text:
# A fluctuating energy-momentum may produce an unstable world

## 1 Introduction

In the last few years the hunt for possible minuscule violations of the fundamental Lorentz invariance (LI) has been object of renewed interest, in particular because it has been understood that cosmic ray physics has an unprecedented potential for investigation in this field . Some authors  have even invoked possible violations of LI as a plausible explanation to some puzzling observations related to the detection of ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) with energy above the so-called GZK feature , and to the unexpected shape of the spectrum of photons with super-TeV energy from sources at cosmological distances. Both types of observations have in fact many uncertainties, either coming from limited statistics of very rare events, or from accuracy issues in the energy determination of the detected particles, and most likely the solution to the alleged puzzles will come from more accurate observations rather than by a violation of fundamental symmetries. For this reason, from the very beginning we proposed  that cosmic ray observations should be used as an ideal tool to constrain the minuscule violations of LI, rather than as evidence for the need to violate LI. The reason why the cases of UHECRs and TeV gamma rays represent such good test sites for LI is that both are related to physical processes with a kinematical energy threshold, which is in turn very sensitive to the smallest violations of LI. UHECRs are expected to suffer severe energy losses due to photopion production off the photons of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and this should suppress the flux of particles at the Earth at energies above $`10^{20}`$ eV, the so called GZK feature. Present operating experiments are AGASA and HiRes, and they do not provide strong evidence either in favor or against the detection of the GZK feature . A substantial increase in the statistics of events, as expected with the Auger project and with EUSO should dramatically change the situation and allow to detect the presence or lack of the GZK feature in the spectrum of UHECRs. These are the observations that will provide the right ground for imposing a strong limit on violations of LI. For the case of TeV sources, the process involved is pair production  of high energy gamma rays on the photons of the infrared background. In both cases, a small violation of LI can move the threshold to energies which are smaller than the classical ones, or move them to infinity, making the reactions impossible. The detection of the GZK suppression or the cutoff in the gamma ray spectra of gamma ray sources at cosmological distances will prove that LI is preserved to correspondingly high accuracy .

The recipes for the violations of LI generally consist of requiring an explicit modification of the dispersion relation of high energy particles, due to their propagation in the “vacuum”, now affected by quantum gravity (QG). This effect is generally parametrized by introducing a typical mass, expected to be of the order of the Plank mass ($`M_P`$), that sets the scale for QG to become effective.

However, explicit modifications of the dispersion relation are not really necessary in order to produce detectable effects, as was recently pointed out in Refs.  for the case of propagation of UHECRs. It is in fact generally believed that coordinate measurements scannot be performed with precision better than the Planck distance (time) $`\delta xl_P`$, namely the distance where the metric of space-time must feature quantum fluctuations. A similar line of thought implies that an uncertainty in the measurement of energy and momentum of particles can be expected, according with the relation $`\delta p\delta Ep^2/M_P`$

The consequences of these uncertainty relations on the propagation of high energy cosmic rays have been investigated by many authors. In a previous paper  (see also ) we have actually argued that the effects of fluctuating dispersion relations may induce observable consequences on cosmic ray propagation even at energies as low as $`10^{15}`$ eV.

Very recently it has been argued (, see also ) that generic fluctuations may already be inconsistent with detection of interference features from very distant sources; this result however has been criticized in .

In this paper we derive another important consequence of the fluctuating dispersion relations introduced in : a particle propagating in vacuum acquires an energy dependent fluctuating effective mass, which may be responsible for kinematically forbidden decay reactions to become kinematically allowed. If this happens, particles that are known to be stable would decay, provided no other fundamental conservation law is violated (e.g.: baryon number conservation, charge conservation). A representative example is that of the reaction $`pp+\pi ^0`$, that is prevented from taking place only due to energy conservation. With a fluctuating metric, we find that if the initial proton has energy above a few $`10^{15}`$ eV, the reaction above can take place with a cross section typical of hadronic interactions, so that the proton would rapidly lose its energy. Similar conclusions hold for the electromagnetic process $`pp+\gamma `$.

The fact that particles that would be otherwise stable could decay has been known for some time now  and in fact it rules out a class of non-fluctuating modifications of the dispersion relations for some choices of the sign of the modification: the new point here is that it does not appear to be possible to fix the sign of the fluctuations, so that the conclusions illustrated above seem unavoidable.

The plan of the paper is the following: in §1 we discuss our main results, putting strong emphasys on the underlying assumptions. In §2, we set the framework for kinematical computations of the thresholds for the processes presented in §3. Finally in the last section we argue that the comparison of our predictions with experimental data indicates a strong inconsistency, implying that the framework of quantum fluctuations currently discussed in most literature is in fact ruled out. The strength of this conclusion leads us to try to identify possible loopholes in our working assumptions. The ways to avoid the dramatic effects of the fluctuating energy-momentum of a particle should be mainly searched in the dynamics of Quantum Gravity. These effects, in which our knowledge is poor to say the least, might forbid processes even when these processes are kinematically allowed due to the fluctuations in the energy and momentum.

## 2 The effect of Space-Time fluctuations on the propagation of high energy particles.

In this section we summarize the formalism introduced in  following . The basic points can be listed as follows:

* the values of energy (momentum), fluctuate around their average values (assumed to be the result that in principle could be recovered with an infinite number of measurements of the same observable):

$$E\overline{E}+\alpha \frac{\overline{E}^2}{M_P}$$
(1)
$$p\overline{p}+\beta \frac{\overline{p}^2}{M_P}$$
(2)
with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ normally distributed variables (with $`O(1)`$ variance) and $`p`$ the modulus of the 3-momentum (for simplicity we assume rotationally invariant fluctuations);
* the dispersion relation fluctuates as follows:

$$P_\mu g^{\mu \nu }P_\nu =E^2p^2+\gamma \frac{p^3}{M_P}=m^2$$
(3)
and $`\gamma `$ is again a normally distributed variable. Eqs. (1-3) are assumed to hold for $`E,p<<M_P`$.

In principle, a theory of Quantum Gravity (QG) should be able to predict the specific properties of space-time and the dispersion relations written above, but this approach is clearly out of reach as of today. From this the need of assuming a gaussian form for the fluctuations introduced above. It is however worth stressing once more (see also ) that the results that one gets are not very sensitive to this assumption, namely any symmetric distribution with variance $`1`$, within a large factor, would give essentially the same results. Besides assuming gaussianity, we also assume that $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are uncorrelated random variables; again, this assumption reflects our ignorance in the dynamics of QG.

The form chosen for the fluctations can be guessed in a variety of ways, as will be discussed in the last section; notice that we have chosen a very general form in order to derive our results in a way that we consider as unbiased as possible. We also assume energy momentum conservation relations on the fluctuating quantities, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[\overline{E}_i+\alpha _i\frac{\overline{E}_i^2}{M_P}\right]=\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[\overline{E}_f+\alpha _f\frac{\overline{E}_f^2}{M_P}\right]$$
(4)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[\overline{p}_i+\beta _i\frac{\overline{p}_i^2}{M_P}\right]=\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[\overline{p}_f+\beta _f\frac{\overline{p}_f^2}{M_P}\right]$$
(5)
where the index $`i`$ ($`f`$) denotes values of energy and momentum in the initial (final) state of a reaction.

## 3 Decay of stable particles

In this section we consider three specific decay channels, that illustrate well, in our opinion, the consequences of the quantum fluctuations introduced above. We start with the reaction

$$pp+\pi ^0$$

and we denote with $`p`$ ($`p^{}`$) the momentum of the initial (final) proton, and with $`k`$ the momentum of the pion. Clearly this reaction cannot take place in the reality as we know it, due to energy conservation. However, since fluctuations have the effect of emulating an effective mass of the particles, it may happen that for some realizations, the effective mass induced to the final proton is smaller than the mass of the proton in the initial state, therefore allowing the decay from the kinematical point of view. Since no conservation law or discrete symmetry is violated in this reaction, it may potentially take place. For the sake of clarity, it may be useful to invoke as an example the decay of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ resonance, which is structurally identical to a proton, but may decay to a proton and a pion according to the reaction $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+p+\pi ^0`$, since its mass is larger than that of a proton. From the physical point of view, the effect of the quantum fluctuations may be imagined as that of exciting the proton, inducing a mass slightly larger than its own (average) physical mass.

Following  we expect to find that for momenta above a given threshold, depending on the value of the random variables, the decay may become kinematically allowed. In general, the probability for this to happen has to be calculated numerically from the conservation equations supplemented by the dispersion relations.

Although a full calculation is possible, it is probably more instructive to proceed in a simplified way, in which only the fluctuations in the dispersion relation of the particle in the initial state are taken into account. Neglecting the corresponding fluctuations in the final state should not affect the conclusions in any appreciable way, unless the fluctuations in the initial and final states are correlated.

In this approximation, the threshold for the process of proton decay to a proton and a neutral pion can be written as follows (neglecting corrections to order higher than $`p/M_P`$):

$$\gamma \frac{2p_{th}^3}{M_P}2m_\pi m_pm_\pi ^2=0,$$
(6)
with solution

$$p_{th}=\left(\frac{(2m_pm_\pi +m_\pi ^2)M_P}{2\gamma }\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(7)
For negative values of $`\gamma `$, the above equation has no positive root; this happens in $`50\%`$ of the cases. Since the gaussian distribution is essentially flat in a small interval around zero, the distribution of thresholds for positive $`\gamma `$ (i.e.  in the remaining 50 $`\%`$ of the cases) peaks around the value for $`\gamma 1`$, meaning that the threshold moves almost always down to a value of $`10^{15}`$ eV ; essentially the same result holds for generic fluctuations (i.e. not confined to the dispersion relations) affecting only the incident particle, namely the one with the highest energy.

The reason why the effects of fluctuations are expected to occur at such low energies is that in that energy region the fluctuation term becomes comparable with the rest mass of the particle. In fact the same concept of rest mass of a particle may lose its traditional meaning at sufficiently high energies .

It can be numerically confirmed that independent fluctuations of momenta (and/or of the dispersion relations) of the decay products are more likely to make the decay easier rather than more difficult, due to the non linear dependence of the threshold on the strength of fluctations: the probability that the decay does not take place is in fact $`30\%`$. In the remaining cases, the decay will occur if the momentum of the initial proton is larger than $`p_{th}`$. The distribution of $`p_{th}`$ is essentially identical to the one reported in  for other reactions.

All the discussion reported so far remains basically unchanged if similar reactions are considered. For instance the reaction $`p\pi ^+n`$ is kinematically identical to the one discussed above. For all these reactions, we expect that once they become kinematically allowed, the energy loss of the parent baryon is fast. For the case of nuclei, all the decays that do not change the nature of the nucleon leave (A,Z) unchanged, so we do not expect any substantial blocking effect in nuclei.

Another reaction that may be instructive to investigate is the spontaneous pair production from a single photon, namely

$$\gamma e^+e^{}.$$

In this case, following the calculations described above, we obtain the following expression for the threshold:

$$p_{th}^{}=(\frac{4m_e^2M_P}{2\gamma ^{}},)^{\frac{1}{3}}$$
(8)
and $`p_{th}^{}`$ is of the order of $`10^{13}`$ eV. Again, if the reaction becomes kinematically allowed, there does not seem to be any reason why the reaction should not take place with a rate dictated by the typical cross section of electromagnetic interactions.

Finally, we propose a third reaction that in its simplicity may represent the clearest example of reactions that should occur in a world in which quantum fluctuations behave in the way described above. Let us consider a proton that moves in the vacuum with constant velocity, and let us consider the elementary reaction of spontaneous photon emission. In the Lorentz invariant world the process of photon emission is known to happen only in the presence of an external field that may provide the conditions for energy and momentum conservation. However, in the presence of quantum fluctuations, one can think of the gravitational fluctuating field as such an external field, so that the particle can in fact radiate a photon without being in the presence of a nucleus or some other external recognizable field. The threshold for this process, calculated following the usual procedure, is

$$p_{th}^{\prime \prime }\left(\frac{m^2M_P\omega }{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}},$$
(9)
where $`\omega `$ is the energy of the photon. This threshold approaches zero when $`\omega 0`$: for instance, if $`\omega =1`$ eV, then $`p_{th}300`$ GeV for protons and $`p_{th}45`$ GeV for electrons. In other words there should be a sizable energy loss of a particle in terms of soft photons. This process can be viewed as a sort of bremsstrahlung emission of a charged particle in the presence of the (fluctuating) vacuum gravitational potential.

Based on the arguments provided in this section, it appears that all particles that we do know are stable in our world, should instead be unstable at sufficiently high energy, due to the quantum fluctuations described above. In the next section we will take a closer look at the implications of the existence of these quantum fluctuations, and possibly propose some plausible avenues to avoid these dramatic conclusions.

## 4 Discussion and outlook

If the decays discussed in the previous section could take place, our universe, at energies above a few PeV or even at much lower energies might be unstable, nothing like what we actually see. The decays $`nucleonnucleon+\pi `$ would start to be kinematically allowed at energies that are of typical concern for cosmic ray physics, while the spontaneous emission of photons in vacuum might even start playing a role at much lower energies, testable in laboratory experiments. Without detailed calculations of energy loss rates it is difficult to assess the experimental consequences of this process. We are carrying out these calculations, that will be presented in a forthcoming publication .

For the nucleon decay, the situation is slightly simpler if we assume that the quantum fluctuations affect only the kinematics but not the dynamics, an assumption also used in . In this case one would expect the proton to suffer the decay to a proton and a pion on a time scale of the same order of magnitude of typical decays mediated by strong interactions. This would basically cause no cosmic ray with energy above $`10^{15}`$ eV to be around, something that appears to be in evident contradiction with observations 111From a phenomenological point of view, consistency with experiments would require either that the variance of the fluctuations considered above is ridicolously small ($`<10^{24}`$) or, allowing more generic fluctations $`\mathrm{\Delta }ll_P(l_P/l)^\alpha `$, that a fairly large value for $`\alpha `$ should be adopted ..

In the following we will try to provide a plausible answer to these three very delicate questions:

1. If the particles were kinematically allowed to decay, and there were no fundamental symmetries able to prevent the decay, would it take place?
2. Is the form adopted for the quantum fluctuations correct and if so, how general is it?
3. If in fact the form adopted for the fluctuations is correct, how general and unavoidable is the consequence that (experimentally) unobserved decays should take place?

Although the result that particles are kinematically allowed to decay is fairly general, the (approximate) lack of relativistic invariance forbids the computation of life-times 222In fact life-times can be in principle estimated in approaches in which it is possible to make transformations between frames , despite the lack of LI.. Two comments are in order: first, the phase space for the decays described above, as calculated in the laboratory frame, is non zero and in fact it increases with the momentum of the parent particle. The effect of fluctuations can be seen as the generation of an effective (mass)$`{}_{}{}^{2}p^3/M_P`$. A similar effect, although in a slighty different context, was noted in . Second, we do not expect dynamics to forbid the reactions: one must keep in mind that we are considering very small effects, at momenta much smaller than the Planck scale. For instance the gravitational potential of the vacuum fluctations is expected to move quarks in a proton to excited levels, not to change its content, nor the properties of strong interactions.

There is a subtler possibility, which must be taken very seriously in our opinion, since it might invalidate completely the line of thought illustrated above, namely that the quantum fluctuations of the momenta of the particles involved in a reaction occur on time scales that are enormously smaller than the typical interaction/decay times. This situation might resemble the so called Quantum Zeno paradox, where continuously checking for the decay of an unstable particle effectively impedes its decay. This possibility is certainly worth a detailed study, that would however force one to handle the intricacies of matter in a Quantum Gravity regime. We regard this possibility as the most serious threat to the validity of the arguments in favor of quantum fluctuations discussed in this paper and in many others before it.

Let us turn out attention toward the question about the correctness and generality of the form adopted for the momentum fluctuations. It is generally accepted that the geometry of space-time suffers profound modifications at length (time) scales of the order of the Planck length (time), and that this leads to the emergence of a minimum measurable length. This may be reflected in a non commutativity of space-time and in a generalized form of the uncertainty principle. The transition from uncertainty in the length or time scales to uncertainty in momenta of particles is undoubtly more contrived and deserves some attention. The expressions in Eqs. 1,2 and 3 have been motivated in various ways  in previous papers. For instance, the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }ll_P`$ implies the following constraint on wavelengths $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda l_P`$, otherwise it would be possible to design an experimental set-up capable of measuring distances with precision higher than $`l_P`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda ^1)l_Pp^2`$. Similar arguments have been proposed, all based to some extent on the de Broglie relation $`p\lambda ^1`$.

There is certainly no guarantee that the de Broglie relation continues to keep its meaning in the extreme conditions we are discussing, in particular in models in which the coordinates and coordinate-momentum commutators are modified with respect to standard quantum mechanics and the representation of momentum in terms of coordinate derivatives generally fails. For instance in a specific (although non-relativistic) example  the existence of a minimum length is shown to imply that

$$p=\frac{2}{\pi l_P}\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi l_P}{2\lambda }\right).$$
(10)
In other words, the de Broglie relation may be modified in such a way that a minimum wavelength corresponds to an unbound momentum. Notice, however, that we are considering here the effects of these modifications at length scales much larger than the Planck scale, where the correction is likely to be negligible. In general, if $`p\lambda ^1g(l_P/\lambda )`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }pl_Pp^2+pO(l_P^2p^2)`$. Hence, we do not expect that the result shown in the previous Section is appreciably modified.

Last but not least we notice that the fluctuations in the dispersion relations can be easily derived from fluctuations of the (vacuum) metric in the form given in :

$$ds^2=(1+\varphi )dt^2(1+\psi )d𝐫^2$$
(11)
where $`\varphi ,\psi `$ are functions of the position in space-time.

The fluctuations of the dispersion relation, Eq. 3, follow if $`\varphi \psi `$ (i.e. non conformal fluctuations), assuming at least approximate validity of the de Broglie relation; if $`\varphi =\psi `$ a much milder modification (O($`pm^2/M_P`$)) follows.

Having given plausibility arguments in favor of the form adopted for the fluctuations, at least for the case of non conformal fluctuations, we are left with the goal of proving an answer to the last question listed above, namely does a decay actually occur once it is kinematically allowed? Certainly the answer is positive if one continues to assume momentum and energy conservation, and modifications of these conservation laws with random terms of order $`O(p^2/M_P)`$ do not change this conclusion. The question then is whether we are justified in assuming energy and momentum conservation in the form used above. For instance, in the so-called Doubly Special Relativity (DSR, ) theories and in general in models with deformed Poincare’ invariance, the conservation relations may be modified in a non trivial, non additive and non abelian way. For instance, in the case of proton decay considered above, momentum conservation may read as

$$𝐩_p𝐩_p^{}+(1+l_PE_p^{})𝐩_\pi \mathrm{or}𝐩_p𝐩_\pi ^{}+(1+l_PE_\pi ^{})𝐩_p.$$
(12)
This certainly makes the probability of being above threshold smaller. However in order to qualitatively modify our results this probability should be in fact vanishingly small. For the case of low energy cosmic rays, this probability should be of the order of a typical decay time divided by the residence time of cosmic rays (mostly galactic at these energies) in our Galaxy.

We are led to conclude that allowing for modifications of the conservation relations does not appear to improve the situation to the point that the strong conclusions derived in the previous section can be avoided. In the same perspective, cancellation between fixed modifications of the dispersion relation and fluctuations (of the same order of magnitude) does not seem a viable way to proceed.

It is important however to notice that we have considered the above fluctuations as independent. In a full theory (exemplified by DSR models, for instance) one should take into account the correlations (and possible cancellations 333In fact in DSR theories the processes described here should be absent, given the frame independence on which these theories are built. We thank Giovanni Amelino-Camelia for having pointed out this fact to us.) between them. In our opinion this analysis is mandatory if we want to have a clearer idea of the extent of the implications of these theories. At the level these calculations can be carried out at present, we think that there are solid arguments that suggest that the fluctuations in the form assumed above imply observational consequences which seem to be in serious contradiction with reality.

Note added in proof: After submission of the present paper, analogous considerations appeared in , where essentially identical conclusions are reached.

Acknowledgements: We warmly thank Piera Luisa Ghia for collaboration in an earlier phase and encouragement. We are grateful to Giuseppe Di Carlo and Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman for very useful and stimulating discussions.


format: text

text:
# Mass Relations for the Quark-Diquark Model

## I Introduction

There is a good phenomenological evidence that in a rotationally excited baryon a quark-diquark ($`qD`$) structure is favored over a three quark ($`qqq`$) structure. Regge trajectories for mesons and baryons are closely parallel; both have a slope of about $`0.9GeV^2`$. At large spin two of the quarks form a diquark ($`D=qq`$), a bilocal object at one end of a bag, the remaining quark being at the other. For the light quarks it was shown (-) that the underlying quark-diquark symmetry leads to supersymmetric $`SU(6/21)`$ symmetry between mesons and baryons. This new scheme uses split octonion algebra that renders the algebraic description of color degrees of freedom, supresses color-symmetric and space-symmetric quark configurations, and leads to existence of exotic meson (diquark-antidiquark) states for which there is now a good deal of experimental evidence. In this note we show derivation of hadronic mass formulae and show they are in remarkable agreement with experiments. A new and extended semirelativistic and relativistic mass formulae for hadrons, based on supersymmetry schemes that make use of algebra of octonions (largest of Hurwitz’ division algebras) are considered in detail in other publications(-).

## II Mass Formulae

The ground state energy eigenvalue $`E`$ of the Hamiltonian can be estimated by using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This leads to the replacement of $`r`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ and $`p_r`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p_r=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }r)^1,(h=1).$$
(1)
Then $`E`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is minimized for the value of $`r_0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$. The $`r_0`$ corresponds to the Bohr radius for the bound state. The confining energy associated with this Bohr radius is obtained from the linear confining potential $`S(r)=br`$, so that the effective masses of the constituents become

$$M_1=m_1+\frac{1}{2}S_0,M_2=m_2+\frac{1}{2}S_0,(S_0=br_0)$$
(2)
For a meson $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the current quark masses while $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ can be interpreted as the constituent quark masses. Note that even in the case of vanishing quark masses associated with perfect chiral symmetry, confinement results in non zero constituent masses that spontaneously break the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ symmetry of the $`u`$, $`d`$ quarks.

Let us illustrate this method on the simplified spin free Hamiltonian involving only the scalar potential. In the center of mass system, $`𝒑^{(1)}+𝒑^{(2)}=0`$, or $`𝒑^{(1)}=𝒑^{(2)}=𝒑`$. The semi-relativistic hamiltonian of the system is then given by

$$E_{12}\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\sqrt{(m_i+\frac{1}{2}br)^2+𝒑^2}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(3)
Taking $`m_1=m_2=m`$ for the quark-antiquark system, we have

$$E_{12}\mathrm{\Phi }=2\sqrt{(m+\frac{1}{2}br)^2+p_r^2+\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(4)
where we have written the momentum part in spherical coordinates.

Putting

$$b=\mu ^2,\rho =\mu r,$$
(5)
for the $`q\overline{q}`$ system we find $`E_{12}`$ by minimizing the function

$$E_{q\overline{q}}=2\sqrt{(m+\frac{1}{2}\mu \rho )^2+\frac{\mu ^2}{\rho ^2}(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})^2}.$$
(6)
For $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, $`m`$ is small and can be neglected so that

$$E^2=\mu ^2[\rho ^2+\rho ^2(2\mathrm{}+1)^2]$$
(7)
which has a minimum for

$$\rho ^2=\rho _0^2=2\mathrm{}+1$$
(8)
giving

$$E_{min}^2=E^2(\rho _0)=4\mu ^2(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})$$
(9)
Thus, we obtain a linear Regge trajectory with

$$\alpha ^{^{}}=\frac{1}{4}\mu ^2=\frac{b}{4}.$$
(10)
Also $`𝑱=\mathbf{}+𝑺,`$ where $`𝑺`$ arises from the quark spins. Experimentally

$$\alpha ^{^{}}=0.88(GeV)^2$$
(11)
for mesons giving the value $`0.54`$ GeV for $`\mu `$. A more accurate calculation (see ) gives

$$\alpha ^{^{}}=(2\pi \mu ^2)^1,\mu 0.43GeV.$$
(12)
The constituent quark mass can be defined in two ways

$$M_c(\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{2}E_{min}=\mu \sqrt{\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}$$
(13)
or

$$m_c^{^{}}(\mathrm{})=S_0=\frac{1}{2}\mu \rho _0=\frac{\mu }{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(14)
The first definition gives for $`\mathrm{}=0`$,

$$M_c=0.31GeVfor\mu =0.43$$
(15)
in the case of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks.

When the Coulomb like terms are introduced in the simplified Hamiltonian (4) with negligible quark masses one obtains

$$E=\frac{\mu }{\rho }[\overline{\alpha }+\sqrt{\rho ^4+(2\mathrm{}+1)^2}]$$
(16)
with

$$\overline{\alpha }=\frac{4}{3}\alpha _sfor(q\overline{q}),\overline{\alpha }=\frac{2}{3}\alpha _sfor(qq).$$
(17)
In the energy range around $`1`$ GeV, $`\alpha _s`$ is of order of unity. Estimates range from $`0.3`$ to $`3`$. Minimization of $`E`$ gives

$$E_0=\mu u_0^{\frac{1}{4}}(\overline{\alpha }+\sqrt{u_0+(2\mathrm{}+1)^2})$$
(18)
where

$$u_0(ϵ)=\rho _0^4=(2\mathrm{}+1)^2(1+\frac{1}{2}\beta ^2+ϵ\sqrt{2}\beta \sqrt{\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{8}\beta ^2}),$$
(19)
$$ϵ=\pm 1,\beta =\frac{\overline{\alpha }}{(2\mathrm{}+1)}.$$
(20)
The minimum $`E_0`$ is obtained for $`ϵ=1`$, giving to second order in $`\beta `$:

$$E_0=\mu \sqrt{2(2\mathrm{}+1)}(1\frac{\beta }{\sqrt{2}}3\frac{\beta ^2}{8}).$$
(21)
Linear Regge trajectories are obtained if $`\beta ^2`$ is negligible. Then for mesons

$$E_0^2=4\mu ^2\mathrm{}+2\mu ^2(1\sqrt{2}\overline{\alpha }).$$
(22)
$`\beta ^2`$ is negligible for small $`\mathrm{}`$ only if we take the lowest estimate for $`\alpha _s`$, giving $`0.4`$ for $`\overline{\alpha }`$ in the $`q\overline{q}`$ case. For mesons with $`u`$, $`d`$ constituents, incorporating their spins through the Breit term we obtain approximately

$$m_\rho m_\omega =E_0+\frac{c}{4},m_\pi =E_0\frac{3c}{4},c=K\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V}{M_q^2}$$
(23)
where $`M_q`$ is the constituent quark mass. This gives

$$E_0=\frac{(3m_\rho +m_\pi )}{4}=0.61GeV.$$
(24)
The Regge slope being of the order of $`1GeV`$ an average meson mass of the same order is obtained from Eq.(21) in the linear trajectory approximation. To this approximation $`\overline{\alpha }`$ should be treated like a parameter rather than be placed by its value derived from QCD under varying assumptions. Using Eq.(12) for $`\mu `$ one gets a better fit to the meson masses by taking $`\alpha _s0.2`$.

Turning now to baryon masses, we must first estimate the diquark mass. We have for the $`qq`$ system

$$M_D=\mu (\sqrt{2}\frac{2}{3}\alpha _s),$$
(25)
that is slightly higher than the average meson mass

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=\mu (\sqrt{2}\frac{4}{3}\alpha _s).$$
(26)
Here we note that $`E`$ is not very sensitive to the precise value of the QCD running coupling constant in the $`GeV`$ range. Taking $`\alpha _s0.3`$ changes $`E^{qq}`$ from $`0.55`$ to $`0.56GeV`$.

Note that Eq.(25) gives $`m_D=0.55GeV`$. For excited $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`qD`$ systems if the rotational excitation energy is large compared with $`\mu `$, then both the $`m_D`$ and the Coulomb term $`\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha _s}{r}`$ (same for $`qD`$ and $`q\overline{q}`$ systems) can be neglected. Thus, for both ($`qD`$) \[excited baryon\] and $`q\overline{q}`$ \[excited meson\] systems we have Eq.(9), namely

$$(E^{qD})^2(E^{q\overline{q}})^24\mu ^2\mathrm{}+2\mu ^2$$
(27)
giving again Eq.(10), i.e.

$$(\alpha ^{^{}})_{qD}=(\alpha ^{^{}})_{q\overline{q}}\frac{1}{4\mu ^2}\mathrm{or}(\frac{1}{2\pi \mu ^2})$$
(28)
as an explanation of hadronic supersymmetry in the nucleon and meson Regge spectra. We also have, extrapolating to small $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M^2)^{qD}=\mathrm{\Delta }(m^2)^{q\overline{q}}=4\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{^{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}.$$
(29)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}=1`$ we find

$$m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2m_N^2=m_\rho ^2m_\pi ^2.$$
(30)
This relationship is same as the one proved in our earlier paper () through the assumption that $`U(6/21)`$ symmetry is broken by an operator that behaves like $`s=0`$, $`I=0`$ member of $`35\times 35`$ representations of $`SU(6)`$, which is true to $`5\%`$. It corresponds to a confined quark approximation with $`\alpha _s=0`$.

The potential model gives a more accurate symmetry breaking ($`\alpha _s0.2`$):

$$\frac{9}{8}(m_\rho ^2m_\pi ^2)=m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2m_N^2$$
(31)
with an accuracy of $`1\%`$.

This mass squared formula arises from the second order iteration of the $`qD`$, $`q\overline{q}`$ Dirac equation. The factor $`\frac{9}{8}`$ comes from

$$\frac{1}{2}(\frac{4}{3}\alpha _s)^2=\frac{8}{9}\alpha _s^2.$$
(32)
At this point it is more instructive to derive a first order mass formula. Since the constituent quark mass $`M_q`$ is given by Eq.(13) $`(\mathrm{}=0)`$, we have

$$M_q=\frac{\mu }{\sqrt{2}},$$
(33)
so that

$$\overline{m}=2M_q(1\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\alpha _s)1.9M_q.$$
(34)
When the baryon is regarded as a $`qD`$ system, each constituent gains an effective mass $`\frac{1}{2}\mu \rho _0`$ which was approximately the effective mass of the quark in the meson. Hence, the effective masses of $`q`$ and $`D`$ in the baryon are

$$m_q^{^{}}M_q,m_D^{^{}}=M_D+M_q3M_q.$$
(35)
The spin splittings for the nucleon $`N`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are given by the Breit term

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=K\mathrm{\Delta }V\frac{𝑺_q\mathbf{}𝑺_D}{m_q^{^{}}m_D^{^{}}}.$$
(36)
For the nucleon with spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ the term $`𝐒_q𝐒_D`$ gives $`1`$ while it has the value $`\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$. Using the same $`K`$ for mesons and baryons which are both considered to be a bound state of a color triplet with a color antitriplet we can relate the baryon splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ to the meson splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ for which $`𝐒_q𝐒_{\overline{q}}`$ takes the values $`\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\frac{3}{4}`$. Hence we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N=\frac{3}{2}\frac{K\mathrm{\Delta }V}{m_q^{^{}}m_D^{^{}}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{K\mathrm{\Delta }V}{M_q^2},$$
(37)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=\frac{K\mathrm{\Delta }V}{M_q^2}$$
(38)
which leads to a linear mass formula

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }m$$
(39)
which is well satisfied, and has been verified before using the three quark constituents for the baryon().

The formation of diquarks which behave like antiquarks as far as QCD is concerned is crucial to hadronic supersymmetry and to quark dynamics for excited hadrons. The splittings in the mass spectrum are well understood on the basis of spin-dependent terms derived from QCD. This approach to hadronic physics has led to many in depth investigations recently. For extensive references we refer to recent papers by Lichtenberg and collaborators () and by Klempt ().

To see the symmetry breaking effect, note that the mass of a hadron will take the approximate form

$$m_{12}=m_1+m_2+K\frac{𝐒_1𝐒_2}{m_1m_2}$$
(40)
where $`m_i`$ and $`𝐒_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are respectively the constituent mass and the spin of a quark or a diquark. The spin-dependent Breit term will split the masses of hadrons of different spin values. If we assume $`m_q=m_{\overline{q}}=m`$, where $`m`$ is the constituent mass of $`u`$ or $`d`$ quarks, and denote the mass of a diquark as $`m_D`$, then this approximation gives

$$m_\pi =(m_{q\overline{q}})_{s=0}=2mK\frac{3}{4m^2},$$
(41)
$$m_\rho =(m_{q\overline{q}})_{s=1}=2m+K\frac{1}{4m^2}^{}$$
(42)
$$m_\mathrm{\Delta }=(m_{qD})_{s=3/2}=m+m_D+K\frac{1}{2mm_D},$$
(43)
and

$$m_N=(m_{qD})_{s=1/2}=m+m_DK\frac{1}{mm_D}.$$
(44)
Eliminating $`m`$, $`m_D`$ and $`K`$, we obtain a mass relation

$$\frac{8}{3}\frac{2m_\mathrm{\Delta }+m_N}{3m_\rho +m_\pi }=1+\frac{3}{2}\frac{m_\rho m_\pi }{m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N}$$
(45)
which agrees with experiment to 13%.

($`a`$) Invited talk presented at XXIV International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (Paris, July 15-20, 2002). To be published in: Physical and Mathematical Aspects of Symmetries. Eds. J-P. Gazeau, R. Kerner, J-P. Antoine, S. Métens and J-Y. Thibon.

Work Supported by DOE grants DE-AC-0276-ER3074 and 3075, and PSC-CUNY Research Awards.


text:
# SOLAR NEUTRON EVENT IN ASSOCIATION WITH A LARGE SOLAR FLARE ON NOVEMBER 24, 2000

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Since the discovery of cosmic rays, the acceleration mechanism of cosmic rays has been one of the most important themes in cosmic ray research. Most cosmic rays are ions, such as protons. Charged particles are reflected by magnetic fields at the acceleration site, and by interstellar, and interplanetary magnetic fields. When they arrive at the Earth, exact information on the acceleration place and acceleration time have already been lost. On the other hand, neutral particles, such as $`\gamma `$-rays, neutrons, and neutrinos, which arrive at the Earth, keep the information on the acceleration, because they are not affected by any magnetic field. Therefore, neutral particles are useful to investigate the acceleration mechanism. However, it is difficult to observe neutrinos, and it is difficult to distinguish whether $`\gamma `$-rays have originated from ions or electrons. Therefore, it is valuable to use neutrons in order to solve the acceleration mechanism of ions. We note, however, that the survival probability of decay should be taken into account for neutrons of non-relativistic energy.

The Sun is the nearest source of particle acceleration to the Earth. The Sun, which is a typical star, causes the explosive release of energy known as a solar flare. The energy release in a flare amounts to $`10^{29}10^{33}\mathrm{ergs}`$ during a few to a few tens of minutes. The flare energy is released as electromagnetic radiation, plasma heating, and particle acceleration. The information on ion acceleration is transferred to neutrons, line $`\gamma `$-rays, and neutrinos which are produced by the interaction of accelerated particles with the solar atmosphere.

So far, $`\gamma `$-rays have been observed in association with the solar flares by the Gamma Ray Spectrometer (GRS) onboard the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) in the 1980s. In the 1990s, solar $`\gamma `$-rays were observed by detectors onboard the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) satellite, Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment (OSSE), Burst And Transient Source Experiment (BATSE), Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET), and COMPton TELescope (COMPTEL). Also since August 1991, the Gamma Ray Spectrometer (GRS) onboard the Yohkoh satellite has continued measurements. The Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) has started observations since February 2002.

A lot of $`\gamma `$-ray events associated with solar flares have been detected by these detectors (Murphy et al., 1997). In some of these events, line $`\gamma `$-rays, which originate from de-excited nuclei ($`18\mathrm{MeV}`$), electron-positron annihilation ($`0.511\mathrm{MeV}`$) and neutron capture ($`2.223\mathrm{MeV}`$) processes, are observed with a continuous bremsstrahlung component. The de-excited nuclei $`\gamma `$-rays indicate the occurrence of ion acceleration, and $`2.223\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-rays are produced by neutrons. However line $`\gamma `$-rays cannot be clearly observed in many events because they are buried in the bremsstrahlung component.

The importance of observing solar neutrons produced by accelerated particles was pointed out by Biermann et al. (1951) and by Lingenfelter et al. (1965a, b). Lower energy neutrons (kinetic energy below $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$) are observed only in space because they are attenuated in the Earth’s atmosphere. And high energy neutrons with kinetic energies higher than $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ are observed on the ground. By simultaneous observations in space and on the ground, an energy spectrum of solar neutrons, or accelerated particles, can be obtained in a wide energy range. Moreover, by acquiring the knowledge of the acceleration time, we can know if particle acceleration has taken place impulsively or gradually.

Solar flares which produce neutrons occur frequently when solar activity is the maximum in a solar cycle, and they have been X-class solar flares in most cases. Solar neutrons were observed for the first time by SMM/GRS at the flare on June 21, 1980 (Chupp et al., 1982). On June 3, 1982, solar neutrons were detected for the first time by the ground-level neutron monitor installed at Jungfraujoch, Switzerland, as well as by SMM/GRS (Chupp et al., 1987). In this event, high energy solar neutrons were observed by the IGY type neutron monitor, and low energy neutrons and high energy $`\gamma `$-rays were observed by the SMM/GRS satellite at the same time. Since a long tail of signals was observed by the neutron monitor, this event was interpreted using the impulsive and gradual particle acceleration models, and the neutron energy spectrum of this event was described as a power law with index $`=2.4`$. But, by Shibata (1993), the time-extended neutron signals were interpreted using only the impulsive model. This distinction came from the difference of the neutron propagation model in the Earth’s atmosphere.

After the solar neutron event on June 3, 1982, four solar neutron events were observed with ground-based detectors. The second event was observed by the IGY type neutron monitor located at Climax and a lot of stations in North America on May 24, 1990 (Shea et al., 1991; Debrunner et al., 1997; Muraki and Shibata, 1996). The third event was on March 22, 1991 (Pyle and Simpson, 1991). This event was observed by the NM64 type neutron monitor at Haleakala, Hawaii. And the fourth and fifth events were on June 4 and 6, 1991 (Muraki et al., 1992; Struminsky et al., 1994). On June 4, solar neutron signals were recorded by three different detectors (neutron monitor, neutron telescope, and muon telescope) located at Mt. Norikura. On June 6, solar neutrons were detected at Haleakala and Mt. Norikura, at the same time. Until the present time, solar neutrons have only been observed in association with solar flares larger than the X8 class (Shibata et al., 1993).

In this paper, we report detection of solar neutrons by the neutron monitor installed at Mt. Chacaltaya, Bolivia. Solar neutrons were produced in association with a solar flare which occurred at 14:51 UT on November 24, 2000. The soft X-ray class was X2.3. Therefore, this event is not only the first report of the detection of solar neutrons by a neutron monitor in the 23rd solar cycle, but also the first ground-level event recorded with a soft X-ray class smaller than X8. The analysis result of the neutron monitor data for this solar flare is described. It is compared with X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray data obtained by the Yohkoh satellite.

## 2 OBSERVATION OF SOLAR NEUTRONS

Three X-class solar flares occurred successively in NOAA region 9236 on November 24, 2000. At 14:51 UT, an X2.3 class flare was observed which was the largest among these three. The location of the active region was $`\mathrm{N22}^{}\mathrm{W07}^{}`$ at the time of the flare, and the flare was a disk flare.

The time profile of the soft X-ray flux in this flare observed by the GOES satellite is shown in Fig. 1. Although the start time of this flare defined by the GOES satellite was 14:51 UT, the time when the soft X-ray flux became a maximum was 15:13 UT, which was more than 20 minutes after the start time. In Fig. 1, we can distinguish three bumps starting at 14:51 UT, 15:00 UT, and 15:07 UT, respectively. Each of them arrives at C, M, and X class at its maximum. In order to understand this stepwise increase of the soft X-ray flux, we examined the soft X-ray images obtained by the Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) onboard the Yohkoh satellite.

Soft X-ray images observed by Yohkoh/SXT at 15:06:23 UT and at 15:07:55 UT on November 24, 2000 are shown in Fig. 2. At 15:06:23 UT, the soft X-ray flux reached M class level, and at 15:07:55 UT, it was at X class level by the GOES satellite. A bright point appears on the 15:07:55 UT image, which didn’t exist on the 15:06:23 UT image. From these images, we can say that distinct energy release phenomena occurred at around 15:07 UT, and the soft X-ray flux observed by the GOES satellite was superimposed stepwise.

Around 15:08 UT, when the energy release phenomenon occurred, a large amount of hard X-rays were observed. The time profile of the hard X-rays observed by Yohkoh/HXT is shown in Fig. 3. The hard X-ray flux suddenly increased from 15:07:30 UT, when the new bright spot appeared in the soft X-ray image in Fig. 2.

The hard X-ray image observed by Yohkoh/HXT is shown in Fig. 4 on the soft X-ray image observed by Yohkoh/SXT. At the time when the new soft X-ray source appeared, the hard X-ray source turned up at the foot point of the soft X-ray flare loop. Therefore, hard X-rays were produced in parallel with soft X-rays around 15:08 UT. Moreover, the energy spectrum of the hard X-rays was very hard between 15:07:30 UT and 15:09:30 UT.

High energy electrons can emit hard X-rays by bremsstrahlung. Therefore, the onset time of hard X-rays can indicate the time when the particle acceleration took place. But, hard X-rays are produced by high energy electrons, not by ions. Therefore, we cannot assert that at the time when a large amount of hard X-rays are produced, ions are accelerated and solar neutrons are produced.

It is more useful to examine information on $`\gamma `$-rays to estimate the acceleration time of ions. Around 15:08 UT, a large amount of $`\gamma `$-rays were observed by Yohkoh/GRS. Fig. 5 shows the energy spectrum of $`\gamma `$-rays at that time. In this figure, a clear signal of $`2.223\mathrm{MeV}`$ neutron capture line $`\gamma `$-rays is seen on the bremsstrahlung component. Therefore, it is evident that neutrons were produced around 15:08 UT on November 24, 2000. Furthermore, between $`4\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`7\mathrm{MeV}`$, weak signals of line $`\gamma `$-rays produced by de-excited ions, C($`4.443\mathrm{MeV}`$) and O($`6.129\mathrm{MeV}`$) for example, are seen too. Consequently, it is certain that ions were accelerated at that time.

In principle, from these line $`\gamma `$-ray data, we can calculate the amount of produced neutrons and the energy spectra of the accelerated ions independently of the neutron measurements (Ramaty et al., 1996). But, at this event, the flux of line $`\gamma `$-rays produced by de-excited ions was weak. It is difficult to estimate the amount of $`\gamma `$-rays produced by each de-excitation process due to a contamination of electron bremsstrahlung. For this reason, the neutron spectrum was not derived from the line $`\gamma `$-ray data to compare it with that determined by the neutron monitor data.

The time profiles of $`2.223\mathrm{MeV}`$ neutron capture line $`\gamma `$-rays and $`47\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-rays observed by the Yohkoh/GRS around 15:08 UT on November 24, 2000, are shown in Fig. 6. The bremsstrahlung component is not subtracted. The $`47\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-ray time profile included line $`\gamma `$-rays produced by de-excited ions, C($`4.443\mathrm{MeV}`$) and O($`6.129\mathrm{MeV}`$). Therefore, the $`47\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-ray time profile is approximately equal to the C+O line and bremsstrahlung $`\gamma `$-rays time profile. In these figures, the duration of $`2.223\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-ray emission is longer than that of $`47\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-rays. The $`2.223\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-rays are produced when thermal neutrons are captured by hydrogen. High energy neutrons are produced simultaneously with line $`\gamma `$-rays of de-excited ions by interactions of accelerated ions and the solar atmosphere. On the other hand, the $`2.223\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-rays are produced about $`100\mathrm{s}`$ after the production of the high energy neutrons, because of the time required for neutrons to slow down and be captured. Therefore, the time profile of $`2.223\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-rays is dilated compared with that of $`47\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-rays. Hence, we can consider that the high energy neutrons were produced at the same time as de-excited nuclei $`\gamma `$-rays rather than $`2.223\mathrm{MeV}`$ $`\gamma `$-rays.

At 15:08 UT on November 24, 2000, the Sun was over Bolivia. The neutron monitor installed at Mt. Chacaltaya, Bolivia was at the most suitable place for observing solar neutrons. This station is located at $`292.0^{}\mathrm{E}`$, $`16.2^{}\mathrm{S}`$, $`5250\mathrm{m}`$ above sea level, and the vertical air mass is $`540\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$. At this time, the zenith angle of the Sun was $`17.47^{}`$ and the air mass for the line of sight to the Sun was $`566\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$.

The neutron monitor installed at Mt. Chacaltaya is $`13.1\mathrm{m}^2`$ in area and of the NM64 type. The counting rate is recorded every 10 seconds. The time profile of neutrons observed by the neutron monitor is shown in Fig. 7. A clear excess was found between 15:10 UT and 15:25 UT. The statistical significance of each bin is $`4.7\sigma `$ at 15:10$``$15:15 UT, $`2.4\sigma `$ at 15:15$``$15:20 UT and $`2.4\sigma `$ at 15:20$``$15:25 UT. The total significance for 15 minutes, between 15:10 UT and 15:25 UT, turned out to be $`5.5\sigma `$.

There is a possibility that these excesses came from energetic ions because the neutron monitor can observe energetic ions. But, there is no evidence that the enhancement was produced by energetic ions since the measurements by the other stations in the worldwide network of neutron monitors showed no enhancement. In addition, the cutoff rigidity at Mt. Chacaltaya is high, that is $`12.53\mathrm{GV}`$, so it is difficult for ions to reach ground level. There are many neutron monitor stations located at the place where are lower cutoff rigidity. If these excesses came from energetic ions, some enhancement should have been detected by other stations. And protons with kinetic energy greater than $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ were observed by the GOES satellite in association with the X2.3 solar flare, which was observed 1 hour later. Therefore, these signals must have come from solar neutrons.

Neutron monitors cannot measure the energy of neutrons. Therefore, we cannot directly derive the energy spectrum of solar neutrons. But, using the time of flight (TOF) method by assuming the emission time of solar neutrons, this can be derived. To this end, we must postulate the production time of solar neutrons. As shown above, the production time of de-excited nuclei line $`\gamma `$-rays is taken to be that of solar neutrons. Unfortunately, the excess obtained in this event is not strong enough to examine the time profile of the signals in detail. Therefore we do not touch on the possibility of an extended production of neutrons in this paper and simply assume that neutrons were produced instantaneously in this event.

If solar neutrons were produced at 14:51 UT, which was the start time of soft X-rays, then the energy of the neutrons detected between 15:10 UT and 15:25 UT is calculated to be $`4719\mathrm{MeV}`$. Since neutrons suffer violent attenuation in the Earth’s atmosphere, such low energy neutrons cannot arrive at the ground. On the other hand, the assumption of the production time as 15:08 UT, which is the time hard X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray emissions were seen, gives $`77257\mathrm{MeV}`$, which is much more reasonable. Consequently, the production time of solar neutrons is set at 15:08 UT hereinafter.

From the time profile obtained by the neutron monitor, the flux of solar neutrons at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere was calculated by the following formula:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{ϵ\times S\times \mathrm{\Delta }E_n}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ is the excess count contributed by solar neutrons, and $`ϵ`$ is the detection efficiency of the neutron monitor. Here, $`ϵ`$ includes the attenuation of solar neutrons through the Earth’s atmosphere. $`S`$ is the area of the neutron monitor, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_n`$ is the energy range corresponding to one time bin.

The detection efficiency of the neutron monitor and the attenuation of solar neutrons depend on the energy of the neutrons. The detection efficiency of the neutron monitor was calculated by Hatton (1971), and recently by Clem and Dorman (2000). Experimentally, that has been measured directly by the accelerator experiment (Shibata et al., 2001). The results are shown in Fig. 8 together with calculations by Hatton (1971), and by Clem and Dorman (2000). Although the two calculations are consistent with the experimental result in the energy range $`100400\mathrm{MeV}`$, there is a big discrepancy between the calculation of Hatton (1971) and Clem and Dorman (2000) outside this experimental range. The deviation of the calculation by Clem and Dorman (2000) from the experimental result is $`\pm 5\%`$, whereas that by Hatton (1971) is $`\pm 10\%`$. Consequently, in Equation (1), we adopted the efficiency calculated by Clem and Dorman (2000) because it was closer to the result of Shibata et al. (2001) than the calculation by Hatton (1971).

The attenuation of solar neutrons in the Earth’s atmosphere was calculated by Debrunner et al. (1989) and Shibata (1994) by Monte Carlo simulations. Hereinafter they are called the Debrunner model and the Shibata model, respectively. There is a big discrepancy between the two models. In order to examine which model is correct, the accelerator experiment was conducted at the Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University (RCNP). The Shibata model can explain the experimental result (Koi et al., 2001). Consequently, we adopted the Shibata model in calculating the propagation of neutrons in the air.

The attenuation of solar neutrons in the Earth’s atmosphere at the ground level of Mt. Chacaltaya at 15:08 UT on November 24, 2000 is shown in Fig. 9. This is obtained by using the Shibata model. Solar neutrons whose kinetic energy are below $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ are strongly attenuated by the Earth’s atmosphere.

To derive the energy spectrum of neutrons at the solar surface from the flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, the survival probability of neutrons between the Sun and the Earth is taken into account. The result is shown in Fig. 10. The vertical errors come from only statistical ones. This spectrum was derived from 2 minutes counting rate. By fitting these data points with a power law of the form $`C\times (E_n/100[\mathrm{MeV}])^\alpha `$, the energy spectrum of solar neutrons was obtained. $`C`$ is the flux of neutrons at $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$, and $`\alpha `$ means the power law index. The fitting region is chosen above $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$, because there the errors from neutron attenuation in the Earth’s atmosphere are small. These values were obtained as follows:

$`(1.8\pm 0.8)\times 10^{27}[/\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{sr}]\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{E_n}{100[\mathrm{MeV}]}}\right)^{4.9\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.7}}.`$ (2)
For this fit, the value of $`\chi ^2`$/dof = 0.307/3. The total energy flux of solar neutrons which were emitted from the Sun with energy range between $`50800\mathrm{MeV}`$ was calculated as $`7.4\times 10^{25}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{sr}`$. This is obtained by simply integrating Equation (2). We did not assume any turnover of the energy spectrum of neutrons in this energy region.

## 3 DISCUSSION

Energy spectra of solar neutron events at the top of Earth’s atmosphere were provided by Shibata et al. (1993). They used the attenuation of solar neutrons in the atmosphere calculated by Shibata (1993) and the neutron monitor detection efficiency calculated by Hatton (1971). Using the Shibata et al. (1993) values, neutron energy spectra at the solar surface of these solar neutron events can be calculated. Calculated values are shown in Table 1 together with the results of the November 24, 2000 event discussed in this paper. The solar neutron event on June 4, 1991 was observed by three different detectors, but only the neutron monitor value is shown in Table 1. The data for the solar neutron event on June 6, 1991, do not exist in Shibata et al. (1993). The solar neutron event on March 22, 1991, is the weakest event in Table 1. Because the Haleakala neutron monitor has a large area, this event was detected. Comparing the solar neutron events observed in former cycles with that observed on November 24, 2000, the latter event is fainter than previous events. Because of the thin air mass at Mt. Chacaltaya ($`540\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for vertical), even faint signals can be detected.

Table 1 shows most solar neutron events observed in former solar cycles come from limb flares. But, the November 24, 2000 event came from disk flare. Solar neutrons are released tangentially to the solar surface (Hua and Lingenfelter, 1987a, b; Hua et al., 2002). Therefore, solar neutrons are thought to be detected easily from limb flares. The result in the solar neutron event in solar cycle 23, however, is not explained by this argument. The production direction of solar neutrons in the solar atmosphere has to be treated in more detail taking into account the position of the solar flare at the solar surface and the loop structure of each event.

The spectrum of accelerated ions can be calculated from the neutron spectrum using the spectrum of escaping neutrons produced by the accelerated ions (Hua and Lingenfelter, 1987a, b). From the neutron spectra shown in Table 1, the number of protons above $`30\mathrm{MeV}`$ would be larger than $`10^{33}`$ in all events under the assumption that there is no turnover of the spectrum. This is larger than the number of protons accelerated in the very large flare on June 4, 1991 (Murphy et al., 1997). Estimating the number of solar neutrons below $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ accurately, however, is impossible because these low energy neutrons suffer from high attenuation through the Earth’s atmosphere. Possibly the turnover of the spectrum in the low energy range results in a smaller estimate of the number of accelerated protons. The observation of solar neutrons below $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ by satellite experiments is indispensable in order to determine the total number of protons accelerated in a solar flare.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

We detected solar neutrons in association with the solar flare occurred on November 24, 2000. This detection was made by the neutron monitor at Mt. Chacaltaya, where was a very suitable site to observe solar neutrons in this flare.

Assuming neutrons were produced impulsively at 15:08 UT, the energy spectrum of solar neutrons at the solar surface was obtained as

$`(1.8\pm 0.8)\times 10^{27}[/\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{sr}]\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{E_n}{100[\mathrm{MeV}]}}\right)^{4.9\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.7}}`$
and the total integrated energy of solar neutrons in the energy range $`50800\mathrm{MeV}`$ emitted from the Sun was calculated to be $`7.4\times 10^{25}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{sr}`$.

We assumed neutrons were produced at 15:08 UT because large amount of hard X-rays and $`\gamma `$-rays were observed. If neutrons were produced at the start time of the solar flare defined by the GOES satellite (14:51 UT), the energy of neutrons was estimated to be too low to be detected on the ground due to the extreme attenuation in the Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, it can be said that neutrons are not necessarily produced following the time profile of soft X-rays.

In order to investigate the production time of neutrons, we compared the solar neutron data with the X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray data obtained by the Yohkoh satellite. From the data of Yohkoh/HXT and Yohkoh/GRS, hard X-rays and $`\gamma `$-rays were observed with strong intensity. The observability of solar neutrons is possibly correlated with the intensity of hard X-rays and $`\gamma `$-rays in a solar flare.

Most solar neutron events observed before the 23rd solar cycle were limb flares, and theoretically solar neutrons were thought to be detectable only from limb flares. But, the flare discussed in this paper was a disk flare, and by combining our result with former events, the detectability of solar neutrons seems to be independent of the position of the flare on the Sun. The number of solar neutron events is, however, still too small. For the statistical argument, it is necessary to increase the number of solar neutron events. At the same time, further study of the acceleration of particles and the production and propagation of neutrons at the solar surface for each event is necessary, for example, by Monte Carlo simulation, including real loop construction of each solar flare.

All the solar neutron events observed in the 21st and 22nd solar cycles were associated with solar flares beyond X8. However, the X-ray class was X2.3 on November 24, 2000, when solar neutrons were observed. This is the first report of the detection of solar neutrons on the ground associated with a solar flare whose X-ray class is smaller than X8.

The authors wish to thank the Yohkoh team, for their support to the mission and guidance in the analysis of the Yohkoh satellite data. We appreciate the BASJE group and members of Universidad Mayor de San Andrés for management and maintenance of the Bolivia solar neutron telescope and the neutron monitor. We also thank Prof. John Hearnshaw for reading this manuscript. We wish to thank the referee for evaluating this paper and for helping us to clarify several arguments.