text:
# Exact solutions of Einstein equations

## I Introtuction

There is a great interest in the solutions of Einstein equations due to their sucess in many of the areas of the physics. Exact solutions make possible a better knowledge of the many problems in several fields, like, for example, Kerr’s solution in Astrophysics or Robertson-Walker in Cosmology . The new solutions presented in this paper have an initial or permanent behavior of inflationary nature. Inflation is a very necessary scenario for a primordial universe . This paper is organized as follows. In section II we introduce the equations of Einstein-Klein-Gordon and present their solutions. In section III we present our final considerations.

## II  The Einstein’s Field Equations and their solutions

We use a local basis, with the components of Riemann tensor given by,

$$R^\alpha {}_{\mu \sigma \nu }{}^{}=_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \sigma }^\alpha _\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \sigma }^\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{n\nu }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \eta }^\alpha \text{,}$$
(1)
and components of Ricci tensor

$$R_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \alpha \nu }^\alpha \text{.}$$
(2)
The Einstein‘s equations, with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, are

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi G}{c^2}T_{\mu \nu }\text{,}$$
(3)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the tensor of momentum-energy for a massive and scalar field ,

$$T_{\mu \nu }=2_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \varphi _\alpha \varphi +m^2g_{\mu \nu }\varphi ^2\text{.}$$
(4)
The massive scalar field obeys to the following motion equation

$$_{\mu \text{ }}\{\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \varphi \}+m^2\sqrt{g}\varphi =0\text{.}$$
(5)
We use (+, -, -, -) signature convention and one line element of the type Friedmann-Robertson-Walker, given by

$$ds^2=dt^2\frac{d\sigma ^2e^g}{\left(1+Br^2\right)^2}$$
(6)
where $`d\sigma ^2`$ is the three-dimensional Euclidian line element. In this paper we use $`A=8\pi G/c^2`$, $`c=1`$, $`B=k/4a^2`$ and with $`k=0`$ , $`k=1`$ and $`k=1`$. We also have $`a^2`$ a constant.

Due to isotropy and homogeneity of (6), the equations (3) and (5) assume the following forms

$$\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dt}\right)^2+m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{A}\frac{3}{4A}\left(\frac{dg}{dt}\right)^2\frac{12B}{A}e^g=0\text{,}$$
(7)
$$\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dt}\right)^2m^2\varphi ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{A}+\frac{3}{4A}\left(\frac{dg}{dt}\right)^2+\frac{1}{A}\frac{d^2g}{dt^2}+\frac{4B}{A}e^g=0$$
(8)
and

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{dt^2}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{dg}{dt}\frac{d\varphi }{dt}+m^2\varphi =0$$
(9)
where $`\varphi =\varphi \left(t\right)`$ and (9) is the motion equation of the field. We will present now the three exact solutions of the system formed by the equations (7), (8) and (9). We consider, initially, the case $`B=0`$, followed by $`B>0`$ and later by $`B<0`$.
For $`B=0`$ the field is given by

$$\varphi =\frac{mt}{\sqrt{3A}}+b$$
(10)
with $`=\pm 1`$ and $`b`$ an arbtrary constant.

In this case the cosmological constant obeys the condition

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{m^2}{3},$$
(11)
a negative value, associated with the mass of the scalar field. The corresponding line element will be

$$ds^2=dt^2d\sigma ^2e^{[2mb(\sqrt{\frac{A}{3}})t\frac{m^2}{3}t^2]},$$
(12)
that, for special conditions has a transitory inflationary nature followed by a contration as we will see in section III.

Let us consider the condition $`B>0`$. In this case the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is proportional to the square of the mass, but is a positive constant, given by,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{3m^2}{2}\text{.}$$
(13)
For the field, we obtain the following result,

$$\varphi =\frac{}{m}\sqrt{\frac{8B}{A}}e^{(\frac{mt}{\sqrt{2}})}$$
(14)
The line element of the metric will be,

$$ds^2=dt^2d\sigma ^2\frac{e^{(\sqrt{2}mt)}}{(1+Br^2)^2}\text{.}$$
(15)
Let us see now $`B<0`$.

In this case we have to be more careful in the analyse of the results having it in mind, we obtain, for the the field, the expression

$$\text{}\varphi =\sqrt{\frac{12B}{\mathrm{\Lambda }A}}e^{(\frac{mt}{\sqrt{2}})}$$
(16)
The cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, for the above conditions, will also be given by (13). Substituting (13) in (16) the field assume the following form,

$$\varphi =\sqrt{\frac{8B}{Am^2}}e^{(\frac{mt}{\sqrt{2}})},$$
(17)
and the correspondent line element will be,

$$ds^2=dt^2d\sigma ^2\frac{e^{(\sqrt{2}mt)}}{(1+Br^2)^2}.$$
(18)
## III Conclusions

We will now make some considerations about the results of the previous section. In the case $`B=0`$ will specialize the constants $``$ and $`b`$ so that we have an initial inflationary phase. Let us take $`=1`$ and $`b>0`$. The line element (12) will now have a dominant inflationary phase to $`t<\left(6b/m\right)\sqrt{A/3}`$, followed by a contraction for $`t>\left(6b/m\right)\sqrt{A/3}`$. The field, given by (10), will be positive for $`t<\left(b/m\right)\sqrt{3A}`$ and negative for $`t>\left(b/m\right)\sqrt{3A}`$. If we assume that $`=+1`$ and $`b<0`$, the line element will not change and will have an initial dominant inflationary phase to $`t<\left(6b/m\right)\sqrt{A/3}`$ and one contracted phase to $`t>\left(6b/m\right)\sqrt{A/3}`$. In this two situations, as it can be seen by motion equation (9), the field will not have a dynamic character, but associated with the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, both will have a decisive dynamic character and they suggest that their interactions with the other fields of the nature can be thought as fields in a background field. As a consequence, the space-time of the metric (12) can be thought as a reservoir of energy, and as an infinite arena where the other fields of nature interact . For $`B>0`$, we will have a finite space-time, with an inflationary expansion that coud be weakened by a processes of mass generation of the gauge fields, and greatly slowed down by the gravitational interaction with the cosmic fluid. It is interesting to observe that in the present days the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is estimated in $`10^{54}`$ cm-2. This means that the mass of the field is very small . The expansion would be very slow and we could think about particles confinated in a background field with topology R$`\times `$S3. Let us now consider the case $`B<0`$. With this condition we will have an imaginary field, given by (17) in an infinite universe (18), since the mass of the field was real and positive. If the mass is considered as an imaginary constant the field and the metric (18) will are complex. In the two situations we will have problems with the momentum-energy tensor. We conclude this paper admiting that part of this section is speculative because we have not made applications of our results, but in some cases, it will be possible to accomphish estimates and confront them with the observational data, and conclud if the new solutions are or not physically useful.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

At the tree-level there are no Flavor Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) processes in the Standard Model (SM), and at one-loop they are induced by charged-current interactions, which are GIM-suppressed. In particular, FCNC decays of the top quark into gauge bosons ($`tcV`$;$`V\gamma ,Z,g`$) are very unlikely ($`BR(tc\gamma ,Z)10^{13}`$ and $`BR(tcg)10^{11}`$. These are much smaller than the FCNC rates of a typical low-energy meson decay, e.g. $`B(bs\gamma )10^4`$. The reason is simple: for FCNC top quark decays in the SM, the loop amplitudes are controlled by down-type quarks, mainly by the bottom quark. Therefore, the scale of the loop amplitudes is set by $`m_b^2`$ and the partial widths are of order

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(tVc)|V_{tb}^{}V_{bc}|^2\alpha G_F^2m_tm_b^4F|V_{bc}|^2\alpha _{em}^2\alpha m_t\left(\frac{m_b}{M_W}\right)^4F,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ is $`\alpha _{em}`$ for $`V=\gamma ,Z`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ for $`V=g`$. The factor $`F(1m_V^2/m_t^2)^2`$ results, upon neglecting $`m_c`$, from phase space and polarization sums. The fourth power mass ratio, in parenthesis in eq. (1), stems from the GIM mechanism and is responsible for the ultralarge suppression beyond naive expectations based on pure dimensional analysis, power counting and CKM matrix elements. From that simple formula, the approximate orders of magnitude mentioned above ensue immediately.

Even more dramatic is the situation with the top quark decay into the SM Higgs boson, $`tcH_{SM}`$: $`BR(tcH_{SM})10^{13}10^{15}`$ $`(m_t=175GeV;M_ZM_H2M_W)`$ . This extremely tiny rate is far out of the range to be covered by any presently conceivable high luminosity machine. On the other hand, the highest FCNC top quark rate in the SM, namely that of the gluon channel $`tcg`$, is still $`6`$ orders of magnitude below the feasible experimental possibilities at the LHC. All in all the detection of FCNC decays of the top quark at visible levels (viz. $`BR(tcX)>10^5`$) by the high luminosity colliders round the corner seems doomed to failure in the absence of new physics. Unfortunately, although the FCNC decay modes into electroweak gauge bosons $`V_{ew}=\gamma ,Z`$ may be enhanced a few orders of magnitude, it proves to be insufficient to raise the meager SM rates mentioned before up to detectable limits, and this is true both in the 2HDM – where $`BR(tV_{ew}c)<10^6`$  – and in the MSSM – where $`BR(tV_{ew}c)<10^7`$ . In this respect it is a lucky fact that these bad news need not to apply to the gluon channel, which could be barely visible ($`BR(tgc)\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^5`$) both in the MSSM  and in the general 2HDM . But, most significant of all, they may not apply to the non-SM Higgs boson channels $`t(h^0,H^0,A^0)+c`$ either. As we shall show, these Higgs decay channels of the top quark could lie above the visible threshold for a parameter choice made in perfectly sound regions of parameter space.

A systematic discussion of these “gifted” Higgs channels has been made in Ref.  for the MSSM and more recently in Ref.  for the general 2HDM. Here we will present the results in the 2HDM and the MSSM, and make a close comparison between them. We believe that this study is necessary, not only to assess what are the chances to see traces of new physics in the new colliders but also to clear up the nature of the virtual effects; in particular to disentangle whether the origin of the hypothetically detected FCNC decays of the top quark is ultimately triggered by SUSY or by some alternative renormalizable extension of the SM such as the 2HDM or generalizations thereof. Of course the alleged signs of new physics could be searched for directly through particle tagging, if the new particles were not too heavy. However, even if accessible, the corresponding signatures could be far from transparent. In contrast, the indirect approach based on the FCNC processes has the advantage that one deals all the time with the dynamics of the top quark. Thus by studying potentially new features beyond the well-known SM properties of this quark one can hopefully uncover the existence of the underlying new interactions .

## 2 Relevant fields and interactions

We will mainly focus our interest on the loop induced FCNC decays

$$tch(h=h^0,H^0,A^0),$$
(2)
in which any of the three possible neutral Higgs bosons from a general 2HDM can be in the final state. However, as a reference we shall compare throughout our analysis the Higgs channels with the more conventional gluon channel $`tcg`$.

Although other quarks could participate in the final state of these processes, their contribution is negligible. The lowest order diagrams entering these decays are one-loop diagrams in which Higgs, quarks, gauge and Goldstone bosons – in the Feynman gauge – circulate around. In the MSSM also the SUSY-parters of the above fields, namely squarks and charginos, circulate in the loops. In addition there exists the possibility that the squark-squared-mass-matrix is not simultaneously diagonal to the quark-mass-matrix. In this latter case there exist tree-level FCNC couplings in the interactions quark-squark-gluino and quark-squark-neutralino. This possibility is not unnatural. If one computes the evolution of the squark-squared-mass-matrix using the Renormalization Group Equations, assuming alignment at a certain scale (e.g. a supposed Unification Scale), one finds that non-diagonal terms for the squark-left–squark-left entries are generated . We have computed the MSSM decay widths under two different approximations: in the first one we assume alignment, and the only induced FCNC are generated through the charged sector of the model with the same mixing matrix as in the SM – the CKM-matrix; in the second approach we give up the alignment hypothesis, and assume a free – though restricted by experiment – squark-mass-matrix and compute the SUSY-QCD induced FCNC partial decay widths, which are the leading ones under this approximation.

Here we follow the standard notation , namely $`h^0,H^0`$ are CP-even Higgs bosons and $`A^0`$ is a CP-odd one. When the quark mass matrices are diagonalized in non-minimal extensions of the Higgs sector of the SM, the Yukawa couplings do not in general become simultaneously diagonalized, so that one would expect Higgs mediated FCNC’s at the tree-level. These are of course unwanted, since they would lead to large FCNC processes in light quark phenomenology, which are stringently restricted by experiment. One has two canonical choices to get rid of them, called Type I 2HDM and Type II 2HDM . The Higgs sector of the MSSM is that of a Type II 2HDM, with restrictions between the parameters due to the SUSY constraints.

When analyzing the 2HDM I, II cases we will use the following set of free parameters:

$$(m_{h^0},m_{H^0},m_{A^0},m_{H^\pm },\mathrm{tan}\alpha ,\mathrm{tan}\beta ),$$
(3)
where $`m_{H^\pm }`$ is the mass of the charged Higgs companions $`H^\pm `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$ defines the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ in the diagonalization of the CP-even sector, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ gives the mixing angle $`\beta `$ in the CP-odd sector. The latter is a key parameter in our analysis. It is given by the quotient of the vacuum expectation values (VEV’s) of the two Higgs doublets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,1}`$, viz. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ . The most general (Type I or Type II) 2HDM Higgs potential subject to hermiticity, $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ and gauge invariance involves six scalar operators with six free (real) coefficients $`\lambda _i(i=1,\mathrm{},6)`$ and the two VEV’s . We will furthermore assume that $`\lambda _5=\lambda _6`$ in the general 2HDM Higgs potential . The alternative set (3) is just a (more physical) reformulation of this fact after diagonalization of the mass matrices and imposing the aforementioned set of constraints. The constraints imposed by SUSY reduce the number of free parameters in eq. (3) to two, which we take to be $`(m_{A^0},\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$, since the radiative corrections to the rest of parameters (3) are large we make use of the one-loop expressions to compute them 111The two-loop corrections to the Higgs sector of the MSSM have also recently become available . Their effect, however, cannot significantly modify our one-loop results..

The two canonical types of 2HDM’s only differ in the couplings to fermions but they share the rest of Feynman rules. Of particular relevance are the rules for the trilinear Higgs vertices in the 2HDM case, which depend on the Higgs boson mass differences and can be enhanced for large and small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ – see Ref. . In the MSSM, however, the mass differences are correlated and one can further simplify their form to a combination of trigonometric functions of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, using the relations between the parameters (3) – see Ref. . We refrain from giving here the interaction Lagrangian .

Both in the generic 2HDM II and in the MSSM, the Feynman rules for the lightest CP-even Higgs, $`h^0`$, go over to the SM Higgs boson ones in the limit $`\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )1`$. In the particular case of the MSSM, this limit is equivalent to $`m_{A^0}\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, in the MSSM one has $`m_{h^0}\stackrel{<}{_{}}135GeV`$  whereas in the general Type II model there is no upper bound on $`m_{h^0}`$, and by the same token the corresponding lower bound is considerably less stringent – see Ref. .

Since we shall perform our calculation in the on-shell scheme, we understand that the physical inputs are given by the electromagnetic coupling and the physical masses of all the particles. It should be clear that, as there are no tree-level FCNC decays of the top quark, there is no need to introduce counterterms for the physical inputs. In fact, the calculation is carried out in lowest order with respect to the effective $`tch`$ and $`tcg`$ couplings and so the sum of all the one-loop diagrams (as well as of certain subsets of them) should be finite in a renormalizable theory, and indeed it is.

From the interaction Lagrangians and Feynman rules it is straightforward to compute the loop induced FCNC rates for the decays (2) and $`tcg`$ . We shall refrain from listing the lengthy analytical formulae. The computation in the MSSM was reported in great detail in Ref. , and the one in the 2HDM  is very similar. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to exhibit the final numerical results. The fiducial ratio on which we will apply our numerical computation is the following:

$$B^j(th+c)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(th+c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(tW^++b)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(tH^++b)},$$
(4)
for each Type $`j=I,II`$ of 2HDM and the MSSM and for each neutral Higgs boson $`h=h^0`$, $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$. While this ratio is not the total branching fraction, it is enough for most practical purposes and it is useful in order to compare with previous results in the literature. We define the fiducial branching ratio for $`tg+c`$ in a similar way.

We have performed a fully-fledged independent analytical and numerical calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^j(tg+c)`$ at one-loop in the context of 2HDM I, II and the MSSM. Where there is overlapping, we have checked the numerical results of Ref. 222In Ref.  $`B(tg+c)`$ is defined without including the charged Higgs channel contribution in the fiducial branching ratio. The agreement is achieved, however, only if it is included..

Charged Higgs bosons from Type II models are subject to an indirect bound from the experimental measurement by CLEO of the branching fraction $`BR(BX_s\gamma )`$ . From the various analysis in the literature one finds $`m_{H^\pm }>(165200)GeV`$ for virtually any $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}1`$ . This bound does not apply to Type I models. Therefore, in principle the top quark decay $`tH^++b`$ is still possible in 2HDM I; but also in 2HDM II, if $`m_{H^\pm }`$ lies near the lowest end of the previous bound, and in this case that decay can contribute to the denominator of eq. (4). In SUSY models this limit does not apply provided $`\mu A_t<0`$ – see e.g. .

## 3 $`tch`$ and $`tcg`$ in the MSSM

Under the alignment hypothesis FCNC’s are generated at the one-loop level through the charged interactions of quarks with Higgs bosons and squarks with charginos, that is, they are of electroweak (EW) nature. In this case the largest rates are driven by the trilinear scalar coupling $`\stackrel{~}{d}_a\stackrel{~}{d}_bh`$, although the down-type-quark loops contributions are non-negligible. As a consequence the largest FCNC decay rates are obtained at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Giving up alignment the leading FCNC rates are driven by means of the SUSY-QCD tree-level vertex $`u_a\stackrel{~}{u}_b\stackrel{~}{g}`$ for $`ab`$. The mixing terms between generations are encoded in the parameter

$$\delta _{ij}\frac{(M_{LL}^2)_{ij}}{m_im_j}(ij),$$
(5)
where $`(M_{LL}^2)_{ij}`$ is the non-diagonal squared-mass-matrix element between the $`i`$th and $`j`$th generations, and $`m_i`$ is the mass parameter of the $`i`$th generation. Low energy experiments are used to give upper bounds to the $`\delta _{ij}`$, but, whereas the mixing between the 1st and 2nd generation are strongly restricted, the one between the 2nd and the 3rd turns out to be basically free , and this is the one which has a greatest impact in the process under study. We assume that inter-generational mixing only exists between the left-handed squarks, since this is the most natural scenario . A detailed analysis showed that the presence of mixing in the right-handed squark sector does not lead to a significant increase of the computed branching ratios .

Since the EW contributions lie about two orders of magnitude below the SUSY-QCD ones , we will concentrate in the latter ones. In Fig. 1 we present the fiducial ratio (4) as a function of the most important parameters: the mixing parameter between the 2nd and the 3rd generation $`\delta _{23}`$, eq. (5); the gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$; $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$; and the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs $`m_{A^0}`$. The set of reference parameters used is:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{tan}\beta =35,m_{A^0}=100GeV,\mu =200GeV,A_t=A_q=A_b=300GeV,\\ m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=150GeV,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}200GeV,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=180GeV,\delta _{12}=\delta _{13}=0.03,\delta _{23}=0.5.\\ m_t=175GeV,m_b=5GeV,\alpha _s(m_t)=0.11,V_{cb}=0.040,\end{array}$$
(6)
and the remaining ones are as in .

As anticipated, the most important parameter is $`\delta _{23}`$. In Fig. 1a we see that an increase in three orders of magnitude on $`\delta _{23}`$ corresponds to a change in six orders of magnitude on $`B(tch)`$, a fact that can be traced down to the quadratic dependence of the latter on $`\delta _{23}`$. The dependence on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is rather mild since it enters the amplitude through the $`\stackrel{~}{u}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{u}_\beta h`$ coupling as $`1/\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and also indirectly through the determination of the squark masses. For the chosen set of parameters (6) it has a non-negligible impact on the $`H^0`$ channel (Fig. 1b). Although all Feynman diagrams proceed through gluino exchange, the gluino mass turns out not to be a critical quantity. In Fig. 1c we see that the decoupling of the gluino is slow, a fact observed also in other Higgs bosons observables related to the top quark . This fact can be traced back to the presence of chirality-changing couplings, which imply a corresponding gluino mass-insertion in the amplitude. Finally in Fig. 1d we see that the smallest value for the $`H^0`$ branching ratio is not due to the smaller phase space available, but to the value of the couplings. In fact $`B(tcH^0)`$ grows with $`m_{A^0}`$ (and thus with $`m_{H^0}`$), until it dies out near the phase space kinematical limit.

In Fig. 2 we display the theoretical prediction for $`B(tcg)`$ as a function of the gluino mass and $`\delta _{23}`$, assuming $`m_{H^\pm }>m_t`$. The values for the ratio are below that of the neutral Higgs bosons channels, but still some orders of magnitude above the SM expected value for experimentally allowed values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>180GeV`$. Again the branching ratio grows quadratically with the mixing parameter $`\delta _{23}`$ (Fig. 2a). In contrast with the Higgs bosons channels (Fig. 1c), the gluon channel $`B(tcg)`$ shows a fast decoupling with the gluino mass (Fig. 2b).

In Fig. 3 we present the maximum rates for $`B(tch)`$ and $`B(tcg)`$ – eq. (4) – in the MSSM. We have made a comprehensive scan of the MSSM parameter space, taking into account present constraints from experiment. Perhaps the most noticeable result is that the decay into the lightest MSSM Higgs boson ($`tch^0`$) is the one that can be maximally enhanced, and reaching values of order $`B^{\mathrm{MSSM}}(tch^0)10^4`$ that stay fairly stable all over the parameter space. The FCNC top quark decay into the lightest Higgs scalar can have an observable ratio in a large portion of the parameter space, and in particular for almost all the range of Higgs boson masses. Needless to say, not all of the maxima can be simultaneously attained as they are obtained for different values of the parameters. The maximum FCNC rate of the gluon channel in the MSSM reads (Fig. 3b) $`B^{\mathrm{MSSM}}(tcg)<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$, but it never really reaches the critical value $`10^5`$, which can be considered as the visible threshold for the next generation of colliders (see Sec. 5).

## 4 $`tch`$ and $`tcg`$ in the general 2HDM

In the 2HDM case a highly relevant parameter is $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which must be restricted to the approximate range

$$0.1<\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{_{}}60$$
(7)
in perturbation theory. It is to be expected from the various couplings involved in the processes under consideration that the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region could be relevant for both the Type I and Type II 2HDM’s. In contrast, the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region is only potentially important for the Type II. However, the eventually relevant regions of parameter space are also determined by the value of the mixing angle $`\alpha `$, as we shall see below.

Of course there are several restrictions that must be respected by our numerical analysis. First, the one-loop corrections to the $`\rho `$-parameter from the 2HDM sector cannot deviate from the reference SM contribution in more than one per mil : $`|\delta \rho ^{2HDM}|0.001`$. From the analytical expression for $`\delta \rho `$ in the general 2HDM we have introduced this numerical condition in our codes.

For both models we have imposed the condition that the (absolute value) of the trilinear Higgs self-couplings do not exceed the maximum unitarity limit tolerated for the SM trilinear coupling: $`\left|\lambda _{HHH}\right|\left|\lambda _{HHH}^{(SM)}(m_H=1TeV)\right|=3g(1TeV)^2/(2M_W)`$. In the MSSM case it was not necessary to impose this restriction because the Higgs self-couplings are purely gauge. As for the $`\delta \rho `$ constraint in the MSSM, we have checked that it is satisfied. It is in the 2HDM case that one has to keep an eye very seriously on $`\delta \rho `$ because it grows with the Higgs boson mass squared differences, whereas in the MSSM the mass differences are much more tamed in all sectors of the theory.

The combined set of independent conditions turns out to be quite effective in narrowing down the permitted region in the parameter space, as can be seen in Figs. 4-7 where we plot the fiducial FCNC rate (4) and the corresponding one for the gluon channel versus the parameters (3). The cuts in some of these curves just reflect the fact that at least one of these conditions is not fulfilled.

After scanning the parameter space, we see in Figs. 4-5 that the 2HDM I (resp. 2HDM II) prefers low values (resp. high values) of $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for a given channel, e.g. $`th^0c`$. Therefore, the following choice of mixing angles will be made to optimize the presentation of our numerical results:

$$\text{2HDM I}:\mathrm{tan}\alpha =\mathrm{tan}\beta =1/4;\text{2HDM II}:\mathrm{tan}\alpha =\mathrm{tan}\beta =50.$$
(8)
We point out that, for the same values of the masses, one obtains the same maximal FCNC rates for the alternative channel $`tH^0c`$ provided one just substitutes $`\alpha \pi /2\alpha `$. Equation (8) defines the eventually relevant regions of parameter space and, as mentioned above, depend on the values of the mixing angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, namely $`\beta \alpha 0`$ for Type I and $`\beta \alpha \pi /2`$ for Type II. Despite naive expectations, and due to the structure of the Yukawa couplings of Type II models, there is a cancellation of the contributions in the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ end. This is in contrast to Type I models where the maximal ratios occur. So the most favoured region of Type II models definitely is the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ one.

Due to the $`\alpha \pi /2\alpha `$ symmetry of the maximal rates for the CP-even Higgs channels, it is enough to concentrate the numerical analysis on one of them, but one has to keep in mind that the other channel yields the same rate in another region of parameter space. Whenever a mass has to be fixed, we choose conservatively the following values for both models:

$$m_{h^0}=100GeV,m_{H^0}=150GeV,m_{A^0}=m_{H^\pm }=180GeV.$$
(9)
The variation of the results with respect to the masses is studied in Figs. 6-7. In particular, in Fig. 6 we can see the (scanty) rate of the channel $`tA^0c`$ when it is kinematically allowed. This is easily understood as it is the only one that does not have trilinear couplings with the other Higgs particles. While it does have trilinear couplings involving Goldstone bosons, these are not enhanced. The crucial role played by the trilinear Higgs self-couplings in our analysis cannot be underestimated as they can be enhanced by playing around with both (large or small) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ *and* also with the mass splittings among Higgses. This feature is particularly clear in Fig. 6a where the rate of the channel $`th^0c`$ is dramatically increased at large $`m_{A^0}`$, for fixed values of the other parameters and preserving our list of constraints.

From Figs. 4a and 4b it is pretty clear that the possibility to see FCNC decays of the top quark into Type I Higgs bosons is plainly hopeless even in the most favorable regions of parameter space – the lowest (allowed) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ end. In fact, the highest rates remain neatly down $`10^6`$, and therefore they are (at least) one order of magnitude below the threshold sensibility of the best high luminosity top quark factory in the foreseeable future (see Section 5).

Fortunately, the meager situation just described does not replicate for Type II Higgs bosons. For, as shown in Figs. 5a and 5b, the highest potential rates are of order $`10^4`$, and so there is hope for being visible. In this case the most favorable region of parameter space is the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ end in eq. (7). Remarkably, there is no need of risking values over and around $`100`$ to obtain the desired rates. But it certainly requires to resort to models whose hallmark is a large value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ of order or above $`m_t/m_b\stackrel{>}{_{}}35`$. As for the dependence of the FCNC rates on the various Higgs boson masses (Cf. Figs. 6-7) we see that for large $`m_{A^0}`$ the decay $`th^0c`$ can be greatly enhanced as compared to $`tgc`$. We also note (from the combined use of Figs. 5b, 6a and 6b) that in the narrow range where $`tH^+b`$ could still be open in the 2HDM II, the rate of $`th^0c`$ becomes the more visible the larger and larger is $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_{A^0}`$. Indeed, in this region one may even overshoot the $`10^4`$ level without exceeding the upper bound (7) while also keeping under control the remaining constraints. Finally, the evolution of the rate (4) and $`B(tg+c)`$ with respect to the two CP-even Higgs boson masses is shown in Figs. 7a and 7b.

## 5 Discussion and conclusions

In the near and middle future, with the upgrades of the Tevatron (Run II, TeV33), the advent of the LHC, and the construction of an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider (LC), new results on top quark physics, and possibly also on Higgs physics, will be obtained. With datasets from LHC and LC increasing to several $`100fb^1/`$year in the high-luminosity phase, one should be able to pile up an enormous wealth of statistics on top quark decays. Therefore, these machines should be very useful to analyze rare decays of the top quark, viz. decays whose branching fractions are extremely small ($`\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^5`$).

The sensitivities to FCNC top quark decays for $`100fb^1`$ of integrated luminosity in the relevant colliders are estimated to be :

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝐋𝐇𝐂}:B(tcX)>5\times 10^5,\mathrm{𝐋𝐂}:B(tcX)>5\times 10^4,\hfill \\ \mathrm{𝐓𝐄𝐕𝟑𝟑}:B(tcX)>5\times 10^3.\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
This estimation has been confirmed by a full signal-background analysis for the hadron colliders and also for the LC in the case of gauge boson decays . From these experimental expectations and our numerical results it becomes patent that whilst the Tevatron will remain essentially blind to this kind of physics, the LHC and the LC will have a significant potential to observe FCNC decays of the top quark beyond the SM. Above all there is a possibility to pin down top quark decays into neutral Higgs particles, eq. (2), within the framework of the general 2HDM II provided $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}m_t/m_b35`$, and within the MSSM provided $`\delta _{23}`$–eq. (5)– is large. The maximum rates are of order $`10^4`$ in both models and correspond to the two CP-even scalars. In the MSSM the lightest Higgs boson is highlighted all over the $`m_{A^0}`$ range. This conclusion is remarkable from the practical (quantitative) point of view, and also qualitatively because the top quark decay into the SM Higgs particle is the less favorable top quark FCNC rate in the SM. On the other hand, we deem practically hopeless to see FCNC decays of the top quark in a general 2HDM I for which the maximum rates are of order $`10^7`$. This order of magnitude cannot be enhanced unless one allows $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 0.1`$, but the latter possibility is unrealistic because perturbation theory breaks down and therefore one cannot make any prediction within our approach.

We have made a parallel numerical analysis of the gluon channel $`tcg`$. We confirm that this is another potentially important FCNC mode of the top quark in extensions of the SM  but, unfortunately, it still falls a bit too short to be detectable. The maximum rates for this channel lie below $`10^6`$ in the 2HDM I (for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >0.1)`$ and in the 2HDM II (for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <60`$), and below $`10^5`$ for the MSSM, and so it will be hard to deal with it even at the LHC.

We are thus led to the conclusion that the Higgs channels (2), more specifically the CP-even ones, give the highest potential rates for top quark FCNC decays in a general 2HDM II and the MSSM. Most significant of all: they are *the only* FCNC decay modes of the top quark, within the simplest renormalizable extensions of the SM, that have a real chance to be seen in the next generation of high energy, high luminosity, colliders.

Although the 2HDM II and the MSSM show similar behaviour, there exist some conspicuous differences on which we wish to elaborate a bit in what follows. First, in the general 2HDM II the two channels $`t(h^0,H^0)c`$ give the same maximum rates, provided we look at different (disjoint) regions of the parameter space. The $`tA^0c`$ channel is, as mentioned, negligible with respect to the CP-even modes. Hereafter we will discard this FCNC top quark decay mode from our discussions within the 2HDM context. On the other hand, in the MSSM there is a most distinguished channel, viz. $`th^0c`$, which can be high-powered by the SUSY stuff all over the parameter space. In this framework the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ becomes stuck once $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the rest of the independent parameters are given, and so there is no possibility to reconvert the couplings between $`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$ as in the 2HDM. Still, we must emphasize that in the MSSM the other two decays $`tH^0c`$ and $`tA^0c`$ can be competitive with $`th^0c`$ in certain portions of parameter space. For example, $`tH^0c`$ becomes competitive when the pseudoscalar mass is in the range $`110GeV<m_{A^0}\stackrel{<}{_{}}170GeV`$ –Cf. Fig. 1d. The possibility of having more than one FCNC decay (2) near the visible level is a feature which is virtually impossible in the 2HDM II. Second, the reason why $`th^0c`$ in the MSSM is so especial is that it is the only FCNC top quark decay (2) which is always kinematically open throughout the whole MSSM parameter space, while in the 2HDM all of the decays (2) could be, in the worst possible situation, dead closed. Nevertheless, this is not the most likely situation in view of the fact that all hints from high precision electroweak data seem to recommend the existence of (at least) one relatively light Higgs boson . This is certainly an additional motivation for our work, as it leads us to believe that in all possible (renormalizable) frameworks beyond the SM, and not only in SUSY, we should expect that at least one FCNC decay channel (2) could be accessible. Third, the main origin of the maximum FCNC rates in the MSSM traces back to the tree-level FCNC couplings of the gluino . These are strong couplings, and moreover they are very weakly restrained by experiment. In the absence of such gluino couplings, or perhaps by further experimental constraining of them in the future, the FCNC rates in the MSSM would boil down to just the EW contributions, to wit, those induced by charginos, squarks and also from SUSY Higgses. The associated SUSY-EW rate is of order $`10^6`$ at most , and therefore it is barely visible, most likely hopeless even for the LHC. In contrast, in the general 2HDM the origin of the contributions is purely EW and the maximum rates are two orders of magnitude higher than the full SUSY-EW effects in the MSSM. It means that we could find ourselves in the following situation. Suppose that the FCNC couplings of the gluino get severely restrained in the future and that we come to observe a few FCNC decays of the top quark into Higgs bosons, perhaps at the LHC and/or the LC. Then we would immediately conclude that these Higgs bosons could not be SUSY-MSSM, whilst they could perhaps be CP-even members of a 2HDM II. Fourth, the gluino effects are basically insensitive to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, implying that the maximum MSSM rates are achieved equally well for low, intermediate or high values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta ,`$ whereas the maximum 2HDM II rates (comparable to the MSSM ones) are attained only for high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

The last point brings about the question of whether it would be possible to discern between different models if these decays are detected. The answer is, most likely yes. There are many possibilities and corresponding strategies, but we will limit ourselves to point out some of them. For example, let us consider the type of signatures involved in the tagging of the Higgs channels. In the favorite FCNC region (8) of the 2HDM II, the combined decay $`thccb\overline{b}`$ is possible only for $`h^0`$ or for $`H^0`$, but not for both – Cf. Fig. 5a – whereas in the MSSM, $`h^0`$ together with $`H^0`$, are highlighted for $`110GeV<m_{A^0}<m_t`$, with no preferred $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ value. And similarly, $`tA^0c`$ is also non-negligible for $`m_{A^0}\stackrel{<}{_{}}120GeV`$ –Cf. Fig. 1d. Then the process $`thccb\overline{b}`$ gives rise to high $`p_T`$ charm-quark jets and a recoiling $`b\overline{b}`$ pair with large invariant mass. It follows that if more than one distinctive signature of this kind would be observed, the origin of the hypothetical Higgs particles could not probably be traced back to a 2HDM II.

One might worry that in the case of $`h^0`$ and $`H^0`$ they could also (in principle) decay into electroweak gauge boson pairs $`h^0,H^0V_{ew}\overline{V}_{ew}`$, which in some cases could be kinematically possible. But this is not so in practice for the 2HDM II . Again, at variance with this situation, in the MSSM case $`H^0V_{ew}\overline{V}_{ew}`$ is perfectly possible – not so $`h^0V_{ew}\overline{V}_{ew}`$ due to the aforementioned upper bound on $`m_{h^0}`$ – because $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has no preferred value in the most favorable MSSM decay region of $`tH^0c`$. Therefore, detection of a high $`p_T`$ charm-quark jet against a $`V_{ew}\overline{V}_{ew}`$ pair of large invariant mass could only be advantageous in the MSSM, not in the 2HDM. Similarly, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}1`$ the decay $`H^0h^0h^0`$ (with real or virtual $`h^0`$) is competitive in the MSSM in a region where the parent FCNC top quark decay is also sizeable. Again this is impossible in the 2HDM II and therefore it can be used to distinguish the two (SUSY and non-SUSY) Higgs frames.

Finally, even if we place ourselves in the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region both for the MSSM and the 2HDM II, then the two frameworks could still possibly be separated provided that two Higgs masses were known, perhaps one or both of them being determined from the tagged Higgs decays themselves, eq. (2). Suppose that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is numerically known (from other processes or from some favorable fit to precision data), then the full spectrum of MSSM Higgs bosons would be approximately determined (at the tree level) by only knowing one Higgs mass, a fact that could be used to check whether the other measured Higgs mass becomes correctly predicted. Of course, the radiative corrections to the MSSM Higgs mass relations can be important at high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ , but these could be taken into account from the approximate knowledge of the relevant sparticle masses obtained from the best fits available to the precision measurements within the MSSM. If there were significant departures between the predicted mass for the other Higgs and the measured one, we would probably suspect that the tagged FCNC decays into Higgs bosons should correspond to a non-supersymmetric 2HDM II.

At the end of the day we see that even though the maximum FCNC rates for the MSSM and the 2HDM II are both of order $`10^4`$ – and therefore potentially visible – at some point on the road it should be possible to disentangle the nature of the Higgs model behind the FCNC decays of the top quark. Needless to say, if all the recent fuss at CERN  about the possible detection of a Higgs boson would eventually be confirmed in the future (e.g. by the LHC), this could still be interpreted as the discovery of one neutral member of an extended Higgs model.

We emphasize our most essential conclusions in a nutshell: i) Detection of FCNC top quark decay channels into a neutral Higgs boson would be a blazing signal of physics beyond the SM; ii) There is a real chance for seeing rare events of that sort both in generic Type II 2HDM’s and in the MSSM. The maximum rates for the leading FCNC processes (2) and $`tcg`$ in the 2HDM II (resp. in the MSSM) satisfy the relations

$$BR(tgc)<10^6(10^5)<BR(thc)10^4,$$
(11)
where it is understood that $`h`$ is $`h^0`$ or $`H^0`$, but not both, in the 2HDM II; whereas $`h`$ is most likely $`h^0`$, but it could also be $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$, in the MSSM ; iii) Detection of more than one Higgs channel would greatly help to unravel the type of underlying Higgs model.

The pathway to seeing new physics through FCNC decays of the top quark is thus potentially open. It is now an experimental challenge to accomplish this program using the high luminosity super-colliders round the corner.

Acknowledgments

One of the authors (J.S) would like to thank H. Haber and T. Junk for helpful discussions. J.G. thanks S. Peñaranda for suggestions.


text:
# The effects of anti-correlation on gravitational clustering.

## 1 Introduction : The importance of being negative

The problem of gravitational clustering in an expanding Universe is one of the important open issues in cosmology. In the standard picture, non-linear structures were formed through the mechanism of gravitational instability, via the amplification of small initial density perturbations. At early epochs, when the fluctuations are in the linear regime, perturbation theory can be used to study the evolution. Analytical understanding of the quasi- and non-linear regimes has unfortunately proved a more intractable problem and much of the activity in this area has centred on numerical simulations. It is, however, important to understand the numerical results; a number of attempts have hence been made to address the subject by semi-analytic means. While this program is still in its infancy and we are far from providing a “first principles” paradigm, such attempts have nevertheless been successful in identifying at least some of the key issues in the study of gravitational clustering.

A key problem in this area involves understanding how power gets transferred between different scales during the evolution of clustering. In the simplest context, one would like to understand how an initial power spectrum, peaked around a particular scale, evolves with time. Numerical results \[Bagla & Padmanabhan 1997\] and a few analytic insights (especially regarding inverse cascade; see Padmanabhan 2000) show that power injected at a scale $`L`$ cascades both downwards (to $`x<L`$) and upwards (to $`x>L`$). To the lowest order of approximation, the Fourier transform of the gravitational potential is described by the equation \[Padmanabhan 2000\]:

$`\ddot{\varphi }_𝐤+4{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\varphi }_𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐩}{(\mathrm{𝟐}\pi )^\mathrm{𝟑}}\varphi _{\frac{1}{2}𝐤+𝐩}\varphi _{\frac{1}{2}𝐤𝐩}𝒢(𝐤,𝐩)}`$ (1)
$`𝒢(𝐤,𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}p^25\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤𝐩}{𝐤}}\right)^2,`$
which governs the growth of $`\varphi _𝐤`$ due to non-linear mode coupling. When the non-linear coupling term on the right hand side is small, we get the standard result that $`\varphi _𝐤`$ is independent of time in the linear regime. If, however, the initial power spectrum is sharply peaked at some scale, the issue becomes more subtle. Linear theory remains valid at all scales only as long as $`\varphi _𝐤`$ is small at all scales. As soon as some scale goes non-linear, it is possible for the integral on the right hand side of equation (1) to pick up significant contributions to drive the evolution of $`\varphi _𝐤`$ at other scales. For example, this will lead to a $`k^4`$ tail in the power spectrum of the density contrast \[Padmanabhan 2000\], purely due to non-linear coupling. This is a clear case of inverse cascade of power in gravitational clustering.

Power transfer also occurs to smaller scales but is somewhat more difficult to analyse from first principles. Simulations \[Bagla & Padmanabhan 1997\] as well as theoretical arguments \[Padmanabhan & Engineer 1998\] suggest that the evolution to smaller scales will lead to a universal form of the power spectrum, reminiscent of the Kolmogorov spectrum in fluid turbulence, if the initial spectrum was sharply peaked at some scale.
The above results emphasise the simplicity and tractability of a question involving the evolution of a power spectrum which was originally peaked around some scale. This issue is important in understanding gravitational clustering, in spite of the fact that currently fashionable models for structure formation have broad band power spectra, with $`P(k)k`$ for small $`k`$. To study the evolution of such power spectra analytically, we need to use some technique which is sufficiently general and yet tractable. One such approach is based on non-linear scaling relations (NSRs, hereafter), which provide a mapping between the linear and non-linear mean two-point correlation functions \[Hamilton et al. 1991, Nityananda & Padmanabhan 1994, Mo at al. 1995, Padmanabhan 1996a\]. The above mapping appears to be validated by numerical studies, which have also shown it to be fairly model independent. Given an initial mean correlation function, $`\overline{\xi }_\mathrm{L}`$, in the linear regime, the NSR yields the evolved mean correlation function, $`\overline{\xi }`$, (and thus, the power spectrum) at any later time. It also illustrates how power is transferred between different scales during the evolution of clustering. Finally, the limiting forms of the NSR can be derived using the standard paradigms of scale-invariant radial collapse and stable clustering in the quasi-linear and non-linear regimes respectively \[Padmanabhan 1996a\]; it has also been shown that scaling laws are a generic feature of clustering in an arbitrary number of dimensions \[Padmanabhan & Kanekar 2000\].

Non-linear scaling relations have thus proved a powerful tool for understanding gravitational clustering; however, they have one major defect. The standard NSR \[Hamilton et al. 1991\], by its very form, is restricted in its applicability to positive semi-definite correlation functions; negative values of $`\overline{\xi }`$ are not included in its gamut. However, any sufficiently localised power spectrum (for example, a Dirac delta function), will produce negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ at some scales; in fact, as will be seen later, negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ can also arise from broad band power spectra. It is thus interesting, from a purely mathematical perspective, to investigate the effects of anti-correlation on the formation of structure.

The standard NSR shows that power is transferred from large scales to small scales during the evolution. It turns out, however, that the very existence of negative $`\overline{\xi }`$, combined with the equation of conservation of pairs, implies that the flow of power will reverse direction at the scale at which $`\overline{\xi }`$ crosses zero. Further, it will be shown that the transfer of power to small scales saturates at late times; this results in an upper bound on $`\overline{\xi }`$ at all scales smaller than the one at which $`\overline{\xi }`$ is initially negative. Finally, the correlation function at these scales satisfies the relation $`\overline{\xi }x^3`$, at late times, independent of its original form.

None of the above features arise for initial power spectra with positive definite correlation functions. It should be stressed, however, that these results are valid even if $`\overline{\xi }`$ is only negative over a very small range of scales or at arbitrarily large scales; the results also do not depend on the extent to which $`\overline{\xi }`$ goes negative but arise entirely due to the existence of negative $`\overline{\xi }`$. They are also quite independent of the stable clustering ansatz. Current observations do not preclude negative values of the correlation function at some scales; in fact, we will show in section 4 that one can indeed modify the power spectrum of the universe, so as to have negative correlation functions over certain ranges of scales, without violating any observational constraints.

The plan of the paper is as follows : the mathematical framework is set up in section 2; we also discuss the usual NSR for the positive $`\overline{\xi }`$ regime here. Next, NSRs for other statistical indicators of clustering, such as the power spectrum, are considered in section 3. We move on to review observational constraints on the correlation function and the power spectrum in section 4, demonstrating (by example) that it is possible to set up power spectra yielding negative correlation functions without violating any observational constraints. Section 5 considers the effects of negative correlation functions on the evolution of clustering and shows that the existence of anti-correlated regions yields an upper bound on the correlation function at scales shortward of the scale at which the linear $`\overline{\xi }`$ goes negative. Finally, we use a synthetic NSR (whose form is derived in an Appendix) in section 6, to demonstrate the above results.

## 2 Mathematical preliminaries

We will consider the evolution of a system starting from Gaussian initial conditions, with an initial power spectrum $`P_{\mathrm{in}}(k)`$. The two-point correlation function, $`\xi (a,𝐱)`$, is defined as the Fourier transform of the power spectrum :

$$\xi (a,𝐱)=\frac{d^3𝐤}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}P(a,𝐤)\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤.𝐱},$$
(2)
where $`a`$ is the expansion factor of the Universe ($`at^{2/3}`$ for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ matter-dominated Universe). It is usually more convenient to work with the correlation function averaged over a sphere of radius $`x`$, given by

$$\overline{\xi }(a,x)=\frac{3}{x^3}_0^x\xi (a,y)y^2𝑑y.$$
(3)
The power spectrum and the mean correlation function are related by the equations:

$$\overline{\xi }(a,x)=\frac{3}{2\pi ^2x^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{k}P(a,k)\left[\mathrm{sin}(kx)kx\mathrm{cos}(kx)\right]$$
(4)
and

$$P(a,k)=\frac{4\pi }{3k}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx\overline{\xi }(a,x)\left[\mathrm{sin}(kx)kx\mathrm{cos}(kx)\right].$$
(5)
In the linear regime, it can be shown that $`\overline{\xi }a^2`$ so that $`\overline{\xi }_L(a,x)a^2\overline{\xi }_{\mathrm{in}}(a_i,x)`$.
Note that the average two-point correlation function for a power spectrum given by $`P(k)=\delta _D(kk_o)`$, where $`\delta _D`$ represents the Dirac delta function is

$$\overline{\xi }(l)=\frac{3}{2\pi ^2l^3k_o}\left[\mathrm{sin}(k_ol)k_ol\mathrm{cos}(k_ol)\right],$$
(6)
which is negative over several ranges of scales, crossing zero for the first time when $`\mathrm{tan}\left(k_ol\right)=k_ol`$, i.e. $`l4.493/k_o`$. In fact, negative correlation functions always arise for sufficiently peaked functional forms of the power spectrum.

The two-point correlation function satisfies the equation of conservation of pairs \[Peebles 1980\]:

$$\frac{\xi }{t}+\frac{1}{ax^2}\frac{}{x}\left[x^2\left(1+\xi \right)v\right]=0,$$
(7)
where $`v(a,x)`$ denotes the mean relative velocity of pairs at separation $`x`$ and epoch $`a`$. Equation (7) can be rewritten in terms of the mean 2-point function, $`\overline{\xi }`$, by defining a new dimensionless pair velocity, $`h(a,x)v/\dot{a}x`$; this yields \[Nityananda & Padmanabhan 1994\]

$$\frac{D}{A}h(A,X)\frac{D}{X}=3h(A,X)$$
(8)
where we have introduced the variables $`D=\mathrm{ln}(1+\overline{\xi })`$, $`A=\mathrm{ln}a`$ and $`X=\mathrm{ln}x`$.
We will now assume $`hh\left[\overline{\xi }(a,x)\right]`$; i.e. $`h`$ depends on $`a`$ and $`x`$ only through $`\overline{\xi }`$. This is a standard assumption in the current literature \[Hamilton et al. 1991, Nityananda & Padmanabhan 1994, Mo at al. 1995, Padmanabhan 1996a, Padmanabhan & Engineer 1998\] and appears reasonably validated by numerical simulations. Our analysis and results depend on this assumption, which may, of course, be looked upon as another way of truncating the BBGKY hierarchy. In the present work, this assumption will be treated as a basic postulate, validated by simulations; we will not address the question of its limits of validity.

Given the above assumption, $`hh\left[\overline{\xi }(a,x)\right]`$, one can integrate equation (8) to obtain its general solution \[Nityananda & Padmanabhan 1994\], subject to the condition that this reduce to the form $`\overline{\xi }a^2`$ for $`\overline{\xi }1`$. The characteristics of equation (8) satisfy the constraint

$$x^3\left[1+\overline{\xi }(a,x)\right]=l^3,$$
(9)
where $`l`$ is some other length scale. In the linear regime, $`\overline{\xi }1`$ and $`lx`$. At later stages of the evolution, however, as $`\overline{\xi }`$ increases, equation (9) shows that the scale $`x`$ becomes smaller and smaller as compared to the scale $`l`$. Thus, the evolution of clustering at a scale $`x`$ is determined by the original linear power spectrum at the (larger) scale $`l`$; this suggests that the true non-linear correlation function $`\overline{\xi }(a,x)`$ at some scale $`x`$ can be expressed in terms of the linear correlation function $`\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)`$, evaluated at a different scale $`l`$. The general solution is expressible as a non-linear scaling relation between $`\overline{\xi }(a,x)`$ and $`\overline{\xi }_L(a,x)`$, with $`l`$ and $`x`$ related by equation (9); this can be written as \[Nityananda & Padmanabhan 1994\]

$$\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{3}^{\overline{\xi }(a,x)}\frac{dz}{h(z)(1+z)}\right],$$
(10)
with $`l=x[1+\overline{\xi }(a,x)]^{1/3}`$.
Given the form of $`h(\overline{\xi })`$, one can now relate the non-linear correlation function to the linear one; this form is usually obtained from simulations. However, it can also be shown from general theoretical arguments \[Padmanabhan 1996a\] that $`\overline{\xi }(a,x)`$ can be expressed in terms of $`\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)`$ by the relations

$$\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)(\overline{\xi }_L,\overline{\xi }1)$$

$$\overline{\xi }(a,x)\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)^3(1<\overline{\xi }<200,1<\overline{\xi }_L<5.85)$$
(11)
$$\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)^{3/2}(200<\overline{\xi },5.85<\overline{\xi }_L),$$

if we confine ourselves to models with $`\overline{\xi }_L>0`$ everywhere. More exact fitting functions, valid over the entire range of $`\overline{\xi }>0`$, can be obtained from simulations \[Hamilton et al. 1991, Peacock & Dodds 1994, Mo at al. 1995\], for example, the functional form given by Hamilton et al. (1991):

$$\overline{\xi }(a,x)=\frac{z+0.358z^3+0.0236z^6}{1+0.0134z^3+0.0020z^{9/2}},$$
(12)
where $`z=\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)a^2\overline{\xi }_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and $`\overline{\xi }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the initial mean correlation function.
Thus, given an initial power spectrum $`P_{\mathrm{in}}(k)`$, one can determine the average correlation function (and, hence, the power spectrum, using equation (5)) at any epoch, by simply using equations (4), (9) and the non-linear scaling relation (12).

There is, however, one serious problem with these fitting functions. The original analysis, leading to equations (8) and (9) made no assumptions regarding the sign of $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ and is valid even if $`\overline{\xi }_L<0`$ at some scales. The fitting functions, however, require that the linear mean correlation function be everywhere positive. This is partly due to the fact that standard power spectra used in cosmology (such as the CDM power spectrum and its variants) do have positive definite correlation functions and there appeared to be no compulsion to consider the case of negative $`\overline{\xi }`$. We feel, however, that this situation is unsatisfactory for two reasons :
(i) The NSR has proved to be a valuable tool in understanding the physics of gravitational clustering and — in particular — the transfer of power between two scales. The basic question in the study of transfer of power is how a sharply peaked power spectrum evolves due to gravitational clustering. To answer this question using the NSR, we need to generalise it for negative values of the mean correlation function.
(ii) As we will show in section 4, observations cannot rule out the existence of negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ over certain ranges of scales in the universe. Since this feature has very important implications, it should be taken seriously, without any theoretical prejudice.

It should be noted that attempts have also been made to write NSRs directly for the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)k^3P(k)/(2\pi ^2)`$ in frequency space \[Peacock & Dodds 1994, Peacock & Dodds 1996\], rather than in terms of the mean correlation function $`\overline{\xi }`$, as discussed above. In such Fourier space NSRs, one writes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{NL}^2(k_{NL})=F[\mathrm{\Delta }_L^2(k_L)],$$
(13)
with the wavenumbers $`k_{NL}`$ and $`k_L`$ related by

$$k_L=[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{NL}^2(k_{NL})]^{1/3}k_{NL}.$$
(14)
For example, Peacock & Dodds (1994) give the following form for the function $`F`$ (we have put $`g(\mathrm{\Omega })=1`$ in their expression, for the case of an $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, matter-dominated Universe) :

$$F(x)=x\left[\frac{1+0.2\beta x+(Ax)^{\alpha \beta }}{1+([Ax]^\alpha /[11.68x^{1/2}])^\beta }\right]^{1/\beta },$$
(15)
with $`A=0.84`$ and $`\alpha =\beta =2`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)0`$, $`k_{NL}k_L`$, and power is transferred from small to large wavenumbers, i. e. from large to small scales. However, no mathematical basis presently exists for scaling relations for quantities other than the mean correlation function $`\overline{\xi }`$; this is discussed in more detail in the next section.

## 3 NSRs for different statistical indicators.

We discuss, in this section, a few important general issues related to the role of $`\overline{\xi }`$ in the context of non-linear scaling relations (NSRs). Throughout this paper we will use the term NSR to mean a relationship between the exact value of some statistical indicator $`Q`$ (which could be $`\overline{\xi },\xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }k^3P(k)/2\pi ^2`$, etc) to its value $`Q_{lin}`$ as given by linear theory, in the form $`Q(x)=F[Q_{lin}(l)]`$ with $`l=(1+Q)^{1/3}x`$, where $`x`$ and $`l`$ are two scales and $`F`$ is a prescribed function. In the case of Fourier space quantities like $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ or $`P(k)`$, we will, of course, interpret $`x`$ and $`l`$ in term of $`k^1`$ for the two scales.

There are two broad perspectives one can take regarding such NSRs. In the first approach, NSRs can be treated as a set of relations which are of considerable practical utility in studying the evolution of clustering. In this approach, they are merely convenient sets of approximate rules by which non-linear quantities can be obtained from linear ones, thereby facilitating a comparison between theory and observations. Taken in this spirit, the key issues in this area are only the accuracy of the fitting functions $`F`$ for the NSR, the dependences on various parameters and, finally, given an NSR for a particular quantity $`Q`$, how best to write down (purely as fitting functions) NSRs for other statistical indicators. There are no fundamental issues; NSRs exist entirely by accident, but are of use in studying non-linear structure formation.

The above attitude, however, is tantamount to sweeping the entire issue under a carpet, without much investigation. In fact, it appears that NSRs are indicative of a key (and not completely understood) feature of non-linear gravitational clustering and hence need to be investigated thoroughly. In support of this view, we would like to stress the following :

(i) Though the original NSR for $`\overline{\xi }`$ was obtained as a fitting function to simulation data by Hamilton et al. (1991), the work by Nityananda and Padmanabhan (1995, hereafter NP) clearly spelled out its theoretical origins. In particular, this work showed that (a) there exists an exact equation satisfied by $`\overline{\xi }`$ whose integral curves lead to the relation $`l^3=x^3(1+\overline{\xi })`$ (b) the only key assumption which is needed to obtain the NSR for $`\overline{\xi }`$ is that $`h`$ is a function of $`\overline{\xi }`$ alone.

(ii) So far, there has been no evidence for any mathematical foundation for NSRs for other statistical indicators like $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ or even $`\xi `$. In fact, there is no analogue for local differential equations like equation (25) in NP, for other statistical indicators like $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ or the power spectrum. Thus, NSRs appear to exist only for the mean correlation function $`\overline{\xi }`$, implying that $`\overline{\xi }`$ enjoys a special status as an indicator of clustering. The NSRs given in the literature for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$, for example, arose purely as an afterthought, guided by the nature of the NSR for $`\overline{\xi }`$.

(iii) Given the form of $`\overline{\xi }`$, it is possible to obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and $`\xi `$ by simple analytic procedures. However, if the NSR is true for $`\overline{\xi }`$, it can be shown that such a similar NSR — as defined above — cannot be exactly satisfied for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ or $`\xi `$. While there have been attempts in the literature to obtain fitting functions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{NL}^2`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^2`$ (Peacock & Dodds 1994, 1996), along the lines of the NSR for $`\overline{\xi }`$, such exercises do not have the same level of fundamental validity as the NSR for the mean correlation function.

The above distinction is not usually of great relevance for the following reasons : First, if the power spectrum is a smooth, mildly varying, power law with adequate asymptotic properties, an NSR for $`\overline{\xi }`$ will lead to similar approximate relations for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, $`\xi `$, etc. Which of them is used in a specific context — assuming that this is all one uses the NSR for — is purely a matter of convenience. Further, since any fitting function is only approximate, the fact that some NSRs are more approximate than others is often not relevant in practical situations.

The situation, however, is very different when one moves away from simple-minded power spectra and considers a more generic situation. The original analysis of NP (which provided the theoretical foundation for NSRs) did not make any assumptions about the nature of the initial mean correlation function or the power spectrum. Consider, for example, the case of a power spectrum which is sharply peaked around some value, such as a Dirac delta function or a Gaussian. For such a power spectrum, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, $`\xi `$ and $`\overline{\xi }`$ have very different shapes. In particular, $`\overline{\xi }`$ is quite flat at small scales and decreases towards large scales, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ is close to zero at small scales. Since the shapes of $`\overline{\xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ are different, the evolution predicted by using the NSR in real space and Fourier space will be totally different. This can be seen very clearly in the case of a power spectrum which is a Dirac delta function or for any power spectrum with a cutoff at short wavelengths (i.e. $`P(k)=0`$ for $`k>k_c`$, with some finite $`k_c`$). It is precisely in such situations that the mathematical foundations for the two NSRs come into question and, given the fact that the NSR for $`\overline{\xi }`$ has a theoretical basis while that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ is only a fitting function, it is the former which must be used when the results from the two differ. Numerical simulations of peaked power spectra (Bagla & Padmanabhan 1997) have shown that, even in such cases, power is indeed transferred from larger to smaller scales, as indicated by the NSR in real space. In fact, such power transfer to scales smaller than the cutoff in the power spectrum would be impossible if the Fourier space NSR were correct, simply from the fact that the power spectrum at a given value of $`k`$ is a continuous function of the scale factor (this result is true for any power spectrum with a short wavelength cutoff, not merely a peaked power spectrum). While the power spectra of Bagla & Padmanabhan (1997) were exponentially damped beyond a small range of scales, and hence did not have a sharp cutoff, the fact that these simulations did show the transfer of power to small scales, as expected from the $`x`$space NSR, also indicates that the correct NSR to use is the one for real space, not Fourier space.

We note finally, that even if theoretical foundations indeed existed for both forms of the NSR and the two yet yielded different results for the same initial power spectrum / correlation function, one should take resort to dynamical tests such as N-body simulations to ascertain which of the two is applicable. In fact, such a situation might well prove interesting as it would provide information about the dynamical correctness of the two scaling relations.

The strength of the present work is that its conclusions do not depend on the form of the NSR but arise entirely from its existence. The synthetic NSR of the last section of the paper (and the appendix) is used solely to illustrate the results. It should be emphasised that we will show analytically that the results are independent of the form of the NSR. In the spirit of the above discussion, we will work in $`x`$-space and not in Fourier space during the analysis.

## 4 An aside : Observational constraints

As mentioned earlier, negative values of $`\overline{\xi }`$ are not mathematically forbidden and, in fact, arise naturally for sufficiently peaked forms of the power spectrum. We, will, in this section, briefly review observational constraints to investigate whether present-day observations of the correlation function or the power spectrum rule out the existence of negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ in our universe.

At very large scales, $`l1000h^1`$ Mpc, the CMBR anisotropy measurements provide a constraint on the slope and amplitude of the power spectrum; $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ is probably positive in this range. At small scales, $`1h^1`$ Mpc $`l200h^1`$ Mpc, the galaxy-galaxy correlation function provides the shape and amplitude of the baryonic component of the universe. This can be converted into providing some handle on the underlying dark matter distribution and the results are consistent with a positive mean correlation function. At still smaller scales, information on the power spectrum arises from the study of abundances of bound structures (like quasars, damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ systems, etc) and it is very likely that the mean correlation function is again positive at these scales. There is, however, a range of scales ($`200h^1`$ Mpc – $`1000h^1`$ Mpc) which are not directly probed by present observations and one can easily construct power spectra for which the correlation function goes negative in this range. Of course, while doing this, one has to also ensure that the additional power does not create any observable consequences at other scales.

We demonstrate, next, (by an explicit example) that it is possible to construct power spectra which satisfy the above observational constraints and yet yield negative $`\overline{\xi }`$. As mentioned above, the observations allow negative values of $`\overline{\xi }`$ over the range $`200h^1`$ Mpc $`<x<1000h^1`$ Mpc. Consider the COBE-normalised CDM power spectrum of Bardeen et al. (1986) (eq. G3)

$$P_{\mathrm{CDM}}(k)=Ak\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[1+2.34q\right]}{2.34q}\right]^2\times $$
(16)
$$\left[1+3.89q+(16.1q)^2+(5.46q)^3+(6.71q)^4\right]^{1/2},$$

with $`q=k/(\mathrm{\Omega }h^2\mathrm{Mpc}^1)`$ (using $`\theta =1`$ in eq. (G3), corresponding to photons and three types of relativistic neutrinos). The value of $`A`$ is set by COBE normalisation to be about ($`24h^1`$ Mpc)<sup>4</sup>. A good fit to the average correlation function $`\overline{\xi }_{\mathrm{CDM}}`$ for the above spectrum is given by Hamilton et al. (1991)

$$\overline{\xi }_{\mathrm{CDM}}(x)=0.51\left[\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{5}{x})\right]^3\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(1+x/12\right)}{x/12}\times $$
(17)
$$\frac{1+0.394x+0.00316x^2}{1+0.142x+0.00129x^2},$$

where $`x`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1h^2`$ Mpc and $`h`$ is the Hubble parameter.

We will work in an $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ Universe and add to the CDM spectrum, a peaked spectrum of the form

$$P_2(k)=A^{}k^4e^{\lambda k};$$
(18)
the correlation function corresponding to $`P_2(k)`$ is

$$\overline{\xi }_2(x)=\frac{72A^{}\lambda }{\pi ^2}\frac{3x^25\lambda ^2}{\left(x^2+\lambda ^2\right)^5},$$
(19)
which clearly goes negative for $`x>(5/3)^2\lambda `$.

The net power spectrum $`P(k)=P_{\mathrm{CDM}}(k)+P_2(k)`$ (with $`A^{}\left(841h^1\mathrm{Mpc}\right)^4`$ and $`\lambda =250h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$) is plotted in figure (1) (solid line), along with the CDM spectrum (dotted line). It can be seen that the deviation of the net spectrum from the CDM spectrum occurs only over an extremely small range of $`k`$ values and this deviation is itself extremely small.

Figure (2) shows the average correlation function $`\overline{\xi }(x)`$, corresponding to $`P(k)`$. It can be seen that $`\overline{\xi }(x)`$ becomes negative at $`x390h^1`$ Mpc and then returns to positive values at $`x600h^1`$ Mpc. In the region probed by COBE ($`1000h^1`$ Mpc – $`3000h^1`$ Mpc), $`\overline{\xi }`$ is indistinguishable from the CDM correlation function; this is due to the extremely rapid fall-off in $`\overline{\xi }_2(x)`$.

Thus, even broad band power spectra can yield negative correlation functions. The example shown in figure (1) is just one of many possible ways to construct such power spectra, which agree with the current observations. It is hence clearly important to understand the effects of such anti-correlated regions on the evolution.

We emphasise that the power spectra we have constructed will satisfy all observational constraints currently available but will introduce some new features in the evolution of the universe. The purpose of doing this is only to stress how little we know about our universe; we have hence not worried about whether there exist suitable physical processes which will lead to such a power spectrum.

## 5 Continuity arguments and bound on $`\overline{\xi }`$

We will now consider the evolution of $`\overline{\xi }`$ with time, at a given scale $`x`$, and show that the mere existence of a negative value of $`\overline{\xi }_L`$, at some scale $`l`$, implies an upper limit to the value of $`\overline{\xi }`$ which can be reached at any scale smaller than $`l`$; further, the maximum value $`\overline{\xi }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ at any scale is a function of the scale itself and the location $`L_0`$, where $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ first crosses zero. This effect also results in the correlation function acquiring a $`x^3`$ dependence at late stages of the evolution.

We begin by noting that the arguments leading to the paradigm for transfer of power (see Section 2) made no assumption about the sign of $`\overline{\xi }`$; these arguments, as well as equations (9) and (10), thus hold good for the negative regime as well. Next, the relation

$$l=x\left[1+\overline{\xi }(a,x)\right]^{1/3},$$
(20)
which governs the tranfer of power from one scale to another, implies that a given value of $`\overline{\xi }`$ can arise at some scale $`x`$ only by the transfer of power from a single scale $`l`$. For $`\overline{\xi }>0`$, $`x<l`$, i.e. power flows to smaller scales, while, if $`\overline{\xi }<0`$, $`x>l`$, i.e. power transfers to larger scales. We stress that equation (20) made no assumptions about the sign of $`\overline{\xi }`$ except, of course, the obvious condition, $`(1+\overline{\xi })>0`$.

Let $`L_0`$ be the first scale at which $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ crosses zero and let $`x_0`$ be the scale of interest, with $`x_0<L_0`$. Initially, in the linear regime, $`\overline{\xi }1`$ , $`x_0`$ is influenced by scales $`l`$ such that $`lx_0`$. At later epochs, as $`\overline{\xi }`$ increases, $`x_0`$ is influenced by larger and larger scales, upto the scale $`L_0`$. Power from the scale (infinitesimally larger than) $`L_0`$, however, must be transferred to scales larger than $`L_0`$, since $`\overline{\xi }_L<0`$ here; clearly, this scale $`(l=L_0+\mathrm{\Delta }l)`$ cannot influence $`x_0`$. However, as has already been emphasised, a given value of $`\overline{\xi }`$ can arise at the scale $`x_0`$ only by the transfer of power from a single scale; this immediately implies that $`\overline{\xi }(x_0)`$ can never exceed the value $`\overline{\xi }_o`$, given by

$$\overline{\xi }_o=\left[\frac{L_0}{x_0}\right]^31,$$
(21)
since this would require power transfer from the scale $`L_0+\mathrm{\Delta }l`$ to $`x_0`$, which is impossible. Similarly, if $`\overline{\xi }_L<0`$ over some range of $`l`$, say, from $`l_1`$ to $`l_2`$, then no value of $`\overline{\xi }`$ which satisfies the relation

$$\overline{\xi }=\left[\frac{l^{}}{x_0}\right]^31$$
(22)
can be reached at $`x_0`$, for $`l^{}`$ between $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$.
The correlation function, however, is a continuous function; clearly, then, if some values of $`\overline{\xi }`$ cannot be reached, $`\overline{\xi }`$ must be bounded from above by the lowest of these values. Thus, the maximum value which $`\overline{\xi }`$ can take at some scale $`x`$ ($`x<L_0`$) is given by

$$\overline{\xi }=\left[\frac{L_0}{x}\right]^31$$
(23)
where $`L_0`$ is the smallest scale at which $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ crosses zero. Thus, at late times, $`\overline{\xi }1`$, we must have

$$\overline{\xi }x^3$$
(24)
for $`x`$ smaller than $`L_0`$. This is a generic result, independent of the exact form of the initial correlation function, except for the requirement that it become negative at some scale.

Note that $`\overline{\xi }(x)x^3`$ over some range of scales implies that $`\xi (x)=0`$ over this range (and vice-versa). For example, if $`\xi (x)0`$ for $`x>L`$, then

$`\overline{\xi }(x>L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^3}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^L}y^2\xi (y)𝑑y+{\displaystyle _L^x}y^2\xi (y)𝑑y\right]`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^3}}A,`$ (26)
where $`A=_0^Ly^2\xi (y)𝑑y`$ is a constant. Thus, $`\overline{\xi }(x)x^3`$, for $`x>L`$, if $`\xi (x)0`$ here. The result that the relation $`\overline{\xi }(x)x^3`$ spreads to smaller scales at late times can be then seen to imply that $`\xi (x)`$ becomes negligible at smaller and smaller scales at later and later epochs.

It may appear strange that the mere existence of negative $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ has far-reaching effects on the evolution. However, it must be emphasised that the positive and negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ regimes are not equivalent, due to the lower bound of $`(1)`$ on $`\overline{\xi }`$ in the negative regime; no such bound exists for $`\overline{\xi }>0`$. This implies an asymmetry in the very structure of the equations, if one uses $`\overline{\xi }`$ as a variable. In fact, this also indicates that Log\[$`1+\overline{\xi }`$\] is probably the correct variable which should be used; in this case, the above asymmetry does not arise, since Log\[$`1+\overline{\xi }`$\] takes all values from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$.

In general, linear theory ceases to be valid when $`|\overline{\xi }|`$ is of the order of unity. However, while using the NSR, one maps the linearly extrapolated value $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ to the actual value of $`\overline{\xi }`$. This poses no mathematical problems for $`\overline{\xi }>0`$, since arbitrarily large positive values of linearly extrapolated $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ are mathematically allowed and map to still higher values of actual $`\overline{\xi }`$ through the NSR; the situation is quite different in the negative regime since the actual $`\overline{\xi }`$ is constrained to be greater than $`(1)`$. This asymmetry appears to play a role in situations in which negative correlations exist.

We mentioned in section 3 that power transfer to scales smaller than the cutoff in the initial power spectrum is impossible for power spectra with sharp cutoffs, if the Fourier space NSR is correct. This can be seen by an argument similar to the one discussed above. Consider an initial power spectrum with a short wavelength cutoff at some scale $`k_o`$. In Fourier space NSRs (see equations (13) to (15)), the power $`P(k)`$ at a wavenumber $`k`$ at some epoch originates at a fixed scale $`k_l`$, with $`k_l`$ and $`k`$ related by \[Peacock & Dodds 1994\]

$$k^3=k_l^3\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)\right],$$
(27)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)=k^3P(k)/(2\pi ^2)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)0`$, clearly $`k_lk`$. If we now consider a wavenumber $`k`$ beyond the cutoff in the initial spectrum, with $`k>k_o`$, there exists a range of wavenumbers between $`k`$ and $`k_o`$, where $`P_{in}(k)=0`$ and the power at $`k`$ is then forbidden to take values which could originate between $`k_o`$ and $`k`$. Since the power spectrum is a continuous function of the scale factor, if $`P(k)`$ is not allowed to take a set of values, it also cannot take values larger than the lowest value of this set. Thus, even in Fourier space, it can be seen that an upper bound exists on the power spectrum at large wavenumbers (i.e. small scales) $`k>k_o`$, for initial power spectra which cut off at some wavenumber $`k_o`$. We note that such power spectra do, in fact, give rise to negative correlation functions; one could thus have instead used the real space NSR to demonstrate the upper bound on $`\overline{\xi }`$. However, there are also other power spectra such as Gaussians, which do produce negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ even without sharp cutoffs in the initial spectrum; in such cases, the upper bounds are not as obvious from a Fourier space analysis but can be clearly seen in real space. Of course, as discussed in section 3, different results may then be obtained for the late-time behaviour of $`P(k)`$ and $`\overline{\xi }`$ from the two NSRs, especially in the case of peaked initial power spectra. In such situations, $`\overline{\xi }`$ is picked out as the statistical indicator to be used in the NSR, by the analysis of NP which provides a theoretical basis for the real space scaling relations.

## 6 NSR for negative $`\overline{\xi }`$

We require an NSR for the negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ regime to explicitly illustrate the results of the preceding section. However, the form of the NSR given in equation (12) tacitly assumes that $`\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)>0`$ for all $`l`$; as mentioned earlier, this requirement has no fundamental significance. The above form, however, can be derived from theoretical arguments related to spherical collapse, in the regime $`\overline{\xi }>0`$ \[Padmanabhan 1996a\]. This suggests that the NSR for the case $`\overline{\xi }<0`$ may also be obtained by an analysis of a spherically symmetric model, with negative correlations at some scale. This will allow us to guess at an ansatz for $`h(\overline{\xi })`$, based on the relation between $`h`$ and the density contrast $`\delta `$ for this model. This form for $`h(\overline{\xi })`$ will then be used in equation (10) to obtain an NSR in the negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ regime.

We will use the ansatz,

$$h(\overline{\xi })=\frac{2}{3}\overline{\xi }+\frac{1}{6}\overline{\xi }^2(1<\overline{\xi }<0),$$
(28)
for $`h(\overline{\xi })`$ (see Appendix for motivation). Substituting for $`h(\overline{\xi })`$ in equation (10), we obtain, after some algebra

$$\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)=\frac{\overline{\xi }\left(1+\overline{\xi }/4\right)^{1/3}}{(1+\overline{\xi })^{4/3}}.$$
(29)
The inverse mapping, giving $`\overline{\xi }`$ in terms of $`\overline{\xi }_L`$, can be fitted to better than 5% by the relation

$$\overline{\xi }=\frac{\overline{\xi }_L+0.88\overline{\xi }_L^2+2.086\overline{\xi }_L^3}{1+1.798\overline{\xi }_L^22.086\overline{\xi }_L^3}(1<\overline{\xi }<0)$$
(30)
Equations (9) and (30) implicitly determine $`\overline{\xi }(a,x)`$ in terms of the linearly evolved correlation function, $`\overline{\xi }_L(a,l)`$ for all values, positive and negative, of $`\overline{\xi }_L`$. We mention that the above NSR, equation (30), will be used solely for the purpose of illustrating the results of Section (4), since these results are independent of the exact form of the NSR. The true mapping between $`\overline{\xi }`$ and $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ in this regime should, of course, be determined from N-body simulations.

We will use the net power spectrum $`P(k)`$ of figure (1) (which is allowed observationally) to demonstrate the effects of negative $`\overline{\xi }`$. The results are shown in figures (3) and (4), in which $`\overline{\xi }`$ is plotted against the scale factor, for two scales, $`x_1=150h^1`$ Mpc and $`x_2=20h^1`$ Mpc. It can be seen that, in both cases, $`\overline{\xi }`$ does not continue to increase with $`a`$ (or, equivalently, with time), but instead flattens out at late times and approaches a value of $`(L_0/x_0)^31`$ (dotted lines), as predicted by the analysis. Here, $`L_0`$ is the scale at which $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ first goes negative and $`x_0`$ is the scale under consideration. We emphasise that the mapping for negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ has no influence on the results; any mapping for this regime would have yielded the same results since these stem entirely from the existence of negative values of the correlation function.

Figure (5) shows a log-log plot of $`\overline{\xi }`$ versus $`x`$ at four different epochs; the solid line has a slope of $`3`$. It can be seen that more and more scales acquire the $`\overline{\xi }x^3`$ behaviour with time. Scales with $`x3h^1`$ Mpc (i.e. $`\overline{\xi }2\times 10^6`$) have not as yet (upto $`a=5\times 10^5`$) been influenced by the region with $`\overline{\xi }_L<0`$ and will hence only acquire the $`x^3`$ slope at later epochs. It should be emphasised that the above discussion regarding the upper bound on $`\overline{\xi }(x)`$ is applicable only for scales $`x`$ which are smaller than the scale $`L_0`$ at which the initial mean correlation function $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ first goes negative and not for scales $`x>L_0`$. We do not discuss the evolution of $`\overline{\xi }(x)`$ for $`x>L_0`$ here, since this would depend on the exact form of the scaling relation in the negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ regime and we presently only possess a rather synthetic NSR in this region.

Finally, we note that the “asymptotic” behaviour of $`\overline{\xi }`$ does not arise at any particular value of $`\overline{\xi }`$ but depends only on the scales in question, $`x_0`$ and $`L_0`$. For example, in figure (3), the asymptotic behaviour arises when $`\overline{\xi }16`$ (i.e. in the quasi-linear regime) while, in figure (4), this behaviour arises when $`\overline{\xi }7\times 10^3`$ (i.e. in the non-linear regime).

The mean correlation function $`\overline{\xi }`$ is known to scale as $`\overline{\xi }a^2`$, $`a^6`$ and $`a^3`$ (in 3 dimensions) in the linear, quasi-linear and non-linear regimes of structure formation \[Hamilton et al. 1991, Padmanabhan 1996a\]. However, the existence of negative correlation functions appears to give rise to a fourth regime in gravitational clustering, besides the above three regimes. Here, $`\overline{\xi }`$ asymptotically approaches a constant value, at any scale shortward of the scale at which $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ crosses zero. Clearly, high dynamic range simulations will be needed to test this result; this may well prove difficult, or even prohibitive, in 3-dimensions. Such high dynamic ranges can, however, be attained in 2-D simulations; we note that earlier 2-D simulations \[Bagla, Engineer & Padmanabhan 1997\] have shown that $`\overline{\xi }`$ does not continue to grow as $`a^2`$ in the non-linear regime (as expected from stable clustering), but begins to flatten out at late times. It is possible that this is indicative of the existence of a fourth regime, beyond the stable clustering phase. Of course, the present results are quite independent of the stable clustering ansatz, since they stem solely from the existence of the non-linear scaling relation.

We note finally that the evolution of non-linear structure may also be studied using other models; for example, one may view the non-linear correlation function as arising from the superposition of the density profiles of non-linear halos \[Seljak 2000, Peacock & Smith 2000\]. However, NSRs seem to be reasonably validated by numerical simulations; we have hence not considered other models, such as the halo model, here, but have limited ourselves to attempting to understand the scaling relations themselves.

In summary, the mere existence of negative correlation functions have far-reaching effects on the evolution of clustering. They result in an upper bound on $`\overline{\xi }`$ at scales smaller than the scale at which $`\overline{\xi }_L`$ goes negative and also cause the relation $`\overline{\xi }x^3`$ at these scales, at late times. Negative correlation functions are not forbidden observationally; it is hence important to use N-body simulations and/or semi-analytic arguments to obtain a form for the NSR in this regime.

Acknowledgments
It is a pleasure to thank K. Subramanian and R. Nityananda for stimulating discussions during the course of the present work, as well as for a critical reading of an earlier draft of the paper. The research work of one of the authors (TP) was partly supported by the INDO-FRENCH Centre for Promotion of Advanced Research under grant contract No 1710-1. We also thank an anonymous referee for his comments on the paper.

## 7 Appendix

We will use the evolution of a spherically symmetric, compensated void to obtain some insight into the form of $`h(\overline{\xi })`$. Consider an initial density perturbation of the form

$$|\delta _1|(0<R<R_1)$$

$$\delta (R)=\delta _2(R_1<R<R_2)$$
(31)
$$\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}(R_2<R),$$

such that the effects of the under-dense region within $`R_1`$ are “compensated” by the over-dense region between $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$. This implies that a shell with radius larger than $`R_2`$ does not feel any excess gravitational force, which would cause it to deviate from the smooth background expansion. Such a configuration can be seen to give rise to negative values of the average correlation function.
We initially investigate the asymptotic behaviour of the $`h`$ function for such a system, and obtain a fitting function for $`h(\delta )`$ when $`\delta <0`$. These results will be used to argue for a form of $`h(\overline{\xi })`$, which can be then used to obtain an NSR between $`\overline{\xi }`$ and $`\overline{\xi }_L`$, in the negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ regime.

The general equation for the evolution of a spherical shell which encloses a mass $`M`$ can be written as

$$\frac{d^2R}{dt^2}=\frac{GM}{R^2},$$
(32)
where $`R(t)`$ is the proper radius of the shell; the mass $`M`$ is a constant, in the absence of shell crossing. The first integral of equation (32) is

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{dR}{dt}\right)^2=\frac{GM}{R}+E.$$
(33)
The constant $`E`$ gives the total energy of the shell; clearly, $`E>0`$ for a shell with radius, $`R<R_2`$ while $`E=0`$ for a shell with radius, $`R>R_2`$. We will set up the initial conditions by assuming that the shell has radius $`R_i`$ at the initial time, $`t_i`$ and moves with the general background expansion at this time, with zero peculiar velocity. The total energy of the shell is then given by \[Padmanabhan 1996b\]

$$E=K_i\delta _i,$$
(34)
where $`K_i=(1/2)H_i^2R_i^2`$ is the initial kinetic energy, $`\delta _i`$ is the initial density contrast and $`H_i`$ is the Hubble parameter at the initial time; note that $`\delta _i<0`$, so that $`E>0`$.
The solution to equation (32), with these initial conditions, can be written in the parametric form

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GM}{2E}}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\theta 1\right]`$ (35)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GM}{(2E)^{3/2}}}\left[\mathrm{sinh}\theta \theta \right].`$ (36)
The peculiar velocity, $`v`$, defined as $`v=a\dot{x}`$, is

$$v=\frac{d}{dt}\left[ax\right]\dot{a}x=\dot{R}HR.$$
(37)
This implies that

$$h\frac{v}{HR}=1\frac{\dot{R}}{RH}.$$
(38)
For an $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, matter dominated Universe, $`H=(2/3t)`$; substituting for $`H`$ and $`\dot{R}`$ in equation (38) yields

$$h=\left[1\frac{3t}{2R}\sqrt{2\left(\frac{GM}{R}+E\right)}\right].$$
(39)
We now use equations (35) and (36) to rewrite the above in terms of the parameter $`\theta `$ as

$$h=1\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\theta /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\theta /2)}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\theta \theta }{\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta 1\right)^{3/2}}\right].$$
(40)
Further, the density contrast $`\delta `$ is given by

$$1+\delta =\frac{9GMt^2}{2R^3}.$$
(41)
Again replacing for $`R`$ and $`t`$ in terms of $`\theta `$ gives

$$\delta =\frac{9}{2}\frac{(\mathrm{sinh}\theta \theta )^2}{\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta 1\right)^3}1.$$
(42)
In the limit $`\theta \mathrm{}`$, $`\delta 1`$ and $`h1/2`$. We thus have the interesting result that $`h1/2`$ as $`\delta 1`$.

A good fit to the function $`h(\delta )`$, using equations (40) and (42), is given by $`h(\delta )=\delta /3\delta ^2/6`$ (see figure (6)). The fit satisfies both the linear limit ($`h(\delta )\delta /3`$, for $`|\delta |1`$), as well as tends to -1/2 as $`\delta 1`$. The percentage error on the fit is less than 10%.

The preceding analysis of an individual compensated void has yielded a fitting function for $`h(\delta )`$; we, however, require $`h`$ as a function of $`\overline{\xi }`$, to find the NSR for the negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ regime. There is – in general – no simple relation between the density contrast $`\delta `$ of a single lump and the correlation function $`\overline{\xi }`$. (Purists will even consider the question of relating $`\overline{\xi }`$ and $`\delta `$ meaningless.) Despite this, relations obtained for single spherical lumps have proved to be generalizable to a description of statistical quantities like $`\overline{\xi }`$ \[Padmanabhan 1996a, Padmanabhan 1997, Mo & White 1996, Sheth 1998, Engineer, Kanekar & Padmanabhan 2000\]. In this spirit, and motivated by the relation between $`h`$ and $`\delta `$ being quadratic, we will attempt an ansatz in which $`h`$ is a quadratic function of $`\overline{\xi }`$. In the linear regime, however, $`h=(2/3)\overline{\xi }`$; this result arises from straightforward application of perturbation theory \[Padmanabhan 1996a\] and is independent of the sign of $`\overline{\xi }`$. Next, $`\overline{\xi }`$ and $`\delta `$ are both bounded from below by -1 and $`\overline{\xi }\delta `$ in the non-linear regime \[Engineer, Kanekar & Padmanabhan 2000\]. It thus seems reasonable that $`\overline{\xi }1`$ when $`\delta =1`$; this immediately implies that $`h1/2`$ when $`\overline{\xi }1`$. We will hence choose

$$h(\overline{\xi })=\frac{2}{3}\overline{\xi }+\frac{1}{6}\overline{\xi }^2,$$
(43)
similar to the form of $`h(\delta )`$ and satisfying the condition $`h1/2`$ as $`\overline{\xi }1`$. This will be used in equation (10) to obtain an NSR for the negative $`\overline{\xi }`$ regime.