text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The existence of cosmic magnetic fields with large coherence lengths ($`>10`$ kpc) and typical strength of $`10^6`$ G, still remains an open problem in astrophysics . A partial explanation, widely considered in the literature, is based on the amplification of seed fields by means of the so called galactic dynamo mechanism. In this mechanism, the differential rotation of the galaxy is able to transfer energy into the magnetic field, but nevertheless it still requires a pre-exisiting field to be amplified. The present bounds on the necessary seed fields to comply with observations are in the range $`B_{seed}>10^{17}10^{22}`$ G ($`h=0.650.5`$) at decoupling time, coherent on a comoving scale of $`\lambda _G10`$ kpc, for a flat universe without cosmological constant. For a flat universe with nonvanishing cosmological constant, the limits can be relaxed up to $`B_{seed}>10^{25}10^{30}`$ G ($`h=0.650.5`$) at decoupling for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ . The observations of micro-Gauss magnetic fields in two high-redshift objects (see  and references therein) could, if correct, impose more stringent conditions on the seeds fields or even on the dynamo mechanism itself.

The cosmological origin of the seed fields is one of the most interesting possibilities, although some other mechanisms at the astrophysical level, such as the Biermann battery process, have also been considered . In the cosmological case, in which we will be mainly interested in this work, it is natural to expect  that the same mechanism that gave rise to the large-scale galactic structure, i.e. amplification of quantum fluctuations during inflation, was also responsible for the generation of the primordial magnetic fields. However, it was soon noticed  that the gravitational amplification does not operate in the case of electromagnetic (EM) fields. This is because of the conformal triviality of Maxwell equations in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) backgrounds, i.e. conformally invariant equations in a conformally flat space-time. In order to avoid this difficulty, several production mechanisms have been proposed in which Maxwell equations are modified in different ways. Thus for example, the addition of mass terms to the photon or higher-curvature terms in the Lagrangian was studied in . The contribution of the conformal anomaly was included in . In the context of string cosmology, the effects of a dynamical dilaton field were taken into account in . Other examples include non-minimal gravitational-electromagnetic coupling , inflaton coupling to EM Lagrangian , spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance  or backreaction of minimally coupled charged scalars . Some of them are able to generate fields of the required strength to seed the galactic dynamo or even to account for the observations without further amplification.

In this paper we explore the alternative possibility, i.e. we avoid conformal triviality by considering deviations from the FRW metric (see  for a suggestion along these lines). This approach is rather natural since we know that galaxies formed from small metric inhomogeneities present at large scales and, in addition, it does not require any modification of Maxwell electromagnetism. In the inflationary cosmology, metric perturbations are generated when quantum fluctuations become super-Hubble sized and thereafter evolve as classical fluctuations, reentering the horizon during radiation or matter dominated eras . The same mechanism would operate on large-scale EM fluctuations. However, if conformal invariance is not broken, each positive or negative frequency EM mode will evolve independently, without mixing. This implies that photons cannot be created and therefore magnetic fields are not amplified. However, in the presence of an inhomogeneous background, we will show that the mode-mode coupling between EM and metric perturbations generates the mixing. This in turn will allow us to relate the strength of the magnetic field created by this mechanism and the particular form of the metric perturbations described by the corresponding power spectrum. Those photons produced in the inflation-radiation transition with very long wavelengths can be seen as static electric or magnetic fields. Because of the high conductivity of the Universe in the radiation era, the electric components are rapidly damped whereas, thanks to magnetic flux conservation, the magnetic fields will remain frozen in the plasma and their subsequent evolution will be trivial, $`Ba^2=`$const . The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we obtain the Maxwell equations in the presence of an inhomogeneous background and calculate the occupation number of the photons produced. In section 3 we apply these results to calculate the corresponding magnetic field generated at galactic scales. Section 4 is devoted to the analysis of the effects of finite conductivity in those results and finally, section 5 includes the main conclusions of the paper.

## 2 Maxwell equations and photon production

Although there are previous works on the production of scalar and fermionic particles in inhomogeneous backgrounds , in this paper we will need to extend the analysis to the case of gauge fields. Let us then consider Maxwell equations

$`_\mu F^{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (1)
in a background metric that can be splitted as $`g_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^0+h_{\mu \nu }`$, where

$`g_{\mu \nu }^0dx^\mu dx^\nu =a^2(\eta )(d\eta ^2\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j)`$ (2)
is the flat FRW metric in conformal time and

$`h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =2a^2(\eta )\mathrm{\Phi }(d\eta ^2+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j)`$ (3)
is the most general form of the linearized scalar metric perturbation in the longitudinal gauge and where it has been assumed that the spatial part of the energy-momentum tensor is diagonal, as indeed happens in the inflationary or perfect fluid cosmologies . In this expression $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta ,\stackrel{}{x})`$ is the gauge invariant gravitational potential. The equation (1) can be written as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}\left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \alpha }g^{\nu \beta }(_\alpha A_\beta _\beta A_\alpha )\right)=0,`$ (4)
which leads in this background to the following linearized equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}\left((12\mathrm{\Phi })(_iA_0_0A_i)\right)=0,`$ (5)
for $`\nu =0`$ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left((12\mathrm{\Phi })(_iA_0_0A_i)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^j}}\left((1+2\mathrm{\Phi })(_jA_i_iA_j)\right)=0,`$ (6)
for $`\nu =i`$. In addition, we will use the Coulomb gauge condition $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}=0`$.

In order to study the amplification of vacuum fluctuations, let us consider a particular solution of the above equations that we will denote by $`A_\mu ^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(x)`$ such that asymptotically in the past it behaves as a positive frequency plane wave with momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and polarization $`\lambda `$, i.e,

$`A_\mu ^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(x)\stackrel{\eta \mathrm{}}{}A_\mu ^{(0)\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2kV}}}ϵ_\mu (\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )e^{i(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}k\eta )}`$ (7)
where $`k^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2`$. For the two physical polarization states we have, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )\stackrel{}{k}=0`$ and $`ϵ_0(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )=0`$. We will work in a finite box with comoving volume $`V`$ and we will take the continuum limit at the end of the calculation. We are assuming that metric perturbations vanish before inflation starts, so that we can define an appropriate initial conformal vacuum state. Because of the presence of the inhomogeneous background, in the asymptotic future, this solution will behave as a linear superposition of positive and negative frequency modes with different momenta and different polarizations, i.e.,

$`A_\mu ^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(x)\stackrel{\eta \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left(\alpha _{kq\lambda \lambda ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\mu (\stackrel{}{q},\lambda ^{})}{\sqrt{2qV}}}e^{i(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}q\eta )}+\beta _{kq\lambda \lambda ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\mu ^{}(\stackrel{}{q},\lambda ^{})}{\sqrt{2qV}}}e^{i(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}q\eta )}\right)`$ (8)
It is possible to obtain an expression for the Bogolyubov coefficients $`\alpha _{kq\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ and $`\beta _{kq\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ to first order in the metric perturbations. With that purpose, we look for solutions of the equations of motion in the form:

$`A_\mu ^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(x)=A_\mu ^{(0)\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(x)+A_\mu ^{(1)\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(x)+\mathrm{}`$ (9)
where $`A_\mu ^{(0)\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(x)`$ is the solution in the absence of perturbations given by (7). Introducing this expansion in (5) and Fourier transforming, we obtain for the temporal component of the EM field to first order in the perturbations:

$`A_0^{(1)\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{V}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )}{q^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta )e^{ik\eta }`$ (10)
where, as usual, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )=(2\pi )^{3/2}d^3xe^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{x},\eta )`$. The zeroth order equation implies $`A_0^{(0)\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )=0`$. The spatial equations (6) can be written to first order as:

$`2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}A_i^{(0)}+_iA_0^{(1)}A_i^{(1)\prime \prime }+2\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{}A_i^{(0)}2\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\stackrel{}{A}^{(0)}+\stackrel{}{}^2A_i^{(1)}+4\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{}^2A_i^{(0)}=0`$ (11)
Inserting again expansion (9), these equations can be rewritten in Fourier space as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d\eta ^2}}A_i^{(1)\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )+q^2A_i^{(1)\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )J_i^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )=0`$ (12)
where:

$`J_i^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{V}}}((i\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}}{k}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta ))ϵ_i(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )e^{ik\eta }`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`(\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )\stackrel{}{q})\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{k_i}{k}}e^{ik\eta }i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )\stackrel{}{q}}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta )e^{ik\eta }\right)q_i)`$
Solving these equations we find, up to first order in the perturbations:

$`A_i^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )}{\sqrt{2kV}}}\delta (\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k})e^{ik\eta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle _{\eta _0}^\eta }J_i^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta ^{})\mathrm{sin}(q(\eta \eta ^{}))𝑑\eta ^{}`$ (14)
where $`\eta _0`$ denotes the starting time of inflation. Comparing this expression with (8), it is straightforward to obtain the Bogolyubov coefficients $`\beta _{kq\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$, they are given by:

$`\beta _{kq\lambda \lambda ^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2qV}}}{\displaystyle _{\eta _0}^{\eta _1}}\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{q},\lambda ^{})\stackrel{}{J}^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )e^{iq\eta }𝑑\eta `$ (15)
where $`\eta _1`$ denotes the present time. The total number of photons created with comoving wavenumber $`k_G=2\pi /\lambda _G`$, corresponding to the relevant coherence length, is therefore given by :

$`N_{k_G}={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\beta _{kk_G\lambda \lambda ^{}}|^2`$ (16)
We will concentrate only in the effect of super-Hubble scalar perturbations whose evolution is relatively simple :

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k},\eta )=C_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle a^2𝑑\eta }\right)+D_k{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a^3}},`$ (17)
the second term decreases during inflation and can soon be neglected. Thus, it will be useful to rewrite the perturbation as: $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k},\eta )=C_k(\eta )`$. During inflation or preheating, these perturbations evolve in time, whereas they are practically constant during radiation or matter eras. We will neglect the effects of the perturbations once they reenter the horizon. This is a good approximation for modes reentering right after the end of inflation since they are rapidly damped. In addition, we will show that those modes are the more relevant ones in the calculation.

The power spectrum corresponding to (17) is given by:

$`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }(k)={\displaystyle \frac{k^3|C_k|^2}{2\pi ^2V}}=A_S^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_C}}\right)^{n1}`$ (18)
where for simplicity we have taken a power-law behaviour with spectral index $`n`$ and we have set the normalization at the COBE scale $`\lambda _C3000\text{Mpc}`$ with $`A_S510^5`$. In the case of a blue spectrum, with positive tilt ($`n>1`$), perturbations will grow at small scales and it is necessary to introduce a cut-off $`k_{max}`$ in order to avoid excessive primordial black hole production . Accordingly, only below the cut-off the perturbative method will be reliable. For negative tilt or scale-invariant spectrum there will be also a small scale cut-off related to the minimum size of the horizon $`k_{max}<a_IH_I`$, where the $`I`$ subscript denotes the end of inflation.

We can obtain an explicit expression for the total number of photons (16) in terms of the power spectrum. Taking the continuum limit $`_k(2\pi )^{3/2}Vd^3k`$, we get:

$`N_{k_G}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}V{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}|\beta _{kk_G\lambda \lambda ^{}}|^2}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}V{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|C_{|k+k_G|}|^2}{2k_GV^2}}|{\displaystyle }d\eta (\sqrt{2k}((i^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}_G}{k}})(\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k}_G,\lambda ^{}))`$
$`+`$ $`(\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )\stackrel{}{k}_G)(\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k}_G,\lambda ^{})\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle \frac{}{k}})e^{i(k_G+k)\eta }\left)\right|^2`$
Notice that the last term in (13) does not contribute to $`\beta _{kq\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ because of the transversality condition of the polarization vectors. The integration in $`d^3k`$ is dominated by the upper limit, i.e. $`kk_G`$ and accordingly we can ignore the effect of the terms proportional to $`\stackrel{}{k}_G`$. In addition, for those modes $`k`$ which are outside the Hubble radius at the end of inflation, we have $`k\eta 1`$. With these simplifications we obtain:

$`N_{k_G}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dkd\mathrm{\Omega }}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\frac{|C_k|^2k^2}{2k_GV}\left|𝑑\eta \left(\sqrt{2k}\left(\left(i^{}+k\right)(\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k}_G,\lambda ^{}))\right)\right)\right|^2}`$ (20)
Performing the integration in the angular variables and using the definition of the power spectrum in (18), we obtain:

$`N_{k_G}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(2\pi )^{3/2}}{3k_G}}{\displaystyle 𝑑kA_S^2\left(\frac{k}{k_C}\right)^{n1}\left|𝑑\eta \left(i^{}+k\right)\right|^2}`$ (21)
Finally, we will estimate the time integral. The behaviour of scales that reenter the horizon during the radiation dominated era is oscillatory with a decaying amplitude , therefore, there is no long-time contribution to the integral that could spoil the perturbative method. Thus, for simplicity we will assume that the function $``$ vanishes for $`\eta 1/k`$, and accordingly we estimate, $`\left|𝑑\eta \left(i^{}+k\right)\right|^2𝒪(1)`$. Our final expression for the occupation number is:

$`N_{k_G}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(2\pi )^{3/2}A_S^2}{3k_G(k_C)^{n1}}}{\displaystyle _{k_C}^{k_{max}}}𝑑kk^{n1}{\displaystyle \frac{4(2\pi )^{3/2}A_S^2}{3n}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{max}^n}{k_Gk_C^{n1}}}`$ (22)
## 3 Magnetic field generation

The energy density stored in a magnetic field mode $`B_k`$ with wavenumber $`k`$ is given by:

$`\rho _B(\omega )=\omega {\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _B}{d\omega }}={\displaystyle \frac{|B_k|^2}{2}},`$ (23)
with $`\omega =k/a`$ the physical wavenumber. In terms of the occupation number, it reads;

$`\rho _B(\omega )=\omega ^4N_k.`$ (24)
From (22), we can obtain the strength of the field at decoupling on a coherence scale corresponding to $`k_G10^{36}`$ GeV as:

$`|B_{k_G}^{dec}|\sqrt{2}(\omega _G^{dec})^2N_{k_G}^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{3/2}(2\pi )^{3/4}A_S}{\sqrt{3n}a_{dec}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{max}^{n/2}k_G^{3/2}}{k_C^{(n1)/2}}}`$ (25)
In Fig.1 we have plotted the strength of the magnetic field generated as a function of the comoving cut-off frequency $`k_{max}`$ for different values of the spectral index $`n`$. Notice that the results are in general too weak to explain the observed fields without any amplification. However, for certain values of the cosmological parameters, the produced fields could act as seeds for a galactic dynamo.

We see that the spectrum of magnetic fields produced by this mechanism is thermal $`B_kk^{3/2}`$, in the low-momentum region. We can then compare this spectrum with that corresponding to the thermal background radiation with a temperature $`T_{dec}0.26`$ eV present at decoupling time. The energy density in photons with comoving wavenumer $`k_G`$ at decoupling is given by $`\rho _R(\omega _G)k_G^3T_{dec}/a_{dec}^3`$. Thus we find:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _R(\omega _G)}{\rho _B(\omega _G)}}={\displaystyle \frac{a_{dec}T_{dec}}{N_{k_G}k_G}}1.410^{36}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_C}{k_{max}}}\right)^n`$ (26)
From this expression we see that the magnetic field energy density will dominate over the background thermal radiation whenever $`\mathrm{log}(k_{max}/k_C)>36/n`$, i.e. for example, for $`n=1`$ this implies $`k_{max}>10^6`$ GeV.

The cut-off frequency $`k_{max}`$ cannot be easily determined in general, since it depends on the specific mechanism that generates the perturbations and also on the evolution of the universe during reheating and thermalization. However we can estimate typical values in some particular regime. In the case in which metric perturbations are generated by inflation, it is natural to expect, $`k_{max}<a_IH_I`$, as commented before. Thus, let us take the simplest chaotic inflation model with potential $`V(\varphi )=\lambda \varphi ^4/4`$ , with $`\lambda 10^{12}`$ fixed by COBE. In this model the Hubble parameter during inflation is $`H_I10^{13}`$ GeV. Owing to the uncertainties commented before, we will let the reheating temperature $`T_{RH}`$ be a free parameter. After reheating the universe evolution is adiabatic $`a_I/a_{dec}T_{dec}/T_{RH}`$, and we can calculate the cutoff frequency as $`k_{max}/k_Ca_IH_I/k_Ca_{dec}T_{dec}H_I/(T_{RH}k_C)`$, which yields $`k_{max}/k_C10^{42}`$ GeV/$`T_{RH}`$. Here we have assumed that the inflation-radiation transition takes place in a few inflaton oscillations  (see also ). Comparing with Fig. 1 we see that with these simple estimations for the $`\lambda \varphi ^4/4`$ model, the amplification could be above the requirements of the galactic dynamo if $`T_{RH}<10^6`$ GeV for $`n=1.25`$.

## 4 Conductivity effects

In the previous discussion we have assumed that electric conductivity of the universe played no role in the generation of the magnetic fields. Although neglecting conductivity is a good approximation during inflation, it is not during the reheating or radiation periods. As commented before, the copious production of particles during reheating produces the growing of the conductivity which becomes very high during radiation . This implies that the magnetic fields produced in the inflation-radiation transition will evolve conserving magnetic flux $`\rho _Ba^4`$. However, it has been recently showed  that the growth of conductivity during reheating could affect the evolution of the EM modes. The effects of conductivity can be taken into account in a phenomenological way by introducing a current source $`J_i=\sigma _caA_i^{}`$ in (11). This approach is only valid at sufficiently large scales  and in general the rigorous treatment would requiere to solve the set of coupled EM-matter fields equations (Vlasov equations) which is beyond the scope of this paper. In general, $`\sigma _c(\stackrel{}{x},\eta )`$ is a time and space dependent function, and it has been shown that it grows exponentially during parametric resonance in a non-equilibrium plasma in QED . The calculation of the actual function $`\sigma _c(\stackrel{}{x},\eta )`$ in our case would be rather involved and model dependent, since it would require information about the reheating and thermalization processes. For that reason we will not take any particular model, but we will do a general discussion of the possible effects in different cases. We will also assume for simplicity that all the Fourier modes of the conductivity have the same time evolution, i.e. $`\sigma _c(\stackrel{}{k},\eta )=\mathrm{\Sigma }(\eta )\sigma _k`$ during reheating.

In previous works , the conductivity was considered as an homogeneous field, $`\sigma _c(\eta )`$ and because of the form of the current source term, its effect was the damping of each EM mode. In our production mechanism, the inhomogeneities are able to mix different EM modes and for this reason we need to have information about the complete spectrum $`\sigma _k`$ and not only about the large-scale components. In addition, our analysis is perturbative and therefore we can only describe the initial stages in which the conductivity is still small. Let us then consider the modified spatial equation to first order in the metric perturbations and the conductivity:

$`(2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}a\sigma _c)A_i^{(0)}+_iA_0^{(1)}A_i^{(1)\prime \prime }+2\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{}A_i^{(0)}2\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\stackrel{}{A}^{(0)}+\stackrel{}{}^2A_i^{(1)}+4\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{}^2A_i^{(0)}=0`$ (27)
Following a similar analysis we find the same equation (12), but with the new current:

$`J_i^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{q},\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{V}}}((i\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}a\sigma _c(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta )+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}}{k}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta ))ϵ_i(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )e^{ik\eta }`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`(\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )\stackrel{}{q})\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{k_i}{k}}e^{ik\eta }i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{ϵ}(\stackrel{}{k},\lambda )\stackrel{}{q}}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\eta }}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q},\eta )e^{ik\eta }\right)q_i)`$
In  the following lower limit on the (homogeneous) conductivity is obtained $`a_I\sigma _ca_IH_I/\alpha `$, with $`\alpha `$ the fine structure constant, i.e. $`a_I\sigma _ck_{max}/\alpha `$ and this implies that the conductivity term will dominate in $`J_i^{\stackrel{}{k},\lambda }(\stackrel{}{k}_G,\eta )`$ for $`kk_{max}`$. However, as commented before, the dominant contribution to the EM amplification comes from the high-frequency modes, i.e. $`kk_{max}`$. In such case, the importance of the conductivity term is determined by the ratio $`\sigma _k/C_k`$ when $`kk_{max}`$. Thus, if the conductivity is almost homogeneous, its spectrum will decline at short scales and we expect its contribution to the EM field evolution to be negligible. In the opposite case, the analysis would become much more involved, since the above magnetohydrodynamical approximation would break down and the full set of microscopic equations would be needed. In any case, this simple analysis shows that the possible damping effects mainly affect those modes with $`kk_G`$ and that, depending on the actual conductivity spectrum, the rest of modes could be less severely affected than in other models.

## 5 Conclusions

In this work we have studied the production of photons in the presence of an inhomogeneous gravitational background. We have shown how the breaking of conformal invariance induced by the evolution of metric perturbations in the inflation-radiation transition is able to produce particles, and we have related the occupation number with the scalar metric perturbations power spectrum.

We have considered the possibility that this mechanism could have had some relevance in the problem of galactic magnetic fields and we have concluded that the total amplification is several orders of magnitude below the observed strengths. However, for certain values of the cosmological parameters and with the assistance of the dynamo mechanism, the amplification could be compatible with the current (low-redshift) galactic observations. We have also considered the effect of conductivity in a phenomenological way and show that although it could affect the evolution of EM modes, in some cases and depending on the particular form of the spectrum, the effects could be small.

The mechanism studied in this work only relies on the existence of a primordial spectrum of metric perturbations, described by the scalar spectral index $`n`$ and a possible cutoff frequency $`k_{max}`$, which are the only free parameters in the model. Therefore, as a by-product we get that magnetic fields could also provide useful information about the metric perturbations spectrum and in particular about its small-scales region.

Acknowledgements: This work has been partially supported by the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (Spain) (CICYT AEN 97-1693).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we report new results on two physics topics from the SLD experiment at the SLAC Linear Collider, using our full data sample of 550,000 hadronic decays of $`Z^0`$ bosons produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations. A unique feature of the experiment was a highly longitudinally polarized electron beam, with an average magnitude of polarization of 73%.

One physics topic is a study of signed rapidities. The rapidity of a particle is typically defined with an arbitrary sign. If a sign could be given to each measured rapidity such that, for example, positive (negative) rapidity corresponds to the initial quark (antiquark) direction, then one could measure the extent to which a leading particle has higher rapidity than its associated antiparticle, and the extent to which low-momentum particles in jets remember the initial quark/antiquark direction.

The other physics topic in this paper is the first direct measurement of the strange quark asymmetry parameter $`A_s`$. Measurements of the fermion production asymmetries in the process $`e^+e^{}Z^0f\overline{f}`$ provide information on the extent of parity violation in the coupling of the $`Z^0`$ bosons to fermions of type $`f`$. The differential production cross section can be expressed in terms of $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle of the final state fermion $`f`$ with respect to the electron beam direction:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dx}(1A_eP_e)(1+x^2)+2A_f(A_eP_e)x$$

where $`P_e`$ is the longitudinal polarization of the electron beam, the positron beam is assumed unpolarized, and the asymmetry parameters $`A_f=2v_fa_f/(v_f^2+a_f^2)`$ are defined in terms of the vector and axial-vector couplings of the $`Z^0`$ to fermion $`f`$. The Standard Model predictions for the values of the asymmetry parameters, assuming $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w=0.23`$, are $`A_e=A_\mu =A_\tau =0.16`$, $`A_u=A_c=A_t=0.67`$, and $`A_d=A_s=A_b=0.94`$. For a given final state $`f\overline{f}`$, if one measures the polar angle distributions in equal luminosity samples taken with negative and positive beam polarization, then one can derive the left-right forward-backward asymmetry:

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{FB}^f=\frac{3}{4}P_eA_f$$

which is insensitive to the initial state coupling.

A number of previous measurements have been made of the leptonic asymmetries and the heavy-flavor asymmetries, but very few measurements exist for the light quark flavors, due to the difficulty of tagging specific light flavors. We present a direct measurement of the strange quark asymmetry parameter $`A_s`$, in which $`Z^0s\overline{s}`$ events were tagged by the absence of $`B`$ or $`D`$ hadrons and the presence in each hemisphere of a high-momentum $`K^\pm `$ or $`K_S^0`$.

## 2 Particle Identification

A description of the SLD detector, trigger, track and hadronic event selection, and Monte Carlo simulation is given in Ref. . The identification of $`\pi ^\pm `$, K±, p, and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ was achieved by reconstructing emission angles of individual Cherenkov photons radiated by charged particles passing through liquid and gas radiator systems of the SLD Cherenkov Ring Imaging Detector (CRID) . In each momentum bin, identified $`\pi `$, K, and p were counted, and these were unfolded using the inverse of an identification efficiency matrix , and corrected for track reconstruction efficiency. The elements of the identification efficiency matrix were mostly measured from data, using selected $`K_S^0`$, $`\tau `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decays. A detailed Monte Carlo simulation was used to derive the unmeasured elements in terms of these measured ones.

$`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0)p\pi ^{}(\overline{p}\pi ^+)`$ decays were reconstructed as described in Ref.  by examining appropriate invariant mass distributions.

## 3 Signed Rapidities

We next tagged the quark (vs. antiquark) direction in each hadronic event by using the electron beam polarization for that event, exploiting the large forward-backward quark production asymmetry in $`Z^0`$ decays. If the beam was left(right)-handed, then the thrust axis was signed such that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _T`$ was positive (negative). Events with $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _T|<0.15`$ were removed, as the production asymmetry is small in this region. The probability to tag the quark direction correctly in these events was 73%, assuming Standard Model couplings at tree-level.

For each identified particle the rapidity $`y=`$ 0.5 ln$`((E+p_{})/(Ep_{}))`$ was calculated using the measured momentum and its projection $`p_{}`$ along the thrust axis, and the appropriate hadron mass. The rapidity with respect to the signed thrust axis is naturally signed such that positive rapidity corresponds to the hemisphere in the tagged direction of the initial quark, and negative rapidity corresponds to the tagged antiquark hemisphere. The signed rapidity distributions for identified $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ are shown in Fig. 1.

There is a clear difference between the two, with more $`K^{}`$ than $`K^+`$ in the quark hemisphere, as expected due to leading $`K^{}`$ produced in $`s`$-quark jets . The difference between the two distributions is also shown in the figure and is compared with the prediction of the JETSET  simulation, which is consistent with the data.

For pairs of identified particles, one can define an ordered rapidity difference. For particle-antiparticle pairs, we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }y^+=y_+y_{}`$ as the difference between the signed rapidities of the positively charged particle and the negatively charged particle. In Fig. 2 we show the distribution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }y^+`$ for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`K^+K^{}`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ pairs.

Asymmetries in these distributions are indications of ordering along the event axis, and the differences between the positive and negative sides of these distributions are also shown. The predictions of the simulation are also shown and are consistent with the data at high $`|\mathrm{\Delta }y^+|`$.

The negative difference at high $`|\mathrm{\Delta }y^+|`$ for the $`K^+K^{}`$ pairs can be attributed to the fact that leading kaons are produced predominantly in $`s\overline{s}`$ events. For $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pairs we observe a large positive difference at high $`|\mathrm{\Delta }y^+|`$ rather than the expected small negative difference, and we have confirmed that this effect is due entirely to $`c\overline{c}`$ events. Our sample of $`uds`$-tagged events does show the expected small negative difference.

The positive difference in the lowest $`|\mathrm{\Delta }y^+|`$ bins for the $`p\overline{p}`$ pairs indicates that the baryon in an associated baryon-antibaryon pair follows the quark direction more closely than the antibaryon. This could be due to leading baryon production and/or to baryon numbering ordering along the entire fragmentation chain. We find a significant effect in all of our momentum bins, and the bulk of the observed difference occurs at low momentum. We therefore conclude that both of these effects contribute; this is the first direct observation of baryon number ordering along the entire chain. The prediction of the simulation is low by a factor of two at low $`|\mathrm{\Delta }y^+|`$.

## 4 Strange Quark Asymmetry

For the measurement of the strange quark asymmetry parameter $`A_s`$, the first step was to select $`s\overline{s}`$ events and tag the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ jets. We used the SLD Vertex Detector  to measure each track’s impact parameter $`d`$ in the plane perpendicular to the beam direction. We then removed $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ events by requiring no more than one well-measured track with $`d`$ larger than 2.5 times its uncertainty.

Each remaining event was divided into two hemispheres by the plane perpendicular to the thrust axis. In each hemisphere we searched for the strange particle with the highest momentum. If it was a charged kaon, we required it to have $`p>9`$ GeV/c, while if it was a $`K_S^0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0/\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^0`$ it was required to have $`p>5`$ GeV/c. An event was tagged as $`s\overline{s}`$ if one hemisphere contained a $`K^\pm `$ selected as just described, and the other contained either an oppositely charged $`K^\pm `$ or a $`K_S^0`$. The thrust axis, signed so as to point into the hemisphere containing (opposite) the $`K^{}(K^+)`$, was used as an estimate of the initial $`s`$-quark direction.

Fig. 3 shows the distributions of the measured $`s`$-quark polar angle $`\theta _s`$ for the $`K^+K^{}`$ and $`K^\pm K_S^0`$ modes.

In each case, production asymmetries of opposite sign and different magnitude for left- and right-polarized $`e^{}`$ beams are visible.

$`A_s`$ was extracted from these distributions by a simultaneous maximum likelihood fit, the result of which is shown as a histogram in the figure. The fit quality was good, with a $`\chi ^2`$ of 42 for 48 bins. Also shown in the figure are our estimates  of the non-$`s\overline{s}`$ backgrounds, which were mostly determined from data. Our final result is $`A_s=0.895\pm 0.066(stat.)\pm 0.062(syst.)`$. This result is consistent with the Standard Model expectation of 0.935 for $`A_s`$, and with less precise previous measurements .

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented results from a sample of 550,000 $`e^+e^{}Z^0q\overline{q}`$ events produced with a longitudinally polarized electron beam. Polarization enables us to give a sign to rapidities so that positive rapidity corresponds to the quark (rather than antiquark) direction. The distribution of the difference between the signed rapidities of $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ shows a large asymmetry at large values of the absolute rapidity difference, a direct indication that the long-range correlated $`KK`$ pairs are dominated by $`s\overline{s}`$ events. There is a large asymmetry at small rapidity difference for $`p\overline{p}`$ pairs, a clear indication of ordering of baryons along the event axis.

We have also performed a measurement of $`A_s`$, the parity-violating coupling of the $`Z^0`$ to strange quarks, obtained directly from the left-right forward-backward production asymmetry in polar angle of the tagged $`s`$ quark. Our result is $`A_s`$ = $`0.895\pm 0.066(stat.)\pm 0.062(syst.)`$, which is consistent with the Standard Model expectation, and with less precise previous measurements.

## 6 Questions and Answers

Question (from M. Boutemeur, Munich): How do the $`\pi ^\pm `$, $`K^\pm `$, and $`p/\overline{p}`$ rates compare in quark and gluon jets?

Answer: My graduate student Hyejoo Kang is working on this very topic for her Ph.D. thesis. We expect to have results ready in time for the Moriond Conference in early 2001.

## ∗∗List of Authors

Koya Abe,(24) Kenji Abe,(15) T. Abe,(21) I. Adam,(21) H. Akimoto,(21) D. Aston,(21) K.G. Baird,(11) C. Baltay,(30) H.R. Band,(29) T.L. Barklow,(21) J.M. Bauer,(12) G. Bellodi,(17) R. Berger,(21) G. Blaylock,(11) J.R. Bogart,(21) G.R. Bower,(21) J.E. Brau,(16) M. Breidenbach,(21) W.M. Bugg,(23) D. Burke,(21) T.H. Burnett,(28) P.N. Burrows,(17) A. Calcaterra,(8) R. Cassell,(21) A. Chou,(21) H.O. Cohn,(23) J.A. Coller,(4) M.R. Convery,(21) V. Cook,(28) R.F. Cowan,(13) G. Crawford,(21) C.J.S. Damerell,(19) M. Daoudi,(21) S. Dasu,(29) N. de Groot,(2) R. de Sangro,(8) D.N. Dong,(13) M. Doser,(21) R. Dubois, I. Erofeeva,(14) V. Eschenburg,(12) E. Etzion,(29) S. Fahey,(5) D. Falciai,(8) J.P. Fernandez,(26) K. Flood,(11) R. Frey,(16) E.L. Hart,(23) K. Hasuko,(24) S.S. Hertzbach,(11) M.E. Huffer,(21) X. Huynh,(21) M. Iwasaki,(16) D.J. Jackson,(19) P. Jacques,(20) J.A. Jaros,(21) Z.Y. Jiang,(21) A.S. Johnson,(21) J.R. Johnson,(29) R. Kajikawa,(15) M. Kalelkar,(20) H.J. Kang,(20) R.R. Kofler,(11) R.S. Kroeger,(12) M. Langston,(16) D.W.G. Leith,(21) V. Lia,(13) C. Lin,(11) G. Mancinelli,(20) S. Manly,(30) G. Mantovani,(18) T.W. Markiewicz,(21) T. Maruyama,(21) A.K. McKemey,(3) R. Messner,(21) K.C. Moffeit,(21) T.B. Moore,(30) M. Morii,(21) D. Muller,(21) V. Murzin,(14) S. Narita,(24) U. Nauenberg,(5) H. Neal,(30) G. Nesom,(17) N. Oishi,(15) D. Onoprienko,(23) L.S. Osborne,(13) R.S. Panvini,(27) C.H. Park,(22) I. Peruzzi,(8) M. Piccolo,(8) L. Piemontese,(7) R.J. Plano,(20) R. Prepost,(29) C.Y. Prescott,(21) B.N. Ratcliff,(21) J. Reidy,(12) P.L. Reinertsen,(26) L.S. Rochester,(21) P.C. Rowson,(21) J.J. Russell,(21) O.H. Saxton,(21) T. Schalk,(26) B.A. Schumm,(26) J. Schwiening,(21) V.V. Serbo,(21) G. Shapiro,(10) N.B. Sinev,(16) J.A. Snyder,(30) H. Staengle,(6) A. Stahl,(21) P. Stamer,(20) H. Steiner,(10) D. Su,(21) F. Suekane,(24) A. Sugiyama,(15) A. Suzuki,(15) M. Swartz,(9) F.E. Taylor,(13) J. Thom,(21) E. Torrence,(13) T. Usher,(21) J. Va’vra,(21) R. Verdier,(13) D.L. Wagner,(5) A.P. Waite,(21) S. Walston,(16) A.W. Weidemann,(23) E.R. Weiss,(28) J.S. Whitaker,(4) S.H. Williams,(21) S. Willocq,(11) R.J. Wilson,(6) W.J. Wisniewski,(21) J.L. Wittlin,(11) M. Woods,(21) T.R. Wright,(29) R.K. Yamamoto,(13) J. Yashima,(24) S.J. Yellin,(25) C.C. Young,(21) H. Yuta.(1)

(1)Aomori University, Aomori, 030 Japan, (2)University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom, (3)Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH United Kingdom, (4)Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, (5)University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, (6)Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523, (7)INFN Sezione di Ferrara and Universita di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy, (8)INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, I-00044 Frascati, Italy, (9)Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218-2686, (10)Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, (11)University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, (12)University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, (13)Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, (14)Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, 119899 Moscow, Russia, (15)Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464 Japan, (16)University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, (17)Oxford University, Oxford, OX1 3RH, United Kingdom, (18)INFN Sezione di Perugia and Universita di Perugia, I-06100 Perugia, Italy, (19)Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX United Kingdom, (20)Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855, (21)Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309, (22)Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea 156-743, (23)University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, (24)Tohoku University, Sendai, 980 Japan, (25)University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, (26)University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, (27)Vanderbilt University, Nashville,Tennessee 37235, (28)University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105, (29)University of Wisconsin, Madison,Wisconsin 53706, (30)Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511.