text:
# Short Distance vs. Long Distance Physics: The Classical Limit of the Minimal Length Uncertainty Relation

## I Introduction

As is well known, in the case of point particles, short distance physics directly translates into high energy physics. This is a simple consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In local quantum field theories, which describe the dynamics of point particles, the fundamental degrees of freedom are revealed at high energy, or equivalently, at short distance. Also, there is a clear separation between ultraviolet and infrared physics from the point of view of the renormalization group.

In string theory, however, there is growing evidence that the physics at short distances, in contrast to local quantum field theory, is not clearly separated from the physics at long distances gross ; mende ; holo ; adscft ; ncft ; dscft ; dsrg . The fundamental formulation of this so–called UV/IR mixing, as well as its observable consequences, are not understood at present. Various authors have argued that some kind of UV/IR mixing is necessary to understand the cosmological constant problem banks ; cosmoc  or the observable implications of short distance physics on inflationary cosmology greene .

Motivated by these questions, we have recently CMOT1 ; CMOT2  investigated various observable consequences of the UV/IR mixing embodied in the “deformed” commutation relation Kempf:1995su

$$[\widehat{x},\widehat{p}]=i\mathrm{}(1+\beta \widehat{p}^2).$$
(1)
This commutation relation implements the minimal length uncertainty relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}+\beta \mathrm{\Delta }p\right),$$
(2)
which appears in perturbative string theory gross ; mende . Note the UV/IR mixing manifest in Eq. (2): when the uncertainty in momentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ is large (UV), the uncertainty in the position $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ and is therefore also large (IR). Note also that Eq. (2) implies a lower bound for $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{}\sqrt{\beta }.$$
(3)
In the context of perturbative string theory, the existence of this minimal length is tied to the fact that strings cannot probe distances shorter than the string length scale $`\mathrm{}_S`$ 777As reviewed in Refs. CMOT1 ; CMOT2 , the precise theoretical framework for the minimal length uncertainty relation is not at present understood in string theory. In particular, while the minimal uncertainty principle is based on the fact that strings cannot probe distances below $`\mathrm{}_S`$, other probes, such as $`D`$-branes joep , can probe scales smaller than $`\mathrm{}_S`$. In this situation, another type of uncertainty relation involving spatial and temporal coordinates is found to hold: $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{}_S^2`$ stu ; yoneya . . Thus,

$$\mathrm{}\sqrt{\beta }\mathrm{}_S.$$
(4)
In Ref. CMOT1 , we determined the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the harmonic oscillator when the position and momentum obey Eq. (1), and studied the possible constraint that can be placed on $`\beta `$ by precision measurements on electrons trapped in strong magnetic fields. Subsequently, in Ref. CMOT2 , we pointed out that Eq. (1) implies the finiteness of the cosmological constant and a modification of the blackbody radiation spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. One important observation made in Refs. CMOT1 ; CMOT2  was that various observable effects of the minimal length uncertainty relation are non–perturbative in the “deformation parameter” $`\beta `$ (i.e. contain all orders in $`\beta `$) even though $`\beta `$ appears only to linear order in Eqs. (1) and (2).

In this paper, we continue our investigation and consider the effects of the “deformation” of the canonical commutation relations on the orbits of classical particles in a central force potential. We find that comparison with observation places a strong constraint on the size of the minimum length.

## II The Classical Limit

In $`D`$-dimensions, Eq. (1) is extended to the tensorial form Kempf:1995su  :

$$[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{p}_j]=i\mathrm{}(\delta _{ij}+\beta \widehat{p}^2\delta _{ij}+\beta ^{}\widehat{p}_i\widehat{p}_j).$$
(5)
If the components of the momentum $`\widehat{p}_i`$ are assumed to commute with each other,

$$[\widehat{p}_i,\widehat{p}_j]=0,$$
(6)
then the commutation relations among the coordinates $`\widehat{x}_i`$ are almost uniquely determined by the Jacobi Identity (up to possible extensions) as

$$[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{x}_j]=i\mathrm{}\frac{(2\beta \beta ^{})+(2\beta +\beta ^{})\beta \widehat{p}^2}{(1+\beta \widehat{p}^2)}\left(\widehat{p}_i\widehat{x}_j\widehat{p}_j\widehat{x}_i\right).$$
(7)
In the classical limit, the quantum mechanical commutator is replaced by the Poisson bracket via

$$\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{A},\widehat{B}]\{A,B\}.$$
(8)
So the classical limits of Eqs. (5)–(7) read

$`\{x_i,p_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\beta p^2)\delta _{ij}+\beta ^{}p_ip_j,`$ (9)
$`\{p_i,p_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (10)
$`\{x_i,x_j\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\beta \beta ^{})+(2\beta +\beta ^{})\beta p^2}{(1+\beta p^2)}}\left(p_ix_jp_jx_i\right).`$ (11)
We are keeping the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ fixed as $`\mathrm{}0`$, which in the string theory context corresponds to keeping the string momentum scale fixed while the string length scale is taken to zero.

Note that for Eq. (8) to make sense, the Poisson bracket must possess the same properties as the quantum mechanical commutator, namely, it must be anti-symmetric, bilinear, and satisfy the Leibniz rules and the Jacobi Identity. These requirements allows us to derive the general form of our Poisson bracket for any functions of the coordinates and momenta as

$$\{F,G\}=\left(\frac{F}{x_i}\frac{G}{p_j}\frac{F}{p_i}\frac{G}{x_j}\right)\{x_i,p_j\}+\frac{F}{x_i}\frac{G}{x_j}\{x_i,x_j\},$$
(12)
where repeated indices are summed. In particular, we find that the time evolutions of the coordinates and momenta are governed by

$`\dot{x}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\{x_i,H\}=\{x_i,p_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_j}}+\{x_i,x_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}},`$ (13)
$`\dot{p}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\{p_i,H\}=\{x_i,p_j\}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{x_j}}.`$ (14)
This “deformed” version of classical mechanics is not without its difficulties, the foremost being how one can construct “canonical transformations” which relate the dynamical variables at one length scale to those at another. For the minimal length to be a well defined length scale, all dynamical variables at all length scales must obey Eq. (11). As a consequence, for instance, one cannot identify the position of a composite particle with the center of mass of its constituents. In retrospect, it is not surprising that this difficulty would exist given the UV/IR mixing nature of Eqs. (5)–(7) from which Eqs. (11) have been derived.

We merely point out this difficulty as a caveat and do not attempt to propose any solution in the current paper. Instead, we apply Eq. (14) to the motion of macroscopic objects and look for signatures of the deformation.

## III Motion in Central Force Potentials

For the Hamiltonian of a particle in a central force potential,

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(r),r=\sqrt{x_ix_i},$$
(15)
the derivatives with respect to the coordinates and momenta are

$$\frac{H}{p_j}=\frac{p_j}{m},\frac{H}{x_j}=\frac{V}{r}\frac{x_j}{r}.$$
(16)
Therefore, the time evolutions of the coordinates and momenta in this case are

$`\dot{x}_i`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2]{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}[(2\beta \beta ^{})+(2\beta +\beta ^{})\beta p^2]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{r}}\right)L_{ij}x_j,`$ (17)
$`\dot{p}_i`$ $`=`$ $`[(1+\beta p^2)x_i+\beta ^{}(px)p_i]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{r}}\right),`$ (18)
where

$$L_{ij}\frac{x_ip_jx_jp_i}{(1+\beta p^2)}.$$

The $`L_{ij}`$’s defined here are the generators of rotation:

$$\{x_k,L_{ij}\}=x_i\delta _{kj}x_j\delta _{ki},\{p_k,L_{ij}\}=p_i\delta _{kj}p_j\delta _{ki}.$$
(19)
For motion in a central force potential, the $`L_{ij}`$’s are conserved due to rotational symmetry:

$$\{L_{ij},H\}=0.$$
(20)
So is

$$L^2\frac{1}{2}L_{ij}L_{ji}=\frac{p^2r^2(px)^2}{(1+\beta p^2)^2}.$$
(21)
The conservation of the $`L_{ij}`$’s imply that the motion of the particle will be confined to a 2-dimensional plane spanned by the coordinate and momentum vectors at any point in time. Therefore, without loss of generality, we can assume that the motion is in the $`x_1x_2`$-plane and

$$L_{12}=L_{21}=L,L_{ij}=0\text{otherwise}.$$
(22)
Then, the motion can be described by the time dependences of the distance from the origin $`r`$, and the angle

$$\varphi \mathrm{tan}^1\frac{x_2}{x_1}.$$
(23)
The equation of motion for $`r`$ is given by

$`\dot{r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(r^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(x_ix_i)={\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{r}}\dot{x_i}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2]p_r,`$ (25)
where

$$p_r\frac{(px)}{r}=\sqrt{p^2\frac{L^2(1+\beta p^2)^2}{r^2}}.$$
(26)
Since the energy, $`E`$, is also conserved, we can write the momentum squared as a function of $`r`$ via

$$p^2=2m[EV(r)].$$
(27)
Therefore, right hand side of Eq. (25) can be written completely in terms of conserved quantities and functions of $`r`$:

$$\frac{dr}{dt}=\frac{1}{m}\left[1+2m(\beta +\beta ^{})(EV)\right]\sqrt{2m(EV)\frac{L^2\left[1+2m\beta (EV)\right]^2}{r^2}}.$$
(28)
The equation of motion for the angle $`\varphi `$ is

$`\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1\dot{x_2}x_2\dot{x_1}}{r^2}}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{mr^2}}\left\{[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+(\beta +\beta ^{})p^2](1+\beta p^2)+[(2\beta \beta ^{})+(2\beta +\beta ^{})\beta p^2]\left(mr{\displaystyle \frac{V}{r}}\right)\right\}.`$ (30)
Again, using Eq. (27), the right hand side can be written in terms of conserved quantities and functions of $`r`$ only:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{mr^2}}\{[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+2m(\beta +\beta ^{})(EV)][\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+2m\beta (EV)].`$ (32)
$`.+[(2\beta \beta ^{})+2m\beta (2\beta +\beta ^{})(EV)]\left(mr{\displaystyle \frac{V}{r}}\right)\}.`$
From Eqs. (28) and (32), we find

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dr}=\frac{L}{r^2}\frac{1+2m\beta (EV)+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\beta \beta ^{})+2m\beta (2\beta +\beta ^{})(EV)}{1+2m(\beta +\beta ^{})(EV)}}\left(mr{\displaystyle \frac{V}{r}}\right)}{\sqrt{2m(EV){\displaystyle \frac{L^2\left[1+2m\beta (EV)\right]^2}{r^2}}}}.$$
(33)
In principle, this equation can be integrated to obtain the $`\varphi `$ dependence of $`r`$. We will solve Eq. (33) for the harmonic oscillator and Coulomb potentials in the following two cases:

1. $`\beta 0`$, $`\beta ^{}=0`$, in which Eq. (33) simplifies to

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dr}=\frac{L}{r^2}\frac{1+2m\beta \left(EV+r{\displaystyle \frac{V}{r}}\right)}{\sqrt{2m(EV){\displaystyle \frac{L^2\left[1+2m\beta (EV)\right]^2}{r^2}}}},$$
(34)
and
2. $`\beta =0`$, $`\beta ^{}0`$, in which Eq. (33) simplifies to

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dr}=\frac{L}{r^2}\frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1/\beta ^{})+2m(EV)}}\left(mr{\displaystyle \frac{V}{r}}\right)}{\sqrt{2m(EV){\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}}}.$$
(35)

## IV The Harmonic Oscillator Potential

We first consider the harmonic oscillator potential

$$V(r)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2r^2.$$
(36)
### IV.1 $`\beta 0`$, $`\beta ^{}=0`$ case

For the harmonic oscillator, Eq. (34) can be cast into the form

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dr^2}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}}}{r^2\sqrt{(r_{\mathrm{max}}^2r^2)(r^2r_{\mathrm{min}}^2)}}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\sqrt{(r_{\mathrm{max}}^2r^2)(r^2r_{\mathrm{min}}^2)}}\right],$$
(37)
where

$`r_{\mathrm{max}/\mathrm{min}}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E+\beta m\omega ^2L^2(1+2m\beta E)\pm \sqrt{E^2\omega ^2L^2(1+2m\beta E)}}{m\omega ^2(1+\beta ^2m^2\omega ^2L^2)}}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`r_\pm ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2r_\pm r_{}^3}{r_+^2r_{}^2}}\right)\epsilon \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}^4(5r_\pm ^42r_+^2r_{}^2+r_{}^4)}{(r_+^2r_{}^2)^3}}\right\}\epsilon ^2+𝒪(\epsilon ^3),`$ (39)
and

$`r_\pm ^2`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E\pm \sqrt{E^2\omega ^2L^2}}{m\omega ^2}}\right),`$ (40)
$`\epsilon `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha \beta m\omega L.`$ (41)
$`r_{\mathrm{max}/\mathrm{min}}`$ are the turning points when $`\beta 0`$ and $`r_\pm `$ are the turning points when $`\beta =0`$. When $`\epsilon =\beta m\omega L`$ satisfies the condition

$$0<\epsilon <\frac{(r_+^2r_{}^2)^2}{4r_+r_{}(r_+^2+r_{}^2)},$$
(42)
it is possible to show that

$$r_{}<r_{\mathrm{min}}<r_{\mathrm{max}}<r_+.$$
(43)
When $`\epsilon =\beta m\omega L`$ exceeds the upper bound of the region Eq. (42), no solution exists.

Eq. (37) can be integrated to yield

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{arcsin}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2r_{\mathrm{min}}^2)r_{\mathrm{max}}^2(r_{\mathrm{max}}^2r^2)r_{\mathrm{min}}^2}{(r_{\mathrm{max}}^2r_{\mathrm{min}}^2)r^2}}\right\}`$ (45)
$`+\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{arcsin}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2r_{\mathrm{min}}^2)(r_{\mathrm{max}}^2r^2)}{(r_{\mathrm{max}}^2r_{\mathrm{min}}^2)}}\right\}].`$
In particular, we find

$$\varphi (r_{\mathrm{max}})\varphi (r_{\mathrm{min}})=\frac{\pi }{2}\left(1+\mathrm{sin}\alpha \right),$$
(46)
which shows that the orbit will not close on itself when $`\beta 0`$. It precesses by an angle of $`2\pi \mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ per revolution. For $`\beta 1`$, the precession angle is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta =2\pi \mathrm{sin}\alpha 2\pi (\beta m\omega L).$$
(47)
In Figure (2), we plot the trajectory of the motion for a representative set of parameters.

### IV.2 $`\beta =0`$, $`\beta ^{}0`$ case

For the harmonic oscillator, Eq. (35) can be cast into the form

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dr^2}=\frac{r_+r_{}}{2}\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{1}{r_\beta ^{}^2r^2}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{(r_+^2r^2)(r^2r_{}^2)}}$$
(48)
where

$`r_\pm ^2`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E\pm \sqrt{E^2\omega ^2L^2}}{m\omega ^2}}\right),`$ (49)
$`r_\beta ^{}^2`$ $``$ $`r_+^2+r_{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2\omega ^2\beta ^{}}}.`$ (50)
Note that the turning points, $`r_\pm `$, do not depend on $`\beta ^{}`$. In the limit $`\beta ^{}0`$, we have $`r_\beta ^{}^2\mathrm{}`$, and the equation for the $`\beta =\beta ^{}=0`$ case is recovered.

Eq. (48) can be integrated to yield

$`\varphi (r^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{arcsin}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2r_{}^2)r_+^2(r_+^2r^2)r_{}^2}{(r_+^2r_{}^2)r^2}}\right\}`$ (52)
$`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _+\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{}\mathrm{arcsin}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(r_\beta ^{}^2r_+^2)(r^2r_{}^2)(r_\beta ^{}^2r_{}^2)(r_+^2r^2)}{(r_\beta ^{}^2r^2)(r_+^2r_{}^2)}}\right\}],`$
where

$$\mathrm{tan}\alpha _\pm r_\pm m\omega \sqrt{\beta ^{}}.$$
(53)
Note that $`\alpha _\pm 0`$ in the limit $`\beta ^{}0`$. From Eq. (52), we find

$$\varphi (r_+)\varphi (r_{})=\frac{\pi }{2}\left(1\mathrm{sin}\alpha _+\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{}\right).$$
(54)
Compared to the $`\beta 0`$, $`\beta ^{}=0`$ case, Eq. (46), the precession is in the opposite direction: for each revolution, the angle swept is smaller than $`2\pi `$ by $`2\pi \mathrm{sin}\alpha _+\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{}`$. For $`\beta ^{}1`$, the precession angle is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta ^{}=2\pi \mathrm{sin}\alpha _+\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{}2\pi (\beta ^{}m\omega L).$$
(55)
In Figure (2), we plot the trajectory of the motion for a representative set of parameters.

## V The Coulomb Potential

Next, we consider the attractive Coulomb potential

$$V(r)=\frac{k}{r},(k>0).$$
(56)
### V.1 $`\beta 0`$, $`\beta ^{}=0`$ case

For bound states, $`E=|E|`$, Eq. (34) takes on the form

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dr}=\sqrt{r_+r_{}}\frac{1\epsilon \left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{2(r_++r_{})}{r}}\right\}}{\sqrt{(r\delta )(r\delta ^{})(r_{\mathrm{max}}r)(rr_{\mathrm{min}})}},$$
(57)
where

$`\epsilon `$ $``$ $`2m|E|\beta ,`$ (58)
$`r_\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2|E|}}\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4E^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2m|E|}}},`$ (59)
and

$`r_{\mathrm{max}/\mathrm{min}}`$ $`=`$ $`r_\pm \left({\displaystyle \frac{2r_{}^2}{r_\pm r_{}}}\right)\epsilon \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{r_{}^3(r_++r_{})(5r_\pm 3r_{})}{r_\pm (r_\pm r_{})^3}}\right\}\epsilon ^2+𝒪(\epsilon ^3),`$ (60)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon (r_++r_{})\left[1+\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{3(r_++r_{})^2}{2r_+r_{}}}\right\}\epsilon +𝒪(\epsilon ^2)\right]`$ (62)
$`+i\epsilon ^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(r_++r_{})^2}{\sqrt{r_+r_{}}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{7(r_++r_{})^2}{8r_+r_{}}}\right\}\epsilon +𝒪(\epsilon ^2)\right].`$
The exact forms of $`\delta `$ and $`r_{\mathrm{max}/\mathrm{min}}`$ are rather lengthy and non-illuminating, so we will not present them here. (See appendix A.) $`r_\pm `$ are the turning points when $`\beta =0`$, and we can see that when $`\beta >0`$,

$$r_{}<r_{\mathrm{min}}<r_{\mathrm{max}}<r_+,$$
(63)
just as in the harmonic oscillator case. The condition that $`\epsilon =2m|E|\beta `$ must satisfy for the solution to exist is

$$\frac{r_+r_{}}{(r_++r_{})^2}>\frac{8(1\epsilon )^4}{133\epsilon 33\epsilon ^2+\epsilon ^3+(1+14\epsilon +\epsilon ^2)^{3/2}}.$$
(64)
Eq. (57) can be integrated and the solution expressed exactly in terms of elliptic integrals. (See appendix B.) However, the exact expression is not particularly informative so we present the solution to linear order in $`\beta `$, in which case we find

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{\mathrm{max}}+r_{\mathrm{min}})^2}{2r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}}}}\epsilon \right]\mathrm{arcsin}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(rr_{\mathrm{min}})r_{\mathrm{max}}(r_{\mathrm{max}}r)r_{\mathrm{min}}}{(r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}})r}}\right\}`$ (66)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{\mathrm{max}}+r_{\mathrm{min}})}{r}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(r_{\mathrm{max}}r)(rr_{\mathrm{min}})}{r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}}}}}\epsilon +𝒪(\epsilon ^2),`$
and

$$\varphi (r_{\mathrm{max}})\varphi (r_{\mathrm{min}})=\pi \left[1\frac{(r_{\mathrm{max}}+r_{\mathrm{min}})^2}{2r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}}}\epsilon +𝒪(\epsilon ^2)\right].$$
(67)
Note that, in contrast to the harmonic oscillator, the precession angle is negative:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta 2\pi \left\{\frac{(r_{\mathrm{max}}+r_{\mathrm{min}})^2}{2r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}}}\epsilon \right\}=2\pi \left(\frac{4m|E|\beta }{1e^2}\right),$$
(68)
where $`e`$ is the eccentricity of the orbit. This means that the perihelion of a planet in a gravitational Coulomb potential will retard instead of advance. In Figure (2), we plot the trajectory of the motion for a representative set of parameters.

### V.2 $`\beta =0`$, $`\beta ^{}0`$ case

For bound states, $`E=|E|`$, Eq. (35) takes on the form

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dr}=\frac{\sqrt{r_+r_{}}}{2}\left(\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r+r_\beta ^{}}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{(r_+r)(rr_{})}},$$
(69)
where

$`r_\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2|E|}}\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4E^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2m|E|}}},`$ (70)
$`r_\beta ^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(r_++r_{})}{\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m|E|\beta ^{}}}\right)1}}.`$ (71)
As in the harmonic oscillator case, the turning points $`r_\pm `$ do not depend on $`\beta ^{}`$. In the limit $`\beta ^{}0`$, we have $`r_\beta ^{}0`$, and the equation for the $`\beta =\beta ^{}=0`$ case is recovered.

Eq. (69) can be integrated to yield,

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{arcsin}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(rr_{})r_+(r_+r)r_{}}{(r_+r_{})r}}\right\}`$ (73)
$`+\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}\mathrm{arcsin}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(r_++r_\beta ^{})(rr_{})(r_{}+r_\beta ^{})(r_+r)}{(r+r_\beta ^{})(r_+r_{})}}\right\}],`$
where

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _\pm =\sqrt{\frac{r_\beta ^{}}{r_\pm }}.$$
(74)
Note that $`\theta _\pm 0`$ in the limit $`\beta ^{}0`$. From Eq. (73), we find

$$\varphi (r_+)\varphi (r_{})=\frac{\pi }{2}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}\right)=\pi \left[1\left(\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}}{2}\right)\right].$$
(75)
As in the harmonic oscillator case, the precession angle is negative when $`\beta ^{}`$ is positive. For $`\beta ^{}1`$, the precession angle is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta ^{}=2\pi \left(\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta _+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{}}{2}\right)2\pi \left\{\frac{(r_++r_{})^2}{4r_+r_{}}(2m|E|\beta ^{})\right\}=2\pi \left(\frac{2m|E|\beta ^{}}{1e^2}\right).$$
(76)
In Figure (2), we plot the trajectory of the motion for a representative set of parameters.

## VI Comparison with Planetary Orbits

Using our results, we can place constraints on $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ from the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. According to Ref. Mercury , the observed advance of the perihelion of Mercury that is unexplained by Newtonian planetary perturbations or solar oblateness is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ $`=`$ $`42.980\pm 0.002\text{arc-seconds per century}`$ (77)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.31636}\pm 0.00015)\times 10^5\mathrm{radians}}{415.2019\mathrm{revolutions}}}`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`2\pi (\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7.98734}\pm 0.00037)\times 10^8\mathrm{radians}/\mathrm{revolution}.`$ (79)
This advance is usually explained by General Relativity which predicts

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{\mathrm{GR}}=3\pi \left\{\frac{2GM_{}/c^2}{a(1e^2)}\right\}=6\pi \left\{\frac{2m|E|}{(1e^2)\mathrm{}^2}\right\}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m^2c^2}\right)=6\pi \left(\frac{\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_c}{\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_d}\right)^2,$$
(80)
where $`2GM_{}/c^2`$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the Sun, $`a`$ is the semi-major axis of the planet’s orbit, $`e`$ is it’s eccentricity, and we have defined

$$\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_d\mathrm{}\sqrt{\frac{(1e^2)}{2m|E|}},\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_c\frac{\mathrm{}}{mc}.$$
(81)
The lengths $`\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_c`$ are the de Broglie and Compton wavelengths of the planet. For Mercury, the parameters are AstroData

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2GM_{}}{c^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.95325008\times 10^3\mathrm{m},`$ (82)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`3.3022\times 10^{23}\mathrm{kg},`$ (83)
$`a={\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{max}}+r_{\mathrm{min}}}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`5.7909175\times 10^{10}\mathrm{m},`$ (84)
$`e`$ $`=`$ $`0.20563069.`$ (85)
Note that the product $`GM_{}`$ is known to much better accuracy than Newton’s gravitational constant $`G`$ and the solar mass $`M_{}`$ separately. Using these parameters we find

$`\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_d`$ $`=`$ $`6.5284\times 10^{63}\mathrm{m},`$ (86)
$`\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_c`$ $`=`$ $`1.0653\times 10^{66}\mathrm{m},`$ (87)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{\mathrm{GR}}=2\pi (\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7.98744}\times 10^8)\mathrm{radians}/\mathrm{revolution}.$$
(88)
Comparison of Eqs. (88) and (79) yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{\mathrm{obs}}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{\mathrm{GR}}=2\pi (0.00010\pm 0.00037)\times 10^8\mathrm{radians}/\mathrm{revolution},$$
(89)
which is consistent with zero. As we can see, there is not much room left for possible extra contributions to the precession.

From Eq. (68) and (76), the precession angle to linear order in $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta ^{}=2\pi \left\{\frac{\mathrm{}^2(2\beta +\beta ^{})}{\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_d^2}\right\}.$$
(90)
The existence of a minimal length requires

$$\beta >0,\beta +\beta ^{}>0,$$
(91)
so we can assume that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta ^{}<2\pi \left(\frac{\mathrm{}\sqrt{\beta }}{\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_d}\right)^2<0.$$
(92)
Eq. (89) places a lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta ^{}`$ which at $`3\sigma `$ is

$$2\pi (\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.2}\times 10^{11})\mathrm{radians}/\mathrm{revolution}<(\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _\beta ^{})<2\pi \left(\frac{\mathrm{}\sqrt{\beta }}{\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_d}\right)^2.$$
(93)
Thus,

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\sqrt{\beta }}{\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_d}\right)^2<1.2\times 10^{11},$$
(94)
or

$$\mathrm{}\sqrt{\beta }<(3.5\times 10^6)\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_d=2.3\times 10^{68}\mathrm{m}.$$
(95)
Note that this limit is 33 orders of magnitude below the Planck length!

## VII Discussion and Conclusion

In this paper, we have considered the effects of the minimal length uncertainty relation on the classical orbits of particles in a central force potential. Comparison with the observed precession of the perihelion of Mercury places a strong constraint on the value of the minimum length.

The minimal length uncertainty relation was implemented through the deformed commutation relation Eq. (5). Note that even though $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ appear to only linear order on the right hand side of Eq. (5), our expressions for the precession angle, Eqs. (46), (54), (67), and (75), contain all orders in $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$. In that sense, our results are non-perturbative. On the other hand, the right hand side of Eq. (5) itself can be considered a linear approximation to a more general expression which leads to the minimal length uncertainty relation as discussed by Kempf Kempf:1995su . This suggests that our constraint, Eq. (95), could be fairly robust. All other possible implementation of the minimal length uncertainty relation can be expected to lead to the same precession of the perihelion as Eq. (5) to linear order in $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$, and result in the same constraint on the minimal length.

The analysis of this paper based on the deformed commutation relations can be viewed as providing a toy model for a full string theoretic consideration of the implications of the minimal length uncertainty relation. The natural question to ask is whether our constraint, Eq. (95), applies to string theory proper or not. This is a difficult question to answer since the minimal length uncertainty relation is but one aspect of string theory, and it is not clear whether deforming the quantum mechanical commutation relations is the correct way to implement it.

Looking at previous works, we note that Ref. mende  has discussed departures from General Relativity as implied by string theory. These were implied both by the string theoretic modification of Einstein’s equations GSW

$$R_{\mu \nu }+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}R_{\mu \kappa \lambda \tau }R_\nu ^{\kappa \lambda \tau }+\mathrm{}=0,$$
(96)
as well as the crucial distinctions between particles and strings: strings as extended objects do not fall freely along geodesics. As fundamentally extended objects (at least from the point of view of string perturbation theory) they are subject to tidal forces. This leads, for example, to an energy dependent deflection angle for the bending of light – in clear distinction to General Relativity in which the deflection angle is energy independent. We have not included in our analysis any of these effects. In particular, we have not considered possible deviations in the background metric due to the extra terms in Eq. (96). Though the corrections to particle trajectories due to such deviations are expected to be small, it may be worthwhile to study the problem in more detail in light of the strong constraint we have obtained for the minimal length.

We conclude by listing a few more caveats: Even though our analysis is purely classical, the general formulation of classical systems which incorporates the classical limit of the minimal length uncertainty relation is not fully understood. How one can define the “canonical transformations” which relate dynamical variables at different scales while preserving the Poisson bracket remains an open problem. Also, the systems we considered have only a finite number of degrees of freedom. It is not clear how to incorporate the effects of the classical limit of the minimal length uncertainty relation to field theory. The classical limit of the minimal length uncertainty relation provides a natural generalization of the non–commutative relation between spatial coordinates encountered in non–commutative field theory ncft . What is not clear is whether the usual Weyl–Wigner–Moyal technology moyal  could apply even in our more complicated set-up, thus providing a way to analyze systems with an infinite number of degrees of freedom.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Yasushi Nakajima, John Simonetti, and Joseph Slawny for helpful discussions. This research is supported in part by a grant from the US Department of Energy, DE–FG05–92ER40709.

## Appendix A The Turning Points for the Coulomb Potential

The turning points for the Coulomb Potential, Eq. (56), are provided by the real solutions to

$$2m\left(|E|+\frac{k}{r}\right)\frac{L^2}{r^2}\left[1+2m\beta \left(|E|+\frac{k}{r}\right)\right]^2=0.$$
(97)
Defining

$$A\frac{k}{|E|},B\frac{L^2}{2m|E|},\epsilon 2m|E|\beta ,$$
(98)
Eq. (97) can be cast into the form

$$r^4Ar^3+B(1\epsilon )^2r^2+2AB\epsilon (1\epsilon )r+A^2B\epsilon ^2=0.$$
(99)
Since this is a quartic equation, the solutions can be obtained algebraically (using Mathematica) and they are:

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(AW+2iX),`$ (100)
$`\delta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(AW2iX),`$ (101)
$`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(A+W+2Y),`$ (102)
$`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(A+W2Y),`$ (103)
where

$`W`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\sqrt{3A^28B(1\epsilon )^2+4Z+{\displaystyle \frac{4B\left\{B(1\epsilon )^4+6A^2\epsilon (1+\epsilon )\right\}}{Z}}}`$ (104)
$`=`$ $`A+4A\epsilon +\left(4A{\displaystyle \frac{6A^3}{B}}\right)\epsilon ^2+\mathrm{},`$ (105)
$`X`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{3A^2+8B(1\epsilon )^2+W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2A\left\{A^24B(1\epsilon )(1+3\epsilon )\right\}}{W}}}`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2A^2}{\sqrt{B}}}\epsilon ^{3/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{3A^2(8B7A^2)}{4\sqrt{B^3}}}\epsilon ^{5/2}+\mathrm{},`$ (107)
$`Y`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{3A^28B(1\epsilon )^2W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2A\left\{A^24B(1\epsilon )(1+3\epsilon )\right\}}{W}}}`$ (108)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{A^24B}{\displaystyle \frac{2(A^22B)}{\sqrt{A^24B}}}\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{A^2(3A^420A^2B+30B^2)}{B\sqrt{(A^24B)^3}}}\epsilon ^2+\mathrm{},`$ (109)
$`Z`$ $``$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{2B^3(1\epsilon )^6+18A^2B^2\epsilon (1+\epsilon )(1\epsilon )^2+27A^4B\epsilon ^2..`$ (111)
$`..+3\sqrt{3}A^2B\epsilon ^{3/2}\sqrt{27A^4\epsilon +4A^2B(1+\epsilon )(134\epsilon +\epsilon ^2)16B^2(1\epsilon )^4}\}]^{1/3}`$
$`=`$ $`B+(3A^22B)\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{A^2\sqrt{3B(A^24B)}}{B}}\epsilon ^{3/2}+\left(9A^2+B{\displaystyle \frac{9A^4}{2B}}\right)\epsilon ^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (112)
In the limit $`\epsilon 0`$, we recover the turning points for the $`\beta =0`$ case:

$$\delta ,\delta ^{}0,r_{\mathrm{max}/\mathrm{min}}r_\pm =\frac{A\pm \sqrt{A^24B}}{2}.$$
(113)
## Appendix B The Solution to the Coulomb Problem in terms of Elliptic Integrals

Integration of Eq. (57) yields

$$\varphi (r)=\sqrt{r_+r_{}}(1\epsilon )I_0+2\sqrt{r_+r_{}}(r_++r_{})\epsilon I_1,$$
(114)
where

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{\sqrt{(r\delta )(r\delta ^{})(r_{\mathrm{max}}r)(rr_{\mathrm{min}})}}},`$ (115)
$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r\sqrt{(r\delta )(r\delta ^{})(r_{\mathrm{max}}r)(rr_{\mathrm{min}})}}}.`$ (116)
These integrals can be expressed in terms of the Legendre–Jacobi elliptic integrals groebner  :

$`F(\psi ,k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{\sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\eta }}},`$ (117)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(\psi ,\rho ,k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{(1+\rho \mathrm{sin}^2\eta )\sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\eta }}}.`$ (118)
Define

$$\mathrm{cos}\psi \frac{U_{}(r_{\mathrm{max}}r)U_+(rr_{\mathrm{min}})}{U_{}(r_{\mathrm{max}}r)+U_+(rr_{\mathrm{min}})},$$
(119)
with

$$U_\pm \sqrt{X^2+(Y\pm W)^2},$$
(120)
and

$$k^2\frac{1}{2}\frac{W^2+X^2Y^2}{2U_+U_{}},$$
(121)
where $`W`$, $`X`$, and $`Y`$ are given in Eq. (112). The explicit expressions for the integrals are

$`I_0(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{U_+U_{}}}}F(\psi ,k^2),`$ (122)
$`I_1(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{U_+U_{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{U_+U_{}}{U_+r_{\mathrm{min}}U_{}r_{\mathrm{max}}}}F(\psi ,k^2)`$ (123)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y}{r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{U_+U_{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{U_+r_{\mathrm{min}}+U_{}r_{\mathrm{max}}}{U_+r_{\mathrm{min}}U_{}r_{\mathrm{max}}}}\mathrm{\Pi }(\psi ,{\displaystyle \frac{(U_+r_{\mathrm{min}}U_{}r_{\mathrm{max}})^2}{4U_+U_{}r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}}}},k^2)`$ (124)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}}\delta \delta ^{}}}}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y}{\sqrt{U_+U_{}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \delta ^{}}{r_{\mathrm{max}}r_{\mathrm{min}}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\psi }{\sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi }}}\right).`$ (125)


format: text

text:
# Laser-Generated Ultrashort Multi-Megagauss Magnetic Pulses in Plasmas

## Abstract

We demonstrate ultrashort (6 ps), multi-Megagauss (27 MG) magnetic pulses generated upon interaction of an intense laser pulse $`(10^{16}`$ Wcm-2, 100 fs) with a solid target. The temporal evolution of these giant fields generated near the high density critical layer is obtained with the highest resolution reported so far. Particle-in-cell simulations and phenomenological modeling is used to explain the results. The first direct observations of anomalously rapid damping of plasma shielding currents produced in response to the hot electron currents penetrating the bulk plasma are presented.

The largest magnetic fields available terrestrially ($`10^8`$ Gauss) are generated by explosive ionization of a solid target with an intense ultrashort laser pulse Tatarakis . Since the first observation of such magnetic fields, their origin, magnitudes and other qualitative features have attracted considerable attention Stamper . Recently, sub-picosecond laser produced solid plasmas have provided a new experimental facet to these studies. Magnetic fields up to gigagauss magnitudes have been predicted in overdense region of solid target Sudan . Little, however, is known about the temporal evolution of these huge magnetic fields generated around critical layer. These fields play a crucial role in electron transport Mason  and are, therefore, important for potential applications in hybrid confinement Kolka  and fast ignition Tabak  schemes of laser fusion.

In this Letter, we present first experimental measurements of temporal evolution of Megagauss magnetic fields generated at the critical layer, on femtosecond timescales. The field generation and decay mechanisms are identified and role of resonance absorption is examined. The initial buildup of magnetic field due to direct laser radiation effects is calculated using LPIC++ code LPIC  and the results are found to be in good agreement with the experiment. The field evolution is explained to be due to currents generated by fast electrons Sentoku  and plasma return currents damped by turbulence induced resistivity Drake . The first direct observation of anomalously rapid damping of return currents, which may have important consequences for laser fusion, is reported. We demonstrate ultrashort, Megagauss magnetic pulses, with 6 picosecond (FWHM) duration and a peak magnitude of 27 Megagauss generated by a p-polarized laser pulse. Possible applications of such high-field ultrashort magnetic pulses in various areas are discussed.

Laser pulses (806 nm, 100 fs) are derived from a custom built chirped pulse amplification Titanium:Sapphire laser, described in detail elsewhere Banerjee . The linearly polarized pump pulse incident at $`55^{}`$ is focused on a solid target with typical intensities of $`10^{16}`$ W cm-2 (Fig. 1). A small part of the laser is used to generate a linearly polarized, second harmonic (403nm) probe pulse using a thin (0.5mm) BBO crystal. The probe pulse incident at $`50^{}`$, is focused to an intensity of $`5\times 10^{12}`$ W cm-2 and is spatially overlapped with the pump spot. The probe penetrates beyond the critical density($`n_c`$) for pump (i.e. upto 1.65$`n_c^{806}`$ or 0.4$`n_c^{403}`$ as shown in inset of Fig.1). The probe pulse delay with respect to pump is varied using a motorized translation stage.

The novel features of this experiment are: (a) we are able to examine the generated magnetic field on either side of the critical layer by using the second harmonic of the laser as a non-tangential probe, (b) we identify zero-delay time precisely and obtain high-resolution data for temporal evolution, and (c) we examine, using oblique pump incidence, the role of Resonance Absorption (RA). To our knowledge, only one laboratory has hitherto reported Borghesi  pump-probe magnetic fields measurements on picosecond time scales (using 1 ps duration laser pulse at normal incidence). However, these measurements were confined to an under-dense plasma region $`(n_e=4\times 10^{19}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{3})`$ and the diagnostics employed limited the temporal resolution to $`3`$ ps. We emphasize our probing technique, because, magnetic field generation primarily occurs near the critical surface (electron density $`10^{21}cm^3`$), the region of maximum laser absorption Sentoku . Moreover, it is the magnetic field in the over-dense region that determines hot electron transport into the bulk, which is crucial for fusion related issues.

We use standard Cotton-Mouton polarimetry Hutchinson , which involves measurement of magnetically induced ellipticity in the polarization state of the probe pulse. The contributions to induced ellipticity from plasma propagation and refraction effects Ginzburg  are calculated and are found to be insignificant Calculation . The targets used in these experiments are optically polished aluminum discs. The target is housed inside a vacuum chamber at $`10^3`$ Torr and is translated after each laser shot, exposing a fresh surface for interaction. The pump and probe focussing is monitored using hard x-ray emission as diagnostic. The spot radii for pump and probe are 15$`\mu `$m and 10$`\mu `$m respectively. The reflected probe beam is collected using f/20 lens. The amplitude and polarization of the specularly reflected probe is simultaneously monitored by splitting it into two arms, one measuring the reflectivity with a photodiode (PD2) and the other measuring the polarization state using an analyzer (extinction ratio $`10^5`$) in front of another identical photodiode (PD3), as shown in Fig. 1. The photodiode PD1 measures the shot to shot laser fluctuations. All three PD signals are simultaneously recorded for each laser shot along with the delay stage position. The ellipticity is determined at various fixed delay positions by plotting PD3 signal with respect to analyzer angle. Higher temporal resolution ellipticity data is obtained by continuously varying the delay in steps of 1$`\mu m`$ at different fixed analyzer positions and computing the ratio PD3/PD2 for each delay. The ratio (PD3/PD2) is used above so as to account for plasma reflectivity variation as function of time delay. The temporal behavior of the magnetic field from -2 to +10 ps time delay is monitored. The constant background noise due to the second harmonic radiation from the plasma generated by the pump pulse is negligible ($`<0.1\%`$) as compared to the reflected probe.

Figure 2 presents the temporal evolution of the magnetic field. The inset shows reflectivity and induced ellipticity of the probe for a p-polarized pump. The sharp reflectivity dip is used to independently establish the start of the magnetic pulse. The magnetic field is derived from induced ellipticity ($`\beta `$) for our experimental conditions using Hutchinson  $`\beta (t)=3.32\times 10^{26}n_e(l,t)B^2(l,t)𝑑l`$, where ‘$`n_e`$’ is the electron density in $`cm^3`$, ‘$`B`$’ is magnetic field in MG, and ‘$`l`$’ is the path length in $`\mu `$m. The magnetic field is deduced assuming a spatially uniform $`B`$ over a linear density gradient $`n_e(x)=0.4n_c^{403}(x/L)`$, where $`L`$ is the plasma slab length, as shown in the inset of fig1. The factor $`0.4n_c^{403}`$ corresponds to the turning point density for the 403nm probe. We integrate over the trajectory in the plasma, $`dl=\sqrt{1+y^2}dx`$, where $`y^{}=sin\theta _0/\sqrt{ϵ(x)sin^2\theta _0}`$ , $`ϵ(x)`$ being the dielectric function. The plasma expansion velocity is estimated to be $`5\times 10^7`$ cm/s from Doppler shift measurements of the reflected probe. With $`L(t)=1+v_{exp}t`$ , the magnetic field as a function of time delay is obtained as $`B(t)=80\sqrt{\beta (t)/(1+0.5t)}`$ MG . From the results shown in Fig. 2, the magnetic field pulse generated p-polarized pump has a peak value of 27 MG and duration (FWHM) of 6ps. In comparison s-polarized pump results in a peak value of 14 MG. This confirms the importance of RA, induced by p-polarization, in magnetic field generation. The magnetic field in case of s-polarized pump can be explained to be arising from parametric instabilities near critical density, which develop at a slower rate as seen in figure 2. Further, any realistic laser focusing always involves some RA contribution even for s-polarization, due to critical surface rippling and geometrical effects Sentoku ; Rajeev .

The mechanism of quasi-static magnetic field generation in ultrashort laser -plasma experiments can be understood by invoking the following magnetic field evolution equation

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}=\stackrel{}{}\times (\frac{\stackrel{}{j}\times \stackrel{}{B}}{n_ee})+\frac{c}{n_ee}(\stackrel{}{}T_e\times \stackrel{}{}n_e)+\frac{c}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{j}_{hot})+\frac{c^2}{4\pi \sigma }^2\stackrel{}{B},$$
(1)
Equation (1) is derived by taking the curl of the equation of motion of background plasma electrons that carry the plasma shielding currents, $`\stackrel{}{j}_p=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{j}_{hot}`$ . The first term in equation (1) is the standard electron magnetohydrodynamic (EMHD)Kingsep  source due to the Hall effect, the second term is the thermoelectric source and the third term is the source due to hot electrons (generated near the pump critical surface by the RA of the laser pulse); the last term gives the magnetic field decay due to resistive damping of the plasma shielding currents ($`\sigma ^1`$ being the background plasma resistivity). Electron inertia and magnetic field convection effects are assumed to be negligible in equation (1).

We estimate the first term (important during the first 200 fs when the pump is on) by taking a cycle-averaged product of high frequency current and magnetic fields DeGroot ,$`\stackrel{}{}\times (\stackrel{}{j_h}\times \stackrel{}{B_h})/n_ee`$, inside the plasma. We obtain the magnitude of this term by carrying out a particle-in-cell simulation using the laser-plasma interaction code LPIC++. In the simulation, a p-polarized light pulse with $`sin^2`$ envelope and 100 fs FWHM laser pulse is incident at an angle of $`55^{}`$ on a linear density ramp. Fig. 3(a) shows numerically obtained spatial and temporal profiles of the quasi-steady state magnetic field. This confirms the earlier analytical results of spatial profiles of laser generated magnetic fields Thompson . At the same time, the values of $`B`$ and $`B/t`$ obtained from simulation compare well with our experimental results (Fig. 3b). The numerically obtained maximum value of $`B/t`$ is 22 MG/ps at 120 fs, which is close to the experimentally deduced $`B/t`$. The $`B`$ value reached in 150 fs is 1.2 MG, beyond which the simulation results saturate. This is expected, because to model this regime we have considered only one term, which is valid strictly for the duration of pulse.

The second term in equation (1) is estimated assuming a temperature gradient of 100 eV over a transverse scale of $`15\mu `$m (pump spot radius) and density gradient of $`10^{21}`$ cm-3 over $`1\mu `$m in the normal direction. This gives $`B/t0.05`$ MG/ps, which is much smaller than the experimental results. Hence, the thermoelectric source term is neglected in subsequent analysis.

The remaining terms (magnetic diffusion and hot electron source Yablonovitch ; Sentoku  ) in the magnetic field evolution equation govern the evolution of $`B`$ after the pump pulse is removed. We model this regime by a phenomenological 0-dimensional evolution equation

$$\frac{B}{t}=S(t)\frac{B}{\tau },$$
(2)
where $`S(t)`$ is the source term. $`S(t)`$ is mainly due to the fast electron currents and $`B/\tau `$ is a 0-d representation of the magnetic diffusion term. Taking $`S(t)=S_0exp(t/t_0)`$, we get

$$B(t)=\frac{S_0}{1/\tau 1/t_0}[exp(t/t_0)exp(t/\tau )],$$
(3)
The first term in equation (3) denotes the natural decay of the hot electron source produced by RA mechanism. The second term describes the resistive decay of the fields generated by the plasma return currents. As shown in Fig. 2, this expression gives an excellent fit to our experimental data for p -polarized pump with $`S_0=53.7`$ MG/ps, $`t_0=0.7`$ ps and $`\tau =5.6`$ ps.

To get an insight into these numerical values, we estimate conductivity $`\sigma `$ from the magnetic diffusion term. Using $`\tau (4\pi \sigma /c^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2`$, for the best fit value $`\tau `$ = 5.6 ps and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=15\mu `$m , we get $`\sigma =1.8\times 10^{14}`$ sec-1. However the $`\sigma _{solid}`$ or $`\sigma _{classical}`$ observed Milchberg  at $`T_e=100`$ eV has value of $`4.5\times 10^{15}`$ sec-1, which is an order of magnitude greater than that obtained from magnetic field decay! This clearly brings out the importance of turbulence induced anomalous resistivity effects in the damping of shielding plasma currents. An upper estimate of anomalous resistivity due to turbulence of electrostatic waves, obtained by taking the effective collision frequency $`\nu _{eff}f\omega _p`$ ( where $`f`$ is a fraction of order unity ), is in reasonable agreement with our estimate of $`\sigma `$. We note that the hot electron source term is effective for about 0.7 ps, which is longer than the laser pulse (FWHM=100fs). Thus we argue that the electrostatic plasma waves generated by the RA mechanism (typically with $`E^2/4\pi n_eT_e1`$ ) during the laser pulse will continue to slowly damp (or convect away) and accelerate electrons for a few hundred femtoseconds after the laser pulse. To get an estimate of $`S_0`$, which is the magnitude of the source term $`(c/\sigma )(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{j}_{hot})`$ , we evaluate $`j_{hot}f_aeI/T_{hot}`$ by taking a conversion fraction ($`f_a`$) of incident energy into hot electrons as 0.3 and $`T_{hot}20`$ keV (estimated by using the well known scaling laws for resonance absorption Estabrook ). This yields hot electron current density $`j_{hot}4.5\times 10^{20}`$ statampere/cm2. Using anomalous conductivity obtained above we get $`S_061`$ MG/ps, which is again in close agreement with our phenomenological fit.

In conclusion, we have measured and characterized picosecond megagauss magnetic pulses generated by the interaction of ultrashort laser pulse with a solid. Our measurements extend to overdense region of the target and hence are of relevance to electron transport and fusion related issues. The experimentally observed rise times and magnitude of magnetic fields closely follow theoretical estimates and simulations. We also observe for the first time, anomalously rapid damping of return plasma shielding currents produced in response to the hot electron currents penetrating the bulk plasma; this is a topic of great significance to the fast ignition scheme. Such ultrashort, localized magnetic fields are useful for investigating magnetic precession and reversal dynamics, which is vital for developing next generation ultrafast switching and storage devices Siegmann . Further, the generation and characterization of these giant magnetic fields offers a unique opportunity for accessing extreme stellar conditions and testing astrophysical theories in the laboratory Lai . The diagnostics in chemical and biological sciences like Magnetic Circular Dichroism and Magnetic Resonance may also benefit in situations where high fields are essential Que . The intensities used in our experiments are easily realizable with modern kilohertz repetition rate femtosecond lasers, and we foresee exciting applications for these magnetic pulses.

We would like to thank B. Bhattacharya and V.K. Tripathi for fruitful discussions, J. Meyer-ter-Vehn and T. Schlegel for the LPIC++ code and D. Mathur and S. Maiti for useful suggestions. The TIFR high intensity laser system used was partially funded by the Department of Science and Technology.


text:
# Quantum tunneling of vortices in MgB2 superconductor

## Abstract

Magnetic relaxation in a MgB2 superconductor was measured. The temperature dependence of the normalized relaxation rate was determined for three different magnetic fields. By extrapolating these rates to $`T=0`$ K, we find that these extrapolations do not approach zero, indicating quantum tunneling of vortices in the superconductor. A quantum correction of the relaxation rate, followed by the correction of the magnetic moment, is proposed. Using the quantum correction, we find that $`U_0`$ increases with decreasing temperature and approaches a maximum at $`T=0`$ K.

Recent experimental studies of vortex dynamics of MgB2 superconductor suggest that quantum tunneling of the vortices may strongly influence the superconducting behaviors Wen . Thus, better undersdanding the mechanism is very important for future applications. Magnetic relaxation technique is often employed to characterize superconductors. During the measurement, a magnetic field is first applied to a superconductor at a fixed temperature, and then the magnitude of the magnetic moment $`m(t)`$ is measured vs. time. The $`m(t)`$ is frequently analyzed with Anderson-Kim (AK) flux-creep model Anderson , $`m(t)m_0[1(T/U_0)\mathrm{ln}(t/t_0)]`$, where $`U_0`$ is the energy barrier of the vortex motion in the absence of a driving force, $`t_0`$ the reference time, and $`m_0`$ the magnetic moment at $`t=t_0`$. Deviations of the AK model are found in high $`T_c`$ superconductors (HTSCs), leading to a more general relation Blatter ; Yesturun

$$m(t)\frac{m_0}{[1+(\mu T/U_0)\mathrm{ln}(t/t_0)]^{\frac{1}{\mu }}},$$
(1)
where the characteristic factor $`\mu =1`$ for the AK model, $`\mu 0`$ for the Zeldov model Zeldov ; Yesturun , and $`0<\mu `$ for the collective creep model Blatter ; Yesturun ; Feigelman . This relation predicts that the normalized relaxation rate

$$R=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}m}{d\mathrm{ln}t}\frac{T}{U_0+\mu T\mathrm{ln}(t/t_0)}\frac{T}{U_0}[1\frac{\mu T}{U_0}\mathrm{ln}(t/t_0)],$$
(2)
\[for the diamagnetic moment or for the persistent current ($`mj`$, where $`j`$ is the current density)\] vanishes linearly with decreasing temperature. However, experiments showed that the relaxation rates of superconductors do not extrapolate to zero Yesturun ; Campbell ; Civale ; Hamzic ; Nowak  at $`T=0`$ K, indicating the decay rate being probably governed by quantum tunneling of vortices Blatter ; Yesturun ; Blatter1 ; Blatter2 ; Ivlev ; Smith .

In this study, magnetic relaxation is measured at fixed temperatures in three different magnetic fields. We find that the extrapolations of the magnetic relaxation rates do not approach zero when $`T0`$, suggesting the existence of quantum effects in the vortex system. Based on the theory of quantum tunneling vortices and the magnetic relaxation data, a quantum correction relation is proposed, followed by corresponding barrier evaluations.

A small MgB2 thin chip (thickness about 0.2 mm, and weight about 2.2 mg) was studied Li . The sample shows a sharp superconducting transition temperature around 39 K with a corresponding nearly single phase of MgB2 as determined by X-ray diffraction. Using a magnetic property measurement system (SQUID, Quantum Design MPMS 5.5 T), the magnetic relaxation of the sample was measured in magnetic fields with a scanning length 3.0 cm. The measurements are processed at several fixed temperatures and magnetic fields at 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 T. The sample was first zero-field cooled to a measurement temperature from a temperature ($`T=50.0`$ K) well above the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$, and then a magnetic field was applied for the measurement.

Figure 1 presents magnetic relaxation data of the sample in the $`\mathrm{log}`$-$`\mathrm{log}`$ scale at 2.0 T for 10 fixed temperatures from 2.0 to 22 K. All curves in Fig. 1 approximately linear in the $`\mathrm{log}`$-$`\mathrm{log}`$ scale, except for the data in the initial time stage as illustrated in Fig. 1, which could mainly correspond to two reasons: the linear simulation (in the $`\mathrm{log}`$-$`\mathrm{log}`$ window) being too simple for simulating each $`m(t)`$, and reconfiguration of the flux line gradient, caused by a suddenly applied magnetic field. For a simple approach as shown with linear fits in Fig 1, we however can omit the data in an initial stage, and simulate the data using Zeldov model, $`\mathrm{ln}m\stackrel{\mu 0}{=}\mathrm{ln}m_0\mathrm{ln}[1+(\mu T/U_0)\mathrm{ln}(t/t_0)]/\mu \stackrel{\mu 0}{}\mathrm{ln}m_0(T/U_0)\mathrm{ln}(t/t_0)`$, with $`m_0=m(t_0)`$ and $`t_0=1`$ s. The facility of this simulation is that leads to a simple relation $`R=d\mathrm{ln}m/d\mathrm{ln}tT/U_0`$ without changing the qualitative conclusion of the energy barrier from a more precise simulation.

Figure 2 presents the $`R(T,H)`$ curves of the MgB2 sample at different magnetic fields for $`t600`$ s (for largely reducing the influence of the reconfiguration of the flux line gradient in the initial stage). These data are strongly magnetic field dependent and show approximately linear relations in the linear-$`\mathrm{log}`$ window, resulting in that each $`R`$ curve is approximately simulated by a monotonic relation $`R=R_0\mathrm{exp}(aT)`$ as shown with solid lines, where $`R_0`$ is the quantum creep at $`T=0`$ K, and $`a`$ the magnetic field dependent constant. Note that this monotonic relation gives a remarkable comparison to that of a HTSC for which a broad peak or a plateau of a $`R`$ curve in the intermediate temperature range ($`0.2T_c<T<0.8T_c`$) is observed Yesturun ; Campbell ; Civale . $`R(T,H)`$s of a HTSC show monotonic reductions with decreasing temperature at low temperatures, where quantum tunneling of the vortices may play an important role for the magnetic moment decay. Considering the similar $`R`$ decreasing tendency over whole superconducting temperature regime for MgB2, we may conclude that quantum tunneling exists through the regime.

According to the quantum tunneling theory Blatter ; Blatter1 ; Blatter2  for the single vortex tunneling in the limit of strong dissipation, the decay rate $`R(T)\mathrm{}/S(T)e^2\rho _N(T)/\mathrm{}L_c(T)=Q(T)[j_c(T)/j_0(T)]^{1/2}`$, where $`S`$ is the saddle-point solution (bounce) of the Euclidean action, $`L_c=\xi \sqrt{j_0/j_c}`$ the collective pinning length along the magnetic field direction, $`Q=e^2\rho _N/\mathrm{}\xi `$ the dimensionless quantum sheet resistance, $`\rho _N`$ the normal state resistivity, $`\xi `$ the coherence length, $`j_0`$ the depairing current density, and $`j_c`$ the critical current density. As a consequence, we can assume that the relaxation rate is the sum of two contributions corresponding to the purely thermal contribution, and the additional quantum tunneling contribution respectively. Hence, the relaxation rate is:

$$R=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}m_q}{d\mathrm{ln}t}\frac{T}{U_0+\mu T\mathrm{ln}(t/t_0)}+R_0f(T),$$
(3)
where $`m_q`$ is the magnetic moment using the quantum correction, $`R_0=R(T=0)`$ and $`f(T)`$ accounts for the temperature dependence of the quantum contribution, relating to the temperature dependent $`S(T)`$. Integrating Eq.(3), we obtain the magnetic moment for the quantum correction:

$$m_q(t)\frac{m_0}{t^{R_0f}[1+(\mu T/U_0)\mathrm{ln}(t/t_0)]^{\frac{1}{\mu }}}.$$
(4)
Considering a typical experimental time $`t<10^5`$ s and a typical decay rate $`R_00.01`$ with $`0f(T)1`$, one will find the additional factor $`t^{R_0f}10^{0.05}1.1`$ leading to $`m(t)m_q(t)`$ and $`d\mathrm{ln}m/d\mathrm{ln}td\mathrm{ln}m_q/d\mathrm{ln}t`$ in a broad temperature regime and a limited time scale.

The interest is the comparison of the barrier evaluations between Eq.(2) and Eq.(3). The solid circles in Figure 3 show the $`U_0(T,H)`$ data determined using Eq.(2) with $`\mu =0`$ ($`U_0=T/R`$). The solid lines represent the corresponding fits of the data using the relation $`U_0=T/R=T/R_0\mathrm{exp}(aT)`$. From the fits, it is easy to find that each $`U_0(T,H)`$ curve shows a maximum value (peak) in the intermediate temperature regime and $`U_0(T)0`$ in the very low temperature regime. The tendency of $`U_0(T0)0`$ is unreasonable and contrasts sharply with the other superconducting properties, $`e.g.`$ the lower the temperature, the larger the irreversibility field and the larger the critical current. For the barrier evaluations with Eq.(3), the temperature independent contribution, corresponding to $`f(T)1`$, is taken Blatter1 ; Blatter2 , leading to the barrier $`U_0=T/(RR_0f)=T/(RR_0)`$ as shown in Fig. 3 with the open triangles. Remarkably, using the approach $`R=R_0\mathrm{exp}(aT)`$, we find that each $`U_0=T/R_0[\mathrm{exp}(aT)1]`$ curve (dash line) in Fig. 3 monotonically increases with decreasing temperature and reaches its maximum value $`U_0=1/R_0a`$ at $`T=0`$ K, which notably contrasts to the corresponding $`U_0=T/R=T/R_0\mathrm{exp}(aT)`$ curve ($`U_0(T0)0`$). For the extrapolations, one will find that the smaller the $`R_0`$, the larger the quantum correction in low temperature; besides, one will find that quantum correction is relatively small in high temperature where thermal effects are dominant. As a result, we conclude that a quantum correction of the relaxation rate is necessary for properly evaluating the energy barrier.

According to the quantum mechanics, the tunneling probability of vortices depends on the barrier height. Since the height is temperature dependent, the $`f(T)1`$ may not be in reality. Therefore, we assume that both $`R(T)`$ and $`f(T)`$ can be simulated by polynomials,

$`R=R_0+{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}R_nT^n`$ (5)
and

$`f=1+{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}f_nT^n,`$ (6)
where $`R_n`$ and $`f_n`$ are polynomial coefficients, and $`n`$ is the integer for both polynomials. Taking Eqs.(5) and (6) to Eq.(3), we have

$`U_0(T)`$ $`T(RR_0f)^1`$ (8)
$`({\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}R_nT^{n1}R_0{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}f_nT^{n1})^1,`$
leading to

$`U_0(T=0)(R_1R_0f_1)^1.`$ (9)
In general, we have

$`(RR_0)/T={\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}R_nT^{n1}0.`$ (10)
Using the boundary conditions: $`0f(T)1`$, $`f(T=T_c)=0`$ and $`f(T=0)=1`$ , we determine

$`(f1)/T={\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}f_nT^{n1}0.`$ (11)
Using Eqs.(10) and (11) to Eq. (8), one will find that $`U_0(T)`$ increases with decreasing temperature and reaches its maximum at $`T=0`$.

In summary, we have measured the temperature dependence of the magnetic relaxation rates of the MgB2 superconductor in three magnetic fields. Based on the theory of quantum tunneling of vortices and the magnetic relaxation data in this work, a quantum correction of the relaxation rate, followed by the correction of the magnetic moment, is proposed for evaluating the energy barriers of the vortex motion. Using this correction, we find that $`U_0`$, which sharply contrasts to the result without using the correction, increases with decreasing temperature and approaches a maximum at $`T=0`$ K.

This work has been financially supported by the National Science Foundation of China, and PAI 4/10 (Belgium).


text:
# Experimental Study of the Radiative Decays K⁺→μ⁺νe⁺e⁻ and K⁺→e⁺νe⁺e⁻

Present address:

\]Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855.

Present address:

\]The Prediction Co., Santa Fe, NM 87501.

Present address:

\]University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269.

Present address:

\]LIGO/Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125.

Present address:

\]Phonak AG, CH-8712 Stäfa, Switzerland.

(April 5, 2002)

## Abstract

Experiment 865 at the Brookhaven AGS obtained 410 *$`K^+e^+\nu e^+e^{}`$* and 2679 *$`K^+\mu ^+\nu e^+e^{}`$* events including 10% and 19% background. The branching ratios were measured to be $`(2.48\pm 0.14\text{(stat.)}\pm 0.14\text{(syst.)})\times 10^8`$ ($`m_{ee}>150\mathrm{MeV}`$) and $`(7.06\pm 0.16\pm 0.26)\times 10^8`$ ($`m_{ee}>145\mathrm{MeV}`$), respectively. Results for the decay form factors are presented.

Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT) ChP  has been a successful approach to describing the decays of pseudoscalar mesons. In the ChPT program radiative kaon decays can serve both as an important test and a source of input parameters for the theory. While the decay modes $`K^+e^+\nu \gamma `$ $`(K_{e2\gamma })`$ and $`\mu ^+\nu \gamma `$ $`(K_{\mu 2\gamma })`$ have allowed some study of the form factors involved Heard et al. (1975); Heintze et al. (1979); Adler et al. (2000), the decays $`K^+l^+\nu e^+e^{}(K_{e2ee},K_{\mu 2ee})`$ allow a more detailed investigation into the structure of these decays. We report here on such an investigation from Experiment 865 at the Brookhaven National Laboratory AGS with a 100-fold increase in the number of events in the former mode and 150-fold increase in the latter A.M.Diamant-Berger et al. (1976).

The *$`K_{e2ee}`$* and *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* decays are assumed to proceed via exchange of a $`W^+`$-boson ($`l^+\nu `$) and photon ($`e^+e^{}`$). The decay amplitude Bardin and Ivanov (1976); Bijnens et al. (1993) includes inner bremsstrahlung (IB) corresponding to the tree diagrams in Fig. 1a,b, and structure dependent (SD) radiation (Fig. 1c) parameterized by vector $`F_V`$, axial $`F_A`$ and $`R`$ form factors. $`K_{e2\gamma }`$ and $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ experiments were actually sensitive only to $`|F_V+F_A|`$. $`R`$, which contributes only to decays with an $`e^+e^{}`$-pair, has not yet been measured.

Inner bremsstrahlung is unambiguously predicted by the $`Kl\nu `$ amplitude and is proportional to the kaon decay constant $`F_K=160\mathrm{MeV}`$. We included the kaon electromagnetic form factor in Fig. 1b (amplitude $`A_4`$ of Ref. Bijnens et al. (1993)) in our definition of the IB term. The IB amplitude is negligible in *$`K_{e2ee}`$* decay due to electron helicity suppression, but dominates in *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$*. It contributes about 60% of the total *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* branching ratio for invariant masses $`m_{ee}>145\mathrm{MeV}`$. An additional 20% comes from the IB and SD amplitude interference, which makes it possible to measure the signs of all form factors relative to $`F_K`$.

Generally form factors depend on $`W^2`$ and $`q^2`$, where $`W`$ and $`q`$ are 4-momenta of the $`l^+\nu `$-pair and of the photon ($`e^+e^{}`$ pair), respectively. In our analysis we assume the dominance of low lying resonances Bardin and Ivanov (1976):

$$F_{\text{V,A,R}}^{(q^2,W^2)}=F_{\text{V,A,R}}/[(1q^2/m_\rho ^2)(1W^2/\stackrel{~}{m}^2)]$$
(1)
where $`m_\rho =770\mathrm{MeV}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m_K^{}=892\mathrm{MeV}`$ for $`F_V`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m_{K_1}=1270\mathrm{MeV}`$ for $`F_A`$, $`R`$. Only the constants $`F_V`$, $`F_A`$, $`R`$, which we define in accordance with the Particle Data Group (PDG) Groom et al. (2000), will be the subject of our analysis. The estimated uncertainties in the slope of form factors are taken as the model errors.

We also included in the analysis a hypothetical tensor amplitude

$$\frac{ieG_FV_{us}}{\sqrt{2}}F_Tϵ^\mu q^\rho \overline{u}_\nu (1+\gamma ^5)\sigma ^{\mu \rho }v_l$$
(2)
since a possible tensor interaction has been discussed in regard to the $`\pi e\nu \gamma `$ Bolotov et al. (1990) and $`Ke\nu \pi ^0`$ Akimenko et al. (1991) experiments.

The experimental apparatus was constructed to search for the decay $`K^+\pi ^+\mu ^+e^{}`$ in flight from an unseparated 6 GeV/c $`K^+`$ beam, and has been described elsewhere Appel et al. (2002). The $`K_{e2ee}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2ee}`$ data were obtained in a 1996 run simultaneously with that for a measurement of $`K^+\pi ^+e^+e^{}`$ $`(K_{\pi ee})`$ Appel et al. (1999). The trigger for these modes allowed us to preselect events with three charged tracks, including an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair with high invariant mass $`m_{ee}`$. Prescaled decays $`K\pi \pi _D^0(K_{\pi 2}),\mu \nu \pi _D^0(K_{\mu 3}),e\nu \pi _D^0(K_{e3}),\pi \pi ^0\pi _D^0(K_{\pi 3})`$ followed by Dalitz decay $`\pi _D^0e^+e^{}\gamma `$ with low $`m_{ee}`$ were used for normalization.

Off-line the $`K_{e2ee}`$ and $`K_{\mu 2ee}`$ candidates were required to have small missing neutrino mass, $`m_\nu `$. This missing mass was calculated using the measured decay product momenta and identities, and the centroid of the incident kaon beam momentum determined from $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. After correction for the decay vertex dependence of the momentum, the kaon momentum resolution was $`\sigma _p/p=1.3\%`$ and the angular resolution $`\sigma _{\theta x}=\sigma _{\theta y}=4\mathrm{mrad}`$. The $`m_\nu ^2`$ distribution for each decay modes is displayed in Fig. 2. A cut $`|m_\nu ^2|<0.016\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ isolated *$`K_{l2ee}`$* decays.

Background in both cases was dominated by accidental overlap tracks. Events with one of the tracks out of time gave model independent samples of the accidental background. The samples were normalized by counting events with $`m_\nu ^2<0.03\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ with normalization uncertainties 8% for *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* and 25% for *$`K_{e2ee}`$*. Other backgrounds and processes of interest were simulated using a GEANT3 GEA  based Monte Carlo.

The $`K\pi ee`$ decay is a potential background both for *$`K_{e2ee}`$* and *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* decays. To suppress it , each event was tested as *$`K_{\pi ee}`$*. Events giving effective $`\pi ee`$ mass and total momentum close to the beam kaon values were removed.

Cuts on the invariant $`e^+e^{}`$ mass $`>145\mathrm{MeV}`$ (*$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$*) and $`>150\mathrm{MeV}`$ (*$`K_{e2ee}`$*) removed backgrounds associated with large branching ratio processes including a low mass $`e^+e^{}`$-pair, e.g. $`K\pi \pi _D^0`$.

After the $`m_{ee}>150\mathrm{MeV}`$ cut 410 detected *$`K_{e2ee}`$* candidate events remain, including an estimated 35 accidental and 5 *$`K_{\pi ee}`$* background events. The normalization sample was 86k *$`K_{e3}`$* events and 2.3k $`K_{\pi 2}`$ events. The accuracy of the normalization was estimated to be 4%, including the 1.5% error in the *$`K_{e3}`$* branching ratio, a 1% trigger efficiency error, 2% for the radiative correction, and 3% for reconstruction efficiency. In evaluating the normalization factor we assumed that the $`\pi ^0ee\gamma `$ branching ratio is 1.184%, from the QED calculation Lautrup and Smith (1971) with a form factor slope $`0.032\pm 0.004`$ Groom et al. (2000).

The scintillation hodoscope embedded in the muon stack behind 40 cm of iron Appel et al. (2002) was used for additional $`\mu /\pi `$ separation in *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* analysis. The $`\mu /\pi `$ detection efficiencies in the hodoscope were studied using $`K_{\pi 2}`$ and $`K_{\mu 3}`$ events where the $`\pi _D^0`$ was fully reconstructed, i.e., the resulting photon was observed and included in the kinematic reconstruction. The average efficiency of detecting muons with momentum greater than 0.9 GeV/c was 90%, while the probability of the misidentifying the pion as a muon was about 20%. Because GEANT simulation predicts a larger pion misidentification, the correction factor 0.85 was applied to the simulated efficiency of the pion detection. To reduce the uncertainty of this correction, the $`K_{\pi 2}`$ decays in the normalization sample were additionally suppressed by a cut on $`E_\pi <200\mathrm{MeV}`$ (calculated in the kaon center of mass). The final normalization sample contained 20.5k events including 16.2k *$`K_{\mu 3}`$* , 3k $`K_{\pi 3}`$, 0.8k $`K_{\pi 2}`$, and 0.4k accidentals. The normalization accuracy was estimated to be 5% including 2.5% from the *$`K_{\mu 3}`$* branching ratio, 1% from the trigger efficiency, 2% from radiative corrections, 3% from reconstruction efficiency and 2% from efficiency of $`\mu /\pi `$ separation. The total number of the selected *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* events with $`m_{ee}>145\mathrm{MeV}`$ was 2679, including an estimated background of 355 accidentals, 126 *$`K_{\pi ee}`$*, and 33 $`K\pi \pi _D^0\pi _D^0`$ events.

In order to fit the data, we have used the logarithmic likelihood function

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}2\left[m_in_i+m_i\mathrm{ln}(n_i/m_i)\right]`$ (3)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(N_{MC}N_{MC}^{(0)})^2}{\sigma _{MC}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(N_AN_A^{(0)})^2}{\sigma _A^2}}`$
Here, $`m_i`$ and $`n_i(F_V,F_A,R,N_{MC},N_A)`$ are the measured and calculated numbers of events in $`i`$-th bin of the 5-dimensional phase space (247 *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* and 147 *$`K_{e2ee}`$* bins). We explicitly included the uncertainties, $`\sigma _{MC}`$ and $`\sigma _A`$, in the Monte Carlo and accidental normalizations, $`N_{MC}`$ and $`N_A`$, respectively in the fit. $`N_{MC}`$ and $`N_A`$ were regarded as independent parameters, while $`N_{MC}^{(0)}`$ and $`N_A^{(0)}`$ are the expected values from our studies discussed above.

The consistency between data and simulation was evaluated by significance level (SL) Groom et al. (2000), i.e the probability that a random repeat of the experiment would observe a smaller $``$, assuming the model is correct. To calculate the SL we simulated the expected distribution of $``$. In this calculation we explicitly accounted for possible variations of $`n_i`$ due to the finite Monte Carlo and accidental statistics.

Fit results are summarized in Table 1. In the combined fit the likelihood function used was the sum of *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* and *$`K_{e2ee}`$* likelihood functions (3). Expectations for the measured values, included in Table 1, are based on the previous $`K_{l2\gamma }`$ and *$`K_{l2ee}`$* experiments, ChPT extrapolations of the $`\pi e\nu \gamma `$ measurements, and theoretical predictions.

We considered three main contributions to the systematic error: (i) uncertainty of the detector efficiencies; (ii) uncertainty of the normalizations; (iii) errors due to the finite statistics of the accidental and Monte Carlo samples. All three contributions are comparable, and their quadratic sums are shown in Table 1.

The model errors in Table 1 correspond to the uncorrelated sum of the 30% possible fluctuation of each slope of the form factors given in Eq. (1). Uncertainty in the $`dR/dq^2`$ dominates the model errors of all form factors.

We include in Table 1 both measured and extrapolated branching ratios. The *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* total branching ratio is expected to be $`2.5\times 10^5`$ Bijnens et al. (1993). Because of our cut of $`m_{ee}>145\mathrm{MeV}`$, and because *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* has a large probability of events at low $`m_{ee}`$ due to its being dominated by IB, we are unable to determine the total branching ratio for that mode.

To evaluate the sensitivity of our data to the IB term, we have made a fit in which $`F_K`$ in the definition of IB amplitude was regarded as a free parameter. The resulting value of $`F_K`$ in Table 1, being consistent with the expected value, also serves as a check of the normalization based on the *$`K_{\mu 3}`$* decay. The normalization based on the *$`K_{e3}`$* decay can not be checked in the same way in the *$`K_{e2ee}`$* analysis. However, we can alternatively determine that normalization by considering it as an unconstrained parameter in the combined fit. The ratio of this normalization to that obtained in *$`K_{e3}`$* was found to be $`(0.93\pm 0.12)/(1.0\pm 0.04)`$.

Using the current algebra relationship Bardin and Ivanov (1976) between form factor $`R`$ and kaon charge radius $`r_K^2`$, $`R=(1/3)M_KF_Kr_K^2`$, where $`M_K`$ is the kaon mass, we can calculate $`r_K^2=0.333\pm 0.027\mathrm{fm}^2`$ in agreement with the direct measurement $`0.34\pm 0.05\mathrm{fm}^2`$ Amendolia et al. (1986a). The difference between our value and the experimental value of the pion charge radius $`r_\pi ^2=0.439\pm 0.008\mathrm{fm}^2`$ Amendolia et al. (1986b) does not agree well with the ChPT prediction to $`𝒪(p^4)`$: $`r_\pi ^2r_K^2=(1/32\pi ^2F^2)\mathrm{ln}(M_K^2/m_\pi ^2)=0.036\mathrm{fm}^2`$ Bijnens et al. (1993), where $`F=92.4\mathrm{MeV}`$.

If we assume that the form factors are constant instead of varying according to Eq. (1) we obtain for the mean values: $`F_V=0.131`$, $`F_A=0.034`$, $`R=0.257`$. The value of $``$ indicates that constant form factors are less likely by a factor of 3.6 than those of Eq. (1).

While measurements of the *$`K_{e2ee}`$* decay can only determine the signs of the form factors relative to one another, due to the interference between the IB and SD amplitudes, knowledge of *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* allows us to establish the signs relative to $`F_K`$. For the combined fit, the discrimination against wrong sign combinations is illustrated in Fig. 3.

The presentation of the tensor form factor for *$`K_{e2ee}`$* in Table 1 underlines that it is $`F_T^2`$ which is measured in this mode. Our analysis of the *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* decay is, however, sensitive to the sign of $`F_T`$. We did not find any evidence for the presence of a tensor term Eq. (2). Our result does not rule out the value $`F_T=0.0056\pm 0.0017`$ pen  invoked as a possible interpretation Poblaguev (1990) of the $`\pi e\nu \gamma `$ data from Ref. Bolotov et al. (1990). Assuming that the *$`K_{e3}`$* tensor form factor is related to $`F_T`$ as $`f_T/f_+=3.8F_T`$ Ke3 (a), we find $`f_T/f_+=0.02\pm 0.04`$ which strongly disagrees with value $`0.53_{0.10}^{+0.09}\pm 0.10`$ of Ref. Akimenko et al. (1991). A value compatible with 0 was also obtained in recent *$`K_{l3}`$* experiments Ke3 (b).

To summarize, we have measured the *$`K_{e2ee}`$* and *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* branching ratios: $`(2.48\pm 0.14\text{(stat.)}\pm 0.14\text{(syst.)})\times 10^8`$ ($`m_{ee}>150\mathrm{MeV}`$) and $`(7.06\pm 0.16\pm 0.26)\times 10^8`$ ($`m_{ee}>145\mathrm{MeV}`$), respectively. For the first time all *$`K_{l2ee}`$* form factors were unambiguously measured: $`F_V=0.112\pm 0.015\pm 0.010\pm 0.003\text{(model)}`$, $`F_A=0.035\pm 0.014\pm 0.013\pm 0.003`$, $`R=0.227\pm 0.013\pm 0.010\pm 0.009`$. Our analysis was especially sensitive to the sum of axial form factors $`R+F_A=0.262\pm 0.006\pm 0.009\pm 0.006`$. We did not find any inconsistency between *$`K_{e2ee}`$* and *$`K_{\mu 2ee}`$* form factors. The measured inner bremsstrahlung contribution $`F_K=157\pm 5\pm 4\mathrm{MeV}`$ agrees well with the theoretical expectation. No evidence of the tensor amplitude was found: $`F_T=0.004\pm 0.007\pm 0.007`$. Our study of the form factors is more detailed but consistent with previous $`K(\pi )l\nu \gamma `$ and *$`K^+l^+\nu e^+e^{}`$* experiments.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J. Bijnens for his FORTRAN code describing the *$`K^+l^+\nu e^+e^{}`$* matrix element. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions to the success of this experiment by the staff and management of the AGS at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the technical staffs of the participating institutions. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundations of the USA, Russia and Switzerland, and the Research Corporation.


text:
# DESY 02-046 April 2002 Exceptional Coset Spaces and Unification in Six Dimensions

## Abstract

The coset spaces E8/SO(10)$`\times `$HF allow complex structures which can account for three quark-lepton generations including right-handed neutrinos. We show that in the context of supersymmetric SO(10) gauge theories in 6 dimensions they also provide the Higgs fields which are needed to break the electroweak and $`BL`$ gauge symmetries, and to generate small neutrino masses via the seesaw mechanism.

The standard model gauge groups of electroweak and strong interactions are naturally unified in the simple gauge group SU(5) . With the increasing experimental evidence for neutrino masses and mixings the larger gauge group SO(10)  with the Pati-Salam subgroup SU(4)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$SU(2)  appears particularly attractive, since all quarks and leptons of a single generation, including the right-handed neutrino, are then also unified in a single multiplet.

The unification groups SU(5)$`=`$E4, SO(10)$`=`$E5 and E6  belong to the sequence of exceptional groups En which terminates at E8. This largest exceptional group is attractive for unification  since its smallest multiplet, the 248-dimensional adjoint representation, is large enough to accommodate all three generations of quarks and leptons. The theory is naturally supersymmetric. However, in addition to the three known quark-lepton generations the theory also predicts three light mirror generations, contrary to observation.

The group E8 also appears in the ten-dimensional Yang-Mills supergravity theory where a cancellation of all gauge and gravitational anomalies is obtained by means of the Green-Schwarz mechanism for the group E$`{}_{8}{}^{}\times `$E8 . Compactification to four dimensions  can yield low energy effective theories with unbroken $`N=1`$ supersymmetry and chiral fermions, similar to the structure of the standard model. The number of families is determined by the Euler characteristic of the compact manifold.

Further, the group E8 has been considered in attempts to relate quarks and leptons to a coset space G/H, where G is an appropriate simple group and H contains the standard model gauge group . By pairing the scalar degrees of freedom of G/H into complex fields, which become the superpartner of quarks and leptons, the problem of mirror families can be avoided . Particularly attractive are coset spaces E8/(SO(10)$`\times `$HF) where HF is a subgroup of SU(3)$`\times `$U(1) -. In the case H$`{}_{F}{}^{}=`$SU(3)$`\times `$U(1) the representation of chiral multiplets is unique,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟑})_1+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_3+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟑}^{})_2+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_4.$$
(1)
Hence, in addition to three quark-lepton generations contained in the three 16’s of SO(10), one mirror generation, 16, occurs, again in contrast to observation. For HF = SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)2 and HF = U(1)3 various complex structures are possible , which contain either three 16’s and one 16, or two 16’s and two 16’s in addition to three 10’s and SO(10) singlets.

Orbifold compactifications  have recently been applied to GUT field theories. The breaking of the GUT symmetry then automatically yields the required doublet-triplet splitting of Higgs fields . Several SU(5) models have been constructed in 5 dimensions -, whereas 6 dimensions are required for the breaking of SO(10) . The N=2 supersymmetric SO(10) theory in 6 dimensions can also be used as a starting point to obtain a SU(5) GUT with three generations .

In the following we want to point out that the complex structure (1), when combined with the orbifold compactification of the 6d SO(10) theory, yields in a simple way the supersymmetric standard model with right-handed neutrinos. The three 16’s, which contain quarks and leptons, are brane fields; the 16 and the three 10’s are bulk fields. Vacuum expectation values of bulk fields break the symmetries SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)Y and U(1)X, which are left unbroken by the orbifold compactification.

Consider the SO(10) gauge theory in 6d with N=1 supersymmetry. The gauge fields $`V_M(x,y,z)`$, with $`M=\mu ,5,6`$, $`x^5=y`$, $`x^6=z`$, and the gauginos $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ are conveniently grouped into vector and chiral multiplets of the unbroken N=1 supersymmetry in 4d,

$$V=(V_\mu ,\lambda _1),\mathrm{\Sigma }=(V_{5,6},\lambda _2).$$
(2)
Here $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are matrices in the adjoint representation of SO(10). Symmetry breaking is achieved by compactification on the orbifold $`T^2/(Z_2^I\times Z_2^{PS}\times Z_2^{GG})`$. The discrete symmetries $`Z_2`$ break the extended supersymmetry in 4d; they also break the SO(10) gauge group down to the subgroups SO(10), GPS=SU(4)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$SU(2) and GGG=SU(5)$`\times `$U(1)X, respectively, at three different fixpoints,

$`P_IV(x,y,z)P_I^1`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _IV(x,y,z),`$ (3)
$`P_{PS}V(x,y+\pi R_5/2,z)P_{PS}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{PS}V(x,y+\pi R_5/2,z),`$ (4)
$`P_{GG}V(x,y,z+\pi R_6/2)P_{GG}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{GG}V(x,y,z+\pi R_6/2).`$ (5)
Here $`P_I=I`$, the matrices $`P_{PS}`$ and $`P_{GG}`$ are given in ref. , and the parities are chosen as $`\eta _I=\eta _{PS}=\eta _{GG}=+1`$. The extended supersymmetry is broken by choosing in the corresponding equations for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ all parities $`\eta _i=1`$. At the fixpoints in the extra dimensions, $`O=(0,0)`$, $`O_{PS}=(\pi R_5/2,0)`$ and $`O_{GG}=(0,\pi R_6/2)`$ the unbroken subgroups are SO(10), GPS and GGG, respectively. In addition, there is a fourth fixpoint at $`O_{fl}=(\pi R_5/2,\pi R_6/2)`$ , which is obtained by combining the three discrete symmetries $`Z_2`$, $`Z_2^{PS}`$ and $`Z_2^{GG}`$ defined above,

$$P_{fl}V(x,y+\pi R_5/2,z+\pi R_6/2)P_{fl}^1=+V(x,y+\pi R_5/2,z+\pi R_6/2).$$
(6)
The unbroken subgroup at the fixpoint $`O_{fl}`$ is flipped SU(5), i.e. Gfl=SU(5)$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$U(1). The physical region is obtained by folding the shaded regions in fig. 1 along the dotted line and gluing the edges. The result is a ‘pillow’ with the four fixpoints as corners. The unbroken gauge group of the effective 4d theory is given by the intersection of the SO(10) subgroups at the fixpoints. In this way one obtains the standard model group with an additional U(1) factor, G$`_{SM^{}}`$= SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)$`{}_{Y}{}^{}\times `$U(1)X. The difference of baryon and lepton number is the linear combination $`BL=\sqrt{\frac{16}{15}}Y\sqrt{\frac{8}{5}}X`$. The zero modes of the vector multiplet $`V`$ form the gauge fields of G$`_{SM^{}}`$.

The vector multiplet $`V`$ is a 45-plet of SO(10) which has an irreducible anomaly in 6 dimensions. It is related to the irreducible anomalies of hypermultiplets in the fundamental and the spinor representations by (cf. ),

$$a(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓})=2a(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}),a(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔})=a(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{})=a(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}).$$
(7)
Hence, the anomaly of the vector multiplet can be cancelled by adding two 10 hypermultiplets, $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$. The cancellation of the reducible anomalies can be achieved by means of the Green-Schwarz mechanism .

For these hypermultiplets we have to define parities with respect to the discrete symmetries,

$`P_IH(x,y,z)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _IH(x,y,z),`$ (8)
$`P_{PS}H(x,y+\pi R_5/2,z)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{PS}H(x,y+\pi R_5/2,z),`$ (9)
$`P_{GG}H(x,y,z+\pi R_6/2)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{GG}H(x,y,z+\pi R_6/2),`$ (10)
with $`\eta _i=\pm 1`$ ($`i=I,PS,GG`$). All hypermultiplets split under the extended 6d supersymmetry into two N=1 4d chiral multiplets, $`H=(H,H^{})`$. They have the 6d superpotential interactions ,

$$S_6=d^6x(d^2\mathrm{\Theta }H^{}(+\sqrt{2}g\mathrm{\Sigma })H+h.c.),$$
(11)
where $`=_5i_6`$ and $`g`$ is the 6d gauge coupling. Invariance of the action then requires that the parities of $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are opposite. In the following we denote by $`\eta _i`$ the parities of the first 4d chiral multiplet, and we choose $`\eta _I=+1`$.

The discrete symmetry $`Z_{PS}`$ implies automatically a splitting between the SU(2) doublets and the SU(3) triplets contained in the 10-plets. The choice $`\eta _{PS}=+1`$ leads to massless SU(2) doublets and massive colour triplets (cf. table 1). Choosing further $`\eta _{GG}=+1`$ for $`H_1`$ and $`\eta _{GG}=1`$ for $`H_2`$, selects the doublet $`H^c`$ from the SU(5) 5-plet contained in $`H_1`$, and the doublet $`H`$ from the SU(5) 5-plet of $`H_2`$ (cf. table 1). The doublets $`H^c`$ and $`H`$ have the quantum numbers of the Higgs fields $`H_d`$ and $`H_u`$ in the supersymmetric standard model.

Quarks and leptons can be incorporated by adding 16-plets, additional 10-plets etc. in the bulk and on the fixpoints. Without any constraint on the multiplicity of these fields there are many possibilities . It is remarkable that for the complex structure $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ given in eq. (1), the requirement of SO(10) anomaly cancellations in the bulk determines the distribution of multiplets uniquely. As already mentioned, two 10’s are required to cancel the anomaly of the 45 vector multiplet. Hence, the (10,3) have to be bulk fields. The anomaly of the third 10-plet can only be cancelled by the (16,1), which leaves (16,3) as brane fields. Note, that in general a bulk field contains two 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ chiral multiplets which transform as complex conjugates of each other with respect to the gauge group. Hence, in our SO(10) model in 6 dimensions the content of 4d chiral multiplets is larger than the complex structure (1).

We now have to choose the parities for $`H_3`$, the third 10-plet, and for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$, the 16-plet. The presence of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ offers the possibility to break U(1)B-L spontaneously by a vacuum expectation value of its SU(5) singlet component $`N`$ (table 2). To have $`N`$ as zero mode fixes the parities of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ to be $`\eta _{PS}=\eta _{GG}=1`$. Then an additional colour triplet, $`D`$, appears as zero mode. As we shall see, $`D`$ can acquire a Dirac mass together with another colour triplet, $`G^c`$, which can be chosen as zero mode of the third 10-plet. The corresponding parities of $`H_3`$ are $`\eta _{PS}=1`$, $`\eta _{GG}=+1`$. The parities of all components of $`H_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ are listed in tables 1 and 2.

Knowing the parities of all fields we can now discuss the superpotential. We consider the three brane fields 16, $`\psi _i`$, on the SO(10) symmetric fixpoint $`O`$. To restrict the number of terms we require R-invariance and an additional global U(1)$`_{\stackrel{~}{X}}`$ symmetry (cf. table 3). The most general superpotential up to quartic terms is then given by,

$`W_4`$ $`=`$ $`h_d\psi \psi H_1+h_u\psi \psi H_2+{\displaystyle \frac{h_N}{M_{}}}\psi \psi \mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ (12)
$`+M_1H_1H_3+M_2H_2H_3+\lambda _1\mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }^cH_3,`$
where we choose $`M_{}>1/R_{5,6}`$ to be the cutoff of the 6d theory, and the bulk fields have been properly normalised. The first three terms are familiar from ordinary SO(10) GUTs whereas the last three terms are additional couplings among bulk fields.

It is instructive to consider in eq. (12) just the zero mode interactions and their couplings to a single heavy field in the bilinear and cubic terms. In standard notation, with $`\psi =(q,u^c,e^c,l,d^c,n^c)`$, one obtains,

$`W_4`$ $`=`$ $`h_d(qd^c+le^c)H_1^c+h_u(qu^c+ln^c)H_2`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{h_N}{M_{}}}(n^cN)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{h_N^{}}{M_{}}}(d^cD)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{h_N^{\prime \prime }}{M_{}}}d^cDn^cN`$
$`+\lambda _1DNG_3^c+M_1H_1^cH_3+M_2H_2H_3^c`$
$`+h_d(qu^c+ln^c)H_1+h_d(qq+u^ce^c+d^cn^c)G_1+h_d(ql+u^cd^c)G_1^c`$
$`+h_u(qd^c+le^c)H_2^c+h_u(qq+u^ce^c+d^cn^c)G_2+h_u(ql+u^cd^c)G_2^c;`$
here the three couplings $`h_N`$, $`h_N^{}`$ and $`h_N^{\prime \prime }`$ correspond to the three SO(10) invariants which can be formed from $`\psi \psi \mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$.

Vacuum expectation values $`v_1=H_1^c`$, $`v_2=H_2`$ and $`v_N=N`$ yield the mass terms,

$$W_m=m_uuu^c+m_\nu nn^c+m_ddd^c+m_eee^c+m_Nn^cn^c,$$
(14)
with mass matrices $`m_u=m_\nu =h_uv_2`$, $`m_d=m_e=h_dv_1`$ and $`m_N=h_Nv_N^2/M_{}`$. With $`v_{1,2}v_N`$ this gives, to first approximation, a good description of the observed properties of quarks and leptons. Since there are two Higgs doublets, $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, the unwanted relation of minimal SO(10) models, $`m_u=m_d`$, is avoided. The evidence for small neutrino masses, together with the seesaw mechanism , suggests that U(1)B-L is broken near the unification scale, i.e. $`v_N1/R_{5,6}`$, which implies large Majorana masses . This also leads to a large mass term, $`m_TDG_3^c`$, for the colour triplet zero modes of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ and $`H_3`$, with $`m_T=\lambda _1v_N`$. The vacuum expectation value $`N=v_N`$ breaks U(1)$`{}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}{}^{}\times `$U(1)X to the diagonal global subgroup, leaving U(1)R unbroken. As a consequence, integrating out the heavy fields $`G_{1,2}`$, $`G_{1,2}^c`$ does not lead to a dimension-5 operator for proton decay. For the same reason, integrating out $`H_3`$ and $`H_3^c`$ does not generate a $`\mu `$-term $`H_1^cH_2`$. Finally, the electroweak scale $`v_{1,2}`$ may be induced together with the $`\mu `$-term by supersymmetry breaking. The resulting low energy effective theory is just the supersymmetric standard model with right-handed neutrinos.

What determines the vacuum expectation value $`N`$ which breaks U(1)X and therefore U(1)B-L? Note, that these U(1) symmetries are anomalous, since the zero modes of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ and $`H_3`$ lead to 4d anomalies SU(3)$`{}_{}{}^{2}\times `$U(1)X and U(1)$`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{X}{}^{}`$. In general, these can be compensated by a Chern-Simons term111For recent discussions in 5-dimensional theories and references, see . One may then hope to break U(1)X spontaneously by means of a Fayet-Iliopoulos term on the Georgi-Glashow fixpoint $`O_{GG}`$. This will be discussed in more detail elsewhere .

Alternatively, one can avoid the occurrence of anomalies by ‘partial doubling’, familiar from supersymmetric $`\sigma `$-models where one associates an entire chiral multiplet with some degrees of freedom of the coset space G/H (cf. ). Let us then add two bulk fields, a 16-plet, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and a fourth 10-plet, $`H_4`$, which have no irreducible 6d anomaly. The choice of parities $`\eta _{PS}=1`$ and $`\eta _{GG}=1`$ for both fields leads to the zero modes $`D^c`$, $`N^c`$ and $`G`$ (cf. table 4). The zero modes of all bulk fields now form a real, and therefore anomaly free, representation of $`G_{SM^{}}`$. The additional superpotential terms on the SO(10) brane are,

$`W_4^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M^2S+\lambda _2S\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^c+\lambda _3\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }H_4`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _4}{M_{}}}S\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }H_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _5}{M_{}}}S\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }H_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _6}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^cH_1H_3+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _7}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^cH_2H_3,`$
where we have also included one of the SO(10) singlets, $`S`$. The $`R`$\- and $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$-charges of the additional fields are $`R_\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, $`R_{H_4}=R_S=2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{X}_\mathrm{\Phi }=a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{H_4}=2a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{X}_S=0`$. Without the singlet field $`S`$, there is a bulk D- and F-flat direction, $`N=N^c=v_N`$ . The couplings of $`S`$ on the brane lift this degeneracy, and one has $`v_N=N=N^c=\sqrt{M^2/\lambda _2}`$. The cubic term in (15) gives mass to two zero modes $`G`$ and $`D^c`$, $`NN^c`$ makes to the U(1)X vector multiplet massive, and $`N+N^c`$ has a common mass term with $`S`$. Hence, one obtains the same low energy theory as in the anomalous model discussed above.

We have shown that complex structures of coset spaces E8/SO(10)$`\times `$HF can provide the starting point of a full grand unified model in the context of supersymmetric SO(10) theories in 6 dimensions with orbifold compactification. Open questions concern the breaking of supersymmetry, the origin of the brane superpotential and, in particular, the possible connection to theories in 10 dimensions with E8 symmetry.

We would like to thank A. Hebecker, H. P. Nilles, M. Olechowski and C. Scrucca for helpful discussions.