format: text

text:
# Collision-induced galaxy formation: semi-analytical model and multi-wavelength predictions

## 1 Introduction

In contrast with the local universe, where only 30 % of the bolometric luminosity is released in the IR/submm wavelength range (Soifer & Neugebauer 1991), there is a growing amount of evidence that the high–redshift universe was much more opaque. Indeed, the discovery of the Cosmic Infrared Background (CIRB) at a level ten times higher than the no–evolution predictions based on the iras local IR luminosity function, and twice as high as the Cosmic Optical Background obtained from optical counts, has shown that dust extinction and emission are key processes for high–redshift galaxies (Puget et al. 1996; Guiderdoni et al. 1997; Fixsen et al. 1998; Hauser et al. 1998; Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis 1998). Deep surveys with the iso satellite at 15 $`\mu `$m (Oliver et al. 1997; Aussel et al. 1999; Elbaz et al. 1999) and 175 $`\mu `$m (Kawara et al. 1998; Puget et al. 1999), and with the SCUBA instrument at 850 $`\mu `$m (Smail, Ivison & Blain 1997; Barger et al. 1998; Hughes et al. 1998; Eales et al. 1999; Barger, Cowie & Saunders 1999) have begun to resolve the CIRB into its brightest contributors. Although identification and spectroscopic follow–up of submm sources are not easy, such studies seem to reach the conclusion that an important fraction of these sources are the high–redshift counterparts of the local luminous and ultraluminous IR galaxies (LIRGs and ULIRGs) discovered by iras (Smail et al. 1998; Lilly et al. 1999; Barger et al. 1999). In the optical and near–IR window, careful examinations of the Canada–France Redshift Survey (CFRS) galaxies at $`z1`$, and Lyman break galaxies at $`z3`$ and 4 have revealed a significant amount of extinction (Flores et al. 1999; Steidel et al. 1999; Meurer, Heckman & Calzetti 1999). This has lead to a reassessment of previous estimates of the UV fluxes, and consequently of the star formation rates in these objects, which are now found to be higher by a factor 2 to 5. In light of these observations, one can view the far infrared background as a sink for the hidden aspects of galaxy formation. At optical wavelengths, ellipticals and spheroids are old, even at $`z1.`$ No evidence is seen for either the luminous formation phase, or the early evolution at these wavelengths. One therefore draws the conclusion that ellipticals and, more generally, most spheroids must have formed in dust-shrouded starbursts.

In this paper, we show how separate tracking of disk and spheroid star formation within a simple but explicit cosmological framework enables one to substantiate this view and show that current data is consistent with spheroid formation dominating the submillimetre background. In section 2, we briefly describe how we connect the various pieces of our semi-analytic model together, to differentiate between spheroids and disk galaxies and use the stardust model galaxy spectra (Devriendt, Guiderdoni & Sadat 1999) to make the link with observations. The approach is very similar in spirit to that of Devriendt & Guiderdoni (2000) - DG00 hereafter, so we point out the differences/improvements with respect to this previous work. Section 3 presents the results obtained with this new implementation of collision-induced galaxy formation. Finally, we put our work in context with other studies and draw conclusions in Section 4.

## 2 Overview of the model

### 2.1 Cosmological framework

To match the combined observations of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies on sub-degree scales by BOOMERanG (de Bernardis et al. 2000) and MAXIMA (Balbi et al. 2000), and of high-redshift supernovae (Riess et al. 1998; Schmidt et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), we have chosen a flat universe model with a cosmological constant. More specifically, the ratio of total matter density to critical density and the reduced cosmological constant are taken to be $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`\lambda _0=0.7`$ respectively. The Hubble constant $`H_0`$ was chosen to lie within the error bar quoted by the Hubble Space Telescope key project value (Freedman et al. 2001). The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.02h^2`$ is the one currently favored by various cosmological probes of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (Bania et al. 2002). Finally the normalization of our non-tilted primordial Harrison-Zeldovich power spectrum $`\sigma _8=0.86`$ ensures fair agreement both with the amplitude of the cosmic background radiation measured by COBE and the local cluster abundance. We note that recent cluster surveys seem to favor slightly lower values around $`\sigma _80.73`$ (e.g. Lahav et al. 2002) but our conclusions are quite insensitive to a change of 20 % in any of the parameters presented in table 1.

In the semi-analytical ab initio approach that we outline in the next section, galaxies form from Gaussian random density fluctuations in the primordial matter distribution, dominated by cold dark matter (CDM). To follow a bound perturbation, we use the well known spherical top-hat collapse model: a homogeneous spherical perturbation grows along with the expanding universe, until self–gravity results in turn around and (non–dissipative) collapse. We then compute the number of perturbations of a given mass which collapse at a given redshift using the standard Press & Schechter (1974) prescription and starting with a primordial power spectrum for the density field given by Bardeen et al. (1986), corrected for the presence of baryons (Sugiyama 1995). To take into account mass build up of halos through mergers, we employ the extended Press–Schechter formalism described in e.g. Lacey & Cole (1993), in a similar fashion as in Balland, Silk & Schaeffer (1998) - BSS98 hereafter. Note that this is slightly different from Devriendt & Guiderdoni (2000), where the prescription to compute the number of collapsed haloes was given by the peaks formalism developed in Bardeen et al. (1986) and where halo merging histories were not considered.

### 2.2 A simple semi-analytic model

To make contact with observations, star formation and spectral evolution must be incorporated. We follow the general framework described by White & Frenk (1991), that is to say, within virialized dark matter halos, we let gas cool radiatively, settle into a disk and form stars. Technical details about the semi-empirical recipes used to model the different astrophysical processes are given in DG00. Chemical and spectral evolution are then computed with the stardust stellar population synthesis model from Devriendt et al. (1999). Detailed references can be looked up in this paper, but, as our results in the far-IR/submm crucially depend upon it, we summarize the basic assumptions/ingredients concerning dust that go into this modelling. The first of these is that metals and dust are homogeneously mixed with stars in galaxies of oblate ellipsoidal shape. The extinction curve of each galaxy is then assumed to scale with its gas and metal contents, in a manner that is calibrated on the Milky Way and nearby spirals. From such a model, the radiative transfer can be computed analytically, and yields the total amount of stellar light absorbed at UV/optical wavelength. Following energy conservation, this energy must be re-emitted at IR wavelengths. Implementing the 3-component absorption/emission model of Désert, Boulanger & Puget (1990), (a mixture of PAHs, very small grains and large grains) as in stardust, i.e. in combination with the empirical correlation of the bolometric IR luminosity with iras colours, we finally link the optical and the far-IR/submm windows in a self–consistent way.

We emphasize that, as discussed in detail by DG00, there are three key parameters in such models, the star formation efficiency $`\beta ^1`$, the feedback efficiency $`ϵ_{SN}`$ and the extent of the gaseous disks $`f_c`$. We take parameter values that are fairly similar to the ones used by these authors, with $`\beta =60`$, $`ϵ_{SN}=0.2`$ and $`f_c=5`$. These values are well within the uncertainties of observations by Kennicutt (1998) and Bosma (1981) for the star formation efficiency and the gaseous extent of cold disks, respectively. Numerical simulations by e.g. Thornton et al. (1998) tend to give values closer to 0.1 for feedback efficiency; however our higher value is a consequence of an attempt to reduce the number of small objects overestimated by the Press-Schechter prescription, as well as a means to cure the “cooling catastrophe”, where too much gas cools in low mass halos at high redshift. The qualitative effect of each of these parameters can be summed up in the following way:

* Increasing $`\beta `$ decreases the normalisation and faint-end slope of the optical and IR counts, because star formation is reduced and takes place at lower redshift.
* Increasing $`ϵ_{SN}`$ decreases the normalisation and faint-end slope of the optical and IR counts by quenching star formation in higher and higher mass galaxies that form on average at lower and lower redshifts.
* Increasing $`f_c`$ means increasing the normalisation of the optical counts, and decreasing that of the IR counts, since this is equivalent to reducing extinction.

The main drawback of DG00 is their modelling of ultraluminous dusty starbursts: they use an ad hoc fraction of massive objects $`F`$, calibrated locally on the iras luminosity function and which is evolving with redshift as $`F(1+z)^6`$. In this paper, we replace this “recipe” by a physically motivated collision model which allows us to differentiate between disks and ellipticals.

### 2.3 Modelling galaxy types

To separate disk galaxies from spheroids we use the prescription proposed in BSS98. It is based on the amount of energy exchanged by a galaxy with its neighbours via gravitational interactions during its lifetime. Interactions are modelled as rapid non-merging collisions following the Spitzer impulse approximation (Spitzer 1958). If we denote by $`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ the instantaneous relative rate of energy exchange, $`(1/E)dE/dt`$, at epoch $`t`$, the cumulative effect of interactions occurring throughout the galaxy lifetime (from its birth at the redshift $`z_{nl}`$ at which its host halo collapses to the redshift $`z`$ of observation) is obtained by integration:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{dE}{E}=_{z_{nl}}^z\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{dt}{dz}𝑑z$$
(1)
In the above expression, the main parameters describing an interaction (impact parameter, relative velocity between the interacting galaxies, relative mass, number density of neighbouring galaxies) enter through the quantity $`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. The scalings with these parameters are derived from the numerical simulations of Aguilar & White (1985). In this way, it is possible to overcome the difficulty of modelling analytically the details of the interaction, which is a highly non-linear process.

The effects of cosmology enter equation (1) via the conversion of the loockback time $`t`$ into redshift $`z`$ and the scaling of the interaction parameters with redshift. For instance, in the present cosmology (see table 1), the relative velocity between two interacting galaxies is given by:

$$v=v_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)+\lambda _0(1+z)^2}.$$
(2)
The evaluation of equation (1) for a galaxy in the field (see BSS98 for details) gives (in a flat, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\lambda _0=1`$, universe):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0\{\frac{(1+z_{nl})^3(1+z)^3}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}$$

$$\frac{\lambda _0^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2}\left[\frac{(1+z)^3(1+z_{nl})^3}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z_{nl})^3+\lambda _0)(\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3+\lambda _0)}\right]$$

$$2\frac{\lambda _0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^3}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z_{nl})^3+\lambda _0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3+\lambda _0}\right]\}$$
(3)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}1.35\times 10^4`$ for $`h=0.65`$. It is easy to verify that in the limit $`\lambda _00`$ equation (3) reduces to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{}[(1+z_{nl})^3(1+z)^3]`$ which is the result for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ universe (BSS98).

Morphological types are then defined according to the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ using the following rules:

* Galaxies for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is lower than a certain threshold value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{spi}`$ are identified as disks: they correspond to galaxies having experienced few, if any, interactions and consequently have a small $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
* Galaxies for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is higher than a certain threshold value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ell}>\mathrm{\Delta }_{spi}`$ are identified as ellipticals: they correspond to galaxies having undergone substantial energy exchange during their lifetime.
* Galaxies such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{spi}<\mathrm{\Delta }(z)<\mathrm{\Delta }_{ell}`$ are identified as S0 galaxies.

The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{spi}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ell}`$ are fixed by requiring that the model produces the observed amount of each type in the field at the present epoch. Typical values are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{spi}3.10^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ell}10^2`$, and are not very sensitive to the cosmological model assumed (standard or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM). The above conditions on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can then be inverted to obtain conditions on the formation redshift $`z_{nl}(z)`$ of galaxy types. It is important to realize that the formation redshift of a galaxy of a given type at epoch $`z`$ depends on $`z`$. That is to say that in our model the morphology of a galaxy is not fixed once and for all by initial conditions but, on the contrary, it evolves progressively from late-type to early-type. However, contrary to most other semi-analytic approaches, this progression is monotonic: once a spiral galaxy has become SO it can only evolve to the elliptical stage, and it can only remain elliptical once it reaches that stage. The condition for a galaxy to be elliptical at redshift $`z`$ is that its formation redshift $`z_{nl}`$ is such that:

$$z_{nl}>z_{ell}(z)$$
(4)
where $`z_{ell}(z)`$ is defined by equating $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ell}`$ and solving for $`z_{nl}`$. Equivalently, spirals at epoch $`z`$ are those galaxies that turned non-linear at an epoch such that:

$$z_{nl}<z_{spi}(z)$$
(5)
where $`z_{spi}(z)`$ is defined by equating $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{spi}`$. Finally, S0 galaxies are such that:

$$z_{spi}(z)<z_{nl}<z_{ell}(z).$$
(6)
Figure 1 illustrates the way morphological types are defined in this model. The formation redshift is shown as a function of the epoch $`z`$ considered. The solid curves are obtained for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ell}`$ (upper) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{spi}`$ (lower). Ellipticals occupy the upper region of the ($`z_{nl},z`$) plane, while disks occupy the lower region. S0s are located in between. The hatched area corresponds to $`z_{nl}<z`$ and is irrelevant.

Consider the example of a galaxy that became non-linear at, say, $`z_{nl}=3`$. Figure 1 shows that up to redshift $`z2.8`$ this galaxy is identified as a disk. Between $`z2.2`$ and $`z2.8`$, the same galaxy has experienced sufficient energy exchange with its neighbours to be identified as an S0 galaxy, but not quite enough to be an elliptical. By $`z2.2`$, it has become an elliptical.

Depending on the previously identified morphological type, we decide which galaxies will undergo an “obscure starburst”. In other words, this phase is triggered when the energy imparted by encounters/collisions is strong enough to alter the morphology for the first time, i.e. when late-type (spiral) galaxies first become early type (S0s). The transition from SO to elliptical is then supposed to happen smoothly, without another burst of star formation, as the gas poor SO galaxies are assumed to have reheated their surroundings enough during the burst to not be able to replenish their gas supplies through accretion of new material. The intensity and duration of this LIRG/ULIRG phases, are therefore controlled by the amount of gas available for star formation and the size of the galaxy at the time when the morphology change occurs. In practice, this dark phase is modelled by setting our three key parameters to $`\beta =1`$, $`f_c=1`$ and $`ϵ_{SN}=0.5`$, corresponding to high star formation efficiency, high dust opacity, and high feedback efficiency respectively. It is therefore completely coupled to the starburst, and as the luminosity of this latter decreases for lack of fuel (gas) supply, the optical depth of the galaxy goes down as well, revealing more and more of the stellar population at optical wavelengths.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Galaxy counts

Looking at figures 2 and 3, one realises that (except in the near IR bands), late type galaxies dominate over early types (compare the dotted curves with the dashed ones in each panel). This domination extends down to the far-IR, with the late-type galaxies still dominating the 175 micron ISOPHOT counts. At longer wavelengths, however, there is a dramatic change: the early-type galaxies completely swamp the contribution from late types. Indeed, one can see on the bottom right panel of figure 3 that the vast majority ($``$ 90 %) of the SCUBA sources are classified as early types in our model. The reason for such a change of behaviour lies in the well known negative k-correction, which makes galaxies of the same bolometric luminosity as bright for the observer at redshift 5 as at redshift 0.5. This is only important in the submm (here for SCUBA at 850 microns), because the peak emissivity of dust in the source rest frame is between 60 and 100 microns. Therefore, as our S0s/ellipticals approximately form at $`z>2`$, the corresponding maxima of emission must be redshifted to wavelengths greater than 180 and 300 microns respectively.

This result is quite robust in the sense that its qualitative features do not depend on the cosmological parameters. However, quantitatively, there is a marked difference: the domination of late type galaxies is more marked in a SCDM model, where galaxies tend to form later on average (see Silk & Devriendt 2000). This remark also applies to the model of DG00, where the phenomenologically evolving ULIRG fraction was the dominant contributor in the far-IR (175 microns).

Although the general agreement of our predicted counts with the multi-wavelength data seems quite impressive, there are several caveats. At 15 microns, for example, one would say that we match the integral counts fairly well (upper left panel of figure 3). But looking more closely, we cannot reproduce the change of slope seen in the ISOCAM differential counts (fig. 4). There are at least a couple of reasons why this could happen. First, the SEDs of the ISOCAM galaxies are different in the mid-IR from the ones used here as a template, which are based on iras observations of the local universe. Differential counts are very sensitive to the exact shape of the PAH features, which are crudely modelled here. One could also imagine that the discrepancy is partly due to the grain size distribution/chemical composition evolution with redshift, as the redshift distribution of ISOCAM galaxies has a median $`z`$ 0.7. We plan to investigate these issues in more detail but that is beyond the scope of this paper. Finally, because of the way interactions are modelled, each early type galaxy undergoes a starburst after its host halo has just collapsed, and it is not obvious that ISOCAM sources (see figure 3) in which the vast majority are LIRGs (not ULIRGs), are properly described by such a violent process. Dynamical interactions (which are not modeled in detail here), triggering multiple milder starbursts, with time delays between them, might provide a more realistic description of these sources and this is another issue we plan to investigate in the future.

### 3.2 Redshift distributions

Another constraint on our models comes from the redshift distributions. Their shapes seem to quite nicely match the observations in the I band with a mean redshift of the distribution of $``$ 0.6, (see top left panel of figure 5). In the far–IR (60 microns), the agreement with data gathered in the north ecliptic pole region (NEPR) is also fairly convincing. As predicted in Silk & Devriendt (2000), inclusion of the cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, has shifted the near–IR and 60 micron peaks towards higher redshifts and produced a high–redshift tail in the I band, bringing the models into closer agreement with the data. Disks and early-types are found in comparable proportion in the I-band, with a slight domination of disks for $`z>0.3`$ and up to $`z=1.5`$.

There are at least a couple of reasons for this behaviour. First, in this redshift range, spheroids are already old, their star formation rates are very low and therefore their I-band luminosity comes from an old and dim stellar population. Secondly, spheroids in a massive starburst phase at these redshift experience high dust absorption, which reduces significantly their luminosity even in the I band. Going deeper in I magnitude leads to the selection of higher redshift galaxies and we expect that the starburst population to eventually dominate the distribution around $`z`$ 2.

We draw the reader’s attention to the dramatic change occuring in the redshift distribution of sources when going from ISOPHOT to SCUBA, i.e. from the far-IR, to the submm window (bottom panels of figure 5). In the far-IR, the vast majority of sources is predicted to lie at fairly low redshifts, whereas in the submm, there is a characteristic double peaked distribution. The first small peak at low redshift is mainly due to disks, as can be seen on the lower right panel of figure 3 ($`\lambda _{eff}=850\mu `$m). Indeed, the Euclidian tail of the total counts (figure 3) at fluxes above $`10^1`$ Jy on this figure is clearly due to the domination of local bright disks (dotted line). In contrast, one notes on the lower-right panel of figure 5 an overwhelming domination of the (fainter) sources located at high redshifts, as is also clear from figure 3. Once again, the main driver for this effect is the negative k-correction boosting observed fluxes in the submm wave-bands. Contrary to Devriendt and Guiderdoni (2000) and Lagache et al. (2002), the second peak in the redshift distribution of 175 microns sources (around $`z=1`$, see e.g. Lagache et al. (2002)) is missing from the model discussed here. This could either be a result of the stardust SEDs being too warm for LIRGs, or of a too rapid evolution in the number of LIRGs due to our simple modelling of galaxy interactions. Here too, triggering several starbursts per galaxy with delays between them, as happens in realistic galaxy interactions, could alleviate the problem.

### 3.3 Diffuse background radiation

The background light, as integrated from the multi-wavelength counts, seems to closely match the detection by Puget et al. (1996) and Hauser et al. (1998) in the far-IR/submm window (see figure 6). This tells us that we are not grossly overestimating or underestimating the faint counts, and that the global galaxy luminosity budget from the UV to the submm is likely to be correctly computed. An interesting remark is that this plot clearly shows that one has to go to the submm, around 1500 GHz (about 200 microns), to see the early-type galaxies dominate over the late types. This is a factor 2 shorter in wavelength than found for the SCDM model. At any wavelength shorter than this (except in the near-IR between 2-5 microns), quiescent galaxies, forming up to $``$ 10 M of stars per year dominate the total light emission (as well as the counts). Again that was not the case with the SCDM model where spirals dominated the whole background below 400 microns. Finally, we point out that the model marginally underestimates the background measured by DIRBE. This discrepancy could stem from a fraction of the population of galaxies having slightly different spectral shapes in the far-IR than our model assumes they have, or having a redshift distribution different from the one we predict they have. Of course, as these effects are degenerate, in the sense that colder sources will emit more flux in the far-IR than hot ones, as will closer sources, it is very difficult to decide which is the dominant without further guidance from the observations.

### 3.4 Multi-wavelength comoving luminosity densities

Figure 7 shows the comoving luminosity densities predicted by the model from the far-UV (bottom curves) to the far-IR (top curves). It is clear from the figure that there already is a greater amount of evolution in the far-IR than in the UV-optical, and we know from the counts (fig. 3) that the submm must show still more evolution than the far-IR. The agreement with the data is quite satisfactory both at low and high redshift and for all wavelengths. This tells us that the luminosity budget of our galaxies is relatively accurate. Another striking feature is that the model predicts that the spheroid (whether in dusty starburst phase or not) contribution to the comoving luminosity density becomes approximately equal to that of late type galaxies around redshift 2 in the UV and far-IR and as early ar $`z`$ 1 in the B-band. As a result, the peak of the comoving luminosity density shows a complex behavior as a function of wavelength, starting around $`z`$ 3 in the UV and falling to $`z`$ 2 in the optical near-IR, before shifting again to higher redshifts ($`z`$ 3) in the far-IR and submm. This reflects the fact that both UV and far-IR luminosities are extremely sensitive to the instantaneous SFR, whereas the optical and near-IR luminosities are tainted by a non-negligible contribution coming from an old stellar population.

### 3.5 Cosmic star formation history

The predicted comoving star formation rate is compared to observations on figure 8. Empty symbols are observed estimates at various redshifts, uncorrected for dust extinction. Filled symbols indicate dust corrected estimates following the prescription of Somerville, Primack & Faber (2001) based on a luminosity dependant correction likely to be more realistic than the traditional scaling by a constant factor (between 3 to 5) at all $`z`$ (see their figure 9). The filled point at $`z0.7`$ is derived from infrared ISOCAM observations (Flores et al. 1999).

The comoving SFR is in fair agreement with the measured one, and the reasonable amount of K-band light produced (figure 2) makes us confident that we do not over-produce either stars or metals. However note that at low redshift, the agreement is only for non-dust-corrected data, so the contribution of our spirals (which closely match the non corrected Madau curve at all redshifts) might be underestimated in our model. From the perspective of metals only, the star formation rate could be higher, provided that a fair fraction of the heavy elements is ejected into the IGM. The model however predicts a peak in star formation around redshift $``$ 3.5 (this is also true for the SCDM case), sensibly higher than what is usually assumed, current data being compatible with a flat star formation rate at redshifts $`z>`$ 1. A more detailed comparison with the SCDM cosmology used in Silk & Devriendt (2000) reveals that the comoving star formation rate increase from $`z=0`$ to $`z3`$ is steeper in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, due to the fact that fewer galaxies tend to form on average at low redshifts in such a model. More specifically, this increase in the steepness of the SFR results from:

* a similar high redshift SFR level in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and in a SCDM cosmology because the earlier formation of galaxies in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model is compensated by a higher normalization of the power spectrum in a SCDM model
* a lower contribution to the SFR history at late times in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model due to the formation of a smaller number of galaxies than in the SCDM model

This explains why the discrepancy mainly shows up in the spiral population and that, in contrast, the contribution of elliptical galaxies which form much earlier is very similar in both cosmologies (Silk & Devriendt 2000). We argue that the amount of star formation occurring in dust-shrouded objects cannot be much greater than our model predicts in order to avoid overestimating the submm diffuse background (see figure 6). Therefore we emphasize that cosmic star formation has to decrease at redshifts $`z`$ 3.5. Note that this result is strengthened if dust-shrouded AGNs are a major contributor to the submm emission, even though this does not appear to be the case if X-ray characteristics are a reliable AGN monitor (e.g. Barger et al. 2001).

## 4 Conclusions

We have implemented the model of BSS98 within the simple semi-analytic model of DG00 in order to describe galaxy collisions on a physical basis. We find that such a combination:

* naturally reproduces galaxy counts at various wavelengths and the diffuse background radiation.
* yields a fair match to existing redshift distributions ranging from the optical (CFRS) to far-IR (iras at 60 microns). Furthermore, the model also predicts redshift distributions of sources at still larger wavelengths (ISOPHOT at 175 microns; SCUBA at 850 microns)
* predicts the contribution of morphological types to the previous quantities, with spheroids strongly dominating bright galaxy counts only in the sub-millimetre window (from 450 microns and longwards).
* predicts that the cosmic star formation rate history is dominated by spiral-like objects until redshift 2 where spheroids become the major contributors.

Our results qualitatively agree with the model of the infrared universe presented in Tan, Silk & Balland (1999). We also note good agreement of the main conclusions of the present work with the collisional starburst model of Somerville et al. (2001). This agreement is examplified in the comparison between our SFR plot (figure 8 of the present paper) and the SFR predicted by their collisional starburst model (their figure 9). It is satisfying that these two approaches give consistent results as it supports the view that galaxy-galaxy collisions in the high redshift universe might have played a dominant role in triggering star formation.

Note however that Somerville et al. fail to account for the submm counts (Somerville private communication). They find too few highly obscured luminous galaxies. Our model gives satisfactory agreement both in the restframe blue and FIR. This is because we have the freedom, and indeed the motivation from the model, to cumulate the effects of collisions. In contrast, semi-analytic hierarchical models form spheroids over a Hubble time at the redshift at which galaxy mergers occur. This may not be enough if the dust is dispersed by the ensuing starburst. Introduction of an ad hoc delay between multiple starburst trigerred by different orbital stages during the pre-merger phase might solve this. Alternatively one might appeal to additional sources of IR luminosity such as the one that might be associated with AGN formation. All indications however suggest that AGNs do not play a major role in accounting for most of the observed submm sources, as evidenced from the chandra deep fields. In our case we have a physical model that works in the right direction and yields a self-consistent panchromatic explanation of the observed universe both locally and at high redshift. We are aware that what we called spheroids at high redshifts but are in the process of a violent burst of star formation will not have the morphologies of a classical early type galaxy, as it will take some time for these objects to relax. We defer a more detailed study of the evolution of relaxed galaxies to a companion paper, but note that it is likely that this fraction will be fairly small at $`z3`$ since there will be very little time elapsed since the collision.

However, in spite of this issue, an important consequence of our model, is that the FIR counts and luminosity density are expected to continue to rise with redshift to $`z3.`$ Hence we predict that a future mission with adequate resolution to avoid source confusion, which sadly may not be the case for astrof or sirtf, will provide an important test of the galaxy collision model.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Guilaine Lagache, Hervé Dole and Jean-Loup Puget for providing us with their results before publication. We also acknowledge a constructive referee report from which the presentation of the model has benefited a lot. J.D. is supported by the Leverhulme trust.


text:
# Untitled Document

VARIABLE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT FROM

MAXIMAL-ACCELERATION PHASE SPACE RELATIVITY

Carlos Castro

Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems,

Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA. 30314

October , 2002

Abstract

We presented a new physical model that links the maximum speed of light with the minimal Planck scale into a maximal-acceleration Relativity principle in the spacetime tangent bundle and in phase spaces (cotangent bundle). The maximal proper-acceleration bound is $`a=c^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in full agreement with the old predictions of Caianiello, the Finslerian geometry point of view of Brandt and more recent results in the literature. Inspired by the maximal-acceleration corrections to the Lamb shifts of one-electron atoms by Lambiase, Papini and Scarpetta, we derive the $`exact`$ integral equation that governs the Renormalization-Group-like scaling dependence of the fractional change of the fine structure constant as a function of the cosmological redshift factor and a cutoff scale $`L_c`$, where the maximal acceleration relativistic effects are dominant. A particular physical model exists dominated entirely by the vacuum energy, when the cutoff scale is the Planck scale, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ . The implications of this extreme case scenario are studied.

I . Introduction

In recent years there has been growing evidence for the Cosmological evolution of the fine structure constant using absorption systems in the spectra of distant quasars . It was found that the fine structure $`\alpha `$ was smaller in the past . For references see \[ 11 \] . The purpose of this note is to derive an exact integral equation governing the fractional change $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\alpha }`$ of the fine structure due to the Maximal-acceleration Relativistic effects proposed in \[ 1 \] . The latter were just a consequence of the Extended Scale Relativty theory in C-spaces.

Relativity in C-spaces (Clifford manifolds)  is a very natural extension of Einstein’s relativity and Nottale’s scale relativity  where the impassible speed of light and the minimum Planck scale are the two universal invariants. An event in C-space is represented by a $`polyvector`$ , or Clifford-aggregate of lines, areas, volumes, …… which bear a one-to-one correspondence to the holographic shadows/projections (onto the embedding spacetime coordinate planes) of a nested family of $`p`$-loops (closed $`p`$\- branes of spherical topology) of various dimensionalities: $`p=0`$ represents a point; $`p=1`$ a closed string, $`p=2`$ a closed membrane, etc…. where $`p=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.D1`$.

The invariant “line” element associated with a polyparticle is:

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=dX.dX=(d\mathrm{\Omega })^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2D2}(dx_\mu dx^\mu )+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2D4}(dx_{\mu \nu })(dx^{\mu \nu })+\mathrm{}$$
$`(1.1)`$
the Planck scale appears as a natural quantity in order to match units and combine p-branes ( p-loops ) of different dimensions. The polyparticle lives in a target background of $`D\mathrm{?}=D+1=p+2`$ dimensions due to the fact that C-space has $`two`$ times , the coordinate time $`x_o=t`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ temporal variable representing the proper $`p+1`$-volume. The fact that the Planck scale is a minimum was based on the real-valued interval $`dX`$ when $`dX.dX>0`$. The analog of photons in C-space are $`tensionless`$ branes : $`dX.dX=0`$. Scales smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ yield ” tachyonic ” intervals $`dX.dX<0`$ . Due to the matrix representation of the gamma matrices and the cyclic trace property, it can be easily seen why the line element is invariant under the C- space Lorentz $`group`$ transformations:

$$TraceX^2=Trace[RX^2R^1]=Trace[RR^1X^2]=TraceX^2,$$
$`(1.2)`$
where a finite polydimensional rotation that reshuffles dimensions is characterized by the C-space “rotation” matrix:

$$R=\mathrm{exp}[i(\theta I+\theta ^\mu \gamma _\mu +\theta ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{})].$$
$`(1.3)`$
The parameters $`\theta ,\theta ^\mu ,\theta ^{\mu \nu },\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ are the C-space extension of the Lorentz boost parameters and for this reason the na ve Lorentz transformations of spacetime are modified to be:

$$x^\mu =L_\nu ^\mu [\theta ,\theta ^\mu ,\theta ^{\mu \nu },\mathrm{}]x^\nu +L_{\nu \rho }^\mu [\theta ,\theta ^\mu ,\theta ^{\mu \nu },\mathrm{}]x^{\nu \rho }+\mathrm{}..$$
$`(1.4)`$
It was argued in  that the extended Relativity principle in C-space may contain the clues to unravel the physical foundations of string and M-theory since the dynamics in C-spaces encompass in one stroke the dynamics of all p- branes of various dimensionalities. In particular, how to formulate a master action that encodes the collective dynamics of all extended objects.

For further details about these issues we refer to \[1 \] and all the references therein. Like the derivation of the minimal length/time string/brane uncertainty relations; the logarithmic corrections to the black- hole area-entropy relation; the existence of a maximal Planck temperature ; the origins of a higher derivative gravity with torsion; why quantum-spacetime may be truly infinite dimensional whose average dimension today is close to $`4+\varphi ^3=4.236\mathrm{}`$ where $`\varphi =0.618\mathrm{}`$ is the Golden Mean ; the construction of the p-brane propagator; the role of supersymmetry; the emergence of two times; the reason behind a running value for $`\mathrm{}`$ ; the way to correctly pose the cosmological constant problem as well as other results.

In \[ 1 \] we discussed another physical model that links the maximum speed of light , and the minimal Planck scale, into a maximal-acceleration principle in the spacetime tangent bundle, and consequently, in the phase space (cotangent bundle). Crucial in order to establish this link was the use of Clifford algebras in phase spaces. The maximal proper acceleration bound is $`a=c^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in full agreement with  and the Finslerian geometry point of view in . A series of reasons why C-space Relativity is more physically appealing than all the others proposals based on kappa-deformed Poincare algebras \[ 10 \] and other quantum algebras was presented .

On the other hand, we argued why the truly $`bicovariant`$ quantum algebras based on inhomogeneous quantum groups developed by Castellani \[ 15 \] had a very interesting feature related to the $`T`$-duality in string theory ; the deformation $`q`$ parameter could be written as : $`q=exp[\mathrm{\Lambda }/L]`$ and, consequently, the classical limit $`q=1`$ is attained when the Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is set to zero, but also when the upper impassible scale $`L`$ goes to infinity ! This entails that there could be $`two`$ dual quantum gravitational theories with the same classical limit ! Nottale has also postulated that if there is a minimum Planck scale, by duality, there should be another upper impassaible upper scale $`L`$ in Nature \[ 2 \] . For a recent discussion on maximal-acceleration and kappa-deformed Poincare algebras see \[ 10 \] . It was also argued in \[ 1 \] why the theories based on kappa-deformed Poincare algebras may in fact be related to a Moyal star-product deformation of a classical Lorentz algebra whose deformation parameter is precisely the Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/\kappa `$.

In section II, we discuss the work in \[ 1 \] and show how to derive the Nesterenko action  associated with a sub-maximally accelerated particle in spacetime directly from phase-space Clifford algebras and present a full-fledged C-phase-space generalization of the Nesterenko action .

In section 3  we review the maximal-acceleration relativistic corrections to the Lamb shift of one electron atoms \[ 12 \] ( of fractional order of $`10^5`$ ) as a preamble to section 4  where we derive the exact integral equation that governs the Renormalization-Group-like scaling dependence of the fractional change of the fine structure constant as a function of the cosmological redshift factor and a cutoff scale $`L_c`$ where the maximal acceleration relativistic effects are dominant. To conclude, we derive the corrections to the electric charge due to a running Planck constant induced by Extended Scale Relativistic effects in C-spaces and discuss the Cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$.

II. Maximal-Acceleration from Clifford algebras

We will follow closely the procedure described in the book  to construct the phase space Clifford algebra. For simplicity we shall begin with a two– dimensional phase space, with one coordinate and one momentum variable and afterwards we will generalize the construction to higher dimensions.

Let $`e_pe_q`$ be the Clifford basis elements in a two–dimensional phase space obeying the following relations:

$$e_p.e_q\frac{1}{2}(e_qe_p+e_pe_q)=0.e_p.e_p=e_q.e_q=1.$$
$`(2.1)`$
The Clifford product of $`e_p,e_q`$ is by definition the sum of the scalar product and wedge product furnishing the unit $`bivector`$:

$$e_pe_qe_p.e_q+e_pe_q=e_pe_q=j.j^2=e_pe_qe_pe_q=1.$$
$`(2.2)`$
due to the fact that $`e_p,e_q`$ anticommute, eq. ( 2.1).

In this fashion, using Clifford algebras one can justify the origins of complex numbers without introducing them ad-hoc. The imaginary unit $`j`$ is $`e_pe_q`$. For example, a Clifford vector in phase space can be expanded, setting aside for the moment the issue of units, as:

$$Q=qe_q+pe_p.Qe_q=q+pe_pe_q=q+jp=z.e_qQ=q+pe_qe_p=qjp=z^{},$$
$`(2.3)`$
which reminds us of the creation/annhilation operators used in the harmonic oscillator case and in coherent states.

The analog of the action for a massive particle is obtained by taking the scalar product:

$$dQ.dQ=(dq)^2+(dp)^2S=m\sqrt{dQ.dQ}=m\sqrt{(dq)^2+(dp)^2}.$$
$`(2.4)`$
One may insert now the appropriate length and mass parameters in order to have consistent units:

$$S=m\sqrt{(dq)^2+(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m})^2(dp)^2}.$$
$`(2.5)`$
where we have introduced the Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the mass $`m`$ of the particle to have consistent units, $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$. The reason will become clear below.

Extending this two-dimensional action to a higher $`2n`$-dimensional phase space requires to have $`e_{p_\mu },e_{q_\mu }`$ for the Clifford basis where $`\mu =1,2,3\mathrm{}n`$. The action in this $`2n`$-dimensional phase space is:

$$S=m\sqrt{(dq^\mu dq_\mu )+(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m})^2(dp^\mu dp_\mu )}=m𝑑\tau \sqrt{1+(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m})^2(dp^\mu /d\tau )(dp_\mu /d\tau )}$$
$`(2.6)`$
in units of $`c=1`$, one has the usual infinitesimal proper time displacement $`d\tau ^2=dq^\mu dq_\mu `$.

One can easily recognize that this action (2.6), up to a numerical factor of $`m/a`$, is nothing but the action for a sub-maximally accelerated particle given by Nesterenko . It is sufficient to rewrite: $`dp^\mu /d\tau =md^2x^\mu /d\tau ^2`$ to get from eq. (2.6):

$$S=m𝑑\tau \sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(d^2x^\mu /d\tau ^2)(d^2x_\mu /d\tau ^2)}.$$
$`(2.7)`$
Using the postulate that the maximal-proper acceleration is given in a consistent manner with the minimal length principle (in units of $`c=1`$):

$$a=c^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }S=m𝑑\tau \sqrt{1+(\frac{1}{a})^2(d^2x^\mu /d\tau ^2)(d^2x_\mu /d\tau ^2)},$$
$`(2.8)`$
which is exactly the action of , up to a numerical factor of $`m/a`$, when the metric signature is $`(+,,,)`$.

The proper acceleration is $`orthogonal`$ to the proper velocity as a result of differentiating the timelike proper velocity squared:

$$V^2=\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }\frac{dx_\mu }{d\tau }=1=V^\mu V_\mu >0\frac{dV^\mu }{d\tau }V_\mu =\frac{d^2x^\mu }{d\tau ^2}V_\mu =0,$$
$`(2.9)`$
which means that if the proper velocity is timelike the proper acceleration is spacelike so that:

$$g^2(\tau )(d^2x^\mu /d\tau ^2)(d^2x_\mu /d\tau ^2)>0S=m𝑑\tau \sqrt{1\frac{g^2}{a^2}}m𝑑\omega ,$$
$`(2.10)`$
where we have defined:

$$d\omega \sqrt{1\frac{g^2}{a^2}}d\tau .$$
$`(2.11)`$
The dynamics of a submaximally accelerated particle in Minkowski spacetime can be reinterpreted as that of a particle moving in the spacetime $`tangentbundle`$ background whose $`Finslerian`$-like metric is:

$$d\omega ^2=g_{\mu \nu }(x^\mu ,dx^\mu )dx^\mu dx^\nu =(d\tau )^2(1\frac{g^2}{a^2}).$$
$`(2.12)`$
For uniformly accelerated motion, $`g(\tau )=g=constant`$ the factor:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{g^2}{a^2}}}$$
$`(2.13)`$
plays a similar role as the standard Lorentz time dilation factor in Minkowski spacetime.

The action is real valued if, and only if, $`g^2<a^2`$ in the same way that the action in Minkowski spacetime is real valued if, and only if, $`v^2<c^2`$. This explains why the particle dynamics has a bound on proper- accelerations. Hence, for the particular case of a $`uniformly`$ accelerated particle whose trajectory in Minkowski spacetime is a hyperbola, one has an Extended Relativity of $`uniformly`$ accelerated observers whose proper- acceleration have an upper bound given by $`c^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Rigorously speaking, the spacetime trajectory is obtained by a canonical projection of the spacetime tangent bundle onto spacetime. The invariant time, under the pseudo-complex extension of the Lorentz group , measured in the spacetime tangent bundle is no longer the same as $`\tau `$, but instead, it is given by $`\omega (\tau )`$.

This is similar to what happens in C-spaces, the truly invariant evolution parameter is not $`\tau `$ nor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the Stuckelberg parameter , but it is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which is the world interval in C-space and that has units of $`length^D`$. The $`group`$ of C-space Lorentz transformations preserve the norms of the Polyvectors and these have units of hypervolumes; hence C-space Lorentz transformations are volume-preserving.

Another approach to obtain the action for a sub-maximally accelerated particle was given by  based on a pseudo-complexification of Minkowski spacetime and the Lorentz group that describes the physics of the spacetime tangent bundle. This picture is not very different form the Finslerian spacetime tangent bundle point of view of Brandt . The invariant group is given by a pseudo-complex extension of the Lorentz group acting on the extended coordinates $`X=ax^\mu +Iv^\mu `$ with $`I^2=1`$ (pseudo- imaginary unit) where both position and velocities are unified on equal footing. The invariant line interval is $`a^2d\omega ^2=(dX)^2`$.

A C-phase-space generalization of these actions (for sub-maximally accelerated particles, maximum tidal forces) follows very naturally by using polyvectors:

$$Y=q^\mu e_{q_\mu }+q^{\mu \nu }e_{q_\mu }e_{q_\nu }+q^{\mu \nu \rho }e_{q_\mu }e_{q_\nu }e_{q_\rho }+\mathrm{}.$$

$$+p^\mu e_{p_\mu }+p^{\mu \nu }e_{p_\mu }e_{p_\nu }+\mathrm{},$$
$`(2.14)`$
where one has to insert suitable powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`m`$ in the expansion to match units.

The C-phase-space action reads then:

$$S\sqrt{dY.dY}=\sqrt{dq^\mu dq_\mu +dq^{\mu \nu }dq_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}+dp^\mu dp_\mu +dp^{\mu \nu }dp_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}..}.$$
$`(2.15)`$
This action is the C-phase-space extension of the action of Nesterenko and involves quadratic derivatives in C-spaces which from the spacetime perspective are effective higher derivatives theories \[1 \] where it was shown why the scalar curvature in C-spaces is equivalent to a higher derivative gravity. One should expect a similar behaviour for the extrinsic curvature of a polyparticle motion in C-spaces. This would be the C-space version of the action for rigid particles . Higher derivatives are the hallmark of W-geometry (higher conformal spins).

Born-Infeld models have been connected to maximal-acceleration . Such models admits an straightforwad formulation using the geometric calculus of Clifford algebras. In particular one can rewrite all the nonlinear equations of motion in precise Clifford form . This lead that author to propose the $`nonlinear`$ extension of Dirac’s equation for massless particles due to the fact that spinors are nothing but right/left ideals of the Clifford algebra: i.e., columns, for example, of the Maxwell-Field strength bivector $`F=F_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu `$.

III . Maximal-Acceleration corrections to the Lamb-shift

The maximal-acceleration corrections to the Lamb-shift of one electron atoms were calculated by Lambiase et al in \[ 12 \] . They started from the Dirac equation and splitted the spinor into a large and small component. The crucial point behind this calculation was based on the fact that the spacetime metric is only flat up to a conformal factor which depends on the acceleration :

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\sqrt{1\frac{g^2(\tau )}{A_{max}^2}}.$$
$`(3.1)`$
This is a Finslerian-type metric.

As a result , the Dirac equation is modified accordingly due to the conformally-scaled vierbiens $`e_\mu ^a(x)=\sigma (x)\delta _\mu ^a`$ used to write down the Dirac equation in terms of the ( spacetime ) gamma matrices $`\gamma ^\mu (x)=e_a^\mu (x)\gamma ^a`$ :

$$[i\mathrm{}\gamma ^a(_a+i\frac{e}{\mathrm{}c}A_a)+i\frac{3\mathrm{}}{2\sigma }\gamma ^a(_a\sigma )m]\psi (x)=0.$$
$`(3.2)`$
As usual, the tangent spacetime indices are represented by $`a,b=1,2,3,4`$. and one introduces a minimal EM coupling . The Dirac Hamiltonian is modified and includes the small acceleration-dependent perturbation :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H=i\frac{3\mathrm{}c}{2}\gamma ^0\gamma ^a_a(\sigma ^1)..$$
$`(3.3)`$
The conformal factor can be expressed in terms of the maximal-acceleration and a cutoff scale $`r_o`$ as follows :

$$\sigma (x)=\sqrt{1\frac{g^2}{A^2}}=\sqrt{1(\frac{r_o}{r})^4}.$$
$`(3.4)`$
where :

$$r_o^2=\frac{e^2}{mA}3.3\times 10^{16}cm.$$
$`(3.5)`$
The corrections to the Lamb-shift were obtained via perturbation theory by spiltting the spinors into a large/small parts. The corrections to the energy spectrum were :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=<nljm|\mathrm{\Delta }H|nljm>.$$
$`(3.6)`$
In the special case of non-relativistic electrons in an electrostatic field the maximal acceleration corrections for a one-electron atom were :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=6Kd^3r\varphi ^+\frac{1}{r^6}\varphi 4Kd^3r\varphi ^+\frac{}{r^5r}\varphi .$$
$`(3.7)`$
with

$$K3\mathrm{}^24m(\frac{e^2}{mA})^2.$$
$`(3.8)`$
that has units of $`energy\times length^6`$.

The quantity defined in terms of the Bohr radius $`a_o`$ has energy units :

$$\frac{K}{a_o^6}=1.03kHz.$$
$`(3.9)`$
All the corrections to the Lamb shift were of the form :

$$\frac{K}{a_o^6}F(\frac{a_o}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }/a_o}.$$
$`(3.10)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }a_o`$ was a suitable cutoff and the function $`F`$ was a polynomial one. Lamb-shifts of the states $`2p`$ and $`1s`$ were calculated for a series of values of the $`a_o/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ratios.

( i ) the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(2,0)}\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(2,1)}`$ and

( ii ) the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(1,0)}\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(2,0)}`$ values.

The most salient feature is that all the maximal-acceleration corrections to the Lamb-shifts were found to be $`positive`$ . For example, taking the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be $`a_o/2.5`$, the Lamb-shifts were found to be $`6.9kHz`$ and $`50.95kHz`$ respectively. Comparing these shifts with the experimental values of $`1057851(4)kHz`$ and $`8172874(60)kHZ`$ one obtains the positive-valued ratios

$$\frac{6.9}{1057851}=0.65\times 10^5.\frac{50.95}{8172874}=0.62\times 10^5.$$
$`(3.11)`$
Therefore, the fractional corrections to the fine structure constants were of the order of $`10^5`$. Notice that these correctiosn are $`positive`$-valued and $`coincidentally`$ agree, in orders of magnitude, with the observed changes in Astrophysical observations of the fine structure constant in quasar sources $`0.7\times 10^5`$ \[ 11 \] .

The main purpose of this review of \[ 12 \] is to indicate how, coincidentally, the maximal-acceleration corrections to Lamb-shift of one electron atoms yield fractional changes to the fine structure constant of the same order of magnitude as those provided by Astrophysical observations \[ 11 \] , with the main difference that there is a positive variation in \[ 12 \] . A Planck scale cutoff yields lower corrections to the Lamb shift as expected. In this case the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cannot be of the order of th Bohr radius \[ 12 \] . In addition, at Planck scales EM has to be replaced by a more fundamental theory.

IV Variable-Fine Structure in Astrophysics from Maximal-Acceleration

To explain and derive the observed values of the variable fine structure constant in Astrophysics from this new physical model based on a Maximal-acceleration Phase Space Relativity principle, we must rely on the recent observations that the Universe expansion is in fact accelerating, contrary to past expectations,

To find the the maximal-acceleration corrections to the observed variable fine structure in Astrophysics we must recall the maximal-proper-acceleration Lorentz-like dilation factors of sections 2, 3  :

$$d\omega =d\tau \sqrt{\frac{1(d^2x^\mu /d\tau ^2)(d^2x_\mu /d\tau ^2)}{A^2}}.$$
$`(4.1)`$
we interpreted in 2,3  the dilation/contraction factors stemming from the conformal factor associated with the effective Finslerian-like metric :

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\sqrt{1\frac{g^2(\tau )}{A^2}}.$$
$`(4.2)`$
Next, we must find the cosmological dilation/contraction factor which is responsible for the variation of the electric charge over cosmological time ( redshifts ) . The crux is to find the explicit relation between the scaling factor in eq-( 4-1) and the cosmological redshift factor $`1+z=a(t_o)/a(t_1)`$, given by the ratios of the Universe sizes in the present and past epoch . The past and present hypersphere ( hyper-pseudopshere ) radius $`a(t_1)R,a(t_o)R`$ associated with the Robertson-Walker line element are given by :

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)[\frac{dr^2}{1k(r^2/R^2)}+r^2(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2)].$$
$`(43)`$
where the parameter $`k`$ takes the values $`0,1`$ for an open and noncompact universe and $`k=+1`$ for a closed compact one. The size of the universe at any moment of time is represented by the scaling factor $`a(t)`$ times the characteristic length parameter $`R`$. The cosmological equations for the expansion rates are obtained after using Einstein gravitational equations \[ 13 \] :

$$\frac{(d^2a/dt^2)}{a}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\frac{4}{3}\pi G(\rho +3p)$$

$$(\frac{(da/dt)}{a})^2=\frac{8}{3}\pi G\rho \pm \frac{1}{a^2R^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}.$$
$`(4.4)`$
The $`\pm `$ signs in front of the $`R`$ terms in eq- (4-4 ) correspond to an open or closed Universe, respectively. If the mean mass density is dominated by nonrelativistic matter \[ 13 \] , then $`p<<\rho \rho _o(\frac{a(t_o)}{a(t)})^3`$ . The redshift factor is defined as :

$$1+z=a(t_o)/a(t).$$
$`(4.5)`$
where $`a(t_o)`$ is the present scale size and $`a(t)`$ is the past scale size of the Universe.

Eqs-(4-4) become :

$$\frac{(d^2a/dt^2)}{a}=H_o^2[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2}(1+z)^3]$$

$$(\frac{(da/dt)}{a})=H_o[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_R(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{1/2}.$$
$`(4.6)`$
the fractional contributions to the present value of the Hubble constant $`H_o`$ due to the mass density, the radius of curvature and the cosmological constant are respectively :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\frac{8\pi G\rho _o}{3H_o^2}.\mathrm{\Omega }_R=\frac{1}{(H_oa_oR)^2}.a_oR=R_o=R(t_o).\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H_o^2}.$$
$`(4.7)`$
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_R+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1$$

( for an open/closed Universe respectively ).

Rigorously speaking we should take derivatives w.r.t the proper-time rather than the cosmological time $`t`$ and instead of solving the Einstein equations one should be solving the full-fledged C-space Gravitational equations which are equivalent to a Higher Derivative Gravity with Torsion. This is a very difficut task. For this reason to get an estimate of the maximal-acceleration corrections to the electric charge as a result of the cosmological expansion we shall study the simplest model above.

Inserting the values $`R(t)=a(t)R`$ into eqs- ( 4-1, 4-2 ) yields after some straightforward algebra the relativistic factor analog of $`\beta ^2=(v/c)^2`$ :

$$\beta ^2=F(z)^2=(\frac{d^2R(t)/dt^2}{A_{max}})^2=(H_oR(t))^2(H_oL)^2[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2}(1+z)^3]^2.$$
$`(4.8)`$
where we define the maximal-acceleration in terms of a length cuttoff $`L_c`$ in units of $`c=1`$ :

$$A_{max}=\frac{c^2}{L_c}=\frac{1}{L_c}.$$
$`(4.9)`$
such as :

$$L_{Planck}<L_c<R(t_{past})<R(t_{today}).$$
$`(4.10)`$
Let us suppose that we wrote the ordinary electrostatic Coulomb energy :

$$e^2/L.$$
$`(4.11)`$
with the fundamental difference now that the length interval $`L`$ is no longer equal to the flat space one , but it changes as a result of an effective metric that is now conformally flat . The scaling factor is dependent on the acceleration :

$$dL=cd\tau \sqrt{\frac{1g^2(\tau )}{A^2}}.$$
$`(4.12)`$
For a $`small`$ and uniform acceleration $`g(\tau )=g=constant`$, we may expand the square root in a powers series and integrate to get :

$$Lc\tau (1\frac{g^2}{2A^2}).$$
$`(4.13)`$
$$L/c\tau 1\frac{g^2}{2A^2}\frac{Lc\tau }{c\tau }\frac{g^2}{2A^2}.$$
$`(4.14)`$
Hence, in the small and uniform acceleration limit we have fractional length changes:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }L}{L}=\frac{g^2}{2A^2}.$$
$`(4.15)`$
When the maximal proper acceleration is taken to $`\mathrm{}`$ the fractional length change is $`0`$. Since the proper lengths are now scaled by a conformal factor dependent on the acceleration, one could $`reabsorb`$ such scalings by a suitable scaling of the electric charges , which in turn, will modify the fine structure constant :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=\frac{g^2}{2A^2}$$

And in magnitude we may write :

$$|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }|=\frac{g^2}{2A^2}.$$
$`(4.16)`$
.

Therefore, we propose that the physical mechanism responsible for a variation of the fine structure constant is due to the Maximal-acceleration Relativity principle ! . This is the most important conclusion of this work. We have presented a very specific example for a small and uniform acceleration that permits us to expand in a power series and to integrate trivially . In general this is not the case.

The more general expression is :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=1+\frac{c}{(L_1L_o)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1g^2(\tau _o)/A^2}}_{\tau _o}^{\tau _1}𝑑\tau \sqrt{1\frac{g^2(\tau )}{A^2}}.$$
$`(4.17)`$
When the maximal acceleration $`A=\mathrm{}`$ one gets :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=\frac{L_1L_o}{L_1L_o}1=0.$$
$`(4.18)`$
as it should. We shall now use these results to obtain the precise expression for the variations of the fine structure constant within the Cosmological scenario of a Robertson-Walker-Friedmann model with a nonvanishing cosmological constant.

The fundamental equation that governs the cosmological evloution of the fine structure constant as function of the redshift is then :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha )}{\alpha }=1+\frac{1}{(t(z_o)t(z_1))}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1F^2(z_o)}}_{z_o}^{z_1}𝑑z(dt(z)/dz)\sqrt{1F^2(z)}.$$
$`(4.19)`$
where the time integration is taken from the present $`t_o`$ to the past $`t_1`$ , which can be converted into an integration over the redhsift factor from the present $`z_o`$ to the past $`z_1`$ by noticing that $`dt>0dz<0`$ :

$$dt(z)=\frac{dt(z)}{dz}dz=\frac{dz}{H_o(1+z)E(z)}\frac{dz}{H(z)}.$$
$`(4.20)`$
where \[ 13 \] :

$$E(z)[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_R(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{1/2}$$

The redshift dependence of the Hubble parameter is :

$$H(z)H_o(1+z)E(z).$$
$`(4.21)`$
naturally :

$$E(z=0)=1=[\mathrm{\Omega }_m\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_R+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{1/2}$$

The net fractional contribution to the mass-energy density from the three sources has to add up to unity at the present time. The maximal-acceleration correction terms inside the integral were defined in ( 4-8 ) :

$$\beta ^2=F^2(z)[H_o^2R(z)L_c]^2[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2}(1+z)^3]^2$$

with the requirement that : $`0F^2(z)1`$ , otherwise the square root would have been imaginary in ( 4-19)

The temporal displacement $`t(z_o)t(z_1)>0`$ is :

$$t(z_o)t(z_1)=_{z_o}^{z_1}\frac{dz}{H(z)}>0.z_1>z_o.$$
$`(4.22)`$
The size $`R(t)a(t)R`$ is recast in terms of the redshift :

$$R(z)=\frac{R(z_o)}{1+z}=\frac{R_o}{1+z}.z_o=0$$

$$\frac{(dR(t)/dt)}{R}=\frac{(dz/dt)}{1+z}=\frac{H(z)}{1+z}$$

$$\frac{dR}{R}=\frac{dz}{1+z}.$$
$`(4.23)`$
All the terms involved in the fundamental equation ( 4-19 ) that furnish the fractional change of the fine structure constant due to the maximal-acceleration relativistic corrections are now defined. Had the maximal acceleration been $`A=\mathrm{}L_c=0`$, the equation ( 4-19 ) would have yielded a $`zero`$ fractional change because in this extreme case $`F^2(z)=0`$, for $`all`$ $`z`$, the integrand of eq-( 4-19) becomes unity and one gets after performing the trivial time integral :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }(A=\mathrm{})=[(t(z_1)t(z_o))/(t(z_1)t(z_o))]1=0.$$
$`(4.24)`$
. We shall study now the range of parameters in order for the fundamental equation to be well defined and furnish sound physical results compatible with observations. The crux of this work is to set the cutoff scale $`R(t)L_cL_{Planck}`$ from the requirement that close to the cutoff $`L_c`$ the maximal-acceleration corrections were the most dominant . At the present epoch $`z_o=0`$ , $`R_o=R(z_o)=a_oR`$ ,

The $`\beta ^2=F^2(z)`$ factors must obey the maximal acceleration relativistic constraints $`0F^2(z)1`$ . Upon using the definition of the Cosmological redshift :

$$R(z)=\frac{R_o}{1+z}.R_o=R(z_o)=a_oR.$$
$`(4.25)`$
one gets :

$$0[H_o^2R_oL_c]^2(1+z)^2[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2}(1+z)^3]^21.$$
$`(4.26)`$
If one requires that the Maximal-acceleration relativistic effects are dominant at the cutoff scale $`L_c`$ such that

$$R_{min}R(z_{max}(L_c))=L_cL_P.$$
$`(4.27a)`$
the equation which $`defines`$ the explicit relation between $`z_{max}`$ and $`L_c`$ is obtained by demanding that the upper limiting acceleration at $`L_c`$ gives :

$$z=z_{max}(L_c)F^2(z_{max})=1$$

$$[H_o^2R_oL_c]^2(1+z_{max})^2[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2}(1+z_{max})^3]^2=1.$$
$`(4.27b)`$
The most interesting case is when we set the minimum scale to coincide precisely with the Planck scale : $`R_{min}=R(z_{max})=L_c=L_P`$ that implies that $`z_{max}\mathrm{}`$ . If one takes the characteristic scale of the RWF metric $`R`$ to coincide with the Hubble radius-horizon ( as observed today ) $`R=R_H=(1/H_o)`$, in units of $`c=1`$, to be $`10^{60}10^{61}`$ Planck lengths $`=10^{27}10^{28}cms`$. In this case it will be $`meaningless`$ to have parameter values like $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$ for the simple reason that $`\beta ^2=F^2(z)>>>1`$ contrary to the maximal-acceleration relativistic principle that the upper bound on the acceleration cannot be surpassed , where $`A_{max}=c^2/L_P`$ is the maximum in this case. The $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ in this extreme case has to be basically $`zero`$ if we wish to satisfy :

$$L_P=L_c=R_{min}=R(z_{max})$$

$$F^2(z)=[H_oL_P]^2[H_oR_o]^2(1+z_{max})^2[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2}(1+z_{max})^3]^21.$$
$`(4.28)`$
For the choice $`R=R_H=(1/H_o)`$ , the curvature parameter as the scaling factor $`a_o\mathrm{}`$ gives :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_R=(\frac{1}{H_oa_oR})^2=(\frac{1}{a_o})^20.$$
$`(4.29)`$
Hence one concludes that as $`z_{max}\mathrm{}`$ eq-(4-28) becomes :

$$[H_oL_P]^4(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2})^2(z_{max})61\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.$$
$`(4.30)`$
otherwise it would have been impossible to counter-balance the huge factors stemming from the $`z_{max}^6`$ terms despite the very small factor $`[H_oL_P]^410^{240}10^{244}`$.

Therefore in this extreme case scenario because of the condition :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_m\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_R=1.$$
$`(4.31)`$
requires, due to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0`$, that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ ! ! !.

An important remark is in order. One has to be very careful in distinguishing the infinite acceleration case which gives $`F^2(z)=0`$, for $`all`$ values of $`z`$ , and consequently the fractional change is identically $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha )=0`$. And the extreme case scenario $`F^2(z_{max})1`$ , for a very particular value of the redshift when the cutoff $`L_c=L_P0`$ , that yields a very , very large value of $`z_{max}`$ , but not $`\mathrm{}`$ . In this case the fractional change after computing the integrals ( 4-19 ) is $`not`$ zero, but in fact, it attains its limiting value in magnitude.

This extreme case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ is the most interesting because of its implications : Physically it suggests that the universe was an extremely unstable cosmic ? egg ? ( or ? atom ? ) of Planck size, since there cannot be an initial point singularity as such due to the minimal Planck scale principle, at the maximum attainable Planck temperature $`T_P`$ , that exploded due to the huge vacuum instability, with an initial speed of $`c`$ and maximal acceleration $`A=c^2/L_P`$ . It was a true inflationary explosion driven by the enormous vacuum energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ . Eventually the expansion began to slow down while the acceleration began to decrease, from its maximal value $`c^2/L_P`$ to the presently observed acceleration, as a result of the ensuing attractive gravitational forces among the emerging material constituents of the Universe. Matter was being created out of the vacuum to halt down the huge initial acceleration $`A=c^2/L_P`$ . In this respect this model is not very different than Hoyle?s steady state cosmology where matter was being created as the Universe expanded in order to maintain the matter density constant.

Closely related to this issue is the cosmological constant problem . Within the framework of the Extended Scale Relativity Theory \[ 1 \] this is an ill posed problem for the simple reason that in C-spaces the vacuum energy is just $`one`$ component of a Clifford-valued geometric object, a polyvector, in the same way that the energy is just the component of a four-vector in ordinary Relativity. Therefore, in C-spaces, the vacuum energy is $`not`$ a constant but it changes under C-space Lorentz transformations ! . It was shown in \[ 1 \] why the Conformal group originates from Clifford algebras, henceforth C-space Lorentz transformations contain $`scalings`$ which imply that the vacuum energy itself is subjected to Renormalization-Group scaling-like flows as the Universe expands. In C-spaces there are two times. The standard coordinate time, and the Stuckelberg-like time represented by the volume of the Universe, the cosmological clock, an arrow of time.

Within the framework of Nottale ?s Scale Relativity the cosmological problem is due to the fact that it is $`meaningless`$ to compare the vacuum energy at two separate scales that differ in $`6061`$ orders of magnitude, without taking into account scale relativistic corrections, like one does in ordinary Lorentz transformations.

Nottale has shown that the scale relativistic corrections must be such :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(Planck)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }(R_H)}=(\frac{R_H}{L_P})^210^{120}10^{122}.$$
$`(4.32)`$
This explains the orgins of such huge orders of magnitude discrepancy between the vacuum energy densities at such different scales.

For a very intreresting application of this extreme case scenario, within the context of scaling in cosmology , the arrow of time , the variation of the fundamental ? constants ? in Nature and the plausible reason behind the Dirac-Eddington large number coincidences we refer to \[ 14 \] . The model in \[ 14 \] is also based on the cosmic ? egg ? idea where the Hubble horizon is expanding precisely with the speed of light which suggests that the Universe is the ultimate ? black hole ? . If matter truly is being created out of the vacuum, as the Hubble horizon radius grows, its matter content grows accordingly in the same fashion that the Schwarzschild radius grows linearly with the black hole Mass contents inside. There are some important differences. As we said above, the Extended Scale Relativity theory has two times, the ordinary clock time and the scaling cosmological time representing the volume of the Universe. It precludes point singularities as such due to the minimal scale principle, for this reason the Planck temperature is the maximum temperature in Nature ; i.e. Hawking evaporation $`stops`$ at the Planck scale when the black hole attains its limiting Planck temperature \[ 1 \] .

From eq-(4-19) , when the maximal-acceleration effects are dominant at the scale $`L_c`$, we can see why the integral term is less than unity and the fractional change of the fine structure constant is an increasing function of time ( decreasing function of $`z`$ ) . The minus sign in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ indicates that the electric charge $`e(t)`$ in the past was lower than today $`e(t_o)`$ , and consequently the fine structure constant was lower in the past which is consistent with what has been observed \[ 11 \] .

The present time orgin $`t_o`$ is defined such as whenever one sets $`t_1=t_o\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0`$ as required. Since , when $`t_1=t_o`$, eq-( 4-19 ) becomes when $`z_o=z_1`$ :

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=[(\frac{\sqrt{1F(z_o)^2}}{\sqrt{1F(z_o)^2}})(t_ot_o)/(t_ot_o)]1=11=0.$$
$`(4.33)`$
as it should, by definition.

Collecting all these results we arrive finally at the fundamental equation that yields the cosmological-time variation of the fine structure constant in terms of the cosmological redshift-factors and the cutoff scale $`L_c`$ such that $`R_o>R(z)>R(z_{max})=R_{min}=L_cL_{Planck}`$ :

$$(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\alpha )}{\alpha })(z;L_c)=1+\frac{1}{(t_ot(z))\sqrt{1F^2(0)}}_0^z\frac{dz}{H(z)}\sqrt{1F^2(z)}<0.$$
$`(4.34)`$
.

The fractional change is an explicit function of the running variable $`z`$ and the cutoff scale $`L_c`$ exactly as it occurs in the Standard Renormalization Group methods in QFT. This is not surprising in view of the ultraviolet/infrared entanglement which is the hallmark of Noncommutative Field theories based on Noncommutative Geometry at the Planck scale. The Planck scale $`L_{Planck}`$ pays the role of the Noncommutative parameter of the spacetime coordinates.

$`T=t_ot(z)`$ is the relative age of the Universe measured with respect to the time given by $`t(z)<t_o`$ :

$$t_ot(z)=_0^z\frac{dz}{H(z)}.$$
$`(4.35)`$
with \[ 13 \] :

$$H(z)H_o(1+z)[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_R(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{1/2}$$

Naturally when $`z=z_o=0`$ one gets $`t_ot_o=0`$. For the following sequence of scale-orderings :

$$0<L_{Planck}L_cR(z)<R(z_o)=R_o$$

one has a lower and upper bound on the fractional change :

$$1<x_{Planck}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha })(z,L_c)<0.$$
$`(4.36)`$
meaning that there is an upper bound in the $`magnitude`$ of the fractional change when $`R(z_{max})=R_{min}=L_c=L_P`$

The fundamental equation ( 4-34) is written in terms of $`all`$ the fundamental cosmological parameters. One can then use this fundamental equation for the variation of the fine structure constant to tune in precisely all the fundamental cosmological parameters

$$H_o,\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },R_o,\mathrm{}..$$
$`(4.37)`$
in terms of the cosmological redshift $`z`$ and the cutoff scale $`L_c`$ , and to check wether or not, one gets sound numerical results. The fact that the maximal-acceleration corrections to the Lamb-shift \[ 12 \] gave corrections to the fine structure constant of the order of $`10^5`$ is very encouraging. From this model we derived the fundamental equation above.

Variations of the fine structure constant have been observed over way much smaller redshifts than $`z_{max}`$. Consequently the cutoff scale $`L_c`$ must be taken to be larger than the Planck scale to match the present fractional change observations of the order of $`10^5`$ . In this case, the cutoff scale $`L_c`$ becomes another cosmological parameter that must be tuned in accordingly to yield sensible and verifiable predictions.

The main point of this work is that if the maximal-acceleration had been $`infinity`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0`$ identically ! . In the future, to be more rigorous and precise, we shall use the full-fledged C-space Gravitational equations of motion which are tantamount to a Higher derivative Gravity with Torsion plus a C-space generalization of Yang-Mills and Electrodynamics \[ 1 \] . i.e we must modify entirely the present Cosmological models in order to understand the Planck scale regime of the Universe. Current models based on conventional theories simply do not work. We require then to quantize the C-space Extended Relativistic Field theory using tools based on Braided Hopf Quantum Clifford algebras, q-deformations of Clifford algebras, for example.

In previous work we evaluated the running Planck constant due to the Extended Scale Relativistic Effects in C-spaces and which was responsible for the string/brane minimal length/time uncertainty relations \[ 1 \] :

$$\mathrm{}_{eff}(E)=\mathrm{}_o\frac{sinh(L_PE)}{Ł_PE}.\mathrm{}_o=c=1.$$
$`(4.38)`$
when $`L_P0`$ , or at very low energies , the $`\mathrm{}_{eff}=\mathrm{}_o`$ as it should. At Planck?s energy we have $`EL_P1`$ :

$$\mathrm{}_{eff}(Planck)=\mathrm{}_osinh(1).$$
$`(4.39)`$
The fine structure constant is then :

$$\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}_{eff}(Planck)c}<\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}_oc}=\frac{1}{137}.$$
$`(4.40)`$
this means that the fine structure would have been smaller at lower scales, for $`fixed`$ value of the Cosmological time = scaling size of the Universe. To compensate for the running value of $`\mathrm{}`$ that would have induced a lower value of the fine structure constant, for $`fixed`$ value of the cosmological clock, we must have a running value of the electric charge ( the speed of light is unaltered ) :

$$\frac{e_{eff}^2(Planck)}{\mathrm{}_{eff}(Planck)c}=\frac{1}{137}\frac{1}{sinh(1)}\frac{e_{eff}^2(Planck)}{e^2}=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}.$$
$`(4.41)`$
where we used the Nottale value for the fine structure constant at the Planck scale of $`1/4\pi ^2`$ From eq- ( 4-41 ) we get a fractional increase of the electric charge ;

$$\frac{e_{eff}^2(Planck)}{e^2(m_e)}=\frac{137}{4\pi ^2}sinh(1)>1.$$
$`(4.42)`$
which is indeed consistent with the standard Renormalization Group arguments in QED with the extra modification of the $`sinh(1)`$ factor.

Concluding : The fine structure constant can vary either :

$``$ by changing the value of the Cosmological clock = scale size of the Universe and , as we have shown , its value was $`lower`$ in the past than it is today due to the Maximal-Acceleration Relativistic effects . Had the maximal acceleration been infinity, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha =0`$ ! The maximal-acceleration corrections to the Lamb-shift were calculated by \[ 12 \] and yield fractional changes to the fine structure constant of the order of $`10^5`$.

or

$``$ by increasing the energy ( probing smaller distances ) from the electron?s Compton wavelength to the Planck?s scale, keeping fixed the Cosmological clock.

We believe that these two last points are highly nontrivial and may reveal new Physics in the horizon. In particular, we must modify the current Quantum Field Theories to be able to incoporate the maximal-acceleration relativistic effects . Beginning, for example, by studying the appropriate Noncommutative Quantum Mechanics due to the Extended Scale Relativistic dynamics in C-spaces ( Clifford manifolds ) \[ 1 \] and the canonical groups ( with their representations ) acting on Noncommutative extended phase spaces \[ 16 \] .

Acknowledgements

We are kindly indebted to M.Bowers and J. Mahecha for their assistance in preparing the manuscript and hospitality in Santa Barbara where this work was completed. We thank S. Low for sending us reference \[ 16 \] .

References

1 - C. Castro, “The programs of the Extended Relativity in C-spaces, towards the physical foundations of String theory”, hep-th/0205065. To appear in the proceedings of the NATO advanced workshop on the nature of time, geometry, physics and perception. Tatranska Lomnica, Slovakia, May 2002. Kluwer Academic Publishers;

“Noncommutative Quantum Mechanics and Geometry from the quantization of C- spaces”, hep-th/0206181.

? Maximal-Acceleration Phase Space Relativity from Clifford Algebras ? hep-th/0208138

C. Castro, M. Pavsic : ? Higher Deriavtive Gravity and Torsion from the Geometry of C-spaces ? Phys. Lett 539  ( 2002 ) 133. hep-th/0110079. ? The Clifford Algebra of spacetime and the conformal group ? hep-th/0203194.

2 - L. Nottale, “Fractal Spacetime and Microphysics, towards Scale Relativity”, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992; “La Relativite dans tous ses etats”, Hachette Literature Paris, 1999.

3 - M. Pavsic, “The landscape of Theoretical Physics: A global view from point particles to the brane world and beyond, in search of a unifying principle”, Kluwer Academic Publishers 119, 2001.

4 - E. Caianiello, “Is there a maximal acceleration?”, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 32 (1981) 65.

5 - V. Nesterenko, Class. Quant. Grav. 9 (1992) 1101; Phys. Lett. B 327 (1994) 50; V. Nesterenko, A. Feoli, G. Scarpetta, “Dynamics of relativistic part

6-H. Brandt : Contemporary Mathematics 196  ( 1996 ) 273. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 10  ( 2-3 ) ( 1999 ) .

7-M.Pavsic : Phys. Lett B 205  ( 1988) 231 ; Phys. Lett B 221 ( 1989 ) 264. H. Arodz , A. Sitarz, P. Wegrzyn : Acta Physica Polonica B 20 ( 1989 ) 921.

8- F. Schuller : ? Born-Infeld Kinematics and corrections to the Thomas precession ? hep-th/0207047, Annals of Phys. 299  ( 2002 ) 174.

9- A. Chernitskii : ? Born-Infeld electrodynamics, Clifford numbers and spinor representations ? hep-th/0009121.

10- J. Lukierski, A. Nowicki, H. Ruegg, V. Tolstoy : Phys. Lett 264  ( 1991 ) 331. J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg , W. Zakrzewski : Ann. Phys 243  1995 ) 90.

G.Amelino-Camelia : Phys. Lett B 510 ( 2001 ) 255. Int. J. Mod. Phys D 11  ( 2002 ) 35, gr-qc/0012051

S. Rama : ? Classical velocity in kappa-deformed Poincare algebra and a Maximal Acceleration ? hep-th/0209129.

11- J. Webb, M. Murphy, V. Flambaum, V. Dzuba, J. Barrow, C. Churchill, J. Prochaska, and A. Wolfe : ? Further evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant ? astro-ph/0012539.

12- G. Lambiase, G.Papini. G. Scarpetta : ? Maximal Acceleration Corrections to the Lamb Shift of one Electron Atoms ? hep-th/9702130.

13- H. Peebles : ? Principles of Physical Cosmology ? . Princeton University Press.

J. V. Narlikar, T. Padmanabhan : ? ? Gravity, Gauge Theories and Quantum Cosmology ? Kluwer Academic Publishers , 1986.

14- M. Kafatos, S. Roy, R. Amoroso : ? Scaling in Cosmology and the arrow of time ? Studies on the Structure of Time . Edited by Buccheri et al. Kluwer Academic. Plenum Publishers , New York , 2000, 191-200.

J. Glanz : Science 282  ( 1998 ) 2156.

15- L. Castellani : Phys. Lett B 327  ( 1994 ) 22. Comm. Math. Phys 171  ( 1995 ) 383.

16- S. Low : Jour. Phys A  Math. Gen 35  ( 2002 ) 5711.


text:
# Standard and Non-Standard Physics in Neutrino Oscillations

## 1 Introduction

The experimental data on atmospheric neutrinos  show, in the muon-type events, a clear deficit which cannot be accounted for without invoking non-standard neutrino physics. In addition to this, the recent results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) on neutral current (NC) events  have added more weight to the already robust evidence that an extension of the Standard Model of particle physics is necessary in the leptonic sector. Altogether, the most popular explanation of both the solar and the atmospheric neutrino problem is provided by the neutrino oscillation hypothesis. However, many alternative attempts to account for neutrino anomalies without oscillations have recently been proposed . While the results of solar neutrino experiments still admit very good alternative explanations , the atmospheric neutrino anomaly is so well reproduced by the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation hypothesis  that one can use the robustness of this interpretation to place stringent limits on a number of alternative mechanisms .

In the present work we present an updated analysis of the solar and atmospheric neutrino data, first in the context of the standard oscillation hypothesis (Secs. 2 and 3), and then assuming that neutrino posses also non-standard interactions with matter (Sec. 4). Motivated by the stringent limits from reactor experiments , we adopt an effective two-neutrino approach in which solar and atmospheric analyses decouple. However, in the pure-oscillation case presented in Secs. 2 and 3 our effective two-neutrino oscillation approach is generalized in the sense that it takes into account that a light sterile neutrino, advocated to account for the LSND anomaly , may participate in the conversion process . The natural setting for such a light sterile neutrino is provided by four-neutrino models. In this paper we will determine the constraints on the oscillation parameters in this generalized scenario following from solar and atmospheric data separately, addressing the reader to our recent papers in Refs.  for a mass-scheme-dependent combined analysis of all current oscillation data.

## 2 Solar neutrino oscillations

In the following we analyze solar neutrino data in the general framework of mixed active-sterile neutrino oscillations. In this case the electron neutrino produced in the sun converts into a combination of an active non-electron neutrino $`\nu _a`$ (which again is a combination of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$) and a sterile neutrino $`\nu _s`$:

$$\nu _e\sqrt{1\eta _s}\nu _a+\sqrt{\eta _s}\nu _s.$$
(1)
The parameter $`\eta _s`$ with $`0\eta _s1`$ describes the fraction of the sterile neutrino participating in the solar oscillations. Therefore, the oscillation probabilities depend on the three parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2sol`$, $`\theta sol`$ and $`\eta _s`$.

As experimental data, we use the solar neutrino rates of the chlorine experiment Homestake , the most recent result of the gallium experiments SAGE  and GALLEX/GNO , as well as the 1496-days Super-Kamiokande data sample  in the form of 44 bins and the latest results from SNO presented in Ref. , in the form of 34 data bins. Therefore, we have a total of $`3+44+34=81`$ observables, which we fit in terms of the three parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2sol`$, $`\theta sol`$ and $`\eta _s`$. Further details about our statistical analysis can be found in .

We have performed a global fit of solar neutrino data, whose results are summarized in Tab. 1 and Fig. 1. Our global best fit point occurs in the LMA region, for $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta sol=0.44`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2sol=6.6\times 10^5\text{eV}^2`$ and $`\eta _s=0`$. We obtain a $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=66.1`$, which for $`813`$ d.o.f. leads to an excellent goodness of fit of 83%. From Fig. 1 we can derive the $`3\sigma `$ bounds $`0.25\mathrm{tan}^2\theta sol0.83`$, $`2.6\times 10^5\text{eV}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2sol3.3\times 10^4\text{eV}^2`$ and $`\eta _s0.52`$. Note that maximal mixing $`\theta sol=45^{}`$ is now ruled out, and that the upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2sol`$ is rather solid even without the inclusion of reactor experiments .

From Tab. 1 we notice the strong discrimination against non-LMA solutions implied by the present data: in the pure-active case we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2low=9.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2vac=8.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2sma=23.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{\text{Just-So}\text{2}}^2=30.9`$ relative to the global best fit in the LMA region. This shows that the first hints in favor of a globally preferred LMA oscillation solution, which followed mainly from the flatness of the Super-K spectra, have now become a robust result, thanks to the additional data to which SNO has contributed significantly. Note that especially SMA and Just-So2 are highly disfavored with respect to LMA.

The inclusion of a sterile neutrino participating in the oscillation process is strongly disfavored by the solar data. From the right panel of Fig. 1 we first see how the preferred LMA solution survives in the presence of a small sterile component characterized by $`\eta _s`$. However, increasing $`\eta _s`$ leads to a clear deterioration of all the oscillation solutions. Notice that there is a crossing between the LMA and VAC solutions, as a result of which the best pure-sterile description lies in the vacuum regime. However, in the global analysis sterile oscillations with $`\eta _s=1`$ are highly disfavored. We find a $`\chi ^2`$-difference between pure-active and pure-sterile of $`32.9`$ in the LMA region, which decreases to $`22.9`$ if we allow also for VAC. This means that pure-sterile oscillations are ruled out at $`4.8\sigma `$ compared to the active case.

In summary, we have found that, as long as the admixture of sterile neutrinos is acceptably small, the LMA is always the best of the oscillation solutions, establishing its robustness also in our generalized oscillation scheme.

## 3 Atmospheric neutrino oscillations

In our analysis of atmospheric data we make use of the hierarchy $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2sol\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm`$ and neglect the solar mass splitting . Further, in order to comply with the strong constraints from reactor experiments  we completely decouple the electron neutrino from atmospheric oscillations . In the following we consider a generalized oscillation scheme in which a light sterile neutrino takes part in the oscillations . Such a scenario requires two more parameters in addition to $`\theta atm`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm`$. We use the parameters $`d_\mu `$ and $`d_s`$ already introduced in Ref. , and defined in such a way that $`(1d_\mu )`$ and $`(1d_s)`$ correspond to the fractions of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _s`$ participating in oscillations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm`$, respectively. Hence, pure-active atmospheric oscillations are recovered in the limit $`d_\mu =0`$ and $`d_s=1`$.

In addition, we also present a “restricted” analysis in which the $`\nu _\mu `$ is completely constrained to the atmospheric mass states, so that $`d_\mu =0`$. In this limit the parameter $`d_s`$ has a similar interpretation as $`\eta _s`$ introduced in the solar case, and $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillates into a linear combination of $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _s`$:

$$d_\mu =0:\nu _\mu \sqrt{d_s}\nu _\tau +\sqrt{1d_s}\nu _s.$$
(2)
For the atmospheric data analysis we use all the charged-current data from the Super Kamiokande  and MACRO  experiments. The Super-Kamiokande data include the $`e`$-like and $`\mu `$-like data samples of sub- and multi-GeV contained events (10 bins in zenith angle), as well as the stopping (5 angular bins) and through-going (10 angular bins) up-going muon data events. From MACRO we use the through-going muon sample divided in 10 angular bins . Therefore, we have $`65`$ observables, which we fit in terms of the four parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm`$, $`\theta atm`$, $`d_\mu `$ and $`d_s`$. Further details can be found in Ref. .

The results of our analysis are summarized in Fig. 2. In contrast to the solar case, the atmospheric $`\chi ^2`$ exhibits a beautiful quadratic behavior, reflecting the high quality of the fit and the robustness of the oscillation solution. The global best fit point occurs at $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta atm=0.49`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm=2.1\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$, $`d_s=0.92`$ and $`d_\mu =0.04`$, and exhibits a small but non-vanishing sterile neutrino component. However, this effect is not statistically significant, since also the pure-active case with $`d_s=1`$ and $`d_\mu =0`$ gives an excellent fit: for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta atm=0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm=2.5\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$, we have that the $`\chi ^2`$-difference with respect to the best fit point is only $`3.3`$.

From Fig. 2 we can extract the $`3\sigma `$ allowed ranges: $`0.29\mathrm{sin}^2\theta atm0.71`$ and $`9.2\times 10^4\text{eV}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm4.6\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$ for the standard two-neutrino oscillation parameters, while for $`d_s`$ and $`d_\mu `$ we have $`(1d_s)0.40`$ and $`(1d_\mu )0.85`$. So we see that atmospheric data essentially reject a sterile neutrino component, and strongly bound the $`\nu _\mu `$-content in atmospheric oscillations to be nearly maximal. Note that if we impose the condition $`d_\mu =0`$, the $`3\sigma `$ limit on the sterile neutrino fraction improves to $`(1d_s)0.19`$.

These limits on the sterile admixture are significantly stronger than obtained previously , and play an important role in ruling out four-neutrino oscillation solutions in a combined global analysis of the LSND anomaly .

## 4 Non-standard neutrino interactions

In this section we still focus on atmospheric data, but instead of adding a sterile neutrino we now consider the possibility that neutrinos are massive and moreover possess non-standard interactions with matter . This may be regarded as generic in a large class of theoretical models. For definiteness, in the following we assume that non-standard neutrino interactions occur only with the $`d`$-quark. Also, as in Sec. 3 we completely decouple $`\nu _e`$ from atmospheric oscillations. In this case, the propagation of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ inside the Earth is governed by the Hamiltonian:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐇& =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm}{4E}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta atm& \mathrm{sin}2\theta atm\\ \mathrm{sin}2\theta atm& \mathrm{cos}2\theta atm\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & \pm \sqrt{2}G_FN_d(r)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \epsilon \\ \epsilon & \epsilon ^{}\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where the sign $`+`$ ($``$) holds for neutrinos (anti-neutrinos), $`N_d(r)`$ is the number density of the $`d`$-quark along the path $`r`$ of the neutrinos propagating in the Earth, and $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ are phenomenological quantities describing flavor-changing and non-universal non-standard interactions, respectively. Therefore, as for the sterile neutrino case the transition mechanism depends on four independent parameters. Note that without loss of generality we can restrict the range of the oscillation parameters to $`0\theta atm\pi /4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm0`$, provided that we consider both positive and negative values of the NSI parameters $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ . The details of our analysis are the same as in the previous section.

Our results are summarized in Fig. 3. The global best fit point occurs at $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta atm)=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm=2.3\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$, $`\epsilon =6.7\times 10^3`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}=\pm 1.1\times 10^3`$. As in the sterile neutrino case, a small component of NSI is preferred, however the effect is not statistically significant: the best pure oscillation solution $`\epsilon =\epsilon ^{}=0`$, which occurs at $`\theta atm=45^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm=2.5\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$, exhibits a $`\chi ^2`$ which is worse than the global one only by 2.4 units. Thus, the determination of the oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm`$ and $`\theta atm`$ is stable under the perturbation introduced by the additional NSI mechanism, as can be seen also comparing the “Free” and “Oscillations” lines in the first two panels of Fig. 3. Moreover, the $`\chi ^2`$ function is quite flat in the $`\epsilon ^{}`$ directions for $`\epsilon ^{}0`$, and almost symmetric under the exchange $`\epsilon ^{}\epsilon ^{}`$.

On the other hand, the pure NSI solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm=0`$ gives a very poor fit, and as already found in Ref.  it is completely ruled out. This occurs since the NSI mechanism is not able to reconcile the anomaly observed in the upgoing muon sample with that seen in the contained event sample. Therefore, when combining the two mechanisms of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ transition, oscillations play the role of leading mechanism, while NSI’s can only be present at a sub-dominant level.

From Fig. 3 we also derive the $`3\sigma `$ allowed ranges: $`0.84\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta atm)1`$ and $`1.0\times 10^3\text{eV}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2atm4.8\times 10^3\text{eV}^2`$ for the oscillation parameters, while for the NSI parameters we have $`0.03\epsilon 0.02`$ and $`|\epsilon ^{}|0.05`$. This is the main result of our analysis, since it provides limits to non-standard neutrino interactions which are truly model independent, being obtained from pure neutrino-physics processes. In particular they do not rely on any relation between neutrinos and charged lepton interactions. Therefore our bounds are totally complementary to what may be derived on the basis of conventional accelerator experiments .

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have presented an updated analysis of solar and atmospheric data, both in the context of standard oscillation hypothesis (generalized to account also for a light sterile neutrino), and assuming that neutrino posses also non-standard interactions with matter.

We have found that both solar and atmospheric neutrino data are very well explained by the simplest hypothesis of oscillations into an active neutrino, and disfavor the inclusion of an extra sterile state. In fact, at the $`3\sigma `$ level the fraction of sterile neutrino involved in oscillations is limited to be less than $`52\%`$ in the solar sector and less than $`40\%`$ in the atmospheric sector. Furthermore, atmospheric data also constrain non-standard neutrino interactions with matter, which are bounded to $`0.03\epsilon 0.02`$ for the flavor-changing component and $`|\epsilon ^{}|0.05`$ for the non-universal component.

In all the considered cases the determination of the oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\theta `$ is stable under the inclusion of exotic physics, such as an extra sterile neutrino or non-standard neutrino-matter interactions. This fact is an evidence in favor of the three-neutrino oscillation solution to the solar and atmospheric neutrino problems. In particular, for what concerns the atmospheric anomaly we conclude that a maximum mixing angle is a solid result, which must be incorporated into any acceptable particle physics model, even in the presence of exotic neutrino interactions.

## Acknowledgments

I wish to thank my collaborators N. Fornengo, T. Schwetz, R. Tomàs, M.A. Tórtola and J.W.F. Valle. This work was supported by Spanish grant BFM2002-00345, by the European Commission RTN network HPRN-CT-2000-00148, by the European Science Foundation network grant N. 86 and by the European Union Marie-Curie fellowship HPMF-CT-2000-01008.