text:
# Discovery and Identification of 𝑊' Bosons in 𝑒𝛾→𝜈𝑞+𝑋

## I Introduction

Extra gauge bosons, both charged ($`W^{}`$) and/or neutral ($`Z^{}`$), arise in many models of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) . Examples include extended gauge theories such as grand unified theories  and Left-Right symmetric models  along with the corresponding supersymmetric models, and other models such as those with finite size extra dimensions . To elucidate what physics lies beyond the Standard Model it is necessary to search for manifestations of that new physics with respect to the predicted particle content. Such searches are a feature of ongoing collider experiments and the focus of future experiments. The discovery of new particles would provide definitive evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model and, in particular, the discovery of new gauge bosons would indicate that the standard model gauge group was in need of extension. There is a considerable literature on $`Z^{}`$ searches. In this paper we concentrate on $`W^{}`$ searches, for which less work has been done.

Limits have been placed on the existence of new gauge bosons through indirect searches based on the deviations from the SM they would produce in precision electroweak measurements. For instance, indirect limits from $`\mu `$-decay constrain the left-right model $`W^{}`$ to $`M_{W_R}550`$ GeV . A more severe constraint arises from $`K_LK_S`$ mass-splitting which gives $`M_{W_R}1.6`$ TeV , assuming equal coupling constants for the two $`SU(2)`$ gauge groups.

New gauge boson searches at hadron colliders consider their direct production via the Drell-Yan process and their subsequent decay to lepton pairs. For $`W^{}`$ bosons, decays to hadronic jets are sometimes also considered. The present bounds on $`W^{}`$ bosons from the CDF and D0 collaborations at the Tevatron $`p\overline{p}`$ collider at Fermilab are $`M_W^{}720`$ GeV . The search reach is expected to increase by $`300`$ GeV with 1 fb<sup>-1</sup> of luminosity . The Large Hadron Collider is expected to be able to discover $`W^{}`$’s up to masses of $`5.9`$ TeV . These $`W^{}`$ limits assume SM strength couplings and decay into a light stable neutrino which is registered in the detector as missing $`E_T`$. They can be seriously degraded by loosening the model assumptions.

There are few studies of indirect searches for $`W^{}`$ bosons at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. In a recent paper we examined the sensitivity of the reaction $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ to $`W^{}`$ and $`Z^{}`$ bosons (see also ). We found it was sensitive to $`W^{}`$’s up to several TeV in mass, depending on the model, the centre of mass energy, and the integrated luminosity.

Clearly, if deviations from the standard model are observed, it will take many different measurements to disentangle the nature of the new physics responsible. In this paper we present the results of a study of the sensitivity of the process $`e\gamma \nu q+X`$ to $`W^{}`$ bosons. We find that this process is sensitive to $`W^{}`$ masses up to several TeV, in many cases more sensitive than the process $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$. In particular, we find that it is far more sensitive to the Un-Unified model (UUM) . The process $`e\gamma \nu q+X`$ is sensitive to both the quark and lepton couplings to the $`W^{}`$ and, furthermore, does not have the complication of contributions from $`Z^{}`$ bosons. It can therefore contribute information that complements that obtained from $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$, helping to build a picture of the underlying physics.

We consider various extended electroweak models. The first is the Left-Right symmetric model  based on the gauge group $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ which has right-handed charged currents. The second is the Un-Unified model  which is based on the gauge group $`SU(2)_q\times SU(2)_l\times U(1)_Y`$ where the quarks and leptons each transform under their own $`SU(2)`$. The final type of model, denoted as the KK model, contains the Kaluza-Klein excitations of the SM gauge bosons which are a possible consequence of theories with large extra dimensions . We give the relevant couplings for those models in Section II but refer the reader to the literature for more details. Additionally, we study discovery limits for a $`W^{}`$ boson with SM couplings. Although it is not a realistic model, this so-called Sequential Standard Model (SSM) has been adopted as a benchmark to compare the discovery reach of different processes.

We will find that the process $`e\gamma \nu q+X`$ can indeed extend the discovery reach for $`W^{}`$’s significantly beyond $`\sqrt{s}`$, with the exact limit depending on the specific model. Additionally, if extra gauge bosons are discovered which are not overly massive, the process considered here could be used to measure their couplings. This would be crucial for determining the origins of the $`W^{}`$. As such, it would play an important complementary role to the LHC studies.

In the next section, we describe the details of our calculations. The resulting $`W^{}`$ discovery limits and projected sensitivities for $`W^{}`$ couplings are given in Section III. We conclude with some final comments.

## II Calculations and Results

We are interested in the process

$$e\gamma \nu q\overline{q}$$
(1)
where the photon arises from either a backscattered laser  or from Weizs$`\ddot{a}c`$ker Williams bremsstrahlung  from the incident $`e^{+()}`$ beam. The relevant Feynman diagrams are given in Fig. 1. In this process it is diagrams 1(a) and 1(b) with the $`W^{}`$ exchanged in the t-channel which are most sensitive to the effects of the $`W^{}`$. The contribution of these diagrams can be enhanced by imposing the kinematic cut that one of either the $`q`$ or the $`\overline{q}`$ is collinear to the beam axis. In this kinematic region the process $`e\gamma \nu q\overline{q}`$ is approximated quite well by the simpler process

$$eq\nu q^{}$$
(2)
shown in Fig. 2, where the quark is described by the quark parton content of the photon, the so-called resolved photon approximation . This has been verified numerically by comparing kinematic distributions of the outgoing quark calculated using both process 1 and process 2 for a given detector acceptance where the outgoing $`q`$ ($`\overline{q}`$) is constrained to $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{q(\overline{q})}|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{cut}`$ and in addition for process 1 $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{q}(q)}|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{cut}`$ (where $`\theta _{cut}10^0`$), i.e. in process 1, one jet is observed while the other is lost down the beam pipe. We use the process $`eq\nu q^{}`$ to obtain limits as it is computationally much faster and the discovery limits obtained using this approximation are in good agreement with those using the full process. The reliability of the limits have been further checked by using different photon distribution functions.

The expression for the unpolarized cross section is given by

$$\sigma =𝑑x𝑑yf_{\gamma /e}(x,\sqrt{s}/2)f_{q/\gamma }(y,Q^2)\widehat{\sigma }(eq\nu q^{})$$
(3)
where $`f_{\gamma /e}(x)`$ is the photon distribution, $`f_{q/\gamma }(y)`$ the distribution for the quark content in the photon, and $`\widehat{\sigma }(eq\nu q^{})`$ is the cross section for the parton level process given by:

$$\widehat{\sigma }(e^{}q\nu q^{})=𝑑\widehat{t}\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}$$
(4)
where

$$\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}=\frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{4\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _w}\times f(\widehat{s},\widehat{u})$$
(5)
and

$`f(\widehat{s},\widehat{u})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{t}M_W^2)^2}}\{1+2C_L^qC_L^l\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}M_W^2}{\widehat{t}M_W^{}^2}}\right)`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}M_W^2}{\widehat{t}M_W^{}^2}}\right)^2[(C_{L}^{q}{}_{}{}^{2}+C_{R}^{q}{}_{}{}^{2})(C_{L}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2}+C_{R}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2})(1+\widehat{u}^2/\widehat{s}^2)`$
$`+(C_{L}^{q}{}_{}{}^{2}C_{R}^{q}{}_{}{}^{2})(C_{L}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2}C_{R}^{l}{}_{}{}^{2})(1\widehat{u}^2/\widehat{s}^2)]\}`$
and $`\widehat{s}`$, $`\widehat{t}`$, and $`\widehat{u}`$ are the usual Mandelstam variables for the parton level process. We take $`Q=\sqrt{s_{eq}}`$ in $`f_{q/\gamma }`$ and the scale $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ in $`f_{\gamma /e}`$ is only relevant for photons produced via the Weizs$`\ddot{a}`$cker Williams process. The process $`e^{}\overline{q}\nu \overline{q}^{}`$ also contributes to the same experimental signature. Its cross section is given by Eq. 5 but with $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{u}`$ interchanged in Eq. 8 such that $`f(\widehat{s},\widehat{u})f(\widehat{u},\widehat{s})`$. Similarly, for the processes $`e^+\overline{q}\overline{\nu }\overline{q}^{}`$ and $`e^+q\overline{\nu }q^{}`$, which contribute in the case the of the Weizs$`\ddot{a}`$cker Williams process, the cross section is given with $`f(\widehat{s},\widehat{u})`$ and $`f(\widehat{u},\widehat{s})`$ in Eq. 8 respectively. Our conventions for the couplings, $`C_L`$ and $`C_R`$, follow from the vertices

$$W_if\overline{f}^{}=\frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma ^\mu \left(\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}C_L^{W_i}+\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}C_R^{W_i}\right).$$
(9)
Thus, in the SM, $`C_L^{W_1}=1`$, and $`C_R^{W_1}=0`$. A $`W^{}`$ in the SSM also has these SM couplings. In the case of the KK model, the couplings are enhanced by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ such that $`C_L^{W_{KK}}=\sqrt{2}`$, and $`C_R^{W_{KK}}=0`$. In the LRM, the extra $`W_R`$ has only right-handed couplings such that $`C_L^{W_R}=0`$, and $`C_R^{W_R}=\kappa `$. Here the parameter $`\kappa =g_R/g_L`$ is the ratio of the coupling constants of the two $`SU(2)`$ gauge groups. Since we will ultimately find that the process under consideration here is not as sensitive to a $`W_R`$ as some other processes, we will only consider the LR model for $`\kappa =1`$. We also take the CKM matrix elements for right-handed fermions to be equal to those of left-handed fermions. In each of the models mentioned so far, the couplings of the $`W^{}`$ to the quarks and the leptons are equal. In the case of the UUM, we have instead $`C_L^l=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }`$, $`C_L^q=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }`$, and $`C_R^l=C_R^q=0`$. The UUM is parametrized by an angle $`\varphi `$, which represents the mixing of the charged gauge bosons of the two $`SU(2)`$ groups. The process we consider is actually insensitive to the parameter $`\varphi `$ because $`C_L^l`$ and $`C_L^q`$ always multiply each other in the expressions for the cross section. The polarized cross sections may be inferred from the coupling structure in Eq. (8).

We begin by showing and discussing the total cross sections and the differential cross sections $`d\sigma /dE_q`$ and $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$. We do not show the angular distribution as it gives lower limits than do the $`E_q`$ and $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ distributions. We take the SM inputs $`M_W=80.33`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23124`$, and $`\alpha =1/128`$ . Since we work only to leading order, there is some arbitrariness in the above input, in particular $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$.

To take into account detector acceptance, the angle of the observed jet, $`\theta _{q(\overline{q})}`$, has been restricted to the range

$$10^0\theta _{q(\overline{q})}170^0.$$
(10)
In extracting limits we will also restrict the jet’s transverse momentum to reduce hadronic backgrounds which we discuss below.

The unpolarized cross sections, $`\sigma `$, for photons coming from the backscattered laser photon distribution and the Weizs$`\ddot{a}`$cker Williams distributions are shown in Fig. 3. We have included $`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$ and $`c`$-quark contributions and used the leading order GRV distributions in calculating these cross sections . We will discuss the use of other parametrizations below. For the case of the backscattered photon we included the subprocesses $`e^{}q\nu q^{}`$ and $`e^{}\overline{q}\nu \overline{q}^{}`$ where the $`q`$ could be either $`u`$ or $`c`$ and the $`\overline{q}`$ could be a $`\overline{d}`$ or $`\overline{s}`$. For the Weizs$`\ddot{a}`$cker Williams case the photon can be radiated from either the $`e^{}`$ or $`e^+`$ so we must also include the subprocesses $`e^+q\overline{\nu }q^{}`$ and $`e^+\overline{q}\overline{\nu }\overline{q}^{}`$. The cross section is shown for the SM, LRM ($`\kappa =1`$), UUM, SSM, and KK model, with $`M_W^{}=750`$ GeV in each case. The mass choice is rather arbitrary, made to illustrate general behaviour. We do not show cross sections for polarized electrons. The cross section for right handed electrons ($`\sigma _R=\sigma (e_R^{})`$) only couples to $`W^{}`$’s in the LR model. In all other cases considered here, $`\sigma _R`$ is zero.

One first notes that the cross sections for the backscattered laser case are somewhat larger than those for the $`e^+e^{}`$ case with WW photons. This is a direct consequence of the harder photon spectrum in the case of the former. The cross sections are typically of the order of several picobarns. For the luminosities expected at high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders this results in statistical errors of less than a percent. With systematic errors expected to be of the order of 2% we therefore expect systematic errors to dominate over statistical errors. From Fig. 3 one also sees that, at least for the example shown, the deviations due to a $`W^{}`$ are significantly larger than the expected measurement error. Thus, it appears that this process will provide a sensitive probe for $`W^{}`$ bosons.

We are interested in reactions in which only the quark (or antiquark) jet is observed. The kinematic observables of interest are therefore, the jet’s energy, $`E_q`$, its momentum perpendicular to the beam axis, $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$, and its angle relative to the incident electron, $`\theta _q`$, all defined in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass frame. The differential cross sections, $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ and $`d\sigma /dE_q`$, are shown in Fig. 4 for the standard model and the SSM, LRM, UUM, and KK models for the backscattered laser case with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and $`M_W^{}=750`$ GeV. We do not show the angular distribution as we found that the $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ and $`d\sigma /dE_q`$ distributions were more sensitive to $`W^{}`$’s. We see that extra $`W`$ bosons result in larger relative deviations from the SM in the high $`E_q`$ or $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ regions but since the lower $`E_q`$ or $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ regions have higher statistics the result is roughly similar in significance in both kinematic regions although the high $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ ($`E_q`$) region will be less affected by systematic error. To maximize the potential information we divide the distributions into 10 equal sized bins and calculate the $`\chi ^2`$ by summing over the bins.

Before proceeding to our results we must deal with the issue of backgrounds. The dominant backgrounds arise from two jet final states where one of the jets goes down the beam pipe and is not observed. Processes which contribute two jet final states are: $`\gamma \gamma q\overline{q}`$, the once resolved reactions $`\gamma gq\overline{q}`$ and $`\gamma qgq`$, and the twice resolved reactions $`ggq\overline{q}`$, $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$, $`qgqg`$. In addition there are backgrounds involving t-channel exchange of massive gauge bosons but these are suppressed relative to the backgrounds already listed. In Fig. 5 we show the $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ distributions for these backgrounds with only one of the jets observed and the other going down the beam pipe for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV for the backscattered laser case. We use the criteria that, to be seen, the parton must satisfy $`170^0\theta _{q(\overline{q})}10^0`$. It is likely that these cuts would be more stringent in a real detector and with veto detectors close to the beam pipe. However, other issues such as spread of the hadronic jets and the remnants of the photon complicate the analysis and must be carefully considered. In the absence of a detailed detector simulation we feel that the chosen detector cuts will give a reasonable representation of the situation for the purposes of estimating the discovery potential of this process. To extract limits from real data these effects must, of course, be studied in detail. Referring to Fig. 5, the constraint that $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}40`$ GeV effectively eliminates these backgrounds. Similarly, for $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ TeV we take $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}75`$ GeV and for $`\sqrt{s}=1.5`$ TeV we take $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}100`$ GeV.

### A Discovery Limits for $`W^{}`$’s

The best discovery limits were in general obtained using the observable $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ with $`d\sigma /dE_q`$ being only slightly less sensitive. We found that limits obtained using other observables such as the total cross section, forward backward asymmetry and $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q`$ were less sensitive so the results we present will be based on the $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ distributions. In addition, for the backscattered laser case limits were obtained for the LR model using the right-handed polarized cross section, $`\sigma _R`$ and the left-right asymmetry,

$$A_{LR}=\frac{\sigma _L\sigma _R}{\sigma _L+\sigma _R}.$$
(11)
For 100% polarization and only including statistical errors one obtains reasonable limits for the LRM $`W^{}`$. However, for more realistic polarizations of 90% these limits are seriously degraded and only slightly greater than those obtained from unpolarized $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ and $`E_q`$ distributions. Once systematic errors are included, even though they were only one half those used in the $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ calculation (since one expects some cancellation of errors between the numerator and denominator in $`A_{LR}`$), we find that the sensitivity of $`A_{LR}`$ is less than those obtained from the $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ and $`E_q`$ distributions while the sensitivity of $`\sigma _R`$ is roughly comparable to the sensitivity of the distributions. We therefore only report limits obtained from the distributions in Tables I and II.

In obtaining the $`\chi ^2`$ for $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$, we used 10 equal sized bins in the range $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{\mathrm{min}}<p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}<p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ is given by the $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ cut chosen to reduce the two jet backgrounds and $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ is taken to be the kinematic limit. We have

$$\chi ^2=\underset{\mathrm{bins}}{}\left(\frac{d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q,\mathrm{SM}}{}^{}}{\delta d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}}\right)^2,$$
(12)
where $`\delta d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ is the error on the measurement. Analogous formulae hold for other observables. One sided 95% confidence level discovery limits are obtained by requiring $`\chi ^22.69`$ for discovery. Systematic errors, when included, were added in quadrature with the statistical errors.

The discovery limits for all five models are listed in Table I for the backscattered laser case and in Table II for the $`e^+e^{}`$ case with WW photons. Results are presented for $`\sqrt{s}=0.5`$, 1.0 and 1.5 TeV, using the same input parameters as for the cross sections presented in the previous section. For each center-of-mass energy, two luminosity scenarios are considered and we present limits obtained with and without systematic errors. Our prescription is to include a 2% systematic error per bin. This number is quite arbitrary but seems reasonable. In addition to detector systematics, which we expect will dominate, there are uncertainties associated with the beam luminosity and energy, which will be spread over a range. Other systematic errors are associated with background subtraction as well as radiative corrections. Thus, the 2% number should not be taken too seriously except to highlight the fact that a precision measurement is required to take full advantage of the large event rate.

The discovery limits are substantial and compare favourably in most cases to those obtained from the previously studied process $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$. In all cases, the limits for the WW process are significantly lower than with the backscattered laser. This enhanced reach is an argument in favour of $`e\gamma `$ colliders. As expected, when systematic errors are not included there is a significant improvement in the limits with the higher luminosity. When 2% systematic errors are included the improvement for the high luminosity scenario is not as dramatic.

In every case for the process considered here, the SSM and UUM yield the same discovery limits. This occurs because the two processes represent positive and negative interferences of equal strength, respectively, with the SM. The limits obtained here for the backscattered laser case for the SSM are similar to those from the process $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ before a systematic error is included. However, the limits here are downgraded less than for the previous process when a 2% systematic error is included, resulting in a higher discovery reach for this process. The behaviour is similar for the LRM. The limits, for the backscattered laser case, including systematic errors, are similar to those obtained for $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$.

For both the KK model and the UUM, this process offers a significant improvement over the process $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$. For the backscattered laser case, the KK $`W^{}`$ limits are typically 2 times higher when a systematic error is included than for the previous process. Similarly, the limits obtained for the UUM with the process considered here are a factor of 3 better than for the equivalent case in the previous process.

Beam polarization of 90% does not improve the limits. The only model studied which would benefit from polarization is the LRM for which the $`W^{}`$ is right-handed. The process $`e\gamma \nu q`$ proceeds via t-channel $`W`$-exchange. The SM contribution is totally left-handed so that for 100% right-handed polarization a $`W_R`$ would show up quite dramatically. However, the cross-section for $`W_R`$’s which are not unrealistically light is orders of magnitude smaller than the left-handed cross section. So even a small pollution of left-handed electrons would largely overwhelm the right-handed cross section. The signal from right-handed $`W^{}`$’s is further eroded when systematic errors are included. Quantitatively we found for the back scattered laser case with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and $`L=50`$ fb<sup>-1</sup> using 100% right-handed electrons a discovery limit of 1.7 TeV. This was degraded to $`700`$ GeV when 90% polarization was used and was further degraded to $`600`$ GeV when a 2% systematic error on the cross section was included. This is only slightly higher than what is obtained using the $`p_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ distribution with unpolarized electrons.

The UUM is an interesting case. First, as noted above, the process $`e\gamma \nu q`$ is considerably more sensitive to a UUM $`W^{}`$ than the process studied previously, $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$. In addition, the dependence on the mixing angle between the two $`SU(2)`$ groups cancels in the process we are studying. The cross section exhibits a straightforward destructive interference of the $`W^{}`$ exchange with the SM $`W`$ exchange, rather than the complicated $`\varphi `$ dependence of the process $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$. This is an example of how the two processes complement each other.

As indicated above, we also derived discovery limits using another parametrization of the photon distribution functions, that of Schuler and Sjöstrand . That particular distribution results in lower cross sections than does the GRV parametrization. However, the discovery limits were consistently within 50-100 GeV of those reported in the Tables.

### B Constraints on Couplings

In this section, we consider constraints on the couplings of an extra $`W^{}`$ from the process $`e\gamma \nu q+X`$. All constraints are shown for the backscattered laser case. These constraints are significant only in the case where the mass of the corresponding extra gauge boson is considerably lower than its search limit in this process. We assume here that a signal for an extra gauge boson has been detected by another experiment, such as at the LHC.

Given such a signal, we derive constraints (at 95% C.L.) on the couplings of extra gauge bosons. We present the constraints in terms of couplings $`C_L`$ and $`C_R`$ which are normalized as in Eq. 9

The constraints correspond to

$$\chi ^2=\left(\frac{O_i(SM)O_i(SM+W^{})}{\delta O_i}\right)^2=5.99,$$
(13)
where $`O_i(SM)`$ is the prediction for the observable $`O_i`$ in the SM, $`O_i(SM+W^{})`$ is the prediction of the extension of the SM and $`\delta O_i`$ is the expected experimental error. The index $`i`$ corresponds to different observables such as $`\sigma `$, $`\sigma _R`$, $`A_{LR}`$, or $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ where one sums over all bins as in Eq. 12 for the latter.

We examined the sensitivity to polarized beams with the assumption that for single beam ($`e^{}`$) polarization, we have, as in the previous section, equal running in left and right polarization states. We found, as before, that polarized beams with realistic polarization, offer little improvement over the case of unpolarized beams.

In Figs. 6-9 we present our constraints on $`W^{}`$ couplings. The SM corresponds to the origin and we vary the $`W^{}`$ couplings about it, showing the contours corresponding to a 95% CL deviation. Thus, $`W^{}`$ couplings lying within the limits would be indistinguishable from the SM while those outside would indicate statistically significant deviations from the SM. For simplicity we have taken $`C_L^e=C_L^q`$ and $`C_R^e=C_R^q`$. This assumption is satisfied for the SSM, the LRM and the KK model. We indicate the couplings corresponding to those three models with a full star, a dot, and an open star, respectively. If one were making simultaneous measurements with different processes one could extract lepton couplings from one measurement and then use those as input to constrain the quark couplings with this process. We also point out that the couplings are normalized differently here than in Ref. . For comparison, the limits of our figures correspond to values of approximately $`L_f(W)`$ and $`R_f(W)0.5`$ in Figs. 12-17 of Ref.  .

In Fig. 6 we show the constraints on the couplings of a 750 GeV $`W^{}`$ at a 500 GeV collider for different observables and beam polarization. The results are given for the case of an integrated luminosity of 500 fb<sup>-1</sup>, including a 2% systematic error. One sees that one can obtain interesting constraints even though the $`W^{}`$ mass is greater than the center of mass energy. The binned differential cross section, $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$, gives the strongest constraint (solid line). 100% right-handed polarization gives a strong constraint from $`\sigma _R`$ orthogonal to that obtained from $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ (dashed line). However, we see that the constraints from $`\sigma _R`$ are seriously degraded for 90% polarization (dotted line).

Since we find that $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ gives the best limits we will explore variations of machine parameters and $`W^{}`$ properties in Figs. 7-9, using that observable only.

In Fig. 7 we show the effect of different luminosities and of including a systematic error. For the case of a 750 GeV $`W^{}`$ at a 500 GeV collider illustrated in the figure, the SSM and KK models are distinguishable from the standard model, even for the low luminosity case of 50 fb<sup>-1</sup>, with a 2% systematic error included. On the other hand, the LRM is not distinguishable even for the high luminosity case without any systematic error included. This is consistent with the mass limits quoted for this model in Table I, where $`M_W^{}=`$ 750 GeV is right at the limit of discovery for the most favourable case.

In Fig. 8 we show the constraints on the $`W^{}`$ couplings at a 500 GeV collider for three representative $`W^{}`$ masses of 0.75 TeV, 1 TeV, and 1.5 TeV. In Fig. 9, for the case of a 1.5 TeV $`W^{}`$, the constraints are shown for three different collider energies of 0.5 TeV, 1.0 TeV, and 1.5 TeV. In both Figs. 8 and 9 we have presented the case of an integrated luminosity of 500 fb<sup>-1</sup> with a 2% systematic error included. In each case shown in the figures, the SSM and KK models are distinguishable from the standard model.

## III Conclusions

In this paper, we studied the sensitivity of the process $`e\gamma \nu q`$ to $`W^{}`$ bosons. We used this process to find $`W^{}`$ mass discovery limits and to see how well one could measure the couplings of the $`W^{}`$ bosons expected in various extensions of the standard model.

For the discovery limits the highest reach was obtained by binning the $`d\sigma /dp_{T}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}`$ distribution. For most models, the discovery reach of the backscattered laser process is typically in the 2-10 TeV range depending on the center of mass energy, the integrated luminosity, and the assumptions regarding systematic errors. These limits compare very favourably with other processes, including measurements at the LHC. For the $`e^+e^{}`$ process with WW photons, the reach is typically in the 1-6 TeV range.

For the $`W_R`$ boson of the LRM, for which LHC discovery limits are available, the discovery limits are significantly lower. For $`g_R=g_L`$, $`M_W^{}`$= 0.75, 1.2, and 1.6 TeV for $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 500, 1000, and 1500 GeV respectively assuming $`L_{\mathrm{int}}=500`$ fb<sup>-1</sup> relative to a reach of $`5.9`$ TeV at the LHC.

Even for cases where the discovery reach for $`W^{}`$’s with this process is not competitive with the reach of the LHC, precision measurements can give information on extra gauge boson couplings which complements that from the LHC. In particular, if the LHC were to discover a $`W^{}`$ the process $`e\gamma \nu q`$ could be used to constrain $`W^{}`$ couplings.

We have demonstrated that this process has a great deal of potential in searching for the effects of extra gauge bosons. As we stated at the outset the resolved photon approach was a useful approximation adequate for estimating the discovery potential. However, when considering real data one must of course have exact calculations including radiative corrections. With the knowledge that this process may be a good probe for new physics the motivation to perform more detailed calculations now exists.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. S.G. and P.K. thank Dean Karlen for useful discussions and Michael Peskin and Tom Rizzo whose conversations led to studying this process. The work of M.A.D. was supported, in part, by the Commonwealth College of The Pennsylvania State University under a Research Development Grant (RDG).


format: text

text:
# Deviations from Einstein’s Gravity at Large and Short Distances

## 1 Introduction

It seems reasonable to predict that the new gravitational wave (GW) detectors now under construction, once operating at the maximum of their sensitivity, will be able to detect GWs. Will it be possible to use these future measurements to try to gain information on which is the theory of gravity at low energies? There are no particular reasons, in fact, why GW must be of spin two. In reality, many theories of gravity can be built which contain scalars and vectors. These theories are mathematically well founded. String theory, more in particular, is believed to be consistent also as a quantum description of gravity. The predictions of these theories must then be checked against available experimental data. This forces the couplings and masses present in the Lagrangian to take values in well defined domains. See  for a more detailed exposition. Once detected, one can also attempt to use GWs as a mean to further constrain this picture. It seems to us relevant to try to develop the theory to the point where it can profit from new experimental insights. For these reasons the interaction and cross section of a massive elastic sphere with scalar waves has been analysed in great detail in reference  —see also.

An appealing variant of the massive sphere is a hollow sphere . The latter has the remarkable property that it enables the detector to monitor GW signals in a significantly lower frequency range —down to about 200 Hz— than its massive counterpart for comparable sphere masses. This can be considered a positive advantage for a future world wide network of GW detectors, as the sensitivity range of such antenna overlaps with that of the large scale interferometers, now in a rather advanced state of construction . A first study of the response of such a detector to the GW energy emitted by a binary system constituted of stars of masses of the order of the solar mass was performed in . A simple formula for the GW energy was obtained in the Newtonian approximation whose region of validity encompasses emitted frequencies of the order of the first resonant mode of the detector under study.

A hollow sphere obviously has the same symmetry of the massive one, so the general structure of its it normal modes of vibration is very similar in both . In particular, the hollow sphere is very well adapted to sense and monitor the presence of scalar modes in the incoming GW signal.

In the first part of this talk I will report on the results of an extension of the analysis of the response of a hollow sphere, to include scalar excitations.

The second part of this talk will be dedicated to a class of recently proposed experiments to measure deviations from Einstein’s gravity at distances smaller than 1 cm . The experimental techniques involved in performing such experiments are tightly connected to those employed in the detection of GW from resonant mass detectors. I will review the main experimental difficulties in trying to achieve a useful signal-to-noise ratio, estimating the various backgrounds which could screen the gravitational signal.

## 2 The hollow sphere

### 2.1 Review of hollow sphere normal modes

This section contains some review material which is included essentially to fix the notation and to ease the reading of the ensuing sections. Notation will be that of reference . The eigenmode equation for a three-dimensional elastic solid is the following:

$$^2𝐬+\left(1+\lambda /\mu \right)(𝐬)=k^2𝐬,\left(k^2\varrho \omega ^2/\mu \right),$$
(1)
as described in standard textbooks, such as . The equation must be solved subject to the boundary conditions that the solid is to be free from tensions and/or tractions. In the case of a hollow sphere, I have two boundaries given by the outer and the inner surfaces of the solid itself. I use the notation $`a`$ for the inner radius, and $`R`$ for the outer radius. The boundary conditions are thus expressed by

$$\sigma _{ij}n_j=0\text{at}r=R\text{and at}r=a(Ra0),$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is the stress tensor, and is given by

$$\sigma _{ij}=\lambda u_{k,k}\delta _{ij}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mu u_{(i,j)}.$$
(3)
with $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ the material’s Lamé coefficients, and n the unit, outward pointing normal vector.

The general solution to equation (1) is a linear superposition of a longitudinal vector field and two transverse vector fields, i.e.,

$$𝐬(r,\vartheta ,\varphi )=\frac{C_\mathrm{l}}{q}𝐬_\mathrm{l}+\frac{C_\mathrm{t}}{k}𝐬_\mathrm{t}+C_\mathrm{t}^{}𝐬_\mathrm{t}^{}$$
(4)
where $`C_\mathrm{l}`$, $`C_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`C_\mathrm{t}^{}`$ are constant coefficients, and

$`𝐬_\mathrm{l}(r,\vartheta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dh_l(qr,E)}{dr}}Y_{lm}𝐧{\displaystyle \frac{h_l(qr,E)}{r}}i𝐧\times 𝐋Y_{lm}`$ (5)
$`𝐬_\mathrm{t}(r,\vartheta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`l(l+1){\displaystyle \frac{h_l(kr,F)}{r}}Y_{lm}𝐧+[{\displaystyle \frac{h_l(kr,F)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dh_l(kr,F)}{dr}})]i𝐧\times 𝐋Y_{lm}`$ (6)
$`𝐬_\mathrm{t}^{}(r,\vartheta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`h_l(kr,F)i𝐋Y_{lm}`$ (7)
with $`E`$ and $`F`$ also arbitrary constants,

$$q^2k^2\frac{\mu }{\lambda +\mu }=\frac{\varrho _0\omega ^2}{\lambda +\mu }$$
(8)
and

$$h_l(z,A)j_l(z)+Ay_l(z)$$
(9)
$`j_l`$ $`y_l`$ are spherical Bessel functions :

$`j_l(z)`$ $`=`$ $`z^l\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}\right)^l{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}z}{z}}`$ (10)
$`y_l(z)`$ $`=`$ $`z^l\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}\right)^l{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}z}{z}}`$ (11)
Finally, L is the angular momentum operator

$$𝐋i𝐱\times $$
(12)
The boundary conditions (2) must now be imposed on the generic solution to equations (1). After some rather heavy algebra it is finally found that there are two families of eigenmodes, the toroidal (purely rotational) and the spheroidal. Only the latter couple to GWs , so I shall be interested exclusively in them. The form of the associated wavefunctions is

$$𝐬_{nlm}^S(r,\vartheta ,\varphi )=A_{nl}(r)Y_{lm}(\vartheta ,\varphi )𝐧B_{nl}(r)i𝐧\times 𝐋Y_{lm}(\vartheta ,\varphi )$$
(13)
where the radial functions $`A_{nl}(r)`$ and $`B_{nl}(r)`$ have rather complicated expressions:

$`A_{nl}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{nl}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_{nl}^S}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}j_l(q_{nl}^Sr)l(l+1)K_{nl}{\displaystyle \frac{j_l(k_{nl}^Sr)}{k_{nl}^Sr}}+`$ (14)
$`+D_{nl}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_{nl}^S}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}y_l(q_{nl}^Sr)l(l+1)\stackrel{~}{D}_{nl}{\displaystyle \frac{y_l(k_{nl}^Sr)}{k_{nl}^Sr}}]`$
$`B_{nl}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{nl}[{\displaystyle \frac{j_l(q_{nl}^Sr)}{q_{nl}^Sr}}K_{nl}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_{nl}^Sr}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left\{rj_l(k_{nl}^Sr)\right\}+`$ (15)
$`+D_{nl}{\displaystyle \frac{y_l(q_{nl}^Sr)}{q_{nl}^Sr}}\stackrel{~}{D}_{nl}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_{nl}^Sr}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left\{ry_l(k_{nl}^Sr)\right\}]`$
Here $`k_{nl}^SR`$ and $`q_{nl}^SR`$ are dimensionless eigenvalues, and they are the solution to a rather complicated algebraic equation for the frequencies $`\omega `$ = $`\omega _{nl}`$ in (1) —see  for details. In (14) and (15) I have set

$$K_{nl}\frac{C_\mathrm{t}q_{nl}^S}{C_\mathrm{l}k_{nl}^S},D_{nl}\frac{q_{nl}^S}{k_{nl}^S}E,\stackrel{~}{D}_{nl}\frac{C_\mathrm{t}Fq_{nl}^S}{C_\mathrm{l}k_{nl}^S}$$
(16)
and introduced the normalisation constant $`C_{nl}`$, which is fixed by the orthogonality properties

$$_V(𝐬_{n^{}l^{}m^{}}^S)^{}(𝐬_{nlm}^S)\varrho _0d^3x=M\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}$$
(17)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the hollow sphere:

$$M=\frac{4\pi }{3}\varrho _0R^3(1\varsigma ^3),\varsigma \frac{a}{R}1$$
(18)
Equation (17) fixes the value of $`C_{nl}`$ through the radial integral

$$_{\varsigma R}^R\left[A_{nl}^2(r)+l(l+1)B_{nl}^2(r)\right]r^2𝑑r=\frac{4\pi }{3}\varrho _0(1\varsigma ^3)R^3.$$
(19)
### 2.2 Absorption cross sections

As seen in reference , a scalar–tensor theory of GWs such as JBD predicts the excitation of the sphere’s monopole modes as well as the $`m`$ = 0 quadrupole modes. In order to calculate the energy absorbed by the detector according to that theory it is necessary to calculate the energy deposited by the wave in those modes, and this in turn requires that I solve the elasticity equation with the GW driving term included in its right hand side. The result of such calculation was presented in full generality in reference , and is directly applicable here because the structure of the oscillation eigenmodes of a hollow sphere is equal to that of the massive sphere —only the explicit form of the wavefunctions needs to be changed. I thus have

$$E_{\mathrm{osc}}(\omega _{nl})=\frac{1}{2}Mb_{nl}^2\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}|G^{(lm)}(\omega _{nl})|^2$$
(20)
where $`G^{(lm)}(\omega _{nl})`$ is the Fourier amplitude of the corresponding incoming GW mode, and

$`b_{n0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varrho _0}{M}}{\displaystyle _a^R}A_{n0}(r)r^3𝑑r`$ (21)
$`b_{n2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varrho _0}{M}}{\displaystyle _a^R}\left[A_{n2}(r)+3B_{n2}(r)\right]r^3𝑑r`$ (22)
for monopole and quadrupole modes, respectively, and $`A_{nl}(r)`$ and $`B_{nl}(r)`$ are given by (14). Explicit calculation yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_{n0}}{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{n0}}{1\varsigma ^3}}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)\varsigma ^3\mathrm{\Lambda }(a)\right]`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_{n2}}{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{n2}}{1\varsigma ^3}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)\varsigma ^3\mathrm{\Sigma }(a)\right]`$ (24)
with

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{j_2(q_{n0}z)}{q_{n0}R}}+D_{n0}{\displaystyle \frac{y_2(q_{n0}z)}{q_{n0}R}}`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{j_2(q_{n2}z)}{q_{n2}R}}3K_{n2}{\displaystyle \frac{j_2(k_{n2}z)}{k_{n2}R}}+D_{n2}{\displaystyle \frac{y_2(q_{n2}z)}{q_{n2}R}}3\stackrel{~}{D}_{n2}{\displaystyle \frac{y_2(k_{n2}z)}{k_{n2}R}}`$ (26)
The absorption cross section, defined as the ratio of the absorbed energy to the incoming flux, can be calculated thanks to an optical theorem, as proved e.g. by Weinberg . According to that theorem, the absorption cross section for a signal of frequency $`\omega `$ close to $`\omega _N`$, say, the frequency of the detector mode excited by the incoming GW, is given by the expression

$$\sigma (\omega )=\frac{10\pi \eta c^2}{\omega ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4}{(\omega \omega _N)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4}$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the linewitdh of the mode —which can be arbitrarily small, as assumed in the previous section—, and $`\eta `$ is the dimensionless ratio

$$\eta =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{grav}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{P_{GW}}{E_{\mathrm{osc}}}$$
(28)
where $`P_{GW}`$ is the energy re-emitted by the detector in the form of GWs as a consequence of its being set to oscillate by the incoming signal. In the following I will only consider the case $`P_{GW}=P_{\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{tensor}}`$ with

$$P_{\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{tensor}}=\frac{2G\omega ^6}{5c^5(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}+3)}\left[\left|Q_{kk}(\omega )\right|^2+\frac{1}{3}Q_{ij}^{}(\omega )Q_{ij}(\omega )\right]$$
(29)
where $`Q_{ij}(\omega )`$ is the quadrupole moment of the hollow sphere:

$$Q_{ij}(\omega )=_{\mathrm{Antenna}}x_ix_j\varrho (𝐱,\omega )d^3x$$
(30)
and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}`$ is Brans–Dicke’s parameter.

Explicit calculation shows that $`P_{\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{tensor}}`$ is made up of two contributions:

$$P_{\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{tensor}}=P_{00}+P_{20}$$
(31)
where $`P_{00}`$ is the scalar, or monopole contribution to the emitted power, while $`P_{20}`$ comes from the central quadrupole mode which, as discussed in  and , is excited together with monopole in JBD theory. One must however recall that monopole and quadrupole modes of the sphere happen at different frequencies, so that cross sections for them only make sense if defined separately. More precisely,

$`\sigma _{n0}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10\pi \eta _{n0}c^2}{\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n0}^2/4}{(\omega \omega _{n0})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n0}^2/4}}`$ (32)
$`\sigma _{n2}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10\pi \eta _{n2}c^2}{\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n2}^2/4}{(\omega \omega _{n2})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n2}^2/4}}`$ (33)
where $`\eta _{n0}`$ and $`\eta _{n2}`$ are defined like in (28), with all terms referring to the corresponding modes. After some algebra one finds that

$`\sigma _{n0}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`H_n{\displaystyle \frac{GMv_S^2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}+2)c^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n0}^2/4}{(\omega \omega _{n0})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n0}^2/4}}`$ (34)
$`\sigma _{n2}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`F_n{\displaystyle \frac{GMv_S^2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}+2)c^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n2}^2/4}{(\omega \omega _{n2})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n2}^2/4}}`$ (35)
Here, I have defined the dimensionless quantities

$`H_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{9(1+\sigma _P)}}(k_{n0}b_{n0})^2`$ (36)
$`F_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^2}{15(1+\sigma _P)}}(k_{n2}b_{n2})^2`$ (37)
where $`\sigma _P`$ represents the sphere material’s Poisson ratio (most often very close to a value of 1/3), and the $`b_{nl}`$ are defined in (23); $`v_S`$ is the speed of sound in the material of the sphere.

In tables 1 and 2 I give a few numerical values of the above cross section coefficients.

As already stressed in reference , one of the main advantages of a hollow sphere is that it enables to reach good sensitivities at lower frequencies than a solid sphere. For example, a hollow sphere of the same material and mass as a solid one ($`\varsigma `$ = 0) has eigenfrequencies which are smaller by

$$\omega _{nl}(\varsigma )=\omega _{nl}(\varsigma =0)(1\varsigma ^3)^{1/3}$$
(38)
for any mode indices $`n`$ and $`l`$. I now consider the detectability of JBD GW waves coming from several interesting sources with a hollow sphere.

### 2.3 Detectability of JBD signals

The values of the coefficients $`F_n`$ and $`H_n`$, together with the expressions (32) for the cross sections of the hollow sphere, can be used to estimate the maximum distances at which a coalescing compact binary system and a gravitational collapse event can be seen with such detector. I consider these in turn.

#### 2.3.1 Binary systems

I consider as a source of GWs a binary system formed by two neutron stars, each of them with a mass of $`m_1`$ = $`m_2`$ = 1.4 $`M_{}`$. The chirp mass corresponding to this system is $`M_c`$$``$$`(m_1m_2)^{3/5}(m_1+m_2)^{1/5}`$ = 1.22 $`M_{}`$, and $`\nu _{[5\mathrm{cycles}]}`$ = 1270 Hz111 The frequency $`\nu _{[5\mathrm{cycles}]}`$ is the one the system has when it is 5 cycles away from coalescence. It is considered that beyond this frequency disturbing effects distort the simple picture of a clean binary system —see  for further references.. Repeating the analysis carried on in section five of  I find a formula for the minimum distance at which a measurement can be performed given a certain signal to noise ratio (SNR), for a quantum limited detector

$`r(\omega _{n0})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{52^{1/3}}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}+2)(12\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}+19)}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{5/3}M_c^{5/3}}{c^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{Mv_S^2}{\mathrm{}\omega _{n0}^{4/3}SNR}}H_n\right]^{1/2}`$ (39)
$`r(\omega _{n2})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{52^{1/3}}{192}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}+2)(12\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}+19)}}{\displaystyle \frac{G^{5/3}M_c^{5/3}}{c^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{Mv_S^2}{\mathrm{}\omega _{n2}^{4/3}SNR}}F_n\right]^{1/2}`$ (40)
For a CuAL sphere, the speed of sound is $`v_S`$ = 4700 m/sec. I report in table 3 the maximum distances at which a JBD binary can be seen with a 100 ton hollow spherical detector, including the size of the sphere (diameter and thickness factor) for $`SNR=1`$. The Brans-Dicke parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}`$ has been given a value of 600. This high value has as a consequence that only relatively nearby binaries can be scrutinised by means of their scalar radiation of GWs. A slight improvement in sensitivity is appreciated as the diameter increases in a fixed mass detector. Vacancies in the tables mean the corresponding frequencies are higher than $`\nu _{[5\mathrm{cycles}]}`$.

#### 2.3.2 Gravitational collapse

The signal associated to a gravitational collapse has recently been modeled, within JBD theory, as a short pulse of amplitude $`b`$, whose value can be estimated as :

$$b10^{23}\left(\frac{500}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}}\right)\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{}}\right)\left(\frac{10Mpc}{r}\right)$$
(41)
where $`M_{}`$ is the collapsing mass.

The minimum value of the Fourier transform of the amplitude of the scalar wave, for a quantum limited detector at unit signal-to-noise ratio, is given by

$$\left|b(\omega _{nl})\right|_{\mathrm{min}}=\left(\frac{4\mathrm{}}{Mv_S^2\omega _{nl}K_n}\right)^{1/2}$$
(42)
where $`K_n=2H_n`$ for the mode with $`l=0`$ and $`K_n=F_n/3`$ for the mode with $`l=2,m=0`$.

The duration of the impulse, $`\tau 1/f_c`$, is much shorter than the decay time of the $`nl`$ mode, so that the relationship between $`b`$ and $`b(\omega _{nl})`$ is

$$b|b(\omega _{nl})|f_cat\omega _{nl}=2\pi f_c$$
(43)
so that the minimum scalar wave amplitude detectable is

$$|b|_{\mathrm{min}}\left(\frac{4\mathrm{}\omega _{nl}}{\pi ^2Mv_S^2K_n}\right)^{1/2}$$
(44)
Let us now consider a hollow sphere made of molibdenum, for which the speed of sound is as high as $`v_S`$ = 5600 m/sec. For a given detector mass and diameter, equation (44) tells us which is the minimum signal detectable with such detector. For example, a solid sphere of $`M=31`$ tons and 1.8 metres in diameter, is sensitive down to $`b_{\mathrm{min}}`$ = 1.5 $``$ 10-22. Equation (41) can then be inverted to find which is the maximum distance at which the source can be identified by the scalar waves it emits. Taking a reasonable value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{BD}`$ = 600, one finds that $`r(\nu _{10})`$$``$ 0.6 Mpc.

Like before, I report in tables 4, 5 and 6 the sensitivities of the detector and consequent maximum distance at which the source appears visible to the device for various values of the thickness parameter $`\varsigma `$. In table 5 a detector of mass of 31 tons has been assumed for all thicknesses, and in tables 4, 6 a constant outer diameter of 3 and 1.8 metres has been assumed in all cases.

## 3 Deviations from gravity at short distances

There has been much interest recently for compatifications of string theory models which could lead to effects of quantum gravity at the scale of the TeV. This idea is not new, but has received new impulse from the works of Ref.. Let me recall very briefly the main idea. The low-energy action of the heterotic string compactified to four dimensions looks like

$$S=d^4x\frac{V}{\lambda _H^2}(l_H^8R+l_H^6F^2)$$
(45)
where $`\lambda _H=g\sqrt{V}/l_H^3`$ is the dimensionless string coupling (the exponential of the vacuum expectation value of the dilaton), $`l_H`$ is the inverse of the mass scale, the subscript $`H`$ refers to the fact I am considering a heterotic string, $`V`$ is the compactified volume, $`g`$ is the gauge coupling constant and, for the sake of simplicity, in (45) I have only considered the gauge and gravitational sectors. From these expressions I see that for typical values of $`g1/5`$, $`M_H`$ is of the order of the Planck scale and the theory is weakly coupled for $`V\lambda _H^6`$. Let me now esamine the situation for the case of strings of type I. This is a theory of open and closed strings. The closed string sector generates gravity while the gauge sector is generated by open strings whose end are confined to propagate on D-branes. Having in mind a four dimensional compactification I divide the six internal (compactified) dimensions as parallel or transvers to the D-brane. Assuming that the standard model is localized on a $`p3`$ brane, there are $`p3`$ longitudinal and $`9p`$ transverse directions. The corresponding low-energy effective action for the zero-mass sector looks like

$$S=d^{10}x\frac{1}{\lambda _I^2l_I^8}R+d^{p+1}x\frac{l_I^{3p}}{\lambda _I}F^2.$$
(46)
Upon compactification, the Planck lenght and gauge coupling are given by

$$\frac{1}{\lambda _I^2}=\frac{V_{}V_{}}{\lambda _I^2l_I^8},\frac{1}{g^2}=\frac{l_I^{3p}V_{}}{\lambda _I}$$
(47)
where $`V_{}(V_{})`$ is the compactified volume parallel (transverse) to the p-brane. The requirement of weak coupling ($`\lambda _I<1`$) implies $`V_{}l^{p3}`$ while the transverse volume is unrestricted. Then the relation between the Planck scale and that of the string of type I becomes

$$M_P^2=\frac{M_I^{n+2}R_{}^n}{g^4v_{}},\lambda _I=g^2v_{}.$$
(48)
Here $`v_{}>1`$ is the parallel volume in string units and I have assumed that the transverse compactified space of dimension $`n=9p`$ is isotropic. From (48) I see that choosing $`n`$ and $`R_{}`$ in a suitable way it is possible to find a $`M_IM_P`$. Furthermore (48) can be seen as coming from the Gauss’s law for gravity in $`4+n`$ dimensions thus leading to a Newton’s constant

$$G_N^{(4+n)}=g^4l_I^{n+2}v_{}.$$
(49)
For $`M_I1`$ TeV, I find $`R_{}=10^8`$ km, $`.1`$ mm ($`10^3`$ eV), $`.1`$ fermi ($`10`$ MeV) for $`n=1,2,6`$ large dimensions. $`n=2`$ is still not ruled out from experimental data. It is thus considered important to perform experiments to check the consistency of gravity at the mm scale, below which the effect of extra-dimension should be considered important .

As the prototype experiment222See Ref. for a detailed description of experimental measures of the so-called fifth force. to perform such a measurement I take the setting of Fig.1, in which a test mass (generator) is made to oscillate in front of another oscillator (detector). The frequency of oscillation of the generator is the same as the frequency of the first resonant mode of the detector. This frequency is typically of the order of the KHz to try to decouple the system from background noise. It is also advisable to keep the entire apparatus at very low temperature to decrease the noise.

The main advantage of a configuration of the type of that of Fig.1 is that it is a null gravity experiment: i.e. gravity 333I mean the part of the potential which goes like the inverse of the distance between two test masses. is constant between the two parallel plates. In the Fourier transformed domain I am thus lead to a signal which is different from zero only for deviations from gravity which, as usual, are parametrized by a Yukawa type potential

$$V(r)=G_N^{(4)}\alpha _{V_d}d^3x\frac{e^{\frac{r}{\lambda }}}{r}$$
(50)
which expresses the interaction of an atom of the generator plate (of area $`A`$, thickness $`t_1`$, density $`\rho _1`$) with the detector plate which is taken to have geometrical dimensions such that its area is much bigger than $`A`$. Integrating over the generator plate and taking the derivative with respect to the distance between the two parallel plates, I find the force

$$F_Y=2\pi \alpha G_N^{(4)}\rho _1\rho _2\lambda ^2Ae^{\frac{d(t)}{\lambda }}(1e^{\frac{t_1}{\lambda }})(1e^{\frac{t_2}{\lambda }}),$$
(51)
where $`d(t)=\overline{d}+d_0\mathrm{sin}\omega _0t`$ is the distance between the two plates with $`d_0=(d_{max}d_{min})/2`$ and $`\overline{d}=(d_{max}+d_{min})/2`$. Fourier transforming (51) leads to

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_Y=2\pi \alpha G_N^{(4)}\rho _1\rho _2A\lambda ^2I_1(\frac{d_0}{\lambda })e^{\frac{\overline{d}}{\lambda }}(1e^{\frac{t_1}{\lambda }})(1e^{\frac{t_2}{\lambda }}),$$
(52)
where $`I_1`$ is a Bessel function. To obtain (52) I have used the fact that only the oscillator first resonant mode is relevant for our discussion. An estimate of the noise is given by

$$F_{noise}=\sqrt{\frac{kTm\omega _0}{Q\tau }},$$
(53)
where m is the mass of the detector, k is the Boltzmann constant, T the temperature at which the experiment is performed, Q is the detector’s quality factor and $`\tau `$ the integration time. Plugging into (53) typical values for the quantities involved, I get $`F_{noise}10^{10}`$ dyne. The ratio between (52) and (53) gives the signal to noise ratio, SNR. A proposed experiment along these lines has been described in .

Let me now examine what are the main sources of noise that have to be monitored in such an experiment:

* Casimir type forces
* Surface type forces

Fourier transforming the Casimir force between two parallel plates, I get

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{Casimir}=\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{}cA}{280}\frac{(d_0^3+4d_0^2\overline{d})}{(d_0^2+\overline{d}^2)^{7/2}}$$
(54)
For values typical of these experiments (probing gravity at the mm scale) $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{Casimir}10^{12}`$ dyne that is a value which is a couple of order of magnitude smaller than our noise. Consequently I do not have to worry about corrections to (54) coming from lack of parallelism between the plates, the temperature being different from zero, the materials being not perfect metals or the two plates being not at rest.

Let me come now to the second source of noise which I have denoted surface type forces because they are generated by the superficial properties of the two plates. It is in fact well known that if I put in front of each other two materials I can measure in the space between the two an electric field of the order of the tens of millivolt. This field is generated by patches of charges on the surface of the materials which, in first istance I attribute to impurities on the parallel two surfaces. An estimate of the force generated is given by

$$F_{electric}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }V)^2A}{(\overline{d}+d_0\mathrm{sin}\omega _0t)^2}10^{10}\frac{A}{(\overline{d}+d_0\mathrm{sin}\omega _0t)^2}\mathrm{dyne}.$$
(55)
The strength of $`F_{electric}`$ is such that it could overcome the signal from the Yukawa potential. From the experimental point of view this force is dealt with by connecting the two material to earth and among them or giving a bias current to balance for the phenomena. Giving the importance of the consequences of the presence of $`F_{electric}`$ it is then time to better understand the physics of the problem. If the material of which the two plates are made are different metals, then the electric field originates from the difference of the Fermi levels between the two. But even if the materials are the same the effect is still there, due to the fact that the metals are not monocrystals. It is anyway possible two coat the two plates with a thin layer of monocrystal material. Few angström are sufficient to change the superficial properties. In my opinion this is the most elegant way to cope with this problem.

In conclusion, in this chapter I have shown that performing experiments of gravity at the mm scale is possible given our understanding of the possible noise sources. I hope that very soon we will have experimental data to discuss.