text:
# Z-Burst Scenario for the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays*

## 1 Introduction

The existence of a background gas of free photons and neutrinos is predicted by cosmology. The measured cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation supports the applicability of standard cosmology back to photon decoupling which occured approximately one hundred thousand years after the big bang. The relic neutrinos have decoupled much earlier, when the universe had a temperature of one MeV and the age of just one second. Thus, a measurement of the relic neutrinos would provide a new window to the early universe. The predicted average number density of relic neutrinos per light ($`m_{\nu _i}1`$ MeV) species $`i`$ is $``$ 56 cm-3. This density is comparable with that of photons. However, since neutrinos interact only weakly, the relic neutrinos have not yet been detected.

Recently, an indirect detection possibility for relic neutrinos has been discussed . It is based on so-called Z-bursts resulting from the resonant annihilation of ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos (UHEC$`\nu `$s) with relic neutrinos into $`Z`$ bosons (cf. Fig. 1). The decay products of the $`Z`$ may be detected and yield thereby indirect evidence for the existence of relic neutrinos.

According to recent oscillation measurments (see e.g. ), neutrinos have non-vanishing masses, $`m_{\nu _i}`$. In this case the resonant energy at which the $`Z`$ production cross-section is sizeable reads

$`E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{2m_{\nu _i}}}=4.210^{21}\mathrm{eV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{eV}}{m_{\nu _i}}}\right),`$ (1)
where $`M_Z`$ is the mass of the Z boson. For neutrino masses of $`𝒪(1)`$ eV the resonant energy is remarkably close to the energies of the highest energy cosmic rays observed at Earth by collaborations such as AGASA , Fly’s Eye , Haverah Park , HiRes , and Yakutsk  (for a review, see Ref. ). The possibility that the ultrahigh energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) may originate from $`Z`$-bursts was first discussed in .

One of the most outstanding puzzles in cosmic ray physics is the existence of cosmic ray events above the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff . The energy spectrum of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays is expected to show a cutoff around $`410^{19}`$ eV which is not conclusively seen in the data . With the help of the Z-burst scenario one can not only detect the relic neutrino background indirectly but also explain the existence of the highest energy cosmic rays .

The comparison between the observed and predicted UHECR spectra gives constraints on the mass of the heaviest neutrino . In this review our quantitative analysis of the Z-burst scenario is presented. The requried mass of the heaviest neutrino, as well as the necessary UHE$`\nu `$ flux is determined.

The organization of this review is as follows. The next section summarizes our present knowledge on neutrino masses. Section 3 gives the produced spectrum of protons and photons from Z-bursts. The comparison with the observed spectrum is presented in Section 4 and the conclusion is given in Section 5.

## 2 Neutrino masses

According to recent experiments, neutrinos almost certainly have non-vanishing masses and mixing angles. The evidence for neutrino oscillation is compelling for atmospheric neutrinos , strong for solar neutrinos , and so-far unconfirmed for neutrinos produced in the laboratory and studied by e.g. the LSND collaboration . However, neutrino oscillations are sensitive only to the mass (squared) differences $`\mathrm{}m_{ij}^2=m_{\nu _i}^2m_{\nu _j}^2`$, not to the individual masses, $`(m_{\nu _4}>)m_{\nu _3}>m_{\nu _2}>m_{\nu _1}`$, themselves. Only a lower bound on the mass of the heaviest neutrino can be derived from these observations, e.g.

$$m_{\nu _3}\sqrt{\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.04}\mathrm{eV}$$
(2)
from the atmospheric mass splitting in a three neutrino flavour scenario and

$$m_{\nu _4}\sqrt{\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2}\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.4}\mathrm{eV}$$
(3)
from the still allowed value of the LSND mass splitting in a four flavour scenario.

For an investigation of the absolute scale of neutrino masses one has to exploit different types of experiments, such as the search for mass imprints in the endpoint spectrum of tritium beta ($`\beta `$) decay or the search for neutrinoless double beta ($`0\nu 2\beta `$) decay. At present, these direct kinematical measurements of neutrino masses provide only upper limits, e.g.

$$m_\beta \sqrt{\underset{i}{}|U_{ei}|^2m_{\nu _i}^2}<2.2÷2.5\mathrm{eV}(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.),$$
(4)
with $`U`$ being the leptonic mixing matrix, for the effective mass measured in tritium $`\beta `$ decay , and

$$m_\nu \left|\underset{i}{}U_{ei}^2m_{\nu _i}\right|<0.33÷1.35\mathrm{eV}(90\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.)$$
(5)
for the Majorana neutrino mass parameter  appearing in $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay. Recently an evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay was reported . The corresponding neutrino mass range is:

$$m_\nu =(0.11÷0.56)\mathrm{eV}(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.)$$
(6)
Combining the experimental constraints from oscillations and from tritium $`\beta `$ decay, one infers upper bounds on the mass of the heaviest neutrino,

$$m_{\nu _3}<\sqrt{m_\beta ^2+\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}\text{ }<\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}\mathrm{eV},$$
(7)
in a three flavour, and

$$m_{\nu _4}<\sqrt{m_\beta ^2+\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2}\text{ }<\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.8}\mathrm{eV},$$
(8)
in a four flavour scenario.

Further information on the absolute scale of neutrino masses can be obtained through cosmological and astrophysical considerations. Neutrinos in the $`0.1÷1`$ eV mass range have cosmological implications since they represent a non-negligible part of dark matter. This gives the opportunity to put upper limits on neutrino masses from cosmology . A recent galaxy redshift survey gives an upper bound

$$\underset{i}{}m_{\nu _i}<1.8\mathrm{eV}$$
(9)
on the sum of the neutrino masses . From the spread of arrival times of neutrinos from supernova SN 1987A, coupled with the measured neutrino energies, a time-of-flight limit of $`m_\beta <23`$ eV can be derived , which, however, is not competitive with the direct limit (4). According to a recent study, leptogenesis requires that all the neutrinos have masses smaller than 0.2 eV .

## 3 Z-burst spectra

The calculation of the Z-burst spectra of protons and photons was performed in three steps. First, we determined the probability of Z production as a function of the distance from Earth. Secondly, using results from collider experiments we derived the energy distribution of the produced protons and photons in the laboratory (lab) system. As a last step the energy losses due to the propagation of the protons and photons were taken into account.

The prediction of the differential proton flux, i.e. the number of protons arriving at Earth with energy $`E`$ per units of energy ($`E`$), of area ($`A`$), of time ($`t`$) and of solid angle ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$),

$$F_{p|Z}(E)=\frac{\mathrm{d}N_{p|Z}}{\mathrm{d}E\mathrm{d}A\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(10)
from Z-bursts can be summarized as

$`F_{p|Z}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dE_p{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{R_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}dr`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dE_{\nu _i}F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)n_{\overline{\nu }_i}(r)+{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dE_{\overline{\nu }_i}F_{\overline{\nu }_i}(E_{\overline{\nu }_i},r)n_{\nu _i}(r)\right]`$
$`\times \sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}(s)\mathrm{Br}(Z\mathrm{hadrons}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}N_{p+n}}{\mathrm{d}E_p}}(){\displaystyle \frac{}{E}}P_p(r,E_p;E),`$
with the following important building blocks: the UHEC$`\nu `$ fluxes $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)`$ at the energies $`E_{\nu _i}`$ ($`E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}`$) and at the distance $`r`$ of Z production to Earth, the number density $`n_{\nu _i}(r)`$ of the relic neutrinos, the Z production cross section $`\sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}(s)`$ at centre-of-mass (cm) energy squared $`s=2m_{\nu _i}E_{\nu _i}`$, the branching ratio $`\mathrm{Br}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})`$, the energy distribution $`\mathrm{d}N_{p+n}/\mathrm{d}E_p`$ of the produced protons (and neutrons) with energy $`E_p`$, and the probability $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ that a proton created at a distance $`r`$ with energy $`E_p`$ arrives at Earth above the threshold energy $`E`$.

A similar expression as Eq. (3) holds for the differential photon flux from Z-bursts. One simply has to insert the energy distribution of photons from Z-bursts and the photon propagation function. The latter, $`P_\gamma (r,E_\gamma ;E)`$ has a different meaning than that of the proton’s. It gives the expected number of detected photons above the threshold energy $`E`$ if one photon started from a distance of $`r`$ with energy $`E_\gamma `$.

The building blocks related to Z-production and decay – $`\sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}`$, the hadronic branching ratio, and the momentum distributions $`\mathrm{d}N_i/\mathrm{d}E_i`$ – are very well known. The determination of the propagation functions $`P_i`$ – though CPU intensive – can be done using the precisely known microwave backround spectrum and the fairly well known radio and infrared background spectra. The first two ingredients, the flux of UHEC$`\nu `$s, $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)`$, and the radial distribution of the relic neutrino number density $`n_{\nu _i}(r)`$ are, however, much less accurately known. In the following all these ingredients are discussed in detail.

### 3.1 Z production and decay

The s-channel Z-exchange annihilation cross section into any fermion anti-fermion ($`f\overline{f}`$) pair is given by

$$\sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}^Z(s)=\frac{G_F^2s}{4\pi }\frac{M_Z^4}{(sM_Z^2)^2+M_Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2}N_{\mathrm{eff}}(s),$$
(12)
where $`s`$ is the cm energy squared, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ is the total width of the Z boson, and $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective number of annihilation channels,

$`N_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)={\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\theta (s4m_f^2){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}n_f\left(18T_{3f}q_f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+8q_f^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\right).`$ (13)
Here the sum is over all fermions with $`m_f<\sqrt{s}/2`$, with charge $`q_f`$ (in units of the proton charge), isospin $`T_{3f}`$ ($`1/2`$ for $`u,c`$ and neutrinos; $`1/2`$ for $`d,s,b`$ and negatively charged leptons), and $`n_f=1(3)`$ for leptons (quarks ($`q`$)). With $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23147(16)`$ for the $`\mathrm{sin}^2`$ of the effective Weinberg angle and $`G_F=1.16639(1)\times 10^5`$ GeV-2 for the Fermi coupling constant , formula (12) gives, at the $`Z`$-mass,

$`\sigma (\nu _i\overline{\nu }_iZ^{}\mathrm{all}q\overline{q})_{s=M_Z^2}`$ $`=`$ $`314.9\mathrm{nb},`$ (14)
$`\sigma (\nu _i\overline{\nu }_iZ^{}\mathrm{all}f\overline{f})_{s=M_Z^2}`$ $`=`$ $`455.6\mathrm{nb},`$ (15)
with a branching ratio $`\sigma (\nu _i\overline{\nu }_iZ^{}\mathrm{all}q\overline{q})/\sigma (\nu _i\overline{\nu }_iZ^{}\mathrm{all}f\overline{f})_{s=M_Z^2}=0.6912`$, in good agreement with the experimental result ,

$$\mathrm{Br}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})=(69.89\pm 0.07)\%.$$
(16)
Note that the cross-section is sharply peaked at the resonance cm energy squared $`s=M_Z^2`$. Correspondingly, it acts like a $`\delta `$-function in the integration over the energies $`E_{\nu _i}`$ in Eqn. (3), and we can assume that the UHEC$`\nu `$ fluxes are constant in the relevant energy region. Thus, introducing the energy-averaged annihilation cross section ,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{M_Z^2}\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}(s)=2\pi \sqrt{2}G_F=40.4\mathrm{nb},$$
(17)
which is the effective cross section for all neutrinos within $`1/2\delta E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}/E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z/M_Z=2.7\%`$ of their peak annihilation energy, we can write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dE_{\nu _i}F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i})\sigma _{\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i}(s=2m_{\nu _i}E_{\nu _i})E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}}F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}})\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}.`$ (18)
The next ingredient is the energy distribution of the produced protons and photons in Z decay. We combined existing published and some improved unpublished data on the momentum distribution,

$$𝒫_p(x)\frac{\mathrm{d}N_p}{\mathrm{d}x},x\frac{p_p}{p_{\mathrm{beam}}},$$
(19)
of protons ($`p`$) (plus antiprotons ($`\overline{p}`$)) in Z decays , see Fig. 2 (left). The experimental data, ranging down to $`x810^3`$, were combined with the predictions from the modified leading logarithmic approximation (MLLA)  at low $`x`$. The $`p+\overline{p}`$ multiplicity is $`N_p=_0^1dx𝒫_p(x)=1.04\pm 0.04`$ in the hadronic channel .

In the cm system of the Z production the angular distribution of the hadrons is determined by the spin $`1/2`$ of the primary quarks and thus proportional to $`1+w^2=1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ (here $`\theta `$ is the angle between the incoming neutrinos and the outgoing hadrons ). The energy distribution of the produced protons with energy $`E_p`$ entering the Z-burst spectrum (3),

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}N_p}{\mathrm{d}E_p}=\frac{2}{E_\nu }\frac{\mathrm{d}N_p}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{E_\nu }𝒬_p(y),$$
(20)
with $`y=2E_p/E_\nu `$, is finally obtained after a Lorentz transformation from the cm system to the lab system,

$`𝒬_p(y)={\displaystyle \underset{+,}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}dw(1+w^2)`$ (21)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{1w^2}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\pm yw\sqrt{y^2(1w^2)(2m_p/M_Z)^2}}{\sqrt{y^2(1w^2)(2m_p/M_Z)^2}}}\right|`$
$`𝒫_p\left({\displaystyle \frac{wy\pm \sqrt{y^2(1w^2)(2m_p/M_Z)^2}}{1w^2}}\right),`$
where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass. The first line comes from the angular distribution, the second line is the Jacobian and the third one is the momentum distribution at the inverted momentum. The scaled energy distribution $`𝒬_p`$, as defined in Eq. (20) and given by Eq. (21), is displayed in Fig. 2 (right).

Neutrons produced in Z decays will decay and end up as UHECR protons. They were taken into account according to

$$𝒬_{p+n}(y)=\left(1+\frac{N_n}{N_p}\right)𝒬_p(y),$$
(22)
where the neutron ($`n`$) (plus antineutron ($`\overline{n}`$)) multiplicity, $`N_n=_0^2dy𝒬_n(y)`$, is $`4\%`$ smaller than the proton’s.

Photons are produced in hadronic Z decays via fragmentation into neutral pions, $`Z\pi ^0+X2\gamma +X`$ (cf. Fig. 1). The corresponding scaled energy distribution in the lab system, defined analogously to Eq. (20), reads

$$𝒬_\gamma (y)=_1^1dw\frac{2}{1+w}𝒬_{\pi ^0}\left(\frac{2y}{1+w}\right),$$
(23)
where the scaled energy distribution $`𝒬_{\pi ^0}(y)`$, with $`y=2E_{\pi ^0}/E_\nu `$, is given by Eq. (21), with $`m_pm_{\pi ^0}`$ and $`𝒫_p𝒫_{\pi ^0}`$, the momentum distribution of pions in hadronic Z decay. For the latter distribution, we took the measured one of charged pions $`𝒫_{\pi ^\pm }`$ from hadronic Z decay  (cf. Fig. 2 (left)), normalized such that $`N_\gamma =_0^2dy𝒬_\gamma (y)=20.97`$ .

Electrons (and positrons) from hadronic Z decay are also relevant for the development of electromagnetic cascades. They stem from decays of secondary charged pions, $`Z\pi ^\pm +Xe^\pm +X`$ (cf. Fig. 1), and their scaled energy distribution in terms of $`y=2E_e/E_\nu `$ reads

$`𝒬_{e^\pm }(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑w{\displaystyle _0^2}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xw+\sqrt{x^2+(2m_e/m_\pi )^2}}}`$
$`\times 𝒬_{\pi ^\pm }\left({\displaystyle \frac{2y}{xw+\sqrt{x^2+(2m_e/m_\pi )^2}}}\right)𝒫_e(x),`$
where $`𝒫_e`$ is the momentum distribution of the electrons in the rest system of the charged pion. The energy distribution $`𝒬_{e^\pm }`$ is also displayed in Fig. 2 (right).

### 3.2 Propagation of nucleons and photons

The cosmic microwave background is known to a high accuracy. It plays the key role in the determination of the probability $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ that a proton created at a distance $`r`$ with energy $`E_p`$ arrives at Earth above the threshold energy $`E`$, suggested in Ref.  and determined for a wide range of parameters in Ref. . The propagation function $`P_p`$ takes into account the fact that protons of extragalactic (EG) origin and energies above $`410^{19}`$ eV lose a large fraction of their energy due to pion and $`e^+e^{}`$ production through scattering on the CMB and due to their redshift . In our analysis we went, according to

$$\mathrm{d}z=(1+z)H(z)\mathrm{d}r/c,$$
(25)
out to distances $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (cf. (3)) corresponding to redshift $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=2`$. We used the expression

$$H^2(z)=H_0^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]$$
(26)
for the relation of the Hubble expansion rate at redshift $`z`$ to the present one. Uncertainties of the latter, $`H_0=h`$ 100 km/s/Mpc, with $`h=(0.71\pm 0.07)\times _{0.95}^{1.15}`$ , were included. In Eq. (26), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, are the present matter and vacuum energy densities in terms of the critical density. As default values we chose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, as favored today. Our results turn out to be pretty insensitive to the precise values of the cosmological parameters.

We determined $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ in a range of $`r4000`$ Mpc, $`10^{18}`$ eV $`E_p10^{26}`$ eV, and $`10^{18}`$ eV $`E10^{26}`$ eV, for several fixed values of the cosmological parameters. The simulation was carried out in small ($`10`$ kpc) steps in $`r`$. For each step, the statistical energy losses due to pion/$`e^+e^{}`$ production and redshift were taken into account . In this connection, the advantage of our formulation of the Z-burst spectrum in terms of the probability $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ becomes evident. We have to determine the latter only once and for all. Without the use of $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$, we would have to perform a simulation for any variation of the input spectrum, notably for any change in the neutrino mass. Since $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$ is of universal usage, we made the corresponding numerical data for the probability distribution $`()P_p(r,E_p;E)/E`$ available for the public via the World-Wide-Web URL http://www.desy.de/~uhecr.

The determination of the photon propagation function $`P_\gamma (r,E_\gamma ;E)`$, entering the photon flux prediction, was done as follows. In distinction to the case of the proton propagation function, we used here the continuous energy loss (CEL) approximation which largely simplifies the work and reduces the required computer resources. In the CEL approximation, the energy (and number) of the detected photons is a unique function of the initial energy and distance, and statistical fluctuations are neglected. A full simulation of the photon propagation function will be the subject of a later work.

The processes that were taken into account are pair production on the diffuse extragalactic photon background (cf. Fig. 3 (left)), double pair production and inverse Compton scattering of the produced pairs. We comment also on synchrotron radiation in a possible extragalactic magnetic field (EGMF). For the energy attenuation length of the photons due to these processes, we exploited the values quoted in Ref.  (see also Ref. ) and the further ones presented in Fig. 3 (right) which incorporate various assumptions about the poorely known universal radio (URB) (from Ref. ) and infrared (IRB) backgrounds. We shall analyse later the dependence of the neutrino mass and other fit parameters on these variations. Note, that, in view of the recent URB estimates in Ref. , the ones presented in Fig. 3 (left)), which are based on Ref. , can be referred to as “minimal” URB.

The computation of the photon propagation function $`P_\gamma (r,E_\gamma ;E)`$ was carried out in the following way. The energy attenuation of photons in the CEL approximation was calculated according to

$`dE=E\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}r}{l_z(E)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z}{1+z}}\right),`$ (27)
where $`l_z(E)=(1+z)^3l_0(E(1+z))`$ is the energy attenuation length at redshift $`z`$. The number of photons was assumed to be constant at ultrahigh energies $`\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{18}`$ eV, due to the small inelasticities in this energy range. Below, it was increased in a way to maintain energy conservation (except for the redshift contribution):

$`\mathrm{d}N_\gamma =N_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}r}{l_z(E)}}.`$ (28)
The $`P_\gamma (r,E_\gamma ;E)`$ function was then obtained by integration of these equations. In the ultrahigh energy region – which is most relevant for us since we performed our fit to the cosmic ray data there – the approximation described above gives the photon flux quite reliable, while at lower energies it yields an upper bound.

### 3.3 UHEC$`𝝂`$ fluxes

The differential fluxes $`F_{\nu _i}`$ of UHE$`\nu `$s are unknown. Present experimental upper limits on these fluxes are rather poor. The results of the Fly’s Eye  and Goldstone lunar ultrahigh energy (GLUE)  neutrino experiments are summarized of Fig. 4.

What are the theoretical expectations for diffuse UHEC$`\nu `$ fluxes? More or less guaranteed are the so-called cosmogenic neutrinos which are produced when ultrahigh energy cosmic protons scatter inelastically off the cosmic microwave background radiation in processes such as $`p\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }n\pi ^+`$, where the produced pions subsequently decay. These fluxes (for recent estimates, see Refs. ) represent reasonable lower limits, but turn out to be insufficient for the Z-burst scenario. Recently, theoretical upper limits on the ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrino flux have been given in Refs. . Per construction, the upper limit from “visible” hadronic astrophysical sources, i. e. from those sources which are transparent to ultrahigh energy cosmic protons and neutrons, is of the order of the cosmogenic neutrino flux and shown in Fig. 4 (“WB”; cf. Refs. ). Also shown in this figure (“MPR”) is the much larger upper limit from “hidden” hadronic astrophysical sources, i. e. from those sources from which only photons and neutrinos can escape . A recent detailed simulation showed that these bounds can be exceeded if the spectrum of the source is hard enough . Even larger fluxes at ultrahigh energies may arise if the hadronic astrophysical sources emit photons only in the sub-MeV region – thus evading the “MPR” bound in Fig. 4 – or if the neutrinos are produced via the decay of superheavy relic particles.

In this situation of insufficient knowledge, we took the following approach concerning the flux of ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos, $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)`$. It is assumed to have the form

$$F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},r)=F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},0)(1+z)^\alpha ,$$
(29)
where $`z`$ is the redshift and where $`\alpha `$ characterizes the cosmological source evolution (see also Refs. ). The flux at zero redshift, $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i},0)F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i})`$, is left open. For hadronic astrophysical sources it is expected to fall off power-like, $`F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i})E_{\nu _i}^\gamma `$, $`\gamma \text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, at high energies. Due to this fact and because of the strong resonance peaks in the $`\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i`$ annihilation cross section (12) at the resonance energies (1), the Z-burst rate will be only sensitive to the flux at the resonant energy of the heaviest neutrino. Of course, the latter may be nearly degenerate with the other neutrino mass eigenstates, $`m_{\nu _i}m_\nu `$, as it is the case for $`m_{\nu _3}\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.1}`$ eV in a three flavour scenario. Correspondingly, our fit to the UHECR data is sensitive only to

$$F_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}=\underset{i}{}\left[F_{\nu _i}(E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}})+F_{\overline{\nu }_i}(E_{\nu _i}^{\mathrm{res}})\right],$$
(30)
where the sum extends over the number of mass eigenstates which are quasi-degenerate with the heaviest neutrino. Note, finally, that, independently of the production mechanism, neutrino oscillations result in a uniform $`F_{\nu _i}`$ mixture for the different mass eigenstates $`i`$.

### 3.4 Neutrino number density

The dependence of the relic neutrino number density $`n_{\nu _i}`$ on the distance $`r`$ is the last ingredient of the Z-burst spectra.

The main question is whether there is remarkable clustering of the relic neutrinos within the local GZK zone of about 50 Mpc. It is known that the density distribution of relic neutrinos as hot dark matter follows the total mass distribution; however, with less clustering . To take this into account, the shape of the $`n_{\nu _i}(r)`$ distribution was varied, for distances below 100 Mpc, between the standard cosmological homogeneous case and that of the total mass distribution obtained from peculiar velocity measurements  (cf. Fig. 5 (left)). These peculiar measurements suggest relative overdensities of at most a factor $`f_\nu =2÷3`$, depending on the grid spacing (cf. Fig. 5 (right)). A relative overdensity $`f_\nu =10^2÷10^4`$ in our neighbourhood, as it was assumed in earlier investigations of the Z-burst hypothesis , seems unlikely in view of these data. Our quantitative results turned out to be rather insensitive to the variations of the overdensities within the considered range. For scales larger than 100 Mpc the relic neutrino density was taken according to the big bang cosmology prediction, $`n_{\nu _i}=56(1+z)^3`$ cm-3.

## 4 Determination of the required neutrino mass and the necessary UHEC$`\nu `$ flux

Our comparison with the observed spectrum included published UHECR data of AGASA , Fly’s Eye , Haverah Park , and HiRes , as well as unpublished one from the World Wide Web pages of the experiments on 17/03/01. Due to normalization difficulties we did not use the Yakutsk  results. The latest HiRes data  are not yet included. We shall take into account the fact that above $`410^{19}`$ eV less than $`50\%`$ of the cosmic rays can be photons at the $`95\%`$ confidence level (C.L.)

As usual, each logarithmic unit between $`\mathrm{log}(E/\text{eV})=18`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(E/\text{eV})=26`$ is divided into ten bins. The predicted number of UHECR events in a bin is given by

$$N(i)=_{E_i}^{E_{i+1}}dE\left[F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}(E)+F_{p(+\gamma )|Z}(E)\right],$$
(31)
where $`810^{16}`$ m$`{}_{}{}^{2}`$ s $``$ sr is the total exposure of the experiments (estimated from the highest energy events and the corresponding fluxes) and where $`E_i=10^{(18+i/10)}`$ eV is the lower bound of the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ energy bin. The first term in Eq. (31), $`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}`$, corresponds to the diffuse background of ordinary cosmic rays from unresolved astrophysical sources. Below the GZK cutoff, it should have the usual and experimentally observed power-law form . The second term represents the sum of the proton and photon spectra, $`F_{p|Z}+F_{\gamma |Z}`$ from Z-bursts.

The separation of the flux into two terms (one from the power-law background and one from the Z-burst) is physically well motivated. The power-law part below the GZK cutoff is confirmed experimentally. For extragalactic sources, it should suffer from the GZK effect. In the Z-burst scenario, cosmic rays are coming from another independent source (Z-bursts), too. What we observe is the sum of the two. As the detailed fits in the next section will show, the flux from Z-bursts is much smaller in the low energy region than the flux of the power-law background. Correspondingly, the low energy part of the spectrum (between $`10^{18.5}`$ and $`10^{19.3}`$ eV) has very little influence on the Z-burst fit parameters, notably on the neutrino mass. We investigated three possibilities for the background term $`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}`$ .

The first possibility is to assume that the ordinary cosmic rays originate from our galactic halo (or at least from within the GZK zone of about 50 Mpc). This scenario will be referred to as “halo background” in the following. We should note, however, that there are no known astrophysical sources in the arrival directions of the highest energy events. This fact makes this possibility unlikely. In the halo background case the spectrum of ordinary cosmic rays is not distorted by propagation effects, so we can assume the usual power-law behaviour  (cf. Fig. 6 (left)),

$`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}(E;A,\beta )={\displaystyle \frac{A}{1\mathrm{eV}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{1\mathrm{eV}}}\right)^\beta (\mathrm{Halo}\mathrm{bk}^{}\mathrm{d}).`$ (32)
The second, most plausible possibility is to assume that the ordinary cosmic rays are protons from uniformly distributed, extragalactic sources – thus we call it “extragalactic background”. In view of the observed, practically uniform distribution of the arrival directions of UHECRs, this assumption seems to be phenomenologically more realistic than the halo background model.

The extragalactic background suffers of course from GZK attenuation. Correspondingly, we take the above power-law (32), $`AE_p^\beta `$, as an injection spectrum and determine the final spectrum using the proton propagation function $`P_p(r,E_p;E)`$,

$`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}(E;A,\beta )`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dE_p{\displaystyle _0^{R_{\mathrm{max}}}}dr\left(1+z(r)\right)^3`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{A}{1\mathrm{eV}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_p}{1\mathrm{eV}}}\right)^\beta (){\displaystyle \frac{P_p(r,E_p;E)}{E}}(\mathrm{EG}\mathrm{bk}^{}\mathrm{d}).`$
The predicted spectrum of the extragactic background protons shows an accumulation at around the GZK scale $`410^{19}`$ eV and a sharp drop beyond (see Fig. 6 (right)).

For comparison with recent work on the Z-burst scenario , as a third possibility, we have done also fits with no background component, $`F_{p|\mathrm{bkd}}=0`$ in Eq. (31), and a larger lower end, $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{min}}/\text{eV})=19.4÷20.0`$.

The Z-burst part of the predicted flux (31) has several parameters. As it has already been mentioned, this flux is only sensitive to the mass of the heaviest neutrino, this will be denoted in the following by $`m_\nu `$. The Z-burst spectra can be rewritten as

$`F_{i|Z}(E;B,m_\nu )`$ $`=B{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dE_i{\displaystyle _0^{R_{\mathrm{max}}}}dr\left(1+z(r)\right)^{3+\alpha }\delta _n(r)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{4m_\nu }{M_Z^2}}𝒬_i(y={\displaystyle \frac{4m_\nu E_i}{M_Z^2}})(){\displaystyle \frac{P_i(r,E_i;E)}{E}},i=p,\gamma ,`$
where $`\alpha `$ is the cosmological evolution parameter, $`\delta _n(r)`$ is the mass density fluctuation field (cf. Fig. 5 (right)), normalized to one, and $`𝒬_i`$ are the boosted momentum distributions from hadronic Z decay, normalized to $`N_{p+n}=2.04`$, for $`i=p`$, and to $`N_\gamma =2N_{\pi ^0}+N_{\pi ^\pm }=37`$, for $`i=\gamma `$. After fixing $`\alpha `$ we have two fit parameters left, the mass $`m_\nu `$ of the heaviest neutrino and the overall normalization $`B`$, which may be expressed, using Eqs. (18) and (30), in terms of the original quantities entering the Z-burst spectra, as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{}}=\mathrm{Br}(Z\mathrm{hadrons})R_{\mathrm{max}}n_{\nu _i}_0\sigma _{\mathrm{ann}}E_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}F_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}.`$ (35)
We can see that the required UHE$`\nu `$ flux can easily be obtained from the $`B`$ parameter. The background term (when it is nonzero) has two parameters, the $`\beta `$ exponent and the $`A`$ normalization factor.

The expectation value for the number of events in a bin is given by Eq. (31). To determine the most probable value for $`m_{\nu _j}`$ we used the maximum likelihood method and minimized  the $`\chi ^2(\beta ,A,B,m_\nu )`$,

$`\chi ^2={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{E_i}{\mathrm{eV}}\right)=18.5}{\overset{\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{E_i}{\mathrm{eV}}\right)=26.0}{}}}2\left[N(i)N_\mathrm{o}(i)+N_\mathrm{o}(i)\mathrm{ln}\left(N_\mathrm{o}(i)/N(i)\right)\right],`$ (36)
where $`N_\mathrm{o}(i)`$ is the total number of observed events in the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ bin. Since the Z-burst scenario results in a quite small flux for lower energies, we took the lower bound just below the “ankle”: $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=10^{18.5}`$ eV. Our results are insensitive to the definition of the upper end (the flux is extremely small there) for which we chose $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/\text{eV})=26`$. The uncertainties of the measured energies are about 30% which is one bin. Using a Monte Carlo analysis, we took these uncertainties into account and included the corresponding variations in our final error estimates.

### 4.1 Fit results

Our fitting procedure involves four parameters: $`\beta ,A,B`$ and $`m_\nu `$. The minimum of the $`\chi ^2(\beta ,A,B,m_\nu )`$ function is $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ at $`m_{\nu \mathrm{min}}`$ which is the most probable value for the mass, whereas the 1 $`\sigma `$ (68%) confidence interval for $`m_\nu `$ is determined by

$$\chi ^2(\beta ^{},A^{},B^{},m_\nu )\chi _o^2(m_\nu )=\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+1.$$
(37)
Here $`\beta ^{}`$, $`A^{}`$, $`B^{}`$ are defined in such a way that the $`\chi ^2`$ function is minimized in $`\beta ,A`$ and $`B`$, at fixed $`m_\nu `$.

As already mentioned, presently there is no evidence that the observed highest energy cosmic rays are photons. Let us start therefore with the assumption (cf. Ref. ) that the ultrahigh energy photons from Z-bursts can be neglected in the fit in comparison to the protons. This is certainly true for a sufficiently large universal radio background, and/or for a sufficiently strong extragalactic magnetic field $`𝒪(10^9)`$ G. We shall refer to this scenario in the following as “strong” UHE$`\gamma `$ attenuation. Our best fits to the observed data for this scenario are given by Table 1. We can see that the required neutrino masses are rather insensitive to the evolution parameter $`\alpha `$. The fits can be seen in Fig. 7, for $`\alpha =0`$. We found a neutrino mass of $`m_\nu =3.46_{1.34(2.32)}^{+1.73(4.03)}`$ eV for the “halo background” scenario, $`m_\nu =0.20_{0.12(0.18)}^{+0.19(0.61)}`$ eV, if the background is extragalactic, and $`m_\nu =0.40_{0.16(0.27)}^{+0.32(0.87)}`$ eV, if there are are no background protons above $`10^{19.7}`$ eV. The first numbers are the 1 $`\sigma `$, the numbers in the brackets are the 2 $`\sigma `$ errors. This gives an absolute lower bound on the mass of the heaviest neutrino of $`m_\nu >0.02`$ eV at the 95% C.L., which is comparable to the one obtained from the atmospheric mass splitting in a three flavour scenario, Eq. (2).

The surprisingly small uncertainties are based on the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis described previously. The inclusion of the already mentioned 30 % uncertainties in the observed energies by a Monte Carlo analysis increases the error bars by about 10 %. Note, that the relative errors in the extragalactic and in the no background cases are of the same order. This clearly shows that the smallness of these errors does not originate from the low energy part of the background component.

The fits are rather good: for 21 non-vanishing bins and 4 fitted parameters they can be as low as $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=15.64`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=25.82`$ in the halo and the extralactic background case, respectively, whereas in the no background case, for $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=10^{19.7}`$ eV, we have 9 bins with 2 fitted parameters and a $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=8.03`$, see Table 1. In the latter case, however, a remarkable dependence of the fitted mass on the value of $`E_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is observed. The $`\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sigma `$ fits are shown in Fig. 8 for the extragalactic case. According to the expectations the spread is small in the region where there are data, whereas it can be quite large in the presently unexplored ultrahigh energy regime.

As the other extreme, let us consider now the case of “minimal” URB on the level of the one in  and a vanishing EGMF. Then the photons will give a non-negligible contribution in the ultrahigh energy region. The corresponding fit results for $`\alpha =0`$ are given by Table 2 while the best fit for the extragalactic background case is shown by Fig. 9. The values of the neutrino mass found in both the halo background scenario, with $`m_\nu =3.71_{1.12(1.96)}^{+1.40(3.27)}`$ eV, as well as in the extragalactic background scenario, with $`m_\nu =0.77_{0.30(0.51)}^{+0.48(1.36)}`$ eV, are compatible with the corresponding values found in the case of strong UHE$`\gamma `$ attenuation.

We also performed the fits for other values of the cosmological parameters and relic neutrino overdensities. We found that for a wide range (e.g. $`\alpha =3÷3`$, $`h=0.61÷0.9`$, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=2÷5`$) the results remain well within the errorbars. The only dependence (still within the errorbars) is caused by the choice of the background and the type of photon propagation (i. e. the strength of the URB and/or EGMF). Fig. 10 contains a summary of the neutrino masses for the extragalactic and halo scenarios and three different photon propagations (the already mentioned strong UHE$`\gamma `$ attenuation and the “minimal” URB and a “moderate“ URB case in between the two extremes). The overall mass range for the heaviest neutrino in the case of halo background is $`2.1`$ eV $`m_\nu 6.7`$ eV at the 68 % C.L., if we take into account the variations between the minimal and moderate URB cases and the strong UHE$`\gamma `$ attenuation case. For the extragalactic background scenario, the required mass range is $`0.08`$ eV $`m_\nu 1.3`$ eV.

Let us consider in more detail the $`\gamma `$ ray spectra from Z-bursts, notably in the $`100`$ GeV region. As illustrated in Fig. 11, the EGRET measurements of the diffuse $`\gamma `$ background in the energy range between 30 MeV and 100 GeV  gives a non-trivial constraints on the evolution parameter $`\alpha `$. Whereas the high energy spectrum, and thus the neutrino mass, is independent of $`\alpha `$, at low energies only $`\alpha \text{ }<\text{ }0`$ seems to be compatible with the EGRET measurements, quite independently of different assumptions about the URB. These numerical findings are in fairly good agreement with other recent simulations . These photon fluxes do not contain any contribution from direct photons emitted by the UHE$`\nu `$ sources. As they are already close to the EGRET limit, one needs special sources that do not give contribution to the EGRET region.

The necessary UHEC$`\nu `$ flux at the resonant energy $`E_\nu ^{\mathrm{res}}`$ is shown by Fig. 12 together with the existing experimental limits and the projected sensitivities of present and future observational projets. They appear to be well below present upper limits and are within the expected sensitivity of AMANDA , RICE , and Auger . The fluxes are consistent with the ones found in Refs. .

The astrophysical sources for the required UHE neutrinos should be distributed with $`\alpha \text{ }<\text{ }0`$, accelerate protons up to energies $`\text{ }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^{23}`$ eV, be opaque to primary nucleons and emit secondary photons only in the sub-MeV region. It is an interesting question whether such challenging conditions can be realized in BL Lac objects, a class of active galactic nuclei for which some evidence of zero or negative cosmological evolution has been found (see Ref.  and references therein) and which were recently discussed as possible sources of the highest energy cosmic rays .

It should be stressed that, besides the neutrino mass, the UHEC$`\nu `$ flux at the resonance energy is one of the most robust predictions of the Z-burst scenario which can be verified or falsified in the near future.

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented a comparison of the predicted spectra from Z-bursts – resulting from the resonant annihilation of ultrahigh energy cosmic neutrinos with relic neutrinos – with the observed ultrahigh energy cosmic ray spectrum. The mass of the heaviest neutrino should be in the range $`2.1`$ eV $`m_\nu 6.7`$ eV on the 1 $`\sigma `$ level, if the background of ordinary cosmic rays above $`10^{18.5}`$ eV consists of protons and originates from a region within a distance of about 50 Mpc. In the phenomenologically most plausible case that the ordinary cosmic rays above $`10^{18.5}`$ are protons of extragalactic origin the required neutrino mass range is $`0.08`$ eV $`m_\nu 1.3`$ eV at the 68 % C.L.. In the case with no background of ordinary cosmic rays above, say, $`10^{19.7}`$ eV we found $`0.24`$ eV $`m_\nu 2.6`$ eV. The above neutrino mass ranges include variations in presently unknown quantities, like the amount of neutrino clustering, the universal radio background, and the extragalactic magnetic field, within their anticipated uncertainties. There is experimental indication that the highest energy events are mostly not photons. In this special case, when all ultrahigh energy photons are suppressed by a strong enough URB and/or EGMF, the mass range narrows down ( with an extragalactic background) to $`0.08`$ eV $`m_\nu 0.40`$ eV, with a best fit value of $`m_\nu =0.20`$ eV.

It is remarkable, that the mass ranges required for the Z-burst scenario coincide nearly perfectly with the present knowledge about the mass of the heaviest neutrino from oscillations and tritium $`\beta `$ decay , $`0.04\mathrm{eV}\text{ }<\text{ }m_{\nu _3}\text{ }<\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}`$ eV, in a three flavour, or $`0.4\mathrm{eV}\text{ }<\text{ }m_{\nu _4}\text{ }<\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.8}`$ eV, in a four flavour scenario.

It is interesting to observe that the recently reported evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay , with $`0.11\mathrm{eV}m_\nu 0.56`$ eV, if true, is compatible with our “favourite” extragalactic/strong URB scenario.

We also determined the necessary ultrahigh energy neutrino flux at the resonance energy. It was found to be consistent with present upper limits and detectable in the near future by the already operating neutrino telescopes AMANDA and RICE, and by the Pierre Auger Observatory. A search at these facilities is the most promising test of the Z-burst hypothesis.

The required neutrino fluxes are enormous. If such tremendous fluxes of ultrahigh energy neutrinos are indeed found, one has to deal with the challenge to explain their origin. It is fair to say, that at the moment no convincing astrophysical sources are known which meet the requirements for the Z-burst hypothesis, i.e. which have no or a negative cosmological evolution, accelerate protons at least up to $`10^{23}`$ eV, are opaque to primary nucleons and emit secondary photons only in the sub-MeV region.

## Acknowledgments

We thank the OPAL collaboration for their unpublished results on hadronic Z decays. This work was partially supported by Hungarian Science Foundation grants No. OTKA-T37615/T34980/T29803/M37071/OMFB1548/OMMU-708.

## References


format: text

text:
# Charged complexes at the surface of liquid helium

## Abstract

Charged clusters in liquid helium in an external electric field form a two-dimensional system below the helium surface. This 2D system undergoes a phase transition from a liquid to a Wigner crystal at rather high temperatures. Contrary to the electron Wigner crystal, the Wigner lattice of charged clusters can be detected directly.

(In honor of Professor Jozef T. L. Devreese’s 65th birthday)

1. The properties of charged particles on the surface and in the bulk of liquid helium have been extensively studied for more than 30 years . An electron on the helium surface has very high mobility due to the high purity of helium at low temperatures, when all outside particles quit the quantum liquid. In the bulk of helium an electron has a low mobility since it forms a bubble of a large radius $`17`$Å. Negative ions as $`H^{}`$ or $`O_2^{}`$ in the bulk of liquid helium also attracted some attention . In  the surface states of negative ions of large radius (as $`Ca^{}`$ and $`Ba^{}`$) were predicted and studied. One interesting point is that the negative ions $`Hg^{},Be^{},Zn^{},Cd^{}`$ which do not exist in vacuum may exist in liquid helium. The atoms of these elements have a very great polarizability, and an electron may almost form a bound state with these atoms. In helium an electron is already confined so that these bound states realize.

There are several experimental methods to introduce an outer particle into liquid helium. Atoms, molecules and small clusters are created inside helium by the laser ablation. Larger clusters of radius $`R>50`$Å are instilled into helium through its surface . At high concentration of these clusters in helium an iceberg is formed. This was studied experimentally in  by injecting clusters of $`10^3`$ molecules into liquid helium. Large clusters of air or hydrogen were observed as a fog, slowly falling on the bottom of the vessel at speed of $`10^2cm/sec`$. Below the $`\lambda `$-point of helium the clusters coagulate in the flakes of a ”snowfall” .

In the present paper we study the properties of large charged clusters in liquid helium. We show that in strong electric field one can create a two-dimensional charged system of heavy particles below the surface of the liquid. This system may give an opportunity to detect directly its Wigner crystallization as the temperatures decreases.

2. Keeping in mind recent experiments with the crystals of $`H_2O`$ in helium , we shall simulate the impurity particle as a macroscopic dielectric sphere of radius $`R`$. As is well known , the interaction $`V_{eB}(r)`$ of an electron with such a sphere at large distance $`r>R`$ has the form

$$V_{eB}=\frac{e\stackrel{}{E}_{ex}\stackrel{}{r}}{r^3}R_{}^3\frac{e^2R_{}^3}{2r^4},$$
(1)
where

$$R_{}^3R^3\frac{\epsilon _B\epsilon _h}{\epsilon _B+2\epsilon _h}.$$
(2)
The first term in (1) is the interaction of an electron with the dipole moment of the cluster $`\stackrel{}{d}=\stackrel{}{E}_{ex}R_{}^3`$ created by the external field $`\stackrel{}{E}_{ex}`$. The second term in (1) is due to the polarization of the cluster by the electron. As can be seen from (2) the effective size of the cluster $`R_{}`$ is equal to $`R`$ if its dielectric constant $`\epsilon _B1`$. Note that the dielectric constant of helium is $`\epsilon _h=1.054`$. If in helium there are some electrons and impurities, the interaction (1) leads to the formation of charged clusters with large binding energy $`E_{Be}0.11eV`$. The electric field $`E_{ex}`$ presses these heavy charges to the surface of helium, where the clusters organize into a two-dimensional system. The optimal distance $`z_B^{opt}`$ of these heavy charged particles to the surface is determined by the minimum of the potential energy:

$$V_{cl}(z_B)=eE_{ex}z_B+\frac{e^2}{z_B}2\nu _1Mgz_B+\frac{(\stackrel{}{E}_{ex}R_{}^3)^2}{z_B^3}\nu _1+V_{vdW},$$
(3)
where

$$\nu _1\frac{1}{8}\frac{\epsilon _h1}{\epsilon _h+1}1/300.$$

The first term in (3) is due to the external field. The second term is the image potential of a charge near the surface. The third gravitational term is important only for very big clusters of radius $`R>10^4`$Å; usually, one can neglect the gravitational term. The fourth term in (3) is the image potential of the electric dipole moment of the cluster. Rigorously, the dipole moment of the cluster $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ is generated both by the external field $`\stackrel{}{E}_{ex}`$ and by the field from the attracted electron. However, the image potential due to electron-generated dipole moment of the cluster is always smaller than the second term in (3) by a factor of $`[(\epsilon _B1)R/(\epsilon _B+1)z_B]^2/2<1/2`$. Therefore, for the estimation of $`z_B`$ we shall take into account only the dipole moment $`\stackrel{}{d}=\stackrel{}{E}_{ex}R_{}^3`$ generated by the external field. The last term in (3) is the van der Waals potential. This term prevents the cluster to emerge from helium. It is $`1/z_B^3`$ and becomes important only when the cluster is very close to the surface.

Now we have to separate two different cases. First we consider small clusters when $`e/R^2E_{ex}`$ or $`R\sqrt{e/E_{ex}}700`$Å for a field $`E_{ex}=3000V/cm`$. The gravitational field, the dipole image potential and the van der Waals potential are then much weaker than the first two terms in (3). Therefore, to find the optimal $`z_B`$ we shall consider only these two (pure electronic) terms, and $`z_B`$ now means the z-coordinate of the bound electron. Differentiating $`V_{cl}(z_B)`$ with respect to $`z_B`$ we find

$$z_B^{opt}=\sqrt{2\nu _1e/E_{ex}}.$$
(4)
For a field of $`E_{ex}=3000V/cm`$ we get $`z_B^{opt}60`$Å. If $`z_B^{opt}<R`$ the cluster will be close to the surface but it will not emerge from helium because of the short-range van der Waals attraction forces between cluster and helium atoms.

The opposite case of a large cluster ($`e/R^2E_{ex}`$ or $`R^2(700`$Å$`)^2`$) is even more interesting. Now we have to consider also the dipole-dipole image potential of the cluster as it increases as $`R^6`$. The optimal distance $`z_B^{opt}`$ is now determined by the quadratic equation

$$\frac{dV_{cl}}{dz_B}=eE_{ex}\frac{e^2}{z_B^2}2\nu _13\frac{(\stackrel{}{E}_{ex}R_{}^3)^2}{z_B^4}\nu _1=0,$$
(5)
which gives

$$z_B^{opt}=\sqrt{\frac{\nu _1e}{E_{ex}}}\left[1+\sqrt{1+\frac{3}{\nu _1}\left(\frac{E_{ex}R_{}^2}{e}\right)^3}\right]^{1/2}$$
(6)
At $`E_{ex}R_{}^2/e1`$ this becomes

$$z_B^{opt}\sqrt{\frac{\nu _1e}{E_{ex}}}\left(\frac{3}{\nu _1}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{E_{ex}R_{}^2}{e}\right)^{3/4}.$$
(7)
Now the optimal distance $`z_B^{opt}(E_{ex})^{1/4}R^{3/2}`$, and one can reach $`z_B^{opt}>R`$ by increasing $`E_{ex}`$ and $`R`$. At $`\epsilon _B=80\mathrm{}`$ and $`E_{ex}=5000V/cm`$ this condition is fulfilled only for rather huge clusters $`R5000`$Å$`=0.5\mu m`$.

Above we have argued the possibility of realization of a 2D system of charged clusters below a helium surface. The dipole moment and electric charge of each cluster allow to fix the cluster at a macroscopic distance $`z_0>R`$ below the helium surface. At low helium temperatures any thermal fluctuations of the positions of these heavy charges are small. Let us now consider the Wigner crystallization of these charges.

The interaction of two charged clusters separated by distance $`a`$ is described by the potential energy

$$V_{int}(a)=\frac{e^2}{a}+\frac{(\stackrel{}{E}_{ex}R_{}^3)^2}{a^3}V_e+V_d.$$
(8)
The dipole-dipole part $`V_d`$ of the interaction between clusters becomes dominant ($`V_d>V_e`$) if $`ae<E_{ex}R_{}^3`$. At $`E_{ex}=510^3V/cm`$, $`R_{}=5000`$Å and $`a=10R_{}`$ (that corresponds to the average cluster density $`n_s=1/a^2=410^6cm^2`$) one gets

$$V_e=3K;V_d=300K.$$
(9)
Accepting the empirical criterion $`V(a)>100k_BT`$ of melting of 2D Wigner crystal we come to the conclusion of the possibility to observe the liquid-crystal phase transition at rather high temperature $`T3K`$. The oddity of the situation in hand is that the crystal lattice is formed by the short-range dipole forces ($`V_dV_e`$), and the long-range Coulomb interaction appears in the existence of long-wave plasma oscillations. An observation of these effects should be possible by using the method first applied 50 years ago . The neutral clusters come to helium through its surface and go down slowly to the bottom of the helium vessel where the electron source is maintained. The electron from the injector are drawn up by the electric field. In the bulk of helium some of the clusters form a bound with one electron and form a 2D charged system below the surface. Other clusters glue to the bottom of the vessel by the van der Waals forces. The excess electrons will finally make a quantum tunnel transition through helium surface to the vacuum where the electrons have a lower energy. The energy of a big charged clusters is, on the contrary, lower inside the helium because of the short-range van der Waals attraction of the cluster to the atoms of liquid. This gain of the van der Waals energy is roughly proportional to the surface of cluster.

To study the stability of the 2D charged system of clusters one has to consider also their van der Waals attraction to each other at the mean distance $`a`$. At large distance, the van der Waals potential energy of two atoms is

$$V_{vdW}(a)=\frac{23\mathrm{}c}{4\pi a^7}\beta ^2$$
(10)
where $`\beta `$ is the atomic polarizability of clusters. It is related to the dielectric constant $`\epsilon _B=1+4\pi \beta n`$, where $`n`$ is the density of the medium of the clusters. Integration of (10) over the cluster volume gives

$$V_{BB}(a)=\frac{23\mathrm{}cR^6}{36\pi a^7}(\epsilon _B\epsilon _H)^2$$
(11)
For a cluster consisting of the molecules of $`H_2O`$ with $`\epsilon _B80`$, for the parameters $`R=5000`$Å and $`a=10R`$ (the same as in (9)) from (10), we get an estimate of $`V_{BB}(a)=0.6K`$. Since $`V_{BB}(a)V_d(a)`$, there is a wide range of parameters where the 2D system under study is stable against coagulation (sticking together) of clusters.

It is much easier to detect the Wigner lattice of huge charged clusters than that of electrons. The Wigner lattice of electrons allows only an indirect method for experimental studies . On the other hand, the Wigner crystallization of charged clusters can be detected directly by neutron or X-ray scattering. If the charged clusters are very huge ($`R5000`$Å) they can be visually observed.

In closing we note that the considered effects are not very sensitive to the type of quantum liquid. They could also be observed in liquid hydrogen, where $`\epsilon _H=1.28`$ and the parameter $`\nu _1=1.510^2`$.

The work was supported by INTAS-01-0791 and RFBR No 00-02-17729.

Appendix.

In this appendix we study the structure of the charged cluster in more detail. The attraction of electron to the cluster (at large distance given by eq. (1)) is quite strong so that the binding energy of the electron is large compared to the potential energy (3). The electron is localized at one side of the cluster (if the electron was uniformly distributed along the surface of cluster it would not gain any polarization energy). The mean distance of the electron from the cluster is always much smaller than the cluster radius: $`z_eR`$. To estimate the binding energy of the electron and the dipole moment of the charged cluster we shall consider the surface of the cluster near the electron to be flat (the problem of a point-like charge near dielectric sphere cannot be solved in finite form ). Then the polarization of the cluster by the electron can be taken into account via the image potential

$$V_{eB}=\frac{e^2}{8z_e}\frac{\epsilon _B1}{\epsilon _B+1}$$

which determines the average distance $`\overline{z_e}`$. This is a one-dimensional Coulomb potential similar to that of an electron above helium surface without external field. Above the helium surface the electron levitates on a distance of $`\overline{z_e^h}=114`$Å. In the case of an electron near the dielectric cluster we have

$$\overline{z_e}=\frac{\epsilon _h1}{\epsilon _h+1}\left(\frac{\epsilon _B1}{\epsilon _B+1}\right)^1\overline{z_e^h}.$$

For $`\epsilon _B=80\mathrm{}`$, $`\overline{z_e}=0.027\overline{z_e^h}3`$Å$`R_B`$. The corresponding electron-generated dipole moment of the cluster is $`d_{eg}R_Be(\epsilon _B1)/(\epsilon _B+1)=eR_{}^3/R^2`$. It becomes equal to the dipole moment $`\stackrel{}{d}_{ex}=\stackrel{}{E}_{ex}R_{}^3`$ generated by the external field at $`E_{ex}=e/R^21500V/cm`$ for $`R=1000`$Å.

The coordinate $`z_B^{opt}`$ determined from the potential (3) is actually the z-coordinate of the center of charge (not the center of the cluster). $`z_B^{opt}`$ coincides with the center of cluster only for $`\epsilon _B\mathrm{}`$. If $`z_B^{opt}`$ obtained from (3) is equal or less than the cluster radius $`R`$, one has to take into account the short-range van der Waals potential, which prevents the cluster from emerging from helium.

Figure caption: The schematic view of the charged clusters below helium surface.


text:
# Quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects by indirect measurement with finite errors

## Abstract

We study the quantum Zeno effect and the anti-Zeno effect in the case of ‘indirect’ measurements, where a measuring apparatus does not act directly on an unstable system, for a realistic model with finite errors in the measurement. A general and simple formula for the decay rate of the unstable system under measurement is derived. In the case of a Lorentzian form factor, we calculate the full time evolutions of the decay rate, the response of the measuring apparatus, and the probability of errors in the measurement. It is shown that not only the response time but also the detection efficiency plays a crucial role. We present the prescription for observing the quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects, as well as the prescriptions for avoiding or calibrating these effects in general experiments.

It was predicted in a classic paper classic1  that repeated measurements on a quantum unstable system, at time intervals $`\tau _\mathrm{m}`$, suppress the decay of the system for small $`\tau _\mathrm{m}`$ — the so-called quantum Zeno effect (QZE) . It was assumed there that each measurement is completely ideal, i.e., it takes only an infinitesimal time, there is no error in the measurement, and the post-measurement state is exactly given by the projection postulate. However, any physical experiments do not satisfy all of these assumptions, hence more careful studies have been desired.

According to the general measurement theory, not only the unstable system in question but also a part of the measuring apparatus should be treated as a quantum system subject to the Schrödinger equation laser\_th0 ; classic2 ; classic3 ; laser\_th1 . It was clarified by such theories that the response time $`\tau _\mathrm{r}`$ of the apparatus corresponds to $`\tau _\mathrm{m}`$ of Ref. classic1 . However, effects of the errors in the measurement are yet to be explored, because the probability $`\epsilon `$ of getting an erroneous result is determined not only by a finite response time $`\tau _\mathrm{r}`$, but also by the detection efficiency $`1\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ (i.e., the apparatus occasionally fails to detect the decay even after an infinitely long waiting time). Moreover, these pioneering theories, as well as pioneering experiments laser\_exp1 ; laser\_exp2 ; AZE\_exp1 , studied the case of ‘direct’ measurements, where the apparatus acts directly on the unstable system (e.g., shines laser light to excited atoms). In such a case, however, the dynamics of the unstable system would be affected by the apparatus even if the unstable system were a classical system, and thus the Zeno effect in direct measurements might not be peculiar to quantum systems. Hence, the most interesting case of ‘indirect’ measurements is yet to be explored, where the apparatus does not act directly on the unstable system, but detects a signal mediated by some field. A promising theory of an indirect measurement was developed by Schulman nonlaser\_th1 . However, since his model was an abstract one, application to real physical systems is not straightforward. For example, it did not clarify the conditions to observe acceleration of the decay by measurements, the anti-Zeno effect (AZE), which has also been attracting much attention AZE\_exp1 ; AZE\_th1 ; AZE\_th3 . To apply real experiments on QZE and AZE, more realistic models should be analyzed. Such analysis should also be important to general experiments, because the QZE or AZE might slip in advanced experiments in the near future. The purpose of this paper is to present a theory that satisfies all these requirements, using a realistic model of an indirect measurement with finite errors.

The total system in our model is composed of three parts, (i) an unstable two-level system, which is initially in the excited state $`|\mathrm{x}`$ with the transition energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ to the ground state $`|\mathrm{g}`$, (ii) a field whose eigenmodes are labeled by a wavevector $`𝒌`$ with any dimension, a quantum of which is emitted by the unstable system when it decays to $`|\mathrm{g}`$, and (iii) a measuring apparatus that detects the emitted quantum by absorbing it, from which an observer gets to know the decay of the unstable system. A typical example for (i) is an excited atom, which emits a photon upon decay, and the photon is detected by a photodetector such as a photomultiplier. Therefore, we hereafter call (i), (ii) and (iii) as an ‘atom’, ‘photon’ and ‘detector,’ respectively, although the theory is applicable to other systems as well. In this model, neither a projection operator nor the interaction Hamiltonian of the detector acts on the atom. Moreover, the measurement is of negative-result type, where no signal is detected until the atom decays: The QZE or AZE occurs just by waiting for the decay.

The role of a detector is to convert a photon into other kinds of elementary excitations, which finally yield macroscopic signals after magnification processes, usually obeying classical mechanics. As a model of (the relevant part of) the detector, we assume elementary excitations (e.g, electron-hole pairs) with a continuous spectrum, into which photons are converted. By taking the energy of $`|\mathrm{g}`$ zero, the Hamiltonian of the system is taken as follows (with $`\mathrm{}=1`$);

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0|\mathrm{x}\mathrm{x}|+_1+_2,`$ (1)
$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}𝒌[(g_𝒌|\mathrm{x}\mathrm{g}|b_𝒌+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+ϵ_𝒌b_𝒌^{}b_𝒌],`$ (2)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}𝒌\mathrm{d}\omega [(\zeta _{𝒌\omega }b_𝒌^{}c_{𝒌\omega }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+\omega c_{𝒌\omega }^{}c_{𝒌\omega }].`$ (3)
Here, $`b_𝒌`$ is the annihilation operator for a photon with energy $`ϵ_𝒌`$, $`g_𝒌`$ represents the atom-photon coupling. The photonic dispersion relation can be nonlinear ($`ϵ_𝒌\propto ̸|𝒌|`$) as in, say, photonic crystals. Every photon mode is linearly coupled to a continuum of bosonic bosonic  elementary excitations, denoted by $`c_{𝒌\omega }`$, in the detector, with the coupling constant $`\zeta _{𝒌\omega }`$. The commutation relations are normalized as $`[b_𝒌,b_𝒌^{}^{}]=\delta (𝒌𝒌^{})`$ and $`[c_{𝒌\omega },c_{𝒌^{}\omega ^{}}^{}]=\delta (𝒌𝒌^{})\delta (\omega \omega ^{})`$. The lifetime $`\tau _𝒌`$ of a photon is determined by $`\zeta _{𝒌\omega }`$. We will show later that $`\tau _𝒌\tau _\mathrm{r}`$, the response time of the detector. In most experiments, the detector does not cover the whole solid angle around the atom. When a photon is emitted in the uncovered direction, it cannot be detected and has a long lifetime. As we will demonstrate later, we can encompass such realistic situations by allowing $`𝒌`$-dependence of $`\tau _𝒌`$. We here put $`\zeta _{𝒌\omega }=\sqrt{\eta _𝒌}`$ omegadep , which results in $`\tau _𝒌=(2\pi \eta _𝒌)^1`$.

The photon-detector part, $`_1+_2`$, can be diagonalized in terms of the coupled-mode operator Fano , which in this case is given by $`B_{𝒌\mu }=\alpha _𝒌(\mu )b_𝒌+d\omega \beta _𝒌(\mu ,\omega )c_{𝒌\omega },`$ where $`\alpha _𝒌(\mu )=\sqrt{\eta _𝒌}/(\mu ϵ_𝒌+\mathrm{i}\pi \eta _𝒌)`$ and $`\beta _𝒌(\mu ,\omega )=\eta _𝒌/(\mu ϵ_𝒌+\mathrm{i}\pi \eta _𝒌)(\mu \omega +\mathrm{i}\delta )+\delta (\mu \omega )`$. The commutation relations for $`B_{𝒌\mu }`$ is given by $`[B_{𝒌\mu },B_{𝒌^{}\mu ^{}}^{}]=\delta (𝒌𝒌^{})\delta (\omega \omega ^{})`$. Inversely, $`b_𝒌`$ is expressed in terms of $`B_{𝒌\mu }`$ as $`b_𝒌=d\mu \alpha _𝒌^{}(\mu )B_{𝒌\mu }`$. The Hamiltonian $``$ can then be rewritten as follows,

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0|\mathrm{x}\mathrm{x}|+{\displaystyle d𝒌d\mu \mu B_{𝒌\mu }^{}B_{𝒌\mu }}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}𝒌\mathrm{d}\mu [{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\eta _𝒌}g_𝒌}{\mu ϵ_𝒌\mathrm{i}\pi \eta _𝒌}}|\mathrm{x}\mathrm{g}|B_{𝒌\mu }+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.].`$
We further rewrite $``$ using $`\overline{B}_\mu `$ that is defined by

$$\overline{B}_\mu =\frac{1}{\overline{g}_\mu }d𝒌\frac{\sqrt{\eta _𝒌}g_𝒌}{\mu ϵ_𝒌\mathrm{i}\pi \eta _𝒌}B_{𝒌\mu },$$
(5)
where $`\overline{g}_\mu `$ satisfies

$$|\overline{g}_\mu |^2=d𝒌\left|\frac{\sqrt{\eta _𝒌}g_𝒌}{\mu ϵ_𝒌\mathrm{i}\pi \eta _𝒌}\right|^2,$$
(6)
so that $`\overline{B}_\mu `$ is normalized as $`[\overline{B}_\mu ,\overline{B}_\mu ^{}^{}]=\delta (\mu \mu ^{})`$. Then, the Hamiltonian finally reduces to

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0|\mathrm{x}\mathrm{x}|+\overline{}_1+\overline{}_2,`$ (7)
$`\overline{}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}\mu [(\overline{g}_\mu |\mathrm{x}\mathrm{g}|\overline{B}_\mu +\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+\mu \overline{B}_\mu ^{}\overline{B}_\mu ],`$ (8)
where $`\overline{}_2`$ consists of coupled-modes which do not interact with the atom. Now the physical meaning of $`\overline{B}_\mu `$ becomes apparent; it is part of the coupled-modes with energy $`\mu `$ that interact with the atom, whereas the other part is isolated. In terms of such operators, the Hamiltonian is expressed in the renormalized form, Eqs. (7) and (8), where the atom is coupled to a single continuum of $`\overline{B}_\mu `$ with a coupling constant $`\overline{g}_\mu `$, which is called the form factor of interaction. The form factor under measurement is determined by Eq. (6), from $`ϵ_𝒌`$, $`g_𝒌`$, and $`\eta _𝒌`$. It should be noted that there exists a sum rule $`d\mu |\overline{g}_\mu |^2=d𝒌|g_𝒌|^2`$, which holds for any functional form of $`\eta _𝒌`$.

We first estimate the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ under the measurement by a lowest-order perturbation in $`g_𝒌`$. We note that the straightforward application of Fermi’s golden rule using $`_1`$ as the interaction term gives a wrong result, because strong effects of the detector are not involved. It is essential to use the renormalized form $`\overline{}_1`$ as the interaction term. We then obtain a simple formula for the decay rate under the measurement;

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi d𝒌\left|\frac{\sqrt{\eta _𝒌}g_𝒌}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0ϵ_𝒌\mathrm{i}\pi \eta _𝒌}\right|^2,$$
(9)
which should be compared with the free decay rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=2\pi d𝒌|g_𝒌|^2\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_0ϵ_𝒌)`$. Note that Eq. (9) includes non-perturbative effects of $`\eta _𝒌`$. The formula clearly shows that the most important effect of the measurement (i.e., of finite $`\eta _𝒌`$) is to renormalize the form factor $`\overline{g}_\mu `$, and that the QZE (or AZE) occurs through the renormalization. Note that the formula is general, which holds for any forms of $`ϵ_𝒌`$, $`g_𝒌`$ and $`\eta _𝒌`$, and for any dimension of $`𝒌`$. It is applicable, not only to spontaneous decay of an atom, but also to many other unstable systems if their Hamiltonian can be approximated by Eqs. (1)-(3) bosonic . Moreover, the formula is also applicable to the case where the detector does not cover the full solid angle, yielding the detection efficiency $`<1`$. In fact, suppose that only photons which are emitted in some solid angle $`\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}`$ in the three-dimensional space are coupled to the detector, i.e., $`\eta _𝒌=0`$ for $`(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}`$, where $`𝒌=(k\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,k\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,k\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. Then, Eq. (9) yields the simple formula;

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle k^2dk_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{dS}\left|\frac{\sqrt{\eta _𝒌}g_𝒌}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0ϵ_𝒌\mathrm{i}\pi \eta _𝒌}\right|^2}`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle k^2dk_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{dS}\left|g_𝒌\right|^2\delta (\mathrm{\Omega }_0ϵ_𝒌)},`$
where $`\mathrm{dS}=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi `$.

Now we embody the above general results in an example in three dimension, in which (i) $`\eta _𝒌=\eta (2\pi \tau )^1`$ for $`(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}`$, whereas $`\eta _𝒌=0`$ for $`(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}`$, (ii) $`ϵ_𝒌=k`$ (we take $`c=1`$), and (iii) $`g_𝒌`$ takes the Lorentzian form after the angular integration; $`k^2_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{dS}|g_𝒌|^2=(1\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }^2/[(kk_0)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2]`$, and $`k^2_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{dS}|g_𝒌|^2=\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }^2/[(kk_0)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2]`$, where $`k_0\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In a case where $`g_𝒌`$ depends only on $`k`$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ is simply given by $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}=1|\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}|/4\pi `$. In general cases, however, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ depends on both $`\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{d}`$ and $`g_𝒌`$. It will turn out that $`1\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponds to the detection efficiency, i.e., the probability of errors approaches $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. The meanings of $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ become transparent for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=k_0`$, i.e., when the atomic transition energy coincides with the center of the Lorentzian. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$, the decay rate of the atom is given by $`2\pi \gamma `$, while the transition from the initial quadratic decrease to the exponential decrease in the survival probability occurs at $`t\tau _\mathrm{j}2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is called the ‘jump time’ nonlaser\_th1 ; AZE\_th3 . Using Eq. (10), the renormalized lowest-order decay rate is evaluated as

$$\frac{2\pi \gamma (1\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0)^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}+\frac{2\pi \gamma \epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ,\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}),$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }+\pi \eta `$. This indicates that the effect of measurement on the decay dynamics become significant only for large $`\eta `$ satisfying $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e., $`\tau _\mathrm{j}(2\pi \eta )^1=\tau \tau _\mathrm{r}`$, in accordance with the pervious studies laser\_th1 ; nonlaser\_th1 .

To see what is going on, we now calculate the temporal evolution of the wavefunction from the initial state $`|\mathrm{x},0,0`$. This can be pursued analytically for the Lorentzian form factor. By putting $`|\psi (t)=e^{\mathrm{i}t}|\mathrm{x},0,0=f(t)|\mathrm{x},0,0+d𝒌f_𝒌(t)|\mathrm{g},𝒌,0+d𝒌d\omega f_{𝒌\omega }(t)|\mathrm{g},0,𝒌\omega `$, we calculate three probabilities; $`s(t)=|f(t)|^2`$ (survival probability of the atom), $`\epsilon (t)=d𝒌|f_𝒌(t)|^2`$ (probability that the atom has decayed but the emitted photon is not absorbed by the detector), and $`r(t)=d𝒌d\omega |f_{𝒌\omega }(t)|^2`$ (probability that the emitted photon is absorbed). Assuming fast classical magnification processes, we can interpret $`r(t)`$ as the probability of getting a detector response, whereas $`\epsilon (t)`$ is the probability that the detector reports an erroneous result. One of the advantages of the present theory is that all of these interesting quantities can be calculated. For example, $`s(t)`$ is given by $`s(t)=4\pi ^2|c_{123}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega _1t}+c_{231}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega _2t}+c_{312}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega _3t}|^2,`$ where $`c_{ijk}`$ is given by $`c_{ijk}=\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }[(\mathrm{\Delta }+p\pi \eta )(\omega _ik_0)^2+(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}p\pi \eta )\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}][(\omega _i\omega _i^{})(\omega _i\omega _j)(\omega _i\omega _j^{})(\omega _i\omega _k)(\omega _i\omega _k^{})]^1,`$ and $`\omega _j`$ ($`j=1,2,3`$) are the solutions of the cubic equation, $`(\omega _j\mathrm{\Omega }_0)(\omega _jk_0+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta })(\omega _jk_0+\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})=\pi \gamma \mathrm{\Delta }[\omega _jk_0+\mathrm{i}(p\mathrm{\Delta }+(1p)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})].`$ Figure 1 plots $`1s(t),\epsilon (t),r(t)`$ for $`\eta =2\gamma `$. At the initial time stage ($`t\tau =(2\pi \eta )^1`$), $`\epsilon (t)`$ increases almost in parallel with $`1s(t)`$, and the detection probability $`r(t)[=1s(t)\epsilon (t)]`$ remains almost zero. Around $`t\tau `$, the emitted photon is gradually absorbed and $`r(t)`$ starts to rise. Hence, the photon lifetime $`\tau `$ can be regarded as the response time $`\tau _\mathrm{r}`$ of the detector. The probabilities finally approaches the asymptotic values, $`1s(t)1`$, $`\epsilon (t)\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`r(t)1\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$.

To see the temporal behavior of $`s(t)`$ more clearly, we have plotted $`t^1\mathrm{ln}s(t)`$ as a function of time in Fig. 2, for several different values of the parameters. At the beginning of the decay ($`t\tau _\mathrm{j}`$), $`t^1\mathrm{ln}s(t)`$ decreases linearly as $`t^1\mathrm{ln}s(t)=(d𝒌|g_𝒌|^2)t=\pi \gamma \mathrm{\Delta }t`$, for any value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0`$ and for any values of the detector parameters $`\eta `$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$. Then, for $`t\tau _\mathrm{j}`$, $`t^1\mathrm{ln}s(t)`$ approaches a constant value, which is well approximated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ,\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})`$ (dotted lines). These plots demonstrate that the decay dynamics is well described, except for the initial deviation, by the exponential decay with the renormalized lowest-order decay rate. In fact, we can show analytically that formula (11) is a good approximation to the asymptotic decay rate if $`\gamma |\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta }|^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

There is a remarkable difference between Figs. 2(a) and (b), where different values of $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0|/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are employed. In case of $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0|/\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ \[see Fig. 2(a)\], the decay rate decreases monotonously by increasing $`\eta `$, i.e., the QZE occurs at any value of $`\eta `$. Contrarily, in case of $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0|/\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ \[Fig. 2(b)\], the decay is enhanced for small $`\eta `$ ($`=30\gamma `$), while it is suppressed for large $`\eta `$ ($`=200\gamma `$). Thus, the AZE takes place for small $`\eta `$. By analyzing Eq. (11) as a function of $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0|`$ and $`\eta `$, the ‘phase diagram’ discriminating the QZE and AZE is generated, which is shown in Fig. 3. The ‘phase boundary’ (solid curve) is given by

$$\eta ^{(\mathrm{b})}=[(\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2]/\pi \mathrm{\Delta },$$
(12)
on which the decay rate is not altered from the free rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, while the decay rate takes the maximum value,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta ^{(\mathrm{m})},\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}+(1\epsilon _{\mathrm{}})\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0|}1\right),$$
(13)
on the dotted line, which is given by

$$\eta ^{(\mathrm{m})}=[|\mathrm{\Omega }_0k_0|\mathrm{\Delta }]/\pi .$$
(14)
We find that $`\eta ^{(\mathrm{b})}`$ and $`\eta ^{(\mathrm{m})}`$ do not depend on $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$.

We finally discuss the significance of our results, for experiments on the QZE or AZE, and for general experiments. As mentioned earlier, indirect measurements are necessary, which have not been performed yet, for the complete experimental verification of the QZE and AZE. For such experiments, formula (9) gives the necessary condition: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of Eq. (9) should significantly differ from the free decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. In the Lorentzian case, this can be decomposed into the following conditions: (i) $`\tau _\mathrm{r}`$ should be short enough; $`\tau _\mathrm{r}\tau _\mathrm{j}`$ (which is a well-known condition), (ii) $`\eta `$ should not be close to the phase boundary (12), and (iii) $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ should be so small that the first term of Eq. (11) becomes dominant. Moreover, the QZE or AZE should be chosen according to the phase diagram, Fig. 3: e.g., the AZE is most detectable on the dotted line. On the other hand, in general experiments, one usually wants to avoid the QZE and AZE in order to get correct results. Considering recent rapid progress of experimental techniques and diversification of experimental objects, we expect that the QZE or AZE would slip in advanced experiments in the near future. To avoid the QZE and AZE, one must design the experimental setup to break at least one of the above conditions. For example, when performing an experiment with a high time resolution such that $`\tau _\mathrm{r}\tau _\mathrm{j}`$, then Eqs. (10) and (11) suggest that $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ should be increased. If $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ cannot be increased to keep the sensitivity of such high-speed measurement, then one should adjust parameters in such a way that Eq. (12) is satisfied, or, one should calibrate the observed value using our results, such as Eqs. (10) and (11), to obtain the free decay rate.


text:
# References

Proton Stability in Leptoquark Models
Sergey Kovalenko111e-mail: kovalenko@fis.utfsm.cl, Ivan Schmidt222e-mail: ischmidt@fis.utfsm.cl

Departamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Casilla 110-V, Valparaíso, Chile

## Abstract

We show that in generic leptoquark (LQ) extensions of the standard model lepton and baryon numbers are broken at the level of renormalizable operators. In particular, this may cause fast proton decay unless the leptoquarks are heavy enough. We derive stringent bounds for the 1st generation LQ masses and couplings from the proton stability constraints.

Leptoquark models  remain an attractive possibility for new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) admitting non-SM particles, leptoquarks (LQ), with masses at the electroweak scale. LQs are vector or scalar particles carrying both lepton and baryon numbers and, therefore, having a distinct experimental signature. For these reasons searching for LQs is a promising subject for present and near future experiments .

Theoretical motivation for LQ models usually refers to the low energy limit of some more fundamental theory associated with an energy scale much higher than the electroweak scale. In the literature it has been argued that the origin of LQ models may reside in grand unified theories (GUT) , , models of extended technicolour -, composite models  and some other high-energy scale model. However the arguments within this framework in favor of light LQs with masses of the order of the electroweak scale are quite vague. Nevertheless the generic structure of LQ models can be completely determined by the symmetry with respect to the SM gauge group . In this way LQ models with light LQs can be studied without referring to their high energy scale origin.

Adopting this approach we examine the question of Lepton (L) and Baryon (B) number conservation in LQ models. We show that in the LQ Lagrangian there exist renormalizable $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ terms which may affect the conventional LQ phenomenology. In particular, the previously overlooked in the literature $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ terms may cause fast proton decay unless the LQs are heavy enough. Thus the proton stability constraint casts lower limits on the LQ masses. We show that these limits are more stringent than those existing in the literature .

Here we construct the interaction Lagrangian of a generic leptoquark model retaining all the renormalizable couplings invariant under the SM gauge group $`SU(3)_cSU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$. We separate the LQ interaction Lagrangian in the following three parts

$`_{LQint}=_{LQlq}+_{LQH}+_{LQ},`$ (1)
corresponding to LQ-lepton-quark, LQ-Higgs interactions and LQ self-interactions.

The LQ-lepton-quark interaction terms $`_{LQlq}`$, which fix the LQ field content, were constructed in Ref.  for the scalar $`S`$ and vector $`V_\mu `$ leptoquarks. Here we show only the scalar LQ interactions

$`_{Slq}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _0^{(R)}\overline{u^c}P_ReS_0^R+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_0^{(R)}\overline{d^c}P_Re\stackrel{~}{S}_0^{}+\lambda _{1/2}^{(R)}\overline{u}P_LlS_{1/2}^R+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{1/2}\overline{d}P_Ll\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^{}+`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _0^{(L)}\overline{q^c}P_Li\tau _2lS_0^L+\lambda _{1/2}^{(L)}\overline{q}P_Ri\tau _2eS_{1/2}^L+\lambda _1\overline{q^c}P_Li\tau _2\widehat{S}_1^{}l+h.c.,`$
where $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$; $`q`$ and $`l`$ are the quark and lepton doublets; $`S_j^i`$ are the scalar LQs with weak isospin j=0, 1/2, 1, coupled to left-handed ($`i=L`$) or right-handed ($`i=R`$) quarks respectively (for a discussion on chiral couplings see Ref. ). The LQ quantum numbers are listed in Table 1. For LQ triplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=S_1,V_1^\mu `$ we use the notation $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1=\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1`$.

To obey the stringent constraints from FCNC processes it is usually assumed that the LQ couplings are generation “diagonal”, i.e. they couple only to a single generation of leptons and quarks. This implies that there exist three generations of LQs with the assignments of Table 1. In general these couplings could involve all fermion and LQ generations.

The renormalizable LQ-Higgs interaction terms for the scalar and vector LQs have been constructed in Ref. . Again, for brevity we show only the scalar LQ interactions:

$`_{LQH}`$ $`=`$ $`h_0^{(i)}Hi\tau _2\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}S_0^i+h_1Hi\tau _2\widehat{S}_1\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}+Y_{1/2}^{(i)}\left(Hi\tau _2S_{1/2}^i\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}^{}H\right)+`$
$`+`$ $`Y_1\left(Hi\tau _2\widehat{S}_1^{}H\right)\stackrel{~}{S}_0+\kappa ^{(i)}\left(H^{}\widehat{S}_1H\right)S_0^i\left(M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2g_\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i_1i_2)}H^{}H\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_1}\mathrm{\Phi }^{i_2}.`$
Here $`H`$ is the SM $`SU(2)_L`$-doublet Higgs field. $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ is a cumulative notation for all the leptoquark fields with $`i=L,R`$ (the same for $`i_{1,2}`$).

The new, previously overlooked part of the LQ interaction Lagrangian, corresponds to the LQ self-interaction terms. For brevity we write down this part in the form of SM group singlet products of the LQ representations

$`_{LQ}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _0^i(S_0^i\times \stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}\times \stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2})+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0^i(\stackrel{~}{S}_0^{}\times S_{1/2}^i\times \stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2})+\mu _1(S_1^{}\times \stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}\times \stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2})+`$
$`+`$ $`g_0^iD(V_0^i\times \stackrel{~}{V}_{1/2}\times \stackrel{~}{V}_{1/2})+\stackrel{~}{g}_0^iD(\stackrel{~}{V}_0^{}\times V_{1/2}^i\times \stackrel{~}{V}_{1/2})+g_1D(V_1^{}\times \stackrel{~}{V}_{1/2}\times \stackrel{~}{V}_{1/2})+`$
$`+`$ $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \times \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha )(\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta \times \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta )+\eta _0^{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi }_0^i\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0^{}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{1/2}^j\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{1/2}^{})+\eta _1^{ij}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0^{}\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{1/2}^{}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{1/2}^i\times \mathrm{\Phi }_1^j),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=S,V`$ and the superscripts $`i,j=L,R`$ are LQ chirality indexes defined in Eq. (2). The subscripts $`\alpha ,\beta `$ in the 1st quartic term denote all the types of vector and scalar LQs. The parameters $`\mu _a^b`$ and $`g_a^b,\eta _a^{ij}`$ are dimensionful and dimensionless parameters of the model respectively. The SM gauge group covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$, defined in the standard way, acts on all the LQ fields $`V`$ in brackets. Here we suppressed the Lorentz indexes of the vector LQs which must be contracted in all the possible pairs to form Lorentz scalar products. Thus the above indicated vector LQ couplings represent groups of terms with different coupling constants for each term. For example, the first group of vector LQ couplings contains the term $`V_{0\nu }^i\times \stackrel{~}{V}_{1/2}^\mu \times (D_\mu \stackrel{~}{V}_{1/2}^\nu )`$ which has its own coupling constant $`\mu _0^{i(1)}`$ etc.

Let us check the lepton and baryon number properties of the terms in the LQ Lagrangian. All the LQ-lepton-quark interaction terms $`_{LQlq}`$ conserve both L and B numbers by construction and, therefore, are $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }B=0`$ operators. In the sector of the LQ-Higgs interactions $`_{LQH}`$ the quartic terms are also $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }B=0`$ operators while the trilinear terms violate lepton number but conserve baryon number so that in this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2,\mathrm{\Delta }B=0`$. In the LQ self-interaction part $`_{LQ}`$ again the quartic terms are $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }B=0`$ operators while the trilinear terms violate both lepton and baryon number as $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$.

The trilinear $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2,\mathrm{\Delta }B=0`$ terms in the LQ-Higgs sector contribute to lepton number violating processes, such as neutrinoless double beta decay $`(0\nu \beta \beta )`$ , as well as to the Majorana neutrino mass matrix. Thus from the experimental limits on the rates of these processes and neutrino masses one can deduce the corresponding limits on the LQ model parameters.

The trilinear $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ LQ self-interaction terms in Eq. (S0.Ex4) can induce proton decay and, therefore, the existing stringent constraints on proton stability may produce valuable lower bounds on the LQ masses. These terms, combined with the LQ-lepton-quark couplings from Eq. (2), generate at low energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ lepton-quark contact effective operators. For example, the 1st LQ self-interaction term in Eq. (S0.Ex4) generate the following dim=9 operator

$`\widehat{O}^{(9)}=\lambda _0^i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{1/2}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0^i}{M_S^6}}\right)(\overline{\nu }P_Rd)(\overline{e}P_Rd)(\overline{u^c}P_Re),`$ (5)
where $`M_S`$ is the typical mass of scalar LQs. This and the other possible $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ terms can induce proton decay in the channels:

$`pe^{}e^+\nu \pi ^0\pi ^+,e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu \pi ^+\pi ^+,e^{}e^+\nu \pi ^+,\nu \nu \overline{\nu }\pi ^+.`$ (6)
The corresponding proton lifetime $`\tau _p`$ can be estimated in the usual way. In this estimate we assume that all the dimensionless coupling constants in Eq. (2) are of the same order of magnitude $`\lambda _i^j\lambda `$ and that all the trilinear scalar LQ self-interaction terms in Eq. (S0.Ex4) have the same mass scale $`\mu _0^i\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0^i\mu _1\mu `$. We also assume that there is no strong cancellation between different contributions to the proton lifetime. With this assumptions we obtain for the contributions of the scalar LQ the following estimate

$`\tau _p^1=\kappa \lambda ^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\text{GeV}}{M_S}}\right)^{12}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{1\text{GeV}}}\right)^2m_p.`$ (7)
Here $`\kappa `$ is the dimensionless phase space factor. The typical energy scale of proton decay is the energy released in this reaction. In the above formula the energy scale is set by the proton mass $`m_p`$. The difference between $`m_p`$ and the actual energy released in a specific channel of proton decay is absorbed in the factor $`\kappa `$. From the existing lower experimental bound on the proton life time (channel independent) $`\tau _p^{exp}1.6\times 10^{25}`$ years  we obtain for the scalar LQ mass

$`M_S`$ $`\kappa ^{1/12}`$ $`\lambda ^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{1\text{GeV}}}\right)^{1/6}10\text{TeV}\lambda ^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{1\text{GeV}}}\right)^{1/6}10\text{TeV}.`$ (8)
Here we put $`\kappa ^{1/12}1`$ which is a good approximation taking into account the very small exponent of the phase space factor. For the same reason this result is weakly dependent on the simplifying assumptions made before Eq. (7). In order to reduce the number of free parameters in the above formula and deduce more information on the lower bound for the LQ mass one needs some assumptions on the possible values of the coupling constants $`\lambda `$ and on the mass scale $`\mu `$ of the trilinear operators in Eq. (S0.Ex4). If the theory is in the perturbative regime one may assume that the dimensionless couplings $`\lambda `$ obey the condition $`\lambda ^2/(4\pi )1`$. Assuming further that the LQ model originates from some GUT scenario one may also think that these couplings are of the order of the Higgs-fermion Yukawa couplings of the corresponding generation. However all the assumptions of this type crucially depend on the high energy origin of the LQ models. Therefore, following the common practice we keep in our constraints both $`\lambda `$ and $`M_S`$ as free parameters.

As to the mass scale $`\mu `$ of the trilinear operators in Eq. (S0.Ex4), it seems reasonable to assume that $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_F250`$ GeV, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$ is electroweak scale. This could be motivated by the observation that these operators are associated with physics beyond the SM whose typical mass scale is expected to be larger than the electroweak scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$. Thus, taking $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$, we obtain a “conservative” lower bound

$`M_S\lambda ^{1/2}25\text{TeV}.`$ (9)
However, the actual value of the scale $`\mu `$ can be much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$ easily reaching, for instance, the grand unification scale $`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV. The latter case results in the constraint

$`M_S\lambda ^{1/2}(5\times 10^3)\text{TeV}.`$ (10)
Thus the typical constraint for the case of scalar LQs ranges between those in Eq. (9) and in Eq. (10)

$`M_S\lambda ^{1/2}(25÷5\times 10^3)\text{TeV}.`$ (11)
The constraints for the case of vector LQs can be obtained directly from the Eq. (8) by the substitution $`\mu gm_p`$, assuming that all the dimensionless coupling constants in Eq. (S0.Ex4) are of the same order of magnitude $`g_0^i\stackrel{~}{g}_0^ig_1g`$. This substitution is motivated by the observation that the energy scale of the trilinear vector LQ operators in Eq. (S0.Ex4) can be estimated as $`g\times `$\[energy scale of the derivative\] and that the energy scale of the derivative is given by the mean momentum flowing in the LQ propagators. The latter is comparable with the proton mass $`m_p`$. Since the energy scale appears in Eq. (8) with the small exponent 1/6, the difference between $`m_p`$ and the actual energy scale is not important. Thus for the vector LQ mass we obtain

$`M_V\lambda ^{1/2}g^{1/6}10\text{TeV}.`$ (12)
There exist in the literature constraints on LQ models from accelerator and non-accelerator experiments (for a summary see, for instance, ). The most stringent constraints for the 1st generation LQs follow from the measurements of Atomic Parity Violation and from the universality in leptonic $`\pi `$-decays. The best constraints from these experiments are

$`M_S\lambda 3.5\text{TeV},M_V\lambda 6.6\text{TeV}.`$ (13)
The comparison of these constraints with those in Eqs. (9)-(11) leads us to the conclusion that the proton decay constraints for the 1st generation scalar LQs are significantly more stringent than other existing constraints. For the case of vector LQs the comparison of the proton decay constraints with the existing ones can not be made in a direct way due to the presence in Eq. (12) of the vector LQ self-interaction coupling constant $`g`$. Nevertheless it is instructive to consider some sample values of the coupling constants $`\lambda `$ and $`g`$. For instance, if $`\lambda 1`$ the proton decay constraints comparable with the constraint in Eq. (13) occur only for large values of the vector LQ self-interaction coupling constant $`g0.1`$ which is unlikely. However for smaller values of the LQ-quark-lepton coupling $`\lambda `$ comparable proton decay constraints can occur at very small values of $`g`$. For instance, if $`\lambda 0.01`$ the corresponding value of this coupling is $`g10^7`$.

In conclusion, we derived new constraints on the 1st generation LQ masses and couplings from the experimental lower bound for the proton life time. We have shown that for the case of the scalar LQs these constraints are more stringent than the corresponding constraints obtained from other experiments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is partially supported by Fondecyt (Chile) project 8000017.