format: text

text:
# Deep Inelastic Neutron Scattering determination of the single particle kinetic energy in solid and liquid 3He

## Tables

TABLE I:
Phase $`v`$ (cm$`{}_{}{}^{3}/`$mole) $`E_K`$ (K)    L 23.81$`\pm `$0.01 23.8$`\pm `$2.8  bcc 20.10$`\pm `$0.10 33.2$`\pm `$3.0  hcp 18.75$`\pm `$0.30 36.5$`\pm `$4.7

## Table Captions

TAB. I: Molar volume and experimental single particle mean kinetic energy, $`E_K`$, in solid and liquid 3He, with their estimated standard deviations. The two values of the molar volume in the solid phase have been determined experimentally (see main text), while value for the liquid is from Ref.

## I Figure Captions

FIG. 1: Experimental response functions $`\overline{F}(y)`$ for : a) the hcp 3He sample at the molar volume $`v`$ = 18.75 cm$`{}_{}{}^{3}/`$mole and b) the bcc sample at the molar volume $`v`$ = 20.10 cm$`{}_{}{}^{3}/`$ mole. The $`\overline{F}(y)`$ was obtained symmetrizing the individual detector response function before averaging over the 32 detectors (see main text). Best fit $`\overline{F}(y)`$ (see main text) and the experimental resolution function, $`\overline{R}(y)`$ are also reported as full and dotted lines respectively.
FIG. 2: 3He mean kinetic energy, $`E_K`$, as a function of the molar volume: experimental values (solid circles), DMC values  (open circles) and self-consistent phonon method  (dashed line).


text:
# 1 (a) Photonic(long-distance) and (b) non-photonic(short-distance) contributions to the nuclear 𝜇⁻-𝑒⁻ conversion.

Nuclear $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion in strange quark sea

T.S. Kosmasa, Sergey Kovalenkob111On leave of absence from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia and Ivan Schmidtb

aDivision of Theoretical Physics, University of Ioannina GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece
bDepartamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Casilla 110-V, Valparaíso, Chile

## Abstract

We study nuclear $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion in the general framework of effective Lagrangian approach without referring to any specific realization of the physics beyond the standard model (SM) responsible for lepton flavor violation ($`L_f/`$). All the possible types of short range interactions (non-photonic mechanisms), i.e. (pseudo-)scalar, (axial-)vector and tensor, are included in our formalism. We show that the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion in the strange nucleon sea via the scalar interactions is comparable with that in the valence quarks. This provides an insight into the strange quark couplings beyond the SM. From the available experimental data on $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion and expected sensitivities of planned experiments we derived upper bounds on the generic $`L_f/`$\- parameters of $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion sensitive to the relevant u-,d- and s-quark couplings.

PACS: 12.60.-i, 11.30.Er, 11.30.Fs, 13.10.+q, 23.40.Bw

KEYWORDS: Lepton flavor violation, exotic $`\mu e`$ conversion in nuclei, muon capture, physics beyond the standard model, strange quark sea.

The muon-flavor violating processes

$$\mu ^{}+(A,Z)e^{}+(A,Z)^{},$$
(1)
i.e. muon-to-electron ($`\mu ^{}e^{}`$) conversion in nuclei, is known as a very sensitive probe of lepton flavor violation ($`L_f/`$) and related physics beyond the standard model (SM) -. This fact has been recently strengthened by the evidence for the muon-neutrino oscillations, drawn by the Superkamiokande experiment, which is the first convincing signal of the non-standard physics connected to the lepton flavor non-conservation. The distinct feature of coherent enhancement in nuclear $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion makes it more promising probe of $`L_f/`$than other lepton flavor violating processes ($`\mu ^{}e^{}\gamma `$, etc.). In general the structure of a participating nucleus brings some uncertainties into the theoretical predictions for $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion. However, in the most interesting case of coherent $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion  these uncertainties can be significantly reduced by the possibility of using the available experimental data on nuclear densities.

On the experimental side, at present, there is one running $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion experiment, SINDRUM II , and two planned experiments, MECO  and PRIME . The SINDRUM II experiment at PSI  with 48Ti as stopping target has established the best upper bound on the branching ratio

$`R_{\mu e}^{Ti}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}+{}_{}{}^{48}Tie^{}+{}_{}{}^{48}Ti)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}+{}_{}{}^{48}Ti\nu _\mu +^{48}Sc)}}6.1\times 10^{13},\text{(90\% C.L.)}\text{[8]}.`$ (2)
The MECO experiment with 27Al is going to start soon at Brookhaven . The sensitivity of this experiment is expected to reach the limit

$`R_{\mu e}^{Al}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}+{}_{}{}^{27}Ale^{}+{}_{}{}^{27}Al)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}+{}_{}{}^{27}Al\nu _\mu +{}_{}{}^{27}Mg)}}2\times 10^{17}\text{[10]}`$ (3)
This year the PSI experiment is running with the very heavy nucleus 197Au aiming to improve by a factor of about 20-30 over the previous limit, $`R_{\mu e}^{Au}2.0\times 10^{11}`$, set on $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$in 197Au by the same experiment some years ago . Now the expected limit is

$`R_{\mu e}^{Au}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}+^{197}Aue^{}+^{197}Au)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}+^{197}Au\nu _\mu +^{197}Pt)}}6\times 10^{13}\text{[8, 12]}`$ (4)
Very recently, a proposal for a new experiment at Tokyo (PRIME) was announced . It intends to utilize the 48Ti as stopping target with the impressive expected sensitivity of $`R_{\mu e}^{Ti}10^{18}`$ .

These experimental limits can put severe constraints on mechanisms of $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion. In the literature there have been studied various mechanisms beyond the SM (see - and references therein) classified into two categories: photonic and non-photonic as shown in Fig. 1. Specific mechanisms from both categories significantly differ in many respects and, in particular, in nucleon and nuclear structure treatment. This is attributed to the fact that they operate at different distances and, therefore, involve different details of the nucleon structure. Long-distance photonic mechanisms (Fig. 1(a)) are mediated by virtual photon exchange between the nucleus and the $`\mu e`$ lepton current. They suggest that the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion occurs in the lepton-flavor non-diagonal electromagnetic vertex which is presumably induced by non-standard model physics at loop level. The hadronic vertex is characterized in this case by ordinary electromagnetic nuclear form factors. Contributions to $`\mu e`$ conversion via virtual photon exchange exist in all models which allow $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay. On the other hand, short-distance non-photonic mechanisms (Fig. 1(b)) are described by the effective $`L_f/`$ 4-fermion quark-lepton interactions which may appear after integrating out heavy intermediate states ($`W,Z`$, Higgs bosons, supersymmetric particles etc.).

In this Letter we focus on the non-photonic mechanisms of $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion (Fig. 1(b)). The generic effect of physics beyond the SM in $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$is described in our approach by an effective Lagrangian which includes all the possible 4-fermion quark-lepton interactions. Our special interest is concentrated on the scalar interactions which are sensitive to the heavy quark content of the nucleon. Also, the current $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$experiments at Brookhaven and PSI can efficiently probe the scalar component of the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion -. We will show that the contribution to the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion rate which originates from the strange nucleon sea via the scalar interactions is comparable with that coming from the valence quarks of the nucleon.

We derive a general representation of the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$branching ratio in terms of generic $`L_f/`$ parameters of the effective 4-fermion quark-lepton $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$transition operators. Transforming these operators, first to the nucleon and then to the nuclear level, we pay special attention to the effects of nucleon and nuclear structure. The nucleon structure is taken into account on the basis of the QCD picture of baryon masses and experimental data on certain hadronic parameters. For nuclear structure calculations we apply the formalism described in Refs. -. Our applications refer to the nuclei of current experimental interest, 27Al, 48Ti and 197Au, with special attention to 197Au which has not been previously studied in the context of $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$conversion.

We start with the 4-fermion effective Lagrangian describing the non-photonic $`\mu e`$ conversion at the quark level which corresponds to the upper vertex of the diagram in Fig. 1(b). It can be written in a general Lorentz covariant form as

$`_{eff}^q={\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{A,B,C,D;q}{}}\left[\eta _{AB}^{(q)}j_\mu ^AJ_{(q)}^{B\mu }+\eta _{AB}^{(q)}j^AJ_{(q)}^B+\eta _T^{(q)}j_{\mu \nu }J_{(q)}^{\mu \nu }\right].`$ (5)
where the summation involves $`A,B=\{A,V\}`$, $`C,D=\{S,P\}`$ and $`q=\{u,d,s\}`$. The $`L_f/`$parameters $`\eta _i^q`$ depend on a concrete $`L_f/`$model. The lepton and quark currents are $`j_\mu ^V=\overline{e}\gamma _\mu \mu ,j_\mu ^A=\overline{e}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\mu ,j^S=\overline{e}\mu ,j^P=\overline{e}\gamma _5\mu ,j_{\mu \nu }^V=\overline{e}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\mu ,`$ $`J_{(q)}^{V\mu }=\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu q,J_{(q)}^{A\mu }=\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5q,J_{(q)}^S=\overline{q}q,J_{(q)}^P=\overline{q}\gamma _5q,J_{(q)}^{\mu \nu }=\overline{q}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q.`$

The next step is the reformulation of the quark level Lagrangian (5) in terms of the nucleon effective fields. First we write down the nucleon level Lagrangian in a general Lorentz covariant form with the isospin structure of the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$transition operator

$`_{eff}^N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{A,B,C,D}{}}[j_\mu ^A(\alpha _{AB}^{(0)}J_{(0)}^{B\mu }+\alpha _{AB}^{(3)}J_{(3)}^{B\mu })+j^C(\alpha _{CD}^{(0)}J_{(0)}^D+\alpha _{CD}^{(3)}J_{(3)}^D)+`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`j_{\mu \nu }(\alpha _T^{(0)}J_{(0)}^{\mu \nu }+\alpha _T^{(3)}J_{(3)}^{\mu \nu })].`$
The isoscalar $`J_{(0)}`$ and isovector $`J_{(3)}`$ nucleon currents are defined as $`J_{(k)}^{V\mu }=\overline{N}\gamma ^\mu \tau _kN,J_{(k)}^{A\mu }=\overline{N}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\tau _kN,J_{(k)}^S=\overline{N}\tau _kN,J_{(k)}^P=\overline{N}\gamma _5\tau _kN,J_{(k)}^{\mu \nu }=\overline{N}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\tau _kN,`$ where $`k=0,3`$ and $`\tau _0\widehat{I}`$. In Eq. (6) we neglected derivative terms. In the matrix elements of $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion they produce a small contribution proportional to $`q/m_pm_\mu /m_p0.1`$ where $`q=|𝐪|`$ is the momentum transfer to the nucleon while $`m_\mu `$ and $`m_p`$ are the muon and the proton masses respectively.

Now we relate the coefficients $`\alpha `$ in Eq. (6) with the “fundamental” $`L_f/`$parameters $`\eta `$ of the quark level Lagrangian (5). Towards this end we apply the on-mass-shell matching condition

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_F|_{eff}^q|\mathrm{\Psi }_I\mathrm{\Psi }_F|_{eff}^N|\mathrm{\Psi }_I,$$
(7)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_F|`$ are the initial and final nucleon states.

In order to solve this equation we use various relations for the matrix elements of the quark operators between the nucleon states

$`N|\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Kq|N=G_K^{(q,N)}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_N\mathrm{\Gamma }_K\mathrm{\Psi }_N,`$ (8)
with $`q=\{u,d,s\}`$, $`N=\{p,n\}`$ and $`K=\{V,A,S,P,T\}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_K=\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\mu \gamma _5,1,\gamma _5,\sigma _{\mu \nu }\}`$. Since the maximum momentum transfer in $`\mu e`$ conversion is much smaller than the typical scale of nucleon structure we can safely neglect the $`𝐪^2`$-dependence of the nucleon form factors $`G_K^{(q,N)}`$ and drop the weak magnetism as well as the induced pseudoscalar terms proportional to the small momentum transfer.

Isospin symmetry requires that

$`G_K^{(u,n)}=G_K^{(d,p)}G_K^d,G_K^{(d,n)}=G_K^{(u,p)}G_K^u,G_K^{(s,n)}=G_K^{(s,p)}G_K^s.`$ (9)
Note that the axial, pseudoscalar and tensor nucleon currents couple to the nuclear spin leading, therefore, to incoherent contributions. Thus, only the vector and scalar nucleon form factors are needed in the case of the coherent nuclear $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion which we are studying in the present paper.

Conservation of vector current implies that the vector charge is equal to the number of the valence quarks of the nucleon and, therefore,

$`G_V^u=2,G_V^d=1,G_V^s=0.`$ (10)
The scalar form factors can be extracted from the baryon octet $`B`$ mass spectrum $`M_B`$ in combination with the data on the pion-nucleon sigma term $`\sigma _{\pi N}=(1/2)(m_u+m_d)p|\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d|p.`$ We follow the QCD picture of the baryon masses based on the relation $`B|\theta _\mu ^\mu |B=M_B\overline{B}B`$ and on the well known representation  for the trace of the energy-momentum tensor $`\theta _\mu ^\mu =m_u\overline{u}u+m_d\overline{d}d+m_s\overline{s}s(\stackrel{~}{b}\alpha _s/8\pi )G_{\mu \nu }^aG_a^{\mu \nu },`$ where $`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the gluon field strength, $`\alpha _s`$ is the QCD coupling constant and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ is the reduced Gell-Mann-Low function with the heavy quark contribution subtracted. Using these relations in combination with $`SU(3)`$ relations  for the matrix elements $`B|\theta _\mu ^\mu |B`$ as well as the experimental data on $`M_B`$ and $`\sigma _{\pi N}`$ we derive

$`G_S^u5.1,G_S^d4.3,G_S^s2.5`$ (11)
for the conventional values of the current quark masses: $`m_u=4.2`$ MeV, $`m_d=7.5`$ MeV, $`m_s=150`$ MeV. These masses, however, are not yet well determined  and uncertainty factor $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$ 2 may affect the results in Eq. (11). For our further numerical estimates these uncertainties are not critical and we take the central values Eq. (11) for the form factors $`G_S^{u,d,s}`$. The approach of Refs. , relying on the results of the lattice simulations, gives for these form factors similar values with the same level of uncertainties. What remains true is that the strange quarks of the nucleon sea significantly contribute to the scalar nucleon form factor $`G_S`$. This result dramatically differs from the naïve quark model and the MIT bag model where $`G_{A,S,P}^s=0`$.

Now the above Eq. (7) can be solved and the coefficients $`\alpha `$ of the nucleon level Lagrangian (6) can be expressed in terms of the generic $`L_f/`$parameters $`\eta `$ of the quark level effective Lagrangian Eq. (5) as

$`\alpha _{IV}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta _{IV}^{(u)}+\eta _{IV}^{(d)})(G_V^u+G_V^d),\alpha _{IV}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta _{IV}^{(u)}\eta _{IV}^{(d)})(G_V^uG_V^d),`$ (12)
$`\alpha _{JS}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta _{JS}^{(u)}+\eta _{JS}^{(d)})(G_S^u+G_S^d)+\eta _{JS}^{(s)}G_S^s,\alpha _{JS}^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta _{JS}^{(u)}\eta _{JS}^{(d)})(G_S^uG_S^d),`$
where $`I=V,A`$ and $`J=S,P`$.

From the Lagrangian (6), following the standard procedure, we can derive the formula for the total $`\mu e`$ conversion branching ratio. In this paper we confine ourselves to the coherent process which is the dominant channel of $`\mu e`$ conversion exhausting, for the majority of experimentally interesting nuclei, more than $`90\%`$ of the total $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$branching ratio . To leading order of the non-relativistic reduction the coherent $`\mu e`$ conversion branching ratio takes the form

$$R_{\mu e^{}}^{coh}=\frac{G_F^2}{4\pi }𝒬\frac{p_eE_e(_p+_n)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}capture)},$$
(13)
where $`p_e,E_e`$ are the outgoing electron 3-momentum and energy. We define the quantity

$`𝒬=|\alpha _{VV}^{(0)}+\alpha _{VV}^{(3)}\varphi |^2+|\alpha _{AV}^{(0)}+\alpha _{AV}^{(3)}\varphi |^2+|\alpha _{SS}^{(0)}+\alpha _{SS}^{(3)}\varphi |^2+|\alpha _{PS}^{(0)}+\alpha _{PS}^{(3)}\varphi |^2`$
$`+2\mathrm{Re}\{(\alpha _{VV}^{(0)}+\alpha _{VV}^{(3)}\varphi )(\alpha _{SS}^{(0)}+\alpha _{SS}^{(3)}\varphi )^{}+(\alpha _{AV}^{(0)}+\alpha _{AV}^{(3)}\varphi )(\alpha _{PS}^{(0)}+\alpha _{PS}^{(3)}\varphi )^{}\}.`$ (14)
The nuclear transition matrix elements $`_{p,n}`$ entering Eq. (13), for the case of a ground state to ground state $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$transition, are defined as

$$_{p,n}=4\pi j_0(p_er)\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (r)\rho _{p,n}(r)r^2𝑑r,$$
(15)
($`j_0`$ is the zero-order spherical Bessel function) where $`\rho _{p,n}(r)`$ are the spherically symmetric proton (p) and neutron (n) nuclear densities normalized to the atomic number $`Z`$ and neutron number $`N`$, respectively, of the participating nucleus. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (r)`$ is the space dependent part of the muon wave function.

The quantity $`𝒬`$ in (14) depends on the nuclear-target parameters through the factor $`\varphi =(_p_n)/(_p+_n).`$ However for all the experimentally interesting nuclei this parameter is small. Therefore nuclear dependence of $`𝒬`$ can always be neglected except very special narrow domain in the $`L_f/`$parameter space where $`\alpha ^{(0)}\alpha ^{(3)}\varphi `$. Another important issue of the smallness of the ratio $`\varphi `$ in Eq. (14) is the dominance of the isoscalar contribution associated with the coefficients $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$. Given that the relative significance of the strange quark component, which enters only the isoscalar couplings, is enhanced.

The nuclear matrix elements $`_{p,n}`$, defined in Eq. (15), are numerically calculated using proton densities $`\rho _p`$ from Ref.  and neutron densities $`\rho _n`$ from Ref.  whenever possible. The muon wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu (r)`$ was obtained by solving the Schröndinger equation with the Coulomb potential produced by the densities $`\rho _{p,n}`$, taking into account the vacuum polarization corrections . In this way the matrix elements $`_{p,n}`$ for the nuclear targets 27Al and 48Ti have been calculated in Ref. . Here we apply this approach to 197Au. The results for $`_{p,n}`$ corresponding to the nuclei Al, Ti and Au are given in Table 1 where we also show the muon binding energy $`ϵ_b`$ and the experimental total rates ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu c}`$) of the ordinary muon capture reaction .

By inserting in Eq. (13) the values of the nuclear matrix elements $`_{p,n}`$ and other quantities from Table 1 and Eqs. (2)-(4) we can derive the upper limits on the parameters of the effective Lagrangians (5), (6). These limits correspond to the existing  or expected  experimental limits on the branching ratio $`R_{\mu e}`$. The most straightforward limit can be set on the quantity $`𝒬`$ of Eq. (13) but its physical meaning is rather obscure. In order to obtain physically interesting upper bounds on the $`L_f/`$parameters $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$, $`\eta ^{(q)}`$ we adopt the usual assumption that different terms in expressions (12) and (14) do not substantially compensate each other or, equivalently, that only one term dominates at a time. In this way we derived the upper limits given in Table 2. The scaling factors $`B_A`$ in Table 2 are defined as

$`B_{Ti}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mu e}^{exp}}{6.110^{13}}}\right)^{1/2},B_{Al}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mu e}^{exp}}{2.010^{17}}}\right)^{1/2},B_{Au}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{\mu e}^{exp}}{6.010^{13}}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (16)
Multiplying corresponding column in Table 2 by $`B_A`$ one can reconstruct upper limits on the listed parameters for the case when experimental upper bounds on the branching ratio $`R_{\mu e}^{exp}`$ differ from those we used in our analysis.

The constraints for $`\eta _{JS}^{(s)}`$ in Table 2 originate from the contribution of the strange nucleon sea. As can be seen, they are comparable to the other $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$limits derived from the valence quarks contributions.

The limits in Table 2 represent a general outcome of the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion experiments for the $`L_f/`$physics. These limits can be easily translated into limits on the parameters of specific $`L_f/`$model predicting the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion. This is achieved by adjusting the quark level effective Lagrangian of the model to the form of Eq. (5) and by identifying the effective parameters $`\eta _{AB}^{(q)}`$ with expressions in terms of model parameters. Then the upper bounds on $`\eta _{AB}^{(q)}`$ from Table 2 can be translated to certain constraints on the model parameters present in these expressions.

In conclusion, we constructed a general effective Lagrangian describing the non-photonic $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion and specified all the $`L_f/`$parameters characterizing this process without referring to any specific model beyond the SM. It includes (axial-)vector, (pseudo-)scalar and tensor interactions. We derived general formula for the coherent $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion branching ratio in terms of the $`L_f/`$parameters of the quark level effective Lagrangian. We calculated previously unknown nuclear matrix elements of 197Au (the current SINDRUM II target). We found that the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion branching ratio in the strange quark sea of the nucleon is comparable with that in the valence quarks. We have inferred the generic $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ constraints on the $`L_f/`$parameters from the existing and expected experimental bounds on the $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ conversion rate. These results are readily used for derivation of the constraints on the parameters of any specific $`L_f/`$model without need of the nucleon and nuclear structure calculations. This provides useful nuclear and particle physics inputs for the expected new data from the PSI, MECO, PRIME and other $`\mu ^{}e^{}`$ experiments to set bounds on the muon $`L_f/`$violating parameters.

This work was supported in part by Fondecyt (Chile) under grant 8000017, by a Cátedra Presidencial (Chile) and by RFBR (Russia) under grant 00-02-17587. T.S.K. would like to express his appreciation to UTFSM for hospitality.


text:
# Gamma ray bursts from superconducting cosmic strings

## I Introduction

Existing models of gamma ray bursts (GRBs) face the problem of explaining the tremendous energy released by the central engine . In the case of isotropic emission, the total energy output should be as high as $`1.4\times 10^{54}`$ ergs, in case of GRB 990123 with redshift $`z=1.6`$. Strongly beamed emission is needed for all known engine models, such as mergers and hypernovae, but such extreme beaming is difficult to arrange (see recent discussion by Blandford  and Rees ). In this paper we show that emission of pulsed electromagnetic radiation from cusps of superconducting cosmic strings naturally solves this problem and explains the observational GRB data using only one engine parameter .

Cosmic strings are linear defects that could be formed at a symmetry breaking phase transition in the early universe . Strings predicted in most grand unified models respond to external electromagnetic fields as thin superconducting wires . As they move through cosmic magnetic fields, such strings develop electric currents. Oscillating loops of superconducting string emit short bursts of highly beamed electromagnetic radiation through small string segments, centered at peculiar points on a string, cusps, where velocity reaches speed of light. .

The idea that GRBs could be produced at cusps of superconducting strings was first suggested by Babul, Paczynski and Spergel  (BPS) and further explored by Paczynski . They assumed that the bursts originate at very high redshifts ($`z1001000`$), with GRB photons produced either directly or in electromagnetic cascades developing due to interaction with the microwave background. This model requires the existence of a strong primordial magnetic field to generate the string currents.

As it stands, the BPS model does not agree with observations. The observed GRB redshifts are in the range $`z3`$, and the observed duration of the bursts ($`10^2s\tau 10^3s`$) is significantly longer than that predicted by the model. On the theoretical side, our understanding of cosmic string evolution and of the GRB generation in relativistic jets have considerably evolved since the BPS papers were written. Our goal in this paper is to revive the BPS idea taking stock of these recent advances.

As in the BPS model we shall use the cusp of a superconducting string as the central engine in GRB. It provides the tremendous engine energy naturally beamed. Our main observation is that putting superconducting cusps in a different enviroment, the magnetized plasma at a relatively small redshift $`z`$, results in a different mechanism of gamma radiation, which leads to a good agreement with GRB observational data.

GRB radiation in our model arises as follows. Low-frequency electromagnetic radiation from a cusp loses its energy by accelerating particles of the plasma to very large Lorentz factors. Like the initial electromagnetic pulse, the particles are beamed and give rise to a hydrodynamical flow in the surrounding gas, terminated by a shock, as in the standard fireball theory of GRB  (for a review see ).

The string symmetry breaking scale $`\eta `$ will be the only string parameter used in our calculations. With reasonable assumptions about the magnitude of cosmic magnetic fields and the fraction of volume in the Universe that they occupy, this parameter is sufficient to account for all main GRB observational quantities: the duration $`\tau _{GRB}`$, the rate of events $`\dot{N}_{GRB}`$, and the fluence $`S`$.

We begin in the next Section with a brief review of cosmic string properties and evolution, with an emphasis on the physics of cusps and on the generation and dissipation of electric current in superconducting strings. (The discussion of the latter topic in the existing literature is often oversimplified and sometimes incorrect, so we review it in more detail than we otherwise would.) The GRB characteristics in our model are calculated in Section III, and the hydrodynamical aspects of the model are discussed in Section IV. In Section V we discuss the diffuse X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray backgrounds predicted by the model, as well as other observational predictions, which include GRB repeaters, bursts of gravitational radiation, and ultrahigh-energy particles.

## II String overview

### A String properties and evolution

Here we briefly review some aspects of cosmic string properties and evolution, which are relevant for the discussion below (for a detailed review and references see ).

Strings are characterized by the energy scale of symmetry breaking $`\eta `$, which is given by the expectation value of the corresponding Higgs field, $`\varphi =\eta `$. The mass per unit length of string is given by

$$\mu \eta ^2.$$
(1)
An important dimensionless parameter characterizing the gravitational interactions of strings is

$$G\mu (\eta /m_P)^2,$$
(2)
where $`G`$ is Newton’s constant and $`m_P`$ is the Planck mass. In many models this is the only relevant string parameter.

Numerical simulations of cosmic string evolution indicate that strings evolve in a self-similar manner . A horizon-size volume at any time $`t`$ contains a few long strings stretching across the volume and a large number of small closed loops. The typical distance between long strings and their characteristic curvature radius are both $`t`$, but, in addition, the strings have small-scale wiggles of wavelength down to

$$l\alpha t,$$
(3)
with $`\alpha 1`$. The typical length of loops being chopped off the long strings is comparable to the scale of the smallest wiggles (3).

The loops oscillate periodically and lose their energy, mostly by gravitational radiation. For a loop of invariant length $`l`$ , the oscillation period is $`T_l=l/2`$ and the lifetime is $`\tau _ll/k_gG\mu `$, where $`k_g50`$ is a numerical coefficient.

The exact value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ in (3) is not known. Numerical simulations give only an upper bound, $`\alpha 10^3`$, while the analysis of gravitational radiation backreaction indicates that $`\alpha k_gG\mu `$. We shall assume, following , that $`\alpha `$ is determined by the gravitational backreaction, so that

$$\alpha k_gG\mu .$$
(4)
Note that in this case the loops decay within about one Hubble time of their formation. Then, most of the loops at time $`t`$ have length $`l\alpha t`$, and their number density is given by

$$n_l(t)\alpha ^1t^3.$$
(5)
Analysis of string equations of motion reveals that oscillating loops tend to form cusps, where for a brief period of time the string reaches the speed very close to the speed of light. Near a cusp, the string gets contracted by a large factor, its rest energy being turned into kinetic energy. For a string segment of invariant length $`\delta ll`$, the maximum contraction factor is $`l/\delta l`$, resulting in a Lorentz factor

$$\gamma l/\delta l.$$
(6)
To avoid confusion, we note that cusps were originally defined  as points of infinite contraction, where the string momentarily reaches the speed of light. Strictly speaking, such cusps can be formed only on idealized infinitely thin strings. For realistic strings, the cusp development is truncated either by the annihilation of overlapping string segments at the tip of the cusp or for superconducting strings, by the back reaction of charge carriers or of the electromagnetic radiation. However, unless the string current is very large, so that the energy of the charge carriers is comparable to that of the string itself, the truncation occurs at a very large Lorentz factor and the string exhibits cusp-like behavior. Below we shall use the word “cusps” to refer to such ultra-relativistic string segments.

Cusps typically form a few times during an oscillation period, but it is possible to construct (somewhat contrived) loop configurations exhibiting no cusps. Apart from various backreaction effects, the motion of loops is strictly periodic, and thus cusps reappear at nearly the same locations on the string in each oscillation period.

Another peculiar feature that one can expect to find on string loops is a kink . It is characterized by a sharp bent, where the string direction changes discontinuously. Two oppositely moving kinks are produced on a loop at the moment when the loop is disconnected from a long string. The kinks then run around the loop at the speed of light.

### B String superconductivity

As first shown by Witten , strings predicted in a wide class of elementary particle models behave as superconducting wires. If some fermions acquire their mass as a result of the same symmetry breaking that is responsible for the string formation, then these fermions are massive outside the string but are massless inside. If in addition some of these fermions are electrically charged, then the strings have massless charge carriers which travel along the string at the speed of light. The fermion mass outside the string is $`m=\lambda \eta `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the Yukawa coupling of the fermion to the Higgs field of the string. Yukawa couplings in particle physics models are often very small, so it is not unusual to have $`m\eta `$. String superconductivity can also be bosonic, with charge carriers being either spin-zero bosons or spin-one gauge particles. Here, we shall consider only fermionic superconductivity.

An electric field $`E`$ applied along a superconducting string generates an electric current. The Fermi momentum of the charge carriers grows with time as $`\dot{p}_F=eE`$, where $`e`$ is the elementary charge, and the number of fermions per unit length, $`n=p_F/2\pi `$, also grows, $`\dot{n}eE`$. The resulting current, $`Jen`$, grows at the rate

$$dJ/dte^2E.$$
(7)
A superconducting loop oscillating in a magnetic field $`B`$ acts as an ac generator and develops an ac current of amplitude

$$J_0e^2Bl.$$
(8)
This loop current is not homogeneous; it changes direction along the string and is more accurately described as current-charge oscillations. Some portions of the loop develop charge densities $`J_0`$. For typical values used in the calculations below, $`B=110^7`$ G and $`l=\alpha t_030`$ pc, with $`\alpha =110^8`$ and $`t_010^{10}`$yrs the present age of the universe, one obtains $`J_0210^5\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The local value of the string current can be greatly enhanced in the vicinity of cusps. The portion of the string that attains a Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ is contracted by a factor $`1/\gamma `$. The charge carrier density, and thus the current, are enhanced by the same factor, so the current becomes (in the local rest frame of the string)

$$J_\gamma \gamma J_0.$$
(9)
The growth of electric current at the cusp is terminated at a critical value $`J_{max}`$ when the energy of charge carriers becomes comparable to that of the string itself, $`(J/e)^2\mu `$. This gives $`J_{max}`$ and $`\gamma _{max}`$ as

$$J_{max}e\eta ,\gamma _{max}(e\eta /J_0).$$
(10)
Alternatively, the cusp development can be terminated by small-scale wiggles on the string . If the wiggles contribute a fraction $`ϵ1`$ to the total energy of the string, then the maximum Lorentz factor is less than (10), and is given by

$$\gamma _{max}ϵ^{1/2}.$$
(11)
The actual value of $`\gamma _{max}`$ is not important for most of the following discussion.

In realistic models, the strings have several fermion species as charge carriers. It can be shown that fermions of a given species can move only in a certain direction along the string. Thus, the charge carrier species can be divided into left-movers and right-movers. If, for example, the applied electric field is directed to the right, it produces positively charged right-movers and negatively charged left-movers (and vice versa for the opposite direction of $`E`$). The left-movers and right-movers usually differ by flavour, lepton number, or some other conserved or weakly violated quantum number.

In the absence of an external electromagnetic field, the current in an oscillating loop decays due to various dissipation mechanisms. These include: scattering of left- and right-movers , electromagnetic back-reaction , and plasma effects .

Charge carrier loss due to scattering of left- and right-movers is highly model-dependent. If the scattering is mediated by superheavy gauge bosons of mass $`M_X10^{15}`$ GeV, then the characteristic scattering time is

$$\tau _{sc}310^4\left(\frac{J}{10^5\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^5\mathrm{yrs}.$$
(12)
For $`J<10^4`$ GeV this time is greater than the age of the universe, but $`\tau _{sc}`$ decreases rapidly with the growth of the current and becomes comparable to the typical oscillation period of loops ($`T_l100`$ yrs for $`l30`$ pc) for $`J310^5`$ GeV. In near-cusp regions, where $`J10^5`$ GeV, charge carrier scattering becomes very efficient.

We note, however, that this current loss mechanism has an important limitation. The densities of left- and right-moving charge carriers are typically not equal, and even if scattering were 100% efficient, it would stop after eliminating the minority charge carriers, leaving the string with a chiral current (that is, with a current consisting of only left- or right-movers). This is what we expect to happen in the vicinity of cusps.

The electromagnetic back-reaction typically damps the loop current on a timescale $`\tau _{em}l/e^2100l`$, which is much shorter than the loop’s lifetime. It tends to damp the spatial component of the current, with the total charge of the loop remaining the same, so in the absence of other effects the end result would be left- and right-moving currents of the same magnitude and the same charge.***Spergel et. al.  argued that the dc component of the current cannot be changed by the e-m back-reaction. However, their Eq. (11) which they quote in support of this statement is in fact an expression of charge conservation. Combined with scattering of charge carriers, this mechanism can dissipate loop charges and currents, even in the chiral case. Moreover, the string charge is almost completely screened by a vacuum condensate , so the string is effectively neutral even if the scattering rate is low and there is some residual charge. It should be noted that the physics of electromagnetic back-reaction can be significantly modified by plasma effects, which are presently not well understood. Thompson  has argued that current damping becomes more efficient in the presence of plasma.

Another mechanism that can dissipate a large chiral current operates when a loop oscillates in an external magnetic field. The emf induced in the loop oscillates with the same period. Suppose for definiteness that the loop initially has a chiral current $`J_i`$ consisting of positively charged right-movers. When the emf is directed oppositely to this current, the magnitude of the right-moving current is reduced by $`J_0`$ and a positively charged left-moving current of magnitude $`J_0`$ is generated, with $`J_0`$ from Eq. (8). Left- and right-movers can now scatter off the string, and if $`\tau _{sc}<T_l`$, the chiral component of the current will be reduced by $`J_0`$. The initial current will then be dissipated in $`J_i/J_0`$ oscillations.

The effect of all these dissipation mechanisms is to damp the loop’s charge and current on a timescale

$$\tau _d(1100)l.$$
(13)
This means in particular that the loop quickly forgets any initial charge or current that it inherits when it is chopped off the long string network. The magnitude of the current in a loop is determined mainly by the local magnitude of the cosmic magnetic field, as in Eq. (8).

We note finally that Eq. (8) for the current is modified when the loop has an appreciable center-of-mass velocity $`v`$ . In this case, the amplitude of current-charge oscillations grows linearly with time, until the growth is hampered by the damping processes. The resulting amplitude is

$$J_0e^2Bv\tau _d.$$
(14)
Loops can have high center-of-mass velocities, $`v1`$, but in view of the uncertainty in the damping time (13) we shall use the estimate (8) for the current.

## III GRB engine

There are three types of sites in the universe where magneic fields can induce large electric currents in the strings. They are compact structures (galaxies and clusters of galaxies), voids, and walls (filaments and sheets) of the large-scale structures. The total rate of GRBs is dominated by the walls, and further on we shall concentrate on these structures only.

Magnetic fields in our scenario are assumed to be generated in young galaxies during the bright phase of their evolution  and then dispersed by galactic winds in the intergalactic space. Then at present the fields are concentrated in the filaments and sheets of the large-scale structure .

Assuming that magnetic fields were generated at some $`zz_B`$ (galaxy formation epoch) and then remained frozen in the extragalactic plasma, we obtain

$$B(z)=B_0(1+z)^2,$$
(15)
where the characteristic field strength at the present time $`B_0`$ can be estimated from the equipartition condition as $`B_010^7`$ G .

With sheets of characteristic size $`L(2050)h^1`$ Mpc and thickness $`D5h^1`$ Mpc, we can estimate the fraction of the space occupied by the walls with magnetized plasma as $`f_BD/L0.1`$. For numerical estimates below we shall use $`z_B4`$.

We shall now estimate the physical quantities characterizing GRBs powered by cusps of superconducting strings. In what follows we assume that the universe is spatially flat, is dominated by non-relativistic matter, and has age $`t_0=0.8710^{10}`$ yr, which corresponds to dimensionless Hubble constant $`h=0.75`$.

### A GRB rate and fluence

Due to the large current, the cusp produces a powerful pulse of electromagnetic radiation. The total energy of the pulse is given by  $`_{em}^{tot}2k_{em}J_0J_{max}l`$, where $`l\alpha t`$ is the length of the loop, and the coefficient $`k_{em}10`$ is taken from numerical calculations . This radiation is emitted within a very narrow cone of openening angle $`\theta _{min}1/\gamma _{max}`$. The angular distribution of radiated energy at larger angles is given by

$$d_{em}/d\mathrm{\Omega }k_{em}J_0^2l/\theta ^3.$$
(16)
For a GRB originating at redshift $`z`$ and seen at angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the string velocity at the cusp, we have from Eqs.(8)-(15)

$$d_{em}/d\mathrm{\Omega }k_{em}e^4\alpha ^3t_0^3B_0^2(1+z)^{1/2}\theta ^3,$$
(17)
The Lorentz factor of the relevant string segment near the cusp is $`\gamma 1/\theta `$. The duration of the cusp event as seen by a distant observer is

$$\tau _c(1+z)(\alpha t/2)\gamma ^3(\alpha t_0/2)(1+z)^{1/2}\theta ^3.$$
(18)
One can expect that the observed duration of GRB is $`\tau _{GRB}\tau _c`$. This expectation will be justified by the hydrodynamical analysis in Section IV.

The fluence, defined as the total energy per unit area of the detector, is

$$S(1+z)(d_{em}/d\mathrm{\Omega })d_L^2(z),$$
(19)
where $`d_L(z)=3t_0(1+z)^{1/2}[(1+z)^{1/2}1]`$ is the luminosity distance.

The rate of GRBs originating at cusps in the redshift interval $`dz`$ and seen at an angle $`\theta `$ in the interval $`d\theta `$ is given by

$$d\dot{N}_{GRB}f_B\frac{1}{2}\theta d\theta (1+z)^1\nu (z)dV(z).$$
(20)
Here, $`\nu (t)n_l(t)/T_l2\alpha ^2t^4`$ is the number of cusp events per unit spacetime volume, $`T_l\alpha t/2`$ is the oscillation period of a loop, $`dV=54\pi t_0^3[(1+z)^{1/2}1]^2(1+z)^{11/2}dz`$ is the proper volume between redshifts $`z`$ and $`z+dz`$, and we have used the relation $`dt_0=(1+z)dt`$.

Since different cusp events originate at different redshifts and are seen at different angles, our model automatically gives a distribution of durations and fluences of GRBs. The angle $`\theta `$ is related to the Lorentz factor of the relevant portion of the string as $`\theta 1/\gamma `$, and from Eqs.(17),(19) we have

$$\gamma (z;S)\gamma _0\alpha _8^1S_8^{1/3}B_7^{2/3}[(\sqrt{1+z}1)^2\sqrt{1+z}]^{1/3}.$$
(21)
Here, $`\gamma _0190,\alpha _8=\alpha /10^8`$, and the fluence $`S`$ and the magnetic field $`B_0`$ are expressed as $`S=S_810^8erg/cm^2`$ and $`B_0=B_710^7G`$.

Very large values of $`\gamma \gamma _{max}`$, which correspond (for a given redshift) to largest fluences, may not be seen at all because the radiation is emitted into a too narrow solid angle and the observed rates of these events are too small. The minimum value $`\gamma (z;S_{min})`$ is determined by the smallest fluence that is observed, e.g. for GRBs at $`z1`$ with $`S_{min}310^8\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$, $`\gamma _{min}170`$. Another lower limit on $`\gamma `$, which dominates at small $`z`$, follows from the condition of compactness  and is given by $`\gamma 100`$ (see Section IV).

The total rate of GRBs with fluence larger than $`S`$ is obtained by integrating Eq.(20) over $`\theta `$ from $`\gamma _{max}^1(z)`$ to $`\gamma ^1(z;S)`$ and over $`z`$ from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{min}[z_m;z_B]`$, with $`z_m`$ from $`\gamma _{max}(z_m)=\gamma (z_m;S)`$. For relatively small fluences, $`S_8<S_c=0.03(\gamma _{max}(0)\alpha _8/\gamma _0)^3B_7^2`$, $`z_B<z_m`$ and we obtain

$`\dot{N}_{GRB}(>S)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_B}{2\alpha ^2t_0^4}}{\displaystyle _0^{z_B}}𝑑V(z)(1+z)^5\gamma ^2(z;S)`$ (22)
$``$ $`310^2S_8^{2/3}B_7^{4/3}yr^1.`$ (23)
Remarkably, this rate in our model does not depend on any string parameters and is determined (for a given value of $`S`$) almost entirely by the magnetic field $`B_0`$. It agrees with the observed rate for $`B_71`$ (formally, the observed rate $`\dot{N}300\text{yr}^1`$ at $`S>110^7\text{erg/cm}^2`$ gives $`B_7=3.2`$). The predicted slope $`\dot{N}_{GRB}(>S)S^{2/3}`$ is also in a reasonable agreement with the observed one $`\dot{N}_{obs}(>S)S^{0.55}`$ at relatively small fluences .

For large fluences $`S_8>S_c`$, integration of Eq.(20) gives $`\dot{N}_{GRB}(>S)S^{3/2}`$. Observationally, the transition to this regime occurs at $`S_810^210^3`$. This can be accounted for if the cusp development is terminated by small-scale wiggles with fractional energy in the wiggles $`ϵ10^7\alpha _8^2B_7^{4/3}`$. Alternatively, if $`\gamma _{max}`$ is determined by the back-reaction of the charge carriers, Eq.(10), then the regime (23) holds for larger $`S_8`$, and observed steepening of the distribution at large $`S`$ can be due to the reduced efficiency of BATSE to detection of bursts with large $`\gamma `$. Indeed, large $`\gamma `$ results in a large Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{CD}`$ of the emitting region (see Section IV), and at $`\gamma _{CD}10^3`$ photons start to escape from the BATSE range.

### B GRB duration

The duration of GRBs originating at redshift $`z`$ and having fluence $`S`$ is readily calculated from Eqs.(18) and (21) as

$$\tau _{GRB}200\frac{\alpha _8^4B_7^2}{S_8}(1+z)^1(\sqrt{1+z}1)^2s$$
(24)
From Eqs.(20) and (18) we find the rate of GRBs with durations in the interval $`d\tau `$ and redshifts in the interval $`dz`$,

$$d\dot{N}10^2\alpha ^2t_0^1\left(\frac{\tau }{\alpha t_0}\right)^{2/3}(\sqrt{1+z}1)^2(1+z)^{1/6}dz\frac{d\tau }{\tau }.$$
(25)
The distribution of GRB durations is found by integrating this over $`z`$. The integration is restricted by $`z<z_B`$ and $`S>S_{min}310^8\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The latter condition can be expressed as $`z<\stackrel{~}{z}(\tau )`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{z}(\tau )`$ is the solution of Eq. (24) for $`z`$ with $`SS_{min}`$.

The distribution changes its form at the characteristic value $`\tau _{}`$ defined by $`\stackrel{~}{z}(\tau _{})=z_B`$. With $`z_B=4`$, Eq. (24) gives

$$\tau _{}8.7\alpha _8^4B_7^2\mathrm{s}.$$
(26)
For $`\tau <\tau _{}`$ we have $`d\dot{N}\tau ^{2/3}d\tau /\tau `$, and for $`\tau \tau _{}`$, $`d\dot{N}\tau ^{5/6}d\tau /\tau `$. We thus see that the distribution is peaked at $`\tau \tau _{}`$.

The largest value of $`\tau `$ in our model is obtained from Eq.(18) with $`\theta \theta _{max}10^2`$, $`\tau _{GRB}^{max}10^3\alpha _8\mathrm{s}`$. There is no sharp lower cutoff, but very small values of $`\tau `$ will not be observed due to the low rate of events. With the rate $`10^2`$ yr-1 near the peak of the distribution, the rate of events with $`\tau 10^4\tau _{}`$ is about $`0.1`$ yr-1.

A lower bound on $`\tau `$ is also set by the detector resolution ($`10^2`$ s for BATSE). Hence, we have $`\tau _{min}\mathrm{max}\{10^4\tau _{},10^2\mathrm{s}\}`$.

The observed distribution of GRB durations extends from $`10^2`$ s to $`10^3`$ s. The distribution is bimodal, with peaks at 0.5 s and 15 s , and there are some observational indications that short and long GRBs may have different origin. Our model is probably better suited to describe the short GRB population (see Section V). With $`\tau _{}0.5`$ s and $`B_73`$, Eq.(26) gives $`\alpha _80.3`$. This corresponds to the string symmetry breaking scale $`\eta 110^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The range of GRB durations is then given by $`\tau _{GRB}^{min}10^2\mathrm{s}`$, $`\tau _{GRB}^{max}10^3\mathrm{s}`$.

It should be noted that the validity of our simple one-parameter model does not extend beyond rough order-of-magnitude estimates (see Section VI). In particular, it is not expected to give the correct duration distribution $`\dot{N}(\tau )`$, and identifying the peaks of the theoretical and observed distributions may therefore exceed the accuracy of the model. A more conservative approach is to require that the characteristic duration $`\tau _{}`$ lies within the observed range of GRB durations. This gives $`0.2\alpha _83`$.

## IV Acceleration and hydrodynamics

A beam of low-frequency e-m radiation propagating in plasma produces a beam of accelerated particles.

The characteristic frequency of e-m radiation in a pulse produced by a cusp segment with Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ is

$$\omega _{em}\frac{4\pi }{\alpha t_0}\gamma ^3(1+z)^{3/2}=4.6(\gamma /10^3)^3(1+z)^{3/2}\alpha _8^1\text{s}^1.$$
(27)
The plasma frequency in the intergalactic gas of density $`n=n_510^5`$ cm-3,

$$\omega _{pl}=1.810^2n_5^{1/2}\text{s}^1,$$
(28)
is higher than $`\omega _{em}`$ when $`\gamma 3.410^3n_5^{1/6}\alpha _8^{1/3}(1+z)^{1/2}`$. Therefore, the low-frequency radiation from the cusp cannot propagate in plasma. In fact, the energy density of e-m beam is much larger than that of the plasma, and the beam would push the plasma away even in the case $`\omega _{em}>\omega _{pl}`$. This process occurs due to the acceleration of plasma particles.

Let us consider the propagation of a charged test particle in a strong, low-frequency e-m wave. For a time interval much shorter than the period of the wave, $`t1/\omega _{em}`$, the e-m field of the wave can be approximated by static, orthogonal electric and magnetic fields of equal magnitude. Solution of the equations of motion (see e.g. ) shows that both positive and negative charges are accelerated mainly in the direction of wave propagation, $`𝐧=(𝐄\times 𝐁)/EB`$, with their Lorentz factor increasing with time as

$$\gamma _b(t)=\left(\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{eB}{m}t\right)^{2/3},$$
(29)
where $`m`$ is the particle’s mass. The synchrotron energy loss of an accelerated particle is small, because when it moves in the direction of wave propagation, $`𝐧`$, the electric force, $`e𝐄`$, and the magnetic force $`e𝐯\times 𝐁`$ almost exactly compensate each other: $`e(𝐄+v𝐧\times 𝐁)0`$. This regime of acceleration is practically the same as in the Gunn-Ostriker mechanism .

For an e-m wave in vacuum, a test particle would be accelerated at $`t1/\omega _{em}`$ up to a very large Lorentz factor. But the maximum Lorentz factor of the beam is saturated at the value $`\gamma _b`$, when the energy of the beam reaches the energy of the original e-m pulse: $`N_bm\gamma _b_{em}`$. This results in the Lorentz factor of the beam

$$\gamma _b410^2B_7^2n_5^1(1+z)^4(\gamma /100)^6.$$
(30)
Let us now turn to the hydrodynamical phenomena in which the gamma radiation of the burst is actually generated. The beam of accelerated particles pushes the gas with the frozen magnetic field ahead of it, producing an external shock in surrounding plasma and a reverse shock in the beam material, as in the case of “ordinary” fireball (for a review see ). The difference is that the beam propagates with a very large Lorentz factor $`\gamma _b\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor of the cusp (the precise value of $`\gamma _b`$ is not important for our discussion). Another difference is that the beam propagates in a very low-density gas. The beam can be regarded as a narrow shell of relativistic particles of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }l/2\gamma ^3`$ in the observer’s frame.

The gamma radiation of the burst is produced as synchrotron radiation of electrons accelerated by external and reverse shocks. Naively, the duration of synchrotron radiation, i.e. $`\tau _{GRB}`$, is determined by the thickness of the shell as $`\tau _{GRB}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This is confirmed by a more detailed analysis, as follows. The reverse shock in our case is ultrarelativistic . The neccessary condition for that, $`\rho _b/\rho <\gamma _b^2`$, is satisfied with a wide margin (here $`\rho _b`$ is the baryon density in the beam and $`\rho `$ is the density of unperturbed gas). In this case, the shock dynamics and the GRB duration are determined by two hydrodynamical parameters . They are the thickness of the shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the Sedov length, defined as the distance travelled by the shell when the mass of the snow-ploughed gas becomes comparable to the initial energy of the beam. The latter is given by $`l_{Sed}(_{iso}/\rho )^{1/3}`$.

The reverse shock enters the shell and, as it propagates there, it strongly decelerates the shell. The synchrotron radiation occurs mainly in the shocked regions of the shell and of the external plasma. The surface separating these two regions, the contact discontinuity (CD) surface, propagates with the same velocity as the shocked plasma, where the GRB radiation is produced.

The synchrotron radiation ceases when the reverse shock reaches the inner boundary of the shell. This occurs at a distance $`R_\mathrm{\Delta }l_{Sed}^{3/4}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/4}`$ when the Lorentz factor of the CD surface is

$$\gamma _{CD}(l_{Sed}/\mathrm{\Delta })^{3/8}0.1B_7^{1/4}n_5^{1/8}(1+z)^{1/2}\gamma ^{3/2}.$$
(31)
Note that these values do not depend on the Lorentz factor of the beam $`\gamma _b`$ and are determined by the cusp Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$. The size of the synchrotron emitting region is of the order $`R_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the Lorentz factor of this region is equal to $`\gamma _{CD}`$. The compactness condition  requires $`\gamma _{CD}10^2`$, and Eq. (31) yields $`\gamma 10^2`$ which we used earlier in Section III. The duration of GRB is given by

$$\tau _{GRB}R_\mathrm{\Delta }/2\gamma _{CD}^2l/2\gamma ^3,$$
(32)
i.e. it is equal to the duration of the cusp event given by Eq.(18). The energy that goes into synchrotron radiation is comparable to the energy of the electromagnetic pulse.

## V Predictions and problems

In this section we shall consider a number of predictions of our model. Some of these predictions pose potential problems.
(i) Short-time structure of GRBs.

Most of GRBs exhibit a complex short-time structure. These variations must be a property of inner engine . In the cusp model they can be naturally produced by wiggles. Wiggles are amplified in near-cusp regions and, acting like minicusps, produce a sequence of successive fireballs. A quantitative analysis of this effect would require a detailed study of the gravitational back-reaction, which controls the amplitude of the wiggles.
(ii) Repeaters.

Cusps reappear on a loop with a period of loop oscillation, producing nearly identical GRBs. In our model, where all loops have the same length $`l=\alpha t`$ at a given cosmological epoch $`t`$, the recurrence time, $`T_l(1+z)\alpha t/250\alpha _8(1+z)^{1/2}yr`$, is too long to be observed by BATSE and other detectors. In a more realistic models, some fraction of loops would have lengths smaller than $`\alpha t`$ and thus shorter recurrence periods. This fraction is model-dependent. Moreover, GRBs from repeaters with $`l<\alpha t`$ must be weak and have short durations.

The GRB fluence from a loop of length $`l`$ produced by a string segment with Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ can be readily calculated as

$$S\frac{1}{9}k_{em}e^4l^3\gamma ^3\frac{B_0^2}{t_0^2}\frac{(1+z)^4}{[(1+z)^{1/2}1]^2}$$
(33)
After a change of variables from $`\gamma `$ and $`l`$ to $`\tau _{GRB}`$ and the reccurence period $`T_{rec}=l(1+z)/2`$, we obtain

$$\tau _{GRB}k_{em}e^4\frac{B_0^2}{t_0^2}\frac{(1+z)}{[(1+z)^{1/2}1]^2}\frac{T_{rec}^4}{S}.$$
(34)
A search for repeaters with $`T_{rec}5`$ yr requires, according Eq.(34), low fluences $`S10^7`$ erg/cm2 and short durations $`\tau _{GRB}40`$ ms. The BATSE efficiency is low for such events  and the repeating burst could easily have been lost. The total number of GRBs shorter than 40 ms in BATSE 3B catalogue is less than 5 .
(iii) Host galaxies

The discovery of GRB aferglows revealed an association of long-duration GRBs with galaxies (see  for a review). 19 GRBs with long durations are found to be undoubtedly hosted by normal galaxies . For 10 of them redshifts are found to be typically 1 - 3. For many bright bursts, which are most probably at small distances, no host galaxies have been found. For example, for 16 bright bursts observed by the Interplanetary Network with small error boxes, no galaxies are found with magnitudes from 20 to 24. This suggests that some of the GRBs are not hosted by galaxies.

In our model, the fraction of loops captured by galaxes is expected to be small, due to the high velocities of the loops. The most straightforward way to reconcile the model with observations is to assume that cusps are responsible only for a subset of the observed GRBs not associated with galaxies. Such a subset could include the short-duration GRBs, for which no host galaxies have yet been detected. With the choice of parameters $`B_73`$, $`\alpha _80.3`$, as in Section III, the distribution of GRB durations is peaked at $`\tau _{GRB}0.5\mathrm{s}`$. At the same time, the tail of the distribution extends all the way to $`\tau _{GRB}10^3\mathrm{s}`$, and thus the model can account for some of the long GRBs as well. This particular possibility meets another problem, since short GRBs do not show deviation from Euclidean distribution. However, it is often suggested that GRBs comprise a few subclasses, and the existence of a no-host subclass remains plausible.

An alternative possibility should be also mentined. In string evolution models with $`\alpha k_gG\mu `$, the lifetime of the loops is $`\tau _lt`$, so the loops will be slowed down by the expansion of the universe and a substantial fraction of them can be captured in galaxies.
(iv) Bursts of gravitational radiation

Our model predicts that GRBs should be accompanied by strong bursts of gravitational radiation (see also ). The angular distribution of the gravitational wave energy around the direction of the cusp is  $`d_g/d\mathrm{\Omega }G\mu ^2l/\theta `$, and the dimensionless amplitude of a burst of duration $`\tau `$ originating at redshift $`z`$ can be estimated as

$$hk_g^{1/2}\alpha ^{5/3}(\tau /t_0)^{1/3}(1+z)^{1/3}z^1,$$
(35)
or $`h10^{21}\alpha _8^{5/3}z^1(\tau /1s)^{1/3}`$ for $`z1`$. Here, we have used the relation $`F_gh^2/G\tau ^2(1+z)(d_g/d\mathrm{\Omega })/d_L^2\tau `$ for the gravitational wave flux and Eq.(18) for the burst duration $`\tau `$. These gravitational wave bursts are much stronger than expected from more conventional sources and should be detectable by the planned LIGO, VIRGO and LISA detectors. It has been shown in  that gravitational wave bursts from strings are linearly polarized and have a characteristic waveform $`h(t)t^{1/3}`$.
(v) X- and $`\gamma `$\- ray diffuse radiation

Tremendous energy \[see Eq.(16)\] released in a narrow angle $`\theta 1/\gamma _{max}`$ is not seen in GRBs because of the smallness of this angle. The beam of particles accelerated by e-m radiation in this narrow cone has a very large Lorentz factor, and the emitted photons have energies in excess of 1 TeV. These photons are absorbed in collisions with infrared (IR) or microwave photons, collectively denoted as $`\gamma _t`$: $`\gamma +\gamma _te^++e^{}`$. Electrons and positrons start e-m cascades on microwave photons ($`\gamma _{bb}`$) due to Inverse Compton scattering ($`e+\gamma _{bb}e+\gamma `$) and pair production ($`\gamma +\gamma _{bb}e^++e^{}`$). As they degrade in energy, cascade electrons are effectively deflected in the extragalactic magnetic field, and the produced diffuse gamma radiation is isotropic. The spectrum of remaining cascade photons was calculated analytically in  (for recent Monte Carlo simulation see ). The analytic spectrum is described in terms of three parameters: $`ϵ_\gamma `$, $`ϵ_X`$ and $`\omega _\gamma `$.

$`ϵ_\gamma `$ is the minimum energy of absorption, i.e. the smallest energy of a photon absorbed on IR radiation ($`ϵ_\gamma m_e^2/\epsilon _{IR}`$, with the exact value dependent on the spectrum of IR radiation). $`ϵ_X`$ is the energy of an IC photon produced by an electron of energy $`ϵ_e=ϵ_\gamma /2`$, i.e. by an electron born by a photon of energy $`ϵ_\gamma `$. $`\omega _\gamma `$ is the energy density of cascade radiation.

The space density of cascade photons, $`n_\gamma (E)`$, is given by

$$n_\gamma (E)=\{\begin{array}{cc}K(E/ϵ_X)^{3/2}\hfill & \text{if}Eϵ_X\hfill \\ K(E/ϵ_X)^2\hfill & \text{if}ϵ_XEϵ_\gamma \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if}E>ϵ_\gamma \hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
where $`K`$ is a normalization constant which can be expressed in terms of $`\omega _{cas}`$ as

$$K=\frac{\omega _{cas}}{ϵ_X^2(2+\mathrm{ln}ϵ_\gamma /ϵ_X)}$$
(37)
The cascade energy density $`\omega _{cas}`$ can be calculated as the total energy release in e-m radiation of cusps integrated over redshits from 0 up to $`z_B=4`$. This gives

$$\omega _{cas}=5f_Bk_{em}e^3\eta B_0/t_0$$
(38)
Assuming $`ϵ_\gamma 100`$ GeV due to absorption on IR radiation, we obtain $`ϵ_X8.1`$ MeV. Then the predicted spectrum in the energy range $`8\text{MeV}E100`$ GeV is

$$I_{theor}(E)2.510^{10}\alpha _8^{1/2}B_7\left(\frac{E}{10^3\text{MeV}}\right)^2cm^2s^1sr^1MeV^1.$$
(39)
This is to be compared with the EGRET flux  for the energy range $`5\text{MeV}E100\text{GeV}`$,

$$I_{obs}(E)=1.3810^9\left(\frac{E}{10^3\text{MeV}}\right)^{2.1\pm 0.03}cm^2s^1sr^1MeV^1.$$
(40)
With $`\alpha _80.3`$ and $`B_73`$ the predicted flux differs from the observed one by a factor of 3. This can be regarded as agreement for an order of magnitude estimate of our simple model.

(vi) Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays

GRBs have been suggested as possible sources of the observed ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (UHECR) . This idea encounters two difficulties. First, if GRBs are distributed uniformly in the universe, UHECR have a classical Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff, absent in the observations. Second, the acceleration by an ultrarelativistic shock is possible only in the one-loop regime (i.e. due to a single reflection from the shock) . For a standard GRB with a Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{sh}300`$ it results in the maximum energy $`E_{max}\gamma _{sh}^2m_p10^{14}eV`$, far too low for UHECR.

Our model can resolve both of these difficulties, assuming that $`\gamma _{max}`$ is determined by the current backreaction, Eq.(10).

If the magnetic field in the Local Supercluster (LS) is considerably stronger than outside, then the cusps in LS are more powerful and the GZK cutoff is less pronounced.

Cusp segments with large Lorentz factors produce hydrodinamical flows with large Lorentz factors, e.g., $`\gamma 210^4`$ corresponds to $`\gamma _{CD}310^5`$ and $`E_{max}\gamma _{CD}^2m_p110^{20}eV`$. Protons with such energies are deflected in the magnetic field of LS and can be observed, while protons with much higher energies caused by near-cusp segments with $`\gamma 10^5`$ are propagating rectilinearly and generally are not seen. A quantitative analysis of the UHECR flux in this scenario will be given elsewhere.

## VI Discussion and conclusions

The nature of GRB engines is still unknown. There are observational indications that they are astrophysical objects: about 25 GRBs are reliably found to be located in galaxies, probably in regions of star formation; at least in one case GRB is identified with a supernova (SN 1998 bw). The most popular now are astrophysical models, with binary neutron star mergers , failed supernova , hypernova  and supranova  being the front runners (for a critical review see ). All these models, however, are not developed enough to give quantitative predictions. They also share the difficulty with explaining the large beaming factor required for GRBs.

In contrast, the cosmic string model presented here allows one to obtain quantitative predictions for the main observational characteristics of GRBs. In this paper we developed a deliberately simplified model, which is characterized by a single free parameter (the energy scale $`\eta `$ of symmetry breaking, or $`\alpha =k_gG\eta ^2`$) and by three other physical quantities, relatively well restricted (the magnetic field in filaments and sheets $`B_0`$, the epoch of galaxy formation $`z_B`$, and the density of baryonic matter in the filaments and sheets, a quantity not critical for the predictions). Nevertheless, the model correctly accounts for the GRB rate, and for the range of GRB fluences and durations. It may also explain the short-time structure of GRBs, the diffuse $`X`$\- and $`\gamma `$-ray backgrounds, and the ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.

The string model predicts recurrence of GRBs with a period of $`T_l50\alpha _8(1+z)^{1/2}`$ yrs. Very short bursts may have much shorter recurrence periods, perhaps as short as a few years. Observation of these repeaters is a challenge for the future detectors with a high efficiency for detection of short bursts.

Another testable prediction of the model is that GRBs should be accompanied by strong bursts of gravitational radiation with a characteristic waveform.

It must be emphasized that our model involves a number of simplifying assumptions. All loops at cosmic time $`t`$ were assumed to have the same length $`l\alpha t`$ with $`\alpha k_gG\eta ^2`$, while in reality there should be a distribution $`n(l,t)`$. The evolution law (15) for $`B(z)`$ and the assumption of $`f_B=\mathrm{const}`$ are also oversimplified. A more realistic model should also account for a spatial variation of $`B`$. Being basically a one-parameter model, our model may predict spurious correlations between the GRB characteristics. In particular, the $`S\tau _{GRB}^1`$ correlation, suggested by Eq.(24), holds only at a fixed redshift and tends to be washed out when the redshit distribution, the loop length distribution $`n(l,t)`$, and the inhomogeneous spatial distribution of the magnetic field are taken into account.

Our model meets basically one difficulty: it predicts too low GRB rate from galaxies. This discrepancy could be explained if our model strongly underestimates the capture rate of string loops by galaxies. For example, if $`\alpha k_gG\mu `$, then the loops are non-relativistic and may be effectively captured by galaxies. Another possibility is that our model could describe some subclass of the sources not associated with galaxies. Such a subclass could include the short-duration GRBs for which host galaxies are not found. In this case, the model needs a smaller $`\alpha `$, as discussed in section IIIB. In contrast to the prediction of our model, the short bursts do not show strong deviation from the Euclidean distribution. This could be due to observational selection effects, since the faint short-duration GRBs which form this subclass have a low detection efficiency in BATSE. Alternatively, it could be another subclass of no-host GRBs.

On the other hand, GRBs from cusps have properties which distinctly distinguish them from those produced by collapsars: they are periodically repeating on the scale of a few decades for majority of GRBs and on the scale of a few years for faint bursts ($`S10^8`$ erg/cm2) with short duration $`\tau _{\mathrm{GRB}}20`$ ms. The next generation of GRB detectors can examine this prediction.

## Acknowledgement

We are grateful to Roger Blandford, Ken Olum and Bohdan Paczynski for useful discussions. The work of VB and BH was supported in part by INTAS through grant No 1065 and the work of AV by the National Science Foundation (USA).


text:
# VARIOUS SOLUTIONS OF THE ATMOSPHERIC NEUTRINO DATA

## 1 Introduction

It has been known that the atmospheric neutrino anomaly $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ can be accounted for by dominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations with almost maximal mixing, and the zenith angle dependence of atmospheric neutrinos has been analyzed by many theorists $`^\mathrm{?}`$ as well as by experimentalists $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. On the other hand, the solar neutrino observations $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and the LSND experiment $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ also suggest neutrino oscillations. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{atm}}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2`$ (the mass squared differences suggested by the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, the solar neutrino deficit and the LSND data) have different orders of magnitudes and there have been a lot of works to analyze the atmospheric neutrino data from the view point of ordinary oscillations due to mass with two, three and four flavors as well as exotic scenarios. In this talk I will review the status of various scenarios which have been proposed to explain the atmospheric neutrino problem.

## 2 Neutrino oscillations due to mass

### 2.1 Neutrino oscillations with two flavors

The most up-to-date result of the two flavor analysis of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ with 1289 day data has been given by McGrew $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and the allowed region of the oscillation parameters at 90%CL is

$`0.88<`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\text{atm}}`$ $`1`$
$`1.6\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2<`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{atm}}^2`$ $`<4\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2.`$
On the other hand, two flavor analysis of $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ has been done by the Superkamiokande group using the data of neutral current enriched multi-ring events, high energy partially contained events and upward going $`\mu `$’s, and they have excluded the two flavor oscillation $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ at 99%CL $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

### 2.2 Neutrino oscillations with three flavors

The flavor eigenstates are related to the mass eigenstates by the $`3\times 3`$ MNS mixing matrix:

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{e1}& U_{e2}& U_{e3}\\ U_{\mu 1}& U_{\mu 2}& U_{\mu 3}\\ U_{\tau 1}& U_{\tau 2}& U_{\tau 3}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
and without loss of generality I assume $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|<|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|<|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2|`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_i^2m_j^2`$, $`m_j^2(j=1,2,3)`$ are the mass squared for the mass eigenstates. Since there are only two independent mass squared differences, it is impossible to account for the solar neutrino deficit, the atmospheric neutrino anomaly and LSND (the only nontrivial possibility is to take $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{atm}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2`$ and to try to explain the solar neutrino problem with the energy independent solution; It turns out, however, that the main oscillation channel in the atmospheric neutrinos in this case is $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ and therefore the zenith angle dependence of the atmospheric neutrino data cannot be explained). So I have to give up an effort to explain LSND and I have to take $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{atm}}^2`$. Under the present assumption it follows $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ $``$$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and I have a large hierarchy between $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$. If $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2L/4E|1`$ then from a hierarchical condition I have the oscillation probability

$`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)=1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_{32},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{jk}^2L/4E)`$, so if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2>2\times 10^3`$eV2 then the CHOOZ reactor data $`^\mathrm{?}`$ force us to have either $`\theta _{13}0`$ or $`\theta _{13}\pi /2`$. On the other hand, the solar oscillation probability in the three flavor framework is related to that in the two flavor case by $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`P^{(3)}(\nu _e\nu _e;A(x))=c_{13}^4P^{(2)}(\nu _e\nu _e;c_{13}^2A(x))+s_{13}^4,`$
where $`A(x)`$ stands for the matter effect. To account for the solar neutrino deficit, therefore, $`|s_{13}|`$ cannot be too large, so it follows that $`|\theta _{13}|1`$ and the MNS mixing matrix $`U`$ becomes

$`U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{}& s_{}& ϵ\\ s_{}/\sqrt{2}c_{}/\sqrt{2}& c_{}/\sqrt{2}s_{}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ s_{}/\sqrt{2}c_{}/\sqrt{2}& c_{}/\sqrt{2}s_{}/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),`$ (11)
which indicates that the solar neutrino problem is explained by oscillations half of which is $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ and the other is $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$, and that the atmospheric neutrino anomaly is accounted for by oscillations of almost 100% $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ ($`|ϵ||\theta _{13}|1`$).

On the other hand, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2<`$$`2\times 10^3`$eV2, then $`\theta _{13}`$ can be relatively large (This possibility gives a bad fit to the atmospheric neutrino data but is not excluded at $`4\sigma `$CL yet). From the combined three flavor analysis of the Superkamiokande atmospheric neutrino data with the CHOOZ data, it has been shown $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ that $`|\theta _{13}|<\pi /12`$ is allowed at 99%CL. Hence the probability

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)=s_{23}^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}$$

of appearance of $`\nu _e`$ can be relatively large and there is a chance in long baseline experiments to observe $`\nu _e`$ in this case.

### 2.3 Neutrino oscillations with four flavors

To explain the solar, atmospheric and LSND data within the framework of neutrino oscillations, it is necessary to have at least four kinds of neutrinos. In the case of four neutrino schemes there are two distinct types of mass patterns. One is the so-called (2+2)-scheme (Fig. 1(a)) and the other is the (3+1)-scheme (Fig. 1(b) or (c)). Depending on the type of the two schemes, phenomenology is different.

The atmospheric neutrino data were analyzed by Refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ with the (2+2)-scheme. Here I assume the mass pattern in Fig. 1(a) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{43}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{atm}}^2`$. I also assume $`U_{e3}=U_{e4}=0`$, which is justified from the Bugey reactor constraint $`|U_{e3}|^2+|U_{e4}|^21`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2=0`$, since $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2L/2E|1`$ in the atmospheric neutrino oscillations. I take the reference value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2=0.3`$ eV2 so that the result with large $`|U_{\mu 3}|^2+|U_{\mu 4}|^2`$ do not contradict with the CDHSW constraint

$`1P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`4(|U_{\mu 3}|^2+|U_{\mu 4}|^2)(1|U_{\mu 3}|^2|U_{\mu 4}|^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\text{CDHSW}}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{32},`$
where $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\text{CDHSW}}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)`$ stand for the value of the boundary of the excluded region of CDHSW $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in the two flavor analysis as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. With these assumptions, $`\nu _e`$ decouples from other three neutrinos, and the problem is reduced to the three flavor neutrino analysis among $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$, $`\nu _s`$ and the reduced MNS matrix is

$`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{\mu 2}& U_{\mu 3}& U_{\mu 4}\\ U_{\tau 2}& U_{\tau 3}& U_{\tau 4}\\ U_{s2}& U_{s3}& U_{s4}\end{array}\right)=e^{i(\frac{\pi }{2}\theta _{34})\lambda _7}D^1e^{i\theta _{24}\lambda _5}De^{i(\theta _{23}\frac{\pi }{2})\lambda _2},`$ (15)
with $`D\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\delta _1/2},1,e^{i\delta _1/2})`$ ($`\lambda _j`$ are the $`3\times 3`$ Gell-Mann matrices) is the reduced $`3\times 3`$ MNS matrix. This MNS matrix $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ is obtained by substitution $`\theta _{12}\theta _{23}\pi /2`$, $`\theta _{13}\theta _{24}`$, $`\theta _{12}\pi /2\theta _{34}`$, $`\delta \delta _1`$ in the standard parametrization in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$. $`\theta _{34}`$ corresponds to the mixing of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$, while $`\theta _{23}`$ is the mixing of the contribution of $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{atm}}^2L/4E)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2L/4E)`$ in the oscillation probability. The allowed region at 90%CL of the atmospheric neutrino data is roughly given by $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`30^{}<\theta _{24}<55^{}`$, $`0\theta _{23}<30^{}`$, $`90^{}\theta _{23}<90^{}`$. The reasons that the (2+2)-scheme is consistent with the recent Superkamiokande data are because both solar and atmospheric neutrinos have hybrid of active and sterile oscillations in this scheme and because there is a constant term in the surviving probability

$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )=14|U_{\mu 3}|^2|U_{\mu 4}|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{43}2(|U_{\mu 3}|^2+|U_{\mu 4}|^2)(1|U_{\mu 3}|^2|U_{\mu 4}|^2)`$
due to nonvanishing contribution of $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2L/4E)`$, where I have averaged over rapid oscillations: $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2L/4E)1/2`$.

On the other hand, it has been shown in Refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ using older data of LSND $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the (3+1)-scheme is inconsistent with the Bugey reactor data $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and the CDHSW disappearance experiment $`^\mathrm{?}`$ of $`\nu _\mu `$. However, in the final result the allowed region has shifted to the lower value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ and it was shown $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that there are four isolated regions $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2`$0.3, 0.9, 1.7, 6.0 eV2 which satisfy both the constraints of Bugey and CDHSW and the LSND data at 99%CL. The case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2`$=0.3 eV2 turns out to be excluded by the Superkamiokande atmospheric neutrino data at 6.9$`\sigma `$CL $`^\mathrm{?}`$. For the other three values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2`$, I have $`U_{e4}U_{\mu 4}0`$ and this case is reduced to the analysis in the (2+2)-scheme with $`\theta _{23}=0`$. The allowed region at 90%CL is given roughly by $`\pi /4<\theta _{34}<\pi /4`$, $`0.8<\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{24}1`$, where $`\theta _{34}`$ and $`\theta _{24}`$ stand for the mixing of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ and the mixing of atmospheric neutrino oscillations, respectively.

## 3 Exotic solutions

Apart from ordinary oscillations due to mass, several possibilities have been proposed which predict different behaviors of the oscillation probability as a function of the neutrino energy. Those include violation of the equivalence principle $`^\mathrm{?}`$, violation of the Lorentz invariance $`^\mathrm{?}`$, presence of torsion $`^\mathrm{?}`$, flavor changing neutral current interactions $`^\mathrm{?}`$, neutrino decays $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ decoherence of the neutrino beam $`^\mathrm{?}`$, large extra dimensions $`^\mathrm{?}`$, etc. As in the case of test of sterile oscillations, the zenith angle dependence (or the up-down asymmetry) of the high energy atmospheric neutrino data give strong constraints on these exotic scenarios. In the case of violation of the equivalence principle or the Lorentz invariance, the $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance probability $`P_{\mu \mu }P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu ;L)`$ is given by

$`P_{\mu \mu }=1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\left(\text{const}EL\right)`$
and in the case of flavor changing neutral current interactions

$`P_{\mu \mu }=1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\left(\text{const}L\right).`$
Both possibilities are strongly disfavored (See Fig. 3 which is taken from Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$).

In the case of neutrino decays, which were originally introduced to try to explain the solar, atmospheric neutrinos and LSND within the three flavor framework with two oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and one neutrino decay constant $`\alpha `$, the disappearance probability is

$`P_{\mu \mu }=\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +\mathrm{cos}^4\theta \mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/E)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/2E)\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/2E\right)`$
which has the following two extreme cases:

$`P_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^4\theta +\mathrm{cos}^4\theta \mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/E)\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{}\text{(case A)},`$
$`P_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{exp}(\alpha L/2E)\right]^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^20\text{(case B)}.`$
If the case A gave a good fit to the data then it would be possible to account for the solar neutrino deficit, the atmospheric neutrino anomaly and the LSND data within the three flavor framework by putting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2`$, $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{atm}}^2`$, but unfortunately it is not the case. It has been shown that the case A gives a bad fit $`^\mathrm{?}`$ but the case B gives a good fit to the data $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Similarly, decoherence of the neutrino beam predicts

$`P_{\mu \mu }=1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \left(1e^{\gamma L}\right),`$
and this scenario has been shown $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to give a good fit to the data.

Before the announcement against sterile oscillations in both solar $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and atmospheric $`^\mathrm{?}`$ neutrino data by the Superkamiokande group in June 2000, several groups $`^\mathrm{?}`$ claimed that scenarios of large extra dimension give a good fit to the data of solar neutrinos or atmospheric neutrinos. However, oscillations predicted by those scenarios are basically sterile oscillations and they may no longer give a good fit to the data.

The behaviors of the surviving probability $`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ in vacuum is plotted as a function of $`L/E`$ in Fig. 3 (taken from Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$) for various scenarios. The main difference between the oscillation due to mass and the exotic scenarios is that the former has dip in the surviving probability and it will be possible to check the existence of the dip in long baseline experiments or atmospheric neutrino experiments like MONOLITH $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in the future.

## 4 Summary

In this talk I have reviewed various solutions of the atmospheric neutrino data. The two flavor $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation with almost maximal mixing gives an excellent fit to the data, and consequently so does the three flavor oscillation with small $`\theta _{13}`$. As for four flavor oscillation scenarios, there are two types of schemes. The (2+2)-scheme is still consistent with both the solar and atmospheric neutrino data, since both solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations are hybrid of active and sterile oscillations. The (3+1)-scheme is allowed for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{LSND}}^2`$ =0.9, 1.7, 6.0 eV2 and in this scheme the solar neutrino deficit is accounted for by active oscillations while the atmospheric neutrino anomaly is explained by hybrid of active and sterile oscillations. There are also a couple of exotic scenarios which give a good fit to the data. They are scenarios of neutrino decay and decoherence, and these hypotheses can be checked by looking at the oscillation dip in the probability in the future experiments.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organizers for invitation. This research was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, #12047222, #10640280.

## References