text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the kinematical sector of loop quantum gravity, states are represented as functions on the space $`\overline{𝒜}`$ of generalized connections on a principal fiber bundle $`P(\mathrm{\Sigma },G)`$. Here, $`G=SU(2)`$ is the gauge group (which can be replaced with any other compact Lie group in the following) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the space manifold. All these states can be decomposed in terms of the spin network basis which are special states associated with graphs in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Given a symmetry group $`S`$ acting on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we can ask for states which are symmetric with respect to that action and therefore can be used to study the full theory in a simpler regime. However, as the decomposition into spin networks shows, no ordinary non-trivial state can be exactly symmetric: the discrete structure of space breaks any continuous symmetry. Nevertheless, we can look for symmetric generalized states which is automatic in our definition :

Definition. A symmetric state is a distribution on $`\overline{𝒜}`$ whose support contains only connections being invariant under the action of the symmetry group.

In order to describe symmetric states more explicitly, we need more information about invariant connections. A well-known example is that of an $`SU(2)`$-connection which is invariant under the rotation group:

$`A_a^i(x,\vartheta ,\phi )\mathrm{d}x^a\tau _i`$ $`=`$ $`a(x)\mathrm{d}x\tau _3+\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \mathrm{d}\phi \tau _3+(\varphi _1(x)\mathrm{d}\vartheta +\varphi _2(x)\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{d}\phi )\tau _1`$ (1)
$`(\varphi _2(x)\mathrm{d}\vartheta +\varphi _1(x)\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{d}\phi )\tau _2.`$
It can be decomposed into a reduced connection given by $`a`$ and scalar fields $`\varphi _{1/2}`$ which are functions on the radial reduced manifold $`B:=\mathrm{\Sigma }/S`$. This is in fact the general situation : invariant connections can be classified by a reduced connections and scalar fields on a reduced bundle $`Q`$ over the reduced manifold $`B:=\mathrm{\Sigma }/S`$. However, in general the structure group of $`Q`$ is only a subgroup of $`G`$ (as in the above example because the ansatz (1) is not gauge invariant) which leads to a partial gauge fixing in the classical description. We do not need to care about this partial gauge fixing here because it can be undone in the quantum theory  where generalized connections and scalar fields are used which do not rely on using a fixed fiber bundle.

So we arrive at a convenient representation of symmetric states as functions on the space of generalized connections and scalar fields on the reduced manifold. A basis for these states is given by spin network states with Higgs field vertices in the reduced manifold with gauge group $`G`$. The interpretation of these states is twofold: First, we can use them in order to restrict the full theory to reduced models given by a symmetry condition. This results in a loop quantization of a mini- or midi-superspace model but has the advantage over usual mini-/midi-superspace quantizations that loop quantization methods can be directly applied resulting in a better comparison between a model and the full theory. Second, due to their very definition symmetric states can be seen as distributional states in the full theory. Although they are in this sense idealized, they can be approximated (in the weak topology) by ordinary states which have the interpretation of weave states describing small perturbations (which are necessary due to quantum fluctuations) around a symmetric (e.g. homogeneous) geometry.

## 2 Spherical Symmetry

Spherically symmetric states are described by spin networks with Higgs field vertices in a one-dimensional (radial) manifold $`B`$ (see Fig. 1). The Higgs field vertices can be interpreted as representing edges being transversal to orbits of the symmetry group. In the radial manifold a spherical surface is represented by a single point in $`B`$, the radius $`x`$, and so it intersects a given spin network state in only one point.

Denoting the radial dreibein components as $`E_i`$, the area of a surface with radius $`x`$ is classically given by

$$A(x)=4\pi \sqrt{\delta ^{ij}E_i(x)E_j(x)}.$$

It can be quantized along the lines of the full theory  by turning the dreibein components into functional derivatives with respect to the radial connection components $`A^i(x)`$. Acting on a spin network function $`T`$ only the edges $`e_+`$ and $`e_{}`$ (which are assumed to be outgoing in $`x`$) contribute via the holonomies $`h_{e_\pm }=𝒫\mathrm{exp}_{e_\pm }dxA^i\tau _i`$. Using the chain rule we obtain ($`\gamma `$ is the Immirzi parameter and $`l_\mathrm{P}`$ the Planck length)

$`\widehat{E}_i(x)T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ\{+,\}}{}}{\displaystyle _{e_ϵ}}dy\delta (x,y)(\tau _ih_{e_ϵ})_B^A{\displaystyle \frac{}{(h_{e_ϵ})_B^A}}T`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ\{+,\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}J_{e_ϵ}^iT`$
where $`J_e=iX_e`$ is given by the right invariant vector field on the copy of $`SU(2)`$ associated with the edge $`e`$.

Inserted into the area $`A(x)`$ this yields

$$\widehat{A}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2\sqrt{(J_{e_+}J_e_{})^2}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2\sqrt{2J_{e_+}^2+2J_e_{}^2(J_{e_+}+J_e_{})^2}$$

which can be simplified if $`x`$ is not a Higgs vertex because then gauge invariance implies $`J_{e_+}+J_e_{}=0`$. As compared to the area operator in the full theory, the only difference is that the sum over punctures disappears because in the spherically symmetric sector there is only one puncture. Thus, we have the area spectrum (ignoring Higgs vertices)

$$A_j=\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2\sqrt{j(j+1)},j\frac{1}{2}N_0.$$
(2)
It is immediate to see that for large values of $`j`$ it is equidistant and compatible with the Bekenstein spectrum  for the horizon area of spherically symmetric black holes. On the contrary, the full area spectrum in loop quantum gravity has an exponentially decreasing level distance . We can interpret the large difference of the two spectra in the spherically symmetric and the non-symmetric regime as a level splitting familiar from the spectroscopy of atoms: breaking the spherical symmetry leads to a splitting of the levels resulting in an almost dense spectrum (see Fig. 2). A necessary requirement for this to happen is a huge degeneracy of the levels in the spherically symmetric sector which is also expected from thermodynamical considerations: in order to lead to a black hole entropy proportional to the horizon area, the degeneracy of levels in the Bekenstein spectrum has to grow exponentially . However, in quantum geometry spherically symmetric states are distributional and so their degeneracy is not well defined which prohibits a simple counting of states.

## 3 Loop Quantum Cosmology

In specializing the framework to homogeneous or even isotropic states we have the basics of loop quantum cosmology . In this case, the reduced manifold is a single point and so homogeneous states are defined only in terms of scalar fields (point holonomies ). For Bianchi models (anisotropic) we have three independent point holonomies which can be visualized as being associated with three closed edges meeting in a single $`6`$-vertex. For isotropic models there is only one point holonomy, but here the concept of spin networks has to be generalized in order to describe all states: the configuration space is no longer a group due to a condition on the scalar fields in an invariant connection if the symmetry group has a non-trivial isotropy subgroup. Therefore, the Peter–Weyl theorem which tells us that functions on a compact group can be expanded into functions associated with matrix elements of all its irreducible representations (which are just spin networks if the group is a product of some copies of $`SU(2)`$) does not apply and a substitute for the expansion has to be found by different means. In the simple case of gauge invariant isotropic states, which depend on only one parameter, it turns out that one can describe all those states as spin networks associated with a single closed edge but possibly with an insertion in the vertex . In this way, the number of states is doubled as compared to a naive expectation.

### 3.1 Volume

Again, we can observe the phenomenon of level splitting, this time for the volume operator . For Bianchi models, the situation is similar to the area operator in the spherically symmetric sector: the sum over vertices disappears because there is only one $`6`$-vertex to which the point holonomies are attached. For isotropic states, the operator simplifies so much that the complete volume spectrum can be computed explicitly ($`V_0`$ is an arbitrary constant entering via a homogeneous auxiliary metric):

$$V_j=\gamma ^{\frac{3}{2}}V_0^{\frac{1}{2}}l_\mathrm{P}^3\sqrt{j(j+\frac{1}{2})(j+1)},j\frac{1}{2}N_0.$$
(3)
The fact that homogeneous states are distributional also implies that there is a discrepancy between mini-superspace quantizations and approximations (by weaves) in the full theory: even small inhomogeneous perturbations cause a transition to the full volume spectrum. This is in contrast to the treatment of inhomogeneities in more standard quantum cosmological models  where symmetric and slightly perturbed geometries are smoothly connected.

### 3.2 Dynamics

In cosmological models there is a familiar procedure to study intrinsic dynamics by introducing the volume as internal time. The volume quantization in quantum geometry suggests that such a procedure in loop quantum cosmology leads to a discrete time. This can in fact be made more precise by implementing the intrinsic dynamics into a loop quantization of cosmological models. To that end we need, in the first place, a quantization of the Hamiltonian constraint for cosmological models  which can be derived using the key steps of the quantization in the full theory  with suitable adaptations in order to respect the symmetry.

The result for Bianchi models is a constraint operator which looks very similar to that in the full theory: the Euclidean part is

$$\widehat{}^{(\mathrm{E})}[N]=4i(\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2)^1V_0N\underset{IJK}{}ϵ^{IJK}\mathrm{tr}\left(h_Ih_Jh_I^1h_J^1h_{[I,J]}^1[h_K,\widehat{V}]\right)$$
(4)
using the volume operator $`\widehat{V}`$ of Bianchi models mentioned above and $`h_I`$, $`1I3`$ are the three point holonomies interpreted as multiplication operators in a connection interpretation. We also defined

$$h_{[I,J]}:=\underset{K=1}{\overset{3}{}}(h_K)^{c_{IJ}^K}$$

which is the only place where the constraint operator depends on the Bianchi type (via the structure constants $`c_{IJ}^K`$). Once we have the Euclidean constraint, the Lorentzian one can be derived completely analogously to the full theory:

$$\widehat{}[N]=8i(1+\gamma ^2)(\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2)^3V_0Nϵ^{IJK}\mathrm{tr}\left([h_I,\widehat{K}][h_J,\widehat{K}][h_K,\widehat{V}]\right)\widehat{}^{(\mathrm{E})}[N]$$
(5)
using the extrinsic curvature

$$\widehat{K}=i\mathrm{}^1[\widehat{V},\widehat{}^{(\mathrm{E})}[1]].$$

In order to find a dynamical interpretation of the constraint equation we have to transform from the connection to a dreibein representation and to select an internal time. The transformation to a dreibein representation can be done by expanding an arbitrary homogeneous state $`c`$ in terms of spin network states labeled by elements $`L`$ of an index set $``$ (e.g., three edge spins and the $`6`$-vertex contractor for Bianchi models)

$$c(A)=\underset{L}{}c_LT_L(A)$$

and interpreting the coefficients $`c_L`$ as components of the state in the dreibein representation.

Unfortunately, the volume operator for Bianchi models is quite complicated and cannot be diagonalized explicitly. Therefore, it is awkward to introduce the volume as internal time. However, we can also choose simply one of the edge spins $`n`$ as internal time (being related to a diagonal component of the homogeneous metric) and still have a discrete time label. Because the Hamiltonian constraint (5) contains holonomies as multiplication operators there are always terms with different ‘time’ labels $`n`$ in the action of $`\widehat{}`$ on a state. In the dreibein representation we can write

$$(\widehat{}c)_n=\underset{i=\frac{\omega }{2}}{\overset{\frac{\omega }{2}}{}}(H_ic)_{n+\frac{i}{2}}$$
(6)
by collecting on the right hand side all contributions with a fixed spin $`n`$ (the $`H_i`$ are operators acting on the remaining labels which are suppressed in our notation). The order $`\omega `$ is given by twice the maximal number of holonomies acting on the selected edge labeled by $`n`$ which appear in a term of the Hamiltonian constraint operator.

We thus arrive at a Wheeler–DeWitt equation of the form

$$\underset{i=\frac{\omega }{2}}{\overset{\frac{\omega }{2}}{}}(H_ic)_{n+\frac{i}{2}}=0\text{ for all }n\frac{1}{2}N_0$$

which is a discrete evolution equation  rather than a differential equation as in standard quantum cosmology. Given a set of initial conditions for small $`n`$ (the number given by the order $`\omega `$) one can compute the evolution as long as the highest operator $`H_n`$ is invertible.

In these models, one can also show that the physical volume spectrum defined using evolving observables is identical to the kinematical one; in particular, it is discrete.

## Acknowledgments

M. B. is grateful to the DFG-Graduierten-Kolleg ‘Starke und elektroschwache Wechselwirkung bei hohen Energien’ for a PhD fellowship and travel grants.


format: text

text:
# NEUTRALINO PROTON CROSS SECTION AND DARK MATTER DETECTION

## 1 Introduction

The existance of dark matter, which makes up about 30$`\%`$ of all the matter and energy in the universe, is well documented astronomically. However, what it is made of is unknown, and there have been many theoretical suggestions: wimps, axions, machos, etc. The Milky way consists of perhaps 90$`\%`$ dark matter, and so is a convenient “laboratory” for the study of dark matter, particularly by direct detection by terrestial detectors. We consider here the case of supersymmetric (SUSY) wimp dark matter and its detection by scattering by nuclear targets. In SUSY models with R-parity invariance, the wimp is almost always the lightest neutralino, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, and for heavy nuclei, the spin independent scattering dominates the cross section. Since then neutron and proton cross sections in the nuclei are nearly equal, it is possible to extract the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p`$ cross section, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$, from any data (subject, of course, to astronomical uncertainties). Current detectors (DAMA, CDMS, UKDMC) are sensitive to cross sections

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}\stackrel{>}{}1\times 10^6\mathrm{pb}$$
(1)
with perhaps an improvement on this by one or two orders of magnitude in the near future. More long range, future detectors (GENIUS, Cryoarray) plan on a significant increase in sensitivity, i.e. down to

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}\stackrel{>}{}(10^910^{10})\mathrm{pb}$$
(2)
We discuss here how such sensitivities might relate to what is expected from supersymmetry models.

We consider here three SUSY models based on grand unification of the gauge coupling constants at the GUT scale of $`M_G2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV:

1. Minimal Supergravity GUT Models (mSUGRA). Here there are universal soft breaking masses occurring at scale $`M_G`$.
2. Non-universal Soft Breaking Models. Here the first two generation of squarks and sleptons soft breaking masses are kept universal (to suppress flavor changing neutral currents) and the gaugino masses are universal at $`M_G`$, while nonuniversalities are allowed in the Higgs soft breaking masses and the third generation squark and sleptons masses at $`M_G`$.
3. D-brane String Models (based on type IIB Orientifolds). Here the $`SU(2)_L`$doublet scalar masses are different from the singlet masses at $`M_G`$, and the gaugino masses are similarly not degenerate.

The three types of models have varying amount of complexity in the soft breaking parameters, and while the first two models arise from natural phenomenological considerations in supergravity theory, there are also string models that can realise such soft breaking patterns. Though physically very different, all the models turn out to lead to qualitatively similar results: Current detectors are sensitive to a significant part of the SUSY parameter space, and future detectors should be able to cover most of the parameter space except for some special regions where accidental cancellations can occur which make $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ anomalously small. Thus dark matter experiments offer significant tests of supersymmetry over the same time scale (the next 5-10 years) that accelerator experiments will.

While each of the above models contain a number of unknown parameters, theories of this type can still make relevant predictions for two reasons: (i) they allow for radiative breaking of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ at the electroweak scale (giving a natural explanation of the Higgs mechanism), and (ii) along with calculating $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$, the theory can calculate the relic density of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, i.e $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}/\rho _c`$ where $`\rho _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is the relic mass density of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\rho _c=3H_0^2/8\pi G_N`$ ($`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant and $`G_N`$ is the Newton constant). Both of these greatly restrict the parameter space. In general one has $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2(_0^{x_f}𝑑x\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}v)^1`$ (where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}`$ is the neutralino annihilation cross section in the early universe, $`v`$ is the relative velocity, $`x_f=kT_f/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, $`T_f`$ is the freeze out temperature, $`\mathrm{}`$ means thermal average and $`h=H_0/100`$ km s-1Mpc-1). The fact that these conditions can naturally be satisfied for reasonable parts of the SUSY parameter space represents a significant success of the SUGRA models.

In the following we will assume $`H_0=(70\pm 10)`$km s-1Mpc-1 and matter (m) and baryonic (b) relic densities of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3\pm 0.1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.05`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2=0.12\pm 0.05`$. The calculations given below allow for a 2$`\sigma `$ spread, i.e. we take

$$0.02\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^20.25.$$
(3)
It is clear that accurate determinations of the dark matter relic density will greatly strengthen the theoretical predictions, and already, analyses using combined data from the CMB, large scale structure, and supernovae data suggests that the correct value of the relic density lies in a relatively narrow band in the center of the region of Eq. (3). We will here, however, use the conservative range given in Eq. (3).

## 2 Theoretical Analysis

In order to get accurate predictions of the maximum and minimum cross sections for a given model, it is necessary to include a number of theoretical corrections. We list here the main ones: (i) In relating the theory at $`M_G`$ to phenomena at the electroweak scale, the two loop gauge and one loop Yukawa renormalization group equations (RGE) are used, iterating to get a consistent SUSY spectrum. (ii) QCD RGE corrections are further included below the SUSY breaking scale for contributions involving light quarks. (iii) A careful analysis of the light Higgs mass $`m_h`$ is necessary (including two loop and pole mass corrections) as the current LEP limits impact sensitively on the relic density analysis. (iv) L-R mixing terms are included in the sfermion (mass)2 matrices since they produce important effects for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the third generation. (v) One loop corrections are included to $`m_b`$ and $`m_\tau `$ which are again important for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. (vi) The experimental bounds on the $`bs\gamma `$ decay put significant constraints on the SUSY parameter space and theoretical calculations here include the leading order (LO) and NLO corrections. We have not in the following imposed $`b\tau `$ (or $`tb\tau `$) Yukawa unification or proton decay constraints as these depend sensitively on unknown post-GUT physics. For example, such constraints do not naturally occur in the string models where $`SU(5)`$ (or $`SO(10)`$) gauge symmetry is broken by Wilson lines at $`M_G`$ (even though grand unification of the gauge coupling constants at $`M_G`$ for such string models is still required).

All of the above corrections are now under theoretical control. In particular, the $`bs\gamma `$ SUSY NLO corrections for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ have recently been calculated . We find that the NLO corrections give significant contributions for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for $`\mu >`$0. (We use here Isajet sign conventions for the $`\mu `$ parameter.) There have been a number of calculations of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ given in the literature , and we find we are in general numerical agreement in those regions of parameter space where the authors have taken into account the above corrections.

Accelerator bounds significantly limit the SUSY parameter space. As pointed out in , the LEP bounds on the Higgs mass has begun to make a significant impact on dark matter analyses. Since at this time it is unclear whether the recently observed LEP events  represent a Higgs discovery, we will use here the current LEP lower bound of 114 GeV . There are still some remaining errors in the theoretical calculation of the Higgs mass, however, as well as uncertainty in the $`t`$-quark mass, and so we will conservatively assume here for the light Higgs ($`h`$) that $`m_h>110`$ GeV for all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. (For the MSSM, the Higgs mass constraint is significant only for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}9`$ (see e.g. Igo-Kemenes) as $`Ah`$ production with $`m_Am_Z`$ can be confused with $`Zh`$ production. However, in GUT models radiative breaking eliminates such regions of parameter space and the LEP constraint operates for all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.) LEP data also produces a bound on the lightest chargino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$) of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }>102`$ GeV . For $`bs\gamma `$ we assume an allowed range of $`2\sigma `$ from the CLEO data :

$$1.8\times 10^4B(BX_s\gamma )4.5\times 10^4$$
(4)
The Tevatron gives a bound of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}270`$ GeV( for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$).

Theory allows one to calculate the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$-quark cross section and we follow the analysis of  to convert this to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p`$ scattering. For this one needs the $`\pi N`$ sigma term,

$$\sigma _{\pi N}=\frac{1}{2}(m_u+m_d)p|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d|p,$$
(5)
$`\sigma _0=\sigma _{\pi N}(m_u+m_d)p|\overline{s}s|p`$ and the quark mass ratio $`r=m_s/(1/2)(m_u+m_d)`$. We use here $`\sigma _0=30`$ MeV , and $`r=24.4\pm 1.5`$. Recent analyses, based on new $`\pi N`$ scattering data gives $`\sigma _{\pi N}65`$ MeV. Older $`\pi N`$ data gave $`\sigma _{\pi N}45`$ MeV. We will use in most of the analysis below the larger number. If the smaller number is used, it would have the overall effect in most of the parameter space of reducing $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p`$ by about a factor of 3. However, in the special situation for $`\mu <`$0, where there is a cancellation of matrix elements, the choice of $`\sigma _{\pi N}`$ produces a more subtle effect, and we will exhibit there results from both values.

## 3 mSUGRA model

We consider first the mSUGRA model where the most complete analysis has been done. mSUGRA depends on four parameters and one sign: $`m_0`$ (universal scalar mass at $`M_G`$), $`m_{1/2}`$ (universal gaugino mass at $`M_G`$), $`A_0`$ (universal cubic soft breaking mass), $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_2/H_1`$ (where $`H_{(2,1)}`$ gives rise to (up, down) quark masses) and $`\mu /|\mu |`$ (where $`\mu `$ is the Higgs mixing parameter in the superpotential, $`W_\mu =\mu H_1H_2`$). One conventionally restricts the range of these parameters by “naturalness” conditions and in the following we assume $`m_01`$ TeV, $`m_{1/2}1`$ TeV (corresponding to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}2.5`$ TeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}400`$ GeV), $`|A_0/m_{1/2}|4`$, and 2$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ 50. Large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is of interest since SO(10) models imply $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$ and also $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ increases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ decreases with $`m_{1/2}`$ for large $`m_{1/2}`$.

The maximum value of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ arises then for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and small $`m_{1/2}`$. This can be seen in Fig.1 where ($`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$)max is plotted vs. $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$=20, 30, 40 and 50. Fig. 2 shows $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ when the cross section takes on its maximum value. Current detectors obeying Eq (1) are then sampling the parameter space for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, small $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and small $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2`$ i.e

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}25,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{<}{}90\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}h^2\stackrel{<}{}0.1$$
(6)
Further, as can be seen from Fig. 3, $`m_h`$ does indeed exceed the current LEP bound over this entire region.

As discussed in , coannihilation effects in the early universe can significantly influence the relic density calculation. To discuss the minimum cross section, it is convenient then to consider first $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{<}{}150`$ GeV ($`m_{1/2}350`$) where no coannihilation occurs. The minimum cross section occurs for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. From Fig.4 one sees

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}\stackrel{>}{}1\times 10^9\mathrm{pb};m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{<}{}140\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V};\mathrm{tan}\beta =6$$
(7)
which would be accessible to detectors that are currently being planned (e.g. GENIUS).

For larger $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, i.e. $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}350`$ the phenomena of coannihilation can occur in the relic density analysis since the light stau, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$, (and also $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$) can become degenerate with the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. The relic density constraint can then be satisfied in narrow corridor of $`m_0`$ of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_0\stackrel{<}{}25`$ GeV, the value of $`m_0`$ increasing as $`m_{1/2}`$ increases and this was examined for low and intermediate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in . Since $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ increase as one progresses up the corridor, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ will generally decrease.

We consider first the case of $`\mu >`$ 0 . Coannihilation effects generally begin for $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}400`$ GeV ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{>}{}160`$ GeV), and it is of interest to see what occurs for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, there is only a coannihilation region left in the parameter space, and the allowed regions, exhibiting the allowed narrow corridors of parameter space are shown in Fig. 5 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$. In this domain the lightest stau ($`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$) is the lightest slepton due to the large L-R mixing in the (mass2) matrix, and so dominates the conanihilation effects. We note that the allowed corridors are sensitive to $`A_0`$, and large $`A_0`$ can allow large $`m_0`$ as $`m_{1/2}`$ increases. The thickness of the allowed corridors also decrease as $`A_0`$ increases. There is also a lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ for the allowed regions due to the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint, this bound decreasing with increasing $`A_0`$. (We note that this lower bound is sensitive to the NLO corrections discussed in Sec. 2 above.)

Since larger $`A_0`$ allows for larger $`m_0`$ in the coannihilation region, the scattering cross section is a decreasing function of $`A_0`$. This is shown in Fig. 6 where $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ is plotted as a function of $`m_{1/2}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ and $`A_0=`$ $`2m_{1/2}`$, $`4m_{1/2}`$.

We consider next $`\mu <`$ 0. As discussed in , for low and intermediate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, an accidental cancellation can occur in the heavy and light Higgs amplitudes in the coannihilation region which can greatly reduce $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$. We investigate here what happens at larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and what is the domain over which this cancellation occurs. In Fig. 7 we have plotted $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ in the large $`m_{1/2}`$ region, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6`$ (short dash), 10(solid), 20(dot-dash), and 25(dashed). One sees that the cross section dips sharply for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, reaching a minimum at $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{}{=}`$725 GeV, and then rises. Similarly, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$, the minimum occurs at $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{}{=}`$ 830 GeV while for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =25`$ at $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{}{=}`$ 950 GeV. As a consequence, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ will fall below the sensitivity of planned future detectors for $`m_{1/2}>`$450 GeV in a restricted region of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, i.e.

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}<1\times 10^{10}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}450}\mathrm{GeV}<m_{1/2}<1\mathrm{TeV};\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}30;\mu <0.$$
(8)
At the minima, the cross sections can become quite small, e.g. $`1\times 10^{13}`$pb, without major fine tuning of parameters, corresponding to almost total cancellation. Further, the widths of the minima at fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are fairly broad. While in this domain proposed detectors would not be able to observe Milky Way wimps, mSUGRA would imply that the squarks and gluinos then would lie above 1 TeV, but at masses that would still be accesible to the LHC. Also mSUGRA implies that this phenomena can occur only in a restricted range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and for $`\mu <`$0, so there would still be a number of cross checks of the theory.

In Sec. 2 it was pointed out that there was considerable uncertainty in the properties of the nucleon, particularly in the value of the $`\sigma _{\pi N}`$. In the above curves we have used $`\sigma _{\pi N}=`$65 MeV. Fig. 8 gives a comparison for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ of this choice (solid curve) with the parameters of  (dashed curve) where $`\sigma _{\pi N}=`$45 MeV is used. One sees that the position of the minimum at $`m_{1/2}=`$ 725 GeV is shifted to 600 GeV, with similar shifts occuring for the other values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Thus the cancellations ocurring in this region are quite sensitive to the properties of the proton.

## 4 Nonuniversal SUGRA Models

In most discussions of SUGRA models with nonuniversal soft breaking terms, the universality of the the soft breaking masses at $`M_G`$ of the first two generations of squarks and sleptons is maintained to suppress flavor changing neutral currents. However, one may allow both the Higgs masses and the third generation squark and slepton masses to become nonuniversal at $`M_G`$. One can parameterize this situation at $`M_G`$ as follows:

$`m_{H_1}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2(1+\delta _1);m_{H_2}^{2}=m_0^2(1+\delta _2);`$ (9)
$`m_{q_L}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2(1+\delta _3);m_{t_R}^{2}=m_0^2(1+\delta _4);m_{\tau _R}^{2}=m_0^2(1+\delta _5);`$
$`m_{b_R}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2(1+\delta _6);m_{l_L}^{2}=m_0^2(1+\delta _7).`$
where $`q_L(\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{b}_L)`$ squarks, $`l_L(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau ,\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L)`$ sleptons, etc. and $`m_0`$ is the universal mass for the first two generations of squarks and sleptons. The $`\delta _i`$ are the deviations from universality (and if one were to impose SU(5) or SO(10) symmetry one would have $`\delta _3`$=$`\delta _4`$= $`\delta _5`$, and $`\delta _6`$=$`\delta _7`$.) In the following we limit the $`\delta _i`$ to obey:

$$1\delta _i+1$$
(10)
and maintain gauge coupling constant unification and gaugino mass unification at $`M_G`$.

While there are a large numbers of new parameters, one can get an understanding of what effect they produce from the following. The neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is a mixture of gaugino (mostly Bino) and higgsino parts:

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0=\alpha \stackrel{~}{W}_3+\beta \stackrel{~}{B}+\gamma \stackrel{~}{H}_1+\delta \stackrel{~}{H}_2$$
(11)
The dominant spin independent $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ cross section is proportional to the interference between the gaugino and higgino amplitudes, and this interference is largely governed by the size of $`\mu ^2`$. As $`\mu ^2`$ decreases, the interference increases, and hence $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ increases. Radiative breaking of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ determines the value of $`\mu ^2`$ at the electroweak scale. To see the general nature of the effects of nonuniverality, we consider low and intermediate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ where an analytic form exists for $`\mu ^2`$ (see e.g. Arnowitt and Nath ):

$`\mu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{t^21}}[({\displaystyle \frac{13D_0}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1D_0}{2}}(\delta _3+\delta _4)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+D_0}{2}}(\delta _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _1}{t^2}})]m_0^2+\mathrm{universal}\mathrm{parts}+\mathrm{loop}\mathrm{corrections}.`$
Here $`t=\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`D_01(m_t/200\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\mathrm{sin}\beta )^20.2`$ (Note that the Higgs and squark nonuniversalties enter coherrently, roughly in the combination $`\delta _3+\delta _4\delta _2`$.) We see from Eq.(12) that $`\mu ^2`$ is reduced, and hence $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ increased for $`\delta _3`$, $`\delta _4`$, $`\delta _1<0`$, $`\delta _2>0`$, and $`\mu ^2`$ is increased for $`\delta _3`$, $`\delta _4`$, $`\delta _1>0`$, $`\delta _2<0`$. Thus one can get significantly larger cross sections in the nonuniversal models with the first choice of signs for the $`\delta _i`$, and one can reduce the cross sections (though not by such a large amount) with the second choice. In general this would allow one to significantly lower the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from the rquirement of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}25`$ for mSUGRA to come within the range of current detectors. The matter is complicated, however, by the experimental Higgs mass constraint (that $`m_h>110`$) since theoretically the Higgs mass is small for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We find, however, that one can reduce $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to 7, and still maintain $`m_h>110`$ GeV. This is exhibited in Fig. 9, where the maximum cross section is plotted as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$. The nonuniversal cross sections can be a factor of 10 or more greater than the corresponding universal ones allowing for these much lower values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

As in mSUGRA, the minimum cross sections occur for the largest $`m_{1/2}`$ and smallest $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and so they occur in the coannihilation region. We consider here the case where only the Higgs masses are nonuniversal i.e. $`\delta _{1,2}0`$ (the other $`\delta _i`$ set to zero). Results then are similar to the mSUGRA case. For $`\mu >0`$ we find

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}\stackrel{>}{}0.3(1)\times 10^{10}\mathrm{pb};\mathrm{for}m_{1/2}1(0.6)\mathrm{TeV}$$
(13)
For $`\mu <`$0, one can again get a cancelation reducing the cross sections below $`1\times 10^{10}`$ pb for $`m_{1/2}>450`$ GeV. As in mSUGRA these can produce sharp minima in the cross sections in the region $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =`$10-25.

## 5 D-Brane Models

Recent advances in string theory has stimulated again the building of string inspired models. We consider here models based on Type $`IIB`$ orientifolds where the full $`D=10`$ space was compactified on a six torus $`T^6`$ . These models can contain 9-branes and 5-branes which can be used to embed the Standard Model. We consider here a model in which $`SU(3)_C\times U(1)_Y`$ is associated with one set of 5-branes, $`5_1`$ and $`SU(2)_L`$ is associated with a second intersecting set $`5_2`$ . Strings beginning and ending on $`5_1`$ will have massless modes carrying the $`SU(3)_C\times U(1)_Y`$ quantum numbers (i.e. the R quarks and R leptons), while strings starting on $`5_2`$ and ending on $`5_1`$ will have massless modes carrying the joint quantum numbers of the two branes (i.e. the quark, lepton and Higgs doublets). This then leads to the following soft breaking pattern at $`M_G`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_3=A_0=\sqrt{3}\mathrm{cos}\theta _b\mathrm{\Theta }_1e^{i\alpha _1}m_{3/2}`$ (14)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}\mathrm{cos}\theta _b(1\mathrm{\Theta }_1^2)^{1/2}m_{3/2}`$
where and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ are the gaugino masses, and

$`m_{12}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(13/2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _b)m_{3/2}^2\mathrm{for}q_L,l_L,H_1,H_2`$ (15)
$`m_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`(13\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _b)m_{3/2}^2\mathrm{for}u_R,d_R,e_R.`$
Thus the $`SU(2)`$ doublets are all degenerate at $`M_G`$ but are different from the singlets. We note Eq. (15) implies $`\theta _b<`$0.615

This model was initially studied to examine its CP violating properties. However, it was subsequently seen that the experimental constraint of the electron electric dipole moment led to a serious fine tuning problem at $`M_G`$ unless $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}35`$ . Since we are interested here in larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, we will set the CP violating phases to zero.

In general, Eq (15) shows that $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ is an increasing function of $`\theta _b`$ since the squark and slepton masses decrease with increasing $`\theta _b`$. Thus the maximum cross sections will arise from large $`\theta _b`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This is illustrated in Fig. 10, where $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ is plotted as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ for $`\mu >0`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =`$20, and $`\theta _b=0.2`$. Thus we see that current detectors obeying the bound of Eq. (1) are sampling the parameter space for

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}20$$
(16)
We note that when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is close to its minimum value, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is also close to it’s current LEP bound of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}>`$37 GeV .

The minimum value of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ will occur at low $`\theta _b`$, low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and large $`m_{3/2}`$ (i.e. large $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$). In the large $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ region, coannihilation can occur between the sleptons and the neutralino in a fashion similar to the SUGRA models, with the effective slepton $`m_0`$ parameter and effective neutralino $`m_{1/2}`$ parameter being given by

$`m_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`(13\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _b)m_{3/2}^2`$ (17)
$`m_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}\mathrm{cos}\theta _b\mathrm{\Theta }_1m_{3/2}`$
Fig. 11 exhibits the minimum cross section for $`\mu >0`$ as a function of the neutralino mass. One sees that

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}\stackrel{>}{}1\times 10^9\mathrm{pb}\mathrm{for}\mu >0$$
(18)
which is accessible to planned detectors. We note also that coannihilation is possible between the light chargino and neutralino. However, this occurs for only a very small region of parameter space.

As in mSUGRA, a cancellation of matrix elements can occur for $`\mu <0`$, allowing for the cross sections to fall below the sensitivities of planned future detectors. This is exhibited in Fig. 12, where $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ is plotted for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6`$ (solid curve), 12 (dot-dash curve), and 20 (dashed curve). (The $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6`$ curve terminates at low $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ due to the $`m_h`$ constraint, while the higher $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ curves terminate at low $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ due to the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint. The upper bound on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, corresponding to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}<`$1 TeV, arises from the $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2`$ constraint.) One sees that the cross section goes through a minimum at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{}{=}12`$, though the expected rise at higher $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ does not appear since the parameter space terminates before this sets in.

## 6 Conclusions

We have examined here the neutralino proton cross section for a number of models possesing grand unification of the gauge coupling constants at $`M_G\stackrel{}{=}2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. The mSUGRA model possesses universal supersymmetry soft breaking masses. In the nonuniversal models, this universality is maintained for the first two generations of squarks and sleptons and for the gaugino masses, but relaxed for the third generation and the Higgs scalar masses. In the D-brane models, universality is violated for both squark and slepton masses at $`M_G`$ as well as for gaugino masses. Thus each model has a different pattern of soft breaking. Our analysis here also includes the recent experimental bounds on the Higgs mass of $`m_h>114`$ GeV  (which for GUT models holds for all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$), and the recent theoretical determination of the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ corrections to the NLO $`bs\gamma `$ decay , both of which produce significant effects on limiting the SUSY parameter space. Despite the physical differences between the different models, the general picture resulting is somewhat similar. Thus current detectors obeying Eq(1) are sensitive to significant parts of the parameter space. For mSUGRA they are sampling the regions where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}25`$. The nonuniversal models can have cross sections a factor of 10 or larger (with an appropriate choice of nonuniversalities) and so can sample the parameter space with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}7`$. The D-brane models require $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}`$ 20.

Coannihilation effects play a crucial role for large $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ in all the models, and for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, they are sensitive to the value of $`A_0`$. Large $`A_0`$ leads to coannihilation corridors where $`m_0`$ can get quite large, thus lowering the value of the $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}`$ cross section. For $`\mu >0`$, the cross sections will generally still be accessible to planned future detectors obeying Eq. (2), i.e.

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}\stackrel{>}{}1\times 10^{10}\mathrm{pb}\mathrm{for}m_{1/2}<1\mathrm{TeV},\mu >0$$
(19)
However, in all models, a special cancellation of the Higgs amplitudes can occur for $`\mu <0`$ allowing the cross section to fall below the above bound when $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{>}{}450`$ GeV. For mSUGRA, these cancellations produce minima where the cross section essentially vanishes for a range of $`m_{1/2}`$ when $`8\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}30`$, for $`m_{1/2}<1`$ TeV (see Fig.7) with similar results holding for the nonuniversal models. The cancellations for the D-brane models occur for $`10\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}15`$. We note that at fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the cancellations can occur over a wide range of $`m_{1/2}`$, e.g. for mSUGRA $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0p}<10^{10}`$ pb for $`400\mathrm{GeV}m_{1/2}1\mathrm{TeV}`$ . In such regions of parameter space, dark matter detectors would not be able to observe Milky Way dark matter. However, these regions of parameter space would imply that gluinos and squarks lie above 1 TeV, but still should be accessible to the LHC if the parameter space is bounded by $`m_{1/2}<1`$ TeV. Thus other experimental consequences of the models would be observable.


text:
# MODELING FLARES PRODUCED IN BLAZARS

## 1 The Model

In our model we adopt the shock-in-jet scenario, in which individual flares are produced by shocks formed due to velocity irregularities in the beam and traveling down the jet with relativistic speeds.

The model assumptions are as follows:

* non-thermal plasma producing flares is enclosed within thin shells, each with a radial comoving width, $`\lambda ^{}`$, much smaller than its cross-sectional radius $`a`$;
* shells propagate down the conical jet with a constant Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$;
* magnetic fields, carried by the beam, scale with distance as $`B^{}1/r`$;
* both magnetic field intensity and particle distribution are uniform across the shell;
* relativistic electrons/positrons are injected into the shell within a finite distance range $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{inj}`$ and with injection starting at $`r_0`$, at a rate parameterized by $`Q=K\gamma ^p`$ for $`\gamma _m<\gamma <\gamma _{max}`$, and $`Q\gamma ^1`$ for $`\gamma <\gamma _m`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the random Lorentz factor of an electron/positron;
* radiative energy losses of relativistic electrons/positrons are dominated by three processes: external-radiation Comptonization (ERC):

$$\left(\frac{d\gamma }{dt^{}}\right)_{ERC}=\frac{16\sigma _T}{9m_ec}(u_{BEL}+u_{IR})\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\gamma ^2,$$
(1)
synchrotron radiation :

$$\left(\frac{d\gamma }{dt^{}}\right)_{SYN}=\frac{4\sigma _T}{3m_ec}u_B^{}\gamma ^2,$$
(2)
and Comptonization of synchrotron radiation :

$$\left(\frac{d\gamma }{dt^{}}\right)_{SSC}=\frac{4\sigma _T}{3m_ec}u_S^{}\gamma ^2,$$
(3)
where $`u_B^{}=B^2/8\pi `$ is the magnetic field energy density, $`u_S^{}`$ is the energy density of the synchrotron radiation field, $`u_{BEL}`$ $``$ $`(L_{BEL}/\mathrm{ln}r)/4\pi r^2c`$ is the energy density of the broad emission line field at the actual distance of a source/shell propagating downstream a jet, $`u_{IR}\xi _{IR}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\sigma _{SB}T^4/c`$ is the energy density of the infrared radiation field, $`\xi _{IR}`$ is the fraction of the central radiation reprocessed into near infrared by dust, and $`T`$ is the temperature of dust.
* the observer is located at an angle $`\theta _{obs}=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the jet axis.
* evolution of electrons is described by a continuity equation (Moderski et al. 2000; Błażejowski et al. 2000)

$$\frac{N_\gamma }{r}=\frac{}{\gamma }\left(N_\gamma \frac{d\gamma }{dr}\right)+\frac{Q}{c\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(4)
where the rate of electron/positron energy losses is

$$\frac{d\gamma }{dr}=\frac{1}{\beta c\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(\frac{d\gamma }{dt^{}}\right)_{rad}\frac{\gamma }{r},$$
(5)
$`\beta =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^21}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`dr=\beta c\mathrm{\Gamma }dt^{}`$. The second term on the right-hand side of eq. (5) represents the adiabatic energy losses.

## 2 Adiabatic vs. Radiative losses

Here we compare the time profiles of flares produced by electrons radiating their energy in adiabatic ($`\gamma \gamma _c`$) and radiative ($`\gamma \gamma _c`$) regimes, where $`\gamma _c`$ is the energy of electrons for which the radiative cooling time scale is equal to the injection time scale. Presented flares are produced by the ERC process and all computations are made under assumption that this process strongly dominates the entire radiative losses. A comparison of two profiles in Fig. 1 illustrates that adiabatic flares decay much more slowly than radiative ones. This property of flares produced in the two regimes can be used to verify X-ray production mechanisms in blazars (see next section).

## 3 Confrontation with observations - 3C 279

3C 279 is among the best monitored blazars over a broad range of energies. In this section we use the simultaneous multi-wavelength observations carried out in February 1996 (Wehrle et al. 1998) to infer about the radiative processes operating in this object. The most interesting result of this campaign was the very close correspondence between the X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray light curves during the outburst. There was no evidence of any significant time lag between the peaks; furthermore, both curves decayed at the same rate. The above facts suggest the following scenario: X-rays are produced via SSC the process and $`\gamma `$-rays by ERC (see Fig. 2 for details). We can definitely exclude a model where both energy bands are produced by the ERC process alone. This is due to the fact that the production of X-rays by ERC involves low energy electrons, which radiate in the adiabatic regime. As was shown in previous section, adiabatic flares decay much more slowly than radiative ones. Thus, the observed $`\gamma `$-ray – X-ray correlation excludes the production of X-rays by the ERC process, unless the decay rate is determined by the decelaration of the shell and/or a change in its direction of motion.

## 4 The MeV Break-predictions vs. observations

In previous sections it was assumed that the break in the electron injection function, $`\gamma _m`$, is located at lower energies than the break caused by inefficient radiative cooling of electrons with $`\gamma <\gamma _c`$. With this assumption, the characteristic break of the high energy spectra in the 1–30 MeV range is related to the break of the electron energy distribution at $`\gamma _c`$. As was discussed by Sikora (1997), such an interpretation of the MeV break is consistent with the observed flare time scales. Assuming that the distance of flare production is of the order $`r_{fl}ct_{fl}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, one can find that flares lasting $``$days are produced at distances $`10^{17}10^{18}`$cm, and that at such distances ERC radiation is inefficient at $`h\nu <130`$ MeV.

However, the time resolution of recent high-energy experiments is not good enough to reject the possibility that the observed flares are superpositions of several shorter-lasting flares, which are produced much closer to the central engine than the $`1`$day variability time scales may suggest. Due to the stronger magnetic and external radiation fields at smaller distances, the value of $`\gamma _c`$ would be lower and the break would appear at $`h\nu 1`$ MeV. In order to explain the observed MeV breaks, one would then have to assume that this break is related to the break in the electron injection function. There are two ways to distinguish between these possibilities, either by studying spectral slopes, or by studying flare profiles, both below and above the MeV break. The first approach is based on the fact that for $`\gamma _m<\gamma _c`$, the slope of the radiation spectrum produced by electrons with $`\gamma _m\gamma \gamma _c`$ should be harder by $`\delta \alpha =0.5`$ than the slope of the radiation spectrum produced by electrons with $`\gamma \gamma _c`$. But in the case $`\gamma _c<\gamma _m`$, the slope of the radiation spectrum produced by electrons with $`\gamma _c\gamma \gamma _m`$ is predicted to be $`\alpha =0.5`$, independent of the spectral slope produced at $`\nu \nu (\gamma _m)`$ (see, e.g., Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998). The second approach, proposed in this paper, uses the fact that adiabatic flares decay much more slowly than radiative ones (see Fig. 2). Thus, in the case $`\gamma _m<\gamma _c`$, the flares observed in OVV/HP quasars at sub-MeV energies should decay much more slowly than in the case $`\gamma _c<\gamma _m`$. Our predictions are presented for the model, for which $`u_{BEL}=const`$. One can see that the higher the energy, the more rapidly the flare peaks (Fig. 3 – lower panels). Please note that this numerical result is qualitatively consistent with observations presented by Zhang et al. 2000 (these proceedings). These authors present simultaneous observations of flaring blazar PKS 1622-297 showing the pronounced time lag between flare detected by EGRET ($`E>100`$ MeV) and COMPTEL (10-30 MeV). Observations indicate a time delay of about 4 days between the two bands.