text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The remarkable success in the understanding of non-perturbative aspects of string theories gives a new insights into the particle phenomenology. One of the phenomenologically most promising approach has been proposed by Hořava and Witten within the 11-dimensional supergravity compactified on $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold that is, on an interval of the length $`R`$ bounded by mirror hyperplanes . This theory gives the strongly-coupled limit of the heterotic string theory with two sets of $`E_8`$ super-Yang-Mills theories residing on each of the two 10-dimensional hyperplanes of the orbifold and the supergravity fields living in the full 11-dimensional bulk. The important property of this model is that when $`R`$ is increased, the 11-dimensional Planck mass decreases as $`R^1`$, while the $`E_8`$ gauge coupling remains fixed. This allows to achieve unification of gauge and gravitational couplings at a grand unification scale $`10^{16}`$ GeV  inferred in turn from the low-energy values of gauge couplings which are measured with very higher accuracy at Z-peak. Further, the above construction has initiated even more dramatic reduction of the fundamental higher-dimensional Planck mass down to the TeV scale with a millimeter size extra dimensions  and the models with TeV scale unification .

Obviously, in order to get a realistic phenomenology one has to compactify 6 of the 10 remaining dimensions, transverse to $`R`$ on a 6-dimensional volume. After such a compactification one obtains 5-dimensional theory on an interval with mirror-plane boundaries  which can be described as a 5-dimensional supergravity field theory, with some possible additional bulk supermultiplets, coupled to matter superfields residing on the boundary walls. If $`R`$ is the largest dimension in this set-up then one can ignore the finite volume of the 6-dimensional compactified space. The minimal supersymmetric Standard model (MSSM) in such a field theoretical limit has been constructed in  and we below closely follow to this construction.

One of the most important issue of the MSSM phenomenology is the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking and the origin of soft masses. A commonly accepted scenario is to break supersymmetry either spontaneously or dynamically in the hidden sector. This breaking then shows up in the visible sector due to either gauge or gravitational interactions. In the Hořava-Witten theory compactification matter could be at a strong coupling regime on one boundary, and could break supersymmetry on this boundary dynamically  through the gaugino condensation. Then the supersymmetry breaking effects can be transmitted to the other boundary by gravitational  or gauge  fields propagating in the 11- (or 5) dimensional bulk. More recently it was also shown  that supersymmetry breaking from the one boundary to another can be mediated through the super-Weyl anomaly . Thus, in these models, fields living on one of the boundaries play the role of the hidden sector for the fields living on another boundary.

A distinct higher-dimensional source of supersymmetry breaking is provided by the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism  where non-trivial boundary conditions for the fields along the compactified dimensions are responsible for the supersymmetry breaking. This mechanism has been studied recently within the framework of large extra dimensions as well .

In the present paper we investigate the possibility of the breaking of a rigid supersymmetry in 5-dimensional field-theoretic limit of the Hořava-Witten compactification . We will show that there could be a new source of supersymmetry breaking that relied on the Dvali-Shifman mechanism of supersymmetry breaking . Particularly, we will argue that in a wide class of models with bulk supermultiplets under a certain boundary condition imposed there appear classical stable wall-like field configurations that break the residual $`N=1`$ supersymmetry spontaneously, while the initial $`N=2`$ supersymmetry is explicitly broken down to $`N=1`$ due to the orbifold projection. We will also give some simple examples where $`N=1`$ supersymmetry can survive in a rather non-trivial way.

## 2 Supersymmetry in 5 dimensions compactified on S1/Z2

In this section we introduce various supersymmetric multiplets in 5-dimensional space-time subject to the $`S^1/Z_2`$ compactification. $`N=1`$ supersymmetric 5-dimensional multiplets can be easily deduced from the $`N=2`$ 4-dimensional ones (see e.g. ). Throughout the paper capitalized indices $`M,N=0,\mathrm{},4`$ will run over 5-dimensional space-time, while those of lower-case $`m,n=0,\mathrm{},3`$ will run over its 4-dimensional subspace; $`i=1,2`$ and $`a=1,2,3`$ will denote $`SU(2)`$ spinor and vector indices, respectively. We work with metric with the most negative signature $`\eta _{MN}=diag(1,1,1,1,1)`$ and take the following basis for the Dirac matrices:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^M=(\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \sigma ^m\hfill \\ \overline{\sigma }^m\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}iI_2\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & iI_2\hfill \end{array}\right)),$$
(1)
where $`\sigma ^m=(I_2,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ $`\overline{\sigma }_m`$ ($`I_2`$ is a 2$`\times `$2 identity matrix) and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$($`\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2,\sigma ^3`$) are the standard Pauli matrices. Symplectic-Majorana spinor is defined as a $`SU(2)`$-doublet Dirac spinor $`\chi ^i`$ subject to the following constraints:

$$\chi ^i=c^{ij}C\overline{\chi }^{jT},$$
(2)
where

$$c=i\sigma ^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right)\text{ and }C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c\hfill & \\ & c\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(3)
are 2$`\times `$2 and 4$`\times `$4 charge conjugation matrices, respectively. A symplectic-Majorana spinor (2) can be decompose into the 4-dimensional chiral fermions as:

$$\chi ^i=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _L^i\hfill \\ \chi _R^i\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where two-component chiral fermions $`\chi _{L,R}^i`$ are related to each other according to equation

$$\chi _{L(R)}^i=c^{ij}c\overline{\chi }_{R(L)}^j$$
(5)
### Hypermultiplet.

The 5-dimensional off shell hypermultiplet $`=(h^i,\psi ,F^i)`$ consist the scalar field $`h^i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) being a doublet of $`SU(2)`$, an $`SU(2)`$-singlet Dirac fermion $`\psi =(\psi _L,\psi _R)^T`$ and $`SU(2)`$-doublet $`F^i`$, being an auxiliary field These fields form two $`N=1`$ 4-dimensional chiral multiplets $`H_1=(h^1,\psi _L,F^1)`$and $`H_2=(h^2,\psi _R,F^2)`$. The supersymmetry transformation laws are:

$`\delta _\xi h^i`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}c^{ij}\overline{\xi }^j\psi ,`$
$`\delta _\xi \psi `$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^M_Mh^ic^{ij}\xi ^j\sqrt{2}F^i\xi ^i,`$
$`\delta _\xi F^i`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\overline{\xi }^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^M_M\psi `$ (6)
while the corresponding 5-dimensional Lagrangian has the form:

$$_{hyper}^{(5)}=\left(_Mh^i\right)^+\left(^Mh^i\right)+i\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^M_M\psi +\left(F^i\right)^+\left(F^i\right)$$
(7)
In order to project the above structure down to a 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theory on the boundary wall one should define the transformation properties of fields entering in the hypermultiplet under the discrete $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry. The $`Z_2`$ acts on the fifth coordinate as $`x^4x^4`$. A generic bosonic field $`\phi (x_m,x_4)`$ transforms like

$$\phi (x^m,x^4)=𝒫\phi (x^m,x^4)$$
(8)
while the fermionic one $`\eta (x^m,x^4)`$ transforms as:

$$\eta (x^m,x^4)=𝒫i\sigma ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\eta (x^m,x^4),$$
(9)
where $`𝒫`$ is an intrinsic parity equal to $`\pm `$1. One can assignee the eigenvalues of the parity operator to the fields considered as in Table 1. so the bulk Lagrangian is invariant under the action of $`𝒫`$. Then on the wall located at $`x_4=0`$ the transformations (6) are reduced to the following $`N=1`$ supersymmetry transformations of the even-parity states generated by parameter $`\xi _L^1`$:

$`\delta _\xi h^1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\xi _L^{1T}c\psi _L,`$
$`\delta _\xi \psi _L`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\sigma ^mc\xi _L^1_mh^1\sqrt{2}\xi _L^1\left(F^1+_4h^2\right),`$
$`\delta _\xi \left(F^1+_4h^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\xi _L^{1+}\overline{\sigma }^m_m\psi _L`$ (10)
being the usual $`N=1`$ supersymmetry transformations for the chiral multiplet. Thus what we have on the boundary wall is the simplest non-interacting massless Wess-Zumino model. Note, that an effective auxiliary field for the chiral multiplet contains the derivative term $`_4h^2`$ which is actually even under the $`Z_2`$ orbifold transformation. Thus the expectation value of $`_4h^2`$ plays the role of the order parameter of supersymmetry breaking on the boundary wall.

### Vector supermultiplet.

Now let us consider a 5-dimensional $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills supermultiplet $`𝒱=(A^M,\lambda ^i,\mathrm{\Sigma },X^a)`$. It contains a vector field $`A^M=A^{M\alpha }T^\alpha `$, a real scalar $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }^\alpha T^\alpha `$, an $`SU(2)`$-doublet gaugino $`\lambda ^i=\lambda ^{i\alpha }T^\alpha `$ and an $`SU(2)`$-triplet auxiliary field $`X^a=X^{a\alpha }T^\alpha `$ all in the adjoint representation of the gauge $`SU(N)`$ group. Here $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{}N`$ runs over the $`SU(N)`$ indices and $`T^\alpha `$ are the generators of $`SU(N)`$ algebra $`[T^\alpha ,T^\beta ]=if^{\alpha \beta \gamma }T^\gamma `$ with $`Tr[T^\alpha ,T^\beta ]=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{\alpha \beta }`$. This $`N=2`$ supermultiplet consists of an $`N=1`$ 4-dimensional vector $`V=(A^m,\lambda _L^1,X^3)`$ and a chiral supermultiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\mathrm{\Sigma }+iA^4,\lambda _L^2,X^1+iX^2)`$. Under the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry transformations the fields of the vector supermultiplet $`𝒱`$ transform as:

$`\delta _\xi A^M`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\xi }^i\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\lambda ^i,`$
$`\delta _\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\xi }^i\lambda ^i,`$
$`\delta _\xi \lambda ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\sigma ^{MN}F_{MN}\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD_M\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\xi ^ii\left(X^a\sigma ^a\right)^{ij}\xi ^j,`$
$`\delta _\xi X^a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\xi }^i(\sigma ^a)^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD_M\lambda ^ji[\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\xi }^i(\sigma ^a)^{ij}\lambda ^j],`$ (11)
where once again the symplectic Majorana spinor $`\xi ^i`$ is the parameter of supersymmetric transformations, $`D_M`$ is the usual covariant derivative, $`D_M\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\lambda ^i\right)=_M\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\lambda ^i\right)i[A_M,\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\lambda ^i\right)]`$, and $`\sigma ^{MN}=\frac{1}{4}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^M,\mathrm{\Gamma }^N]`$.

As in the case of the hypermultiplet we define an intrinsic parity $`𝒫`$ for the fields in $`𝒱`$ (see Table 1), thus projecting it down to a 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetric vector multiplet residing on the orbifold boundary. Let $`\xi _L^1`$ be the supersymmetry parameter of $`N=1`$ supersymmetric transformations on the boundary. Then on the boundary at $`x_4=0`$, the supersymmetric transformations (11) for the even-parity ($`𝒫=1`$) states reduces to:

$`\delta _\xi A^m`$ $`=`$ $`i\xi _L^{1+}\overline{\sigma }^m\lambda _L^1+h.c.,`$
$`\delta _\xi \lambda _L^1`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^{mn}F_{mn}\xi _L^1i\left(X^3_4\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\xi _L^1,`$
$`\delta _\xi \left(X^3_4\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _L^{1+}\overline{\sigma }^mD_m\lambda _L^1+h.c.`$ (12)
These are indeed the transformation laws for an $`N=1`$ 4-dimensional vector multiplet $`V=(A^m,\lambda _L^1,D)`$ with an auxiliary field $`D=X^3_4\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ . Once again the derivative term $`_4\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ enters into the effective auxiliary field on the boundary. Finally, the bulk Lagrangian invariant under the above supersymmetric transformations looks as:

$`_{YangMills}^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_5^2}}Tr\left(F_{MN}\right)^2`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_5^2}}\left(Tr\left(D_M\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^2+Tr\left(\overline{\lambda }i\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD_M\lambda \right)+Tr\left(X^a\right)^2Tr\left(\overline{\lambda }[\mathrm{\Sigma },\lambda ]\right)\right)`$
The explicit breaking of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry down to the $`N=1`$ by the orbifold projection discussed in this section is rather transparent from analyzing general $`N=2`$ supersymmetry algebra

$$\{Q^i,Q^j\}=c^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^MCP_M+Cc^{ij}Z,$$
(14)
where $`Z`$ is a central charge. The relation (14) is invariant under the $`Z_2`$ orbifold transformations:

$`Q^i`$ $``$ $`i\left(\sigma ^3\right)^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^4Q^j,`$
$`Z`$ $``$ $`Z,`$
$`P_m`$ $``$ $`P_m,\text{ }P_4P_4.`$ (15)
Then modding out the $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry

$`Q_R^1`$ $`=`$ $`Q_L^2=0,`$
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{ }P_4=0`$ (16)
we obtain from (14):

$$\{Q^i,Q^j\}=c^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^mCP_m,$$
(17)
Taking now into account that supercharges should satisfy chirality condition given by (16) and equation (5) we finally arrive to the familiar $`N=1`$ supersymmetric algebra in 4 dimensions:

$$\{Q^1,Q^1\}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^mCP_m.$$
(18)
Note however, that since (14) is operatorial equation the right hand side of (17) can be modified by the terms $`P_4\pm Z`$ when acting on the parity odd state as it was the case for the models considered in this section.

## 3 Supersymmetry breaking

### Free fields in the bulk.

We begin our discussion of supersymmetry breaking from the simplest supersymmetric models considered in the previous section. The models similar to those described above are often used to construct phenomenologically viable theories, such as MSSM on the 4-dimensional boundary . The remaining $`N=1`$ supersymmetry on the boundary can be broken through the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism  by requiring that MSSM superpartners satisfy non-trivial boundary conditions which in turn result in the soft-breaking masses ,.

However, there could exist a distinct source of supersymmetry breaking that relied on the Dvali-Shifman mechanism . This mechanism is based on the fact that any field configuration which is not BPS state and breaks translational invariance breaks supersymmetry totally as well. Such a stable non-BPS configurations with a purely finite gradient energy can also appear in a compact spaces (or, more generally, in spaces with a finite volume) if there exist moduli forming a continuous manifold of supersymmetric states. This is indeed the case in the 5-dimensional models considered in the previous section.

To be more specific consider first the case of the pure hypermultiplet in the 5-dimensional bulk. The corresponding Lagrangian (11) describes a system of free massless fields. Thus, it seems that any constant value of these fields will be a ground state of the model and, moreover, these ground states will preserve supersymmetry. However this is not the case for the parity-odd fields, in particular for the complex scalar field $`h^2`$, since $`<h^2>=const`$ does contradict the boundary condition given by (8) with $`𝒫(h^2)=1`$. Thus the boundary condition singles out the trivial configuration $`<h^2>=0`$ among all constant states. Besides this trivial configuration however, there could actually be stable non-trivial configurations as well. One of them is the constant phase configuration that linearly depends on the fifth coordinate:

$$<h^2>=ϵx^4,$$
(19)
where $`ϵ`$ is an arbitrary constant which can be chosen to be real. The configuration (19) is odd under the $`Z_2`$ orbifold transformation as it should be and obviously breaks translational invariance in $`x_4`$ direction. However, the configuration (19) does not satisfy the ordinary periodicity condition on a $`S^1`$ circle, $`h^2(x^m,x^4+2R)=h^2(x^m,x^4)`$, but rather the modified one, which we define as:

$$h^2(x^m,x^4+2R)=h^2(x^m,x^4)+2ϵR,$$
(20)
Then the configuration $`<h^2>`$ interpolates from $`0`$ to $`2ϵR`$ when one makes a full circle around the compactified dimension111Similar but BPS configurations on a non - simply connected compact spaces in lower dimensions have been considered in  (see also ) and further explored in . Contrary, non - BPS and thus supersymmetry breaking configurations in models with twisted boundary conditions are discussed in . Clearly, the Lagrangian density $`_{hyper}^{(5)}`$ (7) remains single-valued and periodic, $`_{hyper}^{(5)}(x^4+2R)=_{hyper}^{(5)}(x^4)`$, so the theory with boundary condition (20) will be consistent as it was in the case of the ordinary periodic boundary conditions. Thus, if we assume that $`h^2`$ and its superpartner $`\psi _R`$ are defined modulo $`2ϵR`$ on $`S^1/Z_2`$ space, then the configuration (19) will be perfectly compatible with $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold symmetries.

Stability of the above configuration (19) can be straightforwardly checked by performing finite deformation $`<h^2>+\delta h^2`$, where $`\delta h^20`$ at infinity. Then the variation of an energy functional:

$$E=d^5x\left[\left(_mh^2\right)^2+\left|\frac{h^2}{x^4}\right|^2\right]$$
(21)
is indeed zero for the configuration (19):

$$\frac{\delta E}{\delta h^2}=_4^4h^2=0$$
(22)
Being stable, we can treat the configuration (19) as a possible vacuum state of the model. While (19) is multiply defined, the vacuum energy density is a constant given by the purely gradient energy $`=ϵ^2`$. One can see that to see that this vacuum configuration spontaneously breaks remaining $`N=1`$ supersymmetry on the boundary wall. Indeed, the effective $`F`$-term on the boundary (see (10)) is non-zero, $`<F^1+_4h^2>=ϵ0`$, indicating the spontaneous breaking of $`N=1`$ supersymmetry.

Despite of the fact that the supersymmetry is completely broken all fields in the model remain massless, so it looks such as the Fermi-Bose degeneracy is still present. The reason for such a degeneracy is following. All four real components of $`h^2`$ and $`h^1`$ are massless, because all of them are the goldstone bosons: one mode corresponds to the spontaneously broken translational invariance and another three correspond to the complete spontaneous breaking of the global $`SU(2)`$ invariance. The massless fermion $`\psi _L`$ is a goldstino of the spontaneously broken $`N=1`$ supersymmetry on the boundary wall. Obviously, if one gauges the model, all these massless states will give rise to the masses of the corresponding gauge fields (graviphoton, gravitino and $`SU(2)`$ gauge fields) through the (super)Higgs mechanism.

Now let us turn to the $`Z_2`$-even scalar field $`h^1`$ from the $`H_1=(h^1,\psi _L,F^1)`$ chiral supermultiplet. It is obvious, that all $`x^4`$-dependent configurations of $`h^1`$ will be unstable and only those being the trivial constant can be realized as a vacuum states. These vacuum states are supersymmetry preserving. Beside the trivial homogenous configurations, however, there can exist also $`x^4`$-independent stable configuration with a winding phase:

$$<h^1>=ϵr\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\phi },$$
(23)
where $`r=\sqrt{(x^1)^2+(x^2)^2+(x^3)^2}`$ and $`\phi `$ and $`\theta `$ are azimutal and zenith angles in $`\{x^1,x^2,x^3\}`$ plane. The configuration (23) is indeed a solution of the equation of motion:

$`_M^Mh^1`$ $``$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r^2{\displaystyle \frac{h^1}{r}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{h^1}{\theta }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2h^1}{\phi ^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{^2h^1}{(x^4)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2h^1}{(x^0)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (24)
and compatible with $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold symmetries.

The solution (23) for any hyperplane $`\theta =const\pi n`$ reminds the ordinary global cosmic string configuration, except that the modulus of the scalar field $`h^1`$ never assumes a constant value. Obviously, this configuration also breaks supersymmetry. Actually, there can be the cases where both configurations (19) and (23) are present simultaneously.

The solution similar to the $`x^4`$-dependent constant phase configuration (19) can be obtained as well for the $`Z_2`$-odd scalar field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+iA_5`$ as well when the case when vector supermultiplet lives in the bulk and the non-trivial boundary condition similar to (20) for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }+iA_5`$ is assumed. This is the case not only for the Abelian (non-interacting ) vector supermultiplet but also for the non-Abelian Yang-Mills supermultiplet. For the later case the interaction terms also do not contribute to the vacuum energy, and this is indeed satisfied for the vacuum configuration where all fields except of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ have a zero vacuum expectation value.

Before proceeding further, let us make a comment on the case of massive non-interacting hypermultiplet. Namely if ordinary periodic boundary conditions are assumed, one can add a mass term to the Lagrangian $`_{hyper}^{(5)}`$ (7):

$$_{mass}^{(5)}=m\left[\overline{\psi }\psi +h^ic^{ij}\left(F^j\right)^++\left(h^i\right)^+c^{ij}F^j\right]$$
(25)
since it transforms as a full derivative under the supersymmetric transformations. The condition of vanishing $`F`$-terms leads to $`<h^i>=0`$. So we have no more continuous manifold of degenerate supersymmetric states the presence of which was so crucial in the massless case discussed above. However, in the case of $`S^1/Z_2`$ compactification $`_{mass}^{(5)}`$ is $`Z_2`$-odd, while $`_{hyper}^{(5)}`$ $`Z_2`$-even. Thus $`Z_2`$-parity actually forbids mass term $`_{mass}^{(5)}`$ (25). Note, that even in the case of compactification on a simple circle $`S^1`$ non-trivial boundary condition (20) forbids the existence of the mass term as well, since it is multiply-defined in this case. To conclude, the stable spatially extended configurations (19) and/or (24) most likely appear in models with free bulk superfields and if so they inevitable break supersymmetry completely.

### Interacting bulk fields.

Let us briefly discuss the theories with non-trivial interactions in the bulk in connection with the supersymmetry breaking mechanism. From the above discussion we conclude that the existence of a moduli forming a continuous manifold of degenerate supersymmetric states is a necessary ingredient for the considered supersymmetry breaking mechanism to work. Thus, one can ask: can some non-trivial interactions which presumably appear in realistic theories remove the degeneracy in the case of free supermultiplets above and in this way protect supersymmetry? Indeed, one can expect that a certain interaction removing the degeneracy can drive the classical field configurations to be supersymmetry preserving with vanishing $`F`$ and $`D`$ terms. It might also happen that non-vanishing potential energy ($`F`$-term) exactly cancel the gradient energy ($`D`$-term) as it is the case for the BPS configurations ,,. However, these models with $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions straightforwardly applicable to the case of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. The point is that the framework of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry is more restrictive than of $`N=1`$, so many interactions allowed by $`N=1`$ can not be straightforwardly extended in the case of $`N=2`$. Moreover, the orbifold symmetries seem to put further restrictions.

Interacting supersymmetric gauge theories in five dimensions have been discovered relatively recently . The most general Lagrangian (with up to two derivatives and four fermions) on the Coulomb branch is

$$=\frac{1}{8\pi }\text{Im}\left[d^4\theta \frac{(\mathrm{\Phi })}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^+e^{2V}\right)+d^2\theta \frac{^2(\mathrm{\Phi })}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}𝒲^2\right],$$
(26)
where $`(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a holomorphic function. The $`N=1`$ chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ along with the $`N=1`$ vector superfield $`V`$ forms $`N=2`$ vector supermultiplet $`𝒱`$, and $`𝒲`$ being the standard gauge field strength corresponding to $`V`$. The prepotential $`(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ can be at most cubic :

$$(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{4\pi }{g_5^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{c}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }^3$$
(27)
The first term in (27) produces just the kinetic terms in the Lagrangian (26), while the second one generates the non-trivial interaction terms. However, since the second term of the prepotential (27) is odd under the $`Z_2`$ orbifold transformations one should take $`c=0`$, to keep $`Z_2`$ invariance of the Lagrangian (26) . It is unlikely that this term can be generated at a quantum level (at least perturbatively) as it is the case when the fifth dimension compactifies on a simple circle . Thus, we are left with theories described by the Lagrangians of type (13) with, possibly, some additional hypermultiplets charged under the gauge group. In this case one can find the field configurations which completely breaks supersymmetry in a complete analogy to the cases that we have discussed above.

Note, however, that the Lagrangians (7) and (13) are (and therefore the total Lagrangian which includes the interaction with the bulk fields) not $`N=2`$ supersymmetric actually but rather they are $`N=1`$ supersymmetric under the constraints imposed by orbifold boundary conditions. So, if one can considers the interactions of the bulk fields with those localized on the boundary, these interactions will be explicitly $`N=1`$ supersymmetric. As we will see in the next section one can keep $`N=1`$ supersymmetry unbroken in such a cases.

## 4 Keeping supersymmetry on the boundary wall.

In this section we will consider some simple models of the bulk fields interacting with a superfields localized on the 4-dimensional boundary wall where the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry can survive. First is the model of bulk hypermultiplet interacting with the boundary $`N=1`$ chiral superfield and another is the model of $`U(1)`$ gauge supermultiplet in the bulk with Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) $`D`$-terms on the boundary. The situation that appears in these models is similar to the one discussed in  where the different non-compact 4-dimensional models are considered.

### Bulk fields interacting with boundary fields.

Let us consider the $`N=1`$ chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\varphi ,\chi _L,F_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ localized on the 4-dimensional boundary $`x^4=0`$. The boundary Lagrangian has the usual form of a 4-dimensional chiral model built from an $`N=1`$ supesymmetric chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$_\mathrm{\Phi }^{(4)}=\left(_m\varphi \right)^+\left(^m\varphi \right)+i\chi _L^+i\overline{\sigma }^m_m\chi _L+F_\mathrm{\Phi }^+F_\mathrm{\Phi }$$

$$[\frac{W_\mathrm{\Phi }}{\varphi }F_\mathrm{\Phi }+h.c.]\frac{1}{2}[\frac{^2W_\mathrm{\Phi }}{\varphi \varphi }\chi _L^Tc\chi _L+h.c.],$$
(28)
where $`W_\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a superpotential. Then the total Lagrangian has the form:

$$_{hyper}^{(5)}+\left[_\mathrm{\Phi }^{(4)}+_{\mathrm{\Phi }H_1}^{(4)}\right]\delta (x^4),$$
(29)
where $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }H_1}^{(4)}(\mathrm{\Phi },H_1)`$ describes the interactions between the chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\varphi ,\chi _L,F_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`H_1=(h^1,\psi _L,F^1+_4h^2)`$ on the boundary $`x^4=0`$ through the superpotential $`W_{\mathrm{\Phi }H_1}(\mathrm{\Phi },H_1)`$:

$$_{\mathrm{\Phi }H_1}^{(4)}=[\frac{W_{\mathrm{\Phi }H_1}}{h^1}F_{H_1}+\frac{W_{\mathrm{\Phi }H_1}}{\varphi }F_\mathrm{\Phi }+h.c.]+\text{fermionic terms,}$$
(30)
where $`F_{H_1}=F^1+_4h^2`$. The equations of motion for the $`F`$-terms resulting form the Lagrangian (29) are:

$$F^2=0,$$

$$F_\mathrm{\Phi }^+=\frac{W_\mathrm{\Phi }}{\varphi }+\frac{W_{\mathrm{\Phi }H_1}}{\varphi },$$

$$F^{1+}=\frac{W_{\mathrm{\Phi }H_1}}{h^1}\delta (x^4),$$
(31)
while the equation of motion for $`<h^2>`$ is:

$$_4\left(_4<h^2>+<F^1>\right)=0.$$
(32)
Now, if $`<F^1>0`$, then the degeneracy in $`<h^2>`$ is actually removed and the configuration $`<h^2>`$ can satisfy the following equation:

$$_4<h^2>+<F^1>=0.$$
(33)
For $`<\frac{W_{\mathrm{\Phi }H_1}}{h^1}>=\alpha =const`$ we get from (33):

$$<h^2>=\alpha \epsilon (x^4)\{\begin{array}{c}\hfill \alpha ,\text{ }x^4>0\\ \hfill \alpha ,\text{ }x^4<0\end{array}.$$
(34)
Thus, if equation $`<F_\mathrm{\Phi }>=0`$ is satisfied additionally (that can be easily justified in general), $`N=1`$ supersymmetry remains unbroken. In the case of zero $`<F^1>=0`$ the degeneracy in $`<h^2>`$ is restored and we come back to the case of free fields considered above (see eq. (19)).

### U(1) in the bulk with FI term.

Now we are going to consider the model of $`N=1`$ super-Maxwell theory in five dimensions with FI $`D`$-term. The FI term can also lift the degeneracy of supersymmetric states. If we forget for a moment about the orbifold compactification, we can straightforwardly add FI term

$$2\eta ^aX^a$$
(35)
to the Lagrangian (13) for the $`U(1)`$ supermultiplet, where $`\eta ^a`$ is a $`SU(2)`$-triplet of constants. However, $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry actually forbids such term because the auxiliary fields $`X^{1,2}`$ and $`X^3`$ have an opposite orbifold parity (see Table 1). The only FI term we can add in the simplest case considered here is that localized on the boundary wall

$$2\eta \left(X^3_4\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\delta (x^4).$$
(36)
Then the situation becomes much similar to the case of bulk hypermultiplet interacting with boundary superfield discussed just above. Indeed, the degeneracy in $`<\mathrm{\Sigma }>`$ is lifted for non-zero value $`<X^3>=g_5^2\eta \delta (x^4)`$ , since now

$$_4<\mathrm{\Sigma }>=<X^3>.$$
(37)
Thus the configuration $`<\mathrm{\Sigma }>`$ is given by (34) with $`\alpha =g_5^2\eta `$ now, and supersymmetry is indeed unbroken again.

## 5 Conclusions and outlook

The 5-dimensional supersymmetric models with $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold compactification are often considered as a phenomenologically valuable low-energy limit of the Hořava-Witten theory. Here we considered the question of supersymmetry breaking in theories of such kind. In particular, we argue that in a wide class of semi-realistic models there typically exist the spatially extended field configurations which are not supersymmetric. On the other hand, we also considered some explicit examples of models where bulk fields interact with boundary ones and show that supersymmetry can be preserved in a rather non-trivial way.

While we have concentrated in this paper on the case of compact $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold it to be possible to extend the main part of our discussions to the case of infinite extra dimensions with finite volume, that is for the case of the Randall-Sundrum compactification . Note that $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry also plays a crucial role for the localization of gravity on the 3-brane in the Randall-Sundrum model.

Since the Hořava-Witten theory essentially deals with supergravity it is interesting also to consider generalization of our models to the case of local supersymmetry222Off-shell formulation of 5-dimensional supergravity have been recently given in .. Finally, more link to the realistic phenomenological models is worth to investigate. We hope to touch these issues in future publications.

### Acknowledgments

We are indebted to A. Pashnev for useful discussions and to M. Zucker for kind communication. The work of M.C. and A.B.K. was supported by the Academy of Finland under the Project No. 163394 and that of M.T. by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research under the Grant 99-02-18417. M.T. and A.B.K. are grateful to the Abdus Salam ICTP High Energy Section where the part of this work was done.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

IFT-01/01
hep-ph/0101014

Possible LSND effect as a small perturbation

of the bimaximal texture for three active neutrinos

Wojciech Królikowski

Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University

Hoża 69, PL–00–681 Warszawa, Poland

Abstract

A particular form of mixing matrix for three active and one sterile neutrinos is proposed. Its $`3\times 3`$ part describing three active neutrinos arises from the popular bimaximal mixing matrix that works satisfactorily in solar and atmospheric experiments if the LSND effect is ignored. Then, the sterile neutrino, effective in the fourth row and fourth column of the proposed mixing matrix, is responsible for the possible LSND effect by inducing one extra neutrino mass state to exist actively. The LSND effect, if it exists, turns out to reveal its perturbative nature related to small mixing of three active neutrinos with their sterile partner.

PACS numbers: 12.15.Ff, 14.60.Pq, 12.15.Hh.

January 2001

Recent experimental results for atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$’s as well as solar $`\nu _e`$’s favour excluding the hypothetical sterile neutrinos from neutrino oscillations . However, the problem of the third neutrino mass-square difference, related to the possible LSND effect for accelerator $`\nu _\mu `$’s, still exists , stimulating a further discussion about mixing of three active neutrinos with their sterile counterparts. In the present note we contribute to this discussion by constructing a particular $`4\times 4`$ texture of three active and one sterile neutrinos, $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _s`$, whose $`3\times 3`$ part describing three active neutrinos arises from the popular bimaximal texture that works in a satisfactory way in solar and atmospheric experiments if the LSND effect is ignored .

In this popular $`3\times 3`$ texture the mixing matrix has the form

$$U^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ s_{12}/\sqrt{2}& c_{12}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{12}/\sqrt{2}& c_{12}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`c_{12}1/\sqrt{2}s_{12}`$. Such a form corresponds to $`c_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}=s_{23}`$ and $`s_{13}=0`$ in the notation usual for a general Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa –type matrix  (if the LSND effect is ignored, the upper limit $`|s_{13}|<0.1`$ follows from the negative result of Chooz reactor experiment ). Then, in the $`4\times 4`$ texture we proposed the following mixing matrix:

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}c_{14}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0& s_{14}c_{12}\\ c_{14}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}& c_{12}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& s_{14}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}\\ c_{14}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}& c_{12}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& s_{14}s_{12}/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{14}& 0& 0& c_{14}\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
with $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$. Here, $`U=\left(U_{\alpha i}\right),\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau ,s`$ and $`i=1,2,3,4`$, while the unitary transformation describing the mixing of four neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _s`$ is inverse to the form

$$\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}\nu _i,$$
(3)
where $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ and $`\nu _4`$ denote the massive neutrinos carrying the masses $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ and $`m_4`$. Of course, $`U^{}=U^1`$ and $`U^{}=U`$. Note that

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & 0\\ & U^{(3)}& & 0\\ & & & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)+O(s_{14})$$
(4)
in the limiting case of $`|s_{14}||c_{14}|`$. Since in the limit of $`s_{14}=0`$ there is no LSND effect, Eq. (4) suggests that this possible effect has a perturbative character, consistent with its small estimated amplitude $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}10^2`$.

It is interesting to consider a $`6\times 6`$ texture of three active and three sterile neutrinos which may be the active and conventional–sterile Majorana neutrinos, $`\nu _\alpha ^{(a)}\nu _{\alpha L}+\left(\nu _{\alpha L}\right)^c`$ and $`\nu _\alpha ^{(s)}\nu _{\alpha R}+\left(\nu _{\alpha R}\right)^c,\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$. Define in this texture the following mixing matrix

$$U^{(6)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U^{(3)}& 0^{(3)}\\ 0^{(3)}& 1^{(3)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C& S\\ \hfill S& C\end{array}\right),C=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{14}& 0& 0\\ 0& c_{25}& 0\\ 0& 0& c_{36}\end{array}\right),S=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s_{14}& 0& 0\\ 0& s_{25}& 0\\ 0& 0& s_{36}\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
Then, it is easy to discover that

$$U^{(6)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}& & & & 0& 0\\ & & & & 0& 0\\ & & U& & 0& 0\\ & & & & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)+O(s_{25})+O(s_{36})$$
(6)
in the limiting case of $`|s_{25}||c_{25}|`$ and $`|s_{36}||c_{36}|`$. In this case, two sterile neutrinos $`\nu _\mu ^{(s)}`$ and $`\nu _\tau ^{(s)}`$ become decoupled from three active neutrinos $`\nu _e^{(a)},\nu _\mu ^{(a)},\nu _\tau ^{(a)}`$ and from one sterile neutrino $`\nu _e^{(s)}`$, if our $`6\times 6`$ texture is realized indeed with the use of three active and three conventional–sterile Majorana neutrinos. Then, four neutrinos $`\nu _e^{(a)},\nu _\mu ^{(a)},\nu _\tau ^{(a)}`$ and $`\nu _e^{(s)}`$ mix through the matrix inverse to $`U`$ given in Eq. (2).

In the representation, where the mass matrix of three charged leptons $`e^{},\mu ^{},\tau ^{}`$ is diagonal, the $`4\times 4`$ neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$ is at the same time the diagonalizing matrix for the $`4\times 4`$ neutrino mass matrix $`M=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$:

$$U^{}MU=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4).$$
(7)
Here, by definition $`m_1m_2m_3`$ and either $`m_3m_4`$ or $`m_4m_1`$. Then, evidently $`M_{\alpha \beta }=_iU_{\alpha i}m_iU_{\beta i}^{}`$, and hence with the use of proposal (2) we obtain

$`M_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{12}^2\left(c_{14}^2m_1+s_{14}^2m_4\right)+s_{12}^2m_2,`$
$`M_{e\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{e\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}c_{12}s_{12}\left(c_{14}^2m_1+s_{14}^2m_4m_2\right),`$
$`M_{es}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{12}c_{14}s_{14}\left(m_1m_4\right),`$
$`M_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\tau \tau }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[s_{12}^2\left(c_{14}^2m_1+s_{14}^2m_4\right)+c_{12}^2m_2+m_3\right],`$
$`M_{\mu \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[s_{12}^2\left(c_{14}^2m_1+s_{14}^2m_4\right)+c_{12}^2m_2m_3\right],`$
$`M_{\mu s}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\tau s}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}s_{12}c_{14}s_{14}\left(m_1m_4\right),`$
$`M_{ss}`$ $`=`$ $`s_{14}^2m_1+c_{14}^2m_4,`$ (8)
where $`c_{12}1/\sqrt{2}s_{12}i.e.,\theta _{12}\pi /4`$. Of course, $`M^{}=M`$ and $`M^{}=M`$.

Due to mixing of four neutrino fields described by Eq. (3), neutrino states mix according to the relation

$$|\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}^{}|\nu _i.$$
(9)
This implies the following familiar formulae for probabilities of neutrino oscillations $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta `$ on the energy shell:

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=|\nu _\beta |e^{iPL}|\nu _\alpha |^2=\delta _{\beta \alpha }4\underset{j>i}{}U_{\beta j}^{}U_{\beta i}U_{\alpha j}U_{\alpha i}^{}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ji},$$
(10)
being valid if the quartic product $`U_{\beta j}^{}U_{\beta i}U_{\alpha j}U_{\alpha i}^{}`$ is real, what is certainly true when the tiny CP violation is ignored. Here,

$$x_{ji}=1.27\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2L}{E},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2=m_j^2m_i^2$$
(11)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2`$, $`L`$ and $`E`$ measured in eV2, km and GeV, respectively ($`L`$ and $`E`$ denote the experimental baseline and neutrino energy, while $`p_i=\sqrt{E^2m_i^2}Em_i^2/2E`$ are eigenvalues of the neutrino momentum $`P`$).

With the use of proposal (2) for the $`4\times 4`$ neutrino mixing matrix the oscillation formulae (10) lead to the probabilities

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ $``$ $`1(2c_{12}s_{12})^2c_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}4(1c_{12}^2s_{14}^2)c_{12}^2s_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41},`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`P(\nu _\tau \nu _\tau )1(c_{12}s_{12})^2c_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}`$
$`(1s_{12}^2s_{14}^2)\left(\mathrm{sin}^2x_{32}+s_{12}^2s_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}\right)s_{12}^2s_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{43},`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)`$ $`=`$ $`P(\nu _\tau \nu _e)2(c_{12}s_{12})^2\left(c_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}+s_{14}^4\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}\right),`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )`$ $``$ $`(c_{12}s_{12})^2c_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}+(1s_{12}^2s_{14}^2)\left(\mathrm{sin}^2x_{32}s_{12}^2s_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}\right)`$ (12)
$`+s_{12}^2s_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{43}`$
in the approximation where $`m_1^2m_2^2`$ (and both are much different from $`m_3^2`$ and $`m_4^2`$), and also to the probabilities involving the sterile neutrino $`\nu _s`$

$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _s)`$ $`=`$ $`P(\nu _\tau \nu _s)=2s_{12}^2(c_{14}s_{14})^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41},`$
$`P(\nu _e\nu _s)`$ $`=`$ $`4c_{12}^2(c_{14}s_{14})^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41},`$
$`P(\nu _s\nu _s)`$ $`=`$ $`14(c_{14}s_{14})^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}`$ (13)
where only $`m_1^2`$ and $`m_4^2`$ participate.

If $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{41}^2|`$ (i.e., $`|x_{21}||x_{41}|`$) and

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2(10^5\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}10}^7\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}10}^{10})\mathrm{eV}^2$$
(14)
for LMA or LOW or VAC solution, respectively , then under the conditions of solar experiments the first Eq. (12) with $`c_{12}1/\sqrt{2}s_{12}`$ gives

$$P(\nu _e\nu _e)_{\mathrm{sol}}1c_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{21})_{\mathrm{sol}}\frac{(1+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2}{2},c_{14}^2=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}0.8\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.9}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.7}.$$
(15)
If $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{41}^2|,|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{43}^2|`$ (i.e., $`|x_{21}||x_{32}||x_{41}|,|x_{43}|`$) and

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^23\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(16)
then for atmospheric experiments the second Eq. (12) with $`c_{12}1/\sqrt{2}s_{12}`$ leads to

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )_{\mathrm{atm}}1\frac{1+c_{14}^2}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{32})_{\mathrm{atm}}\frac{(3+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2}{8},\frac{1+c_{14}^2}{2}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}1.$$
(17)
Eventually, if $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{41}^2|`$ and

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{41}^2|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^21\mathrm{eV}^2(e.g.),$$
(18)
then in the LSND experiment the third Eq. (12) with $`c_{12}1/\sqrt{2}s_{12}`$ implies

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)_{\mathrm{LSND}}\frac{s_{14}^4}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{41})_{\mathrm{LSND}},\frac{s_{14}^4}{2}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}10^2(e.g.).$$
(19)
Thus,

$$s_{14}^20.14,c_{14}^20.86,\frac{1+c_{14}^2}{2}0.93,\frac{(1+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2}{2}0.13,\frac{(3+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2}{8}0.068,$$
(20)
if the LSND effect really exists and develops the amplitude $`s_{14}^4/210^2`$. Through Eq. (19) the LSND effect (if it exists) reveals its perturbative nature related to the small constant $`s_{14}^4/210^2`$ that measures coupling of $`\nu _1`$ with $`\nu _4`$ in the process of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations at LSND.

Concluding, we can say that Eqs. (15), (17) and (19) are not inconsistent with solar, atmospheric and LSND experiments, respectively. Note that in Eqs. (15) and (17) there are constant terms that modify moderately the usual two–flavor formulae. Any LSND–type accelerator experiment, in contrast to the solar and atmospheric projects, investigates a small $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation effect caused possibly by the sterile neutrino. So, this effect (if it exists) plays the role of a small perturbation of the basic bimaximal texture for three active neutrinos.

The final equations (15), (17) and (19) follow from the first three oscillation formulae (12), if either

$$m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2m_4^2$$
(21)
with

$$m_3^21\mathrm{eV}^2,m_4^21\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2(10^510^{10})\mathrm{eV}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^210^3\mathrm{eV}^2$$
(22)
or

$$m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2m_4^2$$
(23)
with

$$m_1^21\mathrm{eV}^2,m_4^21\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2(10^510^{10})\mathrm{eV}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^210^3\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(24)
Indeed, when either $`m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2m_4^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$ or $`m_4^2m_1^2m_2^2m_3^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$, we may obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{41}^2|1\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The second case of $`m_4^2m_1^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$, where the neutrino mass state $`i=4`$ induced by the sterile neutrino $`\nu _s`$ gets a vanishing mass, seems to be more natural than the first case of $`m_3^2m_4^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$, where such a state gains a considerable amount of mass ”for nothing”. This is so, unless one believes in the liberal maxim ”whatever is not forbidden is allowed”: the Majorana righthanded mass is not forbidden by the electroweak SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry, in contrast to Majorana lefthanded and Dirac masses requiring this symmetry to be broken (for the active Majorana neutrinos), say, by a Higgs mechanism that becomes then the origin of these masses. Here, the active Majorana neutrinos are $`\nu _\alpha ^{(a)}\nu _{\alpha L}+(\nu _{\alpha L})^c,\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$, while the sterile Majorana neutrino is $`\nu _s\nu _{sR}+(\nu _{sR})^c`$ with $`\nu _{sL}=(\nu _{sR})^c=(\nu _s^c)_L`$ (implying effectively the Dirac $`1\times 3`$ mass matrix and the Dirac transposed $`3\times 1`$ mass matrix as well as the Majorana righthanded trivial $`1\times 1`$ mass matrix). Possibly $`\nu _s=\nu _e^{(s)}`$ \[cf. the comment to Eq. (6)\]; then $`\nu _{sR}=\nu _{eR}`$.

In the approximation used before to derive Eqs. (15), (17) and (19) there are true also the relations

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)_{\mathrm{sol}}`$ $``$ $`1P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )_{\mathrm{sol}}P(\nu _e\nu _\tau )_{\mathrm{sol}}(c_{14}s_{14})^2,(c_{14}s_{14})^20.12,`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $``$ $`1P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )_{\mathrm{atm}}{\displaystyle \frac{(3+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2}{8}},{\displaystyle \frac{(3+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2}{8}}0.068,`$ (25)
as well as

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)_{\mathrm{LSND}}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{s_{14}}{c_{14}}\right)^2P(\nu _\mu \nu _s)_{\mathrm{LSND}},\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{s_{14}}{c_{14}}\right)^20.082.$$
(26)
The second relation (25) demonstrates a leading role of the appearance mode $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ in the disappearance process of atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$’s, while the relation (26) indicates a direct interplay of the appearance modes $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$. In the case of the first relation (25), both appearance modes $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ contribute equally to the disappearance process of solar $`\nu _e`$’s, and the role of the appearance mode $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ (responsible for the constant term) is also considerable.

Finally, for the Chooz experiment , where it happens that $`(x_{ji})_{\mathrm{Chooz}}(x_{ji})_{\mathrm{atm}}`$, the first Eq. (12) predicts

$$P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)_{\mathrm{Chooz}}P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)_{\mathrm{atm}}1\frac{(1+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2}{2},\frac{(1+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2}{2}0.13,$$
(27)
if there is the LSND effect with the amplitude $`s_{14}^4/210^2`$ as written in Eq. (19). Here, $`(1+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{41})_{\mathrm{Chooz}}(1+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2/2`$. In terms of the usual two–flavor formula, the negative result of Chooz reactor experiment excludes the disappearance process of reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s for moving $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{Chooz}}\stackrel{>}{}0.1`$, when the range of moving $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{Chooz}}^2\stackrel{>}{}3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ is considered. In our case $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{Chooz}}(1+c_{14}^2)s_{14}^2/2`$ for $`\mathrm{sin}^2x_{\mathrm{Chooz}}1`$. Thus, the Chooz effect for reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s may appear at the edge (if the LSND effect really exists).

From the neutrinoless double $`\beta `$ decay, not observed so far, the experimental bound $`M_{ee}_iU_{ei}^2m_i<[0.4(0.2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.0}(0.6)]`$ eV follows . On the other hand, with $`c_{12}1/\sqrt{2}s_{12}`$ and the values (20) the first Eq. (8) gives

$$M_{ee}\frac{1}{2}(0.86m_1+0.14m_4+m_2),$$
(28)
what in the case of Eq. (21) with $`m_4^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$ or Eq. (23) with $`m_1^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$ leads to the estimate $`M_{ee}0.07m_40.07`$ eV or $`M_{ee}0.9m_10.9`$ eV, respectively. Of course, the value $`(m_4^2`$ or $`m_1^2)\mathrm{\Delta }m^2_{\mathrm{LSND}}1\mathrm{eV}^2`$ in Eq. (18) is only an example, and may turn out to be smaller.

References

1. Cf. e.g. E. Kearns, Plenary talk at ICHEP 2000 at Osaka; C. Gonzales–Garcia, Talk at ICHEP 2000 at Osaka.

2. G. Mills, Talk at Neutrino 2000; R.L. Imlay, Talk at ICHEP 2000 at Osaka; and references therein.

3. Cf. e.g. F. Feruglio, Acta Phys. Pol. B 31, 1221 (2000); J. Ellis, Summary of Neutrino 2000, hep-ph/0008334; and references therein.

4. W. Królikowski, hep–ph/0007255; hep–ph/0010331.

5. M. Appolonio et al., Phys. Lett. B 420, 397 (1998); B 466, 415 (1999).

6. M.V. Garzelli and C. Giunti, hep–ph/0012247.

7. L. Baudis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 41 (1999); cf. also Review of Particle Physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 15, 1 (2000), p. 363.


text:
# Mesoscopic superpositions of vibronic collective states of 𝑁 trapped ions

\[

## Abstract

We propose a scalable procedure to generate superpositions of motional coherent states and also entangled vibronic states in $`N`$ trapped ions. Beyond their fundamental importance, these states may be of interest for quantum information processing and may be used in experimental studies on decoherence.

\]

In quantum mechanics, the superposition principle, requiring that all formal superpositions of quantum states give rise to new physical states, plays a fundamental role . In particular, it implies that probability densities of observable quantities, in a superposition state, usually exhibit interference effects instead of simply being added. This principle has been successfully applied to explain a large class of new phenomena in the microscopic level. As an important example one can refer to the prediction of superpositions of the $`K^0`$ meson and its antiparticle as forming new and different states, the so called $`K_1^0`$ and $`K_2^0`$ particles . Superpositions of product states of composite systems also lead to the fundamental quantum nonlocality, characteristic of quantum entanglement. The quantum correlations resulting of such superpositions lead to the violation of the Bell’s inequalities  and are essential ingredients for quantum computation  and quantum cryptography .

Despite its experimental manifestations in the microscopic level, the quantum superposition principle seems not to be applicable in the macroscopic world, as it would predict, for example, the existence of superpositions of a macroscopic object being at different places. Such situation would stay in clear contradiction to our observations and measurements of macroscopic phenomena. In fact, the great majority of states predicted by the superposition principle are not observed in our daily life. In recent years decoherence is being widely accepted as the mechanism responsible for this fact and, consequently, for the emergency of classicality. It consists in the fast decay of quantum superpositions into statistical mixtures, and can be viewed as a consequence of always present interactions between a quantum system and its environment. It precludes, in general, the existence of macroscopic superpositions, except for very short time intervals and is the key to understanding the fuzzy boundary between quantum and classical behavior. As coherence disappears very fast as the system grows, it is important to be able to generate mesoscopic superposition of states and analyze how it looses its coherence. In this context, superpositions of coherent states of both the electromagnetic field in a high $`Q`$ microwave cavity and of the vibrational motion of a single trapped ion have been generated and their behavior in the presence of the environment has been studied. Fast generation of superposition of states involving a large number of particles and excitations has become an experimental challenge in order to understand how the transition from quantum to classical occurs.

In this paper, we discuss some proposals for generating, in a fast and controllable way, vibronic superpositions of mesoscopic states involving, in principle, an arbitrary number $`N`$ of ions. Relying on homogeneous resonant bichromatic excitations of the $`N`$ ions with laser light, we show that is possible to generate superpositions of $`N+1`$ coherent states of the center of mass (CM) vibration of the $`N`$ ions, equally spaced in phase space. We also show that it is possible to obtain mesoscopic entangled states involving the internal and external degrees of freedom of the $`N`$ ions and odd and even coherent superpositions of the CM motion of the ions, by additionally using a dispersive bichromatic interaction. Our procedure opens the possibility of generating mesoscopic superpositions of several massive particles in a scalable and fast way.

Let us consider $`N`$ two-level ions of mass $`m`$, confined to move in the $`z`$ direction in a Paul trap. They are cooled down to very low temperatures  and may perform small oscillations around their equilibrium positions, $`z_{j0},j=1,2\mathrm{}N.`$ We denote by $`Z=_{j=1,N}z_j/N,`$ the center of mass coordinate and we set the origin at its equilibrium position. All ions are simultaneously illuminated by two classical homogeneous Raman effective pulses $`\stackrel{}{E}_I=\stackrel{}{E}_{0I}e^{i(\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{r}\omega _It\phi _I)}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{E}_{II}=\stackrel{}{E}_{0II}e^{i(\stackrel{}{q}_2\stackrel{}{r}\omega _{II}t\phi _{II})},`$ with angular frequencies $`\omega _I`$ and $`\omega _{II}`$ and wave vectors $`\stackrel{}{q}_1=\stackrel{}{q}_2=\stackrel{}{q},`$ parallel to the $`z`$ direction. The Raman pulses frequencies will be chosen to be quasi-resonant with a long-living electronic transition between two ionic hyperfine levels $`|e_j`$ and $`|g_j`$ $`(j=1,\mathrm{}N),`$ with energies $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ and $`0`$, respectively. The Raman laser relative phases are chosen to be the same $`\phi _I=\phi _{II}=\phi .`$ The total Hamiltonian of the system may be written, in the optical rotating wave approximation (RWA), as

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}},$$
(1)
with

$$\widehat{H}_0=\mathrm{}\omega _0\underset{j=1,N}{}|e_je_j|+\mathrm{}\nu \widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+\underset{\lambda =1,N1}{}\mathrm{}\nu _\lambda \widehat{b}_\lambda ^{}\widehat{b}_\lambda ,$$
(2)
and

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{j=1,N}{}e^{i(q\widehat{z}_j\phi )}|e_jg_j|\left(e^{i\omega _It}+e^{i\omega _{II}t}\right)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(3)
The operators $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}_\lambda `$ ($`\widehat{a}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{b}_\lambda ^{}`$) are the annihilation (creation) operators associated with the center of mass mode of frequency $`\nu `$ and with the $`N1`$ other vibrational modes of frequency $`\nu _\lambda ,`$ respectively. For simplicity, we have assumed that the same Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (taken as real) is associated with both lasers.

We start by taking the frequencies $`\omega _I`$ and $`\omega _{II}`$ resonant with the center of mass vibronic transition in the $`k`$-th blue and $`k`$-th red sideband as

$$\omega _I=\omega _0+k\nu \mathrm{and}\omega _{II}=\omega _0k\nu .$$
(4)
For small $`k`$ values, we may safely assume that only the center of mass motion will be excited, given that the next eigenfrequency is $`\nu _r=\sqrt{3}\nu ,`$ corresponding to the stretch mode. The following frequencies $`(\sqrt{29/5}\nu )`$depend on the number of ions and have being calculated in Ref. . Following the usual treatment for one single ion interacting with a laser field , we make the RWA with respect to the CM vibrational frequency and select the terms that oscillate with minimum frequency. In the Lamb-Dicke limit the interaction Hamiltonian may be written, in the interaction picture, as

$$H_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\eta ^k}{k!}\widehat{J}_\mathrm{T}(\widehat{a}^k+\widehat{a}^k)$$
(5)
where $`\eta =q\sqrt{\mathrm{}/2Nm\nu }`$ is the Lamb-Dicke parameter associated to the center of mass motion of the $`N`$ ions, $`\widehat{J}_\mathrm{T}`$ is an angular momentum-like operator defined as

$$\widehat{J}_\mathrm{T}=\frac{i^ke^{i\phi }}{2}\underset{j=1,N}{}\widehat{\sigma }_{j+}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(6)
Here $`\widehat{\sigma }_{+j}=|_j_j|`$ $`=e^{iqz_{j0}}|e_jg_j|`$ is a flip operator associated with the electronic transition $`|g_j|e_j`$ in the ion $`j`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_j=\widehat{\sigma }_{j+}^{}.`$ Without loss of generality we may set the phase $`\phi =k\pi /2,`$ so that $`\widehat{J}_\mathrm{T}=\widehat{J}_x`$ in the usual angular momentum operator convention for phases. Similarly, by choosing a phase $`\phi =(k+1)\pi /2,`$ $`\widehat{J}_\mathrm{T}=\widehat{J}_y.`$ We also may define the $`z`$ component of the angular momentum by $`\widehat{J}_z=\frac{1}{2}_j(|e_je_j||g_jg_j|).`$

From Eq. (5), it is easy to show that the time evolution operator, in the interaction picture, at time $`t,`$ is a sum of products of unitary operators on the motional states and projection operators on the ion internal states

$$\widehat{U}_k(t)=\underset{j,m}{}\widehat{D}_k(m\alpha _k(t))|j,m_{xx}j,m|$$
(7)
where

$$\widehat{D}_k(\alpha _k)=e^{\alpha _k\widehat{a}^k\alpha _k\widehat{a}^k},$$
(8)
with $`\alpha _k(t)=2i\mathrm{\Omega }t\eta ^k/k!.`$ Also, $`|j,m_x`$ are the simultaneous eigenvectors of the operators $`\widehat{J}_x`$ and $`\widehat{J}^2\widehat{J}_x^2+\widehat{J}_y^2+\widehat{J}_z^2,`$ associated with the eigenvalues $`m=j,(j1),\mathrm{}..j`$ and $`j(j+1),`$ respectively. $`j`$ varies from $`0`$ $`(1/2)`$ to $`N/2`$ by steps of $`1,`$ if $`N`$ is even (odd).

The action of the time evolution operator $`\widehat{U}_k`$ of Eq. (7) corresponds to unitary operations $`\widehat{D}_k(m\alpha _k)`$ on the motional degrees of freedom conditioned to the value $`m`$ of the $`x`$ component of the ”angular momentum” electronic state. From now on we set $`k=1`$ that is, the excitation occurs in the first red and blue sidebands. In this case $`\widehat{D}_1(\alpha )`$ is the displacement operator which generates, when acting on the ground state, coherent states of the vibrational motion of the center of mass

$$|\alpha _{\mathrm{coh}}=e^{(\alpha \widehat{a}^{}\alpha \widehat{a})}|0=e^{|\alpha |^2/2}\frac{\alpha ^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n.$$
(9)
If initially the ions are in the vibronic ground state, $`|ggg\mathrm{}|0`$ $`|N/2,N/2_z|0,`$ their state, after an interaction time $`t`$ with the laser fields, will be given by

$$\underset{m,m^{}}{}d_{m^{},m}^{N/2}(\pi /2)d_{m,N/2}^{N/2}(\pi /2)|N/2,m^{}_z|m\alpha _{\mathrm{coh}},$$
(10)
where $`\alpha =2i\eta \mathrm{\Omega }t.`$ Here, $`d_{m^{},m}^j(\theta )=_zj,m^{}|e^{i\theta J_y}|j,m_z`$ are the matrix elements of the rotation operator along the $`y`$ axis in the $`\{|j,m_z\}`$ basis of the eigenstates of $`\widehat{J}_z`$ and $`\widehat{J}^2`$ . This allows us to prepare in a very simple way and with a single Raman pulse, a mesoscopic superposition of vibronic quantum states in $`N`$ trapped ions. If we now measure the electronic state of the ions and find the totally excited state $`|eee\mathrm{},`$ we know that the motional state is given, up to a normalization factor, by

$$\underset{m=N/2,N/2}{}\frac{(1)^{(N/2m)}}{(N/2m)!(N/2+m)!}|m\alpha _{\mathrm{coh}}.$$
(11)
If $`N`$ is even, this state is a superposition of the vacuum and a series of coherent states of amplitudes $`m\alpha ,`$ the probability for measuring them decreasing with $`|m|.`$ If $`N`$ is odd, the vacuum is not present in the superposition. When we have only one ion Eq. (11) represents a single odd coherent state. Note that the procedure above relies on a resonant excitation of the ions and therefore can be accomplished with very short interaction times. The measurement of the electronic state can be done by monitoring the fluorescence of a cyclic transition of the ions , where a dark event detects the totally excited state. In Fig. 1, we show the Wigner function for the state given by Eq. (11), when $`|\alpha |=3`$ and $`N=3.`$ Note that the vacuum is not present, as $`N`$ is odd, and that interference manifests strongly, due to the multiple superposition of coherent states.

If the frequencies of the lasers in Eq. (3) are slightly off resonance and such that $`\omega _I=\omega _0+\nu +\delta `$ and $`\omega _{II}=\omega _0\nu \delta ,`$ the time evolution operator may be written, for small values of $`\eta ,`$ approximately as $`e^{i\lambda t\widehat{J}_y^2},`$ where $`\lambda =8(\mathrm{\Omega }\eta )^2/\delta `$ and we have chosen $`\phi =0.`$ This dispersive bichromatic interaction does not change the motional state and has been studied in a series of recent papers. It has been implemented successfully in the laboratory for generating GHZ states in two and four ions.

We now show that, by using both the dispersive and the resonant bichromatic interaction, it is possible to prepare even and odd coherent states of large amplitudes and involving a large number of ions. It will be convenient to consider first the case where we have an odd number of ions $`N.`$ If we start with the ground state $`|ggg\mathrm{}|0`$ and apply the dispersive bichromatic interaction during a time $`t=\pi /(2\lambda ),`$ we get, using the properties of the rotation matrices,

$$e^{i\widehat{J}_y^2\pi /2}|j,j_z|0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|j,j_x|j,j_x)|0,$$
(12)
where $`j=N/2.`$

Now we apply a second pulse using the resonant lasers of frequencies $`\omega _0\pm \nu ,`$ with a relative phase of $`\pi /2`$ with respect to the previous pulse, during a time $`\tau .`$ This corresponds to apply the operator $`U_1(\tau )`$ on the state given in Eq. 12 leading to the state

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`(|N\alpha /2_{\mathrm{coh}}|N/2,N/2_x`$ (13)
$``$ $`|N\alpha /2_{\mathrm{coh}}||N/2,N/2_x.`$ (14)
where $`\alpha =2i\mathrm{\Omega }\eta \tau .`$ This state is a superposition of two vibronic states involving, in principle, a large number $`N`$ of ions. The two internal states $`|N/2,\pm N/2_x`$ are strongly correlated to the two vibrational states $`|\pm N\alpha /2_{\mathrm{coh}},`$ whose average amplitude of oscillation, $`|N\alpha /2|,`$ is proportional both to $`\sqrt{N}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\tau .`$ This state is an example of a strongly entangled mesoscopic state that is scalable, and its experimental realization may become a useful tool in analyzing the dependence of decoherence on the number of degrees of freedom of this system.

If, after the preparation of the state given in Eq. (13), we measure the state $`|eee\mathrm{}`$, we obtain

$$\frac{|N\alpha /2_{\mathrm{coh}}+|N\alpha /2_{\mathrm{coh}}}{\sqrt{2+2e^{|N\alpha |^2/2}}}.$$
(15)
The state given in Eq. (15) is an even coherent state of the center of mass motion of an odd large number of ions. An odd coherent state is obtained if one measures the state $`|ggg\mathrm{}`$ instead of $`|eee\mathrm{}.`$ Thus, we have a procedure that generates a superposition of two states of motion, vibrating out of phase, where a large number of particles may be involved. In principle, the number of ions in this state is limited mostly by decoherence and by the capacity of producing lasers with high homogeneity. For large $`N,`$ the probability to produce these state superpositions by this procedure decreases as $`1/2^N.`$ However, an efficient method to obtain even or odd coherent states, each one with probability $`1/2,`$ even for large $`N,`$ will be described below.

As before, we start with the ground state and apply in succession the dispersive bichromatic interaction as in Eq. (12) and the resonant bichromatic interaction to obtain the state given in Eq. (13). We then apply again the same dispersive bichromatic interaction during the same interval of time. The resulting state is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{|eee..(|N\alpha /2|N\alpha /2)`$ (16)
$`|ggg\mathrm{}(|N\alpha /2+|N\alpha /2)\}`$ (17)
Measuring the dark fluorescence of either the $`N`$ electronic excited state or the $`N`$ electronic ground state, we get the associated odd or even coherent state with probability 1/2. This procedure shows how to generate efficiently mesoscopic superposition states for a large number of ions.

Similar results may be obtained for $`N`$ even, if an additional resonant carrier $`\pi /2`$ pulse, is applied at the same time and with a relative phase $`\phi =\pi /2`$ with respect to the dispersive pulse.

In conclusion, we have presented a procedure to generate several kinds of mesoscopic superpositions of states involving $`N`$ ions. Superpositions of coherent states evenly spaced on a line may be generated rapidly, through resonant interactions. Even or odd coherent state may be obtained if we use also dispersive bichromatic interactions. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first proposal to generate, in a scalable way, mesoscopic superpositions of collective motional states of $`N`$ trapped ions. Note that, as long as the field is spatially homogeneous over the trapped ions, the only parameter that depends on $`N,`$ in our model, is the time we applied the laser pulses, which varies with $`\sqrt{N}(N)`$ during the resonant (dispersive) interaction. We also expect that the cooling of the vibrational modes for $`N`$ ions will be achieved with the same effectiveness as in the case of four ions. For this reason the constraints, in our proposal, on parameters like laser pulse timing, laser frequencies, as well as cooling to the ground state should remain almost the same as in the case of a single trapped ion. Then, the number of ions involved will be limited mostly by the scale of time in which decoherence occurs.

We believe that the proposals presented in this letter are ready to be implemented in the laboratory. They should help to build larger mesoscopic quantum superpositions in trapped ions, to study experimentally, at large scale, decoherence processes and for applications in quantum information processing.

This work was partially supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), the Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), the Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX) and Fundação José Bonifácio (FUJB).