text:
# Renormalization Group Flow in BRST Invariant Open String 𝜎-Model

## 1 Introduction

Conformal invariance on the world-sheet is at the heart of string theory. One of its fundamental consequences is that the dynamics of strings is constrained to curved spacetime backgrounds which are solutions of the string equations of motion. These conformal symmetry conditions are equivalent to the vanishing of the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model $`\beta `$-functions and so classical string vacua as well as on-shell string scattering amplitudes are characteristics of the renormalization group (RG) fixed points. This was first discovered when studying string dynamics on massless background fields  and rapidly seen to hold when including condensates of other string modes .

The conformal fixed points belong to a RG flow in an infinite dimensional field theory space spanned by all the string $`\sigma `$-model couplings. As indicated by the investigations in the vicinity of the on-shell gaussian fixed point, the RG flow looks like a gradient flow generated by a background field effective action $`I`$ and a theory space metric $`G^{jl}`$ (see for example ). The $`\beta `$-function $`\beta ^j`$ corresponding to the coupling $`g^j`$ is then given by

$$\beta ^j=G^{jl}\frac{\delta I}{\delta g^l}.$$
(1)
Since the effective action $`I`$ is to be considered an off-shell functional of all string couplings it may naturally be interpreted as the tree level action for a string field theory.

The precise non-perturbative definition of the possible spacetime effective actions $`I`$ associated with the RG flow is still an open problem. At the free field theory level the early uncovering of the $`L_1`$ string gauge invariances has not yet been followed by an equally clear successful generation of the $`L_n`$, $`n2`$ gauge symmetries . At the level of the interactions a near mass-shell field redefinition ambiguity was found unavoidable when deducing the covariant form of gauge fixed actions . Without the field redefinitions the non-perturbative interactions were shown to depend on the chosen regulator  and a scheme  was found for which the structure of Witten’s string field theory (WSFT) and the associated non-linear gauge symmetry  are obtained from the $`\sigma `$-model RG flow.

In this letter we consider the introduction of ghost field couplings in the $`\sigma `$-model based on the approach of Jain and Jevicki . To study we select the open bosonic string and the region of theory space corresponding to the tachyon $`T`$, the photon $`A^\mu `$ and the ghost field $`\alpha `$. We construct a BRST invariant string $`\sigma `$-model and determine the non-perturbative off-shell effective action $`I`$ and its gauge symmetry properties. To be able to do so we define the $`\beta `$-functions by the local Weyl anomaly calculated via the covariant heat kernel regulator. We also require a unique but non-local theory space metric $`G^{jl}`$. We show that the interactions explicitly break the free field theory BRST invariance generating new non-linear gauge symmetries of the type present in WSFT. We also show that in the Feynman-Siegel gauge $`\alpha =0`$ the effective action $`I`$ has Witten’s structure of vertex couplings. Decoupling the ghost sector the theory space metric becomes trivial and the curved world-sheet $`\sigma `$-model for $`T`$ and $`A^\mu `$ still generates the structure of Witten’s theory without the need for the unsatisfactory regularization scheme recently used in the literature .

## 2 The BRST Invariant String $`\sigma `$-Model

As was proposed by Jain and Jevicki  the spacetime ghost background fields may be introduced in the string $`\sigma `$-model if the reparametrization ghosts are bosonized and then coupled to the matter sector. Considering the open bosonic string in $`d`$ dimensions and the theory space associated with $`T`$, $`A^\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$, the 2D field theory action $`S`$ is defined as $`S=S_0+S_\text{B}`$ where

$$S_0=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2\stackrel{~}{s}\left(X^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}X_\mu +Y\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}Y\right)+\frac{Q}{4\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\left(d^2\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{R}Y+2𝑑\stackrel{~}{s}k_{\stackrel{~}{g}}Y\right),$$
(2)
and

$$S_\text{B}=\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{s}\left\{\sqrt{2}T(X)+i_{\stackrel{~}{t}}X^\mu A_\mu (X)+\frac{i}{Q}_{\stackrel{~}{t}}Y\left[\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}A(X)\alpha (X)\right]\right\}.$$
(3)
As is clear this action has been constructed to be invariant under the following BRST transformation of the bare field couplings ($`\mathrm{}=^\mu _\mu `$)

$`\delta T(X)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\delta A^\mu (X)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(X),`$
$`\delta \alpha (X)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(X).`$ (4)
This classical property is clearly a consequence of the $`U(1)`$ breaking background field interaction which couples the matter and ghost sectors. It is independent of the normalization constants chosen in the boundary action $`S_\text{B}`$ which are justified by the quantum theory.

In formulae (2), (3) and (4) $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the standard Regge slope and $`g`$ the string coupling. On the world-sheet $`X^\mu `$ and $`Y`$ are taken to satisfy Neumann boundary conditions, $`_{\stackrel{~}{n}}X^\mu =0=_{\stackrel{~}{n}}Y`$. The world-sheet is a 2D surface with $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ and $`k_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ as its scalar and geodesic curvatures. Its metric is in the conformal gauge, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}(\xi )=\mathrm{exp}\left[2\phi (\xi )\right]\delta _{ab}`$, where the coordinates $`\xi =(\tau ,\zeta )`$, $`\mathrm{}<\tau <+\mathrm{}`$, $`0\zeta <+\mathrm{}`$ span the upper-half plane and $`\phi `$ is the Liouville field also satisfying Neumann boundary conditions $`_{\stackrel{~}{n}}\phi =\mathrm{exp}\left[\phi (\tau )\right]_\zeta \phi (\xi )|_{\zeta =0}=0`$. The integration elements are $`d^2\stackrel{~}{s}=d^2\xi \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}=d^2\xi \mathrm{exp}\left[2\phi (\xi )\right]`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{s}=d\tau \mathrm{exp}\left[\phi (\tau )\right]`$. The kinetic operator is the covariant laplacian $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=(1/\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}})_a\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}_b=\mathrm{exp}\left[2\phi (\xi )\right]^2`$ and $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\phi (\tau )\right]_\tau `$ is the derivative tangent to the boundary. The 2D surface curvatures are linked by the Gauss-Bonnet theorem $`d^2\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{R}+2𝑑\stackrel{~}{s}k_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=4\pi \chi `$, where for the disc topology $`\chi =1`$. With the topological background charge at the origin in the boundary $`\stackrel{~}{R}=2\mathrm{exp}\left[2\phi (\xi )\right]^2\phi (\xi )`$ and $`k_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2\pi \chi \mathrm{exp}\left[\phi (\tau )\right]\delta (\tau )`$.

The curvature coupling $`Q`$ is determined by the local Weyl anomaly associated with the reparametrization ghosts of Polyakov’s open bosonic string . Integrating $`Y`$ and using the covariant heat kernel regulator we obtain

$$\delta _\rho \mathrm{ln}\left[\left(\frac{\text{Det}^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{d^2\stackrel{~}{s}}\right)^{1/2}e^{\stackrel{~}{}_Q}\right]=\frac{1+3Q^2}{24\pi }\left(d^2\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{R}\rho +2𝑑\stackrel{~}{s}k_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\rho \right)$$

$$Q^2\chi \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{s}\rho }{d^2\stackrel{~}{s}}\frac{2Q\chi }{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}d^2\stackrel{~}{s}}d^2\stackrel{~}{s}(\xi )d^2\stackrel{~}{s}(\xi ^{})\rho (\xi )\stackrel{~}{G}_N(\xi ,\xi ^{})\stackrel{~}{J}_Q(\xi ^{}),$$
(5)
where the contributions associated with local renormalization counterterms have been omited as they are ultimately tuned to zero. In the Weyl anomaly (5) we wrote

$$\stackrel{~}{}_Q=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2\stackrel{~}{s}(\xi )d^2\stackrel{~}{s}(\xi ^{})\stackrel{~}{J}_Q(\xi )\stackrel{~}{G}_N(\xi ,\xi ^{})\stackrel{~}{J}_Q(\xi ^{}),$$
(6)
where the functional current $`\stackrel{~}{J}_Q`$ verifies

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_Q=\frac{Q\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{R}+2\stackrel{~}{\delta }_B^2k_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\right),d^2\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{J}_Q=2\pi Q\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\chi $$
(7)
and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_N`$ is the Neumann laplacian Green’s function defined to satisfy

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{G}_N(\xi ,\xi ^{})=\frac{\delta ^2(\xi \xi ^{})}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}}\frac{1}{d^2\stackrel{~}{s}},_{\stackrel{~}{n}}\stackrel{~}{G}_N(\xi ,\xi ^{})=0$$
(8)
as well as to be symmetric in its arguments and orthogonal to the laplacian’s constant zero mode

$$d^2\stackrel{~}{s}(\xi )\stackrel{~}{G}_N(\xi ,\xi ^{})=0.$$
(9)
The non-local piece in anomaly (5) is generated by $`\stackrel{~}{G}_N`$ due to the presence of the laplacian’s zero mode . This term is zero for a flutuating world-sheet with infinite area. Only then the anomaly (5) may be equal to the Weyl anomaly associated with the integration of the reparametrization ghosts in Polyakov’s open bosonic string. This is the condition for bosonization in this theory and it further selects $`Q=\pm 3i`$. Taking the infinite target space to have the critical $`26`$ dimensions the local Weyl anomaly is also cancelled.

## 3 The Renormalization Group Flow $`\beta `$-Functions

The quantum features of the BRST invariant string $`\sigma `$-model we are going to analyze in this work are defined by the RG flow $`\beta `$-functions. Let us introduce them following the approach of Klebanov and Susskind . A first point to be noted is that the Liouville mode $`\phi `$ takes the role played by the scale parameter $`t`$. This is because the global scale transformations are now extended to the the Weyl transformations. Then the general Wilson RG equations for the set of renormalized fields $`g^j`$ are the following variational equations in $`\phi `$

$$\beta ^j=\frac{\delta g^j}{\delta \phi }=\lambda _jg^j+\alpha _{kl}^jg^kg^l+\mathrm{}.$$
(10)
In Eqs. (10) $`\lambda _j`$ are anomalous dimensions and $`\alpha _{kl}^j`$ vertex coefficients. The ellipsis represent higher order vertex terms in the weak field expansion (WFE) of the $`\beta `$-functions. Since the anomalous dimension matrix is supposed to be diagonalized there is no summation in $`j`$. The solutions of Eqs. (10) in terms of the bare fields $`g^j(0)`$ are

$$g^j(\phi )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda _j\phi \right)g^j(0)+\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[(\lambda _k+\lambda _l)\phi \right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda _j\phi \right)\right\}\frac{\alpha _{kl}^j}{\lambda _k+\lambda _l\lambda _j}g^k(0)g^l(0)+\mathrm{}.$$
(11)
So, to find the $`\beta `$-functions we have to determine the renormalized fields ($`\widehat{T}`$, $`\widehat{A}^\mu `$, $`\widehat{\alpha }`$) as functions of the bare fields ($`T`$, $`A^\mu `$, $`\alpha `$) and then compare with Eqs. (10) and (11). We start by separating $`X^\mu `$ into a classical background $`X_0^\mu `$ and a quantum flutuation $`\overline{X}^\mu `$, $`X^\mu =X_0^\mu +\overline{X}^\mu `$, where naturally both fields obey Neumann boundary conditions. Taking the ghost coordinate $`Y`$ as a pure quantum field we then consider in the WFE the $`\sigma `$-model partition function

$$Z=<1S_\text{B}+\frac{1}{2}S_\text{B}^2+\mathrm{}>=𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{g}}(\overline{X},Y)\mathrm{exp}\left(S_0\right)\left(1S_B+\frac{1}{2}S_B^2+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(12)
and the 2D effective action $`S_{\text{eff}}=\mathrm{ln}Z`$.

Now, Fourier transforming the bare background fields to momentum space generates a sum of standard gaussian integrals. When integrated these will produce extra dependence on the conformal mode $`\phi `$ due to the quantum Weyl anomalies associated with the functional contractions. Let us first consider the linear order of the WFE,

$$<S_\text{B}>=\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau d^{26}k𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{g}}(\overline{X},Y)\mathrm{exp}\left\{S_0+ik\left[X_0(\tau )+\overline{X}(\tau )\right]\right\}L_\text{B}(k,\tau ),$$
(13)
where

$$L_\text{B}(k,\tau )=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\phi (\tau )\right]T(k)+i\left[\dot{X}_0^\mu (\tau )+\dot{\overline{X}}^\mu (\tau )\right]A_\mu (k)+\frac{i}{Q}\dot{Y}(\tau )\left[i\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}kA(k)\alpha (k)\right]$$
(14)
and the dot over the fields is the notation for $`_\tau `$. Here the extra dependence on $`\phi `$ comes from the heat kernel regulated Neumann Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{G}_N^R`$ at coincident points ,

$$\delta _\rho \stackrel{~}{G}_N^R(\tau ,\tau )=\frac{1}{\pi }\rho (\tau ),$$
(15)
and also from its first derivative

$$\delta _\rho _\gamma \stackrel{~}{G}_N^R(\gamma ,\tau )|_{\gamma =\tau }=\frac{1}{2\pi }\dot{\rho }(\tau ).$$
(16)
In the next order we need to evaluate the contractions,

$$<\frac{1}{2}S_\text{B}^2>=\frac{g^2}{16\alpha ^{}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d\tau _1_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d\tau _2d^{26}k_1d^{26}k_2𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{g}}(\overline{X},Y)\mathrm{exp}(S_0)\times $$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{ik_1\left[X_0(\tau _1)+\overline{X}(\tau _1)\right]+ik_2\left[X_0(\tau _2)+\overline{X}(\tau _2)\right]\right\}L_\text{B}(k_1,\tau _1)L_\text{B}(k_2,\tau _2),$$
(17)
which are associated with the first two terms in the expansions of $`[\phi (\tau _2)`$, $`X_0^\mu (\tau _2)]`$ around $`\tau _1`$,

$$[\phi (\tau _2),X_0^\mu (\tau _2)]=[\phi (\tau _1),X_0^\mu (\tau _1)]+[\dot{\phi }(\tau _1),\dot{X}_0^\mu (\tau _1)](\tau _2\tau _1)+\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
All the terms with higher order derivatives of $`\phi `$ or $`X_0^\mu `$ will be ignored as they only contribute to the renormalizations of higher level massive fields.

In all the relevant contractions there are Weyl anomalous divergences which introduce extra dependence on $`\phi `$. Besides those like (15) and (16) we also find divergent integrals of the form

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _1_{\mathrm{}}^{\tau _1}𝑑\tau _2\mathrm{exp}\left[\pi P(k_1,k_2)\stackrel{~}{G}_N(\tau _1,\tau _2)\right],$$
(19)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}_N(\tau _1,\tau _2)=G_N(\tau _1,\tau _2)=(1/\pi )\mathrm{ln}(|\tau _1\tau _2|/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})`$. Noting that for non-coincident points the Neumann Green’s function does not have a local Weyl anomaly  and using the covariant heat kernel result (15) we obtain the following extra dependence on the Liouville mode $`\phi `$

$$\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau _1\left[P(k_1,k_2)+1\right]^1\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left[P(k_1,k_2)+1\right]\phi (\tau _1)\right\}.$$
(20)
Note as well that the integrals (19) have a potential infrared divergence appearing as $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$. To remove it we impose the convergence condition $`P(k_1,k_2)+1<0`$ .

Then we find

$$S_{\text{eff}}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2\xi _aX_0^\mu ^aX_{0\mu }+\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\tau d^{26}k\mathrm{exp}\left[ikX_0(\tau )\right]\widehat{}_\text{B}(k,\tau )+\mathrm{},$$
(21)
with

$$\widehat{}_\text{B}(k,\tau )=\sqrt{2}\widehat{T}[k,\phi (\tau )]+i\dot{X}_0^\mu \widehat{𝒜}_\mu [k,\phi (\tau )],$$
(22)
where the renormalized fields are

$`\widehat{T}[k,\phi (\tau )]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[(1\alpha ^{}k^2)\phi (\tau )\right]\{T(k){\displaystyle _k}[{\displaystyle \frac{T(k_1)T(k_2)}{2\alpha ^{}k_1k_2+1}}+2i𝒜_\mu (k_1)\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^\mu }{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_2^2}}\alpha (k_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_\mu (k_1)𝒜_\nu (k_2)}{2\alpha ^{}k_1k_21}}\left(\eta ^{\mu \nu }2\alpha ^{}k_2^\mu k_1^\nu Q^2\alpha ^{}k_1^\mu k_2^\nu \right)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1k_2}{\alpha ^{}k_1^2k_2^2}}\alpha (k_1)\alpha (k_2)]\},`$
$`\widehat{𝒜}^\mu [k,\phi (\tau )]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\alpha ^{}k^2\phi (\tau )]\{𝒜^\mu (k)2{\displaystyle _k}[{\displaystyle \frac{T(k_1)𝒜^\nu (k_2)}{2\alpha ^{}k_1k_2+1}}(\eta _\nu ^\mu +2\alpha ^{}k_2^\mu k_{1\nu })`$
$``$ $`iT(k_1){\displaystyle \frac{k_2^\mu }{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_2^2}}\alpha (k_2)]\},`$
$`\widehat{\alpha }[k,\phi (\tau )]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(g),`$ (23)
where we have written $`_k=(g/2)d^{26}k_1d^{26}k_2\delta ^{26}(k_1+k_2k)`$ and also $`𝒜^\mu (k)=A^\mu (k)+ik^\mu \alpha (k)/(\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k^2)`$. Note that $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ is a completely arbitrary $`𝒪(g)`$ function because we are free to add a total boundary derivative to the 2D effective action.

At this stage it becomes clear that $`T`$, $`A^\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$ are not the correct fields to define the $`\beta `$-functions because of the mixing of $`A^\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$. Instead we must consider $`T`$, $`𝒜^\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$. The correspondent anomalous dimensions are $`\lambda _{\widehat{T}}(k)=1\alpha ^{}k^2`$, $`\lambda _{\widehat{𝒜}}(k)=\alpha ^{}k^2`$ and $`\lambda _{\widehat{\alpha }}(k)=0`$. Comparing with the solutions (11) it is also clear that we are missing the contribution associated with $`\mathrm{exp}[(\lambda _k+\lambda _l)\phi ]`$. This term is negligible when compared with $`\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _j\phi )`$ if $`\lambda _k+\lambda _l\lambda _j<<0`$. In the high energy region of phase space $`\alpha ^{}k_1^2>>0`$, $`\alpha ^{}k_2^2>>0`$, $`2\alpha ^{}k_1k_2>>0`$ this is always true and since $`P(k_1,k_2)+12\alpha ^{}k_1k_2`$ the infrared divergence is removed. Thus we define the $`\beta `$-functions by analytic continuation from this region of momentum space. Our results are

$`\beta _{\widehat{T}}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(1\alpha ^{}k^2)\widehat{T}(k)+{\displaystyle _k}[\widehat{T}(k_1)\widehat{T}(k_2)+\widehat{𝒜}_\mu (k_1)\widehat{𝒜}_\nu (k_2)(\eta ^{\mu \nu }2\alpha ^{}k_2^\mu k_1^\nu )+`$
$`+`$ $`2i\widehat{𝒜}_\mu (k_1){\displaystyle \frac{k_2^\mu }{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_2^2}}\widehat{\alpha }(k_2)\left(\alpha ^{}k^21\alpha ^{}k_1^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{Q^2}}k_1\widehat{𝒜}(k_1)k_2\widehat{𝒜}(k_2)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1k_2}{\alpha ^{}k_1^2k_2^2}}\widehat{\alpha }(k_1)\widehat{\alpha }(k_2)(\alpha ^{}k^2+1)],`$
$`\beta _{\widehat{𝒜}^\mu }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}k^2\widehat{𝒜}^\mu (k)+2{\displaystyle _k}[\widehat{T}(k_1)\widehat{𝒜}_\nu (k_2)(\eta ^{\mu \nu }+2\alpha ^{}k_2^\mu k_1^\nu )`$
$``$ $`i\widehat{T}(k_1){\displaystyle \frac{k_2^\mu }{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}k_2^2}}\widehat{\alpha }(k_2)],`$
$`\beta _{\widehat{\alpha }}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(g).`$ (24)
Up to linear order the $`\beta `$-functions are invariant under the BRST gauge transformation of the renormalized fields. With the introduction of the quadratic $`𝒪(g)`$ interactions this symmetry is dynamically broken.

## 4 The Effective Action and its Gauge Symmetry <br>Properties

To order $`g`$ the $`\beta `$-functions define a gradient flow in the theory space of couplings. The associated effective action is equal to

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{26}X[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{T}(\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}+1)\widehat{T}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{A}^\mu \alpha ^{}\mathrm{}\widehat{A}_\mu \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\widehat{A}^\mu _\mu \widehat{\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\alpha }^2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3!}}\widehat{T}^3`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\widehat{T}\widehat{A}^\mu \widehat{A}_\mu g\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\widehat{T}\widehat{A}^\mu _\mu \widehat{\alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{g\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{Q^2}}\widehat{T}\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{A}g\alpha ^{}\widehat{T}_\nu \widehat{A}^\mu _\mu \widehat{A}^\nu `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\alpha ^{}}{2Q^2}}\widehat{T}\widehat{A}\widehat{A}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2Q^2}}\widehat{T}\widehat{\alpha }^2].`$
This is only possible if the total boundary derivative inducing an arbitrary $`\beta `$-function for the ghost field $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ is fixed to have the necessary complementary terms to those shown in the $`\beta `$-functions of $`\widehat{T}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒜}`$. Although at the linear order the RG flow is associated with a unit metric in the space of couplings, when the non-linear interaction terms are introduced the metric develops an off-diagonal element $`G_{\widehat{𝒜}\widehat{T}}^\mu `$,

$$G^{jl}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ G_{\widehat{𝒜}\widehat{T}}^\mu & \eta ^{\mu \nu }& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right],$$
(26)
where

$$G_{\widehat{𝒜}\widehat{T}}^\mu =g\alpha ^{}\left[\frac{1}{Q^2}\widehat{𝒜}^\mu +\left(2+\frac{1}{Q^2}\right)^\mu \widehat{𝒜}\right](\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}+1)^1.$$
(27)
This metric is invertible without the need to neglect higher order terms. The inverse metric has the same form but with $`G_{\widehat{𝒜}\widehat{T}}^{\mu 1}=G_{\widehat{𝒜}\widehat{T}}^\mu `$. With this condition on the invertibility of $`G^{jl}`$ the RG gradient flow is unique.

The BRST invariant kinetic terms in the effective action (25) are exactly those of WSFT. At the first non-linear interaction level this symmetry is explicitly broken. To see if any other invariance emerges we consider the variation of the interactions in Eq. (25) under the BRST transformation and study how new quadratic gauge transformations might produce a compensating change of the kinetic terms. We find that the effective action (25) is exactly invariant under the following $`\gamma `$-parameter family of non-linear gauge transformations

$`\delta \widehat{T}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\left[\gamma \widehat{\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }+\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\left(2\widehat{A}^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{A}\right)\right],`$
$`\delta \widehat{A}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{g\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{2}}\left[\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \widehat{T}+(\gamma +2)\widehat{T}^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }\right],`$
$`\delta \widehat{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{g\gamma }{2}}\left(\widehat{T}\mathrm{\Lambda }2\alpha ^{}_\mu \widehat{T}^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ^{}\widehat{T}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).`$ (28)
Thought not equal in its detail to WSFT tree level symmetry , the $`\sigma `$-model invariance (28) is of a similar structural type. That is most notable in the transformation laws of $`T`$ and $`A^\mu `$ where the symmetry operator structure is the same if $`\gamma 0`$. Missing in the $`\sigma `$-model are the exact operator coefficients and smearing factors of Witten’s interactions. As is already clear in Eq. (25) it is when the ghost field $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ enters into the interactions that the theories most differ. This should be noted as evidence that when probing deeper and deeper into the off-shell structure of this string $`\sigma `$-model we will see it diverge more and more from WSFT.

Thus it should not be too surprising that in the Feynman-Siegel gauge $`\widehat{\alpha }=0`$ we are able to obtain Witten’s structure of vertex couplings  thought not its exact coefficients,

$`I_{\text{FS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{26}X[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{T}(\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}+1)\widehat{T}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{A}^\mu \alpha ^{}\mathrm{}\widehat{A}_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{g}{3!}}\widehat{T}^3{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\widehat{T}\widehat{A}^\mu \widehat{A}_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{g\alpha ^{}}{Q^2}}\widehat{A}_\nu _\mu \widehat{T}^\nu \widehat{A}^\mu `$ (29)
$``$ $`g\alpha ^{}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Q^2}})\widehat{T}_\nu \widehat{A}^\mu _\mu \widehat{A}^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{g\alpha ^{}}{2Q^2}}\widehat{A}^\mu \widehat{A}^\nu _\mu _\nu \widehat{T}].`$
If we set $`A=\alpha `$ the matter and ghost sectors of the 2D bare action decouple. Then the $`\sigma `$-model is projected onto the theory space spanned by $`T`$ and $`A^\mu `$. The effective action is just Eq. (25) with $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{\alpha }`$. The corresponding non-linear invariance follows from Eq. (28) with $`\gamma =0`$,

$`\delta \widehat{T}`$ $`=`$ $`g\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\widehat{A}^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda },`$
$`\delta \widehat{A}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}(1g\widehat{T})^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (30)
Here the agreement with WSFT is almost complete. Only missing in the interactions are its gaussian smearing factors.

## 5 Conclusions

In this letter we have only considered the slice of theory space corresponding to $`T`$, $`A^\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$. These are the relevant and marginal perturbations about the on-shell gaussian fixed point. In a level truncation type scheme  they are the first levels in an infinite tower of string states which in a fully off-shell description must be considered together. The introduction of the higher massive fields can naturally be done along the lines of this work but it is outside our present scope. We hope to report on progress in this direction in a future paper.

It is important to be aware of the limitations of the present approach. Thought non-perturbative in $`\alpha ^{}`$ the WFE does not allow us to probe very deeply off-shell in the RG flow and is permissive to near mass-shell field redefinitions  which are bound to hide important physical phenomena. In this work we have introduced a purely off-shell ghost coupling and avoided the field redefinitions but have not gone beyond the WFE. As a consequence our results are just an indication (thought a strong one, we believe) that non-linear gauge symmetries and non-trivial string vacua of the type found in WSFT  also exist in the RG flow. Perhaps we might reach farther away with the Exact Renormalization Group approach .

## Acknowlegdements

We would like to thank Yuri Kubyshin, Paul Mansfield and Tim Morris for their support and encouragement. We also thank the Department of Physics at Indiana University, U.S.A., for kind hospitality in the early stages of this work.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent works , the wave function and the dynamics of a model Universe with variable space dimension have been studied in detail. In this model, the number of space dimensions decreases continuously during the expansion of the Universe. There is a dimensional constraint that relates the space dimension to the size of the Universe. Here we apply this constraint to a simple model of chaotic inflation. A brief review of chaotic inflation with variable space dimensions has been given in .

Inflationary cosmology has been studied in higher dimensional models; for a recent work see Ref. . Cosmological scenarios of the new inflationary type form a self-similar fractal of dimension slightly less than three . Inflation with fluctuating dimensions describes the Universe as an exponentially large number of independent inflationary domains (mini-Universes) of different dimension . Inflation can describe the transition from higher dimensions to the ordinary three-space and can also be studied like a dynamical effect of higher dimensions .

In this paper, we study chaotic inflation in the framework of model Universe with variable space dimensions. This new investigation is useful as a conceivable application of the idea of variable space dimensions, and as a cosmological test of model Universe with variable space dimensions. A more appropriate cosmological test like nucleosynthesis or some other well established and precise aspect of cosmology within this speculative model are in progress .

Our main results in this paper are: i) an upper limit for the space dimension at the Planck length, ii) a small shift in the value of $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\varphi _f`$ to larger values. As we shall see, in this model the number of space dimensions at the Planck length must be less than 10, which is in agreement with the previous result in . We will use a natural unit system that sets $`k_B`$, $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ all equal to $`1`$, so that $`l_P=M_P^1=\sqrt{G}`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we review a model Universe with variable space dimension. In Sec. 3, chaotic inflation is formulated in an arbitrary constant space dimension. In Sec. 4, we study chaotic inflation by assuming the space dimension is a dynamical parameter and decreases continuously as the Universe expands. Sec. 5 contains our conclusions.

## 2 Review of a model Universe with variable space dimensions

### 2.1 Motivation for choosing a model Universe with variable space dimensions

Problems of the standard model and its difficulties with the concept of quantum gravity and the early Universe at the Planck time provide us enough reasons to look for viable model Universes. Moreover, the ongoing experiments related to CMB will provide us a wealth of data suitable to test all the theories of space-time and gravity. Even the act of verifying cosmological models based on general relativity needs looking for viable theories differing from it to see the degree of its testability and viability. These are the main reasons we are studying chaotic inflation based on time variable space dimensions. It has been shown  that this idea can be implemented successfully in a gravitational theory and cosmological model based on it. The free parameter of the theory may then be fixed by observational data .

The idea of having space-time dimensions other than $`3+1`$ goes back to Kaluza-Klein theory. The generalization of this concept to string theories with space dimension more than three, but still an integer, and a constant is well known . This, being considered for the high energy limit in the Universe or for the dimension of space at the Planck time, has encouraged people to suggest that the dimension of space in the lower energy limit, or for the actual structured Universe, be other than three.

A possible time dependence of space-time dimensionality is derived as an effect of entropy conservation in . There it turns out that, going back in time, the dimension increases first very slowly up to about the Planck time, and increases more rapidly thereafter. This generic trend is insensitive to the assigned entropy value. In fact a minimum value for the size of the Universe, being about the Planckian size, is also obtained. The dynamical model we are going to follow has the same time behavior for the space dimension. A minimum size for the Universe is also built into our dynamical model.

Our treatment in this paper is based on a cosmological model, where the number of spatial dimensions decreases continuously as the Universe expands, presented in the pioneer works . A proposed way of handling such a concept is using the idea of decrumpling coming from polymer physics . In this model the fundamental building blocks of the Universe are like cells being arbitrary dimensions and having, in each dimension, a characteristic size $`\delta `$ which maybe of the order of the Planck length $`𝒪`$($`10^{33}`$ cm) or even smaller. These “space cells” are embedded in a $`𝒟`$ space, where $`𝒟`$ may be up to infinity. Therefore, the space dimension of the Universe depends on how these fundamental cells are configured in this embedding space. The Universe may have begun from a very crumpled state having a very high dimension $`𝒟`$ and a size $`\delta `$, then have lost dimension through a uniform decrumpling which we see like a uniform expansion. The expansion of space, being now understood like a decrumpling of cosmic space, reduces the space-time dimension continuously from $`𝒟+1`$ to the present value $`D_0+1`$. In this picture, the Universe can have any space dimension. As it expands, the number of spatial dimensions decreases continuously. The physical process that causes or necessitates such a decrease in the number of spatial dimensions comes from how these fundamental cells are embedded in a $`𝒟`$ space.

As an example, take a limited number of small three-dimensional beads. Depending on how these beads are embedded in space they can configure to a one-dimensional string, two-dimensional sheet, or three-dimensional sphere. This is the picture we are familiar with from the concept of crumpling in polymer physics where a crumpled polymer has a dimension more than 1. Or take the picture of a clay which can be like a three-dimensional sphere, or a two-dimensional sheet, or even a one-dimensional string, a picture based on the theory of fluid membranes.

The major formal difficulty to implement this idea in a space-time theory with variable space dimension is that the measure of the integral of the action is variable and therefore some part of integrand. However, taking into account the cosmological principle, i.e. the homogeneity and isotropy of space, the formulations are simplified substantially. It then becomes possible to formulate a Lagrangian for the theory and write down the corresponding field equations. This Lagrangian is however not unique .

The original decrumpling model of the Universe seems to be singularity free, having two turning points for the space dimension . Lima and Mohazzab  criticize the way of generalizing the standard cosmological model to arbitrary variable space dimension used in  and propose another way of writing the field equations. Their model shows no upper bound for the dimension of space. Later on this scenario was extended to the class of multidimensional cosmological models, where extra factor spaces play the role of the matter fields. In this multidimensional cosmological model an inflationary solution was found together with the prediction that the Universe starts from a nonsingular space time .

A new way to generalize the gravitational action in constant dimension to the case of dynamical dimension is recently proposed by Mansouri and Nasseri . There, it is shown that the generalization of the gravitational action to the dynamical dimension is not unique. Moreover, in contrast to the earlier works in , the dependence of the measure of the action on space dimension is taken into account. This new decrumpling model is studied in detail . The generalization of the action, the Lagrangian, the equations of motion to dynamical space dimension, the time evolution of the spatial dimension, numerical results for the turning points of the model, and its quantum cosmology within the concept of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation are derived. It is shown that the corresponding potential of the model has completely different behavior from the potential of the de Sitter minisuperspace in three-space. Imposing the appropriate boundary condition in the limit $`a+\mathrm{}`$, and using the semiclassical approximation, the wave function of the model is also derived. It is then seen that in the limit of constant space dimension, the wave function is not well-defined. It can approach to the Hartle-Hawking wave function or to the modified Linde wave function, but not to that of Vilenkin. In the limit of constant spatial dimension, the probability density approaches to Vilenkin, Linde and others’ proposal; i.e. to the probability density $`𝒫\mathrm{exp}(2S_E)`$, or more generally $`\mathrm{exp}(2|S_E|)`$, where $`S_E`$ is the Euclidean action of the classical instanton solution.

### 2.2 Relation between the effective space dimension $`D(t)`$ and characteristic size of the Universe $`a(t)`$

Assume the Universe consists of a fixed number $`N`$ of universal cells having a characteristic length $`\delta `$ in each of their dimensions. The volume of the Universe at the time $`t`$ depends on the configuration of the cells. It is easily seen that

$$\mathrm{vol}_D(\mathrm{cell})=\mathrm{vol}_{D_0}(\mathrm{cell})\delta ^{DD_0}.$$
(1)
Interpreting the radius of the Universe, $`a`$, as the radius of gyration of a crumpled “universal surface”, the volume of space can be written

$`a^D`$ $`=`$ $`N\mathrm{vol}_D(\mathrm{cell})`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`N\mathrm{vol}_{D_0}(\mathrm{cell})\delta ^{DD_0}`$
$`=`$ $`a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{D_0}\delta ^{DD_0}`$
or

$$\left(\frac{a}{\delta }\right)^D=\left(\frac{a_0}{\delta }\right)^{D_0}=e^C,$$
(3)
where $`C`$ is a universal positive constant. Its value has a strong influence on the dynamics of space-time, for example on the dimension of space, say, at the Planck time. Hence, it has physical and cosmological consequences and may be determined by observation. The zero subscript in any quantity, e.g. in $`a_0`$ and $`D_0`$, denotes its present values. We coin the above relation as a“dimensional constraint” which relates the “scale factor” of our model Universe to the space dimension. In our formulation, we consider the comoving length of the Hubble radius at present time to be equal to one. So the interpretation of the scale factor as a physical length is valid. The dimensional constraint can be written in this form

$$\frac{1}{D}=\frac{1}{C}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)+\frac{1}{D_0}.$$
(4)
It is seen that by expansion of the Universe, the space dimension decreases. Note that in Eqs.(3) and (4), the space dimension is a function of cosmic time $`t`$. Time derivative of Eqs.(3) or (4) leads to

$$\dot{D}=\frac{D^2\dot{a}}{Ca}.$$
(5)
It can be easily shown that the case of constant space dimension corresponds to when $`C`$ tends to infinity. In other words, $`C`$ depends on the number of fundamental cells. For $`C\mathrm{}`$, the number of cells tends to infinity and $`\delta 0`$. In this limit, the dependence between the space dimensions and the radius of the Universe is removed, and consequently we have a constant space dimension.

### 2.3 Lagrangian formulations of the model and field equations

Usually, we are accustomed to work with an integer number of dimension, and therefore a non-integer total number of spatial dimensions looks peculiar. It is clear that for non-integer value of space dimensions, one cannot define the metric tensor. To overcome this problem, we use a gravitational theory based on Lagrangian formulations. In Ref. , some shortcomings of the original Lagrangian formulation of the model proposed in  have been shown, regarding the fields equations and their results.

Let us define the action of the model for the special Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric in an arbitrary fixed space dimension $`D`$, and then try to generalize it to variable dimension. Now, take the metric in constant $`D+1`$ dimensions in the following form

$$ds^2=N^2(t)dt^2+a^2(t)d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2,$$
(6)
where $`N(t)`$ denotes the lapse function and $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2`$ is the line element for a D-manifold of constant curvature $`k=+1,0,1`$. The Ricci scalar is given by

$$R=\frac{D}{N^2}\left\{\frac{2\ddot{a}}{a}+(D1)\left[\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{N^2k}{a^2}\right]\frac{2\dot{a}\dot{N}}{aN}\right\}.$$
(7)
Substituting from Eq.(7) in the Einstein-Hilbert action for pure gravity,

$$S_G=\frac{1}{2\kappa }d^{(1+D)}x\sqrt{g}R,$$
(8)
and using the Hawking-Ellis action (see Ref. ) of a perfect fluid, for the model Universe with variable space dimension, the following Lagrangian has been obtained

$`L_I`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_D}{2\kappa N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}\right)^DD(D1)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{N^2k}{a^2}}\right]`$ (9)
$``$ $`\rho NV_D\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}\right)^D,`$
where $`\kappa =8\pi M_{P}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, $`\rho `$ the energy density, and $`V_D`$ the volume of the space-like sections

$`V_D`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2\pi ^{(D+1)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(D+1)/2]},\hfill & \text{if }k=+1\text{,}\hfill \\ \frac{\pi ^{(D/2)}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2+1)}\chi _{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{D},\hfill & \text{if }k=0\text{,}\hfill \\ \frac{2\pi ^{(D/2)}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)}f(\chi _c),\hfill & \text{if }k=1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
Here $`\chi _C`$ is a cut-off and $`f(\chi _c)`$ is a function thereof (see Ref. ). In the limit of constant space dimensions, or $`D=D_0`$, $`L_I`$ approaches to the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian which is

$`L_I^0`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{D_0}}{2\kappa N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}\right)^{D_0}D_0(D_01)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{N^2k}{a^2}}\right]`$ (11)
$``$ $`\rho NV_{D_0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}\right)^{D_0}.`$
So, Lagrangian $`L_I`$ cannot abandon Einstein’s gravity. Varying the Lagrangian $`L_I`$ with respect to $`N`$ and $`a`$, we find the following equations of motion in the gauge $`N=1`$, respectively

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa \rho }{D(D1)}},`$ (12)
$`(D1)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{2C}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}}1{\displaystyle \frac{D(2D1)}{2C(D1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{2D_0}}\right)\right\}`$
$`+\kappa p\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{C}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}+1\right)=0.`$ (13)
Using (5) and (12), the evolution equation of the space dimension can be obtained by

$$\dot{D}^2=\frac{D^4}{C^2}\left[\frac{2\kappa \rho }{D(D1)}k\delta ^2e^{2C/D}\right].$$
(14)
The continuity equation of the model Universe with variable space dimension can be obtained by (12) and (2.3)

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[\rho \left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^DV_D\right]+p\frac{d}{dt}\left[\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^DV_D\right]=0.$$
(15)
This continuity equation can be integrated for the case of dust or radiation to obtain the energy density like a function of time. For the radiation era, $`p=\rho /D`$, we have

$$\rho =\rho _{eq}e^{C(D/D_{eq}1)}\left(\frac{D}{D_{eq}}\right)^{C/D_{eq}}\frac{V_{D_{eq}}}{V_D}\mathrm{exp}\left(_{D_{eq}}^D𝑑D\frac{1}{D}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}\right),$$
(16)
and for the matter era, $`p=0`$,

$$\rho =\rho _0e^{C(D/D_01)}\frac{V_{D_0}}{V_D},$$
(17)
where $`D_{eq}`$ is the space dimension of the Universe when the scale factor is equal to the scale factor of the equality epoch 222Note that Eq. (70) of Ref.  must be corrected by replacing $`D_{eq}`$ and $`\rho _{eq}`$ with $`D_0`$ and $`\rho _0`$, respectively. For the radiation era, we cannot use the present values of the energy density $`\rho _0`$ and the space dimension $`D_0`$. For the matter era, Eq. (71) of Ref.  is correct..

We define $`D_P`$ like the space dimension of the Universe when the scale factor is equal to the Planck length $`l_P`$. Taking the scale of the Universe at $`D_0=3`$ to be the present value of the Hubble radius $`H_0^1`$ and the space dimension in the Planck length to be $`4,10,`$ or $`25`$, from Kaluza-Klein and superstring theories, we can obtain from Eqs. (3) and (4) the corresponding value of $`C`$ and $`\delta `$. In Table 1, values of $`C`$ and $`\delta `$ for some interesting values of $`D_P`$ are given. These values are calculated by assuming $`D_0=3`$ and $`H_0^1=3000h_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{Mpc}=9.2503\times 10^{27}h_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{cm}`$. Since the value of $`C`$ and $`\delta `$ are not very sensitive to $`h_0`$ we take $`h_0=1`$.

## 3 Inflationary cosmology with constant space dimensions

Assuming the space dimension is constant and has an arbitrary value, we now formulate the inflationary cosmology in a constant D-space. The crucial equations are given by

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi \rho }{D(D1)M_P^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}\text{Friedmann equation},`$ (18)
$`\dot{\rho }+DH(\rho +p)=0\mathrm{Fluid}\mathrm{equation}.`$ (19)
Inserting $`k=0`$ and the energy density and pressure of a homogeneous inflaton field

$`\rho `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi ),`$ (20)
$`p`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi ),`$ (21)
in Eqs. (18) and (19), we are led to

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{D(D1)M_P^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi )\right),`$ (22)
$`\ddot{\varphi }+DH\dot{\varphi }=V^{}(\varphi ).`$ (23)
In a constant D-space the slow-roll conditions are defined by

$$\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi ),\ddot{\varphi }DH\dot{\varphi },\dot{H}H^2.$$
(24)
Using these conditions, Eq. (22) and (23) can be written in the simpler set

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi V(\varphi )}{D(D1)M_P^2}},`$ (25)
$`DH\dot{\varphi }`$ $``$ $`V^{}(\varphi ).`$ (26)
During inflation, $`H`$ is slowly varying in the sense that its change per Hubble time, $`ϵ\dot{H}/H^2`$ is less than one . The slow-roll condition $`|\eta |1`$ is actually a consequence of the condition $`ϵ1`$ plus the slow-roll approximation $`DH\dot{\varphi }V^{}`$. Indeed, differentiating Eq. (26) one finds

$$\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{H\dot{\varphi }}=ϵ\eta ,$$
(27)
where the slow-roll parameters in any constant space dimension are defined by

$`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(D1)M_P^2}{32\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2,`$ (28)
$`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{(D1)M_P^2}{16\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}\right).`$ (29)
The number of e-foldings between $`t_i`$ and $`t_f`$ is given by

$$𝒩=_{t_i}^{t_f}H(t)𝑑t=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a_f}{a_i}\right)\frac{16\pi }{(D1)M_P^2}_{\varphi _i}^{\varphi _f}\frac{V}{V^{}}𝑑\varphi .$$
(30)
For the chaotic inflation with the $`m^2\varphi ^2/2`$ potential, the solution of Eqs. (25) and (26) are given by

$`\varphi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _i{\displaystyle \frac{mM_P}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{2\pi D}}}t,`$ (31)
$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a_i\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{M_P^2(D1)}}\left[\varphi _i^2\varphi ^2(t)\right]\right).`$ (32)
Using the slow-roll parameters

$$ϵ=\eta =\frac{M_P^2(D1)}{8\pi \varphi ^2},$$
(33)
and the failure of the slow-roll conditions

$$\mathrm{max}\{ϵ_f;|\eta _f|\}1,$$
(34)
one concludes that

$$\varphi _f=M_P\sqrt{\frac{D1}{8\pi }}.$$
(35)
Substituting this value of $`\varphi _f`$ into Eq. (30), one can get

$$𝒩=\frac{4\pi \varphi _i^2}{(D1)M_P^2}\frac{1}{2}.$$
(36)
Considering the upper bound of the number of e-foldings, $`𝒩>60`$, we obtain

$$\varphi _i>\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{60}{\pi }(D1)}M_P.$$
(37)
From Eq. (32), we see that by the time $`\varphi `$ approaches zero the Universe has expanded by an inflating factor

$$ll_P\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4\pi \varphi _i^2}{M_P^2(D1)}\right)l_P\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4\pi M_P^2}{m^2(D1)}\right),$$
(38)
where we use the condition $`\varphi _iM_P^2/m`$. For $`m10^6M_P`$, this implies that the inflationary domains of the Universe expand to

$$l10^{33}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4\pi \times 10^{12}}{D1}\right).$$
(39)
For $`1<D6`$ we have $`l>10^{10^{12}}`$. In the limit of three-space, from Eqs. (35, 36, 37, 38), we obtain:

$`\varphi _f=M_P/\sqrt{4\pi },`$ (41)
$`\varphi _i>\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{30}{\pi }}}M_P3.10M_P,`$
$`𝒩60,`$ (43)
$`l10^{33}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi 10^{12})>10_{}^{10}{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{cm}.`$
Inflation ends when $`t=t_f`$. Using Eq.(31), one can obtain:

$$t_f=\frac{2\sqrt{2\pi D}(\varphi _i\varphi _f)}{mM_P\sqrt{D1}}.$$
(44)
For $`D=3`$, we substitute the value of $`\varphi _i/M_P`$ and $`\varphi _f/M_P`$ from Eqs. (41,41) in Eq.(44). Therefore, we obtain:

$$t_f7.71\times 10^{37}\mathrm{sec},$$
(45)
where we take $`m1.21\times 10^6M_P`$, see .

## 4 Chaotic inflation with time-variable space dimensions

Let us now study the inflationary cosmology when the space dimension is a dynamical parameter. To do this, we first write down our formulation for a general potential and then use our results in the $`m^2\varphi ^2/2`$ potential.

### 4.1 General formulations

To study inflation in the framework of the model Universe with variable space dimension, the crucial equations are obtained by substituting Eqs. (20) and (21) into Eqs. (12) and (15). Therefore, one can find

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{D(D1)M_P^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi )\right){\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}\text{Friedmann equation},`$ (46)
$`\ddot{\varphi }+DH\dot{\varphi }+\dot{D}\dot{\varphi }\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}}\right)=V^{}(\varphi )\text{Fluid equation}.`$ (47)
In the case of dynamical space dimension, the slow-roll conditions are the same as in that of constant space dimension, see Eq. (24). It is worth mentioning that in the slow-roll condition $`\ddot{\varphi }DH\dot{\varphi }`$, where $`D`$ is a dynamical parameter. When inflation starts, the curvature term can be neglected, $`k=0`$. So, in the slow-roll approximation, Eqs. (46) and (47) lead to

$`H^2{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi V(\varphi )}{D(D1)M_P^2}},`$ (48)
$`DH\dot{\varphi }+\dot{D}\dot{\varphi }\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{a_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}}\right)V^{}(\varphi ),`$ (49)
where $`V_D`$ is the space-like section for $`k=0`$ and

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}=\mathrm{ln}\chi _c+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\pi \frac{1}{2}\psi \left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right).$$
(50)
Here Euler’s psi function $`\psi `$ is the logarithmic derivative of the gamma function, $`\psi (x)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$. Substituting the dimensional constant (5) into Eq. (48), the dynamics of the space dimension is given by

$$\dot{D}^2\frac{16\pi D^3V(\varphi )}{C^2(D1)M_P^2}.$$
(51)
Using Eqs. (48) and (49), one can find

$$\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{H\dot{\varphi }}=\frac{ϵ}{D\left(\frac{1}{D_0}\frac{1}{C}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}\right)}\eta ,$$
(52)
where the slow-roll parameters in the variable space dimension are defined by

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(D1)M_P^2}{32\pi D\left(\frac{1}{D_0}\frac{1}{C}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{D(12D)}{2C(D1)}},`$ (53)
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(D1)M_P^2}{16\pi D\left(\frac{1}{D_0}\frac{1}{C}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}\right)`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2}{C}+\frac{D^2}{C^2}\frac{d^2\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD^2}+\frac{\ddot{D}}{H^2D^2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{a_0}+\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}\right)}{D\left(\frac{1}{D_0}\frac{1}{C}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}\right)}}.`$
Note that in the limit of $`C+\mathrm{}`$ and $`D=D_0`$, these slow-roll parameters approach Eqs. (28) and (29), respectively.

One can get the critical density333Substituting $`k=0`$ and $`\rho =\rho _C`$ in Eq. (18), one gets the same expression for $`\rho _C`$ as when the space dimensions are constant. So, the definition of $`\rho _C`$ is the same regardless of whether the space dimensions are constant. by taking $`k=0`$ in Eq. (12)

$$\rho _C\frac{H^2D(D1)M_P^2}{16\pi }.$$
(55)
From Eqs. (12) and (55), the present value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be obtained by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1+\frac{k}{a_0^2H_0^2}.$$
(56)
Here our treatments are based on recent observational data $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$. Substituting $`k=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ into Eq. (56), we obtain

$$a_0=H_0^1=9.2503\times 10^{27}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(57)
Using Eqs. (3) and (57), one can find the value of $`C`$ and $`\delta `$ for $`D_P=4,10,25,`$ and $`+\mathrm{}`$ with $`D_0=3`$, see Table 1.

### 4.2 Chaotic inflation with variable space dimensions

In variable space dimensions, the general potential for chaotic inflation can be taken as $`V\varphi ^\alpha `$. In higher dimensions, the value of $`\alpha `$ should be specified so that the theory could be renormalizable. We are interested now in studying the simplest chaotic inflation with the $`m^2\varphi ^2/2`$ potential in the model Universe with variable space dimensions. We begin by calculating the number of e-foldings. To do this, one needs the value of $`|1\mathrm{\Omega }_f^1|`$. Using Eqs. (12) and (55), we are led to

$$|1\mathrm{\Omega }_f^1|=\frac{D_f(D_f1)M_P^2|k|}{16\pi \rho _fa_f^2},$$
(58)
where the subscript $`f`$ denotes the value at the GUT epoch, i.e. $`\rho _f\rho _{GUT}`$, $`a_fa_{GUT}`$, $`D_fD_{GUT}`$ and $`|1\mathrm{\Omega }_f^1||1\mathrm{\Omega }_{GUT}^1|`$. We are going to obtain the value of $`|1\mathrm{\Omega }_f^1|`$ in Eq. (58). To do this, we must know $`a_f`$, $`D_f`$, and $`\rho _f`$. To obtain the value of $`a_f`$, we start from the equality time, go back in time, and follow the standard cosmology. At some time $`t=t_{eq}`$ in the past (corresponding to a value $`a=a_{eq}`$ and redshift $`z=z_{eq}`$ ) the radiation and matter will have equal density and we have

$$(1+z_{eq})=\frac{a_0}{a_{eq}}3.9\times 10^4(\mathrm{\Omega }h^2).$$
(59)
Once the temperature of the radiation grows as $`a^1`$, the temperature of the Universe at this epoch will be

$$T_{eq}=T_{now}(1+z_{eq})=9.24(\mathrm{\Omega }h^2)\mathrm{eV}.$$
(60)
Using $`T_f10^{24}(\mathrm{\Omega }h^2)\mathrm{eV}`$ and thanks to the fact that $`(a_f/a_{eq})=(T_{eq}/T_f)`$, we obtain $`a_f2.19\mathrm{cm}`$. Substituting this value into the dimensional constraint (4), the corresponding value of $`D_f`$ can be obtained. The space dimension $`D=D_{eq}`$, when $`a=a_{eq}`$, can be obtained by Eqs. (4) and (59), see Table 1. From Eq. (17), the energy density at the time $`t=t_{eq}`$ is given by

$$\rho _{eq}=\rho _0e^{C(D_{eq}/D_01)}\frac{V_{D_0}}{V_{D_{eq}}}.$$
(61)
Substituting this into Eq. (16), one can get the energy density at the GUT epoch

$`\rho _f`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _0e^{C(D_{eq}/D_01)}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{D_0}}{V_{D_{eq}}}}e^{C(D_f/D_{eq}1)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_f}{D_{eq}}}\right)^{C/D_{eq}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{D_{eq}}}{V_{D_f}}}`$ (62)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _{D_{eq}}^{D_f}}𝑑D{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}}\right).`$
Based on recent observational evidence where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ to high accuracy, we have

$$\rho _0\mathrm{\Omega }_0\rho _c=1.88\times 10^{29}h_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\text{gr cm}^3=8.10\times 10^{47}h_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{GeV}^4.$$

In Eq. (62), it should be noted that the value of space-like sections is for $`k=0`$. So, from Eq. (10) one gets

$$_{D_{eq}}^{D_f}𝑑D\frac{1}{D}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}V_D}{dD}=\left(\mathrm{ln}\chi _c+\frac{\mathrm{ln}\pi }{2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{D_f}{D_{eq}}\frac{1}{2}_{D_{eq}}^{D_f}𝑑D\frac{1}{D}\psi \left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right),$$
(63)
From Eqs. (58), (62) and (63), one finds the value of $`|1\mathrm{\Omega }_f^1|`$, see Table 1 444It should be noted that in the limit of constant space dimension, we have
$$\underset{C+\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{D}{D_{eq}}\right)^{C/D_{eq}}=\underset{C+\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{D}{C}\mathrm{ln}\frac{a_{eq}}{a}+1\right)^{C/D_{eq}}=\frac{a_{eq}}{a},$$
and also
$$\underset{C+\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{C(D/D_{eq}1)}=\left(\frac{a_{eq}}{a}\right)^{D_0}.$$
So, from Eqs. (58) and (62), one gets in the constant three-space
$$|1\mathrm{\Omega }_f^1|=\frac{3M_P^2}{8\pi \rho _{eq}\left(a_{eq}/a_f\right)^4a_f^2}2.190\times 10^{51}.$$
.

To calculate the number of e-foldings $`𝒩\mathrm{ln}(a_f/a_i)`$, we use Eq. (58) for some finite time interval $`t[t_i,t_f]`$ of the inflationary epoch

$$\frac{\rho _ia_i^2|1\mathrm{\Omega }_i^1|}{D_i(D_i1)}=\frac{\rho _fa_f^2|1\mathrm{\Omega }_f^1|}{D_f(D_f1)}.$$
(64)
The inflaton is like a little ball that rolls down the potential hill. Near the top of the potential the slope is very small, so the roll is slow and $`V(\varphi )\mathrm{const}`$. In other words $`\rho _i\rho _f`$. Considering $`\rho _i\rho _f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i𝒪(1)`$ and using the dimensional constraint (4), one can write down Eq. (64) as

$$\left(\frac{a_f}{a_i}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{\frac{1}{C}\mathrm{ln}\frac{a_f}{a_i}\frac{1}{D_f}}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\frac{1}{C}\mathrm{ln}\frac{a_f}{a_i}\frac{1}{D_f}}+1\right)=\frac{D_f(D_f1)}{|1\mathrm{\Omega }_f^1|}.$$
(65)
From this equation, we find the value of $`𝒩`$ by numerical calculations. The initial size of the Universe $`a_i`$ at the beginning of inflation is given by $`a_i=a_f\mathrm{exp}(𝒩)`$. Using the number of e-folding and Eq. (4), it is easy to calculate the space dimension $`D_i`$ at the beginning of inflation. The values of $`𝒩`$, $`D_i`$ and $`a_i`$ are given in Table 2.

It is worth mentioning that for $`D_P25`$, $`D_i`$ takes a negative value. Also for $`D_P=10`$, $`D_i`$ exceeds the value of $`D_P`$; in other words $`a_i`$ is smaller than the Planck length. This means that the inflationary period of the history of the Universe with variable space dimensions with $`D_P=10`$ takes place before the Planck epoch. This is even more surprising when one realizes that during inflation a region of initial size is $`\mathrm{\Delta }ll_P10^{33}\mathrm{cm}`$. Therefore we rule out the cases with $`D_P10`$ in the model Universe with variable space dimensions. In what follows, we will be particularly interested in the case $`D_P=4`$ and $`C=1678.8`$ for which inflation begins from an initial size of about $`a_i10^{30}\mathrm{cm}10^3\times l_P`$ and with an initial space dimension $`D_i3.94`$.

Let us now describe how to obtain the initial and the final value of the inflaton field denoted by $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\varphi _f`$, respectively. The end of inflation is marked by the failure of one of three slow-roll conditions, see Eq. (34). Taking $`ϵ_f=\eta _f=1`$, one can use Eqs. (53) and (54) to calculate $`\varphi _f/M_P`$

$$\frac{\varphi _f}{M_P}=\sqrt{\frac{D_f1}{8\pi D_f\left[\frac{1}{D_0}\frac{1}{C}\mathrm{ln}\chi _c\frac{1}{2C}\mathrm{ln}\pi +\frac{1}{2C}\psi \left(\frac{D_f}{2}+1\right)\right]}}.$$
(66)
It should be noted that we neglect the second term on the RHS of Eqs. (53) and (54), because these terms are independent of the shape of the inflaton potential and make a small contribution to the value of $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$. Using Eq. (66), one can find $`\varphi _f/M_P=0.290`$ for $`D_P=4`$, see Table 2. Notice the value of $`\varphi _f/M_P`$ depends on $`\chi _C`$. We take $`\chi _c=1`$ in the comoving coordinate which is about Planck length in the physical coordinate at the Planck time. For more details about the value of $`\chi _C`$, see Ref. . Using Eqs. (5), (48)-(50), it is easily shown that

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{M_P}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{D_i}^D}{\displaystyle \frac{dD^{}(D^{}1)}{D^3\left[\frac{1}{D_0}\frac{1}{C}\mathrm{ln}\chi _C\frac{1}{2C}\mathrm{ln}\pi +\frac{1}{2C}\psi \left(\frac{D^{}}{2}+1\right)\right]}}`$ (67)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i}{M_P}}\right)^2.`$
Using a fine approximation, one can neglect the term including the Euler’s psi function, being in the order of $`1/C`$, with respect to $`\frac{1}{D_0}`$. Therefore, Eq. (67) can be written as

$$\left(\frac{\varphi }{M_P}\right)^2=\frac{C\left[\frac{1}{D_i}\left(1\frac{1}{2D_i}\right)\frac{1}{D}\left(1\frac{1}{2D}\right)\right]}{4\pi \left[\frac{1}{D_0}\frac{1}{C}\mathrm{ln}\chi _c\frac{1}{2C}\mathrm{ln}\pi \right]}+\left(\frac{\varphi _i}{M_P}\right)^2.$$
(68)
Substituting $`\varphi =\varphi _f`$, $`D=D_f`$ and the corresponding values of $`C`$ and $`D`$ into Eq. (68), one can get $`\varphi _i/M_P=3.491`$, see Table 2. Using Eqs. (4) and (68), one can find a relation between $`\varphi (t)`$ and $`a(t)`$ which is given by

$$\left(\frac{\varphi }{M_P}\right)^2=\frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{D_i}+\frac{1}{2C}\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{a_i}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{a_i}}{4\pi \left[\frac{1}{D_0}\frac{1}{C}\mathrm{ln}\chi _c\frac{1}{2C}\mathrm{ln}\pi \right]}+\left(\frac{\varphi _i}{M_P}\right)^2.$$
(69)
## 5 Concluding remarks

In this paper, we study a simple model of chaotic inflation by assuming the space dimension as a dynamical parameter. For both constant and variable space dimension, at the end of inflationary epoch, we assume the Universe would have grown to the size of a ping-pong ball. This is based on cosmological data and we describe how to derive it.

In the model, there is a free parameter, called $`C`$. For different values of $`C`$ corresponding to $`D_P=4,10,25`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, we calculate the e-folding number. To obtain the number of e-foldings $`𝒩`$, we repeat the analysis of the inflationary cosmology in three-space. For $`D_P=4,10,25`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ we get $`𝒩70,99,116`$ and $`132`$, respectively. The dynamical character of the space dimension increases the number of e-foldings (for constant three-space, we have 58 e-foldings). Using these e-foldings, we obtain the initial and final value of the inflaton field. There is a small shift in the value of $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\varphi _f`$ to larger values.

Using the number of e-foldings, we also obtain the size of the Universe at the beginning of inflationary epoch. For $`D_P=10,25`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, inflation starts from an initial size less than the Planck length. We know that in three-space the initial size of the inflationary epoch is in the order of the Planck length. Particularly, for $`D_P=25`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ the initial size is less than the minimum size of the model $`\delta `$ and also the Planck length $`l_P`$. For $`D_P=10`$, the initial size is bigger than $`\delta `$ and smaller than $`l_P`$. So, we rule out the cases of $`D_P10`$ in the model and conclude an upper limit for the space dimension at the Planck length, $`D_P<10`$. Our result for an upper limit for the space dimension at the Planck length is in agreement with our previous result in . Here, we take $`D_P=4`$ corresponding to $`C=1678.8`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, H1 and ZEUS Collaborations have reported  experimental data on the total ctoss section of inelastic open beauty photoproduction. A comparision of these results with NLO pQCD calculations shows that ones underestimate the cross section at HERA energies. Therefore, it would be certainly reasonable to try a different way.

In the present note, we focus on the so called semihard approach  (SHA), which we had applied earlier to open heavy quark  and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$  photoproduction.

At the HERA energies and beyond, the interaction dynamics is governed by the properties of parton distributions in the small $`x`$ region. This domain is characterized by the double inequality $`s\mu ^2\widehat{s}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, which shows that the typical parton interaction scale $`\mu `$ (mass $`m_c`$ or $`p_T`$ of heavy quark) is much higher than the QCD parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, but is much lower than the total c.m.s. energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. The situation is therefore classified as “semihard”.

The resummation  of the terms $`[\text{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\alpha _s]^n`$, $`[\text{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\text{ln}(1/x)\alpha _s]^n`$ and $`[\text{ln}(1/x)\alpha _s]^n`$ in SHA results in the unintegrated parton distributions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x,q_T^2,\mu )`$, which determine the probability to find a parton of type $`i`$ carrying the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ and transverse momentum $`q_T`$ at the probing scale $`\mu ^2`$. They obey the BFKL equation  and reduce to the conventional parton densities $`F_i(x,\mu ^:)`$ once the $`q_T`$ dependence is integrated out:

$$_0^{\mu ^2}\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x,q_T^2,\mu ^2,Q_0^2)𝑑q_T^2=xF_i(x,\mu ^2,Q_0^2).$$
(1)
To calculate the cross section of a physical process, the unintegrated functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ have to be convoluted with off-mass shell matrix elements corresponding to the relevant partonic subprocesses. In the off-mass shell matrix element the virtual gluon polarization tensor is taken in the form of the SHA prescription :

$$L_{\mu \nu }^{(g)}=\overline{ϵ_2^\mu ϵ_2^\nu }=p^\mu p^\nu x^2/|q_T|^2=q_T^\mu q_T^\nu /|q_T|^2$$
(2)
In ref.  was used phenominological parametrization for the unintegrated gluon distribution including an arbitrary normalization constant ($`K`$ factor), which was obtained from a fit to $`b\overline{b}`$pair production at the Tevatron . In our recent paper  we investigate the sensitivity of heavy quarkonium photoproduction to different gluon distributions. Special attention was given to the unintegrated gluon distributions obtained from BFKL evolution equation. In this paper we study the sensitivity of the total cross section of inelastic charm abd beauty photoproduction to these unintegrated gluon distributions. The outline of our paper is the following: In sect. 2, we give the formulas for the cross sections of heavy quark photoproduction in the SHA of QCD. Then, in sect. 3, we describe the unintegrated distributions which we use for our calculations. In sect. 4, we present the results of our calculations. Finally, in sect. 5, we give some conclusions.

## 2 SHA QCD cross section for heavy quark photoproduction

We calculate the total and differential cross sections (the $`p_{}`$ and rapidity distributions) of charm and beauty quark photoproduction via the photon-gluon fusion QCD subprocess (Fig.1) in the framework of the SHA.

First of all we take into account the transverse momentum of gluon $`\stackrel{}{q}_2`$, its the virtuality $`q_2^2=\stackrel{}{q}_2^2`$ and the alignment of its polarization vectors along its transverse momentum such as $`ϵ_\mu =q_{2\mu }/\stackrel{}{q}_2`$ . Let us define Sudakov variables of the process $`epQ\overline{Q}X`$ (Fig.1):

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1P_1+\beta _1P_2+p_1p_2=\alpha _2P_1+\beta _2P_2+p_2`$
$`q_1`$ $`=`$ $`x_1P_1+q_1q_2=x_2P_2+q_2`$ (3)
where

$$p_1^2=p_2^2=M^2,q_1^2=q_1^2,q_2^2=q_2^2,$$

$`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are 4-momenta of the heavy quarks, $`q_1`$ is 4-momentum of the photon, $`q_2`$ is 4-momentum of the gluon, $`p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2`$ are transverse 4-momenta of these ones. In the center of mass frame of colliding particles we can write $`P_1=(E,0,0,E)`$, $`P_2=(E,0,0,E)`$, where $`E=\sqrt{s}/2`$, $`P_1^2=P_2^2=0`$ and $`(P_1P_2)=s/2`$. Sudakov variables are expressed as follows:

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_1^{})\alpha _2={\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_2^{})`$
$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_1^{})\beta _2={\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_2^{}),`$ (4)
where $`M_{1,2}^2=M^2+p_{1,2}^2`$, $`y_{1,2}^{}`$ are rapidities of heavy quarks, M is heavy quark mass.

From conservation laws we can easly obtain the following conditions:

$$q_1+q_2=p_1+p_2,x_1=\alpha _1+\alpha _2,x_2=\beta _1+\beta _2$$
(5)
The differential cross section of heavy quark photoproduction has the following form

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d^2p_1}(\gamma pQ\overline{Q}X)=𝑑y_1^{}\frac{d^2q_2}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_p(x_2,q_2^2)|\overline{M}|^2}{16\pi ^2(sx_2)^2\alpha _2}$$
(6)
The matrix element $`\overline{M}`$ for a subprocess $`\gamma g^{}q\overline{q}`$ depends on the virtuality of the gluon and differs from the one of the usual parton model. For the square of this matrix element we used the following form :

$`|\overline{M}|^2=16\pi ^2e_Q^2\alpha _s\alpha _{em}(x_2s)^2[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2}{(\widehat{t}M^2)(\widehat{u}M^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M^2}{q_T^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{\widehat{u}M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{\widehat{t}M^2}})^2],`$ (7)
where $`\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u}`$ are usual Mandelstam variables of partonic subprocess $`\gamma g^{}q\overline{q}`$.

## 3 Unintegrated gluon distribution

In this paper we used the different parametrizations for the unintegrated gluon distribution. First, as in the publication , we used the following phenomenological parametrization (LRSS-parametrization) :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{q}_T^2)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\frac{0.05}{0.05+x}(1x)^3f_1(x,\stackrel{}{q}_T^2),$$
(8)
where

$$f_1(x,\stackrel{}{q}_T^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if}\stackrel{}{q}_T^2q_0^2(x)\text{,}\hfill \\ (q_0^2(x)/\stackrel{}{q}_T^2)^2,\hfill & \text{if}\stackrel{}{q}_T^2>q_0^2(x)\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
with $`q_0^2(x)=q_0^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{exp}(3.56\sqrt{ln(x_0/x)})`$, $`q_0^2=2GeV^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=56MeV`$, $`x_0=1/3`$. The value of the parameter $`q_0^2(x)`$ can be considered as a new typical transverse momentum of the partons in the parton cascade which leads to natural infrared cut-off in semihard approach. The normalization factor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ of the structure function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{q}_T^2)`$ was obtained in , where beauty production at CDF energy was described, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0.97`$ mb.

The effective gluon distribution $`xG(x,\mu ^2)`$, which was obtained from eq. (7)-(8), and eq. (1) increases at not very low $`x(0.01<x<0.15)`$ as

$$xG(x,\mu ^2)x^\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.5`$ corresponds to the QCD pomeron singularity given by summation of leading logarithmic contributions ($`\alpha _sln\frac{1}{x})^n`$ . This increase continues up to $`x=x_0`$, where $`x_0`$ is a solution of the equation $`q_0^2(x_0)=\mu ^2`$. In the region $`x<x_0`$, there is saturation of the gluon distribution function: $`xG(x,\mu ^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mu ^2`$.

A second parametrization is based on the numerical solution of the BFKL evolution equations  (RS–parametrization). The solution has the following form :

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{a_2+a_3+a_4}}[a_2+a_3({\displaystyle \frac{Q_0^2}{q^2}})+({\displaystyle \frac{Q_0^2}{q^2}})^2+`$
$`\alpha x+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{ϵ+\mathrm{ln}(1/x)}}]C_q[{\displaystyle \frac{a_5}{a_5+x}}]^{1/2}[1`$
$`a_6x^{a_7}\mathrm{ln}(q^2/a_8)](1+a_{11}x)(1x)^{a_9+a_{10}\mathrm{ln}(q^2/a_8)},`$ (11)
where

$$C_q=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if}q^2<q_0(x)\text{,}\hfill \\ q_0(x)/q^2,\hfill & \text{if}q^2>q_0(x)\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
All parameters (see ) $`(a_1a_{11},\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`ϵ)`$ were found by minimization of the differences between left hand and right-hand of the BFKL-type equation for unintegrated gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,q^2)`$, $`Q_0^2=`$4 GeV2.

Finally we also use the results of a BFKL-like parameterization 444 Of course LRSS and RS parametrizations are BFKL - type too. of the unintegrated gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,q_T^2,\mu ^2)`$, according to the prescription given in . The proposed method lies upon a straightforward perturbative solution of the BFKL equation where the collinear gluon density $`xG(x,\mu ^2)`$ from the standard GRV set  is used as the boundary condition in the integral form (1). Technically, the unintegrated gluon density is calculated as a convolution of collinear gluon density $`G(x,\mu ^2)`$ with universal weight factors :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,q_T^2,\mu ^2)=_x^1𝒢(\eta ,q_T^2,\mu ^2)\frac{x}{\eta }G(\frac{x}{\eta },\mu ^2)𝑑\eta ,$$
(13)
where

$$𝒢(\eta ,q_T^2,\mu ^2)=\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\eta q_T^2}J_0(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{ln}(1/\eta )\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/q_T^2)}),q_T^2<\mu ^2,$$
(14)
$$𝒢(\eta ,q_T^2,\mu ^2)=\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{\eta q_T^2}I_0(2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\mathrm{ln}(1/\eta )\mathrm{ln}(q_T^2/\mu ^2)}),q_T^2>\mu ^2,$$
(15)
where $`J_0`$ and $`I_0`$ stand for Bessel functions (of real and imaginary arguments, respectively), and $`\overline{\alpha }_s=3\alpha _s/\pi `$. The parameter $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ is connected with the Pomeron trajectory intercept: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\alpha }_s4\mathrm{ln}2`$ in the LO and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\alpha }_s4\mathrm{ln}2N\overline{\alpha }_s^2`$ in the NLO approximations, respectively, where $`N18`$ . The latter value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ have dramatic consequences for high energy phenomenology. In particular it leads to negative values for physical cross sections . However some resummation procedures proposed in the last years lead to positive value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0.20.3)`$ . Therefore in our calculations with (13) we used only the solution of LO BFKL equation and considered $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as free parameter varying it from 0.166 to 0.53.

The presence of the two different parameters, $`\mu ^2`$ and $`q_T^2`$, in eq.(12) for unintegrated gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,q_T^2,\mu ^2)`$ refers to the fact that the evolution of parton densities proceeds in two steps. First the DGLAP scheme  is applied to evolve the structure function from $`Q_0^2`$ to $`\mu ^2`$ within the collinear approximation. After that eqs. (12)-(14) are used to develop the parton transverse momenta $`q_T^2`$ in correspondence with BFKL evolution .

This approach was used for the description of $`p_T`$ spectrum of $`D^{}`$ meson electroproduction at HERA  and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction , where in the first case for Pomeron intercept parameter was obtained the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$. However for the total cross section of inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.53`$ is more preferable.

## 4 Results of calculations

The calculations of the heavy quark photoproduction cross section in the SHA have been made accoding to eqns. (6) and (7) for $`\stackrel{}{q}_T^2>q_0^2`$ GeV2 and for $`\stackrel{}{q}_T^2q_0^2`$ GeV2 we set $`|\stackrel{}{q}_T|=`$ 0 in the matrix element of process and use one of the standard partom model (SPM). The choice of the critical value of parameter $`\stackrel{}{q}_T^2=q_0^2=12`$ GeV2 is determined by the requirement of the small value of $`\alpha _s(\stackrel{}{q}_T^2)`$ in the region $`\stackrel{}{q}_T^2>12`$ GeV2, where in fact $`\alpha _s(\stackrel{}{q}_T^2)0.26`$ 555The substitution $`q_0^2=1`$ GeV2 instead 2 GeV2 essentially influences on the dependence of cross sections from the BFKL parameterization of unintegrated gluon distribution..

The results of our calculations for the cross sections of $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ photoproduction processes are shown in Figs. 2 - 10. Fig. 2 shows the total cross section of the inelastic $`c\overline{c}`$ photoproduction at HERA and fixed target energies as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. The curves 3, 4 and 5 correspond to the SHA calculations with the RS, LRSS and BFKL unintegrated gluon distributions at the Pomeron intercept $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$, $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV and at values of $`q_0^2=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ and 1 GeV2 accordingly. One can see that the SHA curves 4 and 5 describe the data better than the SPM ones (1 and 2). The RS parameterization of the unintegrated gluon distribution gives the total cross section more close to SPM result (obtained with GRV gluon density) because of very large value of $`q_0^2=4`$ GeV2.

The LRSS parameterization of the unintegrated gluon distribution gives the cross section which stops to increase at energy $`\sqrt{s}150`$ GeV because of saturation effects accounted for by the parameterizations (8) and (9). We would like to stress that account for saturation effects in the region $`x10^3`$ , does not contradict the H1 and ZEUS experimental data .

The BFKL parameterization (curve 5) describes the H1 and ZEUS data very well at $`m_c=1.3`$ GeV (Fig. 3) The curves 3, 4 and 5 obtained in the SHA show more rapid growth with energy than those obtained in the SPM with GRV (curve 2) and MT  (curve 1) parameterizations.

In Fig.4 we show the dependence of the total cross section from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parameter for the BFKL parametrization (13) - (15) at $`m_c=1.3`$ GeV. The dependence is very weak in contrast with the dependence of the total inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction cross section .

The results of our calculations for the $`p_T`$ and rapidity $`y`$ ($`y=y_1^{}`$) distributions of the c quarks at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The SHA curves 4 and 5 in Fig. 5 for the $`p_T`$ distribution are higher than those of the SPM. It is effect of the SHA broadening of $`p_T`$ spectra due to extra transverse momentum of the initial gluons . The SHA rapidity distributions (Fig. 6) have more similar behaviour in wide rapidity region.

Fig. 7 shows the total cross section of inelastic $`b\overline{b}`$ photoproduction at HERA energies as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. The curves 3, 4 and 5 correspond to the SHA calculations with the RS, LRSS and BFKL unintegrated gluon distributions at the Pomeron intercept $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$, $`m_b=4.75`$ GeV and at values of $`q_0^2=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ and 1 GeV2 accordingly. The H1  and EMC  experimental data are described by the LRSS parameterization (curve 4) and the BFKL parameterization (curve 5 in Fig. 8) but at small value of $`m_b=4.25`$ GeV only for the last parameterization.

The results of the SHA calculations for the $`p_T`$ and rapidity distributions of the b quarks at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The differences between SHA curves and SPM ones are more pronounced than in the c-quark case.

## 5 Conclusions

We considered the process of inelastic heavy quark photoproduction at HERA in the framework of the semihard QCD approach with emphasis on the BFKL dynamics of gluon distributions. We investigated total cross section of inelastic $`c`$ and $`b`$quark photoproduction and also $`p_T`$ and rapidity spectra as a function of different unintegrated gluon distributions. It is shown that the description of the $`c`$quark inelastic cross section at HERA energies is achieved in the cases of the LRSS and BFKL parameterizations at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ 666 Close values for the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ were obtained rather in very different papers (see, for example,  -) and in the L3 experiment . and at the values of $`m_c=1.5`$ and 1.3 GeV and at $`q_0^2=2`$ and 1 GeV2 accordingly.

The cross section of inelastic $`b`$quark photoproduction at HERA is described by the LRSS parameterization at the value of $`m_b=4.75`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ very well. The BFKL paremeterization with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35`$ describes the H1 and EMC experimental data at $`m_b=4.25`$ GeV only.

The dependence of the total cross section of inelastic open $`c`$ and $`b`$quark photoproduction on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parameter for the BFKL parameterization (13) - (15) is very weak in contrast with the dependence of the total inelastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction cross section.

## 6 Acknowledgments

One of us (N.Z.) would like to thank S. Baranov and H. Jung for numerous discussions of different aspects of the QCD SHA, the Elementary Particle Department of Institute of Physics of Lund University and specially Leif Jönsson for their warm hospitality and the Theoretical Department of Institute of Physics of Lund University for very useful discussions. This work has been supported in part by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Figure captions

Fig. 1  QCD diagram for the open heavy quark electroproduction.

Fig. 2  The total cross section of inelastic $`c\overline{c}`$ photoproduction as a function $`\sqrt{s}`$
at $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV.

Fig. 3  The total cross section of inelastic $`c\overline{c}`$ photoproduction as a function $`\sqrt{s}`$
at $`m_c=1.3`$ GeV.

Fig. 4  The total cross section of inelastic $`c\overline{c}`$ photoproduction as a function $`\sqrt{s}`$
at $`m_c=1.3`$ GeV and different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$: 1 \- $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.166,\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Delta }=0.35,\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{\Delta }=0.53`$.

Fig. 5  The $`p_T^2`$ distribution of inelastic $`c\overline{c}`$ photoproduction at $`\sqrt{s}=`$200 GeV.

Fig. 6  The rapidity distribution of inelastic $`c\overline{c}`$ photoproduction at $`\sqrt{s}=`$200 GeV.

Fig. 7  The total cross section of inelastic $`b\overline{b}`$ photoproduction as a function $`\sqrt{s}`$
at $`m_b=4.75`$ GeV.

Fig. 8  The total cross section of inelastic $`b\overline{b}`$ photoproduction as a function $`\sqrt{s}`$
at $`m_b=4.25`$ GeV.

Fig. 9  The $`p_T^2`$ distribution of inelastic $`b\overline{b}`$ photoproduction at $`\sqrt{s}=`$200 GeV.

Fig. 10  The rapidity distribution of inelastic $`b\overline{b}`$ photoproduction $`\sqrt{s}=`$200 GeV.


text:
# Blue Quasars and Blazar Unification Schemes

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Blazar–type active galactic nuclei (AGNs) are characterized by a luminous and rapidly variable spectral energy distribution (SED) extending from radio up to GeV and TeV energies (Urry & Padovani, 1995). The blazar SED is characterized by two components. The first one peaks at IR to X-ray energies and it is most probably synchrotron radiation from electrons in a relativistic jet pointing close to the line of sight. The second one peaks at GeV-TeV energies and, according to leptonic models (for a recent review see Böttcher 1999), is inverse Compton (IC) emission from the same electron population, synchrotron self Compton (SSC) scattering in the case of synchrotron seed photons and external Compton (EC) scattering in the case of external seed photons.

Unified schemes attempt to understand the properties of blazar samples using physical models coupled to scaling and/or geometrical arguments. One of the first unification problems was the differences between two types of BL Lacertae objects (BLs, blazars with weak broad emission lines), the high peak frequency BLs (HBLs) and the low peak frequency BLs (LBLs). Maraschi et al. (1986) proposed that these differences could be explained assuming that the jet flow is accelerating and that LBLs form a smaller angle between the jet axis and line of sight than HBLs. Sambruna, Maraschi, & Urry (1996) argued that the range of observed properties in blazars cannot be reproduced solely under the different orientation hypothesis, and that physical changes need to be invoked to explain the gradual change of observed properties going from flat spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs) to LBLs to HBLs. The gap between HBLs and LBLs was filled with the discovery (Laurent-Muehleisen et al., 1999) of the intermediate BLs (IBLs), sources with peak frequencies at optical-UV energies and with properties intermediate between those of HLBs and LBLs. Georganopoulos & Marscher (1998) proposed a unification scheme for BLs based on two parameters, the intrinsic luminosity of the source and the orientation of the jet relative to the observer.

Fossati et al. (1998) and Ghisellini et al. (1998) pointed out a sequence of blazar properties as a function of source power. As the source power increases, the emission line luminosity and the ratio of Compton to synchrotron luminosity are increasing, while the synchrotron peak frequency $`\nu _s`$ and the IC peak frequency decrease. Recent multiwavelength studies support this scheme (e.g. Kubo et al. (1998)). Under this scheme, sources with strong emission lines should have low $`\nu _s`$ and IC–dominated flat X-ray spectra, and sources with high $`\nu _s`$ should be lineless and have steep X-ray spectra dominated by the high energy tail of the synchrotron emission. Recent observations (Sambruna (1997); Perlman et al. (1998); Sambruna, Chou & Urry (2000)) revealed a population of high energy peaked FSRQs, dubbed blue quasars (BQs), with properties that challenge the above scheme. These are sources with ROSAT (0.1–2.4 KeV) spectra steeper than those of FSRQs, similar to those of HBLs. At the same time they exhibit strong emission lines and, those observed with ASCA (Sambruna et al. 2000), flat hard X–ray (2–10 KeV) spectra similar to classical FSRQs. Sambruna et al. (2000) presented SEDs and ASCA observations of 4 BQs. As they note, these sources are peaking at optical–UV energies (although with the current data the location of the SED peak is still somewhat uncertain), and it is not clear if the optical to UV emission is synchrotron as in BLs or if it has a thermal emission component as in sources like 3C 273. They also point out that while these BQs have similar SEDs and $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑆𝐶𝐴}`$ spectral indices ($`\alpha _{210KeV}0.8`$) to IBLs, they have much stronger broad emission lines. In this work we address the unusual properties of BQs and their implications on blazar unification.

## 2 BLUE QUASARS

In Table 1 we present published data for the 4 BQs of Sambruna et al. (2000) and for two IBLs with sufficient observations, which we use for comparison purposes: source name, source type, ratio $`R`$ of the extended (nonbeamed) to core (beamed) radio power, which is a measure of the alignment between the jet axis and the line of sight, extended radio power $`P_{ext}`$, and broad line region (BLR) power $`L_{BLR}`$. The smaller $`R`$ and the higher $`P_{ext}`$ and $`L_{BLR}`$ of BQs indicate that BQs are more powerful and less aligned that IBLs. Additional evidence for the relative misalignment of 0923+392 (Kollgaard, Wardle & Roberts, 1990) and 0405-123 (Morganti, Killeen & Tadhunter, 1993) comes from the FR II like radio morphology of these sources. Given the relative misalignment of BQs we ask how the SED of the aligned version of these sources looks, and how these aligned sources compare with sources found in current blazar samples. We examine both cases for the optical–UV flux being only synchrotron or having an additional thermal contribution from an accretion disc. We use the jet formalism of kirk97, modified to include IC losses due to an external photon field and an angle dependent emission for both a constant Lorentz factor and an accelerating jet (Georganopoulos & Marscher, 1998). In this work the IC emission is not modeled. Modeling the hard X-ray emission, which is probably due to SSC (Kubo et al., 1998), is highly complicated for the inhomogeneous jets studied here. Although we cannot address the hard X-ray emission quantitatively, we can discuss qualitatively the scaling of the observed hard X-ray flux of the BQs as a function of beaming, since the beaming behavior of the IC component is well understood (Dermer, 1995).

### 2.1 Case A: Thermal component

We study first a constant Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ jet together with a thermal component modeled as black body (BB) radiation. In Figure 1 we plot the SED for a range of angles $`\theta `$ between the jet axis and the line of sight. The jet emission is strongly affected by Doppler boosting and, as $`\theta `$ decreases, the non–thermal SED shifts mostly upward to higher apparent luminosities with a slight shift to higher peak frequencies, since $`L\delta ^{3+\alpha }L_0`$ and $`\nu \delta \nu _0`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the spectral index, $`\delta `$ is the usual Doppler factor $`\delta =1/(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta _\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{cos}\theta ))`$, and the subscript $`0`$ refers to quantities in the flow comoving frame. Since the BB and the BLR emission are not a function of $`\theta `$, the relative contribution of the thermal component and the equivalent width (EW) of the emission lines (which are not plotted here, but are assumed to have a fraction of the BB luminosity) are reduced as $`\theta `$ decreases. We expect the IC ASCA component to either follow the increase of the synchrotron one if it is due to SSC emission or to increase even faster if it is due to EC emission, since $`L_{SSC}\delta ^{3+\alpha }`$ and $`L_{EC}\delta ^{4+2\alpha }`$ (Dermer, 1995). In both cases, and depending on $`L_{BLR}`$, the aligned source will look like an LBL or a classical FSRQ, possibly similar to 3C 279, a source showing evidence of a thermal component in its optical–UV spectrum (Pian et al., 1999). It is interesting to note that for 3C 279, $`\mathrm{log}L_{BLR}=44.76`$ erg s<sup>-1</sup> (Cao & Jiang, 1999), in the $`L_{BLR}`$ range of the BQs examined here.

We study now the case of an accelerating jet. Higher frequencies emerge closer to the base of the jet, are characterized by lower $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and are therefore less sensitive to angle variations compared to the lower frequencies (Georganopoulos & Marscher, 1998). As can be seen from the solid lines in Figure 2, as $`\theta `$ decreases, the non–thermal SED shifts upward to higher apparent luminosities, but this time with a large shift to lower $`\nu _s`$, since the higher $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the low–frequency emitting plasma results to a larger increase in the low–frequency boosting. The relative contribution of the thermal component and the EW of the emission lines drop as the source becomes more aligned, although this is more gradual compared to the apparent luminosity and $`\nu _s`$ changes observed due to the frequency–dependent Doppler boosting. The IC ASCA component must be mostly due to the same plasma responsible for the sub-mm–IR emission, and is characterized by a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ higher than the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the X–ray emitting plasma. Therefore, as the source becomes more aligned, the IC component will progressively dominate over the synchrotron at lower frequencies. Qualitatively, the aligned population in this case is similar to the one predicted for a constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ jet. A discriminator between the two cases could be the detailed form of the SED for low $`R`$ (more misaligned) objects. One would expect the synchrotron and the BB peak frequencies of the SED to be further apart in the constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ case, since in this case the synchrotron peak frequency has to be $`\nu _s10^{12.513.5}`$ Hz, close to the synchrotron peak frequency of classical FSRQs and LBLs, and the BB peak frequency $`10^{15}`$ Hz.

### 2.2 Case B: Synchrotron emission

We now assume that the observed SED of the BQs, with a peak at $`\nu _s10^{1415}`$, is synchrotron radiation with no significant thermal contribution. As can be seen in Figure 3, aligning a constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ jet will boost up the apparent luminosity and will slightly increase $`\nu _s`$. The EW of the emission lines (which are still assumed to be powered by an accretion disc) will be reduced, but the IC component will be boosted either as much as the synchrotron component (SSC case) or more (EC case). In both cases the aligned sources will be bright sources with $`\nu _s10^{1415}`$, low EW emission lines, and a spectral flattening between ROSAT and ASCA energies, due to IC emission. Such high luminosity, high peak frequency sources, with hard X–ray IC spectra flatter than the synchrotron soft X–ray spectra have not been observed, and there is no obvious selection effect acting against detecting them. If such sources existed they would have been observed in X–ray selected BL samples. Therefore, the possibility of pure synchrotron emission and constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ jets is excluded for BQs.

The case of a synchrotron SED for an accelerating flow (Figure 2, broken line) is quite similar to the accelerating flow with the BB contribution and it is practically impossible to discriminate between the two without a detailed knowledge of the SED at optical–UV energies.

## 3 DIFFERENCES WITH IBLS

A question pointed out by Sambruna et al. (2000) is how can objects with similar SEDs like BQs and IBLs have so different emission line properties. The higher value of $`R`$ and the smaller $`P_{ext}`$ and $`L_{BLR}`$ of the IBLs we present in Table 1 show that these are less powerful sources seen under a smaller angle. We can qualitatively ’transform’ a BQ to an IBL with two translations, one in angle and one in intrinsic power: first align the BQ, then decrease its intrinsic power. The source resulting from the first translation will have smaller EW emission lines, since decreasing $`\theta `$ boosts the synchrotron component, but it will be more luminous than an IBL. The second step will reduce the luminosity of the source down to the IBL luminosity. The similar peak frequencies hold an interesting clue to the acceleration and cooling processes: since the aligned BQ will have $`\nu _s10^{13}`$ Hz regardless of an accelerating or constant velocity jet, the decrease of the intrinsic power must increase $`\nu _s`$ to typical values for IBLs ($`\nu _s10^{1415}`$ Hz). This means that cooling becomes less efficient and/or particles are accelerated to higher energies as the intrinsic power of the source is reduced, something that has been previously argued by Ghisellini et al. (1998).

We now focus on the ASCA X–ray emission. Although the ASCA spectra of all the sources presented in Table 1 are flat ($`\alpha _{210KeV}0.8`$), they differ in the following sense: while in the IBLs the hard X-ray luminosity is $`100`$ times weaker than the peak luminosity of the first spectral component (Kubo et al., 1998), in the BQs this is at most 10 times weaker. Given now the difference in $`\theta `$, if one was to align the BQs, this difference would either persist or would become even more pronounced. This is because the hard X-ray emission is either SSC ($`L_{SSC}\delta ^{3+\alpha }`$) or EC ($`L_{EC}\delta ^{4+2\alpha }`$) emission, while the apparent luminosity of the first component will at most increase as $`\delta ^{3+\alpha }`$ if it is pure synchrotron emission with no contribution from a thermal component. If this difference in the hard X-ray luminosity relative level is also present in the peak IC luminosities, then the ratio of the photon to magnetic field energy density experienced by the emitting particles is higher in high power sources. Unfortunately, there are no EGRET detections of the BQs, although the two IBLs we compare them with have been detected with an IC luminosity practically equal to that of the synchrotron component (Kubo et al., 1998).

## 4 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

BQs seem to be relatively misaligned blazars with a relatively de-boosted synchrotron continuum. It is not clear if there is a thermal component in the optical–UV spectrum of the BQs (Sambruna et al. 2000). If there is, one can distinguish between an accelerating and constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ flow depending on the peak frequency $`\nu _s`$ of the synchrotron component. If $`\nu _s10^{12.513.5}`$ Hz, then the flow is most probably characterized by a single Lorentz factor. Otherwise, if $`\nu _s`$ is close to the peak of the thermal component, the flow is most probably accelerating. In both cases the aligned sources will be LBLs or FSRQs, possibly similar to 3C 279. On the other hand, if no significant thermal component can be detected in BQs, the possibility of a constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ jet is excluded, since the aligned version would be a source similar to a bright HBL, but with a strong and flat IC hard X-ray spectrum. Such sources are not observed, and there are no obvious selection criteria against their detection. Clarification therefore of the nature of the SED can provide valuable insight on the flow characteristics.

Orientation aside, sources of different intrinsic power are different. The synchrotron frequency $`\nu _s`$ is lower for higher power sources. This suggests that cooling is stronger in high power sources. In addition, the relative level of the hard X-ray IC luminosity hints that the ratio of the comoving photon to magnetic field energy density is higher in high power sources. Measurements of the IC peak luminosity are needed though to check if this is really the case.

The fact that cooling is not invariant under an increase of the intrinsic power suggests that powerful sources are not simply scaled up versions of weak sources. Since both the orientation and the intrinsic power strongly affect the observed characteristics of a source, we are naturally led to a two-dimensional unification scheme for blazars. In this scheme, the BQs observed by Sambruna et al. (2000) appear to be intrinsically powerful sources, whose jet angle to the line of sight is relatively larger than that of typical blazars.

This work was supported by the European Union TMR programme under contract FMRX-CT98-0168.