text:
# References

On the symplectic structures for geometrical theories

R. Cartas-Fuentevilla
Instituto de Física, Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Apartado postal J-48 72570 Puebla Pue., México\*, and Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60637

We present a new approach for constructing covariant symplectic structures for geometrical theories, based on the concept of adjoint operators. Such geometric structures emerge by direct exterior derivation of underlying symplectic potentials. Differences and similarities with other approaches and future applications are discussed.

PACS numbers: 04.20.Jb, 04.40.Nr
Running title: On the symplectic….
* Permanent address

I. INTRODUCTION

Usually quantum field theories are studied by means of Feynman path integrals or by means of canonical quantization. Path integral quantization has the virtue to preserve all relevant symmetries, including Poincaré invariance; however, the resultant theory has not (unlike the canonical formalism) necessarily the standard interpretation in terms of quantum mechanical states and operators. On the other hand, the canonical formalism is considered to be the antithesis of a manifestly covariant treatment.

However, more recently, the essence of the canonical formulation has been developed independently by Witten et al  and Suckerman  in such a way that manifestly preserves Poincaré invariance as well as other relevant symmetries. Such a formulation is based on a covariant description of Poisson brackets in terms of a symplectic structure defined on the manifold representing the phase space of classical solutions; thus, quantization is carried out as the replacement of Poisson brackets with commutators, and the resultant quantum theory will be of the conventional type. Specifically, the Witten-et al approach requires the construction, a priori, of a bilinear product on variations of classical solutions. Subsequently, one needs to verify that such a bilinear form corresponds to a nondegenerate closed two-form on the phase space. Moreover, the bilinear form must be a covariantly conserved current in its spacetime dependence, as required for obtaining a symplectic structure manifestly covariant. More specifically, in such a description, the classical phase space is defined as the space of solutions of the classical equations of motion; such a definition is manifestly covariant. The construction of a covariantly conserved two-form $`J^\mu `$ on such phase space yields a symplectic structure $`\omega `$ defined as $`\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }J^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$ (being $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ an initial value hypersurface), independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and, in particular, Poincaré invariant. Additionally, in terms of the symplectic structure $`\omega `$, the fact that Poisson brackets satisfy the Jacoby identity, is equivalent that $`\omega `$ to be a closed two-form on the phase space, which holds if $`J^\mu `$ itself is closed. With these properties, $`J^\mu `$ is known as the symplectic current. Such a quantization scheme has been applied, for example, for the analysis of two-dimensional gravity ( and references therein), and for the investigation of the Wess–Zumino–Witten model on a circle .

Although in the present article we shall obtain essentially the same geometric structures described above, the main novelty is that such structures emerge in a direct and natural way using the concept of adjoint operators. Particularly, the concept of self-adjoint operators shows that, in the cases considered here, there exist, in general, covariantly conserved currents, which correspond on the phase space, to zero-, one-, and, two-forms. Such differential forms are not independent, but that the two-form turns out to be the exterior derivative of the corresponding one-form, and correspond, thus, to an exact two-form (and automatically to a closed two-form, as required for the symplectic structure). In this manner, the present approach allows us to find, unlike the Witten–Zuckerman procedure, fundamental one-forms playing the role of symplectic potentials for the theory.

In the next section, we shall discuss the key concept of adjoint operators, and its consequences on the existence of covariantly conserved currents. The interpretation of the terms involved in such a definition as wedge products on the phase space is also discussed. In Section III only the non-Abelian gauge theories and pure general relativity are considered with the purpose of clarifying our basic ideas and to have a direct comparison with previously known results, particularly with those given in Reference . In Section IV we shall finish with some concluding remarks on our results and possible extensions of the present approach.

Concepts and definitions on differential forms, wedge products, exterior derivative, etc., come entirely from Ref. .

II. ADJOINT OPERATORS AND CONSERVED CURRENTS

The general relationship between adjoint operators and covariantly conserved currents has been already given in previous works ( and references cited therein), however, we shall discuss it in this section for completeness.

If $`𝒫`$ is a linear partial differential operator that takes matrix-valued tensor fields into themselves, then, the adjoint operator of $`𝒫`$, is that operator $`𝒫^{}`$, such that

$$\mathrm{Tr}\{f^{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}}[𝒫(g_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}})]_{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}}[𝒫^{}(f^{\rho \sigma \mathrm{}})]^{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}g_{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}\}=_\mu J^\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ denotes the trace and $`J^\mu `$ is some vector field. From this definition, if $`𝒬`$ and $``$ are any two linear operators, one easily finds the following properties:

$$(𝒬)^{}=^{}𝒬^{},(𝒬+)^{}=𝒬^{}+^{},$$

and in the case of a function $`F`$,

$$F^{}=F,$$

which will be used implicitly below.

From Eq. (1) we can see that this definition automatically guarantees that, if the field $`f`$ is a solution of the linear system $`𝒫(f)=0`$, and $`g`$ a solution of the adjoint system $`𝒫^{}(g)=0`$, then we obtain the continuity law $`_\mu J^\mu =0`$, which establishes that $`J^\mu `$ is a covariantly conserved current depending on the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$. This fact means that for any homogeneous equation system, one can always construct a conserved current, taking into account the adjoint system. This general result contains the self-adjoint case ($`𝒫^{}=𝒫`$) as a particular one, for which $`f`$ and $`g`$ correspond to two independent solutions (in fact, the cases treated in the present article are self-adjoint). Although this result has been established assuming only tensor fields and the presence of a single equation, such a result can be extended in a direct way to equations involving spinor fields, matrix fields, and the presence of more than one field .

Our main task in this work is to apply this very general result for the analysis of the symplectic forms on the phase space of the theories under consideration. Hence, it is important to clarify, in the first instance, what the fields $`f`$, $`g`$, $`J^\mu `$ and the differential operators $`𝒫`$, $`𝒫^{}`$, and $`_\mu `$ will mean on the phase space at the level of Eq. (1). First, such operators will depend only on the background fields, and will correspond thus to zero-forms. Second, although in our previous works we have identified the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$ with solutions of the equations governing the first-order variations \[$`𝒫(f)=0=𝒫(g)`$\], in the present work we shall see that it is possible to find simultaneously that $`𝒫(G)=0`$, where $`G`$ is some background field. Thus, since the background fields and the first-order variations correspond, on the phase space, to zero-forms and one-forms, respectively , the left-hand side of Eq. (1) must be understood as a wedge product, $`\mathrm{Tr}\{f𝒫(g)𝒫^{}(f)g\}=_\mu J^\mu `$, on such phase space, and something similar for the field $`J^\mu `$ in its dependence on the fields $`f`$ and $`g`$. This subject will be clarified in the examples below.

III. GEOMETRICAL THEORIES AND THEIR SYMPLECTIC STRUCTURES

In this section we shall see that the problem of finding the symplectic structures (and in some cases the symplectic potentials), is reduced to identify some fields satisfying some homogeneous linear equations.

A. Yang–Mills theory

Let us consider first the Yang–Mills equations:

$$/^\mu F_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(2)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=/_\mu A_\nu /_\nu A_\mu `$ is the Yang-Mills curvature, $`A_\mu `$ the background gauge connection, and $`/_\mu _\mu +[A_\mu ,]`$, the gauge covariant derivative.

From Eq. (2), the variations of the background fields are governed by the equations:

$$/^\mu \delta F_{\mu \nu }+[\delta A^\mu ,F_{\mu \nu }]=[\delta _\nu ^\alpha /^\mu /_\mu /^\alpha /_\nu ]\delta A_\alpha +[\delta A_\alpha ,F_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu }{}^{}][𝒫(\delta A_\alpha )]_\nu =0,$$
(3)
where $`\delta F_{\mu \nu }=/_\mu \delta A_\nu /_\nu \delta A_\mu `$, is the variation of the curvature, $`\delta A_\mu `$ the variation of the gauge connection, and the operator $`𝒫`$ is a homogeneous linear operator depending only on the background fields. Up to here, the usual equations for the Yang–Mills fields and their variations.

Now the idea is to apply our present approach for obtaining all on the symplectic structure for the theory, directly from the basic equations (2) and (3). For this purpose, let $`B_\mu `$ and $`C_\mu `$ be any two matrix-valued fields (which will be identified below as a pair of gauge connection variations in one case, and as the background gauge connection and its variation in the particular case of Abelian fields), and using the explicit form of the operator $`𝒫`$ in Eq. (3), we have that

$$B^\nu [𝒫(C_\alpha )]_\nu [𝒫(B^\nu )]^\alpha C_\alpha =/_\mu [B^\nu (/^\mu C_\nu /_\nu C^\mu )+(/^\nu B^\mu /^\mu B^\nu )C_\nu ]+[F_{\mu \nu },B^\mu C^\nu ],$$
(4)
where

$$B^\nu [C_\alpha ,F_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu }{}^{}][B_\alpha ,F_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu }{}^{}]C^\nu =[F_{\mu \nu },B^\mu C^\nu ],$$
(5)
and identities of the form $`B^\nu /^\alpha /_\nu C_\alpha /_\mu (B^\nu /_\nu C^\mu /^\nu B^\mu C_\nu )+/_\nu /^\alpha B^\nu C_\alpha `$ have been used. Taking the trace of Eq. (4), we obtain

$$\mathrm{Tr}[B^\nu [𝒫(C_\alpha )]_\nu [𝒫(B^\nu )]^\alpha C_\alpha ]=_\mu \mathrm{Tr}[B_\nu /^{[\mu }C^{\nu ]}/^{[\mu }B^{\nu ]}C_\nu ]$$
(6)
which has the form of Eq. (1) with $`𝒫=𝒫^{}`$. Thus, we can obtain the continuity equation:

$$_\mu J^\mu =0,J^\mu \mathrm{Tr}[B_\nu /^{[\mu }C^{\nu ]}/^{[\mu }B^{\nu ]}C_\nu ],$$
(7)
provided that

$$[𝒫(C_\alpha )]_\nu =0,\mathrm{and}[𝒫(B^\nu )]^\alpha =0.$$
(8)
As we shall see, the whole physical information about the covariant symplectic structure of the Yang–Mills theory is contained in Eq. (7), it remains only to identify the fields $`B_\mu `$ and $`C_\mu `$ satisfying Eqs. (8). In according to Eq. (3), the obvious case is to choose such fields as a pair of variations, say $`B_\mu =\delta A_\mu ^1`$, and $`C_\mu =\delta A_\mu ^2`$ (they have not to correspond necessarily to the same variation). In this manner, $`J^\mu `$ in Eq. (7) corresponds, in this case, to the following (nondegenerate) two-form on the phase space:

$$J_\mu =\mathrm{Tr}[\delta A_1^\nu \delta F_{\mu \nu }^2\delta F_{\mu \nu }^1\delta A_2^\nu ]=\frac{1}{2}\delta \mathrm{Tr}[A_1^\nu \delta F_{\mu \nu }^2F_{\mu \nu }^2\delta A_1^\nu F_{\mu \nu }^1\delta A_2^\nu +A_2^\nu \delta F_{\mu \nu }^1]\delta \theta _\mu ,$$

where $`F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{i}=/_\mu A_\nu ^\mathrm{i}/_\nu A_\mu ^\mathrm{i}`$, $`\delta F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{i}=/_\mu \delta A_\nu ^\mathrm{i}/_\nu \delta A_\mu ^\mathrm{i}`$ $`(\mathrm{i}=1,2)`$, and we have used the Leibniz rule for the exterior derivative $`\delta `$, and the fact that $`\delta ^2=0`$. In particular, if $`\delta A_\mu ^1=\delta A_\mu =\delta A_\mu ^2`$, from Eq. (9) $`J_\mu =2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(\delta A^\nu \delta F_{\mu \nu })`$, which is essentially the Crncović-Witten current . Furthermore, we have defined the one-form $`\theta _\mu `$ as

$$\theta _\mu \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}[A_1^\nu \delta F_{\mu \nu }^2F_{\mu \nu }^2\delta A_1^\nu F_{\mu \nu }^1\delta A_2^\nu +A_2^\nu \delta F_{\mu \nu }^1],$$
(9)
in this manner, $`\theta _\mu `$ is the symplectic potential for the theory. Note that, according to Eq. (9), the symplectic potential is defined up to the exterior derivative of any matrix-valued field $`\lambda _\mu `$: $`J_\mu =\delta (\theta _\mu +\delta \lambda _\mu )`$.

In the particular case of Abelian fields, from Eqs. (2) and (3) we have that $`[𝒫(A_\alpha )]_\nu =0`$, where $`A_\alpha `$ is the background gauge connection. In this manner, we can identify $`B_\nu =\delta A_\nu ^1`$ and $`C_\nu =A_\nu ^2`$ (a variation and a background gauge connection respectively), and then the symplectic potential $`\theta _\mu `$ given in Eq. (10) is \[like the corresponding symplectic current in Eq. (9)\] covariantly conserved. Moreover, we can identify for Abelian fields $`B_\nu =A_\nu ^1`$, and $`C_\nu =A_\nu ^2`$ (a pair of background fields) in Eq. (8); thus, from Eq. (7) $`J_\mu =A_1^\nu F_{\mu \nu }^2A_2^\nu F_{\mu \nu }^1`$, which is a covariantly conserved zero-form on the phase space (a conserved current for the exact theory).

Since $`J_\mu `$ in Eq. (9) is an exact two-form (it comes from the variations of the symplectic potential $`\theta _\mu `$), corresponds automatically to a closed two-form ($`\delta J^\mu =\delta ^2\theta ^\mu =0`$), as required for the symplectic structure. Unlike the Crncović–Witten approach, we do not need to verify the covariant conservation of our symplectic current, such a property is guaranteed for Eqs. (7) and (8). Therefore, $`\omega =_\mathrm{\Sigma }J^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$ is the symplectic structure with the wanted properties for the Yang–Mills theory . Moreover, since the present symplectic structure is essentially the Crncović-Witten result, has the same invariance properties under gauge transformations . Specifically, as shown in Ref. , under gauge transformations of the gauge connection $`A_\mu A_\mu +_\mu \epsilon +[A_\mu ,\epsilon ]`$, $`\delta A_\mu ^\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\delta F_{\mu \nu }^\mathrm{i}`$ transform homogeneously, and then $`J^\mu `$ and $`\omega `$ are gauge invariant. Furthermore, following Ref. , one can verify easily that $`\omega `$ has vanishing components in the gauge directions in field space \[see Eq. (30) in such Reference\], which allows us to construct the symplectic structure on the corresponding gauge-invariant space (reduced phase space).

The above results are obtained displaying explicitly the variation of the gauge connection $`\delta A_\alpha `$ in Eq. (3). However, it is not the only way for obtaining such results. One can consider Eq. (3) in its original form $`/^\mu \delta F_{\mu \nu }+[\delta A^\mu ,F_{\mu \nu }]=0`$, and the relation $`\delta F_{\mu \nu }=/_\mu \delta A_\nu /_\nu \delta A_\mu `$, as a system of equations governing the field variations $`\delta F_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\delta A_\mu `$, considering them as independent field variables:

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}/^\mu & [F_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu }{}^{},]\\ 1& (\delta _\mu ^\alpha /_\nu \delta _\nu ^\alpha /_\mu )\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta F_{\mu \nu }\\ \delta A_\alpha \end{array}\right]=0,$$

and using again the definition (1) with $`𝒫`$ now being the matrix operator in the preceding equation, one obtains essentially the same results.

B. General relativity

The variations of the vacuum Einstein equations $`R_{\mu \nu }=0`$ are

$$_\alpha \delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha _\mu \delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \alpha }^\alpha =0,$$
(10)
where $`_\alpha `$ is the covariant derivative compatible with the background metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }(_\mu \delta g_{\nu \beta }+_\nu \delta g_{\mu \beta }_\beta \delta g_{\mu \nu })`$, the variation of the metric connection . Displaying explicitly the metric variations $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$, Eqs. (11) take the form

$$[g_\nu ^\alpha ^\beta _\mu +g_\mu ^\alpha ^\beta _\nu g_\mu ^\alpha g_\nu ^\beta ^\rho _\rho g^{\alpha \beta }_\mu _\nu +g_{\mu \nu }(g^{\alpha \beta }^\rho _\rho ^\beta ^\alpha )]\delta g_{\alpha \beta }=0,$$
(11)
which can be written in a compact form as

$$[(\delta g_{\alpha \beta })]_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(12)
where $``$ is the linear operator (depending only on the background fields) appearing in Eq. (12). With the same idea of the above case, let $`A_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ be any two 2-index (symmetric) tensor fields (in the first case these fields will be identified as a pair of metric variations for constructing the symplectic current, and as the background metric and a metric variation in the second case for obtaining the corresponding symplectic potential), and using the explicit form of the operator $``$,we have that

$$B^{\mu \nu }[(A_{\alpha \beta })]_{\mu \nu }[(B^{\mu \nu })]_{\alpha \beta }A^{\alpha \beta }=_\mu S^{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda \rho \gamma }(B_{\alpha \beta }_\lambda A_{\rho \gamma }_\lambda B_{\rho \gamma }A_{\alpha \beta }),$$
(13)
where

$$S^{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda \rho \gamma }=g^{\mu (\rho }g^{\gamma )(\alpha }g^{\beta )\lambda }\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \lambda }g^{\alpha (\rho }g^{\gamma )\beta }\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu (\alpha }g^{\beta )\lambda }g^{\rho \gamma }\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }g^{\mu (\rho }g^{\gamma )\lambda }+\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }g^{\mu \lambda }g^{\rho \gamma }.$$
(14)
Like the Yang–Mills case, Eq. (14) has the form of Eq. (1) with $`=^{}`$. Then, we obtain the local continuity equation:

$$_\mu J^\mu =0,J^\mu S^{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda \rho \gamma }(B_{\alpha \beta }_\lambda A_{\rho \gamma }_\lambda B_{\rho \gamma }A_{\alpha \beta }),$$
(15)
provided that

$$[(A_{\alpha \beta })]_{\mu \nu }=0,\mathrm{and}[(B^{\mu \nu })]_{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(16)
In according to Eq. (13), an obvious identification for the fields $`A_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfying Eqs. (17) is

$$A_{\alpha \beta }=\delta g_{\alpha \beta }^1,\mathrm{and}B_{\mu \nu }=\delta g_{\mu \nu }^2,$$
(17)
we mean, a pair of variations. In this manner, from Eq. (16),

$$J^\mu =S^{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda \rho \gamma }(\delta g_{\alpha \beta }^2_\lambda \delta g_{\rho \gamma }^1_\lambda \delta g_{\rho \gamma }^2\delta g_{\alpha \beta }^1),$$
(18)
corresponds to a covariantly conserved two-form on the phase space. The last expression can be rewritten, using Eq. (15), in terms of the variations of the metric connection:

$$J^\mu =(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu )_1[\delta g_2^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }(\delta \mathrm{ln}g)_2](\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \nu }^\nu )_1[\delta g_2^{\mu \alpha }+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \alpha }(\delta \mathrm{ln}g)_2](12),$$
(19)
where $`(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu )_1=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \rho }\left[_\alpha \delta g_{\beta \rho }^1+_\beta \delta g_{\alpha \rho }^1_\rho \delta g_{\alpha \beta }^1\right]`$, $`(\delta \mathrm{ln}g)_2=g^{\mu \nu }\delta g_{\mu \nu }^2=g_{\mu \nu }\delta g_2^{\mu \nu }`$, and $`(12)`$ means a term similar to the first one, just interchanging the subscripts 1 and 2, such as Eq. (19). If we set $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }^1=\delta g_{\mu \nu }^2=\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`J^\mu `$ in Eq. (20) reduces exactly to the Crncović–Witten current \[see Eq. (34) of Ref. \].

However, the choice (18) for the fields $`A_{\alpha \beta }`$, and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, is not the unique one for satisfying Eqs. (17). We can keep $`A_{\alpha \beta }=\delta g_{\alpha \beta }^1`$, but to identify $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ as the background metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, since $`_\lambda g_{\mu \nu }=0`$, and the explicit form of $``$ in Eq. (12), we have that

$$[(g_{\mu \nu })]_{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
(20)
Therefore, from Eq. (16), we have that the one-form

$$\theta ^\mu S^{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda \rho \gamma }g_{\alpha \beta }_\lambda \delta g_{\rho \gamma }^1,$$
(21)
is also a covariantly conserved current on the phase space. $`\theta ^\mu `$ can also be rewritten in terms of the variations of the metric connection:

$$\theta ^\mu =g^{\mu \alpha }(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \nu }^\nu )_1g^{\alpha \beta }(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu )_1.$$
(22)
Moreover, the conserved currents $`J^\mu `$ and $`\theta ^\mu `$ given in Eqs. (19)–(20) and (22)–(23) respectively, are not independent. Considering that $`\delta \sqrt{g}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}\delta \mathrm{ln}g`$, from Eq. (23), we have that

$`\delta (\sqrt{g}\theta ^\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}\left[\delta g_2^{\mu \alpha }(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \nu }^\nu )_1\delta g_2^{\alpha \beta }(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu )_1\right]`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{g}\left[g^{\mu \alpha }(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \nu }^\nu )_1g^{\alpha \beta }(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu )_1\right](\delta \mathrm{ln}g)_2,`$
where we have considered also that $`\delta ^2=0`$, the Leibniz rule for the exterior derivative, and a variation of the background metric appearing in Eq. (23) in general different of $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }^1`$, and denoted conveniently by $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }^2`$. Making a direct comparison, the right-hand side of Eq. (24) corresponds, by a factor of $`\sqrt{g}`$, to the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (20). With an interchange of the superscripts 1 and 2 in Eq. (24) (which corresponds to identify $`A_{\alpha \beta }`$ with the background metric and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ with the metric variation), we obtain essentially the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (20). In this manner, we can rewrite

$$\theta ^\mu =S^{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda \rho \gamma }(g_{\alpha \beta }^2_\lambda \delta g_{\rho \gamma }^1+g_{\alpha \beta }^1_\lambda \delta g_{\rho \gamma }^2),$$
(24)
and then,

$$\delta (\sqrt{g}\theta ^\mu )=\sqrt{g}J^\mu ,$$
(25)
which means that $`\sqrt{g}J^\mu `$ is an exact two-form, and $`\sqrt{g}\theta ^\mu `$ is then the symplectic potential for the theory (which is defined up to the exterior derivative of any vector field). Since $`_\lambda g_{\mu \nu }=0`$ and $`g=g(g_{\mu \nu })`$, $`\sqrt{g}\theta ^\mu `$ and $`\sqrt{g}J^\mu `$ are, like $`\theta ^\mu `$ and $`J^\mu `$, also covariantly conserved.

In the Crncović-Witten approach, one needs to show that $`_\mu J^\mu =0`$; in the present approach $`J^\mu `$ comes directly from the continuity equation (16). Moreover, from Eq. (26), $`\sqrt{g}J^\mu `$ is an exact two-form, and automatically a closed two-form, as required for the symplectic structure $`\omega =_\mathrm{\Sigma }\sqrt{g}J^\mu 𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu `$, which has the wanted properties. Since $`\omega `$ is essentially that given in Ref. , has the same invariance properties under gauge transformations described in such reference.

If we choice $`A_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^1`$, and $`B_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }^2`$ (a pair of background solutions), both satisfying Eq. (21), then from the local equation (16), we have that $`J^\mu =0`$, which means that there no exist a (local) conserved current for the exact theory different to the trivial one.

Finally, if we consider Eq. (11) and the relation between $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$ as a system for these field variations (considering them as independent), one obtains essentially the same results.

IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS

As we have seen, the present approach based on the concept of (self-)adjoint operators leads, in a rigorous way, to local continuity laws for the theory under study. Such continuity equations disclose the existence of different conserved currents, in particular those associated with a covariant description of the corresponding symplectic structure.

The symplectic structures described in Ref. \[1-3\], are always related to a pair of solutions of the equations governing the variations of classical solutions. In the present scheme, the self-adjoint case corresponds, as we have seen in the examples, to that case. Nevertheless, as discussed in Sec. II, there exists a more general case, which establishes the possibility of constructing a (nondegenerate) two-form related to a solution of the equations governing the variations, and a solution of the corresponding adjoint system. No such possibility was previously known in the literature. However, such a two-form is not necessarily closed, remaining to study under what conditions this two-form represents a symplectic structure. In fact, there are several cases in physics involving operators that are not self-adjoint, where the present approach will be useful: usual free massless fields equations of spin greater that one on a curved spacetime, equations for first-order variations coming from string-inspired actions, etc. Works along these lines are in progress and will be the subject of forthcoming communications.

On the other hand, the Zuckerman formalism, unlike the present one, requires an explicit extension for covering fermionic fields . Even though in the present article we have limited our discussion to bosonic field theories, the adjoint operator formalism allows us to treat bosonic and fermionic fields (and the simultaneous presence of both) on the same footing, since the fundamental definition (1), which is our starting point, extends for spinor fields . In this case, we are particularly interested in superstring theory, and works along these lines are also in progress.

Finally, the connection between adjoint operators and conserved currents used in the present article, has been also used in Ref. , although for a different purpose: for obtaining conserved quantities from non-Hermitian systems. In this manner, a scheme based on adjoint operators has different ramifications of wide interest in physics, whose applications also will be the aim of future investigations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by CONACyT and the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (México). The author wants to thank Professor Robert Wald for the kind hospitality provided at the Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago.

APPENDIX: NO ‘PUZZLE’ FOR THE SYMPLECTIC CURRENT

In the Crncović–Witten approach , unlike the present scheme, there is not a procedure for obtaining the explicit form for the symplectic structure (or for the symplectic potential). In fact, it may be very difficult to guess such an explicit form for more general and complicated cases. However, without invoking the concept of adjoint operators used in the present scheme, one may be able of obtaining the explicit form of the potential symplectic, starting directly from the basic equations for the variations. For example, in the general relativity case, the equation (11) for the variations can be rewritten in the form

$$_\alpha (\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \delta _\mu ^\alpha \delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\lambda )=0,$$
(A1)
which implies that the tensor field $`T_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \delta _\mu ^\alpha \delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\lambda `$ is a covariantly conserved one-form on the phase space. Since $`_\lambda g_{\mu \nu }=0`$, and $`g=g(g_{\mu \nu })`$, the one-form $`T^\alpha \sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$ is also covariantly conserved: $`_\alpha T^\alpha =0`$. Using Eq. (23), it is very easy to find that $`g^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =\theta ^\alpha `$, thus $`T^\alpha =\sqrt{g}\theta ^\alpha `$. In this manner, $`T^\alpha `$ coming from Eq. (A1), is the symplectic potential, whose variations generate automatically a closed two-form. However, regardless of adjoint operators, one must verify the covariant conservation of such a two-form in order to obtain a covariant description.


format: text

text:
# Cosmological Effects of Radion Oscillations

## I Introduction

Cosmological theories with submillimeter dimensions have recently been the focus of several studies Arkani-Hamed:1999gq ; pap.Cosm ; pap.Dim ; Csaki:1999mp ; pap.Stat  (see also Ref.Papantonopoulos:2002ew  for a recent review). These theories were originally proposed to provide a novel solution to the hierarchy problem by postulating that the fundamental Planck mass $`M_{}`$ is close to the $`TeV`$ scale Antoniadis:1990ew ; pap.Dim ; Randall:1999vf . This is possible in theories with extra dimensions pap.Dim  because Gauss’s law relates the Planck scales of the $`4+D`$-dimensional theory $`M_{}`$ and the long distance $`4`$-dimensional theory $`M_{pl}`$ by

$$M_{pl}^2=b_0^DM_{}^{D+2}$$
(1)
where $`b_0`$ is the present stabilized size of the extra dimensions. The size of the extra dimensions $`b(t)`$ (the radion field) is usually assumed to be stabilized to its present value $`b_0`$ by a ‘radion stabilizing potential’ $`V(b)`$. The early evolution of the radion has been well studied Arkani-Hamed:1999gq ; Cline:1999ky ; Csaki:1999mp ; Flanagan:1999dc  and has been shown to generate an inflationary era with observationally consistent phenomenology (see also Ref.Levin:yw  for earlier studies).

Studies of late evolution of the radion around its potential minimum $`b_0`$ have mainly focused on the resolution of the moduli problem Csaki:1999jh ; Flanagan:1999dc ; Arkani-Hamed:1999gq ; Gunther:2000jj : How do we dilute the energy in radion oscillations which at the end of inflation is high enough to overclose the universe? Here we assume that the radion is stabilized at $`b_0`$ either by a short period of late inflation or by some other mechanism. The oscillations we consider are mainly induced by redshifting matter at late times. They can lead to interesting late time cosmological effects through the coupling of $`b(t)`$ with the scale factor of the universe $`a(t)`$. These effects will be the focus of this paper. In what follows we will show that

* The redshift of matter ($`\rho (t)a^3`$) generically produces oscillations of the radion $`b(t)`$ around its (local) minimum $`b_0`$. This distinguishes the radion from an ordinary minimally coupled to gravity scalar field.
* For low radion masses $`𝒪(10100H_0)`$ these oscillations lead to accelerating and decelerating periods of the expansion factor $`a(t)`$ and thus to a possible resolution of the coincidence problem Turner:2001yu . However, oscillations in this frequency regime may be strongly constrained by classical tests of general relativity and by Casimir force measurements Will:2001mx ; Long-Price:1999 .
* For higher radion masses ($`m>10^3eV`$) radion oscillations can not resolve the coincidence problem but they are consistent with classical gravity tests and their energy density redshifts like $`a^3`$. They can therefore play the role of dark matter.

A class of ‘oscillating physics’ models with features similar to those discussed here has been developed in the context of non-minimally coupled scalar fields (Brans-Dicke theories) in an effort to explain the apparent periodicity in pencil beam galaxy redshift surveys Broadhurst:be  (low frequency oscillations of the Brans-Dicke scalar Crittenden:1991pb ; Morikawa1990 ; Gonzalez:2001mx ) or to resolve the discrepancy between measurements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.10.3`$ and the inflationary prediction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$ (high frequency oscillations of the Brans-Dicke scalar Accetta:yb ; Steinhardt:1994vs ; McDonald:1991xm ). The case of radion oscillations discussed here corresponds to a very specific type of Brans-Dicke theory where the parameters of the theory are uniquely determined by the number of extra dimensions $`D`$.

The structure of this paper is the following: In section II we derive the cosmological equations assuming $`D`$ toroidally compact extra dimensions stabilized by a potential and obtain an approximate analytic solution for small oscillations around the potential minimum. We also establish the connection with Brans-Dicke theory and derive the effective values of the Brans-Dicke parameters as a function of $`D`$. In section III we focus on the case of low radion mass and discuss the basic cosmological features of the model. The corresponding features for large radion masses are discussed in section IV. Finally, in section V we conclude and summarize the main remaining open issues.

## II Radion Cosmology

We consider a flat $`4+D`$ dimensional spacetime $`R^1\times R^3\times T^D`$ with toroidally compact $`D`$ extra dimensions. The metric may be written as

$$g_{MN}=diag[1,a^2(t)\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij},b^2(t)\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}]$$
(2)
where $`M,N`$ run from 0 to $`D+3`$; $`i,j`$ run from $`1`$ to 3 and $`m,n`$ run from 4 to $`D+3`$. Also $`a(t)`$ is the scale of the non-compact 3-dimensional flat space (the scale factor of the universe) and $`b(t)`$ is the radius of the compactified toroidal space (the radion field).

The nonzero components of the energy-momentum tensor are given by

$`T_{00}`$ $`=\rho _{tot}g_{00}`$
$`T_{ij}`$ $`=p_ag_{ij}`$
$`T_{mn}`$ $`=p_bg_{mn}`$
The energy density $`\rho _{tot}`$ and the pressures $`p_a,p_b`$ are derivable from the internal energy $`𝒰=𝒰(a,b)`$ as

$`\rho _{tot}={\displaystyle \frac{𝒰}{𝒱}},p_a={\displaystyle \frac{a𝒰/a}{3𝒱}},p_b={\displaystyle \frac{b𝒰/b}{D𝒱}}`$ (4)
where $`𝒱=a^3(t)\mathrm{\Omega }_Db^D(t)`$ is the volume of the $`(D+3)`$-space ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_D=2\pi ^{\frac{D+1}{2}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D+1}{2}`$)).

Consider now an internal energy of the form

$$𝒰=a^3\left(V(b)+\rho \right)$$
(5)
$`V(b)`$ in equation (5) is the radion potential which can produce Arkani-Hamed:1999gq  sufficient primordial inflation to solve the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, and monopole problems and can stabilize $`b`$ at

$$b_0=\left(\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{M_{}^{D+2}}\right)^{1/D}$$
(6)
with a vanishing cosmological constant. The energy density $`\rho =\rho (a)`$ in (5) is due to mater and radiation.

The action for Einstein gravity in $`N=D+4`$ dimensions is

$$S=d^Nx\sqrt{g^{(N)}}\left(\frac{1}{16\pi \overline{G}}[g]+_{\mathrm{matter}}\right)$$
(7)
The generalized Einstein equations are

$$R_{MN}=8\pi \overline{G}\left(T_{MN}\frac{T_{}^{K}{}_{K}{}^{}}{D+2}g_{MN}\right)$$
(8)
where $`\overline{G}`$ is the $`(4+D)`$ dimensional gravitational constant. The gravitational coupling $`16\pi G=\frac{1}{b_0^DM_{}^{D+2}}`$ is weak because $`b_0`$ is much greater than the $`(4+D)`$-dimensional Planck length $`\frac{1}{M_{}}`$. Thus, the hierarchy problem is ‘transferred’ to the large extra dimensions.

Using the metric ansatz (2) and the energy-momentum components (II), it is straightforward to obtain the following set of evolution equations for the scale factors $`a`$ and $`b`$ from equations (8).

$`6{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}+D(D1){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}}+6D{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{V+\rho }{M_{}^{D+2}b^D}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{b}}{b}}+(D1){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}^{D+2}b^D}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2V}{D+2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{D(D+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho 3p_a}{2(D+2)}}\right)`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}+D{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}^{D+2}b^D}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b}{2(D+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{2(D+2)}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho +(D1)p_a}{2(D+2)}}\right)`$
In the picture of Ref. pap.Dim  (ADD) and Randall:1999vf  (RS), the matter-radiation energy density is assumed to be localized on the brane corresponding to the $`a(t)`$ scale factor. This localized energy density in general distorts the geometry of the compactified $`D`$-dimensional space (the bulk), but as far as the overall properties and the evolution of the radion are concerned, it is correct to treat the energy density on the wall as just being averaged over the whole space as done on the RHS of these equations. This assumption is consistent with the results of references Csaki:1999mp ; Csaki:1999jh  where it was shown that the coupling of the radion field to the energy momentum tensor is given generically through the trace $`(\rho 3p_a)`$ plus terms involving the stabilizing potential $`V(b)`$.

Equations (II) have been analyzed in the context of inflation (away from the stabilization point $`b_0`$) in Arkani-Hamed:1999gq  (ADD model).

Similar equations Csaki:1999mp  arise in the context of Randall-Sundrum (RS) models Randall:1999vf , where the hierarchy problem is solved using extra dimensions of smaller sizes at the expense of introducing a non-flat background metric along the extra coordinates and a pair of branes whose distance $`b(t)`$ is stabilized at $`b_0`$ by the potential $`V(b)`$.

From equations (II) it is clear that radiation $`(p_{rad}=\frac{1}{3}\rho _{rad})`$ has no effect on the dynamics of the radion. This is not the case however for matter. Redshifting matter plays the role of a driving force and can induce radion oscillations during both the matter and radiation eras. These oscillations backreact on the scale factor $`a(t)`$ through the effective Friedman equations (II) and can induce interesting cosmological effects. In what follows we study these cosmological effects in the presence of redshifting matter and radiation neglecting any other possible existence leading to equations of state with $`\rho 3p_a0`$.

To study the evolution of the system of the scale factor $`a(t)`$ coupled to the radion $`b(t)`$, we focus on the first two equations of the system (II) (the last one, given the energy-momentum conservation and the equation of state, is not independent). The potential $`V(b)`$ may be written to lowest order in $`\delta \frac{bb_0}{b_0}`$ as

$$V=\rho _\mathrm{v}\left(\frac{b}{b_0}1\right)^2=\rho _\mathrm{v}\delta ^2$$
(10)
In order to write this system in dimensionless form we define the following dimensionless quantities

$`\overline{b}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{b_0}}`$ (11)
$`\overline{a}={\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}`$ (12)
$`\overline{m}^2={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\mathrm{v}}{\rho _{om}}}`$ (13)
$`\overline{t}=t\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{om}}{6M_{}^{D+2}b_0^D}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (14)
where $`a_0`$ is the scale factor at the present time $`t=t_0`$. Expanding equations (II) around the stabilization point $`b_0`$ ($`V^{}(b_0)=0`$) the radion mass can be read off from the corresponding linearized equation of motion (see e.g. Ref. Arkani-Hamed:1999gq ) and is given in terms of the second derivative of the potential (10). Up to a constant factor of order one, the radion mass is

$`m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2V^{\prime \prime }}{M_{}^{D+2}b_0^D}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2V^{\prime \prime }}{M_{Pl}^2}}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\mathrm{v}}{M_{Pl}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2\rho _{om}}{M_{Pl}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(10^{33}\overline{m})^2eV^2`$
($`\rho _{om}`$ is the matter density at the present time $`t_0`$). In order to simplify our notation in what follows, we will omit the bar from the above dimensionless quantities (except $`\overline{m}`$). Thus, the system (II) may be written in dimensionless form as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D(D1)}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}}+D{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2(b1)^2+\frac{1}{a^3}}{b^D}}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{b}}{b}}+(D1){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}^2}{b^2}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{(D+2)b^D}}\left[4\overline{m}^2(b1)^2{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{m}^2b(b1)}{D}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^3}}\right]`$ (17)
This set of equations is similar to the cosmological field equations of a Brans-Dicke theory for specific parameter values. To identify these parameter values we compare the dimensionally reduced form of (7)

$$S=d^4x\frac{\sqrt{g^{(4)}}}{16\pi G}\left[b^D^{(4)}+D(D1)b^{D2}\dot{b}^2V_b(b)\right]$$
(18)
with the 4-dimensional Brans-Dicke theory of a dynamical Planck mass

$$S=d^4x\frac{\sqrt{g}}{16\pi G}\left[F(\varphi )Z(\varphi )_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi V_\varphi (\varphi )\right]$$
(19)
The identification that needs to be made is

$`F(\varphi )=b^D`$ (20)
$`Z(\varphi )\dot{\varphi }^2=D(D1)b^{D2}\dot{b}^2`$ (21)
In the parameterization $`\varphi =b^D`$ we obtain

$`F(\varphi )=\varphi `$ (22)
$`Z(\varphi )=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}})/\varphi `$ (23)
which implies

$$\omega \frac{ZF}{F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=1+\frac{1}{D}$$
(24)
Other parameterizations (e.g. $`\varphi =b`$ or $`Z(\varphi )=1`$) are easily checked to give identical values for $`\omega `$.

The existence of a finite value of $`\omega `$ implies a Yukawa interaction (fifth force) modification of Newton’s law Steinhardt:1994vs

$$V(r)=G\frac{M}{r}\left(1+\frac{1}{3+2\omega }e^{m_\varphi r}\right)$$
(25)
where $`m_b=\frac{1}{D(D+2)}m_\varphi `$, as can be verified by comparing the linearized equations of motion for the radion (see eq.(II)) with the equations of motion for a massive Brans-Dicke scalar.

Using equation (24) this becomes

$$V_{m_b}(r)=G\frac{M}{r}\left(1+\frac{D}{D+2}e^{m_br}\right)$$
(26)
The Yukawa interaction of equation (26) is due purely to radion dynamics while geometrical effects have been integrated out by the dimensional reduction of equation (18) ($`b_00`$). The Yukawa interaction induced purely by geometrical effects (fixed $`b_0`$, $`m_b\mathrm{}`$) has been studied in Ref.Floratos:1999bv . The resulting modified Newtonian potential in that case is

$$V_{b_0}(r)=G\frac{M}{r}\left(1+2De^{r/b_0}\right)$$
(27)
Combining equations (26) and (27) we obtain the total modified Newtonian potential for a massive toroidally compact radion

$$V_{tot}(r)=G\frac{M}{r}\left(1+\frac{D}{D+2}e^{m_br}+2De^{r/b_0}\right)$$
(28)
Corresponding modified Newtonian potentials can be obtained for alternative compactification schemes (spherical and Calabi-Yau) thus generalizing the corresponding results of Ref.Floratos:1999bv .

Fifth force tests on scales larger than $`1mm`$ (solar system and terrestrial) imply a constraint Will:2001mx  $`\omega >2500`$ for the massless ($`V(\varphi )=0`$) Brans-Dicke model. On scales $`r<<m_b^1`$ a massive Brans-Dicke model behaves like the original massless theory. On scales larger than the range of spatial fluctuations ($`r>>m_b^1`$) the Brans-Dicke scalar dynamics are frozen by the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ and the model behaves like Einstein gravity. Therefore fifth force experiments on these scales do not constrain the massive Brans-Dicke theories and the constraint $`\omega >2500`$ is not applicable provided $`m_b^1<1mm`$ (minimum scale of experimental constrains). A separate requirement for consistency with fifth force experiments, coming from the geometric effects of toroidal extra dimensions in equation (28) is $`b_0<1mm`$.

Since we are interested in small radion oscillations, it is convenient to linearize the system (16), (17) setting $`\delta =b1`$. Keeping only the dominant terms we obtain the system

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^3}}D{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\delta }`$ (29)
$`\ddot{\delta }+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\delta }=m^2\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{D+2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^3}}`$ (30)
where

$$m^2\frac{12\overline{m}^2}{(D+2)D}$$
(31)
The solution of this system is well approximated by

$`\delta `$ $``$ $`\delta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(mt+\theta )}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\delta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(mt+\theta )}{a^{3/2}}}`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}`$ $``$ $`H={\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}\dot{\delta }+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}\dot{\delta }\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^3}}\right]^{1/2}`$ (33)
where $`\delta _0`$ is determined by the initial conditions at the time $`t_i`$ when the oscillations start. For radion oscillations induced purely by the redshifting matter we keep only the particular solution of the inhomogeneous differential equation (30) and find

$$\delta _0\frac{4\pi }{3(D+2)m},\theta =0$$
(34)
In the following section we briefly discuss the cosmological effects of this solution for very low radion mass.

## III Low Radion Mass

For $`m𝒪(10100H_0)10^{32}eV`$ the fifth force terrestrial and solar system constrains apply ($`\omega >2500`$) and due to equation (24) the model is not consistent with them at the classical level. A possible way out of this constraint are modifications of the effective Brans-Dicke parameters due to quantum effects Albrecht:2001xt .

Nevertheless, the model has several interesting features which are worth discussing before proceeding to the phenomenologically more relevant case of large $`m`$.

For radion masses comparable to $`H_0`$, the dominant corrections come from the linear term in $`\dot{\delta }`$ which does not average out to zero. Thus we obtain

$$H=\overline{H}\frac{D}{2}\dot{\delta }\overline{H}\left(1+\xi m\mathrm{sin}(mt+\theta )\right)$$
(35)
where $`\overline{H}=\frac{1}{a^{3/2}}`$ is the unperturbed Hubble parameter and $`\xi ,\theta `$ are constants depending on the initial conditions of the radion oscillations and the number of extra dimensions $`D`$ ($`\xi 3\delta _0D/4`$).

For

$$m\xi \frac{1}{2}$$
(36)
equation (35) implies periodically accelerating Hubble expansion. At maximum acceleration the expansion factor is

$$a(t)t^{2(1+m\xi )/3}$$
(37)
For radion oscillations induced purely by redshifting matter (the source term $`\frac{1}{a^3}`$) we may use (34) to obtain

$$m\xi \frac{\pi D}{(D+2)}>\frac{1}{2}$$
(38)
and therefore these oscillations are sufficient to produce periods of accelerating expansion.

The periods of acceleration of the scale factor consist a very interesting feature for the following reasons:

1. No Dark Energy: They can potentially explain the acceleration of the scale factor observed in the recent SNe Ia data Perlmutter:1998np  without the requirement of any form of dark energy. Alternative attempts to achieve accelerating expansion without the need of dark energy can be found in Freese:2002sq ; Sahni:2002dx .
2. Coincidence problem: They can resolve the coincidence problem by inducing other accelerating and decelerating periods in the past. Alternative resolutions of the coincidence problem based on oscillating energy of minimally coupled scalars with oscillating potentials Dodelson:2001fq ; Griest:2002cu  or quintessence induced by extra dimensions Pietroni:2002ey ; Albrecht:2001xt  have also been recently proposed.
3. Consistency: They are consistent with nucleosynthesis constrains assuming that they start at $`t_im^1>t_{eq}`$ i.e. much later than the time of nucleosynthesis (this is the behavior expected for oscillating scalars in an expanding universe Turner:1983he ). The model is also consistent with observational constraints other than the fifth force inprog : The age of the universe is longer compared to the CDM model without cosmological constant (SCDM). Structure formation is mildly affected. The first Doppler peak of the cosmic background radiation is shifted only slightly and remains consistent with experimental results. The time dependence of Newton’s constant constrained by measurements of spin-down rate of pulsars, imposes some restrictions on the parameter $`\theta `$ which are more difficult to meet for a large number of extra dimensions.
4. Predictiveness: They make the prediction of deceleration at high redshifts at a rate higher than that of non-oscillating models.
5. Naturalness: They are well motivated without the requirement of extra scalar fields or potentials.
6. Periodicity of galaxy distribution: The north-south pencil beam survey of Ref.Broadhurst:be  suggests an apparent periodicity in the galaxy distribution. The number of galaxies as a function of redshift seems to clump at regularly spaced intervals of $`128h^1Mpc`$. Recent simulations Yoshida:2001  have indicated that this regularity has a priori probability less than $`10^3`$ in CDM universes with or without a cosmological constant. This suggests a new cosmological puzzle. Low mass radion oscillations induce a modulation in the galaxy redshift count by the factor

$$\frac{dz}{dz_0}=\frac{H}{\overline{H}}=1+\xi m\mathrm{sin}(mt+\theta )$$
(39)
Such oscillations of $`\frac{dz}{dz_0}`$ can explain the peaks in the survey of Ref.Broadhurst:be  provided that their amplitude is larger than $`1/2`$ Hill:1990uy . This condition is identical with the condition (36) required to have periods of accelerated expansion for solving the coincidence problem. It may be shown inprog  that the value of $`m`$ required to induce a periodicity of $`128h^1Mpc`$ for $`D=2`$ is $`m100`$ which corresponds to $`m_b10^{31}eV`$.

Despite these interesting features, the main drawback for this range of radion mass is the possible inconsistency of the model with fifth force constraints, as discussed above.

## IV High Radion Mass

For $`m_b>10^3eV>>\overline{H}_0`$ ($`m10^{30}`$), the constraint $`\omega >2500`$ applies only for experiments on scales $`r1mm`$. Such experimental constraints are not available at present and therefore radion oscillations are experimentally allowed for this mass range. In this case, the linear term in equation (33) can be ignored since it averages out to zero. Thus we obtain

$`H^2`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^3}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}\dot{\delta }\right)^2\right]`$ (40)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\xi ^2m^2\mathrm{sin}^2(mt+\theta )}{9t^2}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^3}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0r}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0m}}}\right)`$ (41)
where in the last equation we have considered averaging over time, used (14) and

$`t_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\overline{H}_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{9\rho _c(t_0)}{4\rho _m(t_0)}}={\displaystyle \frac{9}{4\mathrm{\Omega }_{0m}}}`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0r}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi ^2m^2`$ (43)
Therefore equation (41) implies that in this mass range the oscillating radion can play the role of a new dark matter component redshifting as $`a^3`$ with present relative energy density

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{0r}=\left(\frac{D}{2}\dot{\delta }(t_0)\right)^2$$
(44)
For radion potentials of the form $`V(\delta )\delta ^{2n}`$ with $`n>1`$ the radion oscillation energy redshifts slower than $`a^3`$ and can result to accelerating expansion of the universe. This effect was studied in the context of a minimally coupled scalar field in Ref.Sahni:1999qe  where the resulting dark energy was termed “Frustrated Cold Dark Matter”.

For radion oscillations induced purely by redshifting matter (see eqs. (38) and (43)) we obtain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0r}`$ of $`𝒪(1)`$ independent of $`m`$. Setting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{0r}=𝒪(1)`$ we find an amplitude of the radion oscillation

$$\delta =\frac{\dot{\delta }}{m}=𝒪(m^1)$$
(45)
For $`m_b10^3eV`$ we have

$$\frac{\delta G}{G}\delta 𝒪\left(10^{30}\right)$$
(46)
which is consistent with nucleosynthesis and is not likely to produce observable astrophysical or cosmological effects.

The high radion mass ($`m_b>10^3eV`$) has therefore three important effects

* It allows for a significant contribution of the oscillating energy to the energy density of the universe.
* It suppresses the amplitude of the oscillations making them compatible with terrestrial measurements of $`G`$, nucleosynthesis constraints and stellar evolution.
* It confines the fifth force type effects to scales less than $`𝒪(m_b^1)1mm`$ making them compatible with tests for intermediate range forces and solar system tests of general relativity Will:2001mx ; Long-Price:1999 .

## V Conclusions - Open Issues

Our conclusions can be summarized as follows

* Radion oscillations are generically induced at late times by redshifting matter.
* For low radion masses ($`m10100H_0`$) these oscillations could provide a solution to two important cosmological problems: the coincidence problem (why do we live at the special time when the universe’s expansion begins to accelerate) and the apparent periodicity of galaxy distribution with spatial period $`128h^1Mpc`$. However, fifth force constraints based on solar system and terrestrial observations may not be consistent with this range of radion masses.
* For high radion masses ($`m_b>10^3eV`$) radion oscillations are consistent with fifth force and other constraints and they can provide the source of a new type of dark matter which has many similarities with axions (they are both a result of oscillating scalars).

Open issues that require further study are the following :

* Can quantum effects modify the effective Brans-Dicke parameters of low mass radion oscillations, making them consistent with fifth force constraints while still allowing the resolution of the coincidence and galactic periodicity problem?
* What are the clustering properties of the oscillating radion dark matter?
* What experimental or observational tests could detect the low amplitude - high frequency of the radion and the corresponding Newton’s constant $`G`$?

Acknowledgements: We thank I. Bakas for several useful discussions and for critically reading the manuscript. We acknowledge support by the University of Patras through the ‘C. Caratheodory’ research grants No. 2793 and No. 2453. This work was supported in part by a network of the European Science Foundation and by the European Research and Training networks “Superstring Theory” (HPRN-CT-2000-00122) and “The Quantum Structure of Space-time” (HPRN-CT-2000-00131).


text:
# Neutrino telescopes’ sensitivity to dark matter

## I Introduction

Most of the Universe’s matter is non luminous. There are many predictions for its composition but the nature of dark matter is yet unknown. The possibility of accounting for this matter within the standard model of particle physics is small and is constrained both by particle physics and by cosmology. Discovery of the dark matter composition will probably reveal new physics.

Many models based in physics beyond the standard model propose solutions to the dark matter problem. Most of these predict the existence of new particles. These new particles can be detected directly through nuclei recoil or through secondary products of their annihilation. The decay of particles produced in the annihilation or decay of these new particles generates a flux of high energy neutrinos. The direct and the secondary neutrino signatures are complementary one to another. Detection – or lack of detection – of the secondary neutrinos is therefore important for understanding the nature of dark matter as well as for uncovering the new physics.

A leading dark matter candidate is the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP). A thermal stable relic from the early Universe, its abundance is inversely proportional to its thermal averaged annihilation cross section $`<\sigma v>`$. If this cross section is estimated from the weak-scale interactions, the resulting abundance is close to the observed energy density of dark matter jung . This coincidence makes WIMPs a strong candidate for the non luminous-matter.

However WIMP is a broad category and its identity and character are yet unknown. The most investigated candidate is the neutralino, proposed as the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) within the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). If neutralinos exist and compose the dark matter of the Universe, they should be captured in the Sun and in the Earth. Once captured they should concentrate near the center and annihilate with each other into particles which would produce high energy neutrinos. The flux of neutrinos and charged current induced muons arriving in neutrino telescopes has been estimated in several analysis je ; bek ; beg97 ; beg98 ; jonathan .

Another dark matter candidate is a Strongly Interacting Massive Particle (SIMPs). Capture and annihilation of superheavy (mass above $`10^{10}`$ GeV) SIMPs (Simpzillas) in the Sun or in the Earth will also produce secondary high energy neutrinos ahk .

Simpzillas represent one category of superheavy relic dark matter (another category can, for instance, be composed of superheavy weakly interacting massive particles). The neutrino flux from superheavy relic dark matter under the assumption that the decay or annihilation of these particles is the source for the ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECR) has been estimated in francis . UHECR are events which violate the so called GZK limit gzk . This implies that the UHECR flux normalizes the the superheavy relic decay or annihilation rate. Under their assumptions for the annihilation of these particles AMANDA-II results amnature  makes it unlikely that they produce the observed UHECR without some method of neutrino suppression francis . However different assumptions sarkar  predict a lower neutrino flux which still allows the possibility that superheavy relic dark matter are the source of UHECR.

After summarizing predictions of the muon rate arriving at neutrino telescopes from WIMPs, we will review the estimate for the flux of charged current induced taus from neutrinos produced in the annihilation of Simpzillas in the Sun ahk . We then estimate the detection rate of current or proposed detectors such as AMANDA-II, ANTARES, IceCube and NESTOR. We also consider a km-scale detector in the Mediterranean sea which would correspond to a larger version of ANTARES or NESTOR. In estimating the detection rate we determine the optimum detector energy threshold for indirect detection of Simpzillas.

We show that when the fundamental physical aspects of neutrino telescopes are considered discovery of dark matter is assured, if it is composed of strongly interacting superheavy particles. The sensitivity of proposed km3 volume detectors is only able to probe a few WIMP models in a currently very large phase space of models.

In the next section we summarize the estimates for the muon rate at neutrino telescopes based on predictions for WIMP annihilation beg98 . Also summarized is the muon rate based on the constrained MSSM (CMSSM). We then discuss the possibility of WIMP discovery by neutrino telescopes.

In Section III we summarize the expected event rate from Simpzilla annihilation in the Sun ahk . In Section IV we include basic physical aspects of neutrino telescopes namely energy threshold and km3 detection volume and estimate the tau event rate for contained events. In Section IV.2 we show the reach of current detectors. The conclusion follows.

## II WIMPS - Neutralino

As discussed above, WIMP is a promising dark matter candidate. Within the WIMP category, neutralinos – the LSP – is the most investigated. The search for neutralino signature is a search not only for dark matter but also a test for the supersymmetric extension of the standard model jung .

There are mainly two ways to detect WIMPs. One is a direct detection through the scattering of WIMPs from nuclei. If the halo of our galaxy consists of WIMPs, they will pass through the Earth. Although their cross section with ordinary matter is weak and the interactions rare, it is still possible to measure the small energy liberated from the nuclear recoil due to a WIMP–nucleus scattering. CDMS cdms  and GENIUS genius  are examples of experiments that will directly search for WIMP–nucleus interaction.

Indirect detection involves looking for annihilation or interaction products that propagate through space to the detector. Here we discuss detecting high energy neutrinos produced as secondary particles from WIMP annihilation. Several simulations of this process have been done je ; bek ; beg97 ; beg98  estimating the rate of charged current induced muons arriving in neutrino telescopes. These simulations assume that the neutralino is the WIMP and scans through MSSM parameters. An analytical approach has also been developed jungkam  and allows for a better understanding of the physical processes such as the capture and annihilation of WIMPs and consequent particle production.

### II.1 High energy neutrino signature from Neutralinos

When WIMPs from the halo pass through the Sun or Earth material, they may lose energy by elastic scattering with nuclei. If their velocities are reduced below the escape velocity, they are trapped in the Sun or Earth gould ; press  and further scattering concentrates them together in the center. They annihilate with their anti-particles and produce leptons, quarks and, if heavy enough, gauge bosons, higgs and top quarks jungkam . Most of these products will not escape the Sun or the Earth. However neutrinos produced from the decay of these particles will escape jungkam .

Muon neutrinos coming from the Sun or going through the Earth will occasionally interact with a nucleus and produce muons in a charged current interaction. They will also have their energy degraded due to a neutral current interaction. The cross sections for these processes gandhi  are small but the combination of the density and the distance from the center of the Earth or from the Sun is enough to allow for significant muon production. After estimating the muon rate near the detector one has to account for the effective size of the detector in order to predict the muon detection rate als .

One has also to account for the background. For neutrinos coming from the Sun the primary background is neutrino production from cosmic ray interactions in the Solar and Terrestrial atmospheres.

The indirect neutralino detection rate in neutrino telescopes has been determined by Bergstrom, Edsjo and Gondolo (BEG) beg97 ; beg98 . They describe the MSSM parameter range used and consider models which pass the constraints from accelerator measurements. The relic neutralino density is determined for each of these models. They simulate the hadronization and decay of the annihilation products as well as the interactions of neutrinos in the Earth and on their way out of the Sun. Neutrino interactions near the detector are also simulated and the muon rate arriving in the detector is determined.

Their analysis includes the background from cosmic ray interactions in the Earth and Sun atmospheres. In order to reduce this background, they use events within an angular cone of the center of the Earth or of the Sun. They use the method described in bek  where it is shown how the angular and/or energy resolution of the detector can improve the sensitivity of neutrino telescopes. However, as in general these telescopes have poor energy resolution, only the angular resolution is used to reduce the background.

The result from the BEG analysis beg98  is shown in Figure 1 indicating the estimated $`3\sigma `$ limit for neutralino annihilation in the Earth and in the Sun obtained for an exposure of 10 km2 year and a 25 GeV energy threshold. Also shown is the irreducible background from cosmic rays interacting in the Sun. A similar but reducible background exists for the Earth in atmospherically produced neutrinos. MSSM models excluded by direct detection experiments are shown with circles and the ones that will be probed by future direct detection experiments with about a factor of 10 improvement in sensitivity are shown with a plus sign. Description of the MSSM models can be found in beg98 .

BEG beg98  also show the effect of the detector energy threshold in the muon detected rates. This is shown in Figure 2. Different energy thresholds are compared to a 1 GeV threshold. The band represents different degrees of softness of the neutrino spectra for a given neutralino mass. It represents the fact that the annihilation branching fractions are unknown and the resulting neutrino energy spectra might vary depending on the number of each annihilation product. A 100 GeV threshold would considerably reduce the signal rate.

The analysis beg98  summarized here shows that the potential for detection of neutrinos from neutralino annihilation in the Earth is comparable with the estimated direct detection sensitivity whereas the detection from annihilation in the center of the Sun is more promising for neutrino telescopes. However the muon rate will depend on the detector geometry, energy threshold, location and also on instrumental effects. In section II.3 we will expand the analysis described above to include these effects.

### II.2 Neutrinos from constrained MSSM (CMSSM)

Recently constrains from experimental results were used to select MSSM scenarios. These results include searches for sparticles, Higgs boson and $`bs\gamma `$ decay rate. The CMSSM parameter space also constrains the supersymmetric relic density to be within the $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$ range which is set by cosmological observations.

A set of parameters within the CMSSM has been chosen in order to probe this model in a more systematic way susybench . This set was used to select benchmark models that are representative of a particular set of parameters. Thirteen models were selected with this purpose.

Direct and indirect signatures of the benchmark models are estimated in jonathan . Indirect detection signature is determined assuming neutralino annihilation in the Sun and Earth. The neutrino charged current induced muon flux from benchmark models is determined and their results are compared with the quoted sensitivity of neutrino telescopes. These are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 also shows the benchmark models that can be probed by indirect detection assuming neutralino annihilation in the Earth and in the Sun. See jonathan  for description and parameters of each model. A few representative models can be indirectly tested from neutralino annihilation in the Sun but not in the Earth. Two of these models (E and F) have exceptional flux. Both models predict neutralinos with significant Higgsino content which leads to annihilations into gauge bosons. Gauge bosons will produce hard neutrinos jungkam  and the muon rate will be enhanced.

IceCube sensitivity is enough to probe models B, E and F shown in Figure 3. Models I, G, C and L are on the borderline. However some models are below the detector energy threshold. We will consider this aspect in section II.3.

Gravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking in supergravity is also used sgrav  to constrain the MSSM (mSugra model). It allows for a wider range of the cosmological relic density $`0.03<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.3`$ and is defined by a 5 parameters constrained MSSM. The muon flux from neutralino annihilation in the Sun from a set of mSugra models is estimated as well as the direct detection rate. Their results are shown in figure 4. One problem with this analysis is the low detector energy threshold which is assumed to be 5 GeV. This will be discussed in section II.3. The conclusion of this analysis is that indirect detection of neutralinos assuming the mSugra constraints is beyond reach of present and future neutrino telescopes for annihilation in the center of the Earth. For annihilation in the Sun, the region where the neutralino has a larger higgsino content (which increases the elastic scattering and neutralino annihilation cross sections) can be probed.

### II.3 Discussion

Three scenarios for indirect detection of WIMPs were summarized in this section: a search for neutrino signature from a broad set of parameters within the MSSM, a search for CMSSM benchmarks and a search for models within mSugra. In all scenarios, models for WIMP annihilation in the Sun predicts a higher neutrino rate than annihilation in the Earth. We now discuss how the basic physical aspects of neutrino detectors such as geometry, location and threshold will affect these results.

An analysis of the fundamental physical aspects of instrument performance for neutrino telescopes is described in als . The basic physical characteristics of an ideal detector are taken into consideration. An ideal detector performance is translated to include characteristics of current and proposed detectors. The geometry and location of such detectors are taken into consideration.

The prediction beg98  of MSSM scenarios to be tested by neutrino telescopes is shown in Figures 1 and 2. These results depend strongly on a low energy threshold. Also the rates are determined for 10 years of 100% efficiency in a km2 incident area. If one includes the duty cycle of the detector in a year this will translate to a longer period in real time.

The best threshold to be achieved by a km2 incident area detector is set by the minimum ionizing muon energy loss of about 2.6 MeV/cm. A 25 GeV threshold implies that a 125 meter track was observed. To determine the track length, a minimum of a few photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) have to be hit. Efficient coverage of a km3 with 5 hits per 125 meters would then require a 64,000 channel detector. The largest proposed neutrino detector is IceCube with 5,000 channels pdd . Spreading the channels over a larger area has the effect of raising the energy threshold well above 25 GeV. IceCube will consist of strings with 125 meter string spacing and 16 meter PMTs spacing on each string. Simulations of the energy threshold indicate E$`{}_{\mu }{}^{thr}>`$ 10 GeV for vertical tracks and 200 GeV for horizontal tracks with something close to 0.7 km2 volume pdd . Since these predictions do not include background rejection of atmospheric muons, it is insightful to note that the AMANDA-II energy threshold for muons is 50 GeV amandaNu ; amandaWIMP  which translates into a neutralino threshold of M

>

χ100{}_{\chi}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}100 GeV. The vertical spacing of PMTs in IceCube is similar to AMANDA leading us to conclude that a similar threshold may apply. However as AMANDA and IceCube are located in the South Pole, the neutrinos coming from the Sun will be arriving at the detector almost horizontally. This implies that the energy threshold will be closer to 200 GeV which translates into a higher neutralino threshold of M

>

χ400{}_{\chi}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}400 GeV. In this sense ANTARES is better located since neutrinos from the Sun enter the detector at all zenith angles. A km3 version of ANTARES would be able to perform an analysis as a function of the zenith angle.

High energy thresholds reduce the MSSM parameter space to be tested by neutrino telescopes. Figure 2 shows that the muon rate in the detector will be suppressed by about a factor of 10 around 100 GeV and by a factor of 5 around 1000 GeV when going from a 25 GeV to a 100 GeV threshold. In IceCube, limits from the Sun will be several orders of magnitude worse than shown in Figure 1 below a neutralino mass of 150 GeV and a few times worse elsewhere due to the detector energy threshold.

This together with the fact that for a 25 GeV threshold the background from the Sun for neutralino masses around 100 GeV requires tens of km2 instead of a 10 km2 exposure due to the background from the solar corona beg98  lowers the possibility of indirect discovery of WIMPs in this mass region. At higher energies ($`1`$ TeV) the rate will be suppressed by a factor of 5 due to the higher threshold and reduced flux.

The effects of the geometry and location for current and proposed detectors has been discussed in als . The geometrical efficiency of big detectors like IceCube is close to unity taking into account muons that travel 300 meters or more. The primary low energy muon background comes from atmospheric muons and muon-neutrinos produced in cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere. Specifically, only up-going measurements are possible bek . WIMPS from the Sun therefore, may only be detected at night when the Sun is below the horizon. In the South Pole, there is night for 6 months when the Sun dips a maximum of 23.5 degrees below the horizon. At Mediterranean latitudes, the Sun is below the horizon each night. For both locations exposure times of 10 years will actually take 20 years of nightly observing.

Figure 5 spier  shows the predicted muon rate from WIMP annihilation in the Sun and the IceCube predicted limit in 5 years live-time (10 years of operation). The values shown are normalized to a 10 GeV threshold. The region to be probed is much smaller than the one shown in Figure 1.

It is also important to note that the direct and indirect detection will be complementary one to the other. Although a large fraction of the region to be probed by indirect detection can also be probed by direct detection, an agreement among these two techniques is important.

From the 13 CMSSM benchmarks (see section II.2) susybench  one is within the quoted IceCube sensitivity and above its energy threshold (model F). Four others (I,G,C and L) are on top of the quoted sensitivity which makes their detection borderline. Models B and E fall below the detector energy threshold. The others cannot be probed by IceCube. An expanded version of ANTARES may be able to probe models E and B. As ANTARES is located in the Mediterranean, neutrinos coming from the Sun enter the detector in all angles. For this reason the energy threshold for neutrinos coming from the Sun is lower than a detector in the South Pole with same PMT spacing.

For models within the mSugra framework (see section II.2) french  the indirect detection is only possible for neutralino annihilation in the Sun for neutralinos with a large higgsino content. The muon flux predicted for a set of these models are shown in Figure 4. However it was determined for a detector energy threshold of 5 GeV which is too low for a telescope such as IceCube. The results shown for ANTARES might be better represented since as mentioned above ANTARES energy threshold is lower than IceCube, though 5 GeV is still not representative of the average energy threshold. The set of models to be probed by ANTARES is shown in Figure 4.

We conclude this section by stating that the WIMP parameter space is very large, and detectors located in the South Pole (as the proposed IceCube experiment) or in the Mediterranean (as would be an expanded version of ANTARES or NESTOR) will probe only those few models with the largest neutrino fluxes. Models with lower fluxes can be probed if the energy thresholds are lowered and experimental live-time is extended beyond 5 years (10 years of nightly observing). However – as will be shown in the section that follows – if dark matter is composed by superheavy strongly interacting particles their discovery will be guaranteed for the most natural scenarios.

## III Simpzillas

It has been proposed by Chung, Kolb and Riotto rocky  that the dark matter of the Universe might be composed of a supermassive (mass greater than $`10^{10}`$ GeV) stable particle that has never been in thermal equilibrium with the primordial plasma. In order not to be in thermal equilibrium the particle annihilation rate must be smaller than the expansion rate. Essentially the large mass prevents the particle from thermalizing. As it is not a thermal relic their abundance is not determined by their self-annihilation cross section but by their mass. These particles can be produced in many ways rocky . Among their production mechanisms are the decay of the inflaton field, gravitational at the end of inflation or through a broad resonance mechanism of preheating. The inflaton mass ($`10^{12}`$ GeV) is an appropriate scale for their mass rocky .

As the abundance of these superheavy particles depends on their mass and not in their interaction strength they might interact strongly or weakly with normal matter. If they are strongly interacting and constitute the dark matter of the Universe, they are captured in the Sun as well as in the Earth as shown in Albuquerque, Hui and Kolb (AHK) ahk . They lose energy while scattering with the Sun or Earth’s matter and are trapped in there once their velocity is smaller than the escape velocity. The same happens with WIMPS but with one important difference: WIMPs interact weakly with normal matter and the optical depth of the Sun for these particles is much less than unity; whereas for Simpzillas, which interact strongly, the optical depth is much greater than one. The capture and annihilation rate of Simpzillas in the Sun and in the Earth is estimated in ahk . The Sun is more efficient in Simpzilla capture and therefore the annilhilation of these particles will produce a greater neutrino flux than the one from Simpzilla annihilation in the Earth. For this reason, we consider the high energy neutrino signature from annihilations in the Sun.

As Simpzillas are ultra heavy particles with masses above $`10^{10}`$ GeV, their annihilation produces hadronic jets which include top quarks ahk . The neutrino rate from top decay in the core of the Sun is estimated as well as the neutrino emission rate from the Sun. As shown in AHK ahk  the rate of muon and electron neutrinos are suppressed since once they convert into a lepton through a charged current interaction (CC) the lepton will lose most of its energy before decaying. The same is not true for tau neutrinos since the tau produced in the CC will immediately decay. As a consequence the tau neutrino emergent rate is about twice the muon and electron neutrino rates. However if neutrino oscillations is taken into account, tau neutrinos might oscillate into muon neutrinos and vice versa. This effect will be discussed in section IV.3. Another enhancement of muon and electron neutrinos are due to taus decaying close to the edge of the Sun. The tau decays 18% of the time into $`\nu _\tau \mu \nu _\mu `$ and another 18% into $`\nu _\tau e\nu _e`$. We call these $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ as secondary neutrinos and will take them into account when discussing oscillations.

In section IV we estimate the sensitivity of neutrino telescopes to tau neutrinos from Simpzilla annihilation in the Sun. We take the arriving flux of tau neutrinos at the Earth from the Sun as determined in equation 5.1 of ahk . This rate depends on the Simpzilla mass ($`M_\chi `$) and the Simpzilla-Nucleon cross section ($`\sigma _{\chi N}`$). Figure 6 shows the tau neutrino differential flux arriving at the Earth weighted by neutrino energy for different values for $`M_\chi `$ and $`\sigma _{\chi N}`$. This flux will be enhanced by the anti-tau contribution. The allowed $`M_\chi `$ versus $`\sigma _{\chi N}`$ space is shown in Figure 9.

It is important to note that the results from ahk  include only neutrinos produced from top decay. The hadronic jets produced in Simpzilla annihilation also produce B-mesons which also decay into neutrinos of all flavors. They will therefore enhance the neutrino rate. The shape of the neutrino energy spectrum from B decays should be the same as that for top decay. Also the flux shown in Figure 6 does not include the anti-neutrinos.

The background for these events consists mainly of atmospheric neutrinos, solar neutrinos and atmospheric muons. The atmospheric muon background is huge for downgoing events but insignificant for the upgoing ones. As we will show in section IV the upgoing event rate from Simpzillas produced neutrinos is sufficiently large that one does not need to consider the downgoing ones.

In section IV we determine the $`\nu _\tau `$ contained event rate in a perfect detector of km3 volume as well as the sensitivity of such detector for neutrinos from Simpzilla annihilation in the Sun. We include background estimates. We then estimate the rate and sensitivity for current or proposed telescopes such as AMANDA-II, ANTARES, NESTOR and IceCube as well as for a km3 volume detector in the Mediterranean which would be equivalent to an expanded version of ANTARES and NESTOR.

## IV Tau detected rate from superheavy dark matter

The neutrino flux spectrum from Simpzilla annihilation in the Sun arriving at the Earth is given by ahk :

$$\frac{dF}{dE}=\frac{1}{4\pi D^2}\left(\frac{df}{dE}\right)_{\mathrm{emergent}}=3.5\times 10^{18}\left(\frac{df}{dE}\right)_{\mathrm{emergent}}\mathrm{km}^2.$$
(1)
where D is the Sun-Earth distance and the differential in the right is the neutrino flux emerging from the Sun given in ahk . This flux depends on the Simpzilla–Nucleon cross section and on the Simpzilla mass. Figure 6 shows the tau neutrino differential rate weighted by neutrino energy deduced from this equation.

This rate has to be weighted by the probability of conversion inside the detector. This probability is approximately $`n\sigma _{CC}(E)L`$ where $`n`$ is the target number density (ice or water for neutrino telescopes), $`\sigma _{CC}(E)`$ is the neutrino-nucleon charged current (CC) deep inelastic scaterring cross section and L is the length of the detector assumed to be 1 km. We determine $`\sigma _{CC}(E)`$ using CTEQ4-DIS parton distribution functions as described in gandhi . Although the attenuation of the flux when going through the Earth is not significant we take it into account for completeness. This attenuation reduces the initial flux by exp($`n_{}(\sigma _{CC}+\sigma _{NC})𝑑x`$) where $`x`$ is the distance the neutrino travels through Earth, $`n_{}`$ is the Earth number density and $`\sigma _{NC}`$ is the neutrino-nucleon neutral current (NC) cross section. The event rate spectrum is given by

$$\frac{dR}{dE}=\frac{dF}{dE}\left[n\sigma _{CC}(E)L\right]A\mathrm{exp}(n_{}\left(\sigma _{CC}+\sigma _{NC}\right)𝑑x)$$
(2)
where $`A`$ is the area of the detector, assumed to be 1 km2. It is important to note that the detected rate only includes the contained events. We approximate the contained rate by including events where the neutrino converts into a lepton inside the geometrical detector volume.

A $`\nu _\tau `$ CC interaction with a nucleus will produce a $`\tau `$ lepton with energy $`(1y)E_\nu `$ and a hadronic shower with energy $`yE_\nu `$, where $`y`$ is the fraction of energy transferred to the hadronic shower given in gandhi96 . Once the tau is produced inside the detector it will almost immediately decay and produce another $`\nu _\tau `$ and another shower (hadronic or electromagnetic). The distance it travels inside the detector is an important characteristic that can be used at high energy for lepton identification. This will be discussed in the next section when we describe the double-bang technique pakvasa .

As the tau production implies a simultaneous hadronic shower production and its decay might also generate another shower inside the detector its signature is different from one produced by a muon neutrino. The background for taus will include all interactions that produce a shower inside the detector. Also, as taus decay almost immediately, they have to be generated inside the detector. As muons travel a long way before decaying they can be produced outside the detector and yet be detected. Another important difference is that the detector angular resolution for a single particle as a muon is much better than for showers. Neutrino telescopes have angular resolution of about a degree barwick  for a long single-particle track and $`30^o`$ for a shower pdd . The backgrounds for tau events will be discussed in the next section as well as ways to reduce them.

In Figure 7 we show the estimated event rate from Simpzilla annihilation in the Sun. The rate is for events contained in a km3 volume and includes both taus and anti-taus 111from now on when taus are mentioned they include the anti-taus.. The number of showers generated by a tau neutrino conversion into a tau versus the shower energy is shown. Since the tau will most likely decay very close to the vertex where the shower was produced, we consider that 100% of the tau neutrino energy went into the shower. Also shown are the largest backgrounds, i.e., assuming there is no angular resolution and taking the background from full sky. The background sources will be discussed in the next section but as can be seen in this Figure – even in the worst case – the event rate is large and readily detected.

### IV.1 Background

The backgrounds for tau neutrino signature from Simpzilla annihilation in the Sun are produced by any interaction that generates a shower inside the detector. Showers associated with muon events are not considered because the long muon track should be distinguishable from the shower. Three channels are considered: CC interaction $`\nu _e+ne+X`$ and NC interactions $`\nu _e+n\nu _e+X`$ and $`\nu _\mu +n\nu _\mu +X`$, where n stands for nucleon. Sources of background neutrinos are produced either in the Earth or Sun atmospheres. The atmospheric flux of neutrinos is taken from volkova . An analysis of the difference between this spectrum and others can be found in als . The solar flux of neutrinos is taken from ingel .

The average energy loss in both CC and NC interactions is $`y=(1E_{lep}/E_\nu )`$ where $`E_{lep}`$ and $`E_\nu `$ are the lepton and neutrino energy respectively. For neutrino energies between 10 and 100 GeV $`y`$ is about 0.48 gradually decreasing to about 0.2 at high energies gandhi96 . At high energies the lepton gets about 80% of the neutrino energy. In CC interactions, the shower energy is the sum of all shower products, or $`E_\nu `$. In NC interactions, the shower energy is $`E_X=yE_\nu `$.

In Figure 7 we show the background rates compared to the Simpzilla signal. The differential shower rate weighted by shower energy is shown. We assume no angular resolution and no background reduction. Even in this worst possible scenario the signal can be detected for a large fraction of the Simpzilla parameter space.

Background reduction will be useful for detecting Simpzilla scenarios with low fluxes. At very high energy, tau neutrinos can be identified using the double bang signature pakvasa  and the zenith angle dependence fsaltz . The double bang signature looks for two showers inside the detector. The tau will travel a distance $`l_\tau `$ given by

$$l_\tau =\frac{E_\tau ct_0}{m_\tau }=\frac{(1y)E_{\nu _\tau }ct_0}{m_\tau }$$
(3)
where $`E_\tau `$ and $`m_\tau `$ are the tau energy and mass, $`E_{\nu _\tau }`$ is the tau neutrino energy, $`c`$ is the speed velocity and $`t_0`$ is the tau rest lifetime. If both showers occur inside the detector this double bang signature can distinguish the tau shower from other kind of showers. However for this technique to work not only do the showers have to be sufficiently energetic and separated to be detected individually but also they have to be contained in the detector. At 100 TeV, the double bang is only 5 meters separated and the two showers will be merged because in ice the scattering length of light is about 25 meters, and in water it is about 100 meters.

The second technique fsaltz  is related to the spectral zenith angle dependence. Above an energy of 1 PeV the Earth becomes opaque to electron and muon neutrinos. The tau regenerates, ie, the tau produced in a neutrino CC interaction will almost immediately decay back into a tau neutrino. Therefore the tau neutrino will have its energy degraded when going through the Earth but at high energies will not have its flux attenuated. The electron or muon produced in the neutrino CC interaction will be absorbed and the flux will be attenuated. The tau neutrino flux will have its energy degraded to the energy with which its interaction length is of the order of the diameter of the Earth (which we call transparency energy). In this way the tau neutrino spectrum will be a pile up of events around the transparency energy ($`100`$ TeV). Using these two characteristics fsaltz  the tau neutrino can be distinguished from the background by the pile up around 100 TeV. Also it will not have a zenith angle dependence since the flux will not be degraded. As the electron and muon neutrino have a strong zenith angle dependence fsaltz  one can use the flat tau neutrino spectrum as a signature.

It has also been proposed bck  that tau neutrinos above $`100`$ TeV will have their signature enhanced by the presence of anti-muon neutrinos and by anti-electron neutrinos.

The Simpzilla spectrum is softer than 100 TeV, so background reduction in this analysis must come from the shower properties. Backgrounds will quickly dominate below 1 TeV, if energy cuts are not possible. The IceCube energy threshold for showers is 1 TeV pdd . This threshold can be raised as needed to optimize the energy resolution. Some of the interesting models have many tens of thousands of events above this threshold.

Dimmer Simpzilla models will be accessible using angular constraints. Energetic showers are boosted along the production direction. Charged particles in the shower produce Cherenkov light at broader angles. This light is also scattered as it travels to the PMTs. Preliminary studies indicate that reconstructed shower directions have an RMS angular resolution of 30 degrees pdd . Figure 8 shows the reduction of the background by a 30 degree angular cut. One can see that this reduction will allow a broader Simpzilla parameter space to be probed.

### IV.2 Rate of current and proposed detectors

As mentioned in the previous section, the atmospheric background for Simpzillas can be reduced using a $`30^o`$ angular cut. The background from the Sun is irreducible but yet very low when compared to the Simpzilla signal (see Figure 8).

Although neutrino telescopes have poor energy resolution it is possible to set a lower energy threshold. To optimize the energy threshold of detectors with the goal of probing up to a confidence level (CL) a broader Simpzilla parameter space, we scale the signal to the background level for a fix set of Simpzilla parameters. This allows determination of flux limits and experiments sensitivity as described in Feldman and Cousins (FC) feld  and in pdg . In order to determine the optimum energy threshold the systematic uncertainty in the background for each detector has to be understood. This was estimated in als  and results in a 25% background systematic error for a km$`3`$ detector and 50% for the smaller experiments as AMANDA-II, ANTARES and NESTOR. The determination of the experiments sensitivity using the FC approach is described in als . Our results are shown within 95% CL. Table 1 shows the optimum energy threshold for the different experiments. The IceCube energy threshold applies also for an expanded version of ANTARES or NESTOR. The optimum energy threshold optimizes the background/signal ratio in order to be able to probe a larger Simpzilla parameter space region.

The signal and background estimated rate for the smaller experiments is found by reducing the rate by the same factor as for the volume reduction. The AMANDA-II detector has a geometrical volume of about $`16\times 10^3`$ km3 barwick , ANTARES antares  of about $`3\times 10^2`$ km3 and NESTOR nestor  of about $`9\times 10^3`$ km-3. It has been shown als  that for these telescopes the geometrical efficiency as a function of zenith angle varies between 100 to 90% for muons with a path length longer than 100 meters. This will be slightly different for showers but we will assume 100% geometrical efficiency for AMANDA-II, ANTARES and NESTOR detectors.

Figure 9 shows the Simpzilla parameter space to be probed by a neutrino telescope with km3 volume either in the South Pole (IceCube) or in the Mediterranean (an expanded version of ANTARES or NESTOR). The region excluded (hatched) is based on several experimental measurements stark  and the “low rate” region indicates where the neutrino flux is too low ahk . The lines show the region to be probed (above the line) within 95% CL. The solid line is for a km3 experiment with no background reduction and the dotted line including a 30o angular cut to reduce the background. The smaller experiments must use a technique to reduce the background otherwise they cannot probe a significant Simpzilla parameter region. The dashed line shows the region to be probed by ANTARES assuming a 30o angular cut. Among the smaller experiments it can probe the largest parameter space. AMANDA and NESTOR will be similar and their limits are between the ANTARES and full sky km3 detector limits. This figure also shows the parameter space (dashed-dotted) for a $`5\sigma `$ detection which assures discovery if Simpzillas are the dark matter. This limit is for a km3 volume assuming a 30o angular cut. ANTARES discovery limit is close to the km3 full sky limit.

In the most natural scenarios the Simpzilla mass is close to the inflaton mass ($`10^{12}`$ GeV) and Simpzilla–Nucleon cross section is close to the Nucleon–Nucleon strong interaction cross-section. As can be seen from Figures 8 and 9 these can be easily probed by neutrino telescopes of km3 volume. Also the smaller neutrino telescopes can probe a large region of the Simpzilla parameter space.

### IV.3 Neutrino Oscillations

There is strong evidence that neutrinos oscillate from one flavor to another. Superkamiokande sk  determines the most probable solution for the difference between the squared masses of the two neutrino mass eigenstates ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$) as $`3.5\times 10^3`$ eV2 and a large mixing angle for atmospheric neutrinos. It also favors muon neutrino oscillation into tau neutrinos sktau . SNO sno  has recently determined $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ to be $`5.0\times 10^5`$ eV2 in the large mixing angle scenario for solar neutrinos. Atmospheric neutrino oscillations will be important only below $`200`$ GeV as . This is below the energy threshold for the Simpzilla analysis and therefore has no effect in the background considered here. However neutrino oscillations might occur in the Sun and in transit to Earth and therefore affect the Simpzilla signature. One should note that the neutrinos from Simpzilla annihilation have energies much higher than the standard solar neutrinos. Oscillation of three neutrino flavors are analyzed in the GeV energy regime andre . One important result is that for some regions of the oscillation parameter space (which now includes three mixing angles) it is possible to have an enhancement of tau neutrinos detected in the Earth (when coming from the Sun) with respect to the number of muon neutrinos (or vice-versa).

Crotty crotty  analyses the effect of oscillations in the neutrino flux from Simpzilla annihilation in the Sun assuming fixed values for the three flavor oscillation parameters. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ is taken as $`3\times 10^3`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\xi =0.1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =0.5`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=2\times 10^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\omega =0.2`$. It is also assumed the “normal” mass hierachy where $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$. See crotty  for a description of these parameters. The result is that the tau neutrino estimated rate at the Earth and the tau neutrino contained rate in a km3 volume will be reduced while the muon neutrino event rate will be enhanced. It has also been shown bck  that secondary muon neutrinos (see section III) will enhance the muon neutrino flux by about 20% of the tau neutrino flux at the Earth. Taking both secondaries and oscillation into account, the tau neutrino and muon neutrino flux at the Earth become approximately equal crotty . The conversion rate in a km3 volume will also be approximately equal (with a slightly higher muon neutrino rate) crotty . The tau neutrino detected rate will then be approximately half of that without oscillations.

This reduction in the tau neutrino rate does not reduce the Simpzilla parameter space to be probed by neutrino telescopes which are also able to detect muon neutrinos. The region to be probed by tau neutrino detection would be reduced. The km3 with $`30^o`$ sky limit in Figure 9 would be moved to where the 5 sigma limit stands without oscillation. The ANTARES limit will move very close to the km3 full sky limit. The limit that will be most affected will be the $`5\sigma `$ which will also move close to the km3 full sky limit. However once oscillations are considered there will be a muon neutrino flux at the same level of the tau neutrino flux. As mentioned before (see section IV) the neutrino telescopes angular resolution is much better for muons (about 1 degree) than for the tau generated showers. This will reduce the background to a much lower level than for the tau neutrino analysis. As a result the Simpzilla parameter space to be probed is the same as without oscillations or even larger. This is subject of future work.

## V Conclusion

We have discussed the indirect detectability of dark matter by neutrino telescopes. The decay of secondary products of dark matter annihilation would generate a flux of high energy neutrinos.

We have argued that when current and proposed neutrino telescopes’ energy threshold and location are taken into account the detection of the neutralino as a WIMP is borderline. Most of the WIMP parameter space is inaccessible even in tens of years of observation. The parameter space which can be probed in 5 or more years of 100% live-time can also be probed by direct detection. These two different techniques will complement each other.

However if the dark matter is constituted by superheavy (mass

>

1010

>

absentsuperscript1010\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{10} GeV) dark matter (Simpzillas), most of the current and proposed neutrino telescopes can probe the most natural scenarios. In the most natural scenario, the Simpzilla mass is similar to the inflaton mass ($`10^{12}`$ GeV) and the Simpzilla–Nucleon cross section is the same as the strong interaction cross section ($`10^{26}`$ cm2).

Proposed detectors such as IceCube or an expanded version of ANTARES or NESTOR are able to probe Simpzillas to $`5\sigma `$ having a significant signal rate. Figure 9 shows the Simpzilla mass versus Simpzilla - Nucleon cross-section region to be probed. A 30o angular cut efficiently reduces the background without any loss in the signal rate. This cut allows most of the currently allowed Simpzilla parameter space to be probed.

If oscillations are taken into account tau neutrinos might convert into muon neutrinos. Crotty crotty  shows that under certain parameter assumptions this might reduce the tau neutrino detected rate by about a factor of two and enhance the muon neutrino detected rate. As these muon neutrinos can be detected, not only the Simpzilla parameter space to be probed will continue to be as shown in Figure 9 but it might even allow for neutrino oscillation studies.

The smaller neutrino telescopes, AMANDA-II and current versions of ANTARES and NESTOR, are able to probe a large fraction of Simpzilla mass versus Simpzilla–Nucleon cross-section parameter space.

As a final conclusion, although WIMP indirect detection of most models will take tens of years, current and proposed neutrino telescopes can either discover or rule out the most natural scenarios for superheavy strongly interacting massive particles in one year of full operation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Joakim Edsjo and Willi Chinowsky for comments. This work was supported by NSF Grants KDI 9872979 and Physics/Polar Programs 0071886 and in part by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098 through the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.