format: text

text:
# Extreme events driven glassy behaviour in granular media

## 1 Introduction

Granular matter physics  is a very interesting laboratory for addressing open problems of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, such as the nature of slow glassy dynamics  and jamming , the mechanisms of pattern formation, the physics of avalanche phenomena. In this context, recent experimental results have shown  the intriguing analogy between the way a perturbed granular medium progresses towards complete rest by decreasing the amplitude of external taps, and the vitrification of glass-forming materials.

This slow glass-like granular behavior raises one of the main questions in the framework of granular matter, namely the link between the macroscopic response to an external perturbation and the microscopic (or mesoscopic) processes occurring at the scale of the single particle. Recently, it has been conjectured  that the occurrence probability of rare events might explain the origin of the slow dynamic behavior of granular matter. Such rare events arise when the largest externally-induced vibration in the granular medium overcomes some suitable threshold, triggering in this way a macroscopic “fracture“ of the granular solid, that is a grain rearrangement. In this paper we further develop this idea and provide a model close to the intuitive picture given by experiments and which may be of interest for similar systems such as glasses or disordered systems .

## 2 Experimental results

We first recall the basic experimental results, and Fig. 1, which is in part adapted from previously published work , is used to introduce the method and summarize the basic data. The dynamic behavior of the perturbed granular medium is deduced from noise measurements. The granular noise, denoted $`|\theta (f)|^2,`$ is obtained by detecting the irregular motion of a torsion oscillator (Fig. 1 a), deeply immersed into the perturbed granular material, and taking the squared amplitude of the Fourier transform of the observed data series. The granular medium is perturbed by shaking the container by well isolated taps, or by continuous vibrations. An accelerometer on the container measures the intensity of the perturbation, quantified by the reduced peak acceleration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=a_s\omega _s^2/g,`$ written in terms of the amplitude $`a_s`$ and the frequency $`f_s=\omega _s/2\pi `$ of a sinusoidal shaking, and the acceleration of gravity $`g.`$ Below the ideal fluidization limit at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f=1,`$ and at low-frequency (below the natural frequency of the oscillator), we observe $`1/f^2`$ noise spectra.

This low-frequency noise is the structural, or configurational noise. This is easily understood considering tapping experiments, where after each tap the granular system completely stops in a static configuration, which in turn determines an angular position of the immersed oscillator. A series of such taps drives the granular medium from one static (or jammed) configuration to another, and the corresponding series of static (or ”low-frequency”) angular positions $`\theta (t)`$ of the immersed oscillator probes this process, which displays $`1/f^2`$ noise. Before going further we emphasize some experimental aspects: first, when continuous vibrations are used, the low-frequency spectrum is the same as the one seen in tapping experiments. This gives us a very rapid and efficient method to measure the noise, and most of the data are obtained in this way. Second, our measurements are performed after the sample has been prepared in a reproducible state. In particular, after having been poured into the container, the granular medium is subject to very strong vibrations (large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) whose intensity is progressively reduced until reaching the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where the measurements are performed. This discards the strong compaction effects occurring during the first run on a loose granular system, should we have initiated the measurement directly at a low $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ after pouring. The procedure in fact brings the system directly into an almost stationary state which should correspond to the reversible curve described in .

In order to have a deeper insight on the fluctuations of the rotation angles, we have directly used the time series of $`\theta (t)`$ (one example is shown in Fig. 1a) to compute the structure factor $`S(\tau )=(\theta (t+\tau )\theta (t))^2`$ for different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The obtained linear dependence with $`\tau `$ allows us to determine a diffusion coefficient $`D(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, which features an $`\mathrm{exp}(B^{}/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ dependence at low $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as displayed in the inset of Fig. 1b. Moreover, the $`1/f^2`$ noise resulting from the time series also gives important hints on the nature of the slow glass-like granular dynamics: since $`|\theta (f)|^2`$ is proportional to a diffusion coefficient, its inverse at a given frequency can be considered to be proportional to an intrinsic configurational relaxation time, $`\tau _x,`$ i.e., $`1/|\theta (f)|^2=C\tau _x`$. In order to obtain the constant of proportionality $`C`$, the noise data are compared with susceptibility measurements , since a peak in the loss factor (i.e. a peak in the tangent of the argument of the complex susceptibility) arises when $`\omega _p\tau _x=1`$, where $`f_p=\omega _p/2\pi `$ is the frequency at which the susceptibility is measured. This gives approximately $`C=2\pi 1500`$ mrad-2s.

The following important points can be deduced from the experimental measurements. First, previous experiments  provide evidence for a parameter of the form $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=b\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}/\omega _s=b\sqrt{a_s/g}`$, with $`b`$ a constant. This key control parameter determines the ”level” of the low-frequency noise, as shown in . In other words, whatever amplitude $`a_s`$ and frequency $`f_s`$ of the perturbation is, provided $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<1`$, the noise only depends on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. (In Fig. 1b we set $`b=g^{1/2}`$ and the control parameter is $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\sqrt{a_s}`$. Notice that, since we have not changed $`g`$, experiments only prove that the control parameter is proportional to the square root of the perturbation amplitude, i.e., $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\sqrt{a_s}`$). Another indication for a control parameter like $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ comes from the direct measurement of the diffusion coefficient (inset of Fig. 1b) which shows an $`\mathrm{exp}(B^{}/\mathrm{{\rm Y}})`$ form, in agreement with the measurements of $`\tau _x`$. The physical signification of this empirical control parameter will be discussed in detail below.

Summarizing, from noise measurements as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at different shaking frequencies $`f_s`$, and having determined the relationship between $`|\theta (f)|^2`$ and $`\tau _x`$ from susceptibility measurements, we obtain the curves shown in Fig. 1b, namely a plot of the configurational relaxation time $`\tau _x`$ as a function of the control parameter $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. Secondly, the data for small $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in Fig. 1b have been fitted with the expression $`\tau _x=A\mathrm{exp}[B/(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0)^p],`$ which gives in particular $`p=0.95.`$ Since the observed exponent is close to $`p=1,`$ we assume from now on that the configuration relaxation time is well described by the standard Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann (VFT) expression

$$\tau _xA\mathrm{exp}[B/(\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0)].$$
(1)
In this VFT form, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is the empirical control parameter playing the role of temperature (which does not mean that it is a temperature!), and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ is the value of the control parameter where the configuration relaxation time scale diverges.111 Actually the data for $`\tau _x`$ can also be fitted by the simple exponential form $`\tau _xA\mathrm{exp}[B/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}]`$, as well as by the form $`A\mathrm{exp}\left[B/\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^2}\right)\right]`$, at least for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0;`$ we shall come back to this point on the discussion of the model.(An experimental estimate of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ gives $`1.37\times 10^4`$ $`m^{1/2}`$, which corresponds to a displacement of about$`19`$ $`nm.`$ Notice that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ is very sensitive to the exponent $`p,`$ and should be considered only as an order of magnitude.)

## 3 Model

Before going further, it is important to identify the granular regime we are addressing. It is evident from Fig. 1b that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ appears as the relevant control parameter only for external shaking with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<1.`$ In fact, the scaling described by eq.(1) ceases to hold for values of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ which correspond, for each $`f_s,`$ to values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ around unity. This is an important point and the model is supposed to be valid for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$. In this regime no fluidization occurs and the granular medium can be considered in a quasi-solid phase where geometric frustration plays a major role. During a periodic vertical shaking of amplitude $`a_s`$ and frequency $`f_s`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<1,`$ the granular medium moves as a whole, following the movements imposed to the container. At the same time the torsion oscillator immersed in the medium is fixed in the laboratory reference frame, i.e., it moves with respect to the medium with the same periodicity imposed by the shaking. It turns out that it is easier to explain what happens during the shaking if one inverts the point of view and considers the granular medium as globally immobile in the laboratory reference frame, while the torsion oscillator is subject to a vertical oscillatory forcing. Thus, at each period the torsion oscillator penetrates the granular medium for a length $`a_s`$ and returns to the original position. In other words, one externally imposes a given displacement (or deformation) to the medium, while the stress exerted is not fixed.

What happens at the microscopic level? During the excursion of length $`a_s`$ , the torsion oscillator will try to find its way inside the granular medium by advancing and possibly rotating of a certain angle in order to adapt to the reaction of the granular system. We have the following picture. For small excursions $`a_s`$ (to be defined below) the medium stays in a given static (or jammed) configuration, and it is deformed either elastically or plastically. Eventually the medium fractures, and jumps to another jammed configuration. Our immersed oscillator detects essentially each fracture-event, and a time-series represents a sequence of different jammed configurations. In contrast to an ordinary solid, for which a fracture is a unique fatal event, the granular solid is able to reestablish itself in a new jammed configuration and to support successive fractures.

Thus we assume that the penetration/deformation process involves three distinct regimes: 1) An elastic regime for excursions $`a_s`$ below a limit denoted $`a_s^0`$. For $`a_s<a_s^0`$ the system is able to absorb the imposed displacement elastically. (The experimental value of $`a_s^0`$ is material dependent and, as discussed below, we identify it with the displacement for which we observe the divergence at $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0,`$ i.e., $`a_s^010^8`$ m.) In this regime the granular system responds as an elastic medium and the torsion oscillator returns to the original angular position at the end of the cycle; 2) A plastic regime, in which the imposed displacement is absorbed by the granular system by reorganizing the *internal stress network*, inducing irreversible rotations of the angular oscillator position, but without leaving the actual jammed configuration; 3) A fracture process in which the system is unable to further absorb the imposed displacement, and a *macroscopic grain rearrangement* (or internal avalanche) is required, resulting in a large jump of the torsion angle $`\theta (t)`$.

We now formalize this three regime process. In the plastic phase the torsion angle undergoes sudden (but very small) changes due to the reorganization of the internal stress distribution. In a first approximation one can imagine that the variations of the torsion angle could be described by a discrete random walk, i.e. one has a gaussian distribution for the torsion angles whose variance has to be computed by estimating the number of random walk steps the torsion oscillator undergoes for an excursion of length $`a_s`$. We shall see in the following how the hypothesis of a gaussian distribution, partially supported by the results for the diffusion coefficient, is not crucial and can be relaxed without changing the main results.

Since the relaxation law (1) implies that below a certain value of $`a_s`$ the relaxation time is always infinite, we can deduce the existence of an elastic threshold for $`a_s`$, i.e. $`a_s^0`$. This means that for $`a_s<a_s^0`$ no permanent deformation is produced in the system and the typical time for a macroscopic rearrangement is infinite, hence the existence of an elastic phase. For $`a_s>a_s^0`$ the reaction of the medium on the torsion oscillator induces irreversible rotations, hence the existence of a plastic phase. For these reasons $`a_s^0`$ can be considered as the length of the elementary step of the random walk.

Now, provided that $`a_s>a_s^0`$, the number of random walk steps $`n`$ performed by the torsion oscillator for a displacement $`a_s`$ will be proportional to $`a_sa_s^0`$. If the elementary angle of rotation at each step is of the order of $`\theta _{el}`$ we expect a gaussian distribution for the rotation angles with variance $`\sigma \theta _{el}\sqrt{n}\theta _{el}\sqrt{(a_sa_s^0)/a_s^0}`$. This is a first indication that a parameter proportional to $`\sqrt{a_s}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ (or $`\sqrt{(a_sa_s^0)/a_s^0}\sqrt{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^2}`$ ) could play the role of a control parameter, i.e. a role similar to a temperature in the sense that it determines the variance of the stress fluctuations induced indirectly by the advancing torsion oscillator.

Let us now try to explain the VFT behavior of the relaxation time. This time represents the typical time for the system to undergo a macroscopic grain rearrangement. The question can be then rephrased as follows: what is the probability that the torsion oscillator, in its angular random walk with variance proportional to $`\theta _{el}\sqrt{(a_sa_s^0)/a_s^0}`$, will produce a macroscopic configurational change such that the system jumps to another static (jammed) configuration? Our hypothesis is that the fracture event takes places as an extreme event whose probability can be computed in the framework of the extreme order statistics . Fluctuations in the torsion angle correspond to a stress redistribution and one expects larger angles to produce larger compression of the grain-chains involved. It is natural to expect that there will be some threshold value $`\theta _f`$ for the fluctuating torsion angle above which the contact network will break and yield to a macroscopic rearrangement leading to a large jump for $`\theta (t)`$. We have then to look for the probability that, among the fluctuations of the torsion angle excited at each shaking (i.e., at each penetration over $`a_s`$), the largest fluctuation will be larger than a given threshold $`\theta _f`$.

We define $`Z_n=\mathrm{max}(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n),`$ with $`X_i=\theta _i/\sigma `$. We search the probability that $`\mathrm{Pr}[Z_n>x_f]S_n(x_f)`$, where $`x_f=\theta _f/\sigma `$ is the normalized angular threshold. The (cumulative) probability distribution is $`\mathrm{Pr}[Z_nx]H_n(x),`$ and $`S_n(x)=1H_n(x).`$ According to standard text-books, for a Normal parent probability density distribution, using the sequences given by $`c_n=\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}n}(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}n+\mathrm{ln}4\pi )/(2\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}n})`$ and $`d_n=1/\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}n}`$ , the probability distribution $`H_n(c_n+d_nx)`$ tends, as $`n`$ increases, to a Gumbel probability distribution , i.e. $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}H_n(c_n+d_nx)=\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{exp}(x)]`$. For large $`n`$ the probability $`S_n(x_f)`$ is given by $`S_n(x_f)=1\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{exp}[(x_fc_n)/d_n]\}`$.

For $`(x_fc_n)/d_n1,`$ the probability $`S_n(x_f)`$ can be approximated by an exponential function, i.e., $`S_n(x_f)\mathrm{exp}[(x_fc_n)/d_n]`$. Using the expressions for $`c_n`$ and $`d_n`$ given above, the above condition is verified if $`n^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\theta _f}{\sigma }\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}n}\right]\sqrt{4\pi \mathrm{ln}n}`$. In our case $`\sigma \theta _{el}\sqrt{(a_sa_s^0)/a_s^0}`$ and the approximation is correct if $`\theta _f/\theta _{el}\sqrt{2n\mathrm{ln}n}\frac{\sqrt{n}\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{4\pi \mathrm{ln}n}}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}n}}`$, which is a reasonable assumption given the experimental values of the parameters. Using the previous approximation the probability for a rare fracture event (corresponding to a configurational rearrangement) is

$$S_n(\theta _f/\sigma )\frac{n^2}{\sqrt{4\pi \mathrm{ln}n}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\theta _f}{\sigma }\sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}n}\right].$$
(2)
We expect that $`\theta _f`$ will depend on the specific tribological properties of the grains, as well as on some geometrical properties of the system, such as the grain shape and size distribution. Thus, for a given granular system (i.e., fixed $`n`$ and $`\theta _f`$) the fracture probability is determined only by $`\sigma `$. The inverse of the probability $`S_n(\theta _f/\sigma )`$ determines the characteristic time for grain configuration rearrangements, i.e. the characteristic time of the macroscopic dynamics. One has then $`S_n\tau _x^1`$. Recalling that $`\sigma `$ is directly related to the empirical control parameter $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\sqrt{a_s}`$, one finds

$$\tau _xA\mathrm{exp}\left[B/\sqrt{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^2}\right],$$
(3)
which, given the extremely small experimental value of $`a_s^0`$, is indistinguishable from (1) and also very close to an Arrhenius behavior. As already stressed the experimental data do not allow to definitely discriminate between the three behaviors.

It is important to notice that in the present model the gaussian distribution of the torsion angle in the plastic regime follows from the random walk analysis. However the precise form of the torsion angle distribution is irrelevant as long as it decays faster than any power-law (see ). For instance for stretched exponential distributions as $`exp(\alpha |\theta |^\beta )`$ one would obtain again a Gumbel distribution for the largest fluctuation where the parameters $`c_n`$ and $`d_n`$ would be given, to logarithmic accuracy, by $`c_n(2\mathrm{ln}n/\alpha )^{1/\beta }`$ and $`d_n=1/c_n`$. This leads to the conclusion that, independently of the precise form of the torsion angle distribution (i.e. under very mild assumptions on it) one gets the same result for the relaxation time provided the variance of the distribution is proportional to $`\sqrt{(a_sa_s^0)/a_s^0}`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have proposed a microscopic model which is able to explain some experimental results for the relaxation dynamics of a granular medium described . The crucial hypothesis is that at low $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f1`$ in our experiments) the macroscopic dynamics is controlled by extreme events of the stress fluctuations in the system: if the variance of these stress fluctuations, driven by the imposed penetration of the oscillator over the distance $`a_s`$, is proportional to $`\sqrt{(a_sa_s^0)/a_s^0}`$ (as it turns out if the microscopic torsion angle fluctuations are Gaussian), then a macroscopic change of $`\theta (t)`$ can occur only if such microscopic fluctuations overcome a threshold, i.e. if an extreme fracture event takes place. These simple ingredients immediately lead to an activated-like, VFT-like character of the relaxation time. The deviation of the relaxation behaviour from the Arrhenius law is explained by the existence of an elastic threshold $`a_s^0`$, which is material dependent: for $`a_s<a_s^0`$ the system can absorb the perturbation without any rearrangement.

For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ the situation is quite different: at each cycle most of the induced fluctuations in the system are large enough for a macroscopic rearrangement to occur, and the dynamics is not controlled anymore by rare events. In this fluid-like phase, structural (configurational) changes are not rare events. Recently Philippe and Bideau have identified, using a geometry very similar to the one of our experiments, a threshold value of the order of $`1.2`$ above which the system is able to reach a stationary state with a density relaxation ruled by a stretched exponential law . From this point of view we speculate that the threshold value for fluidization could also mark the boundary between a glassy region (low $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) where the relaxation is driven by extreme isolated events and a quasi-liquid region (high $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) where the system is able to reach a stationary state. It is important to stress that the threshold value for fluidization can depend on the geometry of the container. In particular we expect the threshold value to increase a lot for highly confined geometries where the effect of the boundaries is strong. This could be the case for the Chicago experiments  where a narrow and tall container is used. If the effective threshold for this experiment was large (for instance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f3÷4`$) this could explain why they observed a very slow relaxation even for values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ well above $`1`$.

The present work represents only a first step in the direction of a better link between the microscopic dynamics of granular media and the macroscopic response to an external perturbation. From this point of view, various experiments can be thought of to clarify several points: the actual functional form for the relaxation time as well as the dependence of the elastic threshold $`a_s^0`$ on the material, the dependence of the control parameter on the acceleration of gravity $`g`$, the exploration of the fluid-like regime ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$). Finally the experimental setup described in this paper could allow the measurement of some thermodynamical properties of granular media: in particular the existence of effective temperatures could be investigated by a suitable combination of susceptibility and noise measurements, in the spirit of recent experiments on laponite . Such experiments would open a way towards a comparison with recent theoretical predictions on a thermodynamical approach to granular matter .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation as well as and INFM *Center for Statistical Mechanics and Complexity* (SMC).


text:
# Separability criterion for separate quantum systems

## I Appendix

When $`j`$ is large and $`m,m^{}j`$ the reduced Wigner function Eq. (13) is well approximated by using Stirling’s formula to give

$`d_{mm^{}}^j(\pi /2)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi j}}}\mathrm{exp}(+|m^2m^2|/2j)\mathrm{cos}\left((j+mm^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right).`$ (15)
This does not approximate to the Fourier transform kernel.

As an illustration of the large errors that can arise when using the Fourier transform to execute a basis change between $`J_y`$ and $`J_z`$ bases, consider the state with

$`C_y(j,m_y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\overline{j})\alpha _1^{j+m_y}\alpha _2^{jm_y}}{\sqrt{(j+m_y)!(jm_y)!}}},`$ (16)
where $`\alpha _k=|\alpha _k|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _k)`$. The mean values for this state are $`\overline{j}=(|\alpha _1|^2+|\alpha _2|^2)/2`$, $`\overline{m}_y=\overline{J}_y=(|\alpha _1|^2|\alpha _2|^2)/2`$, $`\overline{J}_z=|\alpha _1\alpha _2|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _2\varphi _1)`$, and $`\overline{J}_x=|\alpha _1\alpha _2|\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _2\varphi _1)`$. We consider states such that $`\varphi _2\varphi _1\pi /2`$ and $`|\alpha _1|^2|\alpha _2|^2|\alpha _1|^2+|\alpha _2|^2`$, and hence are in the considered extremum class, with $`\overline{J}_y,\overline{J}_z\overline{J}_x`$.

In the $`J_z`$ basis this same state is represented exactly by (using Eqs. (12,13))

$`C_z(j,m_z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(\overline{j})\beta _1^{j+m_z}\beta _2^{jm_z}}{\sqrt{(j+m_z)!(jm_z)!}}},`$ (17)
with $`\beta _1=(\alpha _2+\alpha _1)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\beta _2=(\alpha _2\alpha _1)/\sqrt{2}`$. The mean values $`\overline{J}_x,\overline{J}_y,\overline{J}_z`$ are unchanged by the change of basis, but we now have $`\overline{m}_z=\overline{J}_z=|\alpha _1\alpha _2|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _2\varphi _1)`$.

How does this exact result compare with that obtained by assuming that the HW commutator is valid, which requires that we transform Eq. (16) by the Fourier relation? To carry this out we first find an accurate approximation to Eq. (16), using Stirling’s formula, which gives, for $`j\overline{j}`$ large (e.g. $`10^{12}`$) and $`m_y,\overline{m}_y\overline{j}`$ (and arbitrary phases $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$),

$`C_y(j,m_y)`$ $``$ $`C(j)(\pi \overline{j})^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}[(m_y\overline{m}_y)^2/2\overline{j}]\mathrm{exp}[i(\varphi _1\varphi _2)m_y],`$ (18)
with $`C(j)=\sqrt{\mathrm{exp}(2\overline{j})(2\overline{j})^{2j}/(2j)!}\mathrm{exp}[i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)j]`$, which is a relatively narrow function of $`j`$.

Using Eq. (14) to transform Eq. (18) we find (with the provisional result indicated by the tilde)

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_z(j,m_z)`$ $``$ $`C(j)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{j}}{\pi \overline{J}_x^2}}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(m_z\stackrel{~}{m}_z)^2}{2(\overline{J}_x^2/\overline{j})}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_z\overline{m}_y}{\overline{J}_x}}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)\overline{m}_y\right)\right],`$ (19)
which means that the mean value of $`\widehat{J}_z`$ is given provisionally by $`\overline{J}_z=\stackrel{~}{m}_z=(\varphi _1\varphi _2)\overline{J}_x`$. This predicted value for $`\overline{J}_z`$ is quite incorrect. As an example consider $`\varphi _2\varphi _1=\pi /2`$. Equation (17) predicts (correctly and exactly) that $`\overline{J}_z`$ has a mean value $`\overline{J}_z=0`$, while Eq. (19) predicts a mean value $`\overline{J}_z=\stackrel{~}{m}_z=(\pi /2)\overline{J}_x`$. This is incorrect, as for this state $`\overline{J}_z`$ must be much smaller than $`\overline{J}_x`$.

For completeness, the correct Eq. (17) for the state in the $`J_z`$ basis can be well approximated using Stirling’s formula, (since $`|\beta _1|^2|\beta _2|^2|\beta _1|^2+|\beta _2|^2`$), giving

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_z(j,m_z)`$ $``$ $`C(j)\mathrm{exp}[(m_z\overline{m}_z)^2/2\overline{j}]\mathrm{exp}[i(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2^{})m_z],`$ (20)
where $`\varphi _k^{}=\mathrm{arg}[\beta _k]`$. Equations (20) and (19) differ in two important ways - both in the phase structure and in the predicted mean value of $`m_z`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank Stephen Bartlett and Dominic Berry for helpful discussions, and Peter Braun for a tip on arriving at Eq. (15). Support for this project has been provided by the National Science Foundation grants PHY-0140370, ECS-9977127, the Army Research Office grant DAAD19-99- 1-0344, an Australian Research Council International Research Exchange Scheme grant, and an Australian Research Council Large Grant.


text:
# The Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model and Radiative Corrections to the Muon Decay

## 1 Introduction

The smallest gauge group which implements the hypothesis of the left-right symmetry of weak interactions is

$$G_{LR}=SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)_{BL}.$$
(1)
This gauge group can be understood as a second step (after the SM) in unifying fundamental interactions. The main feature of the model is the restoration of both the quark-lepton and parity symmetry. At the same time the $`U(1)`$ generator gets its physical interpretation as the B-L quantum number. Other phenomena which are investigated are connected with small masses of light neutrinos, charge quantization, understanding of CP violation in the quark sector, the strong CP problem, baryogenesis, etc. Until present days literally hundreds of papers have been devoted to these concepts and their theoretical and phenomenological consequences. An extended literature on the subject can be found e.g. in the Introduction of . The model is baroque with many new particles of different types. New neutral leptons, charged and neutral gauge bosons, neutral and charged Higgs particles appear. There are many different versions of the LR models with the same or different left and right gauge couplings $`g_{L,R}`$ and specific Higgs-sector representations. We chose the model with $`g_L=g_R`$ and a Higgs representation with a bidoublet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and two (left and right) triplets $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{L,R}`$. We also assume that the VEV of the left-handed triplet $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ vanishes, $`<\mathrm{\Delta }_L>=0`$ and the CP symmetry is violated only by complex phases in quark and lepton mixing matrices. We call this model the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model (MLRM). Our aim is to show that constraints on the heavy sector of the model from muon decay at tree and one loop levels are completely different. First we will discuss tree-level muon decay. Bounds on $`M_{W_2}`$ (the additional charged gauge boson mass) from this tree level process are cited permanently by PDG . We view the situation in the following way: a consistent model gives very weak limits on charged current parameters from the tree level muon decay. As quite impressive bounds derived from muon decay still persist through the succeeding PDG journals, we found it worth to clarify the case. Then we go to the one-loop level results. We end up with conclusions and outlook.

### 1.1 Muon decay at tree level: no bounds on charged current parameters

As a low energy process, with a momentum transfer small relative to the involved gauge boson mass, the muon decay can be conveniently described by a four-fermion interaction. For very small neutrino masses, neglecting the mixing between them, the Lagrangian can be written in the form

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=L,R}{}}\overline{c}_{ij}\overline{e}\gamma _\alpha P_i\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu \gamma ^\alpha P_j\mu .`$ (2)
where ($`g=g_L=g_R`$):

$`\overline{c}_{LL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2M_{W_1}^2}}(\mathrm{cos}^2\xi +\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\xi ),`$ (3)
$`\overline{c}_{RR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2M_{W_1}^2}}(\mathrm{sin}^2\xi +\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\xi ),`$ (4)
$`\overline{c}_{RL}=\overline{c}_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2M_{W_1}^2}}(1+\beta )\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\xi .`$ (5)
$`\beta =\frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_2}^2}`$, $`\xi `$ is the mixing between the charged gauge bosons . Obviously, the $`\beta 0`$, $`\xi 0`$ limit leads to the SM result, with a purely left-handed interaction.

To have neutrino mixings properly included, we have to write:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=L,R}{}}\left(c_{ij}\right)_{ab}\overline{e}\gamma _\alpha P_i\nu _a\overline{\nu }_b\gamma ^\alpha P_j\mu +_{heavy},`$
where:

$`\left(c_{ij}\right)_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{c}_{ij}(K_i^{})_{ea}(K_j)_{b\mu },i,j=L,R.`$ (6)
The matrices $`K_{L,R}`$ build up the neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$, which can be approximated to be

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{c}K_L^T\\ K_R^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}O(1)& O(\frac{m_D}{M_N})\\ O(\frac{m_D}{M_N})& O(1)\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
$`m_D`$ is the Dirac neutrino mass matrix which emerges from vacuum expectation values (VEVs) in the bidoublet Higgs-sector and $`M_N`$ stands for diagonal elements of the neutrino mass matrix $`M_R`$ connected with the right handed triplet Higgs representation (for details see e.g. ). The sum over $`a`$ and $`b`$ is understood, with both states light. $`_{heavy}`$ contains the sum over at least one heavy neutrino and for our purposes is irrelevant. We can see that apart from a pure left-handed term $`c_{LL}`$, all others get extra damping factors connected with the $`K_R`$ mixing matrix of light-heavy neutrinos being at most $`O(1\mathrm{GeV}/m_N)<<1`$, where $`m_N`$ is the lightest of heavy neutrinos ($`m_N=min(M_N)`$). In what follows we consider $`m_N100`$ GeV.

In terms of the four-fermion interaction we can find :

$$8G_F^2=|c_{LL}|^2+|c_{LR}|^2+|c_{RL}|^2+|c_{RR}|^2.$$
(8)
Using relations $`c_{LL}c_{RR},c_{LR},c_{RL}`$ and $`\underset{a=light}{}\left|\left(K_L\right)_{ea}\right|^21`$, we have:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|c_{LL}|}{4}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{2s_W^2M_{W_1}^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }r)}}(cos^2\xi +\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\xi )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{2s_W^2M_{W_1}^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }r)}}(1+\beta \xi ^2).`$
To make the fitting procedure of the $`\xi `$ and $`\beta `$ parameters possible at all at the tree-level, we have to naively rely on SM corrections, we thus take  $`M_{W_1}=80.446\pm 0.040`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=0.0355\pm 0.0021`$ and $`s_W^2(s_W^2)_{SM}=1\frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{Z_1}^2}=0.2228\pm 0.0004`$. The result of the fit is plotted in Fig. 1.

Although $`\beta \xi ^2<0.007`$ looks fine, with the most optimistic bound on $`\xi `$ below 0.1 , we get $`\beta 0.84`$, i.e. $`M_{W_2}1.2M_{W_1}100`$ GeV.

Let us finally note that if we only had light neutrinos (Eq. 2) then much better bounds on $`M_{W_2}`$ would be available .

Let us summarize. In a realistic LR model (i.e. when the mixing of heavy Majorana neutrinos is taken into account), the tree-level diagrams for the muon decay give no interesting bounds on $`\beta `$ (see also ). Moreover, as it will be clear in the next Section, the procedure we have used, where the SM values $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ and $`s_W^2`$ have been taken into account, is wrong.

### 1.2 Constraints on the model parameters from the one-loop level

Oblique radiative corrections to this process have been considered in the frame of the MLRM in . Further analysis has been given in . Though the model has more free parameters (see e.g. ), namely two gauge coplings $`g=e/\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_W`$ and $`g^{}=e/\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Theta }_W}`$ altogether with three VEVs: $`\kappa _1,\kappa _2`$ (connected with the bidoublet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) and $`v_R`$ (connected with the right handed triplet $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$), there are simultaneously more physical quantities ($`e,M_{W_1},M_{W_2},M_{Z_1},M_{Z_2}`$,) and unambiguous relations among them can be found ($`55`$ mapping). This enables us to find (analogous to the SM) the counterterm of the sine squared of the Weinberg angle as function of masses and their counterterms111For versions of the LR model with more free parameters (e.g. $`g_Lg_R`$) the situation would be quite different: $`s_W^2`$ would not be predictable in terms of gauge boson masses and their counter terms), but would have to be tuned to experimental data).

$`\delta (s_W^2)_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`2c_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta M_{Z_2}^2+\delta M_{Z_1}^2)}{S}}`$ (10)
$``$ $`2c_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta M_{W_2}^2+\delta M_{W_1}^2)}{S}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_{W_2}^2+M_{W_1}^2)(\delta M_{Z_2}^2+\delta M_{Z_1}^2)}{S^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(M_{Z_2}^2+M_{Z_1}^2)(\delta M_{W_2}^2+\delta M_{W_1}^2)}{S^2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2M_{Z_1}^2+M_{Z_2}^2)\delta M_{Z_1}^2}{S^2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2M_{Z_2}^2+M_{Z_1}^2)\delta M_{Z_2}^2}{S^2}}.`$
Let us note that the denominator $`S`$ is proportional to the scale of the right sector $`v_R`$

$`S`$ $``$ $`(M_{Z_2}^2+M_{Z_1}^2)(M_{W_2}^2+M_{W_1}^2)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Theta }_W}}v_R^2.`$
$`(\delta s_W^2)_{LR}`$ exhibits a different structure from the SM case.

In Figs. 2-4 the contributions to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ parameter defined as222To make possible a comparison to the SM result on $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is modified to account for a different definition of the Weinberg angle in both models  and the relation $`\frac{e^2}{(8M_{W_1}^2(s_W)_{SM}^2)}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }r)=\frac{e^2}{(8M_{W_1}^2(s_W)_{LR}^2)}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }r_{LR})`$ is used. Let us add that not only $`\delta s_W^2`$ is different in LR and SM models, $`\frac{\delta e}{e}`$ has turned out to be a finite quantity .

$`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(s_W^2)_{SM}}{(s_W^2)_{LR}}}(\mathrm{\Delta }r)_{LR}+{\displaystyle \frac{(s_W^2)_{SM}}{(s_W^2)_{LR}}}1,`$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{W_1}^T(0)\delta M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_1}^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta e}{e}}`$ (12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta s_W^2)_{LR}}{(s_W^2)_{LR}}}+\delta )`$
are given. $`\delta `$ denotes the complete vertex, box and external line corrections within the MLRM.

If we parametrize the Higgs scalar masses by (no fine-tuning in the Higgs potential )

$`M_{H_a}`$ $``$ $`M_{H_1^0}=M_{H_3^0}=M_{A_1^0}=M_{A_2^0}`$
$`=`$ $`M_{H_1^+}=M_{H_2^+}=M_{\delta _L^{++}}=v_R/\sqrt{2},`$
$`M_{H_b}`$ $``$ $`M_{H_2^0}=M_{\delta _R^{++}}=\sqrt{2}v_R,M_{H_0^0}=\sqrt{2}\kappa _1`$
then we can observe from Fig. 2 that the experimental data on the muon decay lifetime can not be accomodated. It is possible, however, if all heavy Higgs particle masses are equal (see Fig. 3). Line (d) in Fig. 2 shows the results when heavy neutrino masses follow from the maximal Yukawa coupling connected with right-handed triplet representation $`h_M=1`$, $`m_N=\sqrt{2}v_R`$ .

For $`h_M>1`$ the perturbative theory breaks, which can be seen if the box diagrams are considered . In the model under investigation the light-heavy neutrino mixing has been neglected and the light-heavy gauge boson mixing angle $`\xi `$ is neglected. These assumptions are well motivated phenomenologically . Fig. 4 shows explicitly that $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ strongly depends on the relation between $`m_t`$ and $`v_R`$. This means that $`m_t`$ can not be predicted in the MLRM model without knowledge of the $`v_R`$ scale and furthermore that for larger $`v_R`$ the dependence will lead only to a very crude bound.

The results shown here (for details, see ) justify again our statements considered in . It has been concluded there, that the only sensible way to confront a model beyond the SM with the experimental data is to renormalize it self-consistently as it does not necessarily embed the SM structure of radiative corrections. If this is not done, parameters which depend strongly on quantum effects should be left free in fits, though essential physics is lost in this way.

## 2 Conclusions

In LR models there are several new extra parameters (e.g. mixing angles in the gauge sector, the $`g^{}`$ gauge coupling) along with quite a lot of new particles and interactions. These cause that the model is a very good theoretical lab for examining many phenomenological problems and issues of fundamental interactions. However, the freedom of parameter space connected with the extra sector is not unlimited, moreover, sometimes the model can be even more restricted than the SM alone. This seems to be particularly true when processes are considered at the loop level. Though we have restricted ourselves to the case of the minimal LR model, the results already show that fine-tuning of the heavy sector parameters must be done to recover experimental data. This is in our opinion the main direction of future investigations which has certainly not been fully exploited in the past .

## Acknowledgements

M. C. would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt foundation for fellowship. This work was partly supported by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under Grant No. 2P03B05418 and by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 Physics at Colliders.


text:
# A locally trivial quantum Hopf bundle

## 1 Introduction

In this note, we describe an example of a principal bundle in the setting of noncommutative geometry, which meets two possible (still provisional) definitions: It is a locally trivial quantum principal bundle in the sense of \[BK96\] as well as a Hopf-Galois extension \[M-S93\]. Besides giving the definition of these notions and a description of the bundle \[CM00\], \[CM02\], we provide a list of results obtained in \[HMS\] concerning the structure of the total space algebra and the Galois aspects of the bundle.

## 2 Quantum principal bundles

### 2.1 Hopf-Galois extensions

Dualizing the corresponding classical structure “à la Gelfand-Neumark”, one arrives at the following items which show up in the definition of quantum principal bundles:

* There is some algebra $`P`$ replacing the total space of a principal bundle.
* There is some Hopf algebra $`H`$ replacing the structure group, coacting on $`P`$ on the right, i.e., there is an algebra homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R:PPH`$ with $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_R\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }_R=(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ and $`(\mathrm{id}\epsilon )\mathrm{\Delta }_R=\mathrm{id}`$.
* There is another algebra replacing the base space, which coincides with the subalgebra of coinvariants of the coaction of $`H`$ on $`P`$, $`B=P^{coH}:=\{pP|\mathrm{\Delta }_R(p)=p1\}`$. The bundle projection is the embedding $`BP`$, denoted by $`\iota :BP`$.

$`BP`$ is called $`H`$-extension in the above context \[M-S93\]. For a classical principal bundle with base space $`M`$, total space $`P`$ and structure group $`G`$, the right action is assumed to be free. This assumption can be restated as bijectivity of the map $`X\times GX\times _MX,(x,g)(x,xg)`$. At the level of algebras, this means bijectivity of the map

$$can:P_BPPH,pp^{}pp_{(0)}^{}p_{(1)}^{}.$$

Here we use Sweedler notation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R(p)=p_{(0)}p_{(1)}`$. An $`H`$-extension is called Hopf-Galois if $`can`$ is bijective. This is essentially the notion of an algebraic quantum principal bundle (see, e.g., \[BM93\]).

### 2.2 Locally trivial quantum principal bundles

There is another approach to quantum principal bundles emphasizing the idea of gluing which is behind the definition of classical fibre bundles \[BK96\], \[CM02\]. In order to state this definition, we need an algebraic notion of covering:

A covering of an algebra $`B`$ is a family $`(J_i)_{iI}`$ of ideals with zero intersection. Let $`\pi _i:BB_i:=B/J_i`$, $`\pi _j^i:B_iB_{ij}:=B/(J_i+J_j)`$ be the quotient maps. A covering $`(J_i)_{iI}`$ is called complete if the homomorphism $`Bb(\pi _i(b))_{iI}\{(b_i)_{iI}_{iI}B_i|\pi _j^i(b_i)=\pi _i^j(b_j)\}`$ is surjective (it is always injective). Finite coverings by closed ideals in C\*-algebras and two-element coverings are always complete. A locally trivial $`H`$-extension is an $`H`$-extension $`BP`$ supplied with the following local data:
(i) $`B`$ has a complete finite covering $`(J_i)_{iI}`$.
(ii) There are given surjective homomorphisms $`\chi _i:PB_iH`$ (local trivializations) such that
(a) $`\chi _i\iota =\pi _i1`$ ($`\iota :BP`$),
(b) $`(\chi _i\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }_R=(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\chi _i`$ (right colinearity),
(c) $`(\mathrm{ker}\chi _i)_{iI}`$ is a complete covering of $`P`$.

As in the classical situation, locally trivial bundles can be reconstructed from transition functions related to the covering of the base algebra. More precisely, every locally trivial principal fibre bundle with fixed base algebra $`B`$ and Hopf algebra $`H`$ is determined by the following data:

* a complete finite covering $`(J_i)_{iI}`$
* a family of transition functions, i.e., of homomorphisms $`\tau _{ij}:HZ(B_{ij})`$ (center) fulfilling $`\tau _{ii}=1\epsilon `$, $`\tau _{ji}S=\tau _{ij}`$ ($`S`$ the antipode of $`H`$), and the cocycle condition $`\pi _k^{ij}\tau _{ij}=m_{B_{ijk}}((\pi _j^{ik}\tau _{ik})(\pi _i^{jk}\tau _{kj}))\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The total space algebra is then given as the gluing

$$P=\{(f_i)_{iI}_{iI}B_iH|(\pi _j^i\mathrm{id})(f_i)=\phi _{ij}(\pi _i^j\mathrm{id})(f_j)\},$$

where $`\phi _{ij}(bh)=b\tau _{ji}(h_{(1)})h_{(2)}`$. The remaining data of the corresponding locally trivial $`H`$-extension are as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_R((f_i)_{iI})=((\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })(f_i))_{iI},\chi _i((f_i)_{iI})=f_i,\iota (b)=(\pi _i(b)1)_{iI}.$$

## 3 Description of the locally trivial $`U(1)`$-bundle $`S_{pq}^3S_{pq}^2`$

### 3.1 Quantum discs

We use the following subfamily of a two-parameter family of quantum discs defined in \[KL93\] whose $``$-algebra is $`𝒪(D_q):=x,x^{}/(x^{}xqxx^{}(1q)),0<q<1.`$ The irreducible $``$-representations of $`𝒪(D_q)`$ are an $`S^1`$-family of one-dimensional representations, given by $`\pi _\theta (x)=e^{i\theta }`$ (classical points), and an infinite-dimensional representation $`\pi _q`$ in a separable Hilbert space representing the generator $`x`$ as a one-sided weighted shift. The classical points define an embedding of $`S^1`$ into $`D_q`$, i.e., $`𝒪(D_q)x\stackrel{\varphi _q}{}\underset{¯}{u}𝒪(S^1):=\underset{¯}{u},\underset{¯}{u}^{}/(\underset{¯}{u}^{}\underset{¯}{u}1,\underset{¯}{u}\underset{¯}{u}^{}1).`$ Since $`\pi (x)=1`$ for any $``$-representation of $`\pi `$ in some $`B()`$, the $`C^{}`$-closure $`C(D_q)`$ of $`𝒪(D_q)`$ is well-defined (using bounded $``$-representations). One knows that $`C(D_q)𝒯`$ (Toeplitz or shift algebra). Using the above-mentioned irreducible $``$-representations, one may heuristically interprete $`D_q`$ as a diffuse membrane spanned by a classical $`S^1`$.

### 3.2 Quantum two-spheres (quantum cones)

They are defined as a gluing of two quantum discs along the classical “boundary” $`S^1`$: $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2):=𝒪(D_p)_\varphi 𝒪(D_q)=\{(f,g)𝒪(D_p)𝒪(D_q)|\varphi _p(f)=\varphi _q(g)\},0<p,q<1.`$ The $``$-algebra $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)`$ can be identified with the quotient of the free algebra generated by $`f_1,f_1^{},f_0`$ by the ideal $`J`$ defined by the relations $`f_0^{}=f_0,f_1^{}f_1qf_1f_1^{}=(pq)f_0+(1p)1,(1f_0)(f_1f_1^{}f_0)=0.`$ There are an $`S^1`$-family of one-dimensional and two nonequivalent infinite dimensional $``$-representations in a separable Hilbert space. The latter represent $`f_0`$ as a diagonal operator and $`f_1`$ as a one-sided weighted shift. Again $`\rho (f_0)=\rho (f_1)=1`$ for any bounded $``$-representation. The $`C^{}`$-closure $`C(S_{pq}^2)`$ is defined using such representations. One knows $`C(S_{pq}^2)C(D_p)_\varphi C(D_q),C(S_{\mu c}^2),|\mu |<1,c>0`$ (Podleś spheres \[P-P87\]). Thus, the glued two-spheres are homeomorphic to the so-called equilateral Podleś spheres. Using, as for the disc, the irreducible representations, one may visualize $`S_{pq}^2`$ as a top of a diffuse cone, with edge $`S^1`$.

### 3.3 The $`𝒪(U(1))`$-extension $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$

Note that $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)=𝒪(D_p)_\varphi 𝒪(D_q)`$ has a canonical covering consisting of the kernels of the first and second projections, $`J_1=\mathrm{ker}pr_1`$, $`J_2=\mathrm{ker}pr_2`$. One has canonical identifications $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)/J_1=𝒪(D_p)`$, $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)/J_2=𝒪(D_q)`$, $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)/(J_1+J_2)=𝒪(S^1)`$. These are the data of the base algebra. The desired extension results from gluing $`𝒪(D_p)𝒪(U(1))`$ and $`𝒪(D_q)𝒪(U(1))`$ by means of one transition function $`\tau :𝒪(U(1))𝒪(S^1),u\underset{¯}{u},`$ following the general method of Subsection 2.2. The corresponding gluing $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ of two quantum solid tori along their set $`𝕋^2`$ of classical points is fully analogous to the geometrical picture in the case of the usual $`U(1)`$-Hopf bundle (Heegard splitting of $`S^3`$). It turns out that $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ is isomorphic to the quotient of the free $``$-algebra generated by $`a,b`$ by the ideal generated by the relations

$$ab=ba,ab^{}=b^{}a,a^{}b^{}=b^{}a^{},a^{}b=ba^{},$$

$$a^{}aqaa^{}=1q,b^{}bpbb^{}=1p,$$

$$(1aa^{})(1bb^{})=0.$$

The structural $``$-homomorphisms of the locally trivial $`U(1)`$-extension in terms of the generators $`a,b`$ are:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_R(a)=au,\mathrm{\Delta }_R(b)=bu^{},$$

$$\chi _p(a)=1u,\chi _p(b)=xu^{},\chi _q(a)=yu,\chi _q(b)=1u^{},$$

$$\iota (f_1)=ba,\iota (f_0)=bb^{}.$$

## 4 Further results

### 4.1 Structure of $`S_{pq}^3`$

* The classes of irreducible $``$-representations of $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ in bounded operators are classified: There is a $`𝕋^2`$-family of one dimensional representations and two $`S^1`$-families of infinite-dimensional representations in a separable Hilbert space. In the first of these two families, $`a`$ is a multiple of the unit operator, and $`b`$ is a one-sided weighted shift. In the second family $`a`$ and $`b`$ exchange their roles. Since again the norms of $`a`$ and $`b`$ are 1 in any bounded representation, one can define the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C(S_{pq}^3)`$ using such representations.
* A vector space basis of $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ can be exhibited.
* $`C(S_{pq}^3)`$ is a 2-graph $`C^{}`$-algebra.
* The $`K`$-groups of $`C(S_{pq}^3)`$ coincide with the $`K`$-groups of the classical $`S^3`$, i.e.,
$`K_0(C(S_{pq}^3))=K_1(C(S_{pq}^3))=`$.

### 4.2 Hopf-Galois (bundle) aspects

* The $`𝒪(U(1))`$-extension $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ has the Galois property. (Idea of proof: Find a lift $`l`$ of the translation map and use a general argument of Schneider.)
* The lift $`l`$ of the translation map is a strong connection in the sense of \[H-PM96\]. Consequently, the $`𝒪(U(1))`$-extension $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ is relatively projective \[BH\].
* As a further consequence of the existence of a strong connection, all associated modules (vector bundles) are finitely generated projective. In particular, using the strong connection one can for any winding number give explicitely a projector matrix corresponding to the associated line bundle.
* The $`𝒪(U(1))`$-extension $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ is non-cleft (not a crossed product). This is proved using a trace on $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)`$, which is defined as the operator trace composed with the difference of the two irreducible infinite dimensional representations. The Chern-Connes pairing of this trace with the $`K_0`$-class of the projector defining the associated line bundle with winding number -1 just gives this number, which proves the above claim (cf. \[HM99\]).

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach, where this note was completed during a stay under the Research in Pairs programme. Also, it is a pleasure to thank D. Calow, P.M. Hajac and W. Szymanski for many hours of discussion and joint work.

## References


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

The minimal see-saw  texture that allows to explain the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies in terms of oscillations contains two heavy singlet neutrinos $`N_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{sun}}`$ coupled as

$``$ $`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{SM}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{atm}}}{2}}N_{\mathrm{atm}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{sun}}}{2}}N_{\mathrm{sun}}^2`$
$`+\lambda _{\mathrm{sun}}HN_{\mathrm{sun}}(sL_e+ce^{i\varphi /2}L_\mu +0L_\tau )`$
$`+\lambda _{\mathrm{atm}}HN_{\mathrm{atm}}(0L_e+s_{\mathrm{atm}}L_\mu +c_{\mathrm{atm}}L_\tau ),`$
where $`M_i`$, $`\lambda _i`$, $`\varphi `$, $`s`$ and $`s_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ are free parameters. We abbreviate $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$, $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$, $`t_i=\mathrm{tan}\theta _i`$. Nothing can be removed from this ‘most minimal texture’ without generating conflicts with present data. The phase $`\varphi `$ is the unique source of CP-violation in the lepton sector . Possible connection  between the sign of the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe and the CP-violation in neutrino oscillations via $`\varphi `$ was the original motivation of the model . This texture is predictive also if the zeros are replaced by sufficiently small numbers.

In this letter we motivate the model (Introduction) and show in detail how it can be tested using low and high-energy observables. After deriving predictions for neutrino experiments, we clarify that the sign of the baryon asymmetry, together with the sign of the neutrino CP-violation in oscillations, determines a discrete ambiguity of the model: the order of $`M_{\mathrm{sun}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}.`$ Successful leptogenesis  fixes the mass of the lightest heavy neutrino. In the supersymmetric version of the model, either BR($`\mu e\gamma `$) or BR($`\tau \mu \gamma `$) is predicted, depending on the sign of the neutrino CP-phase. The other process is a function of the heaviest singlet neutrino mass only, and has a lower bound.

At first sight the texture (Introduction) looks quite artificial: e.g. we do not know how a U(1) flavour symmetry could justify it. However, (Introduction) can be easily obtained from extra-dimensional models. Following  we consider a 5-dimensional fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ in presence of a domain wall $`\phi (x_5)`$. The system is described by the action

$$S=d^5x\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}[i/+\lambda \phi (x_5)m]\mathrm{\Psi }.$$

The Kaluza-Klein spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ contains a massless chiral mode localized around $`x_5=x_5^{}`$, where $`\lambda \phi (x_5^{})=m`$. When $`\phi (x_5)`$ can be approximated with a linear function, the chiral zero mode has a Gaussian profile in the extra dimension with $`\lambda `$-dependent width. Assuming that the Higgs $`H`$ is not localized, small Yukawa couplings between $`N`$ and $`L`$ are naturally given by a small overlap between their wave functions as depicted in the figure below

This setup naturally generates the desired matrix of Yukawa couplings

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& & L_e& L_\mu & L_\tau & \\ N_{\mathrm{sun}}& (\mathrm{}& 𝒪(ϵ^2)& 𝒪(ϵ^2)& 𝒪(ϵ^{11.})& )\mathrm{}\\ N_{\mathrm{atm}}& 𝒪(ϵ^{14.})& 𝒪(ϵ)& 𝒪(ϵ)\end{array}$$

(where $`ϵ`$ is a free parameter) and suppresses $`N_{\mathrm{sun}}N_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ mixing mass terms. While we do not gain any new insight proceeding along this route, we are motivated to study the implications of the model.

## Neutrinos

The model (Introduction) predicts the following Majorana mass matrix for the light neutrinos:

$$m_\nu =m_{\mathrm{atm}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵs^2& ϵsce^{i\varphi /2}& 0\\ ϵsce^{i\varphi /2}& s_{\mathrm{atm}}^2+ϵc^2e^{i\varphi }& s_{\mathrm{atm}}c_{\mathrm{atm}}\\ 0& s_{\mathrm{atm}}c_{\mathrm{atm}}& c_{\mathrm{atm}}^2\end{array}\right),$$

where

$$m_{\mathrm{atm}}=\frac{\lambda _{\mathrm{atm}}^2v}{M_{\mathrm{atm}}},ϵ=\frac{\lambda _{\mathrm{sun}}^2/M_{\mathrm{sun}}}{\lambda _{\mathrm{atm}}^2/M_{\mathrm{atm}}}.$$

$`N_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ plays the rôle of ‘dominant right-handed neutrino’ . Neutrinos have a hierarchical mass spectrum and the lightest neutrino is massless111An alternative minimal texture, where $`N_{\mathrm{sun}}`$ couples to $`L_\tau `$ rather than to $`L_\mu `$, is equally acceptable. Its predictions concerning neutrinos can be obtained exchanging in the equations below $`\theta _{23}\pi /2\theta _{23}`$. At the moment atmospheric data do not distinguish between them. If the singlet neutrinos have a pseudo-Dirac mass term $`MN_{\mathrm{sun}}N_{\mathrm{atm}}`$, rather than the masses of eq. (Introduction), one gets light neutrinos with inverted mass hierarchy. Without fine-tuning its parameters, the resulting texture predicts $`\theta _{12}\pi /4`$ which is strongly disfavoured by the present data.. At leading order in $`ϵ`$, the oscillation parameters are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2>0,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2=R\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2,$$

with $`R=ϵ^2(s^2+c^2c_{\mathrm{atm}}^2)^2`$. We define $`m_{\mathrm{sun}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2}`$. The mixing angles in the standard notation are

$$\theta _{23}=\theta _{\mathrm{atm}},\theta _{13}=ϵscs_{\mathrm{atm}},\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}=\frac{s}{cc_{\mathrm{atm}}}.$$

The neutrino mixing matrix $`V`$ relating the mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ to the flavour eigenstates, $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}=V_\mathrm{}i\nu _i`$, is

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\text{diag}(1,e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}},e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}})R_{23}(\theta _{23})\text{diag}(1,e^{i\varphi },1)`$
$`R_{13}(\theta _{13})R_{12}(\theta _{12})\text{diag}(1,1,e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}}),`$
where $`R_{ij}(\theta _{ij})`$ represents a rotation by $`\theta _{ij}`$ in the $`ij`$ plane. The first phase matrix in $`V`$ is unphysical and can be absorbed into the phases of $`(L_e,L_\mu ,L_\tau )`$. The last phase matrix contains a practically unmeasurable Majorana phase. The phase matrix in the middle determines that the CP-violating phase in oscillations (observable in the planned experiments) is exactly the phase $`\varphi `$ in (Introduction). A ‘positive’ phase, $`0<\varphi <\pi `$ induces $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )>P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)=P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu )`$ in vacuum oscillations with baseline $`L<2\pi E_\nu /\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2`$.

Therefore this model predicts (see also )

$$\theta _{13}\frac{\sqrt{R}}{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23},m_{ee}=m_{\mathrm{sun}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12},$$
(2)
where $`m_{ee}`$ is the $`ee`$ element of the neutrino mixing matrix to be measured in neutrino-less double-beta ($`0\nu 2\beta `$) decay experiments. Present atmospheric neutrino data indicate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^22.710^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`t_{23}^21`$ . Solar and reactor data  indicate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^27.010^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}0.45`$ (another solution with a sligthly higher value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is somewhat disfavoured by data, see Fig. 2). Combining present atmospheric and solar data222 A function $`\chi ^2(p)`$, extracted from a global up-to-date fit of solar and atmospheric data, contains the present information on the parameters $`p=\{\theta _{\mathrm{sun}},\theta _{\mathrm{atm}},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2\}`$. In Gaussian approximation, the present information on a parameter $`a=f(p)`$ is then extracted computing $`\chi ^2(a)=\mathrm{min}_{p:f(p)=a}\chi ^2(p).`$ $`\chi ^2(a)`$ is ‘distributed as $`\chi ^2`$ with 1 degree of freedom’. In Bayesian inference this means that the probability of different $`a`$ values is $`e^{\chi ^2(a)/2}`$. , we obtain the predictions

$$\theta _{13}=0.078\pm 0.015,m_{ee}=2.6\pm 0.4\mathrm{meV}.$$
(3)
The predicted value of $`m_{ee}`$ is below the sensitivity of the planned next-generation $`0\nu 2\beta `$ experiments . Therefore we focus on studying $`\theta _{13}`$.

Fig. 1 shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ distribution for the predicted $`\theta _{13}`$, compared with the present bound from CHOOZ  and SK  ($`\theta _{13}<10^{}`$ at 90% CL). Its structure reflects the presence of local minima at different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2`$ in our global fit of solar and KamLAND data, see Fig. 2a. With more statistics, KamLAND will be able to measure the solar oscillation parameters with few $`\%`$ error . Long baseline experiments will measure the atmospheric parameters with few $`\%`$ error , allowing to predict $`\theta _{13}`$ with $`10\%`$ error. First-generation long-baseline experiments will be sensitive to $`\theta _{13}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.08}`$ . The whole predicted range for $`\theta _{13}`$ can be covered at second-generation experiments, such as JHF .

So far we have discussed the predictions for the light-neutrino mass matrix $`m_\nu `$. Within this model, oscillation experiments have already fixed it, except for the CP-violating phase. Future experiments will test the model. To get information on the heavy neutrino masses in (Introduction), and to test the high-energy part of the model, we need an additional input from leptogenesis.

## Leptogenesis

The decays of the lightest right-handed neutrino,

$$N_1=N_{\mathrm{sun}}\text{or}N_{\mathrm{atm}},$$

generate a lepton asymmetry only in $`L_\mu `$ (see (Introduction)). The generated lepton asymmetry is then converted into a baryon asymmetry by sphalerons . The baryon-to-entropy ratio in the non-supersymmetric model is given by

$$\frac{n_B}{s}=(0.85\pm 0.15)\times 10^{10}=\frac{3ϵ\eta }{2183},$$
(4)
where $`ϵ`$ is the CP-asymmetry in $`N_1`$ decays and $`\eta <1`$ is an efficiency factor, determined by solving the relevant set of Boltzmann equations .

In Fig. 3a we show the iso-curves of the predicted $`n_B/s`$ in the ($`M_{\mathrm{sun}},M_{\mathrm{atm}}`$) plane assuming the best-fit values of oscillation parameters. Unless the heavy neutrinos are extremely degenerate, which we regard as a fine tuning, Fig. 3 implies that the $`N_1`$ Yukawa couplings are sufficiently large that $`N_1`$ quickly reaches the thermal abundance and washes out the lepton asymmetry eventually generated by the heavier singlet neutrino.

The main features of leptogenesis in this model can be understood by simple analytic approximations as follows.

* If $`M_{\mathrm{sun}}M_{\mathrm{atm}}`$,

$$ϵ=\frac{3}{16\pi }\frac{m_{\mathrm{atm}}M_{\mathrm{sun}}}{v^2}\frac{s_{23}^2}{1+c_{23}^2t_{12}^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi .$$

For $`M_110^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$ only $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ washout scatterings contribute to the efficiency factor, and $`\eta `$ is approximately given by 333Fig. 3 is obtained from an accurate numerical computation, performed along the lines of . We include important thermal corrections to the Higgs mass $`m_H`$ and use the values of top Yukawa coupling $`\lambda _t`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ renormalized at the $`N_1`$ mass ($`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ washout scatterings depend on $`m_H`$ and $`\lambda _t`$).

$$\eta 1.510^4\mathrm{eV}/\stackrel{~}{m},$$

where the effective mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is given only in terms of the $`L_\mu `$ interactions in (Introduction). The texture predicts at the best-fit point

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=m_{\mathrm{sun}}\frac{c_{12}^2}{c_{23}^2}0.01\mathrm{eV}.$$

Thus $`\eta 0.01`$. The observed baryon asymmetry is obtained for $`\varphi <0`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{sun}}10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}/|\mathrm{sin}\varphi |`$ independently of $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}`$.
* If $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}M_{\mathrm{sun}}`$,

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{sun}}M_{\mathrm{atm}}}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_{23}^2}{1+t_{12}^2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ $`=`$ $`s_{\mathrm{atm}}^2m_{\mathrm{atm}}0.03\mathrm{eV},`$
thus $`\eta 0.003`$. The observed baryon asymmetry is obtained for $`\varphi >0`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}/|\mathrm{sin}\varphi |`$ independently of $`M_{\mathrm{sun}}`$.
* If $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}M_{\mathrm{sun}}`$ the CP-asymmetry is enhanced  by $`1/|M_{\mathrm{atm}}M_{\mathrm{sun}}|`$ and reaches a maximum $`ϵ1`$ when the mass difference is comparable to the decay widths. The observed baryon asymmetry can be obtained for a large range of relatively low heavy neutrino masses. Its sign still depends on which singlet neutrino is heavier, and it does not fix the sign of CP-violation in oscillations.

To summarize, Fig. 3 implies that we need to know both the sign of $`\varphi `$ and the sign of the baryon asymmetry to determine the discrete ambiguity of the model: the mass ordering of the heavy neutrinos. For hierarchical heavy neutrinos leptogenesis determines the mass of the lightest one, but does not test the model.

## Supersymmetry and lepton flavour violation

If nature is supersymmetric, it could be possible to fix and test the high-energy part of the model. For leptogenesis and neutrino masses the presence of supersymmetry changes only few $`𝒪(1)`$ coefficients: (i) the vacuum expectation value $`v`$ is replaced by $`v\mathrm{sin}\beta `$; (ii) the CP-asymmetry $`ϵ`$ becomes 2 times larger when $`M_{\mathrm{sun}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ are hierarchical  (iii) numerically eq. (4) remains practically unchanged since the number of model degrees of freedom is about doubled; (iv) washout becomes more efficient :

$$\eta 0.310^4\mathrm{eV}/\stackrel{~}{m}.$$

The final result is shown in Fig. 3b which differs from Fig. 3a by a small factor. Both for $`\varphi >0`$ and $`\varphi <0`$ we observe a potential conflict between obtaining a successful thermal leptogenesis and avoiding overproduction of gravitinos  in this model. If gravitinos do exists, they either must be heavier than $`m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}>10\mathrm{TeV}`$ in order to allow the mass-scales of Fig. 3b, or, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}1\mathrm{TeV}`$, one must have $`M_1<10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$. The last condition is satisfied only when $`M_{\mathrm{sun}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ are almost degenerate.

In supersymmetric extensions of the see-saw model, the renormalization effects due to the neutrino Yukawa couplings imprint lepton flavour violation in the slepton masses . Assuming that soft terms are universal at the unification scale (a hypothesis that collider experiments can partly test), in a generic see-saw model

$$𝒲=𝒲_{\mathrm{MSSM}}+\frac{M_{ij}}{2}N_iN_j+\lambda _N^{ij}N^iL^jH_\mathrm{u},$$

the correction to the $`3\times 3`$ mass matrix of left-handed sleptons is given by

$$𝒎_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2=m_0^2\frac{1}{(16\pi )^2}(3m_0^2+A_0^2)𝝀_N^{}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{M_{\mathrm{GUT}}^2}{𝑴𝑴^{}})𝝀_N+\mathrm{}.$$

In general see-saw models the presence of too many uncontrollable neutrino parameters does not allow to make real predictions on lepton flavour violation (LFV). The present model allows us to compute the $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ rates  (and related LFV processes ) in terms of the two high-energy parameters $`M_{\mathrm{sun}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}`$. Assuming that thermal leptogenesis generates the observed baryon asymmetry, we get predictions more sharp than what suggested by a naïve counting of the number of free parameters. Barring the case of almost degenerate singlet neutrinos $`M_{\mathrm{sun}}M_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ (where only the ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{BR}(\mu e\gamma )}{\text{BR}(\tau \mu \gamma )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^5\tau _\mu }{m_\tau ^5\tau _\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}}}`$ (5)
$``$ $`0.2`$
can be predicted), leptogenesis fixes the mass of the lightest singlet neutrino allowing to compute its Yukawa couplings, and consequently, the LFV rates that it induces. The predictions depend on the sign of the CP-violating phase $`\varphi `$ measurable in oscillations.

* If $`\varphi <0`$, $`N_1`$ is $`N_{\mathrm{sun}}`$, BR$`(\mu e\gamma )`$ can be predicted while BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ remains a function of a single unknown parameter, $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}`$. Since $`M_{\mathrm{atm}}>M_{\mathrm{sun}}`$ the model also predicts a lower bound on BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$.
* If instead $`\varphi >0`$, $`N_1`$ is $`N_{\mathrm{atm}}`$, BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ can be predicted, together with a lower bound on BR$`(\mu e\gamma )`$. The latter is a function of the unknown $`M_{\mathrm{sun}}>M_{\mathrm{atm}}`$.

As usual, the predicted LFV rates depend on sparticle masses which can be measured at colliders. Taking into account naturalness considerations and experimental bounds, we give our numerical examples for $`m_0=100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_{1/2}=150\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_0=0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$. In Fig. 3b we show the iso-curves of the LFV processes for this input, assuming the best-fit oscillation parameters. The branching ratios are calculated by solving numerically the renormalization group equations and using exact formulæ in . Both BR$`(\mu e\gamma )`$ and BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ can be in the reach of future experiments . Their behavior is approximately given by

$`\text{BR}(\mu e\gamma )`$ $``$ $`2.7r10^{12}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{sun}}}{10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^2,`$
$`\text{BR}(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ $``$ $`1.5r10^{11}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{atm}}}{10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^2,`$
where the logarithmic dependence on the heavy masses is neglected and we have introduced an approximate scaling factor

$$r\left(\frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{10}\right)^2\left(\frac{150\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}}\right)^4,$$

($`r=1`$ at our reference point) in order to show the dominant dependence on supersymmetric model parameters. In particular, the branching ratios decouple as $`1/m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^4`$ if sparticles are heavy. When sparticles masses will be measured, it will be possible to present more precise predictions.

For hierarchical heavy neutrinos, for $`|\mathrm{sin}\varphi |=1`$, and for the LMA best-fit oscillation parameters, the predictions are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{BR}(\mu e\gamma )2r10^{13}\hfill & \\ \text{BR}(\tau \mu \gamma )>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}r10^{12}\hfill & \end{array}\text{for}\varphi <0,$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{BR}(\tau \mu \gamma )7r10^{11}\hfill & \\ \text{BR}(\mu e\gamma )>r10^{11}\hfill & \end{array}\text{for}\varphi >0.$$

These results imply that, if also $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ is observed for $`\varphi <0`$, or if $`\mu e\gamma `$ is observed for $`\varphi >0`$, all the model parameters in (Introduction) can be entirely determined.

In this model the electron and muon electric dipole moments  and $`\tau e\gamma `$ are generated at a negligible level.

## Conclusions

Unlike the general see-saw model , the most minimal see-saw model (Introduction) allows to determine the low energy neutrino mass matrix entirely from neutrino oscillation experiments. The model predicts eq.s (2), (3). The sign of the oscillation CP-phase, together with the sign of the baryon asymmetry, fixes the order of the two heavy neutrino masses. Unless they are almost degenerate, successful thermal leptogenesis determines the lightest of them. The supersymmetric version of the model predicts either BR$`(\mu e\gamma )`$ or BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$, depending on the sign of $`\varphi .`$ The other process remains a function of the heavier neutrino mass only, and has a lower bound on its branching ratio. If the heavy neutrinos are almost degenerate, the model predicts only the ratio BR$`(\mu e\gamma )`$/BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ according to (5). Observation of the LFV processes allows in principle to fix all the model parameters in (Introduction), and to test its high-energy part.

### Acknowledgements.

We thank R. Barbieri, J. Ellis, A. Romanino and T. Yanagida for discussions. This work is partially supported by EU TMR contract No. HPMF-CT-2000-00460 and by ESF grant No. 5135.


text:
# The Poincaré conjecture for stellar manifolds

## 1 Introduction

We prove that a closed, compact, connected and simply connected stellar manifold is a stellar sphere. As a corollary we obtain the famous Poincaré conjecture:

Every simply connected closed $`3`$-manifold is homeomorphic to the $`3`$-sphere.

That was stated by Henri Poincaré in 1904 . Analogues of this hypothesis were successfully proved in dimensions higher than $`3,`$ see , , ,, .
We prove this conjecture for stellar manifolds. Since every $`3`$-dimensional manifold can be triangulated and any two stellar equivalent manifolds are piecewise linearly homeomorphic (,,), our result does imply the famous Poincaré conjecture.

## 2 Main result

A stellar $`n`$-manifold $`M`$ can be identified with the sum of its $`n`$-dimensional simplexes ($`n`$-simplexes):

$$M=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i$$

with coefficients from $`\mathrm{Z}_2.`$ We will call $`\{g_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ generators of $`M.`$

All vertices in $`M`$ can be enumerated and any $`n`$-simplex $`s`$ from $`M`$ corresponds to the set of its vertices

$$s=(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{n+1}),$$

where $`i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{n+1}`$ are integers.

The boundary operator $``$ is defined on a simplex as

$$(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{n+1})=(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n)+(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{n1}i_{n+1})+\mathrm{}+(i_2i_3\mathrm{}i_{n+1})$$

and linearly extended to any complex, i.e.

$$M=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_i.$$

A manifold is called closed if $`M=0.`$

If two simplexes $`(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_m)`$ and $`(j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n)`$ do not have common vertices then one can define their join

$$(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_m)(j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n)$$

as the union

$$(i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_m)(j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_n).$$

If two complexes $`K=_iq_i`$ and $`L=_jp_j`$ do not have common vertices then their join is defined as

$$KL=\underset{i,j}{}q_ip_j.$$

If $`A`$ is a simplex in a complex $`K`$ then we can introduce its link:

$$lk(A,K)=\{BK;ABK\}.$$

The star of $`A`$ in $`K`$ is $`Alk(A,K).`$ Thus,

$$K=Alk(A,K)+Q(A,K),$$

where the complex $`Q(A,K)`$ is composed of all the generators of $`K`$ that do not contain $`A.`$ A complex with generators of the same dimension is called a uniform complex.

###### Definition 1

(Subdivision) Let $`A`$ be a simplex of a complex $`K.`$ Then any integer $`a`$ which is not a vertex of $`K`$ defines starring of

$$K=Alk(A,K)+Q(A,K)$$

at $`a`$ as

$$\widehat{K}=aAlk(A,K)+Q(A,K).$$

This is denoted as

$$\widehat{K}=(Aa)K.$$

The next operation is the inverse of subdivision. It is called a stellar weld and defined as follows.

###### Definition 2

(Weld) Consider a complex

$$\widehat{K}=alk(a,\widehat{K})+Q(a,\widehat{K}),$$

with $`lk(a,\widehat{K})=AB`$ where $`B`$ is a subcomplex in $`\widehat{K},`$ $`A`$ is a simplex and $`A\widehat{K}.`$ Then the (stellar) weld $`(Aa)^1\widehat{K}`$ is defined as

$$(Aa)^1\widehat{K}=AB+Q(a,\widehat{K}).$$

A stellar move is one of the following operations: subdivision, weld, enumeration change on the set of vertices. Two complexes $`M`$ and $`L`$ are called stellar equivalent if one is obtained from the other by a finite sequence of stellar moves. It is denoted as $`ML.`$

If a complex $`L`$ is stellar equivalent to $`(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{}n+1)`$ then $`L`$ is called a stellar $`n`$-ball. On the other hand, if $`K(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{}n+2)`$ then $`K`$ is a stellar $`n`$-sphere.

###### Definition 3

(Stellar manifold) Let $`M`$ be a complex. If, for every vertex $`i`$ of $`M,`$ the link $`lk(i,M)`$ is either a stellar $`(n1)`$-ball or a stellar $`(n1)`$-sphere, then $`M`$ is a stellar $`n`$-dimensional manifold ($`n`$-manifold).

If $`i`$ is a vertex of $`M`$ then

$$M=ilk(i,M)+Q(i,M).$$

If $`M=0,`$ then $`Q(i,M)`$ is a stellar manifold.
Indeed, consider an arbitrary vertex $`j`$ of $`Q(i,M).`$ Then

$$lk(i,M)=jlk(j,lk(i,M))+Q(j,lk(i,M))$$

and

$$Q(i,M)=jlk(j,Q(i,M))+Q(j,Q(i,M)).$$

Since $`M`$ is a stellar manifold and $`M=0`$

$$ilk(j,lk(i,M))+lk(j,Q(i,M))$$

is a stellar sphere. Hence, it follows from  that $`lk(j,Q(i,M))`$ is either a stellar ball or a stellar sphere.
In the sequel it is convenient to consider an equivalence relation on the set of vertices of a stellar manifold. Among all possible such equivalence relations we are mostly interested in those that meet certain regularity properties underlined by the following definition.

###### Definition 4

(Regular equivalence) Given a stellar manifold $`M,`$ an equivalence relation ”$``$” on the set of vertices from $`M`$ is called regular if it meets the following conditions:

* No generator $`gM`$ has two vertices that are equivalent to each other.
* For any generator $`gM`$ there might exist not more than one generator $`pMg`$ such that any vertex of $`g`$ is either equal or equivalent to some vertex of $`p.`$ We call such two generators equivalent, $`gp.`$

Our proof of the Poincaré conjecture is based on the following result.

###### Theorem 2.1

A connected stellar $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ with a finite number of generators admits a triangulation

$$N=a(S/),$$

where $`aS`$ is a vertex, $`S`$ is a stellar $`2`$-sphere and ”$``$” is a regular equivalence relation. Moreover, if $`M`$ is closed then for any generator $`gS`$ there exists exactly one generator $`pSg`$ such that $`gp.`$

Proof. Let us choose an arbitrary generator $`gM`$ and an integer $`a`$ that is not a vertex of $`M.`$ Then

$$M(ga)M\text{ and }(ga)M=ag+Mg,$$

where $`Mg`$ is defined by all the generators of $`M`$ excluding $`g.`$ We construct $`N`$ in finite number of steps. Let $`N_0=(ga)M.`$ Suppose we constructed already $`N_k`$ and there exists a generator $`pQ(a,N_k)`$ that has at least one common $`2`$-simplex with $`lk(a,N_k).`$ Without loss of generality, we can assume that

$$p=(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3\hspace{0.33em}4}).$$

and $`(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3})`$ belongs to $`lk(a,N_k).`$ If the vertex $`(4)`$ does not belong to $`lk(a,N_k)`$ then

$$N_{k+1}=((a\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4})b)^1((\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3})b)N_k.$$

If the vertex $`(4)`$ belongs to $`lk(a,N_k)`$ then after introducing a new vertex $`dN_k`$ we take

$$L=((ad)b)^1((\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3})b)(N_kp+(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3}d)),$$

where $`b(N_kp+(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3}d)),`$ and

$$N_{k+1}=a(lk(a,L)/)+Q(a,L)$$

endowed with the equivalence $`d(4).`$
By construction

$$N_{k+1}=a(lk(a,N_k)+p)+Q(a,N_k)p$$

if $`(4)lk(a,N_k).`$ Otherwise,

$$N_{k+1}=a((lk(a,N_k)+g)/)+Q(a,N_k)p,$$

where $`g=(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3}d),d(4).`$

Since $`M`$ is connected and has a finite number of generators there exists a natural number $`m`$ such that

$$N_m=a(S/)$$

where $`S`$ is a stellar $`2`$-sphere and ”$``$” is a regular equivalence relation.
If $`M`$ is closed, then $`N_m=0,`$ and therefore, for any generator $`gS`$ there exists exactly one generator $`pSg`$ such that $`gp.`$
Q.E.D.

It is known , ,  that any two $`3`$-dimensional manifolds admitting stellar equivalent triangulations are piecewise linearly homeomorphic. On the other hand, every compact $`3`$-dimensional manifold admits a stellar triangulation with a finite number of generators . Hence, the Poincaré conjecture follows from the following statement.

###### Theorem 2.2

(the Poincaré Conjecture) A simply connected, connected closed stellar $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ with a finite number of generators is homeomorphic to the $`3`$-sphere, $`(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}2\hspace{0.33em}3\hspace{0.33em}4\hspace{0.33em}5}).`$

Proof. Let $`M`$ be a closed, connected and simply connected $`3`$-dimensional stellar manifold with a finite number of generators. By Theorem 2.1 $`M`$ admits a triangulation

$$N=a(S/)$$

where $`aS`$ is a vertex, $`S`$ is a stellar $`2`$-sphere and ”$``$” is a regular equivalence relation. Moreover, for any generator $`gS`$ there exists exactly one generator $`pSg`$ such that $`gp.`$
Let us show that $`a(S/)`$ is homeomorphic to the $`3`$-sphere. If $`g`$ is a generator of $`S,`$ then

$$a(Sg)/$$

is connected and, by Seifert – Van Kampen theorem (see e.g. ), it is simply connected.
The barycentric subdivision $`Br(a(Sg)/)`$ of $`a(Sg)/`$ is geometrically collapsible (or $`Br(a(Sg)/)0`$). Thus by Whitehead’s result on regular neighborhoods (see , ) $`Br(a(Sg)/)`$ is a combinatorial $`3`$-ball. Therefore $`N=a(S/),`$ two $`3`$-balls identified along their boundaries, and $`N`$ is homeomorphic to the $`3`$-sphere. Thus, $`M`$ is homeomorphic to the $`3`$-sphere. Q.E.D.

## 3 Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to Prof. C. Margerin and Prof. W.B.Raymond Lickorish for reading early versions of this manuscript and making valuable suggestions that helped to correct mistakes and improve the presentation of the main result of this paper.


text:
# Charge-order-induced sharp Raman peak in Sr14Cu24O41

\[

## Abstract

In the two-leg $`S`$=1/2 ladders of Sr14Cu24O41 a modulation of the exchange coupling arises from the charge order within the other structural element, the CuO2 chains. In general, breaking translational invariance by modulation causes gaps within the dispersion of elementary excitations. We show that the gap induced by the charge order can drastically change the magnetic Raman spectrum leading to the sharp peak observed in Sr14Cu24O41. This sharp Raman line gives insight in the charge-order periodicity and hence in the distribution of carriers. The much broader spectrum of La6Ca8Cu24O41 reflects the response of an undoped ladder in the absence of charge order.

\]

Understanding the complex interplay of spin and charge degrees of freedom in doped quantum-spin systems is a key issue in condensed matter physics. This interplay governs in particular the physics of the planar high-$`T_c`$ superconducting cuprates. In the telephone-number compounds A14Cu24O41 it gives rise to a variety of interesting ground states. In La6Ca8Cu24O41 the ladders form an insulating spin liquid . Sr14-xCaxCu24O41 becomes superconducting under external pressure for $`x11.5`$  whereas an insulating charge-ordered state is favored for $`x5`$ , although the average copper valence does not depend on $`x`$. The different properties are usually attributed to the different distribution of charges between the two subsystems , Cu2O3 two-leg ladders and CuO2 chains . But the interesting physics linked to the differing periodicity of ladders and chains  is usually neglected.

Raman scattering offers a powerful tool to examine the spectral density of magnetic excitations and thus provides important information on the kinetics and on the interactions of the elementary excitations. In the undoped spin liquid La6Ca8Cu24O41, the ladders show a very broad two-triplet Raman line with slightly different peak positions for leg-leg and rung-rung polarization . This agrees very well with theoretical results . A very different line shape, however, is found in charge-ordered Sr14Cu24O41, which shows a peculiar sharp peak that is observed at the same frequency in both polarizations . This sharp response poses a challenge to the understanding of the cuprate ladders and offers the opportunity to study the interplay of spin and charge degrees of freedom in this fascinating system.

The sharpness of the Raman peak in Sr14Cu24O41 is in strong contrast to the very broad two-magnon Raman line observed in the undoped two-dimensional (2D) high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, which is still the subject of controversial discussions. Gozar et al.  argued that the observation of a very sharp two-triplet Raman line in a one-dimensional (1D) spin liquid suggests that the large width found in 2D cannot be attributed to quantum fluctuations.

Here, we challenge this point of view by providing a clear explanation for the Raman data of Sr14Cu24O41. We propose that the charge-order superstructure gives rise to a modulation of the exchange coupling along the ladders. The concomitant backfolding of the dispersion of the elementary triplet opens gaps at the crossing points. This in turn can have a drastic effect on the Raman line shape, which we calculate using continuous unitary transformations (CUTs) . The high resolution accessible by the CUT approach is decisive to account for the very narrow peak we are aiming at. Our results with and without charge order excellently describe the Raman data of Sr14Cu24O41 and La6Ca8Cu24O41, respectively.

For zero hole doping, the minimal model for the magnetic properties of the $`S=1/2`$ two-leg ladders in A14Cu24O41 is an antiferromagnetic Heisenberg Hamiltonian plus a cyclic four-spin exchange term $`H_{\mathrm{cyc}}`$

$`H=J_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝐒_{i,1}𝐒_{i,2}+J_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,\tau }{}}𝐒_{i,\tau }𝐒_{i+1,\tau }+H_{\mathrm{cyc}}`$ (5)
$`H_{\mathrm{cyc}}=J_{\mathrm{cyc}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}K_{(i,1),(i,2),(i+1,2),(i+1,1)}`$
$`K_{1234}=`$
$`(𝐒_1𝐒_2)(𝐒_3𝐒_4)+(𝐒_1𝐒_4)(𝐒_2𝐒_3)(𝐒_1𝐒_3)(𝐒_2𝐒_4)`$
where $`i`$ denotes the rungs and $`\tau \{1,2\}`$ the legs. The exchange couplings along the rungs and along the legs are denoted by $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$, resp.. There is also another way to include the leading four-spin exchange term by cyclic permutations  which differs in certain two-spin terms from Eq. (Charge-order-induced sharp Raman peak in Sr14Cu24O41) . Both Hamiltonians are identical except for couplings along the diagonals if $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$ are suitably redefined . Here, we use Hamiltonian (Charge-order-induced sharp Raman peak in Sr14Cu24O41) since it is established that the four-spin terms are the significant ones . The exchange parameters determined in Ref.  for La5.2Ca8.8Cu24O41 correspond in our notation  to $`J_{}/J_{}=1.22\pm 0.05`$, $`J_{\mathrm{cyc}}/J_{}=0.21\pm 0.03`$ and $`J_{}=1150\pm 100`$ cm-1. Using the average values, we find within 5% the same values for the spin gap and for the two-triplet bound-state energies as in Ref. .

The exchange coupling in the CuO2 chains is much weaker than in the ladders since it is mediated via Cu–O–Cu bonds with an angle close to 90. Thus the chains do not contribute directly to the Raman line at $``$ 3000 cm-1. But the presence of the chains gives rise to 7 inequivalent ladder rungs per formula unit (f.u.) and thereby induces a modulation in the ladders (see Fig. 1). This modulation is characterized by the wave vector $`Q_\mathrm{S}=10/7=3/7+1`$ in reciprocal lattice units (r.l.u.) of the ladder. In the magnetic subsystem of the spins on the Cu sites of the ladder, wave vectors are only meaningful modulo unity so that $`Q_\mathrm{S}=10/7`$ and $`Q_\mathrm{S}=3/7`$ are equivalent. The additional modulation induced by the charge ordering on the chains below $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}200`$ K has the wave vector $`Q_{\mathrm{CO}}=2/7`$ , see Fig. 1.

Now we estimate the amplitude of the exchange modulation with $`Q_\mathrm{S}`$. The Cu-O distances within the ladder are hardly affected by the modulation; the main effect is a shift of the O ions perpendicular to the Cu-O-Cu bonds . Hence the electronic hopping elements $`t_{pd}`$ can safely be considered constant. The exchange couplings are modified by the induced variation of the charge-transfer energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ct}}`$, i.e. the variation of the energy difference between holes on Cu and on O. We computed the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ct}}`$ in a point-charge model with stoichiometric valencies except for the chain oxygen with $`q=1.7`$e to account for the holes . The calculation uses Ewald sums so that the results pertain to the infinite system. The relative changes $`\mathrm{\Delta }J/J`$ are estimated in leading order . Assuming structurally unmodulated chains and ladders, we find a negligible effect of the chains on the exchange couplings of the ladder of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }J/J|10^6`$. However, the modulated positions at 300 K  yield

$`J_{,i}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{}[1+0.05\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \frac{3}{7}(i+\frac{1}{2}))]`$ (7)
$`J_{,i}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{}[10.10\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \frac{3}{7}i)+0.05\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \frac{6}{7}(i+3))]`$ (8)
with phase accuracy $`|\mathrm{\Delta }i|0.1`$  where $`i`$ counts the leg- or the rung-bonds. The term with $`2Q_\mathrm{S}=6/7`$ denotes the second harmonic; overtones with amplitude $``$ 1% are omitted. The amplitudes in Eq. (1) show that the induced modulation of the couplings is indeed sizeable.

We expect that the effects of the charge order occurring below $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}200`$ K are of similar size. Without detailed information on the structure at $`TT_{\mathrm{CO}}`$, only an estimate is possible. We assume a charge modulation on the chain oxygen of $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(j)=0.2\text{e}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \frac{2}{10}(j+\frac{1}{2}))`$, where $`j`$ counts the chain O sites, and the periodicity $`5c_{\mathrm{chain}}`$ and the phase are established experimentally  (cf. middle row of Fig. 1). This yields an additional modulation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }J_{,i}=0.16J_{}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \frac{2}{7}i),$$
(9)
with phase accuracy of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }i|0.1`$ . Thus the modulation induced by the charge order with $`Q_{\mathrm{CO}}=2/7`$ (in r.l.u. of the ladder) is indeed significant.

Now, we investigate the effects of modulations on magnetic Raman scattering which probes the excitations with zero momentum and zero spin. At $`T`$=0 the Raman response $`I(\omega )`$ is given by the retarded resolvent

$$I(\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{\delta 0+}{lim}\mathrm{Im}0\left|R^{}\frac{1}{\omega H+E_0+i\delta }R\right|0.$$
(10)
The observables $`R^{\mathrm{rung}}`$ ($`R^{\mathrm{leg}}`$) for magnetic light scattering in rung-rung (leg-leg) polarization are given in Ref. . We focus on the dominant two-triplet contribution. A CUT is employed to map the Hamiltonian $`H`$ to an effective Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ which conserves the number of rung-triplets . The ground state of $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the rung-triplet vacuum. The observable $`R`$ in $`I(\omega )`$ is mapped by the same unitary transformation to an effective observable $`R_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

The CUT is implemented perturbatively in $`J_{}/J_{}`$. We compute $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to order $`n10`$. A calculation in order $`n`$ accounts for hopping and interaction processes extending over a distance of $`n`$ rungs. The resulting plain series are represented in terms of the variable $`1\mathrm{\Delta }/(J_{}+J_{})`$ . Then standard Padé approximants  yield reliable results up to $`J_{}/J_{}11.5`$ depending on the value of $`J_{\mathrm{cyc}}/J_{}`$. Consistency checks were carried out by extrapolating the involved quantities before and after Fourier transforms. In case of inconclusive approximants the bare truncated series are used. We estimate the overall accuracy to be $``$5%. The Raman line shape is finally calculated as continued fraction by tridiagonalization of the effective two-triplet Hamiltonian in a mixed representation using the total momentum and the real-space distance. So the total momentum is sharply defined. No finite-size effects appear. This ensures a particularly high resolution in momentum and in energy necessary to account for a very sharp feature.

The modulation is included on the level of the effective model, i.e. *after* the CUT. This is no serious caveat since a microscopic calculation is not available. The leading-order effect of $`J_{}`$ is to enable the elementary triplets to hop from rung to rung by a nearest-neighbor hopping element $`t_1J_{}`$ and to induce a nearest-neighbor interaction $`w_1J_{}`$. So the most straightforward way to account for the modulation of $`J_{}`$ as given in Eqs. (1a) and (9) is to modulate $`t_1`$ and $`w_1`$,

$$t_1w_1J_{}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\underset{Q=2/7,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}/7,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6}/7}{}\alpha _Q\mathrm{cos}(2\pi Qi)].$$
(11)
Since we focus on the effect of the charge order (Eq. 9), the modulation of $`J_{}`$ as given in Eq. (1b) is neglected.

We use the parameters fixed for La5.2Ca8.8Cu24O41 in Refs. , $`J_{}/J_{}`$=1.25 and $`J_{\mathrm{cyc}}/J_{}`$=0.2. Fig. 2 shows the dispersion with and without a 15% modulation with wave vector $`Q_{\mathrm{CO}}`$, i.e. $`\alpha _{2/7}`$=0.15 in Eq. (11). Clearly, sizeable gaps open wherever $`Q_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ links equal energies $`\omega (k)=\omega (k+Q_{\mathrm{CO}})`$ of the unmodulated ladder. Smaller gaps open for higher-order processes, e.g. for $`\omega (k)=\omega (k+2Q_{\mathrm{CO}})`$. Thus the energies at which gaps open depend decisively on the wave vector of the modulation.

The Raman response of an undoped and unmodulated ladder is very broad (bottom panel of Fig. 3 and Ref. ), in good agreement with data of La6Ca8Cu24O41  (middle panel of Fig. 3). The excellent description of the peak position obtained for the parameter set of Ref.  given above corroborates these parameters. What is the effect of a modulation on the Raman line shape? The occurrence of gaps implies prominent peaks (van Hove singularities) in the density of states (DOS) and hence in the Raman line shape. Since Raman scattering measures excitations with total momentum $`k_{\mathrm{tot}}`$=0, the two-triplet response reflects the excitation of two triplets with momenta $`k_2=k_1`$ and energies $`\omega (k_1)=\omega (k_2)`$. A gap at $`\omega _g`$ thus causes a corresponding feature in the Raman line at $`2\omega _g`$. For the structural wave vectors $`Q_\mathrm{S}`$=3/7 and 6/7 these effects are rather small (middle panel of Fig. 3). But a drastic change of the line shape appears if (and only if) $`2\omega _g`$ coincides with the broad peak of the unmodulated ladder, since then the opening of the gap implies a redistribution of a large part of the spectral weight. For the relevant exchange couplings we find that $`2\omega (\pi /c_{\mathrm{ladder}}\pm Q_{\mathrm{CO}}/2)2.8J_{}3100`$ cm-1 is slightly above the Raman peak of the unmodulated ladder. Hence the charge-order modulation piles up a large part of the high-frequency weight on top of the peak, giving rise to a very sharp feature which agrees very well with the data of Sr14Cu24O41  (top panel of Fig. 3). Since both the exchange constants in Sr14Cu24O41 and the calculations are accurate within a few percent, only a semi-quantitative analysis is possible which shows the principal mechanism. The remaining uncertainties may imply that also a smaller value of $`\alpha _{2/7}`$ is sufficient to produce the sharp feature.

The good agreement between the experimental data and the theoretical result, based on the independently determined couplings  and the wave vector of the charge order, corroborates our interpretation. Another argument stems from the polarization dependence. For $`J_{\mathrm{cyc}}>0`$, the peak positions for leg-leg and rung-rung polarization should be different . This is indeed the case in La6Ca8Cu24O41 , but the sharp peak in Sr14Cu24O41 is found at $``$ 3000 cm-1 in both polarizations . In the scenario of the modulation-induced gaps the peak position is determined by the position and the size of the gap, since the peak is primarily a DOS effect. Hence the coincidence of the peak positions in both polarizations despite $`J_{\mathrm{cyc}}>0`$ supports our scenario. Moreover, also the spectra of Sr14Cu24O41 at elevated temperatures are explained. The charge order melts at $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ 200 K. Indeed, the very sharp Raman line is observed only below $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ . For $`TT_{\mathrm{CO}}`$, the peak positions are different for the two polarizations , which is expected for $`J_{\mathrm{cyc}}0.2J_{}`$ at $`\alpha _{2/7}=0`$.

An alternative explanation of the sharp peak in terms of bound states is unlikely. There is no bound state within the broad Raman continuum of the undistorted, undoped ladder . But how about finite doping? At 300 K, about 90 % of the doped carriers reside in the chains . At low temperatures the distribution of holes is not yet settled experimentally. Theoretically, the Madelung potentials indicate that all the holes reside in the chains . This is corroborated by the observation of the periodicity $`5c_{\mathrm{chain}}`$  for the charge order in the chains. In a 1D fermionic system it is natural to view the charge order as an effect of the $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ instability. So we are led to conclude that $`2k_\mathrm{F}=2/10`$ (in r.l.u. of the chain), which implies that there are $`n_{}+n_{}=4/10`$ electrons per site or 6 holes per f.u.. This further supports our assumption that at $`T0`$ all holes reside on the chains.

A finite hole concentration on the ladders cannot be ruled out completely. These charges would be pinned in a commensurate charge-density wave (CDW) at low temperatures by the electrostatic potential of the charge order on the chains. Clearly, such a CDW would also induce strong modulations. But it remains unclear where the peculiar periodicity stems from if $`2k_\mathrm{F}2/10`$.

A small amount of impurity holes cannot explain the sharp Raman peak. Below $`T_{\mathrm{CO}}`$, Sr14Cu24O41 is insulating, i.e. all charge carriers are localized. The local charge degrees of freedom may couple to the magnetic ones, but due to the local character the whole Brillouin zone would be involved implying a *broad* energy distribution, at odds with experiment .

Our results clearly call for several experimental verifications. Neutron-scattering experiments could clarify the presence and the size of gaps in the dispersion. Low-temperature investigations of the structure would help to improve our understanding of the charge-ordered state. Low-temperature x-ray absorption data are required to determine the hole density in the ladders. Raman studies as a function of Ca concentration and temperature could verify that the features explained here are indeed connected to the occurrence of the charge-ordered state. Then, the peak position offers a sensitive tool to determine the modulation wave vector $`Q_{\mathrm{CO}}`$.

In conclusion, the modulation of the exchange coupling in the charge-ordered state of Sr14Cu24O41 can explain the peculiar Raman data. The induced gap redistributes a large part of the spectral weight, giving rise to a sharp Raman peak. A comparison with the 2D cuprates is not appropriate. Strong quantum fluctuations are still the most likely candidate to explain their very broad Raman line.

We thank E. Müller-Hartmann, G. Blumberg, A. Gozar, and M. Braden for helpful discussions and the DFG for financial support in SP 1073 and in SFB 608.