text:
# Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement in accreting compact stars

## 1 Introduction

The deconfinement phase transition into a plasma of quasifree quarks and gluons is expected to occure under conditions of sufficiently high temperatures and/or densities as, e.g., in heavy-ion collisions, a few microseconds after the big bang or in the cores of superdense stellar objects.

For the latter, signals of a phase transition have been suggested in the form of characteristic changes of observables (Weber, 1999), such as the pulse timing (Glendenning, Pei & Weber, 1997; Chubarian et al., 2000), brightness (Dar & DeRújula, 2000) and surface temperature (Schaab et al., 1996; Blaschke, Grigorian & Voskresensky, 2000) of the isolated pulsars during their evolution.

Recently, quasiperiodic brightness oscillations (QPOs) in low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) have been observed (van der Klis, 2000) which provide new mass and radius constraints for compact objects (Miller, Lamb & Psaltis, 1998). According to the model of Stella and Vietri (Stella & Vietri, 1999; Stella, Vietri & Morsink, 1999) these constraints would allow only very compact objects made up of strange quark matter (Li et al., 1999). Due to the mass accretion flow these systems are candidates for the most massive compact stars at the limit to the formation of black holes. Therefore, if the possible deconfinement phase transition in compact stars exists at all, we expect it to occur in accreting LMXBs (Chubarian et al., 2000; Glendenning & Weber, 2000).

In this paper we study the spin evolution of compact stars with possible quark matter cores for a disc accretion model and show that a pronounced signal of a deconfinement transition in the star interior can be obtained for accretors with long-lived magnetic fields and large angular momentum transfer. The so called Z sources of QPOs in LMXBs are suggested as objects which should predominantly populate the region of the suspected phase border between hadronic stars and quark core stars (QCSs) (Chubarian et al., 2000). We suggest this population clustering as a signal for deconfined quark matter in accreting compact stars.

## 2 Evolution in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }N`$ diagram

Our investigation is based on the classification of rotating compact star configurations in the plane of angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and baryon number $`N`$, the so called phase diagram (Blaschke, Grigorian & Poghosyan, 2000).

We consider in our calculations a generic form of a relativistic equation of state with a deconfinement transition (Chubarian et al., 2000), which describes the hadronic matter by a Walecka model and the quark matter by a dynamical confinig model (Blaschke et al., 1999; Blaschke & Tandy, 2000). The deconfinement phase transition is obtained by imposing Gibbs’ conditions for phase equilibrium with the constraints that baryon number as well as electric charge of the system are globally conserved (Glendenning, 1992). The onset of deconfinement (mixed phase) is obtained at a density of about $`1.5`$ times the nuclear saturation density.

It has been shown that the critical line $`N_{\mathrm{crit}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, which separates the region of QCSs from the hadronic ones, is correlated with the local maxima of the moment of inertia with respect to changes of the baryon number at given $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ due to the change of the internal structure of the compact object at the deconfinement phase transition. Therefore, we expect that the rotational behavior of these objects changes in a characteristic way when this line is crossed. The consequence will be an increase of the population of stars at this critical line which could be observed, provided that a sufficiently large number of accretors will be detected with their masses and spin frequencies (Blaschke, Grigorian & Poghosyan, 2000).

We consider the spin evolution of a compact star under mass accretion from a low-mass companion star as a sequence of stationary states of configurations (points) in the phase diagram spanned by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`N`$. The process is governed by the change in angular momentum of the star

$$\frac{d}{dt}(I(N,\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Omega })=K_{\mathrm{ext}},$$
(1)
where

$$K_{\mathrm{ext}}=\sqrt{GM\dot{M}^2r_0}N_{\mathrm{out}}$$
(2)
is the external torque due to both the specific angular momentum transfered by the accreting plasma and the magnetic plus viscous stress given by $`N_{\mathrm{out}}=\kappa \mu ^2r_c^3`$, $`\kappa =1/3`$ (Lipunov, 1992). For a star with radius $`R`$ and magnetic field strength $`B`$, the magnetic moment is given by $`\mu =R^3B`$. The co-rotating radius $`r_c=\left(GM/\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)^{1/3}`$ is very large ($`r_cr_0`$) for slow rotators. The inner radius of the accretion disc is

$$r_0\{\begin{array}{cc}R,& \mu <\mu _c\\ 0.52r_A,& \mu \mu _c\end{array}$$

where $`\mu _c`$ is that value of the magnetic moment of the star for which the disc would touch the star surface. The characteristic Alfvén radius for spherical accretion with the rate $`\dot{M}=m\dot{N}`$ is $`r_A=\left(2\mu ^4GM\dot{M}^2\right)^{1/7}`$. Since we are interested in the case of fast rotation for which the spin-up torque due to the accreting plasma in Eq. (2) is partly compensated by $`N_{\mathrm{out}}`$, eventually leading to a saturation of the spin-up, we neglect the spin-up torque in $`N_{\mathrm{out}}`$ which can be important only for slow rotators (Ghosh & Lamb, 1979),

From Eqs. (1), (2) one can obtain the first order differential equation for the evolution of angular velocity

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dt}=\frac{K_{\mathrm{ext}}(N,\mathrm{\Omega })K_{\mathrm{int}}(N,\mathrm{\Omega })}{I(N,\mathrm{\Omega })+\mathrm{\Omega }(I(N,\mathrm{\Omega })/\mathrm{\Omega })_N},$$
(3)
where

$$K_{\mathrm{int}}(N,\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }\dot{N}(I(N,\mathrm{\Omega })/N)_\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(4)
Solutions of (3) are trajectories in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }N`$ plane describing the spin evolution of accreting compact stars, see Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars. Since $`I(N,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ exhibits characteristic functional dependences (Blaschke, Grigorian & Poghosyan, 2000) at the deconfinement phase transition line $`N_{\mathrm{crit}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ we expect observable consequences in the $`\dot{P}P`$ plane when this line is crossed.

In our model calculations we assume that both the mass accretion and the angular momentum transfer processes are slow enough to justify the assumption of quasistationary rigid rotation without convection. The moment of inertia of the rotating star can be defined as $`I(N,\mathrm{\Omega })=J(N,\mathrm{\Omega })/\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`J(N,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the angular momentum of the star. For a more detailed description of the method and analytic results we refer to (Chubarian et al., 2000) and the works of Hartle (1967); Hartle & Thorne (1968), as well as Sedrakian & Chubarian (1968a, b).

The time dependence of the baryon number for the constant accreting rate $`\dot{N}`$ is given by

$$N(t)=N(t_0)+(tt_0)\dot{N}.$$
(5)
For the magnetic field of the accretors we consider the exponential decay (Bhattacharya & van den Heuvel, 1979)

$$B(t)=[B(0)B_{\mathrm{}}]\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _B)+B_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(6)
We solve the equation for the spin-up evolution (3) of the accreting star for decay times $`10^7\tau _B[\mathrm{yr}]10^9`$ and initial magnetic fields in the range $`0.2B(0)[\mathrm{TG}]4.0`$. The remnant magnetic field is chosen to be $`B_{\mathrm{}}=10^4`$TG1111 TG= $`10^{12}`$ G (Page, Geppert & Zannias, 2000).

At high rotation frequency, both the angular momentum transfer from accreting matter and the influence of magnetic fields can be small enough to let the evolution of angular velocity be determined by the dependence of the moment of inertia on the baryon number, i.e. on the total mass. This case is similar to the one with negligible magnetic field considered in (Shapiro & Teukolsky, 1983; Burderi et al., 1999; Chubarian et al., 2000) where $`\mu \mu _c`$ in Eq. (3), so that only the so called internal torque term (4) remains.

In Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars we show evolutionary tracks of accretors in phase diagrams (left panels) and show the corresponding spin evolution $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ (right panels). In the lower panels, the paths for possible spin-up evolution are shown for accretor models initially having a quark matter core ($`N(0)=1.55N_{},\mathrm{\Omega }(0)=1`$ Hz). The upper panels show evolution of a hybrid star without a quark matter core in the initial state ($`N(0)=1.4N_{},\mathrm{\Omega }(0)=1`$ Hz), containing quarks only in mixed phase. We assume a value of $`\dot{N}`$ corresponding to observations made on LMXBs, which are divided into Z sources with $`\dot{N}10^8N_{}/`$yr and A(toll) sources accreting at rates $`\dot{N}10^{10}N_{}/`$yr (Glendenning & Weber, 2000; Bhattacharya & van den Heuvel, 1979; van der Klis, 2000).

For the case of a small magnetic field decay time $`\tau _B=10^7`$ yr (solid and dotted lines in Fig.Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars) the spin-up evolution of the star cannot be stopped by the magnetic braking term so that the maximal frequency consistent $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{max}(N)`$ with stationary rotation can be reached regardless whether the star did initially have a pure quark matter core or not.

For long lived magnetic fields ($`\tau _B=10^9`$ yr, dashed and dot-dashed lines in Fig.Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars) the spin-up evolution deviates from the monotonous behaviour of the previous case and shows a tendency to saturate. At a high accretion rate (dot-dashed lines) the mass load onto the star can be sufficient to transform it to a black hole before the maximum frequency could be reached whereas at low accretion (dashed lines) the star spins up to the Kepler frequency limit.

## 3 Waiting time and population clustering

The question arises whether there is any characteristic feature in the spin evolution which distinguishes trajectories that traverse the critical phase transition line from those remaining within the initial phase.

For an accretion rate as high as $`\dot{N}=10^8N_{}/`$ yr the evolution of the spin frequency in Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars shows a plateau where the angular velocity remains within the narrow region between $`2.1\mathrm{\Omega }[\mathrm{kHz}]2.3`$ for the decay time $`\tau _B=10^9`$ yr and between $`0.4\mathrm{\Omega }[\mathrm{kHz}]0.5`$ when $`\tau _B=10^7`$ yr. This plateau occurs for stars evolving into the QCS region (upper panels) as well as for stars remaining within the QCS region (lower panels). This saturation of spin frequencies is mainly related to the compensation of spin-up and spin-down torques at a level determined by the strength of the magnetic field. In order to perform a more quantitative discussion of possible signals of the deconfinement phase transition we present in Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars trajectories of the spin-up evolution in the $`\dot{P}P`$ plane for stars with $`N(0)=1.4N_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0)=1`$ Hz in the initial state; the four sets of accretion rates and magnetic field decay times coincide with those in Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars.

When we compare the results for the above hybrid star model (solid lines) with those of a hadronic star model (quark matter part of the hybrid model omitted; dotted lines) we observe that only in the case of high accretion rate ($`\dot{N}=10^8N_{}`$/yr, e.g. for Z sources) and long-lived magnetic field ($`\tau _B=10^9`$yr) there is a significant difference in the behaviour of the period derivatives. The evolution of a star with deconfinement phase transition shows a dip in the period derivative in a narrow region of spin periods. This feature corresponds to a plateau in the spin evolution which can be quantified by the waiting time $`\tau =\left|P/\dot{P}\right|=\mathrm{\Omega }/\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. In Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars (lower and middle panels) we present this waiting time in dependence on the rotation frequencies $`\nu =\mathrm{\Omega }/(2\pi )`$ for the relevant case labeled (9,-8) in Figs. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars,Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars. The comparison of the trajectory for a hybrid star surviving the phase trasition during the evolution (solid line) with those of a star evolving within the hadronic and the QCS domains (dotted line and dashed lines, respectfuly), demonstrates that an enhancement of the waiting time in a narrow region of frequencies is a characteristic indicator for a deconfinement transition in the accreting compact star.

The position of this peak in the waiting time depends on the initial value of magnetic field, see Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars. In the middle and lower panels of that Figure, we show the waiting time distribution for $`B(0)=0.75`$ TG and $`B(0)=0.82`$ TG, respectively. Maxima of the waiting time in a certain frequency region have the consequence that the probability to observe objects there is increased (population clustering). In the upper panel of this Figure the spin frequencies for observed Z sources in LMXBs with QPOs (van der Klis, 2000) are shown for comparison. In order to interprete the clustering of objects in the frequency interval $`225\nu [\mathrm{Hz}]375`$ as a phenomenon related to the increase in the waiting time, we have to chose initial magnetic field values in the range $`1.0B(0)[\mathrm{TG}]0.6`$ for the scenario labeled (9,-8), see also the dashed lines in Fig.Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars.

## 4 Signal for Deconfinement in LMXBs

The results of the previous section show that the waiting time for accreting stars along their evolution trajectory is larger in a hadronic configuration than in a QCS, after a time scale when the mass load onto the star becomes significant. This suggests that if a hadronic star enters the QCS region, its spin evolution gets enhanced thus depopulating the higher frequency branch of its trajectory in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }N`$ plane.

In Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars we show contours of waiting time regions in the phase diagram. The initial baryon number is $`N(0)=1.4N_{}`$ and the initial magnetic field is taken from the interval $`0.2B(0)[\mathrm{TG}]4.0`$ .

The region of longest waiting times is located in a narrow branch around the phase transition border and does not depend on the evolution scenario after the passage of the border, when the depopulation occurs and the probability to find an accreting compact star is reduced. Another smaller increase of the waiting time and thus a population clustering could occur in a region where the accretor is already a QCS. For an estimate of a population statistics we show the region of evolutionary tracks when the values of initial magnetic field are within $`0.6B(0)[\mathrm{TG}]1.0`$ as suggested by the observation of frequency clustering in the narrow interval $`375\nu [\mathrm{Hz}]225`$, see Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars.

As a strategy of search for QCSs we suggest to select from the LMXBs exhibiting the QPO phenomenon those accreting close to the Eddington limit (Bhattacharya & van den Heuvel, 1979) and to determine simultaneously the spin frequency and the mass (Lamb & Miller, 2000) for sufficiently many of these objects. The emerging statistics of accreting compact stars should then exhibit the population clustering shown in Fig. Population clustering as a signal for deconfinement  in accreting compact stars when a deconfinement transition is possible. If a structureless distribution of objects in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }N`$ plane will be observed, then no firm conclusion about quark core formation in compact stars can be made.

For the model equation of state on which the results of our present work are based, we expect a baryon number clustering rather than a frequency clustering to be a signal of the deconfinement transition in the compact stars of LMXBs. The model independent result of our study is that a population clustering in the phase diagram for accreting compact stars shall measure the critical line $`N_{\mathrm{crit}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ which separates hadronic stars from QCSs where the shape of this curve can discriminate between different models of the nuclear EoS at high densities.

We thank M. Colpi and N.K. Glendenning for their stimulating interest in our work; D. Sedrakian, C. Gocke and F. Weber for their useful remarks. H. G. and G. P. acknowledge the hospitality of Rostock University. D. B. and G. P. are grateful for a Fellowship from the ECT\* Trento. This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Grants No. 436 ARM 17/1/00 and 436 ARM 17/7/00, and by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Through several years we have developed a specific model \[??\] for at first the charged particle mass spectrum and mixing angles, but later in various ways we have attempted to extend it to neutrino mass matrices and mixing too \[??\]. The model we have arrived to through various prejudices – originally starting with some statistical mass matrices \[??\] – We have made our prejudices especially for the idea of explaining the smallness of the three fine structure constants \[??\] by letting the Standard Model Gauge Group ($`SMG`$) occur as a diagonal subgroup of one with the $`SMG`$ assigned to each family separately,

$$SMG=SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)=S(U(3)\times U(2)).$$
(1)
It is this as diagonal subgroup embedding of the Standard Model group which we call the Anti-GUT model or better extended Anti-GUT gauge group if the third power of the Standard Model is extended with a gauged $`(BL)`$-charge for each family separate, too. For us the history of the diagonal subgroup embedding originated from an idea called “confusion” \[??\], but an $`SU(5)^3`$ were independently considered by Rajpoot .

Our model may be characterised by stating that the gauge group which we postulate under a few restricting rather reasonable assumptions is the biggest allowed gauge group acting non-trivially on the known $`45`$ fermions – counted as Weyl particles – of the Standard Model plus three right-handed neutrinos (which are to be used as the see-saw neutrinos). The requirement that it should act non-trivially on these $`45+3=48`$ Weyl fermions means that our extended Anti-GUT group is a subgroup, by assumption, of the group of all unitary transformations $`U(48)`$ of these 48 Weyl fermions into each other. We could say that in stead of attempting to make a model for the true gauge group $`G`$ beyond the Standard Model we take the attitude that it is already by far sufficiently ambitious to attempt to guess the true gauge group with the subgroup $`H`$ of it not transforming any of the mentioned 48 Weyl fermions but trivially divided out, $`G/H`$. The least reasonable of the restrictions imposed is that we assume there to be NO unification in the sense that we require that the irreducible representations of the group $`G/H`$ of our model, Anti-GUT, should not unify any irreducible representations of the $`SMG`$ proper. This assumption has a weak justification if you say that we want to assume only small representations so that for instance the $`45`$-dimensional representation of GUT-$`SU(5)`$ is argued not to be likely to be the truth. The possibility for unifying irreducible representations of the Standard Model – what we wanted to assume not to happen – namely would imply $`SU(5)`$ unification, may be not the full $`SU(5)`$ GUT but for instance an $`SU(5)`$ just for one single family. If it were for the third family this would predict the at unification scale degeneracy of the $`\tau `$-lepton and the bottom quark masses, and that would indeed be a relatively good prediction, although even for this prediction some correction from SUSY or other ways might be needed to fix it to work perfectly. The problem with the Grand Unification predictions is that they have rather small corrections to fit with and therefore really have to work well in order for a model with unification of quark and lepton irreducible representations like in $`SU(5)`$-GUT to agree with the experimental masses. That is why the after our opinion embarrassingly big representation $`45`$ of $`SU(5)`$ constitutes a trouble for the GUT and so there can be a point in avoiding unification, which was our most unreasonable assumption.

What we consider a more reasonable assumption is that there shall be anomaly cancellations both for mixed anomalies – the ones involving also coupling to gravitons – and for gauge anomalies without using Green-Schwartz mechanism . One can at least say that in the cancellation of gauge anomalies in the pure Standard Model there is no need for other terms than the ones from the Weyl fermions, so one can at least say that the Standard Model itself does the job without any Green-Schwartz mechanism.

But the real assumption important for our model is that the group should be maximal inside the $`U(48)`$. It is thus quite important if one could make some estimate of how many gauge group generators there should be in the theory behind the Standard Model. It is a slightly new part of the present talk to point out two possibilities for making such an estimate:

* We can look for how much the general scale of quark and lepton masses is suppressed relatively to the weak scale compared to the spread in these masses.
* We could extract a similar parameter from the baryon asymmetry fitting in the see-saw neutrino scheme.

In the next section and section three we shall associate this ratio of the width of the peak to the average distance and thereby the effective number of – taken as abelian – mass protecting charge species partly by making statistics on the mass spectra partly by use of baryon asymmetry. Then in the fourth section we present our specific model, especially being specific w.r.t. the quantum number assignments to the various Higgs fields used to break down our favourite Anti-GUT gauge group to the Standard Model group. In the fifth section we point out how our model manage to obtain a good fit to neutrino oscillation fitted masses and mixing angles for the neutrinos. In the sixth section we describe the relation of our model to SUSY, we have no SUSY, but it is only a couple of points that makes this point in our model needed. In section seven we present how the relation of the quantum numbers and the anomaly cancellations makes number of independent quantum number types appreciably less than the full number of quantum number types. Finally in section eight we conclude that we have a model that fits both baryogenesis and the mass and mixing spectra very well and that it is suggested to have a number of effective mass protecting charges not totally different from the rather high number in our model.

## 2 Estimating the effective number of mass suppressing charges

In our model is the assumption that the order of magnitude of the various matrix elements in the mass matrices in the proto-flavour basis are given by suppression factors from the Higgs fields needed to be used in order to provided the quantum number transition between the quantum numbers of the right- and the left-handed Weyl components connected with the matrix element in question. For, for instance, the quarks or the charged leptons one first of all need to have the transition of the quantum numbers associated with the Standard Model – the weak hypercharge and the weak isospin. This is what is achieved by use of the Weinberg-Salam Higgs field. In our model we have to assign this effect to a Weinberg-Salam Higgs field having not only the usual quantum numbers but also some quantum number assignment under the full gauge group proposed in our case the Anti-GUT model. But in general the quantum numbers of the model-Weinberg-Salam-Higgs field is not sufficient to provide most of the quantum number transitions needed to provide the matrix elements to be non-zero. We therefore need a series of Higgs fields, which we have given names: $`W`$, $`T`$, $`\xi `$, $`\chi `$ and $`S`$. These fields having nonzero expectation values have to be assigned though such quantum numbers of course that they do not break the subgroup of the Anti-GUT group supposed to survive being identified with the Standard Model Group.

In general a matrix element will need several of these Higgs fields in order to be nonzero, the more they need the smaller a given matrix element will be and the smaller the mass getting its main contribution from that element.

Even if one does not want to trust a special model, even if well fitting, one could try to ask the statistical question: Is it likely if we want to fit with a model of this type that we shall have very few quantum numbers effectively working to make the suppressions of the matrix elements or is it better to have rather many such quantum numbers?

We shall here seek to give phenomenologically an estimate of the effective number of “statistically independent” such quantum numbers (thinking of them for simplicity as abelian quantum numbers).

Very crudely we might assume that the matrix elements get suppressed by a factor that is given as the exponential of a distance in the space of quantum numbers – provided with an appropriate metric for this purpose – between the quantum numbers of the right-handed to those of the left-handed counted in a “space of quantum numbers”.

Depending on the number of dimensions $`n`$ in this “space of quantum numbers” the width of the peak of the distance distribution relative to the average distance is estimated – using for being able to get a quite definite number the assumption that the distribution of the quantum number combinations is an $`n`$-dimensional Gaussian distribution around the origo – to be:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(distdist)^2}}{dist}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+2}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+1}{2})^2}}1}`$ (2)
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{large}n.`$ (3)
## 3 Parameters of the Baryon Asymmetry Calculation

It is one of the remarkable somewhat mysterious features of the system of parameter values in the Standard Model – and thus a reason for going beyond it – that Yukawa couplings are in general rather small numbers of actually quite varying orders of magnitudes. Indeed the Yukawa couplings found were so much less than unity that when at the end it was found that the top-quark Yukawa coupling was of order unity it came as a surprise, most of us having expected a lighter top quark. This means that the majority of quark and charged lepton masses are indeed, on a logarithmic scale say, distributed around a central value corresponding to smaller masses than the top-mass which has a weak scale mass (because of its Yukawa coupling being of order unity, actually surprising close to just unity ).

The simplest way to make a quantitative estimate of how much the general suppression is to use the average charged lepton and quark mass logarithms compared to the mass scale given by the weak interactions, which can be taken to be the mass scale for a quark or charged lepton in the Standard Model having unit Yukawa coupling, i.e. compared to the top-quark mass. In the same scheme we may study the average spread of the charge lepton and quark mass logarithms, the latter being mostly dominated by the spread between the three families. The parameter that should now tell us about the effective number of mass protecting – counted as abelian – charges is the ratio of this spread to the suppression average of the logarithms of masses in the weak interaction unit. In the philosophy that the Yukawa couplings are really running couplings with say the Planck scale or some unifying scale close to the latter as the most “fundamental” one, we use for our estimated a factor $`3.5`$ increase of the charged lepton masses together with the quark masses referred to a scale at which to define the Yukawa couplings of $`1\text{GeV}`$. This is namely supposed to correspond to comparing the Yukawa couplings at the Planck scale.

The logarithmically averaged masses for the three families of particles corrected this way are

$`\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{ln}m_1`$ $`=`$ $`4.0\text{MeV}(1.14\text{MeV}\text{as lepton})`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{ln}m_2`$ $`=`$ $`469\text{MeV}(133\text{MeV}\text{as lepton})`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{ln}m_3`$ $`=`$ $`19\text{GeV}(5.5\text{GeV}\text{as lepton}),`$ (6)
where the lower indices $`(i=1,2,3)`$ denote family numbers. The logarithmic average for the whole set of all the nine charged quarks and leptons is

$$\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{ln}m_{\mathrm{total}}=320\text{MeV}(94\text{MeV}\text{as lepton}).$$
(8)
The root mean square spread of the logarithms of the family average masses is estimated as - remembering to divide only by $`2`$ rather than $`3`$ -

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(\mathrm{ln}m_i\mathrm{ln}m_{\mathrm{total}})^2=18$$
(9)
corresponding to a one standard deviation spread in the family averages of $`\mathrm{exp}\sqrt{18}=`$ a factor $`70`$. To get the full mean square spread we should add to the $`18`$ the mean square “fluctuation” inside the families. By far the biggest intra family mean square fluctuation comes from the third family and is $`7._5`$, the rest is about $`2._5`$. So the root mean square spread in the logarithm for the charged quark and leptons is $`\sqrt{28}=5._2`$, corresponding to a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(5._2)=200`$.

On the other hand the logarithmic average $`320\text{MeV}`$ is about a factor $`560`$ under the weak scale mass corresponding to $`6._3`$ for the logarithm. The ratio of this $`6._3`$ to the $`5._2`$ equal to $`1.2`$ is a measure for how much the masses are suppressed generally compared to their spread. From this one it should be possible – with some corrections though – to extract an estimate of the effective number of “independently assigned” approximately conserved charges needed to suppress the masses.

One correction consists in that the matrix elements most likely to give the masses - which were the ones on which we just made statistics - are relatively big because they otherwise tend to be dominated out, so that we must estimate that the average over the matrix elements in the mass matrices must be significantly more suppressed than the masses. With the masses making up half the number of matrix elements one may estimate this increase in the numerical suppression logarithm for the matrix elements relative to the masses to be $`1/\sqrt{\pi }=0.56`$ times the width of the distribution, that itself will be the same for the masses and the matrix elements in general. If the mass matrices are not symmetric as for neutrinos there are rather three times as many general matrix elements as masses and we may estimate to use $`0.8`$ rather than the $`.56`$.

We end up estimating that the inverse of the quantity (2,3) shall be

$$\frac{dist}{\sqrt{(distdist)^2}}=\frac{6._3}{5._2}+0.8=2.0(\text{or}\frac{6._3+\mathrm{ln}3.5}{5._2}+0.8=2.2_5\text{as leptons}).$$
(10)
This means that if we use (3) we estimate that the number of statistically independently used (as if abelian) charge types in a model aiming at the experimental spectrum should be

$$n=2.0^21=3(\text{or}2.2_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+1=6\text{as leptons})$$
(11)
but using the more accurate (2) we rather get

$$n=2.2(\text{or}2.7\text{as leptons})$$
(12)
so that one can be a bit surprised almost that our model \[??\] in which only four abelian $`U(1)`$’s play the role of importance for charged spectra should fit well. The ideal model should only have about $`2.2`$ types of charges important. It should in this connection then be remarked that because we have one Higgs field, namely $`S`$, with expectation value of order unity, we have really missed one charge type effectively for that reason. So we have $`41=3`$ effective charges; that agrees with the estimate. But a lot of our charges are really not “effective” in the suppression: The non-abelian ones follow the abelian ones and are not independent, and the $`U(1)_{BL,i}`$ charges were not needed.

### 3.1 Baryogenesis $`CP`$ violating parameter

A second way to estimate very much the same parameter is the $`CP`$-violating parameter $`ϵ`$ that gives the relative excess production of lepton number for the $`CP`$ violation in the decay of the right-handed neutrino functioning as a see-saw neutrino

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{N_R}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_R\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_R\overline{\mathrm{}}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_R\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_R\overline{\mathrm{}}}},$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_R\mathrm{}}_{\alpha ,\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_R\mathrm{}^\alpha \varphi _{WS}^\beta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_R\overline{\mathrm{}}}_{\alpha ,\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_R\overline{\mathrm{}}^\alpha \varphi _{WS}^\beta )`$ are the $`N_R`$ decay rates (in the $`N_R`$ rest frame), summed over the neutral and charged leptons (and Weinberg-Salam Higgs fields) which appear as final states in the $`N_R`$ decays.

Since such $`CP`$-violation parameters are in the scheme of lepton violation caused baryon asymmetry in the early universe (Fukugita-Yanagida scheme ) the important factor in obtaining the baryon number to entropy ratio they are phenomenologically accessible. The reason that we claim it is so similar – in a statistical way – to the just mentioned spread to overall suppression ratio (in the log of the masses) is seen from the expression in terms of Yukawa couplings or essentially equivalently the Dirac mass matrix for neutrinos, which is proportional to the couplings of the right-handed (= see-saw) neutrinos  to the left-handed (= in practice observed) neutrinos \[??\]

$$ϵ_i=\frac{2}{8\pi \varphi _{WS}^2((M_\nu ^D)^{}M_\nu ^D)_{ii}}\underset{ji}{}\mathrm{Im}[((M_\nu ^D)^{}M_\nu ^D)_{ji}^2]\left[f\left(\frac{M_j^2}{M_i^2}\right)+g\left(\frac{M_j^2}{M_i^2}\right)\right]$$
(14)
where $`f`$ comes from the one-loop vertex contribution and $`g`$ comes from the self-energy contribution, which can be calculated in perturbation theory only for differences between Majorana neutrino masses which are sufficiently large compared to its decay widths, i.e. the mass splittings satisfy the condition, $`\left|M_iM_j\right|\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\right|`$:

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{x}\left[1(1+x)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{x}}\right],`$ (15)
$`g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{1x}}.`$ (16)
It is namely easily seen that the lower the overall size of the Yukawa couplings the smaller will be the $`CP`$-violating parameter $`ϵ`$. So by seeking to extract $`ϵ`$ phenomenologically we obtain a knowledge about the Dirac mass matrix for the neutrinos much similar to what we get from the mass suppression compared to the weak scale for the charged particle mass matrices.

One might attempt to make a statistical estimation of the relation of the spread ratio and the $`ϵ`$-order of magnitude by statistical assumptions, but it is presumably better to use an in the details concrete model that fits and is of the type we imagine, i.e. a model in which it is assumed that all couplings are fundamentally of order unity and only because of approximately conserved quantum numbers that need some Higgs field vacuum expectation values (which may be very small) for their breaking there can appear small numbers in the model at all.

### 3.2 Baryogenesis via lepton number violation

The physics of the baryon excess creation in big bang via the lepton number violation runs in the following way :

In the models like ours having see-saw neutrinos we get at first an excess of $`BL`$ which is conserved – in the Standard Model even at temperatures so high that sphalerons \[??\] allows violation of baryon number $`B`$ and Lepton number $`L`$ – as an “accidental” symmetry.

As the temperature during big bang falls and passes the order of magnitudes of the three see-saw neutrino masses they one after the other gets out-of-equilibrium by being more copious than they should be in equilibrium. The excess decays in a way that violates $`CP`$ a little amount given by the parameter $`ϵ`$ and thereby leaves an over abundance of – actually at first a lepton number under abundance – of $`(BL)`$-charge. As finally temperatures get so low that the see-saw neutrinos get out of significance – even virtually – the amount of $`(BL)`$ gets logged in and cannot change anymore.

There is a significant dilution or wash out of the $`(BL)`$-quantum number arising from the two lightest of the three see-saw neutrinos it turns out in our model because their life times are short compared to the Hubble times at their time of going out-of-equilibrium.

One could now fear that the breaking of $`(BL)`$-conservation caused by two light see-saw neutrinos could also make dilution or disappear the $`(BL)`$ amount produced by the heaviest see-saw neutrino. Luckily for the success of our model, however, it can be argued that the super-position of flavours of the leptons (at first left-handed) produced by the decays of the heaviest see-saw neutrinos are quantum mechanically orthogonal to those super-positions which can be diluted by means of the lighter see-saws. Thus it is really as if there were three different $`(BL)`$-quantum numbers separately conserved. Only after $`2`$-by-$`2`$ scatterings using $`tt\varphi _{WS}`$ coupling become important there is any charge of converting the one flavour $`(BL)`$ into the other one.

Thus the separate see-saw neutrinos can only dilute their own decay products. Since in our model the heaviest see-saw neutrino turns out to have life time accidental very close order of magnitude-wise to the Hubble time scale at its going out-of-equilibrium time, the wash out or dilution of the decay products from this heaviest see-saw neutrino is not so significant. Thus to very crudest approximation the $`(BL)`$-asymmetry is simply obtained as the number of heaviest flavour see-saw neutrinos multiplied by $`ϵ`$. Because of the equilibrium under conversion of $`1`$ lepton $`+1`$ baryon, it will be $`B(BL)/3`$ .

## 4 Our Model and fitting

Our Anti-GUT model – extended as well as original – is of the type mentioned in the end of subsection $`3.1`$ as far as a basic assumption in it is that at the fundamental scale taken to be the Planck scale all couplings are of order unity and really are in the calculations which we perform treated as random numbers of order unity. Then we let the results be calculated time after time using these random numbers – i.e. random coupling constants – fluctuating around zero in the complex plane with numerical values fluctuating around unity and at the end we average over the many random number combinations and typically we take a logarithmic average of the quantity which we want to compute.

The only small quantities are the vacuum expectation values of a series of Higgs fields – $`W`$, $`T`$, $`\xi `$, $`S`$, $`\chi `$ with expectations values in vacuum of the order of one to two orders of magnitude below the fundamental scale, and the Higgs fields $`\varphi _{BL}`$ giving the see-saw neutrino scale, and a Higgs field taking over the role of the Weinberg-Salam Higgs field $`\varphi _{WS}`$ – the abelian part of the quantum numbers of which are presented in the table. (see how to get the representations for the non-abelian invariant subgroups following rule of the section seven from the table, too.)

That is to say that all the suppressions of the Yukawa couplings from the a priori unity order of magnitude need some mass protecting quantum numbers that are different on the right- and left-handed Weyl components in such a way that it is not just taken up by the Weinberg-Salam Higgs field but needs to interact with yet another Higgs field to get rid of the charge in question, or typically several because that is how we get often very big suppressions.

The model which we present via the table and the statement that we have the $`39=313=3(12+1)`$ gauge fields corresponding to the gauge group

$$\times i=1,2,3(SMG_i\times U(1)_{BL,i}),$$
(17)
where $`SMG_i`$ denotes $`SU(3)_i\times SU(2)_i\times U(1)_i`$ (SM gauge group), and $`i`$ denotes the generation, is of course rather arbitrary, at least in as far as the quantum numbers for the Higgs fields in the table are gotten by seeking to the fit the mass spectra just.

### 4.1 Arguing for our model

You could, however seek to argue this way: Since we get as we shall see a very successful fit to really all the parameters in the Standard Model Fermion spectra and even to the Baryon asymmetry we could say that a model – namely our model – with the for our model so characteristic high number of gauge fields does fit well, especially it fits well the in foregoing section mentioned quantities connected with the general suppression or smallness of the Yukawa couplings to the Weinberg-Salam Higgs field compared say to the spread the strength of these couplings. But that then means the information that there shall be a high number of effective mass protecting approximately conserved quantum numbers in a model that naturally should fit the statistical features of the mass spectra and the baryon number in the Universe. But then we can switch on to the characterisation of our gauge group as the one with the maximal number of dimensions still obeying the in the introduction mentioned assumptions.

In addition to the gauge and Higgs and Fermion fields which we have explicitly mentioned via the gauge group and the table it is meant in our model that once you ask for particles which have masses of the order of the “fundamental scale” (which we think of as the Planck scale) there are practically all the not mass protected particles you may ask for and they all couple with coupling constants of order unity. This is of course a slightly vague and a strong assumption, too, but it is much more likely to be true than any specific assumption about the physical fields or particles at the Planck scale. The in simplicity competing assumptions could be that there no Planck mass particles at all, or some string theory say. To the first proposal – no particles at all – we might answer that we need at least some intermediate fermions to establish effective Weinberg-Salam Higgs Yukawa couplings which in reality depends on and are proportional to some vacuum expectation value that can explain its smallness. So at least some such fermions are called for. To the second – the string theory – we might answer that in principle the superstring theories are practically looked upon not so far from our assumption “everything can be found at the fundamental scale, and with coupling unity”. Indeed there are infinitely many string states and even the lowest levels are for practical purposes reasonably complicated and the attitude of treating them a bit like random couplings may not be so unattractive. Usually it is taken that there is a string coupling that is small, but that would for instance be based on the phenomenological equating of it with the gauge couplings experimentally accessible or it would some theoretical justification which might be somewhat analogous to our “only the vacuum expectation values are small” attitude if one takes the note that strictly speaking in superstring theories  the string coupling is connected with the dilation expectation value in vacuum and thus is not really a fundamental coupling that is just input into the theory. Taking, however, for granted that the Standard Model gauge groups lie inside the full Anti-GUT model as diagonal subgroups – as would be suggested by the many gauge charge argument via our Gauge group – it is unavoidable that the gauge couplings for the family specific subgroups be of the order of a square root three stronger than the corresponding Standard Model and then they are not so small anymore if one think of the $`g`$ notation rather than $`\alpha `$-notation. In fact \[??\] we have long argued that these couplings could be fitted with phase transition couplings, and that would suggest that at the end they can be considered of order unity. That would mean that accepting the gauge group and the embedding of the Standard Model one in the way of our model, you would loose the phenomenological suggestion for the weak couplings at the fundamental scale, rather the “everything of order unity” hypothesis gets at least somewhat closer.

Although our model in principle has infinitely many parameters in the sense that there are practically infinitely many order one fields and couplings we get by our order of unity assumption and the rule of averaging with taking them as random numbers rid of these parameters and there remains only the vacuum expectation values of our seven Higgs fields from the table. This makes of course our model much more predictive, but the price is that we then always have these order unity factors which we do not really know and all our results can only be taken as order of magnitude predictions!

### 4.2 Certain technical points, predicting even the uncertainty

Let us mention that really the only order of magnitude predictions are not so enormously uncertain again or rather it is even possible to essentially predict the precise amount of this uncertainty! The point is that with the philosophy that at the Planck scale everything exists and has coupling unity there will for a large number of charges needed to be broken in general be many ways, many Feynman diagrams via which the transition can be achieved. To make as good an estimate of the mass matrix elements as possible inside our model assumptions  we have attempted to count these Feynman diagrams and used a philosophy of them contributing with random phases to make a random walk estimate of a correction for the number of ways a transition can go, and these corrections have been included in the fits. That there are in many cases rather many Feynman diagrams contributing to the same transition, i.e. the same mass matrix element say, means that as they have the same order of magnitude (because they violate the same quantum numbers) they add up to a number which has a Gaussian distribution according to the central limit theorem. This distribution is centered around zero – in the complex plane – and has a width given by the suppression factors and a factor given by the square root of the number of Feynman diagrams. These square root of the estimated number of Feynman diagram correction factors tend to be expressed in terms of factorials of the number of vacuum expectation values used and we therefore have sometimes called this correction “factorial correction”. But now on general grounds the distribution became all the time practically a Gaussian one so that the logarithm is distributed just in the way a logarithm of such a Gaussian distribution is distributed and that means with a specific width of $`0.64=64\%`$. This is why we claim that even the uncertainty of the prediction from our type of model is predicted. If a quantity depends in a multiplicative way on several matrix elements of course these $`64\%`$ fluctuation is increased by a factor that is the square root of the number of matrix elements multiplied (or divided) together.

### 4.3 Results

The development of our model w.r.t. quark and lepton masses went from first fitting the charged quark and lepton masses and mixing angles using as parameters the expectation values of the Higgs fields $`W`$, $`T`$, $`\xi `$, $`S`$ and $`\varphi _{WS}`$. There is some possibilities for playing with the quantum numbers in the model by adding to the other fields the quantum number combination (found in the table) of the field $`S`$, because this field gets an expectation value in the fitting that is very close to the fundamental scale so that there is really a strong violation of the conservation of this combination of quantum numbers. Because of this feature of our fit, the Higgs field $`S`$ giving essentially no suppression, getting in an extra $`S`$ field into a matrix element is only a small correction partly via the $`S`$ factor partly via changing the “factorial” corrections mentioned in foregoing subsection. A typical fit to the charged masses and mixing angles is presented in table $`2`$.

Since we use the Higgs field $`\varphi _{BL}`$ to fit the overall scale of the see-saw neutrino masses and thereby the overall scale for the neutrino oscillations \[??\] we can genuinely only hope to predict the mass ratio of the two mass magnitudes involved in respectively the atmospheric neutrino oscillations $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}=\sqrt{3.2\times 10^3\text{eV}^2}=5\times 10^2\text{eV}`$ and the solar one $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}=\sqrt{5\times 10^6\text{eV}^2}=2\times 10^3\text{eV}`$, i.e. we can only hope to predict the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=1.5\times 10^3`$. Indeed our best fit turns out to give for this ratio the prediction $`5.8\times 10^3`$, and that shall be considered a great success since our expected uncertainty is $`\pm 64\%\sqrt{2^2+2^2}=181\%`$ corresponding to uncertainty w.r.t. $`\mathrm{exp}(1.81)=5`$ to $`1/\mathrm{exp}(1.81)=0.2`$. With these theoretical uncertainty we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`5.8{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+30}{5}}\times 10^3`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ $`=`$ $`8.3{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+21}{6}}\times 10^4`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{e3}`$ $`=`$ $`4.3{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+11}{3}}\times 10^4`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.97{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+2.5}{0.7}}`$ (21)
$`Y_B`$ $`=`$ $`1.5{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+20}{1.4}}\times 10^{11}.`$ (22)
corresponding the experimental data:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}_{,\mathrm{exp}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.5{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+1.5}{0.7}}\times 10^3`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}^{}{}_{,\mathrm{exp}}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.332.5)\times 10^3`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{e3}^{}{}_{,\mathrm{exp}}{}^{}`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`2.6\times 10^2`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}^{}{}_{,\mathrm{exp}}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.434.2)`$ (26)
$`Y_{B}^{}{}_{,\mathrm{exp}}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(29)\times 10^{11}.`$ (27)
## 5 The compensation removing much of neutrino hierarchy

Now we have a model one may ask how we solve in that model some of the strange features of the neutrino oscillation parameters:

For instance how does it come that the mass ratio of the two neutrino oscillation masses is relatively small compared to similar ratios in the charged mass matrices, namely a factor $`10`$ to $`30`$ in mass ratio compared to rather a factor $`100`$ for the family spacing in the charged cases. And also this is really mysterious from the point of view of the models we have in mind: How can the two heaviest left-handed neutrinos have after all a hierarchical mass ratio even if only factor $`10`$ to $`30`$ when the atmospheric mixing angle which would suggestively be related to the two heaviest of the left-handed neutrinos is of order unity?

The answer in our model goes like this: Crudely there is a compensation between the propagator for the see-saw neutrinos and the factors coming from the Dirac mass matrix elements. This compensation is a phenomenon that can very easily occur on general grounds, especially in a model version like the most successful pattern which we use, the $`\varphi _{BL}`$ field has such quantum numbers that it is the matrix element number $`(3,3)`$ in the right-handed neutrino mass matrix which becomes the biggest one. Then namely as one goes away from the $`(3,3)`$ corner of this matrix the matrix elements of the right-handed mass matrix becomes smaller and smaller by factors corresponding to the successive need for more and more Higgs fields – actually $`\xi `$ and $`\chi `$ – to transfer the excess charges into those of the $`(3,3)`$-element in order to finally use the $`\varphi _{BL}`$. But now the Dirac matrix has it somewhat similarly also with $`(3,3)`$ matrix element dominating. It is even so that the extra charges to be gotten rid of when we compare matrix elements deviating by having exchanged one right-handed neutrino (Weyl) field by the next is the same whether one makes this comparison in the right-handed neutrino matrix or in the Dirac one. The right-handed neutrinos of course deviate in quantum numbers in the same way, whichever is the matrix we happen to consider. There therefore can just come in a compensation between the propagator and the Dirac mass matrix factors. The compensations suggested here indeed take place in the case of the comparison of matrix elements with the $`\nu _{R\mu }`$ and the $`\nu _{Re}`$ (concepts that can be assigned meaning in our model because we have the proto-families). This compensation then is one reason that we get the rather small hierarchy ratio for the neutrinos as compared to the charged fermions.

The large mixing angle for atmospheric neutrino mixing is in our model achieved not so $`100\%`$ nicely by using the only for the neutrino oscillations really relevant Higgs field $`\chi `$ as a parameter just to fit this big mixing angle, it comes by taking it of the same order crudely as the already in the charged sector relevant Higgs field $`T`$. Now because of this enforced choice it is then difficult to get a big mass ratio, a big hierarchy, for the two in the atmospheric neutrino oscillation involved neutrino flavours. The model actually only has factors that are of order unity in principle to offer to this mass ratio, but it turns out that indeed the “factorial correction” factors and the way eigenvalues are computed is sufficient to make the sufficiently big mass ratio. One can say that in principle the seemingly hierarchical mass square ratio is indeed not hierarchical, but only some factorial factors etc. in principle of order unity.

## 6 Do we disfavour SUSY?

In our model it was all the time the spirit that we did not include supersymmetry. However, at first one may ask if one could not very easily imagine the same model provided with SUSY-partners for all the particles in the model and postulate SUSY. At first it will also be o.k. but there are some problems introduced by such a procedure: For one thing a realistic SUSY-model would presumably have gravity and super gravity with gravitinos. The latter would get a mass being the geometrical mean of the SUSY-breaking scale and the Planck scale i.e. about $`3\times 10^9\text{GeV}`$. That however would now endanger the philosophy of our model because we get the main contribution to the baryon asymmetry from the decay of the heaviest of the three right-handed neutrinos and that neutrino has in our model a mass of the order of $`10^{12}\text{GeV}`$, and thus we cannot tolerate an inflation period as will be needed to avoid the gravitinos from surviving into the later times in the cosmological development of the universe. But surviving gravitinos would not be allowed phenomenologically and our interpretation of the mechanism for the baryon asymmetry production could not work and our agreement would be an accident.

In this way supergravity is disfavoured from our model point of view.

There is another way in which SUSY is also disfavoured: One of the predictions of our model is that order of magnitude-wise the up-quark and the electron (as well as with a correction of the order $`2`$ or so the down-quark) have at the fundamental scale the same mass. In the SUSY models this prediction would necessarily be an accident because one in SUSY models one cannot use the same Higgs fields to provided the mass for the electron and for the up-quark. This is one well-known reason why it is needed with two Weinberg-Salam Higgs fields in the SUSY models, another is to cancel anomalies of the Higgsinos. But not only the Weinberg-Salam Higgs would have to be doubled in this way, no, all the Higgs fields introduced into our model and relevant for say the relation between the electron and up-masses, namely $`W`$, $`T`$, $`\xi `$ and $`\varphi _{WS}`$ must be accompanied by another Higgs field to do their job of mass giving whenever the Hermitian conjugate field was used in the non-SUSY model. Thus taking our explanation for say the electron to up-quark mass ratio as a basically serious one it would be too accidental to have so many Higgs fields have the same expectation value as is needed in the SUSY model. Thus again SUSY is disfavoured because it would deprive us of major predictive power. Also in other cases than the electron to up-quark mass relation we would need the doubling of the Higgses since for instance the mass of the charm-quark is produced by means of $`W^2`$ while the dsb-quark masses use $`W`$ (without dagger).

## 7 Correlation of quantum numbers

The success of our model with respect to fitting of the overall suppression scale crudely relative to the fluctuation from matrix element of the matrix elements in the mass matrices also confirmed by the success with baryon asymmetry could a priori be taken to mean that our model should be correct w.r.t. its huge – maximal – number of approximately conserved quantum numbers, but really it is only the roughly speaking independently assigned quantum numbers that count in influencing the suppression checked. By the quantum numbers being independently assigned we here mean that one might be allowed to think of them as having been assigned in a random way independently of each other to the various quark and lepton Weyl components.

It is, however, to be stressed that such an independence is far from true in our Anti-GUT model for a couple of reasons:

1. We have extended into our model the in fact rather remarkable feature of the system of quantum numbers in the Standard Model: Knowing the weak hyper charge $`y/2`$ you can always know the non-abelian representation (under $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$) according to a rule that may be described by:

1. the charge quantisation rule: $`d/2+t/3+y/2=0(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}),`$ where $`t`$ is the triality of the $`SU(3)`$ representation, i.e. $`t=1(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3})`$ for quarks, $`t=1(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3})`$ for anti-quarks, $`t=0(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3})`$ for gluons, etc. and $`d`$ is the “duality” of the $`SU(2)`$representation meaning $`d`$ is even for integer weak isospin and odd for half integer weak isospin.
    2. always take the smallest allowed representation, w.r.t. dimensionality say, for the non-abelian representations.

Partly motivated by the observation  that Nature seems to want so much the just mentioned charge quantisation rule to be as complicated as possible that it could be used as a principle telling us what the Standard Model gauge group should be, we postulate in our model the rules $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ to work for each family of gauge fields and representation assignments separately. Having done that we do not even need to put the non-abelian representations into the table 1 describing our model. It also means that once a chain of Higgs fields have been found providing the right exchange of family specific weak hypercharges the corresponding family specific non-abelian quantum numbers are working with the same Higgs field VEV’s. Once we have postulated these rules $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ we have no further suppression from the non-abelian gauge symmetry, it goes by itself just following the abelian quantum numbers as slaves.
2. Even the family specific $`U(1)_{BL,i}`$ quantum numbers are restricted so much by the anomaly cancellation requirement that they also come to follow the weak hypercharges for the different families as slaves. At least we can see that they do indeed follow them systematically from the very definition $`BL`$ for a family. You can namely easily give a rule to find the baryon number as well as the lepton number from the $`y_i/2`$ family specific weak hypercharge quantum numbers.

These relations between the various quantum numbers mean that there are roughly at most the three family specific weak hypercharges to make up the independent quantum numbers. So we can after this not expect the number of effectively independent charges to be more than $`n=3`$. Now actually our model has the field $`S`$ with almost vacuum expectation value unity in the fundamental units, and that means that actually the gauge group is in reality reduced to one family specific weak hypercharge less. This means that the number of independent charges in our model rather is $`n=2`$, just as the statistical estimates suggested as being the from the statistics of the charged fermion spectra preferred value.

The lesson from these considerations seems to be: Even when one seeks with mild prejudices a model with as many as possible charges of the gauge type acting on the known quarks and leptons, especially the no anomaly constraints make them so correlated that the effective number of independently assigned charges is only about $`3`$, close to the number phenomenologically suggested. So one can hardly get more than that, then correlations come up.

Of course those quantum numbers which follow others as slaves are not really accessible by the mass matrix fitting to phenomenology and there is no evidence supporting their existence even if say our model fits, as it does, perfectly.

Only around two of the family specific weak hypercharges in our model could have any hope of having the support from the successful phenomenology, the rest can only get their support to the extend that they were of some importance in via the anomaly constraints to restrict these family dependent weak hypercharge assignments.

## 8 Conclusion

We have presented a model in which it is assumed that:

* An under some condition maximal gauge group: $`\times i=1,2,3(SMG_i\times U(1)_{BL,i})`$.
* the set of fermion and scalar fields given by the table.
* All couplings and mass parameters are in fundamental (= Planck) units of order unity, so that only vacuum expectation values are of different order of magnitudes. The order of one couplings can be treated statistically (i.e. as random numbers).

The number of measured quantities which are predictable with our model, quark and charged lepton masses and its mixing angles containing Jarlskog triangle area $`J_{CP}`$ and also two mass square differences for the neutrino and the three of their mixing angles, is $`19`$. Our model successfully predicted all these quantities using only six parameters<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The VEV of Weinberg-Salam we have not counted as a parameter because of its relation to the Fermi constant.: the genuine number of predicted parameters is thus $`13`$. But we have taken into the predictions the quantity $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{e3}`$ for which CHOOZ has only upper bound.

We have suggested that the well fitting of this model with respect also to the question of the ratio of the spread in the spectrum of either matrix elements or simply masses of the charged quark and leptons relative to the average in a logarithmic way of the Yukawa couplings means that our model should have some truth in it w.r.t. the number of different gauge charges participating effectively in suppressing the mass relative to the weak scale.

Also the fitting of the baryon asymmetry should be a test of the well functioning of the model w.r.t. the general size – logarithmic average say – of the Yukawa couplings and so test also that the number of effectively used charge species is roughly o.k.

Since our model has – if even counting the field $`S`$ which gives only tiny suppression as though having evidence in our fit for being there – the maximal number of gauge charges, we may take our fit as supporting the thesis that in the true model there shall be many gauge charges! That is to say that the naive looking at the spectrum of quarks and leptons saying that it looks that we need rather many charges to be approximately conserved to explain the at first surprisingly low Yukawa couplings is correct.

However it must be admitted that we have actually starting from a model related in ideas to the present one constructed an example of a model with only two extra $`U(1)`$ charges  relative to the Standard Model. The quantum numbers in this model, however, are quite large and not like in the present model rather small, so the connection to fitting data from the number of charges is not but at best statistical, otherwise models with so different numbers of charges could not as in the example even match precisely in predictions. Really this model is – in first approximation – the present one with the decoration of the quantum numbers that follow the others as slaves thrown away.

Concerning the calculation of the baryon number asymmetry it turned out in our model that the main contribution to the baryon number came from the decay $`CP`$ violation of the heaviest one of the three see-saw particles because it had

* only little dilution because its life time was very close in magnitude to the Hubble time scale at that time when this see-saw particle went out of equilibrium, while the two lighter see-saw particles decayed faster than their respective Hubble times.
* The middle mass see-saw particle and the heaviest had the same relative $`CP`$-asymmetry in their decays, while the lightest had an order of magnitude less.

If we for pedagogical reasons took it that the third (i.e. the heaviest) right-handed neutrino contribution dominated, the picture was simply that the decay products – after some wash out, which, however, due to the separate approximate conservation of three different family specific $`(BL)`$-quantum numbers defined by association with the three right-handed neutrinos was not so tremendous – from this heaviest of the see-saw neutrinos make up the excess of $`(BL)`$.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to W. Buchmüller, C.D. Froggatt, K. Kainulainen, M. Plümacher, S. Lola and T. Yanagida for useful discussions. We wish to thank the Theory Division of CERN for the hospitality extended to us during our visits where part of this work was done. H.B.N. thanks the EU commission for grants SCI-0430-C (TSTS), CHRX-CT-94-0621, INTAS-RFBR-95-0567 and INTAS 93-3316(ext). Y.T. thanks the Scandinavia-Japan Sasakawa foundation for grants No.00-22.


text:
# Gravitation as a Super SL(2,C) Gauge Theory

## Abstract

We present a gauge theory of the super SL(2,C) group. The gauge potential is a connection of the Super SL(2,C) group. A MacDowell-Mansouri type of action is proposed where the action is quadratic in the Super SL(2,C) curvature and depends purely on gauge connection. By breaking the symmetry of the Super SL(2,C) topological gauge theory to SL(2,C), a metric is naturally defined.
Proceedings of the 9th Marcel Grossmann Meeting, World Scientific.

Let us start with a Super SL(2,C) algebra111The upper-case Latin letters $`A,B,\mathrm{}=0,1`$ denote two component spinor indices, which are raised and lowered with the constant symplectic spinors $`ϵ_{AB}=ϵ_{BA}`$ together with its inverse and their conjugates according to the conventions $`ϵ_{01}=ϵ^{01}=+1`$, $`\lambda ^A:=ϵ^{AB}\lambda _B`$, $`\mu _B:=\mu ^Aϵ_{AB}`$. Lowercase Latin letters $`p,q,\mathrm{}`$ denote the Super SL(2,C) group indices, $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$ denote the SO(3,1) indices . (with three complex SL(2,C) generators $`M_{00},M_{01}=M_{10},M_{11}`$ and two complex supersymmetric generators $`Q_0,Q_1`$)222We can realize this Super SL(2,C) algebra by a complex superspace $`C^{2|1}`$ with coordinates $`(\pi _0,\pi _1,\theta )`$ where transformations are given by $`M_{AB}=\pi _A\frac{}{\pi ^B}+\pi _B\frac{}{\pi ^A}`$ and $`Q_A=\pi _A\frac{}{\theta }+\theta \frac{}{\pi ^A}`$ with $`\theta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\frac{}{\theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$.:

$`[M_{AB},M_{CD}]=ϵ_{C(A}M_{B)D}+ϵ_{D(A}M_{B)C},`$ (1)
$`[M_{AB},Q_C]=ϵ_{C(A}Q_{B)},\{Q_A,Q_B\}=2M_{AB},`$ (2)
where $`ϵ_{C(A}M_{B)D}=\frac{1}{2}(ϵ_{CA}M_{BD}+ϵ_{CB}M_{AD})`$ and $`ϵ_{C(A}Q_{B)}=\frac{1}{2}(ϵ_{CA}Q_B+ϵ_{CB}Q_A)`$. The Super SL(2,C) group is isomorphic to the complex extension of OSp(1,2). It is a simple super Lie group and has a nondegenerate Killing form . The Cartan-Killing metric is $`\eta _{pq}=\mathrm{diag}(\frac{1}{2}(ϵ_{AM}ϵ_{BN}+ϵ_{AN}ϵ_{BM}),2ϵ_{AB})`$.

To gauge this Super SL(2,C) group, we associate to each generator $`T_p=\{M_{AB},Q_A\}`$ a 1-form field $`A^p=\{\omega ^{AB},\phi ^A\}`$, and form a super Lie algebra valued connection 1-form,

$$A=A^pT_p=\omega ^{AB}M_{AB}+\phi ^AQ_A,$$
(3)
where $`\omega ^{AB}`$ is the SL(2,C) connection 1-form and $`\phi ^A`$ is an anti-commuting spinor valued 1-form. (We shall use $`𝒟`$ for the Super SL(2,C) covariant derivative and $`D`$ for the SL(2,C) covariant derivative.)

The curvature is given by $`F=dA+\frac{1}{2}[A,A]`$. Given the Super SL(2,C) connection $`A`$ defined in equation (3), the curvature ($`F=F(M)^{AB}M_{AB}+F(Q)^AQ_A`$) contains a bosonic part associated with $`M_{AB}`$,

$$F(M)^{AB}=d\omega ^{AB}+\omega ^{AC}\omega _C{}_{}{}^{B}+\phi ^A\phi ^B;$$
(4)
and a fermionic part associated with $`Q_A`$ ,

$$F(Q)^A=d\phi ^A+\omega ^{AB}\phi _B.$$
(5)
A simple action, quadratic in the curvature, using this Super SL(2,C) connection $`A`$ is

$`𝒮_\mathrm{T}[A^p]={\displaystyle F^p}F^q\eta _{pq}={\displaystyle F(M)^{AB}}F(M)_{AB}+2F(Q)^AF(Q)_A,`$ (6)
where $`\eta _{pq}`$ is the Cartan-Killing metric of the Super SL(2,C) group, $`𝒟\eta _{pq}=0`$. However, this action is a total differential. Hence, similar to the work of MacDowell and Mansouri , we need to choose another spinor action which is SL(2,C) invariant, thus breaking the topological field theory of the Super SL(2,C) symmetry into an SL(2,C) symmetry. Let us choose $`i_{pq}=\mathrm{diag}(\frac{1}{2}\left(ϵ_{AM}ϵ_{BN}+ϵ_{AN}ϵ_{BM}\right),0)`$ The new action (related to the quadratic spinor action ) is

$`𝒮[A^p]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle F^p}F^qi_{pq}={\displaystyle F(M)^{AB}}F(M)_{AB}.`$ (7)
The field equations are obtained by varying the Lagrangian with respect to gauge potentials (the Super SL(2,C) connection). With these gauge potentials fixed at the boundary, the field equations are

$`R^{AB}\phi _B=0(DF(Q)^A=0),`$ (8)
$`D(R^{AB}+\phi ^A\phi ^B)=0(DF(Q)^{AB}=0),`$ (9)
where, becuase of the SL(2,C) Bianchi identidy ($`DR^{AB}=0`$), the second field equation (9) is reduced to $`D(\phi ^A\phi ^B)=0`$.

In order to make a connection between the internal space of the Super SL(2,C) group with the structures on the four-manifold, we break the symmetry from a Super SL(2,C) topological field theory $`𝒮_\mathrm{T}[A^p]`$ into an SL(2,C) invariant $`𝒮[A^p]`$. Using the fact that $`𝒟i_{pq}=C^m{}_{pn}{}^{}A_{}^{n}i_{mq}`$ , and $`𝒟\eta _{pq}=0`$, the metric $`𝒢`$ is defined by

$$𝒢=\eta ^{pm}\eta ^{qn}𝒟i_{pq}𝒟i_{mn}=ϵ_{AB}\phi ^A\phi ^B.$$
(10)
Thus upon breaking the supersymmetry, the metric is naturally defined.

The real spacetime metric can be obtained by considering the complex conjugate of the generators $`M_{A^{}B^{}},Q_A^{}`$ (which satisfies the complex conjugate of (1) and (2)), the gauge potentials (3) and the actions (6), (7). Consequently the spacetime metric is the real part of the complex metric $`𝒢`$, and the real tetrad $`\theta ^{AA^{}}`$ is given by $`\phi ^A=\theta ^{AA^{}}Q_A^{}`$.

We would like to thank F. Mansouri and L. Mason for helpful discussions.


text:
# 1 Predictions of the MNSSM [], using as inputs: 𝑋_𝑡=0, 𝐴_𝑡=𝐴_𝑏, 𝑀_SUSY=1 TeV, 𝑚_𝐵̃=𝑚_𝑊̃=0.3 TeV, 𝑚_𝑔̃=1 TeV, 𝜆𝑡_𝑆/𝜇=5 TeV2, 𝑀_𝐻₁≈95 GeV, 𝑀_𝐻₂≈115 GeV, 𝑔²_{𝐻₁𝑍𝑍}≈0.1 and 𝑔²_{𝐻₂𝑍𝑍}≈0.9.

## Acknowledgements

The work of A.P. is supported in part by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung under the contract number 05HT9WWA9.


text:
# Phenomenology of 𝐾⁻ atoms and other strange hadronic atoms

## I KAONIC ATOMS

In this section I review recent works on the $`K^{}`$ nucleus optical potential, with emphasis in the first two subsections on fitting it to the ‘normal’ X-ray data in kaonic atoms, and in the third subsection on predictions of narrow ‘deeply bound’ $`K^{}`$ atomic states.

### A Hybrid relativistic mean field approach to $`K^{}`$ atoms

Here I report on the recent work by the Jerusalem-Řež collaboration . Antikaons are incorporated into this relativistic mean field (RMF) model by using the Lagrangian density of the form

$$_K=_\mu \overline{\psi }^\mu \psi m_K^2\overline{\psi }\psi g_{\sigma K}m_K\overline{\psi }\psi \sigma ig_{\omega K}(\overline{\psi }_\mu \psi \omega ^\mu \psi _\mu \overline{\psi }\omega ^\mu )+(g_{\omega K}\omega _\mu )^2\overline{\psi }\psi ,$$
(1)
describing the interaction of the antikaon field ($`\overline{\psi }`$) with the scalar ($`\sigma `$) and vector ($`\omega `$) isoscalar fields. The corresponding equation of motion for $`K^{}`$ in a $`Z=N`$ nucleus can be expressed by a Klein-Gordon equation with the real part of the optical potential given at threshold by

$$\mathrm{Re}V_{\mathrm{opt}}=\frac{m_K}{\mu }(\frac{1}{2}SV\frac{V^2}{2m_K}),$$
(2)
where $`S=g_{\sigma K}\sigma (r)`$ and $`V=g_{\omega K}\omega _0(r)`$ in terms of the mean isoscalar fields, and where $`\mu `$ is the $`K^{}`$ nucleus reduced mass. Note that for antikaons, the vector potential $`V`$ contributes attraction, just opposite to its role for kaons and nucleons. Each of the three terms on the r.h.s. of Eq. (2), thus, gives rise to attraction. Consequently, it becomes impossible to satisfy the low density limit which requires that, due to the subthreshold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(1405), Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}>0`$ as $`\rho 0`$. For nuclei with $`N>Z`$, the potential should include also an isovector part due to the interaction of the $`K^{}`$ with the $`\rho `$ meson field. However, this was omitted from the present calculations as it was found in previous analyses of kaonic atoms  to have a marginal effect. Furthermore, since the imaginary part of $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is not directly addressed in the RMF approach, a phenomenological $`t\rho `$ parameterization was used for it, after making sure that a more involved density dependence of Im $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ does not introduce further effects.

In order to construct the RMF Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ of Eq. (2), one needs to specify $`\alpha _\sigma `$ and $`\alpha _\omega `$, where $`\alpha _m=g_{mK}/g_{mN}`$. Treating both $`\alpha _\sigma `$ and $`\alpha _\omega `$ as free parameters, the best fit potential consists of a strongly attractive vector potential and a strongly repulsive scalar potential, quite far from the structure expected e.g. from the naive quark model (QM) . The corresponding Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ provides a very good fit to the atomic data. It is attractive in the nuclear interior, reaching a depth of about 190 MeV in close agreement with the phenomenological density-dependent (DD) potentials of Ref. , and it becomes repulsive at large distances, thus reflecting a posteriori effects of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(1405) at low densities.

The RMF description is well justified within the nuclear interior, for densities larger than about 0.2$`\rho _0`$ where the effects of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(1405) may be neglected, as demonstrated in Refs. . The existence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(1405) resonance clearly poses a difficulty for the RMF approach at low densities if the parameters $`\alpha _m`$ are allowed to deviate only moderately from the values suggested by the underlying hadron symmetries. In the hybrid model of Ref. , the functional RMF form Eq. (2) was used in the nuclear interior for Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$, whereas a purely phenomenological DD form  was used in the surface of the nucleus and beyond. The sensitivity to the choice of the radius $`R_M`$, where the two forms are matched to each other, was checked and found to be small. The density $`\rho (R_M)`$ is sufficiently high to justify using the RMF approach, and sufficiently low so that the atomic data are still sensitive to the RMF form. Figure 4 of Ref. , and in particular Fig. 3 of Ref.  for Ni, show that by analyzing kaonic atoms, using a given functional form for $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$, one determines the real part of the $`K^{}`$ nucleus DD optical potential up to $`\rho =0.9\rho _0`$. This is well above the density at which the RMF form takes over in the present approach.

Fitting to the $`K^{}`$ atomic data, the vector coupling constant ratio $`\alpha _\omega `$ was kept fixed, guided by theoretical considerations, and the scalar coupling constant ratio $`\alpha _\sigma `$ was varied together with the parameters of the DD real potential form (for $`r>R_M`$). For the coupling constant $`g_{\omega K}`$, either the constituent QM value $`\alpha _\omega =\frac{1}{3}`$ was used, or the SU(3) relation $`2g_{\omega K}=g_{\rho \pi }=6.04`$. The resulting scalar potentials are attractive, of the order of magnitude expected (see Table I in Ref. ). These best-fit hybrid RMF+DD potentials describe the data very well, with $`\chi ^2/N`$ values of $`1.41.5`$.

Figure 2 shows the hybrid RMF+DD best fit real potentials of Ref.  for Ni, using the QM and SU(3) options. It is seen that the depths of the hybrid real potentials in the nuclear interior for the different choices of $`\alpha _\omega `$ are about 180 MeV, very close to the depth of the purely phenomenological DD potential, also shown in the figure. These depths are to be compared to those displayed in Fig. 2 discussed below. We note that omitting the $`V^2`$ term in Eq. (2), and refitting the $`K^{}`$ atomic data, the resulting depths are smaller than the RMF+DD depths shown in Fig. 2 by less than 10 MeV. Finally, as for Im $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$, it is well determined in all of the above best fits, with a depth of about 60 MeV, not far from the value expected from the low density limit.

### B Self consistent optical potentials in chirally inspired models

In this approach (reviewed by Ramos in these proceedings) chirally motivated coupled-channel $`t`$ matrices in the $`S=1`$ strangeness sector, including the $`\overline{K}N`$ channels, were fitted to the near-threshold data and used to construct a $`\stackrel{~}{t}\rho `$ $`K^{}`$ nucleus optical potential . Here $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ is a medium-modified $`\overline{K}N`$ $`t`$ matrix incorporating Pauli blocking in the intermediate nucleon states, nucleon and hyperon dispersive corrections and also, recently, self consistency  (and  within a non chiral model). This latter requirement of self consistency means that the output $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is used in the $`\overline{K}`$ nuclear-medium propagator within the Lippmann Schwinger equation to generate the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ matrix, and therefore also the input $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$, from the coupled-channel interaction $`v`$. A common feature of the self consistent evaluations is that Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is rather shallow, typically about $`40`$ MeV at $`\rho _0`$, as shown by curve ($`a`$) in Fig. 2.

The $`K^{}`$ nucleus optical potential derived self consistently by Ramos and Oset  has been applied in Ref.  to a subset of the $`K^{}`$ atomic data (including the same $`2p`$, $`3d`$ and $`4f`$ sequences already covered in Ref. ) which it reproduces semi-quantitatively. Baca et al.  have recently extended this analysis, including the missing sequences for heavier atoms, and also allowing for an additional phenomenological component of a $`(\delta t)\rho `$ form. Figure 2, taken from a work in progress , shows the successively decreasing total $`\chi ^2`$ values for $`N=65`$ data points, plus the calculated depths of Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$, when such addition is allowed (case $`b`$). The potential has become somewhat more attractive, reaching about $`60`$ MeV at $`\rho _0`$. Shown also are two more searches, starting with the Ramos and Oset $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ (case $`a`$). In the first case ($`c`$), the $`I=0`$ component which is intimately related to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ propagation and dissolution in the medium is kept as is, whereas the strength of the $`I=1`$ component which is not constrained well by the low-energy $`\overline{K}N`$ data is allowed to get renormalized, while keeping its ‘theoretical’ shape intact. This kind of a search is somewhat less successful than searching on a $`(\delta t)\rho `$ form, yielding a similar depth for Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$. Trying a combination of the above two modifications (case $`d`$) reduces the value of $`\chi ^2`$ considerably, close to that due to the completely phenomenological DD analysis , producing a very deep potential (about $`170`$ MeV at $`\rho _0`$). Similar results are obtained if one starts from the self consistent $`K^{}`$ nucleus potential of Ref. .

### C Narrow deeply bound $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ atomic states

Friedman and Soff  and Toki and Yamazaki  predicted that $`\pi ^{}`$ atomic levels remain relatively narrow and well resolved, with absorption widths smaller than 1 MeV, down to the $`1s`$ level in Pb. This narrowness is due to the repulsive $`s`$-wave pion interaction which ‘pushes’ its wave function outside of the nucleus, thus suppressing the absorption width. Recently the $`1s`$ and $`2p`$ $`\pi ^{}`$ ‘deeply bound’ atomic states (DBAS), which are inaccessible via the atomic cascade process, have been observed at GSI  using the recoilless ($`d,^3`$He) reaction on two Pb isotopes, confirming the theoretical prediction.

For $`K^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ atoms, Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is strongly attractive and, furthermore, Im $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is particularly strong (50 - 100 MeV deep ), so DBAS a-priori are unlikely to be narrow. However, as shown recently, a strongly absorptive potential makes $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ effectively repulsive, and the atomic wave functions are then substantially suppressed within the nucleus, with the atomic level widths saturating as function of Im $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$. Figures 3-6 below demonstrate these points .

Figure 4 shows calculated energy levels for kaonic Pb. The bars stand for the full width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the level. The $`7i`$ $`K^{}`$ level in Pb is the last observed in the X-ray spectrum. Clearly the deeper levels are quite well defined even for a heavy nucleus, but $`l`$-selective reactions are needed to observe these DBAS. These predictions are insensitive to details of $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$, provided it was fitted to the ‘normal’ levels derived from X-ray spectra.

Figure 4 shows the moduli squared of 2$`p`$ radial wave functions in kaonic Pb. The dashed curve (C) is for the finite size Coulomb potential only. The solid curve (F) is for the full $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ added and it shows essentially total expulsion of the wave function from the nucleus, whose r.m.s. radius is 5.5 fm, thus reducing dramatically the width of the level. The dotted curve (Im) is when only Im $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is added, showing that it is dominant in determining the wave function. The dot-dashed curve (Re) shows the wave function when only the strongly attractive Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is added. The three small inner peaks preceding the main peak well outside the nucleus indicate that three nuclear bound states exist in this real potential, causing the atomic wave function (by orthogonality) to develop nodes. This inner structure then causes the main atomic peak of the wave function to shift to larger radii compared to the Coulomb wave function, thus resulting in a repulsive shift. The node structure inside the nucleus depends critically on Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ and so are the energies of the broad nuclear bound states. The atomic part of the wave function is much less sensitive.

The saturation of atomic level widths may be demonstrated by studying the dependence of strong interaction level shifts $`ϵ`$ and widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on Im $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$. Figure 6 shows calculated shifts and widths for the $`2p`$ level in kaonic Pb as function of Im $`b_0`$ when Re $`b_0`$ is being held at its nominal value, using a $`t\rho `$ potential with effective scattering length $`b_0`$. It is seen that at about 20% of the nominal value of Im $`b_0`$ (of 0.92 fm) the width already saturates and then it goes slowly down, while the shift stays essentially constant at a very large repulsive value, in spite of the strongly attractive Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$. The mechanism behind the saturation of widths is fairly independent of Re $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$, as demonstrated in the previous figure. In the absence of data on this part of the atomic spectrum, the validity of the saturation property is supported by studying total reaction cross sections at very low energies. Related data do exist for $`\overline{p}`$ annihilation on a few nuclear targets. Figure 6 shows calculated total reaction cross sections for $`\overline{p}`$ at 57 MeV/c on 4He and Ne as function of Im $`b_0`$ . The measured cross sections (not shown in the figure) are well reproduced by the plateau values. The striking similarity between Fig. 6 and Fig. 6 is due to the observation that both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at negative energies, and $`\sigma _R`$ at positive energies, involve averaging Im $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}(r)`$ with $`|\psi |^2`$. Therefore, in the strong-absorption limit, when $`|\psi |^2`$ is pushed out of the nuclear domain (as shown in Fig. 4) these observables cease to rise approximately linearly with the strength of Im $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$.

The lesson gained from discovering $`\pi ^{}`$ DBAS  is that nuclear reactions with momentum transfer $`q`$ below 50 MeV/c should suit best the production of $`K^{}`$ DBAS. First, the suppressive effects of the nuclear absorption on low-$`q`$ production cross section are weaker than for reactions with higher values of $`q`$  and second, the angular momentum transfer is then minimal: $`\mathrm{\Delta }l0`$, thus ensuring selectivity.

Low energy (16 MeV) $`K^{}`$ mesons are now available at DA$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$NE due to the decay at rest $`\varphi (1020)K^+K^{}`$. This corresponds to $`q(0^o)=47`$ MeV/c in the ($`K^{},p`$) reaction. Although forward cross sections as large as 0.1 $`\mu `$b/sr may be expected, a major problem would be the need to detect unambiguously the low energy outgoing proton. Somewhat smaller cross sections are expected for the $`(K^{},\gamma )`$ reaction  in which $`q(0^o)`$ is about twice as large. Here too, the expected background at these low energies poses a serious problem. If the decay at rest of the $`\varphi (1020)`$ meson were to take place at close proximity to a nucleus such that the kaonic atom recoiled as a whole, then the signature would be a peak in the $`K^+`$ energy spectrum above the 32 MeV released in the free-space $`\varphi `$ decay. However, since $`q`$ 180 MeV/c in this at-rest $`(\varphi ,K^+)`$ reaction, it is not a favorable situation. It would be interesting to look for secondary nuclear interactions of the $`\varphi `$ meson in flight prior to its decay, e.g. the recoilless $`(\varphi ,K^+)`$ reaction which attaches a $`K^{}`$ meson to the nuclear target .

Several authors  have drawn attention to $`K^{}`$ nuclear states bound by a very deep potential, similar to the best-fit DD potential of Batty et al. . The deepest states are then blocked from decaying by the two-body mode $`\overline{K}N\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and their width could then be reduced to 10 MeV. However, about 20% of $`K^{}`$ absorption at rest is due to non-pionic $`K^{}NN`$ modes, releasing substantially larger energy than the corresponding binding energies. A rough estimate for the residual width, largely due to these modes, is 30-40 MeV. It is unlikely then that well separated signals could exist in the outgoing nucleon spectrum of the $`(K^{},N)`$ reaction, except perhaps in the very special case of kaonic He atoms . Considering the production cross sections anticipated for such deeply bound $`K^{}`$ nuclear states, we disagree with the estimate made by Kishimoto  for the $`(K^{},p)`$ reaction at 1 GeV/c. Our estimate is at the few $`\mu `$b/sr level only. It would be extremely difficult to observe these relatively broad states given such low integrated cross sections.

## II $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ ATOMS

DD analyses of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ atoms  were already reviewed in the HYP97 meeting . These analyses suggested for the first time that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ nucleus interaction, which is attractive outside the nucleus, is likely to be repulsive within. Dabrowski subsequently suggested that such repulsion indeed is required by the shape of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ quasi-free excitation spectra  (see also his contribution in these proceedings). Another element that emerged clearly from these works was that the isovector, Lane potential component of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ nucleus optical potential was substantial and of a definite sign. In Ref. , this derivation was assigned to the particularly accurate shift and width values measured for the atomic $`9k`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ level in Pb. Very recently, Loiseau and Wycech  showed that the relatively accurate $`10l`$ small width value, derived from the yield measurement, is instrumental in extracting the value of the $`\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ coupling constant, assuming that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ absorption occurs peripherally on protons, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}p\mathrm{\Lambda }n`$, via pion exchange. The value thus deduced, incorporating several other upper-level widths (of order eV) which are quite justifiedly evaluated perturbatively, is

$$\frac{f_{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2}{4\pi }=0.048\pm 0.005\pm 0.004,$$
(3)
larger by about 25% than the value used in recent NSC one boson exchange models .

## III $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ ATOMS

Some new information on the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ nucleus interaction has been recently reported from ($`K^{}`$, $`K^+`$) counter experiments. Fukuda et al.  have shown fits to the very low energy part (including the bound state region) of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ hypernuclear spectrum in the 12C$`(K^{},K^+)X`$ reaction on a scintillating fiber active target (KEK experiment E224), resulting in an estimate for the depth of the (attractive) $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ nucleus potential ($`V_0^{(\mathrm{\Xi })}`$) between 15 to 20 MeV. The experimental energy resolution of about 10 MeV in this experiment was too poor to allow identification of any bound state peak structure which could have given more definitive information on the well depth. A somewhat cleaner and better resolved spectrum has been recently presented by the Brookhaven AGS experiment E885 , suggesting that $`V_0^{(\mathrm{\Xi })}14`$ MeV.

An earlier KEK experiment (E176) gave evidence for three events of stopped $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ in light emulsion nuclei, each showing a decay into a pair of single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei. The first two events  are consistent energetically with a $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ atomic state in 12C bound by $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(^{12}\mathrm{C})=0.58\pm 0.14\mathrm{MeV}`$. However, this value could only be ascribed to capture from the $`1s`$ state which is estimated to occur in less than 1% of the total number of captures. This binding energy is distinctly larger than the calculated value $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}^{2p}(^{12}\mathrm{C})\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{____<}{^{^{}}}0.32`$ MeV for the $`2p`$ state, for a wide range of strong-interaction potentials. Moreover, the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ capture probability in 12C from $`p`$ states is a few percent at most. The most likely capture in 12C, as seen in Fig. 8 taken from Ref. , occurs from the atomic $`3d`$ state. However, the binding of this atomic state (126 keV) is essentially determined by the Coulomb potential, and its sensitivity to the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-nucleus strong interaction assumed potential is of the order of 100 eV, substantially smaller than a typical error of 100 keV incurred in emulsion work. We point out that there exist alternative interpretations of these two events as captures on 14N, with binding energies consistent with the calculated value of 175 keV, for example , $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(^{14}\mathrm{N})=0.35\pm 0.20\mathrm{MeV}`$. Furthermore, a likely interpretation of the third event  is due to capture on 16O, with $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(^{16}\mathrm{O})=0.31\pm 0.23\mathrm{MeV}`$ (compared to the calculated value of 231 keV). Clearly, whereas these emulsion events are consistent with capture from $`3d`$ atomic states, they are useless as a source of information regarding the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-nucleus interaction.

An alternative source of information on the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-nucleus strong interaction would be the measurement of X-ray energies from transitions between low lying levels of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ atoms, as suggested recently by Batty et al. . The experimental accuracies of the proposed measurements are sufficient to obtain meaningful information on the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-nucleus interaction. Full atomic cascade calculations have been performed  for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ atoms and confirmed, as expected, that the processes within these two hadronic atoms are very similar. The remaining major differences are in the production reactions. Whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperons are produced by the $`p(K^{},\pi ^+)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ reaction at rest, the $`p(K^{},K^+)\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ reaction occurs at higher energies, thus causing decay losses during the slowing down time of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ particle to be non-negligible. Prior to such an experiment it will be necessary to optimize the experimental setup, which includes a hydrogen production target, a heavy moderator such as Pb or W, the target to be studied and the detectors, both for X rays and for the detection of the outgoing $`K^+`$, which is essential in order to reduce background.

Adopting an attractive optical potential $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ nucleus strong interaction, and assuming a depth of 15-20 MeV with an imaginary part of 1-3 MeV, Batty et al.  were able to propose four targets suitable for X-ray measurements along the periodic table: F, Cl, I, Pb. A calculated X-ray spectrum for a teflon (CF2) target is shown in Fig. 8 and it is seen that the presence of carbon in the target should not affect the possibility of observing transitions in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ F atoms. This choice of targets also proves to be a sensible one for moderate changes in $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$. Nevertheless, even if the actual potential turns out to be very different from the one used in these calculations, only relatively small changes will result, because the whole phenomenon of hadronic atoms is dominated by the Coulomb interaction. Deriving strong-interaction level shifts and widths for as few as 2 to 4 measured X-ray spectra, it was shown by Friedman  that $`V_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ may be constrained to a reasonable accuracy over a meaningful range of nuclear densities. The sensitivity to the $`t\rho `$ optical potential assumed in these calculations is demonstrated in Fig. 8 for Cl. The solid curves connect shift and width values obtained for fixed values of Re $`b_0`$, listed above the lines. The four points along each line correspond to values of Im $`b_0`$ from 0.05 fm down to 0.02 fm. Similar results for a DD potential are also shown.

Extracting $`V_0^{(\mathrm{\Xi })}`$ directly from experiment would provide extremely valuable information on whether or not strange hadronic matter  exists. Indeed it was found  that once $`V_0^{(\mathrm{\Xi })}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{____>}{^{^{}}}15`$ MeV, and for a strangeness fraction as small as about 0.1 in multi-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei, the free-space strong-interaction conversion $`\mathrm{\Xi }N\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes Pauli forbidden and the reverse process occurs. This means that $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ hyperons together with nucleons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons may become stable against strong-interaction baryon emission, and multistrange nuclei with large strangeness fraction $`S/A1`$ and small charge fraction $`|Q|/A1/2`$, decaying only weakly, should generallly exist; for a recent update see Ref. .

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge a longstanding collaboration on the topics here reviewed with Drs. C.J. Batty, A. Cieply, E. Friedman and J. Mareš, as well as useful discussions with Drs. A. Ramos and J. Schaffner-Bielich. This work was partly supported by the trilateral DFG contract GR 243/51-2.