text:
# Arrows of Time and Chaotic Properties of the Cosmic Background Radiation

## 1  Introduction

The structure and mechanisms of time-asymmetry, or the arrows of time, remain among the much debated questions of the modern physics, in spite of the intense attention devoted to these topics over many years. The relation between the thermodynamical and the cosmological arrow has been studied from very different viewpoints, e.g. by Gold, Penrose, Hawking , Page , Petrosky and Prigogine , Zeh and others .

In the present paper we argue that the cosmological arrow of time, as defined by the expansion of the universe, and a crucial observational fact on the existence of highly isotropic Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) with the Planckian spectrum, can be connected with the thermodynamical arrow of time; preliminary account of these views are in  We will argue that the curvature of the universe can have an essential role in this problem. CMB is a cornerstone of our discussion . CMB photons are moving freely during almost the entire lifetime of the Universe, thus tracing its geometry. Indeed, the properties of the CMB in a hyperbolic Friedmann-Robertson-Walker $`(k=1)`$ Universe differ from those of flat, $`k=0`$, and positively curved, $`k=+1`$, cases.

In particular, the exponential deviation of the geodesics and the ensuing effect of geodesic mixing in the hyperbolic spaces leads at least to the following observable consequences :
(1) damping of anisotropy after the last scattering epoch;
(2) flattening of the autocorrelation function;
(3) distortion of anisotropy spots.

Statistically significant signature of the third effect — the threshold independent ellipticity in the CMB sky maps — has been detected for COBE-DMR 4-year data . Interpreted as a result of the geodesic mixing of photons, as predicted , this will model-independently indicate the negative curvature of the Universe and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0<1`$. More advanced descriptor to trace the curvature is the Kolmogorov complexity of CMB anisotropies , .

The recent Boomerang , Maxima, DASI, CPI (see ) data on the CMB power spectrum are interpreted as supporting the CDM flat models with adiabatic scale-invariant fluctuation spectrum, though there are claims for other models as well, see e.g. . The precise flatness however cannot be proved not only due to the measurement errors but mainly due to the degeneracy and dependence on a number of free parameters.

It is remarkable that threshold independent behaviour of the ellipticity of the anisotropies has been found also for Boomerang maps  which differ from COBE-DMR maps not only by their higher angular resolution but also with lower noise level. The supernovae data, supporting the existence of a cosmological term, are not decisive for the sign of the curvature .

Let us now turn to the time asymmetry of the universe. Several different and at first glance, independent time-arrows have been defined .
(i) Thermodynamical: entropy of a closed system increases with time.
(ii) Cosmological: the universe expands.
(iii) Psychological: knowledge of the past but not of the future.
(iv) Electromagnetic: retarded interaction (propagation).
(v) Quantum-mechanical: the change of a wave function during the typical measurement process is irreversible i.e. neither unitary nor linear.

The electromagnetic and psychological arrows are viewed as a consequence of the thermodynamical arrow . Following, in particular, Landau and Lifshitz , some researchers may think that the quantum-mechanical arrow is independent of the others, and may even serve as a base for them. In contrast, we believe that there is no fundamental quantum-mechanical arrow of time, and the problem of quantum measurement can be fully explained within quantum statistical mechanics, i.e. essentially as a consequence of the thermodynamical arrow of time . Notice also that we did not involve here the CP-asymmetry of weak interactions, since it is not directly relevant to the present discussion .

Finally, only the thermodynamical and cosmological arrows are basic for our present purposes. Broadly speaking, the thermodynamical arrow for a statistical system can be formulated as a consequence of the following necessary conditions:

1) De-correlated (special) initial conditions;

2) No-memory dynamics.

Depending on their background people are sometimes inclined to overestimate one of those reasons, thereby underestimating the other. However, it should be emphasized once more that both of them are strictly necessary, as we show below. The above two conditions appear already in the Boltzmann’s derivation of his kinetic equation, though perhaps not explicitly. They can be traced out clearly in Zwanzig’s derivation of master-equation  or Jaynes’ information-theoretical approach to irreversibility . A conventional discussion about possible relations between cosmological and thermodynamical arrows of time concentrates only the first condition , .

One of our main intentions in the present paper is to show that this is not sufficient, because special initial conditions alone can generate only a thermodynamical pre-arrow of time. Our main purpose here is to point out that along with the initial conditions, the second ingredient of the thermodynamical arrow can have a cosmological context as well, which arises due to mixing of trajectories in hyperbolic spaces.

Namely, if the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe has negative curvature, then the flow of null geodesics which describes the free motion of photons, represents an Anosov system , a class of dynamical systems with maximally strong statistical properties. Anosov systems are characterized by exponential divergence of initially close trajectories, by the property of K-mixing, positive Kolmogorov-Sinai (KS)-entropy, and countable Lebesgue spectrum. In particular, geodesic flows on compact manifolds with negative constant curvature are characterized by the exponential decay of the correlators . One of the significant properties of Anosov systems is their structural stability, namely resistance of properties with respect to perturbations. This is crucial, since we live not in a universe with strongly constant curvature but with small perturbations of metric, and moreover, we know the magnitude of their smallness from the same CMB measurements.

On the other hand, sufficiently fast decoupling of correlations is responsible for the so-called Markovian behavior . As we shall discuss below this latter property can be one of two main ingredients ensuring the thermodynamical arrow, though the existence of other mechanisms is not excluded.

Thus we will show that the exponential instability of geodesic flow in hyperbolic FRW Universe — the geodesic mixing — revealed through the properties of CMB, is relating the thermodynamical and cosmological arrows of time. The proposed mechanism does not offer an answer to an ambagious question, what will happen with the thermodynamical arrow if the cosmological arrow were to inverted, just because in the negatively curved space the cosmological arrow will never be inverted. One notices that many considerations and speculations on this question implicitly identify the thermodynamical arrow of time with the second law of thermodynamics, and appearance of a Gibbs distribution. In this context we will show that the second law, and the Gibbs distribution can be obtained from purely time-symmetric arguments, and need not be consequences of the thermodynamical arrow. Further clarification is needed to understand the link of cosmology with concrete aspects of statistical physics.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we discuss the thermodynamical arrow and the conditions which are necessary for its derivation. In section 3 we show how the CMB mixing properties in the negatively curved space can be connected with the thermodynamical arrow. Then we discuss the derivation of the second law and the Gibbs distribution in a way that does not depend on the thermodynamical arrow of time. Our conclusions are presented in the last section.

## 2 Thermodynamical arrow of time

### 1 Pre-arrow of time

In the present section we will discuss the following aspects of the thermodynamical arrow of time. Starting from the standard system-bath approach we will indicate how the choice of only special initial conditions leads to a thermodynamical pre-arrow of time. This is not sufficient to generate the full thermodynamical arrow. Under suitable dynamical conditions related to the features of the bath, the pre-arrow generates the full thermodynamical arrow, namely a monotonous change with time of the proper thermodynamical potential, which is most typically entropy or free energy. In general, the arrow is present only for a relatively later stage of the relaxational dynamics of the system. Most frequently, this stage is connected with the markovian properties. However, in certain special situations the thermodynamical arrow may be present also in a non-markovian situation. Such a presentation of the thermodynamical arrow will, in particular, make clear that in general both dynamical features and special initial conditions are necessary for establishing the thermodynamical arrow of time.

For the sake of generality and simplicity we will work within the quantum-mechanical formalism. The reader can just keep in mind that all our results are directly transportable to the classical physics upon changing density matrices to probability distributions, traces to integration over the phase-space, and the von Neumann equation to the Liouville equation.

Let a quantum system $`\mathrm{S}`$ interacts with a thermal bath $`\mathrm{B}`$. The total Hamiltonian is

$`H=H_\mathrm{S}+H_\mathrm{B}+H_\mathrm{I}.`$ (2.1)
We denote by $`H_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`H_\mathrm{B}`$ the Hamiltonians of the system and the bath respectively, whereas $`H_\mathrm{I}`$ stands for the interaction Hamiltonian. The state of the full system is described by the density matrix $`𝒟(t)`$, which satisfies the corresponding von Neumann equation

$`i_t𝒟(t)=[H,𝒟(t)],𝒟(t)=e^{itH/\mathrm{}}𝒟(0)e^{itH/\mathrm{}},`$ (2.2)
where $`[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]`$ stands for the commutator as usual. The crucial assumption on the initial state can be formulated as follows:

$`𝒟(0)=D_\mathrm{S}(0)D_\mathrm{B}(0),`$ (2.3)
which means that at the initial time $`t=0`$ the system and the bath were completely independent. The state of the system at arbitrary positive time $`t`$ is described by the corresponding partial density matrix:

$`D_\mathrm{S}(t)=\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{B}𝒟(t),`$ (2.4)
where $`\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{B}`$ indicates the trace over the Hilbert space of the bath. The important point of the system-bath approach — as well as any

statistical physics approach which derives the thermodynamical arrow — is its dependence on incomplete observability: although the system and the bath constitute a closed system, one is interested in the state of the system only, which under the presence of the bath evolves according to a non-unitary dynamics generated by a superoperator $`𝒯`$:

$`D_\mathrm{S}(t)=𝒯(t,0)D(0)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}A_{\alpha \beta }D(0)A_{\alpha \beta }^{},`$ (2.5)
where $`A_{\alpha \beta }`$ are operators in the Hilbert space of $`\mathrm{S}`$. They are determined via the spectral decomposition of the initial density matrix of the bath

$`D_\mathrm{B}(0)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\lambda _\alpha |\alpha \alpha |,\alpha |\beta =\delta _{\alpha \beta },`$ (2.6)
where Kronecker $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }=1(0)`$ for $`\alpha =\beta `$ ($`\alpha \beta `$), and by the evolution operator generated by the complete Hamiltonian $`H`$:

$`A_{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{\lambda _\beta }\alpha |e^{itH/\mathrm{}}|\beta `$ (2.7)
Eqs. (2.5, 2.7) are easily obtained from (2.2, 2.4) upon substituting there (2.6). One can check directly that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}A_{\alpha \beta }^{}A_{\alpha \beta }=1,`$ (2.8)
as required for the trace-conservation of $`D_\mathrm{S}(t)`$ at any time. Three important facts should be noticed in the context of (2.5): (i) The superoperator $`𝒯`$ appearing in (2.5) is not unitary, and in general it does not have an inverse operator. Thus, the dynamics of the system alone is irreversible. This is a consequence of the general fact that statistical systems are described incompletely, e.g. in the system-bath approach one focusses on the system alone in the presence of the bath.

(ii) The operators $`A_{\alpha \beta }`$ do not depend on the initial state of the system itself. Thus, the dynamics of the system is autonomous, solely due to the initial condition (2.3). It is obvious that this property will not be valid for an arbitrary initial state. (iii) In general, the property $`𝒯(t_f,t_i)=𝒯(t_ft_i)`$ for all $`t_f>t_i`$, which is automatically valid for the unitary situation, is broken inasmuch as the bath is present.

It appears that Eqs. (2.2, 2.3) are enough to ensure the existence of the pre-arrow, which is not a statement on the dynamics of the system itself but rather a statement on the similarity between the dynamical processes given by (2.5) and that generated by the same Hamiltonian (2.1) and somewhat different initial condition:

$`(0)=R_\mathrm{S}(0)D_\mathrm{B}(0).`$ (2.9)
Notice that the difference between (2.3) and (2.9) is only in the initial condition for the system itself: $`R_\mathrm{S}(0)D_\mathrm{S}(0)`$. An important measure of difference between $`R_\mathrm{S}(0)`$ and $`D_\mathrm{S}(0)`$ is the relative entropy :

$`S[D_\mathrm{S}(0)||R_\mathrm{S}(0)]=\mathrm{tr}[D_\mathrm{S}(0)\mathrm{ln}D_\mathrm{S}(0)D_\mathrm{S}(0)\mathrm{ln}R_\mathrm{S}(0)],`$ (2.10)
which is known to be non-negative and is equal to zero only for $`R_\mathrm{S}(0)=D_\mathrm{S}(0)`$. In general, the relative entropy $`S[D_\mathrm{S}(0)||R_\mathrm{S}(0)]`$ characterizes the information needed to distinguish between the density matrices $`D_\mathrm{S}(0)`$ and $`R_\mathrm{S}(0)`$ via many ($`1`$) independent identical experiments . The fundamental theorem  states that at all later times the relative entropy between the density matrices $`R_\mathrm{S}(t)=\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{B}(t)`$ and $`D_\mathrm{S}(t)=\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{B}𝒟(t)`$ does not increase:

$`S[D_\mathrm{S}(0)||R_\mathrm{S}(0)]`$ $`S[D_\mathrm{S}(t)||R_\mathrm{S}(t)]`$ (2.11)
$``$ $`S[𝒯(t,0)D_\mathrm{S}(0)||𝒯(t,0)R_\mathrm{S}(0)].`$ (2.12)
The equality sign in (2.12) is realized for unitary evolution showing that there is no pre-arrow for a closed system. Equation (2.12) shows that any dynamics for the system with the initial conditions (2.3) does not increase the distinguishability between different initial conditions.

### 2 Arrow of time

Two additional dynamical conditions which lead to the appearance of the thermodynamical arrow of time are the following: 1) Features of the bath are such that for sufficiently large $`t`$ one has

$`𝒯(t,0)=𝒯(t),`$ (2.13)
i.e. the dependence on the initial time disappears (no-memory). 2) The system relaxes with time to a certain stationary density matrix

$`D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}`$:

$`𝒯(t)D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}=D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)},D_\mathrm{S}(t)D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}.`$ (2.14)
For times where (2.13) is valid, one can apply (2.12) for any $`\theta `$ as

$`S[D_\mathrm{S}(t)||D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}]`$ $`S[𝒯(\theta )D_\mathrm{S}(t)||𝒯(\theta )D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}]`$ (2.16)
$`S[D_\mathrm{S}(t+\theta )||D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}],`$
and deduce that the function $`S[D_\mathrm{S}(t)||D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}]`$ is monotonically decreasing with time, since $`\theta >0`$ was arbitrary.

The concrete properties of this function depends on the structure of $`D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}`$. If, for example, the stationary distribution is microcanonical: $`D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}1`$, then (2.16) reduces to the statement that von Neumann entropy

$$S_{vN}[D_\mathrm{S}(t)]=\mathrm{tr}[D_\mathrm{S}(t)\mathrm{ln}D_\mathrm{S}(t)]$$

increases with time. In the case of the canonical distribution function $`D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}\mathrm{exp}(H_\mathrm{S}/T)`$, where $`T`$ is temperature, one gets that the free energy

$$F=U(t)TS_{vN}(t),U(t)=\mathrm{tr}[D_\mathrm{S}(t)H_\mathrm{S}]$$

monotonically decreases with time. Here $`U(t)`$ is the average energy; if it is conserved during evolution, then the statements on free energy and entropy are essentially equivalent. Notice the difference with the pre-arrow of time which compares only the initial relative entropy $`S[D_\mathrm{S}(0)||R_\mathrm{S}(0)]`$ with the relative entropy $`S[D_\mathrm{S}(t)||R_\mathrm{S}(t)]`$ at any time $`t>0`$, without making any connection between $`S[D_\mathrm{S}(t)||R_\mathrm{S}(t)]`$ and $`S[D_\mathrm{S}(t+\theta )||R_\mathrm{S}(t+\theta )]`$ for $`\theta >0`$.

To summarize this subsection, we notice that the conditions (2.13) ensuring the appearance of the thermodynamical arrow of time is only sufficient; in certain situations it can be substituted by other (weaker) dynamical assumptions. The relaxation (2.14) should be, of course, understood on times much less than the Poincaré recurrent time. Therefore, the recurrent time itself must be very large. This condition can be considered as satisfied, since for majority of “reasonable” systems the Poincaré time exceeds the age of the Universe.

### 3 A scenario for the no-memory regime

In the present section we will discuss a possible scenario for the appearance of the condition (2.13). It is based on a sufficiently weak coupling between the system and the bath, as well as on the fast relaxation of the bath correlation functions. This last feature is intrinsic for the bath, and (for the considered limit) it has nothing to do with the coupling to the system. Starting from (2.1), it is convenient to introduce Liouville (super)operators:

$`_\mathrm{k}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}}[H_\mathrm{k},\mathrm{}],\mathrm{k}=\mathrm{S},\mathrm{B},`$ (2.17)
$`_\mathrm{I}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}}[H_\mathrm{I}(t),\mathrm{}]`$ (2.18)
where $`H_\mathrm{I}(t)`$ is the corresponding Heisenberg operator in the free representation (i.e. without the interaction):

$`H_\mathrm{I}(t)=e^{\frac{\mathrm{i}t}{\mathrm{}}(H_\mathrm{S}+H_\mathrm{B})}H_\mathrm{I}e^{\frac{\mathrm{i}t}{\mathrm{}}(H_\mathrm{S}+H_\mathrm{B})}.`$ (2.19)
Using Liouville operators, the full dynamics for the overall density matrix $`𝒟(t)`$ is written as

$`𝒟(t)=e^{t(_\mathrm{S}+_\mathrm{B})}\widehat{\mathrm{T}}e^{_0^td\theta _\mathrm{I}(\theta )}D_\mathrm{B}(0)D_\mathrm{S}(0),`$ (2.20)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{T}}`$ is the time-ordering operator, and where $`D_\mathrm{B}(0)`$ and $`D_\mathrm{S}(0)`$ refer to the initial density matrices of the bath and the system respectively. The marginal density matrix of the system, $`D_\mathrm{S}(t)=\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{B}𝒟(t)`$, reads:

$`D_\mathrm{S}(t)=e^{t_\mathrm{I}}\widehat{\mathrm{T}}e^{_0^td\theta _\mathrm{I}(\theta )}D(0),`$ (2.21)
where for any quantity $`𝒳`$ (possibly a superoperator):

$`𝒳\mathrm{tr}_\mathrm{B}[𝒳D_\mathrm{B}(0)].`$ (2.22)
Notice that the mutual ordering between $`𝒳`$ and $`D_\mathrm{B}(0)`$ can be important. By analogy with the classical cumulant expansion one writes

$`\widehat{\mathrm{T}}e^{_0^td\theta _\mathrm{I}(\theta )}=\widehat{\mathrm{T}}e^{_0^td\theta (\theta )},`$ (2.23)
where $``$ is another superoperator, which is determined step-by-step by expanding both sides of (2.23) over $`H_\mathrm{I}`$:

$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{}}_k,`$ (2.24)
with

$`\widehat{\mathrm{T}}e^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}_0^td\theta _\mathrm{I}(\theta )}=1+`$ (2.25)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{}}{\displaystyle _0^t}d\theta _1{\displaystyle _0^{\theta _1}}d\theta _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\theta _{k1}}}d\theta _k_\mathrm{I}(\theta _1)\mathrm{}_\mathrm{I}(\theta _k).`$ (2.26)
The first two contributions into $``$ are the following:

$`_1(t)=_\mathrm{I}(t),`$ (2.27)
$`_2(t)={\displaystyle _0^t}d\theta \left[_\mathrm{I}(t)_\mathrm{I}(\theta )_\mathrm{I}(t)_\mathrm{I}(\theta )\right].`$ (2.28)
The content of the considered approximation is that one keeps only these two terms for $``$, thus neglecting all other cumulants. This is applicable if the magnitude of $`H_\mathrm{I}`$ is sufficiently small. The cumulant expansion also ensures that possible secular terms are absent, so that the neglected higher-order cumulants are typically homogeneously small compared with the second one . Let us assume for simplicity that

$`_1(t)=0,`$ (2.29)
and then the final differential convolutionless equation for $`D_\mathrm{S}(t)`$ reads from (2.21):

$`\dot{D}_\mathrm{S}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}}[H_\mathrm{S}(t),D_\mathrm{S}(t)]+e^{t_\mathrm{S}}_2(t)e^{t_\mathrm{S}}D_\mathrm{S}(t).`$ (2.30)
Notice that this is a differential, though non-markovian, equation for $`D(t)`$. So it is consonant with thermodynamical pre-arrow of time, but may be compatible with a non-monotonic change of the corresponding thermodynamical potential. To implement the no-memory approximation, we will work out a particular case, where the initial interaction Hamiltonian is presented as:

$`H_\mathrm{I}=SB,`$ (2.32)
with $`S`$ and $`B`$ belonging to the Hilbert spaces of the system and the bath respectively. Then Eq. (2.30) reads:

$`\dot{D}_\mathrm{S}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}[H_\mathrm{S},D_\mathrm{S}(t)]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^t}\mathrm{d}\theta \{K(t,\theta )\times `$ (2.33)
$`(SS(\theta t)D_\mathrm{S}(t)S(\theta t)D_\mathrm{S}(t)S)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.\},`$ (2.34)
$`S(t)=e^{itH_\mathrm{S}/\mathrm{}}Se^{itH_\mathrm{S}/\mathrm{}},`$ (2.35)
$`B(t)=e^{itH_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{}}Be^{itH_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{}};`$ (2.36)
where $`S(t)`$ and $`B(t)`$ are free Heisenberg operators of the bath (i.e. they evolve under the uncoupled system and bath dynamics), $`\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ before the end of the curly bracket means the hermitean conjugate of the whole expression contained in this bracket, and where

$`K(t,\theta )=B(t)B(\theta )\mathrm{tr}[B(t)B(s)D_\mathrm{B}(0)]`$ (2.37)
is the free correlation function of the bath variables.

Now assume that the decoupling time $`\tau `$ of the correlation function

$`K(t,\theta )`$ is the smallest characteristic time of the considered situation:

$`K(t,\theta )B(t)B(\theta )=0,\mathrm{for}|ts|\tau ,`$ (2.38)
where the last equality is realized due to (2.29), which in the present context reads: $`B(t)=B(\theta )=0`$. This means that for $`t\tau `$ the relevant integration domain of the integrals over $`\theta `$ in (2.33) is $`\theta t`$, and the upper limit of these integrals can be substituted by infinity. Then the whole operator acting on $`D_\mathrm{S}(t)`$ can be viewed as $`t`$-independent. Thus, the solution of (2.33) is represented as:

$`D_\mathrm{S}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[t_{eff}\right]D_\mathrm{S}(0),`$ (2.39)
with an effective Liouville operator $`_{eff}`$ obtained from (2.33). This is just the desired form (2.13). Thus, provided that the stationary distribution $`D_\mathrm{S}^{(st)}`$ exists, the properties (2.13, 2.14) are satisfied, and the thermodynamical arrow of time has been established as folows from Eq. (2.16).

The decoupling property (2.38) is seen to be connected with dynamics of the free bath, see (2.36), and hence needs a concrete physical mechanism for its validity. The most standard mechanism for this is to take a very large bath, consisting of many nearly independent pieces. Another possible mechanism is the intrinsic chaoticity of the bath, which leads to decoupling of correlators . This property will be discussed in the next section.

## 3  Geodesics mixing

The geodesics of a space (locally if the space is non-compact) with constant negative curvature $`k`$ in all two-dimensional directions are known to possess properties of Anosov systems.

The Jacobi equation which describes the deviation $`𝐧`$ of close geodesics

$$\frac{d^2𝐧}{d\lambda ^2}+k𝐧=0,$$
(3.1)
for $`k=1`$ has the solution

$$𝐧=𝐧(\mathrm{𝟎})\mathrm{cosh}\lambda +\dot{𝐧}(0)\mathrm{sinh}\lambda .$$
(3.2)
It was proved  (see also ) that for a dim=3 compact manifold $`M`$ with constant negative curvature the time correlation function of the geodesic flow $`\{f^\lambda \}`$ on the unit tangent bundle $`SM`$ of $`M`$

$`b_{A_1,A_2}(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle _{SM}}A_1(f^\lambda x)A_2(x)𝑑\mu `$ (3.4)
$`{\displaystyle _{SM}}A_1(x)𝑑\mu {\displaystyle _{SM}}A_2(x)𝑑\mu `$
decays exponentially for all functions $`A_1,A_2L^2(SM)`$

$$\left|b_{A_1,A_2}(\lambda )\right|c\left|b_{A_1,A_2}(0)\right|e^{h\lambda },$$
(3.5)
where $`c>0`$, $`\mu `$ is the Liouville measure and $`\mu (SM)=1`$, $`h`$ is the KS (Kolmogorov-Sinai) entropy of the geodesic flow $`\{f^\lambda \}`$. To reveal the properties of the free motion of photons in pseudo-Riemannian (3+1)-space the projection of its geodesics into Riemannian 3-space has to be performed, i.e. by corresponding a geodesic $`c(\lambda )=x(\lambda )`$ to the geodesic in the former space: $`\gamma (\lambda )=(x(\lambda ),t(\lambda ))`$. Then the transformation of the affine parameter is as follows :

$$\lambda (t)=_{t_0}^t\frac{ds}{a(s)}.$$

The KS-entropy in the exponential index can be easily estimated for the matter-dominated post-scattering Universe , so that

$$e^{h\lambda }=(1+z)^2\left[\frac{1+\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\sqrt{1+z\mathrm{\Omega }}+\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right]^4.$$
(3.6)
i.e. depends on the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the redshift of the last scattering epoch $`z`$. The initial condition (2.3) should be the one to ensure the thermodynamical arrow. The decay of correlators for geodesic flow for a $`k=1`$ FRW Universe provides the procedure of coarse-graining and ensures the Markovian (no-memory) behavior of the CMB parameters, so that

$$t\tau =1/h,$$
(3.7)
where KS-entropy defines the characteristic time scale $`\tau `$ and depends only on the diameter of the Universe which is the only scale in the maximally symmetric space . The time scale $`\tau `$ is the so-called Markov time or a random variable independent of future as defined in the theory of Markov processes , and in the CMB problem describes the decay of initial perturbations, i.e. damping of the initial anisotropy amplitude and the flattening of the angular correlation function , . For certain dynamical systems that time scale defines also the relaxation time for tending to a microcanonical equilibrium. The evaluation of $`\tau `$ and hence of the negative curvature of the Universe has been performed in  using the COBE data. The negative constant curvature leads to a decay of time correlators of geodesics, thus defining the thermodynamic arrow for CMB in a FRW $`k=1`$ Universe.

## 4 Gibbs distribution, the second law and the arrow of time.

The purpose of the present section is to discuss to what extent irreversibility, and the thermodynamical arrow of time are necessary to establish the second law, and the Gibbs distribution, which are known to be the basis of equilibrium statistical mechanics. The development of statistical thermodynamics during more than one century safely confirms the sufficiency of the thermodynamical arrow of time to derive the Gibbs distribution and the second law . To show that they are not necessary, we shall consider an alternative derivation of the Gibbs distribution proposed by Lenard . Similar ideas were expressed in . For a recent extension of these results see .

A closed statistical system is considered. Its dynamics is described by a Hamiltonian $`H`$. At the moment $`t=0`$, where the state of the system is $`D(0)`$, an external time-dependent field is switched on, and the Hamiltonian becomes $`(t)`$. The field is switched off at the moment $`t`$, and the Hamiltonian will again be $`H`$ (cyclical variation). The following postulate is imposed: It is impossible to extract work from the system in the state $`D`$ by switching any external field in such a way. This is the statement of the second law in the Thomson formulation . We shall see that this condition alone plus some companion ones are enough to derive the Gibbs distribution for the density matrix $`D`$ of this system. Notice that the presented condition does not impose irreversibility. Indeed, the evolution of the system remains purely unitary (thus reversible). As the result of the time-dependent field an external source has done the work

$`W`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\theta \mathrm{tr}[D(\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{d(\theta )}{d\theta }}]`$ (4.2)
$`=\mathrm{tr}[H(D(t)D(0))],`$
where, when going from (4.2) to (4.2), we used integration by parts, and the equation of motion

$$i\mathrm{}\dot{D}=[(t),\rho (t)].$$
(4.3)
Let us now introduce a unitary operator $`V(t)`$,

$$D(t)=e^{itH/\mathrm{}}VD(0)V^{}e^{itH/\mathrm{}},$$
(4.4)
and rewrite Eq. (4.2) as

$$W=\mathrm{tr}[D(0)V^{}HV]\mathrm{tr}[D(0)H].$$
(4.5)
The quantity $`W`$ is required to be positive. Since $`W=0`$ for $`V=1`$, we have to demand that $`\mathrm{tr}[D(0)V^{}HV]`$ is minimal for $`V(1)=1`$. For $`V`$ close to $`1`$ one introduces an expansion

$`V=1+M+𝒪(M^2)`$ (4.6)
where $`M^{}=M`$, and $`M`$ is small. One obtains

$`W=\mathrm{tr}([D(0),H]M)+𝒪(M^2).`$ (4.7)
Since the sign of $`\mathrm{tr}([D(0),H]M)`$ can be arbitrary, $`D(0)`$ and $`H`$ should commute for $`W`$ to be minimal at $`V=1`$. To obtain a more precise relation between the eigenvalues, we use a particular form

$$V=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cos}\theta & \hfill \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}\theta & \hfill \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right],$$
(4.8)
when acting on the two-dimensional subspace formed by common eigenvectors $`|i`$ and $`|k`$ of $`H`$ and $`D(0)`$, and $`V=1`$ in the orthogonal complement of this subspace. Now it easy to obtain

$`W=(h_ih_k)(r_ir_k)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$ (4.9)
where $`h_i`$ and $`h_k`$ (or $`r_i`$ and $`r_k`$) are the corresponding eigenvalues of $`H`$ (or $`D`$). It is seen for any $`|i`$, $`|k`$ that

$$\mathrm{if}h_ih_k,\mathrm{then}r_ir_k.$$
(4.10)
As follows from this, there is some positive non-increasing function $`f`$, such that

$`D=f(H).`$ (4.11)
The exponential form of $`f`$ can be established from the standard reasons of extensivity. It is assumed that the form of the function $`f`$ is (at least to some extent) universal, and does not depend on the Hamiltonian itself. Then for two interacting subsystems we have

$`\mathrm{lim}_{g0}f(H_1+H_2+gH_{int})`$ (4.12)
$`=f(H_1+H_2)=f(H_1)f(H_2),`$ (4.13)
where $`gH_{int}`$ is the Hamiltonian of the interaction. Under reasonable conditions $`f`$ can be proven to be exponential:

$`\rho (H)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}\mathrm{exp}(\beta H),`$ (4.14)
with $`\beta =1/T0`$.

## 5  Conclusion

The main purpose of the present paper is to suggest a new viewpoint on possible connections between the thermodynamical and cosmological arrows of time. One aspect of such connections is well-known and is based on the important role of special initial conditions for both arrows . However, the special initial conditions are by no means sufficient for

generating the thermodynamical arrow of time: they are able to generate a pre-arrow of time only. Thus initial conditions cannot be the only part of the story. We show that the negative curvature of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe and the effect of geodesic mixing can provide the condition necessary for the emergence of the thermodynamic arrow of time. Moreover, this mechanism can explain why CMB contains the major fraction of the entropy of the Universe.

If this is indeed an origin of the thermodynamic arrow, then the thermodynamics in flat and positively curved universes need not be strongly time asymmetric, and the latter is observed since we happen to live in a Universe with negative curvature. In particular, as we show in section IV, this does not mean that the second law of thermodynamics and the Gibbs distribution will have less chances to survive for non-negatively curved spaces, since these concepts do not necessarily depend on the thermodynamical arrow of time.

In other words, the symmetry of the Newtonian mechanics, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics and equilibrium statistical thermodynamics might purely survive in some universes. In this context the essence of thermodynamical arrow must be understood as not the mere increase of entropy of an almost closed system, but the fact that this arrow has the universal direction in the entire Universe (see ). In the light of our suggested explanation of the emergence of this arrow, it may follow that the negative curvature is the very mechanism unifying all local thermodynamical arrows. According to this logic in the flat or positively curved universes, i.e. at the absence of a global unification mechanism, there can be local thermodynamical arrows with various directions.

Another intriguing problem arising here, is whether life can occur in such globally time-symmetric universes, or the time asymmetry/negative curvature is a necessary ingredient for developing of life — the curvature anthropic principle. The CMB has to carry the signature of this principle.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the anonymous referee for an unusual care in the refereeing and editing of the paper.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most important issues at the next generation of colliders is the discovery of at least one light Higgs boson particle and the elucidation of the mechanism of symmetry breaking . Particularly relevant in order to establish the Higgs mechanism experimentally in an unambiguous way, is the reconstruction of the Higgs self-interaction potential. This task requires the measurement of the trilinear and quartic self-couplings as predicted in the Standard Model ($`\mathrm{SM}`$) or in supersymmetric (SUSY) theories. Since the predictions of these self-couplings are different in both theories, their experimental measurement could provide not just an essential way to determine the mechanism for generating the masses of the fundamental particles but also an indirect way to test SUSY. The cross section for double Higgs production (e.g., $`Zhh`$) is related to the triple Higgs self-couplings $`\lambda _{hhh}`$, which in turn is related to the spontaneous symmetry breaking shape of the Higgs potential. Experimental studies indicate that for a $`\mathrm{SM}`$-like Higgs boson with $`m_h=120`$ GeV at $`1000fb^1`$, a precision of $`\delta \lambda _{hhh}/\lambda _{hhh}=23\%`$ is possible at TESLA . Strategies for measuring the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ Higgs boson self-couplings at the LHC have been also discussed recently in . Many other studies have addressed the issue of the measurement of the neutral Higgs self-couplings in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model ($`\mathrm{MSSM}`$) and also in the two-Higgs doublet model (2HDM) .

In recent papers, we investigated how far the $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs potential reproduces the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ potential when the non-standard particles are heavy . More concretely, we explore the decoupling behaviour of the radiative corrections to the $`h^0`$ self-couplings at the one-loop level, both numerically and analytically. A first step into this direction was the analysis of the leading Yukawa contributions of order $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ to the lightest $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs boson self-couplings . Recently, an analytical study of the contributions from the $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs sector itself  has been done. This talk gives a summary on the results of these calculations.

First, we present in Table 1 the trilinear and quartic $`\mathrm{SM}`$ and $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs boson self-couplings, at the tree-level. Clearly, for arbitrary values of the $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs-sector input parameters, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_{A^0}`$, the values of the $`h^0`$ self-couplings are different from those of the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ Higgs boson. However, the situation changes in the so-called decoupling limit of the Higgs sector where $`M_{A^0}M_Z`$, yielding a particular spectrum with heavy $`H^0,H^\pm ,A^0`$ Higgs bosons with degenerate masses, and a light $`h^0`$ boson having a tree-level mass of $`m_{h^0}M_Z|\mathrm{cos}2\beta |`$ . In this limit, which also implies $`\alpha \beta \pi /2`$, the $`h^0`$ self-couplings converge respectively to $`\lambda _{hhh}^0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}g/2M_WM_{h^0}^{2\mathrm{tree}}`$ and $`\lambda _{hhhh}^0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}g^2/4M_W^2M_{h^0}^{2\mathrm{tree}}`$ and therefore, they converge to their respective $`\mathrm{SM}`$ Higgs boson self-couplings with the same mass. Thus, we can conclude that, at the tree level, there is decoupling of the heavy $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs sector in the $`M_{A^0}M_Z`$ limit. Therefore, by studying the light Higgs boson self-interactions it will be very difficult to unravel its SUSY origin. This is another reason to investigate the effects of the quantum contributions to these self-interactions.

## 2 One-loop Higgs sector contributions in the decoupling limit

We summarize here the one-loop results for the $`h^0`$ self-couplings from the $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs sector itself by considering the already described decoupling limit . We only consider the set of diagrams that provides contributions to the $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ $`h^0`$ self-couplings different from the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ ones. We have checked explicitly that the one-loop contributions from diagrams that have at least one gauge boson flowing in the loops are the same in both models. Consequently, we are considering, first, diagrams involving only the $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ heavy Higgs bosons ($`H^0,H^\pm ,`$ and $`A^0`$), second, diagrams with these heavy particles and the Goldstone bosons or the lightest Higgs boson appearing in the same loop, and finally, diagrams involving just Goldstone bosons and the lightest Higgs boson in the loops (light contributions); all of them are, in principle, different in the two models. However, as explained in detail in , we found that the one-loop light contributions approach the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ ones in the $`M_{A^0}M_Z`$ limit and therefore, they become indistinguishable in both models. This is equivalent to saying that the difference between the one-loop unrenormalized vertex functions of the two theories in the decoupling limit is coming from diagrams including at least one heavy $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs particle.

The results for the one-loop contributions to the $`n`$-point vertex functions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^0}^{(n)}`$, coming from the Higgs sector itself, can be summarized generically as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^0}^{(n)}`$ $``$ $`M_Z^2\left[𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\right)+𝒪\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{EW}^2}{\mu _0^2}}\right)+𝒪\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{A^0}^2}{\mu _0^2}}\right)+\text{ finite terms }\right]`$ (1)
$`+M_{A^0}^2\left[𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\right)+𝒪\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{A^0}^2}{\mu _0^2}}\right)+\text{ finite terms }\right],`$
where $`M_{EW}^2M_Z^2,M_W^2,m_{h^0}^2`$. These contributions are UV-divergent and contain both a logarithmic dependence and a quadratic dependence on the heavy pseudoscalar mass $`M_{A^0}`$. Therefore, all potential non-decoupling effects of the heavy $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs particles manifest themselves as divergent contributions in $`D=4`$ and some finite contributions, logarithmically and quadratically dependent on $`M_{A^0}`$.

As a next step, renormalization has to be done to get finite vertex functions and physical observables; this is performed in practice by adding appropriate counterterms. The results of the vertex counterterms in the decoupling limit as well as the results for the renormalization constants, obtained by using the on-shell scheme , have been presented in . The results for the renormalized vertex functions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Rh^0}^{(n)}`$, defined by summing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^0}^{(n)}`$ and the counterterm contributions, can be expressed as follows,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Rh^0}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Rh^0}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g}{2M_Zc_W}}\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{64\pi ^2c_W^3}}M_Z\mathrm{cos}^22\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{MSSM}}^{\mathrm{rem}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Rh^0}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{4M_Z^2c_W^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{64\pi ^2c_W^4}}\mathrm{cos}^22\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{MSSM}}^{\mathrm{rem}},`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2`$ represents the $`h^0`$ mass-squared correction for the $`h^0`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2=M_Z^2\left[𝒪\left(\frac{1}{ϵ}\right)+𝒪\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{M_{EW}^2}{\mu _0^2}\right)+𝒪\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{M_{A^0}^2}{\mu _0^2}\right)+\text{ finite terms }\right],$$
(3)
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{MSSM}}^{\mathrm{rem}}`$ refers to the remaining finite terms resulting exclusively from the light contributions. For the discussion, we have dropped those terms which are identical in the SM and the MSSM, i.e. the pure gauge part including the pure Goldstone contributions. As a consequence of considering not a complete set of one-loop diagrams, the mass correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2`$ is UV-divergent. In order to cancel this residual divergence in the renormalized two-point function, it is necessary to include also the diagrams dropped here.

The mass correction (3) contains finite terms proportional to $`M_Z^2`$ and logarithmic dependences on the heavy mass $`M_{A^0}`$ as well as on the electroweak masses. The quadratic heavy-mass terms $`M_{A^0}^2`$, however, appearing in the unrenormalized vertex functions (1), disappear in the on-shell renormalization procedure. Once the tree-level Higgs-boson mass is replaced by the corresponding one-loop mass, $`M_{h^0}^2=M_{h^0}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{tree}}+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2,`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2`$ given in (3), we obtain that the singular $`𝒪(1/ϵ)`$ terms and the logarithmic heavy-mass terms also disappear in the renormalized 3- and 4-point functions. Hence, we have an analytic demonstration that the heavy $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs bosons decouple in the $`M_{A^0}M_Z`$ limit.

Nevertheless, after the previously commented terms in the radiative corrections to the trilinear and quartic $`h^0`$ self-couplings have been absorbed in the $`h^0`$ mass redefinition, other finite terms, contained in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{MSSM}}^{\mathrm{rem}}`$ in (2), still do remain and could give rise to differences between the predictions of the $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ and the $`\mathrm{SM}`$. For the interpretation of these remaining terms it is thus crucial to perform the corresponding one-loop analysis for the self-interactions of the Higgs boson in the SM as well. After renormalization of the trilinear and quartic self-couplings in the $`\mathrm{SM}`$, done in , we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RH_{SM}}^{(3)}=\frac{g^3}{64\pi ^2c_W^3}M_Z\mathrm{\Psi }_{SM}^{\mathrm{rem}},\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RH_{SM}}^{(4)}=\frac{g^4}{64\pi ^2c_W^4}\mathrm{\Psi }_{SM}^{\mathrm{rem}},$$
(4)
with the $`M_{H_{SM}}`$-dependent function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{SM}^{\mathrm{rem}}`$ representing the only remaining finite terms in the renormalized $`H_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ self-couplings. In general, these finite contributions are different from the finite $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{MSSM}}^{\mathrm{rem}}`$ terms originating from the light contributions in the $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$. However, by identifying $`M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{tree}}{}_{}{}^{2}M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta M_{H_{SM}}^2`$ in the decoupling limit, we obtain the asymptotic relation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MSSM}^{\mathrm{rem}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{SM}^{\mathrm{rem}}`$. Therefore, these EW-finite terms are common to both the lightest $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ Higgs boson, $`h^0`$, and the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ $`H_{\mathrm{SM}}`$, in the case $`M_{A^0}M_Z`$.

Thus, we have shown that the $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ heavy Higgs one-loop contributions can be absorbed in the redefinition of the lightest Higgs boson mass $`M_{h^0}`$ and therefore, decoupling of the heavy Higgs particles occurs. Similarly, the divergent part of the light contributions as well as part of the finite terms are also absorbed in this $`M_{h^0}`$ mass correction. Another part of the finite terms in the renormalized 3- and 4-point $`\mathrm{MSSM}`$ vertex functions (2) remains. These remaining contributions, however, coincide with the corresponding $`\mathrm{SM}`$ ones in the $`M_{A^0}M_Z`$ limit by identifying $`M_{H_{SM}}`$ with $`M_{h^0}`$ and, therefore, they drop out when differences in the predictions of both models are considered. Consequently, the trilinear and quartic $`h^0`$ self-couplings at the one-loop level and in the $`M_{A^0}M_Z`$ limit have the same structure as the SM self-couplings .

## 3 $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ one-loop contributions

The one-loop leading Yukawa corrections from top and stop loop contributions to the renormalized $`h^0`$ vertex functions were derived in  by considering the decoupling limit and a heavy top-squark sector, with $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ masses large as compared to the electroweak scale. Two different scenarios have been addressed: First, in an analytical study, the two stop masses are heavy but close to each other, i.e. $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2||m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|`$ . Second, the other possible scenario where the stop mass splitting is of the order of the $`\mathrm{SUSY}`$ mass scale, which corresponds to $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2||m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|,`$ in a numerical analysis.

In the analytical studies, we found that the one-loop contribution to the renormalized two-point function is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Rh^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}(2)}=\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2`$ being the (leading) one-loop correction to the $`h^0`$ mass-squared,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2=\frac{3}{8\pi ^2}\frac{g^2}{M_W^2}m_t^4\mathrm{log}\frac{m_t^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}}.$$
(5)
Thus, we were able to write the results for the trilinear and quartic self-couplings, obtained as the corresponding renormalized vertex functions, in the following way,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Rh^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{v}}\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{M_W^3}}m_t^4,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Rh^0}^{t,\stackrel{~}{t}(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{v^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{M_W^4}}m_t^4.`$ (6)
The UV-divergences are canceled by the renormalization procedure, and the logarithmic heavy mass term, which looks like a non-decoupling effect of the heavy particles in the renormalized vertices, disappears when the vertices are expressed in terms of the Higgs-boson mass shift (5). Therefore, they do not appear directly in related observables, i.e. they decouple. However, some non-logarithmic terms $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ remain in the trilinear and quartic $`h^0`$ self-couplings (3). Without these top-mass terms, the self-couplings at the one-loop level have the same form as the tree-level couplings, with the tree-level Higgs-boson mass replaced by the corresponding one-loop mass, $`M_{h^0}^2=M_{h^0}^{2\mathrm{tree}}+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2.`$

By deriving the equivalent one-loop $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ contributions in the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ we found that, after on-shell renormalization of the trilinear and quartic couplings in the $`\mathrm{SM}`$, the results correspond precisely to the two non-logarithmic terms in (3). Hence, these top-mass terms are common to both $`h^0`$ and $`H_{SM}`$. Therefore, we conclude that the $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ one-loop contributions to the MSSM $`h^0`$ vertices either represent a shift in the $`h^0`$ mass and in the $`h^0`$ triple and quartic self-couplings, which can be absorbed in $`M_{h^0}`$, or reproduce the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ top-loop corrections. The triple and quartic $`h^0`$ couplings thereby acquire the structure of the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ Higgs-boson self-couplings. These results have been confirmed also numerically in .

The other scenario where the stop-mass splitting is of the order of the SUSY mass scale, has been analyzed numerically, based on the exact results for $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ corrections to the triple and quartic self-couplings. Details of this analysis can be found in . Here we present in Fig. 1 one example of the numerical results for the variation of the trilinear coupling and for the $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ $`h^0`$ mass correction as functions of $`M_{A^0}`$, for different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, by choosing the set of SUSY input parameters to be $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}15\text{ TeV},M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}\mu |A_t|1.5\text{ TeV}`$, such that one gets $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|/|m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2|0.97`$. The radiative correction to the angle $`\alpha `$ is also taken into account and the non-logarithmic finite contribution to the three-point function owing to the top-triangle diagrams is not taken into account in the figure since, as we mentioned before, it converges always to the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ term. We see in this figure that for very large SUSY scales, the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _{hhh}/\lambda _{hhh}^0\mathrm{\Delta }M_{h^0}^2/M_{h^0}^{2\mathrm{tree}}`$ is again fulfilled. Quantitatively, one finds that for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`M_{A^0}=2`$ TeV, the difference between vertex and mass corrections is $`0.03\%`$, and for the most unfavorable case, i.e $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`M_{A^0}=200`$ GeV, it is about $`0.2\%`$.

Therefore, from the numerical analysis one can conclude that also for the case of a heavy stop system with large mass splitting, the $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ corrections to the trilinear $`h^0`$ self-couplings are absorbed to the largest extent in the loop-induced shift of the $`h^0`$ mass, leaving only a very small difference, which can be interpreted as the genuine one-loop correction when $`\lambda _{hhh}`$ is expressed in terms of $`M_{h^0}`$. Similar results have been obtained also for the quartic $`h^0`$ self-coupling.

## 4 Conclusions

We showed that the one-loop Higgs-sector corrections and the $`𝒪(m_t^4)`$ Yukawa contributions to the lightest MSSM Higgs-boson self-couplings disappear to a large extent when the self-couplings are expressed in terms of the $`h^0`$-boson mass, in the limit of large $`M_{A^0}`$ and heavy top squarks, leaving behind the quantum corrections of the SM. Therefore, the triple and quartic $`h^0`$ self-couplings acquire the structure of the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ Higgs-boson self-couplings.

Equivalently, we have demonstrated that heavy Higgs particles and heavy top-squarks decouple from the low energy, at the electroweak scale and at one-loop level, and the $`\mathrm{SM}`$ Higgs sector is recovered also in the Higgs self-interactions. Consequently, we would need high-precision experiments for an experimental verification of the supersymmetric nature of the Higgs-boson self-interactions.