text:
# Toward Quantum Gravity I: Newton Gravitation Constant, Cosmological Constant, and Classical Tests

## I Introduction

Einstein’s general theory for relativity  is a presently accepted, classical theory for gravitation and is tested in the weak field approximation. However, general relativity or standard big bang theory based on general relativity has outstanding problems: the singularity, cosmological constant or vacuum energy, flat universe, baryon asymmetry, horizon problem, the large scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, dark matter, galaxy formation, discrepancy between astrophysical age and Hubble age, etc. These problems might be resolved and the eventual unification of fundamental forces might be possible if quantum theory for gravitation is found. General relativity is to be replaced by quantum theory for gravitation in order to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces. Nevertheless, there is so far no satisfactory quantum alternative for general relativity and accordingly no quantum cosmology for standard big bang theory. The longstanding problems in physics are thus abstracted as the quantization of gravity, the cosmological constant problem, and the unification of gravitation with the other fundamental forces. These problems are the motivations for quantum gravity (QG) interested in this paper. According to recent experiments, BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 , the universe is flat and there exists repulsive force represented by non-zero vacuum energy, which plays dominant role in the universe expansion. In this paper and subsequent paper , the quantum and classical features of QG as a gauge theory associated with a group $`G`$ are suggested to resolve the theoretical problems in general relativity and are justified by the experimental facts even though the group $`G`$ is exactly not known at present: the group chain is given by $`GSU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_C`$ where $`G`$, $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$, and $`SU(3)_C`$ groups are for gravitation, weak , and strong  interactions respectively. Specifically, an $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory as a trial theory toward QG is introduced to resolve topics relevant for Newton gravitation constant $`G_N`$ and the cosmological constant and to achieve the possible generation of all the fundamental interactions in terms of dynamical spontaneous symmetry breaking (DSSB). This paper also tries to illustrate classical tests verified by Einstein’s general relativity: quantum tests predicted by gauge theories, from the Planck scale $`10^{33}`$ cm to the universe scale $`10^{28}`$ cm, are discussed in subsequent paper . The present work is mainly restricted to the low, real dimensions of spacetime without considering supersymmetry. This work is based on phenomenology below the Planck scale: Newtonian mechanics, Einstein’s general relativity, and quantum gauge theories.

Einstein successfully developed the classical field equation known as general relativity theory for gravity , which arises naturally from a systematic and explicit account of the geometrical structure of space and time as dynamic constituents of nature, affected by matter or energy. The standard cosmology based on the Einstein’s general theory of relativity is the hot big bang model. This model is supplemented by the success of the grand unified theory (GUT)  based on quantum gauge theory, that is able to show how the universe evolved since the initial big bang. A logical consequence of the GUT phase transition is inflation which promises to resolve some of its outstanding problems, flatness and horizon problems. Quantum gauge theory which is the marriage of quantum theory and gauge symmetry has been indispensable in providing a precise description of the microcosm. Three fundamental forces except gravity are described by quantum gauge theory; the $`U(1)_e`$ gauge theory for electromagnetic force is one of the most successful theory in physics at the moment and the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge theory for weak force  and the $`SU(3)_C`$ gauge theory for strong force  are non-Abelian extensions of the $`U(1)_e`$ gauge theory. These two fundamental theories, general relativity and quantum gauge theory, can together cover the energy regime from the elementary particle to the universe in describing the behavior of particles. However, the outstanding problem of unifying gravity and the other fundamental forces in nature is that general relativity theory is difficult to formulate as a renormalizable gauge theory. All the known covariant or canonical quantization methods are not yet successful in quantizing the gravitational field, even though they work well for the other physical fields. There is no distinct connection between Einstein’s general relativity on which the standard cosmology is based and gauge theory on which GUT is based. The incompatibility of the two modern theories, general relativity and gauge theory, is thus the biggest obstacle to the unification of the two theories into one theoretical framework; as known widely, the unification of the two theories has been one of the greatest challenge in physics. There are usually two directions toward quantum gravitation theory or the unification of fundamental forces: superstring theory and Kaluza-Klein theory in the higher dimensions and the Planck scale. Superstring theory is considered to be one of the most promising candidate in the unification of forces but there has been no known compactification method to break down to the real, low energy world and no clear answer to how superstring theory solves the cosmological constant problem.

Another longstanding problem in cosmology is so-called the cosmological constant problem since it has been introduced by Einstein . The cosmological constant is regarded as one of the most fundamental physical entities and various attempts, which include supersymmetry, anthropic consideration, adjustment mechanics, changing gravity, and quantum gravity, have been made but none of them is completely able to resolve the problem . The effective cosmological constant is very small or nearly zero according to the astronomical observation while the several theories demand that the cosmological constant should be relatively large . The discrepancy in the cosmological constant or vacuum energy density $`10^{122}\text{GeV}^4`$ between the experimental observation and the theoretical expectation are, on the one hand, more enormous than any other physical quantities. On the other hand, according to recent experiments, BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 , the universe is flat and there exists repulsive force represented by non-zero vacuum energy, which plays dominant role in the universe expansion. This phenomena is contradicted with general relativity which is accepted, classical theory for gravitation. In this context, it is quite natural to develop quantum gauge theory to overcome these theoretical problems and to explain experimental observations.

An $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory with the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacum toward QG is in this paper introduced as a trial theory to resolve topics relevant for Newton gravitation constant $`G_N`$ and the cosmological constant and illustrates the possible classical and quantum tests. Newtonian gravitation constant $`G_N`$, which is regarded as one of fundamental constants, is postulated as the effective coupling constant like Fermi constant $`G_F`$ in weak interaction . The dimensionality of $`G_N`$, which is the obstacle of renormalization, is overcome by introducing the gravitational coupling constant $`\alpha _g`$ and the massive gauge boson (graviton) with the Planck mass $`M_G=M_{Pl}`$. The cosmological constant is also defined in terms of the gauge boson mass by the effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4`$, which varies from the huge value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{Pl}=10^{76}\text{GeV}^2`$ at the Planck scale to the measured, small value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=10^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$ at the present universe. In order to test QG, classical tests predicted by general relativity and verified by observations are here considered and quantum tests predicted by a quantum gauge theory are discussed in the subsequent paper . Newtonian mechanics is postulated as quadrupole interactions of QG. Among classical tests, the deflection of light by the Sun and the precession of the perihelia of the orbits of the inner planets are the typical tests carried out both in empty space and in gravitational fields that are approximately static and spherically symmetric . The energy per mass, which exhibits the classical tests, obtained from Einstein’s general relativity in the weak field limit are therefore examined from the viewpoints of QG as a gauge theory.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, an $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory toward QG is suggested without considering supersymetry and then DSSB is introduced. Section III describes the origin of Newton gravitation constant and the dual Meissner effect presented as a plausible reason for no detection of gravitational waves in this scheme. Section IV deals with the resolution of the cosmological constant problem as the vacuum energy density. In Section V, classical tests for gravity are discussed from the potential QG point of view, in which Newtonian mechanics is postulated as a quadrupole interaction of QG. Section VI addresses comparison between QG and general relativity. Section VII is devoted to conclusions.

## II Toward Quantum Gravity

An $`SU(N)`$ gauge invariant Lagrangian density with the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum term is, without taking into account supersymmetry, introduced toward QG as a trial theory even though the exact group $`G`$ for gravity is not unveiled. DSSB triggered by the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term is adopted to generate gauge boson mass and fermion mass. Natural units with $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=1`$ are preferred for convenience throughout this paper unless otherwise specified.

The gauge invariant Lagrangian density is, in four vector notation, given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}TrG_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }+\underset{i=1}{}\overline{\psi }_ii\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi _i$$
(1)
where the subscript $`i`$ stands for the classes of pointlike spinors, $`\psi `$ for the spinor, and $`D_\mu =_\mu ig_gA_\mu `$ for the covariant derivative with the gravitational coupling constant $`g_g`$. Particles carry the local charges and the gauge fields are denoted by $`A_\mu =_{a=0}A_\mu ^a\lambda ^a/2`$ with matrices $`\lambda ^a`$, $`a=0,..,(N^21)`$. The field strength tensor is given by $`G_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig_g[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$. A current anomaly  is taken into account to show DSSB in analogy with the axial current anomaly, which is linked to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum in QCD as a gauge theory . The bare $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term is added as a single, additional nonperturbative term to the Lagrangian density (1)

$$_{QG}=_P+\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{g_g^2}{16\pi ^2}TrG^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
where $`_P`$ is the perturbative Lagrangian density (1), $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength tensor, and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the dual of the field strength tensor. Since the $`G\stackrel{~}{G}`$ term is a total derivative, it does not affect the perturbative aspects of the theory.

DSSB consists of two simultaneous mechanisms; the first mechanism is the explicit symmetry breaking of gauge symmetry, which is represented by the gravitational factor $`g_f`$ and the gravitational coupling constant $`g_g`$, and the second mechanism is the spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge fields, which is represented by the condensation of gravitational singlet gauge fields. Gauge fields are generally decomposed by charge nonsinglet-singlet on the one hand and by even-odd discrete symmetries on the other hand: they have dual properties in charge and discrete symmetries. Four singlet gauge boson interactions in (2), apart from nonsinglet gauge bosons, are parameterized by the $`SU(N)`$ symmetric scalar potential:

$$V_e(\varphi )=V_0+\mu ^2\varphi ^2+\lambda \varphi ^4$$
(3)
which is the typical potential with $`\mu ^2<0`$ and $`\lambda >0`$ for spontaneous symmetry breaking. The first term of the right hand side corresponds to the vacuum energy density representing the zero-point energy by even parity singlets. The odd-parity vacuum field $`\varphi `$ is shifted by an invariant quantity $`\varphi `$, which satisfies

$$\varphi ^2=\varphi _0^2+\varphi _1^2+\mathrm{}+\varphi _N^2$$
(4)
with the condensation of odd-parity singlet gauge bosons: $`\varphi =(\frac{\mu ^2}{2\lambda })^{1/2}`$. DSSB is relevant for the surface term $`\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{g_g^2}{16\pi ^2}TrG^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$, which explicitly breaks down the $`SU(N)`$ gauge symmetry for quantum gravity through the condensation of odd-parity singlet gauge bosons. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ can be assigned by an dynamic parameter by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=10^{61}\rho _G/\rho _m$$
(5)
with the matter energy density $`\rho _m`$ and the vacuum energy density $`\rho _G=M_G^4`$.

## III Newton Gravitation Constant

The longstanding problems of both quantum gauge theory for gravity and the cosmological constant problem might be resolved through DSSB. Although the exact group is not known at a moment, the features of quantum gravity as a gauge theory may be suggested and the origin of Newton gravitation constant $`G_N`$ may be discussed. The group chain $`GSU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_C`$ and the effective coupling constant chain $`G_NG_F\times G_R`$ are introduced . In the following, Newton gravitation constant and graviton mass, coupling constants for fundamental forces, and the dual Meissner effect are addressed.

### A Newton Gravitation Constant and Graviton Mass

Gravitational interactions are generated by the emission and absorption of vector bosons with spin $`1`$, gravitons, rather than tensor bosons with spin $`2`$. Gravitons are the analogs of photons for electromagnetic force and gluons for color force. Newton gravitation constant $`G_N`$ is cast in a form that can be directly compared to Fermi coupling constant $`G_F`$ of electroweak interactions. $`G_N`$ replaces graviton propagation $`\sqrt{2}g_fg_g^2/8(k^2M_G^2)`$ with the graviton mass $`M_G`$ and, in contrast to the dimensionless coupling constant $`g_g`$ and the gravitational factor $`g_f`$, has the dimension of inverse energy square. Contrary to the photon, the graviton must be massive, otherwise it would have been directly produced in the gravitational decays. It, in fact, turns out that the graviton has the Planck mass $`M_GM_{Pl}=1.22\times 10^{19}`$ GeV.

The gravitational interaction amplitude below the Planck energy is of the form

$$=\frac{g_fg_g^2}{4}J^\mu \frac{1}{k^2M_G^2}J_\mu ^{}=\sqrt{2}G_NJ^\mu J_\mu ^{}$$
(6)
where $``$ is the product of two universal current densities and $`g_f`$ is the gravitational factor, which is defined by $`g_f=\frac{1}{4}(g_3^{}\lambda ^ag_1)(g_2^{}\lambda _ag_4)`$ with the gravitational charge fields, $`g_i`$ with $`i=14`$, in analogy with the color factor $`c_f`$ in QCD. The current density $`J^\mu `$ will be discussed with relation to the cosmological constant and the baryon asymmetry in the following sections. If $`k^2<<M_G^2`$, the effective gravitational coupling becomes

$$\frac{G_N}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{g_fg_g^2}{8(k^2M_G^2)}\frac{g_fg_g^2}{8M_G^2}10^{38}\text{GeV}^2$$
(7)
and the gravitational currents interact essentially at a point. That is, in the low momentum transfer, the propagation between the currents disappears.

Gravitational gauge field has the Planck mass at the phase transition:

$$M_GM_{Pl}10^{19}\text{GeV}$$
(8)
which is reduced to a smaller value due to the condensation of the singlet graviton. Note that the conventional relation $`G_N=1/M_{Pl}^2`$ is adjusted to $`G_N\sqrt{2}g_fg_g^2/8M_{Pl}^2`$ in (7). The gauge boson mass below the Planck energy can be cast by

$$M_G^2=M_{Pl}^2g_fg_g^2\varphi ^2=g_fg_g^2[A_0^2\varphi ^2]$$
(9)
with the even parity singlet gauge boson $`A_0`$, the odd-parity singlet gauge boson condensation $`\varphi `$, the gravitational charge factor $`g_f`$, and the coupling constant $`g_g`$. The gravitational factor $`g_f`$ used in (9) is the symmetric factor for a gauge boson with even parity and the asymmetric factor for a gauge boson with odd parity. This process makes the breaking of discrete symmetries P, C, T, and CP. The effective vacuum energy density $`V_e(\overline{\varphi })`$ in (3) is connected with the gauge boson mass $`M_G`$ by $`V_e=M_G^4`$: $`V_0=M_{Pl}^4,\mu ^2=2g_fg_g^2M_{Pl}^2,\lambda =g_f^2g_g^4`$. The gauge boson condensation subtracting the gauge boson mass is related to the subtraction of the zero-point energy in the system. Newton gravitation constant at low momentum transfer thus can be related to the graviton mass by expression (7). The gauge boson mass must be identical to the inverse of the screening length, that is, $`M_G=1/l_{Pl}G_N^{1/2}`$. A graviton thus has the enormous mass $`M_G10^{19}`$ GeV and its propagation is prevented from observation for the low energy graviton; this is known as the dual Meissner effect. This is the reason why gravitational force is phenomenologically so weak compared to the other forces and gravitational wave is not detected.

The above description is illustrated more rigorously by considering the Yukawa potential due to the massive graviton; the Coulomb potential for the energetic gauge boson is screened by the mass of the gauge boson and consequently the effective gravitation coupling is very weak at the macroscopic scale. The Yukawa potential associated with the massive gauge boson is, in the static limit $`E0`$,

$$V(r)=\sqrt{\frac{g_fg_g^2}{4\pi }}\frac{e^{M_G(rl_{Pl})}}{r}$$
(10)
which represents the short range interaction for the low energy graviton.

QG as a gauge theory with a certain group G has gauge bosons, gravitons, whose interactions depend on their energies and masses. The graviton with the energy higher than the Planck mass propagates like massless particle, the graviton with the energy equal to the Planck mass shows the Newtonian interaction, and the graviton with the energy lower than the Planck mass propagates only inside the Planck scale. $`G_N`$ thus makes two types of potentials in gravitational coupling; the Yukawa potential for the graviton with the energy lower than the Planck mass ($`E<M_{Pl}`$) and the constant potential for the graviton with the energy equal to the Planck mass ($`EM_{Pl}`$). This implies that there are generally two kinds of potentials for massive gauge bosons due to the boundary condition; one is the constant gravitational potential for $`EM_G`$ and the other is the Yukawa type gravitational potential for $`E<M_G`$. The graviton with the energy lower than the Planck mass has the Yukawa potential $`e^{M_G^e(rl_{Pl})}`$ with the Planck length $`l_{Pl}=1/M_{Pl}`$ and the effective mass $`M_G^e=ik_G=(M_G^2E^2)^{1/2}`$, the graviton with the energy higher than the Planck mass has outgoing propagation $`e^{ikr}`$ with $`k=(E^2M_G^2)^{1/2}`$, the graviton with energy equal to the gauge boson mass ($`EM_G`$) has the constant potential. This suggests that the effective interaction of the graviton with the energy below the Planck energy is proportional to $`G_NJ_\mu J^\mu `$ in the low momentum transfer. Below the Planck energy, a phase transition takes place from a large group $`G`$ to the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_C`$ group, where the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ denotes the weak isospin symmetry and the $`SU(3)_C`$ denotes the color symmetry, via a unification group $`H`$, that is, $`GHSU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_C`$. Massive gravitons may be connected to intermediate vector bosons and photons at the electroweak scale and to gluons and photons at the strong scale.

### B Coupling Constants for Fundamental Forces

Out of four fundamental forces in nature, the most familiar forces are gravity and electromagnetism which are experienced in the macroscopic scale. Strong interactions are limited in range to about $`10^{13}`$ cm and are insignificant even at the scale of the atom $`10^8`$ cm, but play an important role in the binding the nucleus. Weak interactions with an even shorter scale $`(10^{15}\text{cm})`$ are so weak that they do not bind anything, but they do play an important role in weak decay processes. Such local interactions of strong and weak forces are connected with their massive gauge bosons; for example, weak force is restricted by the intermediate vector boson mass $`M_W`$ with the effective coupling constant $`G_F=\sqrt{2}i_fg_i^2/8M_G^2`$. Newton gravitation constant due to the massive graviton is the origin of all the effective coupling constants ; the effective coupling constant chain is $`G_NG_F\times G_R`$ with Fermi weak constant $`G_F10^5\text{GeV}^2`$ and the effective strong coupling constant $`G_R=\sqrt{2}c_fg_s^2/8M_G^210\text{GeV}^2`$. Strengths of four forces are roughly in orders of magnitude $`10,10^2,10^5`$, and $`10^{40}`$ for strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational forces respectively. The difference in strength is more than a factor of $`G_R/G_N10^{39}`$ between strong and gravitational interactions. From the ratio of $`G_F/G_N10^{33}`$, electroweak force is $`10^{33}`$ times stronger than gravitational force. In gravitational interactions, it is predicted that the typical cross section at a temperature $`T=1`$ GeV is $`\sigma G_N^2T^210^{70}\text{m}^2`$ and the typical lifetime for a particle with the mass $`1`$ GeV is $`\tau =1/\mathrm{\Gamma }1/G_N^2m^510^{50}`$ years. Similarly, in the proton decay $`p\pi ^0+e^+`$ at the energy $`E<<M_{Pl}`$, the proton would have much longer lifetime than $`10^{30}`$ years if the decay process is gravitational. Features of fundamental interactions are summarized in Table I.

A phase transition at the Planck scale creates massive gravitons and massless gauge bosons like the Higgs mechanism of electroweak interactions ; there is mixing between gravitation currents so as to produce massive gravitons and massless gauge bosons as Nambu-Goldstone (NG) bosons . Massive gravitons produce the Yukawa gravitational potential with Newton gravitation constant outside the Planck scale for the graviton with the energy $`E<M_{Pl}`$. Massless gauge bosons (photons) produce the Coulomb potential in the static limit and have a weaker coupling constant than the electromagnetic coupling constant $`\alpha _e=1/137`$ for the photon. There is therefore the possibility that massless gauge bosons (photons) with the energy $`E_\gamma 10^{19}`$ GeV $`10^{42}`$ Hz responsible for the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory were left as relics of phase transition at the Planck era.

One possibility as a candidate of quantum gravity is an $`SU(3)_G`$ gauge theory under the assumption of no supersymmetry and higher dimensions. The phase transition of $`SU(3)_GSU(2)\times U(1)U(1)_c`$ takes place at the Planck energy just as $`SU(3)_ISU(2)_L\times U(1)_YU(1)_e`$ for weak force  and $`SU(3)_CSU(2)_N\times U(1)_ZU(1)_f`$ for strong force . In this case, the groups for all the fundamental forces hold the $`SU(3)`$ gauge symmetry as an essentially analogous dynamics although each fundamental force dominates at different energy; the gauge group hierarchy is $`SU(3)_GSU(3)_ISU(3)_C`$ and the effective coupling constant hierarchy is $`G_NG_FG_R`$. At higher energies, weakly interacting massive particles are relatively dominant but at lower energies, strongly interacting massive particles are relatively dominant. In terms of the renormalization group analysis, the considerable coupling constant for gravitational interactions $`\alpha _g0.019`$ is extracted from the weak and strong coupling constant $`\alpha _i=\alpha _s0.12`$ around the unification energy $`10^2`$ GeV when three charges and six flavors are assumed. The massless gauge boson for the $`U(1)_c`$ gauge theory might have the coupling constant $`\alpha _g/81/410`$ for attractive interactions, which is about one third of the electromagnetic coupling constant $`\alpha _e=1/137`$ for the $`U(1)_e`$ gauge theory. Whatever the group $`G`$ is, a test for this possibility will thus be the search of the massless gauge boson (photon) with an extremely high frequency $`10^{42}`$ Hz.

### C Dual Meissner Effect in Gravitational Waves

General relativity shows the existence of gravitational waves but they have not been detected so far. The plausible reason why gravitational waves have not been observed is more focused on in this part. DSSB is undergoing through the condensation of the singlet graviton in the evolution stage of the universe so as to produce the gravitational superconducting state in the vacuum. Below the Planck energy, the condensation of the singlet gauge field increases as the universe expands and particles make the Cooper pairs in the superconducting state. The essential point is that the gauge field acquires a vacuum expectation value and the resulting phase transition is still underway in the present universe.

In this case, the difficulty in the detection of gravitational waves is easily overcome by the dual Meissner effect in gravitational waves, which is analogous to the Meissner effect in the electric superconductivity : the exclusion of the gravitational electric field in the superconducting state outside the Planck scale. The evolution of the universe makes DSSB during which the condensation of the singlet gauge field proceeds, the Cooper pair of particles is formed, and flux tube is made by the gravitational electric field. The gravitational electric field is therefore excluded in the gravitational superconducting state due to the dual Meissner effect; this is interpreted by the fact that the graviton with the energy lower than the Planck mass becomes massive. If the Cooper pairs due to the gravitational magnetic field in the vacuum are made, the exclusion of the gravitational electric field is obvious in the present universe. The extremely massive graviton therefore provides the reason why gravitational wave has not been detected and has the effective weak coupling for gravity $`G_N`$. This argument is dually analogous to the screening mechanism of magnetic fields in the presence of electric superconductor . More discussion on the dual Meissner effect is addressed in the topics of fermion mass generation and classical tests of QG. On the other hand, the massless gauge boson created during DSSB at the Planck epoch has the enormous frequency $`10^{42}`$ Hz as described above.

## IV Cosmological Constant

The outstanding problem of the cosmological constant may be resolved from the view point of gauge theory for gravity, in which the cosmological constant is regarded as the vacuum energy represented by the gauge boson mass. The constraint of the flat universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }1=10^{61}`$, is required by quantum gauge theory and is confirmed by experiments BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 . The vacuum represented by the massive gauge bosons is quantized by the maximum wavevector mode $`N_R=i/(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^{1/2}10^{30}`$ and the total gauge boson number $`N_G=4\pi N_R^3/310^{91}`$; the gauge boson mass $`M_G`$ is quantized by the maximum wavevector mode $`N_R`$. DSSB takes place through the condensation of singlet gauge bosons leading to the current anomaly and decreases the effective cosmological constant. The effective cosmological constant is here defined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4`$: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_eM_{Pl}^210^{38}\text{GeV}^2`$ at the Planck epoch and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=3H_0^210^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$ at the present epoch. The effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }(t=t_0)`$ defined at the present epoch $`t=t_0`$ is a number with unit $`\text{cm}^2`$, which is independent of particle mass and Newton gravitation constant $`G_N`$, and the cosmological interaction occurs even in the absence of any matter at all.

In the following, the cosmological constant problem, the resolution of the cosmological constant, and the modification of general relativity are described.

### A The Cosmological Constant Problem

The universal cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be inserted in Einstein’s field equation for gravity without destroying the general covariance:

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G_N\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_NT_{\mu \nu }+g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(11)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the Ricci tensor, $`R=R_\nu ^\nu `$ the scalar curvature, $`G_N`$ Newton gravitation universal constant, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ the energy momentum tensor with its trace $`T=T_\mu ^\mu `$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }`$ the total energy-momentum tensor, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the bare cosmological constant. From Einstein’s field equation the effective cosmological constant takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }+8\pi G_N\rho _m$$
(12)
where $`\rho _mg_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor in a vacuum according to Lorentz invariance. The total effective vacuum energy is expressed by $`\rho _m_e=\rho _m+\mathrm{\Lambda }/(8\pi G_N).`$ Measurements of cosmological redshifts as a function of distance provide the upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e<H_0^2`$ or $`\rho _m_e<8.07\times 10^{47}\text{GeV}^4`$ with the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ . If the vacuum energy density $`\rho _m`$ is approximated by $`\rho _m\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cut}^4/(16\pi ^2)`$ with the wave number cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cut}`$, $`\rho _m=2\times 10^{71}\text{GeV}^4`$ in the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cut}=(8\pi G_N)^{1/2}`$. Since $`\rho _m_e`$ is less than $`10^{47}\text{GeV}^4`$ two terms, $`\rho _m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/(8\pi G_N)`$, must cancel to better than $`118`$ decimal places. This is so-called the cosmological constant problem .

The cosmological constant is also related to the vacuum energy density $`V(\overline{\varphi })`$  described by a constant scalar field $`\overline{\varphi }`$. When the scalar field appears, the change in the vacuum energy density $`V(\overline{\varphi })`$ enters into Einstein’s field equation

$$R_{\mu \nu }1/2g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G_N\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_N(T_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }V(\overline{\varphi }))$$
(13)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }V(\overline{\varphi })`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the vacuum. Comparing the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ with $`g_{\mu \nu }V(\overline{\varphi })`$, the pressure exerted by the vacuum and the energy density have opposite sign, $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=V(\overline{\varphi })`$. The vacuum energy density multiplied by $`8\pi G_N`$ is usually called the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, that is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=8\pi G_NV(\overline{\varphi })`$. From equation (13) in the Minkowski coordinates, the cosmological constant thus acts like a fluid with the effective mass density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }/(8\pi G_N)`$ and the pressure $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The consequence of a non-zero value for the cosmological constant has been extensively discussed  in the context of dynamics of the universe. The cosmological constant prevents static universe from collapsing against gravity since its positive sign plays as a universal repulsive force for space. In the inflation scenario , a scalar field with a non-zero vacuum energy density serves as a driving force for the exponential expansion. This can be interpreted as that the effective cosmological constant would be a large positive constant in the early universe, which might reduce to its present small positive value after series of phase transitions in the early universe.

The cosmological constant problem or equivalently the vacuum energy problem is resolved in the following subsection from the gauge theory point of view.

### B Resolution of the Cosmological Constant

QG as a gauge theory exhibits reasonable explanations to the known phenomenological, cosmological constant problem; the effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e`$ is connected with the effective vacuum energy density $`V_e(\overline{\varphi })=\rho _m_e`$ linked by the gauge boson mass $`M_G`$. For the gauge boson with the energy $`E`$ higher than its mass $`M_G`$, the interaction can be overall repulsion before the phase transition and for the gauge boson with the energy lower than its mass, the interaction is overall attraction after the phase transition in the matter space. The effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e`$ representing the effective vacuum energy density decreases its value through DSSB from a false vacuum to a true vacuum, induced by the condensation of singlet gravitons. A vacuum state is stable if vacuum expectation values for gauge bosons are at a true minimum of the effective potential. However, if vacuum expectation values are at a local minimum that is higher than the true minimum, then this vacuum will be metastable. A metastable, false vacuum state corresponding to a local minimum above the Planck energy will decay into the stable true vacuum corresponding to the true minimum by a tunneling process. The normal vacuum or false vacuum has several characteristics: isotropy, homogeneity, degeneracy, etc. as much as the number of directions. The effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e`$ represented by the graviton mass $`M_G`$ decreases through the DSSB mechanism, which is triggered by the condensation of the singlet gauge field.

The extremely small deviation of the flat universe,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }1=10^{61},$$
(14)
is required by quantum gauge theory, is confirmed by experiments BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 , and is constrained by the space time quantization in the order of $`10^{30}`$ in one dimension. The vacuum represented by massive gauge bosons is thus quantized by the maximum wavevector mode $`N_R=i/(\mathrm{\Omega }1)^{1/2}10^{30}`$ and the total gauge boson number $`N_G=4\pi N_R^3/310^{91}`$; the effective gauge boson mass $`M_G^e=ik_G=(M_G^2E^2)^{1/2}`$ is quantized by the maximum wavevector mode $`N_R`$. The effective cosmological constant is defined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4`$ where the gauge boson mass square is given by $`M_G^2=M_{Pl}^2g_fg_g^2\varphi ^2=g_fg_g^2[A_0^2\varphi ^2]`$ below the Planck energy. The effective cosmological constants are respectively calculated from the graviton mass $`M_G10^{19}`$ GeV at the Planck era and the nearly massless gauge boson mass $`M_G10^{12}`$ GeV at the present era: the effective cosmological constants are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{Pl}>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EW}>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}>\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{Pl}=M_{Pl}^210^{38}`$ $`\text{GeV}^2`$ at the Planck epoch, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EW}10^{30}`$ $`\text{GeV}^2`$ at the weak epoch, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}10^{42}`$ $`\text{GeV}^2`$ at the strong epoch, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=3H_0^210^{84}`$ $`\text{GeV}^2`$ at the present epoch. This implies the reduction of zero modes through the singlet gauge boson condensation leading to the current anomaly. The effective vacuum energy density is connected with the effective cosmological constant by $`V_e(\overline{\varphi })=\rho _m_e=M_G^4=\mathrm{\Lambda }_e/8\pi G_N`$, which shows the important role of the gauge boson mass $`M_G`$: as a function of the singlet graviton condensation $`\overline{\varphi }=\varphi `$ parameterized by a scalar field, the effective potential is subtracted by $`V(\overline{\varphi })=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G_N}=2M_{Pl}^2g_fg_g^2\varphi ^2+g_f^2g_g^4\varphi ^4=\mu ^2\varphi ^2+\lambda \varphi ^4`$ according to equations (9) and (12). The condensation of the singlet gauge boson, represented by the bare cosmological constant, cancels the vacuum energy and makes the accelerating expansion of the universe. At the Planck energy, the effective vacuum energy density $`\rho _m_e`$ has the energy density of $`10^{76}\text{GeV}^4`$ but below the Planck energy, the condensation of singlet gauge fields decreases it to the present value $`10^{47}\text{GeV}^4`$: $`\rho _m_e10^8\text{GeV}^4`$ at the weak energy and $`\rho _m_e10^4\text{GeV}^4`$ at the QCD energy. Since $`\overline{\varphi }0`$ above the Planck scale but $`\overline{\varphi }10^{19}`$ GeV at the present universe scale, the discrepancy in the vacuum energy density leading to $`10^{122}\text{GeV}^4`$ is consistent with the theoretical large value of the effective vacuum energy density at the Planck scale and the experimental small value at the present universe scale. It is realized that the total conserved particle number of gauge bosons is $`10^{91}`$, the energy per gauge boson is $`10^{19}`$ GeV at the Planck epoch, and the energy per gauge boson is $`10^{12}`$ GeV at the present epoch; the static maximum (minimum) gauge boson energy is $`10^{19}`$ GeV ($`10^{12}`$ GeV) at the Planck epoch and is $`10^{12}`$ GeV ($`10^{42}`$ GeV) at the present epoch.

The gauge boson number density is given by $`n_G=M_G^3`$: $`n_{Pl}10^{57}\text{GeV}^310^{98}\text{cm}^3`$ at the Planck scale, $`n_{EW}10^6\text{GeV}^310^{47}\text{cm}^3`$ at the weak scale, $`n_{QCD}10^2\text{GeV}^310^{39}\text{cm}^3`$ at the strong scale, and $`n_010^{36}\text{GeV}^310^5\text{cm}^3`$ at the present scale. Under the constraint of the extremely flat universe, the relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }1=(\rho _m\mathrm{\Theta }\rho _m)/\rho _G1=10^{61}`$ leads to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ constant $`\mathrm{\Theta }=10^{61}\rho _G/\rho _m`$, which will be further discussed. If the matter density in the universe is $`\rho _m\rho _c10^{47}\text{GeV}^4`$ and is conserved, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ constant depends on the gauge boson mass $`M_G`$: $`\mathrm{\Theta }=10^{61}M_G^4/\rho _c`$. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ values becomes $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{Pl}10^{61}`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{EW}10^4`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{QCD}10^{10}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_010^{61}`$ at different stages. This is consistent with the observed results, $`\mathrm{\Theta }<10^9`$ in the electric dipole moment of the neutron  and $`\mathrm{\Theta }10^3`$ in the neutral kaon decay  as CP violation parameters.

The effective cosmological constant corresponds to the gauge boson mass, which is large in the early small system before phase transition but is small in the later large system after phase transition: the nearly zero cosmological constant represents the nearly massless gauge boson responsible for the universe expansion discussed in the following section. The DSSB of gauge symmetry and discrete symmetries might give rise to the current anomaly like the axial current anomaly in QCD . The true vacuum as the physical vacuum is achieved from the normal vacuum, which possesses larger symmetry group than the physical vacuum, through DSSB. The instanton mechanism as the vacuum tunneling is expected in the Euclidean spacetime. In the universe evolution, the breaking of discrete symmetries, P, C, CP, and T, is expected due to the condensation of the singlet gauge boson and is closely relevant for the baryon asymmetry. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum term in (2) explicitly violates CP symmetry: $`\mathrm{\Theta }=10^{61}\rho _G/\rho _m`$ in equation (5). According to the observation for the electric dipole moment of the neutron $`d_n=2.75.2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{\Theta }e\text{cm}`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }10^9`$ at the strong scale . CP violation due to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum term makes the baryon asymmetry $`\delta _B10^{10}`$ observed at present . According to the baryon asymmetry, the fermion matter current $`J_\mu `$ is conserved at the Planck epoch but the antifermion current $`\overline{J}_\mu `$ is not conserved, that is, $`_\mu J_\mu =0`$ but $`_\mu \overline{J}_\mu =\frac{g_g^2}{16\pi ^2}TrG^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$: this makes the fermion asymmetry $`\delta _f=\frac{N_f}{N_{t\gamma }}=\frac{10^{91}}{10^{88}}=10^3`$ with the fermion mass $`10^{12}`$ GeV as discussed in the following section. The bare vacuum energy density $`\rho _m=10^{76}\text{GeV}^4`$ at the Planck scale is relevant for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum, which represents the surface term because it is total derivative and the effective cosmological constant decreases as the system expands. The vacuum energy density does not affect the perturbative aspect but does affect the nonperturbative aspect of the system. The massive gauge boson with the Planck mass is transformed to the nearly massless gauge boson with the mass $`10^{12}`$ GeV at present. Massless gauge bosons (photons) respectively appear during phase transition at the Planck epoch and at the present epoch: $`E_\gamma 10^{19}`$ GeV and $`E_\gamma 3\times 10^{13}`$ GeV respectively. DSSB due to the initially large cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e`$ derives the inflation of the system in the order of $`10^{30}`$, which make the system expand exponentially . This is totally compatible with the observed expectation of the small effective cosmological constant $`10^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$ or energy density $`10^{47}\text{GeV}^4`$ at the very low energy scale of the present universe and with the theoretical expectation of the large effective cosmological constant or energy density $`10^{76}\text{GeV}^4`$ at the Planck scale of the early universe. This scheme may accordingly resolve the cosmological constant problem and may be compatible with observations BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 .

### C Modification of General Relativity: $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ Constant and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ Constant

The value of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ also makes the relation of the matter energy density $`\rho _m`$ to the effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e`$ because of the relation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4`$:

$$\rho _m=\frac{\rho _G}{10^{61}\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{M_G^4}{10^{61}\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_e}{10^{61}\mathrm{\Theta }8\pi G_N}$$
(15)
where $`\rho _m=T_{00}`$ with the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. One possible extension of Einstein’s field equation (11) is obtained by using the above relation:

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G_N\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_N(T_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }10^{61}\mathrm{\Theta }\rho _m)$$
(16)
or, under the assumption of relativistic matter particle $`T/2=\rho _m`$,

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G_N\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_N(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{10^{61}\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}g_{\mu \nu }T)$$
(17)
where the first term of the right hand side stands for matter energy and the second term stands for vacuum energy. Since the vacuum energy density is $`V(\overline{\varphi })=\rho _G=10^{61}\mathrm{\Theta }\rho _m`$, (16) is the equivalent form with (13). The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ constant thus plays the role relating two different worlds, the matter world and the vacuum world. Using $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ values, effective cosmological constants are obtained: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4=10^{38}\text{GeV}^2`$ at the Planck epoch, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EW}10^{30}`$ $`\text{GeV}^2`$ at the weak epoch, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}10^{42}`$ $`\text{GeV}^2`$ at the strong epoch, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=3H_0^210^{84}`$ $`\text{GeV}^2`$ at the present epoch. At the present universe with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0=10^{61}`$, the modified general relativity (17) becomes

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G_N(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }T)$$
(18)
which is identical with general relativity (13) since $`T/2=\rho _m=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0/8\pi G_N\rho _c`$. Note that the left hand side and the right hand side have completely symmetric forms in two tensors $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }`$.

## V Classical Tests

In the previous sections, Newton gravitation constant is defined as the effective coupling constant and the effective cosmological constant is connected to the effective vacuum energy due to massive gauge bosons. In this section, only classical tests for QG are concentrated while quantum tests for QG are separately discussed in subsequent papaer .

Whatever the gauge group $`G`$ for QG is, a gauge theory for gravity can exhibit classical tests verified by Einstein’s general relativity in the weak field limit . Based on QG, the behavior of the gauge boson depends on its energy compared with its mass. If the gauge boson has energy $`E>M_{Pl}`$, the gravitational propagation becomes like $`e^{ik(rl_{Pl})}`$. If $`E<M_{Pl}`$, propagation $`e^{M_G^e(rl_{Pl})}`$ is limited within the Planck scale $`l_{Pl}1/M_{Pl}`$ scale; this is the Yukawa interaction with the massive graviton. When $`EM_{Pl}`$, the massive gauge boson mediates the constant gravitational potential. When $`E<M_{Pl}`$, the massive gauge boson mediates the Yukawa type potential $`e^{M_G^e(rl_{Pl})}`$ where quadrupole moment interactions lead to Einstein’s general relativity. Then the Newtonian approximation limit of general relativity is the familiar Newtonian mechanics in the macroscopic scale. The gauge boson with the energy less than the Planck mass provides Newtonian mechanics outside the Planck scale; the relativistic correction to the rest mass is the direct reason for the modification of Newtonian mechanics as the quadrupole moment interaction. Newtonian mechanics in the solar system is the case of the large baryon number $`(B=N_B>>1)`$: in the relation between the gauge boson and fermion mass $`M_G=mg_fg_g^2\sqrt{N_{sd}}`$, $`N_{sd}<<1`$ in the case of $`m>>M_G`$.

### A Relations among Quantum Gauge Theory, General Relativity, and Newtonian Mechanics

QG based on quantum mechanics, gauge invariance, and special relativity is connected with general relativity based on equivalence principle and general coordinate invariance through the parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and with Newtonian mechanics in terms of the multipole expansion of the Yukawa gravitational potential. The brief outline is given as follows.

#### 1 Relation between Quantum Gauge Theory and General Relativity

According to QG, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum generates matter as the result of the violation of discrete symmetries during DSSB: the parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ provides the relation between the vacuum and matter as indicated by the baryon asymmetry. The explicit relation between QG and Einstein’s generality is given by

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G_N\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_N(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{10^{61}\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}g_{\mu \nu }T).$$
(19)
The weak field limit of general relativity can be, apart from the vacuum term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Theta }10^{61}8\pi G_NT/2`$, obtained by decomposing $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }`$ with $`h_{\mu \nu }<<1`$:

$`\mathrm{}h_{km}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi G_N(T_{km}\eta _{km}T/2),`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{}(h_j^i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _j^ih)=16\pi G_NT_j^i`$ (21)
where the first wave equation describes gravitational radiation as well as the response of the gravitational field to the source $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. In the weak field limit of Einstein’s generality relativity, the matter interaction is postulated as the quadrupole (tensor) interaction with the angular momentum $`l=2`$ (or $`s=2`$), which possesses complete symmetric configuration. The energy is the source in general relativity, which mediates only attractive force. This information is consistent with the interpretation of QG since the gravitational electric quadrupole moment must be of even parity for matter and be of attraction: the odd parity for gravitational magnetic quadrupole moment disappears so as to conserve parity operation for matter. Massive gauge bosons with an $`s=2`$ multiplet are $`A_4A_8`$ if QG is an $`SU(3)`$ gauge theory. A massive gauge boson with $`s=2`$ has the mass $`M_G10^{19}`$ GeV at the Planck scale and the mass $`E_\gamma 10^{12}`$ GeV at the present scale. The massless gauge boson with $`l=2`$ (or $`s=2`$) in general relativity, conventionally regarded as the graviton, is realized as the massless photon with $`l=2`$ (or $`s=2`$) in QG in this aspect. The massless gauge boson with $`s=1`$ or $`s=2`$, known as the photon, has the energy $`E_\gamma 10^{18}`$ GeV at the Planck scale and the energy $`E_\gamma 10^{13}`$ GeV as CMBR at the present scale.

#### 2 Relation between General Relativity and Newtonian Mechanics

Newtonian mechanics is known as the weak field approximation or the Newtonian approximation of general relativity. Newtonian approximation is specified by the following assumptions. The motion of particles are nonrelativistic ($`v<<c`$), the gravitational fields are weak in the sense that $`g_{ij}=\eta _{ij}+h_{ij}`$ with $`h_{ij}<<1`$, and the fields change slowly with the time. The inequality suggests that powers of $`h_{ij}`$ higher than $`2`$ in the action principle and higher than $`1`$ in the field equations are neglected and time derivatives are ignored in comparison with space derivatives. In the quadrupole (tensor) interaction in the weak field limit, the mass of particle is the source, the gravitational potential $`\varphi =h_{00}/2`$ is the Coulomb type potential ($`1/r`$), and there is only attractive force: $`^2\varphi =4\pi G_N\rho _m`$ or $`\varphi =G_Nm/r`$ is derived from (20).

#### 3 Relation between Quantum Gauge Theory and Newtonian Mechanics

The spherical mass is roughly regarded as the gravitational intrinsic electric monopole. The generation of the matter mass $`m`$ is closely related to the spontaneous breaking of gauge and chiral symmetries. As the temperature of the system decreases, the gauge boson mass decreases due to the condensation of the singlet gauge boson and the matter particle mass $`m`$ increases with the decrease of the difference number $`N_{sd}`$. It is realized that the Yukawa type gravitational potential $`\varphi (r)=e^{M_G^e(rl_{Pl})}`$ is applied when $`M_G^{e2}=(M_{Pl}^2E^2)>0`$ but the plain wave propagation $`\varphi (r)=e^{ik(rl_{Pl})}`$ is applied when $`k^2=(E^2M_{Pl}^2)>0`$.

Newtonian mechanics is the Yukawa gravitational potential associated with massive gauge boson: $`M_G^eM_GM_{Pl}`$ at the present universe. Using its multipole expansion around the boundary $`l_{Pl}=1/M_{Pl}`$, the gravitational potential

$$\varphi (r)=e^{M_G(rl_{Pl})}$$
(22)
becomes

$$\varphi (r)=\frac{1}{M_Gr}+\frac{2}{M_G^2r^2}\mathrm{}$$
(23)
as the regular solution for multipole terms outside the Planck scale $`r>l_{Pl}`$ and becomes

$`\varphi (r)=1M_Gr+M_G^2r^2/2\mathrm{}`$ (24)
as the regular solution for multipole terms inside the Planck scale $`r<l_{Pl}`$. The quadrupole expansion ($`l=2`$ or $`s=2`$) in (23) is related to the Newtonian potential outside the Planck scale $`l_{Pl}`$. Newton gravitational constant $`G_N`$ is the effective coupling constant specified by the mass of the gauge boson $`M_G`$: $`G_N=\sqrt{2}g_fg_g^2/8M_G^2`$. It is assumed that the interaction distance between constituent particles in analogy with the Bohr radius is expressed by $`r_i=1/m_ig_f\alpha _g`$ with the constituent particle mass $`m_i`$ and the macroscopic distance is expressed by $`r=1/mg_f\alpha _g2\sqrt{2}/\pi _ir_i`$ with the total mass given by the sum of constituent masses $`m=_im_i`$. Then the collective quadrupole term is recovered as the Newtonian gravitational potential

$$\varphi (r)=G_Nm/r$$
(25)
and the gravitational potential energy

$$U(r)=G_Nm_am_b/r$$
(26)
where $`m_a`$ and $`m_b`$ are the masses of particles. Note that the quadrupole term of the potential (10) leads to the gravitational potential energy (26) outside the Planck scale. The matter mass $`m`$ is connected with the gauge boson mass by $`M_G=\sqrt{\pi }mg_f\alpha _g\sqrt{N_{sd}}`$ with the difference number $`N_{sd}`$ in intrinsic two-space dimensions. It is realized that since the force in Newtonian mechanics is $`F=G_Nm_am_b/r^21/N_{sd}r^2`$, the great number of gravitons with the mass $`M_{Pl}`$ are, roughly $`1/N_{sd}10^{70}`$ in the solar system, involved in gravitational interactions because, for example, the sun has the mass $`m_S10^{57}`$ GeV and the earth has the mass $`m_E10^{51}`$ GeV. Newtonian mechanics is the residual interaction of the graviton exchange just as the nuclear interaction is the residual interaction of the gluon exchange. This suggests that gravitational dipoles known as the Cooper pairs are formed and they do the quadrupole (tensor) interaction, which is approximated by the Coulomb type potential outside the Planck scale in the special case of the $`z0`$ plane.

### B Classical Test of Quantum Gravity

QG may be related to general relativity in the weak field limit and Newton mechanics in terms of gauge bosons with the energy less than the Planck mass. The energy per mass derived from QG is connected with Newtonian mechanics and its relativistic correction so that QG may also derive classical tests verified by general relativity in the weak field limit.

#### 1 Newtonian Mechanics and Relativistic Correction

The collective quadrupole (tensor) interaction with $`l=2`$ (or $`s=2`$) is the matter interaction: this is the gravitational electric quadrupole to satisfy the parity operation of the matter space. Gravitational magnetic dipole is possible but gravitational electric dipole is not possible due to parity condition. Gravitational magnetic monopole violates parity operation and this might be the reason for no detection of magnetic monopole in the universe as indicated by the dual Meissner effect.

Based on the dual Meissner effect in gravitation, the graviton with the energy lower than the Planck mass can not propagate outside the Planck scale and the gravitational electric field is excluded in the gravitational magnetic superconducting state. When matter particles interact by the exchange of gravitons, their quadrupole interactions hold even parity outside the Planck scale. The small correction to Newtonian mechanics comes from the special relativistic effect to the rest matter mass $`m`$, which becomes the effective mass $`m/\sqrt{1u^2}`$ with the velocity $`\stackrel{}{u}`$: $`mm/(1u^2/2)m(1+u^2/2)`$ if $`u<<1`$. The gravitational potential energy in (26) leads to

$$U(r)=G_N\frac{m_am_b}{r}(1+u^2)$$
(27)
Note that the longitudinal component of $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ gives repulsion and the transverse component of $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ gives attraction.

To apply the above description to the solar system, assume that an object with the mass $`m_a=m`$ orbits around a very massive object with $`m_b=M`$. The energy per mass including the kinetic energy and potential energy can be written by

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\dot{r}^2+r^2\dot{\phi }^2)r^2\dot{\phi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_NM}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_NM}{r}}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\dot{r}^2+r^2\dot{\phi }^2[12{\displaystyle \frac{G_NM}{r}}]){\displaystyle \frac{G_NM}{r}}`$ (29)
where the first two terms are the kinetic energies of the mass $`m`$ in the polar coordinates and the last two terms are the Newtonian potential and its relativistic correction. Note that $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ have only the transverse components and the transverse particle velocity $`u_{}=r\dot{\phi }`$ is used in the above. In general relativity, total energy per mass is exactly identical to equation (28).

This verifies that gravity may be described by a gauge theory since both general relativity in the weak field limit and gauge theory with the DSSB mechanism can produce the identical energy per mass. The effective spin $`2`$ interaction in general relativity is verified as the intrinsic or extrinsic quadrupole interaction ($`s=2`$ or $`l=2`$) with the effective coupling constant $`G_N`$ in gauge theory. Equation (28) may provide explanations to the typical classical tests, the precession of the perihelion and the deflection of light .

## VI Comparison between Quantum Gravity and General Relativity

This section is devoted to summarize and to convince QG as an $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory beyond general relativity: classical tests for QG are discussed in the previous section and quantum tests for QG are described in subsequent papaer .

The potential QG as a gauge theory may resolve serious problems of GUTs and the standard model: different gauge groups, Higgs particles, the inclusion of gravity, the proton lifetime, the baryon asymmetry, the family symmetry of elementary particles, inflation, fermion mass generation, etc. This scheme may also provide possible resolutions to the problems of Einstein’s general relativity or the standard hot big bang theory: the spacetime singularity, cosmological constant, quantization, baryon asymmetry, structure formation, dark matter, flatness of the universe, and renormalizability, etc. Furthermore, the typical predictions of QG are compatible with recent experiments, BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 : the flat universe, inflation, vacuum energy, dark matter, repulsive force, CMBR, etc.

Comparison between QG and general relativity is summarized by Table II. QG is quantum theory holding principles of gauge invariance and special relativity while Einstein’s general theory of relativity is classical theory holding principles of equivalence and general relativity. Newly introduced concepts in QG are the flat universe rather than the curved universe, dynamical spontaneous symmetry breaking (DSSB) rather than spontaneous symmetry breaking, gauge group hierarchy $`GHSU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_C`$, coupling constant hierarchy $`(\alpha ,\alpha /3,\alpha /4,\alpha /12,\alpha /16)`$ for both weak and strong interactions, effective coupling constant hierarchy $`G_NG_FG_R`$, effective cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4`$, massive gauge boson mass square $`M_G^2=M_{Pl}^2g_fg_g^2\varphi ^2=g_fg_g^2[A_0^2\varphi ^2]`$, massless gauge bosons as Nambu-Goldstone bosons including cosmic microwave background radiation , the dynamical spontaneous breaking of discrete symmetries (C, P, T, and CP), Newtonian mechanics as quadrupole (tensor) interactions, the possible modification of Einstein’s general relativity, etc. Quantum tests will be discussed in subsequent paper  are strongly interacting massive particles in addition to strongly interacting massive particles as the candidate of dark matter, the universe inflation with the order of magnitude $`10^{30}`$, the baryon asymmetry $`\delta _B10^{10}`$, the relation between time and gauge boson mass, the internal and external quantization of spacetime, proton decay time much longer than one predicted by GUTs, mass generation mechanism with the surface effect, etc. The gauge boson mass $`M_G10^{12}`$ GeV associated with the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_010^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$ and the Hubble constant $`H_010^{42}`$ GeV especially indicates gauge theories for new fundamental forces responsible for the universe expansion and CMBR. The repulsive force at the present universe is recently suggested in BUMERANG-98 and MAXIMA-1 experiments .

## VII Conclusions

This study toward quantum gravity (QG) proposes an $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory with the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vacuum term as a trial theory, which suggests that a certain group $`G`$ for gravitational interactions leads to a group $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_C`$ for weak and strong interactions through dynamical spontaneous symmetry breaking (DSSB) leading to a current anomaly; the group chain is $`GSU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_C`$. DSSB consists of two simultaneous mechanisms; the first mechanism is the explicit symmetry breaking of gauge symmetry, which is represented by the gravitational factor $`g_f`$ and the gravitational coupling constant $`g_g`$, and the second mechanism is the spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge fields, which is represented by the condensation of singlet gauge fields. Newton gravitation constant $`G_N`$ originates from the effective coupling constant for massive gravitons, $`\frac{G_N}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{g_fg_g^2}{8M_G^2}`$ with $`M_G=M_{Pl}10^{19}`$ GeV: the effective coupling constant chain is $`G_NG_F\times G_R`$ for gravitation, weak, and strong interactions respectively. This scheme relates the effective cosmological constant to the effective vacuum energy associated with massive gauge bosons, $`M_G^2=M_{Pl}^2g_fg_g^2\varphi ^2`$, and provides a plausible explanation for both the present small and the early large value of the cosmological constant; the condensation of the singlet gauge field $`\varphi `$ induces the current anomaly and subtracts the gauge boson mass as the system expands. This proposal thus suggests a viable solution toward such longstanding problems as the quantization of gravity and the cosmological constant. The crucial point is that DSSB mechanism is adopted to all the interactions characterized by gauge invariance, physical vacuum problem, and discrete symmetry breaking. In this approach, DSSB is currently underway in the evolution of the flat universe and Newton gravitation coupling constant $`G_N`$ represents the massive gauge boson propagation just as Fermi electroweak coupling constant $`G_F`$ does. Newton gravitation constant has the dimension of inverse energy square due to massive gravitons. A gauge theory allows to have the masses of gauge bosons without spoiling the renormalizability; the renormalizability of a gauge theory with DSSB was demonstrated by ’t Hooft. The dimensionality of the effective gravitation coupling constant, which prevents gravity from the renormalizability, may be removed in terms of the concept of DSSB. The compatibility between gravitation theory and gauge theory may be extended to the quantization and renormalization of gravity and the non-renormalizability problem of gravity may be resolved in the potential gauge theory for gravity.

This study claims that the effective cosmological constant defined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4`$ is related to the effective vacuum energy $`V_e(\overline{\varphi })=\rho _m_e=M_G^4`$ represented by the gauge boson mass $`M_G`$, which plays an important role specially at the very early and later stage of gravitational evolution: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e10^{38}\text{GeV}^2`$ or $`\rho _m_e10^{76}\text{GeV}^4`$ at the Planck epoch and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_010^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$ or $`\rho _m_e=\rho _m_010^{47}\text{GeV}^4`$ at the present epoch. This proposal may resolve the cosmological constant problem by interpreting that the condensation of singlet gauge bosons exactly cancels the bare vacuum energy density $`\rho _m`$ due to the condensation of fermions through the universe expansion. The effective vacuum energy linked by the gauge boson mass becomes significant during phase transition in the early universe and makes the universe expand exponentially. This scheme is therefore consistent with both the experimental expectation of the very small effective cosmological constant at the present epoch and the theoretical expectation of the very large cosmological constant at the early universe; the condensation of singlet gauge bosons makes gauge bosons lighter as the universe expands and phase transition takes place. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ constant is parameterized by $`\mathrm{\Theta }=10^{61}\rho _G/\rho _m=10^{61}\mathrm{\Lambda }_e/8\pi G_N\rho _m`$ with the vacuum energy density $`\rho _G=M_G^4`$ and the matter energy density $`\rho _m\rho _c10^{47}\text{GeV}^4`$. This suggests the possible modification of general relativity in terms of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ constant rather than the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$: $`R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G_N(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{10^{61}\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}g_{\mu \nu }T).`$

A QG is consistent with general relativity in the weak field limit as well as Newtonian mechanics since classical tests can be successfully shown from the gauge theory point of view. The relation between QG and Einstein’s general relativity is explicitly given in terms of cosmological parameters like $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The graviton with the energy lower than the Planck mass has the Yukawa type potential $`\varphi (r)=e^{M_G^e(rl_{Pl})}`$ with the effective gauge boson mass $`M_G^e=ik_G=(M_G^2E^2)^{1/2}`$ while the graviton with the energy equal to the Planck mass has the Coulomb potential energy $`G_Nm^2/r`$. This implies the effective interaction of the graviton below the Planck energy is proportional to $`G_NJ_\mu J^\mu `$ in the low momentum transfer. When $`E<M_{Pl}`$, the massive gauge boson mediates the Yukawa type potential $`\varphi (r)=e^{M_G^e(rl_{Pl})}`$ where the quadrupole moment term leads to the weak field approximation of Einstein’s general relativity: $`\varphi (r)=h_{00}/2`$ with $`g_{ij}=\eta _{ij}+h_{ij}`$ and $`h_{ij}<<1`$. Newtonian mechanics, which is the Newtonian approximation of the weak field limit of general relativity, is interpreted as collective quadrupole (tensor) interactions of gravitons with the energy less than the Planck mass ($`E<M_{Pl}`$). The energy per mass obtained from this scheme, which has the Newtonian potential for the rest mass and the relativistic correction to the rest mass, is the same with one obtained from general relativity; the energy per mass can leads to the classical tests verified by general relativity. This work might accordingly give rise to a turning point toward the unification of fundamental forces in nature. QG as a potential gauge theory may resolve the longstanding problems, the quantization of gravity and the cosmological constant problem. This proposal beyond the standard model thus implies that a potential, ultimate theory of nature may be found in the form of quantum field theory.

Notable accomplishments of this work are summarized as follows. A potential QG as a gauge theory is introduced and its relation to Einstein’s general relativity is suggested. The origin of Newton gravitation constant $`G_N`$ is illustrated as the Yukawa coupling of the massive graviton. The origin of the cosmological constant is given as the vacuum energy density represented by the gauge boson mass; the total gauge boson number $`10^{91}`$ in the universe is predicted as a conserved good quantum number. The DSSB of local gauge symmetry and global chiral symmetry triggers the baryon current anomaly. Newton gravitation constant $`G_N`$ as the effective coupling constant provides the construction of the dimensionless coupling constant through the condensation of singlet gauge fields, which makes this theory renormalizable. The classical tests can be shown as the illustration of QG as a gauge theory even though the exact group for QG is not uncovered yet. This scheme may also provide possible resolutions to the problems of Einstein’s general relativity or the standard hot big bang theory: the spacetime singularity, cosmological constant, quantization, baryon asymmetry, structure formation, dark matter, flatness of the universe, and renormalizability, etc. This work significantly contributes to the unification of fundamental forces from the viewpoint of the gauge field theories since all the known forces might be formulated in terms of gauge theories; the standard hot big bang theory with many pros and cons  may be replaced by this scheme toward the theory of everything.

Feature Gravity Electromagnetic Weak Strong  Gauge Boson Graviton Photon Intermediate Boson Gluon  Source Spin (?) Electric Charge Isospin Color  Coupling Constant $`\alpha _g(M_{Pl})0.02`$ (?) $`\alpha _e1/137`$ $`\alpha _i(M_Z)0.12`$ $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})0.48`$  Gauge Boson Mass $`10^{19}`$ GeV 0 $`10^2`$ GeV $`10^1`$ GeV  Effective Coupling $`G_N10^{38}\text{GeV}^2`$  $`G_F10^5\text{GeV}^2`$ $`G_R10^1\text{GeV}^2`$  Cross Section $`10^{70}\text{m}^2`$ $`10^{33}\text{m}^2`$ $`10^{44}\text{m}^2`$ $`10^{30}\text{m}^2`$  Lifetime $`10^{57}`$ s $`10^{20}`$ s $`10^8`$ s $`10^{23}`$ s

Classification QG General Relativity    Exchange Particles massive gravitons massless gravitons  DSSB yes no  Discrete symmetries (P, C, T, CP) breaking no  Monopole Confinement yes unknown  Cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=8\pi G_NM_G^4`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=10^{84}\text{GeV}^2`$  Inflation $`10^{30}`$ no  Matter mass generation $`\rho _m=10^{61}\rho _G\mathrm{\Theta }`$ unknown  Baryogenesis $`10^{78}`$ for $`0.94`$ GeV proton no  Leptogenesis $`10^{81}`$ for $`0.5`$ MeV electron no  Proton decay time $`10^{57}`$ s unknown  Singularity no yes  Universe flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=110^{61}`$) curved  Dark matter yes unknown  Interactions monopole or dipole quadrupole (tensor)  Renormalization yes no  Relativity special general  Principle gauge invariance equivalence  Free parameter coupling constant ($`\alpha _g`$) effective coupling constant ($`G_N`$)


format: text

text:
# Global well-posedness for KdV in Sobolev spaces of negative index

## 1. Introduction

Consider the initial value problem for the Korteweg-deVries (KdV) equation

(1.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}_tu+_x^3u+\frac{1}{2}_x(u^2)=0,& x,\\ u(0)=\varphi ,\end{array}$$

for rough initial data $`\varphi H^s(),s<0`$. This problem is known  to be locally well-posed provided $`\frac{3}{4}<s`$. For $`s0`$, the local result and $`L^2`$ norm conservation imply (1.1) is globally well-posed . Recently, a direct adaptation  of Bourgain’s high-low frequency technique ,  showed (1.1) is globally well-posed for $`\varphi H^s\dot{H}^a`$ for certain $`s,a<0`$. A modification of the high-low frequency technique, first used in , is presented in this paper which establishes global well-posedness of (1.1) in $`H^s(),\frac{3}{10}<s`$.

A subsequent paper  will establish that (1.1) is globally well-posed in $`H^s()`$ for $`\frac{3}{4}<s.`$ The simplicity of the argument presented here may extend more easily to other situations, such as in our treatment  of cubic $`NLS`$ on $`^2`$ and $`NLS`$ with derivative in $``$ .

The Multiplier operator $`I`$

Let $`s<0`$ and $`N1`$ be fixed. Define the Fourier multiplier operator

(1.2)
$$\widehat{Iu}(\xi )=m(\xi )\widehat{u}(\xi ),m(\xi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,& |\xi |<N,\\ N^s|\xi |^s,& |\xi |10N\end{array}$$

with $`m`$ smooth and monotone. The operator $`I`$ (barely) maps $`H^s()L^2()`$. Observe that on low frequencies $`\{\xi :|\xi |<N\},I`$ is the identity operator. Note also that $`I`$ commutes with differential operators. The operator $`I^1`$ is the Fourier multiplier operator with multiplier $`\frac{1}{m(\xi )}`$.

An almost $`L^2`$ conservation property of (1.1)

Let $`\varphi H^s(),\frac{3}{4}<s<0`$ in (1.1). There is a $`\delta =\delta (\varphi _{H^s})>0`$ such that (1.1) is well-posed for $`t[0,\delta ]`$. We observe using the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the equation, and integration by parts that

$`Iu(\delta )_{L^2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`Iu(0)_{L^2}^2+{\displaystyle _0^\delta }{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}(Iu(\tau ),Iu(\tau ))𝑑\tau ,`$
$`=`$ $`Iu(0)_{L^2}^2+2{\displaystyle _0^\delta }(I\dot{u}(\tau ),Iu(\tau ))𝑑\tau ,`$
$`=`$ $`Iu(0)_{L^2}^2+2{\displaystyle _0^\delta }(I(u_{xxx}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_x[u^2])(\tau ),Iu(\tau ))𝑑\tau `$
$`=`$ $`Iu(0)_{L^2}^2+{\displaystyle _0^\delta }(I(_x[u^2]),Iu)𝑑\tau .`$
Finally, we add $`0=_0^\delta _x(I(u)^2)I(u)d\tau `$ to observe

(1.3)
$$Iu(\delta )_{L^2}^2=Iu(0)_{L^2}^2+_0^\delta _x\left\{(I(u))^2I(u^2)\right\}Iudxd\tau .$$

This last step enables us to take advantage of some internal cancellation. We apply Cauchy-Schwarz as in  and bound the integral above by

(1.4)
$$_x\{(I(u))^2I(u^2)\}_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}}^\delta }Iu_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}^\delta }.$$

###### Remark 1.

An effort to find a term providing more cancellation than $`_0^\delta _x(I(u)^2)I(u)d\tau `$ used above led to the general procedure described in .

###### Proposition 1.

(A variant of local well-posedness) The initial value problem (1.1) is locally well-posed in the Banach space $`I^1L^2=\{\varphi H^s\text{with norm}I\varphi _{L^2}\}`$. with existence lifetime $`\delta `$ satisfying

(1.5)
$$\delta I\varphi _{L^2}^\alpha ,\text{for some}\alpha >0,$$

and moreover

(1.6)
$$Iu_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}^\delta }CI\varphi _{L^2}.$$

This proposition is not difficult to prove using the argument in . Using Duhamel’s formula and $`X_{s,b}`$ space properties reduces matters to proving the bilinear estimate

(1.7)
$$_xI(uv)_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}CIu_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}Iv_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}$$

to obtain the contraction. The space-time norm bound is then implied by the contraction estimate. The estimate (1.7) follows from the next proposition and the bilinear estimate of Kenig, Ponce and Vega .

###### Proposition 2.

(Extra smoothing) The bilinear estimate

(1.8)
$$_x\{I(u)I(v)I(uv)\}_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}}^\delta }CN^{\frac{3}{4}+}Iu_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}^\delta }Iv_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}^\delta }.$$

holds.

Recall the bilinear estimate $`_x(uv)_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}Cu_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}v_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}`$ from . Proposition 2 reveals a smoothing beyond the recovery of the first derivative for the particular quadratic expression encountered above in (1.3). We prove Proposition 2 in the next section.

The required pieces are now in place for us to give the proof of global well-posedness of (1.1) in $`H^s(),\frac{3}{10}<s.`$ Global well-posedness of (1.1) will follow if we show well-posedness on $`[0,T]`$ for arbitrary $`T>0`$. We renormalize things a bit via scaling. If $`u`$ solves (1.1) then $`u_\lambda (x,t)=(\frac{1}{\lambda })^2u(\frac{x}{\lambda },\frac{t}{\lambda ^3})`$ solves (1.1) with initial data $`\varphi _\lambda (x,t)=(\frac{1}{\lambda })^2\varphi (\frac{x}{\lambda }).`$ Note that $`u`$ exists on $`[0,T]`$ if and only if $`u_\lambda `$ exists on $`[0,\lambda ^3T]`$. A calculation shows that

(1.9)
$$I\varphi _\lambda _{L^2}C\lambda ^{\frac{3}{2}s}N^s\varphi _{H^s}.$$

Here $`N=N(T)`$ will be selected later but we choose $`\lambda =\lambda (N)`$ right now by requiring

(1.10)
$$C\lambda ^{\frac{3}{2}s}N^s\varphi _{H^s}1\lambda N^{\frac{2s}{3+2s}}.$$

We now drop the $`\lambda `$ subscript on $`\varphi `$ by assuming that

(1.11)
$$I\varphi _{L^2}=ϵ_01$$

and our goal is to construct the solution of (1.1) on the time interval $`[0,\lambda ^3T]`$.

The local well-posedness result of Proposition 1 shows we can construct the solution for $`t[0,1]`$ if we choose $`ϵ_0`$ small enough. The almost $`L^2`$ conservation property shows $`Iu(1)_2^2Iu(0)_2^2+N^{\frac{3}{4}+}Iu_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}^3.`$ Using (1.6) and (1.11) gives

$$Iu(1)_2^2ϵ_0^2+N^{\frac{3}{4}+}.$$

We can iterate this process $`N^{\frac{3}{4}}`$ times before doubling $`Iu(t)_{L^2}`$. Therefore, we advance the solution by taking $`N^{\frac{3}{4}}`$ time steps of size $`O(1)`$. We now restrict $`s`$ by demanding that

(1.12)
$$N^{\frac{3}{4}}\lambda ^3T=N^{\frac{6s}{3+2s}}T$$

is ensured for large enough $`N`$, so $`s>\frac{3}{10}`$.

## 2. Proof of the bilinear smoothing estimate

This section establishes Proposition 2. We distinguish the very low frequencies $`\{\xi :|\xi |1\}`$, the low frequencies $`\{\xi :1|\xi |\frac{1}{2}N\}`$ and the high frequencies $`\{\xi :\frac{1}{2}N|\xi |\}`$. Decompose the factor $`u`$ in the bilinear estimate by writing $`u=u_{vl}+u_l+u_h`$ with $`\widehat{u_l}`$ supported on the low frequencies and similarly for the very low and high frequency pieces. We decompose $`v`$ the same way. Since $`I`$ is the identity operator on the low and very low frequencies, we can assume one of the factors $`u,v`$ in the estimate to be shown has its Fourier transform supported in the high frequencies. Symmetry allows us to assume $`u=u_h`$ and we need to consider the three possible interactions of $`u_h`$ with $`v_{vl},v_l`$ and $`v_h`$. Finally, since we are considering (weighted) $`L^2`$ norms, we can replace $`\widehat{u}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ by $`|\widehat{u}|`$ and $`|\widehat{v}|`$. Assume therefore that $`\widehat{u},\widehat{v}0`$.

Very low/high interaction

An explicit calculation shows that

(2.1)
$$\left(_x\{I(u_hv_{vl})I(u_h)v_{vl}\}\right)(\xi )=_{\xi =\xi _1+\xi _2}i\xi [m(\xi )m(\xi _1)]\widehat{u_h}(\xi _1)\widehat{v_{vl}}(\xi _2),$$

where $``$ denotes the Fourier transform. The mean value theorem gives

$$|m(\xi )m(\xi _1)||m^{}(\stackrel{~}{\xi _1})||\xi _2|,$$

which may be interpolated with the trivial estimate to give

(2.2)
$$|m(\xi )m(\xi _1)|CN^s|\xi _1|^s|\xi _1|^\theta |\xi _2|^\theta $$

for $`0\theta 1`$. Recall that $`m`$ was defined to be smooth and monotone in (1.2).

Therefore, upon defining $`(^\theta f)(\xi )=|\xi |^\theta \widehat{f}(\xi )`$, we can write

$$|(_x\{I(u_hv_{vl})I(u_h)v_{vl}\})(\xi )||(_x(^\theta I(u_h)(^\theta v_{vl}))(\xi )|.$$

We now estimate the left side of the bilinear estimate in this interaction by

(2.3)
$$_x(^\theta I(u_h))(^\theta v_{vl})_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}$$

and by the bilinear estimate of Kenig, Ponce and Vega

(2.4)
$$C^\theta I(u_h)_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}^\theta v_{vl}_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$$

The frequency support of $`v_{vl}`$ shows that $`^\theta v_{vl}_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}v_{vl}_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}`$. A moments thought shows

(2.5)
$$^\theta I(u_h)_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}N^\theta I(u_h)_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}$$

and the claim of the Proposition follows for the (very low)(high) interaction by choosing $`\theta >\frac{3}{4}`$.

Low/high interaction

The preceding calculations reduce matters to controlling

(2.6)
$$_x^\theta I(u_h)^\theta v_l_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}$$

and we know that $`\widehat{u_h}`$ and $`\widehat{v_l}`$ are supported outside the very low frequencies.

###### Lemma 1.

Assume $`\widehat{u}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ are supported outside $`\{|\xi |<1\}`$. Then

(2.7)
$$_x(uv)_{X_{\alpha ,\frac{1}{2}+}}Cu_{X_{\gamma _1,\frac{1}{2}+}}v_{X_{\gamma _2,\frac{1}{2}+}}$$

provided

$`\alpha (\gamma _1+\gamma _2)`$ $`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}},`$
$`\alpha \gamma _i`$ $`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},i=1,2.`$
We will apply the lemma momentarily with $`\alpha =0,\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\frac{3}{8}+`$.

The proof of the lemma is contained in the proof of Theorem 2 in . In particular, the support properties on $`\widehat{u},\widehat{v}`$ reduce matters to considering Cases A.3, A.4, A.6, B.3, B.4, B.5 and B.6 in . The restriction $`\alpha (\gamma _1+\gamma _2)<\frac{3}{4}`$ arises in Case A.4.c.ii of  which is the region containing the counterexample of . Case B.4.b of  requires the other condition $`\alpha \gamma _i<\frac{1}{2}.`$

The lemma applied to (2.6) gives

$$C^\theta I(u_h)_{X_{\frac{3}{8}+,\frac{1}{2}+}}^\theta v_l_{X_{\frac{3}{8}+,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$$

Setting $`\theta =\frac{3}{8}`$ leaves

$$C^{\frac{3}{4}+}I(u_h)_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}v_l_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}CN^{\frac{3}{4}+}I(u_h)_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}v_l_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}$$

which was to be shown.

High/high interaction

In this region of the interaction, we do not take advantage of any cancellation and estimate the difference with the triangle inequality

$$_x\{I(u_h)I(v_h)\}_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}+_x\{I(u_hv_h)\}_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$$

For the first contribution we use the lemma to get

(2.8)
$$I(u_h)_{X_{\frac{3}{8}+,\frac{1}{2}+}}I(v_h)_{X_{\frac{3}{8}+,\frac{1}{2}+}}N^{\frac{3}{4}+}I(u_h)_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}I(v_h)_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$$

The second contribution is bounded by throwing away $`I`$ and applying the lemma,

$`_x\{u_hv_h\}_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}`$ $``$ $`u_h_{X_{\frac{3}{8}+,\frac{1}{2}+}}u_h_{X_{\frac{3}{8}+,\frac{1}{2}+}}`$
$``$ $`N^{\frac{3}{8}+s+}u_h_{X_{s,\frac{1}{2}+}}N^{\frac{3}{8}+s+}v_h_{X_{s,\frac{1}{2}+}}`$
$``$ $`N^{\frac{3}{4}+}u_h_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}v_h_{X_{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.`$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is long known that high energy total hadronic cross sections grow with rising center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ according to a power law $`\left(s/s_0\right)^ϵ`$ and total diffractive cross sections as $`(s/s_0)^{2ϵ}`$. Empirically this behaviour holds for the total single diffractive cross section up to energies of $`\sqrt{s}30`$ GeV, for the total cross section even up to $`1.8`$ TeV and is successfully described within the framework of Regge theory by the exchange of various Regge trajectories and the pomeron. However, unitarity requires that this power law turns over at some point to agree with the Martin-Froissard bound which demands at most logarithmic growth $`\sigma \sigma _0\mathrm{ln}^2\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)`$. A priori the point at which this turnover takes place is not determined, and it has been a vital issue for a long time.

In several measurements, significant deviations from the power law given by dominant pomeron exchange indicating the presence of unitarity limits have been observed in the case of the total single diffracitve cross section (e.g. ).

There is, however a quantity which is expected to indicate signals of the unitarity limit long before they actually show up significantly in the total cross section. This quantity is the profile function, an object which is introduced in high energy diffractive reactions to describe the shape of the collision partners in the plane transverse to the beam axis. Assuming that the longitudinal momentum transfer is negligible, it is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)=\frac{1}{2\pi ik}d^2k_t\mathrm{exp}[i𝐤_t𝐛]f(𝐤_t)$$
(1)
Unitarity constrains the profile function to satisfy

$$2\text{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(𝐛)<1,$$
(2)
an expression which reduces to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)<1`$ in the limit of vanishing real part of the scattering amplitude (the real part of the profile function corresponds to the imaginary part of the scattering amplitude).

Whereas in the total cross section an average over all impact parameters is taken, the profile function is directly sensitive to central collisions in which the unitarity limit is expected to be observed first. Unfortunately, since the magnitude of the profile function is strongly influenced by uncertainties in the absolute normalization of the data, it is not the profile function itself but its derivative with respect to $`s`$ which yields the most interesting observable.

In the following, this property of the profile function will be exploited. First, the analysis of elastic $`pp`$ data will be recalled and used to discuss the requirements necessary to obtain meaningful results. After that, it is argued that the cross section $`pppX`$ (where X can be any state *excluding the proton*), is constrained by unitarity in just the same way as the elastic. Due to limitations of data statistics, the attention is then focussed on parametrizations, which agree with the data where available but use two different prescriptions to unitarize the total cross section. The impact parameter analysis is used to test these two different prescriptions.

## 2 The ISR analysis

In , $`pp`$-elastic scattering data taken at the ISR by various groups have been compiled in order to yield several data sets of $`d\sigma /dt`$ for five different $`s`$. The scattering amplitude was now reconstructed assuming that Im $`f(𝐤_t)`$ Re $`f(𝐤_t)R(𝐤_t)`$ using

$$f(𝐤_t)=\sqrt{\frac{d\sigma }{d𝐤_t}R^2(𝐤_t)}$$
(3)
with the small real part taken from dispersion analysis. The profile function was then calculated using Eq. (1). The growth of the profile with increasing c.m. energy can then be found using

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)=\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)}{d\mathrm{ln}s}|_{s=s_0}$$
(4)
where the derivative are evaluated using averaged differences of the profiles at each value of $`𝐛`$, therefore $`s_0`$ is somewhere between $`s=549`$ GeV2 and $`s=3906`$ GeV2. The actual value of $`s_0`$ cannot be determined in this way, but it is not expected that the result depends strongly on $`s_0`$, it rather reflects a gross behaviour of the cross section. In , not the profile function itself is analyzed in this way, but rather the inelastic overlap integral which is defined as

$$G_{in}(𝐛)=2\text{Re}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)|\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)|^2$$
(5)
which exhibits the same gross features of the growth speed at various impact parameters as the profile function. The result of this analysis is shown in Fig. 1.

The most prominent feature is the drop of the blackness growth speed at the center $`(b=0)`$ which is, for very central collisions, even compatible with zero. This seems to indicate that the corresponding profile functions are already approaching the unitarity limit and therefore cannot grow arbitrarily in the center. The main contribution to the growth of the total cross section comes from a region of $`1`$ fm which lies at the periphery of the proton.

The ingredients which are necessary for this analysis are data with: a) high statistics in $`t`$ in order to obtain an accurate profile function, b) different $`s`$ in order to obtain a reliable derivative (the low statistics in $`s`$ is responsible for the large error bars in Fig. 1) and c) knowledge of the real part of the scattering amplitude. In order to test the conditions necessary for the observation of the central slowdown which is interpreted as a sign for the unitarity limit, the analysis was redone using the data sets published in , neglecting the real part of the amlitude and using variations of the upper bound of the Fourier integral in Eq. (1) in order to test which range in $`t`$ an experiment should minimally cover in order to observe this effect. The result for the inelastic overlap integral is compared to the analysis in  in Fig. 1 and the result for the growth speed of the profile function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is shown in Fig. 2.

It is obvious that the main signal, namely the drop of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for small $`𝐛`$, is still observable in this simplified analysis in both $`\mathrm{\Delta }G_{in}(𝐛)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)`$, even if we lower the upper bound of the integration down to 0.64 GeV2. This gives confidence that the application of the same simplified analysis to the case of single diffractive dissociation may also work and defines the range in $`t`$ which should be known experimentally in order to observe this effect as $`|t_{max}|0.6`$ GeV2.

## 3 Single diffraction

Unfortunately, the data situation for the single diffraction process $`pppX`$, where the final state has a proton and a kinematically separated hadronic state *excluding the proton*, is not satisfactory. Data have been taken at ISR for several values of $`s`$ ; if the dependence on the mass of the diffractively produced state $`X`$ is integrated out, only about 10 data points per set are available to describe $`\frac{d\sigma }{dt}`$, starting from $`t0.2`$ GeV2. Since the low $`t`$ region where the cross section is large gives a dominant contribution in the Fourier integral (1) and the resolution in $`t`$ is not high, a sufficiently accurate analysis based on the measured data alone is not possible. The same is true for the more recent data obtained by UA4 , UA8  and CDF  for vastly different $`s`$. However, existing parameterizations of the data allow to create ’virtual’ data sets. In the impact parameter analysis of these virtual data sets, the unitarization prescription of the parameterizations can be tested.

An adequate description of the shape of the single diffractive differential cross section is given by Regge theory, although the normalization is suppressed at high energies relative to the Regge prediction (see ). Here the differential cross section is written as (see e.g. ):

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dtdM_X^2}=\underset{i,j,k}{}\frac{\beta _{ik}(0)\beta _{il}(t)\beta _{jl}(t)g_{ijk}(t)}{16\pi s}\left(\frac{s}{M_X^2}\right)^{\alpha _i(t)+\alpha _j(t)}(M_X^2)^{\alpha _k(0)},$$
(6)
where $`i,j,k`$ are all possible combinations of pomeron and other Regge trajectories, and $`\beta _{ik}`$ and $`g_{ijk}`$ the corresponding vertex functions. Assuming factorization in the sense that the process can be regarded in two steps, where in the first step the proton emits a pomeron which subsequently, in the second step, hits the other proton and forms a hadronic state $`X`$, the formula can be cast into the form

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dtd\xi }=F_{𝒫/p}(t,\xi )\sigma _{𝒫p}^{tot}(s^{})=[K|F_1(t)|^2\xi ^{12\alpha _𝒫(t)}]\sigma _0[(\xi s)^{\alpha _𝒫(0)1}]+\text{Reggeon contributions}.$$
(7)
Here $`\xi `$ is the momentum fraction that the pomeron carries away from its parent proton, $`s^{}M_X^2\xi s`$, $`\alpha _𝒫(t)`$ is the pomeron trajectory, $`F_1(t)`$ is the standard Donnachie-Landshoff form factor  and $`K`$ is a normalization factor for the pomeron flux. Based on this expression, two different parameterizations have been proposed by Erhan and Schlein  and by Goulianos .

It is neither the aim of the present paper to dwell on details of each parameterization, such as background effects and possible modifications of the Regge trajectory, nor to compare their ability to reproduce the data. The focus is rather on a test of the different prescriptions used for unitarization of the total cross sections which can be calculated from the two parameterizations.

In the parameterization by Erhan and Schlein, unitarization is done via a modification of the pomeron trajectory (which is usually given as $`\alpha _𝒫(t)=\alpha _0+\alpha ^{}t`$). Here the trajectory acquires a term which is quadratic in $`t`$ (and unimportant for the purpose of the present analysis since it affects only the high $`t`$ range with $`t>1`$ GeV2 to which this analysis is insensitive) and the parameters $`\alpha _0,\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$ (here $`\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$ is the coefficient of the new quadratic term in the pomeron trajectory) are modified as a function of $`s`$ according to

$$\alpha _0(s)=\alpha _0(s_0)+A\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right),\alpha ^{}(s)=\alpha ^{}(s_0)+A^{}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)\text{and}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }(s)=\alpha ^{\prime \prime }(s_0)+A^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right).$$
(8)
For a negative value of $`A`$ this causes deviations from the power law and allows to fit the total cross section data.

On the other hand, in the parameterization by Goulianos a fundamentally different approach is used. Here, it is assumed as a working hypothesis that the pomeron flux $`F_{𝒫/p}(t,\xi )`$ from the parent proton cannot exceed unity. Therefore the factor $`K`$ in Eq. (7) is adjusted in such a way as to meet this condition. This results in a drastic change in the growth speed at some critical $`s`$ beyond which the growth of the total cross section is slowed down significantly.

It is evident that these two mechanisms to introduce unitarity into Eq. (7) are fundamentally different. Both of them are able to meet the unitarity condition imposed on the total cross section as seen from the present data. The critical question, which now arises, is the following: Since elastic scattering and single diffraction are both constrained by the same unitarity condition that (assuming negligible real part of the scattering amplitude) the probability for any interaction must be smaller than one at some given impact parameter, the same behaviour in the growth speed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐛)`$ should be seen, namely a slowing down of central growth as compared to peripheral modes.

The actual analysis is done in a way similar to the one done in the elastic case. Data sets are created from the parameterizations at values of $`s`$ in the range of the ISR data, by integrating Eq. 7 over $`\xi `$ for fixed $`t`$. The lower limit of the $`\xi `$ integration is given by $`s_{min}^{}/s`$ where $`s_{min}^{}`$ corresponds to the lowest excited state of the proton and the upper limit is choosen in accordance with the experimental definition of the published $`\frac{d\sigma }{dt}`$ data sets as $`\xi _{max}=0.05`$. Both parametrizations have been used exactly as they appear in , i.e. including reggeon contributions. These data sets are then treated as in the elastic case; the scattering amplitude is reconstructed assuming a vanishing real part and the profile function is calculated according to Eq. (1). Figure 3 shows the resulting profile functions and Fig. 4 shows the result of the growth speed analysis.

It is evident from the figure that a unitarization prescription such as the flux renormalization by Goulianos leads to a picture which is in better agreement with the one based on the elastic data. In that (dashed) curve, the dip for central collisions is at least indicated, whereas the other parameterization (by Erhan and Schlein) does not show any sign of a slower growth of the central blackness — quite the opposite is seen, in apparent contradiction to the (dotted) elastic result.

The parameterizations can also be tested in the much higher energy range experimentally accessed by UA4 and UA8. The same analysis as above was made in the range 540 GeV $`<\sqrt{s}<`$ 630 GeV and the result is shown in Fig. 5. Here, the main features of the ISR energy result appear again, although somewhat more pronounced. This can also be seen in Fig. 3, where the profile functions of both parameterizations are similar at $`s=550`$ GeV, whereas the one by Erhan and Schlein exhibits a larger central growth than the one by Goulianos when compared at $`\sqrt{s}=630`$ GeV. This trend is confirmed looking at the $`\sqrt{s}=1800`$ GeV data obtained by CDF.

Let us conclude this section with a few critial remarks on the analysis and a summary of basic assumptions. First of all, the expression for the profile function, Eq. 1, is valid at asymptotic energies only. At finite energies, a mathematically correct treatment has been developed (see e.g.) and, in principle, should be used. Next, throughout the analysis, the real part of the scattering amplitude has been neglected. This appears to be justified by looking at Fig. 1, where this approximation amounts only to a small difference for ISR energies. Similar assumptions are used in the standard analysis of high-energy elastic hadron scattering. The last issue concerns the form of the parametrizations used. Here, only one of the diagrams shown by Ross and Yam  has been used in both cases discussed in this paper. On the other hand, both parametrizations are able to account for the data where available. Clearly the shape of the profile functions resulting from the present analysis is central, in spite of the peripheral nature of diffraction. However, the conclusions concerning the unitarization of the parametrizations do not depend on the last two issues.

## 4 Summary

We have shown that the impact parameter analysis is a useful tool to investigate how effects caused by unitarity limits are distributed across the impact parameter space. The strongest manifestations of such effects should be found for central collision where the blackness is largest, resulting in a slowing down of the growth speed of the profile for small impact parameters. This method can not only be used for measured data but also in order to analyse unitarization prescriptions in empirical parameterizations. The reaction $`pppX`$ has been considered here to demonstrate that unitarization by flux renormalization is closer to what one would expect, guided by the analysis of the elastic scattering data, than unitarization by introduction of an $`s`$-dependent pomeron intercept.

I thank G. Piller and W. Weise for helpful comments and discussions.