text:
# Solar Magnetic Field Profile: A Natural Consequence of RSFP Scenario

## 1 Introduction

Solar neutrino deficit has been strongly established in all the first generation solar neutrino experiments  and in the –already started– second generation experiments . The observed solar neutrino flux is considerably lesser than the standard solar model (SSM) predictions . This leads one to assume the non-standard neutrino properties. The recognised solutions to this Solar Neutrino Problem (SNP) –based on the nonstandard neutrino properties– are the the following: neutrino oscillations (Low MSW, VO-QVO and LMA MSW); neutrino magnetic moment solutions (resonant spin-flavour precession (RSFP) and non-resonant spin-flavour precession (NRSFP)) and the nonstandard neutrino interactions (NRIs). However the most pouplar solution to the SNP is the oscillation solution (LMA MSW), yet the recent (post-SNO) data equally favours the neutrino magnetic moment solutions . In the present work it is assumed that the RSFP  of solar neutrinos is solely responsible for the neutrino deficit. This scenario is based on the presence of non-zero neutrino transition magnetic moment interaction with the transverse solar magnetic field along the path of neutrino trajectory. If neutrinos are Majorana particles the RSFP converts $`\nu _{eL}`$ into $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu R}`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_{\tau R}`$, which are sterile for the chlorine detector but do contribute in Kamiokande/Superkamiokande and in SNO event rates through comparatively smaller neutral current cross-sections. RSFP of neutrinos can explain not only the solar neutrino deficit but also the apparent time variations (anticorrelation)  –not confirmed or disproved yet– of the solar neutrino flux with the solar magnetic activity.

Despite the unestablished argument of anticorrelation, there are several reasons which motivate RSFP and its conequences for solar neutrinos. In fact, different degrees of suppression  in the survival probabilities of the low energy (pp-neutrinos), intermediate energy ($`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$,CNO,pep-neutrinos) and high energy part of $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$-neutrino sector, is the inbuilt feature of RSFP. Furthermore, it has been found that the event rate fits for RSFP from the solar neutrino experiments are remarkably better than those for the best oscillation solution (LMA MSW)  whereas the fits for recoil energy spectrum in Superkamiokande are found nearly of the same quality as that of LMA MSW . By analysing the solar neutrino data within the framework of RSFP scenario it has been noted that the quality of data fit is very sensitive to the magnetic field profiles used . The strongest field intensity corresponds to the lowest survival probability and vice-versa. And in this way RSFP explains the general shape of probability, which naturally appears as a reflection of the field profile. Conversely, a particular shape of the magnetic field profile can be obtained from the scenario, as a reflection of solar neutrino data. The procedure –in the present work– of extracting the profile from the RSFP framework is more detailed and transparent than that has been done with the other authers .

In this paper, a rough estimate of the solar neutrino data  has been used for a qualitative analysis and thereby the field profile function is derived. And the effects on the shape of the profile on changing the neutrino parameters and the solar neutrino data have also been investigated. The paper has been divided in four sections. The solar magnetic field, at the present status, is briefed in section-2. In section-3 the derivation of the field profile from the RSFP scenario is achieved. And, the section-4 is devoted to the results and the discussion.

## 2 Magnetic Field in the Sun

Very little is known about the magnetic field inside the sun. Apart from the anormous success of the SSM in predicting the thermal and nuclear evolution inside the sun it does not through enough light on the solar magnetic properties. In the most realistic MHD model of regular magnetic fields in the convective zone, the main component of field is toroidal with opposite polarities in the northern and the southern solar hemispheres. The MHD models  do not exclude the presence of a significant magnetic field of few hundred kilogauss at the bottom of the convective zone (CZ). The convective field is somehow caused by the relative rotation of solar layers in the convective zone. At the sunspot maximum the surface field may reach $`10^310^4`$Gauss inside the spot and in the sunspot minimum the field falls below $`10^2`$ G. Below the surface to the bottom of the CZ the field cannot be measured directly except for an upper limit of 300 kG from helioseismological data . There are recent models  which argue that the field generation of about $`100`$ kG occurs in the shear layer near the bottom of CZ. A strong field of $`4\times 10^5`$G extending over $`3\times 10^4`$km at the bottom of the convective zone would force the CZ to extend deep enough to sufficiently distroy the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$ abundance though not completely destroying it during the $`4.5\times 10^9`$ yrs .

Below the bottom of the convective zone, the field could be large but the field response time due to plasma effect is of the order of $`10^{10}`$ yrs in this region . Such a field, if it exists, will remain frozen over the intire life history of sun. Parker, in reference  has shown that a field in excess of $`0.5\times 10^8`$G in the central core would be lost from the sun during its evolution as a consequence of its buoyancy. Unlike the CZ, the radiative zone (RZ) is not continuously mixed and rotates as a solid body. The properties of the magnetic fields in the interior of the sun has been investigated by some authers  by considering the poloidal nature of magnetic fields. According to a recent study by Friedland et al., a toroidal field of complex spatial structure can exist in the RZ .

In the absence of reliable knowledge of solar magnetic fields from the astrophysical observations it becomes worthwhile to extract the solar magnetic field profile from the solar neutrino data within the framework of RSFP scenario. However, the bounds discussed above can offer little help to constrain the magnitude of field in the solar interior.

## 3 Derivation of Solar Magnetic Field Profile

In the RSFP scenario –for Majorana neutrino flavours in the chiral basis ($`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\overline{\nu }_e,\overline{\nu }_\mu `$) –the neutrino propagation in the solar medium with a transverse component of magnetic field “$`B_{}`$”, can be described by a Schrodinger-like evolution equation

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \overline{\nu }_e\\ \overline{\nu }_\mu \end{array}\right)=H\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \overline{\nu }_e\\ \overline{\nu }_\mu \end{array}\right)`$ (9)
with the Hamiltonian matrix given by

$`H=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +a_{\nu _e}& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4E}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 0& \mu ^{}B\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4E}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +a_{\nu _\mu }& \mu ^{}B& 0\\ 0& \mu B& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta a_{\nu _e}& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4E}\mathrm{sin}2\theta \\ \mu B& 0& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4E}\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta a_{\nu _\mu }\end{array}\right),`$ (14)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$, $`\theta `$ is the vacuum mixing angle and $`\mu (=\mu _{e\mu })`$ denotes the transition (off-diagonal) magnetic moment. The diagonal magnetic moments are absent for the Majorana neutrinos as a consequence of CPT invariance. The matter potentials for a neutral unpolarised medium are given by

$`a_{\nu _e}=\sqrt{2}G_F(N_e{\displaystyle \frac{N_n}{2}}),`$
$`a_{\nu _\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}G_FN_n.`$
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant and $`N_e,N_n`$ are the number densities of electrons, neutrons, respectively, in the solar medium.

In the framework, the neutrino propagation is considered to be adiabatic except for a small region in the vicinity of resonance, where the two eigenvalues are the closest, there is a chance of nonadiabatic behaviour that the neutrino may jump from one eigenvalue to the other. This nonadiabatic effect is measured by the crossing probability between the eigenvalues. For ‘$`\theta `$’ vanishingly small, the spin-flavour conversion ($`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu )`$ is governed by the “$`2\times 2`$” submatrix

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_{\nu _e}& \mu ^{}B\\ \mu B& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}a_{\nu _\mu }\end{array}\right)`$ (17)
At resonance, the diagonal elements of the matrix are equal

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}N_e={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_e}{6}}`$ (18)
here $`a_{\nu _e}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{11}{6}N_e`$ and $`a_{\nu _\mu }=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{N_e}{6}`$ with the approximation $`N_nN_e/6`$. The equation can be further simplified as the following

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}}={\displaystyle \frac{5\sqrt{2}G_FN_e}{6}}`$ (19)
The electron density in the sun follows an exponential behaviour along the neutrino trajectory and is well approximated by

$$G_FN_e=2.151\times 10^{11}exp(r/0.09R_s)eV$$

where $`r`$ is the radial distance from the sun and $`R_s`$ is the solar radius. Now, by eliminating the factor $`G_FN_e`$ in eqn. (3), one can obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}=2.535\times 10^{11}exp(r/0.09R_s)eV$$
(20)
From equation (4), the resonance points in the solar interior can be derived as

$$r=0.09R_sln\left(\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}\times 5.07\times 10^{11}eV\right)$$
(21)
Assuming a linear density fall off along the nonadiabatic region, the crossing probability in the Landau-Zener approximation is given by

$$P_{LZ}=exp\left(\pi \gamma _{RSFP}\right)$$
(22)
Here, $`\gamma _{RSFP}`$ is the adiabaticity parameter

$$\gamma _{RSFP}=\frac{2\mu ^2[B(x)]^2}{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}\right)}0.09R_s),$$

which is very sensitive to the nature of magnetic field profile $`B(x)`$.
Here $`x=r/R_s`$, the position of the resonance points in the units of solar radius.

An approximate survival probability for neutrinos, when they all are assumed to be produced at the same point, can be obtained by using the analysis of Parke  as

$$P_{sur}=\frac{1}{2}+\left(\frac{1}{2}P_{LZ}\right)\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }_i\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }_f$$
(23)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_f`$ are the RSFP mixing angles at the beginning and at the end of the neutrino trajectory and are defined as

$$\mathrm{tan}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\frac{4E\mu B}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^22Ea_{\nu _e}(0)}$$

here $`a_{\nu _e}(0)`$ is the matter potential at the production point of neutrinos. When neutrinos are born far from the resonance and then pass through it, the mixing angles can be well approximated as

$$\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }_i\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta }_f1$$

and the total survival probability is given by

$$P_{sur}=exp\left(\pi \frac{2\mu ^2[B(x)]^2}{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}\right)}0.09R_s\right).$$
(24)
Now, using equation (4), one can eliminate the factor $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}`$ from the above equation as

$$P_{sur}=exp\left(\pi \frac{2\mu ^2[B(x)]^2}{2.535\times 10^{11}exp(r/0.09R_s)}0.09R_s\right).$$
(25)
And in this way, the desired field profile can be extracted from eqn. (10), as

$$B(x)=\sqrt{\left(\frac{5.07\times 10^{11}}{4\pi \mu ^20.09R_s}\right)}\sqrt{\left(ln(P_{sur})\right)}exp(x/0.18).$$
(26)
the profile can be further generalised as

$$B(x)=\left[B_\mu \right]\left[B_P\right]exp(x/0.18).$$
(27)
where $`B_\mu =\sqrt{\left(\frac{5.07\times 10^{11}}{4\pi \mu ^20.09R_s}\right)}`$ and $`B_P=\sqrt{\left(ln(P_{sur})\right)}`$.

## 4 Results and Discussion

The derived profile (12) is exponential in nature which shows a strong dependence on the exponential behaviour of the solar matter density distribution used in the derivation . The amplitude of the profile is a function of magnetic moment and the survival probability of neutrinos. However, the exponent of the profile is a function of “$`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$” and neutrino energy, “ E”. The effects of the neutrino parameters and the solar neutrino data on the shape of the profile has a detail study in this section. For a model calculation, the solar neutrino spectrum $`(15MeV)`$ has been categorised in three energy bands: low energy $`(0.42MeV)`$; intermediate energy $`(0.430.861MeV)`$ and high energy $`(0.86215MeV)`$. Assuming $`P_L;P_I;P_H`$ are the three central values of the survival probabilities corresponding to the three categories of the neutrinos, respectively. Now the field profile equation (12) can be rewritten as

$$B_1(x_L)=\left[B_\mu \right]\left[B_{P_L}\right]exp(x_L/0.18)$$
(28)
$$B_2(x_I)=\left[B_\mu \right]\left[B_{P_I}\right]exp(x_I/0.18)$$
(29)
$$B_3(x_H)=\left[B_\mu \right]\left[B_{P_H}\right]exp(x_H/0.18)$$
(30)
Assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=1\times 10^8eV^2;\mu _\nu `$=$`10^{11}\mu _B`$ ($`\mu _B`$ is Bohr magneton) and $`P_L=0.9;P_I=0.2;P_H=0.5`$ \[The pattern of survival probabilities taken has only a qualitative importance. However, this pattern is not supported by the recent global analysis ($`P_L>P_I>P_H`$)\]. The field distribution has been obtained for eqns. (13-15) and shown in figure 1.

The three patches of field –seen in the figure– are as a result of one to one correspondence with the three energy bands –assumed– in the solar neutrino spectrum. The first patch \[$`B_1(x_L)`$\] corresponds to the resonance points of the mildly suppressed low energy neutrinos; the strongly suppressed intermediate energy neutrinos reflect the magnetic field points of the second patch \[$`B_2(x_I)`$\] and the resonance points of the moderately supressed high energy neutrinos provide the field points corresponding to the third patch \[$`B_3(x_H)`$\]. The strongest field corresponds to the second (middle) patch is a result of large conversion of the intermediate energy neutrinos. And the moderate field in the third patch is reflected by the moderate conversion for the high energy sector of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos. However, unlike this, less conversion of low energy neutrinos couldn’t reflect a very weak magnetic field in the first patch because according to the eqn. (5) the low energy neutrinos resonate in the inner part of sun –region of higher matter density. So, larger field is required to compete with the higher effective resonance density in order to obtain small adiabatic conversion (10%) for pp-neutrinos.

The change in the value of neutrino parameters ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mu _\nu `$) proportionally scales the field amplitude in the solar interior.

The effect of the neutrino magnetic moment, for the same set of data and constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, has been shown in fig. 2. It affects equally all the three patches of the field. For small magnetic moment ($`\mu _\nu =10^{12}\mu _B`$) the field is increased by one order at all the points of the profile as compared to the field distribution for large magnetic moment ($`\mu _\nu `$=$`10^{11}\mu _B`$). So any change in the “$`\mu _\nu `$” scales the magnetic field strength at all the points by the same amount.

The change in the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ shifts the positions of resonance points of neutrinos –as can be seen from eqn. (5). The parameter ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$) appears in eqn. (12) in such –an indirect way– that it can only shift the field profile along the x-axis. The effect of its variation –for constant $`\mu _\nu `$ and the same set of data– on the field profile has been shown in the figure 3. In the figure there are shown three sets of the profile, which corresponds to the three different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. Set-I: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=10^9eV^2`$; Set-II: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=10^8eV^2`$; Set-III: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=10^7eV^2`$. For large value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ as the resonance points are shifted towards the solar interior thereby the field profile is accordingly shifted to the region. For a smaller value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ the profile is moved towards the surface and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^9eV^2`$ it extends beyond the solar surface as shown in the figure.

The amplitude strength of the magnetic field profile (12) is also sensitive to the solar neutrino data. The effect –for constant $`\mu _\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$– has been shown in the fig. 4. Here two arbitrary sets of data are used
Set-I: $`P_L=0.9,P_I=0.2,P_H=0.4`$
Set-II: $`P_L=0.8,P_I=0.001,P_H=0.6`$
It has been noted that the change of survival probability of any of the neutrino category, the field is scaled as a square root of negative of logarithmic value of the probability at the same point of the corresponding field patch. So for any variation of the solar neutrino data, only the amplitude of the profile gets affected.

In the present work, it has been noted that derived profile function is a hidden characteristic of RSFP scenario and it is the nature of function (e.g. exponential in the present case) which does’t depend on the solar neutrino observations and the neutrino parameters. The solar neutrino data can only constrain the amplitude of the profile and the neutrino parameters can only shift the profile or scale the field amplitude along the axes. The derived profile function is found to be strongly depending on the matter density distribution of the solar interior. Furthermore, the profile can exist –radially of course– in any part of solar interior. It is the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ which confirms its place inside the sun. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^8eV^2`$ the profile exists in the convective zone and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^5eV^2`$ the profile shifts to the radiative zone of sun. The relevance of this model work remains viable whether KamLAND  proves LMA MSW as a solution for SNP or not. As, if LMA is confirmed as a solution, even then RSFP can survive as a sub-leading effect. And if LMA is ruled out then the chances of RSFP to exist as a dominant solution can not be ignored. It is the next awaited experiment BOREXINO which will decide the fate of RSFP .

To conclude, the solution to SNP based on the neutrino spin flavour flip in the transverse solar magnetic field (RSFP) is appealing from the point of view of the data fits. RSFP can happen in the relic frozen/ constant field of radiative zone (see ref. and B.C. Chauhan et al. in ); in this way the generic consequences of RSFP in the convective zone of sun ( 11 years and semiannual variations of neutrino signal –which have not been observed) can be avoided. If RSFP is a true solution of Solar Neutrino Problem (SNP) it becomes more plausible to study the profile derived in the present work –from the inbuilt structure of the framework– rather to impose a profile from outside for the $`\chi ^2`$ testing. One of such excercises –of $`\chi ^2`$ testing– has been proved successful (see our paper in ), recently, where we have assumed this profile (12) existing in the radiation zone of sun. And, interestingly, this profile has been found as the best suited one –in the light of the most recent (post SNO) data.

Acknowledgements:
The author is grateful to E. Kh. Akhmedov for enlightening discussions and useful comments. The work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through the grant SFRH/BPD/5719/2001.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, maximally supersymmetric pp-wave (plane-fronted gravitational wave with parallel rays) backgrounds of supergravity theories in eleven- and ten-dimensions have attracted great interests. In , maximally supersymmetric backgrounds in eleven-dimensions were classified into four types; flat Minkowski space (and their toroidal compactifications), AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$, AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ and the super-pp-wave background. This super-pp-wave background in eleven-dimensions was reconsidered recently in . For the type-IIB supergravity, a super-pp-wave background was discovered in .111 For other dimensions see  and .  The type-IIB superstrings in this background were shown to be exactly solvable  in spite of the presence of the RR five-form field strength. This model is expected to provide some hints for the study of superstrings on more general backgrounds .

The Penrose limit plays a central role in these recent studies of the pp-wave backgrounds. It was known that any solution of Einstein gravity admits plane-wave backgrounds in the Penrose limit . This was extended to the solutions of supergravities in  and was studied in the context of the Wess-Zumino-Witten models in . It was shown that the super-pp-wave background can be derived by the Penrose limit from the super-AdS$`\times S`$ backgrounds in   and this was investigated further in . In addition, the full supersymmetry algebra of the super-pp-wave background of the type-IIB theory was shown to be derived by an Inönü-Wigner (IW) contraction  from the super-AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ algebra of SU(2,2$`|`$4) in . The Penrose limit was recognized to be important to explore the AdS/CFT correspondence  beyond massless string modes in . This line was pursued further in .

In this paper, we consider the Penrose limit from an algebraic point of view, which is coordinate-independent and manifestly supersymmetric. We show that the isometry superalgebra of the super-pp-wave background in eleven-dimensions is obtained from the super-AdS$`{}_{4(7)}{}^{}\times S^{7(4)}`$ algebras by IW contractions. The supersymmetries are maintained during contractions because the Jacobi identity of three supercharges holds for any values of contraction parameters. In section 2, the pp-wave algebra is derived from the AdS$`{}_{4(7)}{}^{}\times S^{7(4)}`$ algebras. This is extended to the maximally supersymmetric case in section 3. The last section is devoted to a summary and discussions.

## 2 PP-wave Algebra from AdS$`{}_{4(7)}{}^{}\times S^{7(4)}`$ Algebras

The AdS$`{}_{p+2}{}^{}\times S^{9p}`$ algebra, which is the isometry algebra of the AdS$`{}_{p+2}{}^{}\times S^{9p}`$ space, is given, in terms of dimensionless momenta $`P`$’s and rotations $`J`$’s, as

$`[P_a,P_b]=4ϵ^2J_{ab},`$ $`[P_a^{},P_b^{}]=ϵ^2J_{a^{}b^{}},`$
$`[J_{ab},P_c]=2\eta _{bc}P_a,`$ $`[J_{a^{}b^{}},P_c^{}]=2\eta _{b^{}c^{}}P_a^{},`$ (2.1)
$`[J_{ab},J_{cd}]=4\eta _{ad}J_{bc},`$ $`[J_{a^{}b^{}},J_{c^{}d^{}}]=4\eta _{a^{}d^{}}J_{b^{}c^{}},`$
where $`ϵ^2=1`$ for $`p=2`$ and $`ϵ^2=1`$ for $`p=5`$. It is understood that the obvious anti-symmetries of indices in the left hand side of equalities in (2.1) are to be implemented on the right hand side with unit weight. For $`p=2`$, this algebra is the AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ algebra with the vector index of AdS4, $`a=0,1,2,3`$, and that of S7, $`a^{}=4,\mathrm{},9,\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, for $`p=5`$, this algebra is the AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ algebra with the vector index of $`S^4`$, $`a=\mathrm{},1,2,3`$, and that of AdS7, $`a^{}=4,\mathrm{},9,0`$. We use the metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ with $`\eta _{00}=1`$ otherwise $`+1`$.

The symmetry group is SO$`(p+1,2)\times `$SO$`(10p)`$ which has a flat limit to ISO$`(p+1,1)\times `$ISO$`(9p)`$ by the following IW contraction

1. Rescale the translation generators $`P`$’s as

$`P_aRP_a,P_a^{}R^{}P_a^{}.`$ (2.2)
where $`R/2`$ and $`R^{}`$ are the radii of the AdS4($`S^4`$) and that of $`S^7`$(AdS7), respectively.
2. Then take $`R\mathrm{}`$ and $`R^{}\mathrm{}`$.

In this limit, $`P`$’s become the linear momenta and $`J`$’s are the Lorentz generators. For the maximal spacetime supersymmetry, $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ must satisfy

$`R=R^{},R^2=2\rho R_S^2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\rho }}R_{AdS}^2,\rho =\{\begin{array}{cc}1/2\hfill & \text{for}p=2\hfill \\ 2\hfill & \text{for}p=5\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.5)
where $`R_S`$ and $`R_{AdS}`$ are the radii of $`S^{9p}`$ and that of AdSp+2, respectively.

Besides the flat limit, as any other metrics, the AdS$`\times S`$ metric allows the Penrose limit  giving a plane wave metric. The Penrose limit can be understood as an IW contraction of the AdS$`{}_{p+2}{}^{}\times S^{9p}`$ algebra into the pp-wave algebra.

1. Define the light cone components of the momenta $`P`$’s and boost generators $`P^{}`$’s as

$`P_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(P_{\mathrm{}}\pm P_0),P_m=(P_i,P_i^{}),`$
$`P_m^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(P_i^{}=J_{i0},P_i^{}^{}=J_i^{}\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{ for }p=2\hfill \\ (P_i^{}=J_i\mathrm{},P_i^{}^{}=J_{i^{}0})\hfill & \text{ for }p=5\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.8)
where $`i=1,2,3,i^{}=4,\mathrm{},9,`$ and $`m=(i,i^{}).`$
2. Suppose the plane-wave propagates along $`x_+`$ time direction. The transverse translation and boost generators are rescaled with a dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as

$`P_+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}P_+,P_m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}P_m,P_m^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}P_m^{}.`$ (2.9)
3. Then take $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ limit.

To see them explicitly the AdS$`{}_{p+2}{}^{}\times S^{9p}`$ algebra (2.1) is rescaled, following to (2.2) and (2.9), as

$`[P_i,P_+]=2\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{R^2}}P_i^{},`$ $`[P_i^{},P_+]={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\sqrt{2}R^2}}P_i^{},`$
$`[P_i^{},P_+]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2P_i,`$ $`[P_i^{}^{},P_+]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2P_i^{},`$
$`[P_i,P_{}]=2\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}P_i^{},`$ $`[P_i^{},P_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}R^2}}P_i^{}^{},`$
$`[P_i^{},P_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}P_i,`$ $`[P_i^{}^{},P_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}P_i^{},`$
$`[P_i^{},P_j]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\eta _{ij}(ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2P_{}P_+),`$ $`[P_i^{}^{},P_j^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\eta _{i^{}j^{}}(ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2P_{}+P_+),`$
$`[P_i,P_j]=4{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{R^2}}J_{ij},`$ $`[P_i^{},P_j^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{R^2}}J_{i^{}j^{}},`$
$`[P_i^{},P_j^{}]=ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2J_{ij},`$ $`[P_i^{}^{},P_j^{}^{}]=ϵ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2J_{i^{}j^{}},`$
$`[J_{ij},P_k]=2\eta _{jk}P_i,`$ $`[J_{i^{}j^{}},P_k^{}]=2\eta _{j^{}k^{}}P_i^{},`$
$`[J_{ij},P_k^{}]=2\eta _{jk}P_i^{},`$ $`[J_{i^{}j^{}},P_k^{}^{}]=2\eta _{j^{}k^{}}P_i^{}^{},`$
$`[J_{ij},J_{kl}]=4\eta _{il}J_{jk},`$ $`[J_{i^{}j^{}},J_{k^{}l^{}}]=4\eta _{i^{}l^{}}J_{j^{}k^{}},`$ (2.10)
where we used relation $`R=R^{}`$ of (2.5) for simplicity. By taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ limit, the $`ϵ`$ dependence, which distinguishes the $`p=2`$ case from the $`p=5`$ case, disappears and (2.10) becomes the unique plane wave algebra in eleven-dimensions,

$`[P_i,P_{}]=2\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}P_i^{},`$ $`[P_i^{},P_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}R^2}}P_i^{}^{},`$
$`[P_m^{},P_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}P_m,`$ $`[P_m^{},P_n]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\eta _{mn}P_+,`$
$`[J_{mn},P_p]=2\eta _{np}P_m,`$ $`[J_{mn},P_p^{}]=2\eta _{np}P_m^{},`$
$`[J_{mn},J_{pq}]=4\eta _{mq}J_{np}.`$ (2.11)
This is the symmetry algebra of the pp-wave metric . The Poincaré algebra of ISO($`10,1`$) group is obtained by taking flat limit $`R0`$ in (2.11) and by making manifest restored symmetry generators such as $`J_{ij^{}}`$, $`J_{\pm i}`$, etc.

## 3  Super-PP-wave algebra from Super-AdS$`{}_{4(7)}{}^{}\times S^{7(4)}`$ Algebras

We extend the previous analysis to the supersymmetric case and show the maximally supersymmetric eleven-dimensional pp-wave algebra  is obtained by IW contractions of the super-AdS$`{}_{p+2}{}^{}\times S^{9p}`$ algebras. In this case the Jacobi identities of the superalgebra give a restriction on the radii of AdS and $`S`$, $`R_{AdS}`$ and $`R_S`$, as $`R_{AdS}=\frac{1}{2}R_S`$ for $`p=2`$ and $`R_{AdS}=2R_S`$ for $`p=5`$, as in (2.5). In eleven-dimensions, the supersymmetry generators $`Q_\alpha `$ are $`32`$ Majorana spinors. The gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ,(\mu =0,1,..,9,\mathrm{})`$, in eleven-dimensions are composed in terms of those of AdS4, $`\gamma ^a,(a=0,1,2,3)`$, and of $`S^7`$, $`\gamma ^a^{},(a^{}=4,5,..,9,\mathrm{})`$, or in terms of those of $`S^4`$, $`\gamma ^a,(a=\mathrm{},1,2,3)`$, and of AdS7, $`\gamma ^a^{},(a^{}=4,5,..,9,0)`$, as 222 For the gamma-matrices in four-dimensions, we use a Majorana representation for AdS4 ($`a=0,1,2,3`$) and a pseudo-symplectic representation for $`S^4`$ ($`a=\mathrm{},1,2,3`$) which satisfy, in both cases,    $`\stackrel{~}{C}=C,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^a=C\gamma ^aC^1,\{\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b\}=2\eta ^{ab}`$   and $`C\gamma ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_N}`$ is symmetric iff $`N=1,2mod4`$. For the gamma-matrices in seven-dimensions, we use a pseudo-Majorana representation for $`S^7`$ ($`a^{}=4,5,\mathrm{},9,\mathrm{}`$) and a symplectic Majorana representation for AdS7 ($`a^{}=4,5,\mathrm{},9,0`$) which satisfy, in both cases,    $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{}=+C^{},\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^a^{}=C^{}\gamma ^a^{}C^1,\{\gamma ^a^{},\gamma ^b^{}\}=2\eta ^{a^{}b^{}}`$   and $`C^{}\gamma ^{a_1^{}\mathrm{}a_N^{}}`$ is symmetric iff $`N=0,3mod4`$.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^a=\gamma ^a11,\mathrm{\Gamma }^a^{}=\gamma _5\gamma ^a^{},\gamma _5=\{\begin{array}{cc}i\gamma ^{0123}\hfill & \text{for }p=2\hfill \\ \gamma ^{\mathrm{}123}\hfill & \text{for }p=5\hfill \end{array}.`$ (3.3)
They satisfy $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \}=2\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$. The charge conjugation matrix $`𝒞`$ in eleven-dimensions is taken as

$`𝒞=CC^{}`$ (3.4)
where $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are the charge conjugation matrices for AdS4 ($`S^4`$) and $`S^7`$ (AdS7) spinors respectively.

The bosonic part of the super-AdS$`{}_{p+2}{}^{}\times S^{9p}`$ algebra is (2.1). In addition to it, the odd generators $`Q_\alpha `$ satisfy

$`[P_a,Q]=iϵQ\gamma _5\gamma _a11,`$ $`[P_a^{},Q]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵQ11\gamma _a^{},`$
$`[J_{ab},Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q\gamma _{ab}11,`$ $`[J_{a^{}b^{}},Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q11\gamma _{a^{}b^{}},`$
$`\{Q,Q\}`$ $`=`$ $`2C\gamma ^aC^{}P_a2C\gamma _5C^{}\gamma ^a^{}P_a^{}`$ (3.5)
$`2iϵC\gamma _5\gamma ^{ab}C^{}J_{ab}+iϵC\gamma _5C^{}\gamma ^{a^{}b^{}}J_{a^{}b^{}}.`$
The Jacobi identities are satisfied as long as $`ϵ^2=1`$ for $`p=2`$ and $`ϵ^2=1`$ for $`p=5`$. Hereafter, we choose $`ϵ=1`$ for $`p=2`$ and $`ϵ=i`$ for $`p=5`$, for presentation.

For the present purpose, we rewrite this superalgebra in terms of eleven-dimensional covariant gamma matrices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s, instead of $`\gamma `$’s. It is convenient to introduce following matrix

$`I=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}123}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}I=iϵ\gamma _511,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\hfill & \text{for }p=2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\hfill & \text{for }p=5\hfill \end{array}.`$ (3.8)
The commutation relations (3.5) for the super-AdS$`{}_{p+2}{}^{}\times S^{9p}`$ algebra are rewritten as

$`[P_a,Q]=Q\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}I\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,[P_a^{},Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}I\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{},[J_{mn},Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}`$
$`\{Q,Q\}=2𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu P_\mu +2𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}J_{ab}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{a^{}b^{}}J_{a^{}b^{}}.`$ (3.9)
Associating with the rescaling of $`P`$’s by $`R`$ as in (2.2) with (2.5), the dimensionless supercharges $`Q_\alpha `$ are rescaled as

$`P_aRP_a,P_a^{}RP_a^{},Q_\alpha \sqrt{R}Q_\alpha .`$ (3.10)
Corresponding to the rescaling of bosonic generators (2.9), the components of the supercharges must be rescaled with proper weights. To do this, we decompose supercharges $`Q`$ as

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`Q_++Q_{},Q_\pm =Q_\pm 𝒫_\pm ,`$ (3.11)
using the light cone projection operators

$`𝒫_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_0).`$ (3.12)
In order to obtain the well defined limit of the super-AdS$`{}_{p+2}{}^{}\times S^{9p}`$ algebra, the supercharges turn out to be rescaled as

$`Q_+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}Q_+,Q_{}Q_{}.`$ (3.13)
The super-AdS$`{}_{p+2}{}^{}\times S^{9p}`$ algebra (3.9), after the rescaling (3.10) by $`R`$ and (2.9) and (3.13) by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, becomes

$`[P_+,Q_+]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2ϵ^2}{2\sqrt{2}R}}Q_+I,`$ $`[P_{},Q_+]={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\sqrt{2}R}}Q_+I,`$
$`[P_i,Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}R}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,`$ $`[P_i^{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}R}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{},`$
$`[P_m^{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},`$ $`[J_{mn},Q_\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}`$
$`[P_+,Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Omega }^2ϵ^2}{2\sqrt{2}R}}Q_{}I,`$ $`[P_{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}R}}Q_{}I,`$
$`[P_i,Q_+]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2ϵ^2}{\sqrt{2}R}}Q_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+I\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,`$ $`[P_i^{},Q_+]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2ϵ^2}{2\sqrt{2}R}}Q_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+I\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{},`$
$`[P_i^{},Q_+]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2ϵ^2}{2\sqrt{2}}}Q_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^+,`$ $`[P_i^{}^{},Q_+]={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2ϵ^2}{2\sqrt{2}}}Q_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+,`$
$`\{Q_+,Q_+\}`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+P_++{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2ϵ^2}{R}}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}J_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2ϵ^2}{\sqrt{2}R}}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}j^{}}J_{i^{}j^{}},`$
$`\{Q_{},Q_{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}P_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{R}}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}J_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}R}}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}j^{}}J_{i^{}j^{}},`$
$`\{Q_+,Q_{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^mP_m{\displaystyle \frac{4}{R}}𝒞I\mathrm{\Gamma }^iP_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{R}}𝒞I\mathrm{\Gamma }^i^{}P_i^{}^{}\right)𝒫_{}.`$ (3.14)
It is important that negative power terms of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ disappear owing to the presence of the light cone projections. Therefore we can take the consistent Penrose limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ of the algebra to obtain

$`[P_{},Q_+]={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\sqrt{2}R}}Q_+I,`$ $`[P_{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}R}}Q_{}I,`$
$`[P_i,Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}R}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,`$ $`[P_i^{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}R}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{},`$
$`[P_m^{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},`$ $`[J_{mn},Q_\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q_\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn},`$
$`\{Q_+,Q_+\}`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+P_+`$
$`\{Q_{},Q_{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}P_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{R}}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}J_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}R}}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}j^{}}J_{i^{}j^{}},`$
$`\{Q_+,Q_{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^mP_m{\displaystyle \frac{4}{R}}𝒞I\mathrm{\Gamma }^iP_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{R}}𝒞I\mathrm{\Gamma }^i^{}P_i^{}^{}\right)𝒫_{}.`$ (3.15)
After the Penrose limit, all $`ϵ`$ dependence have disappeared. This reflects the fact that the super-AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ background and the super-AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ background reduce into the unique super-pp-wave background in the Penrose limit. In this way, we have obtained the super-pp-wave algebra from the super-AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ algebra and the super-AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ algebra.

Furthermore the flat limit to super-Poincaré algebra can be taken by $`R\mathrm{}`$ in (2.11) and (3.15), and by making manifest restored (bosonic) symmetry generators as was mentioned in the last section.

We have established relations of the maximally supersymmetric spacetime algebras in eleven-dimensions; super-Poincaré, super-AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$, super-AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ and super-pp-wave, by IW contractions of superalgebras.

## 4 Summary and Discussions

We derived the super-pp-wave algebra form the super-AdS$`{}_{4(7)}{}^{}\times S^{7(4)}`$ algebras in eleven-dimensions by IW contractions which correspond to the Penrose limits of the super-AdS$`{}_{4(7)}{}^{}\times S^{7(4)}`$ backgrounds. The differences between the super-AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$ algebra and the super-AdS$`{}_{7}{}^{}\times S^4`$ algebra, which are essentially caused from interchanging $`0`$-component and $`\mathrm{}`$-component, are shown to disappear after the contraction resulting to the unique super-pp-wave algebra in eleven-dimensions. A solution of plane wave is a function of $`x_+=t+x_{\mathrm{}}`$ and it is invariant under interchanging $`t`$ and $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$. The Penrose limit brings to such a plane wave space. This naturally explains why the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave algebra is unique in spite of the presence of two distinct super-AdS algebras in eleven-dimensions. This property will be deeply related to the T-duality discussed in . Supersymmetries are maintained during contractions because the Jacobi identities hold for any values of contraction parameters, $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and even for their limits $`R\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$.

It is noted that one can relate the super-pp-algebra, (2.11) and (3.15), to the one obtained in . To do this, we rewrite generators as

$`P_\pm 3\sqrt{2}e_\pm ,P_m3\sqrt{2}e_m,`$
$`P_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{9\sqrt{2}}{2\mu ^2}}e_i^{},P_i^{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{18\sqrt{2}}{\mu ^2}}e_i^{}^{},Q_\pm \sqrt{6\sqrt{2}}Q_\pm `$ (4.16)
where $`\mu =1/R`$. Under this, the super-pp-wave algebra (2.11) and (3.15) turns out to be

$`[e_m,e_{}]=e_m^{},[e_i^{},e_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{9}}e_i,[e_i^{}^{},e_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{36}}e_i^{},`$
$`[e_i^{},e_j]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{9}}\eta _{ij}e_+,[e_i^{}^{},e_j^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{36}}\eta _{i^{}j^{}}e_+,`$
$`[J_{mn},e_p]=2\eta _{np}e_m,[J_{mn},e_p^{}]=2\eta _{np}e_m^{},[J_{mn},J_{pq}]=4\eta _{np}J_{mq},`$
$`[e_{},Q_+]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4}}Q_+I,,[e_{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}Q_{}I,[e_i,Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,`$
$`[e_i^{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{},[e_i^{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{18}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},[e_i^{}^{},Q_{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{72}}Q_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},`$
$`\{Q_+,Q_+\}=𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^+e_+,`$
$`\{Q_{},Q_{}\}=𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}e_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{6}}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}J_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i^{}j^{}}J_{i^{}j^{}},`$
$`\{Q_+,Q_{}\}=𝒞\mathrm{\Gamma }^me_m{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\mu }}𝒞I\mathrm{\Gamma }^ie_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\mu }}𝒞I\mathrm{\Gamma }^i^{}e_i^{}^{}.`$ (4.17)
and is the superalgebra in  333 In the algebra given in , $`Q_+`$ and $`Q_{}`$ are exchanged in the commutation relations of $`[e_m^{},Q_{}]`$ and $`[e_m,Q_{}]`$. It apparently breaks the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-grading property which played the central role in the Penrose limit as explained in this paper. . Our presentation reveals the way to take the flat limit while the flat limit $`\mu 0`$ is not obvious in the form of (4.17).

The relation between the super-pp wave algebra and the AdS$`{}_{4(7)}{}^{}\times S^{7(4)}`$ algebra is useful for constructing mechanical actions of M-branes in the super-pp wave background. Any form field in the former can be derived from the corresponding form in the latter. This approach will make the (super)symmetry of the pp-wave systems manifest.


text:
# HIP-2002-15/TH Analytical and numerical properties of Affleck-Dine condensate formation

## 1 Introduction

The Affleck-Dine (AD) mechanism  provides a model for generating the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe in the framework of supersymmetry. In this scenario some squarks and/or sleptons acquire a large vacuum expectation value (VEV) along a flat direction (AD field) of the scalar potential of the MSSM during inflationary epoch. A baryon/lepton number violating operator is induced by new physics at a high scale together with a large C and CP violating phase, which is provided by the initial VEV along the flat direction. Together with the out of equilibrium conditions after inflation the three requirements for the generation of baryon asymmetry are satisfied . The AD field starts oscillating111Strictly speaking AD field is rotating if the condensate has a non-zero charge. Pure oscillation has charge zero. But in the literature the term oscillation has become standard. once its effective mass exceeds the Hubble expansion rate $`H`$. At the same time a baryon/lepton number violating operator produces a torque towards the phase direction which leads to a spiral motion of the VEV in the complex field space. This results in a baryon/lepton asymmetry in a form of spatially homogeneous condensate once the comoving number density of the AD particles is frozen at sufficiently late times.

The dynamics after the AD condensate formation is determined by the mass of the flat direction. This is essentially given by the soft SUSY breaking mass terms of the MSSM since the Hubble induced mass term is negligible at this stage. When radiative corrections are taken into account the mass term typically tends to grow slower than quadratically . This induces in the condensate a negative pressure and makes it unstable with respect to spatial perturbations. Due to the instabilities the AD condensate fragments into lumps of charge, which relax into Q-balls. Q-ball is a field configuration which minimizes the energy with non-zero charge . The fragmentation process is highly non-linear and has to be solved numerically. AD condensate fragmentation has been extensively studied in  where it was noted that the original charge of the AD condensate is stored in the Q-balls. It was also noted that the relative amount of Q-balls and anti-Q-balls is determined by the dimensionless ratio of energy per charge times the scalar mass, denoted as $`x`$ in this paper. For $`x>1`$ there appear anti-Q-balls in addition to Q-balls. If $`x1`$ the distribution of Q-balls approaches a thermal one . Therefore it is important to know the energy of the condensate in order to study the fragmentation process.

In this paper we calculate numerically the properties of the AD condensate: charge density in the comoving volume, energy-to-charge ratio $`x`$ and the pressure-to-energy ratio $`w`$ which gives the equation of state. When the charge density is known we can estimate the resulting charge-to-entropy ratio, which is known from nucleosynthesis calculations. This has been studied in . However, $`x`$ and $`w`$ have not been calculated previously. We find that generically $`|x|>1.1`$ in gravity mediated SUSY breaking models. For gauge mediated models the situation is more involved because the mass is almost a constant at the high energy scale. This effectively leads to a larger negative pressure which makes the energy of the condensate grow rapidly. This effect is also seen in the gravity mediated case but is much milder.

These same considerations apply to any extension of the MSSM. For the extensions there can exist flat directions which carry charges different from baryon or lepton number but the same considerations apply provided that their radiative corrections give a mass term that again grows slower than quadratically. Q-balls, which do not carry baryon or lepton number, could act as self-interacting dark matter .

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we review the main features of AD mechanism , calculate the pressure of a rotating condensate by extending the analysis of  for oscillating condensates, review the relevant properties of Q-balls and re-analyze the reaction rates to show that for large $`x`$ a thermal equilibrium is a generic feature. In Sec. III we give the details and results of the numerical analysis. In Sec. IV we give the conclusions.

## 2 General properties of AD mechanism

### 2.1 The evolution of flat directions

The potential for the flat direction is induced by the soft SUSY breaking mass terms, the A-terms of the MSSM and by the finite energy SUSY breaking due to the supergravity coupling of the flat direction to the inflaton superfield in the early universe. All these effects result in a potential of the form

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi })=V_m(\mathrm{\Phi })c_HH^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+(\frac{Am_{3/2}+aH}{dM_p^{d3}}\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }^d+h.c.)+\frac{|\lambda |^2}{M_p^{2(d3)}}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^{2(d1)},$$
(1)
where $`c_H1`$, $`M_p10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is a high mass scale which here has been chosen as the reduced Planck mass, $`d`$ is the dimension of the non-renormalizable operator that lifts the flat direction (we consider the cases $`d=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}`$) and $`\lambda `$, $`A`$ and $`a`$ are in general complex constants $`𝒪(1)`$. Here we make the difference between D- and F-term inflation : in the D-term case the Hubble induced A-term is absent, i.e. $`a=0`$, and in the F-term case $`a1`$. $`V_m(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is the mass term of the flat direction which, including the radiative corrections, in case of gravity mediated SUSY breaking  is

$$V_m(\mathrm{\Phi })=m_{3/2}^2\left[1+K\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2}{M^2}\right)\right]|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2,$$
(2)
where $`m_{3/2}1\mathrm{TeV}`$ is the gravitino mass, $`K0.1\mathrm{}0.01`$ when considering unstable flat directions and $`M(M_p^{d3}m_{3/2}/|\lambda |)^{1/(d2)}`$ is the associated renormalization scale . In the case of gauge mediated SUSY breaking

$$V_m(\mathrm{\Phi })=m_\mathrm{\Phi }^4\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2}{m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}\right),$$
(3)
where $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }1\mathrm{}100\mathrm{TeV}`$; in this case the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}<1\mathrm{GeV}`$. One should note that in order to have an AD condensate formation the parameters of the A-term are constrained: in the gravity mediated case $`|A|<d`$ and in the gauge mediated case $`|A|m_{3/2}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^7m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ when $`d=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$. If the condition in the gauge mediated case is not fulfilled, one just has to take the gravity mediated effects, Eq. (2), into account and the behaviour becomes of the gravity mediated type at the time of condensate formation.

We could also include thermal corrections to the potential, Eq. (1), as has been done recently . Their effect is of the same form as Eqs. (2, 3) if one replaces either $`m_{3/2}`$ or $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by the temperature $`Tm_{3/2},m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In principle one would have to include also the gravitational corrections in gauge mediated case, too, but since all the relevant quantities of the AD condensate are determined by the most dominant mass term we only have to pay attention to one mass term at a time in the simulations.

The main contribution to the evolution of the flat direction comes from the homogeneous mode whose equation of motion is

$$\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+3H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\frac{V}{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}=0.$$
(4)
It is easier to analyze the behaviour of the equations of motion by parameterizing the field by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\varphi e^{i\theta }`$, for numerical purposes in Section 3 the parameterization $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _1+i\varphi _2)`$ is used. Then one obtains

$`\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }\dot{\theta }^2\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\varphi }}=0,`$
$`\ddot{\theta }+\left(3H+{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }}\right)\dot{\theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\theta }}=0.`$ (5)
In order to understand qualitatively the behaviour of the equations of motion Eq. (2.1) we find the maxima and minima of the potential, which are achieved with the phase values

$`\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|A|m_{3/2}\mathrm{sin}(\theta _A+\theta _\lambda )+|a|H\mathrm{sin}(\theta _a+\theta _\lambda )}{|A|m_{3/2}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _A+\theta _\lambda )+|a|H\mathrm{cos}(\theta _a+\theta _\lambda )}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2n+b}{d}}\pi ,`$ (6)
where $`b=0`$ for a maximum and $`b=1`$ for a minimum.222Note that this is valid only if the denumerator is positive. If the denumerator is negative one has to switch $`b=0`$ for a minimum and $`b=1`$ for a maximum. This can be simplified for $`Hm_{3/2}`$ for which the phase minimum is at $`d\theta =(\theta _a+\theta _\lambda )+(2n+1)\pi `$, while for $`Hm_{3/2}`$ the minimum is at $`d\theta =(\theta _A+\theta _\lambda )+(2n+1)\pi `$. For $`Hm_{3/2},m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ one can solve the minimum for $`\varphi `$ approximately as

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}=\sqrt{2}\left[\frac{M_p^{d3}H}{2|\lambda |(d1)}\left(f(\theta )+\sqrt{f(\theta )^2+4(d1)c_H}\right)\right]^{1/(d2)},$$
(7)
where

$$f(\theta )=|A|\frac{m_{3/2}}{H}\mathrm{cos}(d\theta +\theta _A+\theta _\lambda )+|a|\mathrm{cos}(d\theta +\theta _a+\theta _\lambda ).$$
(8)
These will be needed for numerical simulations as the initial conditions.

Now we can analyze the AD condensate formation qualitatively by noting that the AD potential is analogous to potentials giving rise to a first order phase transition in the $`\varphi `$ direction and in the F-term case there is also a second order transition in the $`\theta `$ direction. However, in this case there appears no tunneling. In this case the Hubble parameter determines the behaviour of the potential, not the temperature as usual. During inflation the AD field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ settles to one of the symmetry breaking minima in Eqs. (6, 7) in the F-term case. In the D-term case the phase $`\theta `$ stays random and only $`\varphi `$ acquires a minimum value Eq. (7) . After inflation the Universe becomes matter dominated by virtue of inflaton oscillations and the Hubble parameter reads $`H=2/(3t)`$ so that the minimum, Eq. (7), evolves towards a lower energy scale. $`\varphi `$ evolves close to a fixed point value of the equations of motion Eq. (2.1) , which is slightly larger than the minimum (see Eq. (7)), and given by

$$\varphi =\left(1+\frac{9(d3)}{4c_H(d2)^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2(d2)}}\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}(t).$$
(9)
Eventually the Hubble mass term becomes equal to the mass term coming from soft SUSY breaking, Eqs. (2, 3), $`H_{pt}^2=V_m(\mathrm{\Phi })/|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$. At this scale the phase transition from $`\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}`$, Eq. (7), to $`\varphi =0`$ occurs and the AD field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ starts to rotate in the pit of the symmetry breaking minimum. For the gravity mediated case the phase transition happens when $`H_{pt}m_{3/2}`$. In the gauge mediated case it happens at $`H_{pt}2\mathrm{}5m_\mathrm{\Phi }|\lambda |^{1/(d1)}(m_\mathrm{\Phi }/M_p)^{(d3)/(d1)}`$, which can be calculated by noting that the logarithm is on the range $`10\mathrm{}100`$ for a large range of $`\varphi `$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. After a while the symmetry breaking minimum vanishes while the AD field continues its rotation in a spiraling orbit around $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. This is what charges up the condensate, the charge density of which is defined by

$$q=\frac{1}{i}(\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})=\dot{\theta }\varphi ^2.$$
(10)
The charge density in the co-moving volume asymptotes to a constant when $`H0.1H_{pt}`$. Fig. 2 shows the condensate formation. More on this in Section 3.

The subsequent behaviour is determined by the mass term of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In the original AD scenario  the mass term was given by $`V_m(\mathrm{\Phi })=m^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$ and the condensate decayed into $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-quanta. The evolution is however totally different if the potential grows slower than $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ as is the case considered in this paper. Then the condensate fragments into non-topoligical colitons called Q-balls .

### 2.2 Analytical properties of the AD condensate

The charge density, Eq. (10),is calculated using the second equation of Eq. (2.1) in the form $`d/dt(\dot{\theta }\varphi ^2R^3)=R^3V/\theta `$, where $`R=R_0(t/t_0)^{2/3}`$ is the scale factor of the Universe, giving approximately

$$qH^1\frac{V_A}{\theta }m_{3/2}\left(\frac{M_p^{d3}H}{|\lambda |}\right)^{\frac{2}{d2}},$$
(11)
where $`HH_{pt}`$ at the time of condensate formation.

When the condensate has been charged, we can approximately solve the equations of motion by neglecting all the non-renormalizable terms and the Hubble mass terms in Eq. (1) and retain only the mass term in the equations of motion Eq. (2.1):

$`\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }\dot{\theta }^2\varphi +C\varphi ^{n1}=0`$
$`\ddot{\theta }+\left(3H+{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }}\right)\dot{\theta }=0.`$ (12)
The second equation of Eq. (2.2) merely gives conservation of charge density in the co-moving volume $`Q=\dot{\theta }\varphi ^2R^3=const`$. In the first equation of Eq. (2.2) the derivative of the mass term has been approximated by $`C\varphi ^{n1}`$ (for the potential $`V(\varphi )\varphi ^n`$). For the gravity mediated case $`C=2^{|K|}M^{2|K|}m_{3/2}^2`$ and $`n=22|K|`$; for the gauge mediated case $`C=2m_\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ and $`n=0`$ can be used since the derivative of the potential has this behaviour for large $`\varphi `$. There then exists a fixed point solution (neglecting terms of order $`H^2`$ which is consistent since these terms there neglected in Eq. (2.2), too) with

$$\varphi =\left(\frac{Q^2}{C}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+2}}R^{\frac{6}{n+2}}.$$
(13)
This behaviour is exactly the same as was obtained for coherently oscillating condensates in . Eq. (13) gives $`\varphi R^{3/(2|K|)}`$ for the gravity mediated case and $`\varphi R^3`$ for the gauge mediated case. The usual method of analyzing the stability of the fixed point by calculating the eigenvalues of the matrix of the linearized equations does not work, because Eq. (2.2) are non-autonomous differential equations.

Another feature of coherent condensates with potential growing slower than $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ is that the condensate has a negative pressure . As a consequence it becomes unstable since the energy in a co-moving volume increases, as can be seen from the continuity equation

$$\dot{\rho }+3H(\rho +p)\frac{V}{t}=0,$$
(14)
where $`p=|\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}|^2V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`\rho =|\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}|^2+V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and the partial derivative of potential with respect to time appears, because the potential depends explicitly on time through $`H`$. However, after condensate formation that term is negligible, since $`H^2V(\mathrm{\Phi })/|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$. The equation of state for coherent condensates can be found by averaging $`w=p/\rho =2|\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}|^2/\rho 1`$ over a cycle of rotation as done for oscillating condensates in , so we want to calculate the time average of $`\frac{1}{T}_0^T𝑑t|\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}|^2/\rho `$ . The calculation can be done by noting that $`|\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}|dt=d|\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ is the arc length in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ space. Now we get for $`w`$

$$w=2\frac{\underset{C}{}d|\mathrm{\Phi }|\left(1\frac{V}{\rho }\right)^{1/2}}{\underset{C}{}d|\mathrm{\Phi }|\left(1\frac{V}{\rho }\right)^{1/2}}1,$$
(15)
where we are now integrating over the orbit of the AD-field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is exactly the same as was the case for pure oscillation in  except that now the integration is over a different orbit and the energy density is equal to $`\rho =V_{\mathrm{max}}+V_{\mathrm{min}}`$ (for pure oscillation $`V_{\mathrm{min}}=0`$). Usually the orbit is quite close to an elliptical orbit with a semimajor axis $`A`$ and a semiminor axis $`B`$ giving the arc length as

$$d|\mathrm{\Phi }|=\sqrt{1+\frac{B^2\phi _1^2}{A^4\left(1\frac{\phi _1^2}{A^2}\right)}}\frac{d\phi _1}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(16)
and the integration limits are $`0\phi _1A`$ ($`BA`$). Eq. (15) cannot be given in a closed form except in a few cases: for circular orbit $`B=A`$ from which follows that $`V_{\mathrm{max}}=V_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\rho =2V`$, giving the result $`w=0`$; for pure oscillation $`B=0`$ (no charge in the condensate in this case) when $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })|\mathrm{\Phi }|^n`$, giving $`w=(n2)/(n+2)`$ ; and if $`n=2`$ for all values of $`0BA`$, we get $`w=0`$.

Let us generalize the result of  by considering elliptical orbits in a potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })|\mathrm{\Phi }|^n`$. We can simplify Eq. (15) to depend only on the ratio of semi-major axes $`ϵ=B/A`$ (actually $`ϵ=\sqrt{1e^2}`$ where $`e`$ is the eccentricity of the ellipse)

$$w=2\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x\left(1+\frac{ϵ^2x^2}{1x^2}\right)^{1/2}\left[1\frac{\left(x^2+ϵ^2(1x^2)\right)^{n/2}}{1+ϵ^n}\right]^{1/2}}{\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x\left(1+\frac{ϵ^2x^2}{1x^2}\right)^{1/2}\left[1\frac{\left(x^2+ϵ^2(1x^2)\right)^{n/2}}{1+ϵ^n}\right]^{1/2}}1,$$
(17)
where a change of variable $`\phi _1=Ax`$ was done. When $`ϵ`$ goes from 0 to 1, the orbit changes from pure oscillation to circular rotation. At the same $`w`$ changes from $`(n2)/(n+2)`$ to zero. Thus for $`n<2`$ the pressure is negative. We have plotted in Fig. 1(a) the result of the numerical integration of Eq. (17) in the gravity mediated case. For pure oscillation the pressure has been calculated to be $`p\frac{K}{2}\rho `$ , which is negative when $`K<0`$.

For the logarithmic mass term of the gauge mediated scenario, Eq. (3), the calculation of pressure is more involved. If we approximate the potential as a constant, as was done in , we get for pure oscillation $`w=1`$ by putting $`n=0`$, thus yielding the smallest value of $`w`$ possible. With the logarithmic mass term we can evaluate $`w`$ numerically by making the approximation that the orbit is elliptical. (We shall see in Section 3 that the orbit of the AD field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not really elliptical but looks more like a rotating trefoil.) Thus we obtain

$$w=2\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x\left(1+\frac{ϵ^2x^2}{1x^2}\right)^{1/2}\left[1\frac{\mathrm{log}\left(1+D(x^2+ϵ^2(1x^2))\right)}{\mathrm{log}(1+D)+\mathrm{log}(1+Dϵ^2)}\right]^{1/2}}{\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑x\left(1+\frac{ϵ^2x^2}{1x^2}\right)^{1/2}\left[1\frac{\mathrm{log}\left(1+D(x^2+ϵ^2(1x^2))\right)}{\mathrm{log}(1+D)+\mathrm{log}(1+Dϵ^2)}\right]^{1/2}}1,$$
(18)
where $`D=A^2/(2m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2)`$. In Fig. 1 we plot the numerical results of Eq. (18) for several values $`D`$.

We have seen that for potentials that grow slower than $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^2|`$, the pressure is negative unless the orbit of the AD field is circular. In an expanding Universe a circular orbit for a spatially homogeneous condensate is impossible because of the dissipation. Therefore the energy density of the AD condensate in the co-moving volume increases. Thus the condensate is unstable and the most unstable orbit is purely oscillating orbit, where the charge of the condensate is zero. This feature was also seen in the simulation of Kasuya and Kawasaki , where they showed that there exist more unstable modes for pure oscillation compared to the circular orbit. This is the instability that causes the condensate to fragment. While it would be natural to expect that the condensate decays into $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-quanta, for potentials growing slower than $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ the minimum energy configuration is an ensemble of Q-balls.

### 2.3 Q-balls

Q-balls have the generic form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\varphi (r)e^{i\omega t},$$
(19)
where $`\varphi (r)`$ is a decreasing function of $`r`$. The value of rotation velocity $`\omega `$ and the form of $`\varphi (r)`$ depend on details of the potential. Note that a Q-ball is rotating circularly in the field space. Unlike for the coherent condensate, this is now possible because the Q-ball is spatially inhomogeneous. The different kinds of Q-balls considered in the literature can either have a narrow well-defined edge, in which case they are called thin-wall Q-balls , or their boundaries are not localized, in which case they are called thick-wall Q-balls . In this paper we concentrate only on thick-wall Q-balls.

Thick-wall Q-balls arise in supersymmetric theories with gauge and gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking . In the gauge mediated case the field value inside the Q-ball, energy and radius are are given by

$`\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{\pi }}}Q^{\frac{1}{4}}`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \sqrt{2}}{3}}m_\mathrm{\Phi }Q^{\frac{3}{4}}`$
$`R_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}m_\mathrm{\Phi }}}Q^{\frac{1}{4}},`$ (20)
where the profile of the field $`\varphi `$ is well approximated by a kink-solution . In the gravity mediated case the corresponding quantities are

$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0e^{\frac{r^2}{R^2}}`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2}Q`$
$`R_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|K|}m_{3/2}}}.`$ (21)
There is also the possibility having mixed Q-balls with both mass terms Eqs. (2, 3) of gravity and gauge mediated cases together .

The energy (mass) of the Q-ball has to be less than the mass of $`Q`$ free scalars i.e. $`E<m|Q|`$ in order to be stable with respect to decay into free scalars. For this reason the AD condensate, which is a spatially homogeneous rotating field, fragments into Q-balls and not to free scalars. The interesting cases for us are the thick-walled Q-balls.

### 2.4 Condition for thermal equilibrium

In  it was noticed that for large values of energy-to-charge ratio $`x`$ (or, to be more precise, for large $`|x|`$) the end product of condensate fragmentation is an ensemble of both Q-balls and anti-Q-balls. The total charge they carry is much larger than the total charge of the condensate: $`Q_++Q_{}Q_{tot}`$, where $`Q_+`$ ($`Q_{}`$) is the total charge carried by Q-balls (anti-Q-balls). This can be understood easily if both the total energy and charge are stored in Q-balls, as has been argued in :

$`E_{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐩𝑑Q(N_+(𝐩,Q)+N_{}(𝐩,Q))\sqrt{p^2+m_Q^2}}=E_++E_{}`$
$`Q_{tot}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐩𝑑Q(N_+(𝐩,Q)+N_{}(𝐩,Q))Q}=Q_+Q_{},`$ (22)
where $`m_Q`$ is given by Eqs. (2.3, 2.3) and $`N_\pm (𝐩,Q)`$ are the number distribution functions of Q-balls, which at this point are arbitrary. We approximate the integrals in Eq. (2.4) by replacing $`Q`$ with an average charge $`\overline{Q}>0`$ of a Q-ball and $`\sqrt{p^2+m_Q^2}`$ with an average energy $`\overline{E}`$ to obtain $`E_\pm \overline{E}(N_++N_{})`$ and $`Q_\pm \overline{Q}(N_+N_{})`$, where $`N_\pm =𝑑𝐩𝑑QN_\pm (𝐩,Q)`$. Then we can approximate the energy-to-charge ratio $`x`$ by

$$x\frac{\overline{E}}{m_{\overline{Q}}}\frac{m_{\overline{Q}}}{m\overline{Q}}\frac{Q_++Q_{}}{Q_+Q_{}}.$$
(23)
The factor $`\overline{E}/m_{\overline{Q}}`$ can be interpreted as $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1v^2}`$. For the gravity mediated case, Eq. (2.3), we see that if $`x1`$ then either $`\gamma 1`$, which would make the Q-balls ultra-relativistic, or $`Q_++Q_{}Q_+Q_{}=Q_{tot}`$, which indicates that the total charges of Q-balls and anti-Q-balls are much larger than the original net condensate charge. Since it is unlikely that massive particles with $`m100\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{}100\mathrm{TeV}`$ and $`\overline{Q}1`$ would be ultra-relativistic, there has to be a large charge asymmetry in Q-balls for $`x1`$. For the gauge mediated case Eq. (2.3) a large number of Q-balls and anti-Q-balls can be produced even if $`x<1`$, because Eq. (23) contains a numerical factor $`m_{\overline{Q}}/m\overline{Q}1`$ for $`\overline{Q}1`$.

Since the number of Q-balls and anti-Q-balls is large, it is likely that there are numerous Q-ball collisions, which rapidly thermalize the distibution. The condition for this to happen is that the collision rate of Q-balls is larger than the Hubble rate,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=n_{tot}\sigma v>H=\frac{2}{3t},$$
(24)
where $`n_{tot}`$ is the number density of Q-balls, $`\sigma \pi R_Q^2`$ is the cross-section of a Q-ball collision and $`v`$ is the average velocity of a Q-ball. Using Eq. (23) we can write the rate as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }x\frac{m}{m_{\overline{Q}}}q_{tot}\pi R_{\overline{Q}}^2\frac{v}{\gamma },$$
(25)
where $`q_{tot}=q_0(t_0/t)^2`$ is the total charge density with $`q_0`$ the initial charge density of the condensate at time $`t_0`$. In order to get the most conservative bound for the collision rate we approximate the average charge of the Q-ball, $`\overline{Q}`$, with the maximum charge of a Q-ball, $`Q_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Fragmentation of a $`d=4`$ condensate was considered by Kasuya and Kawasaki both in the gravity mediated  and gauge mediated case . They performed numerical simulations which begun at $`t_0=2/(3m_{3/2})`$ (grav.) and at $`t_0=\sqrt{2}\varphi _0/(3m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2)`$ (gauge) with initial charge density $`q_0=m_{3/2}\varphi _0^2`$ and found that the maximum charge of the Q-balls formed is $`Q_{\mathrm{max}}610^3\varphi _0^2m_{3/2}^2`$ (grav.) and $`Q_{\mathrm{max}}610^4\varphi _0^4m_\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ (gauge). The Q-balls are formed at $`t_f510^3m_{3/2}^1`$ (grav.)  and $`t_f510^5m_\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ (gauge) . Now Eq. (24) becomes

$$x\frac{v}{\gamma }>\{\begin{array}{cc}1\text{Grav. med.}\hfill & \\ 10^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{MeV}}{m_{3/2}}\right)\text{Gauge med.}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(26)
where we adopted $`|K|=0.1`$ and $`\varphi _0=(M_p^{d3}H/|\lambda |)^{1/(d2)}`$. Eq. (26) shows that for large values of $`x`$ the condition of thermal equilibrium is fulfilled without assuming any specific form of the distribution. If the Q-balls have a relativistic average velocity, $`v0.1\mathrm{}1`$, then even with $`x1`$ (grav.) and $`x<1`$ (gauge) Eq. (26) is fulfilled.

One should note that actually the condensate is not formed strictly at the initial times used in Eq. (26), which were taken from , but a little later, as can been seen from simulations in Section 3. For the gravity mediated case the formation time is approximately $`t_010\mathrm{}100m_{3/2}^1`$ and for the gauge mediated case $`t_010^5m_\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$. Thus the right-hand side of Eq. (26) is even smaller by a factor of $`0.01\mathrm{}0.1`$.

Another matter is the value of the average charge $`\overline{Q}`$. If we use a thermal distribution we get from  that $`\overline{Q}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^10`$ in the gravity mediated case. This is orders of magnitude smaller than $`Q_{\mathrm{max}}`$ so that the condition of thermal equilibrium, Eqs. (24, 26), is fulfilled self-consistently. It was also shown in  that even with a low energy-to-charge ratio such as $`x10`$ the thermal distribution is a very good approximation to the true distribution. In the gauge mediated case therefore the issue of thermalization of the distribution has not yet been checked in the existing simulations. The existence of thermal distributions has been established in the gravity mediated case for both 2 and 3 spatial dimensions .

The average velocity, $`v`$, is undetermined from these arguments. Energetically the existence of relativistic Q-balls is possible, since even with $`v0.1`$ we obtain $`\gamma 1.005`$, leaving Eq. (23) essentially unaffected. Only if $`v1`$ we obtain $`\gamma 1`$. Therefore it is natural to expect that Q-balls are relativistic.

We can calculate the absolute minimum of $`|x|`$ by treating $`\dot{\varphi }`$, $`\varphi `$, $`\dot{\theta }`$ and $`\theta `$ as independent variables to obtain

$$|x|=\frac{\rho }{m|q|}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta }^2\varphi ^2+V(\varphi ,\theta )}{m|\dot{\theta }|\varphi ^2}\sqrt{\frac{2V(\varphi ,\theta _{\mathrm{min}})}{m^2\varphi ^2}},$$
(27)
where we can approximate the potential, $`V`$, by its mass term alone. In the gravity mediated case this gives $`|x|>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.01}`$ (for $`\varphi /M=0.1`$ and $`K=0.01`$), and in the gauge mediated case $`|x|>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^3(10^8)`$ for $`d=4(6)`$. In practice these are not realized. Because minimum $`|x|`$ would require a circular orbit. In the next Section we will discuss the realistic values of $`x`$.

## 3 Numerical simulations

### 3.1 Details of the numerical simulations

We have simulated the evolution of the flat direction starting from the scale of inflation to the time of AD condensate formation. The numerical simulations were done by using routines for ordinary differential equations from the NAG library. We parameterized the AD field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as real and imaginary parts, rescaled the fields and time to be dimensionless and used logarithmic time in order to handle the scale difference between the scale of inflation and AD condensate formation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _1+i\varphi _2),\varphi _i=\left(\frac{M_p^{d3}H}{|\lambda |}\right)^{1/(d2)}\chi _i,z=\mathrm{log}(mt),$$
(28)
where $`m=m_{3/2}`$ in the gravity mediated case and $`m=m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the gauge mediated case. With a redefinition of the phase of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we put $`\theta _A=0`$ and $`\theta _\lambda =\pi `$ so that the minima are at $`b=0`$ in Eq. (6) i.e. $`d\theta _{\mathrm{min}}=\theta _a`$ for large $`H`$, when $`a1`$, and at $`d\theta _{\mathrm{min}}=0`$ for small $`H`$. The initial time is the end of inflation so $`z_i=\mathrm{log}(2m/3H_I)`$, where $`H_I=10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ was chosen. Because of the fixed point behaviour Eq. (9), the exact value of initial time is not relevant as long as the time, when rotation starts, is much larger than the initial time $`t_{rot}t_i`$. Then the equations of motion, Eq. (4), become

$`\ddot{\chi }_1+C_1\dot{\chi }_1C_2\chi _1+V_m^{}\chi _1+C_3(\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2)^{(d2)/2}\chi _1`$
$`C_4(\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2)^{(d1)/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|A|m_{3/2}}{m}}e^z\mathrm{cos}((d1)\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{2|a|}{3}}\mathrm{cos}((d1)\theta +\theta _a)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\ddot{\chi }_2+C_1\dot{\chi }_2C_2\chi _2+V_m^{}\chi _2+C_3(\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2)^{(d2)/2}\chi _2+`$
$`C_4(\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2)^{(d1)/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|A|m_{3/2}}{m}}e^z\mathrm{sin}((d1)\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{2|a|}{3}}\mathrm{sin}((d1)\theta +\theta _a)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (29)
where

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d4}{d2}}`$
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d3}{(d2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4c_H}{9}}`$
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{92^{d4}}}`$
$`C_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32^{(d4)/2}}}`$ (30)
and

$`V_m^{}=e^{2z}[1|K|\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_p^{d3}m_{3/2}}{|\lambda |}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)^{2/(d2)}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2}{2M^2}}]\text{(Grav.med.)},`$
$`V_m^{}=e^{2z}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_p^{d3}m_\mathrm{\Phi }}{|\lambda |}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^z\right)^{2/(d2)}(\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2)\right]^1\text{(Gauge med.)}`$ (31)
and $`\theta =\mathrm{arctan}(\chi _2/\chi _1)`$, $`c_H=|A|=1`$, $`|a|=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. We chose the renormalization scale in the gravity mediated case to be $`M=\left(M_p^{d3}m_{3/2}/|\lambda |\right)^{1/(d2)}`$ as was done in . However, we have also checked the results for larger values of $`M`$ that have been used in simulations all the way up to Planck scale . We comment on the differences when discussing the results. The initial conditions Eqs. (6, 7) in these variables read

$`\sqrt{\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|a|+\sqrt{|a|^2+4(d1)c_H}}{2(d1)}}\right)^{1/(d2)}`$
$`\theta _i`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}[\frac{\pi }{d},\frac{\pi }{d}],a0\text{(D-term)}\hfill & \\ \frac{\theta _a}{d},a1,\theta _a[\pi ,\pi ]\text{(F-term)}\hfill & \end{array}`$ (34)
We have restricted the initial phase, $`\theta _i`$ to this sector since changing the initial phase by $`\theta \theta +\frac{2\pi }{d}n`$ gives the same result for charge and energy of the condensate. The solution of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in another sector of initial conditions is achieved by a phase shift of $`2\pi n/d`$ from the sector prescribed.

### 3.2 Outline of the numerical results

Fig. 2 shows examples of the rotation of the AD condensate. In the gravity mediated case, Fig. 2(a), we see that the orbit is a spiraling ellipse and in the gauge mediated case, Fig. 2(b), a precessing trefoil. From Fig. 2 one can see that there is a twist on the orbit much before the rotation starts properly. This is the time of the phase transition, when the AD field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ starts to rotate in the pit of the symmetry breaking minimum. The rotation begins when the symmetry breaking minimum is the vacuum, ends when it has become a false vacuum and twists when the false vacuum has completely vanished forming a kink on the orbit. It is possible to produce a condensate through a second order phase transition, too, but the charge in that case would be small. It should also be noted that in the gravity mediated case condensate formation starts when $`c_HH^2m_{3/2}^2`$ for all values of $`d`$, $`A`$ and $`a`$. In the gauge mediated case the condensate formation starts at $`c_HH^2m_\mathrm{\Phi }^4/|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$, so that the formation happens earlier if the mass, $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is increased, as can be seen from the different positions of the kink in Fig. 2(b).

The quantities of interest are the charge density $`q`$, the energy-to-charge ratio $`x`$, the pressure-to-energy ratio $`w`$, the ellipticity of the orbit $`ϵ`$ and the decay of the AD field amplitude $`\varphi `$. The charge density contributes to the baryon-to-entropy ratio and is depicted in Figs. 3 and 7. The energy-to-charge ratio $`x`$, which gives the relative amount of Q-balls, anti-Q-balls and their kinetic energies, Eq. (23), is shown in Figs. 4 and 8. The pressure-to-energy ratio $`w`$, which gives the equation of state and indicates whether the condensate is unstable or not, is shown in Figs. 5 and 9, where we also show the ellipticity of the orbit $`ϵ`$ (the calculation of the average $`w`$ is technically somewhat problematic, because of the rapid oscillations). The of the AD field amplitude $`\varphi `$, to verify the proposed behaviour Eq. (13), is shown in Fig. 6.

We display the results for both D- and F-term inflation in the gravity and gauge mediated cases: we adopt dimensions $`d=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}`$ (gravity) and $`d=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$ (gauge). The gravitino mass in the gauge mediated case is chosen to be $`m_{3/2}=10^5m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ($`d=4`$) and $`m_{3/2}=10^9m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ($`d=6`$). The variation in $`m_{3/2}`$ only results in variation in the charge density and therefore affects $`x`$ inversely. In the gravity mediated case the oscillation of $`x`$ asymptotes at around $`t=100m_{3/2}^1`$. In the gauge mediated case there is no asymptotic behaviour but $`x`$ continues to increase steadily. Therefore in the gauge mediated case the quantities in the Figures are presented for different times.

We have summarized the values of $`q`$, $`x`$, $`w`$ and $`ϵ`$ in Table 1 (gravity) and Table 2 (gauge).

#### 3.2.1 Gravity mediated case, D-term

In this case $`a=0`$ and the mass term is given by Eq. (2). Initially the phase, $`\theta _i`$, is random and $`\varphi `$ is at the instantaneous minimum Eq. (7). The parameter values adopted are $`M=(M_p^{d3}m_{3/2}/|\lambda |)^{1/(d2)}`$; $`|A|=c_H=1`$; $`K=0.01`$ (and $`K=0.1`$); and $`d=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}`$.

In Fig. 3(a) we show the time evolution of the co-moving charge density, $`q(R/R_0)^3`$. One can see that it becomes a constant when $`H0.1\mathrm{}0.01m_{3/2}`$. In Fig. 3(b) the charge density in the co-moving volume is plotted against the different initial conditions. It can be seen that the charge density is positive for $`\pi <d\theta _i<0`$ and negative for $`0<d\theta _i<\pi `$. However, this behaviour depends on the values of $`c_H`$ and $`A`$. For instance, here we have chosen $`c_H=1`$ whereas in  the choice $`c_H=9/4`$ was made resulting in a negative charge density for some values $`d\theta _i<0`$. This comes about because the AD-field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ manages to rotate around the symmetry breaking minimum before it vanishes, thereby gaining phase motion in the opposite direction (we have verified this behaviour). Therefore the sign of the charge cannot be given generically for any range of initial conditions. Only the magnitude of the charge density can be given and is about the order depicted in Fig. 3(b). Typically the charge density lies in the range $`q(R/R_0)^30.1\mathrm{}0.6m_{3/2}(M_p^{d3}m_{3/2}/|\lambda |)^{2/(d2)}`$. This results in a charge-to-entropy ratio $`q/s0.01\mathrm{}0.1(T_R/m_{3/2})(m_{3/2}/|\lambda |M_p)^{2/(d2)}`$, where $`T_R`$ is the reheating temperature. Here we have assumed that the entropy density $`s4\rho _I/T_R`$, where the inflaton energy density is $`\rho _I3M_p^2H^2`$. For $`d=4`$ and $`m_{3/2}=100\mathrm{GeV}`$ this would require $`T_R10^9\mathrm{}10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}`$ if the baryon-to-entropy ratio, $`n_B/s10^{10}`$, is to be explained through AD mechanism. For $`d=6`$ we would obtain $`T_R10\mathrm{}100\mathrm{GeV}`$. These are of the same order as the results of  such that the radiative correction does not produce any significant variation.

In Fig. 4(a) we depict the time development of the energy-to-charge ratio $`x`$. One can see that $`x`$ oscillates strongly with a decaying amplitude and the overall behaviour is that $`|x|`$ increases. At $`t=100m_{3/2}^1`$ the oscillation amplitude has dampened enough such that $`x`$ is approximately a constant. In Fig. 4(b) we plot $`x`$ against the different initial conditions. There one can see that as $`d`$ increases, $`|x|`$ also increases. Roughly one third of the total range of the initial conditions were found to have $`|x|>10`$ while two thirds have $`1.1<|x|<10`$ (lower limit is the minimum value for $`d=4`$). Therefore more simulations for $`|x|<10`$ should be made to establish whether the thermal distribution is valid or not. If $`|K|`$ or $`M`$ are increased from the values used here, $`|x|`$ becomes slightly larger.

The oscillation of pressure-to-energy density ratio, $`w`$, is plotted in Fig. 5(a), which shows that the oscillation of $`x`$ corresponds to oscillation of pressure from positive to negative. The average pressure is slightly to the negative side, resulting in an increasing $`x`$. We have calculated the average $`w`$ in Fig. 5(b) at $`t100m_{3/2}^1`$ with different initial conditions. In Fig. 5(c) the ellipticity of the orbit, $`ϵ`$, is plotted to show that $`w`$ is more negative if $`ϵ`$ is small. However, it should be noted that $`w`$ achieves values which are more negative than the absolute lower bound coming from pure oscillation, see discussion after Eq. (17). Therefore we also show the average $`w`$ at $`t=300m_{3/2}^1`$ in the same figure. This behaviour might be due to $`V/t`$ in Eq. (14), whose contribution decreases as time evolves. It is also due to the rapid oscillation of $`w`$ that there are numerical inaccuracies in our calculations. However, we believe that this does not affect our main conclusions.

From Fig. 6(a) one can see that the amplitude, $`\varphi `$, decays as $`(R/R_0)^{3/(2+K)}`$ where $`K=0.01`$. We checked that for $`K=0.1`$ the decay of $`\varphi `$ tends to slow down. This is due to the fact that for $`K=0.1`$ the approximation of the mass term as a polynomial breaks down and in effect gives rise to smaller $`|K|`$. However, the effect is not significant unless $`M`$ very large.

#### 3.2.2 Gravity mediated case, F-term

In this case $`|a|=1`$ and the initial conditions are given by Eq. (3.1). There is however no practical difference with respect to the D-term case, only minor quantitative changes. In Figs. (3, 4)(c) we have plotted the charge density in the co-moving volume and $`x`$ to compare them with the D-term case. Charge densities are approximately similar for $`d=5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}`$ but for $`d=4`$ there is a difference. This is probably due to the nature of the fixed point Eq. (9): for $`d=4`$ it is marginal whereas for $`d>4`$ it is attractive . Now $`|x|`$ is slightly larger than in the D-term case, the minimum being $`|x|>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$. The orbits are also slightly more elliptic, as can be seen in Fig. 5(c) resulting in more negative pressure, see Fig. 5(b).

Table 1. Gravity mediated case

| $`d`$ | $`4`$ | $`6`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`q(R/R_0)^3/m_{3/2}(M_p^{d3}m_{3/2}/|\lambda |)^{2/(d2)}`$ | $`0.1\mathrm{}0.6`$ | $`0.1\mathrm{}0.3`$ |
| $`|x|`$ | $`>1.1`$ | $`>2.5`$ |
| $`w`$ | $`(0.05\mathrm{}1)|K|/2`$ | $`(0.2\mathrm{}1)|K|/2`$ |
| $`ϵ`$ | $`<0.5`$ | $`<0.2`$ |

#### 3.2.3 Gauge mediated case, D-term

In the gauge mediated case the mass term is given by Eq. (3). Now $`a=0`$. We have checked the cases $`d=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$ with $`m_{3/2}=10^5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^9m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`|A|=c_H=1`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100}\mathrm{TeV}`$. Here we have chosen $`m_{3/2}`$ such that a maximal amount of charge, and therefore the minimum value of $`|x|`$ is produced. If $`m_{3/2}`$ were larger, we would have to include the mass term of the gravity mediated case and the behaviour would effectively be that of the gravity mediated type already discussed.

In Fig. 7(a) the time development of the charge density in the co-moving volume, $`q(R/R_0)^3`$, is shown for $`d=4`$. One can see that it reaches its asymptote earlier for large $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The charge in dimensionless units is different for different $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is due to the fact that one cannot simultaneously remove the dependence on $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`m_{3/2}`$. The resulting charge density in the co-moving volume is $`q(R/R_0)^30.1M_pm_\mathrm{\Phi }^2/|\lambda |`$ for $`d=4`$ and $`q(R/R_0)^31000m_\mathrm{\Phi }(M_p^3m_\mathrm{\Phi }/|\lambda |)^{1/2}`$ for $`d=6`$. This results into charge-to-entropy ratios $`q/s0.1T_R/M_p`$ for $`d=4`$ and $`q/s100T_RM_p^{1/2}m_\mathrm{\Phi }^{1/2}`$ for $`d=6`$.

In Fig. 8(a) the time development of energy-to-charge ratio, $`x`$, is shown for $`d=4`$. One can see that there is no oscillation in the gauge mediated case in contrast to the gravity mediated case. $`x`$ increases faster, which is due to the behaviour $`\varphi R^3`$, see Fig. 6(b), which causes the rotation velocity $`\dot{\theta }R^3`$ to increase rapidly. In Figs. 8(b) and (c) we show the $`d=4`$ and $`d=6`$ cases. One can see that for $`d=4`$ one obtains $`|x|>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^2`$ whereas $`d=6`$ results in $`|x|>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^5`$ (for $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }=1\mathrm{TeV}`$, which gives the lowest bounds). If $`m_{3/2}`$ decreases, the charge density becomes smaller, thus making $`|x|`$, which is inversely proportional to charge density, larger. In a realistic case one should take the gravity mediated mass term, Eq. (2), together with the gauge mediated mass term, Eq. (3), for these borderline cases. This would increase $`|x|`$, so that the true minimum values are likely to be an order of magnitude larger. One should also note that in order for the AD condensate to form via the gauge mediation mechanism one requires $`m_{3/2}<0.1\mathrm{}10\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`d=4`$ or $`m_{3/2}<1\mathrm{}100\mathrm{eV}`$ for $`d=6`$. For $`d=4`$ condensate formation is quite possible, but for $`d=6`$ it is likely that a gravity mediated mass term must be included. Then it would appear that the AD condensate forms through gravity mediation, but the Q-balls via gauge mediated mechanism or via a mixture of these .

In Figs. 9(a) and (b) we show the time development of the pressure-to-energy density ratio, $`w`$, for $`d=4`$ and $`d=6`$. One can see that the pressure is always negative. The calculation of average pressure is even more involved than in the gravity mediated case, since the oscillation frequency becomes very large. In Fig. 9(c) we show the ellipticity as a function of different initial conditions. We note that quite generically $`ϵ<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.1}`$.

In Figs. 6(b) and (c) we display the time development of the field amplitude, $`\varphi (R/R_0)^3`$, for $`d=4`$ and $`d=6`$. Note that $`\varphi `$ is oscillating, thus confirming the $`R^3`$ behaviour derived analytically in Eq. (13).

#### 3.2.4 Gauge mediated case, F-term

Now $`|a|=1`$. This case is essentially the same as the D-term case, as can be gathered from Figs. 7, 8 and 9. Note again that $`|x|`$ is slightly larger compared to the D-term case while the orbits are more elliptical, as in the gravity mediated case.

Table 2. Gauge mediated case

| $`d`$ | $`4`$ | $`6`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`q(R/R_0)^3/m_\mathrm{\Phi }(M_p^{d3}m_\mathrm{\Phi }/|\lambda |)^{2/(d2)}`$ | $`0.1\mathrm{}0.6`$ | $`1000\mathrm{}6000`$ |
| $`|x|`$ | $`>10^2`$ | $`>10^5`$ |
| $`w`$ | $`0.9\mathrm{}0.8`$ | $`0.95\mathrm{}0.9`$ |
| $`ϵ`$ | $`<0.15`$ | $`<0.05`$ |

## 4 Conclusions

We have studied the evolution of the flat direction field starting from the end of inflation up to the formation of a coherently rotating Affleck-Dine condensate. The original studies  used a mass term $`V_m(\mathrm{\Phi })=m^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$. We have extended this to radiatively corrected mass terms both in the gravity and gauge mediated case. Typically in both of these cases the mass term grows slower than $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$. This is the reason why the pressure of the condensate is negative, thus making it unstable with respect to spatial perturbations. The other necessary requirement for a negative pressure was found to be the ellipticity of the rotation of the AD field: for circular orbits the pressure of a coherently rotating field is zero regardless of the potential. Negative pressure is largest for simply oscillating field. Its charge would be zero, resulting in an infinite energy-to-charge ratio, which would make the oscillating configuration the most unstable one. This can also be seen from the analysis of Kasuya and Kawasaki  for the growth of perturbation modes: for orbits close to the circular there is only one band of growing modes, but for an oscillating one there appear several growing modes.

We studied numerically the time evolution of various quantities, such as charge density $`q`$, energy-to-charge ratio $`x`$, pressure-to-energy density ratio $`w`$, ellipticity of the orbit $`ϵ`$ and the evolution of the AD field amplitude $`\varphi `$. As an initial condition the homogeneous field was chosen to be at rest at the ground state of the potential. Only the initial phase of the field was varied over all the possible values for both D-term and F-term inflation. We found that there is no qualitative difference between the two cases. We checked both the gravity mediated case and the gauge mediated case with the dimension of the non-renormalizable operators $`d=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}`$. (For $`d=4`$, $`K=0`$ our results agree with .) In contrast to  the energy-to-charge ratio, $`x`$, was found not to asymptote to a constant value. Instead $`|x|`$ follows an increasing curve due to negative pressure with a minimum $`|x|>1.1`$ in the gravity mediated case, $`|x|>10^2`$ for $`d=4`$ and $`|x|>10^5`$ for $`d=6`$ in the gauge mediated case. We should mention that the calculation of the average of $`w`$ is plagued with technical difficulties. However, the qualitative behaviour of $`w`$ is not dependent on these. We believe we have managed to check numerically that the ellipticity of the orbit really affects the pressure exactly the way indicated by the analytical considerations. In addition the field amplitude $`\varphi `$ was shown to decay $`R^{6/(n+2)}`$ for potentials $`V(\varphi )\varphi ^n`$, where $`n=0`$ would correspond to the gauge mediated case, which is in exact analogy to the coherent oscillation .

In conclusion, we have shown that the AD condensate is unstable due to negative pressure, which is caused by two effects: the potential growing slower than the field squared and the ellipticity of the orbit. We have also shown that after the fragmentation of the AD condensate the thermalization of the resulting Q-ball distribution depends on the energy-to-charge ratio of the condensate. In the gravity mediated case $`x`$ was found to be such that thermalization is likely to be a generic feature, as suggested by analytical considerations. The gauge mediated case is complicated by the fact that condensate formation can take place while the field is located in the part of the potential dominated by gravity mediated mass term, whereas Q-balls can be created by virtue of gauge mediation. However, as discussed Sect. 3.2.3, thermalization appears to be very likely also in this case.

### Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank K. Enqvist for discussions. This work has been partly supported by the Academy of Finland under the contract 101-35224.