithermostat to its statistical temperature $`\beta ^1`$ in accord to Eq. (13). Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }^1`$ becomes $`\chi ^2`$ random variable.

This partially clarifies the physical origin of the $`\chi ^2`$ distribution used by Beck in Eq. (43). However, we note that in our approach $`\chi ^2`$ distribution arises for the statistical temperature $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }^1`$ (not for the inverse statistical temperature $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$).

Usually, normal (not $`\chi ^2`$) distribution of fluctuating temperature with the relative variance from Eq. (58) is used as a good approximation. We note that the averaging of the canonical Gibbs distribution over normally distributed $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ (i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }^1`$) with the mean $`T`$ and some deviation $`\sigma `$ is not analytically tractable, while the averaging over normally distributed $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ yields the analytic result,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }H}g(\stackrel{~}{\beta })𝑑\beta =e^{\beta H+\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^2H^2}\left(1\mathrm{erf}(\frac{\sigma ^2H\beta }{\sqrt{2}\sigma })\right),$$
(45)
where

$$g(\stackrel{~}{\beta })=\frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{\pi /2}}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\beta }\beta )^2}{2\sigma ^2}]$$
(46)
is normal distribution, and erf$`(x)`$ is the error function. The resulting expression (45) includes one special function and is less handful as compared with Tsallis distribution (43).

Since the entropy $`S_q`$ and mean energy $`\overline{H}`$ of the equilibrium system are not additive for $`q1`$, the function $`F_q`$ is not additive as well. Indeed, from Eqs. (2) and (36), we have

$$S_q=(\beta (q1)F_q)\overline{H}\beta F_q,$$
(47)
where $`\overline{H}=Hf_N𝑑x`$. This implies that $`\beta `$ is not a universal parameter of the system, in contrast to the case of additive entropy and mean energy. Indeed, $`\beta `$ is not the only parameter characterizing the quasithermostat, with $`q`$ being the second temperature parameter measuring the relative variance of the fluctuating parameter around the value $`\beta `$ viewed as an average.

From the viewpoint of canonical Gibbs distribution, accounting for a finiteness of thermostat made in Sec. 2 automatically arises to the averaged $`\chi ^2`$ distributed fluctuation of the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ around the mean $`\beta `$ with the relative variance $`1/M`$. Actually we associate the fluctuations of temperature with eventual fluctuations of the energy of a finite thermostat. We conclude that the $`\chi ^2`$ statistics is implicit in Tsallis statistical mechanics.

The spatial scale dependence of the entropic parameter, $`q=q(r)`$, introduced by Beck  can be readily understood since $`q`$ is related to the number of particles. For bigger spatial scale the fluctuations become smaller so that $`q1`$ in the big scale asymptotics.

To illustrate how the resulting nonadditivity affects the temperature characteristics, we consider two systems with Hamiltonians $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, respectively, at the same $`\beta `$. Abe and Rajagopal  have elaborated the power-low distribution based thermodynamics of equilibrium to much extent. Below, we discuss this issue in the context of fluctuations of the parameter $`\beta `$.

For weakly interacting canonical systems we have $`\mathrm{exp}[\beta H_1]\mathrm{exp}[\beta H_2]=\mathrm{exp}[\beta H]`$, where $`H=H_1+H_2`$ is conserved. As usual, this means that the two equilibrium systems compose an equilibrium system at the same $`\beta `$, while at different $`\beta `$ there is no equilibrium, with conserved $`H`$. The $`\chi ^2`$ randomization, $`\beta \stackrel{~}{\beta }`$, and averaging of each of the two canonical systems, with the same average $`\beta `$ and relative variance $`q1`$, gives us $`\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\beta H_1]\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\beta H_2]=\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\beta H_{\mathrm{eff}}]`$, where we have denoted $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}=H+(q1)\beta H_1H_2`$. On the other hand, the averaging of the composite system yields a different result, $`\mathrm{exp}[\beta (H_1+H_2)]_\beta =\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\beta H]`$.

It is misleading to interpret the above relations as that the composite system appears to be not at thermal equilibrium despite the identical $`\beta `$. A thermal equilibrium of two systems in the sense of their absolute temperatures is well formulated for a non-fluctuating $`\beta `$ but not for the average, $`\beta `$, of fluctuating $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. The extra $`\beta `$-term in $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ looks like a pure effect of the $`\chi ^2`$ averaging since it is proportional to the relative variance $`q1`$. Indeed, in general $`f(\stackrel{~}{\beta },H_1)_\beta f(\stackrel{~}{\beta },H_2)_\beta f(\stackrel{~}{\beta },H_1)f(\stackrel{~}{\beta },H_2)_\beta `$ regardless to factorizability of the function $`f(\stackrel{~}{\beta },H)`$ with respect to additive $`H`$. Even more difficulties in understanding thermal equilibrium would arise when one naively considers two systems with the same average $`\beta `$ and different relative variances, $`q_11`$ and $`q_21`$.

In order to clarify the physical content of the problem of fluctuating $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ we turn to the time scale hierarchy emerging from the microscopic consideration of a dilute gas and weakly inhomogeneous systems of a finite characteristic size.

## 5 The time scale hierarchy

Internal characteristics of a dilute gas with density $`n=N/V`$ are known to be the interaction range $`r_{\mathrm{int}}`$, the mean distance between particles, $`r_{\mathrm{ave}}n^{1/3}`$, and the free-flight length $`r_{\mathrm{fli}}1/(nr_{\mathrm{int}}^2)`$. The main parameter of a dilute gas is the density parameter,

$$\epsilon nr_{\mathrm{int}}^31.$$
(48)
For example, ambient air is characterized by the typical value $`\epsilon 10^4`$. For small $`\epsilon `$ we have scale hierarchy,

$$r_{\mathrm{int}}r_{\mathrm{ave}}r_{\mathrm{fli}},$$
(49)
with $`r_{\mathrm{int}}^3:r_{\mathrm{ave}}^3:r_{\mathrm{fli}}^3=1:\epsilon ^1:\epsilon ^3`$, from which it follows the time scale hierarchy,

$$\tau _{\mathrm{int}}\tau _{\mathrm{ave}}\tau _{\mathrm{fli}},$$
(50)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{int}}=r_{\mathrm{int}}/v`$ is the interaction time, $`\tau _{\mathrm{ave}}=r_{\mathrm{ave}}/v`$ is the average time, $`\tau _{\mathrm{fli}}=r_{\mathrm{fli}}/v`$ is the free-flight time, and $`v`$ is some characteristic velocity of particles. Typically, for dilute gases $`\tau _{\mathrm{int}}10^{12}`$ sec and $`\tau _{\mathrm{fli}}10^8`$ sec.

For such systems the quasi-closeness and quasi-equilibrium of subsystems are well defined, and a description in terms of one- and two-particle probability distribution functions, or mean local densities (particle number, momentum, and energy), is rigorously justified.

One-particle distribution function varies much slower than the higher order ones due to the smallness of $`\epsilon `$, providing thus quasi-conservation of the mean local densities. At the microscopic level a quasi-additivity of the (quasi-)local energy density (hence, of the energy) can be seen from the last term in its definition,

$$h(\stackrel{}{r})=\underset{i}{}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i)[\stackrel{}{p}_i^{2}/2m+\underset{ji}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(|\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{r}_j|)].$$
(51)
Here the last sum makes the biggest contribution for the coordinates $`\stackrel{}{r}_j`$ of particles which are at distances less or about $`r_{\mathrm{int}}`$ from the point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. In fact, whether $`h(\stackrel{}{r})`$ can be taken additive or non-additive depends on the scale.

We start by considering a sequence of systems,

$$𝒩_1𝒩_2\mathrm{}𝒩_i\mathrm{}𝒩_{\mathrm{}},$$
(52)
generated by the relations between the numbers of particles in these systems, $`1N_1N_2\mathrm{}N_i\mathrm{}N_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$. The systems $`𝒩_1`$ and $`𝒩_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be viewed as a smallest system and an ideal thermostat, respectively, in the equilibrium state. More specifically, the systems $`𝒩_i`$ are treated as thermodynamical systems of characteristic sizes $`r_i`$, which are external characteristics, such that

$`r_{\mathrm{int}}r_{\mathrm{ave}}r_1\mathrm{}r_{k1}r_{\mathrm{fli}}\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}r_k\mathrm{}r_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}.`$ (53)
Here, we have used the fact that for a dilute gas the free-flight length is much bigger than the interaction range, $`r_{\mathrm{fli}}r_{\mathrm{int}}`$, so that some number $`(k1)`$ of systems fall into the range between $`r_{\mathrm{ave}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{fli}}`$. In this paper, we will not consider such systems which require a separate study.

Actually we assume that $`𝒩_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be represented as a collection of weakly interacting equilibrium systems $`𝒩_1`$ so that all bigger systems $`𝒩_i`$, $`i>1`$, are in incomplete equilibrium state at some time scale.

We remind that in the framework of the canonical Gibbs distribution, the interaction between different $`𝒩_1`$’s is taken negligible, $`\xi H_{\mathrm{int}}/H_{N_1}=0`$ (zero order approximation in small $`\xi `$). However, the relaxation of some system $`𝒩_i`$, $`i>1`$, to an equilibrium state is solely related to $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ so that at least first order approximation in small $`\xi `$ should be used to describe the relaxation process.

The kinetic relaxation length $`r_{\mathrm{rel}}r_{\mathrm{fli}}`$, and the associated kinetic relaxation time, $`\tau _{\mathrm{rel}}\tau _{\mathrm{fli}}`$, are much bigger than the correlation length, $`r_{\mathrm{cor}}r_{\mathrm{int}}`$ and the associated correlation time, $`\tau _{\mathrm{cor}}\tau _{\mathrm{int}}`$, for $`\epsilon 1`$.

In terms of small parameter $`\epsilon `$, one can define (see e.g. )

$$r_1=\sqrt{\epsilon }r_{\mathrm{fli}},\tau _1=\sqrt{\epsilon }\tau _{\mathrm{fli}},N_1=1/\sqrt{\epsilon },$$
(54)
for the smallest system $`𝒩_1`$. The size $`r_1=v\tau _1`$ is taken to provide conservation of the local densities of particle number, momenta and energy in the approximation of weak inhomogeneity,

$$r_{\mathrm{cor}}/r_11,$$
(55)
at the time scale $`\tau _1`$. For $`\epsilon =10^4`$, we obtain the minimal number of particles $`N_1=100`$. To specify the hierarchy, we can put $`N_i=1/\epsilon ^{i/2}`$.

To each characteristic size $`r_i`$, $`i>k`$, we can associate the gas dynamical relaxation time,

$$\tau _i=\tau _1(r_i/r_{\mathrm{fli}})^2,i>1,$$
(56)
so that the time scale hierarchy is

$$\tau _{\mathrm{int}}\tau _{\mathrm{ave}}\tau _{\mathrm{fli}}\tau _k\tau _{k+1}\mathrm{}\tau _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}.$$
(57)
For $`ik`$, the sizes of the systems $`𝒩_i`$ are much bigger than $`r_{\mathrm{fli}}`$ so that for such systems one more small parameter can be introduced, $`K_ir_{\mathrm{fli}}/r_i`$, Knudtsen parameter, in terms of which $`\tau _i=\tau _1/K_i^2`$.

It should be emphasized that due to $`N_1=1/\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ the $`\epsilon =0`$ approximation in the (nonfluctuating) canonical Gibbs distribution implicitly means that $`N_1=\mathrm{}`$ (the approximation of a continuous medium for $`N_1`$ particle system). Evidently, the consideration of bigger systems $`𝒩_i`$, $`i>1`$, becomes of no sense in the $`\epsilon =0`$ approximation. This is the point where a large scale dependence is totally ignored within the approximation of nonfluctuating distribution function. To keep this dependence one should derive the quasi-equilibrium distribution function in at least the first order approximation in $`\epsilon `$ and allow distribution function to fluctuate.

## 6 Fluctuating probability distribution functions

Now we turn to fluctuations. Following to Onsager principle, kinetics of a linear non-equilibrium thermodynamical system (its relaxation to an equilibrium state) defines fluctuations in the system. In turn, the fluctuations of the thermodynamical entities (evolution of the time correlation functions of their deviations from equilibrium values) can be equivalently described in terms of Langevin equation with $`\delta `$-correlated stochastic sources. Thus the fluctuations of equilibrium systems can be viewed as a stationary process with the time scales defined by the relaxation times $`\tau _i`$, $`i>k`$, of the gas dynamical stage of the relaxation. As shown in Sec. 5 these time scales are known to be much bigger than that of the kinetic relaxation $`\tau _{\mathrm{rel}}`$ thus providing a local equilibrium framework.

We are interested in a finite thermostat so that we take some finite size equilibrium system $`𝒩_j`$ serving as a quasithermostat for the system $`𝒩_i`$, i.e., we assume $`N_jN_i`$. In accord to the above consideration, the time scale $`\tau _j`$ of the quasithermostat $`𝒩_j`$ at which its $`\beta `$ (kinetic energy per particle) fluctuates is much bigger than the time scale $`\tau _i`$ at which any thermodynamical entity of the system $`𝒩_i`$ fluctuates. In general, there is finite number of big systems $`𝒩_{i+1}`$, $`𝒩_{i+2}`$,…,$`𝒩_j`$, each making contribution to fluctuation of the temperature with different relative variances at corresponding time scales $`\tau _{i+1}`$,…,$`\tau _j`$. Observed marginal distribution for $`𝒩_i`$ will depend on the observation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ as compared to these time scales. We remark that the observed relative variance of fluctuating $`\beta `$ is thus depends on the scale and $`\tau _{\mathrm{obs}}`$.

At the time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{obs}}\tau _i`$ the canonical Gibbs distribution makes a very good description of $`𝒩_i`$, with $`\beta `$ treated as a constant, and an additive character of the entropy and mean energy.

At long time scale, $`\tau _{\mathrm{obs}}\tau _j\tau _i`$, the fluctuations of $`\beta `$ can not be ignored so that Tsallis-like distribution emerges as an effective description, i.e., we should replace $`\beta \stackrel{~}{\beta }`$, and make the averaging $`e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }H_i}_\beta `$, with $`\beta =\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and some relative variance. This results in a non-additive character of the entropy and mean energy of $`𝒩_i`$. Note however that in the latter case the usual quasi-equilibrium (thermal equilibrium) still holds for any given value of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ at the small time scale $`\tau _i`$. This picture meets that assumed by Beck .

For $`j\mathrm{}`$ (an ideal thermostat), we have $`\tau _j\mathrm{}`$ so that $`\beta `$ is constant at any time scale $`\tau >\tau _i`$, thus $`q=1`$ for $`𝒩_{\mathrm{}}`$.

To put the above consideration on solid grounds, below we outline statistical mechanics approach to fluctuations, within a dynamical framework.

We can treat the quasithermostat $`𝒩_j`$ as an equilibrium system, which can be described in pure additive thermodynamical terms, with the canonical Gibbs distribution, $`Z^1\mathrm{exp}[H_j/kT]`$, providing the averaging in $`𝒩_j`$.

However, kinetic and thermodynamic fluctuations naturally occur in the quasi-equilibrium system $`𝒩_j`$ and can be calculated in a linear approximation (small fluctuations) for the case of weak inhomogeneity of the system, Eq. (55). We notice that rigorous description of fluctuations is out of scope of the canonical Gibbs distribution and the one-particle distribution function entering Boltzmann equation.

In a dynamical framework, one should consider Bogolyubov equations with a short-range interaction potential, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(|\stackrel{}{r}_m\stackrel{}{r}_n|)`$, for point-like particles (providing convergence of the integral for local energy density), small density parameter $`\epsilon `$ (i.e., three- and higher order particle collisions are ignored), and weak inhomogeneity (providing small gradient of the one-particle distribution function), and account for the two-particle correlation function with a partial relaxation of initial correlations. This implies fluctuations of the one-particle distribution function; see e.g.  and review . The form of the resulting kinetic equations allows one to study separately implications related to Brownian effect (a discrete collision structure of the medium) thus discarding influence of fluctuations on kinetic processes.

The resulting picture is equivalent to consideration of some Langevin equations with $`\delta `$-correlated stochastic sources, from which one can extract two-point correlation functions and spectral densities of the gas density, velocity, and pressure, for a local equilibrium state. In the local equilibrium approximation correlation functions of the stochastic sources can be found also by phenomenological methods of non-equilibrium thermodynamics .

The spectral densities can be used to estimate the gas dynamical relaxation time, $`1/\tau \nu \stackrel{}{k}^2\kappa \stackrel{}{k}^2`$, where $`\nu `$ is kinematic viscosity, $`\kappa `$ is heat conductivity, and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is wave vector. For a finite system of characteristic size $`L`$, the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is naturally bounded from below, $`|\stackrel{}{k}|1/L`$, from which with the use of estimation $`\nu \kappa vr_{\mathrm{fli}}`$ it follows Eq. (56).

We focus on the temperature fluctuations, for which one can obtain the approximate variance,

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{T})^2kT^2(dT/dE)_V,$$
(58)
with temperature $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ being normally distributed (in this approximation), and $`T`$ in the r.h.s. is given in terms of equilibrium value. This means that $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ fluctuates about the average $`T`$ with the relative variance $`k/C_v`$, where $`C_v=(dE/dT)_VN_j`$ is a heat capacity of the quasithermostat $`𝒩_j`$, thus ending up with the consideration of Sec. 4.

It is worthwhile to note that the entropy $`S`$ of $`𝒩_j`$ fluctuates as well, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S})^2kC_p`$, $`C_pN_j`$.

Clearly, natural fluctuations occur not only in the quasithermostat $`𝒩_j`$ but also in the considered smaller system $`𝒩_i`$. However, we can ignore these fluctuations as they make small contribution to specific fluctuation of the temperature $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ governed by the quasithermostat, due to $`N_iN_j`$.

We point out that a major difference from the above consideration arises when turning to fully developed turbulence considered in . Beck used statistical temperature related to kinetic coefficients (fluctuations of which are evidently not related to a finiteness of quasithermostat) and have averaged the probability distribution function (describing a stationary non-equilibrium state) derived from a nonlinear Langevin equation which is different from the canonical Gibbs distribution. Fluctuations of the friction coefficient (or viscosity) are seem to be of a kinetic type originating from large scale fluctuations of the phase-space density function averaged over the smallest scale. Such fluctuations may have a big relative variance as they are not related to the particle number of some big system, with the main contribution to the energy dissipation happening at the smallest scale being fluctuations, $`\stackrel{~}{u}_i\delta u_i`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{u}_i`$ is velocity and $`\delta u_i`$ is fluctuation of the velocity. Indeed, for Kolmogorov (the smallest) length scale $`\eta `$ of the turbulent flow Beck has derived under simple assumptions a theoretical value of the entropic parameter, $`q=3/2`$, which essentially deviates from unity (the relative variance is considerable, $`q1=1/2`$). One can see  that Tsallis formalism does work in this case as well. For bigger scales, fluctuations of the energy dissipation decrease so that in zero order approximation in $`\eta /r`$ the energy dissipation is constant. Clearly, one should assign the value $`q=1`$ for this large scale asymptotics.

Fluctuations of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ in the canonical Gibbs distribution mean that we deal with a fluctuating distribution function. The $`\chi ^2`$ average value of this fluctuating distribution function is Tsallis distribution,

$$e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }H}_\beta =e_{q1}^{\beta H}.$$
(59)
The relative variance of this fluctuation is

$$\frac{e^{2\stackrel{~}{\beta }H}_\beta e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }H}_\beta ^2}{e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }H}_\beta ^2}=s\mathrm{ln}_s\left(1+\frac{s^2\beta ^2H^2}{1+2s\beta H}\right),$$
(60)
where $`s=1q`$. For small $`(1q)`$, this relative variance behaves as $`(1q)^3`$. Also, up to a first order in $`(q1)`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{exp}_{q1}[\beta H]\left(1+\frac{q1}{2}\beta ^2H^2\right)\mathrm{exp}[\beta H].$$
(61)
It is remarkable to note that this function is non-factorizable with respect to $`H`$ because of the presence of $`H^2`$.

From the above dynamical consideration it follows that fluctuations of a probability distribution function arise naturally in studying both equilibrium and non-equilibrium phenomena. However, in studying equilibrium state one usually uses non-fluctuating distribution function, thus discarding specific effects such as wellknown Brownian one. Namely, the $`\epsilon =0`$ approximation means a continuous medium approximation, at which Brownian motion can not be described, even for the smallest physical equilibrium system $`𝒩_1`$ consisting of, e.g., $`N_1=100`$ particles for $`\epsilon =10^4`$.

In contrast, the use of a phenomenological Tsallis approach makes possible to account for some of the effects related to natural fluctuations of an equilibrium distribution function or that corresponding to a stationary non-equilibrium process.

Finally, we point out that even small fluctuations of the one-particle distribution function, $`\delta f/f1`$, make an essential contribution (as big as Boltzmann integral which is treated as a leading term) to Boltzmann equation with Langevin sources . This indicates importance of accounting for fluctuations of probability distribution functions, both for equilibrium and non-equilibrium states, at some scales.

## 7 Discussion

The microcanonical approach in the form presented in this paper evidently can not cover a universal character of Tsallis formalism. First, since we assume $`M1`$ the parameter $`q1`$ is very close to zero that allows us to use expansion in $`q1`$ and calculate small corrections to the canonical Gibbs distribution, while for considerable $`q1`$ the arguments of our derivation in Sec. 2 break down. Second, we have ignored the interaction energy $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ that is not valid for systems with long-range microscopic interactions to which Tsallis statistics is applied. Also, the nonextensivity can arise not only as the effect of a finite heat bath. For example, Tsallis distribution arises in the description of polydispersed colloids with the fluctuating parameter being particle size , and was used to describe statistical properties of fully developed turbulence ; see also review in .

In general, fluctuations of the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ (or statistical temperature) and averaging of the fluctuating distribution function over $`\chi ^2`$-like distribution can be viewed as a defining feature of Tsallis-like nonextensive statistical distributions, regardless to the origin of fluctuations.

Adopting this viewpoint, one can try various types of distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ in replace of $`\chi ^2`$ distribution, and allow considerable relative variance of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. For example, it is natural to assume Poisson distribution for the random momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ in replace of the normal distribution; see also . Also, one may be interested in a more detailed description and account for higher order momenta such as biquadratic deviations of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$.

From this point of view, Tsallis formalism can be treated as a suitable universal tool to deal with fluctuating distribution functions without turning to underlying kinetic issues. However, it should be noted that the use of an averaged fluctuating distribution function means incomplete statistical description.

Finally, we stress that the very notions of extensivity (additivity) and intensivity in thermodynamics are essentially based on the requirement that the system is homogeneous, which is provided for big systems with weak interactions or, more precisely, in the thermodynamic limit, $`N,V\mathrm{}`$, $`N/V=`$ const. These notions make no strict sense for inhomogeneous systems such as finite systems or systems characterized by the size of the order of correlation length $`r_{\mathrm{cor}}`$. As a consequence, in this case there is no thermodynamical equivalence between equilibrium microcanonical and canonical ensembles.