text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Although D-branes are normally defined within perturbative string theory in terms of Dirichlet boundary conditions at the endpoints of open strings, they may be defined more generally as branes on which strings can end. As such, D-branes may occur in field theories. An example is provided by the domain walls (alias 2-branes) of MQCD, which were shown in  to be surfaces on which MQCD strings may end. However, the physics of strings and walls in MQCD is quite different from that of the D2-branes of IIA superstring theory because the endpoints of MQCD strings are not electric sources for a gauge field on the wall. Other examples of (non-supersymmetric) field theory D-branes have been discussed in , although the physics is again rather different from that of string theory D-branes.

A field theory domain wall that is a much closer analogue of the D2-brane of IIA superstring theory is provided by the kink domain wall of massive hyper-Kähler (HK) sigma-models . As pointed out in , the effective action for the kink domain wall is the $`S^1`$ reduction of the D=5 supermembrane, and hence dual to a gauge theory. This is similar to the relation between the D=11 supermembrane and the D=10 D2-brane action , and the same arguments used in that case imply that the gauge theory in question is a supersymmetric one of Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) type. As in the D=10 case , this D=4 action admits 1/2 supersymmetric BIon solutions that can be interpreted as strings ending on a membrane. But what are these sigma-model strings? This is one of several questions that we aim to answer in this paper. Another is whether there is a 1/4 supersymmetric sigma-model configuration representing a string ending on a domain wall, as the analogy with superstring D-branes suggests. Indeed there is, and for simple models it can be found explicitly and its properties studied in detail.

Specifically, we shall consider D=4 supersymmetric sigma models with a ‘multi-centre’ HK target space 4-metric of the form

$$ds^2=Ud𝐗d𝐗+U^1(d\phi +d𝐗𝐀)^2$$
(1)
where $`\mathbf{}\times A=\mathbf{}U`$ and $`U`$ is a ‘multi-centre’ harmonic function. The only potential term consistent with maximal supersymmetry is proportional to the norm of the tri-holomorphic Killing vector field $`\zeta =/\phi `$, and so takes the form

$$V=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2U^1$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is a mass parameter. Introducing a coupling constant $`g`$ with dimensions of inverse mass, we have the sigma-model Lagrangian density

$$=\frac{1}{2g^2}\left\{\eta ^{\mu \nu }\left[U_\mu 𝐗_\nu 𝐗+U^1𝒟_\mu \phi 𝒟_\nu \phi \right]+\mu ^2U^1\right\}$$
(3)
where $`\eta `$ is the D=4 Minkowski metric (of ‘mostly plus’ signature) and $`𝒟\phi =d\phi +d𝐗𝐀`$. When $`\mu 0`$ we have a ‘massive’ sigma model; otherwise it is massless.

The massless sigma models typically admit 1/2 supersymmetric ‘lump’ solitons  supported by a topological ‘lump’ charge $`L`$. These are of course string-like solitons in D=4. Lump-string configurations also exist in the massive model, with a string tension that is bounded from below by the lump charge $`L`$, but Derrick’s theorem implies that the bound is saturated only in the limit in which the string core has shrunk to zero size, yielding a singular field configuration. In other words, the massive sigma-model admits BPS strings that are ‘fundamental’ in the sense that the core size vanishes. One might be tempted to ignore these strings on the grounds that they are singular, but there are various circumstances in which the singularity is resolved. For example, the singularity can be removed, and Derrick’s theorem evaded, by incorporating time-dependence. Indeed, there exists a time-dependent non-singular charged lump-string solution; its cross section is the D=3 Q-lump solution found by Abraham . These solutions saturate an energy bound of the form

$$E|L|+|Q|.$$
(4)
where $`Q`$ is the Noether charge associated with the symmetry generated by $`\zeta `$. Although the solution is not static it is stationary in the sense that the energy density is time-independent, a fact that allows it to preserve some fraction of supersymmetry. This fraction was not previously determined but we shall show here that HK Q-lumps are 1/4 supersymmetric. Massive HK sigma models also admit kinks (static solitons that interpolate between the minima of the potential) and Q-kinks. The Q-kinks are stationary charged kinks that saturate an energy bound of the form

$$E\sqrt{|𝐊|^2+Q^2}$$
(5)
where $`𝐊`$ is a triplet of topological kink charges. The Q-kink with $`Q=0`$ is the static kink. Both kinks and Q-kinks preserve 1/2 supersymmetry.

The main result of this paper is a new non-singular static 1/4 supersymmetric soliton which we call the kink-lump. It has a natural interpretation as a string ending on a domain wall. To see why such configurations might be anticipated, we begin by recalling that the D=3 Q-lump can be viewed as a closed loop of D=3 Q-kink-string , so the D=4 Q-lump-string can be viewed as a cylindrical tube of Q-kink domain wall. If this tube is splayed out at one end we have a (non-static) configuration representing a string ending on a wall. If we now remove the charge we might expect to end up with a static solution of similar type but with the string core supported against collapse by its attachment to the wall. The kink-lump is just such a solution. The size of the string core decreases with distance from the wall so its shape is more accurately described as a ‘spike’ than as a ‘tube’. Nevertheless, the spike has a constant energy per unit length and can therefore be interpreted as a string of fixed tension. This tension turns out to equal the tension of the singular infinite lump-string, but the kink-lump is completely non-singular because the ‘spike’ shrinks to zero size only at infinite distance from the wall.

These results are reminiscent of the BIon solution on a D2-brane . For example, the endpoint of the BIon string on a D2-brane is essentially a global vortex with a logarithmically infinite energy, which leads to a logarithmic bending of the D2-brane. We shall show that the kink-lump incorporates the same logarithmic bending of the kink domain wall. Moreover, the way in which the singular lump-string is ‘blown up’ into a cylindrical kink domain wall is reminiscent of the way that a IIA superstring can be ‘blown up’ into a cylindrical D2-brane . However, there is an important difference. The BIon is a solution of the field theory governing the fluctuations of the wall, so the wall itself is not part of the solution. The BIon spike remains hollow no matter how much it shrinks because the width of the wall itself is assumed to vanish. In contrast, the kink domain wall is part of the kink-lump solution and it has a definite thickness; as the spike shrinks to a size comparable to the thickness of the wall it must ‘fill-in’ to form a ‘solid spike’. We shall see explicitly how this happens in the kink-lump solution. The BIon analogy is really more appropriate to an effective description of the kink-lump as a 1/2 supersymmetric soliton of the effective theory governing fluctuations of a kink domain wall because, as mentioned above, the kink effective action is just a D=4 version of the D=10 super D2-brane, and the kink-lump can indeed be identified as a BIon of this theory.

Another result of this paper is a non-static but stationary generalization of the kink-lump which we call a Q-kink-lump. It can be viewed as a kink-lump boosted in the ‘hidden’ fifth dimension. In the limit of infinite boost, to the speed of light, the Q-kink-lump reduces to the Q-lump, so the Q-kink-lump is the generic 1/4 supersymmetric soliton of the massive HK sigma models under consideration. A boost of the D=5 supermembrane in the fifth dimension corresponds to the inclusion of a constant background magnetic field in the effective D=4 DBI action describing the kink domain wall. Using the methods of , we find the BIon solution in this background and confirm its status as the effective description of the Q-kink-lump. An interesting feature of this result is that the limit of infinite boost, in which the Q-kink-lump becomes the Q-lump, corresponds to a limit of infinite magnetic field in the DBI theory.

Although we are concerned here with field theory solitons, most supersymmetric field theories arise as effective theories in some superstring or M-theory context, and their soliton solutions thereby acquire a superstring or M-theory interpretation. The 1/2 supersymmetric kinks and Q-kinks of the models discussed here were provided with several such interpretations in . Here we shall show that the 1/4 supersymmetric kink-lump extends to a solution of the M5-brane equations of motion, in a multi M-monopole background. As such, it provides an example of a calibrated M5-brane preserving 1/16 of the supersymmetry of the M-theory vacuum. A similar result holds for the Q-kink-lump (and hence the Q-lump) with the difference that the solution is time dependent. It is thus a generalization of a calibration, of a type first discussed in , that could be called a ‘Q-calibration’.

We shall begin with a discussion of the sigma model field theories and their solitons, including the kink-lump and the Q-kink-lump, and their properties. We then discuss the effective description of the kink-lump in terms of a D=4 DBI action for a sigma-model D2-brane, and show that the Q-kink-lump can then be found by considering the DBI action in a constant background magnetic field. We then show how all these 1/4 supersymmetric solitons determine supersymmetric minimal energy configurations of the M5-brane in a multi M-monopole background. We conclude with a discussion of some other issues.

## 2 Kinky Lumps

The sigma models of relevance here have as their target space a HK 4-manifold of the type described above. The simplest choice of the harmonic function $`U`$ that serves our purposes is

$$U=a+\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{|𝐗𝐧|}+\frac{1}{|𝐗+𝐧|}\right],$$
(6)
where $`𝐧`$ is a unit 3-vector and $`a`$ a constant. The function $`U`$ is singular at the two ‘centres’ $`𝐗=\pm 𝐧`$, but this is a coordinate singularity of the metric if $`\phi `$ is periodically identified with period $`2\pi `$. When $`a=0`$ we have the Eguchi-Hanson metric. For $`a=1`$ we have the asymptotically flat metric transverse to two M-monopoles. In either case, the metric is HK with the triplet of Kähler 2-forms

$$𝛀=(d\phi +d𝐗𝐀)d𝐗\frac{1}{2}Ud𝐗\times d𝐗,$$
(7)
the wedge product of forms being implicit.

The 2-centre metric (and, more generally, any multi-centre metric with colinear centres) has an additional Killing vector field generating rotations about the $`𝐧`$ axis. This Killing vector field is holomorphic with respect to the complex structure $`I`$ associated to the Kähler 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=𝐧𝛀`$. The 3-vector $`𝐗`$ of $`SO(3)`$ can be decomposed into the singlet $`X=𝐧𝐗`$ and a doublet under the $`SO(2)`$ subgroup that fixes $`𝐧`$. The HK sigma-model can then be consistently truncated to a Kähler sigma model by keeping only the singlet fields $`(\phi ,X)`$. Because the truncation is consistent any solution of the reduced Kähler sigma-model equations will solve the full HK sigma-model equations. The metric on this 2-dimensional Kähler subspace of the target space is

$$ds^2(K_2)=UdX^2+U^1d\phi ^2$$
(8)
where, for $`|X|1`$,

$$U=a+\frac{1}{1X^2}.$$
(9)
The Kähler 2-form is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=𝐧𝛀`$ and, since one can choose $`𝐀`$ such that $`𝐧𝐀=0`$ , we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=d\phi dX,$$
(10)
which is the volume form on the 2-sphere. The lump charge $`L`$ is the integral of the pull-back of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ so its minimum value is $`4\pi `$, the area of the two sphere. This is the tension of the singular lump-string.

Although D=5 is the maximal dimension in which we may have a massive supersymmetric sigma model (a point that we return to in the concluding discussion) it will be sufficient for our purposes to consider a D=4 N=2 model with Lagrangian density (3). For simplicity we shall set $`\mu =1`$ and $`g=1`$. After the truncation to the N=1 supersymmetric Kähler sigma model described above, this yields the energy density

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left[U(\dot{X}^2+|\mathbf{}X|^2)+U^1(\dot{\phi }^2+|\mathbf{}\phi |^2+1)\right],$$
(11)
which can be rewritten as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[U\dot{X}^2+U^1(_1\phi )^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[U^1(\dot{\phi }v)^2+U(_1X\sqrt{1v^2}U^1)^2\right]`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[U^1(_2\phi \sigma U_3X)^2+U^1(_3\phi +\sigma U_2X)^2\right]`$
$`+vU^1\dot{\phi }\pm \sqrt{1v^2}_1X+\sigma (\mathbf{}\phi \times \mathbf{}X)_1`$
for constant $`v`$, with $`|v|1`$, and $`\sigma =\pm 1`$. Noting that

$$Q=d^3xU^1\dot{\phi }$$
(13)
is a Noether charge (associated with the triholomorphic isometry of the original HK target space metric) we see that the above expression for the energy density implies (by appropriate choice of $`v`$) the following (formal) bound on the total energy $`E`$:

$$E\sqrt{Q^2+K^2}+|L|,$$
(14)
where $`K`$ and $`L`$ are the topological kink and lump charges

$$K=d^3x(\mathbf{}X)_1,L=d^3x(\mathbf{}\phi \times \mathbf{}X)_1.$$
(15)
Note that $`L`$ is the pullback to the $`23`$-plane of the Kähler 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The bound is saturated when

$$\dot{X}=0,\dot{\phi }=v=\frac{Q}{\sqrt{Q^2+K^2}}$$
(16)
and

$$_1\phi =0,_1X=\pm (\sqrt{1v^2})U^1$$
(17)
and

$$_2\phi =\sigma U_3X,_3\phi =\sigma U_2X.$$
(18)
To solve these equations it will prove convenient to set

$$X=\pm \mathrm{tanh}u,\phi =vt+\psi ,$$
(19)
for time independent $`u,\psi `$. The equation for $`X`$ in (17) then becomes

$$_1\left(u+a\mathrm{tanh}u\right)=\sqrt{1v^2}.$$
(20)
Let us also set

$$x^1=x,x^2\pm ix^3=z.$$
(21)
The function $`u(x,z)`$ is then given implicitly by

$$u+a\mathrm{tanh}u=\sqrt{1v^2}x+\sigma \mathrm{log}w(z,\overline{z}),$$
(22)
and the two real equations (18) are now equivalent to the single complex equation

$$\overline{}\left(\psi +i\mathrm{log}w\right)=0,$$
(23)
where $`\overline{}`$ indicates a partial derivative with respect to $`\overline{z}`$. Equivalently,

$$we^{i\psi }=Z(z)$$
(24)
for arbitrary holomorphic function $`Z`$.

We have now found an implicit, but general, solution of the equations (17) and (18). For $`a=0`$ the solution can be given explicitly. Choosing the upper sign and $`\sigma =1`$ we have

$$X=\mathrm{tanh}\left[\sqrt{1v^2}x+\mathrm{log}w\right]$$
(25)
with $`\psi =\mathrm{arg}Z`$. For constant $`Z`$ both $`\psi `$ and $`w`$ are constant and we recover the Q-kink solution of . Other choices of $`Z(z)`$ yield new solutions. For example, we could have $`Z=\lambda /z`$ for arbitrary complex constant $`\lambda `$. Consider, for simplicity,

$$Z(z)=\frac{1}{z}.$$
(26)
In this case $`\psi =\mathrm{arg}z`$ and

$$X=\mathrm{tanh}\left[\sqrt{1v^2}x\mathrm{log}|z|\right].$$
(27)
For fixed $`z`$ we have a kink solution but for fixed $`x`$ we have a sigma-model lump solution. This can be seen, for example, by noting that $`X1`$ as $`z0`$ and $`X1`$ as $`z\mathrm{}`$. For fixed $`x`$ the sigma model lump has scale size $`\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{1v^2}x)`$. This is the simplest Q-kink-lump solution. The static kink-lump is found by setting $`v=0`$ while the Q-lump is obtained by setting $`v=1`$.

We now turn to a determination of the fraction of supersymmetry preserved by the kink-lump, Q-kink-lump and Q-lump. A formula for supersymmetric configurations of D=6 sigma-models with $`4k`$-dimensional toric HK target spaces was obtained in . Specializing to the $`k=1`$ case we conclude that supersymmetric configurations of D=6 sigma models are those for which the equation

$$\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^m𝝉_m𝐗+iU^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^m𝒟_m\phi \right]ϵ=0$$
(28)
admits solutions for non-zero $`D=6`$ $`Sp_1`$-Majorana-Weyl spinor $`ϵ`$, where $`𝝉`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^m`$ ($`m=0,1,2,3,4,5`$) are the D=6 Dirac matrices. To apply this formula we note that the massive D=4 sigma model discussed here is obtained from the D=6 model by setting

$$_4𝐗=_5𝐗=0,_4\phi =1,_5\phi =0.$$
(29)
Given also that

$$𝐗=X𝐧,\dot{X}=0,$$
(30)
the supersymmetry condition becomes

$$\left[U(𝝉𝐧)(𝚪\mathbf{}X)+i(𝚪\mathbf{}\phi )+i\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\dot{\phi }+i\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\right]ϵ=0$$
(31)
where $`𝚪=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,\mathrm{\Gamma }^3)`$. For the Q-kink-lump this yields

$$\left[1(v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{04}i\sqrt{1v^2}(𝝉𝐧)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{14})\right]ϵ+\mathrm{\Gamma }^4(𝚪\mathbf{}\phi )\left[1i\sigma (𝝉𝐧)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{23}\right]ϵ=0.$$
(32)
When $`\mathbf{}\phi `$ vanishes we have

$$\left(v\mathrm{\Gamma }^{04}i\sqrt{1v^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{14}𝝉𝐧\right)ϵ=ϵ,$$
(33)
which confirms the 1/2 supersymmetry of the kink and Q-kink. When $`\mathbf{}\phi `$ is non-zero we have, in addition, that

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{23}(𝝉𝐧)ϵ=ϵ.$$
(34)
The combined conditions imply 1/4 supersymmetry, for any $`v`$. We conclude that the kink-lump, Q-lump and Q-kink-lump are all 1/4 supersymmetric.

## 3 Energetics

We shall now set $`a=0`$ for simplicity, and again choose $`\sigma =1`$. Then, when the Q-kink-lump solution is used in the expression for the energy density, one finds that

$$=\frac{4e^{2y}}{\left(1+e^{2y}|Z|^2\right)^2}\left[|Z|^2+|Z^{}|^2\right]$$
(35)
where we have set

$$y=\sqrt{1v^2}x$$
(36)
for convenience. If we integrate the energy density over $`x`$ we find the energy density on the domain wall to be

$$_{wall}=2\gamma \left(1+|Z^{}|^2/|Z|^2\right),$$
(37)
where

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}}$$
(38)
By taking $`Z`$ to be constant we see that the wall’s surface tension is $`2\gamma `$.

For the moment we postpone the analysis of $`_{wall}`$ for non-constant $`Z`$ and return to the unintegrated formula (35). For a general Q-kink-lump solution with

$$Z(z)=\underset{i}{}\frac{\lambda _i}{zz_i}$$
(39)
we have, in the limit of large $`r=|z|`$,

$$\frac{4e^{2y}|Z|^2}{\left(1+e^{2y}|Z|^2\right)^2}.$$
(40)
This has a maximum when $`e^y|Z|=1`$, so we can take this as the surface to which the domain wall is asymptotic at large $`r=|z|`$. This implies that for large $`r`$ the domain wall is asymptotic to the surface

$$y=\mathrm{log}r,$$
(41)
unless $`_i\lambda _i=0`$, in which case $`y\mathrm{log}r^2`$.

To proceed we shall now focus on the one-lump case with $`Z=1/z`$. In this case the energy density is

$$(r,y)=\frac{4(1+r^2)e^{2y}}{\left(e^{2y}+r^2\right)^2}.$$
(42)
This function is plotted in Figure 1 for a range of the independent variables $`r`$ and $`y`$.

The function $`(r,y)`$ has no extrema (except in the $`r\mathrm{}`$ limit discussed above) but some understanding of the solution near $`r=0`$ can be had by considering the extrema of the cross-sectional energy density $`(r)`$ at fixed $`y`$. As already noted, the solution for fixed $`y`$ is a lump that interpolates between $`X=1`$ at $`r=0`$ and $`X=1`$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$. The function $`(r)`$ has an extremum at $`r=0`$ and, if

$$y>y_{}\mathrm{log}\sqrt{2},$$
(43)
at

$$r=r_{}(y)\sqrt{e^{2y}2}.$$
(44)
When $`y>y_{}`$ the extremum at $`r=0`$ is a minimum and the extremum at $`r=r_{}`$ is a maximum. The cross-sectional energy density is therefore ring-shaped for sufficiently large $`y`$. The radius of the ring shrinks as $`y`$ increases; this is the advertized ‘spike’, which is essentially hollow for $`y>y_{}`$. The radius of the ring shrinks to zero at $`y=y_{}`$ and for $`y<y_{}`$ the only extremum of $`(r)`$ is a maximum at $`r=0`$. The solution remains non-singular in that the energy density remains everywhere smooth and finite, but the cross-sectional lump is no-longer ring-shaped. The hollow ‘spike’ for $`y>y_{}`$ is ‘filled in’ for $`y<y_{}`$, as one might expect from the fact that the domain wall has a finite width, of order one in our units. This behaviour is shown in Figure 2 in which $``$ is plotted as a function of $`r`$ for values of $`y>y_{}`$, $`y=y_{}`$ and $`y<y_{}`$.

A natural interpretation of this result is that the string is actually attached to the wall at the point at which $`e^{2y}=2`$, the wall being deformed by the string’s tension just so as to meet the string endpoint at this distance.

For $`yy_{}`$ it is natural to interpret $`r_{}e^y`$ as the size of the cross-sectional lump. This implies that we have a domain wall with a shape that is again given by $`y\mathrm{log}r`$, consistent with the asymptotic behaviour as $`r\mathrm{}`$ that we found earlier. But we also wish to determine the shape for $`yy_{}`$. One way to do this would be to determine the size of the cross-sectional lump as a function of $`y`$. Since the energy density is centred at $`r=0`$ for $`yy_{}`$ the size is not related to the position of the maximum of $``$ for fixed $`y`$, as it is for $`yy_{}`$. Naively, we might define the size as

$$r_0^{\mathrm{}}(2\pi r)𝑑rr(r),$$
(45)
but this integral diverges for the simple lump solution with $`Z=\lambda /z`$. In fact the integral of $``$ also diverges. Both divergences may be removed by considering a multi-lump solution of the form (39) with $`_i\lambda _i=0`$ but the value of $`r`$ is then more naturally interpreted as the mean distance between the constituent lumps (as discussed for the Q-lump in ). Since the size of an individual lump is really determined by the energy density for small $`r`$ we shall proceed by first noting that

$$\frac{4e^{2y}}{\left(e^{2y}+r^2\right)^2}.$$
(46)
for $`r1`$. This has a finite integral over the $`z`$-plane, and $`r`$ is also finite. In fact

$$r=const.\times e^y.$$
(47)
The constant depends on the particular ‘regularization’ used. Its value will not be important to us but one may note that we could have defined the shape of the spike in terms of the surface on which $`(y)`$ is a maximum for fixed $`r`$. This surface is $`r=e^y`$, so we have agreement with the result of considering $`(r)`$ for fixed $`y`$ if we set the constant in (47) to unity.

The final conclusion of this analysis is that the shape of the spike for $`yy_{}`$ is given by

$$y=\mathrm{log}r,$$
(48)
just as it was for $`yy_{}`$. A cut off at a distance $`\delta `$ from this singularity therefore corresponds to a distance $`\mathrm{}`$ from the wall with $`\mathrm{}`$ related to $`\delta `$ by

$$\mathrm{log}\delta =\sqrt{1v^2}\mathrm{}+const.$$
(49)
We now return to the formula (37) for the energy density on the wall. Let us again take $`Z=1/z`$ and integrate over the $`z`$-plane, with IR cutoff at $`r=R`$ and UV cutoff at $`r=\delta `$. We find that

$$E=2\gamma \left(\pi R^2+2\pi \mathrm{log}R\right)+4\pi \mathrm{}+const.+\mathrm{}$$
(50)
where we have used the relation (49) to convert the $`\delta `$ dependence to a dependence on $`\mathrm{}`$, and the terms omitted vanish in the limit of $`\delta 0`$. The $`R^2`$ term can be considered as the vacuum energy of the domain wall. The $`\mathrm{log}R`$ term is the expected IR divergent energy of a global vortex in D=3. The term linear in $`\mathrm{}`$ can be interpreted as the energy in a string of length $`\mathrm{}`$ and tension

$$T_{string}=4\pi .$$
(51)
This is precisely the tension of the singular lump-string, so the natural interpretation is that the kink-lump provides a D=4 spacetime description of a normally-singular lump-string ending on a D=4 Q-kink domain wall.

Note that all of the above discussion applies for any value of the parameter $`v<1`$, in particular for $`v=0`$, which yields the static kink-lump solution. We now turn to the limiting case of $`v=1`$. In this limit the tube-like mid-section of the lump-string gets stretched out, with the wall itself, and the ‘solid spike’ region, being pushed off to infinity. We then have an infinite straight Q-lump-string, i.e. a string with a Q-lump core and cross-sectional energy density

$$=\frac{4(|Z|^2+|Z^{}|^2)}{(1+|Z|^2)^2}.$$
(52)
As noted by Abraham, the integrated cross-sectional energy, i.e. the Q-lump string tension, is infinite for a single lump, but is finite for a multi-lump solution with $`_i\lambda _i=0`$. For example, for any complex constant $`a`$ the choice

$$Z=\frac{1}{za}\frac{1}{z+a}$$
(53)
leads to a non-singular and finite energy charge-two Q-lump solution. We refer to  for detailed properties of multi Q-lumps, but a plot of the energy density for the above two Q-lump solution is shown for $`a=1/2`$ in Figure 3.

## 4 Effective D-brane description

As mentioned in the introduction, the new kink-lump solution of massive HK sigma models that we have found and studied here is similar in some respects to the BIon solution of the DBI field equations describing the fluctuations of a IIA superstring theory D2-brane . However, the proper analogy of the kink-lump in this context would be to a IIA supergravity solution in which a string ends on a D2-brane, because only in this case would the D2-brane be part of the solution. In this sense, the proper sigma-model analogue of the BIon is found by asking whether the 1/4 supersymmetric kink-lump solution can be be understood as a 1/2 supersymmetric solution on the effective D=3 field theory governing the fluctuations of the kink domain wall. Indeed, it can be understood this way, as we now describe.

The general static kink solution is given implicitly by

$$X=\pm \mathrm{tanh}[(xx_0)aX]\phi =\phi _0$$
(54)
where $`x_0`$ and $`\phi _0`$ are two real collective coordinates, with $`\phi _0\phi +2\pi `$. Identification of the collective coordinates as the coordinates of the space transverse to an infinite planar membrane, and the fact that the kink solution preserves 1/2 of the eight sigma-model supersymmetries implies that the kink has an effective description as a supermembrane in a D=5 $`\text{𝔼}^{1,3}\times S^1`$ spacetime . To see this we allow the collective coordinates to become smooth functions of the worldvolume coordinates $`\xi ^i`$ ($`i=0,1,2`$) to arrive at the worldvolume fields

$$\varphi (\xi )x_0(\xi ),\sigma (\xi )\phi _0(\xi ),$$
(55)
which may be identified with the physical (transverse) boson fields of the supermembrane in the gauge in which three worldvolume fields taking values in $`\text{𝔼}^{(1,2)}`$ are identified with the coordinates of an $`\text{𝔼}^{(1,2)}`$ subset of the D=5 spacetime. The physical worldvolume fields thus determine the position of a membrane in the $`\text{𝔼}^{(1,3)}\times S^1`$ spacetime. The symmetries of the kink solution then imply that the low energy effective action for these fields is that of the D=5 supermembrane . As the kink domain wall tension equals 2 in our mass units, the bosonic action is

$$I=2d^3\xi \sqrt{det(g_{ij}+_i\sigma _j\sigma )}$$
(56)
where $`g_{ij}`$ is the metric induced from the D=4 Minkowski metric. In a physical gauge it is given by

$$g_{ij}=\eta _{ij}+_i\varphi _j\varphi .$$
(57)
Because $`\sigma `$ is periodically identified, $`d\sigma `$ is the dual of a $`U(1)`$ worldvolume 2-form field strength. The dual field theory is just the D=4 DBI action (for the same reasons that the D2-brane action is dual to the D=11 supermembrane action in a $`\text{𝔼}^{(1,9)}\times S^1`$ background ). The bosonic action is

$$I=2d^3\xi \sqrt{det(g_{ij}+F_{ij})}$$
(58)
where the on-shell relation of the BI two-form field-strength $`F`$ to $`\sigma `$ is given by

$$\sqrt{detg}g^{ij}_j\sigma =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+(\sigma )^2}\epsilon ^{ijk}F_{jk}$$
(59)
where $`(\sigma )^2=g^{ij}_i\sigma _j\sigma `$. Note that the solution of the supermembrane equations with $`d\varphi =0`$ and $`d\sigma =vdt`$ corresponds to a solution of the DBI equations with $`d\varphi =0`$ and

$$F=\frac{v}{\sqrt{1v^2}}d\xi ^1d\xi ^2,$$
(60)
so that $`BF_{12}`$ is a constant related to $`v`$ by

$$\sqrt{1+B^2}=\gamma (v).$$
(61)
The above discussion for the static kink domain walls can be generalised to the stationary solutions by expanding the above DBI action about a non-zero but constant magnetic background field $`B`$ given by (60). We begin with a formula of  for the physical gauge DBI energy density $``$. For static 2-brane configurations this formula is

$$^2=4\left[(1+|𝐄|^2)(1+B^2)+(𝐄\mathbf{}\varphi )^2+|\mathbf{}\varphi |^2\right]$$
(62)
where $`𝐄`$ is the electric field. Assuming that $`B`$ is constant, and related to the constant $`\gamma (v)`$ by (61), we may rewrite this as

$$^2=4(\gamma \pm 𝐄\mathbf{}\varphi )^2+4|\gamma 𝐄\mathbf{}\varphi |^2.$$
(63)
Following the argument of  we deduce the bound

$$d^2\sigma \left[2\gamma \right]2\left|d^2\sigma 𝐄\mathbf{}\varphi \right|$$
(64)
with equality when

$$\gamma 𝐄=\pm \mathbf{}\varphi .$$
(65)
This implies that $`\varphi `$ is harmonic and we may choose the unit point charge solution

$$\varphi =\gamma \mathrm{log}r,$$
(66)
for which $`𝐄=𝐞_r/r`$ where $`𝐞_r`$ is a unit vector directed radially outwards<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1For $`v=0`$ this solution corresponds to the D=5 supermembrane configuration $`\varphi +i\sigma =\mathrm{log}\zeta `$, where $`(t,\zeta )`$ ($`\zeta `$ complex) parameterize the membrane’s worldvolume. For $`v=0`$ similar solutions are well-known in string theory, e.g. as a D4-brane ending on an NS5-brane . In this case we have a sigma-model lump-string ending on a sigma-model kink-membrane..

To perform the integral of $`𝐄\mathbf{}\varphi `$ we introduce an IR cutoff at $`r=R`$ and a UV cutoff at $`r=\delta `$. The total energy of the point charge solution is then

$$H=2\gamma \left[\pi R^2\pi \delta ^2\right]+2\left|\varphi (R)_{r=R}\mathrm{𝐝𝐒}𝐄+\varphi (\delta )_{r=\delta }\mathrm{𝐝𝐒}𝐄\right|$$
(67)
where $`\mathrm{𝐝𝐒}`$ is an outward pointing line element on a curve enclosing the origin. The integrals are easily done, with the result that

$$H=2\gamma \pi R^2+4\pi \left[\varphi (R)\varphi (\delta )\right]+\mathrm{},$$
(68)
where the terms neglected vanish in the limit that $`\delta 0`$. Using the formula (66) and the fact that $`\varphi (\delta )=\mathrm{}`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is distance from the 2-brane, we find that

$$H=2\gamma \left[\pi R^2+2\pi \mathrm{log}R\right]+4\pi \mathrm{}+\mathrm{}$$
(69)
in complete agreement with the formula (50) for the energy of a Q-kink-lump. The agreement confirms that we have correctly identified the DBI action as the effective action of the kink domain wall and that we have correctly identified the 1/2 supersymmetric BIon solution of the latter with the 1/4 supersymmetric kink-lump solution of the sigma model.

## 5 M-theoretic interpretation

We shall provide the 1/4 supersymmetric sigma model solitons discussed here with an M-theoretic interpretation by showing that they yield solutions of the M5-brane equations of motion in a D=11 supergravity background with vanishing 4-form field strength and 11-metric

$$ds^2=dT^2+ds^2(\text{𝔼}^4)+dS^2+ds^2(HK_4)+dZ^2.$$
(70)
We take the Killing vector field

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{}{S}$$
(71)
to generate a $`U(1)`$ isometry, and $`HK_4`$ to be a multi-centre 4-metric of the type considered above. This has an M-theory interpretation as the metric produced by M-monopoles (situated at the centres of the 4-metric).

We now consider a 5-brane in this background. As the background breaks half the supersymmetry of the M-theory vacuum, the field theory on the M5-brane has a D=6 (1,0) supersymmetry and the field content splits into a tensor multiplet and a hypermultiplet. There is a consistent truncation to the hypermultiplet sector, and we shall perform this truncation. For an appropriate choice of the M5-brane vacuum the low energy field theory is then a massless D=6 sigma model with a multi-centre HK 4-manifold as its target space. The massive D=5 sigma model is then found as the effective field theory on an M5-brane wrapped on a particular combination of $`S^1`$ cycles in the background, as described for the M2-brane in . A further trivial double-dimensional reduction yields the massive D=4 sigma model discussed above.

To specify the needed M5-brane configuration we begin by taking $`(𝐘,W)`$ to be the $`\text{𝔼}^4`$ coordinates and $`X^I`$ ($`I=1,2,3,4`$) the $`HK_4`$ coordinates. A 5-brane configuration is then specified by giving the 11 spacetime coordinates $`X^M=(T,𝐘,S,W,X^I,Z)`$ as functions of the six worldvolume coordinates $`(t,𝐲,s,w)`$. Six of these functions may be chosen so as to fix the worldvolume diffeomorphism invariance of the fivebrane action. We shall make the ‘physical gauge’ choice

$$T=t,𝐘=𝐲,S=s,W=w.$$
(72)
This leaves $`(X^I,Z)`$ as the physical worldvolume fields, specifying the deformation of the 5-brane in the transverse 5-space from the vacuum configuration in which $`Z`$ and $`X^I`$ are constant. We will set $`Z`$ to a constant as its fluctuations belong to the fields of the tensor multiplet that we are discarding. We are left with the four worldvolume scalar fields $`X^I`$ (and their superpartners). In principle, these fields are functions of all six worldvolume coordinates, but we will impose invariance under shifts of $`w`$. This leaves us with the D=5 fields $`X^I(\xi )`$ (and their superpartners) where

$$\xi ^\mu =(t,𝐲,s).$$
(73)
Eventually we will impose the constraint

$$_sX^I_4X^I=\zeta ^I$$
(74)
where $`\zeta `$ is the tri-holomorphic KVF of the HK 4-metric, thus reducing the effective field theory to a massive D=4 supersymmetric sigma model. What we will now show is that the Q-kink-lump solution of this effective field theory defines an M5-brane configuration preserving 1/4 supersymmetry.

The number of supersymmetries preserved by a given M5-brane configuration is the dimension of the space of solutions for the constant spinor $`ϵ`$ to the condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ=ϵ$$
(75)
where $`ϵ`$ is a Killing spinor of the background, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an 11-dimensional Dirac matrix function to be specified below. In the present case, there are 16 linearly independent Killing spinors, satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1234}ϵ=ϵ.$$
(76)
The Killing spinors have the form $`ϵ=fϵ_0`$ for a universal function $`f`$ and constant spinor $`ϵ_0`$. As $`f`$ cancels from (75) we may replace $`ϵ`$ by $`ϵ_0`$ in this equation; having done so we may then drop the suffix on $`ϵ`$ to arrive back at (75) but with $`ϵ`$ now taken to be a constant spinor satisfying the constraint (76).

To specify $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we begin by taking the D=11 Dirac matrices to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_M=(\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _5,\mathrm{\Gamma }_I,\gamma _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1234})$$
(77)
where

$$\gamma _{}=\gamma _{01234}\gamma _5$$
(78)
Thus $`\gamma _5^2=\gamma _{}^2=1`$, and the remaining non-zero anticommutators are

$$\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\eta _{\mu \nu },\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_I,\mathrm{\Gamma }_J\}=2G_{IJ}.$$
(79)
The matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for bosonic M5-brane configurations with vanishing worldvolume 3-form field strength is then

$$(\sqrt{detg})\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{5!}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda \sigma }_\mu X^M_\nu X^N_\rho X^P_\lambda X^Q_\sigma X^R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MNPQR}\gamma _5$$
(80)
where $`g`$ is the worldvolume 6-metric. In the physical gauge (and with $`Z=0`$) it is block diagonal with components $`\mathrm{diag}(g_{\mu \nu },1)`$, where

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+_\mu X^I_\nu X^JG_{IJ}.$$
(81)
We can now rewrite the condition (75) as

$$\left(\sqrt{detg}\right)ϵ=\left(1\gamma ^\mu _\mu X^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_I\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu X^I_\nu X^J\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IJ}+\mathrm{}\right)\gamma _{}ϵ.$$
(82)
In principle, the right hand side includes terms up to $`4`$th order in $`X`$ (recall that there are only 4 sigma-model fields $`X^I`$) but terms higher than second order vanish for a configuration such as the kink-lump that depends on only two of the four sigma-model fields.

Since the equations (17) and (18) are linear in $`(X)`$, the supersymmetry preservation condition (82) must be satisfied order by order. At zeroth order we have

$$\gamma _{}ϵ=ϵ,$$
(83)
which tells us that the vacuum state of the M5-brane is a $`1/2`$ supersymmetric M-theory configuration. The constraints (76) and (83) preserve 1/4 of the 32 supersymmetries of the M-theory vacuum; that is, they preserve 8 supersymmetries, which is the expected number for the vacuum of a supersymmetric HK sigma model. At first order we have

$$\gamma ^\mu _\mu X^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_Iϵ=0.$$
(84)
Because the sigma-model is obtained by retaining the terms quadratic in $`X`$ in a series expansion of the 5-brane action, (84) is equivalent to the field theory condition for preservation of supersymmetry, as we shall verify below.

The higher order terms in (82) are now identities. The analysis is similar to that of . We first note that (84) implies

$$\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu X^I_\nu X^J\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IJ}=\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu X^I_\nu X^JG_{IJ},$$
(85)
which in turn implies that (82) is satisfied if, and only if,

$$det(\eta +G)=(1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}G)^2.$$
(86)
That this is indeed satisfied follows from the fact that the rank of $`G`$ cannot exceed 2 because there are only two ‘active’ fields ($`X,\phi `$).

We now apply the above result to the Q-kink-lump to confirm that it preserves 1/4 supersymmetry. By use of the Q-kink-lump equations, (84) can be shown to be equivalent to two further conditions on $`ϵ`$. One is

$$\gamma ^{23}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi ϵ=\sigma ϵ$$
(87)
where we have used $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_I=(𝚪,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi )`$ and set $`U^1𝐧𝚪=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi ^2=1`$. This is the ‘lump’ condition which, by itself, preserves 1/2 of the 8 sigma model supersymmetries. The other condition is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_vϵ=ϵ$$
(88)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_vv\gamma ^{04}\pm \sqrt{1v^2}\gamma ^{14}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi .$$
(89)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v^2=1`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_v,\gamma ^{23}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi ]=0`$, so this additional condition reduces the supersymmetry to 1/4 of the sigma model vacuum. Note that this is true even if $`v=1`$, in which case the Q-kink-lump reduces to the Q-lump. Thus, both the Q-lump and the Q-kink-lump define M5-brane configurations preserving 1/16 of the supersymmetry of the M-theory vacuum, corresponding to 1/4 of the supersymmetry of the sigma model vacuum.

## 6 Discussion

We have seen that much of the physics of D-branes can appear in a purely field theoretic context. It is natural to ask whether the D-brane analogy can be stretched further. One obvious question is whether non-abelian symmetry enhancement occurs for coincident kink domain walls. The first point to appreciate here is that not every model with kink solutions will have static multi-kink solutions. In the simple 2-centre model considered here there are not even multi-kink configurations. To get multi-kink configurations one needs either (i) a multi-centre target space 4-metric, or (ii) a higher-dimensional target space metric. In the first case, a model with co-linear centres has obvious multi-kink configurations, but no static multi-kink solutions because the kinks repel (as will be shown elsewhere ). This behaviour can also occur in string theory , where it is attributable to non-abelian instanton effects in the D=3 N=2 SYM theory on the branes. This suggests that a similar non-abelian gauge theory interpretation may be possible for sigma-model D-branes.

We chose to set $`\mu =1`$ and $`g=1`$ throughout most of the paper. If one reinstates them one finds, for example, that the DBI action (58) becomes

$$I=\frac{2\mu }{g^2}d^3\xi \sqrt{det(g_{ij}+\mu ^1F_{ij})}$$
(90)
and the wall and string tensions become

$$T_{wall}=2\mu /g^2,T_{string}=4\pi /g^2.$$
(91)
Recall that the Q-kink-lump was recovered by expanding about a constant background magnetic field $`B`$, and the the Q-lump was obtained in a limit corresponding to infinite $`B`$. Following  one can rescale $`\mu `$ and $`g`$ in this limit to end up with a non-commutative D=3 gauge theory. This suggests that the sigma-model Q-lump may have an alternative description as a non-commutative soliton.

A difference between the D=5 supermembrane of relevance to sigma-model D-branes and the M2-brane of relevance to string theory D-branes is that that D=5 membrane can be viewed as an $`S^1`$ wrapped D=6 3-brane (whereas the M2-brane has no analogous D=12 precursor). The D=4 D2-brane is thus a 3-brane in a D=6 spacetime of the form $`\text{𝔼}^{(1,3)}\times T^2`$ that has been wrapped on a homology cycles of the 2-torus. This is to be expected from the fact that D=5 is the maximal dimension for massive HK sigma-models while we considered only the D=4 models. The kink is a 3-brane of the D=5 massive sigma-model and a sigma model lump is a 2-brane. The kink lump solution thus lifts to a solution of the D=5 model representing a 2-brane with a string boundary on the 3-brane.

Finally, we note that the results of section 5 can be stated in terms of calibrations. Recall that the lump solution of the massless sigma model corresponds to a Kähler calibrated two surface in four dimensions . We now have a similar interpretation of the kink-lump of the massive sigma model as a Kähler calibrated 4-surface in six dimensions. The Q-kink-lump, on the other hand, is not a calibrated 4-surface, strictly speaking, because it is time dependent. This kind of ‘time-dependent calibration’ has been discussed in  and we suggest the terminology ‘Q-calibration’. As we have seen, Q-calibrations are stationary, but not necessarily static, minimal energy surfaces. The Q-kink-lump is therefore a Kähler Q-calibrated 4-surface in six dimensions. It reduces for $`v=1`$ to the Q-lump, which is a Kähler Q-calibrated two surface in four dimensions.

Acknowledgements: PKT would like to thank Taichiro Kugo and Nobuyoshi Ohta for helpful discussions, and the ESI (Vienna), the YI (Kyoto) and the Kyoto University Department of Physics for their hospitality. DT is supported by an EPSRC fellowship. RP thanks Trinity College, Cambridge for financial support. All authors are supported in part by PPARC through SPG $`\mathrm{}`$ 613.


format: text

text:
# Relativistic Viscous Fluid Description of Microscopic Black Hole Wind

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to G. Amelino-Camelia and A. Heckler for many illuminating discussions and to P. Ellis for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-87ER40328.


text:
# The Lower Bound on the Neutralino-Nucleon Cross Section

## I Introduction

Supersymmetry is considered to be a compelling extension to the Standard Model for several reasons. For example, it stabilizes scalar masses against radiative corrections, allowing theories with fundamental scalars to become natural. For a review see HMSusy . Supersymmetry also weighs in on the dark matter problem: stars and other luminous matter contribute a small fraction of the critical density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{lum}=(0.003\pm 0.001)h^1`$, while the amount of matter known to exist from its gravitational effects (both at galaxy and cluster of galaxies scales) is much larger, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.35\pm 0.07`$ (Ref. tysonturner ). Furthermore, most of the missing matter seems to be non-baryonic in nature. The experimental motivation behind the dark matter problem and different search strategies are discussed in more detail in sadoulet ; JKG ; KolbTurner .

In supersymmetric models, R-parity is often imposed to avoid weak-scale proton decay or lepton number violation. Imposing this symmetry also yields an ideal fermionic dark matter candidate. Namely, in supersymmetric models with R-parity, the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable and it could conceivably make up a substantial part of the dark matter in the galactic halo.

Here we investigate the direct detection of such a particle. There have been many such studies in the literature JKG ; crosssections ; nnsreexamined ; bottino ; GGR ; bergstromgondolo . More recently, there have been discussions of numerous variables that can effect direct detection. These studies include an investigation of the effect of the rotation of the galactic halo halo , the effects of the uncertainty of the quark densities within the nuclei bottino2 ; NathCorsetti ; quarkdensity , possible CP violation Chatto ; CP , and non-universality of gaugino masses NathCorsetti ; NathCorsetti2 . Here we attempt to address the following question: Is there a minimum cross section for the elastic scattering of neutralinos off of ordinary matter? Naively, it would seem that a judicious choice of parameters might allow a complete cancellation between different diagrams. After all, the parameter space is very large in the general Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), and even for a very restrictive framework such as the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA), the number of parameters is still quite large. We will show that there nonetheless exists a minimum cross section in the mSUGRA framework. However, we will also show that this result strongly depends on the assumptions of the framework, such as unification of different parameters at the GUT scale, radiative electroweak symmetry breaking and naturalness.

This argument is of great importance when considering the upcoming direct detection experiments. For the mSUGRA framework, one expects that the future ambitious direct detection experiments can explore most of the parameter space. However, we find that the detection picture is not quite as rosy for a more general MSSM framework.

## II Definitions and Approach

We adopt the following notation for the superpotential and soft supersymmetry breaking potential in the MSSM:

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}(\widehat{e}_R^{}h_E\widehat{l}_L^i\widehat{H}_1^j\widehat{d}_R^{}h_D\widehat{q}_L^i\widehat{H}_1^j`$ (1)
$`+\widehat{u}_R^{}h_U\widehat{q}_L^i\widehat{H}_2^j\mu \widehat{H}_1^i\widehat{H}_2^j),`$
$`V_{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}A_Eh_E\stackrel{~}{l}_L^iH_1^j+\stackrel{~}{d}_R^{}A_Dh_D\stackrel{~}{q}_L^iH_1^j`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{~}{u}_R^{}A_Uh_U\stackrel{~}{q}_L^iH_2^jB\mu \widehat{H}_1^i\widehat{H}_2^j+h.c.)`$
$`+H_1^im_{H_1}^2H_1^i+H_2^im_{H_2}^2H_2^i`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{q}_L^iM_Q^2\stackrel{~}{q}_L^i+\stackrel{~}{l}_L^iM_L^2\stackrel{~}{l}_L^i+\stackrel{~}{u}_R^{}M_U^2\stackrel{~}{u}_R`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{d}_R^{}M_D^2\stackrel{~}{d}_R+\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}M_E^2\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M_1\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}+M_2\stackrel{~}{W}^a\stackrel{~}{W}^a+M_3\stackrel{~}{g}^b\stackrel{~}{g}^b).`$
Here the $`h`$’s are Yukawa couplings, the $`A`$’s are trilinear couplings, the $`M_{Q,U,D,L,E}`$ are the squark and slepton mass parameters, the $`M_{1,2,3}`$ are gaugino mass parameters and $`m_{H_1}`$, $`m_{H_2}`$, $`\mu `$, and $`B`$ are Higgs mass parameters. The $`i`$ and $`j`$ are $`SU(2)_L`$ indices, and are made explicit, so as to make our sign conventions clear. $`SU(3)`$ indices are suppressed. In the R-parity invariant MSSM the LSP is usually a neutralino - a mixture of bino, neutral wino and two neutral higgsinos. In our notation, the neutralino mass matrix reads

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& m_Zs_{\theta _W}c_\beta & +m_Zs_{\theta _W}s_\beta \\ 0& M_2& +m_Zc_{\theta _W}c_\beta & m_Zc_{\theta _W}s_\beta \\ m_Zs_{\theta _W}c_\beta & +m_Zc_{\theta _W}c_\beta & 0& \mu \\ m_Zs_{\theta _W}s_\beta & m_Zc_{\theta _W}s_\beta & \mu & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
Here $`s_\beta =\mathrm{sin}\beta `$, $`c_\beta =\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, $`s_{\theta _W}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$, and $`c_{\theta _W}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$. The physical states are obtained by diagonalizing this matrix. The lightest neutralino can be written in the form:

$$\chi _1^0=N_{11}\stackrel{~}{B}+N_{12}\stackrel{~}{W}_3+N_{13}\stackrel{~}{H}_1^0+N_{14}\stackrel{~}{H}_2^0.$$
(4)
We are interested in spin independent scattering of neutralinos off of ordinary matter. This contribution dominates in the case of detectors with large nuclei, such as Ge Goodman . As discussed in the literature, in most situations the dominant contribution to the spin independent amplitude is the exchange of the two neutral Higgs bosons, although in some cases the contribution of the squark exchange and loop corrections are substantial. The relevant tree-level diagrams are shown in Figure 1.

We use the DarkSUSY package DarkSUSY  in this study. This code has the following inputs: $`M_{1,2,3}`$, $`\mu `$, the ratio of the vevs of the two Higgs bosons ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$), the mass of the axial Higgs boson ($`m_A`$), the soft masses of the sparticles ($`M_{Q,U,D,L,E}`$) and the diagonal components of the trilinear coupling matrices ($`A_{E,D,U}`$). All inputs are to be supplied at the weak scale. DarkSUSY then calculates the particle spectrum, widths and couplings based on the input parameters. It evaluates the cross section for scattering of neutralinos off protons and neutrons, following Ref. bergstromgondolo . It also evaluates the relic density of the neutralinos for the given input parameters following relicdensity , which includes the relativistic Boltzmann averaging, sub-threshold and resonant annihilation and coannihilation processes with charginos and neutralinos. Furthermore, DarkSUSY checks for the current constraints obtained by experiments, including the $`bs+\gamma `$ constraint implementbsg ; DSbounds .

## III mSUGRA Framework

### III.1 Definition of the Framework

In this section, we briefly outline the mSUGRA framework. In mSUGRA, one makes several assumptions:

* There exists a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) at some high energy scale. Consequently, the gauge couplings unify at the GUT scale. The value of the couplings at the weak scale determines the GUT scale to be $`2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. The gaugino mass parameters also unify to $`m_{1/2}`$ at the GUT scale.
* Other unification assumptions are: the scalar mass parameters unify to a value denoted by $`m_0`$ and the trilinear couplings unify to $`A_0`$ at the GUT scale. Using the MSSM renormalization group equations (RGEs) we evaluate all parameters at the weak scale. We choose to do this using the one loop RGEs that can be found, for example, in RGEs  or SUGRAWorking .
* Radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB) is imposed: minimization of the one-loop Higgs effective potential at the appropriate scale fixes $`\mu ^2`$ and $`m_A`$ (we follow the methods of Refs. ArnowittNathEWSB  and effpot ). For completeness, we reproduce the equation for $`\mu ^2`$ at tree level:

$$\mu ^2=\frac{m_{H_1}^2m_{H_2}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}\frac{1}{2}M_Z^2.$$
(5)

With these assumptions, the mSUGRA framework allows four free parameters ($`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$, $`A_0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$). Also, the sign of $`\mu `$ remains undetermined. Starting with these parameters we determine all of the input parameters for the DarkSUSY code. We allow the free parameters to vary in the intervals

$`0<m_{1/2}<300\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}95}<m_0<1000\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`3000<A_0<3000\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.8}<\mathrm{tan}\beta <25.`$ (6)
The upper bounds on these parameters come from the naturalness assumption: one of the reasons for using supersymmetry is its ability to naturally relate high and low energy scales; as a result, no parameter in the theory should be very large. Moreover, the upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ makes our data set insensitive to the stau-neutralino coannihilations, which are not included in the calculation of relic density performed by DarkSUSY. We have explicitly checked that there are no models in our data set which would be cosmologically allowed only if the stau coannihilations were included. We will also see later that expanding the upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ has serious consequences regarding the lower bound on the elastic scattering cross section. Also, the low value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is set by the requirement that the top Yukawa coupling does not blow up before the GUT scale is reached.

Before we present the detailed analysis of cross section, a few remarks are in order. First, the $`bs+\gamma `$ constraint eliminates large portions of the $`\mu <0`$ parameter space, in agreement with bsgamma , nohiggsino . Second, for both $`\mu >0`$ and $`\mu <0`$, we find no higgsino-like LSP models that are cosmologically important, in agreement with nohiggsino .

We plot the variation of the spin independent cross section versus the neutralino mass in Figure 2. Note that the complete allowed region is split into two parts by the annihilation channel into $`W^+W^{}`$, which affects the relic density of neutralino. We consider two relic density constraints. Since the present observations favor the Hubble constant $`h=0.7\pm 0.1`$ and the total matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3\pm 0.1`$, of which baryons contribute $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.02`$, we consider the range $`0.052<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.236`$. However, we also examine effects of relaxing the relic density constraint to $`0.025<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<1`$. The upper bound on $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ (of the theoretically allowed regions) comes from the lower bound on the relic density. The lower bound on $`M_\chi `$ comes from the existing constraints from the accelerator experiments. The upper bound on $`M_\chi `$ is a combination of the upper bound on relic density and of the bounds on the free parameters. The lower bound on $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ is not yet well understood, and it is the subject of this paper. Figure 2 also includes some recent and future direct detection experimental results DAMA1 ; DAMA2 ; CDMS ; CDMSII ; GENIUS . Note that the parameter space defined by Eq. (6) corresponds to the region of $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ \- $`M_\chi `$ plane bounded by the two closed solid lines. Therefore, $`\sigma _{\chi p}>10^{46}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for these models, or equivalently, assuming a $`{}_{}{}^{73}\mathrm{Ge}`$ target, the dark matter density $`\rho _D=0.3\mathrm{GeV}c^2\mathrm{cm}^3`$, the WIMP characteristic velocity $`v_0=230\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and following Ref. smithlewin , the event rate $`R>0.1\mathrm{ton}^1\mathrm{day}^1`$. Hence, the most ambitious future direct detection experiments may be able to explore a large portion, if not all, of the these models.

### III.2 Results and Analysis

As mentioned above, the dominant contribution to spin independent elastic scattering is usually the Higgs boson exchange. Figure 3 illustrates this relationship within our results. The nearly perfect 45 degree line in the figure indicates good agreement between the total cross section as evaluated by DarkSUSY and the cross section calculated including the exchange of Higgs bosons only (in the approximation explained below). We will, therefore, concentrate on the Higgs boson exchange and will postpone the discussion of squark exchange to the end of this section.

The contribution of Higgs boson exchange can be found in the literature JKG ; bergstromgondolo ; NathCorsetti ; Chatto ; ArnowittNathExpansion ; griest ; barbieri . It is of the following form:

$$\sigma _{h,H}|(f_u+f_c+f_t)A^u+(f_d+f_s+f_b)A^d|^2,$$
(7)
where $`f_u0.023,f_d0.034,f_s0.14,f_c=f_t=f_b0.0595`$ parametrize the quark-nucleon matrix elements and

$`A^u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{4M_W}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_h}{m_h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _H}{\mathrm{sin}\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_H}{m_H^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha _H}{\mathrm{sin}\beta }}\right),`$ (8)
$`A^d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{4M_W}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_h}{m_h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha _H}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_H}{m_H^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _H}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}\right),`$ (9)
and

$`F_h`$ $`=`$ $`(N_{12}N_{11}\mathrm{tan}\theta _W)(N_{14}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _H+N_{13}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _H)`$
$`F_H`$ $`=`$ $`(N_{12}N_{11}\mathrm{tan}\theta _W)(N_{14}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _HN_{13}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _H).`$ (10)
The $`N`$’s are the coefficients appearing in Eq. (4) and $`\alpha _H`$ is the Higgs boson mixing angle (defined after radiative corrections have been included in the Higgs mass matrix). Note that there is an upper bound on the light Higgs boson mass in the MSSM, given by $`m_h<130`$ GeV higgsmass . $`A^u`$ represents the amplitude for scattering off an up-type quark in a nucleon, while $`A^d`$ represents the amplitude for scattering off a down-type quark in the nucleon. Since all models we generate have a bino-like neutralino, $`\mu >M_1`$ and $`\mu >M_Z`$. Then, following Ref. ArnowittNathExpansion , we can expand the $`N_{1i}`$’s out in powers of $`\frac{M_Z}{\mu }`$. We reproduce their result here:

$`N_{11}`$ $``$ $`1,`$ (11)
$`N_{12}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta _W}{(1M_1^2/\mu ^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z}{M_2M_1}}\left[\mathrm{sin}2\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{\mu }}\right],`$
$`N_{13}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1M_1^2/\mu ^2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{\mu }}\mathrm{cot}\beta \right],`$
$`N_{14}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1M_1^2/\mu ^2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{\mu }}\mathrm{tan}\beta \right].`$
In this approximation, we can identify five possible situations in which the neutralino-proton elastic scattering cross section is relatively small. Figure 4 illustrates which regions of the $`M_1`$-$`\mu `$ plane satisfy the conditions of the five cases. In the following, we will use the approximation of Eq. (11).

* Case 1: $`N_{12}N_{11}\mathrm{tan}\theta _W=0`$ would make both $`F_h`$ and $`F_H`$ vanish. Intuitively, this is reasonable since this condition implies that the neutralino is a pure photino, and the tree level Higgs coupling to the photino vanishes. Using Eq. (11), we may rewrite this condition as

$$\mu (M_2M_1)=M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W\left(\mathrm{sin}2\beta +\frac{M_1}{\mu }\right).$$
(12)
Since $`M_2>M_1>0`$, the last equation can be satisfied only if $`\mu <0`$. If we use the GUT relationship betweeen $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, we get

$$\mu M_1\left(\frac{3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}{5\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}1\right)=M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W\left(\mathrm{sin}2\beta +\frac{M_1}{\mu }\right)$$
(13)
or, equivalently, for $`\mu `$ and $`M_1`$ in units of GeV

$$M_1=\frac{6449\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{\mu +\frac{6449}{\mu }}.$$
(14)
As $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ ranges from 0 to 1, Eq. (14) spans the dashed regions marked ’Case 1’ in Figure 4. For $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =1`$, Eq. (14) implies $`M_\chi M_1<40`$ GeV. This can be read directly from Figure 4. Note that such low values of $`M_\chi `$ are excluded by the relic density constraint and the current experimental limits (as shown in Figure 2 and Ref. NathCorsetti ). The constraint on $`M_\chi `$ is even stronger for other values of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, so we conclude that this condition cannot be satisfied in the mSUGRA framework.
* Case 2: $`N_{14}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _HN_{13}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _H=0`$ would make only $`F_H`$ vanish. In our approximation, this condition translates into

$$M_1/\mu =\mathrm{cot}\alpha _H\mathrm{cot}\beta .$$
(15)
To understand the meaning of this condition better, we will use the tree level relationship between $`\alpha _H`$ and $`\beta `$:

$`\mathrm{cot}2\alpha _H=k\mathrm{cot}2\beta ,k={\displaystyle \frac{m_A^2M_Z^2}{m_A^2+M_Z^2}},`$ (16)
which, after some trigonometric manipulations, yields

$`\mathrm{cot}\alpha _H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }}\mathrm{tan}\beta \right)`$ (17)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}+\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 2\right)+1}.`$
Since both terms on the right hand side of Eq. (17) are negative because $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >1`$, the minimum of $`|\mathrm{cot}\alpha _H|=1`$ occurs when $`k=0`$ (or, equivalently, when $`m_A=M_Z`$). Then, since $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >1.8`$, the condition of Eq. (15) becomes

$$\frac{M_1}{\mu }>0.5.$$
(18)
At this point, we would like to formulate a relationship between $`\mu `$ and $`M_1`$ resulting from the RGEs and REWSB assumptions. In Ref. SUGRAWorking , an approximate solution (based on the expansion around the infrared fixed point) to the RGEs for the Higgs mass parameters, $`m_{H_1}`$ and $`m_{H_2}`$, is presented. Assuming that the value of the top Yukawa coupling is relatively close to the infrared fixed point, we can write:

$`m_{H_1}^2m_0^2+0.5m_{1/2}^2,`$
$`m_{H_2}^20.5m_0^23.5m_{1/2}^2.`$ (19)
These equations, coupled with Eq. (5), yield a value for $`\mu ^2`$ in terms of $`m_{1/2},m_0`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Using the GUT relationship:

$$M_1=m_{1/2}\frac{\alpha _1(m_Z)}{\alpha _{GUT}},$$
(20)
we get a roughly linear relationship between $`\mu `$ and $`M_1`$:

$$M_1=(0.3|\mu |60)\pm 40.$$
(21)
The spread $`\pm 40`$ comes from the variation in $`m_0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the linearity breaks down somewhat at the low values of $`M_1`$. The empirical relationship that we obtain from running the code (see Figure 4) is very similar:

$$M_1=(0.3|\mu |40)\pm 25.$$
(22)
The smaller spread comes from the application of the relic density cut and the current experimental limits. In any case, we conclude that $`M_1/\mu >0.3`$ is not allowed in the mSUGRA framework. This is in conflict with Eq. (18), implying that the Case 2 cannot be satisfied. Note that the tree level relationship in Eq. (16) is altered at higher orders, but we have checked that this does not affect the final conclusion.
* Case 3: $`N_{14}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _H+N_{13}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _H=0`$ would make $`F_h`$ vanish. Manipulation of this condition using Eq. (11) yields

$$M_1/\mu =\mathrm{tan}\alpha _H\mathrm{cot}\beta .$$
(23)
Figure 5 shows that when this condition is (approximately) satisfied, the contribution of the heavy Higgs boson exchange to the elastic scattering cross section is the largest. Hence, even if this condition is satisfied, $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ cannot be arbitrarily small due to heavy Higgs boson exchange (along with other channels such as the squark exchange). Of course, this assumes that there is some upper bound on the heavy Higgs mass, which is true simply because the parameter space is bounded. Note, also, that since $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha _H<0`$, the condition for the vanishing of the light Higgs boson contribution can be satisfied only for $`\mu <0`$. It is interesting, however, that most of the models in our data set that approximately satisfy this condition are excluded by the bounds on Higgs boson masses.
* Case 4: There is one more way of making both $`F_h`$ and $`F_H`$ small, and that is by making $`\mu `$ very large ($`N_{12}`$, $`N_{13}`$, and $`N_{14}`$ all contain $`\mu `$ in denominator). However, this possibility is limited by naturalness assumption: $`\mu `$ is kept below $`850`$ GeV by the upper bound we have chosen on $`m_{1/2}`$. Hence, in mSUGRA framework, the naturalness assumption also keeps the cross section from vanishing.
* Case 5: We now consider the possibility of complete cancellation of terms in the Equation (7). Let us examine the relative signs of $`F_h`$, $`F_H`$ and $`\mu `$. Since $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >1.8`$ and $`M_1/\mu 0.3`$, it follows from Eq. (11) that $`|N_{13}|>|N_{14}|`$. Then, since $`\mathrm{cot}\alpha _H<1`$ (and $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _H<0`$), the $`N_{13}`$ term dominates over the $`N_{14}`$ term in $`F_H`$ (Eq. (10)). Hence, $`F_H/\mu >0`$ always, consistent with the analysis of Case 2 above. The situation is somewhat more complicated in the case of $`F_h`$. For $`\mu >0`$, following a similar analysis we get $`F_h/\mu >0`$. Then, the interference between the two terms in $`A^u`$ (Eq. (8)) is destructive and the interference between the two terms in $`A^d`$ (Eq. (9)) is constructive. Furthermore, in Eq. (7) we see that $`A^u`$ gets multiplied by a much smaller form factor than $`A^d`$. As a result, $`A^d`$ strongly dominates over $`A^u`$ in Eq. (7), preventing $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ from vanishing.

On the other hand, if $`\mu <0`$ and if $`\mu >M_1\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`N_{14}`$ can change sign relative to $`\mu `$. This change of sign can propagate through Equations (10), (9), and (7), so that the $`A^u`$ and $`A^d`$ terms in the Eq. (7) are of opposite sign. If the parameters are tuned properly, a complete cancellation of these terms can be obtained. However, this cancellation happens only if $`M_\chi (M_1)>120`$ GeV, which is not allowed due to the upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$. We conclude that in the parameter space defined by Eq. (6), $`A^d`$ always dominates over $`A^u`$, so $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ does not vanish.

If the upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ is relaxed to 1 TeV, the situation changes significantly. The complete cancellation discussed above is now allowed to happen. As shown in Figure 6, the lowest values of $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ are reached exactly when the $`A^d`$ and $`A^u`$ terms cancel each other. As shown in Figure 2, the stringent relic rensity cut $`0.052<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.236`$ rules out all of these models. However, we do not include the stau-neutralino coannihilations in the calculation of the relic density, so this result should be taken with caution (see, for example, ellisstau ; arnowittstau ). In fact, our data set contains models in which the stau-neutralino coannihilation could make a difference. For this reason, the Figure 2 also contains the allowed region for a conservative relic density cut $`0.025<\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<1`$. Clearly, this cut allows models with very low $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ values.

With the above discussion in hand, let us go back and consider the squark exchange. The complete calculation of the squark exchange contribution is fairly complex. However, good insights can be gained by making several simplifying assumptions. First of all, the contribution of the squark exchange can be roughly approximated by the contribution of the exchange of the $`u`$, $`d`$, and $`s`$ squarks. In this case, the contribution of the squark exchange to the cross-section can be written as

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{q}}|f_uB_u+f_dB_d+f_sB_s|^2,$$
(24)
where $`f_i`$ is as defined above, and the $`B_j`$ represent the amplitude for scattering off of a quark of type $`j`$ in the nucleon. Furthermore, in the following considerations we neglect the left-right mixing in these light squarks. This should be true over a large class of models, as the off-diagonal elements in the squark mass matrix are proportional to the corresponding quark mass. Let us also neglect the mass splitting of the two different squarks. Also, since $`f_sf_u`$, $`f_d`$, we can neglect all but the $`B_s`$ term. In this approximation, following Ref. Chatto , we can write:

$$B_s=\frac{1}{4m_s}\frac{1}{M_{\stackrel{~}{s}}^2M_{\chi _1^0}^2}[2C_1C_22C_1C_3],$$
(25)
where we have defined the following:

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2m_sN_{13}}{2M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }},`$
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`eQy_1+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}y_2[T_3Q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W],`$
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`eQy_1{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}y_2Q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W.`$ (26)
Note that $`C_1`$ represents the coupling of the down type quark to the Higgsino portion of the neutralino. $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ represent the couplings of bino to the left and right handed quark, respectively. Here, $`T_3`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ quantum number of the squark in question, $`Q`$ is the charge, $`y_1`$ denotes the photino fraction of the neutralino, while $`y_2`$ denotes the zino fraction. They are given by:

$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`N_{11}\mathrm{cos}\theta _W+N_{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W,`$
$`y_2`$ $`=`$ $`N_{11}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W+N_{12}\mathrm{cos}\theta _W.`$ (27)
After approximating $`y_2\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$ and using $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _W=g^{}/g`$, a brief and straight-forward calculation yields a simple expression for the amplitude due to the exchange of the strange squarks:

$$B_s=\frac{g_2g^{}}{8M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }\frac{N_{13}}{M_{\stackrel{~}{s}}^2M_\chi ^2}.$$
(28)
Furthermore, we can write the masses $`M_{\stackrel{~}{s}}`$ and $`M_\chi `$ in terms of the input parameters of mSUGRA. This is because the Yukawa couplings can be neglected in the RGEs. Following the methods described in Ref. Kazakov , and using the Eq. (20) we can write

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{s}_R}^2M_\chi ^2m_0^2+5.8m_{1/2}^2.$$
(29)
Using Eqs. (9) and (28), we can compare the squark exchange to the light Higgs boson exchange:

$$\frac{A^d}{B_s}=\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _H(N_{14}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _H+N_{13}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _H)(m_0^2+5.8m_{1/2}^2)}{m_h^2N_{13}}.$$
(30)
Here we have only kept the contribution of the strange quark to the Higgs exchange amplitude ($`A^d`$) as well. Note that in general, the light Higgs boson contribution will dominate. As expected, this is basically due to the fact that squarks are in general heavier than the lightest Higgs boson. The squark exchange can be important only if the contribution from the exchange of the Higgs bosons is fine-tuned to be very small.

## IV General MSSM Framework

### IV.1 Definition of the Framework

In this framework we relax our assumptions. We keep the unification of the gaugino masses, but we drop the requirements that the scalar masses and the trilinear scalar couplings unify. In addition, we drop the REWSB requirement (i.e., we take $`m_{H_{1,2}}^2`$ as independent parameters from $`m_0`$). We assume that all scalar mass parameters at the weak scale are equal: $`m_{sq}`$. This assumption is made in order to simplify the calculation, and it should not affect the general flavor of our results. Of all trilinear couplings, we keep only $`A_t`$ and $`A_b`$ and we set all others to zero. Then, the free parameters are $`\mu ,M_2,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,m_A,m_{sq},A_t,A_b`$. We also relax the naturalness assumption, allowing the free parameters to have very large values. Besides the relatively uniform scans of the parameter space, we also performed special scans in order to investigate the different conditions mentioned in the previous section. The free parameter space is then:

$`300\mathrm{TeV}<\mu <300\mathrm{TeV},`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<M_2<300\mathrm{TeV},`$
$`95\mathrm{GeV}<m_A<10\mathrm{TeV},`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}200}\mathrm{GeV}<m_{sq}<50\mathrm{TeV},`$
$`3<{\displaystyle \frac{A_{t,b}}{m_{sq}}}<3,`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.8}<\mathrm{tan}\beta <100.`$ (31)
Again, a few comments are in order. First, in this framework we observe higgsino-like (as well as bino-like) lightest neutralino. In agreement with the Ref. EFGOS , we find very few light higgsino-like models, which will probably be explored soon by accelerator experiments. Most of the higgsino-like models (with gaugino content $`z_g<0.01`$) have $`M_\chi >450`$ GeV, implying very large values of $`m_{1/2}`$. In particular, in higgsino like models $`M_1>\mu M_\chi `$; our results give $`M_1>700`$ GeV or, equivalently, $`m_{1/2}>1700`$ GeV, which can be considered unnatural. For these reasons, we choose not to analyze the higgsino case. Second, $`bs+\gamma `$ is less constraining, but our results are still consistent with Refs. bsgamma , nohiggsino .

We present the plot of $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ versus $`M_\chi `$ in this framework (Figure 7). We do not pretend that Figure 7 reflects all points accessible in a general MSSM. However, it does serve to show some generic differences from the mSUGRA case. Namely, we can obtain much larger values for the neutralino mass because of the size of the parameter space. In addition, the lower bound on $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ is also much lower than in the mSUGRA case. We discuss the specifics of this below.

### IV.2 Results and Analysis

We concentrate only on the bino-like lightest neutralino. All results in this section are presented with this assumption in mind. In particular, we demand $`z_g=(N_{11}^2+N_{12}^2)/(N_{13}^2+N_{14}^2)>10`$. In this case, we can rely on the same approximations we used in the previous section. In particular, the expansion of Eq. (11) is valid. So, we can revisit the 5 different cases explored in the previous section.

* Case 1: $`N_{12}N_{11}\mathrm{tan}\theta _W=0`$ cannot be satisfied because, as in the mSUGRA case, it implies $`M_\chi <40`$ GeV, which is ruled out by the relic density cut and the experimental limits (as shown on Figure 7). The models that get close to satisfying this condition have very low contributions due to the Higgs bosons exchange, so this is one of the rare situations where the squark exchange is important.
* Case 2: $`N_{14}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _HN_{13}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _H=0`$ is now possible to satisfy because $`\mu `$ and $`M_1`$ are not related. We indeed observe that the heavy Higgs boson exchange contribution is very small in this case, but since the light Higgs boson exchange dominates, $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ is kept relatively high in value.
* Case 3: $`N_{14}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _H+N_{13}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _H=0`$ is also possible to satisfy. As in the mSUGRA case, the light Higgs boson exchange is small and heavy Higgs boson exchange dominates. Unlike in the mSUGRA case, the accelerator bounds do not rule out these models.
* Case 4: Since the naturalness constraint has been relaxed, $`\mu `$ is allowed to have very large values. Then $`N_{12}`$, $`N_{13}`$, and $`N_{14}`$ can be driven small, which in turn would make the Higgs boson exchange contribution small. Intuitively, large $`|\mu |`$ implies that the neutralino is a very pure bino, for which the Higgs boson scattering channels vanish. If the squark masses are kept large as well, the squark contribution will be small too, making the total elastic scattering cross section very small. This is illustrated in Figure 8 \- the lowest values of $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ are obtained for the largest values of $`|\mu |`$.
* Case 5: As discussed in the mSUGRA case, if ($`\frac{M_1}{\mu }\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) is negative and sufficiently large, $`N_{14}`$ can change sign. Following through Eqs. (10) and (9), this effect can induce destructive interference between the $`A^u`$ and $`A^d`$ terms in Eq. (7) and cause the overall $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ to vanish. We observed this cancellation in the mSUGRA case for $`M_\chi >120`$ GeV, and we also observe it in the general MSSM case. In Table 1 we present some of the models in which this kind of cancellation takes place. Besides the models at large $`M_\chi `$, we also observe models with relatively low $`M_\chi (M_1)`$ and very low values of $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ (see rows 3 and 4 of Table 1). These models were not allowed in the mSUGRA framework due to the $`M_1\mu `$ relationship (determined by the RGE’s and the REWSB assumption), which does not exist in the general MSSM framework.

In other words, in the general MSSM framework it is possible to obtain low values of $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ in several different ways: either by tuning parameters to suppress the contribution of the heavy or the light Higgs boson exchange, or by allowing parameters (such as $`\mu `$) to be very large, which suppreses both the heavy and the light Higgs boson exchange channels, or by fine-tunning parameters to achieve a complete cancellation of terms in the Eq. (7). As a result, the lower bound on $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ vanishes and it is beyond reach of the present and the proposed direct detection experiments.

## V Conclusion

We summarize our results as follows. The main contributions to the cross section for spin independent elastic scattering of neutralinos off nucleons come from the exchange of the Higgs bosons and squarks. The contribution of the squark exchange is usually much smaller, being of importance only when Higgs boson exchange contribution is very small.

We investigate different conditions which could lead to small Higgs boson exchange contribution. We find that in mSUGRA framework, with the free parameter ranges defined in Eq. (6), these conditions are not satisfied due to the relationship between parameters $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ (coming from the unification and radiative electroweak symmetry breaking assumptions), the naturalness assumption (which keeps different parameters from becoming very large) and the accelerator constraints. We find that the light Higgs boson exchange dominates over the other channels and it leads to $`\sigma _{\chi p}>10^{46}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Equivalently, this yields an event rate $`>0.1\mathrm{ton}^1\mathrm{day}^1`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{73}\mathrm{Ge}`$ target, which could be within reach of the future direct detection experiments. However, if we expand the mSUGRA framework to allow larger neutralino masses, the lower bound on $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ vanishes for those large masses due to the occasional complete cancellation of terms in the Eq. (7).

In the more general MSSM models (as defined in and above Eq. (31)), the situation is significantly different. The light and/or heavy Higgs boson exchange channel can now be suppressed either by tuning parameters to satisfy Cases 2) or 3), or by allowing the free parameters (such as $`\mu `$) to be very large. Moreover, the complete cancellation of terms in the Eq. (7) is now possible even at low values of $`M_\chi `$ because the relationship between $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ that existed in the mSUGRA framework due to radiative electroweak symmetry breaking, is relaxed in the general MSSM framework. As a result, the lower bound on $`\sigma _{\chi p}`$ is much lower than in the mSUGRA framework and it is beyond reach of the current or proposed direct detection experiments.

## VI Acknowledgements

VM thanks Bernard Sadoulet and Richard Gaitskell for discussions and suggestions regarding this work. PG thanks Bernard Sadoulet for hospitality at the CfPA. The work of HM and AP was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-95-14797. AP is also supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship. The work of VM was supported by the Center for Particle Astrophysics, a NSF Science and Technology Center operated by the University of California, Berkeley, under Cooperative Agreement No. AST-91-20005 and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. AST-9978911.