text:
# Spin 1/2 bosons etc. in a theory with Lorentz violation

## 1 Introduction

The following Euclidean action was postulated in an earlier paper :

$$S=d^Dx\left[\frac{1}{2m}^M\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_M\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{1}{2}b\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)^2\right]$$
(1.1)
with

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}z_1\\ z_2\\ \mathrm{}\\ z_N\end{array}\right),z=\left(\begin{array}{c}z_b\\ z_f\end{array}\right).$$
(1.2)
This action has “natural supersymmetry”, in the sense that the initial bosonic fields $`z_b`$ and fermionic fields $`z_f`$ are treated in exactly the same way. The only difference is that the $`z_b`$ are ordinary complex numbers whereas the $`z_f`$ are anticommuting Grassmann numbers. (Here, as in Ref. 1, “supersymmetry” is taken to have its general definition : An action is supersymmetric if it is invariant under a transformation which converts fermions to bosons and vice-versa.) It was found in Ref. 1 that standard physics can emerge from (1.1) at energies that are far below the Planck scale, provided that specific kinds of topological defects are included in the theory. For example, one can obtain an $`SO(10)`$ grand-unified theory, containing both the Standard Model and a natural mechanism for small neutrino masses \[4-15\].

In the present paper, it will be shown that the theory predicts testable extensions of standard physics, both for fermions at high energy and for fundamental bosons which have not yet been observed.

## 2 Canonical Quantization in Lorentzian Spacetime

Path-integral quantization can ordinarily be replaced by canonical quantization, or vice-versa , through a procedure that is similar to that for a single particle. In the present theory, whether this can be done consistently is a nontrivial issue, because the resulting field theory has some very unconventional features. These will be discussed in Section 4, but in the present section it will simply be assumed that one can define quantized fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ etc. in the usual way \[16-24\].

After a change from path-integral to canonical quantization, and an inverse Wick rotation from Euclidean to Lorentzian time (with $`S_L=iS`$), the action (1.1) becomes

$$\widehat{S}_L=d^Dx\left[\frac{1}{2m}\eta ^{MN}_M\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L^{}_N\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L\mu \widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L+\frac{1}{2}b\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L\right)^2\right]$$
(2.1)
where $`\eta ^{MN}=diag(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. This notation is rather awkward, however, so for the remainder of the paper we will let

$$\widehat{S}_LS,\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(2.2)
with the understanding that these are now quantized operators in Lorentzian spacetime. It is also understood that raising and lowering of indices is now done with the Minkowski metric tensor:

$$A^\mu B_\mu =\eta ^{\mu \nu }A_\mu B_\nu \text{or in }D\text{ dimensions}A^MB_M=\eta ^{MN}A_MB_N.$$
(2.3)
Later in this paper we will introduce the metric tensor associated with gravity and general coordinate transformations. To avoid confusion, this metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ will always be shown explicitly, and simple raising and lowering of indices will always have the interpretation (2.3).

With the above change of notation, and after an integration by parts, (2.1) becomes

$$S=d^Dx\left[\frac{1}{2m}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}^M_M\mathrm{\Psi }\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{1}{2}b\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)^2\right].$$
(2.4)
The resulting equation of motion is

$$[\frac{1}{2m}^M_M\mu +V_{vac}+b\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)]\mathrm{\Psi }=0,V_{vac}=b\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{vac}$$
(2.5)
where $`\mathrm{}_{vac}`$ represents a vacuum expectation value, and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{vac}+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\right).$$
(2.6)
For the remainder of this section, we will consider either the vacuum or a noninteracting free field in the vacuum. We then have

$$(\frac{1}{2m}^M_M\mu +V_{vac})\mathrm{\Psi }_b=0,(\frac{1}{2m}^M_M\mu +V_{vac})\mathrm{\Psi }_f=0.$$
(2.7)
It will be assumed that the physical vacuum contains a condensate whose order parameter

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{cond}=\mathrm{\Psi }_b_{vac}$$
(2.8)
has the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{cond}`$ $`=`$ $`Un_{cond}^{1/2}\eta _0`$ (2.9)
$`U^{}U`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _0^{}\eta _0=1.`$ (2.10)
(As discussed in the next section, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{cond}`$ is dominantly due to a GUT field that condenses in the very early universe. In the present theory, it is not static, but instead exhibits rotations in space and time that are described by $`U`$.) It will also be assumed that the order parameter can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{cond}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{ext}\left(x^\mu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}(x^m,x^\mu )$$
(2.11)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ext}\left(x^\mu \right)=U_{ext}\left(x^\mu \right)n_{ext}^{1/2}\left(x^\mu \right)\eta _{ext}`$ (2.12)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}=U_{int}n_{int}^{1/2}\eta _{int}`$ (2.13)
where $`\eta _{ext}`$ and $`\eta _{int}`$ are constant vectors, and the quantities in the lower equation can depend on $`x^\mu `$ as well as $`x^m`$. Let us define external and internal “superfluid velocities” by

$$mv_M=iU^1_MU$$
(2.14)
or

$`mv_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`iU_{ext}^1_\mu U_{ext}iU_{int}^1_\mu U_{int}`$ (2.15)
$`mv_m`$ $`=`$ $`iU_{int}^1_mU_{int}.`$ (2.16)
The fact that $`U`$ is unitary implies that $`_MU^{}U=U^{}_MU`$ with $`U^{}=U^1`$, or

$$mv_M=i_MU^{}U$$
(2.17)
so that

$$v_M^{}=v_M.$$
(2.18)
In this section we will assume that

$$_\mu U_{int}=0$$
(2.19)
in which case there are separate equations of motion for external and internal spacetime:

$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}^\mu _\mu \mu _{ext}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{ext}=0$$
(2.20)
$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}^m_m\mu _{int}+V_{vac}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}=0$$
(2.21)
with $`\mu _{int}=\mu \mu _{ext}`$. The quantities $`V_{vac}`$, $`\mu _{int}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}`$ are allowed to have a slow parametric dependence on $`x^\mu `$, as long as $`^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_{int}`$ is negligible.

When (2.12), (2.15), and (2.19) are used in (2.20), we obtain

$$\eta _{ext}^{}n_{ext}^{1/2}\left[\left(\frac{1}{2}mv^\mu v_\mu \frac{1}{2m}^\mu _\mu \mu _{ext}\right)i\left(\frac{1}{2}^\mu v_\mu +v^\mu _\mu \right)\right]n_{ext}^{1/2}\eta _{ext}=0$$
(2.22)
and its Hermitian conjugate

$$\eta _{ext}^{}n_{ext}^{1/2}\left[\left(\frac{1}{2}mv^\mu v_\mu \frac{1}{2m}^\mu _\mu \mu _{ext}\right)+i\left(\frac{1}{2}^\mu v_\mu +v^\mu _\mu \right)\right]n_{ext}^{1/2}\eta _{ext}=0.$$
(2.23)
Subtraction gives the equation of continuity

$$_\mu j_{ext}^\mu =0,j_{ext}^\mu =\eta _{ext}^{}n_{ext}v^\mu \eta _{ext}$$
(2.24)
and addition gives the Bernoulli equation

$$\frac{1}{2}m\overline{v}_{ext}^2+P_{ext}=\mu _{ext}$$
(2.25)
where

$$\overline{v}_{ext}^2=\eta _{ext}^{}v^\mu v_\mu \eta _{ext}$$
(2.26)
$$P_{ext}=\frac{1}{2m}n_{ext}^{1/2}^\mu _\mu n_{ext}^{1/2}.$$
(2.27)
In the present theory, the order parameter in external spacetime, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ext}`$, has the symmetry group $`U(1)\times SU(2)`$. The “superfluid velocity” in external spacetime, $`v_\mu `$, can then be written in terms of the identity matrix $`\sigma ^0`$ and Pauli matrices $`\sigma ^a`$ :

$$v^\mu =v_\alpha ^\mu \sigma ^\alpha ,\mu ,\alpha =0,1,2,3.$$
(2.28)
It is assumed that the basic texture of the order parameter is such that

$$v_k^0=v_0^a=0,k,a=1,2,3$$
(2.29)
to a good approximation, yielding the simplification

$$\frac{1}{2}mv^{\alpha \mu }v_\mu ^\alpha +P_{ext}=\mu _{ext}.$$
(2.30)
Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_b=\mathrm{\Psi }_b\mathrm{\Psi }_{cond}$$
(2.31)
and let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ represent either the bosonic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_b`$ or the fermionic field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$. If we start with the case of a free field, which interacts only with the condensate and other vacuum fields, (2.4) gives

$$S_a=d^Dx\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{}\left(\frac{1}{2m}^M_M\mu +V_{vac}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_a.$$
(2.32)
Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ satisfies a linear equation involving a Hermitian operator, it can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_a(x^\mu ,x^m)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a^r\left(x^\mu \right)\psi _r^{int}\left(x^m\right)$$
(2.33)
with a summation implied over repeated indices, as usual. The $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a^r`$ are field operators and the $`\psi _r^{int}`$ are a complete set of basis functions in the internal space, which are required to be orthonormal,

$$d^{D4}x\psi _r^{int}\left(x^m\right)\psi _r^{}^{int}\left(x^m\right)=\delta _{rr^{}},$$
(2.34)
and to satisfy the internal equation of motion

$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}^m_m\mu _{int}+V_{vac}\right)\psi _r^{int}\left(x^m\right)=\epsilon _r\psi _r^{int}\left(x^m\right).$$
(2.35)
(The $`\psi _r^{int}`$ are allowed to have a slow parametric dependence on $`x^\mu `$, as long as $`^\mu _\mu \psi _r^{int}`$ is negligible.) As usual, only the zero modes with $`\epsilon _r=0`$ will be kept, since the higher energies involve nodes in the internal space and are comparable to $`m_P`$. When (2.33)-(2.35) are used in (2.32), the result is

$$S_a=d^4x\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a^{}\left(\frac{1}{2m}^\mu _\mu \mu _{ext}\right)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a$$
(2.36)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a`$ is the vector with components $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a^r`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a`$ be rewritten in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a\left(x^\mu \right)=U_{ext}\left(x^\mu \right)\psi _a\left(x^\mu \right).$$
(2.37)
(The $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`U_{ext}`$ multiplies each of the 2-component operators $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_a^r`$.) Here $`\psi _a`$ has a simple interpretation: It is the field seen by an observer in the frame of reference that is moving with the condensate. In the present theory, the GUT condensate $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{cond}`$ forms in the very early universe, and the other bosonic and fermionic fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ are subsequently born into it. It is therefore natural to view them from the perspective of the condensate.

Equation (2.37) is, in fact, exactly analogous to rewriting the wavefunction of a particle in an ordinary superfluid moving with velocity $`v_s`$: $`\psi _p^{}\left(x\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(iv_sx\right)\psi _p\left(x\right).`$ Here $`\psi _p`$ and $`\psi _p^{}`$ are the wavefunctions before and after a Galilean boost to the superfluid’s frame of reference.

When (2.37) is substituted into (2.36), the result is

$$S_a=d^4x\psi _a^{}\left[\left(\frac{1}{2}mv^\mu v_\mu \frac{1}{2m}^\mu _\mu \mu _{ext}\right)i\left(\frac{1}{2}^\mu v_\mu +v^\mu _\mu \right)\right]\psi _a.$$
(2.38)
If $`n_s`$ and $`v_\mu `$ are slowly varying, so that $`P_{ext}`$ and $`^\mu v_\mu `$ can be neglected, (2.30) yields the simplification

$$S_a=d^4x\psi _a^{}\left(\frac{1}{2m}^\mu _\mu +iv_\alpha ^\mu \sigma ^\alpha _\mu \right)\psi _a.$$
(2.39)
In the present theory, the gravitational vierbein is interpreted as the “superfluid velocity” associated with the GUT condensate $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{cond}`$:

$$e_\alpha ^\mu =v_\alpha ^\mu .$$
(2.40)
Bosonic fields are conventionally represented as dimension $`1`$ (rather than dimension $`3/2`$) operators, so let us define

$$\varphi _b=\psi _b/\left(2m\right)^{1/2}.$$
(2.41)
Then the action for a free bosonic field is

$$S_b=d^4x\varphi _b^{}\left(^\mu _\mu +2mie_\alpha ^\mu \sigma ^\alpha _\mu \right)\varphi _b$$
(2.42)
with

$$S_bd^4x\varphi _b^{}^\mu _\mu \varphi _b\text{as}p_\mu \mathrm{}$$
(2.43)
for a plane-wave state $`\varphi _b\mathrm{exp}\left(ip_\mu x^\mu \right)`$. The usual form of the action for a massless and noninteracting bosonic field is thus regained at high energy.

For a free fermionic field, on the other hand, the action is

$$S_f=d^4x\psi _f^{}\left(\frac{1}{2m}^\mu _\mu +ie_\alpha ^\mu \sigma ^\alpha _\mu \right)\psi _f$$
(2.44)
with

$$S_fd^4x\psi _f^{}ie_\alpha ^\mu \sigma ^\alpha _\mu \psi _f\text{as}p_\mu 0$$
(2.45)
so the usual form of the action for a massless and noninteracting fermionic field is regained at low energy. To be more specific, the standard fermionic action is regained when

$$p^\mu mv_\alpha ^\mu $$
(2.46)
with $`mm_P`$.

## 3 Origin of Gauge Fields

Let us now relax assumption (2.19) and allow $`U_{int}`$ to vary with the external coordinates $`x^\mu `$. It is convenient to write

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}\left(x^m\right)=\stackrel{~}{U}_{int}(x^\mu ,x^m)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int}\left(x^m\right)=\stackrel{~}{U}_{int}(x^\mu ,x^m)\overline{U}_{int}\left(x^m\right)n_{int}^{1/2}\left(x^m\right)\eta _{int}$$
(3.1)
where $`n_{int}\left(x^m\right)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int}^{}\left(x^m\right)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int}\left(x^m\right)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int}`$ still satisfies the internal equation of motion

$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}^m_m\mu _{int}+V_{vac}\right)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{int}\left(x^m\right)=0.$$
(3.2)
This is a nonlinear equation because $`V_{vac}`$ is largely determined by $`n_{int}`$.

The internal basis functions satisfy (2.35) with $`\epsilon _r=0`$:

$$\left(\frac{1}{2m}^m_m\mu _{int}+V_{vac}\right)\psi _r^{int}\left(x^m\right)=0.$$
(3.3)
This is a linear equation because $`V_{vac}\left(x^m\right)`$ is now regarded as a known function.

If the vacuum of the internal space had a trivial topology, the solutions to (3.2) and (3.3) would be trivial, and the resulting universe would presumably not support nontrivial structures such as intelligent life. The full path integral involving (1.1) contains all configurations of the fields, however, including those with nontrivial topologies. In the present theory, the “geography” of the universe inhabited by human beings involves an internal instanton in

$$d=D4$$
(3.4)
dimensions which is analogous to a $`U(1)`$ vortex in $`2`$ dimensions or an $`SU(2)`$ instanton in $`4`$ Euclidean dimensions. The standard features of four-dimensional physics – including gauge symmetries and chiral fermions – arise from the presence of this instanton.

In the following, it is not necessary to have a detailed knowledge of the internal instanton. The only property required is a $`d`$-dimensional spherical symmetry for the internal condensate, and, as a result, for the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^{int}`$ defined by

$$\psi _r^{int}=\overline{U}_{int}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^{int}.$$
(3.5)
To be specific, it is required that

$$K_i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^{int}=0$$
(3.6)
where

$$K_i=K_i^n_n$$
(3.7)
is a Killing vector associated with the spherical symmetry of the internal metric tensor $`g_{mn}`$ defined below. At a given point, the derivatives of (3.7) involve only the $`\left(d1\right)`$ angular coordinates, and not the radial coordinate $`r,`$ so (3.6) states that $`n_{int}`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_r^{int}`$ are functions only of $`r`$.

Although a detailed description is not necessary, it is worthwhile to consider a concrete example, in which $`V_{vac}=bn_{ext}n_{int}+V_0`$ and $`V_0`$ is a constant. For clarity, we can start with a picture in which the instanton occupies an unbounded volume, and then move to a physically more acceptable description in which it is confined to a finite region $`r<r_0`$. The finite instanton has finite action, and can be viewed as a “spinning” ball of condensate. The corresponding order parameter has a node at $`r=r_0`$, from which the condensate rises to become fully formed at large $`r`$. The region $`r<r_0`$ corresponds to our physical universe, and the region $`r>r_0`$ is unobservable.

The same arguments that led to the external Bernoulli equation (2.25) also yield an internal Bernoulli equation

$$\frac{1}{2m}n_{int}^{1/2}^m_mn_{int}^{1/2}+\frac{1}{2}m\eta _{int}^{}v^mv_m\eta _{int}\mu _{int}+V_{vac}=0.$$
(3.8)
In our example, it is assumed that the instanton has the symmetry of a $`\left(d1\right)`$-sphere, with

$$\eta _B^{}v^mv_m\eta _B=\left(\overline{a}/mr\right)^2$$
(3.9)
$$^m_mn_{int}^{1/2}=\frac{1}{r^{d1}}\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^{d1}\frac{d}{dr}n_{int}^{1/2}\right).$$
(3.10)
Then (3.8) can be rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{\rho ^d^{}}\frac{d}{d\rho }\left(\rho ^d^{}\frac{df}{d\rho }\right)+\frac{\overline{a}^2}{\rho ^2}f+f^3f=0$$
(3.11)
where $`d^{}=d1`$, $`\rho =r/\xi _{int}`$, and $`f=n_{int}^{1/2}/\overline{n}_{int}^{1/2}`$, with $`\xi _{int}=\left(2m\mu _{int}^{}\right)^{1/2}`$, $`\mu _{int}^{}=\mu _{int}V_0,`$ and $`\overline{n}_{int}=\mu _{int}^{}/bn_{ext}`$. The asymptotic solutions to (3.11) are

$$f\rho ^n\text{as }\rho 0$$
(3.12)
$$f=1\overline{a}^2/2\rho ^2\text{as }\rho \mathrm{}$$
(3.13)
where

$$n=\frac{1}{2}\left[\sqrt{\left(d2\right)^2+4\overline{a}^2}\left(d2\right)\right]$$
(3.14)
so that

$$n=1\text{if }\overline{a}^2=d1.$$
(3.15)
It is easy to show that (3.15) holds for a minimal vortex in two dimensions or a minimal $`SU(2)`$ instanton in four dimensions.

Since the volume element is proportional to $`\rho ^{d1}d\rho `$ and $`1f^2`$ is proportional to $`\rho ^2`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, the above solution has infinite action. However, we can obtain a solution with finite action by requiring that

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`R\left(r\right)\overline{n}_{int}^{1/2}U_{int}\eta _{int},\rho <\rho _0`$ (3.16)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\rho =\rho _0`$ (3.17)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}\left(r\right)\eta _{int},\rho >\rho _0`$ (3.18)
so that the instanton is confined to the region inside a radius $`\rho _0`$ which is determined by the boundary conditions below. Then (3.11) is replaced by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^d^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\rho }}\left(\rho ^d^{}{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{d\rho }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{a}^2}{\rho ^2}}R+R^3R`$ $`=`$ $`0,\rho <\rho _0`$ (3.19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^d^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(r^d^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{R}}{dr}}\right)+bn_{ext}\overline{R}^3\mu \overline{R}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\rho >\rho _0.`$ (3.20)
$`R`$ is required to satisfy (3.19) with the boundary condition $`R0+`$ as $`\rho 0`$. $`\overline{R}`$ is required to satisfy (3.20) with the boundary condition $`\overline{R}\left(\mu /bn_{ext}\right)^{1/2}`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ (and with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}/r`$ continuous at $`\rho =\rho _0`$). In the following, we will be concerned only with the physical region $`\rho <\rho _0`$, and the integrals are over only this region; e.g.,

$$V_{int}=d^dx=_{\rho <\rho _0}d^dx.$$
(3.21)
The above treatment assumes that the second-order equations (3.19) and (3.20) are exact. However, in a picture that will be presented elsewhere , the continuum approximation is not perfect, and as a result higher derivatives can be significant near the Planck scale. For an $`n`$th order differential equation, we have the freedom to impose $`n`$ boundary conditions. This fact makes it possible to satisfy (3.16)-(3.17) for various values of $`\rho _0`$, so that the volume $`V_{int}`$ of the internal space is largely arbitrary. As in other Kaluza-Klein theories, $`V_{int}`$ determines the strength of gravitational and gauge interactions, so the arbitrariness of $`V_{int}`$ has obvious anthropic implications.

The vierbein $`e_\alpha ^\mu `$ of external spacetime was defined in (2.40). It is convenient to define the remaining components of the vielbein in a slightly different way, by representing $`mv_M`$ in terms of a set of matrices $`\sigma ^A`$,

$$v_M=v_{MA}\sigma ^A=v_{M\alpha }\sigma ^\alpha +v_{Mc}\sigma ^c,$$
(3.22)
and letting

$$e_{Mc}=v_{Mc},M=0,1,\mathrm{},D1,c4.$$
(3.23)
(The $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ are associated with $`U_{ext}`$, and the $`\sigma ^c`$ with $`U_{int}`$. Since (2.16) implies that $`v_{m\alpha }=0`$, all the nonzero $`e_{MA}`$ have now been specified.) When (2.19) holds, the only nonzero components of the metric tensor are

$$g^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\alpha \beta }e_\alpha ^\mu e_\beta ^\nu .$$
(3.24)
and

$$g_{mn}=e_{mc}e_{nc}$$
(3.25)
which are respectively associated with external spacetime and the internal space. More generally, however, $`mv_\mu `$ contains a contribution

$$mv_{\mu c}\sigma ^c=i\stackrel{~}{U}_{int}^1(x^\mu ,x^m)_\mu \stackrel{~}{U}_{int}(x^\mu ,x^m)$$
(3.26)
so that $`e_{\mu c}`$ is nonzero and the metric tensor has off-diagonal components

$$g_{\mu m}=e_{\mu c}e_{mc}.$$
(3.27)
In the present theory, just as in classic Kaluza-Klein theories, it is appropriate to write

$$e_{\mu c}=A_\mu ^iK_i^nv_{nc},g_{\mu m}=A_\mu ^iK_i^ng_{mn}$$
(3.28)
or, for later convenience,

$$mv_{\mu c}\sigma ^c=A_\mu ^i\sigma _i$$
(3.29)
$$\sigma _i=mK_i^nv_{nc}\sigma ^c.$$
(3.30)
For simplicity of notation, let

$$r|Q|s=d^dx\psi _r^{int}Q\psi _s^{int}\text{with}r|s=\delta _{rs}$$
(3.31)
for any operator $`Q`$, so that (3.5)-(3.7) and (2.16) give

$$r|\left(iK_i\right)|s=r|\left(iK_i^n\right)\left(imv_n\right)|s=r|\sigma _i|s.$$
(3.32)
With the definition

$$t_i^{rs}=r|\left(iK_i\right)|s$$
(3.33)
we then have

$$r|\sigma _i|s=t_i^{rs}.$$
(3.34)
The Killing vectors have an algebra

$$K_iK_jK_jK_i=c_{ij}^kK_k$$
(3.35)
or

$$\left(iK_i\right)\left(iK_j\right)\left(iK_j\right)\left(iK_i\right)=ic_{ij}^k\left(iK_k\right)$$
(3.36)
so the same is true of the matrices $`t_i^{rs}`$:

$$t_it_jt_jt_i=ic_{ij}^kt_k.$$
(3.37)
With the more general version of (2.33) and (2.37),

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_a(x^\mu ,x^m)=U_{ext}\left(x^\mu \right)\stackrel{~}{U}_{int}(x^\mu ,x^m)\psi _a^r\left(x^\mu \right)\psi _r^{int}\left(x^m\right),$$
(3.38)
we have

$$_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_a=U_{ext}\left(x^\mu \right)\stackrel{~}{U}_{int}(x^\mu ,x^m)\left(_\mu +imv_{\mu \alpha }\sigma ^\alpha +imv_{\mu c}\sigma ^c\right)\psi _a^r\psi _r^{int}$$
(3.39)
and

$`{\displaystyle d^dx\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{}^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_a}`$ (3.40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dx\psi _r^{int}\psi _a^r\eta ^{\mu \nu }\left(_\mu +imv_{\mu \alpha }\sigma ^\alpha +imv_{\mu c}\sigma ^c\right)\left(_\nu +imv_{\nu \beta }\sigma ^\beta +imv_{\nu d}\sigma ^d\right)\psi _a^s\psi _s^{int}}`$
$`=`$ $`\psi _a^r\eta ^{\mu \nu }r|\left(_\mu +imv_{\mu \alpha }\sigma ^\alpha +imv_{\mu c}\sigma ^c\right){\displaystyle \underset{t}{}}|tt|\left(_\nu +imv_{\nu \beta }\sigma ^\beta +imv_{\nu d}\sigma ^d\right)|s\psi _a^s`$
$`=`$ $`\psi _a^r\eta ^{\mu \nu }\left[\delta _{rt}\left(_\mu +imv_{\mu \alpha }\sigma ^\alpha \right)iA_\mu ^it_i^{rt}\right]\left[\delta _{ts}\left(_\nu +imv_{\nu \beta }\sigma ^\beta \right)iA_\nu ^jt_j^{ts}\right]\psi _a^s`$
$`=`$ $`\psi _a^{}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\left[\left(_\mu iA_\mu ^it_i\right)+imv_{\mu \alpha }\sigma ^\alpha \right]\left[\left(_\nu iA_\nu ^jt_j\right)+imv_{\nu \beta }\sigma ^\beta \right]\psi _a`$
where (2.34), (3.29), and (3.34) have been used. The action (2.32) then becomes

$$S_a=d^4x\psi _a{}_{}{}^{}(\frac{1}{2m}D^\mu D_\mu +\frac{1}{2}iv_\alpha ^\mu \sigma ^\alpha D_\mu +\frac{1}{2}D_\mu iv_\alpha ^\mu \sigma ^\alpha \frac{1}{2}mv^{\alpha \mu }v_\mu ^\alpha +\mu _{ext})\psi _a$$
(3.41)
after (2.35) is used, where

$$D_\mu =_\mu iA_\mu ^it_i.$$
(3.42)
With the approximations above (2.39), (2.30) and (2.40) imply that

$$S_a=d^4x\psi _a{}_{}{}^{}(\frac{1}{2m}D^\mu D_\mu +ie_\alpha ^\mu \sigma ^\alpha D_\mu )\psi _a.$$
(3.43)
This is in fact the generalization of (2.39) when the “internal order parameter” is permitted to vary as a function of the external coordinates $`x^\mu `$.

As in Ref. 1, let us postulate a cosmological model in which

$$e_\alpha ^\mu =\lambda \delta _\alpha ^\mu \stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha ^\mu .$$
(3.44)
In this case (3.43) can be rewritten as

$$S_a=d^4x\stackrel{~}{g}\overline{\psi }_a{}_{}{}^{}(\overline{m}^1\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }D_\mu D_\nu +ie_\alpha ^\mu \sigma ^\alpha D_\mu )\overline{\psi }_a$$
(3.45)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`\eta ^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{e}_\alpha ^\mu \stackrel{~}{e}_\beta ^\nu ,\overline{m}=2\lambda ^2m`$ (3.46)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ $`=`$ $`(det\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu })^{1/2}=\lambda ^4,\overline{\psi }_a=\lambda ^2\psi _a.`$ (3.47)
(The tilde is a reminder that the above form is not general, and that $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }`$ is not a dynamical quantity.) In a locally inertial coordinate system with $`e_\alpha ^\mu =\delta _\alpha ^\mu `$ , this becomes

$$S_a=d^4x\psi _a{}_{}{}^{}(\overline{m}^1\eta ^{\mu \nu }D_\mu D_\nu +i\sigma ^\mu D_\mu )\psi _a$$
(3.48)
where the bar has been removed from $`\psi _a`$ for simplicity, so the fermionic and bosonic actions are respectively

$$S_f=d^4x\psi _f{}_{}{}^{}(\overline{m}^1\eta ^{\mu \nu }D_\mu D_\nu +i\sigma ^\mu D_\mu )\psi _f$$
(3.49)
and

$$S_b=d^4x\varphi _b{}_{}{}^{}(\eta ^{\mu \nu }D_\mu D_\nu +i\overline{m}\sigma ^\mu D_\mu )\varphi _b$$
(3.50)
where now

$$\varphi _b=\psi _b/\overline{m}^{1/2}.$$
(3.51)
Again, one regains the usual bosonic action at high energy,

$$S_bd^4x\varphi _b^{}\eta ^{\mu \nu }D_\mu D_\nu \varphi _b\text{for}p^\mu \overline{m},$$
(3.52)
and the usual fermionic action at low energy,

$$S_fd^4x\psi _f^{}i\sigma ^\mu D_\mu \psi _f\text{for}p^\mu \overline{m},$$
(3.53)
where the expressions now include gauge couplings and are written in a locally inertial coordinate system.

Recall that the initial gauge group is the same as the group of rotations in the internal space – e.g., $`SO(10)`$ for $`d=10`$. The generators $`t_i`$ correspond to a reducible representation of this group, composed of some set of irreducible representations that are left unspecified in the present paper, although it is clear that one can place the three generations of Standard Model fermions in three spinorial $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ representations. Each field will necessarily have a superpartner with the same quantum numbers, just as in standard supersymmetry . We leave the phenomenology of these fields for future work.

Notice that the deviations from standard physics in (3.49) and (3.50) are predicted only for (i) fermions at very high energy and (ii) fundamental bosons which have not yet been observed. Notice also that the present theory preserves both gauge invariance and many features of Lorentz invariance, including rotational invariance and the requirement that all massless particles travel with the same speed $`c=1`$ in a locally inertial coordinate system. (This last feature follows from (4.18)-(4.21).) It appears that the present theory is in agreement with even the most sensitive tests of Lorentz invariance that are currently available . Furthermore, issues like causality and logical consistency can ultimately be resolved by returning to the original action (1.1).

## 4 Consistency of Canonical Quantization

Let us now consider whether the present theory permits a consistent extension of standard field theory \[16-24\]. This is not a trivial issue because, as mentioned above, the fermionic action (3.49) is Lorentz invariant only at low energy ($`p^\mu \overline{m}`$), and the bosonic action (3.50) has its usual form only at high energy ($`p^\mu \overline{m}`$).

We will, in fact, encounter a difficulty which is essentially the same as that encountered in covariant quantization of the electromagnetic field . Let $`\zeta _{p\lambda }`$ be the norm of a one-particle state $`|1_{p\lambda }:`$

$$1_{p\lambda }|1_{p\lambda }=\zeta _{p\lambda },|1_{p\lambda }=a_{p\lambda }^{}|0$$
(4.1)
where $`p`$ is the momentum and $`\lambda `$ is the index defined below in (4.24). As in the case of the electromagnetic field, the quantization condition (4.30) or (4.48) will imply that there are intermediate states with negative norm. Even though such states can be consistently treated with the formalism of Gupta and Bleuler , they are not physical, so it is necessary to require that

$`a_{p\lambda }|phys`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{if}\omega _{p\lambda }>0\text{and}\zeta _{p\lambda }<0`$ (4.2)
$`b_{p\lambda }|phys`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{if}\omega _{p\lambda }<0\text{and}\zeta _{p\lambda }<0`$ (4.3)
where $`a_{p\lambda }`$ and $`b_{p\lambda }`$ are the particle and antiparticle destruction operators introduced below, and $`|phys`$ represents any physical state. (For the electromagnetic field, one can choose a gauge such that this condition is satisfied separately for all unphysical photons, although in a general Lorentz gauge it can be relaxed to $`\left(a_{p3}a_{p0}\right)|phys=0`$, because the contributions of longitudinal and scalar photons then cancel.) For fermions in the present context, the condition for a single-particle state with positive norm will turn out to be

$$1+2\omega _n/\overline{m}>0.$$
(4.4)
(See (4.33).) According to (4.18)-(4.21), there is always one function of the form $`u_p\mathrm{exp}i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}`$ satisfying this requirement, with

$$\lambda =1$$
(4.5)
where $`u_p`$ is the right-handed 2-component spinor defined below in (4.22). There is also one positive-norm function of the form $`v_p\mathrm{exp}i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}`$, with

$$\lambda =3\text{ for }\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|<\overline{m}/2,\lambda =4\text{ for }\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|>\overline{m}/2$$
(4.6)
where $`v_p`$ is the left-handed 2-component spinor defined below in (4.23). For bosons, on the other hand, the states with positive norm must satisfy

$$1+\overline{m}/2\omega _n>0.$$
(4.7)
(See (4.50).) There are always two functions of the form $`u_p\mathrm{exp}i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}`$ satisfying this condition, with

$$\lambda =1\text{ or }2.$$
(4.8)
There is also at least one positive-norm function of the form $`v_p\mathrm{exp}i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}`$, with

$$\lambda =4\text{for}\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|<\overline{m}/2,\lambda =3\text{for}\overline{m}/2<\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|<\overline{m},\lambda =3\text{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\text{for}\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|>\overline{m}.$$
(4.9)
In summary, $`\zeta _{p\lambda }`$ is $`>0`$ for one-particle states satisfying (4.4)-(4.6) for fermions and (4.7)-(4.9) for bosons, with $`\zeta _{p\lambda }<0`$ otherwise.

Let $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ represent 2-component, complex fermionic and bosonic fields. In the case of fermions, and with gauge fields omitted, (3.49) gives

$`_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{m}^1\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \psi ^{}_\nu \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(i\psi ^{}\sigma ^\mu _\mu \psi +h.c.)`$ (4.10)
$`=`$ $`\overline{m}^1(\dot{\psi }^{}\dot{\psi }^k\psi ^{}_k\psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(i\psi ^{}\dot{\psi }+i\psi ^{}\sigma ^k_k\psi +h.c.)`$ (4.11)
where $`\dot{\psi }=_0\psi `$ and “$`h.c.`$” means “Hermitian conjugate”. The canonical momenta are (in a convenient but slightly unconventional notation)

$`\pi _\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_\psi }{\dot{\psi }}}=\overline{m}^1\dot{\psi }^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\psi ^{}`$ (4.12)
$`\pi _\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_\psi }{\dot{\psi }^{}}}=\overline{m}^1\dot{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\psi `$ (4.13)
and the Hamiltonian density is

$`_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\pi _\psi ^{}\dot{\psi }+\dot{\psi }^{}\pi _\psi _\psi `$ (4.14)
$`=`$ $`\overline{m}^1(\dot{\psi }^{}\dot{\psi }+^k\psi ^{}_k\psi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(i\psi ^{}\sigma ^k_k\psi +h.c.).`$ (4.15)
From (4.10) we obtain the equation of motion

$$\overline{m}^1\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \psi +i\sigma ^\mu _\mu \psi =0.$$
(4.16)
Let $`a_n\psi _n`$ be a solution to this equation. Then we can write

$$\psi =\underset{n}{}a_n\psi _n.$$
(4.17)
For each 3-momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, there are four solutions to (4.16):

$`\psi _{p1}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{p1}u_pe^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}},a_{p1}=e^{i\omega _{p1}x^0}a_{p1}\left(0\right),\omega _{p1}=\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|`$ (4.18)
$`\psi _{p2}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{p2}u_pe^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}},a_{p2}=e^{i\omega _{p2}x^0}a_{p2}\left(0\right),\omega _{p2}=\overline{m}\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|`$ (4.19)
$`\psi _{p3}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{p3}v_pe^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}},a_{p3}=e^{i\omega _{p3}x^0}a_{p3}\left(0\right),\omega _{p3}=\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|`$ (4.20)
$`\psi _{p4}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{p4}v_pe^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}},a_{p4}=e^{i\omega _{p4}x^0}a_{p4}\left(0\right),\omega _{p4}=\overline{m}+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|`$ (4.21)
where

$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}u_p`$ $`=`$ $`+\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|u_p`$ (4.22)
$`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}v_p`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|v_p`$ (4.23)
$$n\stackrel{}{p},\lambda \text{with }\lambda =1,2,3,4$$
(4.24)
and the $`A_{p\lambda }`$ are normalization constants specified below. We can choose

$`u_p^{}u_p=v_p^{}v_p`$ $`=`$ $`1,u_p^{}v_p=v_p^{}u_p=0`$ (4.25)
$`u_pu_p^{}+v_pv_p^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (4.26)
where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix. Since

$$\dot{a}_n=i\omega _na_n,\dot{a}_n^{}=i\omega _na_n^{}$$
(4.27)
(4.12) and (4.13) give

$`\pi _\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(1+2\omega _n/\overline{m}\right)a_n^{}\psi _n^{}`$ (4.28)
$`\pi _\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(1+2\omega _n/\overline{m}\right)a_n\psi _n.`$ (4.29)
We quantize by interpreting $`\psi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ as operators, and requiring that

$$[\psi (\stackrel{}{x},x^0),\pi _\psi ^{}(\stackrel{}{x}^{},x^0)]_+=i\delta \left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(4.30)
or more explicitly

$$[\psi _\alpha (\stackrel{}{x},x^0),\pi _{\psi \beta }^{}(\stackrel{}{x}^{},x^0)]_+=i\delta \left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\right)\delta _{\alpha \beta }$$
(4.31)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ label the two components of $`\psi `$ and $`\pi _\psi ^{}`$, with $`[X,Y]_\pm =XY\pm YX`$. This requirement will be satisfied if

$`[a_n,a_m^{}]_+=\delta _{nm}\zeta _n^f`$ (4.32)
$`\zeta _n^f=sgn\left(1+2\omega _n/\overline{m}\right)`$ (4.33)
$$[a_n,a_m]_+=[a_n^{},a_m^{}]_+=0$$
(4.34)
$$A_n^{}A_n=V^1\left|1+2\omega _n/\overline{m}\right|^1$$
(4.35)
where $`V`$ is the normalization volume, since

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left|1+2\omega _n/\overline{m}\right|\psi _n\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\psi _n^{}\left(\stackrel{}{x}^{}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}\lambda =1,2}{}}\left|1+2\omega _{p\lambda }/\overline{m}\right|A_{p\lambda }A_{p\lambda }^{}u_pu_p^{}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\right)}`$ (4.36)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}\lambda =3,4}{}}\left|1+2\omega _{p\lambda }/\overline{m}\right|A_{p\lambda }A_{p\lambda }^{}v_pv_p^{}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`V^1{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\right)}\left(u_pu_p^{}+v_pv_p^{}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\delta \left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}.`$ (4.37)
The equation of motion (4.16) implies that $`_\psi `$ has the form $`_\mu ^\mu `$, so the Hamiltonian density of (4.14) is

$$_\psi =\pi _\psi ^{}\dot{\psi }+\dot{\psi }^{}\pi _\psi _\mu ^\mu .$$
(4.38)
Suppose for the moment that we are interested in the time-averaged value $`\overline{H}`$ of the Hamiltonian. In this context the last term can be ignored, since it does not contribute to the four-dimensional integral when boundary terms are ignored. In any state, we then have

$`\overline{H}_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\overline{}_\psi }`$ (4.39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\omega _n\left(1+2\omega _n/\overline{m}\right)a_n^{}a_n{\displaystyle d^3x\psi _n^{}\psi _n}`$ (4.40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,\omega _n>0}{}}a_n^{}a_n\zeta _n^f\left|\omega _n\right|{\displaystyle \underset{n,\omega _n<0}{}}b_nb_n^{}\zeta _n^f\left|\omega _n\right|`$ (4.41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}N_n^f\left|\omega _n\right|{\displaystyle \underset{n,\omega _n<0}{}}\left|\omega _n\right|`$ (4.42)
where

$`N_n^f`$ $`=`$ $`a_n^{}a_n\zeta _n^f,\omega _n>0`$ (4.43)
$`N_n^f`$ $`=`$ $`b_n^{}b_n\zeta _n^f,\omega _n<0`$ (4.44)
$$b_n^{}=a_n,b_n=a_n^{}$$
(4.45)
$$[b_n,b_m^{}]_+=[a_n,a_m^{}]_+=\delta _{nm}\zeta _n^f.$$
(4.46)
The above treatment can be repeated for the fundamental bosons described by (3.50), with

$$\psi \varphi ,a_nc_n,A_nB_n,b_nd_n$$
(4.47)
$$[\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},x^0),\pi _\varphi ^{}(\stackrel{}{x}^{},x^0)]_{}=i\delta \left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(4.48)
$`[c_n,c_m^{}]_{}=\delta _{nm}\zeta _n^b\omega _n/\left|\omega _n\right|`$ (4.49)
$`\zeta _n^b=sgn\left(1+\overline{m}/2\omega _n\right)`$ (4.50)
$$[c_n,c_m]_{}=[c_n^{},c_m^{}]_{}=0$$
(4.51)
$$\varphi _n^{}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\varphi _n\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=B_n^{}B_n=\left(2\left|\omega _n\right|V\right)^1\left|1+\overline{m}/2\omega _n\right|^1$$
(4.52)
$`N_n^b`$ $`=`$ $`c_n^{}c_n\zeta _n^b,\omega _n>0`$ (4.53)
$`N_n^b`$ $`=`$ $`d_n^{}d_n\zeta _n^b,\omega _n<0`$ (4.54)
$$d_n^{}=c_n,d_n=c_n^{}$$
(4.55)
$$[d_n,d_m^{}]_{}=[c_n,c_m^{}]_{}=\delta _{nm}\zeta _n^b,\omega _n<0.$$
(4.56)
$`\overline{H}_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,\omega _n>0}{}}c_n^{}c_n\zeta _n^b\left|\omega _n\right|+{\displaystyle \underset{n,\omega _n<0}{}}d_nd_n^{}\zeta _n^b\left|\omega _n\right|`$ (4.57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}N_n^b\left|\omega _n\right|+{\displaystyle \underset{n,\omega _n<0}{}}\left|\omega _n\right|.`$ (4.58)
Returning to (4.15), one can use (4.18)-(4.23) to obtain the operator $`H`$ itself:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_\psi +H_\varphi `$ (4.59)
$`H_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}N_n^f\left|\omega _n\right|{\displaystyle \underset{n,\omega _n<0}{}}\left|\omega _n\right|`$ (4.60)
$`H_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}N_n^b\left|\omega _n\right|+{\displaystyle \underset{n,\omega _n<0}{}}\left|\omega _n\right|.`$ (4.61)
The total energy in any state is then

$$H=\underset{n}{}N_n^f\left|\omega _n\right|+\underset{n}{}N_n^b\left|\omega _n\right|.$$
(4.62)
In particular, there is a cancellation of the bosonic and fermionic contributions to the vacuum energy (before the initial supersymmetry of the present theory is broken) just as in standard supersymmetry :

$$0\left|H\right|0=0.$$
(4.63)
These results are not as trivial as they may seem, because the Lagrangians of (3.49) and (3.50) violate Lorentz invariance, and the $`\omega _n`$ are given by (4.18)-(4.21).

Other conserved quantities will also have their usual forms, because they also involve products like $`\pi _\psi ^{}_\nu \psi `$ or $`\pi _\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi `$: According to Noether’s theorem for a single field $`\chi `$, a conserved current has the form

$$j^\mu =\frac{}{\left(_\mu \chi \right)}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi +a^\nu [\frac{}{\left(_\mu \chi \right)}_\nu \chi \delta ^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}]$$
(4.64)
so that

$$j^0=\pi _\chi ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi +a^\nu (\pi _\chi ^{}_\nu \chi \delta ^0{}_{\nu }{}^{})$$
(4.65)
where each $`a^\nu `$ represents an independent shift of coordinates and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi `$ represents the effect of a rotation or gauge transformation. Using the corresponding result for the two fields $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$, or $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$, one obtains the usual expressions for the momenta, angular momenta, and charges.

The most dramatic prediction of this paper is that the bosons described by $`\varphi `$ have an equation of motion which requires them to transform as spin 1/2 particles. Furthermore, there is a clear breaking of particle-antiparticle symmetry in the representation of $`\varphi `$ even at low energy. Both of these features are associated with the fact that the present theory violates Lorentz invariance. The inapplicability of the usual spin-statistics and CPT theorems \[16,31-33\] will be discussed elsewhere.

## 5 Conclusion

Let us now summarize some of the results of the preceding sections.

The action (1.1) implies that a GUT-scale condensate (2.8) forms in the very early universe. It is assumed that two topological defects are “frozen into” this condensate as it forms: a cosmological instanton, which results in $`U(1)\times SU(2)`$ rotations of the external order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ext}`$, and an internal instanton, which results in rotations of the internal order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{int}`$. Since the other fermionic and bosonic fields are born into this primordial condensate, it is natural to transform them to the frame of reference that rotates with it. In external spacetime, this leads to an action for fermions which is Lorentz-invariant at low energy (compared to an energy scale $`\overline{m}`$ which is presumably well above $`1`$ TeV). The action for the initial fundamental bosons has exactly the same form as that for fermions, and is therefore quite unconventional.

Both fermions and bosons are found to have standard couplings to the gauge fields of an $`SO(d)`$ theory, where $`d`$ is the dimension of the space containing the internal instanton. With $`d=10`$, we obtain an $`SO(10)`$ grand-unified theory, which naturally leads to neutrino masses, coupling-constant unification, etc. It was also shown that the fermionic and bosonic fields can be quantized with either a path-integral or canonical description, even though their equations of motion are unconventional.

In this paper we did not attempt to develop a detailed phenomenological picture. However, the forms (3.49) and (3.50) imply that there are testable extensions of standard physics for fermions at high energy and for fundamental bosons which have not yet been observed. In particular, fermions have an equation of motion that violates Lorentz invariance at high energy, while the bosons discussed in the previous section violate particle-antiparticle symmetry, and other features associated with Lorentz invariance, even at low energy. For example, these bosons have spin 1/2.

References


format: text

text:
# Excitations of the field-induced soliton lattice in CuGeO3

\[

## Abstract

Here we report the first inelastic neutron scattering study of the magnetic excitations in the incommensurate high-field phase of a spin-Peierls material. The results on CuGeO3 provide direct evidence for a finite excitation gap, two sharp magnetic excitation branches and a very low-lying excitation which is identified as a phason mode, the Goldstone mode of the incommensurate soliton lattice.

\] A one-dimensional (1D) spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet is unstable with respect to dimerization as well as long-range antiferromagnetic order. Coupled to a three-dimensional (3D) phonon field, it can undergo a second-order phase transition at a finite temperature into a dimerized (spin-Peierls) ground state with total spin $`\stackrel{}{S}_{tot}=_i\stackrel{}{S}_i=0`$ (D-phase). The dimerization is supported by antiferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor exchange in the 1D chain direction. Antiferromagnetic (AF) interchain couplings prefer a Néel-type ground state and compete with dimerization.

In the D-phase of a spin-Peierls material, the lowest magnetic excitation is an isolated triplet branch ($`S_{tot}=1`$). This excitation is a bound pair of domain walls with respect to the dimer order parameter. The two domain walls, or solitons, are created by breaking and delocalizing one dimer bond. The binding energy depends on the magnetic and elastic interchain interactions. The energy of the triplet is finite over the entire Brillouin zone and achieves its minima at wave vectors $`k=0`$ and $`k=\frac{\pi }{c}`$ (the AF zone center, $`c`$ being the average distance between two spins in the chain direction.) In a magnetic field, the $`S_{tot}=1`$ branch becomes Zeeman split, and a magnetized incommensurate (IC) phase is entered above a critical field $`H_c`$, which corresponds approximately to the field where the lowest mode should soften to zero energy. In the IC-phase, the magnetization is generated by introducing more and more domain walls into the dimerized ground state. The unpaired spin at the center of a domain wall aligns parallel to the magnetic field (assumed to be $``$ to $`z`$). The transverse parts of the spin Hamiltonian, $`S_i^+S_j^{}`$, delocalize the solitons. This results in an equal spacing of solitons, and thus leads to an IC superlattice of distortive and magnetic solitons. Their finite width implies a staggered magnetic polarization close to the soliton center.

For a spin-Peierls system, the magnetic excitation spectrum in the IC-phase is expected to have finite excitation gaps, because at each given magnetic field the lattice, and hence the intrachain exchange, adapts to the magnetization and the number of solitons. Two excitation branches with polarization perpendicular to $`H`$ are predicted, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$, corresponding to an increase or decrease of the total spin by 1, with minima at $`k=m\frac{2\pi }{c}`$ and $`k=\frac{\pi }{c}`$, where $`m`$ is the magnetization per spin in units of $`\mu _B`$ . A longitudinal branch $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ should also be present with minima at $`k=0`$ and $`k=\frac{2\pi }{c}(\frac{1}{2}m)`$, and with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{min}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }_+^{min}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{min})`$ . At $`k=\frac{\pi }{c}`$ this branch should have an energy $`g\mu _BH`$ . The precise value and field dependences of the modes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ depend on the details of the assumptions used in the models.

CuGeO3 is the first spin-Peierls compound where large single crystals are available , thus allowing the complete phonon and magnetic excitation spectra to be measured using neutron scattering techniques. The IC phase is also accessible, since magnetic fields up to 14.5 T have become available for neutron experiments, well in excess of the critical field in CuGeO3 of $`\mu _0H_c12.5`$ T. Our recent neutron scattering study of the magnetic soliton lattice in the IC-phase  reveals a static magnetic modulation with the same period as the distortive modulation, and in particular the superlattice Bragg peaks at $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp})`$ were found to be almost entirely magnetic in origin. Outside the critical field region, the magnetic soliton width, and the amplitudes of the staggered and uniform magnetic modulation are in reasonable agreement with the predictions of field theory.

In this letter we report on the magnetic excitation spectrum in the IC phase, measured both close to the superlattice peak $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp})`$, and also at the AF zone center $`(0,\frac{1}{2},1)`$, where the dispersion of the magnetic excitations in the D-phase has its minimum. The experiments were performed at the cold triple axis spectrometer FLEX at BENSC, Berlin, using the vertical cryomagnet VM-1. Single crystals of CuGeO3 of 0.34 cm3 and 0.49 cm3 were aligned in the $`(0,k,\mathrm{})`$ and $`(h,2h,\mathrm{})`$ scattering planes, respectively. The collimation was guide-60’-60’-60’ with either $`k_f`$=1.3 Å fixed and a nitrogen-cooled Be-filter in $`k_i`$, or $`k_f=1.54`$ Å and the Be-filter in $`k_f`$. The critical fields at $`(0,1,\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2})`$ differ (12.58 T and 12.31 T) because of the different field directions and hence $`g`$-factors (2.152 and 2.199) in the respective scattering geometry.

Figure 1 shows the magnetic field dependence of the excitations at the AF zone center $`(0,1,\frac{1}{2})`$. With increasing field, the lowest triplet branch decreases to about 0.4 meV but never becomes completely soft. At the critical field, two new sharp excitations appear at $``$1 meV and $``$0.5 meV. The 1 meV mode shows barely any field dependence between 12.5 T and 14.5 T, while the energy of the lower mode increases towards the higher mode. The excitations at $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2})`$, close to the magnetic Bragg peaks at $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp})`$, display the same field dependence as those at $`(0,1,\frac{1}{2})`$, apart from an overall shift towards higher energies (1.2 meV and 1.6 meV) which is entirely accounted for by the ferromagnetic interchain interaction along $`a^{}`$.

In Fig. 2 we show high-resolution scans of the low-energy region at a wave vector of $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2})`$ for selected magnetic fields. At 12 T, the widths of the middle and the lowest triplet excitation are resolution limited. Both broaden significantly at the critical field (about 12.3 T) and then disappear. In a small field region, the new sharp IC-phase excitations at 1.2 meV and 1.6 meV coexist with the broadened D-phase modes (see scan at 12.5 T), confirming the first-order character of the transition which has also been observed with other methods. No evidence was found for a third excitation at an energy of $`g\mu _BH`$ at any of the fields investigated.

The spectral weight of the two new modes in the IC-phase is concentrated in a very small region extending from the commensurate position $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}`$ to the incommensurate one at $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp}`$. The upper part of Fig. 3 shows the dispersion of the lowest two excitations at $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2})`$ along the chain direction $`c^{}`$, at $`T=2`$ K and $`B=14.5`$ T, where $`\delta k_{sp}=0.015`$. The dispersion (solid lines) appears significantly flatter than the dispersion calculated from the zero field spin-wave velocity (dashed lines). Neither at $`(0,1,\frac{1}{2})`$ nor at $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2})`$ do the dispersions of the two sharp modes exhibit minima at the IC positions $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp}`$.

A search was also made for excitations emanating from the magnetic IC Bragg peaks at $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp})`$. This revealed a mode at $``$0.29 meV (Fig. 4), at $`T=2`$ K and $`B=14.5`$ T. The energy of this mode (at the respective IC wave vector) changes only little between 13 T ($`\delta k_{sp}=0.011`$) and 14.5 T ($`\delta k_{sp}=0.015`$). The dispersion of this mode was studied at $`B=14.5`$ T and is plotted in the bottom part of Fig. 3. Its spectral weight is concentrated at the IC wave vector $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp})`$, the minimum of its dispersion.

In interpreting the data the first thing to establish is whether the three modes shown in Fig. 3 are magnetic or nuclear in origin. It is known from our earlier study that the satellites at ($`\frac{1}{2}`$,1,$`\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp}`$) are predominantly magnetic (by a factor of $``$ 40) , and it follows that the low-lying mode emanating from the satellites must also have a predominantly magnetic character. For the higher-lying modes it was observed that their intensity decreased at equivalent $`k`$ but larger total wave vector transfer. They too can therefore be ascribed to be mainly magnetic in origin. It should be noted, however, that a structural contribution cannot be excluded, and indeed a mixing of magnetic and elastic degrees of freedom is expected in a spin-Peierls material.

Calculations of the excitations in the IC-phase are reported for three cases, with dimerization parameters $`ϵ=\frac{J_{i+1}J_i}{J_{i+1}+J_i}=0.014`$ , $`ϵ=0.14`$ , and $`ϵ=0.4`$ . Poilblanc *et al*. and Schönfeld *et al*. also included frustrating next-nearest-neighbor intrachain exchange $`\alpha =\frac{2J^{\text{nnn}}}{J_i+J_{i+1}}=0.24`$ and $`\alpha =0.36`$, while in the calculations of Yu *et al*. only nearest-neighbor intrachain exchange was considered. Irrespective of this large spread of the parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\alpha `$ the spectral weight is concentrated at the commensurate position $`\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}`$ , where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ have minimum excitation energy . This agrees with the observed upper two modes at 1.3 meV and 1.7 meV (14.5 T, Fig.3), which we therefore identify with the modes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$. The longitudinal mode $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ should have its minimum at $`q_c=\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{min}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }_+^{min}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{min})`$  and $`g\mu _BH`$ at $`q_c=\frac{1}{2}`$ . Therefore the 0.29 meV excitation cannot be identified with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. A weak longitudinal contribution at higher energies could be hidden by the transverse excitations. However, the weakness or absence of the longitudinal mode is probably related to the significant interchain interaction in CuGeO3. Calculations  which imply significant spectral weight of the longitudinal mode do not include interchain interaction, and it is known that longitudinal modes usually become stronger with increasing one dimensionality of the exchange .

While the field dependences of the modes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ could in principle be used to place further constraints on the values of the coupling parameters, this turns out to be difficult in practice. This is mainly due to two reasons, to the fact that the values of $`ϵ`$ used in the calculations  lead to gaps much larger than reported here, and to the fact that the magnetization range studied starts at larger values than the maximum magnetization $`m`$=0.015 $`\mu _B`$ in our experiment. It is, however, perhaps worth noting that the calculation with a finite and large value of $`\alpha `$  predicts that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ should increase with increasing field, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ should be field independent, in qualitative agreement with the data shown in Fig. 1. In this sense our data are consistent with the large value of $`\alpha `$ needed to explain various experimental facts , and with the notion that the spin-Peierls transition in CuGeO3 is driven by hard phonons .

We now address the origin of the observed excitation at 0.29 meV. Its field dependence is too small for an optic mode arising from a folding back of the Brillouin zone. Such an optic mode should shift with $`\delta k_{sp}`$ by about 0.1 meV from 13 T to 14.5 T. A fit to a Lorentzian lineshape including the Bose factor for $`T=2`$ K yields the finite energies shown in Fig. 3. The same gap energy (2.3$`\pm `$0.2 cm$`{}_{}{}^{1}0.29`$ meV) was observed in a Raman experiment , which mainly probes the structural excitations, pointing to a magneto-structural origin for this excitation. We attribute the mode at 0.29 meV to phase oscillations of the soliton lattice, so-called phasons. The IC long-range order in the high-field phase breaks the quasi-continuous translation symmetry of the soliton lattice with respect to simultaneous shifts of the soliton centers along the chain axis. The Goldstone modes corresponding to this symmetry breaking are phase oscillations of the magnetic and distortive soliton structure. The corresponding eigenvectors carry magnetic and elastic amplitudes. Their dispersion close to the IC superlattice Bragg peak is expected to be given by the spin-wave velocities of the dimerized phase, except close to the critical field . Indeed the experimentally observed dispersion along $`\mathrm{}`$ is of the same order of magnitude as that of the transverse magnetic excitations (Fig. 3), and is flatter by a factor of 3 than the zero-field spin-wave velocity.

If the mode at 0.29 meV is indeed a phason, it remains to be explained why it has a gap. For a spin-Peierls system with soft phonons, a first-order transition into the high-field phase could proceed via a series of lock-in transitions, which implies a finite phason gap . No soft phonons have been found in CuGeO3, and a number of other possible mechanisms need to be explored, including: impurities, discreteness of the lattice, and $`k`$ dependent spin-phonon coupling. A pinning to impurities would create a disordered soliton lattice, in contradiction to our earlier structural study . The discreteness of the lattice leads to a phason pinning energy of the order 0.003 meV , which is much too small. However, this estimate neglects interchain couplings, and does not take into account the non-sinusoidal magnetic modulation , both of which may enhance the phason gap in CuGeO3. In the absence of soft-phonons, lock-in phenomena in CuGeO3 could be produced by a $`k`$ dependent spin-phonon coupling. Schönfeld *et al*. introduce a $`k`$-dependent effective elastic constant $`K(k)=_\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda (k)/g_\lambda ^2(k)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda (k)`$ are the dimerization phonons and $`g_\lambda (k)`$ the respective coupling constants. The relevant phonons in CuGeO3 do not display a softening in the dispersion at the commensurate wave vector $`k_{sp}`$ , but the spin-phonon coupling increases towards $`k_{sp}`$ ($`K(k_{sp})4K(0)`$ ). This preference for a commensurate structure enhances the influence of the discreteness of the lattice, and may lead to a finite phason energy and a commensurate wave vector, instead of gapless phasons and a truely IC modulation.

The hysteresis observed in ESR experiments in the whole IC-phase  supports the picture of a lock-in of the soliton centers to the discrete lattice. Nevertheless, in the past, several experimental results were taken as evidence for gapless phasons: i) an increase of the $`T^3`$-contribution of the specific heat capacity in the IC-phase ; ii) the absence of discrete lines in the NMR-lineshape; iii) the reduced ratio $`m_s/m_u`$ of the staggered and uniform magnetic modulation amplitude ($`m_s`$, $`m_u`$) derived from NMR experiments. At closer inspection i) could be explained by an altered elastic constant in the IC-phase rather than by gapless phasons. Phasons with a dispersion similar to magnons yield $`T^\alpha ^{}`$-contributions with $`\alpha ^{}=1`$ or 2 corresponding to their 1D or at least 2D density of states. ii) The NMR lineshape could equally well be explained by an unresolved assembly of the expected $``$150 (discrete) lines within 0.5 T and hence is still consistent with the presence of lock-in phenomena. iii) Zero-point fluctuations of gapless phasons should lead to the same reduced $`m_s/m_u`$ in a neutron experiment where no such reduction was observed. The neutron result agrees within 20% with field theory where phasons are neglected. This shows that zero-point phason oscillations are suppressed and hence indicates independently a finite energy gap of the phasons.

In summary, we have observed the predicted transverse magnetic excitations $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ in the IC phase of a spin-Peierls material which correspond to the creation or destruction of a domain-wall pair. The longitudinal magnetic excitation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ was not found, probably due to the 3D interactions. The phason mode of the IC modulated structure has also been observed, and is gapped with a maximum spectral weight at the position of the IC satellites, $`(\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{1}{2}\pm \delta k_{sp})`$. We argue that the finite energy of the phason mode is consistent with all of the experimental data available to date. We hope that our data will stimulate and guide the development of a microscopic model of CuGeO3 which will ultimately provide a consistent description over the entire temperature-field phase diagram of this unconventional spin-Peierls system.

We thank G. Uhrig, R.A. Cowley, W.J.L. Buyers, and K. Knorr for helpful discussions, and TMR and BMBF for funding.


text:
# The First Results of K2K long-baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiment

## Introduction

The atmospheric neutrino anomaly observed by Super-Kamiokande(SK) and other recent underground experiments strongly suggests $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ neutrino oscillation. The allowed region of the oscillation parameters obtained by SK are in the range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=25\times 10^3`$ eV2 and $`sin^2(2\theta )>`$ 0.88 with 90% confidence levelrf1 , where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is the mass difference squared between two neutrino mass eigenstates and $`\theta `$ is the mixing angle between two neutrinos.

The principal goal of the K2K experiment is to confirm neutrino oscillation with a man-made neutrino beam and to measure the oscillation parameters. Fig. 2 is a schematic of the setup. We use the 12 GeV KEK-PS as a neutrino source and SK as the far detector. The distance between KEK and SK is 250$`km`$, and the neutrino beam has an average energy of 1.4 GeV. The neutrinos are produced by charged pion decays and expected to be 99% pure $`\nu _\mu `$ with an angular deviation $``$ 3 $`mrad`$. In order to measure the effects of oscillation we compare the $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum observed by SK to the one measured in the front detectors at the point of production.

Fig. 2(a) shows the Monte Carlo simulation of reconstructed neutrino spectra at SK for $`1\times 10^{20}`$ protons on target($`pot`$). This corresponds to approximately 5 years of measurement. Oscillated spectra for four specific oscillation parameter sets are shown. The effects of oscillation are seen in the figures as a significant divergence from the spectra of the null oscillation case, which is given by open histograms. K2K’s 90% confidence level sensitivity covers almost all of the 90% allowed regions obtained by Kamiokande and SK, as shown in Fig. 2(b).

Fig. 3 shows the record of protons on target. After the completion of the front detector construction in Feb. 1999, the fast extraction of protons for the experiment started on Feb. 3. On Mar. 4, the neutrino beam DAQ started with a horn current of 175 kA and with proton intensity of 3$`\times `$10$`{}_{}{}^{12}ppp`$. After engineering runs to study neutrino beam operations in April through May, stable data taking began in June with an aluminum target with 2$`cm\varphi `$, a horn current of 200 kA, and a proton intensity of 4.5$`\times 10^{12}ppp`$. After the summer shutdown, continuous data taking began again in November, this time with an aluminum target of $`3cm\varphi `$ and a horn current of 250 kA with 5$`\times 10^{12}ppp`$. In 1999 we accumulated 7.2 $`\times 10^{18}pot`$ in total.

## Observation by near detectors

The near detector system consists of a 1kt water Cherenkov detector(1kt) and a fine-grained detector(FGD). The latter consists of a scintillating fiber tracker(SFT)rf2 , plastic scintillator veto counters , an electromagnetic calorimeter of 600 lead glass blocks, and a muon ranger of 12 iron plates (10$`cm\times `$4+20$`cm\times `$8) with drift chambers(MUC). The SFT is composed of 19 layers of 6$`cm`$-thick water containers sandwiched with 20$`\times `$($`yy`$-$`xx`$) layers of 700$`\mu m\varphi `$ scintillating fibers.

1kt is used for normalizing predicted beam flux at SK. The fact that the two detectors are so similar cancels out systematic errors that would otherwise be present.

MUC contained events are used to check the stability of the neutrino beam. This is because the large fiducial volume mass of the MUC results in a very large event rate. The beam center is observed to be stable to within 1$`mrad.`$. In addition, spill by spill beam centering, monitored by the profile of the muons produced by pion-decay that penetrate the beam dump, was also found to be within 0.5$`mrad`$.

Fig. 4(a) is an example of quasi-elastic(QE) neutrino event candidates with vertex in the SFT. The primary goal of the FGD is to reconstruct the neutrino spectrum by using QE samples. (b) shows the reconstructed muon energy distribution for single track events, and (c) is $`cos(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _P)`$ distribution for 2 track samples, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _P`$ is angular difference between reconstructed proton track and that calculated from muon momentum. The single track samples and 2 track samples with $`cos(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _P)0.95`$ contain a large fraction of QE events, $``$60% and $``$80% respectively.

We also study the ratio of inelastic events to QE events, in order to reduce the uncertainty of the calculated neutrino interaction cross section to less than 10%. This information is important not only for K2K, but also for the SK atmospheric neutrino analyses. Table 1 gives summary of the front detector results. Event numbers normalized by MC predictions agree very well to each other.

## Neutrino events in Super-Kamiokande

On June 19, 1999, 18:42(JST), K2K observed its first neutrino event due to the KEK neutrino beam in Super-Kamiokande. This was the first time that an artificially produced particle was detected after traveling such a large distance. Fig. 5(c) shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ distributions at each reduction step, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ is the time difference between SK event and KEK beam pulse, taking time of flight between KEK and SK into account. It is obtained by GPS within the precision of 300 $`nsec`$. During the period of running we have 6 events within 1.3$`\mu sec`$ time window, 3 of which are within 22.5$`kt`$ fiducial volume (vertex distance from wall $``$ 2$`m`$).

We can estimate the number ($`N_{SK}^{pred}`$) using the observed number of events at 1kt($`N_{KEK}`$): $`N_{SK}^{pred}=(N_{KEK}/ϵ_{KEK})Rϵ_{SK}`$, where $`R`$ is a factor of extrapolation from KEK to SK, $`ϵ_{KEK}`$ and $`ϵ_{SK}`$ are the detection efficiency of 1kt and SK, respectively. Since the target material (water) is common and the systematic uncertainty due to the cross section cancels, the value of R depends mostly on the flux ratio between SK and KEK, whose uncertainty is $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+8\%}{10\%}`$. $`N_{SK}^{pred}`$ was estimated to be 12.3$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+1.7}{1.9}`$ in total. Table 2 summarizes these numbers, with expectations for the case of three typical $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ with $`sin^2(2\theta )=1`$. We will accumulate $`>2\times 10^{19}pot`$ in this summer, leading to an increase in the statistical power of these results.


text:
# The Josephson critical current in a long mesoscopic S-N-S junction

\[

## Abstract

We carry out an extensive experimental and theoretical study of the Josephson effect in S-N-S junctions made of a diffusive normal metal (N) embedded between two superconducting electrodes (S). Our experiments are performed on Nb-Cu-Nb junctions with highly-transparent interfaces. We give the predictions of the quasiclassical theory in various regimes on a precise and quantitative level. We describe the crossover between the short and the long junction regimes and provide the temperature dependence of the critical current using dimensionless units $`eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}/ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`k_\mathrm{B}T/ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ where $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ is the Thouless energy. Experimental and theoretical results are in excellent quantitative agreement.

\]

The Josephson effect is well known to exist in weak links connecting two superconducting electrodes S, e.g. a tunnel barrier I, a short constriction C or a normal metal N (S-I-S, S-C-S and S-N-S junctions). This effect manifests itself in a non-dissipative DC-current flowing through the Josephson junction at zero voltage. At weak coupling, e.g. in the S-I-S case, the Josephson current can be expressed as $`I_\mathrm{s}=I_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ where $`\phi `$ is the phase difference between the two superconducting condensates and the maximum supercurrent $`I_\mathrm{c}`$ is called the critical current.

The Josephson effect in S-N-S junctions has been studied in a variety of configurations. The early experiments of Clarke and Shepherd were performed in Pb-Cu-Pb sandwiches. In these experiments and in the pioneering calculations by de Gennes, it was already realized that the presence of a supercurrent in such structures is due to the proximity effect. It can be understood as the generation of superconducting correlations in a normal metal connected to a superconductor, mediated by phase-coherent Andreev reflections at the S-N interface. The critical current $`I_\mathrm{c}`$ is limited by the “bottleneck” in the center of the N-layer, where the pair amplitude is exponentially small, $`I_\mathrm{c}e^{L/L_\mathrm{T}}`$. Here $`L_\mathrm{T}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/2\pi k_\mathrm{B}T}`$ is the characteristic thermal length in the diffusive limit and $`L`$ is the length of the junction. These calculations, as well as those by Fink, analyzed the temperature dependence of $`I_\mathrm{c}`$ within the Ginzburg-Landau theory in the vicinity of the superconducting critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Later, the critical current of diffusive S-N-S microbridges was successfully described by Likharev  with the aid of the quasiclassical Usadel equations. In this work, the emphasis was put on the high temperature regime where the superconducting order parameter is smaller than the thermal energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_\mathrm{B}T`$. A more general study of the Josephson effect in diffusive S-N-S junctions was made in Ref. .

More recently, experimental data on long Josephson junctions  showed a surprising temperature-dependence, which turned out to be in a strong disagreement with the early theory by de Gennes. These data have been discussed by some of us  within the quasiclassical approach which we will also use in the present work. Fink attempted to analyze the data  by means of an extrapolation of the Ginzburg-Landau theory to low temperatures.

The proximity effect in mesoscopic hybrid structures consisting of normal and superconducting metals attracted a growing interest during the recent years. Here we will consider mesoscopic diffusive S-N-S junctions where the sample length is much larger than the elastic mean free path $`l_e`$ but smaller than the dephasing length $`L_\varphi `$ : $`l_\mathrm{e}<L<L_\varphi `$. In N-S junctions and Andreev interferometers, we can identify – both theoretically and experimentally – the natural energy scale for the proximity effect. It is given by the Thouless energy $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{}D/L^2`$. Here $`D=v_\mathrm{F}l_\mathrm{e}/3`$ is the diffusion constant of the N-metal, $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi velocity. In contrast to the energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is set by the interactions in the superconducting electrodes, the energy scale $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ is a single-electron quantity : $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}/\mathrm{}`$ is merely the diffusion rate across the sample for a single electron. This energy scale remains important in non-equilibrium situations, e.g. if one drives the supercurrent across a S-N-S junction by the injection of a control current in the N-metal.

The main purpose of the present paper is to carry out a detailed experimental investigation of the equilibrium supercurrent in relatively long diffusive S-N-S junctions with highly transparent N-S interfaces as well as a quantitative comparison of our data to the theoretical predictions. Here, a long junction means that the junction length $`L`$ is much bigger than $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. This is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$. In order to perform this comparison at all relevant temperatures, we complete the previous studies by providing a rigorous expression for the Josephson critical current at $`T0`$ which was not properly evaluated before. Our experimental results are in excellent agreement with the theoretical predictions.

As before, our theoretical approach is based on the quasiclassical Green’s functions in imaginary time. The proximity effect is described by a finite pair amplitude $`F`$ in the N-metal (see \[\] and references therein). We will assume N-S interfaces to be fully transparent and neglect the suppression of the pair potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the S electrodes near the N-S interface. This is appropriate at $`TT_\mathrm{c}`$ or if the reservoirs are very massive as compared to the normal metal. Within those bounds, our calculation does not contain further approximations and is e.g. valid at arbitrary temperature and sample size. We will now proceed by discussing certain limits.

In the high temperature regime $`k_\mathrm{B}Tϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ (or, equivalently, $`LL_\mathrm{T}`$), the solution is well known. In this case the mutual influence of the two superconducting electrodes can be neglected and the Usadel equations can be linearized in the N-metal, except in the vicinity of the N-S interfaces. One finds :

$$eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}=64\pi k_\mathrm{B}T\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{L}{L_{\omega _\mathrm{n}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{exp}(L/L_{\omega _\mathrm{n}})}{(\omega _\mathrm{n}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{n}+\sqrt{2(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\omega _\mathrm{n}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{n})})^2}$$
(1)
where $`R_\mathrm{N}`$ is the N-metal resistance, $`\omega _\mathrm{n}=(2n+1)\pi k_\mathrm{B}T`$ is the Matsubara frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{n}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\omega _\mathrm{n}^2}`$ and $`L_{\omega _\mathrm{n}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/2\omega _\mathrm{n}}`$. If $`T`$ is close to the critical temperature of S, the gap is small as compared to the thermal energy : $`\mathrm{\Delta }k_\mathrm{B}T`$. In this limit, Eq. (1) coincides with the result derived by Likharev.

At lower temperatures $`k_\mathrm{B}Tϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ evaluation of $`I_c`$ involves solutions of the Usadel equation at all energies . In order to determine the precise value  of the critical current, we performed a numerical solution of the Usadel equations for the whole range of Matsubara frequencies. In the long junction limit ($`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_c`$), the zero-temperature $`eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}`$ is found to be proportional to $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ :

$$eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}(T=0)=10.82ϵ_\mathrm{c}.$$
(2)
In this case, the current phase relation is slightly different from a sine and the supercurrent maximum occurs at $`\phi =1.27\pi /2`$.As compared to previous estimates, the exact numerical prefactor in this formula turns out to be unexpectedly high. This observation is crucial for a quantitative comparison between theory and experiment not only in the case of conventional junctions but also for high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ S-N-S junctions  or devices involving carbon nanotubes.

Let us now turn to the short junction regime $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$, i.e. to the case of dirty S-C-S weak links described in Ref. . Our numerical results reproduces quantitatively the behaviours of both the current-phase relation and the zero-temperature critical current : $`eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}1.326\pi \mathrm{\Delta }/2`$ at $`\phi =1.25\pi /2`$. This results confirms the precision of our calculation in describing both the long junction and the short junction regimes. Our numerical results for $`I_\mathrm{c}(T=0)`$ as a function of the Thouless energy $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ are presented in Fig. 1. It confirms that it is the minimum of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the Thouless energy $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ which limits the critical current in diffusive S-N-S junctions. At $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the critical current value remains close to the short junction case.

In the following, we will focus on long junctions $`\mathrm{\Delta }>ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$. Fig. 2 shows the temperature dependence of the $`eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}`$ product for various values of the superconducting gap in the long junction regime. Both axis are given in units of the Thouless energy. The low-temperature part ($`k_\mathrm{B}T<5ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$) comes from a numerical solution of the Usadel equation while the high-temperature part comes from Eq. 1. From this figure, we can see that the characteristic decay temperature for the critical current is a few times the Thouless temperature $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}/k_\mathrm{B}`$. As soon as $`k_\mathrm{B}T>5ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$, the sum in Eq. (1) can be reduced to the first frequency term within a $`3\%`$ underestimation. This term corresponds to $`\omega _0=\pi k_\mathrm{B}T`$ and $`L_{\omega _0}=L_\mathrm{T}`$. Adding the second term in the summation decreases the error below $`0.1\%`$ in the same temperature range.

The universal curve of Fig. 2 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }/ϵ_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{}`$ is valid only in the case of a very long junction with $`\mathrm{\Delta }/ϵ_\mathrm{c}100`$. It appears as if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is to be compared to the quantity $`eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}(T=0)10ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ in the long junction limit. In the limit of infinite $`\mathrm{\Delta }/ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$, Eq. 1 simplifies to

$$eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}=\frac{32}{3+2\sqrt{2}}ϵ_\mathrm{c}\left[\frac{L}{L_\mathrm{T}}\right]^3e^{L/L_\mathrm{T}}.$$
(3)
From Eq. 3, one can get the temperature dependence of the critical current : $`I_\mathrm{c}T^{3/2}exp(L/L_\mathrm{T})`$. It has been demonstrated in Ref. \[\] that within a limited temperature interval this expression is numerically very close to a simple exponential dependence $`I_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{exp}(L/L_\mathrm{T})`$ with $`L_\mathrm{T}1/T`$, as one would expect in a ballistic limit. From Fig. 2, the quasi-exponential temperature dependence of the critical current is indeed striking. This was the central result of Ref. \[\], but was not understood at that time. This coincidence is purely accidental and has no special meaning. In the low temperature limit, the numerical solution can be approximated by $`eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}/ϵ_\mathrm{c}=a(1be^{aϵ_\mathrm{c}/3.2k_\mathrm{B}T})`$. The coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ are $`10.82`$ and $`1.30`$ respectively in the long junction limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }/ϵ_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{}`$.

S-N-S junctions are intrinsically shunted and have negligible internal capacitance, so they are strongly overdamped. Their current-voltage characteristics are hence intrinsically non-hysteretic. The transition from a supercurrent to a voltage state happens at the critical current, but is rounded by finite temperature. We fabricated Nb-Cu-Nb junctions with a large conductance so that thermal fluctuations remain small compared to the Josephson energy : $`k_BT\mathrm{}I_c(T)/2e`$ even at high temperature near the critical temperature of Nb. This makes a well-defined critical current up to the critical temperature of Nb. Effects of environmental fluctuations known from mesoscopic tunnel junctions, which are intrinsically underdamped, are absent.

We benefited from a trilayer stencil mask technology making use of a thermostable resist that does not outgas during Nb evaporation. Thus we were able to routinely obtain a superconducting critical temperature as high as $`8.1K`$ for the Nb electrodes. We performed successive shadow evaporations of Cu and Nb at different angles through the silicon stencil layer in an ultra high vacuum chamber, followed by a lift-off. Fig. 3 shows a typical sample. We studied a single sample (a) plus five different samples evaporated on the same substrate (b, c, d, e and f). Table 1 lists the main physical parameters for these samples. The Cu metallic strips are $`600nm`$ wide and $`100nm`$ thick. The Nb superconducting electrodes are $`800nm`$ wide and $`200nm`$ thick, except for sample a where it is $`100nm`$. The length $`L`$ of the metallic island was varied between $`700`$ and $`1000nm`$, corresponding to a separation length $`d_{\mathrm{Nb}}`$ between Nb electrodes varying between $`370`$ and $`700nm`$. For all samples, the calculated Thouless energy $`\mathrm{}D/L^2`$ is therefore significantly smaller than the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The normal-state resistance $`R_\mathrm{N}`$ cannot be directly measured at temperature above $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ since the resistance of the Nb electrodes is measured in series. We found that the finite-bias resistance ($`eVϵ_\mathrm{c}`$) varied by about $`10\%`$ between $`2K`$ and $`8K`$ due to the proximity effect on the conductance. We took for the normal-state resistance $`R_N`$ the resistance at $`T=6K`$ for a better agreement with the theory. It is a relatively high temperature since $`k_\mathrm{B}T>15ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ for every sample. Using L for the Cu length, we obtain a Cu resistivity $`\rho =\mathrm{1.1\hspace{0.17em}.\hspace{0.17em}10}^8\mathrm{\Omega }.m`$ for samples b to f and $`\rho =\mathrm{1.5\hspace{0.17em}.\hspace{0.17em}10}^8\mathrm{\Omega }.m`$ for sample a.

We measured the critical current of samples a to f at temperatures down to $`300mK`$. Our procedure consists in sweeping the bias current while measuring the differential resistance $`dV/dI`$. We define the experimental critical current as the current where the differential resistance reaches $`R_\mathrm{N}/2`$. With this criteria, the experimental uncertainty is estimated below $`0.5\%`$ at $`T=2K`$, $`5\%`$ around $`T=4K`$ and $`100\%`$ at $`7K`$. Fig. 4 shows the data for 3 samples. The measured $`eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}/ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ plotted as a function of the reduced temperature $`k_\mathrm{B}T/ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ show a large decrease over more than two decades. For each sample, we fitted the data to the theoretical prediction with only one fitting parameter, the Thouless energy. The zero-temperature superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was calculated from the measured critical temperature of Nb using : $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3.8k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}`$. This gives $`1.3meV`$ for all samples except sample a for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1meV`$. We used both a fixed gap equal to the zero-temperature value and a gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ following the BCS temperature dependence, but with a slightly reduced critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}=7.5K`$. At high temperature, it appeared necessary to take into account the temperature dependence of the gap. In this case, the agreement between theory and experiment is excellent. The fit is very sensitive to the chosen value of the Thouless energy. We would like to stress that for each sample the horizontal and vertical axis are normalized to the same Thouless energy $`ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$. This fitted values are found to be very close to the Thouless energies calculated from the full length $`L`$ of the Cu strip, see Table I.

In Fig. 4, the critical current of sample f shows the onset of the saturation regime. At $`T=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}300}mK`$ the adjusted critical current $`eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}`$ reaches up to $`8.2ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$. This number is close to the theoretical value $`8.79ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ for sample f at $`T=0`$. This result discards an interpretation of our data within the Ginzburg-Landau theory of Ref.  which predicts a maximum $`eR_\mathrm{N}I_\mathrm{c}/ϵ_\mathrm{c}`$ of about $`1`$.

In Ref. , an array of S-N-S junctions was made of a long N-metal wire periodically in contact with a series of superconducting islands. A good fit between the data and the theory was shown in Ref. \[\], but with the introduction of a strong reduction of the effective area. This may be attributed to the periodic and lateral characters of this type of samples.

Our calculation assumes perfectly transmitting interfaces with zero boundary resistance. In fact, it is sufficient that the barrier-equivalent length  $`L_\mathrm{t}=l_\mathrm{e}/t`$ is much smaller than the sample length. As an example, this condition means an interface transparency $`t>0.1`$ for sample b. In the case of Nb-Cu-Nb samples fabricated through a two-lithography-step process including Ar-etching, we found a critical current with a reduced magnitude, presumably due to a slightly degraded interface. The critical current in S-N-S junctions with partially transparent interfaces was discussed in Ref. \[\]. The predicted behavior features a different temperature dependence for the critical current. Nevertheless, the temperature dependence remained consistent with the theory assuming a perfect interface. Only a reduction prefactor had to be introduced. This observation could hint at the fact, that interface barriers are very inhomogenous and the current is carried through a few highly conducting pinholes.

In summary, we discussed the Josephson critical current of diffusive S-N-S junctions. This study provides a simple and reliable formulation that enables the practical determination of the equilibrium critical current. We studied the critical current of a set of samples with different junction lengths and found an excellent agreement between our data and the predictions of the quasiclassical theory.

We acknowledge discussion and financial support in the EU-TMR network ”Dynamics of superconducting circuits” as well as support from the DFG through SFB 195 and GK 284. We thank A. Golubov, T.T. Heikkilä, D. Mailly, N. Moussy and P. Paniez for discussions.


text:
# References

Multiplicity distributions of quark and gluon jets in QCD

I.M. Dremin1, J. Tran Thanh Van2

1Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow 117924, Russia
2LPTHE, Univ. Paris-Sud F-91405 Orsay, Cedex, France

## Abstract

The solution of the equations for the generating functions of multiplicity distributions of quark and gluon jets in higher order 3NLO perturbative QCD is obtained. The non-perturbative effects are discussed as well. The results are compared to recent experimental data on mean multiplicities, their ratio and its slope, higher moments of the distributions.

Here we briefly describe recent advances in theoretical understanding of multiplicity distributions of quark and gluon jets. The extended survey with more detailed comparison to experimental data can be found in the recent review paper .

The progress in experimental studies of properties of quark and gluon jets is very impressive. Therefore the study of the energy evolution of such parameters of multiplicity distributions of jets as their average multiplicities and widths becomes possible. It is well known that the average multiplicities of quark and gluon jets increase quite fast with energy but their ratio has a much slower dependence.

The perturbative QCD provides quite definite predictions which can be confronted to experiment. In brief, the results can be summarized by saying that the energy dependence of the mean jet multiplicity can be perfectly fitted but the ratio of gluon to quark jet multiplicities can be described within the precision of 15-20$`\%`$ only. Moreover, one can understand why next-to-leading approximation is good enough for describing the energy dependence, but it is not quite satisfactory yet for the ratio value. We show this by presenting the analytical expressions. For the corresponding Figures, we refer the reader to the review paper .

The theoretical asymptotical value of the ratio of average multiplicities equal 2.25 is much higher than its experimental values, which are in the range from 1.05 at comparatively low energies of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonance to 1.5 at $`Z^0`$ resonance. The next-to leading order (NLO) corrections reduce this ratio from its asymptotical value by about 10$`\%`$ at $`Z^0`$ energy. The NNLO and 3NLO terms diminish it further and show the tendency to approximate the data with better accuracy. The computer solution of QCD equations for the generating functions has shown even better agreement with experiment not only on this ratio but on higher moments of multiplicity distributions as well. Being perfect at $`Z^0`$ energy, the agreement in the ratio is not as good at lower energies where the theoretical curve is still about 15-20$`\%`$ above the experimental one. In other words, the theoretically predicted slope of the ratio of multiplicities in gluon and quark jets is noticeably smaller than its experimental value. Nevertheless, one can speak about the steady convergence of theory and experiment with subsequent improvements being done. Moreover, it is even surprising that any agreement is achieved in view of the expansion parameter being extremely large (about 0.5) at present energies.

The importance of studying the slopes stems from the fact that some of them are extremely sensitive (while others are not) to higher order perturbative corrections and to non-perturbative terms in the available energy region. Thus they provide us with a good chance to learn more about the structure of the perturbation series from experiment.

In the perturbative QCD, the general approach to studying the multiplicity distributions is formulated in the framework of equations for generating functions. Therefrom, one can get equations for average multiplicities and, in general, for any moment of the multiplicity distributions . In particular, two equations for average multiplicities of gluon and quark jets are written as

$`n_G(y)^{^{}}={\displaystyle }dx\gamma _0^2[K_G^G(x)(n_G(y+\mathrm{ln}x)+n_G(y+\mathrm{ln}(1x)n_G(y))`$
$`+n_fK_G^F(x)(n_F(y+\mathrm{ln}x)+n_F(y+\mathrm{ln}(1x)n_G(y))],`$ (1)
$$n_F(y)^{^{}}=dx\gamma _0^2K_F^G(x)(n_G(y+\mathrm{ln}x)+n_F(y+\mathrm{ln}(1x)n_F(y)).$$
(2)
Herefrom one can learn about the energy evolution of the ratio of multiplicities $`r`$ and of the QCD anomalous dimension $`\gamma `$ (the slope of the logarithm of average multiplicity in a gluon jet) defined as

$$r=\frac{n_G}{n_F},\gamma =\frac{n_G^{^{}}}{n_G}=(\mathrm{ln}n_G)^{^{}}.$$
(3)
Here, prime denotes the derivative over the evolution parameter $`y=\mathrm{ln}(p\mathrm{\Theta }/Q_0),p,\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are the momentum and the initial angular spread of the jet, related to the parton virtuality $`Q=p\mathrm{\Theta }/2`$, $`Q_0`$=const, $`K`$’s are the well known splitting functions, $`n_G`$ and $`n_F`$ are the average multiplicities in gluon and quark jets, $`n_G^{^{}}`$ is the slope of $`n_G`$, $`n_f`$ is the number of active flavours. The perturbative expansion of $`\gamma `$ and $`r`$ is written as

$$\gamma =\gamma _0(1a_1\gamma _0a_2\gamma _0^2a_3\gamma _0^3)+O(\gamma _0^5),$$
(4)
$$r=r_0(1r_1\gamma _0r_2\gamma _0^2r_3\gamma _0^3)+O(\gamma _0^4),$$
(5)
where $`\gamma _0=\sqrt{2N_c\alpha _S/\pi },\alpha _S`$ is the strong coupling constant,

$$\alpha _S=\frac{2\pi }{\beta _0y}\left[1\frac{\beta _1\mathrm{ln}(2y)}{\beta _0^2y}\right]+O(y^3),$$
(6)
$`\beta _0=(11N_c2n_f)/3,\beta _1=(51N_c19n_f)/3,r_0=N_c/C_F,`$ and in QCD $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colours, $`C_F=4/3`$.

The limits of integration in eqs. (1), (2) used to be chosen equal either to 0 and 1 or to $`e^y`$ and $`1e^y`$. This difference, being negligibly small at high energies $`y`$, is quite important at low energies. Moreover, it is of physics significance. With limits equal to $`e^y`$ and $`1e^y`$, the partonic cascade terminates at the perturbative level $`Q_0`$ as is seen from the arguments of multiplicities in the integrals. With limits equal to 0 and 1, one extends the cascade into the non-perturbative region with low virtualities $`Q_1xp\mathrm{\Theta }/2`$ and $`Q_2(1x)p\mathrm{\Theta }/2`$ less than $`Q_0/2`$. This region contributes terms of the order of $`e^y`$, power-suppressed in energy. It is not clear whether the equations and LPHD hypothesis are valid down to some $`Q_0`$ only or the non-perturbative region can be included as well.

Nevertheless, the purely perturbative expansion (4), (5) with constant coefficients $`a_i,r_i`$ and energy-dependent $`\gamma _0`$ is at work just in the case of limits 0 and 1. The values of $`a_i,r_i`$ for different number of active flavors $`n_f`$ are tabulated in . At $`Z^0`$-energy the subsequent terms in (5) diminish the value of $`r`$ compared with its asymptotics $`r_0=2.25`$ approximately by $`10\%,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}13}\%,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\%`$ for $`n_f=4`$ getting closer to experiment. However the theoretical value of $`r`$ still exceeds its experimental values by 15-20$`\%`$. At lower energies the value of $`r`$ diminishes due to the running property of the coupling strength. Thus these calculations are more sensitive to it than the fractality studies where it is almost unnoticed at large bins (e.g., see ).

The energy dependence of mean multiplicities can be obtained  from the definition (3) by inserting there the value of $`\gamma `$ (4) and integrating over $`y`$. Keeping the terms as small as $`y^1`$ at large $`y`$ in the exponent, one gets  the following expressions for energy dependence of multiplicities of gluon (G) and quark (F) jets

$$n_G=Ky^{a_1C^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[2C\sqrt{y}+\delta _G(y)\right],$$
(7)
with $`K`$ an overall normalization constant, $`C=\sqrt{4N_c/\beta _0}`$, and

$$\delta _G(y)=\frac{C}{\sqrt{y}}\left[2a_2C^2+\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}[\mathrm{ln}(2y)+2]\right]+\frac{C^2}{y}\left[a_3C^2\frac{a_1\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}[\mathrm{ln}(2y)+1]\right];$$
(8)
$$n_F=\frac{K}{r_0}y^{a_1C^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[2C\sqrt{y}+\delta _F(y)\right],$$
(9)
with

$$\delta _F(y)=\delta _G(y)+\frac{C}{\sqrt{y}}r_1+\frac{C^2}{y}(r_2+\frac{r_1^2}{2}).$$
(10)
It happens that 2NLO and 3NLO terms (contributing to $`y^{1/2}`$ and $`y^1`$ terms in the exponent) are almost constant at present energies and do not change the energy dependence prescribed in NLO approximation. It explains why the energy dependence is well fitted by both NLO and 3NLO formulas while 2NLO correction to the ratio $`r`$ is large and important.

The rather small difference in $`r`$ values results in quite noticeable disagreement of the slopes $`r^{}`$. Theoretical estimates can be shown  to be quite predictive for the ratio of the slopes of multiplicities but it is much less reliable to use the perturbative estimates even at $`Z^0`$-energy for such quantities as the slope of $`r`$ or the ratio of slopes of logarithms of multiplicities (the logarithmic slopes). Much higher energies are needed to do that. Thus the values of $`r^{^{}}`$ and/or of the logarithmic slopes can be used to verify the structure of the perturbative expansion.

We demonstrate it here on the example of the slope value. The slope $`r^{}`$ is extremely sensitive to higher order perturbative corrections. The role of higher order corrections is increased here compared with $`r`$ because each $`n`$th order term proportional to $`\gamma _0^n`$ gets an additional factor $`n`$ in front of it when differentiated, the main constant term disappears and the large ratio $`r_2/r_1`$ becomes crucial:

$$r^{^{}}=Br_0r_1\gamma _0^3\left[1+\frac{2r_2\gamma _0}{r_1}+\left(\frac{3r_3}{r_1}+B_1\right)\gamma _0^2+O(\gamma _0^3)\right],$$
(11)
where the relation $`\gamma _0^{^{}}B\gamma _0^3(1+B_1\gamma _0^2)`$ has been used with $`B=\beta _0/8N_c;B_1=\beta _1/4N_c\beta _0`$. The factor in front of the bracket is very small already at present energies: $`Br_0r_10.156`$ and $`\gamma _00.5`$. However, the numerical estimate of $`r^{^{}}`$ is still indefinite due to the expression inside the brackets. Let us note that each differentiation leads to a factor $`\alpha _S`$ or $`\gamma _0^2`$, i.e., to terms of higher order. For values of $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$, $`r_3`$ tabulated above ($`n_f=4`$) one estimates $`2r_2/r_14.9`$, $`(3r_3/r_1)+B_11.5`$). The simplest correction proportional to $`\gamma _0`$ is more than twice larger 1 at energies studied and the next one is about 0.4. Therefore the ever higher order terms should be calculated for the perturbative values of $`r^{}`$ to be trusted. The slope $`r^{}`$ is equal to 0 for a fixed coupling constant.

The higher order terms are also important for the moments of the multiplicity distributions . The normalized second factorial moment $`F_2`$ defines the width of the multiplicity distribution.

The asymptotical $`(\gamma _00)`$ values of $`F_2^G`$ and $`F_2^F`$ are different:

$$F_{2,as}^G=\frac{4}{3},F_{2,as}^F=\frac{7}{4}.$$
(12)
At $`Z^0`$ energy the widths of the distributions are smaller

$$F_2^G1.12,F_2^F1.34.$$
(13)
but still much larger than their experimental values 1.02 and 1.08, correspondingly. The rather large difference of the perturbative (13) and experimental values at $`Z^0`$ indicates that moments of the distributions should be sensitive to corrections. The conclusions about the third moments are similar. Nonetheless, the computer solution of the QCD equation  happened to be quite successful in fitting experimental data even for higher moments and their ratios $`H_q`$ introduced in . It shows that the role of conservation laws treated approximately in the analytical approach and accurately accounted in computer calculations becomes more important for higher moments.

Thus it is shown that the analytical perturbative approach is quite successful in demonstrating that all features of QCD predictions about multiplicities of quark and gluon jets correspond to the general trends of experimental data. Some disagreement at the level of 15-20$`\%`$ is understandable due to incomplete account for the energy-momentum conservation in such an approach. Further accurate computer solutions are needed to check if these trends persist at the higher precision level. They would take into account some non-perturbative effects as well. The dipole model of QCD which includes implicitly the non-perturbative string effects has been developed  in various versions. It describes experimental data even with higher precision at present energies .