format: text

text:
# A note on 𝑁=4 supersymmetric mechanics on Kähler manifolds.

## I Introduction

Supersymmetric mechanics attracts permanent interest since its introduction . However, studies focussed mainly on the $`N=2`$ case, and the most important case of $`N=4`$ mechanics did not receive enough attention, though some interesting observations were made about this subject: let us mention that the most general $`N=4,D=1,3`$ supersymmetric mechanics described by real superfield actions were studied in Refs.  respectively, and those in arbitrary $`D`$ in Ref.; in  $`N=4,D=2`$ supersymmetric mechanics described by chiral superfield actions were considered; the general study of supersymmetric mechanics with arbitrary $`N`$ was performed recently in Ref.. In the Hamiltonian language classical supersymmetric mechanics can be formulated in terms of superspace equipped with some supersymplectic structure (and corresponding non-degenerate Poisson brackets). After quantization the odd coordinates are replaced by the generators of Clifford algebra. It is easy to verify that the minimal dimension of phase superspace, which allows to describe a $`D`$dimensional supersymmetric mechanics with nonzero potential terms, is $`(2D.2D)`$, while supersymmetry specifies both the admissible sets of configuration spaces and potentials.

In the present work we propose the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric one-dimensional sigma-models (with and without central charge) on Kähler manifold $`(M_0,g_{a\overline{b}}dz^ad\overline{z}^{\overline{b}})`$, with $`(2d.2d)_{\text{I}\mathrm{C}}`$-dimensional phase space equipped with the symplectic structure

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _0i\overline{}𝐠=\\ =d\pi _adz^a+d\overline{\pi }_ad\overline{z}^a+\\ +R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _i^a\overline{\eta }_i^bdz^ad\overline{z}^b+g_{a\overline{b}}D\eta _i^aD\overline{\eta }_i^b\end{array}$$
(1)
where

$$𝐠=ig_{a\overline{b}}\eta ^a\sigma _0\overline{\eta }^b,D\eta _i^a=d\eta _i^a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a\eta _i^adz^a,i=1,2$$
(2)
while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a,R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}`$ are respectively the connection and curvature of the Kähler structure. The odd coordinates $`\eta _i^a`$ belong to the external algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(M_0)`$, i.e. they transform as $`dz^a`$. This symplectic structure becomes canonical in the coordinates $`(p_a,\chi ^k)`$

$$\begin{array}{c}p_a=\pi _a\frac{i}{2}_a𝐠,\chi _i^m=\mathrm{e}_b^m\eta _i^b:\\ \mathrm{\Omega }=dp_adz^a+d\overline{p}_{\overline{a}}d\overline{z}^{\overline{a}}+d\chi _i^md\overline{\chi }_i^{\overline{m}},\end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{e}_a^m`$ are the einbeins of the Kähler structure: $`\mathrm{e}_a^m\delta _{m\overline{m}}\overline{\mathrm{e}}_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{m}}=g_{a\overline{b}}.`$ So, to quantize this model, one chooses

$$\widehat{p}_a=i\frac{}{z^a},\widehat{\overline{p}}_{\overline{a}}=i\frac{}{\overline{z}^{\overline{a}}},[\widehat{\chi }_i^m,\widehat{\overline{\chi }}_j^{\overline{n}}]_+=\delta ^{m\overline{n}}\delta _{ij}.$$

We restrict ourselves by the supersymmetric mechanics whose supercharges are linear in the Grassmann variables $`\eta _i^a`$, $`\overline{\eta }_i^{\overline{a}}`$. These systems can be obtained by dimensional reduction from $`N=2`$ supersymmetric $`(1+1)`$dimensional sigma-models by Alvarez-Gaumé and Freedman ; in the simplest case of $`d=1`$ and in the absence of central charge these systems coincide with the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric mechanics described by the chiral superfield action . The constructed systems are connected also with the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric mechanics describing the low-energy dynamics of monopoles and dyons in $`N=2,4`$ super-Yang-Mills theories .

We also propose the related construction of $`N=2`$ supersymmetric mechanics whose phase superspace is the external algebra of an arbitrary Kähler manifold. Under the additional assumption that the base manifold is a hyper-Kähler one, this system should get the $`N=4`$ supersymmetry. The relation of this system with antisymplectic geometry is discussed.

## II Sigma-model with standard $`N=4`$ SUSY.

Let us consider a one-dimensional supersymmetric sigma-model on an arbitrary Riemann manifold $`(M_0,g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu )`$, with $`(2D.2D)`$dimensional phase superspace equipped with a supersymplectic structure

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }=d\left(p_\mu dx^\mu +\theta _i^\mu g_{\mu \nu }D\theta _i^\nu \right)=\\ =dp_\mu dx^\mu +\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\theta _i^\mu \theta _i^\nu dx^\lambda dx^\rho \\ +g_{\mu \nu }D\theta _i^\mu D\theta _i^\nu ,\end{array}$$
(4)
where

$$D\theta _i^\mu =d\theta _i^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \lambda }^\nu \theta _i^\rho dx^\lambda ,$$

and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^\mu `$, $`R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }`$ are respectively the Cristoffel symbols and curvature tensor of underlying metric $`g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$. On this phase superspace one can formulate the one-dimensional $`N=2`$ supersymmetric sigma-model with supercharges linear on Grassmann variables, viz

$$\begin{array}{c}Q_1=p_\mu \theta _1^\mu +U_{,\mu }(x)\theta _2^\mu ,Q_1=p_\mu \theta _2^\mu U_{,\mu }(x)\theta _1^\mu ,\\ =\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\left(p_\mu p_\nu +U_{,\mu }U_{,\nu }\right)+U_{\mu ;\nu }\theta _1^\mu \theta _2^\nu +\\ +R_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\theta _1^\mu \theta _2^\nu \theta _1^\lambda \theta _2^\rho :\\ \{Q_i,Q_j\}=2\delta _{ij},\{Q_i,\}=0,i=1,2.\end{array}$$
(5)
One can also introduce a specific constant of motion (“fermionic number”)

$$\begin{array}{c}=g_{\mu \nu }\theta _1^\mu \theta _2^\nu :\{,Q_i\}=ϵ_{ij}Q_j\{,\}=0.\end{array}$$
(6)
To get the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric one-dimensional sigma-model mechanics, one should require that the target space $`M_0`$ is a Kähler manifold $`(M_0,g_{a\overline{b}}dz^ad\overline{z}^{\overline{b}})`$, $`g_{a\overline{b}}=^2K(z,\overline{z})/z^a\overline{z}^b`$ (this restriction follows also from the considerations of superfield actions: indeed, the $`N`$extended supersymmetric mechanics obtained from the action depending on $`D`$ real superfields, have a $`(2D.ND)_{\mathrm{IR}}`$-dimensional symplectic manifold, whereas those obtained from the action depending on $`d`$ chiral superfields have a $`(2d.Nd/2)_{\text{I}\mathrm{C}}`$dimensional phase space, with the configuration space being a $`2d`$dimensional Kähler manifold). In that case the phase superspace can be equipped by the supersymplectic structure (1). The corresponding Poisson brackets are defined by the following non-zero relations (and their complex-conjugates):

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\pi _a,z^b\}=\delta _a^b,\{\pi _a,\eta _i^b\}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ac}^b\eta _i^c,\\ \{\pi _a,\overline{\pi }_b\}=R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _k^c\overline{\eta }_k^d,\{\eta _i^a,\overline{\eta }_j^b\}=g^{a\overline{b}}\delta _{ij}.\end{array}$$

To construct on this phase superspace the Hamiltonian mechanics with standard $`N=4`$ supersymmetry algebra

$$\begin{array}{c}\{Q_i^+,Q_j^{}\}=\delta _{ij},\\ \{Q_i^\pm ,Q_j^\pm \}=\{Q_i^\pm ,\}=0,i=1,2,\end{array}$$
(7)
let us choose the supercharges given by the functions

$$Q_1^+=\pi _a\eta _1^a+iU_{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{a}},Q_2^+=\pi _a\eta _2^aiU_{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}}.$$
(8)
Then, calculating the commutators (Poisson brackets) of these functions, we get that the supercharges (8) belong to the superalgebra (7) when the functions $`U_a,\overline{U}_{\overline{a}}`$ are of the form

$$U_a(z)=\frac{U(z)}{z^a},\overline{U}_{\overline{a}}(\overline{z})=\frac{\overline{U}(\overline{z})}{\overline{z}^a},$$
(9)
while the Hamiltonian reads

$$\begin{array}{c}=g^{a\overline{b}}(\pi _a\overline{\pi }_b+U_a\overline{U}_{\overline{b}})iU_{a;b}\eta _1^a\eta _2^b+i\overline{U}_{\overline{a};\overline{b}}\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{b}}\\ R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _1^a\overline{\eta }_1^b\eta _2^a\overline{\eta }_2^d,\end{array}$$
(10)
where $`U_{a;b}_a_bU\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c_cU`$.

The constant of motion counting the number of fermions, reads:

$$=ig_{a\overline{b}}\eta ^a\sigma _3\overline{\eta }^{\overline{b}}:\{Q_i^\pm ,\}=\pm iQ_i^\pm ,\{,\}=0.$$
(11)
Performing the Legendre transformation one gets the Lagrangian of the system

$$\begin{array}{c}=g_{a\overline{b}}\dot{z}^a\dot{\overline{z}}^{\overline{b}}\frac{1}{2}\eta _k^ag_{a\overline{b}}\frac{D\overline{\eta }_k^{\overline{b}}}{d\tau }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{D\eta _k^a}{d\tau }g_{a\overline{b}}\overline{\eta }^{\overline{b}}\\ g^{a\overline{b}}U_a\overline{U}_{\overline{b}}+iU_{a;b}\eta _1^a\eta _2^bi\overline{U}_{\overline{a};\overline{b}}\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{b}}+\\ +R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _1^a\overline{\eta }_1^b\eta _2^c\overline{\eta }_2^d.\end{array}$$
(12)
The supersymmetry transformations of the Lagrangian are of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _i^+z^a=ϵ\eta _i^a,\\ \delta _i^+\eta _j^a=ϵ\left(iϵ_{ij}\overline{U}_{\overline{b}}g^{\overline{b}a}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a\eta _i^b\eta _j^c\right);\\ \delta _i^{}z^a=0,\\ \delta _i^{}\eta _j^a=ϵ\delta _{ij}\dot{z}^a\end{array}$$
(13)
where $`ϵ`$ is an odd parameter: $`p(ϵ)=1`$.
So, we get the action for one-dimensional sigma-model with four exact real supersymmetries. It can be straightly obtained by the dimensional reduction of $`N=2`$ supersymmetric $`(1+1)`$ dimensional sigma-model by Alvarez-Gaumé and Freedman  (the mechanical counterpart of this system without potential term was constructed in ). Notice that the above-presented $`N=4`$ SUSY mechanics for the simplest case, i.e. $`d=1`$, was obtained by Berezovoy and Pashnev  from the chiral superfield action

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{2}K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+2U(\mathrm{\Phi })+2\overline{U}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is chiral superfield. It seems to be obvious that a similar action depending on $`d`$ chiral superfields will generate the above-presented $`N=4`$ SUSY mechanics.

## III $`N=4`$ sigma-model with central charge

Let us consider a generalization of above system, which possesses $`N=4`$ supersymmetry with central charge

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\mathrm{\Theta }_i^+,\mathrm{\Theta }_j^{}\}=\delta _{ij}+𝒵\sigma _{ij}^3,\{\mathrm{\Theta }_i^\pm ,\mathrm{\Theta }_j^\pm \}=0,\\ \{𝒵,\}=\{𝒵,\mathrm{\Theta }_k^\pm \}=0.\end{array}$$
(15)
For this purpose one introduces the supercharges

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Theta }_1^+=\left(\pi _a+iG_{,a}(z,\overline{z})\right)\eta _1^a+i\overline{U}_{,\overline{a}}(\overline{z})\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{a}},\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_2^+=\left(\pi _aiG_{,a}(z,\overline{z})\right)\eta _2^ai\overline{U}_{,\overline{a}}(\overline{z})\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}},\end{array}$$
(16)
where the real function $`G(z,\overline{z})`$ obeys the conditions

$$_a_bG+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^c_cG=0,G_{,a}(z,\overline{z})g^{a\overline{b}}_{\overline{b}}\overline{U}(\overline{z})=0.$$
(17)
The first equation in (17) is nothing but the Killing equation of the underlying Kähler structure (let us remind, that the isometries of the Kähler structure are Hamiltonian holomorphic vector fields) given by the vector

$$𝐆=G^a(z)_a+\overline{G}^a(\overline{z})\overline{}_a,G^a=ig^{a\overline{b}}\overline{}_bG.$$
(18)
The second equation means that the vector field $`𝐆`$ leaves the holomorphic function invariant:

$$_𝐆U=0G^a(z)U_a(z)=0.$$

Calculating the Poisson brackets of these supercharges, we get explicit expressions for the Hamiltonian

$$\begin{array}{c}g^{a\overline{b}}\left(\pi _a\overline{\pi }_{\overline{b}}+G_{,a}G_{\overline{b}}+U_{,a}\overline{U}_{,\overline{b}}\right)\\ iU_{a;b}\eta _1^a\eta _2^b+i\overline{U}_{\overline{a};\overline{b}}\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{b}}+\frac{1}{2}G_{a\overline{b}}(\eta _k^a\overline{\eta }_k^{\overline{b}})\\ R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _1^a\overline{\eta }_1^b\eta _2^c\overline{\eta }_2^d\end{array}$$
(19)
and the central charge

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒵=i(G^a\pi _a+G^{\overline{a}}\overline{\pi }_{\overline{a}})+\frac{1}{2}_a\overline{}_{\overline{b}}G(\eta ^a\sigma _3\overline{\eta }^{\overline{b}}).\end{array}$$
(20)
It can be checked by a straightforward calculation that the function $`𝒵`$ indeed belongs to the center of the superalgebra (15). The scalar part of each phase with standard $`N=2`$ supersymmetry can be interpreted as a particle moving on the Kähler manifold in the presence of an external magnetic field with strength $`F=iG_{a\overline{b}}dz^ad\overline{z}^{\overline{b}}`$ and in the potential field $`U_{,a}(z)g^{a\overline{b}}\overline{U}_{,\overline{b}}(\overline{z})`$.

The Lagrangian of the system is of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}=g_{a\overline{b}}\left(\dot{z}^a\dot{\overline{z}}^b+\frac{1}{2}\eta _k^a\frac{D\overline{\eta }_k^{\overline{b}}}{d\tau }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{D\eta _k^a}{d\tau }\overline{\eta }^{\overline{b}}\right)\\ g^{a\overline{b}}(G_aG_{\overline{b}}+U_a\overline{U}_{\overline{b}})+\\ +iU_{a;b}\eta _1^a\eta _2^bi\overline{U}_{\overline{a};\overline{b}}\overline{\eta }_1^{\overline{a}}\overline{\eta }_2^{\overline{b}}+R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\eta _1^a\overline{\eta }_1^b\eta _2^a\overline{\eta }_2^d.\end{array}$$
(21)
The supersymmetry transformations read

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _i^+z^a=ϵ\eta _i^a,\\ \delta _i^+\eta _j^a=ϵ\left(iϵ_{ij}\overline{U}_{\overline{b}}g^{\overline{b}a}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a\eta _i^b\eta _j^c\right),\\ \delta _i^{}z^a=0,\\ \delta _i^{}\eta _j^a=ϵ(\delta _{ij}\dot{z}^aϵ_{ij}G^a).\end{array}$$
(22)
Assuming that $`(M_0,g_{a\overline{b}}dz^ad\overline{z}^b)`$ is the hyper-Kähler metric and that $`U(z)+\overline{U}(\overline{z})`$ is a tri-holomorphic function while the function $`G(z,\overline{z})`$ defines a tri-holomorphic Killing vector, one should get the $`N=8`$ supersymmetric one-dimensional sigma-model. In that case instead of the phase with standard $`N=2`$ SUSY arising in the Kähler case, we shall get the phase with standard $`N=4`$ SUSY. The latter system can be viewed as a particular case of $`N=4`$ SUSY mechanics describing the low-energy dynamics of monopoles and dyons in $`N=2,4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory. Notice that, in contrast to the $`N=4`$ mechanics suggested in the mentioned papers, in the above-proposed (hypothetic) construction also the four hidden supersymmetries could be explicitly written. We wish to consider this $`N=8`$ supersymmetric mechanics, as well as its application to the solutions of super-Yang-Mills theory, in a forthcoming paper.

## IV The related construction

Let us consider a supersymmetric mechanics whose phase superspace is the external algebra of the Kähler manifold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(M)`$, where $`(M,g_{A\overline{B}}(z,\overline{z})dz^Ad\overline{z}^{\overline{B}})`$ plays the role of the phase space of the underlying Hamiltonian mechanics. The phase superspace is a $`(D.D)_{\text{I}\mathrm{C}}`$ dimensional Kähler supermanifold equipped by the super-Kähler structure

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }=i\overline{}\left(K(z,\overline{z})ig_{A\overline{B}}\theta ^A\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}}\right)=\\ =i(g_{A\overline{B}}iR_{A\overline{B}C\overline{D}}\theta ^C\overline{\theta }^{\overline{D}})dz^Ad\overline{z}^{\overline{B}}\\ +g_{A\overline{B}}D\theta ^AD\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}},\end{array}$$
(23)
where $`D\theta ^A=d\theta ^A+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^A\theta ^Bdz^C`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^A`$, $`R_{A\overline{B}C\overline{D}}`$ are respectively the Cristoffel symbols and curvature tensor of the underlying Kähler metrics $`g_{A\overline{B}}=_A_{\overline{B}}K(z,\overline{z})`$.

The corresponding Poisson bracket can be presented in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\{,\}=i\stackrel{~}{g}^{A\overline{B}}_A\overline{}_{\overline{B}}+g^{A\overline{B}}\frac{}{\theta ^A}\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}}},\end{array}$$
(24)
where

$$_A=\frac{}{z^A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}^C\theta ^B\frac{}{\theta ^C}$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{A\overline{B}}^1=(g_{A\overline{B}}iR_{A\overline{B}C\overline{D}}\theta ^C\overline{\theta }^{\overline{D}}).$$

On this phase superspace one can immediately construct the mechanics with $`N=2`$ supersymmetry

$$\{Q_+,Q_{}\}=\stackrel{~}{},\{Q_\pm ,Q_\pm \}=\{Q_\pm ,\stackrel{~}{}\}=0,$$
(25)
given by the supercharges

$$\begin{array}{c}Q_+=_AH(z,\overline{z})\theta ^A,Q_{}=_{\overline{A}}H(z,\overline{z})\overline{\theta }^{\overline{A}}\end{array}$$
(26)
where $`H(z,\overline{z})`$ is the Killing potential of the underlying Kähler structure,

$$_A_BH\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}^C_CH=0,V^A(z)=ig^{A\overline{B}}_{\overline{B}}H(z,\overline{z}).$$

The Hamiltonian of the system reads

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{}=g_{A\overline{B}}V^A\overline{V}^{\overline{B}}+iV_{,C}^Ag_{A\overline{B}}\overline{V}_{,\overline{D}}^{\overline{B}}\theta ^C\overline{\theta }^{\overline{D}}\\ R_{A\overline{B}C\overline{D}}V_{,C}^A\overline{V}_{;\overline{D}}^{\overline{B}}\theta ^A\theta ^C\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}}\overline{\theta }^{\overline{D}},\end{array}$$
(27)
while the supersymmetry transformations are given by the vector fields $`\delta ^\pm \{Q^\pm ,\}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta ^{}=iV^A(z)\frac{}{\theta ^A}iV_{;C}^A\theta ^C𝒩_A^D_D,\end{array}$$
(28)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(𝒩^1\right)_B^A\delta _B^AiR_{BC\overline{D}}^A\theta ^C\overline{\theta }^{\overline{D}}.\end{array}$$

Requiring that $`M`$ be a hyper-Kähler manifold, we can double the number of supercharges and get a $`N=4`$ supersymmetric mechanics. In that case the Killing potential should generate a tri-holomorphic vector field.

The phase space of the system under consideration can be equipped, in addition to the Poisson bracket corresponding to (23), with the antibracket (odd Poisson bracket) associated with the odd Kähler structure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=i\overline{}K_1,`$ where $`K_1=\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }_AK(z,\overline{z})\theta ^A+\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }_{\overline{A}}K(z,\overline{z})\overline{\theta }^{\overline{A}}`$, $`\alpha =0,\pi /2`$,

$$\{,\}_1=\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }g^{\overline{A}B}_{\overline{A}}\frac{}{\theta ^B}+c.c..$$
(29)
It is easy to observe that the following equality holds

$$𝐋\{\stackrel{~}{𝒵},\}=\{Q,\}_1,$$
(30)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒵}H(z,\overline{z})+i_A_{\overline{B}}H(z,\overline{z})\theta ^A\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}}\\ Q=\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }Q_++\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }Q_{}.\end{array}$$
(31)
Then, after obvious algebraic manipulation with the Jacobi identities, one gets the following relations:

$$\{\stackrel{~}{𝒵},\stackrel{~}{}\}=\{\stackrel{~}{𝒵},Q_\pm \}=0.$$
(32)
Hence, the function $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ is a constant of motion, which belongs to the center of the superalgebra defined by $`Q_\pm ,,\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$. One can also introduce another constant of motion, i.e. the “fermionic number”

$$\stackrel{~}{}=ig_{AB}\theta ^A\overline{\theta }^{\overline{B}}:\{Q_\pm ,\stackrel{~}{}\}=\pm iQ_\pm ,\{\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{}\}=0.$$
(33)
Notice that the supermanifolds provided by the even and odd symplectic (and Kähler) structures, and particularly the equation (30), were studied in the context of the problem of the description of supersymmetric mechanics in terms of antibrackets  (this problem was suggested in ). Later this structure was found to be useful in equivariant cohomology, e.g. for the construction of equivariant characteristic classes and derivation of localization formulae , since the vector field (30) can be identified with the Lie derivative along the vector field generated by $`H`$, while the vector fields $`\{\stackrel{~}{},\}_1`$, $`\{H,\}_1`$ corresponds to external differential and operator of inner product. Hence, $`\{H+\stackrel{~}{},H+\stackrel{~}{}\}_1=2Q`$, and $`H+\stackrel{~}{}`$ defines an equivariant Chern class; the Lie derivative of the even symplectic structure (23) along the vector field $`\{H+\stackrel{~}{},\}_1`$ yields the equivariant even pre-symplectic structure, generating equivariant Euler classes of the underlying Kähler manifold.

Notice also, that the antibrackets are the basic object of the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism , while the pair of antibrackets, corresponding to the $`\alpha =0,\pi /2`$, together with corresponding nilpotent vector fields $`\{,\}_1`$ and the associated $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$operators, form the “triplectic algebra” underlying the BRST-antiBRST-invariant extension of Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism .

## V Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to S. Krivonos for numerous illuminating discussions, and to E. Ivanov and A. Pashnev for useful comments. A.N. thanks INFN for financial support and kind hospitality during his stay in Frascati, within the framework of a INFN-JINR agreement.


text:
# Nonextensive Thermostatistics and the 𝐻-Theorem

## Abstract

The kinetic foundations of Tsallis’ nonextensive thermostatistics are investigated through Boltzmann’s transport equation approach. Our analysis follows from a nonextensive generalization of the “molecular chaos hypothesis”. For $`q>0`$, the $`q`$-transport equation satisfies an $`H`$-theorem based on Tsallis entropy. It is also proved that the collisional equilibrium is given by Tsallis’ $`q`$-nonextensive velocity distribution.

2

In 1988 Tsallis proposed a striking generalization of the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy functional given by ,

$$S_q=k\underset{i}{}p_i^q\mathrm{ln}_qp_i,$$
(1)
where $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $`p_i`$ is the probability of the $`i`$-th microstate, the parameter $`q`$ is any real number, and the $`q`$-logarithmic function is defined as

$$\mathrm{ln}_qf=(1q)^1(f^{1q}1),(f>0).$$
(2)
For future reference it is convenient to introduce the $`q`$-exponential function $`e_q(f)`$, which is defined by

$$e_q(f)=[1+(1q)f]^{1/1q},$$
(3)
if $`1+(1q)f>0`$ and by $`e_q(f)=0`$ otherwise. These $`q`$-functions satisfy, for $`f,g>0`$, the identities (see  for a thorough discussion)

$`e_q(\mathrm{ln}_qf)`$ $`=`$ $`f,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{ln}_qf+\mathrm{ln}_qg`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}_qfg+(q1)(\mathrm{ln}_qf)(\mathrm{ln}_qg).`$ (5)
When $`q1`$ all the above expressions reproduce those verified by the usual elementary functions and Tsallis’ entropy reduces to the standard logarithmic one, namely: $`S_1=k_ip_i\mathrm{ln}p_i`$. The most distinctive trait of $`S_q`$ is its pseudoadditivity. Given two systems $`A`$ and $`B`$ independent in the sense of factorizability of the (joint) microstate probabilities, the Tsallis entropy of the composite system $`AB`$ verifies $`S_q(AB)=S_q(A)+S_q(B)+(1q)S_q(A)S_q(B)`$. Hence, $`|1q|`$ quantifies the lack of extensivity of $`S_q`$.

The $`q`$-thermostatistics associated with $`S_q`$  is nowadays being hailed as the possible basis of a theoretical framework appropriate to dealwith nonextensive settings. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that $`S_q`$ provides a convenient frame for the thermostatistical analysis of many physical systems and processes , such as the velocity distribution of galaxy clusters , Landau damping in plasmas , superdiffusion phenomena  and, more generally, systems exhibiting a nonextensive thermodynamic behaviour due, for instance, to long range interactions . It is worth to stress that some of the aforementioned developments involve a quantitative agreement between experimental data and theoretical models based on Tsallis’ thermostatistics . For instance, it was experimentally found that pure electron plasmas in Penning traps relax to metaestable states whose radial density profiles do not maximize Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy. However, Boghosian showed that the observed profiles are well described by Tsallis’ thermostatistics with $`q`$ close to $`1/2`$ . Beck’s recent treatment of fully developed turbulent flows constitutes another interesting example . Based on Tsallis formalism with $`q1`$, Beck calculated the probability density functions of velocity differences depending on distance and Reynolds number, as well as the concomitant scalling exponents, finding good agreement with turbulence experiments.

A large portion of the experimental evidence supporting Tsallis proposal involves the non-Maxwellian (power-law) velocity $`q`$-distribution associated with Tsallis’ generalized canonical ensemble approach to the classical $`N`$-body problem. This equilibrium $`q`$-distribution may be derived through a simple nonextensive generalization of the Maxwell ansatz . Alternatively, it can be obtained maximizing Tsallis entropy under the constraints imposed by normalization and the energy mean value , a procedure closely related to Jaynes information theory formulation of statistical mechanics . So far, most theoretical studies on Tsallis thermostatistics have been developed on the basis of the maximum entropy principle . As widely known, this approach to statistical ensembles was, in the case of standard statistical mechanics, historically the latest one to appear. Even when Gibbs’ introduced his ensemble approach, the kinetic foundations of statistical mechanics were already well developed. On the light of this, it is not unreasonable to expect that a systematic exploration of the kinetic aspects of Tsallis’ thermostatistics may be crucial to illuminate its foundations as well as to achieve a better understanding of its physical applications.

In this framework, the aim of this letter is to obtain the equilibrium velocity $`q`$-distribution from a slight generalization of the kinetic Boltzmann $`H`$-theorem. The whole argument follows simply by modifying the molecular chaos hypothesis, as originally advanced by Boltzmann, and generalizing the local entropy expression in according to Tsallis proposal.

The statistical content of Boltzmann’s kinetic theory relies on two main ingredients. The first one is a specific functional form for the local entropy, which is expressed by Boltmann’s logarithmic measure

$$H[f]=kf(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v},t)\mathrm{ln}f(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v},t)d^3v.$$
(6)
The second one is the celebrated hypothesis of molecular chaos (“Stosszahlansatz”), which is tantamount to assume the factorizability of the joint distribution associated with two colliding molecules

$$f(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{v}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2,\stackrel{}{v}_2,t)=f(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{v}_1,t)f(\stackrel{}{x}_2,\stackrel{}{v}_2,t).$$
(7)
These two statistical assumptions are inextricably intertwined. Therefore, if one adopts a generalized nonextensive entropic measure, a consistent generalization of the “Stosszahlansatz” hypothesis should also be implemented. Different choices for the collision term in the kinetic equation (which, in turn, is determined by the “Stosszahlansatz”) lead to different forms for the entropic functional exhibiting a time derivative with definite sign. As a consequence, the form of the entropic functional behaving monotonically with time (and consequently admitting an $`H`$-theorem) depends upon the form of the collisional term appearing in the kinetic equation.

Historically, the basic assumption (7) (sometimes referred to as “Maxwell’s ansatz”) has generated a lot of controversy. The fundamental role played by this hypothesis was first realized by S.H. Burbury  in 1894. The precise characterization of the conditions of its applicability has been an important conceptual problem of theoretical physics ever since . The physical meaning of equation (7) is that colliding molecules are uncorrelated. The irreversible behaviour of Boltzmann’s equation can be traced back to this assumption. It is clearly a time asymmetric hypothesis, since molecules assumed to be uncorrelated before a collision certainly become correlated after the collision has taken place .

Although very plausible, and endowed with an intuitively clear statistical meaning, Boltzmann’s particular expression (7) for the molecular chaos hypothesis can not be deduced from first principles. By no means it is an inescapable consequence of classical mechanics. Boltzmann himself accepted that the hypothesis of molecular chaos was needed in order to obtain irreversibility. Further, He also admitted that the hypothesis may not always be valid for real gases, especially at high densities .

In what follows we introduce a consistent generalization of this hypothesis in accordance with Tsallis’ nonextensive formalism. We remark that equation (7) implies that the logarithm of the joint distribution $`f(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{v}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2,\stackrel{}{v}_2,t)`$ is equal to the sum of two terms, each one involving only the marginal distribution associated with one of the colliding molecules. Our generalized hypothesis is to assume that a power of the joint distribution (instead of the logarithm) is equal to the sum of two terms, each one depending on just one of the colliding molecules. By recourse to the $`q`$-generalization of the logarithm function, this condition can be formulated in a way that recovers the standard hypothesis of molecular chaos as a limit case.

Let us now consider a spatially homogeneous gas of $`N`$ hard-sphere particles of mass $`m`$ and diameter $`s`$, under the action of an external force $`\stackrel{}{F}`$, and enclosed in a volume $`V`$. The state of a non-relativistic gas is kinetically characterized by the one-particle distribution function $`f(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v},t)`$. The quantity $`f(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v},t)d^3xd^3v`$ gives, at each time t, the number of particles in the volume element $`d^3xd^3v`$ around the particle position $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$. In principle, this distribution function verifies the $`q`$-nonextensive Boltzmann equation

$$\frac{f}{t}+\stackrel{}{v}\frac{f}{\stackrel{}{x}}+\frac{1}{m}\stackrel{}{F}\frac{f}{\stackrel{}{v}}=C_q(f),$$
(8)
where $`C_q`$ denotes the $`q`$-collisional term. The left-hand-side of (8) is just the total time derivative of the distribution function. Hence, nonextensivity effects can be incorporated only through the collisional term. Naturally, $`C_q(f)`$ may be calculated in accordance with the laws of elastic collisions. Its specific structure must lead to the standard result in the limit $`q1`$. We also make the following assumptions: (i) Only binary collisions occur in the gas; (ii) $`C_q(f)`$ is a local function of the slow varying distribution function; (iii) $`C_q(f)`$ is consistent with the energy, momentum and particle number conservation laws.

Our main goal is now to show that the generalized collisional term $`C_q(f)`$ leads to a nonnegative expression for the time derivative of the $`q`$-entropy, and that it does not vanish unless the distribution function assumes the equilibrium form associated with $`q`$-Maxwellian gas . Now, following standard lines we define

$$C_q(f)=\frac{s^2}{2}|\stackrel{}{V}\stackrel{}{e}|R_q𝑑\omega d^3v_1,$$
(9)
where $`d^3v_1`$ stands for the volume element in velocity space, $`\stackrel{}{V}=\stackrel{}{v}_1\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the relative velocity before collision, $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ denotes an arbitrary unit vector, and $`d\omega `$ is an elementary solid angle such that $`s^2d\omega `$ is the area of the “collision cylinder” (for details on the collision’s geometry see Refs.). The quantity $`R_q(f,f^{})`$ is a difference of two correlation functions (just before and after collision), which are assumed to satisfy a $`q`$-generalized form of the molecular chaos hypothesis. In the present $`q`$-nonextensive scenario we will assume that

$`R_q(f,f^{})=e_q(f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf^{}+f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf_1^{})`$ (11)
$`e_q(f^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf+f_1^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf_1),`$
where primes refer to the distribution function after collision. When $`q1`$ equation (11) reduces to Boltzmann’s molecular chaos hypothesis

$$\underset{q1}{lim}R_q=R=f^{}f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}ff_1.$$
(12)
For the local entropy we adopt Tsallis expression,

$$H_q=kf^q\mathrm{ln}_qfd^3v,$$
(13)
which reduces to the standard Boltzmann measure (6) for $`q=1`$. Now, we first take the partial time derivative of the above expression

$$\frac{H_q}{t}=k[qf^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf+1]\frac{f}{t}d^3v.$$
(14)
As one may check, by inserting the generalized Boltzmann equation (8) into (14), and using (9), expression (14) can be rewritten as a balance equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_q}{t}}+\stackrel{}{S_q}=G_q(\stackrel{}{r},t),`$
where the $`q`$-entropy flux vector $`\stackrel{}{S_q}`$ associated with $`H_q`$ is defined by

$$\stackrel{}{S_q}=k\stackrel{}{v}f^q\mathrm{ln}_qfd^3v,$$
(15)
and the source term $`G_q`$ reads

$`G_q={\displaystyle \frac{ks^2}{2}}{\displaystyle |\stackrel{}{V}\stackrel{}{e}|(1+qf^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf)R_q𝑑\omega d^3v_1d^3v}.`$
In order to rewrite $`G_q`$ in a more symmetrical form some elementary operations must be done in the above expression. Following standard lines , we first notice that interchanging $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v_1}`$ does not affect the value of the integral. This happens because the magnitude of the relative velocity vector and the scattering cross section are invariants. Similarly, the value of $`G_q`$ is not altered if we integrate with respect to the variables $`\stackrel{}{v^{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v_1^{}}`$ (we recall that $`d^3v_1d^3v=d^3v_1^{}d^3v^{}`$). Note that this step requires the change of sign of $`R_q`$ (inverse collision). Implementing these operations and symmetrizing the resulting expression, one may show that the source term can be written as

$`G_q(\stackrel{}{r},t)={\displaystyle \frac{ks^2}{8}}{\displaystyle }|\stackrel{}{V}\stackrel{}{e}|(qf_1^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf_1+qf^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf`$ (17)
$`qf_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}qf_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf^{})R_qd\omega d^3v_1d^3v.`$
Making now the transformation $`f^{q1}\mathrm{ln}_qf=\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f`$, where $`q^{}=2q`$, and rearranging terms we find

$`G_q={\displaystyle \frac{ks^2q}{8}}{\displaystyle |\stackrel{}{V}\stackrel{}{e}|(\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f^{}+\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_1)}`$
$`[e_q(\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f^{}+\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})e_q(\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f+\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_1)]d\omega d^3v_1d^3v.`$
Note that the integrand in the above equation is never negative, because $`(\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f^{}+\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_1^{}\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_1)`$ and $`[e_q(\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f^{}+\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{})e_q(\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f+\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_1)]`$ always have the same signs. Therefore, for positive values of $`q`$, we obtain the $`H_q`$-theorem

$$\frac{H_q}{t}+\stackrel{}{S_q}=G_q(\stackrel{}{r},t)0.$$
(18)
This inequality states that the $`q`$-entropy source must be positive or zero, thereby furnishing a kinetic argument for the second law of thermodynamics in the framework of Tsallis’ nonextensive formalism. However, our argument does not constitute a kinetic proof of the second law. As happens with the standard Boltzmann equation, our generalization can not be obtained only from the Hamiltonian equations of motion. Specific statistical assumptions are also needed.

When $`q<0`$ the entropy of a given volume element decreases with time. Consequently, it seems that within the present context, and according to the second law of thermodynamics, the parameter $`q`$ should be restricted to positive values . Notice also that the entropy does not change with time if $`q=0`$. Similar results were previously obtained using the master equation and the relaxation time approximation . Naturally, Tsallis’ $`q`$-parameter may be further restricted by other physical requirement, such as a finite total number of particles. In point of fact, appropriate normalization of Tsallis’ distribution requires a $`q`$-parameter greater than 1/3 .

To complete the proof, we now show that Tsallis’ equilibrium $`q`$-distribution  is a natural consequence of the $`H_q`$-theorem. As happens in the canonical $`H`$-theorem, $`G_q=0`$ must be a necessary and sufficient condition for equilibrium. Since the integrand appearing in the expression of $`G_q`$ cannot be negative, this occur if and only if

$$\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f^{}+\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}=\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f+\mathrm{ln}_q^{}f_1.$$
(19)
Therefore, the above sum of $`q`$-logarithms remains constant during a collision: it is a summational invariant. Only the particles total mass, energy, and momentum behave like that . Consequently, we must have

$$\mathrm{ln}_qf=a_o+\stackrel{}{a_1}\stackrel{}{v}+a_2\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{v},$$
(20)
where $`a_o`$ and $`a_2`$ are constants and $`\stackrel{}{a_1}`$ is an arbitrary constant vector. By introducing the barycentric velocity, $`\stackrel{}{u}`$, we may rewrite (20) as

$$\mathrm{ln}_qf=\alpha \gamma ^{}|\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{u}|^2,$$
(21)
with a different set of constants. Taking $`A_q^{}=e_q^{}(\alpha )`$ and defining $`\gamma =\frac{\gamma ^{}}{(1q^{})\alpha }`$, we obtain a generalized Maxwell’s distribution

$$f_0(\stackrel{}{v})=A_q^{}[1(1q^{})\gamma |\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{u}|^2]^{1/1q^{}},$$
(22)
where $`A_q^{}`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ may be functions of the temperature. The above expression is the general form of the $`q`$-Maxwellian distribution function.

Summing up, we have discussed a $`q`$-generalization of Boltzmann’s kinetic equation along the lines of Tsallis nonextensive thermostatistics. Our main results followed from a slightly modified version of the statistical hypotheses underlying Boltzmann’s approach, incorporating (i) the nonextensivity property, explicitly introduced trough a new functional form for the local entropy, and (ii) a nonfactorizable expression for the molecular chaos hypothesis. Both ingredients were shown to be consistent with the standard laws of (microscopic) dynamics. They reduce to the familiar Boltzmann assumptions in the extensive limit $`q1`$. The usual statistical hypothesis of completely uncorrelated colliding molecules seems to be too restrictive. It is conceivable that correlations may be relevant within some scenarios. Here we have provided a simple type of correlations that makes sense within Tsallis’ nonextensive thermostatistics. Other possibilities, also leading to Tsallis’ distribution (22), are obtained if one replaces the function $`e_q(x)`$ in (11) by other positive, increasing function $`F_q(x)`$ such that $`lim_{q1}F_q(x)=\mathrm{exp}(x)`$. Naturally, these $`q`$-generalizations of the molecular chaos hypothesis do not settle the profound conceptual issues raised by Boltzmann’s “Stozssahlansatz”. What we are advocating is that Boltzmann’s statistical assumptions do not encompass all the possibilities allowed by the general principles of mechanics.

The study of chaotic, low dimensional dissipative dynamical systems has suggested a deep connection between Tsallis formalism and multifractals (see  and references therein). It would be interesting to explore if this relationship also holds for Hamiltonian systems of large dimensionality and if it does, whether there is any connection with the $`H_q`$-theorem.

Finally, we stress that the solutions of the generalized Boltzmann equation (8) verify the $`H_q`$-theorem only if $`q>0`$. In that case $`H_q`$ is an increasing function of time and the time dependent solutions of (8) evolve irreversibly towards Tsallis’ equilibrium distribution (22). These results can be extended to include nonuniform systems as well as more general interparticle interactions.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Pronex/FINEP (No. 41.96.0908.00), CNPQ and CAPES (Brazil), and by CONICET (Argentina).


text:
# Tidal satellite perturbations and the Lense-Thirring effect

## 1 Introduction

In the past few years we have seen increasing efforts, both from a theoretical and an experimental point of view, devoted to the measurement, by means of artificial satellites techniques, of certain very small general relativistic effects in the weak gravitational field of the Earth. We refer to the small forces, unknown in classical Newtonian mechanics, induced by the rotation of the Earth itself on near orbiting bodies; due to their formal analogy with the magnetic forces generated by electric charge currents they are called gravitomagnetic effects. Among them we recall the dragging of the orbital plane of a point mass and the shift of the pericenter’ s orbit in its plane, called Lense-Thirring effect (Lense and Thirring 1918; Ciufolini and Wheeler 1995), which is presently measured by analyzing the orbits of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II SLR satellites (Ciufolini 2000).

In the LAGEOS experiment the observable is a suitable combination of the orbital residuals of the nodes $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II and the perigee $`\omega `$ of LAGEOS II (Ciufolini 1996):

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^I+c_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{II}+c_2\delta \dot{\omega }^{II}60.2\mu _{LT},$$
(1)
in which $`c_1=0.295`$, $`c_2=0.35`$ and $`\mu _{LT}`$ is the parameter which must be measured. It is 1 in general relativity and 0 in Newtonian mechanics. General relativity predicts for the combined residuals a linear trend with a slope of $`60.2`$ mas/y. Indeed:

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LT}^{LAGEOS}`$ $``$ $`31mas/y,`$ (2)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{LT}^{LAGEOSII}`$ $``$ $`31.5mas/y,`$ (3)
$`\dot{\omega }_{LT}^{LAGEOSII}`$ $``$ $`57mas/y.`$ (4)
In order to assess the feasibility of this space-based experiment the error budget is of the utmost importance, in particular with respect to the systematic uncertainties induced by other physical forces acting upon the combined residuals of eq.(1). Among them the orbital perturbations induced by the Earth’ s solid and ocean tides (Dow 1988; Christodoulidis et al. 1988; Casotto 1989) are very relevant. Ciufolini claims that eq.(1) is not affected by the $`l=2,4m=0`$ part, both statical and dynamical, of the Earth’ s gravitational field. If confirmed, this feature is very important since the systematic errors of the terrestrial gravitational field which are most relevant for the detection of the Lense-Thirring effect lie just in the first two even zonal harmonics (Ciufolini 1996).

In order to model as more accurately as possible the tidal perturbations on the LAGEOSs and to test quantitatively the independence of the proposed combined residuals of the $`l=2,4m=0`$ harmonics a complete analysis of the Earth tidal perturbations (Pavlis and Iorio 2000) on the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II and the perigee of LAGEOS II is carried out. The obtained results are used in assessing the level at which the poor knowledge of the Earth’ s solid and, in particular, ocean tides affects the measurement of $`\mu _{LT}`$ by means of eq.(1).

## 2 Earth’ s solid and ocean tidal perturbations on LAGEOSs’ orbits

The tidal perturbations are worked out in the framework of the linear Lagrange perturbation theory (Kaula 1966); since the Lense-Thirring effect is a linear trend, only the long-period perturbations averaged over an orbital revolution are considered.

The investigation of the tidal perturbations involves only the terms of degree $`l=2`$ for the solid tides and also the terms of degree $`l=3,4`$ for the ocean tides. Concerning the latter ones, only the prograde waves are considered.

The perturbative amplitudes are inversely proportional to the perturbations’ frequencies. Concerning the examined even degree perturbations, the periods depend only on the relative motion, as viewed in a geocentric inertial frame, between the constituent’ s tidal bulge and the orbital plane. Concerning the odd degree ocean tidal perturbations, also the perigee’ s motion must be considered. So, in general, the spectrum of the orbital tidal perturbations is richer than that of the tides as viewed on the Earth’ surface: often it happens that a constituent which on the Earth gives rise to negligible tides induces orbital perturbations with relevant amplitudes and different periods.

In general, as far as the solid and ocean tides’ constituents whose perturbations are examined here, it must be noted that, for $`l=2`$, the ocean perturbative amplitudes amount to at most $`10\%`$ of the corresponding solid perturbative amplitudes.

The calculations are performed by using for the Love numbers $`k_2`$ the complex, frequency-dependent values released by (McCarthy 1996), for the equilibrium tidal heights $`H_m^l`$ the values released by (Roosbeek 1996) and for the ocean tidal heights $`C_{lmf}^+`$ the coefficients of the recent EGM96 model (Lemoine et al 1998).

### 2.1 The solid tides

Concerning the solid tides, the most effective constituents turn out to be the semisecular 18.6-year, the $`K_1`$ and the $`S_2`$ which induce on the examined LAGEOSs’ elements perturbations of the order of $`10^210^3`$ mas with periods ranging from 111.24 days for the $`S_2`$ on LAGEOS II to 6798.38 days for the 18.6-year tide.

The latter, with its amplitudes of -1079.38 mas, 1982.16 mas and -1375.58 mas for the nodes of the LAGEOSs and the perigee of LAGEOS II respectively, could be particularly insidious for the detection of the Lense-Thirring effect. Indeed, since the observational periods adopted until now (Ciufolini 2000) range only from 3.1 to 4 years, it could resemble a superimposed linear trend which may alias the recovery of $`\mu _{LT}`$. However, its effect should vanish since it is a $`l=2,m=0`$ tide, and eq.(1) should be not sensitive to such tides. This feature will be quantitatively assessed later.

Also the $`K_1`$ cannot be neglected: it induces on the LAGEOS’ s node a perturbation with a period of 1043.67 days and an amplitude of 1744.38 mas, while the node and the perigee of LAGEOS II are shifted by an amount of -398 mas and 1982.14 mas, respectively, with a period of -569.21 days.

### 2.2 The ocean tides

Regarding the ocean tides, whose knowledge is less accurate than that of the solid tides, the $`l=3`$ part of the tidal spectrum turns out to be very interesting for the perigee of LAGEOS II.

Indeed, for this element the $`K_1`$ $`l=3p=1,2q=1,1`$ terms induce perturbations whose amplitudes and periods are of the same order of magnitude of those generated by the solid tides. For example, the $`l=3p=1q=1`$ harmonic has a period of 1851.9 days (5.09 years) and an amplitude of 1136 mas, while the $`l=3p=2q=1`$ harmonic is less effective: its amplitude amounts to 346.6 mas and its period to -336.28 days.

It should be noted that, contrary to the first two even degree zonal perturbations which do not affect eq.(1), the diurnal odd degree tidal perturbations are not canceled out by the combined residuals of Ciufolini. So, over an observational period of few years the $`K_1l=3p=1q=1`$ harmonic may alias the gravitomagnetic trend of interest to us.

The even degree ocean tidal perturbations are not particularly relevant: they amount to some tens of mas or less, with the exception of $`K_1`$ which perturbs the node of LAGEOS and the perigee of LAGEOS II at a level of $`10^2`$ mas.

## 3 The effect of the orbital tidal perturbations on the measurement of the Lense-Thirring effect

For a given observational period $`T_{obs}`$, the tidal perturbations can be divided between two main categories according to their periods $`P`$: those with $`P<T_{obs}`$ and those with $`P>T_{obs}`$. The former ones, even if their mismodeled amplitude is great so that they heavily affect the orbital residuals, are not particularly insidious because their effect averages out if $`T_{obs}=nP,n=1,2\mathrm{}`$. Conversely, the latter ones must be carefully accounted for since they may alias the determination of $`\mu _{LT}`$ acting as superimposed bias. This is particularly true for those diurnal and semidiurnal tides which should affect the combined residuals, like the $`K_1l=3m=1p=1q=1`$.

A preliminary analysis has been performed by evaluating the left-hand side of eq.(1) by means of the nominal tidal perturbative amplitudes worked out in the previous sections for $`T_{obs}`$ =1 year. The calculations have been repeated also by means of the mismodeled amplitudes. They show that, not only the $`l=2,4m=0`$ tides tend to cancel out, but also that this feature extends to the $`l=3m=0`$ ocean tides.

A more refined procedure will be described below for the diurnal and semidiurnal tides.

### 3.1 Case a: $`P<T_{obs}`$

The effect of this class of perturbations has been assessed as follows.

The orbital residuals curve has been simulated with MATLAB by including the Lense-Thirring trend as predicted by general relativity, the main mismodeled tidal perturbations:

$$\delta A_f\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2\pi }{P_f}t+\varphi _f),$$
(5)
where $`f`$ denotes the chosen harmonic, and a noise. About the mismodeling $`\delta A`$ we have assumed that the main source of uncertainties are the Love number $`k_2`$ (McCarthy 1996) for the solid tides, the load Love numbers (Farrell 1972; Pagiatakis 1990) and the ocean tidal heights $`C_{lmf}^+`$ (Lemoine et al. 1998) for the ocean tides. It has been decided to build into the MATLAB routine the capability to vary the time series length $`T_{obs}`$, the time span $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, the amplitude of the noise, and the initial phases $`\varphi `$ of the harmonics.

The so obtained simulated curves, for different choices of $`T_{obs}`$, have been subsequently fitted with a least-square routine in order to recover, among the other things, the parameter $`\mu _{LT}`$. This procedure has been repeated with and without the whole set of mismodeled tidal signals so to obtain an estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{tides}=\mu _{LT}(alltides)\mu _{LT}(notides)`$ of their influence on the measurement of $`\mu _{LT}`$. This analysis show that $`2\%<\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _{tides}<4\%`$ for $`T_{obs}`$ ranging from 4 years to 7 years.

The decision of including the whole set of tides has been motivated by the fact that their least-square fitted parameters show that some of them are strongly correlated with the Lense-Thirring trend, in particular for 4 years. For longer time spans, as it could be expected, the gravitomagnetic trend emerges clearly against the background of the tidal noise and also the single harmonics, describing a large number of complete cycles, tend to mutually decorrelate.

### 3.2 Case b: $`P>T_{obs}`$

The effect of this class of perturbations has been assessed by means of different approaches.

First, in a very conservative way, the averaged value of the mismodeled tidal signal under consideration over different $`T_{obs}`$ has been considered. The analysis has been performed for the 18.6-year tide and the $`K_1l=3p=1q=1`$. It has been assumed on the semisecular tide a mismodeling level of $`1.5\%`$ due to the uncertainty at its frequency in the anelastic behavior of the Earth’ s mantle accounted for by the Love number $`k_2`$. The ocean constituent has been considered unknown at a $`6\%`$ level due to the uncertainties in the load Love number of degree $`l=3`$ and in the tidal height coefficient $`C_{lmf}^+`$ as released by EGM96. Over different $`T_{obs}`$ the latter affects the determination of the Lense-Thirring effect at a $`2.3\%`$ level at most, while the zonal tide, as predicted by Ciufolini (1996), almost cancels out giving rise to negligible contributions to the combined residuals.

These results have been confirmed fairly well by adopting another method analogous to that employed in (Vespe 1999) in assessing the influence of the direct solar radiation pressure’ s eclipses on the determination of the Lense-Thirring effect. We take the signal of interest over a given $`T_{obs}`$, fit it with a straight line and compare the so obtained slope, in unit of 60.2 mas/y, to $`\mu _{LT}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

L. Iorio warmly thanks I. Ciufolini and L. Guerriero. E. C. Pavlis gratefully acknowledges partial support for this project from NASA’s Cooperative Agreement NCC 5-339.


text:
# IEM-FT-208/00hep-ph-/0101230 Electroweak Baryogenesis and the Higgs and Stop masses Based on talks given at: Strong Electroweak Matter, Centre de Physique Théorique, Université de Marseille, Marseilles (France), June 14-17, 2000; and, Thirty years of supersymmetry, Theoretical Physics Institute, School of Physics and Astronomy, Minneapolis, Minnesota (USA), October 16-27, 2000.

## 1 Introductory remarks

Electroweak baryogenesis  is an appealing mechanism to explain the observed, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), value of the baryon-to-entropy ratio , $`\eta _{\mathrm{BBN}}n_B/s4\times 10^{10}`$, at the electroweak phase transition , that can be tested at present and future high-energy colliders. Although the Standard Model (SM) contains all the necessary ingredients  for a successful baryogenesis, it fails in providing enough baryon asymmetry. In particular it has been proven by perturbative  and non-perturbative  methods that, for Higgs masses allowed by present LEP bounds , the phase transition is too weakly first order, or does not exist at all, and any previously generated baryon asymmetry would be washed out after the phase transition. On the other hand the amount of CP violation arising from the CKM phase is too small for generating the observed baryon asymmetry . Therefore electroweak baryogenesis requires physics beyond the Standard Model at the weak scale.

Among the possible extensions of the Standard Model at the weak scale, its minimal supersymmetric extension (MSSM) is the best motivated one. It provides a technical solution to the hierarchy problem and has deep roots in more fundamental theories unifying gravity with the rest of interactions. As for the strength of the phase transition , a region in the space of supersymmetric parameters has been found - where the phase transition is strong enough to let sphaleron interactions go out of equilibrium after the phase transition and not erase the generated baryon asymmetry. This region (the so-called light stop scenario) provides values of the lightest Higgs and stop eigenstate masses which are being covered at LEP and Tevatron colliders.

The MSSM has new violating phases that can drive enough amount of baryon asymmetry. Several computations have been performed - in recent years, showing that if the CP-violating phases associated with the chargino mass parameters are not too small, these sources may lead to acceptable values of the baryon asymmetry. In this talk I will present some aspects of a recent computation  of the CP-violating sources in the chargino sector which improves the computation of Ref.  in two main aspects. On the one hand, instead of computing the temporal component of the current in the lowest order of Higgs background insertions, we compute all current components by performing a resummation of the Higgs background insertion contributions to all order in perturbation theory. The resummation is essential since it leads to a proper regularization of the resonant contribution to the temporal component of the current found in Ref.  and leads to contributions which are not suppressed for large values of the charged Higgs mass. On the other hand we consider, in the diffusion equations, the contribution of Higgsino number violating interaction rate  from the Higgsino $`\mu `$ term in the lagrangian, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$, that was considered in our previous calculations in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu /T\mathrm{}`$.

## 2 The phase transition

The possibility of achieving, in the MSSM, a strong-enough phase transition for not washing out any previously generated baryon asymmetry, characterized by the condition

$$v(T_c)/T_c\stackrel{>}{_{}}1,$$
(1)
has been recently strengthened by three facts:

* The presence of light $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ (with small mixing $`\stackrel{~}{A}_t`$) considerably enhances the strength of the phase transition . This is the so-called light stop scenario.
* Two-loop corrections enhance the phase transition in the SM , and in the MSSM .
* The validity of perturbation theory, and in particular the results of two-loop calculations, for the light stop scenario has been recently confirmed by non-perturbative results . In fact, non-perturbative results lead to a stronger phase transition than perturbative ones, by $`1015`$%.

However the price the light stop scenario has to pay is that it may require moderately negative values of the supersymmetric parameter $`m_U^2\stackrel{~}{m}_U^2`$ and then, apart from the electroweak minimum along the Higgs ($`\varphi `$) direction, another color breaking minimum along the $`U\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ direction might appear. Therefore both directions should be studied at finite temperature.

To systematically analyze the different possibilities we have computed the two-loop effective potential along the $`\varphi `$ and $`U`$ directions and compared their cosmological evolutions with $`T`$. The two-loop effective potential along the $`\varphi `$ direction was carefully studied in Ref. . The one-loop correction is dominated by the exchange of the top/stop sector while the two-loop effective potential is given by two-loop diagrams with stops and gluons, as well as one-loop diagrams with the stop thermal counterterm. The two-loop effective potential along the $`U`$ direction was studied in Refs. . The mass spectrum is given in Table 1, where we have considered small mixing $`\stackrel{~}{A}_t/m_Q`$ and large gluino masses.

The one-loop diagrams correspond to the propagation of gluons, squarks and Higgses as well as Dirac fermions. The leading two-loop contributions correspond to sunset and figure-eight diagrams with the fields of Table 1 propagating, as well as one-loop diagrams with thermal counterterm insertions corresponding to gluons and squarks.

For a given value of the supersymmetric parameters we have computed $`T_c`$, the critical temperature along the $`\varphi `$ direction, and $`T_c^U`$, the critical temperature along the $`U`$ direction. Therefore, four different situations can arise:

* a) $`T_c^U<T_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_U<m_U^c\left(m_H^2v^2g_s^2/12\right)^{1/4}`$ . In this case the phase transition proceeds first along the $`\varphi `$ direction and the field remains at the electroweak minimum forever. This region is called stability region.
* b) $`T_c^U<T_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_U>m_U^c`$. In this region the electroweak minimum is metastable (metastability region). It can be physically acceptable provided that its lifetime is larger than the age of the universe at this temperature: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi U}<H`$.
* c) $`T_c^U>T_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_U<m_U^c`$. In this case the $`U`$-phase transition happens first and therefore it would be physically acceptable provided that the lifetime is shorter than the age of the universe: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{U\varphi }>H`$. This region is called two step region and has been excluded .
* d) $`T_c^U>T_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_U>m_U^c`$. This is the region of instability of the electroweak minimum. It is absolutely excluded.

Fig. 1 shows the absolute region of stability for $`m_Q2`$ TeV, where we can see an absolute upper bound on the Higgs mass $``$117 GeV. In view of the non-perturbative results on the phase transition , we have used in Fig. 1 the condition $`v(T_c)\stackrel{>}{_{}}0.9T_c`$ in our perturbative two-loop calculation.

## 3 The CP-violating chargino currents

Our aim in this section is to compute the Green functions for the charged gaugino-Higgsino system $`\stackrel{~}{h}_c`$-$`\stackrel{~}{W}_c`$, describing the propagation of these fermions in the presence of a bubble wall. The bubble wall is assumed to be located at the space-time point $`z`$, where there is a non-trivial background of the MSSM Higgs fields, $`H_i(z)`$, which carries dimensionful CP-violating couplings to charginos. We shall use these Green functions to compute the left-handed and right-handed currents corresponding to

$$\psi _R(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{W}^+\\ \stackrel{~}{h}_2^+\end{array}\right),\psi _L(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{W}^{}\\ \stackrel{~}{h}_1^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
at the point $`z`$.

Since the mass matrix depends on the space-time coordinates, and we must identify the free and perturbative parts out of it, in order to make such a selection we will expand the mass matrix around the point $`z^\mu (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ (the point where we are calculating the currents in the plasma frame) up to first order in derivatives as,

$$M(x)=M(z)+(xz)^\mu M_\mu (z),$$
(3)
where we use the notation $`M_\mu (z)M(z)/z^\mu `$.

The chargino mass matrix in (3) is given by

$$M(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2& u_2(z)\\ u_1(z)& \mu _c\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
where we have defined $`u_i(z)gH_i(z)`$. The mass eigenvalues are given by

$`m_1(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }+u_1^2(z)\right)M_2+u_1(z)u_2(z)\mu _c^{}}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Lambda })(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\mathrm{\Lambda })}}}`$
$`m_2(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }u_2^2(z)\right)\mu _cu_1(z)u_2(z)M_2}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Lambda })(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\mathrm{\Lambda })}}}.`$
where field redefinitions have been made in order to make the Higgs vacuum expectation values, as well as the weak gaugino mass $`M_2`$, real, and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`(M_2^2|\mu _c|^2u_1^2+u_2^2)/2`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`(M_2^2|\mu _c|^2u_2^2+u_1^2)/2`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\left|M_2u_1+\mu _c^{}u_2\right|^2\right)^{1/2}`$ (5)
The vector and axial Higgsino currents can now be defined as:

$`j_{H,h}^\mu (z)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{x,yz}{lim}\{Tr\left[P_2\sigma ^\mu S_\psi ^{RR}(x,y;z)\right]`$ (6)
$`\pm `$ $`Tr\left[P_2\overline{\sigma }^\mu S_\psi ^{LL}(x,y;z)\right]\}`$
where $`P_2=(\sigma _0\sigma _3)/2`$ is a projection operator and $`S_\psi (x,y;z)`$ are the Green functions in the weak eigenstate basis after making the expansion (3) and a resummation to all orders in $`M(z)`$.

The detailed calculation of the currents can be found in Ref. . In particular only the time component is relevant for the diffusion equations of next section where we will use as sources of Higgs densities $`\gamma _{H,h}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{~}{}j_{H,h}^0(z)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{~}{}\alpha _WT`$ is the inverse typical thermalization time. In this way we obtain for the vector and axial sources the expressions:

$`\gamma _H\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}v_\omega g^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Im}(M_2\mu _c)`$ (7)
$`\{H^2(z)\beta ^{}(z)[(z)+𝒢(z)]`$
$`+g^2H^2(z)\mathrm{cos}2\beta (z)[H(z)H^{}(z)\mathrm{sin}2\beta (z)`$
$`+H^2(z)\mathrm{cos}2\beta (z)\beta ^{}(z)](z)\}`$
$`\gamma _h2v_\omega g^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Im}(M_2\mu _c)`$
$`\left[H(z)H^{}(z)\mathrm{sin}2\beta (z)+H^2(z)\mathrm{cos}2\beta (z)\beta ^{}(z)\right]`$
$`\left\{𝒦(z)+2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)(z)\right\}`$ $`.`$
where the functions $`,𝒢,,𝒦`$ are defined as:

$`(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\pi ^2}}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p^0(1+2f)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1+z_2}}\right)^3`$ (8)
$`𝒢(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\pi ^2}}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p^0p^0f^{}`$
$`\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1+z_2}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{3}{|m_1(z)|^2|m_2(z)|^2}}`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{|m_1(z)|^2|m_2(z)|^24i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{H}}p^0}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{|m_1(z)|^2|m_2(z)|^2+4i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{H}}p^0}}]\}`$ (9)
$`(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p^0(1+2f)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1z_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1+z_2}}\right)^3`$ (10)
$`𝒦(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p^0(1+2f)`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1z_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_1+z_2}}\right)`$ $`.`$
$`fn_F(|p^0|)`$, where $`n_F`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function and $`z_i`$ is defined as

$$z_i(p^0)=\sqrt{p^0\left(p^0+2i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{H}}\right)|m_i(z)|^2}$$
(12)
with positive real and imaginary parts satisfying $`\mathrm{Re}(z_i)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{H}}p^0/\mathrm{Im}(z_i)`$. Notice that the sources are proportional to the wall velocity $`v_\omega `$, and so die when the latter goes to zero, which is a physical requirement.

In Fig. 2 we plot the sources $`\gamma _{H,h}`$ for a chosen set of supersymmetric and bubble parameters. In particular the wall velocity is chosen as $`v_\omega =0.05`$ and the bubble wall width as $`L_\omega =20/T`$ which is suggested by detailed numerical analyses of bubble formation . For the supersymmetric parameters we choose $`m_Q=1.5`$ TeV, $`A_t=0.5`$ TeV, $`M_2=\mu =200`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ and three different values of $`m_A=100,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}150},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}200}`$ GeV, corresponding to the dashed, solid and dot-dashed curves of Fig. 2. From it we can see two main features. On the one hand, $`\gamma _H`$ is very sensitive to the value of $`m_A`$, and so to the corresponding value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$, as expected, and decreases when $`m_A`$ increases. On the other hand, $`\gamma _h`$ is dominant only for large values of $`m_A`$, such that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$ suppression of $`\gamma _H`$ is stronger. But it is never overwhelming the contribution of $`\gamma _H`$, because it is $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ suppressed.

We also computed the bubble solutions of the MSSM  using the two-loop effective potential and we have confirmed the goodness of the thick wall approximation ($`L_\omega T_c10v_\omega `$).

In Fig. 3, we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta (T)`$ for the following values of the supersymmetric: $`M_2=\mu =200`$ GeV, $`A_t=500`$ GeV, $`m_Q=1.5`$ TeV. Notice that the value of $`T_c`$, as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$, is different from point to point, for different values of $`m_A`$. We see from Fig. 3 that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$ goes from $`10^2`$ for $`m_A=100`$ GeV, to $`10^3`$ for $`m_A=500`$ GeV. This fact will have an important impact on the mechanism of baryon asymmetry.

## 4 The diffusion equations

To evaluate the baryon asymmetry generated in the broken phase we need to first compute the density of left-handed quarks and leptons, $`n_L`$, in front of the bubble wall (in the symmetric phase). These chiral densities are the ones that induce weak sphalerons to produce a net baryon number. Since, in the present scenario, there is essentially no lepton asymmetry, the density to be computed in the symmetric phase is $`n_L=n_Q+_{i=1}^2n_{Q_i}`$ where the density of a chiral supermultiplet $`Q(q,\stackrel{~}{q})`$ is understood as the sum of densities of particle components, assuming the supergauge interactions to be in thermal equilibrium, $`n_Q=n_q+n_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$. If the system is near thermal equilibrium, particle densities, $`n_i`$, are related to the local chemical potential, $`\mu _i`$ by the relation $`n_i=k_i\mu _iT^2/6`$, where $`k_i`$ are statistical factors equal to 2 (1) for bosons (fermions). In fact, assuming that all quarks have nearly the same diffusion constant it turns out that , $`n_L=5n_Q+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}n_T`$.

One can write now a set of diffusion equations involving $`n_Q`$, $`n_T`$, $`n_{H_1}`$ (the density of $`H_1(h_1,\stackrel{~}{h}_1)`$) and $`n_{H_2}`$ (the density of $`\overline{H}_2(\overline{h}_2,\stackrel{~}{\overline{h}}_2)`$), and the particle number changing rates and CP-violating source terms discussed above. In the bubble wall frame, and ignoring the curvature of the bubble wall, all quantities become functions of $`zr+v_\omega t`$. In the limit of fast Yukawa coupling $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Y`$ and strong sphaleron $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss}`$ rates, we can write the diffusion equations as:

$`v_\omega \left[n_Q^{}+2n_T^{}n_H^{}\right]=D_q\left[n_Q^{\prime \prime }+2n_T^{\prime \prime }\right]`$
$`D_hn_H^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n_Q}{k_Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_T}{k_T}}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_h{\displaystyle \frac{n_H}{k_H}}\gamma _H`$
$`v_\omega \left[n_Q^{}+2n_T^{}n_h^{}\right]=D_q\left[n_Q^{\prime \prime }+2n_T^{\prime \prime }\right]`$
$`D_hn_h^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n_Q}{k_Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_T}{k_T}}\right]`$
$`+\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_h+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right]{\displaystyle \frac{n_h}{k_H}}\gamma _h.`$ (13)
where $`n_Q`$ and $`n_T`$ are replaced by the (approximate) explicit solutions

$`n_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_Q\left(9k_Tk_B\right)}{k_H\left(k_B+9k_Q+9k_T\right)}}(n_H+n_h)`$
$`n_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_T\left(9k_Q+2k_B\right)}{k_H\left(k_B+9k_Q+9k_T\right)}}(n_H+n_h).`$ (14)
$`D_q6/T`$ and $`D_h110/T`$ are the corresponding diffusion constants in the quark and Higgs sectors, $`n_Hn_{H_2}+n_{H_1}`$, $`n_hn_{H_2}n_{H_1}`$, $`k_Hk_{H_1}+k_{H_2}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ corresponds to the $`\mu _c\stackrel{~}{H}_1\stackrel{~}{H_2}`$ term in the Lagrangian. There are also the Higgs number violating and axial top number violation processes, induced by the Higgs self interactions and by top quark mass effects, with rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$, respectively, that are only active in the broken phase.

The system of equations (4) has been solved numerically in Ref. , where also a good enough analytical approximation is provided. In Fig. 4 we plot the numerical solution corresponding to the same set of supersymmetric and bubble parameters as in Fig. 2. All densities diffuse along the symmetric phase ($`z<0`$), where weak sphalerons are active, which is essential for the left-handed quark asymmetry to bias the weak sphalerons to violate baryon number. In particular, we can see from Fig. 4 that the density $`n_H`$ is larger than $`n_h`$, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =0.1T`$. In previous analyses  the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{}`$ was implicitly assumed and $`n_h`$ was completely neglected. Fig. 4 shows that this is not such a bad approximation. Furthermore, the relative importance of $`n_H`$ and $`n_h`$ is shown for different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =0.01T,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}T,T`$ in Fig. 5. We can see that while for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =0.01T`$ $`n_h`$ is sizeable, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =T`$ it is negligible in good agreement with our previous results .

## 5 The baryon asymmetry

In this section we present the numerical results of the baryon asymmetry computed in the previous section and, in particular, of the baryon-to-entropy ratio $`\eta n_B/s`$, where the entropy density is given by $`s=\frac{2\pi ^2}{45}g_{eff}T^3`$, with $`g_{eff}`$ being the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom.

Since we assume the sphalerons are inactive inside the bubbles, the baryon density is constant in the broken phase and satisfies, in the symmetric phase, an equation where $`n_L`$ acts as a source  and there is an explicit sphaleron-induced relaxation term

$$v_\omega n_B^{}(z)=\theta (z)\left[n_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ws}n_L(z)+n_B(z)\right]$$
(15)
where $`n_F=3`$ is the number of families and $`=\frac{5}{4}n_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ws}`$ is the relaxation coefficient. Eq. (15) can be solved analytically and gives, in the broken phase $`z0`$, a constant baryon asymmetry,

$$n_B=\frac{n_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ws}}{v_\omega }_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑zn_L(z)e^{z/v_\omega }.$$
(16)
The profiles $`H(z)`$, $`\beta (z)`$ have been accurately computed in the literature . For the sake of simplicity, in this work we use a kink approximation

$`H(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v(T)\left(1\mathrm{tanh}\left[\alpha \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2z}{L_\omega }}\right)\right]\right)`$
$`\beta (z)=\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\beta \left(1+\mathrm{tanh}\left[\alpha \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2z}{L_\omega }}\right)\right]\right).`$
This approximation has been checked to reproduce the exact calculation of the Higgs profiles within a few percent accuracy, provided that we borrow from the exact calculation the values of the thickness $`L_\omega /2\alpha `$ and the variation of the angle $`\beta (z)`$ along the bubble wall, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$, as we will do. In particular we will take $`\alpha =3/2`$, $`L_\omega =20/T`$, and we have checked that the result varies only very slowly with those parameters, while we are taking the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$ which are obtained from the two-loop effective potential used in our calculation.

In Fig. 6 we have fixed $`\eta =\eta _{\mathrm{BBN}}`$ and plot $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mu `$, where $`\phi _\mu `$ is defined as $`\mu _c=\mu \mathrm{exp}(i\phi _\mu )`$, as a function of $`\mu `$. We have fixed all bubbles and supersymmetric parameters as in Fig. 2, fixed $`M_2=\mu `$ and ran over three typical values of the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $`m_A`$. In all cases the phase transition is strong enough first order, $`v(T_c)/T1`$, the running mass of the lightest stop is around 120 GeV and the Higgs mass is, within the accuracy of our calculations, between 110 and 115 GeV.

Since the computed $`\eta `$ behaves almost linearly in $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mu `$, and we have fixed $`\eta =\eta _{\mathrm{BBN}}`$, the more baryon asymmetry is generated the smaller the value of $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mu `$. This can be seen from Fig. 6 where we have been working at the resonance peak $`M_2=\mu `$ and hence baryogenesis has been maximized. We see, for all values of $`m_A`$, that the minimum of $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mu `$ sits around $`\mu 200`$ GeV. The value of $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mu `$ at the minimum decreases with $`m_A`$. In particular, for $`m_A100`$ GeV, which is about the lower limit from present LEP data (in fact, the present preliminary bounds from LEP  are $`m_A>89.9`$ GeV for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, as those we are using in our plots) we obtain that $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mu \stackrel{>}{_{}}0.04`$. The dependence of $`\mathrm{sin}\phi _\mu `$ with respect to supersymmetric and bubble parameters, as $`M_2\mu `$, $`m_A`$ and $`v_\omega `$ has been thoroughly analyzed in Ref.  where the reader can find it as well as details of the calculation of supersymmetric chargino sources.

## 6 Conclusions

The main conclusion after a detailed analysis of both the phase transition and the baryogenesis mechanism in the MSSM is that it is still alive after the recent experimental results at high-energy colliders and, in particular, at the LEP collider.

Concerning the phase transition, its strenght is controlled mainly by the Higgs mass and the lightest (right-handed) stop mass. Bubbles are formed with thick walls (the value of the thickness is $`L_\omega /3`$, with $`L_\omega 20/T`$) and propagate with extremely non-relativistic velocities ($`v_\omega 0.10.01`$). The strenght of the phase transition has to be such that $`v(T)\stackrel{>}{_{}}T`$ at the critical temperature. This imposes a strong constraint on the supersymmetric parameters in order to avoid sphaleron erasure, in particular in view of the most recent (preliminary) bounds on the SM-like Higgs mass, $`m_H>113.2`$ GeV and the observed excess of events with $`b\overline{b}`$ invariant mass $``$ 114 GeV. Here two possibilities can be drawn:

* The observed excess of events corresponds to a Higgs signal.

In this case the combined Higgs mass and BAU requirements impose some restrictions on the supersymmetric parameters. a) Heavy pseudoscalars and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$: say $`m_A>150`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >5`$; b) Heavy left-handed stops and controlled stop mixing: $`m_Q\stackrel{>}{_{}}1`$ TeV and $`0.25\stackrel{<}{_{}}A_t/m_Q\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.4`$; and, c) Light right-handed stops: $`105\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{<}{_{}}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}\stackrel{<}{_{}}165\mathrm{GeV}`$. In this case the first prediction of the BAU scenario would have been realized and we would need confirmation for the rest, in particular for the light stop.
* The observed excess of events does not correspond to a Higgs signal.

In that case a reduction of the $`Hb\overline{b}`$ coupling would be needed. For the values of $`A_t`$ and $`\mu `$ consistent with electroweak baryogenesis, a reduction of the coupling of the CP-even Higgs boson to the bottom quark would demand not only small values of $`m_A100`$–150 GeV, but also large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$ and of $`|\mu A_t|/m_Q^2>0.1`$ (the larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the easier suppressed values of the bottom quark coupling are obtained). A detailed discussion on this issue has already been done .

Finally, concerning the generated baryon asymmetry, we have found that it requires the CP-violating phase to be, $`\phi _\mu \stackrel{>}{_{}}0.04`$. Values of $`\phi _\mu \stackrel{>}{_{}}0.04`$ can lead to acceptable phenomenology if either peculiar cancellations in the squark and slepton contributions to the neutron and electron electric dipole moments (EDM) occur , and/or if the first and second generation of squarks are heavy. This second possibility is quite appealing and, as has been recently demonstrated , leads to acceptable phenomenology.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank M. Carena, J.M. Moreno, M. Seco and C.E.M. Wagner for the intensive collaboration on the subject during the last year. This work has been supported in part by CICYT, Spain, under contract AEN98-0816, and by EU under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00152.


text:
# Lepton asymmetry effect on neutrino oscillations and primordial ⁴𝐻𝑒.

## I Introduction

The direct kinetic effect of a considerable lepton asymmetry $`L>0.01`$ (either initially present or dynamically generated) on cosmological nucleosynthesis (CN) has been investigated in lepCN , and cosmological constraints on its value have been obtained. The effect of neutrino oscillations on CN was also studied and stringent bounds on oscillation parameters were obtained oscCN ; D88 ; NU96 ; PR ; res ; dubna . Neutrino oscillations, proceeding in the primordial plasma during CN epoch, can effect $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ yield by (a) bringing additional degrees of freedom into the primordial heat bathoscCN , (b) depleting the neutrino and antineutrino number densities111The effect was estimated for equilibrium oscCN  and nonequilibrium D88  oscillations and numerically calculated for nonequilibrium oscillations in NU96 . thus slowing the weak interactions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_wN_\nu E_\nu ^2`$, (c) distorting the neutrino and antineutrino spectrum D88 ; NU96 , (d) producing neutrino-antineutrino asymmetry222The asymmetry growth was estimated to be possible for great mass differences $`\delta m^2>10^5`$ eV2 create , however for $`\delta m^2<10^7eV^2`$, a considerable asymmetry growth was registered in precise numerical studies NU96 . NU96 ; create , which on its turn influences the evolution of the neutrino and antineutrino ensembles and the oscillation pattern NU96 ; new ; res .

In this work we discuss the simultaneous effect of a lepton asymmetry and neutrino oscillations on CN. Two different cases of lepton asymmetry are analyzed: an initially present and generated in oscillations asymmetry. We have studied the role of a lepton asymmetry on CN with oscillations, effective after electron neutrino decoupling. We have shown by a numerical analyses of the kinetics of nucleons and the oscillating neutrinos and antineutrinos in CN epoch, that much smaller asymmetries $`L<<0.01`$ exert considerable indirect effects on CN through oscillations, due to the fact that even very small asymmetries change the medium induced neutrino potential energy and influence the evolution of the oscillating neutrinos. The prejudice that in order to influence nucleosynthesis the neutrino asymmetry first must grow to a considerable value $`L>0.01`$, is not applicable for the case of nucleosynthesis with oscillations.333Really in the case without oscillations the asymmetry has a direct sign-dependent effect on the kinetics of the nucleons, and hence, on the helium yields. Besides, when large enough it also contributes to the Universe energy density thus increasing the expansion rate $`H(t)`$ and changing primordial helium-4 yield $`Y_p`$ lepCN .

Lepton asymmetry influences CN with oscillations in several ways: The neutrino and antineutrino ensembles evolve differently in comparison with the case without asymmetry, i.e neutrino number densities, their depletion and spectrum distortion are changed. Also due to asymmetry term neutrino and antineutrino become strongly coupled and evolve differently. Lepton asymmetry changes as well the oscillation pattern, i.e. leads to an enhancement or suppression of oscillations. All these resultt into changed light elements yields, compared with the oscillatory case without asymmetry. This indirect asymmetry influence on CN is considerable NU96 ; PR ; new ; NP ; now . However, inorder to reveal it asymmetry should be considered selfconsistently with the neutrinos and nucleons evolution. The results obtained without the account of the indirect effects differ by many orders of magnitude from the real picture new .444Works considering asymmetry effect on CN in case of oscillations wrong ; FVlast , providing rough estimates of the asymmetry growth and its effect on CN, will become more reliable when a proper account for the indirect asymmetry effects on CN during the full evolution of the asymmetry is provided in a selfconsistent analysis of the neutrino and nucleons evolution for each momentum.

Numerical analysis, accounting for the asymmetry effect selfconsistently with neutrino and nucleons evolution, was provided in refs. PR ; new ; res ; dubna . See also ref. dolasym , where an precise analytical study of the asymmetry evolution, accounting for its back effect on oscillating neutrinos, was proposed. In the nonresonant case the oscillations produced asymmetry was shown to have a negligible role in CN PR . However, in the resonant oscillation case the asymmetry effect on CN is considerable NU96 ; new ; res ; dolasym ; dubna .

In general, dynamically produced asymmetry suppresses oscillations NU96 ; new , which leads to less overproduction of helium-4 in comparison with CN with oscillations but without an asymmetry account. Hence, the bounds on oscillation parameters are alleviated at small mixing angles new ; res ; dubna . We present in sec. III the updated cosmological constraints for electron-sterile oscillation case, accounting precisely for the oscillations generated asymmetry.

The effect of small initial lepton asymmetries ($`10^{10}<L<10^4`$) on CN with nonresonant active-sterile oscillations was precisely studied in PR ; NP ; now . It was found that asymmetry is able to enhance oscillations, besides its well known ability to suppress them NP , thus leading correspondingly to an over- or under-production of helium. Our analysis has shown (see sec. IV.) that the initially present asymmetry is able to alleviate CN bounds at large mixings and to tighten the bounds at small mixings (see also refs. NP ; now ).

In the next section we present the precise kinetic approach for the description of lepton asymmetry effects on CN in the presence of oscillations.

## II The kinetics

We have used for the precise analysis the synthesis of helium-4. According to the standard CN the primordial helium yield depends on two compelling processes, determinning the nucleons freezing: Universe’s cooling, $`H(t)g_{eff}T^2`$ and weak processes, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_w`$. Three neutrino flavours, zero lepton asymmetry and equilibrium neutrino number densities and spectrum are assumed. In the case of CN with oscillations and with lepton asymmetry, all these assumptions do not work. According to (a)-(d): neutrino oscillations change the number of neutrino flavours; they may produce nonequilibrium neutrino number densities (particularly the electron neutrino density may be considerably reduced in favour of the sterile neutrino density); the neutrino spectrum may be distorted in active-sterile oscillations; besides, even if initially the lepton asymmetry is assumed zero resonant oscillations may lead to a considerable growth of the asymmetry, which on its turn effects neutrinos and nucleons evolution via oscillations. This nonequilibrium picture is hard to describe analytically. 555There exist in literature numerous analytical studies, like refs. wrong ; FVlast  proposing different schemes for applying neutrino oscillations to solve different astrophysical or else problems in which schemes a central role is played by a lepton asymmetry (initially present or dynamically generated in oscillations) suppressing oscillations. We would like to warn that these publications provided too rough estimations both of the asymmetry evolution and of its effect on primordial nucleosynthesis. The asymmetry evolution was usually semianalitically described using different sorts of simplifying assumptions, in general not applicable in the nonequilibrium situation of active-sterile oscillations. The neutrino and antineutrino evolution was described in terms of particle densities (not particle density matrix) and almost equilibrium spectrum (which is not an adequate description of oscillationary phenomena when the growth of asymmetry is considerable). The asymmetry effect on nucleosynthesis was reduced only to $`L`$ kinetic effect on CN. Therefore, its role in nucleosynthesis was accounted for after it has grown “enough”and hence, the indirect effect of asymmetry during its growth has been neglected. The asymmetry back effect on oscillations, in case considered at all, was assumed to be only towards suppressing oscillations.

Inorder to account for the different effects of oscillations and asymmetry on CN a selfconsistent numerical analysis of the kinetics of the oscillating neutrinos, the nucleons freeze-out and the asymmetry evolution is necessary. In our analysis the set of the following coupled integro-differential equations describing the evolution of the neutrino $`\rho `$ and neutron number densities $`n_n`$ was solved simultaneously and selfconsistently:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`Hp_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\rho (t)}{p_\nu }}+`$
$`+`$ $`i[_o,\rho (t)]+i\sqrt{2}G_F\left(Q/M_W^2\right)N_\gamma [\alpha ,\rho (t)]+\mathrm{O}\left(G_F^2\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }(t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`Hp_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }(t)}{p_\nu }}+`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`i[_o,\overline{\rho }(t)]+i\sqrt{2}G_F\left(Q/M_W^2\right)N_\gamma [\alpha ,\overline{\rho }(t)]+\mathrm{O}\left(G_F^2\right),`$
$`\left(n_n/t\right)=Hp_n\left(n_n/p_n\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle d\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{},p,\nu )|𝒜(e^{}p\nu n)|^2\left[n_e^{}n_p(1\rho _{LL})n_n\rho _{LL}(1n_e^{})\right]}`$
$`{\displaystyle d\mathrm{\Omega }(e^+,p,\stackrel{~}{\nu })|𝒜(e^+np\stackrel{~}{\nu })|^2\left[n_{e^+}n_n(1\overline{\rho }_{LL})n_p\overline{\rho }_{LL}(1n_{e^+})\right]}.`$ (2)
where $`\alpha _{ij}=U_{ie}^{}U_{je}`$, mixing just in the electron sector was assumed $`\nu _i=U_{il}\nu _l(l=e,s)`$. $`p_\nu `$ is the momentum of electron neutrino, $`n`$ stands for the number density of the interacting particles, $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }(i,j,k)`$ is a phase space factor and $`𝒜`$ is the amplitude of the corresponding process.

These equations provide simultaneous account of the different competing processes, namely: neutrino oscillations, Hubble expansion and weak interaction processes. $`_o`$ is the free neutrino Hamiltonian. The ‘nonlocal’ term $`Q`$ arises as an $`W/Z`$ propagator effect, $`QE_\nu T`$. $``$ is proportional to the fermion asymmetry of the plasma and is essentially expressed through the neutrino asymmetries $`2L_{\nu _e}+L_{\nu _\mu }+L_{\nu _\tau }`$, where $`L_{\mu ,\tau }(N_{\mu ,\tau }N_{\overline{\mu },\overline{\tau }})/N_\gamma `$ and $`L_{\nu _e}\mathrm{d}^3p(\rho _{LL}\overline{\rho }_{LL})/N_\gamma `$.

The neutron and proton number densities, used in the kinetic equations for neutrinos, are substituted from the numerical calculations of eq. (2). On the other hand, $`\rho _{LL}`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_{LL}`$ at each integration step of eq. (2) are taken from the simultaneously performed integration of the set of equations (1).

The equations are for the neutrino and neutron number densities in momentum space. This allows to account precisely for the spectrum distortion effect and neutrino depletion effects of oscillations, as well as to follow the evolution of the neutrino asymmetry and its back effect at each neutrino momentum.

In our numerical analysis the spectrum distortion was described by 1000 bins for the nonresonant case and by 5000 bins for the resonant case. In case the spectrum was described by $`N`$ bins, a system of $`6N+1`$ coupled integro-differential equations following from (1) and (2), was numerically solved.

The numerical analysis was provided for the characteristic temperature interval $`[2\text{ MeV},0.3\text{ MeV}]`$ and the full set of oscillation parameters of the active-sterile oscillation model NU96 . We calculated precisely the $`n/p`$-freezing, essential for the production of helium, till temperature $`0.3`$ MeV, and accounted adiabatically for the following decays of neutrons till the start of nuclear reactions at about $`0.1`$ MeV.

## III Dynamically generated lepton asymmetry

Our numerical analysis showed that in the resonant oscillation case the dynamical neutrino-antineutrino asymmetry grows up to 4 orders of magnitude. I.e. starting with asymmetries of the order of the baryon one it reaches maximum a value $`10^5`$. Hence, having in mind this small value the registered asymmetry effect is totally due to its indirect influence on CN via oscillations. Dynamically produced asymmetry at small mixing angles suppresses oscillations, which leads to less overproduction of $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ in comparison with CN with oscillations but without an asymmetry account. Hence, the cosmological constraints on oscillation parameters are alleviated at small mixing angles.

The updated constraints on active-sterile neutrino oscillations, precisely accounting for the asymmetry generation, spectrum distortion and the depletion of the neutrinos, are presented in fig. 1. The plots correspond to $`Y_p=0.24`$. The net indirect asymmetry effect on CN is given for the resonant case by the difference between the dashed curve (without asymmetry account) and the solid one. Due to asymmetry growth account, and the corresponding suppression of oscillations, $`Y_p`$ overproduction is not so strongly expressed at small mixing angles, hence CN constraints are alleviated at small mixing angles for $`\delta m^2<0`$.

In the resonant case the cosmological constraints at large mixings are $`|\delta m^2|8.2\times 10^{10}`$ eV2. In the nonresonant case $`\delta m^2>0`$ an analytical fit to the exact constraints is: $`\delta m^2(\mathrm{sin}^22\vartheta )^41.5\times 10^9`$ eV2. The constraints in both cases are strengthened compared to the previous ones oscCN  due to the precise account of the spectrum distortion and to the exact kinetic approach to the neutrinos and nucleons evolution.

According to these constraints the LOW active-sterile solution to the solar neutrino problem, which is favoured by the analysis of the recent experimental data of total measured rates and day and night spectrum measured by SuperKamiokande suzuki  is almost completely excluded now .

## IV Initially present lepton asymmetry

The role of initially present relic asymmetries on CN with nonresonant active-sterile oscillations was precisely studied, following the lines of work described in sec. II. A wide range of $`L`$ values $`[10^{10}10^4]`$ was analyzed. Such small asymmetries have only indirect effects on CN. On fig.2 the dependence of the produced helium, in a CN model with oscillations on the initial asymmetry is plotted. It was found that the asymmetry is able also to enhance oscillations, besides its well known ability to suppress them. The enhancement is a synthetic effect of a resonant wave passing through neutrino spectrum till lepton asymmetry changes sign and followed by a similar ‘spectrum’ resonance at the antineutrino ensemble and vice versa NP . Hence, this enhancement has a complex spectral character and could be revealed only by a precise kinetic approach to the oscillation problem. The influence of the asymmetry should not be reduced only to oscillations suppression, as usually believed. Depending on the concrete values of oscillations parameters the asymmetry may suppress, enhance or not influence oscillations, thus leading correspondingly to an under- , over-production of helium or not change its abundance. Hence, in order to judge the real asymmetry effect on CN, precise numerical analysis for the concrete oscillation parameters and $`L`$ values is obligatory. Initially present asymmetry may relax CN bounds at large mixings and tighten the bounds at small mixings.

Qualitatively, for oscillations affective after the freeze-out of the electron neutrino, the asymmetry effect is as follows: $`L<10^7`$ has negligible effect on CN; $`10^7<L<10^5`$ enhances oscillations due to the spectrum wave resonance NP , resulting into an enhanced overproduction of helium-4; $`L>10^5`$ leads to a suppression of oscillations and relaxation of the CN bounds (fig. 2).

In fig. 3 the isohelium contours $`Y_p=0.24`$ are presented, for different $`L`$: $`L=10^6`$ and $`L=10^{10}`$. For small mixing angles the asymmetry $`L=10^6`$ enhances oscillations, which reflects into stronger bounds on oscillation parameters, while for large mixings this asymmetry suppresses oscillations and CN bounds are weakened compared with $`L=10^{10}`$ case.

A similar investigation, of initial asymmetry effect on CN with oscillations, for the resonant case will be a more complicated task due to technical problems: The usual explicit numerical approach is not applicable for the description of the asymmetry evolution, because the neutrino evolution equations at resonance have high stiffness; besides the resonance case deserve much greater number of bins for the spectrum distortion description. To solve the stiff equations numerically, implicit methods should be used. For 5000 bins of the spectrum a system of 30000 equations describing the neutrino evolution should be solved simultaneously. However, this investigation is interesting, as far as such small values of the initial relic asymmetry are not excluded neither from observations nor from some profound theoretical principle.

In conclusion we would like to stress that small asymmetries, initially present or dynamically generated, influence CN thanks to their backfeed effect on oscillating neutrinos.The account of spectrum distortion of the oscillating neutrinos as well as the selfconsistent account of neutrinos and nucleons evolution is essential for revealing the indirect effect of small lepton asymmetries. Therefore, a precise kinetic approach should be provided when analyzing the effect of lepton asymmetry on CN with oscillations.

We are glad to thank the organizing committee of CAPP2000, for the stimulating atmosphere of the conference and for the financial support of the participation of D.K. M.C. thanks Theory Division of CERN where this work was prepared.