text:
# 1 Introduction: Our hopes and main goals at THERA

## 1 Introduction: Our hopes and main goals at THERA

### 1.1 Three domains of QCD at low $`𝐱`$

Deep inelastic scattering is a unique experiment which allows us to take ‘snapshots’ of the constituents inside a hadron at different moments of time with different resolutions. These ‘snapshots’ provide the possibility of finding the degrees of freedom (DOF) that are responsible for the interaction in QCD and generalize the theoretical approach from the well defined domain of perturbative QCD to the unknown non-perturbative ( confinement ) region, where the appropriate theoretical methods are still to be determined. DIS allows one to see the constituents of size $`1/Q`$, where $`Q`$ is the photon virtuality, at the time $`t1/mx`$, where $`x`$ is the Bjorken variable related to the energy ($`W`$) of the process ($`x=Q^2/W^2`$ at low $`x`$ ).

HERA data as well as theoretical studies suggest that hadrons have qualitatively diverse structure in the three different domains ( see Figs. 1 and 2 ):

1. Perturbative QCD domain where the constituents are of small size and are distributed in a hadron with rather low density ( packing factor of these constituents $`\kappa `$ is small ( $`\kappa <1`$ , see Fig. 3 ));
2. High parton density QCD domain in which the constituents are still small and we can use weak coupling methods, but their density is so large that their packing factor $`\kappa >1`$, and so we cannot treat this system of partons using the established pQCD methods;
3. Non perturbative QCD domain in which the QCD coupling is large, the confinement of quarks and gluons occurs, and new theoretical methods must be developed to explore this region.

Fig. 2 illustrates these ‘snapshots’ of the constituents at different moments of time ( different values of $`x`$ ). One can see three domains with different distributions of the constituents in the transverse plane. It should be stressed that the distributions do not depend on the reference frame, unlike time which differs in different reference frames.

Each of these domains has its own theoretical problems that can be clarified by THERA experiments. The key problems are shown in Fig. 1.

### 1.2 Brief summary of HERA data

Brief resume of HERA data: these data can be described by models including parton saturation, but they can also be described without assuming saturation. However, it turns out that all predictions of asymptotic hdQCD have already been seen in HERA data. This fact is so impressive and convincing that we, personally, think that HERA has reached a new regime of high density QCD . However, the situation is still non-conclusive as is illustrated by Fig. 4 which shows the value of the saturation scale in HERA and THERA kinematic region. One can see that $`Q_s(x)1GeV`$ for HERA. This low $`Q_s(x)`$ indicates that HERA data can be described by other approaches without saturation, for example, by some models that include a smooth matching between “soft” and “hard” interactions. However, at THERA $`Q_s(x)`$ is larger and the hdQCD interpretation of the data will be cleaner. We illustrate this point with two figures that follow.

### 1.3 Main idea

As we have discussed, we face two challenging problems in the region of low $`x`$ and low $`Q^2`$ which is now being investigated at HERA :

1. The matching of “hard” processes, which can be successfully described using perturbative QCD (pQCD), and “soft” processes, which should be described using non-perturbative QCD (npQCD);
2. Theoretical description of high density QCD (hdQCD). In this kinematic region we expect that the typical distances will be small, but the parton density will be so large that a new non perturbative approach needs to be developed for dealing with this system.

The main physical idea, on which our approach is based is :

The above two problems are correlated and the system of partons always passes through the stage of hdQCD ( at shorter distances ) before it proceeds to non-perturbative QCD and which, in practice, we describe using Reggeon phenomenology.

### 1.4 Status of theory

Parton saturation as well as other collective phenomena typical of the high parton density system, is not an additional postulate of QCD, but follows from the QCD evolution equations in the kinematic region associated with high parton density. Therefore, it is very important to have a clear understanding what can be proven theoretically.

In DIS at low $`x`$, one can find a system of high density partons, which is a non-perturbative system due to high density of partons, although the running QCD coupling constant is still small ( $`\alpha _S(r_{})1`$ ). Such a unique system can be treated theoretically . It should be stressed that the theory of hdQCD is now in very good shape.

Two approaches have been developed for hdQCD. The first one  is based on pQCD ( see GLR and Mueller and Qiu papers in Ref.  ) and on dipole degrees of freedom . This approach gives a natural description of the parton cascade in the kinematic region for $`\kappa 1`$ and up to the transition region with $`\kappa 1`$ ( see Fig. 2).

The second method  uses the effective Lagrangian suggested by McLerran and Venugopalan , this is a natural framework to describe data in the deep saturation region, where $`\kappa 1`$ (see Fig. 2). As a result of intensive work using these two approaches the non-linear evolution equation which has the following form has been derived

$`{\displaystyle \frac{da^{el}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}},b_t,y)}{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F\alpha _s}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\rho ^2}}\right)a^{el}(𝐱,b_t,y)+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _\rho }d^2𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}`$
$``$ $`\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}a^{el}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}},b_t,y)a^{el}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟎𝟐}},b_t,y)a^{el}(𝐱_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}},b_t,y)\right),`$
where $`a^{el}(r_{}^2,b_t,x)`$ is the elastic scattering amplitude for a dipole of size $`r_{}`$ at energy $`1/x`$ and at impact parameter $`b_t`$. We assume that $`b_tx_{02}\text{and/or}x_{12}`$.

The dipole cross section is equal to $`\sigma (r_{}^2,x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}d^2b_ta^{el}(r_{}^2,b_t,x)`$. The pictorial form of Eq. (1.4) is given in Fig. 5 which shows that the physics underlying this equation has a simple meaning: the dipole of size $`x_{10}`$ decays in two dipoles of sizes $`x_{12}`$ and $`x_{02}`$. These two dipoles interact with the target. The non-linear term which takes into account the Glauber corrections for such an interaction, Eq. (1.4) is the same as the GLR -equation  but here it is given in the coordinate representation. The coefficient in front of the non-linear term coincides in the double log with the one calculated in Ref. .

We wish to stress that this equation which includes the Glauber rescatterings , has definite initial conditions and has been derived by both methods (see Refs. ). The model, which we will describe in the next section, provides both the correct initial conditions for Eq. (1.4) and also serves as a good first iteration. This iteration reproduces the main features of the solution, and it is only necessary to repeat the iteration procedure two or three times to obtain a correct solution for $`x10^7`$.

## 2 Our model

### 2.1 General description

As was shown in Ref. , the correct initial condition for Eq. (1.4) is actually the Glauber-Mueller formula  for the rescattering of the colour dipole, namely

$$\sigma _{dipole}(r_{},x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}d^2b_tIma^{el}(r_{},x;b_t),$$
(2)
where

$$a^{el}(r_{},x;b_t)=i\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(r_{},x;b_t)}{2}}\right),$$
(3)
The opacity $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r_{},x;b_t)`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(r_{},x;b_t)=\frac{\pi ^2r_{}^2}{3\pi R^2}xG^{DGLAP}(x,\frac{4}{r_{}^2};b_t),$$
(4)
where $`G^{DGLAP}(x,\frac{4}{r_{}^2};b_t)=G^{DGLAP}(x,\frac{4}{r_{}^2})S(b_t)`$ and $`G^{DGLAP}(x,\frac{4}{r_{}^2})`$ is the solution of the linear DGLAP evolution equation, and $`S(b_t)`$ is the profile function for the impact parameter distribution of the gluons in the target. The origin of this function is non-perturbative, and it is normalized in Eq. (4) by the condition $`S(b_t=0)=1`$.

For the solution of Eq. (1.4) one should fix the value of initial $`x=x_0`$ ($`y=y_0`$) and use $`a^{el}(r_{},x=x_0;b_t)`$ as a starting iteration of Eq. (1.4). In our model we suggest a different approach, namely we use Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) as the first iteration of the Eq. (1.4) including their $`x`$-dependence. Therefore, the result of the second iteration of Eq. (1.4) can be written in the form:

$$a_2^{el}(r_{},y=\mathrm{ln}(1/x);b_t)=\frac{C_F\alpha _s}{\pi }r_{}^2^ydy^{}_r_{}\frac{d^2r_{}^{}}{r_{}^4}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}a_1^{el}(r_{}^{},y^{};b_t)(a_1^{el}(r_{}^{},y^{};b_t))^2\},$$
(5)
where we assumed that $`r_{}^{}r_{}`$. This assumption corresponds to the Leading Log Approximation of pertutbative QCD LLA, which has been used in the derivation of Eq. (2) and Eq. (3). Substituting Eq. (2) in Eq. (5) we obtain

$$a_2^{el}(r_{},y=\mathrm{ln}(1/x);b_t)=r_{}^2^ydy^{}_{r_{}^2}\frac{dr_{}^2}{r_{}^4}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_G(r_{}^{},y^{};b_t)}{2}}),$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G(r_{},y;b_t)=2\mathrm{\Omega }(r_{},y;b_t)`$ of Eq. (4) 111Actually, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G/\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}N_c^2/(N_c^21)=9/4(N_c=3)2(N_c1)`$..

The physical meaning of Eq. (6) is transparent. The dipole of size $`r_{}`$ decays into two dipoles which interact with the target. Eq. (6) describes the rescatterings of these two dipoles. On the other hand, in pQCD this state is the $`q\overline{q}G`$ state. Since we assume the size of $`q\overline{q}`$ system to be much smaller than the size of the dipoles in the $`q\overline{q}G`$ state, Eq. (6) relates to the passage of the gluon through the target. Using the relation between the gluon-target cross section222In principle, the gluon - target cross sections can be measured using the graviton as a colouless probe. and the gluon distribution

$$\sigma ^G=2d^2b_ta_2^{el}(r_{},y=\mathrm{ln}(1/x);b_t)=\frac{4\pi ^2}{Q^2}\alpha _S(Q^2)xG(x,Q^2)$$

one obtains the Glauber-Mueller formula for the gluon distribution

$$xG^{SC}(x,Q^2)=\frac{8}{\pi ^4}_x^1\frac{dx^{}}{x^{}}_{4/Q^2}\frac{d^2r_{}^{}}{r_{}^4}d^2b_t\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^G}{2}}\right).$$
(7)
Eq. (2) and Eq. (7) are the main formulae that we use in our estimates of the collective phenomena in DIS.

### 2.2  Advantages and disadvantages of the model.

The main advantages of our model follow directly from the way it has been constructed. Our model reproduces the DGLAP limit for $`r_{}^2<r_{saturation}^21/Q_s^2`$, gives a good approximation to the solution of Eq. (1.4) for $`x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$, and it preserves the relation between elastic, quasi-elastic ( diffraction) scattering and multi particle production in DIS based on the AGK cutting rules  (see Ref.  for details).

The main problem relating to our model is the fact that the evolution equation Eq. (1.4) has only been proven in the leading ln(1/x) approximation of pQCD where we consider $`\alpha _S\mathrm{ln}(1/x)1`$ while $`\alpha _S1`$. This approximation does not insure the accuracy of calculation for present accessible energies. On the other had, our model cannot be correct at low $`x`$ and it is only suitable to describe DIS for $`x10^6`$, where the model gives the second iteration of Eq. (1.4). For smaller values of $`x`$ we require higher iterations.

In Ref.  we have already shown that our model gives a good approximation of Eq. (1.4). Fig. 6 illustrates this point. Hence we can safely use our model for estimates of the collective phenomena even in THERA kinematic region.

Table 1 provides a guide for the different processes which we described in our model for kinematical range at HERA.

### 2.3 Phenomenological parameters of the model:

Before discussing the applications at THERA we list the parameters that we use to fit the data at HERA.

#### 2.3.1  $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ \- size of the target.

The size of the target enters the impact parameter profile of the target which we take in the Gaussian form:

$$S(b_t)=\frac{1}{\pi R^2}e^{\frac{b_t^2}{R^2}}.$$
(8)
The HERA data for photo production of the J/$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ \- meson as well as CDF data on double parton cross section, leads to the value of $`R^2=5÷10GeV^2`$. $`R^2`$ is a parameter fiied to describe of the experimental data. Note, that the value of $`R^2=8.5GeV^2`$ was taken for all reactions that we have described.

#### 2.3.2  $`𝐐_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}=\mathrm{𝟏}/𝐫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐞𝐩}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ \- separation parameter.

As we have discussed we can only rely on our model for the saturation effect ( see Eq. (2) - Eq. (3) ) at rather small distances ($`r_{}<r_{}^{sep}`$ ) or , in other words, at large virtualities of the incoming photon $`Q^2>Q_0^2`$. We have commented on the value of $`r_{}^{sep}`$, but in practice we used $`Q_0^2=0.6÷1GeV^2`$ and tried to estimate how our fit depends on the value of $`Q_0^2`$. Therefore, the result of our calculations should be read , as “the shadowing corrections from short distances $`r_{}<1/Q_0^2`$ gives this or that ….”.

#### 2.3.3  Solution of the DGLAP evolution equations.

We attempted to use all available parameterization of the solution of the DGLAP evolution equations, but we prefer the GRV parameterization . The reason for this is very simple: the theoretical formulae, that are the basis of our model, were derived in double log approximation of pQCD, and the GRV parameterization is the closest one to the DLA.

## 3 Predictions for THERA

### 3.1 The unitarity bound in THERA kinematic region

We start from the prediction which, in principle, does not depend on the exact form of the correct evolution equation and/or on the particular model, namely, from unitarity bound for $`F_2`$ and $`xG(x,Q^2)`$. This bound stems from a simple formula for the DIS cross section

$$\sigma (\gamma ^{}p)=_0^1𝑑zd^2r_{}|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,r_{};Q^2)|^2\sigma _{dipole}(x_B,r_{}^2),$$
(9)
where $`\sigma _{dipole}(x_B,r_{}^2)`$ is the total cross section of the $`q\overline{q}`$ -dipole of size $`r_{}`$ with the target; $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the wave function of the $`q\overline{q}`$ -dipole in the virtual photon. This wave function is well known  and for transverse polarised photon $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_T(z,r_{};Q^2)|^2`$ is equal

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_T(z,r_{};Q^2)|^2=\frac{\alpha ^{em}N_c}{2\pi ^2}\times \underset{1}{\overset{N_f}{}}Z_f^2[z^2+(1z)^2]\stackrel{~}{Q}^2K_1^2(\stackrel{~}{Q}r_{}),$$
(10)
where $`K_1`$ is the modified Bessel function, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^2=z(1z)Q^2`$, $`N_f`$ is the number of massless quarks and $`Z_f`$ is the fraction of the charge carried by the quark.

It was shown in Ref.  that in the DGLAP limit the essential $`r_{}`$ in Eq. (9) are larger than $`2/Q`$ ( $`r_{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}/Q`$) and the integral over $`z`$ can be taken, namely,

$$_0^1𝑑z|\mathrm{\Psi }_T(z,r_{};Q^2)|^2\frac{8}{3Q^2r_{}^4}.$$
(11)
Finally, using the relation between the total cross section and $`F_2`$ structure function

$$\sigma (\gamma ^{}p)=\frac{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{em}}{Q^2}F_2(x_B,Q^2)$$
(12)
one obtains

$$F_2(x_B,Q^2)=\frac{N_c}{12\pi ^3}\underset{1}{\overset{N_f}{}}Z_f^2_{\frac{1}{Q^2}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dr_{}^2}{r_{}^4}=\frac{N_c}{12\pi ^3}\underset{1}{\overset{N_f}{}}Z_f^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}d^2b_tIma_{dipole}^{el}(x_B,r_{};b_t)$$
(13)
Taking the derivative with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ and using the weak form of the unitarity constraint ($`Ima_{dipole}^{el}(x_B,r_{};b_t)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ ) we obtain

$$\frac{F_2(x,Q^2)}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\frac{Q^2R^2}{3\pi ^2}.$$
(14)
$`R^2`$ in Eq. (14) is the region of convergence for the integral over $`b_t`$ in Eq. (14). In principle, $`R^2`$ grows with $`x`$ but model estimates  as well as experimental data  show only mild $`x`$ dependence.

Fig. 7 shows that the $`F_2`$ slope approaches the unitarity bound at least in the GRV’98 parameterization of the solution to the DGLAP evolution equation. A violation of the unitarity bound in the DGLAP equation indicates that the shadowing corrections are unavoidable in the THERA kinematic region. The real size of these corrections is much larger than we can see from the violation of the unitarity bound, since the system starts becoming dense at densities lower than that which follows from the unitarity constraints. In other words, shadowing corrections lead to a considerable suppression in the deep inelastic structure function, at densities lower than originates from the unitarity constraints.

### 3.2 The unitarity bound for DIS with nuclei.

Eq. (14) looks better for DIS with nuclei, since the radius of the nucleus is large and a shrinkage of the diffraction peak induced by SC will be very small and we can neglect it. We plot the $`F_{2A}=AF_{2N}^{DGLAP}`$ and unitarity bound in Fig. 8.

One can see that for DIS with nuclei we should see the collective phenomena at $`x10^4`$ and at rather large value of $`Q^23÷5GeV^2`$.

### 3.3 Scaling violation in the $`F_2`$ \- slope

The careful analysis of the HERA data on the $`F_2`$\- slope ($`\frac{F_2(x,Q^2)}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2}`$), given in Ref., shows that (i) our saturation model as well as other models of this type ( see  for example ) , are able to describe all experimental data ; and (ii) such a description cannot be very conclusive since other approaches are equally successful. The saturation hypothesis leads to $`\frac{F_2(x,Q^2)}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2}Q^2R^2`$ for $`Q^2Q_s^2(x)`$. The HERA data  show such behaviour, but we cannot distingish this saturation behaviour from the vanishing of $`F_2`$ on the soft scale, which follows from the fact that the total photoproduction cross section is finite at $`Q^20`$. There are two reasons for this uncertainty: (i) the soft scale is not so soft and typical transverse momentum in the soft Pomeron could be as large as $`2GeV`$ ; and (ii) the saturation scale is rather small $`Q_s^2(x)=1÷2GeV^2`$ in HERA kinematic region.

One can see from Fig. 9 that THERA will allow us to distinguish between a mixture of soft and hard Pomerons (DL curve in Fig. 9 ) and our model for gluon saturation ( GLMN curve in Fig. 9 ). The difference between the DGLAP approach ( CTEQ5 curve in Fig. 9 ) and our predictions is concentrated in the region of small $`Q^21÷2GeV^2`$, but we recall that the corrections to the CTEQ5 parametrization due to high parton density effects reaches the value of about 30-40% at THERA energies. These estimates are an alternative way of saying, that at THERA energies we expect large SC theoretically, and a DGLAP approach can absorb these corrections in the initial nonperturbative gluon distributions at HERA energies, but it would be a more difficult task in THERA kinematic region.

### 3.4 Energy dependence of J/$`𝚿`$ production.

It was shown in  that the energy behaviour of the J/$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production is very sensitive to the value of the shadowing corrections. It turns out that the large uncertainties due to our poor knowledge of the wave function of vector mesons contribute mostly in the normalization of the cross section, while the energy slope is still a source of the information on SC. In Refs.  we showed that the shadowing corrections provide a natural explanation of the experimental energy behaviour for J/$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photo and deep inelastic production. However, the available data do not enable us to exclude explanations based on the mixture of soft and hard Pomerons, and the idea that this process is hard . Fig. 10 gives our prediction for THERA kinematic region for three approaches: the SC calculations in our model (GRV98SC), the soft + hard Pomeron model (DL2P) and the DGLAP approach based on the CTEQ parametrization (CTEQ5NSC).

### 3.5 Shrinkage of diffraction peak for production of vector mesons.

The experimentally observed shrinkage of the diffraction peak in photoproduction of J/$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a direct indication that this process is not a simple hard process that can be described in the DGLAP approach . Indeed, one of the most well established properties of the hard processes is the fact that the $`t`$-dependence is independent of energy ($`x`$) (see for example Ref. . There are two possible explanations: (i) the first one is the SC which lead to $`x`$-dependence of the $`t`$-slope and (ii) the second is based on the contamination of the J/$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production by the soft processes for which the shrinkage of the diffraction peak is a phenomenon that is well established both theoretically and experimentally.

It should be stressed that the above two approaches have different predictions for the $`x`$-dependence: SC lead to the $`t`$-slope which increases at higher energies ( lower $`x`$), since the contribution of SC grows with energy. For the mixture of soft and hard processes, the role of soft ones diminishes at higher energies, and as a result the value of effective $`\alpha _{eff}^{}`$ decreases .

In Fig. 11 one can see this effect for our model. This figure also shows that we cannot describe the ZEUS data regarding the value of the $`t`$-slope. The reason for this may be due to our under estimating the value of SC in our model. However, one lesson we can learn from Fig. 11: THERA will clarify the question which mechanism works. The important thing to emphasize once more is that the measurement of the shrinkage of the $`t`$-slope will provide reliable information on the deviation from the simple DGLAP approach.It is especially important to observe such shrinkage in the DIS diffraction production of J/$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and other vector mesons.

### 3.6 Maxima in ratios

Preparing this paper we tried to find improved observables which will be sensitive to the saturation scale. We study the $`Q^2`$ behaviour of the ratios:$`F_L/F_T`$ and $`F_L^D/F_T^D`$ for longitudinal and transverse structure function for inclusive DIS and for diffraction in DIS . In Fig. 12 some examples of these ratios are plotted. We found that these ratios have maxima at $`Q^2=Q_{max}^2(x)`$ which increases with $`x`$ as $`x0`$. It appears that $`Q_{max}(x)`$ is a simple function of the saturation scale $`Q_s(x)`$. In the THERA kinematic region $`Q_{max}^2(x)`$ is large $`Q_{max}^2(x)6÷7GeV^2`$. Such a large value of $`Q_{max}^2(x)`$ makes our calculation more reliable, and we expect that the measurement of this maxima in the THERA kinematic region will enable us to extract the value of the saturation scale from the experimental data.

### 3.7 Higher twist contribution.

One of the most challenging problem of QCD is to understand the higher twist contributions. The present approach to DIS is based on two main ideas: (i) the DGLAP evolution equation for leading twist contributions and (ii) the firm belief that higher twist contributions are small in the whole kinematic region, when we start QCD evolution from the large value of $`Q^2=Q_0^214GeV^2`$. In recent years it has been proven that there is no ground for such an assumption. It was found  that the anomalous dimension for the higher twists is much larger than for the leading one in the region of low $`x`$. It turns out that if we write the deep inelastic structure function in the form

$$F_2(x,Q^2)=F_2^{LT}(x,Q^2)+\frac{M^2}{Q^2}F_2^{HT}(x,Q^2)$$

$`F_2^{HT}(x,Q^2)F_2^{LT}(x,Q^2)\times xG(x,Q^2)`$ at $`x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Therefore, the experimental observation of the higher twist contribution, is one of the most challenging and important problems in DIS, as well as in QCD at large. The attractive feature of our model is the fact that it leads to higher twist contributions in accord with known theoretical information. Our calculations confirm the result of Ref.  that there is almost a full cancellation of the higher twist contributions in $`F_2`$ in spite of the fact that they give substantial contributions separately to $`F_L`$ and $`F_T`$ as well as to $`F^D`$. In the THERA kinematic region ( at $`x10^5`$) we expect the higher twist contributions to be of the same order as the leading twist at sufficiently high value of $`Q^2`$ (see Fig. 13) This high value of $`Q^2`$ insures us that our calculations are reliable. Therefore, we believe that THERA has a good chance to measure higher twist terms and a new era of DIS will open, that will include a systematic study of higher twist contributions.

## 4 Resume

We presented here our estimates for the possible manifestation of saturation in the THERA kinematic region. We believe that HERA has reached a new QCD regime: the high parton density QCD domain , where incorporating new collective phenomena is essential for understanding it’s physics. We argue here that data from THERA will be able to show that we have reached this new regime, and will allow a systematic study of the QCD parton system with large parton density.

We hope that our estimates will help to plan the experimental strategy for the THERA project.

## Acknowledgements

The authors are very much indebted to our coauthors and friends with whom we discussed our approach on a everyday basis Ian Balitsky, Jochen Bartels , Krystoff Golec Biernat, Larry McLerran, Dima Kharzeev, Yuri Kovchegov and Al Mueller for their help and fruitful discussions on the subject. E.G. , E. L. U.M. and K.T. thank BNL Nuclear Theory Group and DESY Theory group for their hospitality and creative atmosphere during several stages of this work.

This research was supported in part by the BSF grant $`\mathrm{\#}`$ 9800276, by the GIF grant $`\mathrm{\#}`$ I-620-22.14/1999 and by Israeli Science Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities.


format: text

text:
# Radio Plasma as a Cosmological Probe

## 1 Radio Galaxies

Radio galaxies produce radio cocoons, which create large cavities in the IGM gas filled with magnetic fields and relativistic particles: electrons and positrons or protons. The electrons (and positrons if present) of several GeV reveal their presence by synchrotron emission at radio wavelength. From the observed radio emission the minimal energy density in the radio plasma can be deduced. Since the radio plasma has to have a higher (or equal) pressure than the environment, a direct probe of the ambient gas pressure is given. Also the ram pressure effects of swept up IGM material during the expansion of the cocoon can be used to determine IGM gas densities. The morphology of the radio galaxy can give information about relative motions of the galaxy and the IGM, but also allows to detect IGM shock waves.

The amount of energy released by radio galaxies into the gaseous Universe during the whole history of the Universe is large. Rough estimates give a ratio of 0.1 … 1 between the energy released by radio galaxies and by the gravitationally driven structure formation. Radio galaxies are therefore one of the best candidates in order to explain the necessary non-gravitational heating required by the observed entropy-floor of clusters and groups of galaxies. Therefore remnant radio plasma should be a ubiquitous phase of the IGM.

## 2 Radio Ghosts

Radiative energy losses let the radio emitting electrons in radio cocoons become invisible to our instruments within cosmologically short times ($`10^8`$ year). Afterwards, the cocoon of fossil radio plasma is named radio ghosts. But the electrons confined by the magnetic fields should still stay relativistic, and might reveal their presence by inverse Compton effects on the cosmic microwave background (CMB): the relativistic Sunyaev-Zeldovich (rSZ) effect. Since a CMB photon scattered by a relativistic electron gains a large factor in energy, it is practically removed from the CMB spectrum. Thus the rSZ effect is mostly an absorption at CMB frequencies. The optical depth of the total electron population residing in radio ghosts is of the order of $`\tau 10^7`$, but this number has large uncertainties. Since the expansion of the radio cocoons into the IGM should at least release some pressure work to the environmental gas, the corresponding thermal SZ effect should have a Comptonization parameter of the order of $`y10^{5\mathrm{}6}`$.

But not only the relativistic electrons may reveal their presence by scattering of radiation. Also the magnetic fields of radio ghosts are able to deflect charged particles even at the highest energies observed in the cosmic ray spectrum. If the spatial distribution of radio ghosts is sufficiently unclustered compared to the clustering of galaxies, then the expected number densities of ghosts would be sufficient to explain the mysterious isotropy of the ultra high energy cosmic ray particles, even if the sources are as inhomogeneously distributed as the galaxies.

## 3 Cluster Radio Relics

Recently, radio ghosts were detected by X-ray deficits in cluster core regions. But very likely, they already showed up as cluster radio relics 20 years ago. These extended radio sources in some clusters of galaxies are not specially connected to any optical galaxy. Cluster radio relics are preferentially located in peripheral regions of clusters. They have usually steep radio spectra and exhibit often a high degree of linear polarization. In several cases, their locations can be associated with strong shock waves in merging clusters of galaxies. In the cases of Abell 2256 and Abell 1367 temperature substructures of the hot ICM gas could be detected, which support the presence of a shock wave at the location of cluster relics in these clusters. For Abell 754, Abell 2256, Abell 3667 and also the Coma cluster numerical simulations of merger events were satisfactorily fitted to the X-ray data, which also supports the shock wave-relic connection. The mechanism producing the cluster radio relics is very likely adiabatic compression of radio ghosts in an environmental shock wave. This strengthens the internal magnetic fields and shifts the electron population to higher energies. If the upper cooling cutoff of the electron spectrum can be shifted above the radio emitting energies, the ghost’s radio emission is revived and the ghost appears as a cluster radio relic. Cluster radio relics therefore not only allow the study of shock waves, but also give a view into the fossil Universe. Their number should be much higher at lower frequencies, due to the distribution of frequency cutoffs in their radio spectra.

## 4 Cluster Radio Halos

Cluster radio halos appear preferentially in the center of clusters of merging galaxies. They have morphologies similar to the X-ray morphologies of their host clusters. Radio polarization could not be reported in any case. Their large physical size ($``$ Mpc) require that the radio emitting electrons are accelerated or injected throughout the cluster volume.

The energy source of all non-thermal processes in clusters should be either the kinetic energy of matter falling onto clusters, or the outflows from galaxies. The latter can be divided in galactic winds, which are strongest for starburst galaxies, and ejection of radio plasma from an AGN. All these processes can produce shock waves and inject turbulence into the ICM, and therefore produce conditions where Fermi mechanisms accelerate particles. For a brief review see Enßlin (1999).

A promising injection mechanism of relativistic electrons is secondary particle production from hadronic interactions of relativistic protons with the background gas:

$`p+p`$ $``$ $`2N+\pi ^\pm `$
$`\pi ^\pm `$ $``$ $`\mu ^\pm +\nu _\mu /\overline{\nu }_\mu e^\pm +\nu _e/\overline{\nu }_e+\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu `$
The lifetime of relativistic protons in the ICM is of the order of the Hubble time, or larger. Thus they are able to travel large distances from their sources before they release their energy. The production of electrons via charged pions has to be accompanied by gamma ray production via neutral pions :

$`p+p`$ $``$ $`2N+\pi ^o`$
$`\pi ^o`$ $``$ $`2\gamma `$
Thus clusters with radio halos might have gamma-ray halos, which would be, if detected, a direct proof for a hadronic origin of radio halos.

## 5 Conclusions

Radio galaxies:

* probe the thermodynamical state of the gaseous Universe.
* produce large amounts of fossil radio plasma.

Radio ghosts, the invisible descendents of radio galaxies:

* may produce an relativistic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.
* scatter and possibly isotropize ultra high energy cosmic ray particles.

Cluster radio relics:

* trace shock waves of the large scale structure formation flows.
* are likely revived radio ghosts.

Cluster radio halos:

* indicate recent cluster merger events.
* trace non-thermal processes in the intracluster medium.


text:
# Nielsen–Olesen vortex in varying-𝛼 theories

## I Introduction

The possibility that the constants of Nature may not be constant at all has long been entertained by physicists (see for instance the groundbreaking work of Dirac ). Historically the gravitational constant $`G`$ has been the main victim of attempts to build varying constant theories. An example of a varying-$`G`$ theory is Brans–Dicke theory , but modern string theories all display this property (eg. ). Another often dethroned constant is the electron charge $`e`$, whose variability is envisaged by varying-$`\alpha `$ theories (where $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi \mathrm{}c)`$ is the fine structure constant) such as the one proposed by Bekenstein . A recent claim for observational evidence for a time-varying $`\alpha `$  has sparked great interest in this type of theories . More radically a varying $`\alpha `$ may result from varying speed of light (VSL) theories, typically (but not always ) entailing breaking of Lorentz invariance . It appears that VSL theories may solve the cosmological problems usually solved by inflation.

Should the observations of Webb et al be confirmed, no doubt most of the physical constructions employed by physicists will have to be reexamined. Bekenstein’s theory is perhaps the most conservative theory with which to interpret the new results, in the sense that it does not require giving up any truly fundamental principles, such as covariance and Lorentz invariance. Within the framework of this theory the vacuum is pervaded by a dielectric medium, screening the electric charge. The properties of this dielectric medium are determined by the electromagnetic field itself, within the context of a dynamical Lagrangian theory. Hence in the surroundings of any object with an electromagnetic energy component, there will be spatial variations in the electric charge.

The application of this theory to cosmology is clouded by the issue of determining how much of the matter in the Universe will act as a source for this dielectric medium  (see however ). Clearly one needs to understand the microphysics underlying the cosmological fluid, in particular the nature of the dark matter, in order to set up a consistent cosmological model. In this paper we therefore turn to a more concrete and simpler situation. We consider a complex scalar field with a $`U(1)`$ gauge electromagnetic symmetry spontaneously broken, which couples to a dielectric field in accordance with Bekenstein’s prescription. We then consider topologically non-trivial solutions to this theory, the counterpart of the Nielsen–Olesen vortex . In the standard theory such vortices have well localized concentrations of energy, along a stable string-like core. Furthermore this core constitutes a magnetic field flux tube. Hence the vortex acts as a source for the dielectric vacuum proposed in , leading to a varying $`\alpha `$ in the vicinity of the string.

The value of $`e`$ in the string core is therefore much larger (smaller) than the asymptotic value $`e_0`$ (larger or smaller depending on parameter signs). If $`e`$ becomes much larger we obtain a situation vaguely similar to the superconducting strings of Witten . Indeed in some sense, infinite charge could amount to superconductivity. In Sec. II we set up the formalism, and study the asymptotics of our solution, and in Sec. III present the full numerical solution. A qualitative discussion of the implications of cosmological networks of such strings is presented in Sec. IV. Such strings would combine local and global string elements in their evolution and energy loss mechanisms, as well as in their gravitational interaction with the surrounding matter. More distinctly they would generate inhomogeneities in the value of $`e`$, leading, among other things, to inhomogeneous recombination scenarios.

Another interesting connection, spelled out in Sec. V, is the similarity between our solutions and fast-tracks, a construction found in VSL theories . Such solitonic solutions to VSL allow for fast travel without a time-dilation effect. We discuss how the situation is distinctly different in the case of these strings — they still allow for fast travel in some sense, however they would induce a time-dilation effect of their own which has nothing to do with the special relativity effect.

The solution derived in Sec. II is but the simplest of many similar constructions involving solitonic solutions coupled to varying charge theories. In all of these a gauge field undergoing spontaneous symmetry breaking supplies a solitonic solution which acts as a source for a dielectric field. As a result a dielectric coating is superposed on the soliton, forcing the gauge coupling (or charge) to vary in the soliton core or near its vicinity. In Sec. VI we discuss the possibility of gauging the dielectric field itself. In a concluding discussion, in Sec. VII we also consider the possibility of non-Abelian gauge groups, and similar constructions with the morphology of monopoles and textures.

## II The model

We first describe Bekenstein’s theory, in the context of a charged complex scalar field undergoing spontaneous symmetry breaking. Let $`\varphi `$ be a complex scalar field with a gauged $`U(1)`$ symmetry, and $`A_\mu `$ be the gauge field. Let the electric charge $`e`$ be a variable, with $`ϵ=e/e_0`$ where $`e_0`$ is some fixed electric charge. Under a gauge transformation $`\delta \varphi =i\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a scalar function, one should impose $`\delta A_\mu =(_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })/e`$, so that the derivative $`D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu `$ transforms covariantly. The gauge invariant electromagnetic field tensor is then

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{ϵ}(_\mu (ϵA_\nu )_\nu (ϵA_\mu ))$$
(1)
and the Lagrangian is:

$$=(D^\mu \varphi )^{}D_\mu \varphi V(\varphi )\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{\omega }{2ϵ^2}_\mu ϵ^\mu ϵ$$
(2)
(we are using a metric with signature $`+++`$). The first three terms constitute the matter Lagrangian, while the last term governs the dynamics of $`ϵ`$. We adopt the proverbial Mexican hat potential:

$$V(\varphi )=m^2|\varphi |^2+\lambda |\varphi |^4,$$
(3)
with $`\lambda `$ and $`m^2<0`$ fixed parameters. The vacuum is then the circle $`|\varphi |=\varphi _0=\sqrt{m^2/(2\lambda )}`$.

We first introduce a transformation which simplifies Bekenstein’s theory enormously. We note that by defining an auxiliary gauge potential $`a_\mu =ϵA_\mu `$ and field tensor:

$$f_{\mu \nu }=ϵF_{\mu \nu }=_\mu a_\nu _\nu a_\mu $$
(4)
the Lagrangian becomes

$$=(D^\mu \varphi )^{}D_\mu \varphi V(\varphi )\frac{1}{4}\frac{f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }}{ϵ^2}\frac{\omega }{2ϵ^2}_\mu ϵ^\mu ϵ,$$
(5)
in which $`D_\mu =_\mu +ie_0a_\mu `$. Hence we have eliminated the dependence on $`ϵ`$ in the matter Lagrangian apart from dividing the $`f^2`$ term by $`ϵ^2`$. This greatly simplifies the variational problem regardless of which variables we decide to label as physical (which is essentially a matter of convention). Indeed zero variation with respect to $`\{\varphi ,A_\mu ,ϵ\}`$ is equivalent to zero variation with respect to $`\{\varphi ,a_\mu ,ϵ\}`$. We have also exposed an interesting similarity between this theory and Brans–Dicke changing-$`G`$ theory. In the latter one multiplies the Ricci scalar (essentially a $`f^2`$ term) by a scalar field, which also does not appear explicitly elsewhere (other than in its own kinetic terms or potential).

Variation of (5) with respect to $`\varphi `$ produces the equation:

$$D_\mu D^\mu \varphi =\frac{V}{\varphi ^{}},$$
(6)
in which we may use $`D_\mu =_\mu +ie_0a_\mu `$ or $`D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu `$. Variation with respect to $`a_\mu `$ now produces straightforwardly:

$$_\mu \frac{f^{\mu \nu }}{ϵ^2}=_\mu \frac{F^{\mu \nu }}{ϵ}=j^\nu =ie_0[\varphi ^{}D^\nu \varphi \varphi (D^\nu \varphi )^{}]$$
(7)
and finally variation with respect to $`ϵ`$ leads to:

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}ϵ=\frac{1}{2\omega }\frac{f^2}{ϵ^2}=\frac{1}{2\omega }F^2.$$
(8)
These equations, in the $`\{A_\mu ,F_{\mu \nu }\}`$ representation, are nothing but Bekenstein’s equations. However the transformation we have used has simplified the derivation greatly, and it will also simplify the search for solutions in what follows.

We now seek solutions similar to the Nielsen–Olesen vortex in this theory. We therefore introduce the ansatz $`\varphi =\chi (r)e^{in\theta }`$ and $`a_\theta =a(r)`$ with all other components for $`a_\mu `$ set to zero. We define a magnetic field out of the $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ tensor, so that $`𝐛=\times 𝐚`$. Hence the magnetic field is aligned with the $`z`$ direction and has value:

$$b=b_z=\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}[ra].$$
(9)
The dynamical equations are:

$$\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\left(r\frac{d\chi }{dr}\right)\left[\left(\frac{n}{r}e_0a\right)^2+m^2+2\lambda \chi ^2\right]\chi =0,$$
(10)
which is unmodified, and

$$\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{1}{rϵ^2}\frac{d}{dr}(ra)\right)+2e_0\left(\frac{n}{r}e_0a\right)\chi ^2=0$$
(11)
and

$$\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\left(r\frac{d\mathrm{ln}ϵ}{dr}\right)=\frac{1}{2\omega }\frac{b^2}{ϵ^2}.$$
(12)
To investigate the asymptotic behaviour far from the core, first recall that the scalar field takes on the constant value $`\chi =\sqrt{\frac{m^2}{2\lambda }}`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$. From Eq. (10) we then see that

$$a=\frac{n}{re_0},$$
(13)
which also agrees with Eq. 11. From this we deduce that the flux of $`b`$ is quantized:

$$𝐛\mathrm{𝐝𝐒}=𝐚\mathrm{𝐝𝐥}=\frac{2\pi n}{e_0}$$
(14)
but not the flux of $`B=b/ϵ`$ in which $`ϵ`$ takes the role of a magnetic permeability. We also find the asymptotic solution for $`ϵ`$:

$$ϵ=\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)^{\frac{I}{\omega \pi }},$$
(15)
where $`I`$ is the integral of $`𝐁^2`$ over a string cross section. Hence $`ϵ`$ can only either go to zero (if $`\omega >0`$) or infinity (if $`\omega <0`$) far away from the string — corresponding to a logarithmic divergence in $`\psi `$; not surprising since (12) has sources at spatial infinity (at $`z=\pm \mathrm{}`$). Furthermore the energy in the $`ϵ`$ field diverges away from the string. These features are well known properties of global strings. Indeed we have a local or gauged string (in the field $`\varphi `$) superposed on a global string (in the field $`ϵ`$).

In a cosmological setting these seemingly pathological divergences are naturally removed by the scale of curvature of the strings. Then the difference between the asymptotic and core values of the electric charge is roughly of the order of $`(r_c/r_0)^{I/(\omega \pi )}`$, where $`r_c`$ and $`r_0`$ are the curvature and core radii of the string respectively.

If we require that $`\psi `$ has a positive definite energy, then $`\omega >0`$ in which case the charge at the core should be much higher than its asymptotic value. It is in this case that we can claim a similarity between our construction and superconducting strings . In some loose sense a diverging electric charge should be equivalent to superconductivity. Indeed applying an electric field upon a conductor in the interior of this string subjects the charge carriers to a force proportional to $`e`$. Hence the electric force applied to them is much larger than normal. If the resistance to which they are subject does not change, we can then ignore it — and it is in this sense that these strings could maintain persistent currents and therefore be labelled superconducting. Note that this is just a loose analogy: effects such as the expulsion of magnetic fields from the interior of the string are not present in this case.

Our solution also has vague similarities to the dilatonic string of , for which the string mass per unit length is a function of a scalar field.

## III Numerical Solutions of the Model

Equations (10)–(12), together with the asymptotic values at $`r=0`$ and $`r=r_c`$, constitute a boundary value problem. For the sake of numerically solving this problem, it is convenient to make the following change of variables so as to avoid singularities:

$`a`$ $``$ $`v=ar,`$ (16)
$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`\psi =\mathrm{ln}ϵ.`$ (17)
We also reduce the problem to first order by introducing the new variables

$$\sigma =\frac{d\chi }{dr},\eta =\frac{d\psi }{dr}.$$
(18)
The new set of equations suitable for numerical implementation is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\chi }{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ,`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{r}}+\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{ne_0v}{r}}\right)^2+m^2+2\lambda \chi ^2\right)\chi ,`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`br,`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{db}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta b\left(2e_0{\displaystyle \frac{ne_0v}{r}}\chi ^2\right)e^{2\psi },`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ,`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega }}b^2e^{2\psi }.`$ (24)
We first check our code on the Nielsen–Olesen vortex with constant $`ϵ`$. The results for the scalar field and the magnetic field compare well with the original work, and are shown as the dashed lines in Figure 1. We then allow the $`ϵ`$ to vary, and incorporate Equations (19)–(24). The results are consistent with the asymptotic behaviour found in Equations (13)–(15), and are shown as the solid lines in Figure 1.

## IV Qualitative discussion of a cosmological network

Varying-$`\alpha `$ strings, if formed at phase transitions, would have a complex evolution. It is conceivable that the string core would still be governed by the Nambu–Goto action. Also, presumably these strings, when crossing, would still intercommute (although this fact should be checked by numerical simulations). However, in addition to intercommuting, the dielectric field would act as a long-range force between the strings, creating a double mechanism for string interaction. Hence we should have something like a local string network, acting as a source for a global string network, the two networks being driven by their usual interaction mechanisms plus a complex interaction between the two.

Energy loss processes would again combine local and global string elements. The core string should develop small scale structure, via intercommutation, thereby emitting gravitational radiation. On the other hand the dielectric field would now supply a channel for the string to lose energy via the emission of scalar radiation. A combination of processes peculiar to local and global strings should therefore push these strings towards a scaling solution, but clearly we may expect such scaling solutions to be distinctly different from the usual ones.

The interactions of these strings and the other matter in the universe would also be rather peculiar. Gravitationally we would find a combination of the effects of local strings (and their conical flat space) and the more complex global string gravitational fields. However, predicting the density fluctuations in this scenario as a simple superposition of global and local fluctuations (that is the total spectrum as a weighted average of the separate spectra) is clearly too gross an approximation. The local and global string networks will be highly correlated, and have a strong feedback effect upon each other. Whatever the gravitational effects of these strings upon the surrounding matter will be, they have to be determined by simulations along the lines of  specifically applied to varying-$`\alpha `$ string networks. Note that unlike conventional super-conducting cosmic strings we would not expect the equation of state of these strings to differ from standard ones.

However what would truly distinguish these strings, and their possible cosmological effects, is the fact that the electric charge varies in their vicinity. For a straight string the electron charge variation away from the core would be given by:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }e}{e}=\frac{\beta }{\omega \pi }G\mu \mathrm{ln}\frac{r}{r_0},$$
(25)
in which for the $`I`$ defined after equation 15, we used $`I=\beta G\mu `$. Here $`\mu `$ is the string mass per unit length, and $`\beta `$ is the fraction of this mass in the magnetic field flux tube. These fluctuations are therefore of the order of the gravitational potential induced by the strings.

Hence, in addition to acting as gravitational seeds for structure formation, these strings would affect any electromagnetic processes in their neighbourhood. A topical example is recombination. In the vicinity of these strings the hydrogen binding energy would suffer spatial variations, leading to inhomogeneous recombination. The implications of a homogeneous changing-$`\alpha `$ upon recombination and CMB anisotropy were studied in . A network of changing-$`\alpha `$ strings would provide additional effects.

## V A comparison of varying-$`\alpha `$ strings and fast tracks

Although there is a parallel between the solutions found in this paper and fast-tracks , there is a crucial difference. Fast-tracks are string-like solutions to some covariant VSL theories such that the speed of light is much higher near the string core. Hence observers may move along the string core much faster than the asymptotic value of $`c=c_{\mathrm{}}`$. Moreover such “super-$`c_{\mathrm{}}`$” speeds need not be relativistic, that is, they may still be much smaller than the local value of $`c`$, so that such observers would not be subject to time-dilation effects. Fast-tracks are what space travel is begging for: fast, “superluminal” travel, free from time dilation. It can be shown that a change of units transforms fast-tracks into wormholes.

In the case of our strings the situation is rather different. As $`\alpha `$ changes near the string core so will change the time rates associated with all electromagnetic processes. In particular an atomic clock, ticking to a rate $`\tau 1/\alpha ^2`$, will tick differently. Biological processes, being electromagnetic, also tick to this rate. If the charge decreases towards the string core, then alpha is smaller, and so the time scales $`\tau `$ of all electromagnetic processes increase. Unfortunately this situation is realized in the case $`\omega <0`$, for which the dielectric energy density is not positive definite. Nonetheless let us consider further this case.

Using coordinate time we know that “super-$`c_{\mathrm{}}`$” speeds cannot be achieved near the string. However, since $`e0`$, it would then be possible to “pickle” observers moving along the string, since $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. If we were to measure speeds along the string in atomic clock units, then we could indeed measure “super-$`c_{\mathrm{}}`$”: the point is that natural organisms would be able to travel very large distances within their perceived time scales.

However the use of such strings for space travel would still lead to twin paradox effects: clearly a round trip would cause a large difference in ages between sedentary and nomadic twins. Curiously enough such a time dilation effect has nothing to do with relativistic speeds. It is simply given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{\Delta }t_0\frac{dt}{\alpha ^2}.$$
(26)
In this respect the varying-$`\alpha `$ strings considered here are distrinctly different from VSL fast-tracks.

## VI Gauged dielectric field

We have noted that the dielectric coating surrounding our modified Nielsen–Olesen vortex is like a global string superposed on the usual gauged string (made up of charged scalar field and a magnetic flux tube). Further symmetry would be enforced if the dielectric itself were charged, that is if we replaced Bekenstein’s real scalar field $`\psi =\mathrm{ln}ϵ`$, by a complex field $`\psi `$, such that $`ϵ=e^{|\psi |}`$. Upon gauging the $`U(1)`$ symmetry associated with $`\psi `$ we therefore arrive at the Lagrangian:

$``$ $`=`$ $`(D^\mu \varphi )^{}D_\mu \varphi V(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }}{ϵ^2}}`$ (28)
$`\omega [(\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \psi )^{}(\stackrel{~}{D}^\mu \psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }],`$
in which $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu =_\mu +igB_\mu `$, where $`g`$ the charge of the dielectric field, $`B^\mu `$ is the photon associated with the dielectric, and $`G_{\mu \nu }=_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu `$ the corresponding field tensor. The equations for the scalar field $`\varphi `$ and the gauge field $`a_\mu `$ remain unaffected, but the equation for $`\psi `$ is now:

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu \stackrel{~}{D}^\mu \psi =\frac{1}{4\omega }f^2e^{2|\psi |}\frac{\psi }{|\psi |}$$
(29)
and for $`B_\mu `$

$$_\nu G^{\nu \mu }=j_\psi ^\mu =ig[\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{D}^\mu \psi \psi (\stackrel{~}{D}^\mu \psi )^{}].$$
(30)
Under cylindrical symmetry these equations may be solved using the same ansatz for $`\varphi `$ and $`a_\mu `$ as before, and the counterparts for the dielectric: $`\psi =\xi (r)e^{im\theta }`$, and $`B_\theta =B(r)`$ (with all other components of $`B_\mu `$ set to zero). The new equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(r{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi }{dr}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{r}}gB\right)^2\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{f^2e^{2\xi }}{4\omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}(rB)\right)+2g\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{r}}gB\right)\xi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (32)
Given that $`f^2`$ is confined to the (local) string core, the asymptotics for the new fields are similar. While we still have $`\chi =\sqrt{\frac{m^2}{2\lambda }}`$ and $`a=n/(re_0)`$, for $`r\mathrm{}`$, we find that $`\xi `$ may go to any constant (if $`e_0`$ is the asymptotic value of the electric charge, $`\xi 0`$), while

$$B=\frac{m}{rg}.$$
(33)
Overall we find that the dielectric behaves like a local string superposed on the usual Nielsen–Olesen vortex. Its magnetic flux, associated with the gauge field $`B_\mu `$, is quantized, with a quantum number $`m`$. This is particularly curious as there is nothing topological in the nature of the dielectric string. Somehow it borrows these features from the topological nature of the $`\varphi `$-string sourcing it. The $`\psi `$ field does not have a potential, only kinetic terms plus a source at the string. Thus the $`\psi `$ field can take on any covariantly constant value far away from the string, which amounts to constant $`|\psi |`$, and a phase equal to $`m\theta `$.

Notice that none of the points made in Section IV, regarding the cosmological implications of local strings coupled to an ungauged dielectric, apply to the strings considered in this section. The variations in $`e`$ experienced in the surroundings of these strings are confined to microphysical distances, and have no direct cosmological implications.

It could also happen that $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are coupled to the same $`U(1)`$ gauge field. Then

$$=(D^\mu \varphi )^{}D_\mu \varphi V(\varphi )\frac{f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }}{4ϵ^2}\omega (D_\mu \psi )^{}(D^\mu \psi ),$$
(34)
leading to equations:

$`D_\mu D^\mu \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\varphi ^{}}},`$ (35)
$`D_\mu D^\mu \psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\omega }}f^2e^{2|\psi |}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{|\psi |}},`$ (36)
and the gauge-field equation:

$`_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{f^{\mu \nu }}{ϵ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`j_\varphi ^\mu +j_\psi ^\mu ,`$ (37)
$`j_\varphi ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ie_0[\varphi ^{}D^\nu \varphi \varphi (D^\nu \varphi )^{}],`$ (38)
$`j_\psi ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ie_0[\psi ^{}D^\nu \psi \psi (D^\nu \psi )^{}].`$ (39)
Studying the asymptotics of these equations we find that in this case the quantum number $`m`$ associated with $`\psi `$ would have to be the same as $`n`$. Indeed we have that $`\varphi =\chi (r)e^{in\theta }`$, with $`\chi =\sqrt{\frac{m^2}{2\lambda }}`$, and $`a=n/(re_0)`$; but now we should also have $`\psi =\xi (r)e^{in\theta }`$ with $`\xi (r)`$ going to any constant. More generally it could be that the charge of the $`\psi `$ field is $`g=ke`$, where $`k`$ is an integer (or more generally a rational number), in which case $`m=kn`$.

## VII Concluding remarks

In this paper we studied the counterpart of the Nielsen–Olesen vortex in Bekenstein’s varying-$`\alpha `$ theory, by means of analytical asymptotic methods, and numerically. We found that such strings are covered by the dielectric medium characterizing Bekenstein’s theory. This coating, in effect, looks like a global string superposed upon the local string core. The electric charge would thus vary (typically increase) as the string core is approached.

We then discussed possible cosmological implications of such strings. Clearly their networks will be much more complex than just the superposition of a local and a global string network. We pointed out the main aspects in which their dynamics and energy loss mechanisms will be more complex. Structure formation in these theories will also have more to it than just a superposition of results known to be true for the two types of network. In addition we highlighted a peculiar feature of these networks: their ability to generate inhomogeneities in the electric charge, and consequently (among other things) to generate inhomogeneous reionization scenarios.

In a brief section we compared these strings with fast-tracks: solitonic solutions to VSL theories along which fast travel without time-dilation effects is possible. We showed that while in some sense fast travel along these strings is possible, in those cases one cannot evade a time-dilation effect. Curiously enough this time dilation effect is present even if observers do not exceed non-relativistic speeds. It is an effect merely due to the fact that the pace of atomic clocks depends upon $`\alpha `$, and slows down accordingly near the string core.

Finally we initiated an exploration of other solitonic solutions in these theories. We considered the possibility that the dielectric field itself might be a gauged. We found that in such a case, even if the dielectric is not endowed with a potential, it acquires topological features, e.g. quantization of its associated magnetic field flux in the string core.

Although in this paper we restricted ourselves to gauged $`U(1)`$ symmetries it is possible to generalize our constructions to non-abelian symmetry groups. Indeed counterparts to Bekenstein’s theory associated with strong interactions were discussed in . Following such generalizations it would be possible to construct monopoles and textures (associated with $`O(3)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ gauge symmetries), covered by similar dielectric coatings. The only type of soliton which apparently could not be associated with changing-charge theories are domain walls, for which there is no associated gauge symmetry. We defer to future work the scrutiny of these more complicated solitons.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to J. Blanco–Pillado for very interesting comments, and to Warren Perkins for supplying us with an integration code, and for advice on numerics. H.B. Sandvik would like to thank The Research Council of Norway for financial support. This work was performed on COSMOS, the Origin 2000 supercomputer owned by the UK-CCC and supported by HEFCE and PPARC.


text:
# BPS states in M-theory and twistorial constituents

## Abstract

We provide a complete algebraic description of the Bogomol’nyi-Prasad Sommerfield (BPS) states in M-theory in terms of primary constituents that we call BPS preons. We argue that any BPS state preserving $`k`$ of the $`32`$ supersymmetries is a composite of $`(32k)`$ BPS preons. In particular, the BPS states corresponding to the basic M2 and M5 branes are composed of $`16`$ BPS preons. By extending the M-algebra to a generalized $`D`$=$`11`$ conformal superalgebra $`osp(1|64)`$ we relate the BPS preons with its fundamental representation, the $`D`$=$`11`$ supertwistors.

1. Introduction. The dynamical description of the eleven- dimensional M-theory , which should unify all fundamental interactions including gravity, is not known. It is characterized by a set of (conjectured) duality symmetries and by the low energy limit, $`D`$=$`11`$ supergravity . A relevant information is provided by the $`D`$=$`11`$ Poincaré superalgebra recently called M-algebra

$$\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=Z_{\alpha \beta },[Q_\alpha ,Z_{\alpha \beta }]=0,$$

$$Z_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu P_\mu +i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }Z_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}Z_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu )_{\alpha }^{}{}_{.}{}^{\gamma }C_{\gamma \beta }`$, etc, $`Q_\alpha `$ is a $`32`$-component real Majorana spinor of supercharges, and the symmetric $`32\times 32`$ generator $`Z_{\alpha \beta }`$ of tensorial (central with respect to $`Q_\alpha `$) charges extends the eleven momentum components $`P_\mu `$ to a set of $`528=11+55+462`$ generators. The additional $`517`$ charges characterize the basic M-branes. Assuming that the M-algebra is valid for all energies, the information about the spectrum of states in M-theory can be deduced from the representation theory of the algebra (1). Of special importance is the notion of the Bogomol’nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) states. A BPS state $`|k`$ can be defined as an eigenstate with eigenvalue $`z_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the ‘generalized momentum’ generator, $`Z_{\alpha \beta }|k=z_{\alpha \beta }|k`$, such that $`\mathrm{det}z_{\alpha \beta }=0`$:

$$\frac{k}{32}\mathrm{BPS}\mathrm{state}:\{\mathrm{rank}z_{\alpha \beta }=32k,32>k1\}.$$
(2)
Moreover , eq. (2) implies that the BPS state $`|k`$ preserves a fraction $`\nu =\frac{k}{32}`$ of supersymmetries.

Without a knowledge of the fundamental dynamics of M-theory, it is difficult to determine which representations of (1) are primary and which are composite. A point of view based on the study of solitonic solutions of $`D`$=$`11`$ supergravity  considers as the most elementary ones the $`\frac{1}{2}`$-BPS states describing the M2 and M5 branes, the M9 brane and the M-KK6 brane ($`D`$=$`11`$ Kaluza-Klein monopole), as well as the M-wave (M0-brane). By considering superpositions of these $`D`$=$`11`$ elementary objects (intersecting branes and branes ending on branes) one can construct $`\frac{k}{32}`$-BPS $`D`$=$`11`$ supergravity solitons with $`k16`$ $`(\nu \frac{1}{2})`$ . Despite that exotic BPS states with $`\nu =\frac{k}{32}>\frac{1}{2}`$ can also be treated algebraically as a kind of superposition of branes and antibranes , solitonic solutions are known only for BPS states that preserve a fraction $`\nu \frac{1}{2}`$ of supersymmetries.

In this paper we propose another algebraic scheme aimed to describe the representations of M-algebra, with a different choice of primary and composite objects. Eq. (2) suggests that the most elementary component permitting to construct all BPS states as composites corresponds to tensorial charges with $`\mathrm{rank}z_{\alpha \beta }=1`$, or $`k=31`$. We shall call BPS preons the hypothetical objects carrying these ‘elementary values’ of $`z_{\alpha \beta }`$. Thus, a BPS preon may be characterized by the following choice of central charges matrix

$$z_{\alpha \beta }=\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta ,\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{},32,$$
(3)
where $`\lambda _\alpha `$ is a real (Majorana) $`SO(1,10)`$ bosonic spinor. We notice that eq. (3) can be looked at as an extension of the Penrose formula (see e.g. ) expressing a massless $`D`$=$`4`$ four-momentum as a bilinear of a Weyl spinor $`\pi _A`$

$$p^\mu =\frac{1}{2}(\sigma ^\mu )_{A\dot{B}}\pi ^A\overline{\pi }^{\dot{B}},A,\dot{B}=1,2,$$
(4)
to the case of $`D`$=$`11`$ generalized momenta (with abelian addition law). Following the spirit of the twistor approach  we generalize eq. (3) to the general case of $`\frac{k}{32}`$-BPS states by

$$z_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^n\lambda _\alpha ^i\lambda _\beta ^i,n=32k,32>k1,$$
(5)
with $`n`$ linearly independent $`\lambda `$’s. Thus, the $`\frac{k}{32}`$-BPS state may be regarded as composed of $`n=(32k)`$ BPS preons.

Group theory methods often compensate the lack of knowledge about dynamical mechanisms. At this stage our aim is modest, and begins by pointing out an interesting structure of the representation theory of the M-algebra that arises when the tensorial charges are introduced as bilinears of spinors. Further, to conjecture the dynamics of BPS preons we may follow the considerations in  and enlarge the M-algebra to the superconformal one $`osp(1|64)`$ . In such a dynamical picture a BPS preon (a fundamental $`\frac{31}{32}`$-BPS state) is described by a $`D`$=$`11`$ supertwistor $`(\lambda _\alpha ,\omega ^\alpha ,\xi )`$, with $`\xi `$ fermionic, i.e. by the fundamental representation of $`OSp(1|64)`$.

We stress that our method provides a complete algebraic classification of all BPS states (note also that, although we consider here the $`D`$=$`11`$ case, our approach applies to any $`D`$). In particular we shall describe in the language of $`n`$ BPS preons the special choices of $`z_{\alpha \beta }`$ describing M2 branes and M5 branes ($`n=16`$), two orthogonal $`M`$-branes ($`n=24`$) and the example  of an exotic BPS state with $`\nu =\frac{3}{4}`$. Due to the lack of $`D`$=$`11`$ solutions corresponding to exotic BPS states, one can conjecture that branes that can be described in $`D`$=$`11`$ spacetime should have $`n16`$ in eq. (5).

2. Arbitrary BPS states as composites of BPS preons. We show now that any $`\frac{k}{32}`$-BPS state $`|k`$ can be characterized by eq. (5). $`GL(32,)`$ is the maximal automorphism group of the algebra (1) . As the matrix $`z_{\alpha \beta }=k|Z_{\alpha \beta }|k`$ is symmetric and positive-definite, $`z_{\alpha \beta }x^\alpha x^\beta =2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l=1}^{32}|k|x^\alpha \widehat{Q}_\alpha |l|^20`$, it can be diagonalized by a $`GL(32,)`$ matrix $`G_{.}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{},`$

$$z_{\alpha \beta }=G_{.}^{\gamma }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}z_{\gamma \delta }^{(0)}G_{.}^{\delta }{}_{\beta }{}^{}.$$
(6)
Moreover the diagonal matrix $`z_{\gamma \delta }^{(0)}`$ can be chosen as follows

$$z_{\gamma \delta }^{(0)}=\mathrm{diag}(1,\stackrel{n}{},1,0,\stackrel{k}{},0).$$
(7)
Thus, we see that eq. (6) can be written in the form (5) provided that

$$\lambda _\alpha ^i=G_{.}^{i}{}_{\alpha }{}^{},i=1,\mathrm{},n=32k.$$
(8)
In the new basis $`Q_\alpha ^{(0)}`$ defined by $`Q_\alpha ^{(0)}=(G^1)_{.}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}Q_\beta `$, the M-algebra (1) diagonalizes on BPS states so that

$`\{Q_i^{(0)},Q_j^{(0)}\}|k`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}|k,`$ (9)
$`\{Q_i^{(0)},Q_r^{(0)}\}|k`$ $`=`$ $`\{Q_r^{(0)},Q_s^{(0)}\}|k=0,`$ (10)
$`r,s=n+1,\mathrm{},32`$. Hence, the set of $`32`$ supercharges $`Q_\alpha ^{(0)}=(Q_i^{(0)},Q_r^{(0)})`$ acting on the BPS state $`|k`$ splits into $`k`$ generators $`Q_r^{(0)}`$ of supersymmetries preserving the BPS state (i.e. one can put consistently $`Q_r^{(0)}|k=0`$), and $`n=32k`$ generators $`Q_i^{(0)}`$ which describe the set of broken supersymmetries. Summarizing, the eigenvalues $`z_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the tensorial charges that characterize a BPS state preserving $`k<32`$ supersymmetries may be expressed by eq. (5) in terms of $`32k`$ Majorana $`Spin(1,10)`$ bosonic spinors $`\lambda _\alpha ^i`$. A BPS preon state with $`z_{\alpha \beta }=\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta `$ preserves $`k=31`$ supersymmetries and $`\nu =\frac{k}{32}`$ BPS states are composed of $`n=32k`$ preons.

Eq. (5) implies that the tensorial charges are preserved under $`O(n)`$ transformations of the $`n`$ spinors $`\lambda _\alpha ^i`$:

$$\lambda _\alpha ^i{}_{}{}^{}=O_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}\lambda _\alpha ^j,O^TO=\mathrm{𝟏}_n,i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(11)
The $`SO(n)`$=$`SO(32k)`$ rotations constitute an internal symmetry of the $`\frac{k}{32}`$-BPS states. For the $`\frac{1}{2}`$-BPS states associated with the fundamental M2 and M5 branes, in particular, $`SO(n)`$=$`SO(16)`$. This group corresponds in $`D`$=$`11`$ to the unitary internal symmetry $`U(n)`$ in $`D`$=$`4`$ that was introduced in the framework of twistor theory for $`n`$-twistor composite systems . In our scheme we see that the dimension $`n`$ of $`SO(n)`$ is equal to the number of broken supersymmetries.

3. Physical $`\frac{1}{2}`$ BPS states and their superpositions. The fundamental BPS preons have all the bosonic charges $`p_\mu \lambda C\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \lambda `$, $`z_{\mu \nu }\lambda C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }\lambda `$, $`z_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}\lambda C\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}\lambda `$ nonvanishing. We show now in our framework that the M2 and M5 $`\frac{1}{2}`$–BPS states can be composed out of 16 BPS preons.

Let us consider the M2 brane, what implies $`z_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}=0`$. Thus, eq. (5) acquires the form

$$z_{\alpha \beta }=p_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu +z_{\mu \nu }i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^n\lambda _\alpha ^i\lambda _\beta ^i,$$
(12)
where, at this stage, we do not fix $`n`$. In the rest frame of a BPS massive state, $`p_\mu =m(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. As we are dealing with the M2 brane, but not with the M9 brane, we shall assume that in this frame $`z_{\mu \nu }`$ has only space-like components $`z_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{[\mu }^I\delta _{\nu ]}^Jz_{IJ}`$. In particular we may choose the space slice of the M2 worldvolume in the $`\{12\}`$ plane, $`z_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{[\mu }^1\delta _{\nu ]}^2z`$ where $`z=2z_{12}`$. Using the $`Spin(1,2)Spin(8)`$ covariant splitting of $`D`$=$`11`$ spinors and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices (see e.g. ),

$$\lambda _\alpha ^i=\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _{aq}^i\\ \lambda _{\dot{q}}^{ia}\end{array}\right),a=1,2,q,\dot{q}=1,\mathrm{},8,$$
(13)
$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_{16}& 0\\ 0& I_{16}\end{array}\right)`$, $`\gamma _{ab}^0=\delta _{ab}`$, eq. (12) can be written as

$$\text{ }\text{M2}:\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}1& 2& & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$

$`z_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}(m+z)\delta _{ab}\delta _{qp}& 0\\ 0& (mz)\delta ^{ab}\delta _{\dot{q}\dot{p}}\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^n\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _{aq}^i\lambda _{bp}^i& \lambda _{aq}^i\lambda _{\dot{p}}^{ib}\\ \lambda _{\dot{q}}^{ia}\lambda _{bp}^i& \lambda _{\dot{q}}^{ia}\lambda _{\dot{p}}^{ib}\end{array}\right).`$ (15)
The matrix $`z_{\alpha \beta }`$ has either rank $`32`$ (when $`m\pm z`$), or rank $`16`$ (when $`m=\pm z`$). Assuming $`z>0`$ we conclude that the M2 brane BPS state appears when $`m=z`$ and that preserves 1/2 of the target supersymmetries. In this case Eq. (14) implies

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^n(\lambda _{aq}^i\lambda _{bp}^i)=2z\delta _{ab}\delta _{qp},$$
(16)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^n(\lambda _{\dot{q}}^{ia}\lambda _{bp}^i)=0=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^n(\lambda _{\dot{q}}^{ia}\lambda _{\dot{p}}^{ib}).$$
(17)
Eq. (16) has a solution only if $`n16`$. Moreover, as rank$`z_{\alpha \beta }`$=$`16`$ for $`m=z`$, we need just $`16`$ BPS preons, described by $`\lambda _{aq}^i^+O(16)`$; from (17) $`\lambda _{\dot{p}}^{ia}=0`$ follows. Using the $`O(16)`$ symmetry (eq. (5)) we see that in a special frame the spinors $`\lambda _\alpha ^i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},16`$) satisfying eqs. (16-17) and describing a M2-brane BPS state may be written as $`\lambda _{(\alpha )}^i`$,

$$\text{ }\text{M2}(m=z):\lambda _{(\alpha )}^i=\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{2z}\delta _{aq}^i\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(18)
To obtain the set of $`\lambda _\alpha ^i`$ in an arbitrary frame we perform a Lorentz rotation of (18) by means of a $`Spin(1,10)`$ matrix

$`v_\alpha ^{(\beta )}`$ $``$ $`\left(v_\alpha {}_{}{}^{aq},v_{\alpha a\dot{q}}\right)Spin(1,10),`$ (19)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`1,2,q=1,\mathrm{},8,\dot{q}=1,\mathrm{},8,`$ (20)
and we get

$$\text{ }\text{M2}:\lambda _\alpha ^i=v_\alpha {}_{}{}^{(\beta )}\lambda _{(\beta )}^{i}=\sqrt{2z}v_\alpha {}_{}{}^{aq}\delta _{aq}^{i}.$$
(21)
Note that only one of the two $`[Spin(1,2)Spin(8)]`$-covariant $`32\times 16`$ blocks (cf. ) of the spinorial Lorentz frame matrix (19), $`v_\alpha ^{aq}`$, enters in eq. (21) .

For a M5-brane BPS state corresponding to the vanishing worldvolume gauge field the central charges matrix is

$$z_{\alpha \beta }=p_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu +z_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{16}\lambda _\alpha ^i\lambda _\beta ^i.$$
(22)
By considerations analogous to those of M2-brane case one finds that the $`16`$ BPS preons needed for such a BPS state of a M5-brane are associated with

$$\text{ }\text{M5}:\lambda _\alpha ^i=v_\alpha {}_{}{}^{(\beta )}\lambda _{(\beta )}^{i}=\sqrt{2z}v_\alpha {}_{}{}^{aq}\delta _{aq}^{i},$$
(23)
$$a=1,\mathrm{},4(Spin(1,5))q=1,\mathrm{},4(Spin(5)),$$

where $`z=m=5!z_{1\mathrm{}5}>0`$, and $`v_\alpha ^{aq}`$ is the $`16\times 32`$ $`[Spin(1,5)Spin(5)]`$-covariant block of the Lorentz frame matrix $`v_\alpha ^{(\beta )}`$. Thus, the M2 and M5 BPS states are described by a highly constrained set of $`D`$=11 spinors $`\lambda _\alpha ^i`$ (since $`v_\alpha ^{(\beta )}`$ in eq. (21) as well as in eq. (23) belongs to $`Spin(1,10)`$).

To describe a superposition of M-branes preserving $`\nu =\frac{k}{32}<\frac{1}{2}`$ supersymmetry one needs $`n>16`$ BPS preons. In particular, for the system of two orthogonal M2-branes

$`\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}1& 2& & & & & & & & & & \end{array}`$

M2 $``$ M2

$`\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}& & 3& 4& & & & & & & & \end{array}`$

with equal positive charges $`z_{12}=z_{34}=m/4`$ in the rest frame we get

$$z_{\alpha \beta }=m\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _{ab}^0\delta _{qp}+𝒫_{aqbp}^{()}& 0\\ 0& 𝒫^{()}_{\dot{q}\dot{p}}^{ab}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{24}\lambda _\alpha ^i\lambda _\beta ^i,$$
(24)
where $`𝒫^{()}{}_{\dot{q}\dot{p}}{}^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{0ab}\delta _{\dot{q}\dot{p}}\epsilon ^{ab}\gamma _{q\dot{q}}^1\gamma _{q\dot{p}}^2)`$ is the orthogonal projector, $`ϵ^{12}=1`$, $`\gamma _{ab}^{0,1,2},\gamma ^{0ab},\mathrm{},`$ are $`SO(1,2)`$ gamma matrices and $`\gamma _{q\dot{q}}^1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{q\dot{q}}^8`$ are the $`8\times 8`$ $`SO(8)`$ Pauli matrices. Thus, rank$`z_{\alpha \beta }=24`$ and we need $`24`$ BPS preons which can be characterized by ($`\widehat{i}=1,\mathrm{},16;\stackrel{~}{i}=1,\mathrm{},8`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},24`$)

$$\lambda _\alpha ^i=(\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\lambda }_{aq}^{\widehat{i}}\\ 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\dot{q}}^{a\stackrel{~}{i}}\end{array}\right)),$$
(25)
where the $`\widehat{\lambda }_{aq}^{\widehat{i}}`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\dot{q}}^{a\stackrel{~}{i}}`$ are constrained by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\widehat{i}=1}^{16}\widehat{\lambda }_{aq}^{\widehat{i}}\widehat{\lambda }_{bp}^{\widehat{i}}`$ $`=`$ $`m(\gamma _{ab}^0\delta _{qp}+𝒫^{()}{}_{aqbp}{}^{}),`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{i}=1}^8\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\dot{q}}^{a\stackrel{~}{i}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\dot{p}}^{b\stackrel{~}{i}}`$ $`=`$ $`m𝒫^{()}{}_{\dot{q}\dot{p}}{}^{ab}.`$ (27)
In an arbitrary frame $`\lambda _\alpha ^i=(v_\alpha {}_{}{}^{aq}\widehat{\lambda }_{aq}^{\widehat{i}},v_{\alpha a\dot{q}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\dot{q}}^{a\stackrel{~}{i}})`$, where $`v_\alpha {}_{}{}^{aq},v_{\alpha a\dot{q}}`$ are the spinor frame variables (19).

The $`\frac{1}{4}`$-BPS state (24) as well as many other $`\nu =\frac{k}{32}<\frac{1}{2}`$ BPS states are described by solitonic solutions of the $`D`$=11 supergravity . Our approach allows to consider as well the ‘exotic’ BPS states with $`\nu >\frac{1}{2}`$. They are described by $`n=32k<16`$ BPS preons. For instance, the massive $`\frac{3}{4}`$-BPS state in , with $`z_{12}=m/2`$, $`z_{2345}=z_{26789\mathrm{\#}}=m/5!`$ in the rest frame, is characterized by

$$z_{\alpha \beta }=4m\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 𝒫^{(\pm )}_{\dot{q}\dot{p}}^{ab}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^8\lambda _\alpha ^i\lambda _\beta ^i,$$
(28)
where now $`𝒫^{(\pm )}{}_{\dot{q}\dot{p}}{}^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{0ab}\delta _{\dot{q}\dot{p}}\pm \gamma ^{2ab}\gamma _{\dot{q}\dot{p}}^{1234})`$ are orthogonal projectors ($`𝒫^{(+)}+𝒫^{()}=\gamma ^0I`$, $`\gamma _{\dot{q}\dot{p}}^{1234}\gamma _{q\dot{q}}^1\gamma _{q\dot{r}}^2\gamma _{p\dot{r}}^3\gamma _{p\dot{p}}^4=\gamma _{\dot{q}\dot{p}}^{5678}`$). Thus, rank$`z_{\alpha \beta }=8`$ and one concludes that the BPS state preserves $`\nu =3/4`$ of supersymmetry . In an arbitrary frame $`z_{\alpha \beta }=4mv_{\alpha a\dot{q}}𝒫^{(\pm )}{}_{\dot{q}\dot{p}}{}^{ab}v_{\beta b\dot{q}}^{}`$ and the $`\frac{3}{4}`$-BPS state can be described by $`8`$ BPS preons

$$\lambda _\alpha ^{a\stackrel{~}{i}}=v_{\alpha a\dot{q}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\dot{q}}^{a\stackrel{~}{i}},\stackrel{~}{i}=1,\mathrm{},8,$$
(29)
where the $`8`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\dot{q}}^{a\stackrel{~}{i}}`$ are constrained by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{i}=1}^8\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\dot{q}}^{a\stackrel{~}{i}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\dot{p}}^{b\stackrel{~}{i}}=4m𝒫^{(\pm )}_{\dot{q}\dot{p}}^{ab}`$ and $`v_\alpha {}_{}{}^{aq},v_{\alpha a\dot{q}}`$ are the spinorial Lorentz frame variables of eq. (19).

There are no solitonic solutions for the exotic BPS states known. Moreover, general $`\kappa `$-symmetry arguments  and the study of the simplest supersymmetric field theories  indicate that, probably, such solitonic solutions do not exist in the standard (i.e. unenlarged) $`D`$=$`11`$ spacetime. This suggests that only composites of $`n16`$ BPS preons can be described in a $`D`$=$`11`$ standard spacetime framework.

4. BPS preons, enlarged superspaces and OSp$`(1|64)`$ supertwistors. It seems natural to assume that a dynamical realization of exotic states requires a new geometric framework, going beyond the standard $`D`$=$`11`$ spacetime . The most straightforward idea is to treat all tensorial charges as generalized momenta in a large conjugate space of $`528`$ dimensions. The simplest supersymmetric dynamics in $`D`$=$`4`$ superspace –Brink-Schwarz massless superparticle– can be extended to such a large space by two different ways of generalizing the mass-shell condition:

i) The Sp$`(32)`$-invariant generalization $`z_{\alpha \beta }C^{\beta \gamma }z_{\gamma \delta }=0`$ of $`p^2=0`$ (cf. ), where the Sp$`(32)`$ metric $`C`$ is the antisymmetric $`D`$=$`11`$ Majorana charge-conjugation matrix.

ii) The general, less restrictive, $`GL(32,)`$-invariant condition (see e.g. ) $`\mathrm{det}z_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, characterizing all $`\frac{k}{32}`$-BPS states with $`1k<32`$.

To introduce a dynamical scheme for the proposed BPS preons of M-algebra one can develop a new spinorial geometry by doubling the $`D`$=$`11`$ Lorenz spinors to introduce a $`D`$=$`11`$ twistor $`T_A=(\lambda _\alpha ,\omega ^\alpha )`$ $`(A=1,\mathrm{},64)`$ satisfying a generalized Penrose incidence equation

$$\omega ^\alpha =x^{\alpha \beta }\lambda _\beta ,x^{\alpha \beta }=x^{\beta \alpha },$$
(30)
where

$$x^{\alpha \beta }=x^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }+y^{\mu \nu }i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }+y^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}^{\alpha \beta }$$
(31)
describes the $`528=11+55+462`$ coordinates dual to the $`P_\mu `$, $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$, $`Z_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _5}`$ generalized momenta. In a supersymmetric theory, eq. (30) has to be supplemented by (cf. )

$$\xi =\theta ^\alpha \lambda _\alpha .$$
(32)
Then, $`𝒯_𝒜=(T_A,\xi )`$ defines a supertwistor, which is the fundamental representation of the generalized $`D`$=$`11`$ conformal superalgebra $`osp(1|64)`$. In such a framework the basic geometry is described by the $`D`$=$`11`$ supertwistors ($`T_A,\xi `$) which we propose to interprete as BPS preon phase space coordinates. Indeed, using eqs. (30) and (5) one obtains a relation (modulo an exterior derivative) between the canonical Liouville one-forms describing the symplectic structure in the enlarged spacetime (31) and the $`D`$=$`11`$ twistor space coordinates,

$$z_{\alpha \beta }dx^{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^n\lambda _\alpha ^i\lambda _\beta ^idx^{\alpha \beta }=2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^n\omega ^{\alpha i}d\lambda _\alpha ^i,$$
(33)
a relation that can be supersymmetrized . For non–BPS states, for which $`\mathrm{det}z_{\alpha \beta }0`$, one needs the maximal number, $`32`$, of BPS preons described by $`32`$ supertwistors $`𝒯_𝒜^i=(\lambda _\alpha ^i,\omega ^{\alpha i},\xi ^i)`$. Using $`32`$ copies of the eqs. (30), (32) one can express all enlarged superspace coordinates $`(x^{\alpha \beta },\theta ^\alpha )`$ as composites of spinorial preonic coordinates as follows:

$$x^{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{32}\omega ^{\alpha i}(\lambda ^1)_i^\beta ,\theta ^\alpha =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^{32}\xi ^i(\lambda ^1)_i^\alpha .$$
(34)
If we diminish the number of BPS preons, the geometry becomes gradually more spinorial and detached from a spacetime framework. In particular, the most elementary constituent of M-theory matter in the present approach, a single BPS preon, is described by the purely spinorial geometry of a single supertwistor.

Acknowledgments. This work has been partially supported by the DGICYT research grant PB 96-0756, the Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (I.B.), the Generalitat Valenciana and KBN grant 5 P03B 05620 (J.L.) and the Junta de Castilla y León (research grant C02/199). We thank J. Simón for helpful discussions.

E-mails: bandos@ific.uv.es, j.a.de.azcarraga@ific.uv.es,
izquierd@fta.uva.es, lukier@ift.uni.wroc.pl