text:
# SEARCHING FOR SUPERSYMMETRIC DARK MATTER. THE DIRECTIONAL RATE AND THE MODULATION EFFECT DUE TO CAUSTIC RINGS .

## I Introduction

In recent years the consideration of exotic dark matter has become necessary in order to close the Universe , . Furthermore in in order to understand the large scale structure of the universe it has become necessary to consider matter made up of particles which were non-relativistic at the time of freeze out. This is the cold dark matter component (CDM). The COBE data  suggest that CDM is at least $`60\%`$ . On the other hand during the last few years evidence has appeared from two different teams, the High-z Supernova Search Team  and the Supernova Cosmology Project  ,  which suggests that the Universe may be dominated by the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$r. As a matter of fact recent data the situation can be adequately described by a barionic component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.1`$ along with the exotic components $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6`$. In another analysis Turner  gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}+\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.4`$. Since the non exotic component cannot exceed $`40\%`$ of the CDM , , there is room for the exotic WIMP’s (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). In fact the DAMA experiment  has claimed the observation of one signal in direct detection of a WIMP, which with better statistics has subsequently been interpreted as a modulation signal .

The above developments are in line with particle physics considerations. Thus, in the currently favored supersymmetric (SUSY) extensions of the standard model, the most natural WIMP candidate is the LSP, i.e. the lightest supersymmetric particle. In the most favored scenarios the LSP can be simply described as a Majorana fermion, a linear combination of the neutral components of the gauginos and Higgsinos , -.

Since this particle is expected to be very massive, $`m_\chi 30GeV`$, and extremely non relativistic with average kinetic energy $`T100KeV`$, it can be directly detected - mainly via the recoiling of a nucleus (A,Z) in the elastic scattering process:

$$\chi +(A,Z)\chi +(A,Z)^{}$$
(1)
($`\chi `$ denotes the LSP). In order to compute the event rate needs the following ingredients:

1) An effective Lagrangian at the quark level in the context of supersymmetry as described in Refs. , Bottino et al.  and .

2) A a quark model for the nucleon, needed in going from the quark to the nucleon level, since the obtained results are sensitive to the presence of quarks other than u and d .

3) Compute the differential cross sections using as reliable as possible many body nuclear wave functions. -.

The obtained rates sensitively depend on the input from the allowed SUSY parameter space. Since the expected rates are extremely low or even undetectable with present techniques, one would like to exploit the characteristic signatures provided by the reaction. Such are: a) The modulation effect, i.e the dependence of the event rate on the velocity of the Earth and b) The directional event rate, which depends on the velocity of the sun around the galaxy as well as the the velocity of the Earth. The latter effect, recognized sometime ago  has recently begun to appear feasible by the planned UKDMC experiment . We will study both of these effects in the present work.

In our previous letter and its subsequent expanded version  we found enhanced modulation, if one uses an appropriate asymmetric velocity distribution with enhanced dispersion in the galactocentric direction .

The isolated galaxies are, however, surrounded by cold dark matter , which, due to gravity, keeps falling continuously on them from all directions . As a result one has caustic rings with matter density, which depends on space and velocity.

It is the purpose of our present paper to exploit the results of such a scenario and calculate quantitavely the resulting modulation effect in the usual (differential and total ) rate for LSP-nucleus elastic scattering. We will also study the directional rates in the spirit of the recent work of Copi et al . For the reader’s convenience we will give a very brief description of the basic ingredients on how to calculate LSP-nucleus scattering cross section. We will not, however, elaborate on how one gets the needed parameters from supersymmetry. The calculation of these parameters has become pretty standard. One starts with representative input in the restricted SUSY parameter space as described in the literature, e.g. Bottino et al. , Kane et al. , Castano et al. and Arnowitt et al. .

After this we will specialize our study in the case of the nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{127}I`$, which is one of the most popular targets , ,. We will present our results a function of the LSP mass, $`m_\chi `$, in a way which can be easily understood by the experimentalists.

## II The Basic Ingredients for LSP Nucleus Scattering

Because of lack of space we are not going to elaborate here further on the construction of the effective Lagrangian derived from supersymmetry, but refer the reader to the literature . For the reader’s convenience we will summarize our previous  formulas related to the LSP-Nucleus cross section and the event rates. The effective Lagrangian can be obtained in first order via Higgs exchange, s-quark exchange and Z-exchange. In a formalism familiar from the theory of weak interactions we write

$$L_{eff}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\{(\overline{\chi }_1\gamma ^\lambda \gamma _5\chi _1)J_\lambda +(\overline{\chi }_1\chi _1)J\}$$
(2)
where

$$J_\lambda =\overline{N}\gamma _\lambda (f_V^0+f_V^1\tau _3+f_A^0\gamma _5+f_A^1\gamma _5\tau _3)N$$
(3)
and

$$J=\overline{N}(f_s^0+f_s^1\tau _3)N$$
(4)
We have neglected the uninteresting pseudoscalar and tensor currents. Note that, due to the Majorana nature of the LSP, $`\overline{\chi }_1\gamma ^\lambda \chi _1=0`$ (identically). The parameters $`f_V^0,f_V^1,f_A^0,f_A^1,f_S^0,f_S^1`$ depend on the SUSY model employed. In SUSY models derived from minimal SUGRA the allowed parameter space is characterized at the GUT scale by five parameters, two universal mass parameters, one for the scalars, $`m_0`$, and one for the fermions, $`m_{1/2}`$, as well as the parameters $`tan\beta `$, one of $`A_0`$ (or $`m_t^{pole}`$) and the sign of $`\mu `$ . Deviations from universality at the GUT scale have also been considered and found useful . We will not elaborate further on this point since the above parameters involving universal masses have already been computed in some models  and effects resulting from deviations from universality will be found elsewhere (see Arnowitt et al in Ref.  and Bottino et al in Ref. ). For some choices in the allowed parameter space the obtained couplings can be found in a previous paper .

With the above ingredients the differential cross section can be cast in the form

$$d\sigma (u,\upsilon )=\frac{du}{2(\mu _rb\upsilon )^2}[(\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_V\frac{\upsilon ^2}{<\upsilon ^2>})F^2(u)+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{spin}F_{11}(u)]$$
(5)
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S=\sigma _0(\frac{\mu _r}{m_N})^2\{A^2[(f_S^0f_S^1\frac{A2Z}{A})^2]\sigma _{p,\chi ^0}^SA^2(\frac{\mu _r}{\mu _r(N)})^2$$
(6)
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{spin}=\sigma _{p,\chi ^0}^{spin}\zeta _{spin}$$
(7)
$$\zeta _{spin}=\frac{(\mu _r/\mu _r(N))^2}{3(1+\frac{f_A^0}{f_A^1})^2}[(\frac{f_A^0}{f_A^1}\mathrm{\Omega }_0(0))^2\frac{F_{00}(u)}{F_{11}(u)}+2\frac{f_A^0}{f_A^1}\mathrm{\Omega }_0(0)\mathrm{\Omega }_1(0)\frac{F_{01}(u)}{F_{11}(u)}+\mathrm{\Omega }_1(0))^2]$$
(8)
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_V=\sigma _{p,\chi ^0}^V\zeta _V$$
(9)
$$\zeta _V=\frac{(\mu _r/\mu _r(N))^2}{(1+\frac{f_V^1}{f_V^0})^2}A^2(1\frac{f_V^1}{f_V^0}\frac{A2Z}{A})^2\frac{<\upsilon ^2>}{c^2}[1\frac{1}{(2\mu _rb)^2}\frac{2\eta +1}{(1+\eta )^2}\frac{2u}{\upsilon ^2}]$$
(10)
$`\sigma _{p,\chi ^0}^i=`$ proton cross-section,$`i=S,spin,V`$ given by:
$`\sigma _{p,\chi ^0}^S=\sigma _0(f_S^0)^2`$ (scalar) , (the isovector scalar is negligible, i.e. $`\sigma _p^S=\sigma _n^S)`$
$`\sigma _{p,\chi ^0}^{spin}=\sigma _03(f_A^0+f_A^1)^2`$ (spin) , $`\sigma _{p,\chi ^0}^V=\sigma _0(f_V^0+f_V^1)^2`$ (vector)
where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass, $`\eta =m_x/m_NA`$, $`\mu _r`$ is the LSP-nucleus reduced mass , $`\mu _r(N)`$ is the LSP-nucleon reduced mass and

$$\sigma _0=\frac{1}{2\pi }(G_Fm_N)^20.77\times 10^{38}cm^2$$
(11)
with

$$u=q^2b^2/2orQ=Q_0u,Q_0=\frac{1}{Am_Nb^2}$$
(12)
where b is (the harmonic oscillator) size parameter, q is the momentum transfer and Q is the energy transfer to the nucleus
In the above expressions $`F(u)`$ is the nuclear form factor and

$$F_{\rho \rho ^{}}(u)=\underset{\lambda ,\kappa }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho ^{(\lambda ,\kappa )}(u)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho (0)}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho ^{}^{(\lambda ,\kappa )}(u)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\rho ^{}(0)},\rho ,\rho ^{}=0,1$$
(13)
are the spin form factors  ($`\rho ,\rho ^{^{}}`$ are isospin indices) Both form factors are normalized to one at $`u=0`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$) are the static isoscalar (isovector) spin matrix elements.

The non-directional event rate is given by:

$$R=R_{nondir}=\frac{dN}{dt}=\frac{\rho (0)}{m_\chi }\frac{m}{Am_N}\sigma (u,\upsilon )|\upsilon |$$
(14)
Where $`\rho (0)=0.3GeV/cm^3`$ is the LSP density in our vicinity and m is the detector mass

The differential non-directional rate can be written as

$$dR=dR_{nondir}=\frac{\rho (0)}{m_\chi }\frac{m}{Am_N}d\sigma (u,\upsilon )|\upsilon |$$
(15)
where $`d\sigma (u,\upsilon )`$ was given above.

The directional differential rate  in the direction $`\widehat{e}`$ is given by :

$$dR_{dir}=\frac{\rho (0)}{m_\chi }\frac{m}{Am_N}\upsilon .\widehat{e}H(\upsilon .\widehat{e})\frac{1}{2\pi }d\sigma (u,\upsilon )$$
(16)
where H the Heaviside step function. The factor of $`1/2\pi `$ is introduced, since the differential cross section of the last equation is the same with that entering the non-directional rate, i.e. after an integration over the azimuthal angle around the nuclear momentum has been performed. In other words, crudely speaking, $`1/(2\pi )`$ is the suppression factor we expect in the directional rate compared to the usual one. The precise suppression factor depends, of course, on the direction of observation.

## III Convolution of the Event Rate

We have seen that the event rate for LSP-nucleus scattering depends on the relative LSP-target velocity. In this section we will examine the consequences of the earth’s revolution around the sun (the effect of its rotation around its axis is expected to be negligible) i.e. the modulation effect. In the past this has been accomplished by assuming a consistent LSP velocity dispersion, such as a Maxwell distribution  or asymmetric velocity distribution with enhanced dispersion in the galactocentric direction . More recently other very interesting non-isothermal approaches have been proposed, which consider the in-fall of dark matter into the galaxy producing flows of caustic rings. In particular the predictions of a self-similar model have been put forward as a possible scenario for dark matter density-velocity distribution, see e.g. Sikivie et al . The implications of such distributions on the direct detection rates and, in particular, on the directional ones and the modulation effect are the subject of this work. Before proceeding furtyher we should mention that after our manuscript had been prepared another approach has been suggested, which links the distribution to the density profile via Eddigton’s formula .

Following Sikivie we will consider $`2\times N`$ caustic rings, (i,n) , i=(+.-) and n=1,2,…N (N=20 in the model of Sikivie et al), each of which contributes to the local density a fraction $`\overline{\rho }_n`$ of the of the summed density $`\overline{\rho }`$ of each of the $`i=+,`$. It contains WIMP like particles with velocity $`𝐲_n^{^{}}=(y_{nx}^{^{}},y_{ny}^{^{}},y_{nz}^{^{}})`$ in units of essentially the sun’s velocity ($`\upsilon _0=220Km/s`$), with respect to the galactic center. The z-axis is chosen in the direction of the disc’s rotation, i.e. in the direction of the motion of the the sun, the y-axis is perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy and the x-axis is in the radial direction. We caution the reader that these axes are traditionally indicated by astronomers as $`\widehat{e}_\varphi ,\widehat{e}_r,\widehat{e}_z)`$ respectively. The needed quantities are taken from the work of Sikivie et al  (see in TABLE I), via the definitions

$`y_n^{^{}}=\upsilon _n/\upsilon _0,y_{nz}^{^{}}=\upsilon _{n\varphi }/\upsilon _0=y_{nz},y_{nx}^{^{}}=\upsilon _{nr}/\upsilon _0=y_{nx},y_{ny}^{^{}}=\upsilon _{nz}/\upsilon _0=y_{ny},\rho _n=d_n/\overline{\rho },\overline{\rho }=_{n=1}^Nd_n`$ and $`y_n=[(y_{nz}1)^2+y_{ny}^2+y_{nx}^2]^{1/2}`$ (for each flow +.-). This leads to a velocity distribution of the form:

$$f(\upsilon ^{})=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta (\upsilon ^{^{}}\upsilon _0𝐲_n^{^{}})$$
(17)
Since the axis of the ecliptic  lies very close to the $`y,z`$ plane the velocity of the earth around the sun is given by

$$\upsilon _E=\upsilon _0+\upsilon _1=\upsilon _0+\upsilon _1(sin\alpha \widehat{𝐱}cos\alpha cos\gamma \widehat{𝐲}+cos\alpha sin\gamma \widehat{𝐳})$$
(18)
where $`\alpha `$ is the phase of the earth’s orbital motion, $`\alpha =2\pi (tt_1)/T_E`$, where $`t_1`$ is around second of June and $`T_E=1year`$.

One can now express the above distribution in the laboratory frame  by writing $`\upsilon ^{^{}}=\upsilon +\upsilon _E`$

## IV Expressions for the Differential Event Rate.

The mean value of the non-directional event rate of Eq. (15), is given by

$$<\frac{dR}{du}>=\frac{\rho (0)}{m_\chi }\frac{m}{Am_N}f(\upsilon ,\upsilon _E)|\upsilon |\frac{d\sigma (u,\upsilon )}{du}d^3\upsilon $$
(19)
The above expression can be more conveniently written as

$$<\frac{dR}{du}>=\frac{\rho (0)}{m_\chi }\frac{m}{Am_N}\sqrt{\upsilon ^2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{du}$$
(20)
where

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{du}=\frac{|\upsilon |}{\sqrt{\upsilon ^2}}f(\upsilon ,\upsilon _E)\frac{d\sigma (u,\upsilon )}{du}d^3\upsilon $$
(21)
There are now experiments under way aiming at measuring directional rates  using TPC counters which permit the observation of the recoiling nucleus is observed in a certain direction. From a theoretical point of view the directional rates have been previously discussed by Spergel  and Copi et al . The mean value of the directional differential event rate of Eq. (16), is defined by

$$<\frac{dR}{du}>_{dir}=\frac{\rho (0)}{m_\chi }\frac{m}{Am_N}\frac{1}{2\pi }f(\upsilon ,\upsilon _E)\upsilon .\widehat{e}H(\upsilon .\widehat{e})\frac{d\sigma (u,\upsilon )}{du}d^3\upsilon $$
(22)
where $`\widehat{𝐞}`$ is the unit vector in the direction of observation. It can also be more conveniently expressed as

$$<\frac{dR}{du}>_{dir}=\frac{\rho (0)}{m_\chi }\frac{m}{Am_N}\sqrt{\upsilon ^2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{du}_{dir}$$
(23)
where

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{du}_{dir}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\upsilon .\widehat{e}H(\upsilon .\widehat{e})}{\sqrt{\upsilon ^2}}f(\upsilon ,\upsilon _E)\frac{d\sigma (u,\upsilon )}{du}d^3\upsilon $$
(24)
It is clear that the rate will depend on the direction of observation, showing a strong correlation with the direction of the sun’s motion. In a favorable situation the rate will merely be suppressed by a factor of $`2\pi `$ relative to the non-directional rate. We will specialize our results in the case of caustic rings.

### A The Non-directional Differential Event Rate in the Case of caustic Rings

Eq. 21 takes the form

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{du}=\frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}a^2[\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S\overline{F}_0(u)+\frac{\upsilon ^2}{c^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_V\overline{F}_1(u)+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{spin}\overline{F}_{spin}(u)]$$
(25)
We remind the reader that $`\overline{\rho }`$ was obtain for each type of flow (+ or -), which explains the factor of two. In the Sikivie model  we have $`(2\overline{\rho }/\rho (0)1.0`$, i.e. the whole dark matter density lies in the form of caustic rings. In hybrid models, which contain in addition an isothermal component, it is only a fraction, since the sum of all densities should be $`\rho (0)`$.

The quantities $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i,i=S,V,spin`$ are given by Eqs. (6)- (9). The quantities $`\overline{F}_0,\overline{F}_1,\overline{F}_{spin}`$ are obtained from the corresponding form factors via the equations

$$\overline{F}_k(u)=F^2(u)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k(u)\frac{(1+k)}{2k+1},k=0,1$$
(26)
$$\overline{F}_{spin}(u)=F_{11}(u)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_0(u)$$
(27)
The functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k(u)`$ depend on the model. Introducing the parameter

$$\delta =\frac{2\upsilon _1}{\upsilon _0}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.27},$$
(28)
we find in the case of Sikivie model

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k(u)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{\rho }_n\stackrel{~}{y}_n^{2(k1)}\mathrm{\Theta }(\frac{\stackrel{~}{y}_n^2}{a^2}u)\stackrel{~}{y_n}$$
(29)
with

$$a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\mu _rb\upsilon _0}$$
(30)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{y_n}=[(y_{nz}1\frac{\delta }{2}sin\gamma cos\alpha )^2+(y_{ny}+\frac{\delta }{2}cos\gamma cos\alpha )^2+(y_{nx}\frac{\delta }{2}sin\alpha )^2]^{1/2}$$
(31)
The above expressions (25)-(27) depend not only on $`u`$, but on the phase of the Earth as well as in the angle $`\gamma \pi /2`$. If, however, in the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function we approxmate $`\stackrel{~}{y}_n`$ by $`y_n`$ given by

$$y_n=[(y_{nz}1))^2+y_{ny}^2+y_{nx}^2]^{1/2}$$
(32)
i.e. neglect threshold effects originating from the motion of the Earth, the obtained expressions can be simplified. In fact, if we then expand $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_k(u)`$ in the small parameter $`\delta `$ and keep terms up to linear in it, the dependence on the phase of the Earth can be seperated from the dependence on $`u`$. Thus, to an approximation which is valid to no worse than $`10\%`$ for all u, the non-directional differential rate takes the form

$$\frac{dR}{du}=\overline{R}\frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}tT(u)[1\mathrm{cos}\alpha H(u)]$$
(33)
where now $`T(u)`$ and $`H(u)`$ are now function of the variable $`u`$.

The last expression must be compared to that of isothermal models:

$$\frac{dR}{du}=\overline{R}\frac{\rho ^{^{}}(0)}{\rho (0)}tT(u)[1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha H(u)]$$
(34)
with $`\rho ^{^{}}(0)`$ being the density associated with the isothermal mode. In hybrid models it is less than $`\rho (0)`$. In the above expressions $`\overline{R}`$ is the rate obtained in the conventional approach  by neglecting the folding with the LSP velocity and the momentum transfer dependence of the differential cross section, i.e. by

$$\overline{R}=\frac{\rho (0)}{m_\chi }\frac{m}{Am_N}\sqrt{v^2}[\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_S+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{spin}+\frac{\upsilon ^2}{c^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_V]$$
(35)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i,i=S,V,spin`$ have been defined above, see Eqs (6) - (9).

The factor $`T(u)`$ takes care of the u-dependence of the unmodulated differential rate. It is defined so that

$$_{u_{min}}^{u_{max}}𝑑uT(u)=1.$$
(36)
i.e. it is the relative differential rate. $`u_{min}`$ is determined by the energy cutoff due to the performance of the detector,i.e

$$u_{min}=\frac{Q_{min}}{Q_0}$$
(37)
while $`u_{max}`$ is determined the via the relations:

$$u_{max}=min(\frac{y_{esc}^2}{a^2},max(\frac{y_n^2}{a^2}),n=1,2,\mathrm{},N)$$
(38)
On the other hand $`H(u)`$ gives the energy transfer dependent modulation amplitude (relative to the unmodulated amplitude). The quantity $`t`$ takes care of the modification of the total rate due to the nuclear form factor and the folding with the LSP velocity distribution. Since the functions $`\overline{F}_0(u),\overline{F}_1`$ and $`\overline{F}_{spin}`$ have a different dependence on u, the functions $`T(u)`$and $`H(u)`$ and $`t`$, in principle, depend somewhat on the SUSY parameters. If, however, we ignore the small vector contribution and assume (i) the scalar and axial (spin) dependence on u is the same, as seems to be the case for light systems ,, or (ii) only one mechanism (S, V, spin) dominates, the parameter $`\overline{R}`$ contains the dependence on all SUSY parameters. The parameters $`t`$ and $`T(u)`$ depend on the LSP mass and the nuclear parameters, while the $`H(u)`$ depends only on the parameter $`a`$. Eq. 21 takes the form

### B Expressions for the Directional Differential Event Rate

The model of Sikivie et al , which is not spherically symmetric, offers itself as a perfect example for the study of the directional rates. Working as in the previous section we get

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{du}_{dir}=\frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}\frac{a^2}{2\pi }[\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_SF_0(u)+\frac{\upsilon ^2}{c^2}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_VF_1(u)+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{spin}F_{spin}(u)]$$
(39)
where the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i,i=S,V,spin`$ are given by Eqs. (6)- (9). The quantities $`F_0,F_1,F_{spin}`$ are obtained from the equations

$$F_k(u)=F^2(u)\mathrm{\Psi }_k(u)\frac{(1+k)}{2k+1},k=0,1$$
(40)
$$F_{spin}(u)=F_{11}(u)\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)$$
(41)
In the Sikivie model we find

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_k(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\overline{\rho }_n\stackrel{~}{y}_n^{2(k1)}\mathrm{\Theta }({\displaystyle \frac{y_n^2}{a^2}}u)|(y_{nz}1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}sin\gamma cos\alpha )𝐞_z.𝐞`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`(y_{ny}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}cos\gamma cos\alpha )𝐞_y.𝐞+(y_{nx}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}sin\alpha )𝐞_x.𝐞|`$ (43)
In the model considered here the z-component of the LSP velocity, with respect to the galactic center, for some rings is smaller than the sun’s velocity, while for some others it is larger. The components in the y and the x directions are opposite for the + and - flows. So we will distinguish the following cases: a) $`\widehat{e}`$ has a component in the sun’s direction of motion, i.e. $`0<\theta <\pi /2`$, labeled by u (up). b) Detection in the direction specified by $`\pi /2<\theta <\pi `$, labeled by d (down). The differential directional rate takes a different form depending on which quadrant the observation is made. Thus, keeping terms up to linear in $`\delta `$, we find:

1. In the first quadrant (azimuthal angle $`0\varphi \pi /2)`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR^i}{du}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi }}T(u)[(R_z^i(u)\mathrm{cos}\alpha H_1^i(u))|𝐞_z.𝐞|`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`(R_y^i+cos\alpha H_2^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{H_c^i(u)}{2}}(|cos\alpha |+cos\alpha ))|𝐞_y.𝐞|`$ (45)
$`+`$ $`(R_x^isin\alpha H_3^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{H_s^i(u)}{2}}(|sin\alpha |sin\alpha ))|𝐞_x.𝐞|]`$ (46)
2. In the second quadrant (azimuthal angle $`\pi /2\varphi \pi )`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR^i}{du}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi }}T(u)[(R_z^i(u)\mathrm{cos}\alpha H_1^i(u))|𝐞_z.𝐞|`$ (47)
$`+`$ $`(R_y^i+cos\alpha H_2^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{H_c^i(u)}{2}}(|cos\alpha |cos\alpha ))|𝐞_y.𝐞|`$ (48)
$`+`$ $`(R_x^i+sin\alpha H_3^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{H_s^i(u)}{2}}(|sin\alpha |+sin\alpha ))|𝐞_x.𝐞|]`$ (49)
3. In the third quadrant (azimuthal angle $`\pi \varphi 3\pi /2)`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR^i}{du}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi }}T(u)[(R_z^i(u)\mathrm{cos}\alpha H_1^i(u))|𝐞_z.𝐞|`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`(R_y^icos\alpha H_2^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{H_c^i(u)}{2}}(|cos\alpha |cos\alpha ))|𝐞_y.𝐞|`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`(R_x^i+sin\alpha H_3^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{H_s^i(u)}{2}}(|sin\alpha |+sin\alpha ))|𝐞_x.𝐞|]`$ (52)
4. In the fourth quadrant (azimuthal angle $`3\pi /2\varphi 2\pi )`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR^i}{du}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi }}T(u)[(R_z^i(u)\mathrm{cos}\alpha H_1^i(u))|𝐞_z.𝐞|`$ (53)
$`+`$ $`(R_y^icos\alpha H_2^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{H_c^i(u)}{2}}(|cos\alpha |cos\alpha ))|𝐞_y.𝐞|`$ (54)
$`+`$ $`(R_x^isin\alpha H_3^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{H_s^i(u)}{2}}(|sin\alpha |sin\alpha ))|𝐞_x.𝐞|]`$ (55)
where $`i=u,d`$

By the reasoning given above, if one mechanism is dominant, the parameters $`R_x,R_y,R_z,H_1,H_2,H_3,H_c,H_s`$ for both directions $`u`$ and $`d`$ depend only on $`\mu _r`$ and $`a`$. They are all independent of the other SUSY parameters.

## V The Total Event Rates

We will distinguish two possibilities, namely the directional and the non directional case. Integrating Eq. (33) in the case of caustic rings we obtain for the total non directional rate

$$R=\overline{R}t\frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}[1h(a,Q_{min})cos\alpha )]$$
(56)
to be compared with the corresponding one for isothermal models:

$$R=\overline{R}t\frac{\overline{\rho }^{^{}}(0)}{\rho (0)}[1+h(a,Q_{min})cos\alpha )]$$
(57)
In the above expressions $`Q_{min}`$ is the energy transfer cutoff imposed by the detector. The modulation is described by the parameter $`h`$ only.

The effect of folding with LSP velocity on the total rate is taken into account via the quantity $`t`$. The SUSY parameters have been absorbed in $`\overline{R}`$. From our discussion in the case of differential rate it is clear that strictly speaking the quantities $`t`$ and $`h`$ also depend on the SUSY parameters. They do not depend on them, however, if one considers the scalar, spin etc. modes separately.

Let us now examine the directional rate. Integrating Eqs. (46) - (55) we obtain:

1. In the first quadrant (azimuthal angle $`0\varphi \pi /2)`$.

$`R_{dir}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi }}[(r_z^i\mathrm{cos}\alpha h_1^i)|𝐞_z.𝐞|`$ (58)
$`+`$ $`(r_y^i+cos\alpha h_2^i+{\displaystyle \frac{h_c^i}{2}}(|cos\alpha |+cos\alpha ))|𝐞_y.𝐞|`$ (59)
$`+`$ $`(r_x^isin\alpha h_3^i+{\displaystyle \frac{h_s^i}{2}}(|sin\alpha |sin\alpha ))|𝐞_x.𝐞|]`$ (60)
2. In the second quadrant (azimuthal angle $`\pi /2\varphi \pi )`$

$`R_{dir}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi }}[(r_z^i\mathrm{cos}\alpha h_1^i)|𝐞_z.𝐞|`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`(r_y^i+cos\alpha h_2^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{h_c^i}{2}}(|cos\alpha |cos\alpha ))|𝐞_y.𝐞|`$ (62)
$`+`$ $`(r_x^i+sin\alpha h_3^i+{\displaystyle \frac{h_s^i}{2}}(|sin\alpha |+sin\alpha ))|𝐞_x.𝐞|]`$ (63)
3. In the third quadrant (azimuthal angle $`\pi \varphi 3\pi /2)`$.

$`R_{dir}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi }}[(r_z^i\mathrm{cos}\alpha h_1^i)|𝐞_z.𝐞|`$ (64)
$`+`$ $`(r_y^icos\alpha h_2^i(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{h_c^i(u)}{2}}(|cos\alpha |cos\alpha ))|𝐞_y.𝐞|`$ (65)
$`+`$ $`(r_x^i+sin\alpha H_3^i+{\displaystyle \frac{h_s^i}{2}}(|sin\alpha |+sin\alpha ))|𝐞_x.𝐞|]`$ (66)
4. In the fourth quadrant (azimuthal angle $`3\pi /2\varphi 2\pi )`$

$`R_{dir}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{R}{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{\rho }}{\rho (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2\pi }}[(r_z^i\mathrm{cos}\alpha h_1^i)|𝐞_z.𝐞|`$ (67)
$`+`$ $`(r_y^icos\alpha h_2^i+{\displaystyle \frac{h_c^i}{2}}(|cos\alpha |cos\alpha ))|𝐞_y.𝐞|`$ (68)
$`+`$ $`(r_x^isin\alpha h_3^i+{\displaystyle \frac{h_s^i}{2}}(|sin\alpha |sin\alpha ))|𝐞_x.𝐞|]`$ (69)
## VI Discussion of the Results

We have calculated the differential as well as the total event rates (directional and non directional) for elastic LSP-nucleus scattering using realistic nuclear form factors. We focused our attention on those aspects of the problem, which do not depend on the parameters of supersymmetry other than the LSP mass. The parameter $`\overline{R}`$, normally calculated in SUSY theories, was not calculated in this work. The interested reader is referred to the literature  ,  and, in our notation, to our previous work  ,  ,.

We specialized our results for the target $`{}_{}{}^{127}I`$. We considered the effects of the detector energy cutoffs, by studying two typical cases $`Q_{min}=10,20`$ KeV. Only the coherent mode due to the scalar interaction was considered. The spin contribution will appear elsewhere.

Special attention was paid to the modulation effect due to the annual motion of the earth. We assumed that the LSP density in our vicinity and the velocity spectrum is that of caustic rings resulting from the self- similar model of Sikivie et al .

We will primarily concentrate on the total rates, which are described in terms of the quantities $`t,r_x^i,r_y^i,r_z^i`$ for the unmodulated amplitude and $`h,h_1^i,h_2^i,h_3^i,h_c^i,h_s^i`$ for the modulated one. In TABLE II we show how these quantities vary with the detector energy cutoff and the LSP mass. Of the above list only the quantities $`t`$ and $`h`$ enter the non directional rate. We notice that the usual modulation amplitude $`h`$ is small. The main reason is that there are cancelations among the various rings, since some rings are characterized by $`y_{nz}>1`$, while for some others $`y_{nz}<1`$ (see TABLE I). Such cancelations are less pronounced in the isothermal models. As expected, the parameter t, which contains the effect of the nuclear form factor and the LSP velocity dependence, decreases as the reduced mass increases.

We observe that the quantities $`h,r_j^i,h_j^i,i=u,d`$ and $`j=x,y,z,c,s`$, being the ratio of two amplitudes, are here essentially independent of the energy cutoff $`Q_{min}`$. On the other hand the quantity $`t`$ decreases after $`Q_{min}`$ is introduced, since an important part of the phase space is excluded.

We notice that, unlike the isothermal models, the maximum of modulation occurs around the 2nd of December, something already noticed by Sikivie et al .

Let us now examine the differential rates. We will begin with non-directional one, which is described in terms of the functions $`T(u)`$ and $`H(u)`$. These are shown for various LSP masses and $`Q_{min}`$ in Fig. 1a for $`T(u)`$ and Fig. 1b for $`H(u)`$. We remind the reader that the dimensionless quantity u is related to the energy transfer Q via Eq. (14) with $`Q_0=60KeV`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{127}I`$. Note that, due to our normalization of T, the area under the corresponding curve is unity. This normalization was adopted to bring the various graphs on scale, since the absolute values may vary substantially as a function of the reduced mass. We observe that the function $`T(u)`$ differs somewhat from the predictions of the isothermal models models. Here the function begins with a maximum at $`u=0.0`$, while in the isothermal models the maximum occurs at $`u=0.1`$. Furthermore this function shows less of a reduction as the reduced mass increases (see Fig 1a). The functions $`H(u)`$ exhibit step behavior in some regions. This is not unexpected, since the LSP velocity spectrum was assumed to be discreet in the Sikivie model.

The directional differential rates, which is now beginning to look like a feasible experimental possibility ,is described by the functions
$`R_x,R_y,R_z,H_1,H_2,H_3,H_c,H_s`$
(for both directions $`u`$ and $`d`$) Due to lack of space we are not going to show the here. We only mention that they were defined as ratios of functions, with $`T(u)`$ in the denominator. With this definition they are essentially independent of $`u`$, with values approximately equal to their corresponding total values shown in TABLE II.

## VII Conclusions

In the present paper we have calculated the parameters, which describe the event rates for direct detection of supersymmetric dark matter. We studied, in particular, the directional variation of the rates and the modulation effect.

The needed local density and velocity spectrum of the LSP were taken from the work of Sikivie et al , viewed as a late in-fall of dark matter into our galaxy. They were derived in the context of a self-similar model, which yields 40 caustic rings.

We presented our results in a suitable fashion, i.e by separating the rates into two factors. One factor $`\overline{R}`$, which carries the dependence on the SUSY parameters , not the subject of the present work, and another, which is essentially independent of all SUSY parameters except the LSP mass. The latter depends mainly on the properties of the LSP velocity distribution, the nuclear parameters and the kinematics. The nuclear form factor was taken into account and the effects of the detector energy cut off were also considered. Strictly speaking the obtained results describe the coherent process in the case of $`{}_{}{}^{127}I`$, but we do not expect large changes, if the axial current is considered.

Our results, in particular the parameters $`t`$, see TABLE II, indicate that for large reduced mass, the kinematical advantage of $`\mu _r`$ (see Eqs. (6)- (10) is partly lost when the nuclear form factor and the convolution with the velocity distribution are taken into account. Also, if one attempts to extract the LSP-nucleon cross section from the data, in order to compare with the predictions of SUSY models, one must take $`t`$ into account, since, for large reduced mass, $`t`$ is different from unity.

In the case of the non-directional total event rates we find that the maximum no longer occurs around June 2nd, but about six months later. The difference between the maximum and the minimum is about $`4\%`$, a bit smaller than that predicted by the symmetric isothermal models. It is, however, substantially less than $`h=0.46`$ predicted by asymmetric isothermal velocity distribution .

In the case of the directional rate we found that the rates depend on the direction of observation. The biggest rates are obtained, if the observation is made close to the direction of the sun’s motion. The directional rates are suppressed compared to the usual non-directional rates by the factor $`f_{red}=\kappa /(2\pi )`$. We find that $`\kappa =r_z^u0.7`$, if the observation is made in the sun’s direction of motion, while $`\kappa 0.3`$ in the opposite direction. The modulation is a bit larger than in the non-directional case, but the largest value, $`8\%`$, is not obtained along the sun’s direction of motion, but in the x-direction (galactocentric direction).

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Professor Pierre Sikivie for bringing to his attention the idea of caustic rings and velocity peaks. He would like to acknowledge partial support of this work by TMR No ERB FMAX-CT96-0090 of the European Union. He would also like to thank the Humboldt Foundation for their award that provided support during the final stages of this work and Professor Faessler for his hospitality in Tuebingen.

## References


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The evidence of the neutrino masses and its mixing angles from the atmospheric and solar neutrino experiments  indicates a method to solve a challenging question in cosmology and particle physics: namely, baryon asymmetry of the Universe. This asymmetry cannot be explained with the “pure” Standard Model (SM) – with negligible $`BL`$ asymmetry – to the phenomenologically right magnitude of baryogenesis. In fact, the electroweak phase transition scenario for baryogenesis does not work very well in the frame of the SM with presently known lower bound of the SM Higgs mass . Even for the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) this scenario is strongly disfavoured by baryon number wash-out at the electroweak phase transition . More detailed analyses of the MSSM  have been made and it is claimed that the MSSM is just consistent with baryogenesis in a very restricted region of parameter space requiring the right-handed stop to be lighter than the top quark and the left-handed stop heavier than 1 TeV.

The model which we investigate in the present article – the extended Anti-GUT model – has as one of its characteristics that it coincides with the pure SM (at least) for energy scales below the see-saw neutrino scale, and so we have in this model no way to get the phenomenological baryon number unless we already have an $`BL`$ asymmetry prior to the weak epoch.

However in the SM the neutrinos are massless due to the weak gauge symmetry or the conservation of the lepton number $`(L)`$ and therefore the observed neutrino masses imply the existence of the new scale – the only well-known scales, i.e. weak, strong and Planck scales, alone are not able to provided this scale. A very suggestive mechanism is the the see-saw mechanism .

In our extended Anti-GUT  model the see-saw mechanism is already built in as far as we assume the existence of the three right-handed neutrinos – Majorana neutrinos – in the range of a new scale in the order of $`10^{12}\text{GeV}`$, and the predictions of this model are very successful for the small mixing angle MSW  (SMA-MSW) scenario.

Sakharov  has pointed out that a matter-anti-matter asymmetry can be dynamically generated in an expanding Universe if the particle interactions and the cosmological evolution satisfy the three conditions: (1) baryon number violation, (2) $`C`$ and $`CP`$ violation, (3) departure from thermal equilibrium. The Anti-GUT model is a natural extension model of the SM in which $`C`$ and $`CP`$ are already violated, i.e. this model satisfies if combined with the standard cosmology all these Sakharov’s conditions, therefore the baryon number asymmetry should be predictable with this model in the scenario that the three Majorana neutrinos are very heavy and that they violate the lepton number conservation during their out-of-equilibrium decays in the early stage of the Universe: Baryogenesis via lepton number violation .

The presently “observed” baryon asymmetry, the baryon density-to-entropy density ratio of the Universe,

$$Y_B\frac{n_Bn_{\overline{B}}}{s}=(1.010)\times 10^{11},$$
(1)
is with the Universe evolution explained as consequence of the spectrum and interactions of the particles which break the linear combination of the baryon number ($`B`$) and lepton number, $`BL`$, global symmetry at high temperature.

In the following section, we should review briefly the Anti-GUT model to calculate the baryogenesis. Then, in the next section, we shall discuss the scenario of the baryogenesis via lepton number violation. In section $`4`$ we present the results of our model. Section $`5`$ contains our conclusion and resumé.

## 2 The extended Anti-GUT model

In this section we shall review briefly the extended Anti-GUT model . The extended Anti-GUT model is based on a large gauge group which is the Cartesian product of family specific gauge groups, namely,

$$\times i=1,2,3(SMG_i\times U(1)_{BL,i}),$$
(2)
where $`SMG_i`$ denotes $`SU(3)_i\times SU(2)_i\times U(1)_i`$ (SM gauge group), and $`i`$ denotes the generation, i.e. each “proto-family” has a certain subgroup of the grand unification group, $`SO(10)`$. This group in Eq. (2) consist only of those representations that do not mix the different irreducible representation of the SM and is spontaneously breaking down to the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)\times U(1)_{BL}`$ at the scale about $`1`$ to $`2`$ orders of magnitude under the Planck scale. The breaking is supposed to occur by six Higgs fields which we have invented and denoted by the symbols $`S`$, $`W`$, $`T`$, $`\xi `$, $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi _{BL}`$ and their quantum numbers are given in Table $`1`$. Finally the breaking of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ of the SM is broken by Weinberg-Salam Higgs field, $`\varphi _{WS}`$. (also its quantum numbers are found in Table $`1`$.)

We summarise here the vacuum expectation values (VEV) of the seven Higgs fields which the model contains:

* The smallest VEV Higgs field is the Standard Model Weinberg-Salam Higgs field, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{WS}}`$, with the VEV at the weak scale being $`246\text{GeV}/\sqrt{2}`$.
* The next smallest VEV Higgs field is also alone in its class and breaks the common $`BL`$ gauge group $`U(1)_{BL}`$, common to the all the families. This symmetry is supposed to be broken (Higgsed) at the see-saw scale as needed for fitting the over all neutrino oscillation scale. This VEV is of the order of $`10^{12}\text{GeV}`$ and called $`\varphi _{BL}`$.
* The next $`4`$ Higgs fields are called $`\xi `$, $`T`$, $`W`$, and $`\chi `$ and have VEVs of the order of a factor $`10`$ to $`50`$ under the Planck unit. That means that if intermediate propagators have scales given by the Planck scale, as we assume, they will give rise to suppression factors of the order $`1/10`$ each time they are needed to cause a transition.
* The last one, with VEV of the same order of the Planck scale, is the Higgs field $`S`$, which gives little suppression when it is applied, of the order of a factor $`1/\sqrt{2}`$.

The quantum numbers of the $`45`$ well-known Weyl particles and additional three particles - Majorana neutrinos - are gotten from the requirement that all anomalies evolving $`U(1)_{BL,1}`$, $`U(1)_{BL,2}`$, $`U(1)_{BL,3}`$ vanish strongly even without using Green-Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism , i.e. the extended Anti-GUT model is an anomaly free model. These quantum numbers are also shown in Table $`1`$.

Now we can write down the mass matrices which are necessary to discuss the mechanism of baryogenesis in the following sections: the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and the Majorana neutrino mass matrix. These matrix elements were gotten using the technical corrections, factorial factor corrections, $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{diagrams}}`$ multiplying the mass matrix elements which take into account the possibilities of permuting the contributing Higgs fields. With this technical correction and the quantum charges of the Higgs fields the mass matrices, Dirac neutrino and the Majorana neutrino, are given by:

$`M_\nu ^D`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{WS}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}6\sqrt{35}SWT^2\xi ^2& 60\sqrt{14}S^3WT^2\xi ^3& 60\sqrt{154}S^3WT^2\xi ^3\chi \\ 6\sqrt{35}S^2WT^2\xi & 2\sqrt{3}WT^2& 2\sqrt{15}WT^2\chi \\ 6\sqrt{70}S^2WT\xi \chi & 2\sqrt{6}WT\chi & \sqrt{6}WT\end{array}\right)`$ (6)
$`M_R`$ $``$ $`\varphi _{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{L}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2\sqrt{210}S^3\chi ^2\xi ^2& \sqrt{15}S\chi ^2\xi & \sqrt{6}S\chi \xi \\ \sqrt{15}S\chi ^2\xi & \sqrt{6}S\chi ^2& \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}S\chi \\ \sqrt{6}S\chi \xi & \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}S\chi & S\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
We know neither the Yukawa couplings nor the precise masses of the fundamental fermions, but it is a basic assumption of the naturalness of our model that these couplings are of order unity and random complex in the Planck scale. In the numerical evaluation of the consequences of the model we explicitly take into account these uncertain factors of order unity by providing each matrix element with an explicit random number $`\lambda _{ij}`$ \- with a distribution so that its average $`\mathrm{log}\lambda _{ij}0`$ and its spreading is $`64\%`$. Note that the random complex order of unity factors which are supposed to multiply all the mass matrix elements are not presented here.

## 3 Fukugita and Yanagida scenario for the lepton number production

The weak $`SU(2)`$ instantons  \- sphaleron  \- guaranteed the rapid exchanges of the baryon number and lepton number in which though $`BL`$ is conserved in the time of big bang, when the temperature was above the weak scale. But in our model we have the three right-handed neutrinos decaying in the $`L`$ quantum number violating way, in fact also $`BL`$ violating way, at the time scale of the see-saw neutrinos. Therefore the baryon number violation condition of the first Sakharov’s condition was effectively fulfilled.

The assumption in our model that all the coupling constants and coefficients are of order of unity and random at the Planck scale, especially having random phases as far as allowed, implies not only $`C`$ violation but also $`CP`$ violation.

Finally the third condition among the Sakharov conditions – out-of-equilibrium – comes about during the Hubble expansion due to the excess of the three type of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos caused by their masses. From these statements our model is seen to implement the scenario of Fukugita and Yanagida .

In the scenario favoured by our model the heaviest one among the three right-handed neutrinos turns out to gives the dominant contribution to the baryon or rather $`(BL)`$ quantum produced with the second becoming almost same order magnitude. Also it turns out that the average lifetime of this heaviest right-handed neutrino is of the same order as the Hubble expansion time so that we can count that a major part of these right-handed neutrinos first decay after inverse decays have essentially stopped. We shall justify and discuss these features of the scenario induced by our model in the next subsection. But first we shall describe the appearance of the baryon asymmetry taking for granted the mentioned assumptions so that we (1) use only the heaviest right-handed neutrino and (2) assume it to live relatively long compared to the time needed before $`BL`$ is effectively conserved again. Really as we shall discuss more below, it is not the full $`BL`$ which is the important quantity but a special roughly speaking “third generation $`BL`$” that is the sufficiently well conserved charge quantity.

### 3.1 Conservation of the $`BL`$-quantum charge

A priori the excess of $`(BL)`$ quantum number risk to be diluted or washed out before the “accidental” $`(BL)`$ conservation of the SM sets in. It is therefore very important to argue for that such wash out does not take place.

An important point is that it actually will turn out that if we only thought in terms of $`(BL)`$ one would estimate an appreciable wash out. However, we define a new “new charge” $`\widehat{(BL)_3}`$ which111Note that this $`\widehat{(BL)_3}`$ is not exactly the same as the $`(BL)_3`$ in our model, the latter a proto $`(BL)_3`$ while $`\widehat{(BL)_3}`$ deviates by mixing angles from the first one. is washed away much more slowly. In the era until the lightest right-handed neutrino has become so hard to produce that there are basically no more inverse decay processes producing it going on and also $`2`$-by-$`2`$ scatterings are supposed negligible, we have effective conservation of the following charge $`\widehat{(BL)_3}`$: we define $`\widehat{(BL)_3}`$ to the baryon number minus the lepton number sitting on those leptons (or quarks) which are capable by collision with a Weinberg-Salam Higgs particle to produce, in resonance say, the heaviest of the right-handed neutrino, but not the two lighter ones.

It the era when we can ignore diagrams involving the heaviest see-saw neutrino a “third generation” quark or lepton, i.e. not coupling to the vertices $`N_2\varphi _{WS}\mathrm{}`$ or $`N_1\varphi _{WS}\mathrm{}`$ cannot get converted in a $`(BL)`$-violating way because the diagrams have to contain such vertices.

The protection against dilution by $`N_2`$ and $`N_1`$ effects of the by $`N_3`$ produced $`(BL)`$ hoped for is thus not relying on our model having a gauged $`(BL)_3`$ but is a more general mechanism.

The question of whether the $`(BL)`$ quantum number produced in excess by the decays of the heaviest Majorana neutrino will be preserved for the future is thus the question of whether the temperature falls so deep that this right-handed heaviest neutrino itself gets so hard to produce that we can ignore its inverse decay before all these heaviest right-handed neutrinos have decayed except for a fraction of order unity. The time needed to make the heaviest right-handed neutrino effectively unproduceable is the Hubble time corresponding to the temperature being equal to the mass of this see-saw neutrino. The crucial parameter to settle if this approximation of sufficiently slow decay is thus the ratio

$$K_i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{2H}|_{T=M_i}=\frac{M_{\mathrm{Planck}}}{1.66\varphi _{WS}^28\pi g_i^{1/2}}\frac{((M_\nu ^D)^{}M_\nu ^D)_{ii}}{M_i}(i=1,2,3),$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is the width of the flavour $`i`$ Majorana neutrino, $`M_i`$ is its mass and $`g_i`$ is the number of the degree of freedom at temperature $`M_i`$ (see Eq. $`(7)`$).

### 3.2 Baryogenesis and $`CP`$ violation

Now a right-handed neutrino, $`N_R`$, decay into a Weinberg-Salam Higgs particle and a left-handed lepton or into the $`CP`$ conjugate channel. These two channels have different lepton numbers $`\pm 1`$. But, because of our random complex couplings, the partial widths do not have to be the same to next-to-leading-order perturbation theory. Defining the measure $`ϵ_i`$ for the $`CP`$ violation in the decay of the right-handed neutrino

$$ϵ_i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_{R_i}\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_{R_i}\overline{\mathrm{}}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_{R_i}\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_{R_i}\overline{\mathrm{}}}},$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_{R_i}\mathrm{}}_{\alpha ,\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{R_i}\mathrm{}^\alpha \varphi _{WS}^\beta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_{R_i}\overline{\mathrm{}}}_{\alpha ,\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{R_i}\overline{\mathrm{}}^\alpha \varphi _{WS}^\beta )`$ are the $`N_{R_i}`$ decay rates (in the $`N_{R_i}`$ rest frame), summed over the neutral and charged leptons (and Weinberg-Salam Higgs fields) which appear as final states in the $`N_{R_i}`$ decays one sees that the excess of leptons over anti-leptons produced in the decay of one $`N_{R_i}`$ is just $`ϵ_i`$.

At high temperature ($`T\stackrel{>}{}M_3`$) equilibrium there were as many Majorana neutrinos per species as massless fermions, SM fermions. In the case ($`T\stackrel{>}{}M_3`$) all these Majorana neutrinos decay after the $`BL`$ violation is switched off.

To be able to calculate Baryogenesis we need to obtain the total number of effectively massless degree of freedom of the plasma, $`g_i`$, at temperature of the order of lightest right-handed neutrino (about $`10^6\text{GeV}`$), i.e., there are $`14`$ bosons and $`45`$ well-known Weyl fermions plus $`i`$ Majorana particles:

$`g_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{bosons}}{}}g_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_j}{T}}\right)^4+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{fermions}}{}}g_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_j}{T}}\right)^4`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\underset{\text{Standrad Model}}{\underset{}{28+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}90}}+\underset{\text{see-saw particles}}{\underset{}{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}i}}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 108.5:& i=1\hfill \\ \hfill 110.25:& i=2\hfill \\ \hfill 112:& i=3\hfill \end{array},`$
here $`T_j`$ denotes the effective temperature of any species $`j`$. When we have coupling as at the stage discussed between all the particles $`T_j=T`$. The entropy of Planck radiation with the degree of freedom $`g_i`$ is

$$s_i=\frac{2\pi ^2g_i}{45}T^3.$$
(17)
Moreover, we should note here that due to the electroweak sphaleron effect, the baryon number asymmetry $`Y_B`$ is related to the lepton number asymmetry $`Y_L`$ by :

$`Y_B=aY_{BL}={\displaystyle \frac{a}{a1}}Y_L`$
$`\mathrm{with}a={\displaystyle \frac{8N_f+4N_H}{22N_f+13N_H}},`$
where $`N_f`$ is the number of generations and $`N_H`$ the number of Higgs doublets, this reads in the SM $`a=28/79`$.

Because $`K_i`$ is not small, we have to expect a dilution effect for which we define the suppression factor $`\kappa _i`$, i.e. we define $`\kappa _i`$ so that the resulting relative to entropy density, $`s_i`$, baryon number density

$$Y_B\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\kappa _i\frac{ϵ_i}{g_i}\right|.$$
(18)
A good approximation for $`\kappa _i`$, the dilution factor, is inferred from Ref. :

$`10\stackrel{<}{}K_i\stackrel{<}{}10^6:\kappa _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.3}{K_i(\mathrm{ln}K_i)^{\frac{3}{5}}}}`$ (19)
$`1\stackrel{<}{}K_i\stackrel{<}{}10:\kappa _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K_i}},`$ (20)
$`0\stackrel{<}{}K_i\stackrel{<}{}1:\kappa _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}.`$ (21)
Note that these dilution factors – we are taking it – contain the effect of the sphaleron processes we should use, instead of the Eq. $`(17)`$ and Eq. $`(18)`$, we took the following interpolating redefined dilution factor in the range $`0\stackrel{<}{}K_i\stackrel{<}{}10`$:

$$0\stackrel{<}{}K_i\stackrel{<}{}10:\kappa _i=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{K_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+9}}$$
(22)
Since this dilution factor is smoother than the in the Ref.  defined one, and due to using order-of-one complex random factors in calculation of $`K_i`$’s, especially in our model, baryogenesis comes mainly from the third Majorana neutrino decay, i.e. the calculation of the $`K_3`$ have to be carefully performed because of $`K_31`$, therefore we should better use the newly defined smoothed out $`\kappa _i`$ in Eq. $`(19)`$.

### 3.3 $`CP`$ violation in decays of the Majorana neutrinos

The total decay rate at the tree level (Fig. $`1(a)`$) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_i}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_i\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_i\overline{\mathrm{}}}=\frac{((M_\nu ^D)^{}M_\nu ^D)_{ii}}{4\pi \varphi _{WS}^2}M_i.$$
(23)
The $`CP`$ violation in the Majorana neutrino decays, $`ϵ_i`$, arises when the effects of loop are taken into account, and at the one-loop, the only $`CP`$ asymmetry of the vertex contribution comes from the diagram shown in Fig. $`1(c)`$. However there is an other contribution, from the wave function renormalisation (Fig. $`1(b)`$), which must be also taken into account and which gives typically same order amount as the vertex one :

$$ϵ_i=\frac{1}{4\pi \varphi _{WS}^2((M_\nu ^D)^{}M_\nu ^D)_{ii}}\underset{ji}{}\mathrm{Im}[((M_\nu ^D)^{}M_\nu ^D)_{ji}^2]\left[f\left(\frac{M_j^2}{M_i^2}\right)+g\left(\frac{M_j^2}{M_i^2}\right)\right]$$
(24)
where the function, $`f(x)`$, comes from the one-loop vertex contribution and the other function, $`g(x)`$, comes from the self-energy contribution. These functions can be calculated in perturbation theory only for differences between Majorana neutrino masses which are sufficiently large compare to its decay widths, i.e. the mass splittings satisfy the condition, $`\left|M_iM_j\right|\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\right|`$:

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{x}\left[1(1+x)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{x}}\right],`$ (25)
$`g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{1x}}.`$ (26)
## 4 Baryogenesis calculation in Anti-GUT model

In this section we present the calculation of the baryogenesis at first numerically, and then in a crude way by seeking the dominating terms.

The calculation goes by using formula $`(\text{24})`$, $`(\text{25})`$ and $`(\text{26})`$ taking as the mass matrix $`M_\nu ^D`$, the expression $`(3)`$, with each matrix element further provided with an (independent of the other matrix elements) random complex number of order unity. Also the right-handed neutrino masses to be used as $`M_i(i=1,2,3)`$ in the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ in formulas $`(\text{25})`$ and $`(\text{26})`$ are (in principle) calculated by inserting random numbers of order unity into, in this case, the right-handed neutrino mass matrix $`(\text{10})`$, in the way that each matrix element is again provided with an order of unity random (complex) factor. These random order unity coefficients are in the calculation taken as complex pseudo-random numbers.

The quantity $`ϵ_i`$ is then calculated $`100,000`$ times and its logarithm, $`\mathrm{ln}|ϵ_i|`$, is averaged over the different sets of random numbers. And the parameters which are the suppression factors $`S,W,T,\xi ,\chi `$ and $`\varphi _{BL}`$ are taken for the best cases of our previous article fitting the neutrino masses and its mixing angles:

$`\varphi _{WS}={\displaystyle \frac{246}{\sqrt{2}}}\text{GeV},\varphi _{BL}=2.74\times 10^{12}\text{GeV},S=0.721,`$
$`W=0.0945,T=0.0522,\xi =0.0331,\chi =0.0345,`$ (27)
where the vacuum expectation values, except the Weinberg-Salam Higgs and $`\varphi _{BL}`$, are presented in the Planck unit.

That is to say we really use $`S`$, $`W`$, $`T`$, $`\xi `$, $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi _{BL}`$ from one of the best fits including the factorial corrections to the charged lepton and quarks, while $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi _{BL}`$ are fitted to the neutrino oscillation data. Since our model unavoidable predicts the small mixing angle MSW solution, our calculation is not meaningful unless the SMA solution is right. But recently Barbieri and Strumia  have studied the neutrino oscillation fit using “non-standard analogies” method and have shown that the region of the SMA-MSW solution should be shifted in the direction of smaller mixing angle, so that it escapes the day-night effect exclusion by the Super-Kamiokande measurements.

### 4.1 Results

Our total baryogenesis is a sum of three contributions, one from each see-saw particle. The total baryon density-to-entropy density ratio is given by

$$Y_B\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}Y_{B,i}\right|=\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\kappa _i\frac{ϵ_i}{g_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}}\right|,$$
(28)
where $`Y_{B,i}`$ is the contribution due to the decay see-saw neutrino number $`i`$ counted upwards in mass.

Dominantly the signs of $`ϵ_3`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ are strongly correlated but since the $`ϵ_3`$-contribution is diluted away it does not matter and the danger of cancellation is not there. Actually we included in the numerical calculation the correlation of signs effects correctly. In our case the contribution of $`Y_{B,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ is dominant and the other contributions are negligible compared to $`Y_{B,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$. This makes the scheme opposite to SUSY constraint ones.

The numerical results of our best fitting case gives

$`\left|ϵ_3\right|`$ $`=`$ $`6.8\times 10^9,K_3=1.06`$ (29)
$`\left|ϵ_2\right|`$ $`=`$ $`6.0\times 10^9,K_2=4.29`$ (30)
$`\left|ϵ_1\right|`$ $`=`$ $`4.8\times 10^{10},K_1=19.8.`$ (31)
Using the philosophy of letting order unity random numbers being given by a Gaussian distribution presented in the article  we estimate the uncertainty in the natural exponent for $`Y_B`$ to be $`64\%\sqrt{7}`$ $`150\%`$. With these error estimations we get

$$Y_B=1.46\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+5.87}{1.17}\times 10^{11}.$$
(32)
## 5 Conclusion and resumé

We have obtained with the cosmological fit,

$$Y_B|_{\mathrm{experiments}}=(0.11.0)\times 10^{10},$$
(33)
excellently agreeing prediction of the baryon number-to-entropy ratio

$$Y_B=1.46\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+5.87}{1.17}\times 10^{11},$$
(34)
from our extended Anti-GUT under use of parameters all already fit to either the charged lepton and quark spectra or to the neutrino oscillations.

Even the “discrete fitting” of the precise choice of discrete quantum numbers of the seven Higgs fields $`\varphi _{WS}`$, $`S`$, $`W`$, $`T`$, $`\xi `$, $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi _{BL}`$ of our model were fit already to the mass and mixing angle data.

It should be remarked that our model predicts all fermion masses (neutrino mass square difference ratio) and their mixing angles, including Jarlskog triangle, using above presented seven Higgs VEVs (The quarks and charged lepton mass spectra and their mixing angles are presented in Table $`2`$.):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`5.8{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+30}{5}}\times 10^3`$ (35)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}`$ $`=`$ $`8.3{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+21}{6}}\times 10^4`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{e3}`$ $`=`$ $`4.3{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+11}{3}}\times 10^4`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.97{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+2.5}{0.7}}`$ (38)
i.e. our predictions are compatible with the MSW-SMA solar neutrino solution. Because of smallness of the Cabibbo angle induces our solar mixing angle to be so small that it would stress the model drastically to seek to fit one of the series of large solar mixing angle fitting regions.

All of the input parameters are, seven Higgs VEVs, already determined before the calculation of baryogenesis, so in this sense the baryon number-to-entropy ratio is pure prediction from our model!

The number of measured quantities which are predictable with our model, quark and charged lepton masses and its mixing angles including the Jarlskog triangle area $`J_{CP}`$ and also two mass square differences for the neutrino and the three of their mixing angles, is $`19`$. Our model successfully predicted all these quantities using only six parameters222The VEV of Weinberg-Salam we have not counted as a parameter because of the relation to the Fermi constant.: the genuine number of predicted parameters is thus $`13`$. But we have taken into the predictions the quantity $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{13}`$ for which CHOOZ has only an upper bound.

It should, however, be admitted that our prediction is only order of magnitude-wise because we needed to use the assumption that all the coupling constants at the fundamental scale are of order unity.

### 5.1 What do we learn?

In the crudest approximation our agreement means that the general success of getting good baryon number prediction from the Fukugita-Yanagida scheme of having $`B`$ asymmetry from the see-saw scale works well with our specific model. This very good agreement of our prediction, of course, suggests that our specific model may carry some truth. It is first of all via the $`CP`$-violating parameter, $`ϵ`$, that different detailed models can make their differences felt since even a supersymmetric model doubling of $`g_{}`$ is only a factor $`2`$ hardly distinguishable with our only order of unity accuracy.

We expect the $`ϵ`$ which is an expression for the overall size of the Yukawa couplings – it is a loop effect relative to the tree diagram – for given mass splitting – for charged leptons and quarks to be sensitive to the number of effective charges in the model used for the mass protections. Indeed we expect more general suppression and therefore smaller $`ϵ`$ and thus baryon number if we imagined to have control over the $`\kappa _i`$’s – the bigger the number of charge types used.

When our model then gives a good baryon number result we should expect that its number of charges species – effectively – used is roughly right. Since our model has in fact under some restrictions the maximal number of gauge charges the success of predicting $`ϵ`$ suggests that the right model should have a rather large number of charges species. It should, however, in this connection be reminded that since we have the field $`S`$ giving only a tiny suppression the tree group we have “effectively” used is not the full Anti-GUT one but rather the subgroup of it obtained after breaking by $`S`$, $`SU(3)^2\times SU(2)^2\times U(1)^5`$.

It should be also be mentioned that it was in our Anti-GUT put in, that the representations of the non-abelian subgroups $`SU(3)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ were given by a rule 333The rule is that the representation of the family specific $`SU(2)_i`$ and $`SU(3)_i`$ gauge groups are obtained as the same ones as a quark or lepton in the SM has when its weak hypercharge $`y/2`$ equals $`y_i/2`$. from those of the abelian, so that the non-abelian ones play no separate role. We did not even list the non-abelian representations in Table $`1`$.

Moreover, it should be stressed that our scenario is very different from the SUSY model one: in SUSY model or SUGRA there is the problem that gravitinos survive and cause an unacceptable mass density contribution unless their production does not occur due to late inflation . This makes it a problem to obtain the $`BL`$ from the see-saw neutrino decays and more problematic the heavier the right-handed neutrino used. This is why Buchmüller and Plümacher  have the lightest of the right-handed neutrino provide the baryogenesis.

Since our model is a non-SUSY one we have no gravitino problem and thus we could equally well make use the heavier Majorana neutrinos as of only the light one.

## Acknowledgements

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