text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Grand unified theories (GUTs) provide an elegant explanation of the origin of the three Standard Model (SM) gauge interactions and the fermion quantum numbers . In their minimal supersymmetric extension, GUTs also lead to a remarkably successful prediction of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$. This supports both the existence of supersymmetry (SUSY), broken near the weak scale, and some form of gauge-coupling unification at a scale $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The idea of GUTs can also naturally accommodate relations among Yukawa couplings, leading most notably to the quite successful prediction of $`m_b/m_\tau `$.

Among the less attractive features of GUTs are the complicated Higgs sector required for realistic breaking of the gauge group and the necessity of modifying the unsuccessful first and second generation analogues of the $`m_b/m_\tau `$ mass predictions. In addition, dimension-5 proton decay operators arising from the exchange of supermassive coloured Higgsinos severely constrain minimal SUSY GUT models (see e.g. ).

Recently an elegant solution to these problems has been proposed in the context of SU(5)  and SO(10)  unification. The GUT gauge symmetry is now realized in 5 or more space-time dimensions and broken to the SM group by compactification on an orbifold, utilizing boundary conditions that violate the GUT-symmetry. In the most studied case of 5 dimensions both the GUT group and 5d supersymmetry are broken by compactification on $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$, leading to an N=1 SUSY model with SM gauge group. This construction allows one to avoid some unsatisfactory features of conventional GUTs with Higgs breaking, such as doublet-triplet splitting, dimension-5 proton decay, and Yukawa unification in the first two generations, while maintaining, at least at leading order, the desired gauge coupling unification .

Higgsino mediated proton decay is absent because the triplets acquire mass via the KK expansion of 5d terms of the form

$$d^2\theta \left(H_3^c_5H_3+H_{\overline{3}}^c_5H_{\overline{3}}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(1)
Thus, the mass couples the triplet Higgsino to a state in $`H_3^c`$, and not in $`H_{\overline{3}}`$. Unlike the $`H_3`$ and $`H_{\overline{3}}`$ states, the $`H_3^c`$ and $`H_{\overline{3}}^c`$ fields do not couple directly to the quark and lepton superfields and the dangerous dimension-5 operators are absent. This absence can be viewed as a consequence of a U(1)R symmetry of the 5d theory. An extension of the U(1)R to matter fields localized on the branes leads to $`R`$-parity, prohibiting baryon number violation at dimension 4 as well .

Although there is no dimension-4 or -5 proton decay, we argue in this letter that $`X,Y`$ gauge-boson mediated proton decay is now much more interesting. First, the mass scale $`M_c=1/R`$ of the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ gauge bosons in the orbifold GUT theories is lower than in conventional SUSY GUTs, possibly approaching $`10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$.111The reason for this is that the running of differences of gauge couplings does not stop at $`M_c`$, but continues in only a slightly modified way . So $`M_c`$ is lower than the unification scale. This enhances the dimension-6 proton decay processes to a level that may be seen in current and future experiments. Second, the novel realization of the matter multiplets in orbifold GUTs changes in a striking way the signatures of $`X,Y`$ mediated proton decay and leads to a clear experimental distinction between orbifold and 4d GUT predictions.222We thank Y. Nomura for bringing to our attention Ref.  where these interesting features of orbifold GUT theories were previously noted. In Sect. 3 we will comment on the relations of our respective findings.

We begin in Sect. 2 by deriving the dimension-6 proton decay operators arising from the minimal couplings of $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons. We integrate out the 5d $`X,Y`$ states in a 4d superfield formalism. The advantage of this approach is that no ill-defined contact-interaction $`\delta (0)`$ (cf. ) appears in the intermediate stages of the calculation. Using this formalism we then discuss the effect of higher-derivative brane operators involving the $`X,Y`$ gauge fields. Such interactions, which are not forbidden by the gauge symmetries of the model, can lead to sizeable proton decay rates even in scenarios which are otherwise safe due to the location of the matter multiplets. In Sect. 3, we calculate the corresponding proton decay rates for the two classes of operators. The obtained results depend crucially on the location of matter multiplets on the two branes or in the bulk. In particular, we point out that in one of the most attractive realizations of the SU(5) orbifold model, the minimal $`X,Y`$ couplings favour $`p\mu ^+K^0`$ decay. This represents a striking orbifold GUT signature. We also show that, depending on the realization of matter, the higher-derivative operators involving $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons, can be the numerically dominant source of proton decay. Overall, $`X,Y`$-mediated proton decay can occur at rates observable in the current or next generation of proton decay experiments. Our conclusions are given in Sect. 4.

## 2 Integrating out the $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons

We begin by recalling the basic structure of the Kawamura model , which is based on a 5d super Yang-Mills theory on $`IR^4\times S^1`$, where the $`S^1`$ is parameterized by $`y[0,2\pi R)`$. The field space is then restricted by imposing the two discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetries, $`yy`$ and $`y^{}y^{}`$ (with $`y^{}=y\pi R/2`$). The action of the $`Z_2`$’s in field space is specified by the two gauge twists $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$. If the original gauge group is SU(5) and the gauge twists are chosen as $`P=1`$ and $`P^{}=`$ diag$`(1,1,1,1,1)`$, an effective low energy theory with SM gauge symmetry results.

The supersymmetric version of this model can be described in terms of 4d superfields . A manifestly gauge-invariant form of the non-abelian action is given by

$$S=d^4x_0^l𝑑y\frac{1}{2g_5^2}\text{tr}\left\{_{\theta ^2}W^2+\text{h.c.}+_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}\left(e^{2V}_5e^{2V}\right)^2\right\},$$
(2)
where $`V`$ is a real superfield depending on the additional parameter $`y=x^5`$, $`W`$ is the corresponding field strength superfield, $`_5=_5+\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the covariant derivative in $`x^5`$ direction, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an $`x^5`$-dependent chiral superfield.

We will be interested in baryon-number-violating processes mediated by $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons in scenarios where SM fermions are localized on the SU(5) brane at $`y=0`$, on the SM brane at $`y=l=\pi R/2`$, or in the bulk. We begin with the simplest case of SU(5)-brane localized matter. The coupling to a chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ at $`y=0`$ is described by the lagrangian

$$_\mathrm{\Psi }=\delta (y)_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}e^{2V}\mathrm{\Psi }=\delta (y)_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}\left\{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }+2V^AJ^A+𝒪(V^2)\right\},$$
(3)
where $`J^A=`$tr$`(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}T^A\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is the matter current. Note that the SU(5) generators $`\{T^A\}`$ fall into the two subsets $`\{T^a\}`$ and $`\{T^{\widehat{a}}\}`$, the first one being the SM generators and the second the basis of the orthogonal complement.

Given a current $`J`$ (corresponding to an external field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$), the equation of motion for $`V`$ is obtained by varying the action of Eqs. (2) and (3). In the $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ gauge and to leading order in $`V`$ it reads (our superspace conventions are those of )

$$\frac{1}{8}D_\alpha \overline{D}^2D^\alpha V_5^2V+g_5^2J\delta (y)=0.$$
(4)
If $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is on-shell, $`D^2\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, one finds $`D^2J=0`$. It is self-consistent to assume that, in the presence of an $`x^\mu `$-independent current ($`\mu =0,..,3`$), we have an $`x^\mu `$ independent solution $`V`$ with a superspace dependence given by $`VJ`$. Then the first term in Eq. (4) vanishes and we need to solve

$$_5^2V^{\widehat{a}}+g_5^2J^{\widehat{a}}\delta (y)=0$$
(5)
for the $`V`$ components corresponding to $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons. Given the boundary conditions $`_5V^{\widehat{a}}(y=0)=V^{\widehat{a}}(y=l)=0`$, the solution is $`V^{\widehat{a}}=g_5^2(ly)J^{\widehat{a}}`$ for $`y>0`$. The function is continuous at $`y=0`$ but has a discontinuous first derivative. Inserting this into the original lagrangian, the following effective operator in the low-energy 4d effective theory is generated:

$$𝒪_1=lg_5^2_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}\underset{\widehat{a}}{}(J^{\widehat{a}})^2.$$
(6)
We have checked explicitly that the four-scalar interaction contained in the superfield operator $`𝒪_1`$ agrees with the result of , where the calculation was done by first integrating out auxiliary fields and then summing the exchanged KK modes in the component formalism. The advantage of our superfield approach is that no ill-defined contact-interaction $`\delta (0)`$ appears in the intermediate stages of the calculation333 This observation has also been made in the context of a 3d superfield description of 4d SUSY theories with boundary . . This could also have been achieved by summing KK modes and making use of the cancellations between physical and auxiliary field contributions enforced by the unbroken 4d SUSY at each KK level.

The four-fermion interaction contained in $`𝒪_1`$ reads

$$𝒪_1\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\frac{g_4^2}{M_c^2}(\overline{\psi }_i\overline{\psi }_j)(\psi _k\psi _l)\underset{\widehat{a}}{}T_{ik}^{\widehat{a}}T_{jl}^{\widehat{a}},$$
(7)
where $`\psi `$ is the fermion from $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`g_4^2=g_5^2/l`$ is the 4d gauge coupling, and $`M_c=1/R`$ is the compactification scale which, at the same time, is the mass of the lowest-lying KK mode of $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons. Note that, up to the prefactor $`\pi ^2/4`$, this is precisely the result expected in a 4d GUT with gauge boson mass $`M_c`$. The prefactor can be easily understood as $`2(\pi ^2/8)`$, where the 2 comes from the normalization of the KK modes due to their non-trivial bulk profile  and $`\pi ^2/8=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(2n1)^2`$ accounts for exchanging the full KK tower rather than just the lowest-lying mode.

We now turn to the case where SM fermions are localized on the SM brane .444Following  such realizations of matter have also been used in recent TeV scale SU(3) models . Although in this case, $`X,Y`$ mediated proton decay is no longer a generic prediction of the theory, it will occur if brane operators of the type

$$_\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{c}{M}\delta (y^{})_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1\left(_5e^{2V}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_2+\text{h.c.}$$
(8)
are included in the action . Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ are SM superfields and the multiplication with $`(_5e^{2V})`$ is defined by using their standard embedding into SU(5) multiplets. Note that, even though the $`X,Y`$ components of $`V`$ vanish at the SM brane, their $`_5`$ derivatives appearing in $`(_5e^{2V})`$ are non-zero. The prefactor includes a dimensionless $`𝒪(1)`$ coefficient $`c`$ and the fundamental scale $`MM_c`$, which is required for dimensional reasons. Parametrically, $`M`$ can not be larger than $`1/g_5^2`$, since this is the scale at which the 5d gauge theory becomes strongly coupled.

Following the same line of reasoning as in the case of SU(5)-brane fermions, one arrives at the analogue of Eq. (5), which is

$$_5^2V^{\widehat{a}}\frac{cg_5^2}{M}J^{\widehat{a}}_5\delta (y)=0,$$
(9)
with the current $`J^{\widehat{a}}=`$tr$`(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1T^{\widehat{a}}\mathrm{\Psi }_2+`$h.c.). The solution is given by

$$V^{\widehat{a}}(y)=\frac{cg_5^2}{M}J^{\widehat{a}}_y^l𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}\delta (\stackrel{~}{y}).$$
(10)
Inserting this into the original lagrangian, the following effective operator in the low-energy 4d effective theory is obtained:

$$𝒪_2=\frac{c^2g_5^2}{M^2}_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}\underset{\widehat{a}}{}(J^{\widehat{a}})^2_0^l𝑑y\delta (y)^2=\frac{\pi bc^2g_4^2}{2MM_c}_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}\underset{\widehat{a}}{}(J^{\widehat{a}})^2.$$
(11)
Here, to obtain the final expression, we have assumed the $`\delta `$ function to be localized on a scale $`1/M`$ and, accordingly, replaced the $`y`$ integral by $`bM`$, with $`b`$ an $`𝒪(1)`$ coefficient depending on the specific way in which the $`\delta `$ function is regularized. Thus, the operator $`𝒪_2`$ depends via $`c^2`$ on the a priori unknown strength of the brane-bulk coupling, Eq. (8), and via $`b`$ on the UV completion of the theory. This UV sensitivity can also be understood by observing that the derivative coupling of Eq. (8) enhances the contribution of higher KK modes so that the sum diverges. Parametrically, $`𝒪_2`$ is suppressed with respect to $`𝒪_1`$ by a factor $`M/M_c`$, which can be as small as $`10`$ (allowing at least some range of validity for the effective 5d theory) or as large as $`10^3`$ (extending the 5d theory all the way to its strong coupling scale). Nevertheless, as we argue in the next section, in models where the first generation is not on the SU(5) brane, $`𝒪_2`$ can be a competitive or even the dominant source of proton decay.

In models where both branes contain SM fermions, the combined effect of the couplings of Eqs. (3) and (8) will give rise to further proton decay operators involving both SU(5)- and SM-brane fermions. The calculation is a straightforward combination of the two basic cases discussed above.

## 3 Proton decay rates

In SU(5) orbifold GUTs, there are three possible locations for matter: the SU(5) brane, the bulk (which is also SU(5) symmetric), and the SM brane. The various possible models are characterized by the placement of the $`T_i`$ ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s) and $`\overline{F}_i`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$’s) that make up the three ($`i=1,2,3`$) generations of quarks and leptons. To reproduce the successful SU(5) $`m_b/m_\tau `$ mass relation, $`T_3`$ and $`\overline{F}_3`$ must reside on the SU(5) brane. Furthermore, due to the different normalization of 4d and 5d fields, Yukawa interactions involving one or two bulk matter fields are effectively suppressed by factors $`(M/M_c)^{1/2}`$ and $`(M/M_c)`$  (recall that $`M`$ is the fundamental UV scale of the theory). Thus, both the relative lightness of the 2nd and 1st generations and the failure of the SU(5) mass predictions indicate that for $`i=1,2`$ either $`T_i`$ or $`\overline{F}_i`$ or both should be in the bulk or on the SM brane.

First we consider the case of proton decay operators arising from minimal $`X,Y`$ gauge boson interactions.

Both for matter on the SM brane and in the SU(5)-symmetric bulk, minimally coupled $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons do not lead to dimension-6 baryon number violating operators . For matter on the SM brane this is simply because the orbifold boundary conditions imply the vanishing of the $`X,Y`$ gauge boson wavefunctions on the SM brane. For bulk matter the situation is slightly more involved. Although 5d fields come in complete SU(5) multiplets, the orbifold projections $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ imply that the zero modes under this action do not fill out full SU(5) multiplets. From a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ we just get $`\overline{U}`$ and $`\overline{E}`$ zero modes, while from a $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ we get $`\overline{D}`$. The remaining components of a full SM generation are realized at the zero mode level by taking another copy of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ in the bulk and flipping the overall sign of the action of $`P^{}`$ on these multiplets. As a result, we have zero modes which fill out the full matter content of $`T`$ or $`\overline{F}`$ at the zero mode level . However, since the components of $`T`$ or $`\overline{F}`$ arise from different 5d SU(5) parent multiplets, the interaction of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ gauge bosons with these ‘split’ multiplets do not convert SM quarks into SM leptons. Rather, they convert SM fermions into superheavy ($`m1/R`$) exotic partner states. Only with multiple $`X,Y`$ exchange can a baryon-number-violating operator involving only SM fields be produced. Such operators are at minimum of dimension 8 and are irrelevant for proton decay experiments in the foreseeable future.555If some or all of the SM fermions come from split multiplets localized in the bulk, $`X,Y`$-boson-mediated proton decay via dimension-6 operators will occur if couplings analogous to Eqs. (3) and (8) mixing different bulk SU(5) multiplets are present. One can think of such terms as non-diagonal brane-localized kinetic terms (in a basis chosen to make the bulk kinetic term diagonal). We do not consider this case in detail here. Thus, we now focus on proton decay due to interactions of $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons with SU(5)-brane matter.

The only $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ operators induced by single $`X`$ or $`Y`$ gauge boson exchange are

$`𝒪_{TF}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_4^2}{M_c^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}a_ib_j\overline{d_R}_i\overline{u_R}_jL_{Li}Q_{Lj}`$ (12)
$`𝒪_{TT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_4^2}{M_c^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}b_ib_j\overline{e_R}_i\overline{u_R}_jQ_{Li}Q_{Lj}.`$ (13)
Here and below our Weyl spinor notation is such that $`\psi _{\mathrm{Dirac}}=(\psi _L,\overline{\psi }_R)^T`$. The operators $`𝒪_{TF}`$ and $`𝒪_{TT}`$ arise from gauge exchange between $`T`$ and $`\overline{F}`$ and between two $`T`$ multiplets respectively. The generation indices $`i,j`$ label the matter fields in the ‘locality basis,’  (in which the fields are defined by their location) so that $`a_i=1`$ or $`a_i=0`$ depending on whether $`\overline{F}_i`$ is on the SU(5) brane or not. Similarly $`b_i=1,0`$ depending on whether $`T_i`$ is localized on the SU(5) brane, or not.

The fields in the locality basis (which is also the gauge basis) get mass via Yukawa interactions characterized by the matrices $`\lambda _u`$, $`\lambda _d`$, and $`\lambda _e`$. Low-energy experiments determine only their diagonal form, $`\lambda _u^{\mathrm{diag}}`$, $`\lambda _d^{\mathrm{diag}}`$, $`\lambda _e^{\mathrm{diag}}`$, and the CKM matrix, $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$:

$$\lambda _u^{\mathrm{diag}}=L_u^{}\lambda _uR_u,\lambda _d^{\mathrm{diag}}=L_d^{}\lambda _dR_d,\lambda _e^{\mathrm{diag}}=L_e^{}\lambda _eR_e,V_{\mathrm{CKM}}=L_u^{}L_d.$$
(14)
The diagonalizing unitary rotations of type $`L`$ and $`R`$ act in generation space and connect the gauge and mass eigenstate bases. Denoting the latter by primes, the above $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ operators take the form

$$𝒪_{TF}=\frac{\pi ^2g_4^2}{4M_c^2}\underset{i,j}{}a_ib_j\left((\overline{d_R^{}}R_d^{})_i(\overline{u_R^{}}R_u^{})_j(\nu _L^{})_i(L_dd_L^{})_j(\overline{d_R^{}}R_d^{})_i(\overline{u_R^{}}R_u^{})_j(L_ee_L^{})_i(L_uu_L^{})_j\right)$$
(15)
(note that, for our purposes, neutrinos can be treated as massless) and

$$𝒪_{TT}=\frac{\pi ^2g_4^2}{2M_c^2}\underset{i,j}{}b_ib_j(\overline{u_R^{}}R_u^{})_j(\overline{e_R^{}}R_e^{})_i(L_uu_L^{})_j(L_dd_L^{})_i.$$
(16)
Here, in contrast to the minimal version of 4d GUTs, the coefficients of the operators involve combinations of elements of $`L`$ and $`R`$ matrices beyond those determined by $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$.

We start our discussion with the case considered originally in : all generations located at the SU(5) brane. We use the approximation $`LR\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and focus on the mode $`p\pi ^0e^+`$. The relevant operator reads

$$𝒪=\frac{\pi ^2g_4^2}{4M_c^2}\left(2\overline{u_R^{}}\overline{e_R^{}}u_L^{}d_L^{}\overline{d_R^{}}\overline{u_R^{}}e_L^{}u_L^{}\right),$$
(17)
with only first generation fields. This gives rise to the decay rate (see, e.g., )

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(p\pi ^0e^+)=\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right)^2\frac{5\alpha ^2m_p}{64\pi f_\pi ^2}(1+D+F)^2\left(\frac{g_4^2A_R}{M_c^2}\right)^2.$$
(18)
Taking the hadronic parameter $`\alpha =0.015`$ GeV3 , the pion decay constant $`f_\pi =0.13`$ GeV, the chiral perturbation theory parameters $`D=0.80`$ and $`F=0.47`$, the unified gauge coupling $`g_4^2/(4\pi )=1/25`$, and the renormalization coefficient $`A_R=2.5`$, the resulting life time is

$$1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(p\pi ^0e^+)=1.4\times 10^{34}\text{years}\times \left(\frac{M_c}{10^{16}\text{GeV}}\right)^4.$$
(19)
Using the Super-Kamiokande limit of $`5.3\times 10^{33}`$ years , this leads to the bound $`M_c0.8\times 10^{16}`$ GeV  (see also ). Given the usual unifications scale $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, almost no validity range for the higher-dimensional field theory is left.

Let us now turn to a better motivated case where only the third generation is located on the SU(5) brane. This scenario predicts the large mass of the third generation, $`b\tau `$ unification, and the absence of a similar mass relation in the first two generations. Given the observed structure of $`V_{CKM}`$, we assume that all matrices $`L`$ and $`R`$ are near the unit matrix. Thus, proton decay will be suppressed by the small off-diagonal elements of these matrices. To minimize the number of such elements, is advantageous to have an anti-neutrino and a strange quark in the final state. The relevant operator reads

$$𝒪=\frac{\pi ^2g_4^2}{4M_c^2}\overline{s_R^{}}\overline{u_R^{}}\nu _{\tau L}^{}d_L^{}(R_d^{})_{23}(R_u^{})_{13}(L_d)_{31}.$$
(20)
The resulting decay rate, calculated using the analysis of  and including the phase space suppression due to the mass of the $`K^+`$, is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu }_\tau )=\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right)^2\frac{\alpha ^2m_p}{72\pi f_\pi ^2}\left(D\frac{m_p}{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\left(\frac{g_4^2A_R}{M_c^2}\right)^2\left(1\frac{m_K^2}{m_p^2}\right)^2\left|(R_d^{})_{23}(R_u^{})_{13}(L_d)_{31}\right|^2,$$
(21)
with $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.1`$ GeV and $`m_K=0.5`$ GeV. The parametric supression by small mixing angles agrees with the estimate of . If, guided by $`V_{CKM}`$, one estimates the 2-3 and 1-3 mixing elements by 0.05 and 0.01 respectively, one finds a life time

$$1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^+\overline{\nu }_\tau )6.6\times 10^{38}\text{years}\times \left(\frac{M_c}{10^{14}\text{GeV}}\right)^4.$$
(22)
Thus, to observe an effect, one requires either experimental progress beyond the currently considered multi-megaton detectors (see e.g. ), or a very low compactification scale, or off-diagonal elements of the unmeasured mixing matrices larger than the naive CKM-based estimate.

Finally, we consider what is arguably the best-motivated scenario, namely, a model with only $`T_3`$, $`\overline{F}_3`$ and $`\overline{F}_2`$ on the SU(5) brane. Following the discussion of , one finds that this model provides an explanation of all fermion mass hierarchies except for the lightness of the first-generation up-quark and electron and the neutrinos in terms of the single parameter $`(M/M_c)^{1/2}`$. The dominant decay modes are $`pK^0\mu ^+`$ and $`pK^+\nu _\mu `$. For the striking $`K^0\mu ^+`$ mode the relevant operator is

$$𝒪=\frac{\pi ^2g_4^2}{4M_c^2}\overline{s_R^{}}\overline{u_R^{}}\mu _L^{}u_L^{}(R_u^{})_{13}(L_u)_{31}.$$
(23)
Similarly we find that the $`K^+\nu _\mu `$ mode is also supressed by two 1-3 mixings.666In Ref.  the modes $`pK^+\nu _\mu `$ and $`p\mu ^+\pi ^0`$ were stated to be dominant with amplitudes supressed by one 2-3 and two 1-3 mixings and by one 1-2 and two 1-3 mixings respectively. This gives rise to the rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0\mu ^+)=\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right)^2\frac{\alpha ^2m_p}{32\pi f_\pi ^2}\left(1+(DF)\frac{m_p}{m_\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\left(\frac{g_4^2A_R}{M_c^2}\right)^2\left(1\frac{m_K^2}{m_p^2}\right)^2\left|(R_u^{})_{13}(L_u)_{31}\right|^2.$$
(24)
The life time is

$$1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(pK^0\mu ^+)2.1\times 10^{35}\text{years}\times \left(\frac{M_c}{10^{14}\text{GeV}}\right)^4.$$
(25)
Thus, in a phenomenologically well-motivated realization of this scenario, with $`M10^{17}`$ GeV and $`(M/M_c)^{1/2}30`$, the next generation of proton decay experiments could ‘discover’ orbifold GUTs via the striking signal of a $`K^0\mu ^+`$ final state. (Note that in the case where $`T_2`$ but not $`\overline{F}_2`$ is on the SU(5) brane proton decay could also be discovered by the striking $`pK^0\mu ^+`$ mode. In this case the mixing supression is only by two 1-2 mixings .)

We now turn to the non-minimal case where proton decay arises from the higher-derivative interactions of the $`X,Y`$ bosons with matter on the SM brane. This is of interest especially in the minimal GUT models where all matter in localized on the SM brane . The proton decay rate that results from the operator Eq.(11) is

$$1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(p\pi ^0e^+)=3.5\times 10^{34}\text{years}\times \frac{1}{b^2c^4}\left(\frac{M_c}{10^{15}\text{GeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{M}{10^{17}\text{GeV}}\right)^2.$$
(26)
Assuming natural $`𝒪(1)`$ values for the unknown coefficients $`b`$ and $`c`$, this leads to a potentially observable rate. This same mechanism can also apply to split multiplets, but in this case there is a further suppression of $`M_c/M`$ in the rate for each bulk field.

## 4 Conclusions

Proton decay is one of the most characteristic and striking signatures of conventional 4d GUTs. In orbifold GUTs, although dimension 5 operators are naturally absent, proton decay induced by the exchange of $`X,Y`$ boson states is enhanced. Moreover, the minimal gauge interactions of $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons only induce $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ operators for those matter multiplets localized to the SU(5)-invariant brane. For example, in models with the most realistic flavour structure, the 1st generation is not localized to the SU(5) brane, and proton decay arises from the mixing of brane and bulk matter to form mass eigenstates. As a result, minimal $`X,Y`$ gauge interactions favour unusual final states, e.g. $`pK^0\mu ^+`$, at a potentially observable rate. Thus the rates and flavour structure of proton decay processes provide important probes of orbifold GUTs. In addition to minimal $`X,Y`$ couplings, there can exist higher-derivative brane-localized couplings of $`X,Y`$ gauge bosons directly to 1st generation states. Although formally suppressed by $`M_c/M`$, these new operators do not rely on mixing and can be the numerically dominant source of proton decay, with rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p\pi ^0e^+)`$ observable in current and future experiments.


format: text

text:
# Symmetry breaking and coarsening of clusters in a prototypical driven granular gas

## Abstract

Granular hydrodynamics predicts symmetry-breaking instability in a two-dimensional (2D) ensemble of nearly elastically colliding smooth hard spheres driven, at zero gravity, by a rapidly vibrating sidewall. Super- and subcritical symmetry-breaking bifurcations of the simple clustered state are identified, and the supercritical bifurcation curve is computed. The cluster dynamics proceed as a coarsening process mediated by the gas phase. Far above the bifurcation point the final steady state, selected by coarsening, represents a single strongly localized densely packed 2D cluster.

Introduction. Rapid granular flow continues to attract a great deal of attention of physicists Jaeger . Among most fascinating phenomena here is clustering: nucleation and growth of dense granular clusters, surrounded by dilute granular gas in “freely-cooling” Hopkins  and driven Kadanoff1 ; Grossman ; Esipov ; Kudrolli ; Urbach  granular gases. Clustering can be viewed as a variant of thermal condensation instability, encountered also in gases and plasmas that cool by their own radiation plasma . This analogy brings about the question of universality of structure formation in ensemble of particles with energy losses of different nature. A related, largely unexplored issue is cluster coarsening. Reviewing different cluster-forming granular systems with a fixed number of particles Hopkins ; Urbach ; Aranson , one notices that coarsening is ubiquitous. In most of these systems a single cluster usually survives after transients die out. The present work addresses novel issues of pattern formation and coarsening in cluster-forming driven granular gases. We shall consider a simple (indeed, prototypical) system: a 2D ensemble of inelastically colliding smooth hard spheres, confined in a rectangular box and driven by a rapidly vibrating side wall at zero gravity. The other three walls are assumed elastic. Though this and related systems were investigated theoretically Kadanoff1 ; Grossman ; Brey ; Tobochnik  and experimentally Kudrolli ; Kudrolli2 , it has been recognized only recently that they exhibit nontrivial pattern-forming properties LMS ; KM . These properties will be in the focus of this work. We identify the character of symmetry-breaking bifurcations of the simple clustered state and show that, depending on the control parameters, both super- and subcritical bifurcations can occur. We find that selection of the final steady state occurs via cluster coarsening dynamics, mediated by the gas phase. Far above the bifurcation point, only one densely packed 2D cluster survives. We shall conclude that cluster selection by coarsening is universal in cluster-forming granular flows with a fixed number of particles.

Model. Let $`N1`$ identical smooth hard spheres of diameter $`d`$ and mass $`m=1`$ are rolling without friction on a smooth horizontal surface of a rectangular box with dimensions $`L_x\times L_y`$. The number density of grains is $`n(x,y,t)`$, the granular temperature is $`T(x,y,t)`$. For a submonolayer coverage $`nn_c=2/(\sqrt{3}d^2)`$, the (hexagonal) close-packing density. Three of the walls are immobile, and grain collisions with them are assumed elastic. The fourth wall (located at $`x=L_x`$) is rapidly vibrating, $`x=L_x+A\mathrm{cos}\omega t`$, and supplies energy to the system. The energy is being lost via inelastic hard-core grain collisions characterized by a constant normal restitution coefficient $`r`$. Our crucial assumption will be a strong inequality $`1r^21`$. In the quasielastic limit, and for small Knudsen numbers, the Navier-Stokes granular hydrodynamics is expected to be reasonably accurate, even for large granular densities, as long as the granulate is in a fluidized state Grossman . Therefore, the steady states of the system can be described by the coarse-grained momentum and energy balance equations

$$p=const,(\kappa T)=I,$$
(1)
where $`p`$ is the pressure, $`\kappa `$ is the thermal conductivity and $`I`$ is the rate of energy losses. To make the full use of hydrodynamics, we shall work in the parameter regime when the energy supply from the vibrating wall can be represented as a hydrodynamic heat flux. This requires $`Al`$, where $`l`$ is the mean free path of the particles at the vibrating wall. We shall also assume a double inequality $`T^{1/2}/l\omega T^{1/2}/A`$. The left inequality guarantees the absence of correlations between successive collisions of particles with the vibrating wall. The right inequality makes the calculation simpler, but it is not crucial. The resulting energy flux is LMS ; Kumaran

$$q=\kappa T/x=(2/\pi )^{1/2}A^2\omega ^2nT^{1/2}.$$
(2)
To close the hydrodynamic model, one needs constitutive relations (CRs) : $`p,\kappa `$ and $`I`$ in terms of $`n`$ and $`T`$. The CRs have been derived systematically only in the dilute limit. Reasonably accurate CRs in the whole range of densities can be obtained by employing free volume arguments close to the dense-packing limit, interpolating between the high- and low-density limits and finding the fitting constants by comparing the results with particle simulations Grossman ; Luding . We shall use the CRs suggested by Grossman et al. Grossman  because of their relative simplicity. A special investigation KM  showed that the stability diagram does not change much if one uses instead the CRs derived by Jenkins and Richman JR .

Eqs. (1) can be rewritten in terms of one variable: the (scaled) inverse density $`z(x,y)=n_c/n(x,y)`$ Grossman ; LMS . We introduce scaled coordinates $`𝐫/L_x𝐫`$ so that the box dimensions become $`1\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=L_y/L_x`$ is the box aspect ratio. We have

$$\left(F(z)z\right)=Q(z).$$
(3)
Introducing $`\psi =_0^zF(z^{})𝑑z^{}`$, we rewrite it as

$$^2\psi =\stackrel{~}{Q}(\psi )$$
(4)
The boundary conditions are

$$\frac{\psi }{x}|_{x=0}=\frac{\psi }{y}|_{y=0}=\frac{\psi }{y}|_{y=\mathrm{\Delta }}=0$$
(5)
and (see Ref. LMS )

$$\frac{\psi }{x}|_{x=1}=\stackrel{~}{H}\left[\psi (1,y)\right]\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\psi )𝑑x𝑑y}{\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}}\stackrel{~}{H}(\psi (1,y))𝑑y}.$$
(6)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(\psi )=Q\left[z(\psi )\right]`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}(\psi )=H\left[z(\psi )\right]`$, while $`F,G,H`$ and $`Q`$ are functions of $`z`$ only; they are given in Ref. LMS . In the rest of the paper the symbol $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ will be omitted. Conservation of the total number of particles yields an equation for the area fraction $`f=N/(L_xL_yn_c)`$:

$$f=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{dxdy}{z(\psi )}.$$
(7)
The steady state problem is fully determined by three scaled parameters: $`=(32/3\gamma )(L_x/d)^2(1r^2)`$ (where $`\gamma 2.26`$), the area fraction $`f`$ and aspect ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Notice that the steady-state density distributions are independent of $`A`$ and $`\omega `$. This is in contrast to the case of a non-zero gravity, where the gravity acceleration, combined with $`A\omega ^2`$, yields a governing parameter.

Strip state. The basic state of the system is the “strip state”: a laterally symmetric cluster located at the wall $`x=0`$ Grossman . The physics of the strip state is simple. Due to inelastic collisions, the granular temperature goes down with increasing distance from the driving wall. To maintain the pressure balance, the granular density should increase with this distance, reaching the maximum at the opposite (elastic) wall. The strip state is described by the $`y`$-independent solution of Eqs. (4) and (5); we shall call it $`z=Z(x)`$ that corresponds to $`\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$. Notice that Eq. (6) holds automatically in 1D LMS . An example of the strip state is shown in Fig. 2 (bottom left). A similar state was observed in experiment Kudrolli .

Symmetry-breaking instability. The 1D strip state gives way, by a symmetry-breaking bifurcation, to 2D clustered states. The bifurcation point can be found by linearizing Eqs. (4)-(7) around $`\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$. In the framework of time-dependent hydrodynamics, this corresponds to marginal stability of the strip state with respect to small perturbations along the strip. We write

$$\psi (x,y)=\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+\phi _k(x)\mathrm{exp}(iky)+\text{c.c.}$$
(8)
and, after linearization, arrive at a linear eigenvalue problem for $`k=k_c(f)`$:

$$\phi _k^{\prime \prime }Q_\mathrm{\Psi }\phi _kk_c^2\phi _k=0,$$
(9)
$$\phi _k^{}(0)=0,$$
(10)
$$\phi _k^{}(1)\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\mathrm{\Psi }(x))𝑑x}{\stackrel{~}{H}(\mathrm{\Psi }(1))}H_\mathrm{\Psi }|_{x=1}\phi _k(1)=0.$$
(11)
Here and below $`(\mathrm{})_\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\left[F^1d(\mathrm{})/dz\right]|_{z=Z(x)}`$, and $`(\mathrm{})`$ stands for any function. Solving the eigenvalue problem for a given $``$, we obtain the marginal stability curve $`k=k_c(f)`$ and corresponding eigenfunctions $`\phi _k(x)`$. The modes with $`k<k_c(f)`$ are unstable. At fixed $``$, the instability occurs for $`f_1()<f<f_2()`$, where $`k_c(f_1)=k_c(f_2)=0`$ LMS . The driving force of the instability is negative effective lateral compressibility of the gas KM . Figure 1 gives an example of the marginal stability curve in terms of the minimum aspect ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(f)=\pi /k_c(f)`$, at which the instability occurs.

Bifurcation curve. To determine the nature of the bifurcation (sub- or supercritical) and compute the bifurcation curve, one should go to the second order of the perturbation theory. We can write

$$\psi (x,y)=\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+\underset{n}{}\phi _n(x)\mathrm{exp}(inky),$$
(12)
where $`\phi _n(x)=\phi _n^{}(x)`$, and assume that $`\phi _0\phi _1^2`$, $`\phi _2\phi _1^2`$, $`\phi _3\phi _1^3`$, etc. Therefore, we need to take into account only the terms $`n=0,\pm 1`$ and $`\pm 2`$. This yields the following linear equations:

$$\phi _0^{\prime \prime }Q_\mathrm{\Psi }\phi _0=Q_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}\left|\phi \right|^2,$$
(13)
$$\phi _1^{\prime \prime }Q_\mathrm{\Psi }\phi _1k_c^2\phi _1=\left(k^2k_c^2\right)\phi +$$

$$+\left[Q_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(\phi _0\phi +\phi _2\phi ^{}\right)+\frac{1}{2}Q_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}\phi \left|\phi \right|^2\right],$$
(14)
$$\phi _2^{\prime \prime }Q_\mathrm{\Psi }\phi _24k_c^2\phi _2=\frac{1}{2}Q_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}\phi ^2,$$
(15)
and the boundary conditions:

$$\phi _0^{}(0)=\phi _1^{}(0)=\phi _2^{}(0)=0,$$
(16)
$$\phi _1^{}(1)=[\frac{H_\mathrm{\Psi }}{H}\phi _1\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Qdx$$

$$+\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Q𝑑x}{H}\left(H_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(\phi _0\phi +\phi _2\phi ^{}\right)+\frac{1}{2}H_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}\phi \left|\phi \right|^2\right)$$

$$+\frac{H_\mathrm{\Psi }}{H}\left(\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Q_\mathrm{\Psi }\phi _0𝑑x+\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Q_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}\left|\phi \right|^2𝑑x\right)\phi $$

$$\frac{H_\mathrm{\Psi }}{H^2}\phi (H_\mathrm{\Psi }\phi _0+H_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}|\phi |^2)\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Qdx]|_{x=1},$$
(17)
$$\phi _2^{}(1)=\left[\frac{H_\mathrm{\Psi }}{H}\phi _2+\frac{H_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}}{2H}\left|\phi \right|^2\right]|_{x=1}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Q𝑑x,$$
(18)
where $`\phi =AY(x)`$ is a properly normalized solution of Eqs. (9)-(11), see below. As the boundary condition for $`\phi _0`$ at $`x=1`$ is fulfilled automatically, one more condition is needed. For a fixed $`f`$, this condition is supplied by Eq. (7):

$$\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{\phi _0}{Z^2F}𝑑x=2\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\left(\frac{1}{Z^3F^2}+\frac{F_\mathrm{\Psi }}{2Z^2F^2}\right)\left|\phi _1\right|^2𝑑x.$$
(19)
The solvability condition for Eq. (14) yields the bifurcation curve: a relation between the amplitude of $`\phi _1`$ (we call it $`A`$) and $`k_c^2k^2`$. One way to define $`A`$ is the following: $`\phi _1(x)=AY(x)+A|A|^2\delta \phi _1(x)`$, where $`Y(x)`$ is the solution of Eqs. (9) and (10) obeying the normalization $`Y(0)=1`$. This yields $`A\left(k_c^2k^2\right)=CA|A|^2`$, where $`C=const`$. The trivial solution $`A=0`$ describes the strip state, while the nontrivial one, $`k_c^2k^2=C|A|^2`$ describes the bifurcated state. $`C>0(<0)`$ corresponds to supercritical (subcritical) bifurcation. The solvability condition is a generalization of the standard “orthogonality” condition, or the Fredholm alternative Iooss . It yields $`C`$ explicitly in terms of definite integrals of solutions of the homogeneous forms of Eqs. (9), (13) and (15) that can be found numerically, see Appendix. We present here the resulting bifurcation curve for $`Y_c`$, the (normalized) $`y`$-coordinate of the center of mass of the granulate:

$$Y_c=\frac{_0^1𝑑x_{\mathrm{\Delta }/2}^{\mathrm{\Delta }/2}yz^1𝑑y}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^1𝑑x_{\mathrm{\Delta }/2}^{\mathrm{\Delta }/2}z^1𝑑y},$$
(20)
where we shifted the $`y`$-coordinate: $`y+\mathrm{\Delta }/2y`$. Let the aspect ratio of the system $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be slightly larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\pi /k_c(f)`$ so that only one mode, with $`k=\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is unstable. The bifurcation curve takes the form

$$\left|Y_c\right|=\frac{2}{\pi ^2B^{1/2}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}1\right)^{1/2}.$$
(21)
where $`B=Cf^2/(2k_c^2f_1^2)`$ and $`f_1=2_0^1YZ^2F^1𝑑x`$. Eq. (21) assumes $`B>0`$: a supercritical bifurcation. Figure 1 shows $`B(f)`$ for $`=12,500`$. We find that $`B>0`$ on an interval of $`f`$ that lies within the instability interval $`(f_1,f_2)`$. Closer to the points $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ we obtain $`B<0`$ which indicates subcritical bifurcation. Subcritical bifurcations close to the high-density instability border were previously observed by solving numerically the nonlinear steady state equations (4)-(6) LMS .

Time-dependent hydrodynamic simulations: bifurcations and coarsening. We performed a series of time-dependent hydrodynamic simulations, to verify the bifurcation theory and to follow the cluster dynamics at large aspect ratios. The full time-dependent hydrodynamic equations were solved with the same constitutive relations and boundary conditions as those used in our steady state analysis. Instead of the shear viscosity in the Navier-Stokes equation we accounted for a small model friction force $`n𝐯/\tau `$, where $`𝐯`$ is the hydrodynamic velocity. An extended version of the compressible hydro code VULCAN vulcan  was employed.

We fixed $`=1.2510^4`$ and $`f=0.0378`$ and varied $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The initial scaled density included a zero mode corresponding to the fixed $`f`$ plus small-amplitude random noise. Figure 2 shows the final states for different aspect ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For $``$ and $`f`$ used, the marginal stability theory predicts $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c1.28`$ (see Fig. 1). Indeed, the strip state observed at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.2`$ (Fig. 2, bottom left) gives way to a slightly asymmetric state at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.3`$ (Fig. 2, top left). Far above the bifurcation point the final state represents a densely packed 2D cluster (“island”), located in a corner (Fig. 2, right). This implies that all but one of the multiple 2D steady state solutions found earlier (chains of islands periodic in the $`y`$-direction) LMS  are unstable. The stable steady state selected by the coarsening dynamics is the one with the maximum possible period, equal to twice the lateral dimension of the system.

Figure 3 shows the bifurcation curve $`Y_c(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ predicted by Eq. (21), and measured in the simulations after transients die out. Excellent agreement is obtained for not too large supercriticalities. Close to the bifurcation point we observed exponential slowdown as expected.

Now we present the simulation results on the cluster dynamics and selection. For large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the dynamics involve two stages (see Fig. 4). During the first stage, several clusters nucleate at the wall opposite to the driving wall (Fig. 4A). Their number is of the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ which apparently corresponds to the maximum linear growth rate of the instability versus $`k`$. At the slower second stage the clusters become denser. As they compete for the material, their number goes down, and only one densely packed cluster (“island”) finally survives, always in a corner (Fig. 4e). The clusters interact mostly through the gas phase, similarly to Ostwald ripening in phase ordering systems with conserved order parameter, controlled by gasdynamics plasma ; AMS . We also observed, for a different realization of noise in the initial conditions, direct coalescence of transient clusters. However, the resulting single cluster is always the same in simulations with the same $`,f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In summary, we used hydrodynamics to determine the character of symmetry-breaking bifurcations in a prototypical driven granular gas and compute the supercritical bifurcation curve. We found the selected steady state with broken translational symmetry and showed that selection is made via a coarsening process similar to Ostwald ripening. It appears that cluster selection by coarsening is a universal selection mechanism in cluster-forming granular flows with a fixed number of particles.

This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation, founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant No. 02-01-00734).

Appendix. Solvability condition. Here we present the solvability condition for the boundary value problem described by the linear equation (14) and boundary conditions (16) and (17). This solvability conditions yields the constant $`C`$ that enters the bifurcation equation $`k_c^2k^2=C|A|^2`$. Consider the following problem:

$`w^{\prime \prime }(x)+P(x)w(x)`$ $`=`$ $`f(x),`$ (22)
$`w^{}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (23)
$`w^{}(1)+aw(1)`$ $`=`$ $`g,`$ (24)
where $`g`$ is a parameter; and assume that the homogeneous variant of this problem,

$`w^{\prime \prime }(x)+P(x)w(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (25)
$`w^{}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (26)
$`w^{}(1)+aw(1)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (27)
has a nontrivial solution. The problem (22)-(24) will have no solution unless there is a relation between $`f(x)`$ and $`g`$. What is the relation? To answer this question, we construct the solution of the problem (22)-(24) using two fundamental solutions $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ of the homogeneous equation (25). We choose these solutions as follows. Let $`w_0`$ obeys the boundary conditions (26) and

$$w_0(0)=1.$$
(28)
In view of the above assumption, Eq. (27) is fulfilled automatically. The second fundamental solution $`w_1`$ of Eq. (25) obeys the following boundary conditions (again at $`x=0`$):

$$w_1(0)=0,w_1^{}(0)=1.$$
(29)
Notice that each of the solutions $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ is defined by an initial value problem, rather than by a boundary value problems.

The general solution of Eqs. (22)-(24) can be written as $`C_0(x)w_0(x)+C_1(x)w_1(x)`$, where functions $`C_0(x)`$ and $`C_1(x)`$ are yet unknown, and we can demand $`C_0^{}(x)w_0(x)+C_1^{}(x)w_1(x)=0`$. Straightforward calculations yield the solvability condition

$$g=\left[w_1^{}(1)+aw_1(1)\right]\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}fw_0𝑑x.$$
(30)
In the particular case of $`g=0`$ Eq. (30) is reduced to the standard orthogonality condition $`\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}fw_0𝑑x=0`$ Iooss .

Applying the solvability condition (30) to Eq. (14) with the boundary conditions (16) and (17), we obtain the following relationship:

$$\{(\frac{H_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}}{H}(\phi _0\phi +\phi _2\phi ^{})+\frac{H_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}}{2H}\phi |\phi |^2)\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Qdx+$$

$$+\frac{H_\mathrm{\Psi }}{H}\phi \left(\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Q_\mathrm{\Psi }\phi _0𝑑x+\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Q_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}\left|\phi \right|^2𝑑x\right)$$

$$(\frac{H_\mathrm{\Psi }^2}{H^2}\phi \phi _0+\frac{H_\mathrm{\Psi }H_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}}{H^2}\phi |\phi |^2)\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Qdx\}|_{x=1}=$$

$$=[Y_{11}^{}\frac{H_\mathrm{\Psi }}{H}Y_{11}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Qdx]|_{x=1}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}Y_{10}[(k^2k_c^2)\phi +$$

$$+(Q_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}(\phi _0\phi +\phi _2\phi ^{})+\frac{1}{2}Q_{\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }}\phi |\phi |^2)]dx,$$
(31)
where $`Y_0(x)`$ is solution of Eq. (9) with the boundary conditions

$$Y_0(0)=1,Y_0^{}(0)=0,$$
(32)
and $`Y_1(x)`$ is the solution of Eq. (9) with the boundary conditions:

$$Y_1(0)=0,Y_1^{}(0)=1.$$
(33)
Notice that each of the solutions $`Y_0(x)`$ and $`Y_1(x)`$ is defined by an initial value problem, rather than by a boundary value problems. This makes the numerical solution straightforward. To complete the calculation, we solve numerically the initial-value problems for the linear differential equations for $`\phi `$, $`\phi _0`$ and $`\phi _2`$ and compute the definite integrals entering Eqs. (19) and (31). The final result is given by Eq. (21).