text:
# Heavy particle electroweak loop effects in extra-dimensional models with bulk neutrinos

## 1 Introduction

There is considerable interest in the attempts of solving the gauge hierarchy problem in the context of theories invoking extra spatial dimensions. One category of models assumes that the extra dimensions are large. Mass hierarchy results from the large volume effect. Another class makes use of a non-factorizable metric with a warp factor, leading to exponential suppressions of Planck scale masses for the relevant fields which are assumed to reside on the “visible” 3-brane. Only gravitons and, in some models, also other fields, can propagate in the extra dimensional space. Such a bulk field will have a tower of Kaluza-Klein states with ever increasing masses. These states often provide us with definitive signatures of these extra dimension theories. If such bulk fields can mix with ordinary SM fields, their presence can in principle be detected through their contributions to the electroweak loop effects. There exist already a substantial body of literature discussing the constraints on such KK states by using the existing, or future, electroweak precision data. In this paper we wish to emphasize the importance of a proper and complete inclusion of the mixing angle effects so that the physically sensible requirement of the decoupling theorem can be satisfied.

We believe that the study of any physical phenomena at a given distance scale should not depend sensitively on our knowledge of the physics on much shorter scales, heavy particles should decouple from low-energy processes. Namely, the effects of heavy particles in the virtual intermediate states are suppressed by inverse powers of the heavy particle masses. This comes about because the relevant amplitudes are reduced by the heavy particle propagators. However, if the heavy mass comes from spontaneous symmetry breaking, the corresponding Yukawa coupling is also large and this can neutralize the large mass of the denominator. This may lead to a violation of the decoupling theorem in the low energy effective theory. For example, in the Standard Model, the $`\rho `$ parameter grows with $`m_t^2`$ and is quite sensitive to the value of $`m_t.`$ In fact, this is one of the clue to the $`t`$-quark mass before its discovery. On the other hand, if the large mass can be attributed to a gauge invariant mass term, then decoupling should be effective because here one does not need a large Yukawa coupling. Often in a model, particles have a mixture of bare and Yukawa-coupling-induced masses. These decoupling effects may show up as mass-suppressed mixing angles. Masses and mixing angles are often related because they all follow from the same (nondiagonal) mass matrices.

A proto-typical case is the seesaw mechanism for generating neutrino masses : besides the ordinary light neutrinos with masses $`m_\nu \widehat{m}^2/\widehat{M},`$ there is also at least one other superheavy neutrino with a mass $`m_N\widehat{M}.`$\[The small mass is assumed to have a magnitude comparable to the masses of ordinary quarks and charged leptons, $`\widehat{m}1GeV`$, the large mass being an intermediate mass scale below the Planck scale, $`\widehat{M}10^{12}GeV`$.\] In the charged weak current, the charged lepton is coupled to the combination $`\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta |\nu +\mathrm{sin}\theta |N\right),`$ where $`|\nu `$ stands for some superposition of the light neutrino states with mixing angles that are not necessarily small, but the angle $`\theta `$ is mass-suppressed

$$\theta \frac{\widehat{m}}{\widehat{M}}.$$
(1)
Such a mixing angle simply reflects the property of the mass matrix that, in the $`\widehat{M}\mathrm{}`$ limit, the mixing of the singlet neutrino goes to zero. The presence of non-zero neutrino masses naturally leads to flavor violation loop effects such as $`\mu e\gamma .`$Both light and heavy neutrinos contribute, leading to a branching ratio

$$B\left(\mu e\gamma \right)=\frac{3\alpha }{8\pi }\zeta ^2\theta ^4$$
(2)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant. The factor $`\zeta `$ being some product of the mixing coefficients among light neutrinos is not expected to be particularly small. Had one not taken into account of the fact that the heavy-light mixing angle $`\theta `$ is mass-suppressed, one would erroneously conclude that the heavy neutrino did not decouple (and thus giving rise to an unacceptably large branching ratio). But in this representation of the neutrino states, decoupling manifest itself in the form $`\theta ^4=\left(\widehat{m}^2/\widehat{M}^2\right)^2=m_\nu ^2/m_N^2`$ which yields an immeasurably small branching ratio — because of the superheavy neutrino mass in the denominator, as well as the tiny light neutrino mass in the numerator. The seesaw model of neutrino mass is considered to be an attractive possibility because the presence of such self-consistent features. We suggest that any physically sensible theory containing superheavy particles would have this type of properties that automatically ensures that the heavy states are decoupled in low energy processes.

The mass suppressed mixing angle follows from a special feature of the seesaw neutrino mass matrix — the absence of Majorana mass terms for the left handed neutrino and a superheavy entry for the right handed neutrino mass term. In essence, the reason that the decoupling holds in this case is due to the fact the large mass can be realized by having large bare mass ($`\nu _R`$ being a SM singlet) without having large Yukawa coupling. That mass matrices have the structure which gives rise to decoupling is rather common in models involving heavy particle states. Thus the question of mass suppressed mixing angles is very important in our consideration of heavy particle contribution to low energy loop effects. In this paper we shall illustrate our points in the Randall-Sundrum model with bulk neutrinos. The investigation of lepton flavor violation loop effects in this context have recently been carried out by Kitano. Here we complete his discussion, in particular with respect the possibility of extracting a meaningful bound on the heavy neutrino mass.

## 2 Mixing angles in the RS model with bulk neutrinos

The Randal-Sundrum model presupposes a five dimensional spacetime. The extra spatial dimension is taken to be a compactified $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold with a coordinate $`y=r_c\varphi ,`$ with $`r_c`$ being the radius of the compact dimension and the angle $`\varphi `$ having a range of $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$ with opposite sides identified. There are two 3-branes fixed at $`\varphi =\pi `$ (the “visible” brane containing the SM fields) and at $`\varphi =0`$ (the “hidden” brane, also called the Planck brane). The resultant metric is non-factorizable:

$$ds^2=e^{2kr_c\left|\varphi \right|}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu r_c^2d\varphi ^2$$
(3)
where $`k`$, the bulk curvature, has the order of fundamental mass scale $`\widehat{M}_5`$ which is comparable to the Planck mass. The exponential warp factor $`e^{2kr_c\left|\varphi \right|}`$ causes a rescaling of the fields, which changes any mass parameter in the fundamental theory ($``$ Planck scale) to an effective mass on the visible brane as $`M=e^{kr_c\pi }\widehat{M}_5`$ ($``$ electroweak scale $`M_{EW}`$). Namely, for a choice of $`kr_c12,`$ we can have

$$ϵ=e^{kr_c\pi }10^{16}M=ϵ\widehat{M}_510^3GeV.$$
(4)
Because this mechanism does not allow any intermediate scale, between the Planck and electroweak, to appear, the seesaw mechanism for generating a naturally small neutrino mass is not applicable in the original RS model. In this connection, Grossman and Neubert introduced a bulk fermion field111Cancellation of parity anomaly requires that there be even number of bulk fermions. Since the presence of multiple bulk fermions should not introduce qualitative changes in our result, we shall ignore such complication and stick with one bulk fermion.. They have shown that, for a reasonable range of parameters, the zero mode of such a fermion has a very small wavefunction at the physical brane and the Higgs generated mass can also be naturally suppressed. In this way, neutrino masses that are many orders smaller than $`M_{EW}`$ can be obtained.

The bulk fermion (with mass $`M_b`$) has the Kaluza-Klein decomposition of

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_5^{L,R}(x,\varphi )=\frac{e^{2kr_c\left|\varphi \right|}}{\sqrt{r_c}}\underset{n}{}\widehat{f}_n^{L,R}\left(\varphi \right)\psi _n^{L,R}\left(x\right)$$
(5)
where the superscripts $`(L,R)`$ signify the chirality states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5^{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\gamma _5\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_5,`$ and $`\left\{\widehat{f}_n^{L,R}\left(\varphi \right)\right\}`$ are the appropriate sets of complete orthonormal functions (in this case some combinations of Bessel functions) normalized so that $`\psi _n\left(x\right)`$ has the canonical scale in four dimensions,

$$S_\psi =d^4x\left\{\overline{\psi }_n\left(x\right)i\text{ /}\psi _n\left(x\right)M_n\overline{\psi }_n\left(x\right)\psi _n\left(x\right)\right\}.$$
(6)
The KK fields $`\psi _{n0}^{L,R}\left(x\right)`$ has electroweak scale masses $`M_n=ϵkx_n`$ with $`x_n`$ (corresponding to zeros of some combinations of the Bessel functions) being of order one. The presence of such states brings hope for experimental searches, or equivalently, for severe constraints by known phenomenology. Our focus in this paper is the proper accounting, in such analyses, of the important effects due to the mixing angles between these heavy states and the SM fields.

Grossman and Neubert have shown that bulk fermion zero modes $`\left(x_0=0\right)`$ exist. If we impose the orbifold symmetry $`\varphi \varphi ,`$ then only one of the chiral zero modes survives. Let it be $`\psi _0^R\left(x\right),`$ which has a suppressed wavefunction on the visible brane

$$\widehat{f}_0^R\left(\varphi =\pi \right)\sqrt{ϵkr_c}ϵ^{\nu \frac{1}{2}}=O\left(ϵ^\nu \right)\text{with }\nu =\frac{M_b}{k}>\frac{1}{2}.$$
(7)
where $`M_b`$ is the bulk fermion mass parameter in the original $`5`$-dimensional Lagrangian. Similarly, orbifold symmetry requires the wavefunctions for the left-handed KK excitations, when evaluated on the visible brane, to vanish $`\widehat{f}_n^L\left(\varphi =\pi \right)=0`$ while those for the right-handed fields have values

$$\widehat{f}_{n0}^R\left(\varphi =\pi \right)\sqrt{ϵkr_c}=O\left(ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}}\right).$$
(8)
Thus, $`\left(\widehat{f}_0^R/\widehat{f}_{n0}^R\right)_{\varphi =\pi }=O\left(ϵ^{\nu \frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ is quite small since $`ϵ`$ is tiny and $`\nu >\frac{1}{2}.`$

Relevant to our discussion of neutrino mass matrix, we shall only display the Yukawa interaction between the SM left-handed lepton doublet $`L^L=(l^L,\nu _l^L),`$ the right-handed bulk fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5^R`$, and the Higgs doublet $`H=(h^+,h^0),`$ with its conjugate being $`\stackrel{~}{H}=i\sigma _2H^{}.`$Again for simplicity we shall suppress the lepton generation indices $`(e,\mu ,\tau )`$ at this stage.

$$S_Y=d^4xϵ^4\widehat{Y}_5\{\overline{L}_5^L\left(x\right)\stackrel{~}{H}_5\left(x\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_5^R(x,\pi )+h.c.\}$$
(9)
where the factor $`ϵ^4`$ originates from the square root of the metric determinant, and $`\widehat{Y}_5`$, the fundamental Yukawa coupling, is dimensionful, expected to be somewhat less than $`\widehat{M}_5^{\frac{1}{2}};`$ and the fundamental fields $`L_5^L\left(x\right)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_5\left(x\right)`$ can be replaced by the effective fields (which have the canonical normalizations in the four dimensional spacetime): $`ϵ^{3/2}L\left(x\right)`$ and $`ϵ^1H\left(x\right),`$ respectively. After substituting in the KK decomposition of Eq.(5), the Yukawa interaction in Eq.(9) has now the form:

$$S_Y=d^4x\{y_0\overline{L}^L\left(x\right)\stackrel{~}{H}\left(x\right)\psi _0^R\left(x\right)+\underset{n=1}{}y_n\overline{L}^L\left(x\right)\stackrel{~}{H}\left(x\right)\psi _n^R\left(x\right)+h.c.\}$$
(10)
where $`y_n=\widehat{Y}_5\widehat{f}_n^R\left(\varphi =\pi \right)/\sqrt{ϵr_c}`$. After using the estimates of Eqs.(7) and (8), and $`\sqrt{k}\widehat{Y}_51`$, the four dimensional Yukawa couplings have the size of

$$y_0ϵ^{\nu \frac{1}{2}}\text{and }y_n1.$$
(11)
Spontaneous symmetry breaking due to the Higgs mechanism results in a non-zero vacuum expectation value for the neutral scalar field $`h^0=v`$ of the electroweak scale. Eq.(10) leads to mass terms :

$$m_0\overline{\nu }_l^L\psi _0^R+\underset{n=1}{}m_n\overline{\nu }_l^L\psi _n^R$$
(12)
with the “Yukawa masses”

$$m_0=y_0vϵ^{\nu \frac{1}{2}}vM_{EW}\text{and }m_n=y_nvM_{EW}.$$
(13)
Combining with the Dirac mass terms of the KK states $`_{n=1}M_n\overline{\psi }^L\psi _n^R`$, these mass terms can be written in a matrix form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\overline{\nu }^{}_{}{}^{}L,& \overline{\psi }_1^L,& \overline{\psi }_2^L,& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_0& m_1& m_2& ..\\ 0& M_1& 0& ..\\ 0& 0& M_2& ..\\ :& :& :& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _0^R\\ \psi _1^R\\ \psi _2^R\\ :\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
For simplicity, let us concentrate on the simplest nontrivial case by cutting off the $`n>1`$ excitations, thus a neutrino mass term of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L^{}𝕄\mathbb{\Psi }_R^{},`$ where

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\nu }_l^L,& \overline{\psi }_1^L\end{array}\right),𝕄=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_0& m_1\\ 0& M_1\end{array}\right),\mathbb{\Psi }_R^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _0^R\\ \psi _1^R\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
with $`m_0m_1M_{1.}`$ The mass matrix can be diagonalized in terms of the mass eigenstates $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\nu ,& N\end{array}\right)`$ by unitary transformation matrices $`𝕌\left(\theta _L\right)`$ and $`𝕍\left(\theta _R\right)`$ acting on the left- and right-handed fields, respectively:

$`𝕌\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ N\end{array}\right)_L`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _l^L\\ \psi _1^L\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L+\theta _LN_L\\ \theta _L\nu _L+N_L\end{array}\right)`$ (22)
$`𝕍\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ N\end{array}\right)_R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _0^R\\ \psi _1^R\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _R+\theta _RN_R\\ \theta _R\nu _R+N_R\end{array}\right)`$ (29)
so that

$$𝕌𝕄𝕍^{}=𝕄_{diag}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_\nu & 0\\ 0& m_N\end{array}\right)$$
(30)
with $`m_\nu m_0`$ being very small and $`m_NM_1`$ very large. The mixing angle for the left-handed field $`\theta _L`$ should be fairly small, while $`\theta _R`$ for the right-handed fields is even more suppressed:

$$\theta _L\frac{m_1}{M_1}1\text{and}\theta _R\frac{m_0m_1}{M_1^2}O\left(ϵ\right).$$
(31)
Next we will examine in some detail how such mixing angles will figure in the constraint that the electroweak loop effects, such as $`\mu e\gamma ,`$ will place on the new physics. Obviously for this purpose, we must have at least two distinctive lepton flavors: $`\nu _l=\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu .`$ Thus the $`m_0`$ factor in (15) is now a $`2\times 2`$ non-diagonal mass matrix, whose elements are of same order magnitude as before. The gauge and mass eigenstates in (15) and (29) must be expanded minimally to sets of three states:

$$𝕌\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right)_L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e^L\\ \nu _\mu ^L\\ \psi _1^L\end{array}\right).$$
(32)
The mass eigenstates $`\left\{\nu _i\right\}`$ correspond to two light neutrinos with masses $`m_{\nu 1}`$ and $`m_{\nu 2}`$, on the order of zero-mode Yukawa mass $`m_0,`$ and one heavy neutrino with $`m_{\nu 3}M_1.`$ (We have changed the label for the heavy neutrino from $`N`$ to $`\nu _3.`$) For simplicity, we shall assume that the unitary matrix $`𝕌`$ can be parametrized by two mixing angles: one being the rotation angle $`\omega `$ in the $`(1,2)`$-plane, and the other being $`\theta _L,`$ the $`(2,3)`$ light-heavy rotation angle.

$$𝕌_{li}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\omega & \mathrm{cos}\theta _L\mathrm{sin}\omega & \mathrm{sin}\theta _L\mathrm{sin}\omega \\ \mathrm{sin}\omega & \mathrm{cos}\theta _L\mathrm{cos}\omega & \mathrm{sin}\theta _L\mathrm{cos}\omega \\ 0& \mathrm{sin}\theta _L& \mathrm{cos}\theta _L\end{array}\right)$$
(33)
We now proceed to the discussion of the $`\mu e\gamma `$ loop effects.

## 3 $`\mu e\gamma `$ : heavy particle in the gauge boson loop

The decay amplitude for the $`\mu \left(p\right)e\left(pq\right)+\gamma \left(q\right)`$ can be written as

$$T\left(\mu e\gamma \right)=\frac{ie}{16\pi }\epsilon _\lambda ^{}\left(q\right)\overline{u}_e\left(pq\right)\sigma ^{\lambda \rho }q_\rho \left[A_+\left(1+\gamma _5\right)+A_{}\left(1\gamma _5\right)\right]u_\mu \left(p\right).$$
(34)
The branching ratio (with $`m_e=0`$) can then be expressed in terms of the invariant amplitudes $`A_\pm `$ as

$$B\left(\mu e\gamma \right)=\frac{6e^2M_W^4}{g^4m_\mu ^2}\left(\left|A_+\right|^2+\left|A_{}\right|^2\right),$$
(35)
where $`g`$ is the weak gauge coupling, $`M_W`$ the weak gauge boson mass.

First we discuss the invariant amplitudes $`A_\pm ^W`$ coming from the gauge boson loop contribution $`\mu ^{}\left(\nu _iW_\gamma ^{}\right)e^{}`$ where the photon is emitted by the charged $`W`$ boson in the loop (as denoted by the subscript $`\gamma `$). The gauge boson coupling to the charged lepton and massive neutrinos is

$$\left(Wl\nu _i\right)=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}𝕌_{li}\overline{l}\gamma ^\alpha \frac{1}{2}\left(1\gamma _5\right)\nu _iW_\alpha ^{}+h.c.,$$
(36)
leading (after a detailed calculation) to the amplitudes of $`A_{}^W=0`$ and

$$A_+^W=\frac{g^2m_\mu }{8\pi M_W^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝕌_{\mu i}^{}𝕌_{ei}F\left(\frac{m_i^2}{M_W^2}\right),$$
(37)
where the function

$$F\left(z\right)=\frac{1}{6\left(1z\right)^4}\left(1043z+78z^249z^318z^3\mathrm{ln}z+4z^4\right)$$
(38)
has limits of $`F\left(0\right)=5/3`$ and $`F\left(\mathrm{}\right)=2/3,`$ respectively. In our case we have two light neutrinos $`\nu _{1,2}`$ (thus $`z_{1,2}0`$) and one heavy one $`z_31,`$ resulting in a branching ratio of

$`B\left(\mu e\gamma \right)_W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{8\pi }}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}𝕌_{\mu i}^{}𝕌_{ei}F\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{M_W^2}}\right)\right|^2`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{8\pi }}\left|𝕌_{\mu 3}^{}𝕌_{e3}\left[F\left(\mathrm{}\right)F\left(0\right)\right]\right|^2={\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{8\pi }}\zeta ^2\theta _L^4`$
where $`\zeta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}2\omega ,`$ as seen in Eq.(33). We have used the orthogonality condition of the mixing matrix $`𝕌`$ when going to the second line. Allowing for a large $`\mu e`$ mixing angle $`\omega ,`$ the experimental limit of $`B\left(\mu e\gamma \right)10^{11}`$ requires a heavy-light angle $`\theta _Lm_1/M_1=O\left(10^2\right),`$ which is small, but still plausible as we expect the Yukawa masses $`m_1`$ to be quite bit less than the Dirac (bare) mass $`M_1`$. Thus the measured value begins to give meaningful constraint on the model parameters. Our point is that the significant restriction is on the mixing angle, rather than on the KK masses directly. Note that if we had not taken into account the suppression due to the mixing angles we would get an unacceptable large $`B\left(\mu e\gamma \right).`$ Also in this case the large mass comes from bare mass and not from the large Yukawa coupling and we expect the decoupling to be valid. Indeed $`B\left(\mu e\gamma \right)`$ vanishes in the limit $`M_1\mathrm{},`$ after the behavior of the mixing angles is included.

## 4 $`\mu e\gamma `$ : heavy particle in the scalar boson loop

In the minimal SM with massive neutrinos, the leading $`\mu e\gamma `$ amplitude comes from the gauge boson loop as discussed in the previous Section. However, for models having more scalars beyond the one Higgs doublet, there could in principle be significant scalar boson loop contribution as well. Even for the minimal SM, it is instructive to consider the scalar boson case separately because the longitudinal gauge boson is simply the (unphysical) Higgs scalar boson. Being proportional to the fermion mass, such Yukawa coupling is the source of the decoupling violation — through the cancellation of the large mass in fermion propagator by the large Yukawa couplings.

The Yukawa interactions of the scalar boson $`\varphi `$ to a charged lepton *l* and a massive neutrino $`\nu _i`$ can be parametrized by the chiral couplings $`y_{li}^{(\pm )}`$:

$$\left(\varphi l\nu _i\right)=\overline{l}\left[y_{li}^{(+)}\left(1+\gamma _5\right)+y_{li}^{()}\left(1\gamma _5\right)\right]\nu _i\varphi ^{}+h.c.$$
(40)
We have performed a detailed calculation of the scalar boson loop amplitude, $`\mu ^{}\left(\nu _i\varphi _\gamma ^{}\right)e^{}`$, where the photon is emitted by the charged $`\varphi `$ boson in the intermediate state, and found that, for heavy neutrino intermediate state $`\left(m_iM_\varphi \right),`$

$$A_+^\varphi \left(\nu _{\text{heavy}}\right)=\frac{1}{\pi m_i^2}\left(\frac{m_\mu }{3}y_{ei}^{(+)}y_{\mu i}^{()}+m_iy_{ei}^{(+)}y_{\mu i}^{(+)}\right),$$
(41)
and, for light neutrino intermediates state $`\left(m_iM_\varphi \right)`$,

$$A_+^\varphi \left(\nu _{\text{light}}\right)=\frac{1}{\pi M_\varphi ^2}\left(\frac{m_\mu }{6}y_{ei}^{(+)}y_{\mu i}^{()}+m_iy_{ei}^{(+)}y_{\mu i}^{(+)}\right).$$
(42)
The other chiral amplitudes $`A_{}^\varphi `$ have similar structures.

Let us first consider the SM case when the scalar is the would-be-Goldstone boson, and becomes the longitudinal gauge boson after spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the renormalizable $`R_\xi `$ gauge, there is a scalar particle with a mass $`M_\varphi =\xi M_W.`$ The SM fermions obtain their masses through their couplings to the Higgs field, hence the Yukawa couplings are proportional to the fermion masses. If the VEV is written in terms of $`g`$ and $`M_W`$, we have the explicit form of

$`y_{ei}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gm_i}{2\sqrt{2}M_W}}U_{ei}^{},y_{ei}^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{gm_e}{2\sqrt{2}M_W}}U_{ei}^{},`$
$`y_{\mu i}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gm_\mu }{2\sqrt{2}M_W}}U_{\mu i},y_{\mu i}^{()}={\displaystyle \frac{gm_i}{2\sqrt{2}M_W}}U_{\mu i},`$ (43)
Substituting these relations into Eq.(41), we can check that heavy neutrino $`\left(\nu _3\right)`$ contribution is given by

$$A_+^\varphi \left(\nu _{\text{heavy}}\right)=\frac{g^2m_\mu }{8\pi M_W^2}𝕌_{\mu 3}^{}𝕌_{e3}\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)$$
(44)
in agreement with the result in Eq.(37) with $`F\left(\mathrm{}\right)=2/3.`$ This shows that the heavy particle non-decoupling contribution to the $`\mu e\gamma `$ amplitude comes entirely from the Higgs boson loop.

For models with non-minimal Higgs structure, we have physical scalar particles with couplings that do not have a simple fermion mass dependence — in fact they are as a rule highly model-dependent. The result of (41) can then be translated, with $`m_\mu /m_i0,`$ into the branching ratio of

$$B\left(\mu e\gamma \right)_{\varphi \nu _i}=\frac{24\alpha }{\pi g^4}\left(\frac{M_W^4}{m_\mu ^2m_i^2}\right)\left(y_{ei}^{(+)}y_{\mu i}^{(+)}\right)^2.$$
(45)
Clearly a naive assumption of $`\left(y_{ei}^{(+)}y_{\mu i}^{(+)}\right)=O\left(1\right)`$ would lead to a meaninglessly weak bound on the heavy neutrino mass222In this respect, we differ from the conclusion drawn in Ref.  where the scalar contribution to the branching ratio has been estimated to have the mass dependence of $`\left(M_W/m_i\right)^4`$, as compared to our result of Eq.(45). The author was also silent with regard to the implication of the apparent decoupling violation by the W-loop contribution, as stated in Eq.(37). of $`m_i>10^7TeV.`$Since the generalized Yukawa couplings $`y_{li}^{(\pm )}`$ do include small mixing angles, it seems more sensible to use the experimental result of $`B\left(\mu e\gamma \right)1.2\times 10^{11}`$ to set a limit on the coupling and mixing angle combination:

$$\left(y_{ei}^{(+)}y_{\mu i}^{(+)}\right)\frac{10^7}{m_i\left(TeV\right)},$$
(46)
where we have used the value of Fermi constant $`G_F=\sqrt{2}g^2/8M_W^210^5/M_N^2.`$

## 5 Discussion

We have focused on the Randall-Sundrum version of the extra-dimensional theory. However, our discussion is equally applicable to the original version where the suppression of the bulk field effects (gravitons, singlet-neutrinos, etc.) comes through the large volume of the extra dimensional space. This is the case because the structure of the neutrino mass matrix is very similar in both versions of the theory.

In this paper, we have concentrated on a single bulk neutrino. In principle, there is a whole tower of Kaluza-Klein states. Many authors have attempted to sum over the contribution by the whole tower. We have not done so because we do not wish to confuse the issue of decoupling of a single heavy particle with the separate problem of how the sum of this infinite tower should behave. The individual heavy particle contribution is controlled by the heavy-light mixing angle, which is mass-suppressed. If one sums over an infinite number of such small terms, a “non-decoupling” result can be obtained. Clearly, this approach touches upon the difficult issue of convergence of the KK sum, with implications related to the possible presence of new physics at higher scales. Such problems are quite different from the matter of single particle decoupling, which is the focus of this paper.

One of us (T.P.C.) would like to thank Gary Shiu for helpful discussion. L.F.L. acknowledges the support from U.S. Department of Energy (Grant No. DE-FG02-91ER40682).


format: text

text:
# Positive P simulations of spin squeezing in a two-component Bose condensate

## I Introduction

In quantum optics it was realized some time ago that so-called ’non-classical’ states of light, in particular, the so-called squeezed states, may outperform classical field states in high precision experiments fabre92:\_quant\_noise\_reduc\_optic\_system . Moderately squeezed light has been produced, and several non-classical properties have been demonstrated, but classical technology has so far left enough space for improvements that a real practical high precision application of squeezed light remains to be seen. Atomic squeezing is defined in a way similar to squeezing of light, in the sense that the quantum mechanical uncertainty of a physical variable, here a component of the collective spin, is reduced by a suitable manipulation of the quantum state of the system.
Due to quite strong interactions between atoms and between atoms and light, and due to the long storage and interaction times for atoms, the degree of correlations and squeezing obtainable in atomic systems exceeds the one in light by orders of magnitude. Also, there is a real potential for practical application of squeezed atoms, since current atom interferometers and atomic clocks operate at a limit of precision which can only be improved by imposing quantum correlations between the atoms.
Recently there has been a number of proposals for practical spin squeezing: absorption of squeezed light kuzmich97 , quantum non-demolition atomic detection molmer99 , collisional interactions in classical or degenerate gasses pu00 ; sorensen01:\_many\_bose , photo-dissociation of molecular condensates poulsen01:\_quant\_states\_bose\_einst , and controlled dynamics in quantum computers with ions or atoms molmersorensen . Since quantum mechanical squeezing implies quantum mechanical uncertainties below the level in ’natural’ states of the system, e.g., the ground state of the systems, the analysis of squeezing has to be very precise, and in particular one should avoid use of classical approximations or assumptions. In the present paper we shall investigate the possibilities for squeezing in a Bose-Einstein condensate, using a method which takes the interactions and the multi-mode character of the problem exactly into account. We confirm the validity of results of a recent study sorensen01:\_many\_bose , and we propose an alternative scheme for spin squeezing which relies on a spatial separation of atoms in different internal states.

We consider in this paper a Bose-Einstein condensate of two-level atoms in a trap. The dynamics of such a system is in the second quantized formalism with creation and annihilation operators of atoms in the state $`i=a`$ or $`b`$, $`\widehat{\psi }_i^{}`$ , $`\widehat{\psi }_i`$ , controlled by the Hamiltonian:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{H}=\hfill \\ \hfill d^3r\{\underset{i=a,b}{}[\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{h}_i\widehat{\psi }(\stackrel{}{r})+\frac{g_{ii}}{2}\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_i(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_i(\stackrel{}{r})]\\ \hfill +g_{ab}\widehat{\psi }_a^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_b^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_b(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_a(\stackrel{}{r})\}.\end{array}$$
(1)
Here, $`h_i`$ is the single particle Hamiltonian for atoms in internal state $`i`$ and $`g_{ij}`$ is the effective two-body interaction strength between an atom in state $`i`$ and one in state $`j`$. In terms of the corresponding scattering lengths they are given by $`g_{ij}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{ij}/m`$.

At temperatures sufficiently below the critical temperature for Bose-Einstein condensation almost all atoms occupy the same single particle wavefunction which to a very good approximation can be obtained from a two-component Gross-Pitaevskii Equation. There are, however, important effects about which the Gross-Pitaevskii Equation gives no information: the population statistics of the condensate is assumed to be poissonian (or a number state castin98:\_low\_bose\_einst ), it is not treated as a variable which has to be determined, and which can be manipulated by physical processes. In multi-component condensates, the relative populations and coherences of different states are important degrees of freedom which require a more elaborate treatment.

## II Two-mode model

In a first attempt to model the population statistics it is convenient for simplicity to assume a separation of the spatial and internal degrees of freedom

$$\widehat{\psi }_a(\stackrel{}{r})=\widehat{a}\varphi _a(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_b(\stackrel{}{r})=\widehat{b}\varphi _b(\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(2)
The separation (2) is difficult to justify in general but it is certainly reasonable in the initial state that we have in mind: A very pure (T=0) single component condensate is prepared. We then apply a $`\pi /2`$-pulse, coherently transfering all atoms to an equal superposition of $`a`$ and $`b`$. Then Eq.(2) is fulfilled to a good approximation with $`\varphi _a=\varphi _b`$.

In the subsequent dynamics, the wavefunctions $`\varphi _a(x)`$ and $`\varphi _b(x)`$ may evolve with time, and we describe this evolution with Gross-Pitaevskii Equations

$$i\mathrm{}_t\varphi _i=\left(\widehat{h}_i+g_{ii}\frac{N}{2}\left|\varphi _i\right|^2+g_{i\underset{¯}{i}}\frac{N}{2}\left|\varphi _{\underset{¯}{i}}\right|^2\right)\varphi _i$$
(3)
where $`\underset{¯}{a}b`$ and vice versa.

The dynamics associated with distribution of atoms among the two modes is now studied by rewriting Eq.(1) in terms of the $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ operators:

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{H}_{\text{two-mode}}=g_{bb}\left(\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}\widehat{b}\frac{N}{2}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}\right)𝑑r^3\left|\varphi _b\right|^4\hfill \\ \hfill +g_{aa}\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{a}\frac{N}{2}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)𝑑r^3\left|\varphi _a\right|^4\\ \hfill +g_{ab}\left(\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{b}\frac{N}{2}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}\frac{N}{2}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right)𝑑r^3\left|\varphi _b\right|^2\left|\varphi _a\right|^2.\end{array}$$
(4)
All terms in this Hamiltonian commute with $`\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}`$ and so the interesting dynamics takes place in the coherences between the two internal states. To study these coherences it is convenient to define effective internal spin operators

$$\widehat{S}_+\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{S}_{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}\widehat{S}_z\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\right).$$
(5)
$`\widehat{S}_z`$ represents the difference of total population of states $`a`$ and $`b`$, a quantity which can be measured, e.g., by laser induced fluoresence in an experiment. $`\widehat{S}_+`$ and $`\widehat{S}_{}`$ or, equivalently, $`\widehat{S}_x(\widehat{S}_++\widehat{S}_{})/2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_y(\widehat{S}_+\widehat{S}_{})/2i`$ represent the coherences between $`a`$ and $`b`$. By suitable couplings they can also be turned into population differences and are therefore interesting observables of the system. In fact it turns out that the quantity that determines the accuracy of a given spectroscopic experiment is the ratio of the measured spin-component (the signal) to the fluctuations in a component perpendicular to it (the noise) wineland94:\_squeez . For the initial state prepared by a $`\pi /2`$ pulse we have $`N`$ independent atoms all in the same equal superposition of $`a`$ and $`b`$. Then the mean spin is in the $`xy`$-plane and by definition we can take it to be along the $`x`$-axis. The maximal signal we can obtain is the length of the spin $`S=N/2`$ and the perpendicular fluctuations are then $`S/2`$. To improve this “standard quantum limit” signal/noise ratio we can introduce correlations among the atoms i.e. we can introduce spin squeezing.

With the internal spin operators of Eq. (5) the Hamiltonian (4) can be written

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{H}_{\text{two-mode}}=e(t)\widehat{N}+k(t)\widehat{S}_z\hfill \\ \hfill +E(t)\widehat{N}^2+D(t)\widehat{N}\widehat{S}_z+\chi (t)\widehat{S}_z^2\end{array}$$
(6)
where the time dependent coefficients are given by integrals involving the time dependent mode functions found from Eq.(3). All the terms in the Hamiltonian (6) commute which is an important simplification as the coefficients are time-dependent. The term proportional to $`\widehat{S}_z`$ will result in a rotation of the spin around the $`z`$-axis. The $`\widehat{N}`$ and $`\widehat{N}^2`$ terms give different dynamical overall phases to states with different total numbers of atoms. Such phases are immaterial if we have no external phase-standard to compare with and we neglect these terms for the purpose of the present work. The $`\widehat{N}\widehat{S}_z`$-term adds to the spin rotation with an angle linear in $`N`$. It cannot be neglected as the direction of the spin (the phase between $`a`$\- and $`b`$-components) can be probed by a second $`\pi /2`$ pulse phase locked to the first $`\pi /2`$ pulse. The term of interest to us is $`\widehat{S}_z^2`$, the effect of which is well known from the work of Kitagawa and Ueda kitagawa93:\_squeez . It produces spin-squeezing, i.e. it entangles the individual atoms in a way that reduces the fluctuations of the total spin in one of the directions perpendicular to the average spin. The strength parameter of the squeezing operator is given by

$$\chi (t)=𝑑r^3\frac{1}{2}\left(g_{bb}\left|\varphi _b\right|^4+g_{aa}\left|\varphi _a\right|^42g_{ab}\left|\varphi _a\right|^2\left|\varphi _b\right|^2\right).$$
(7)
Given the time integral $`\mu =2\chi (t^{})𝑑t^{}`$ of this parameter Kitagawa and Ueda provide the analytical expressions for the variance of the squeezed spin component

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }S_\theta ^2=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{S}{2}\{[1+\frac{1}{2}(S\frac{1}{2})A]\frac{1}{2}(S\frac{1}{2})\sqrt{A^2+B^2}]\}\end{array}$$
(8)
where $`A=1\mathrm{cos}^{2S1}\mu `$ and $`B=4\mathrm{sin}\mu /2\mathrm{cos}^{2S2}\mu /2`$, and they specify the direction of the squeezed spin component $`\widehat{S}_\theta =\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{S}_y+\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{S}_z`$:

$$\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{B}{A}.$$
(9)
It is of some interest to use simple analytical approximations for $`\chi (t)`$ and we will do so in the specific cases studied below. Another approach would of course be to obtain $`\chi (t)`$ by a numerical solution of Eq. (3).

## III Full multi-mode description

Equations (2)-(7) are based on a simplifying assumption. The actual observables of the system are more complicated to deal with, but we can define a set of operators obeying angular momentum commutation relations by

$`\widehat{J}_x`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r^3\left(\widehat{\psi }_b^{}\widehat{\psi }_a+\widehat{\psi }_a^{}\widehat{\psi }_b\right)}`$ (10)
$`\widehat{J}_y`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r^3\left(\widehat{\psi }_b^{}\widehat{\psi }_a\widehat{\psi }_a^{}\widehat{\psi }_b\right)}`$ (11)
$`\widehat{J}_z`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r^3\left(\widehat{\psi }_b^{}\widehat{\psi }_b\widehat{\psi }_a^{}\widehat{\psi }_a\right)}.`$ (12)
The total number operator $`\widehat{N}𝑑r^3(\widehat{\psi }_a^{}\widehat{\psi }_a+\widehat{\psi }_b^{}\widehat{\psi }_b)`$ commutes with these three operators and when the two-mode approximation applies well, the two-mode and multi-mode operators are comparable by the replacement

$$\widehat{J}_+=\rho e^{i\nu }\widehat{S}_+\widehat{J}_{}=\rho e^{i\nu }\widehat{S}_{}\widehat{J}_z=\widehat{S}_z$$
(13)
where $`\rho e^{i\nu }𝑑r^3\varphi _b^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\varphi _a(\stackrel{}{r})`$. The factor $`\rho `$ takes into account that $`\widehat{J}_x`$ and $`\widehat{J}_y`$ vanish unless the atoms in state $`a`$ and $`b`$ occupy the same region in phase space and $`\nu `$ is a dynamical phase from the spatial dynamics.

The two-mode approximation provides an intuitive picture of the evolution of the system. It is however not easy to justify the factorization (2) and we shall therefore apply an exact method to determine more precisely what happens to the mean values and the variances of the components of $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{J}}`$. The positive P function ($`P_+`$gardiner91:\_quant\_noise  is a pseudo-probability distribution giving expectation values of normally ordered operator products as c-number averages. In our case with two internal states one has

$$:f[\widehat{𝝍}(t)]:=d[𝝍]f[𝝍]P_+[𝝍,t]$$
(14)
where

$$\widehat{𝝍}(t)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\psi }_a(t)\\ \widehat{\psi }_a^{}(t)\\ \widehat{\psi }_b(t)\\ \widehat{\psi }_b^{}(t)\end{array}\right)\text{and}𝝍\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{a1}\\ \psi _{a2}\\ \psi _{b1}\\ \psi _{b2}\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
The distribution is not determined uniquely but one particular choice obeys a functional Fokker-Planck equation which is of course immensely difficult to solve. For numerical purposes it is much better to translate it to coupled Langevin equations for the 4 c-number fields (“wave functions”). These equations are “noisy Gross-Pitaevskii equations”

$$d\psi _{i\mu }=(1)^\mu \frac{idt}{\mathrm{}}\left(\widehat{h}_i+g_{ii}\psi _{i2}\psi _{i1}+g_{ab}\psi _{\underset{¯}{i}2}\psi _{\underset{¯}{i}1}\right)\psi _{i\mu }+dW_{i\mu }$$
(16)
where $`\underset{¯}{a}b`$ and vice versa. In order to treat the interactions exactly (within the approximation given by the form of Eq.(1)) the noise terms have to be gaussian and to fulfill:

$$dW_{i\mu }(\stackrel{}{r},t)=0$$
(17)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill dW_{i\mu }(\stackrel{}{r},t)dW_{j\nu }& (\stackrel{}{r}^{},t^{})=\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{})\delta (tt^{})\delta _{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ & \times (1)^\mu \frac{idtg_{ij}}{\mathrm{}}\psi _{i\mu }(\stackrel{}{r},t)\psi _{j_\mu }(\stackrel{}{r},t).\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
On the computer we can simulate the Langevin equations to obtain an ensemble of realizations of $`𝝍`$. This ensemble is a finite sampling of $`P_+`$ and can therefore be used to calculate expectation values via the prescription (14) and with a precision limited only by the number of realizations in the ensemble.

Three limitations of the method should be noted: (i) The initial state of the system has to be expressed as an initial $`P_+`$. This is trivial for a single coherent state and for any mixture of coherent states but it can be complicated for other initial conditions. (ii) The $`P_+`$ method has a notorious divergence problem at large non-linearities. This problem sets in after a certain time and is clearly noticable in the simulations. We can therefore easily tell how long we can trust the results of the method. (iii) Although we have so far written all equations in 3D it would be computationally very heavy to simulate a sufficient number of realizations of Eq. (16). In what follows we will thus restrict ourselves to 1D. It is reasonable to assume that this may alter the quantitative results significantly but a 1D calculation can be used to investigate the validity of the two-mode model which may hereafter be applied in 3D with more confidence.

## IV Spin squeezing with controlled collision strengths

Let us first focus on a situation with simple spatial dynamics. If we set $`V_a=V_b=m\omega ^2x^2/2`$ (1D model) and we assume that the values of the collision strengths can be controlled so that, e.g., $`g_{aa}=g_{bb}=2g_{ab}g`$ the spatial dynamics is limited to a slight breathing. The spin-dynamics is almost a pure squeezing, that is, the mean spin stays in the $`x`$-direction. To get an estimate of the strength parameter $`\chi `$ of Eq. (7) we find $`\varphi _a(t=0)=\varphi _b(t=0)`$ as the Thomas-Fermi approximation to the stationary solution of the GPE with all atoms in the $`a`$-state. We then have:

$$\chi \frac{1}{2^{2/3}3^{2/3}5}\frac{g^{2/3}}{N^{1/3}}m^{1/3}\omega ^{2/3}.$$
(19)
Choosing $`g=0.005\mathrm{}\omega a_0`$ and $`N=2000`$ we get $`\chi =6.1\times 10^4\mathrm{}\omega `$ which should give a sizable squeezing within a quarter of a trapping periode. $`a_0\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{m\omega }}`$ is the harmonic oscillator length in the trap and $`m`$ is the atomic mass.

In Fig.1

we show results of both the two-mode approximation (8) and of the $`P_+`$ simulation for the parameters mentioned above. $`\chi `$ was assumed to be constant and of the value determined by Eq. (19). $`\widehat{J}_\theta =\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{J}_y+\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{J}_z`$ refers to the squeezed component of the spin. The direction $`\theta `$ in the $`yz`$-plane is determined in the two mode model, i.e., from Eq. (9) and it is not independently optimized for the full $`P_+`$ results. The agreement is seen to be surprisingly good considering the crudeness of the estimate of the parameters in the two mode model. Within the uncertainty of the positive P results (the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{J}_\theta ^2`$ data are presented with errorbars in Fig. 1) the noise suppression is seen to be almost perfect. These calculations thus confirm the results of Sørensen et al. sorensen01:\_many\_bose  where the simple two-mode approach was supplemented by another approximate method.

## V Spin squeezing with controlled mode functions overlaps

In the experiments on the $`|F=1,m_f=1`$ and $`|F=2,m_f=1`$ states in 87Rb hall98:\_dynam\_compo\_sepa  the scattering lengths and thus the interaction strengths are actually in proportion $`g_{aa}:g_{ab}:g_{bb}=1.03:1:0.97`$. This is far from ideal conditions for squeezing as we can see from Eq. (7): $`\chi =0`$ when in addition $`\varphi _a=\varphi _b`$ as is the case initially. To produce a sizable squeezing effect we propose to make the two mode functions differ (see also goldstein00:\_elimin\_mean\_field\_shift\_two ). This is achieved by applying different potentials to the two internal states which has actually already been done for magnetically trapped Rb making use of gravity and different magnetic moments of the two internal states hall98:\_dynam\_compo\_sepa . If $`V_b`$ is displaced from $`V_a`$ the $`b`$-component created by the initial $`\pi /2`$-pulse will move away from the $`a`$ component thereby reducing the overlap $`𝑑x\left|\varphi _a\right|^2\left|\varphi _b\right|^2`$ and increasing $`\chi `$. It is remarkable that the squeezing then takes place while the two components are away from each other and are therefore not interacting.

To demonstrate the accomplishments of the scheme described above we have chosen simply to displace $`V_b`$ by a certain amount $`x_0`$ from $`V_a`$. In this model both potentials are still harmonic and of the same strength. The spatial dynamics is now more complicated but it can be approximated by the solutions to coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations. To get a rough idea of the evolution we can use the well know evolution of a displaced ground state wavefunction in a harmonic trap. We then get

$$\rho e^{i\nu }=e^{x_0^2\left(1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)\right)/2}e^{ix_0^2\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)/2}$$
(20)
and

$$\left|\varphi _b\right|^2\left|\varphi _a\right|^2𝑑x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{x_0^2\left(1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)\right)/4}.$$
(21)
If we choose $`(g_{aa},g_{ab},g_{bb})=(1.03,1,0.97)\times 5\times 10^3\mathrm{}\omega a_0`$ and $`x_0=3a_0`$ this model gives an order of magnitude estimate for the integrated strength parameter of $`_0^{2\pi /\omega }\chi (t)𝑑t10^2\mathrm{}\omega `$ when the two components are again overlapped. For 2000 atoms this corresponds to a reduction of the uncertainty in the squeezed spin component by roughly a factor of 10 according to Eq. 8.

In Fig.2

we use these estimates to analyze the $`P_+`$ simulations, i.e., we plot the expectation value of the spin component predicted to be maximal, $`\widehat{J}_\nu `$ , and the variance of the perpendicular component predicted to be squeezed, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{J}_\theta ^2`$. As can be seen, after a fast drop a large fraction of the original mean spin is recovered in $`\widehat{J}_\nu `$ when the two wave packets are again overlapped. This confirms our prediction of $`\nu `$ and it implies that a sizable signal can be obtained in an experiment. At the same time the variance in the predicted perpendicular component is strongly suppressed confirming our prediction for $`\theta `$ and implying that the noise in the experiment can be significantly reduced below the standard quantum limit.

## VI Discussion

We have presented the first exact numerical studies of spin squeezing in two-component condensates. As in our previous work on squezing of a single component atomic field operator poulsen01:\_quant\_states\_bose\_einst  we have applied the positive P distribution which is well suited for studies of transient, short time behavior of interacting many-body systems. This formulation involves simulations, and due to the formal separation of c-number representations of creation and annihilation operators, ’non-physical’ results may occur such as negative/complex atomic densities, and few instants with negative variances as depicted in Figs. 1 and 2. For long times we cannot exclude that slight imprecision due to discretization of space and time contributes to these results. The Monte Carlo nature of the method makes it somewhat tedious to check rigorously for discretization errors but for resonable numbers of realizations in the ensemble sampling errors will dominate anyhow.

The conclusion of this paper is that the predictions of the simple two-mode model reproduce the full multimode result also quantitatively. This means that the spatio-temporal dynamics and the population dynamics couple the way they should to produce spin squeezing but the resulting entanglement between spatial and internal degrees of freedom is small enough that purely internal state observables show strong squeezing and multi-particle entanglement. In particular the calculations of Fig. 2 reveal that quite significant distortions of the distributions when the components separate and merge do not prevent sizable spin squeezing.

Although we claim quantitative agreement above it should of course be realized that this is within the 1D model. To use the two-mode model to describe a real experiment the spatial dynamics which enters the internal dynamics via Eqs. (7) and (13) must be treated with some accuracy. Apart from the 3D aspects it should be noted that e.g. in some experiments on two-component condensates myatt97:\_produc\_overlap  the displacement of the potentials are accompanied (and in fact due to) different strenghts of the potentials. This adds to the complexity of the dynamics and will of course be important if the aim is precise quantitative predictions and not a proof-of-principle analysis as offered in this paper.

More tests need to be carried out for other kinds of processes, but the present study suggests that the simple two-mode description provides good predictions for the many-body dynamics of spin squeezing. Hence other ideas, e.g., for reducing the fluctuations in the total number of atoms in a condensate or in out-coupled atom laser beams, may be reliably based on the terms of Eq. (6).


text:
# Cluster AgeS Experiment. CCD photometry of SX Phoenicis variables in the globular cluster M 55

## 1 Introduction

The Clusters AgeS Experiment (CASE) is a long term project with a main goal of determining accurate ages and distances of globular clusters by using observations of detached eclipsing binaries (Paczyński (1997)). As a byproduct we obtain time series photometry of other variable stars located in the surveyed clusters.

M 55 (NGC 6809) is a metal-poor globular cluster in the Galactic halo ($`l=9^{},b=23^{}`$). Because of its proximity and small reddening ($`(mM)_V=13.76,E(BV)=0.07`$, Harris (1996)) it was selected as one of the targets in our survey for eclipsing binaries in globular clusters. Olech et al. (Olech et al. (1999)) presented our investigation of RR Lyrae variables in this cluster. In this contribution we present the results for the short period pulsating variables. The relatively large number of SX Phe variables in M 55 allows us to make a basic statistical analysis of their properties and a new determination of the slope of the period-luminosity relation.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

In the interval from 1997 May 8/9 to 1997 August 16/17 we carried out CCD photometry on the 1.0-m Swope telescope at Las Campanas Observatory. The telescope was equipped with the SITe3 2k x 4k CCD camera with an effective field of view 14.5 x 23 arcmin (2048x3150 pixels were used), at a scale of 0.435 arcsec/pixel. The cluster was monitored on 13 nights for a total of 36.4 hours. The light curves typically have about 750 data points in Johnson $`V`$ and about 60 data points in Johnson $`B`$. Exposure times were 150 sec to 300 sec for the $`V`$ filter and from 200 sec to 360 sec for the $`B`$ filter, depending on the atmospheric transparency and seeing conditions. On photometric nights several fields of standard stars (Landolt (1992)) were observed to obtain transformation coefficients to the photometric standard system. We used procedures from the IRAF noao.imred.ccdproc package for de-biasing and flat-fielding the raw data. Instrumental photometry was obtained using DoPHOT (Schechter, Mateo & Saha (1993)).

## 3 Light Curves

### 3.1 Identification of variables

We identified 27 SX Phe variables in the field of M 55. Following the nomenclature of Olech et al. (Olech et al. (1999)) the stars are designated as NGC 6809 LCO V16 through NGC 6809 LCO V42. Here-after we use the designations V16 – V42 respectively. Finding charts for these variables are presented in Figs. 1, 2 and 3.

The positions of these objects in the color-magnitude diagram are shown in Fig. 4. All of the SX Phe stars belonging to M 55 lie on the blue straggler sequence. Three of the observed SX Phe type stars: V28, V29, V30, are 3.5 – 4 mag fainter than the rest of our sample stars. This difference in magnitude places these 3 stars in the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Ibata, Gilmore & Irwin (1994), Fahlman et al. (1996)). The 24 remaining SX Phe variables constitute approximately 50 percent of all the blue straggler stars present in our data.

### 3.2 Fourier Analysis

Preliminary period estimates were obtained using the CLEAN algorithm (Roberts et al. (1987)). We used a method developed by Schwarzenberg-Czerny (Schwarzenberg-Czerny (1997)) to improve the period determination and to fit a Fourier series to the $`V`$-band light curves in the form:

$`V=A_o+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}A_jsin(j\omega t+\varphi _j)`$ (1)
where $`\omega =2\pi /P`$ and $`P`$ is the pulsation period of the star. The number of harmonics ($`k`$) was chosen so that the formal errors of their amplitudes were smaller than the determined values. Since the amplitudes of most of the SX Phe variables in M 55 are smaller than 0.1 mag, for 18/27 stars we were able to measure only the base harmonic ($`k=1`$). For those stars for which more harmonics could be measured we calculated the Fourier parameters:

$`R_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`A_i/A_j`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Phi }_ij\mathrm{\Phi }_i.`$ (3)
In order to help the readers unfamiliar with the AoV periodogram analysis to appreciate the effects of noise and aliasing on our period analysis we provide here as an example description of the light variations of a double mode pulsating star V41 in the terms of the classical power spectrum and window function. The window function looks well as its highest side-lobes due to day and moon cycles do not exceed 83 and 60 percent of the central peak respectively. The window patterns corresponding to the primary and secondary pulsation frequency in the respective original and prewhitened power spectrum are little disturbed and symmetric. Hence our period identifications are unambiguous. The power spectrum remaining after prewhitening with the two detected frequencies and their 5 harmonics is rather flat, consistent with the low frequency calibration errors not exceeding 0.005 mag and no periodic oscillations with amplitudes exceeding 0.004 mag at frequencies exceeding 3 c/d. This is consistent with the theoretical expectations, as any combination amplitudes should be of order of the product of the detected amplitudes i.e. of 0.001 mag. These values for other stars remain within factor of 2 of their respective values for V41.

Standard deviation of the residuals is 0.014 mag, consistent with that expected for the size of the telescope and stellar magnitude. Thus observational errors of an average value of 1/4 all observations should be as small as $`\sigma 0.014/\sqrt{180}0.001`$ mag. However, the averages calculated by selecting 1/4 of points around minimum and maximum phases should differ by more than the (half)amplitude of the oscillation, consistent with well over $`10\sigma `$ significance level of detection even for the secondary oscillation. The AoV statistics used by us tends to yield higher significance levels than the above simple estimate.

### 3.3 Single mode SX Phe stars

The basic parameters derived for the single-mode oscillators are listed in Table 1, including the variable number, equatorial coordinates (J2000.0), derived periods, mean $`V`$-band magnitudes, mean $`B`$-band magnitudes, mean colors ($`<`$$`B`$$`><`$$`V`$$`>`$), and full amplitudes of the oscillations in $`V`$. Table 2 presents values of $`A_1`$, $`R_{21}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{21}`$, $`R_{31}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{31}`$ measured for the single-mode variables. By analogy to Cepheids, we can look for the signature of the resonance between the radial pulsation modes in a $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{21}`$-period plot (Fig. 5). This plot suggests that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{21}`$ is either constant within the observed period range with a weighted mean of $`2.183\pm 0.013`$ or slightly increasing with the period, since according to the Fisher-Snedecor test the linear fit $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{21}=1.954+2.4(\pm 1.0)P`$ is marginally better than a constant at confidence level 0.95. Our phases correspond to the sine Fourier series (Eq. 1), for the cosine series the mean phase should be incremented by $`\pi /2`$. This taken into account, both our constant and linear solutions agree with Poretti (1999). Note that our result is based on a much broader period interval and hence has proportionally stronger weight. The smoothness of the phase does not reveal the presence of any resonance within the range of periods observed here. Curiously, within the errors the same phase difference holds for the principal oscillation of the double mode stars V31 and V32. These were included in the mean value quoted above.

Fig. 6 presents the light curves of the single-mode SX Phe variables observed in the field of M 55.

### 3.4 Double mode SX Phe stars

We constructed a synthetic light curve for each of the variables using the measured Fourier parameters for that variable. After subtracting this light curve from the observed data points, we searched for a new period with a new fit of a Fourier series. If the full amplitude of the resulting light curve was larger than an arbitrarily chosen value of 0.01 mag, then the object was classified as a double mode variable. Two modes of pulsation were detected in the light curves of 12 of our variables. The parameters for these double-mode SX Phe variables are listed in Table 3, including the variable number, equatorial coordinates (J2000.0), periods of pulsations for both modes, mean $`V`$-band magnitudes, mean $`B`$-band magnitudes, mean colors, and full amplitudes in $`V`$ for the longer period. Table 4 presents the values of $`A_1^A`$, $`R_{21}^A`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{21}^A`$, $`A_1^B`$ measured for the double-mode variables. We use the designations A and B for the longer and shorter periods, respectively.

Fig. 7 presents the light curves of the double-mode variables phased with the periods of each mode after prewhitening with the other mode.

## 4 Mode Identification

Amplitudes generally yield no definitive clues for the identification of modes, except that large amplitudes are more likely to occur in radial pulsations. Our identification of pulsation modes relies on the period ratios and on the distribution of stars in the period-luminosity (P–L) plot.

### 4.1 Amplitudes

We observe amplitudes ranging from 0.016 mag. to 0.899 mag. The amplitude of V25 ($`A_V`$=0.899 mag) is one of the largest known among all SX Phe type variables. It is not likely that such an amplitude arises in non-radial oscillations. For most of the double-mode variables the amplitude of the longer period oscillations is larger than that for the shorter one. An exception is V38 which has a larger amplitude for the shorter period. For this reason it is very likely that in the double mode stars the oscillations with larger periods and amplitudes are radial (Gilliland et al. (1998)).

In Fig. 8 we present a color-amplitude relation for the stars in our sample. Note that the larger amplitudes are exhibited by stars close to the center of the instability strip. The amplitudes of the double mode stars tend to be smaller than the amplitudes of the single mode stars, but a few single mode stars display very small amplitudes as well. Both effects, if real, are consistent with theoretical expectations. However, the large scatter in Fig. 8 makes any detailed discussion of amplitude effects premature.

### 4.2 Period Ratios

The periods of the SX Phe variables in M 55 span the range 0.033 to 0.136 days. We use $`P_A`$ for the longer periods and $`P_B`$ for the shorter periods of the double mode variables. Fig. 9 presents $`P_B/P_A`$ plotted against $`P_A`$ for the double-mode variables. The $`P_B/P_A`$ ratio does not depend on the period of the pulsations. The weighted mean of $`P_B/P_A`$ for V31, V32, V33, V34, V37, V38, and V42 is 0.975 $`\pm `$0.005. The period ratios of V35, V36, V39 and V40 exhibit a larger scatter lying in the range $`0.920.96`$. Since there are no radial modes spaced so closely in frequency, at least one of the modes in our double-mode SX Phe variables is non-radial in origin. However we are unable to say with assurance which of the two modes is radial, if any, using only period information.

### 4.3 Our Rosetta Stone: V41

V41 is an exceptional case in that its period ratio is extreme compared to other double mode SX Phe stars in M 55 (Fig. 9). This period ratio helps us to identify its pulsation modes with some confidence. The observed value of $`0.807\pm 0.009`$ is close to the first and second overtone ratio for SX Phe stars (0.801, see Petersen & Høg (1998) for a discussion). For this reason we identify $`P_A`$ and $`P_B`$ with the first and second radial overtones, respectively. In Fig. 10 we plot the period-luminosity relation for the principal periods of all of the stars in our sample. Except for V41 all of the secondary periods of the double-mode stars lay close to their primary periods and are not plotted to avoid confusion. For V41 the secondary period $`P_B`$ lies off of the general P–L relation, toward lower periods. It is consistent with our identification of $`P_B`$ with the second overtone. This is true for all slopes of P–L relations discussed in the literature, ranging from -3.3 to -3.7 (McNamara (1995), McNamara (1997)). However, we caution that these results are extremely sensitive against selection of the observational data. The latter paper claims 5-fold decrease of scatter of $`M_V`$ without explainable improvement in the quality of the observations.

## 5 The First Overtone P–L Relation

In Fig. 10 the stars V20, V35, V36, V38 and V41 are marked with filled symbols. These stars form a distinct branch away from the main group of SX Phe stars, shifted towards lower periods. Following our identification of V41 as a first overtone pulsator we extend this identification onto the whole group.

Previous investigations have not revealed such a clear separation of the radial modes of SX Phe stars in globular clusters. These investigations have had to rely on small samples from different clusters, and so relative distance errors and spatially variable reddening both introduce significant scatter in the period-luminosity diagram (McNamara (1995), Kaluzny & Krzeminski (1993)).

The dotted line in Fig. 10 represents a linear least squares fit to the first overtone P–L relation:

$`<V>=3.1`$ $`logP_1+`$ $`12.32,`$ (4)
$`\pm 0.6`$ $`\pm 0.03`$
with a standard residual of the fit of 0.05 mag.

## 6 The Fundamental Mode P–L Relation for SX Phe Stars

### 6.1 Slope

We classify all remaining stars in Fig. 10 (plotted with open symbols) as SX Phe stars pulsating in the fundamental mode. The continuous line in Fig. 10 represents a linear least squares fit to this P–L relation:

$`<V>=2.88`$ $`logP_0`$ $`+13.09`$ (5)
$`\pm 0.17`$ $`\pm 0.03`$
with a standard residual of the fit of 0.12 mag.

Our fundamental mode P–L relation is less steep than the overtone relation. However the relatively large error of the slope derived for the first overtone P–L relation, does not reject the hypothesis of equal slopes. This is in agreement with the discussion by Nemec et al. (1994). This P–L relation for the fundamental mode stars exhibits a fair amount of scatter. The cause of this might be misidentification among close radial and non-radial modes. The average period ratio of $`0.97`$ in bimodal stars is consistent with a scatter of 0.03 in $`\mathrm{log}P`$ due to mode misidentification. In addition, some scatter is to be expected from the finite width of the instability strip.

McNamara (1995) derived a P–L relation with a slope $`a=3.3`$ from a compilation of cluster SX Phe stars. This compilation relies on a smaller and less homogeneous data set than that presented here, and hence a realistic estimate of the error of this latter value is expected to be large compared to our error of $`0.17`$. Thus the McNamara (1995) value for the slope is marginally consistent with our value. A comparison of these results indicates the degree of the external errors involved in P–L relations for SX Phe stars.

Our P–L slope of $`a=2.9`$ is inconsistent with the value $`a=3.7`$ obtained by Petersen & Høg (1998) from the parallaxes of $`\delta `$ Scuti stars observed by HIPPARCOS. This is not surprising given the observed scatter in the P–L relation for the HIPPARCOS stars. In addition, these calibrations do not take into account the fact that SX Phe itself is the star in the sample with the shortest period and the lowest metallicity at \[Fe/H\] = –1.37 (Hintz et al. (1998)). The other 5 $`\delta `$ Scuti stars from the HIPPARCOS sample have high metallicities (\[Fe/H\]$``$0.0). Nemec et al. (1994) demonstrated that SX Phe stars follow a period-luminosity-metallicity relation with a coefficient of 0.32 for the \[Fe/H\] term, and so the slope of the P–L relation from the HIPPARCOS stars will be over-estimated. Our P–L slope is also inconsistent with the value of –3.7 obtained by McNamara (1997) for the highly inhomogeneous sample 26 HADS, for which P–L dependence was found indirectly, via many intermediate steps.

### 6.2 Zero point

On the other hand the HIPPARCOS parallax of SX Phe is crucial for a determination of the zero point of the P–L relation for our M 55 stars. The metallicity of SX Phe is similar to M 55 (\[Fe/H\]$`=1.54`$, Rutledge et al. (1997)). The parallax of SX Phe ($`\pi =12.91`$ miliarcsec) is well determined with a relative error $`\sigma _\pi /\pi =0.06`$. The absolute magnitude of the SX Phe, derived using the HIPPARCOS parallax, is $`M_V=2.88\pm 0.13`$ mag (Petersen & Høg (1998)). Oudmajier et al. (1998) determined that when the relative error of the parallax is smaller than about 0.15, the Lutz-Kelker correction (Lutz & Kelker (1973)) accurately describes the probable shift in the derived absolute magnitude. In the case of SX Phe, the Lutz-Kelker correction is equal to $`0.02`$ mag, so the corrected absolute magnitude is $`2.86`$ mag. This value, when combined with Eq. (5) for the fundamental mode period of SX Phe of $`P_0=0.0550`$ days (Petersen & Høg (1998)), yields our final P–L relation:

$`M_V=2.88`$ $`logP_0`$ $`0.77`$ (6)
$`\pm 0.17`$ $`\pm 0.25`$
Using our calibration we determine the apparent distance modulus to M 55 to be $`(mM)_V=13.86\pm 0.25`$ mag. This result is consistent with the apparent distance to M 55 determined from the analysis of RR Lyrae stars in M 55 by Olech et al. (1999).

## 7 The Period–Color Relation

$`\delta `$ Scuti and SX Phe stars close to the red border of the instability strip have periods significantly longer than the periods of stars at the center of the strip (Pamiatnykh (2000)). The period-color ($`logP/(VI)`$) dependence for $`\delta `$ Scuti stars from the Galactic Bulge was described by Mcnamara et al. (2000). A linear least squares fit to our data, presented in Fig. 11 yields the following relation:

$`<BV>=0.15`$ $`logP`$ $`+0.543`$ (7)
$`\pm 0.05`$ $`\pm 0.008`$
The standard residuals from the fit amount to $`0.05`$ mag. Note that the star towards lower right in Fig. 10 is V21, which is found at the extreme red border of the instability strip (Fig. 4).  Any attempt to account for this by including a color term in the P–L relation failed to improve the quality of the fit.

## 8 Conclusions

SX Phe type variables seem to be good distance indicators. Although their luminosities are too low for investigations in distant galaxies, they are bright enough to be observed in nearby galaxies. The largest number of SX Phe variables in one globular cluster was found in $`\omega `$ Cen (Kaluzny et al. (1996), Kaluzny et al. 1997a ), but due to its varying metallicity this cluster is not suitable for distance calibration. In M 55 we discovered the richest population of SX Phe among the rest of globular clusters. M 55 is thought to be chemically homogeneous (Richter, Hilker & Richtler (1999)). This enabled a separation of the fundamental and first overtone stars and an estimate of the errors caused by misidentification of nearby radial non-radial frequencies. In this way we obtained a reliable slope of the P–L relation for the fundamental mode stars. Combined with the HIPPARCOS parallax for SX Phe itself, we obtain an improved P–L relation (Eq. 6). Despite being based on just one star, our zero point should be reliable as HIPPARCOS parallax of SX Phe has an error of $`6`$ percent and metallicities of SX Phe and of M 55 are as close as $`1.37`$ and $`1.54`$. Using our revised P–L relation for SX Phe stars we measure the apparent distance to M 55 to be $`(mM)_V=13.86\pm 0.25`$ mag.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Alosha Pamiatnykh and Wojciech Dziembowski for their enlightening comments. JK and WK were supported by the KBN grant 2P03D.003.17. WP was supported by the KBN grant 2P03D.010.15. JK was supported also by NSF grant AST 9819787 to B. Paczyński. IBT and WK were supported by NSF grant AST-9819786. ASC was supported by the KBN grant No. 2P03D 018 18.


text:
# Semistable bundles on curves and reducible representations of the fundamental group

## 0. Introduction

A.A. Bolibruch  and V.P. Kostov  showed independently that if $`\rho :\pi _1(^1\mathrm{\Sigma })GL(n,)`$ is an irreducible representation of the fundamental group, then there is an algebraic bundle $`E`$ together with an algebraic connection $`:E\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Sigma })E`$ with underlying local system $`\rho `$, with the property that $`E_1^n𝒪`$ is algebraically trivial. Equivalently, $`E`$ can be taken to be the twist $`L(_1^n𝒪)`$ of a line bundle $`L`$ by an algebraically trivial bundle. Those twists are the unique semistable bundles on $`^1`$. In , it is indeed proven that if $`^1`$ is replaced by a smooth projective complex curve of higher genus, the theorem remains true in this form: there is a $`(E,)`$ as above with $`E`$ semistable of degree 0 (and also with $`E`$ semistable of any degree, even if it is not emphasized in the article). Let us call here for short such an $`(E,)`$ a realization of $`\rho `$. Note, it is crucial to require $``$ to have poles only along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If one allows one more pole, then one can for example on $`^1`$ trivialize $`E`$ even with parameters (see , section 4).

On the other hand, on $`_{}^1`$, A. Bolibruch  constructed representations which cannot be realized on the trivial bundle. The purpose of this note is to show that on a higher genus Riemann surface, there are representations $`\rho `$ which cannot be realized on a semistable bundle. We show:

###### Theorem 0.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex curve of genus $`g`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ be a finite nonempty set.

If $`(g=0,|\mathrm{\Sigma }|3,n4)`$ or $`(g1,|\mathrm{\Sigma }|1,n5)`$ there exists a representation

$$\rho :\pi _1(X\mathrm{\Sigma })GL(n,)$$

which cannot be realized by an algebraic connection

$$:E\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Sigma })E$$

with logarithmic poles along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and with $`E`$ semistable.

The proof is an adaptation of Bolibruch’s ideas to the higher genus case, together with the use of Gabber’s algebraic view (, section 1) on the Bolibruch-Kostov theorem.

Finally, let us remark that Deligne extensions $`(E,)`$ () are very natural in geometry. They are not compatible with pull-backs, but appear as direct images of connections, for example, Gauß-Manin connections of semistable families are Deligne extensions with nilpotent residues. On the other hand, the Gauß-Manin bundles tend to be highly instable, as they contain a positive Hodge subbundle. Thus it is not clear what is the rôle of semistability for realization of monodromy (see one computation in section 5).

## 1. Bolibruch’s construction

Throughout the note we use the following notations.

* $`X`$ is a smooth projective complex curve, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}X`$ is finite and nonempty.

$$\rho :\pi _1(X\mathrm{\Sigma })GL(n,)$$

is a representation. $`E`$ is a vector bundle on $`X`$ of rank $`n`$,

$$:E\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Sigma })E$$

is a logarithmic connection on $`E`$ with underlying local system $`\rho `$. We call $`(E,)`$ a realization of $`\rho `$.

The eigenvalues of the residue endomorphism

$$\mathrm{res}_{p_i}():E(p_i)E(p_i)$$

at $`p_i`$ are called $`\beta _{i1},\mathrm{},\beta _{in}`$. They are ordered such that

$$\mathrm{Re}\beta _{i1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{Re}\beta _{in}.$$

The following theorem is the key to Bolibruch’s examples.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X,\mathrm{\Sigma },\rho ,E,`$, and $`\beta _{ij}`$ be as in (1.A). Suppose that $`E`$ is semistable, that $`\rho `$ is reducible, and that for each $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ the monodromy of $`\rho `$ around $`p_i`$ has only one eigenvalue $`\lambda _i`$ and only one Jordan block.

Then $`\beta _{i1}=\mathrm{}=\beta _{in}=:\beta _i`$ for all $`i`$ and the slope $`\mu (E)=\frac{\mathrm{deg}(E)}{\mathrm{rank}(E)}`$ satisfies

$$e^{2\pi \sqrt{1}\mu (E)}=\underset{i}{}\lambda _i.$$

Said differently, $`(E,)`$ is the Deligne extension characterized by the property that $`(\mathrm{res}_{p_i}()\beta _iI)`$ nilpotent.

We first prove a local statement.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`j:U=X\{p\}X`$ be the embedding of the complement of a point on a smooth analytic contractible curve. Let $`(E,)`$ be a regular connection on $`U`$, such that the underlying local monodromy has only one eigenvalue and one Jordan block. Thus $`E`$ has a filtration $`E_iE_{i+1}`$ stabilized by $``$. Let $`Fj_{}E`$ be a bundle such that $`|_F`$ has logarithmic poles in $`\{p\}`$, and let us denote by $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}`$ its eigenvalues, ordered such that $`(\beta _{\mathrm{}+1}\beta _{\mathrm{}})`$. Let $`F_i:=j_{}E_iF`$. Then $`F_iF`$ is a subbundle, $`|_{F_i}`$ has logarithmic poles and its residues are precisely $`\{\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _i\}`$.

###### Proof.

If the rank of $`E`$ is 1, there is of course nothing to prove. Since $`X`$ is smooth and has dimension 1, $`F_iF`$ is a subbundle. As is well known, $`|_F`$ stabilizes $`F_i`$, for it takes values in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{log}\{p\})E\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{log}\{p\})j_{}E_i`$. Furthermore, each $`(F_i,E_i)`$ satisfies the same assumptions as $`(F,E)`$. Let us thus first consider $`F_2`$. If $`(\beta _1\beta _2)\{0\}`$, one performs Gabber’s construction ( , section 1): $`F_i`$ embedds into $`F_i^{}`$, for $`i=1,2`$, with cokernel $`(p)`$, such that $`_F`$ extends as a logarithmic connection, the residue of which has the new eigenvalues $`\beta _11,\beta _2`$. Furthermore if the local generators in $`\{p\}`$ of $`F`$ are $`e_1,e_2`$ with $`e_1`$ generating $`F_1`$ and $`e_2(p)`$ being an eigenvector to $`\beta _2`$, then the new generators are $`(\frac{e_1}{z},e_2)`$. In this basis, one has $`\mathrm{res}_p^{}\mathrm{res}_p=\mathrm{diag}(1,0)`$. Repeating the procedure $`(\beta _1\beta _2)`$ times, one reaches a new $`F_2`$ with residue $`=\mathrm{diag}(\beta _2,\beta _2)`$. Now by Deligne  again, this implies that the local monodromy underlying $`E_2`$ is diagonal (actually even a homothety), a contradiction. Thus $`(\beta _1\beta _2)0`$. Replacing now $`E`$ by $`E/E_1`$, one proceeds inductively. ∎

Proof of theorem 1.1. Because $`\rho `$ is reducible, the local system $`\mathrm{ker}(|_{X\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ contains a local subsystem $`V`$ of some rank $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`0<\mathrm{}<n`$. Let $`(𝒱,|_𝒱)(E|_{X\mathrm{\Sigma }},|_{X\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ be the induced algebraic regular connection. Let $`j:X\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ be the inclusion and

$$F:=j_{}(𝒱)EE.$$

By lemma 1.2, $`F`$ is a subbundle of $`E`$ and $``$ restricts to a logarithmic connection on $`F`$ with residue eigenvalues $`\beta _{i1},\mathrm{},\beta _i\mathrm{}`$ at $`p_i`$.

On the other hand, one has (see , appendix B, for example)

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\beta _{ij}=\mathrm{deg}(E).$$

Thus semistability of $`E`$ implies

$$\frac{1}{k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _{ij}=\mu (F)\mu (E)=\frac{1}{n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\beta _{ij}.$$

Together with $`\beta _{ij}\beta _i\mathrm{}0\text{for}j\mathrm{}`$ this shows

$$\beta _{i1}=\mathrm{}=\beta _{in}$$

and

$$e^{2\pi \sqrt{1}\mu (E)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}e^{2\pi \sqrt{1}\beta _{i1}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i.$$

## 2. Examples of reducible representations

Here we list several representations as in theorem 1.1.

As in 1.A, $`X`$ is a smooth projective complex curve of genus $`g`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}X`$ is a finite nonempty set. One chooses a system of paths $`a_1,b_1,\mathrm{},a_g,b_g`$ and $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_m`$ with a common base point such that $`\pi _1(X\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is generated by them with the single relation

$$a_1b_1a_1^1b_1^1\mathrm{}a_gb_ga_g^1b_g^1c_1\mathrm{}c_m=0.$$

Here $`c_i`$ is a loop around $`p_i`$. Then a representation $`\rho :\pi _1(X\mathrm{\Sigma })GL(n,)`$ is given by $`n\times n`$-matrices $`A_1,B_1,\mathrm{},A_g,B_g`$ and $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_m`$ which satisfy the same relation.

The starting point is to overtake Bolibruch’s examples by setting $`A_i=B_i=\mathrm{id}`$, ((2.1)–(2.3)) and then to modify ((2.4)-(2.5)).

The following representations are all reducible, and the local monodromies $`C_i`$ around the points $`p_i`$ have only one eigenvalue $`\lambda _i`$ and only one Jordan block.

(2.1) $`\rho ^{(1)}`$: Choose $`\nu _i\{0\}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, with $`_{i=1}^m\nu _i=0`$ and a nilpotent $`n\times n`$-matrix $`N^{(1)}`$ with $`\mathrm{rank}N^{(1)}=n1`$. Define

$$C_i^{(1)}:=\mathrm{exp}(\nu _iN^{(1)}),A_i^{(1)}:=B_i^{(1)}:=\mathrm{id}.$$

Then $`\lambda _i=1`$.

(2.2) (Bolibruch  Example 5.3.1) $`\rho ^{(2)}`$: $`m=3,n=4,A_i^{(2)}:=B_i^{(2)}:=\mathrm{id}`$,

$`C_1^{(2)}:=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),C_2^{(2)}:=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}3& 1& 1& 1\\ 4& 1& 1& 2\\ 0& 0& 3& 1\\ 0& 0& 4& 1\end{array}\right),`$
$`C_3^{(2)}:=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 2& 1\\ 4& 1& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 4& 1\end{array}\right).`$
Then $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=1,\lambda _3=1`$. A semistable bundle $`E`$ with a logarithmic connection (with poles only in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) which realizes $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ must have slope $`\mu (E)\frac{1}{2}mod`$ by theorem 0.1.

In the case $`g=0`$ this is impossible as any semistable bundle has slope in $``$. In that case $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ cannot be realized by a logarithmic connection on a semistable bundle (with poles only in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and in particular not by a Fuchsian differential system.

(2.3) $`\rho ^{(3)}`$: $`m3,n=4,A_i^{(3)}:=B_i^{(3)}:=\mathrm{id}`$. Define $`N^{(3)}:=\mathrm{log}C_1^{(2)}`$,

$`C_1^{(3)}:=\mathrm{}:=C_{m2}^{(3)}:=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m4}})\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m2}}N^{(3)})`$
$`C_{m1}^{(3)}:=C_2^2,C_m^{(3)}:=C_3^{(2)}.`$
Then $`\lambda _1=\mathrm{}=\lambda _{m2}=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\frac{1}{2m4}),\lambda _{m1}=\lambda _m=1,_i\lambda _i=1`$.

(2.4) $`\rho ^{(4)}`$: $`g1,n=2`$. $`A_i^{(4)}:=B_i^{(4)}:=\mathrm{id}`$ for $`i2`$. Define

$`A_1^{(4)}:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),B_1^{(4)}:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 2\end{array}\right),C_i^{(4)}:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{m}\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$
Then $`\lambda _i=1`$.

(2.5) $`\rho ^{(5)}`$: $`g1,n`$ even, $`n4`$. $`A_i^{(5)}:=B_i^{(5)}:=\mathrm{id}`$ for $`i2`$. Define

$`\alpha _1:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\alpha _2:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\beta :=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`\delta _1:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 2\\ 2& 1\end{array}\right),\delta _2:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}4& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$
$`A_1^{(5)}:=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha _1& \alpha _2& & 0\\ & \alpha _1& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& \alpha _2\\ 0& & & \alpha _1\end{array}\right),B_1^{(5)}:=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\beta & & & 0\\ & \beta & & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& & & \beta \end{array}\right).`$
The matrix

$`A_1^{(5)}B_1^{(5)}A_{1}^{(5)}{}_{}{}^{1}B_{1}^{(5)}{}_{}{}^{1}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\delta _1& \delta _2& & \\ & \delta _1& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& \delta _2\\ 0& & & \delta _1\end{array}\right)`$
has one $`n\times n`$ Jordan block with eigenvalue $`1`$. Define

$$C_i:=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\frac{1}{2m})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{log}(A_1^{(5)}B_1^{(5)}A_{1}^{(5)}{}_{}{}^{1}B_{1}^{(5)}{}_{}{}^{1})\right).$$

Then $`\lambda _i=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\frac{1}{2m}),_i\lambda _i=1`$.

## 3. The proof of theorem 0.1

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex curve,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_m\}X$$

be a finite nonempty set, and

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}:\pi _1(X\mathrm{\Sigma })GL(n_{\mathrm{}},),\mathrm{}=1,2,$$

be two representations with the following properties. Both representations are reducible. Each local monodromy has a single eigenvalue and a single Jordan block. Let $`\lambda _i^{\mathrm{}}`$ be those eigenvalues in $`p_i`$. Then $`\lambda _i^1\lambda _i^2`$ and $`_i\lambda _i^1_i\lambda _i^2`$.

Then $`\rho _1\rho _2`$ cannot be realized by a semistable bundle on $`X`$ with a logarithmic connection with poles only in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`(E,)`$ be the algebraic regular connection on $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with underlying $`\rho `$. Then $`(E=E_1E_2,=_1_2)`$, where $`\rho _i`$ underlies $`(E_i,_i)`$. Let $`Fj_{}E`$ be a bundle such that $`|_F`$ has logarithmic poles in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then $`F_{\mathrm{}}=j_{}E_{\mathrm{}}FF`$ is a subbundle, stabilized by $`|_F`$. Let us denote by $`_F_{\mathrm{}}`$ the induced connection. Then its residue is the restriction of the residue of $`_F`$ to $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$. Since $`\lambda _i^1\lambda _i^2`$ in all points $`p_i`$, a fortiori none of the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{res}_{p_i}(_{F_1})`$ can be an eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{res}_{p_i}(_{F_2})`$. Consequently, one has

(3.1)
$$\mathrm{res}_{p_i}(_F)=\mathrm{res}_{p_i}(_{F_1})\mathrm{res}_{p_i}(_{F_2}).$$

On the other hand, since $`F_1F_2F`$ is torsion free and supported in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, one has $`F_1F_2=0`$, thus $`F_1F_2F`$ is a locally free subsheaf, isomorphic to $`F`$ away of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and thus isomorphic to $`F`$ by the condition (3.1).

If now moreover $`F`$ is semistable, then $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ is semistable as well, and one has $`\mu (F_1)=\mu (F_2)`$. This contradicts theorem 1.1. ∎

For the proof of theorem 0.1 one applies theorems 1.1 and 3.1 to several combinations of the representations in section 2.
$`g=0,|\mathrm{\Sigma }|3,n4`$: $`\rho ^{(1)}`$ for $`n^{(1)}=n4`$ and $`\rho ^{(3)}`$.
$`g1,|\mathrm{\Sigma }|1,n`$ odd, $`n5`$: $`\rho ^{(1)}`$ for $`n^{(1)}=1`$ and $`\rho ^{(5)}`$ for $`n^{(5)}=n1`$.
$`g1,|\mathrm{\Sigma }|1,n`$ even, $`n6`$: $`\rho ^{(4)}`$ and $`\rho ^{(5)}`$ for $`n^{(5)}=n2`$.

## 4. Two-dimensional representations

W. Dekkers  showed that, for $`X=_{}^1`$ and a finite nonempty subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$, any two-dimensional representation $`\rho :\pi _1(X\mathrm{\Sigma })GL(2,)`$ can be realized on the trivial bundle with poles only in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. A.A. Bolibruch gave a simpler proof, using the analogous result for irreducible connections (, , ). We adapt now this to higher genus.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex curve, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ a finite nonempty set, and

$$\rho :\pi _1(X\mathrm{\Sigma })GL(2,)$$

be a two-dimensional representation.

There exists a semistable bundle $`E`$ of even degree with a logarithmic connection with poles only in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which realizes $`\rho `$, but not necessarily of odd degree.

###### Proof.

For $`\rho `$ irreducible see . Suppose that $`\rho `$ is reducible. Let $`(E,)`$ be a vector bundle on $`X`$ with logarithmic connection with poles only in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which realizes $`\rho `$.

Let $`V\mathrm{ker}(|_{X\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ be a subsystem of rank 1. We denote by $`j:X\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ the inclusion and define

$$F:=j_{}(V𝒪_{X\mathrm{\Sigma }})E.$$

Then

$$0FEE/F0$$

is an exact sequence of bundles, and $`F`$ and $`E/F`$ are equipped with the induced connection. Then $`E`$ will be semistable if $`\mathrm{deg}F=\mathrm{deg}E/F`$.

1st case: For each $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the two eigenvalues of the local monodromy around $`p`$ coincide. Following Deligne, one can choose $`(E,)`$ such that at each $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the two residue eigenvalues coincide. Thus in particular, $`\mathrm{deg}F=\mathrm{deg}E/F`$, and $`E`$ is semistable.

2nd case: For some $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the two eigenvalues of the local monodromy around $`p`$ differ. Let $`(E,)`$ be again a Deligne extension. Then the space $`E(p)`$ splits into two one-dimensional eigenspaces $`F(p)`$ and $`(E/F)(p)`$ of the residue endomorphism $`\mathrm{res}_p()`$. One can apply Gabber’s construction  (section 1) to either one of these eigenspaces and increase by one either the degree of $`F`$ or that of $`E/F`$. Repeating this one can obtain bundles $`E^{}F^{}`$ with logarithmic connections such that $`\mathrm{deg}F^{}=\mathrm{deg}(E^{}/F^{})`$. Then $`E^{}`$ is semistable. ∎

###### Remark 4.2.

If $`\rho :\pi _1(X\mathrm{\Sigma })GL(2,)`$ is reducible and for any $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the local monodromy around $`p`$ has only one Jordan block then any semistable bundle $`(E,)`$ with logarithmic connection which realizes $`\rho `$ is at each point $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a Deligne extension by theorem 1.1. It satisfies $`\mathrm{deg}E=2\mathrm{deg}F2`$.

Examples of such representations are given in (2.1) ($`n=2`$) and in (2.4). Or simply take $`0\alpha H^0(X,\omega )`$ and the connection

$$(𝒪𝒪,d+\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \alpha \hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right))$$

if the genus is $`1`$.

## 5. Some three-dimensional representations

Bolibruch’s first class of representations

$$\rho :\pi _1(X\mathrm{\Sigma })GL(n,)$$

for $`X=_{}^1,`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ finite, which cannot be realized by a semistable bundle with a logarithmic connection (with poles only in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) has the following properties  (ch. 2):

* $`\rho `$ is three-dimensional and reducible with a one-dimensional subrepresentation $`\rho ^{}`$.
* For each $`p_i\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the local monodromy of $`\rho `$ around $`p_i`$ has only one eigenvalue $`\lambda _i`$ and one Jordan block.
* If $`(E^{\prime \prime },^{\prime \prime })`$ realizes $`\rho ^{\prime \prime }:=\rho /\rho ^{}`$ and if it is a Deligne extension at each point $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ then $`E^{\prime \prime }`$ is not semistable.

By theorem 1.1 it is obvious that $`\rho `$ with (i) – (iii) cannot be realized by a semistable bundle with logarithmic connection (with poles only in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$).

###### Remark 5.1.

(iii) follows if one knows a single bundle $`(E^{\prime \prime },^{\prime \prime })`$ with logarithmic connection which realizes $`\rho /\rho ^{}`$, which is a Deligne extension at each $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and which is not semistable. Then any other bundle which realizes $`\rho /\rho ^{}`$ and which is a Deligne extension at each $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is obtained from $`E^{\prime \prime }`$ by tensoring with a suitable line bundle.

###### Remark 5.2.

If $`\rho ^{\prime \prime }`$ is a two-dimensional representation with (ii) and $`_i\lambda _i=1`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }|2`$ then one can construct easily a three-dimensional representation $`\rho `$ with (i) and (ii) and $`\rho /\rho ^{}=\rho ^{\prime \prime }`$.

We use the notations of section 2. Let $`\rho ^{\prime \prime }`$ be given by $`2\times 2`$-matrices $`A_1^{\prime \prime },B_1^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},A_g^{\prime \prime },B_g^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`C_1^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},C_m^{\prime \prime }`$. Define

$`A_i:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \begin{array}{cc}0& 0\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}& A_i^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right),B_i:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \begin{array}{cc}0& 0\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}& B_i^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right),`$
$`C_i:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _i& \begin{array}{cc}\gamma _{i1}& \gamma _{i2}\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}& C_i^{\prime \prime }\end{array}\right)`$
for suitable $`\gamma _{ij}`$ such that

$$A_1B_1A_1^1B_1^1\mathrm{}A_gB_gA_g^1B_g^1C_1\mathrm{}C_m=\mathrm{id}$$

holds. $`\gamma _{1j},\mathrm{},\gamma _{m1j}`$ can be chosen freely. $`\gamma _{m1}`$ and $`\gamma _{m2}`$ are given by two linear functions in $`\gamma _{1j},\mathrm{},\gamma _{m1j}`$ such that for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},m1`$ the linear parts in $`\gamma _{i1},\gamma _{i2}`$ of the two functions are together invertible. For generic solutions $`\gamma _{1j},\mathrm{},\gamma _{mj}`$ the matrices $`C_i`$ have only one Jordan block.

Bolibruch proved (iii) for his examples by quite involved explicit calculations. Other examples, for higher genus curves $`X`$ can be obtained as follows.

Let $`f:ZX`$ be a proper semistable, nonisotrivial family of elliptic curves over a curve $`X`$. Let $`YZ`$ be the union of the bad fibers. The Gauß-Manin bundle

$$R^1f_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/X}^{}(\mathrm{log}Y)$$

on $`X`$ has rank 2, and the Gauss-Manin connection $``$ on it has logarithmic poles with milpotent residues along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }f(Y)`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ might be smaller, due to bad fibers of $`f`$ inducing good fibers for the Jacobian family). It contains the positive subbundle $`f_{}\omega _{Z/X}`$, thus is instable. Once such an $`f`$ is chosen, one obtains other ones by considering the pullback family over any covering of $`X`$, étale on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In particular, one can make the genus of $`X`$ arbitrarily high.