text:
# 𝟖-Spinor Quantum GravityThis is a somewhat expanded version of an essay submitted March 31, 2002 to the Gravitation Research Society essay contest. This work was presented on July 24, 2002, at the Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences Summer Workshop on “Brane-World and Supersymmetry” in Vancouver, British Columbia.

## 1 The Spinfluid Flow: Dilation-Boost Current

We *derive* Einstein’s field equations here by recognizing Einstein curvature $`G`$ and energy-momentum $`T`$ as different expressions for the *same* flux—the “spinfluid current” $`3`$ form—and that these expressions must match on the *boundaries* $`B^4`$ of the worldtubes of massive particles. We then look at a patch of this boundary at a microscopic scale—where the matter current is resolved into a sum over null zig-zags.

What is essential to recognize first is that the macroscopic *energy-momentum* current $`T\left(x\right)`$ is the *Noether current of the spinor (matter) fields under the active local dilation/boost flow* $`\phi ^\alpha \left(x\right)`$ and that the *dilation current*, or *energy density*, is *centrifugally outward* in an expanding universe, $`𝕄`$ .

Conserved currents spring from *invariances*. We use Spinc-4, the complexification of $`\left(\text{Spin-4}\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$, as our isometry group on expanding, curved space, $`𝕄(T,S_3\left(T\right))`$; a family of space-like hypersurfaces parametrized by *cosmic time* $`T`$. After Sachs , we call $`E`$ the *Einstein* group. Cosmic expansion and boost-covariance demand that $`E`$ be *nonunitary*—i.e. have *Hermitian* $`\left(H\right)`$, as well as *anti-Hermitian* $`\left(aH\right)`$ generators.

Let’s view our spacetime $`𝕄`$ as filled with a spinc-4 fluid or *spinfluid:* an inhomogeneous distribution of $`4`$ spinor fields, $`\psi _I\left(x\right)`$, and $`4`$ dual spinors $`\psi ^I\left(x\right)`$. Suppose that each may be created from the homogeneous *vacuum* distribution $`\widehat{\psi }`$ by active-local Einstein ($`E_A`$) transformations , :

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi _I\left(x\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\zeta _I^\alpha \left(x\right)\sigma _\alpha \right)\widehat{\psi }_Ig_I\left(x\right)\widehat{\psi }_I\text{,}\\ \psi ^I\left(x\right)=\widehat{\psi }^I\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\zeta _\alpha ^I\left(x\right)\sigma ^\alpha \right)\widehat{\psi }^Ig^I\left(x\right)\text{;}\\ \alpha =(0,1,2,3)\text{.}\end{array}$$
(1)
In the $`PTC`$-symmetric *geometrical-optics* regime, the path-dependent phase shifts $`𝐝\zeta _I^\alpha \left(x\right)=𝐝\zeta _\alpha ^I\left(x\right)`$ are *complex:*

$$g^I𝐝g_Ig_I^1𝐝g_I=\frac{i}{2}𝐝\zeta _I^\alpha \left(x\right)\sigma _\alpha =\frac{i}{2}\left[𝐝\theta _I^\alpha \left(x\right)i𝐝\phi _I^\alpha \right]\sigma _\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_I\left(x\right)\text{.}$$
(2)
The $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I\left(x\right)`$ are the *spin connections* or *vector potentials*—the $`gl(2,)`$-valued $`1`$ forms that enter into the covariant derivatives of each spinor field:

$$_\beta \psi _I\left(_\beta +\mathrm{\Omega }_{I\beta }\left(x\right)\right)\psi _I\text{.}$$

The $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I`$ record the phase shift of each spin frame ,  in any direction at $`x𝕄`$ due to local sources—and of the global (vacuum) distribution.

Their path dependences, or *holonomies*

$$g^I\mathrm{𝐝𝐝}g_IK_I=𝐝\mathrm{\Omega }_I+\mathrm{\Omega }_I\mathrm{\Omega }_I$$
(3)
are the *spin curvatures*—the *fields*. Their *anti-Hermitian* ($`aH`$) parts are the $`u\left(1\right)\times su\left(2\right)`$ (electroweak) and $`su\left(3\right)`$ (strong) fields. Their *Hermitian* ($`H`$) parts are the *gravitational* fields; these measure the path dependence of the local *dilation-boost flow* $`𝐝\phi ^\alpha \left(x\right)`$ , .

A concentration of *mass* at Minkowsky-space position $`x(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)𝕄`$ *is* a localized $`4`$-momentum current $`𝐝\varsigma ^0\left(x\right)`$ propagating in the *cosmic time* ($`y^0`$) direction—which is not directly visible to us as dwellers in a spacelike (constant $`y^0`$) cross section.

However, $`y^0`$ enters kinematically ,  as the *imaginary* part of a *complex time* variable $`z^0x^0+iy^0`$. The imaginary parts $`y^j`$ of $`z^jx^j+iy^j`$ are the $`3`$-momentum density.

Now, if the phase flow

$$𝐝\varsigma ^\alpha \left(z\right)\frac{\zeta ^\alpha }{z^\beta }𝐝z^\beta +\frac{\zeta ^\alpha }{\overline{z}^\beta }𝐝\overline{z}^\beta $$
(4)
were *analytic,* it would obey the Cauchy-Riemann equations:

$$\frac{\varsigma ^\alpha }{\overline{z}^\beta }=0\frac{\theta ^\alpha }{x^\beta }=\frac{\phi ^\alpha }{y^\beta }\text{}\frac{\theta ^\alpha }{y^\beta }=\frac{\phi ^\alpha }{x^\beta }\text{.}$$
(5)
We could then detect the dilation current, or *rest energy,* by the *frequency*

$$\frac{\theta ^0}{x^0}=\frac{\phi ^0}{y^0}$$
(6)
of the matter wave, $`\psi `$. But *energy* is the Noether charge

$$_{B_3}\frac{}{\left(_0\psi _I\right)}\left[\frac{\psi _I}{x^0}\right]d^3V=\text{h}\text{ }\text{ }_{B_3}\left(\frac{\theta ^0\left(x\right)}{x^0}\right)e^1e^2e^3$$
(7)
under Minkowsky-time translation, and *is* proportional to the frequency (6), which we *can* detect! In quantum mechanics, the proportionality constant is h  .

But Q.M. is *incompatible* with general relativity (G.R.)—not only at small scales or high densities—but in the *vacuum!* The problem is that the divergent Q.M. vacuum energy would produce enough spacetime curvature to roll up our space to a point!

The *solution* is a fundamental theory from which both Q.M. and G.R. derive in different regimes. We illustrate below using a *Nonlinear Multispinor* (N.M.) model. In the macroscopic limit, we recover G.R. and in the microscopic view, the spinfluid flow resolves into a sum over null zig-zags—the Dirac propagator , .

## 2 Vacuum Energy in Spinfluid Models

Covariance of the Dirac equations in curved spacetime  rests on the local *spinorization maps* or *Maurer-Cartan 1 forms*

$$\begin{array}{c}Sq_\alpha \left(x\right)e^\alpha \left(x\right):e_\beta \left(x\right)q_\beta \left(x\right)\text{;}\\ \overline{S}\overline{q}_\alpha \left(x\right)e^\alpha \left(x\right):e_\beta \left(x\right)\overline{q}_\beta \left(x\right)\text{.}\end{array}$$
(8)
These assign local generators $`q_\beta \left(x\right)gl\left(2\right)_L`$, $`\overline{q}_\beta \left(x\right)gl\left(2\right)_R`$ of the “internal” Lie algebra to each spacetime increment $`e_\alpha \left(x\right)`$. These obey the *Clifford algebra* of $`𝕄`$:

$$\left[q_\alpha \overline{q}_\beta +q_\beta \overline{q}_\alpha \right]\left(x\right)=2g_{\alpha \beta }\left(x\right)\sigma _0\text{.}$$
(9)
The overbar denotes *quaternionic* conjugation (space, or $`P`$ reversal).

The covariant and contravariant tetrads are sums of *null tetrads:* tensor products of some fundamental $`L`$ and $`R`$-chirality basis spinor fields , :

$$\begin{array}{c}q_\alpha \left(x\right)=\sigma _\alpha ^{A\dot{B}}\mathrm{}_A\left(x\right)r_{\dot{B}}^T\left(x\right)\text{}q^\alpha \left(x\right)=\sigma _{\dot{B}A}^\alpha r^{\dot{B}}\left(x\right)^T\mathrm{}^A\left(x\right)\\ \overline{q}_\alpha =\sigma _\alpha ^{\dot{U}V}r_{\dot{U}}\left(x\right)\mathrm{}_V^T\left(x\right)\text{}\overline{q}^\alpha \left(x\right)=\sigma _{V\dot{U}}^\alpha \mathrm{}^V\left(x\right)^Tr^{\dot{U}}\left(x\right)\text{.}\end{array}$$
(10)
We consider the $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ basis spinors

$$(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)\text{}(r^{\dot{1}},r^{\dot{2}})\text{}(\mathrm{}^1,\mathrm{}^2)\text{}(r_{\dot{1}},r_{\dot{2}})$$
(11)
as the *fundamental* physical fields—the *inertial spinor fields* (I.S.). Dyads in the I.S. are the null tetrads, whose sums and differences make the (spin-1) spacetime tetrads. Products of these make the (spin-2) metric tensor.

In fact , , , all matter and gauge fields are *spin tensors:* sums of tensor products of spinors of *Left* and *Right-chirality* (handed-ness)*.* Outward and Inward *temporality* (dilation behavior), and Positive and Negative *charge* (temporal $`U\left(1\right)`$ current). This is the , ,

> *Spin Principle,* $`𝐒`$*:* *Spinor fields* are *physical*. All our observable covariants and invariants are sums of tensor products of spinor fields, and their gradient spinors.

Immediate implications of $`𝐒`$ are:

1. Our moving spacetime tetrads $`e_\alpha \left(x\right)`$ *are* the inverse images under (8) of *physical* increments $`q_\alpha \left(x\right)`$ and $`\overline{q}_\alpha \left(x\right)`$ in spin space.
2. Spinorization maps $`S`$ and $`\overline{S}`$ are implemented physically by the *spin connections*

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_L\left(x\right)=g^R𝐝g_L=\frac{i}{2}\left[a_\mathrm{\#}^1q_\alpha \left(x\right)+W_\alpha \left(x\right)\right]e^\alpha \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_R\left(x\right)=g^L𝐝g_R=\frac{i}{2}\left[a_\mathrm{\#}^1\overline{q}_\alpha \left(x\right)+\overline{W}_\alpha \left(x\right)\right]e^\alpha \text{.}\end{array}$$

The fundamental length unit $`a_\mathrm{\#}`$ is the *equilibrium radius* of the Friedmann solution . In the $`PT`$-symmetric ($`PT_S`$) case $`g^Rg_L=\mathrm{𝟏}_L^R`$, the electroweak vector potentials $`W_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{W}_\alpha `$ vanish. Then the counterpropagating spin-waves in (10) step off our spacetime increments. The spin connections *are* the tetrads!

For the stationery case $`𝕄_\mathrm{\#}𝕊_1\times 𝕊_3\left(a_\mathrm{\#}\right)`$, the spin connections are the left-invariant Maurer-Cartan $`1`$ forms that derive from the canonical maps of $`𝕄_\mathrm{\#}`$ onto $`U\left(1\right)\times SU\left(2\right)`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}g_L=\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{2a_\mathrm{\#}}x^\alpha \sigma _\alpha \text{}g_R=\overline{g}_L\text{;}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_L=\frac{i}{2a_\mathrm{\#}}\sigma _\alpha e^\alpha \\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_R=\frac{i}{2a_\mathrm{\#}}\overline{\sigma }_\alpha e^\alpha \text{.}\end{array}$$
(12)
Their right-invariant versions are

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }^L\left(𝐝g^L\right)g_R\text{;}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }^R\left(𝐝g^R\right)g_L\text{.}\end{array}$$
(13)
It takes tensor products of *all* $`4`$ chiral pairs of spinor fields in (11), or their gradients, to make a *natural* $`4`$ form—e.g. a Lagrangian density:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^4^8\text{,}$$
(14)
which must be invariant under the group $`E_P`$ of passive spin isometries in curved spacetime. The wedge product of all $`4`$ spin connections makes the $`4`$*-volume* form $`d^4V`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{\Omega }^L\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{\Omega }^R\mathrm{\Omega }_R\\ =\left(\frac{1}{16a_\mathrm{\#}^4}\right)\left|g\right|^{\frac{1}{2}}\sigma _0e^0e^1e^2e^3\text{,}\end{array}$$

where $`\left|g\right|`$ is the determinant of the metric tensor (9).

The *simplest* Lagrangian that is an $`E_P`$-invariant (conformal) $`4`$ form is the *topological Lagrangian*

$$_T\frac{i}{2}Tr\mathrm{\Omega }^L\mathrm{\Omega }_R\mathrm{\Omega }^R\mathrm{\Omega }_L\text{,}$$
(15)
the *Maurer-Cartan* $`4`$ form. Its action

$$S_T\frac{i}{2}_𝕄Tr\mathrm{\Omega }^L\mathrm{\Omega }_R\mathrm{\Omega }^R\mathrm{\Omega }_L=16\pi ^3N$$
(16)
measures the *covering number* of spin space over the “vacuum” $`𝕄𝕄_\mathrm{\#}\backslash D_J`$ outside the worldtubes $`D_J`$ of massive particles, and comes in topologically-quantized units .

Masses arise from the breaking of scale invariance. Elsewhere ,  we exhibit a “grandparent” Lagrangian density for both the *outer* region, where it reduces to $`_T`$, and the inner region, where it gives the Dirac Lagrangian, $`_D`$:

$$_G=i𝐝\psi ^{R_\pm }\psi _L_{}\psi ^{L_\pm }𝐝\psi _R_{}𝐝\psi ^{L_\pm }\psi _R_{}\psi ^{R_\pm }𝐝\psi _L_{}$$
(17)
(average over sign combinations in which each spinor field appears exactly *once*). This is the $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$*-spinor factorization* of the *Maurer-Cartan* $`4`$ *form*. Each field is expanded as the sum of its vacuum distribution and “broken out” perturbation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\psi _{L_\pm }\widehat{\psi }_{L_\pm }+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{L_\pm }\text{,}& & \psi _{R_\pm }\widehat{\psi }_{R_\pm }+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{R_\pm }\text{,}\\ \psi ^{L_\pm }\widehat{\psi }^{L_\pm }+\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{L_\pm }\text{,}& & \psi ^{R_\pm }\widehat{\psi }^{R_\pm }+\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{R_\pm }\text{,}\end{array}$$

where all $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ fields may be varied independently.

The outer solution turns out to be $`PTC`$-symmetric, with $`\psi ^{R_\pm }\psi _L_{}=1`$ . Inside some worldtubes $`B_4`$, chiral pairs of broken-out perturbations can *bind* to form localized $`PT_A`$, or *charged*, *bispinor particles* like

$$e_{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}\left(x\right)\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}\left(x\right)\right)\text{,}$$
(18)
which we identify as an *electron.*

The mechanism that endows such bispinors with *inertial mass* emerges in a remarkable way  from Lagrangian (17) , . Inside the worldtube $`B_4`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}`$ undergo *mass scatterings* , nonlinear resonances with “vacuum gratings” formed by the remaining $`3`$ *unbroken* chiral pairs; e.g. on $`𝕄_\mathrm{\#}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^3\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3\\ =\left(\frac{i}{2a_\mathrm{\#}}\right)^3\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3e^1e^2e^3\\ =\left(\frac{1}{2a_\mathrm{\#}}\right)^3\gamma ^1\sigma _0d^3v\text{.}\end{array}$$
(19)
The three vacuum spin connections $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^3`$ of (19) reconstruct the *spatial* $`3`$*-volume element,* up to a scale factor $`\gamma ^1`$, when inserted into Lagrangian density (17). Here

$$\gamma \left(T\right)\frac{a\left(T\right)}{a_\mathrm{\#}}$$
(20)
is the time-dependent radius of our Friedmann universe, in units of $`a_\mathrm{\#}`$.

Now here is the remarkable thing that happens. When pairs of “envelope modulations” like (18) are inserted into Lagrangian (17), along with the three vacuum fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^3`$ of (19), we obtain an effective *Dirac* Lagrangian $`_D`$ , coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}\left(x\right)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}\left(x\right)`$ via the effective mass term

$$\frac{1}{2a_\mathrm{\#}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\xi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}\stackrel{~}{\eta }^{}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}\right]\text{,}$$
(21)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }^{}=\xi _{}^Tiq^2\left(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}\right)^T\left[\mathrm{}^1r^{\dot{2}}\mathrm{}^2r^{\dot{1}}\right]\left(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}\right)^T\gamma ϵ$$
(22)
is the *conformal dual* spinor to $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}`$. Note that it is the product (22) of two *vacuum fields* that “dualizes” each perturbed envelope to create the *Dirac mass* term, (21). This is Mach’s principle in action. $`_D`$ gives the *Dirac equations*

$$\begin{array}{c}i\sigma ^\alpha _\alpha \stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}=\frac{\gamma ^1}{2a_\mathrm{\#}}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}\\ i\overline{\sigma }^\alpha _\alpha \stackrel{~}{\eta }_{}=\frac{\gamma ^1}{2a_\mathrm{\#}}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}\text{,}\end{array}$$
(23)
written with respect to intrinsic coordinates on our expanding Friedmann $`3`$-brane.

On a microscopic scale, “mass scatterings” off vacuum gratings (19) are what channel the “null zig-zags” of the Dirac propagator , ,  into a timelike worldtube $`B_4\left(\tau \right)`$. The electron mass

$$m_e=\frac{\gamma ^1}{2a_\mathrm{\#}}$$
(24)
turns out to be (half) the inverse of the equilibrium radius $`a_\mathrm{\#}`$, in the $`𝕄_\mathrm{\#}`$ reference frame. This must be divided by the scale factor, $`\gamma `$, to get the mass we measure in our dilated, intrinsic frame on $`M`$.

## 3 Matching Boundary Vorticity $`G`$ to Energy Flux $`T`$

The form of energy-momentum flux *inside* $`B_4`$ depends on the particle. But, the form of the *field* Lagrangian $`_G`$ outside the worldtubes $`B_4`$ is universal. This gives us enough information to match the integrals of the *outer field* $`3`$ form $`G`$ and *inner* *matter* flux \*T on the *moving* *boundaries* $`B_3\left(\tau \right)=B_4\left(\tau \right)`$, and thus *derive* Einstein’s field equations. The steps are these:

1. Write the total action $`S_G`$ as the sum of *field* terms *outside* $`B_4`$ (in $`𝕄_\mathrm{\#}\backslash B_4`$), and *matter* terms *inside*:

$$S_G=i_𝕄Tr\mathrm{\Omega }^L\mathrm{\Omega }_L\mathrm{\Omega }^R\mathrm{\Omega }_R+_{B_4\left(\tau \right)}_M\text{.}$$

where $`\tau `$ is a proper time parameter along the particles’ world tubes.
2. Transform the *field* term via integration by parts using the Bianchi identity

$$𝐝K=K\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }K\text{.}$$

The result is

$$\begin{array}{c}S_G=i_𝕄TrK_LK_R+Tr\mathrm{\Omega }_L\left(K_L+K_R\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_R\\ i_{B_4\left(\tau \right)}Tr\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_LK_RK_L\mathrm{\Omega }_R\right]\text{.}\end{array}$$
(25)
The first and second terms are chiral versions of the electroweak$`\backslash `$strong and gravitational field actions , .

But it is the third term—the *boundary integral*—that couples fields to source currents in the next steps.

1. Rewrite the boundary integral in terms of the matrix-valued *spacetime curvature* $`2`$ form

$$_\alpha ^\beta R_{\alpha \gamma \delta }^\beta e^\gamma e^\delta \text{.}$$
(26)
$``$ accepts an area element and returns the holonomy *(rotation)* matrix around it, with matrix elements $`_\alpha ^\beta `$.
2. Rewrite all spacetime vectors as Clifford ($`C`$) vectors, using spinorization maps (8). Now re-express the $`PT_S`$ spacetime curvature matrix on a basis $`C`$ vector in terms of $`C`$ vectors multiplying the $`C`$ vector-valued *spin-curvature* $`2`$ forms

$$_\alpha ^\beta q_\beta =q_\alpha K_RK_L\overline{q}_\alpha \text{.}$$
(27)
3. Using Cartan’s $`C`$ vector-valued $`1`$ form

$$𝐝q\left(x\right)𝐝\left(q_\alpha x^\alpha \right)q_\alpha e^\alpha \text{,}$$
(28)
recognize Wheeler’s  “moment of rotation tensor” as the $`C`$ vector-valued $`3`$ form

$$G𝐝q=2ia_\mathrm{\#}[\mathrm{\Omega }_LK_RK_L\mathrm{\Omega }_R]\text{.}$$
(29)
This is the *integrand* in the *outer form* of the boundary integral in (25)!
4. The *inner* form of the boundary integral is the energy-momentum $`𝒫^\alpha `$ inside the worldtube $`B_4`$ of a moving particle. Detect this by displacing $`B_4`$ by $`t=x^\alpha `$ and rewriting the change in the action as a *surface* integral of the $`3`$ form *flux* $`T^\alpha `$ across the moving boundary $`B_4\left(t\right)`$:

$$𝒫^\alpha \left(t\right)_{B_4\left(t\right)}T^\alpha \text{.}$$
(30)
Here

$$T^\alpha [\left(\frac{}{\left(_\alpha \psi _I\right)}\right)_\beta \psi _I\delta _\beta ^\alpha ]e^\beta $$
(31)
is the *energy-momentum* *density*—the Noether current under *active* translation in the $`e_\alpha `$ direction. Taking $`t=\tau `$, the proper time along a particles worldline, (30) gives $`𝒫_0\left(\tau \right)`$, the *energy* contained in the particle’s support $`B_3\left(\tau \right)`$, i.e. its *rest mass*. For the Dirac Lagrangian $`_D`$, we recover the *frequency* from (31),

$$𝒫_0\left(\tau \right)_{B_3\left(\tau \right)}\left(\frac{\theta ^0}{x^0}\right)(\tau ,𝐱)e^1e^2e^3.$$
(32)
5. Finally, equate the inner and outer expressions on the moving boundary

$$B_4\left(t\right)B_3\left(t\right)B_3\left(0\right)+S_2\times I\left(t\right)$$

of the worldtube of a particle in an external field to obtain:

$$_{B_3\left(t\right)}G=4a_\mathrm{\#}^2_{B_3\left(t\right)}TG=4a_\mathrm{\#}^2T\text{,}$$
(33)
since both integrals must be Lorenz-covariant. These are Einstein’s field equations , with a gravitational constant of

$$\kappa =\frac{a_\mathrm{\#}^2}{2\pi ^2}\text{.}$$
(34)

Using a *spinfluid model*, we have seen how vorticity $`G`$ arises on the boundary of each energy-momentum current $`T`$. Neighboring centrifugal currents (masses) present *opposite* radiotemporal vorticities $`G_{or}`$ to each other’s worldtube boundaries—and therefore *attract* (or *advect*, like hydrodynamic vortices ). Spinfluid models give a *mechanism* for gravitation.

The power of such theories to determine some “constants of nature” also makes them *falsifiable.* For example, relations (24) and (34) give the value

$$\kappa m_e^2=\frac{\gamma ^2}{8\pi ^2}\left(T\right)$$
(35)
for the dimensionless constant that measures the ratio of gravitational to electromagnetic forces between electrons on our Friedmann $`3`$-brane, $`S_3\left(a\left(T\right)\right)`$. This would match the value observed today with an expansion factor of $`\gamma 10^{20}`$.

## 4 Quantum Gravity from Null Zig-Zags

Recall  that quantum field theory is statistical mechanics in imaginary time. Cosmic time $`Ty^0`$ enters kinematically as the *imaginary* part of a complex time variable $`z^0x^0+iy^0`$ in spinfluid models. A stochastic version of our model in which the classical action is replaced by a statistical propagator—the sum over null zig-zags—gives a theory of quantum gravity, *provided* that the *vacuum fields* that do the mass scatterings are also modelled statistically.

The advantage of such *quantum spinfluid* models is that there are no divergences built in, so we don’t have to worry about unbounded vacuum energies rolling up our space to a point. The vacuum energy—or *dark energy*—is simply the energy of the homogeneous distribution of spinor fields $`\{\widehat{\psi }_I,\widehat{\psi }^I\}`$ on which the matter gauge fields ride like waves in the ocean.

Microscopically, the chiral pairs of matter fields that break away from this geometrical-optics flow resolve into a lightlike mesh of null zig-zags, confined to timelike worldtubes $`B_4`$ , . These may propagate “forward” (centrifugally outward, i.e. with the direction of cosmic expansion) or “backward” (inward).

Spinor fields are *lightlike:* their phases $`\zeta ^\alpha \left(z\right)`$ or $`\zeta ^\alpha \left(\overline{z}\right)`$ may propagate *only* along segments of forward characteristics $`\gamma _+`$ or backward characteristics $`\gamma _{}`$*.* The propagator for a chiral bispinor particle, a massive Dirac wavefunction , , must therefore be a sum over *null zig-zags* of $`L`$-chirality *zigs* and $`R`$-chirality *zags;* forward and backward envelopes $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{},\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{})`$ with *mass scatterings*—nonlinear resonances with the remaining 4 vacuum fields—at each corner.

Now suppose our expanding spatial $`3`$-brane $`S_3\left(T\right)`$ passes through a vertex where a forward zig is scattered into a backward zag, by a tensor product nonlinearity , . In our spacetime slice, we see the spin-1 component

$$\gamma ^{}=\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }^+\text{,}$$

a ($`r`$-helicity) photon.

The 4 spinor fields whose phases $`\zeta ^\alpha \theta ^\alpha i\phi ^\alpha `$ propagate along *forward* characteristics

$$\gamma _+\left(\tau \right):dy^0=+dx^0=d\tau $$
(36)
are called *analytic:*

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\zeta ^\alpha }{\overline{z}^\beta }=0\frac{\phi ^\alpha }{y^\beta }=\frac{\theta ^\alpha }{x^\beta }\text{;}\\ \frac{\theta ^\alpha }{y^\beta }=+1\frac{\phi ^\alpha }{x^\beta }=\left[\frac{𝐝y^\gamma }{𝐝x^\beta }\right]\frac{\phi ^\alpha }{y^\gamma }\text{;}\end{array}$$
(37)
the Cauchy-Riemann (C.R.) equations in $`z^\beta `$. The remaining 4 spinor fields are *conjugate analytic,* i.e. we must replace $`\overline{z}^\beta `$ with $`z^\beta `$ in (37), to get $`4`$ conjugate C.R. equations.

The C.R. and conjugate C.R. equations relate the $`u\left(1\right)\times su\left(2\right)`$ phases $`\theta ^\alpha `$ and their complexifications $`\phi ^\alpha `$, given in terms of polar coordinates $`(x^0,x^j)`$ on $`𝕄_\mathrm{\#}𝕊_1\times 𝕊_3`$ to their conjugate momenta, $`(y^0,y^j)`$. These analyticity conditions justify *Wick rotation,* which translates the statistical mechanics of null zig-zags in *Euclidean spacetime* $`(y^0,𝐱)𝕄`$ to Feynman integrals in (compactified) Minkowsky space $`(x^0,𝐱)𝕄_\mathrm{\#}`$.

These mass scatterings are the vertices in a Riemann sum for the action, $`S_G`$, for a massive particle. This becomes clear when we

1. re-express $`S_G`$ with respect to *null tetrads* on $`𝕄`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}e^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(e^1\pm ie^2\right)\\ e^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(e^0\pm e^3\right)\text{.}\end{array}$$
(38)
2. write Riemann sums for $`S_G`$ with respect to a null lattice (e.g. with spacing $`a_\mathrm{\#}`$ on $`𝕄`$), $`N`$, stepped off by these.
3. notice that, in order for a lattice point to contribute to the action, the Lagrangian there must have a scalar $`\left(\sigma _0\right)`$, or spin-0 component. We call this a *nonlinear* $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$*-spinor resonance* between $`J`$ chiral pairs of broken-out matter fields and $`\left(4J\right)`$ vacuum pairs. The action in the N.M. model is a sum of contributions from every such resonance in the null lattice, and the propagator is the sum over all null zig-zag paths that connect the initial and final point. In this sense, this N.M. model is innately quantum mechanical, and does not need to be “quantized.”

Furthermore, it is the minimal model with a $`1`$-term, passive-Einstein ($`E_P`$)-invariant topological Lagrangian, because:

1. It takes the intersection of $`4`$ null cones to determine a point on $`𝕄`$.
2. Each is generated, via $`S^1`$ of (8), by the tensor product (10) of $`2`$ spinor fields.
3. For symplectic invariance, $``$ must contain $`4`$ spinors and $`4`$ gradients.
4. Under $`PTC`$, $``$ reduces to the Maurer-Cartan (M.C.) $`4`$ form, which measures the covering number of $`U\left(1\right)\times SU\left(2\right)`$ over our (compactified) spacetime manifold.

I don’t know how our N.M. model compares with other theories of quantum gravity, or what experimental tests could distinguish them at this era of cosmic expansion. However, the N.M. model is quite capable of dealing with the *superdense* regimes inside collapsed objects like neutron stars, black holes, and the early universe, where it admits *nonperturbative* solutions , . These are regularized by the resistance (16) of the topologically nontrivial vacuum to compression to a point. The N.M. model predicts another new effect in *supervorticial* regimes: an interaction between Lens-Thirring fields and weak potentials , . Perhaps such effects could be measured in terrestrial laboratories or astronomical observation.

## 5 Conclusion

More significant than the values of fundamental constants derived from the N.M. model, or the prediction of new effects, are the qualitative features of *quantum* *spinfluid* models that enable them to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. These are

1. A Lagrangian density with *no* free parameters that is a *natural* $`4`$ form—i.e. invariant under the group of passive spin isometries in curved spacetime.
2. An action which *includes* a bounded vacuum energy that depends on the radius $`a\left(T\right)`$ of the Friedmann solution which breaks dilation invariance and sets the length and the mass scales. This (hopefully) includes a repulsive term at high densities that prevents total collapse.
3. Values for the standard coupling constants that are “frozen in” by the history of dynamical symmetry breaking. These values may depend on cosmic time, $`T`$.
4. Effective electroweak, strong, and gravitational *field* actions—along with minimal coupling through their spin connections in the covariant derivatives—are *derived* from local perturbations to the Friedmann vacuum.
5. These fields are sourced in localized currents with topologically quantized charges.
6. A *mechanism* for gravitation derived from the *same* nonlinear coupling of particle fields to the global field, sourced in the “distant masses,” that creates the *inertial masses* of particles.
7. Quantum propagators which are *derived* from the statistical mechanics of null zig-zags of the (lightlike) spinor fields that weave the (timelike) worldtubes of massive particles and the (spacelike) fabric—the *vacuum*—that connects them.


format: text

text:
# Direct measurement of the 𝑄-function in a lossy cavity

## Abstract

We show that the $`Q`$-function corresponding to an electromagnetic field in a lossy cavity can be directly measured by means of a simple scheme, therefore allowing the knowledge of the state of the field despite dissipation.

The reconstruction of a quantum state is a central topic in quantum optics and related fields ris ; leo . During the past years, several techniques have been developed, for instance the direct sampling of the density matrix of a signal mode in multiport optical homodyne tomography zuk , tomographic reconstruction by unbalanced homodyning wal , reconstruction via photocounting ban , cascaded homodyning kis  to cite some. There have also been proposals to measure electromagnetic fields inside cavities lut ; moy  and vibrational states in ion traps lut ; bar . In fact the full reconstruction of nonclassical states of the electromagnetic field smi  and of (motional) states of an ion lei  have been experimentally accomplished. The quantum state reconstruction in cavities is usually achieved through a finite set of selective measurements of atomic states lut  that make it possible to construct quasiprobability distribution functions such as the Wigner function, that constitute an alternative representation of a quantum state of the field.

Nevertheless, in real experiments, the presence of noise and dissipation has normally destructive effects. Schemes that treat a lossy cavity have been proposed moy  that involve a physical process that allows the storage of information about the quantum coherences of the initial state in the diagonal elements of the density matrix of a transformed state. Here, we would like to re-take the problem of reconstruction of the cavity field as studied in lut , but allowing the cavity to have losses (i.e. a real cavity). We then will show, that although it is not possible to reconstruct the Wigner function, it is still possible to recover whole information about the initial state via the $`Q`$-function.

Let us first consider the ideal case of no dissipation. We consider then the Hamiltonian for the interaction between a quantized field and a two-level atom reads (we have set $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$\widehat{H}=\omega \widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+\frac{\omega _{eg}}{2}\widehat{\sigma }_z+\lambda (\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\sigma }_{}+\widehat{a}\widehat{\sigma }_+),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$ are the creation and annihilation operators for the field mode, respectively, obeying $`[\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{}]=1`$. $`\widehat{\sigma }_+=|eg|`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_{}=|ge|`$ are the raising and lowering atomic operators, respectively, $`|e`$ being the excited state and $`|g`$ the ground state of the two-level atom. The atomic operators obey the commutation relation $`[\widehat{\sigma }_+,\widehat{\sigma }_{}]=\widehat{\sigma }_z`$. $`\omega `$ is the field frequency, $`\omega _{eg}`$ the atomic frequency and $`\lambda `$ is the interaction constant. When we have the condition on the detuning, $`\delta =\omega _{eg}\omega `$,

$$\frac{|\delta |}{\lambda }\sqrt{n+1}$$
(2)
for any ”relevant” photon number, we can obtain an effective interaction Hamiltonian in the dispersive limit (see for instance pei )

$$\widehat{H}_I^{eff}=\chi \widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\sigma }_z,$$
(3)
with $`\chi =\lambda ^2/\delta `$.

Let us consider the atom initially in the following superposition

$$|\psi _A(0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|e+|g)$$
(4)
and the state of the field to be arbitrary, denoted by $`|\psi _F(0)`$. If before the interaction we displace the unknown field by a quantity $`\alpha `$, we have the state for the total initial wave function given by

$$|\psi (\alpha ;0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|e+|g)|\psi _F(\alpha ;0),$$
(5)
where $`|\psi _F(\alpha ;0)=\widehat{D}(\alpha )|\psi _F(0)`$ with $`\widehat{D}(\alpha )=\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \widehat{a}^{}\alpha ^{}\widehat{a})`$ is the displacement operator with amplitude $`\alpha `$. By calculating the average value of the electric dipole $`\widehat{\sigma }_x=\widehat{\sigma }_{}+\widehat{\sigma }_+`$, we obtain lut ; expl

$$\widehat{\sigma }_x=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_m(\alpha ;0)\mathrm{cos}(2\chi mt)$$
(6)
where the photon distribution $`P_m(\alpha ;0)=|\psi _F(\alpha ;0)|m|^2`$ with $`|m`$ a number state. By choosing $`t=\pi /(2\chi )`$, we end up with

$$\widehat{\sigma }_x=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_m(\alpha ;0)(1)^m$$
(7)
that, except for a factor of $`\pi `$ is the Wigner function lut ; kni .

The above treatment does not consider dissipation, and it is the aim of this manuscript to study the case when we have a dissipative cavity. The problem of the interaction of a two-level atom with a quantized field in the dispersive regime in a cavity with losses was treated exactly by Peixoto and Nemes pei . Here we will use a superoperator technique to solve it in an alternative way.

In the interaction picture, and in the dispersive approximation, the master equation that governs the dynamics of a two-level atom coupled with an electromagnetic field in a high-$`Q`$ cavity is

$$\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{\rho }=i[\widehat{H}_I^{eff},\widehat{\rho }]+\widehat{}\widehat{\rho }$$
(8)
where

$$\widehat{}\widehat{\rho }=2\gamma \widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}\gamma \widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\gamma \widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a},$$
(9)
and $`\widehat{\rho }`$ the density matrix of the system.

We define the superoperators

$$\widehat{L}\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a},$$
(10)
and

$$\widehat{J}\widehat{\rho }=2\gamma \widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}$$
(11)
where we have defined

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\gamma \widehat{1}_A+i\chi \widehat{\sigma }_z,$$
(12)
with $`\widehat{1}_A=|ee|+|gg|`$. It is not difficult to show that

$$[\widehat{J},\widehat{L}]\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{J}\widehat{\rho },$$
(13)
where the superoperator $`\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is defined as

$$\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}.$$
(14)
The solution to Eq. (8) subject to the initial state (5) is then given by

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)=e^{(\widehat{L}+\widehat{J})t}\widehat{\rho }(\alpha ;0)=e^{\widehat{L}t}e^{\widehat{f}(t)\widehat{J}}\widehat{\rho }(\alpha ;0)$$
(15)
where

$$\widehat{f}(t)\widehat{\rho }=\frac{1e^{\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Gamma }t}}{\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Gamma }}\widehat{\rho }.$$
(16)
and $`\widehat{\rho }(\alpha ;0)=|\psi (\alpha ;0)\psi (\alpha ;0)|`$.

We need to operate the density matrix with the exponential of superoperators given above. It is not obvious how $`e^{\widehat{f}(t)\widehat{J}}`$ will apply on (5), and therefore we give an expression for it

$$e^{\widehat{f}(t)\widehat{J}}\widehat{\rho }(0;\alpha )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\widehat{J}^n[\widehat{D}(\alpha )|\psi _F(0)\psi _F(0)|\widehat{D}^{}(\alpha )]\times \widehat{f}^n[|\psi _A\psi _A|]}{n!}$$
(17)
This is, because $`\widehat{f}`$ is an atomic superoperator, it will operate only on atomic states, and $`\widehat{J}`$ will operate only on field states. It is not difficult to show that

$$2\widehat{f}^n|\psi _A\psi _A|=\frac{(1e^{(\xi +\xi ^{})t})^n}{(\xi +\xi ^{})^n}\times \widehat{1}_A+\frac{(1e^{2\xi t})^n}{(2\xi )^n}|eg|+\frac{(1e^{2\xi ^{}t})^n}{(2\xi ^{})^n}|ge|,$$
(18)
with $`\xi =\gamma +i\chi `$. From (18), (17) and (15) we calculate $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$ and obtain

$`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\gamma \frac{1e^{2\xi t}}{\xi }\right)^m}{m!}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{2k\xi t}|k|\widehat{a}^m\widehat{D}(\alpha )|\psi _F(0)|^2+c.c.`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\gamma \frac{1e^{2\xi t}}{\xi }\right)^m}{m!}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{2k\xi t}{\displaystyle \frac{(m+k)!}{k!}}k+m|\widehat{\rho }(0;\alpha )|k+m+c.c.`$
By changing the summation index in the second sum of the above equation, with $`M=m+k`$, we obtain

$$\widehat{\sigma }_x=\frac{1}{2}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left(\gamma \frac{e^{2\xi t}1}{\xi }\right)^m}{m!}\underset{M=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2M\xi t}\frac{(M)!}{(Mm)!}M|\widehat{\rho }(0;\alpha )|M+c.c.$$
(20)
Finally, we can start the second sum of (20) from $`M=0`$ (as we would only add zeros to the sum, because the factorial of a negative integer is infinite), and exchange the double sum in it, to sum first over $`m`$, which gives

$$\widehat{\sigma }_x=\frac{1}{2}\underset{M=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{\gamma +i\chi e^{2\xi t}}{\xi }\right)^MM|\widehat{\rho }(0;\alpha )|M+c.c.$$
(21)
By defining

$$\theta =\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{\eta +e^{2\eta \tau }[\mathrm{sin}(2\tau )\eta \mathrm{cos}(2\tau )]}{\eta ^2+e^{2\eta \tau }[\mathrm{cos}(2\tau )+\eta \mathrm{sin}(2\tau )]}\right)$$
(22)
and

$$\mu =\left(\frac{\eta ^2+e^{4\eta \tau }+2\eta e^{2\eta \tau }\mathrm{sin}(2\tau )}{1+\eta ^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(23)
with $`\tau =\chi t`$ and $`\eta =\gamma /\chi `$, we can have a final expression for $`\widehat{\sigma }_x`$

$$\widehat{\sigma }_x=\underset{M=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu ^M\mathrm{cos}(M\theta )M|\widehat{\rho }(0;\alpha )|M.$$
(24)
Equation (24) in general differs from an $`s`$-parametrized quasiprobability distribution (see for instance kni ) because for $`\eta 0`$, i.e. the dissipative case, we will have $`\theta \pi `$ and therefore $`\mathrm{cos}(M\theta )ϵ^M`$, where $`ϵ`$ is a parameter. However, if we consider the case when $`\mu =0`$, the only term that survives in (24) is $`M=0`$, and we obtain the $`Q`$-function.

$$\widehat{\sigma }_x=0|\widehat{\rho }(0;\alpha )|0=\alpha |\widehat{\rho }(0)|\alpha =\pi Q(\alpha ).$$
(25)
To look for the value that makes $`\mu `$ equal to zero, we re-write, (23) for $`\tau =3\pi /4`$ in the form

$$\mu (\tau =\frac{3\pi }{4})=\frac{|\eta e^{3\eta \pi /2}|}{(1+\eta ^2)^{1/2}},$$
(26)
and therefore, for $`\eta =\mathrm{exp}(3\eta \pi /2)`$ we obtain $`\mu =0`$. The value for $`\eta `$ may be easily obtained numerically with the result $`\eta _{\mu =0}0.274457`$. In Fig. 1 it is shown the behaviour of $`\mu `$ for different values of $`\eta `$, for $`\eta =0`$ (dashed line) $`\mu =1`$ as expected and for $`\eta .274457`$ (solid line) it is seen that $`\mu `$ goes to zero at $`\tau =3\pi /4`$.

By direct measuring a quasiprobability distribution, namely the Wigner function in the lossless case lut , i.e. for only one parameter ($`\gamma =0`$), or the $`Q`$-function in our case for a range of parameters ($`\gamma .274457\chi `$), one can obatin complete information about the state of the field as quasiprobability distributions contain complete information of the density matrix sas . Moreover the Wigner and $`Q`$ functions are related by integral or differential equations, for instance kni

$$W(\alpha )=e^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{\alpha }\frac{}{\alpha ^{}}}Q(\alpha ).$$
(27)
In conclusion, we have solved the dispersive interaction between a quantized elecromagnetic field and a two level atom in the case of a real cavity (subject to losses) by utilizing superoperator techniques. We then have used those results to show that even in the dissipative case we can still obtain information about the initial cavity field by means of the $`Q`$-function (unlike the non dissipative case lut  where it is reconstructed the Wigner function). Both functions, being quasiprobability distributions contain complete information about the state of the cavity field. In this way, we have been able to extend the range of parameters in which complete information may be obtained in CQED, from $`\gamma =0`$ to $`\gamma =.274457\chi `$, i.e. by doing a right tuning complete information of the cavity field may be obtained despite of cavity losses.


text:
# Towards a new technique of incoherent scatter signal processing.

## 1 Introduction.

The incoherent scatter (IS) method is one of a number of ionospheric remote sensing techniques. The method provides geophysical parameters of the ionosphere over a wide height range (from 100 to 1000 km), with spatial and temporal resolution determined by the form of the sounding pulse, and by the particular procedure of processing the received signal \[Holt et al., 1992\]. The accuracy of geophysical parameters determination in this case is usually governed by many parameters: ionospheric parameters, and parameters of the receiver (for instance, the background noise temperature), the method of the received signal processing, the type of sounding signal, the received signal averaging time, and by the spectral resolution of the method (or by the delay resolution in the case of a correlational processing of the signal). Furthermore, it is often necessary to improve the spectral resolution without impairing the spatial resolution. A conventional approach in handling this problem involves using special (‘composite’) signals, with a subsequent special-purpose processing of the received signal \[Farley,1972; Sulzer, 1993; Lehtinen,1986\]. However, situations can at times arise where it is not appropriate to use composite pulses (from energy considerations or auxillary conditions, for example), so that it is necessary to have a technique which would work well with traditional (’simple’) pulsed signals.

There are currently two main techniques for processing the received backscattered signal: the correlational technique, and the spectral technique \[Evans, 1963\]. Since the correlation function (obtained by applying the former type of processing) and the spectral power of the received signal (obtained by applying the latter type of processing) are related by the Wiener-Khintchin theorem, the two types of processing are equivalent in principle.

This paper is concerned with the method of improving the spectral resolution of the incoherent scatter method, based on the properties of the received signal according to the data from the Irkutsk incoherent scatter (IS) radar without using composite sounding signals.

## 2 The existing technique for processing the signal, and experimental data

Let us consider the radar equation relating the spectral power of the scattered signal to fluctuation parameters of dielectric permittivity. Within the approximation of the single scattering, in the far zone of the antenna, the mean spectral power of the received signal $`<|u(\omega )|^2>`$ is defined by a statistical radar equation \[Berngardt and Potekhin, 2000\] which - under the assumption of the spatial homogeneity of the spectral density of the irregularities and its weak dependence on the modulus of the wave vector $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{e_r}k)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,\stackrel{}{e_r}r_0\stackrel{}{e_r}2k_0)`$ reduces to:

$$<|u(\omega )|^2>=S(\omega \nu )<|u_{teor}(\nu )|^2>d\nu $$
(1)
$$<|u_{teor}(\nu )|^2>=V_0\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,\stackrel{}{e_r}r_0,\stackrel{}{e_r}2k_0)|g(\stackrel{}{e_r})|^2𝑑\stackrel{}{e_r}$$
(2)
here $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})=<ϵ(t,\stackrel{}{r})ϵ^{}(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t,\stackrel{}{r}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{r})>exp(i\nu t+i\stackrel{}{k}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{r})\frac{d\nu d\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^4}`$ \- is the steady-state spectral density of permittivity irregularities; $`g(\stackrel{}{e_r})`$ is the beam factor determined by the product of the beams of the transmit and receive antennas; $`\stackrel{}{e_r}=\stackrel{}{r}/r`$ is a unit vector in a given direction; $`V_0`$ is the sounding volume; $`r_0`$ is the mean distance to it; $`k_0`$ is the wave number of the sounding wave; and $`<|u_{teor}(\omega )|^2>`$ is the theoretical spectrum of backscattering not distorted by the smearing function $`S(\omega )`$.

The problem of improving the spectral resolution in this case implies using the deconvolution operation with the kernel $`S(\omega )|a(\omega \nu )o(\nu )𝑑\nu |^2`$ determined by the form of the sounding signal and the receiving window and usually having the property:

$$\frac{dS(\omega )}{d\omega }=0;when\omega =0;\frac{d^2S(\omega =0)}{d\omega ^2}<0,$$

that is, having only one maximum at the zero frequency.

Thus, formally, we need to define the $`DECONV`$ \- deconvolution operation:

$$<|u_{teor}(\nu )|^2>=<|u(\omega )|^2>DECONVS(\omega \nu )$$
(3)
To carry out such an operation we make use of the linearity of the averaging operation:

$$<|u_{teor}(\nu )|^2>=<|u(\omega )|^2DECONVS(\omega \nu )>.$$
(4)
Hence, to improve the spectral resolution, it is necessary to apply the deconvolution operation to each realization of spectral power and accumulate result spectrums over the realizations. Generally the problem (4) is not simpler compared with the initial one (3); however, in the case of its simplified solution, one may take advantage of the following experimental evidence of the structure of spectra of separate realizations.

Figure 1 presents the structure of spectral power of two successive realizations of the scattered signal in sounding with the pulse of a duration of 750 ms and the length of the receiving window of 750 ms. For comparison, the figure also shows the form of the accumulated (averaged) spectral power, and the model form of the ’smearing’ function. Theoretically, the form of the smearing function depends on a large number of ionospheric parameters (on the electron density profile, on the experimental geometry with respect to the geomagnetic field), and can differ rather strongly from the model form \[Shpynev, 2000\]; however, the model form is applicable in the case of qualitative estimations.

It is apparent from the figure that the spectra of individual realizations differ rather strongly from one another, which suggests that the processes are occurring at a high rate when compared with the repetition frequency of sounding pulses, and is in agreement with existing data (the lifetime of thermal irregularities is on the order of 200 mks, which is significantly less than the interval between separate sounding runs - at the Irkutsk IS radar it is about 40 ms).

In spite of a relatively strong variability from realization to realization, the fine ’comb’ structure of the spectra is conserved. Consider the characteristics of such a comb structure. Figure 2 presents the frequency dependence of the amplitude of the peaks (solid line), the frequency dependence of the width of the peaks (line with circles), and a total number of peaks at a given frequency for the entire set of the realizations used in the analysis (line with triangles). It is evident from Figure 2 that the width of the peaks varies within 1-2 spectral widths of the sounding signal. The peaks are concentrated mainly in the band of the mean spectral power of the received signal, and the amplitude and occurrence frequency drop when the frequency of the peak is shifted with respect to the zero frequency.

## 3 Technique for solving the problem - deconvolution before an averaging.

The above characteristics of spectra of separate realizations of the received signal suggest that the initial (not convoluted with the smearing function) spectral power of the received signal has a comb structure with delta-shaped combs. Furthermore, the width of the peaks in the experimentally measured spectrum is determined solely by the properties of the smearing function. This permits us to relatively easily perform a deconvolution in (4). Indeed, within the framework of this assumption, a ’nonsmoothed’ spectral power of a separate realization has the form:

$$|u_{teor}(\omega )|^2=\begin{array}{c}N\\ \\ i=1\end{array}A_i\delta (\omega \omega _i)$$
(5)
Then, within a constant factor, we have

$$|u(\omega _j)|^2=\begin{array}{c}N\\ \\ i=1\end{array}A_iS(\omega _j\omega _i)$$
(6)
We take into consideration that the function $`S(\omega )`$ is unknown but it is sufficiently narrowbanded when compared with a total spectral width $`u(\omega )`$, and the peaks in the spectral power of a separate realization are sufficiently isolated from each other, which permits us to neglect the influence of one peak on another. Then the amplitude of the observed peaks in $`|u(\omega _j)|^2`$ will be proportional to the amplitude of the peaks in the ’nonsmeared’ spectrum $`|u_{teor}(\omega )|^2`$, and theirs location are the same:

$$|u(\omega _j)|^2=S(0)A_j+o(\omega _j)$$
(7)
where $`o(\omega _j)=\begin{array}{c}N\\ \\ i=1\end{array}A_iS(\omega _j\omega _i)S(0)A_j`$ is a small addition which - in the case of a sufficient separation of the peaks (larger than the width of the smearing function $`S(\omega )`$)) becomes zero. In accordance with the expression (7), we determine the amplitudes $`A_i`$ and the frequencies $`\omega _i`$ from experimentally measured spectra $`|u(\omega )|^2`$, which corresponds to the solution of the system:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{d}{d\omega }|u(\omega )|^2|_{\omega =\omega _i}=0\\ \frac{d^2}{d\omega ^2}|u(\omega )|^2|_{\omega =\omega _i}<0\\ A_i=|u(\omega _i)|^2\end{array}$$
(8)
Upon determining in this way the set of pairs of the parameters $`A_i`$ and $`\omega _i`$, it is also possible to obtain the ’nonsmeared’ spectrum of a single realization $`|u_{teor}(\omega )|^2`$ by applying a deconvolution in (4). If we exactly know the form of the smearing function $`S(\omega )`$, the amplitudes $`A_i`$ can be determined not in accordance with the last equation of the system (8) but by solving a system of linear equations for amplitudes with due regard for the form of the smearing function (6).

## 4 Discussion of results

The technique suggested here was used in processing the data on incoherent scattering from thermal irregularities of ionospheric plasma using measurements from the Irkutsk incoherent scatter radar. Because of the suggested technique (5,8) was obtained for noice absence, the experimental data for testing was used with high signal-to-noice ratio.

Figure 3 gives an example of a processing of incoherent scatter data in terms of the model of (5,8). The thick solid line corresponds to a theoretical spectrum $`<|u_{teor}(\omega )|^2>`$ calculated in terms of this model; the dotted line shows the spectrum $`<|u(\omega )|^2>`$ measured by a traditional technique, and the thin line plots the function $`<|u_{teor}(\nu )|^2>S(\omega \nu )d\nu `$ which - in an ideal variant of the known $`S(\omega )`$ \- must coincide with $`<|u(\omega )|^2>`$. Figure 3 clearly shows a good agreement between the mean spectral power obtained as a result of a standard processing (dotted line) and the spectrum with deconvolution which is convoluted with the theoretical smearing function (thin solid line), which suggests a sufficiently good deconvolution operation when calculating $`<|u_{teor}(\omega )|^2>`$ by the algorithm of (5,8).

The relatively high dispersion level of the resulting spectrum $`<|u_{teor}(\omega )|^2>`$ (spectrum with high spectral resolution) is associated with the comb structure of some of the realizations. Indeed, an actual averaging at a given frequency occurs only over realizations involving a peak at a given frequency. Thus, to an averaging over 1000 realizations there corresponds an averaging over about 70-100 real realizations involving a peak at a given frequency. It is evident from Figure 3 that in the convolution with the smearing function this dispersion decreases to a level similar to the weak dispersion level of a standard spectrum. Since the inverse problem of obtaining physical parameters of the ionosphere from the mean spectral power of the received signal is usually solved by fitting the spectral form using the method of least squares \[Holt et al., 1992\], such a dispersion should not increase substantially the error of determining the parameters when compared with standard processing techniques in the case of averaging over an equal number of realizations.

Taking into account the real ’smearing’ function when calculating the amplitudes $`A_i`$ (which implies solving a system of linear equations for the amplitudes $`A_i`$ (6)) does not give any perceptible decrease in the dispersion of the spectrum, which suggests that the dispersion of spectra is associated with inadequate accumulation. An example of a processing of spectra following the proposed technique, which implies solving (8) and a direct solution of the system (6), is given in Figure 4.

## 5 Using the technique in the real incoherent scattering experiment.

The technique suggested has been used for incoherent scattering signal processing during November 15, 2001 experiment. All the data have obtained at Irlutsk Incoherent Scattering Radar(53N,103E). The radar operates in standard regime with the following parameters: Sounding frequency 158 MHz, Pulse power 2.6MWt Pulse duration 750mks Pulse repeating frequency 24.4Hz Antenna pattern main lobe is elongated with Earth magnetic field and nearly vertical. The November 15, 2001 experiment is characterized by high electron density in the main ionospheric maximum ( $`>10^6cm^3`$ ). In the daytime the signal-to-noice relation exceeds 20, and the conditions are ideal for analysis of the incoherent scattering spectra structural pecularities. In parallel with traditional processing of the IS signals, the row samples (realizations) have been recordered(approximately 1.4 GByte, for the 8:00LT-23:00LT period). These data become a basis for the experimental comparison of the new technique with standard one. The comaprison has been done by the following technique. For given altitude range the incoherent scattering signal realizations (the pair of its quadrature components) has been cutted and processed by the two different techniques: the standard one and the new one.

The first (standard technique) uses fast Fourier transform, accumulation of the obtained spectrums and using this averaged power spectrum as a source for the $`T_e`$ and $`T_i`$ calculation by the standard temperature calculation technique \[Shpynev, 2000\]. The averaged power spectrum has been compared with model ones convolved with the smoothing function, which depends on pulse duration and electron density.

The second (new technique) uses fast Fourier transform and deconvolving of the unaveraged spectrum with the smoothing function followed by the accumalation of the result. The result (’unconvolved’ power spectrum) have been used as a source for the $`T_e`$ and $`T_i`$ calculation by the standard temperature calucaltion technique \[Shpynev, 2000\], but it have been comparised with madel spectrum, without its convolving with smoothing function.

All the parameters (averaging time - 6 min) has been the same.

The results are shown at Figure 5. As one can see from comparison, the difference between temperatures obtained differs slightly. For the new technique the systematical decreasing of the $`T_e`$ and systematical increasing of the $`T_i`$ are observed. You can see this clearly from the Figure 6 (Temperatures for the 290km height). This error is within experiment error and comparison results could be stated as well. An another aspect of the obtained results is theirs smoother dependence on time - their time variations is smaller (as one can see from Figure 6 too).

## 6 Conclusion

A technique has been suggested for improving the spectral resolution in the case of the incoherent scattering when sounding by simple (squared) pulses. The method is based on an experimental model of single spectra of the scattered signal realizations. Furthermore, the model of a single realization spectrum represents a comb structure, the sum of delta-functions of a different amplitude at different frequencies convoluted with a certain function that is determined by the form of the sounding signal and of the receiving window. In terms of such an empirical model, it is possible to perform a deconvolution of the mean spectral power of the received signal with the smearing function in order to obtain the mean spectral power, at the stage of analysis of separate realizations, which is equivalent to an improvement of the spectral resolution of the method. Furthermore, the model parameters are derived by a simple determination of the positions and amplitudes of local maxima of the individual realizations spectra, which does not require much computer time and can be implemented in the real-time mode. Also, the technique does not require knowing the form of the ’smearing’ function and could therefore be used to improve the spectral resolution over a wide range of cases.

The proposed technique appears to be able to be extended also to other types of single backscattering from the ionosphere. As an example, Figure 7 illustrates the processing of experimental data on another type of singly backscattered signal from the ionosphere - backscattering from the E-layer irregularities elongated with the geomagnetic field. All curves in this case are similar to the curves in Figure 3 and, as in the case of Figure 3, there is a good agreement of $`<|u_{teor}(\omega )|^2>`$ to the spectrum $`<|u(\omega )|^2>`$ with the removal of the convolution with the smearing function $`S(\omega )`$.

So, the proposed technique of incoherent scattered signal processing (5,8) could be used in some cases for increasing the spectral resolution of the incoherent scattering method. But, to use this technique one needs good signal to noice ratio, and narrow enought spectral smoothing function to one could use approximation (8) which does not depend on spectral smoothing function $`S(\omega )`$, instead of accurate solution of (6).

## Acknowledgments

Authors are grateful to A.V.Medvedev for fruitful descussions. Work has been carried out under partial support of RFBR grants #00-15-98509 and #00-05-72026 .


text:
# String Inspired Neutrino Mass Models

## 1 Introduction

Recent SNO  results when combined with other solar neutrino data especially that of Super-Kamiokande strongly favour the large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solar solution  with three active light neutrino states, and $`\theta _{12}\pi /6`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^25\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ . The atmospheric neutrino data is consistent with maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ neutrino mixing $`\theta _{23}\pi /4`$ with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|2.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ undetermined. The CHOOZ experiment limits $`\theta _{13}\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.2`$ over the favoured atmospheric range .

The leading order Majorana mass matrix consistent with a neutrino mass hierarchy and bi-large mixing angles is

$$m_{LL}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{m}{2}$$
(1)
However since $`m_3\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|}5.10^2`$ eV and $`m_2\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|}7.10^3`$ eV, compared to the natural expectation $`m_2m_3`$, it remains a puzzle why there should be any hierarchy at all. The question may be phrased in technical terms as one of understanding why the sub-determinant of the mass matrix is small:

$$det\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{22}& m_{23}\\ m_{23}& m_{33}\end{array}\right)m^2.$$
(2)
## 2 The see-saw mechanism with single right-handed neutrino dominance

The simplest way to generate neutrino masses from a renormalisable theory is to introduce right-handed neutrinos. Since the right-handed neutrinos are electroweak singlets the Majorana masses of the right-handed neutrinos $`M_{RR}`$ may be orders of magnitude larger than the Dirac masses $`m_{LR}`$. In the approximation that $`M_{RR}m_{LR}`$ one obtains effective Majorana masses

$$m_{LL}=m_{LR}M_{RR}^1m_{LR}^T$$
(3)
This is the see-saw mechanism . It not only generates Majorana mass terms of the type $`m_{LL}`$, but also naturally makes them smaller than the Dirac mass terms by a factor of $`m_{LR}/M_{RR}1`$. One can think of the heavy right-handed neutrinos as being integrated out to give non-renormalisable Majorana operators suppressed by the heavy mass scale $`M_{RR}`$. The goal of see-saw model building is to choose input see-saw matrices $`m_{LR}`$ and $`M_{RR}`$ that will give rise to Eq.1.

We now show how the input see-saw matrices can be simply chosen to give Eq.1 with a naturally small sub-determinant as in Eq.2 and hence a natural neutrino mass hierarchy using a mechanism first suggested in . The idea was developed in  where it was called single right-handed neutrino dominance (SRHND) . SRHND was first successfully applied to the LMA MSW solution in . The most recent discussion of these ideas is in .

The SRHND mechanism is most simply described assuming three right-handed neutrinos in the basis where the right-handed neutrino mass matrix is diagonal although it can also be developed in other bases . In this basis we write the input see-saw matrices as

$$M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}X^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& X& 0\\ 0& 0& Y\end{array}\right),m_{LR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^{}& a& d\\ b^{}& b& e\\ c^{}& c& f\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
In  it was suggested that one of the right-handed neutrinos may dominante the contribution to $`m_{LL}`$ if it is lighter than the other right-handed neutrinos. The dominance condition was subsequently generalised to include other cases where the right-handed neutrino may be heavier than the other right-handed neutrinos but dominates due to its larger Dirac mass couplings . In any case the dominant neutrino may be taken to be the third one without loss of generality. It was subsequently shown how to account for the LMA MSW solution with a large solar angle  by careful consideration of the sub-dominant contributions. One of the examples considered in  is when the right-handed neutrinos dominate sequentially,

$$\frac{|e^2|,|f^2|,|ef|}{Y}\frac{|xy|}{X}\frac{|x^{}y^{}|}{X^{}}$$
(5)
where $`x,ya,b,c`$ and $`x^{},y^{}a^{},b^{},c^{}`$. Assuming SRHND with sequential sub-dominance as in Eq.5, then Eqs.3, 4 give

$$m_{LL}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{a^2}{X}+\frac{d^2}{Y}& \frac{ab}{X}+\frac{de}{Y}& \frac{ac}{X}+\frac{df}{Y}\\ .& \frac{b^2}{X}+\frac{e^2}{Y}& \frac{bc}{X}+\frac{ef}{Y}\\ .& .& \frac{c^2}{X}+\frac{f^2}{Y}\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
where the contribution from the first right-handed neutrino have been neglected, but the small sub-leading contributions $`xy/X`$ have been included. If the Dirac mass couplings satisfy the condition $`def`$  then the matrix in Eq.6 resembles Eq.1 and furthermore has a naturally small sub-determinant as in Eq.2. The neutrino mass spectrum consists of a mass hierarchy $`m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2`$ where the heaviest neutrino has mass $`m_3(e^2+f^2)/Y`$ . The atmospheric angle is $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}e/f`$ . Ignoring phases, the solar angle only depends on the sub-dominant couplings and is given by $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}a/(c_{23}bs_{23}c)`$ . The simple requirement for large solar angle is then $`abc`$ . Including phases the solar angle is given by an analagous result . A related phase analysis which pointed out the importance of phases for determining the solar angle was given in . One also obtains the interesting bound on the angle $`\theta _{13}`$,  $`\theta _{13}\stackrel{>}{_{}}\frac{m_2}{m_3}0.1`$. There is therefore a good chance that this angle could be observed at MINOS or CNGS. The importance of charged lepton contributions to the CHOOZ angle is explicitly discussed in .

## 3 A String Inspired Supersymmetric Pati-Salam Model

The motivation for considering the SUSY Pati-Salam gauge group  rather than conventional SUSY GUT theories is two-fold. Firstly it avoids the infamous doublet-triplet splitting problem , and secondly it may be easier to embed the gauge group directly into a string theory . The problem of fermion masses in such string-inspired Pati-Salam models was first considered in , and these ideas were developed in detail in , . The Pati-Salam gauge group , supplemented by a $`U(1)`$ family symmetry, was first considered in ,

$$SU(4)_{PS}SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)_{\mathrm{Family}}$$
(7)
with left (L) and right (R) handed fermions transforming as $`F_L(4,2,1)`$ and $`F_R(4,1,2)`$ and the Higgs $`h(1,2,2)`$ containing the two MSSM Higgs doublets,

$$F_{L,R}^i=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u& u& u& \nu \\ d& d& d& e^{}\end{array}\right)_{L,R}^i,h=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}& h_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}\\ h_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}& h_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
We assume the symmetry breaking sector of the minimal SUSY Pati-Salam model  with further Higgs $`H,\overline{H}`$ transforming as $`H(4,1,2)`$, $`\overline{H}(\overline{4},1,2)`$ and developing VEVs which break the Pati-Salam group, while $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$ are Pati-Salam singlets and develop VEVs which break the $`U(1)`$ family symmetry. We assume for convenience that all symmetry breaking scales are at the GUT scale.

We now consider how to describe quark and lepton (including neutrino) masses and mixing angles, following . The assumed $`U(1)_{\mathrm{Family}}`$ charges are

$$F_i=(1,0,0),F_i^c=(4,2,0)$$
(9)
which leads to the universal mass matrices

$$m_{LR}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^3& ϵ\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^2& 1\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_{RR}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^8& ϵ^6& ϵ^4\\ ϵ^6& ϵ^4& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
where the $`ϵ`$ is some expansion parameter. The complete fermion mass operators have the form

$$(F^iF_j^c)h\left(\frac{H\overline{H}}{M^2}\right)^n\left(\frac{\theta }{M}\right)^p$$
(11)
where each factor of $`H\overline{H}`$ corresponds to a further expansion parameter power $`\delta `$, with each element of the matrix having different Clebsch factors, giving vertical mass splittings within a generation. The resulting set of mass matrices, suppressing the numerical Clebsch factors and order unity coefficients, are as follows:

$$m_{LR}^\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta ^3ϵ^5& \delta ϵ^3& \delta ϵ\\ \delta ^3ϵ^4& \delta ^2ϵ^2& \delta \\ \delta ^3ϵ^4& \delta ^2ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right),m_{LR}^E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta ϵ^5& \delta ϵ^3& \delta ϵ\\ \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2& \delta ^2\\ \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
$$m_{LR}^U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta ^3ϵ^5& \delta ^2ϵ^3& \delta ^2ϵ\\ \delta ^3ϵ^4& \delta ^2ϵ^2& \delta ^3\\ \delta ^3ϵ^4& \delta ^2ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right),m_{LR}^D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta ϵ^5& \delta ^2ϵ^3& \delta ^2ϵ\\ \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2& \delta ^2\\ \delta ϵ^4& \delta ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
where $`ϵ\delta 0.22`$. An important role is played by “Clebsch zeroes” which forbid certain leading order operators. For example Clebsch zeroes in the 23 position forbid the leading 23 elements for the charged fermions but allow a leading 23 element for the neutrinos with a Clebsch factor 2 (not shown explicity). The neutrino sector has SRHND with the third right-handed neutrino dominating due to its large Dirac mass couplings which overcomes the fact that the third right-handed neutrino is the heaviest one. A large atmospheric angle is given from the large entry in the 23 position of the “lop-sided” Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}e/f1`$, once the Clebsch factors and order one coefficients are included. The solar angle is $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}a/(bc)1`$. The neutrino mass hierarchy is consistent with the LMA MSW solution. This model has also been shown to give successful thermal leptogenesis since the dominant right-handed neutrino is the heaviest . It also predicts a large rate for $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ partly due to large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$ also due to the large 23 element of the neutrino Dirac mass matrix which leads large 23 contributions to the slepton mass matrix after renormalisation group running .

The above model is not based on a unified gauge group, and therefore apparently gauge unification cannot be implemented in such a model. However from the point of view of string theory the gauge couplings may be unified along with gravity at the string scale. As recently discussed  the Pati-Salam model may emerge from an intersecting D-brane model as shown in Fig.1. The assumed symmetry breaking is

$$U(4)_{PS}^{(1)}\times U(4)_{PS}^{(2)}U(4)_{PS}$$
(14)
Higgs states are present which can lead to such a breaking. The $`U(1)`$s are broken by the Green-Schwartz mechanism, but one $`U(1)`$ remains. In fact the $`U(1)`$s make it hard to decouple the exotics. In the limit that the radii of compactification satisfy $`R_2R_1`$ we have a “single brane limit” with approximate gauge unification. The model predicts the soft mass sum rule

$$m_h^2+m_{F_3}^2+m_{F_3^c}^2=M_3^2$$
(15)
where $`m_h`$ is the Higgs soft mass, $`m_{F_3^c}`$ is the right-handed third family soft mass, $`m_{F_3}`$ is the left-handed third family soft mass, and $`M_3`$ is the gluino soft mass, all evaluated at the high energy scale.