text:
# Dynamical Electroweak Superconductivity from a Composite Little Higgs

## 1 Introduction

A new mechanism for electroweak superconductivity, dubbed the “little Higgs” , was recently discovered via dimensional deconstruction . This mechanism has since been realized in various simple nonlinear sigma models . In this talk, I review some of these developments, and describe some work in progress on incorporating the little Higgs mechanism in a strongly coupled model of dynamical symmetry breaking, in which the Higgs, part of the top and part of the left handed bottom are composite particles.

According to an old proposal of Georgi and Pais , the Higgs is an approximate Nambu-Goldstone Boson (NGB), whose mass squared is protected against large radiative corrections by approximate nonlinearly realized global symmetries. Of course, saying that the Higgs is a pseudo NGB is not enough to explain a small mass squared, because the Yukawa, self, and gauge interactions explicitly break any nonlinearly realized symmetry and lead to quadratic sensitivity of the Higgs mass squared to short distance physics. However little Higgs theories realize the NGB proposal in a UV insensitive way. In these theories the Yukawa, gauge and self couplings arise due to the combined efforts of a collection of symmetry breaking terms in the effective theory at 1 TeV. The Higgs mass squared is at most logarithmically sensitive to the cutoff at one loop, provided the symmetry breaking terms satisfy a mild criterion: no single term in the Lagrangian breaks all the symmetry which is protecting the Higgs mass. Such symmetry breaking may be thought of as being “nonlocal in theory space” and is softer than usual. Several new, weakly coupled particles are found around a few TeV and below, which cancel the leading quadratic divergences in the Higgs mass in a manner reminiscent of softly broken supersymmetry. However, unlike supersymmetry, the cancellations occur between particles of the same statistics, and there is a natural “little hierarchy”, of order $`\lambda /4\pi `$, between the $`W`$ mass scale and the scale of the new physics. The spectrum and phenomenology of little Higgs theories has been discussed in refs. .

In some little Higgs theories, corrections to precision electroweak observables are comparable in size to one-loop standard model effects over much of the natural parameter space, providing important constraints. It is, however, straightforward to find natural, simple, and experimentally viable little Higgs theories where the corrections are much smaller. This will be explicitly discussed in ref. .

A pressing issue is to situate the little Higgs in a more complete theory with a higher cutoff. This is necessary to address in a compelling way the phenomenology of flavor changing neutral currents, which is sensitive to physics beyond 10 TeV. Here I describe how to embed a slightly altered version of the “littlest”  Higgs model into a UV complete theory. The model is experimentally viable, with acceptable precision electroweak corrections and no more than about 10% fine tuning. The Higgs is a composite of fermions interacting via strong dynamics at the 10 TeV scale. The correct size of quark and lepton masses can be generated without excessive flavor changing neutral currents from four fermion couplings. Generating these interactions require either introducing heavy particles of mass between 30 and 250 TeV (depending on how strongly coupled they are) or one might conceivably postpone the issue of generation of 4 fermion coupling further if the theory possesses significant anomalous scaling in the UV. Note that many UV completions of little Higgs theories are conceivable, and the model discussed here should by no means be taken as canonical.

This model illustrates several advantages of composite little Higgs models as compared with the traditional approaches to electroweak superconductivity. In contrast to the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), there are no problems with fine tuning, lepton flavor violation, CP violation, or flavor changing neutral currents. The natural expectation for the masses of the visible new particles is well above the weak scale. The chief drawback of the model relative to the MSSM is the lack of a prediction for the weak angle. In contrast to Technicolor, there is a light Higgs in the the low energy spectrum and it is straightforward to make the precision electroweak corrections very similar to those in the Standard Model. In contrast to the minimal Standard Model, the Higgs mass squared parameter is not UV sensitive, does not require fine tuning, and the dynamics driving the Higgs condensate occurs at and below 10 TeV, where it can be studied experimentally. In contrast to the Georgi-Kaplan composite Higgs, the hierarchy between the compositeness scale and the electroweak scale is not due to fine tuning of parameters.

I will describe this model from the bottom up, as a sequence of natural effective field theories. Below a TeV, the effective theory is the minimal standard model, with an additional light neutral scalar and higher dimension operators with small coefficients.

## 2 The $`SU(5)/SO(5)`$ “littlest” Higgs Model

At the TeV scale, we embed this theory into a nonlinear sigma model. Here I will discuss the simplest of the little Higgs models, the “littlest Higgs”. The target space is the coset space $`SU(5)/SO(5)`$ . This theory describes the low energy interactions of 14 NGBs, with decay constant $`f1`$ TeV. At 1 TeV, all interactions in the effective theory are weak. The cutoff of this effective theory is about $`4\pi f`$10 TeV, where the NGB interactions become strong. The SU(5) symmetry is explicitly broken by gauge interactions and fermion couplings, leading to masses for most of the NGBs of order $`f`$, while others get eaten by gauge bosons whose mass is also of order $`f`$. A special subset of the NGBs, however, do not receive masses to leading order in the symmetry breaking terms, and are about a factor of $`4\pi `$ lighter than $`f`$. In the minimal model of ref. , this subset consisted only of a single Higgs doublet, dubbed the little Higgs. In the present model a neutral scalar also remains light. At the TeV scale a small number of additional scalars, vector bosons and quarks cancel the one loop quadratic divergence in the Higgs mass without fine tuning or supersymmetry.

We can describe the $`SU(5)SO(5)`$ breaking as arising from a vacuum expectation value for a $`5\times 5`$ symmetric matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which transforms as $`\mathrm{\Phi }V\mathrm{\Phi }V^T`$ under $`SU(5)`$. As we will see later, this $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ corresponds in the theory above 10 TeV to a fermion bilinear of a strongly coupled gauge theory. A vacuum expectation value for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ proportional to the unit matrix breaks $`SU(5)SO(5)`$. For later convenience, we use an equivalent basis where the vacuum expectation value for the symmetric tensor points in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ direction where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \text{1}\text{1}\\ & 1& \\ \text{1}\text{1}& & \end{array}\right).$$
(1)
The unbroken $`SO(5)`$ generators satisfy

$$T_a\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_0T_a^T=0$$
(2)
while the broken generators obey

$$X_a\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_0X_a^T=0.$$
(3)
The Goldstone bosons are fluctuations about this background in the broken directions $`\mathrm{\Pi }\pi ^aX^a`$, and can be parameterized by the non-linear sigma model field

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)=e^{i\mathrm{\Pi }/f}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0e^{i\mathrm{\Pi }^T/f}=e^{2i\mathrm{\Pi }/f}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,$$
(4)
where the last step follows from eq. 3.

We now introduce the gauge and Yukawa interactions which explicitly break the global symmetry. In ref. , these were chosen to ensure an $`SU(3)`$ global symmetry under which the little Higgs transformed nonlinearly, in the limit where any of the couplings were turned off. This required embedding the electroweak $`SU(2)_w\times U(1)_y`$ gauge interaction into an $`[SU(2)U(1)]^2`$ gauge group, which was spontaneously broken to $`SU(2)_wU(1)_y`$ at the scale $`f`$. This led to a rather light $`Z^{}`$, which was constrained by Tevatron and precision electroweak corrections . Due to the small size of the weak angle, we can eliminate the $`Z^{}`$ and the associated constraints without increasing the finetuning of the theory. With a 10 TeV cutoff, naturalness does not require cancellation of its quadratically cutoff sensitive contribution to the Higgs mass squared from weak hypercharge gauge interactions. We therefore only introduce a single U(1). This simplification will make cancellation of gauge anomalies very simple in the underlying composite model, as well as relaxing experimental constraints. We thus weakly gauge an $`SU(2)^2\times U(1)_y`$ subgroup of the $`SU(5)`$ global symmetry. The generators of the $`SU(2)`$’s are embedded into $`SU(5)`$ as

$$Q_1^a=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma ^a/2& & \\ & & \end{array}\right),Q_2^a=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ & & \sigma _{}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}/2\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
while the generators of the $`U(1)`$ are given by

$$Y=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0,1,1)/2.$$
(6)
In this basis the 14 NGBs have definite electroweak quantum numbers. We write the NGB matrix as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \frac{h^{}}{\sqrt{2}}& \varphi ^{}\\ \frac{h}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{h^{}}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \varphi & \frac{h^T}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
where $`h`$ is the Higgs doublet, $`h=(h^+,h^0)`$, and $`\varphi `$ is an electroweak triplet carrying one unit of weak hypercharge, represented as a symmetric two by two matrix. In eq. 7, I have ignored the three Goldstone bosons that are eaten in the Higgsing of $`SU(2)^2\times U(1)SU(2)\times U(1)`$, as well as an additional neutral NGB which is massless. (In order to avoid phenomenological problems from a massless NGB, which, for instance, is constrained by rare kaon decays, we can add small symmetry breaking terms to the potential in order to give the NGB a small mass, without affecting the discussion of the little Higgs).

The effective theory at the scale $`f`$ has a tripartite tree-level Lagrangian, given by

$$L=L_K+L_t+L_\psi .$$
(8)
Here $`L_K`$ contains the kinetic terms for all the fields; $`L_t`$ generates the top Yukawa coupling; and $`L_\psi `$ generates the remaining small Yukawa couplings. I describe each of these pieces in turn.

The kinetic terms include the usual kinetic terms for gauge and Fermi fields. The leading two-derivative term for the non-linear sigma model is

$$L_K\frac{f^2}{8}\mathrm{Tr}D_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }D^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}$$
(9)
where the covariant derivative of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is given by

$$D\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }\underset{j}{}\left\{ig_jW_j^a(Q_j^a\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }Q_j^{aT})+ig_B^{}(Y\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }Y^T)\right\}.$$
(10)
The $`g_i,g^{}`$ are the couplings of the $`SU(2)^2\times U(1)`$ groups. This term will result in the leading quartic term in the Higgs potential, as I will describe shortly.

Generation of the top Yukawa coupling while preserving UV insensitivity requires new heavy fermions, in addition to the usual third-family weak doublet quarks $`q_3=(t,b^{})`$ and weak singlet $`\overline{u}_3`$. In ref.  it was shown that a large top Yukawa coupling could be included without inducing a large quadratic divergence in the Higgs mass by simply adding a pair of colored left handed Weyl Fermions $`\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{t}^c`$, transforming as a singlet under weak $`SU(2)`$. That choice was minimal in new particle content. Here I will describe a different choice, which is more natural in composite model building, where we expect the $`SU(5)`$ symmetry to arise as an accidental symmetry of the dynamics of a strongly coupled theory, analogous to the $`SU(3)\times SU(3)`$ chiral symmetry of QCD. Composite fermions will naturally couple to the composite bosons. I therefore introduce new “composite” fermions $`X,\overline{X}`$ transforming as $`(5,3)`$ and $`(5,\overline{3})`$, respectively, under $`SU(5)\times SU(3)_c`$. These couple to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ field in an $`SU(5)`$ symmetric fashion and gain mass from the $`SU(5)/SO(5)`$ symmetry breaking. The top mass will arise by mixing “fundamental” quarks $`q_3`$ and $`\overline{u}_3`$ with “composite” quarks of the same quantum numbers, in a manner similar to Frogatt-Nielsen models of flavor  and the top see-saw .

Explicitly, the fields $`X,\overline{X}`$, contain components $`\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{t},p,\overline{p},\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}},\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, transforming under $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_1\times SU(2)_2\times U(1)_y`$ as

|  |  | $`SU(3)_c`$ | $`SU(2)_1`$ | $`SU(2)_2`$ | $`U(1)_Y`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1/6 |
| X | $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2/3 |
|  | $`p`$ | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7/6 |
|  | $`\overline{p}`$ | $`\overline{3}`$ | 2 | 1 | -7/6 |
| $`\overline{X}`$ | $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | 1 | -2/3 |
|  | $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | 2 | -1/6 |

We break the $`SU(5)`$ symmetry only through explicit fermion mass terms connecting the $`q_3`$ and $`\overline{u}_3`$ to the components of $`X,\overline{X}`$ with the appropriate quantum numbers. The top Yukawa coupling arises from the combination of terms

$$L_t=\lambda _1\overline{X}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}X+\lambda _2f\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}q_3+\lambda _3f\overline{u}_3\stackrel{~}{t}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(11)
The approximate global symmetry of this effective Lagrangian is actually $`SU(5)^3`$, with independent $`SU(5)`$’s acting on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`X`$, and $`\overline{X}`$. The first term breaks the three $`SU(5)^{}s`$ to the diagonal subgroup, while the second and third terms each leave two of the three $`SU(5)`$’s unbroken. Because all three terms are needed to entirely break the symmetry protecting the little Higgs mass, this form of symmetry breaking is soft enough to not induce quadratic or logrithmic divergences at one loop, or quadratic divergences at two loops.

To see that $`L_t`$ generates a top Yukawa coupling we expand $`L_t`$ to first order in the Higgs $`h`$:

$$L_t\lambda _1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}q_3h+f(\lambda _1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}+\lambda _3\overline{u}_3)\stackrel{~}{t}+f\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}(\lambda _1\stackrel{~}{q}+\lambda _2q_3)+\mathrm{}.$$
(12)
Clearly $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ marries the linear combination $`(\lambda _1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}+\lambda _3\overline{u}_3)/(\lambda _1^2+\lambda _3^2)^{1/2}`$ to become massive, $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ marries the linear combination $`(\lambda _1\stackrel{~}{q}+\lambda _2q_3)/(\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2)^{1/2}`$, and $`p`$ pairs up with $`\overline{p}`$. We can integrate out these heavy quarks. The remaining light combinations are $`Q`$, the left handed top and bottom doublet,

$$Q\frac{(\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{q}\lambda _1q_3)}{\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2}},$$
(13)
and $`\overline{T}`$, the left handed antitop,

$$\overline{T}\frac{(\lambda _3\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}\lambda _1\overline{u}_3)}{\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _3^2}},$$
(14)
with a Yukawa coupling to the little Higgs

$$\lambda _th\overline{U}Q+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{where}\lambda _t=\frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3}{\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2}\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+\lambda _3^2}}.$$
(15)
Finally, the interactions in $`L_\psi `$ encode the remaining Yukawa couplings of the Standard Model.

$$L_\psi =\lambda _{ij}^e\overline{e}_i\mathrm{}_jh+\lambda _{ij}^d\overline{d}_iq_jh+\lambda _{ij}^u\overline{u}_iq_jh^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(16)
where in the third term all coupling s are very small and not the major source of the top Yukawa coupling to the Higgs. These couplings are explicitly SU(5) breaking but small enough so that the 1-loop quadratically divergent contributions to the Higgs mass they induce are negligible with a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 10\mathrm{TeV}`$.

Note that since there may be additional fermions at the cutoff which cancel the anomalies involving the broken subgroup we need insist only that Standard Model anomalies cancel in the effective theory at the TeV scale. It is however, simple to write down an entirely anomaly free theory at the 10 TeV scale.

We now turn to a discussion of loop effects in this effective theory, which give the Higgs a potential.

### 2.1 The Effective Potential and Electroweak Superconductivity

At tree level the orientation of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ field is undetermined, and all the NGBs are massless. Whether or not we have electroweak superconductivity is a problem of vacuum alignment, which can be settled by a computation of the Higgs effective potential at one loop order. Our nonrenormalizable effective theory is incomplete, and we will need to add new interactions (counterterms) in order to account for the cutoff sensitivity introduced by radiative corrections. We follow a standard chiral Lagrangian analysis, including all operators consistent with the symmetries of the theory with coefficients assumed to be of the order determined by naïve dimensional analysis, that is, of similar size to the radiative corrections computed from the lowest order terms with cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi =4\pi f`$. Remarkably, the leading such terms only contribute to the quartic term in the Higgs potential, and not the quadratic term.

The largest corrections come from the gauge sector, due to 1-loop quadratic divergences proportional to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}M_V^2(\mathrm{\Sigma })$$
(17)
where $`M^2(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the gauge boson mass matrix in a background $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. $`M_V^2(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ can be read off from the covariant derivative for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of eq. 10, giving a potential

$$cg_j^2f^4\underset{a}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[(Q_j^a\mathrm{\Sigma })(Q_j^a\mathrm{\Sigma })^{}\right]+cg_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}f^4\mathrm{Tr}\left[(Y\mathrm{\Sigma })(Y\mathrm{\Sigma })^{}\right]$$
(18)
Here $`c`$ is an $`O(1)`$ constant whose precise value is sensitive to the UV physics at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note that at second order in the gauge couplings and momenta eq. 18 is the unique gauge invariant term transforming properly under the global $`SU(5)`$ symmetry. This potential is analogous to that generated by electromagnetic interactions in the pion chiral Lagrangian, which shift the masses of $`\pi ^\pm `$ from that of the $`\pi ^0`$ . In analogy to the chiral Lagrangian, we assume that $`c`$ is positive. This implies that the gauge interactions prefer the alignment $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ where the electroweak group remains unbroken.

In the following, for simplicity, we neglect effects which are suppressed by the weak angle sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{W}^{}`$. To quadratic order in $`\varphi `$ and quartic order in $`h`$, the potential from the SU(2) gauge interactions of eq. 18 is

$$+cg_1^2f^2|\varphi _{ij}\frac{i}{2f}(h_ih_j+h_jh_i)|^2+cg_2^2f^2|\varphi _{ij}+\frac{i}{2f}(h_ih_j+h_jh_i)|^2).$$
(19)
The SU(2) interactions in eq. 18 gives the triplet a positive mass squared of order

$$m_\varphi ^2=c(g_1^2+g_2^2)f^2.$$
(20)
The little Higgs doublet, however, only receives mass at this order form the $`U(1)_Y`$ interactions, because the $`SU(2)_{1,2}`$ gauge interactions each leave an $`SU(3)`$ symmetry intact, under which the little Higgs transforms nonlinearly . The SU(2) interactions do, however, lead to an effective quartic interaction term in the little Higgs potential, as well as interaction with the $`\varphi `$ triplet. After the Higgs triplet is integrated out, the resulting quartic coupling for the little Higgs from the SU(2) interactions is

$$\lambda =c\frac{g_1^2g_2^2}{(g_1^2+g_2^2)}.$$
(21)
Remarkably, the SU(2) interactions do not lead to a mass squared for the little Higgs at this order, although they do give a quartic term in the Higgs potential which is of order 1.

The remaining part of the vector boson contribution to the Coleman-Weinberg potential is

$$\frac{3}{64\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}M_V^4(\mathrm{\Sigma })\mathrm{log}\frac{M_V^2(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2}.$$
(22)
This gives a logarithmically enhanced positive Higgs mass squared from the $`SU(2)`$ interactions

$$\delta m_h^2=\frac{9g^2M_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{64\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2}{M_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}$$
(23)
where $`M_W^{}`$ is the mass of the heavy $`SU(2)`$ triplet of gauge bosons. There is a similar Coleman-Weinberg potential from the scalar self-interactions in eq. 18 which also give logarithmically enhanced positive contributions to the Higgs mass squared:

$$\delta m_h^2=\frac{\lambda }{16\pi ^2}M_\varphi ^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2}{M_\varphi ^2}$$
(24)
where $`M_\varphi `$ is the triplet scalar mass.

In this theory, as in the MSSM, the top drives electroweak symmetry breaking. A negative mass squared term in the Higgs potential comes from the fermion loop contribution to the Coleman-Weinberg potential, which is

$$\frac{3}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(M_f(\mathrm{\Sigma })M_f^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })\right)^2\mathrm{log}\frac{M_f(\mathrm{\Sigma })M_f^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2}$$
(25)
where $`M_f(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the fermion mass matrix in a background $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We can neglect the contributions of the light fermions to this potential, and only consider the effects of the heavy charge 2/3 quarks contained in $`\stackrel{~}{t},\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}},\stackrel{~}{q_t},\overline{\stackrel{~}{q_t}},p_t,\overline{p}_t,q_t`$ and $`\overline{u_3}`$. Here $`q_t,\stackrel{~}{q_t},\overline{\stackrel{~}{q_t}},p_t,\overline{p}_t`$ denote the charge 2/3 components of the respective weak doublets.

The charge 2/3 quark mass matrix is

| M | $`p_t`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{q}_t`$ | $`q_t`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\overline{p}_t`$ | $`\lambda _1f\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ | $`\lambda _1f\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ | $`\lambda _1f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ | 0 |
| $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ | $`\lambda _1f\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ | $`\lambda _1f\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ | $`\lambda _1f\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ | 0 |
| $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{q_t}}`$ | $`\lambda _1f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ | $`\lambda _1f\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ | $`\lambda _1f\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ | $`\lambda _3f`$ |
| $`\overline{u_3}`$ | 0 | $`\lambda _2f`$ | 0 | 0 |

where $`\theta =h/(\sqrt{2}f)`$. Note that

$$\frac{}{\theta }\mathrm{Tr}M^{}M=0$$
(26)
and

$$\frac{}{\theta }\mathrm{Tr}(M^{}M)^2=0$$
(27)
which guarantees cutoff insensitivity of the one loop radiative corrections to the little Higgs potential from this sector. Besides the top which has mass $`\lambda _th`$, there are three heavy quarks, of mass

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1f`$ (28)
$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _t^2h^2b^2}{a^2b^2}}+O(h^4)\right)^{1/2}`$ (29)
$`M_3`$ $`=`$ $`\left(b^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _t^2h^2a^2}{a^2b^2}}+O(h^4)\right)^{1/2}`$ (30)
where

$`a^2`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda _1^2+\lambda _2^2)f^2`$ (31)
$`b^2`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda _1^2+\lambda _3^2)f^2,`$ (32)
and we have assumed $`\lambda _2\lambda _3`$ so that nondegenerate perturbation theory is appropriate for diagonalizing the quark masses. We denote these three heavy charge 2/3 quarks as the the $`t^{},t^{\prime \prime },t^{\prime \prime \prime }`$, respectively. Note that if mixing terms of order $`h/f`$ are neglected, these quarks have vector-like standard model gauge quantum numbers (3,2,7/6), (3,1,2/3), and (3,2,1/6) respectively. Including the top and $`t^{\prime \prime },t^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ in equation 25 gives a cutoff insensitive contribution to the little Higgs effective potential

$`\delta _{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda _t^2h^2}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2b^2}{a^2b^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{b^2}}\right)`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda _t^4h^4}{16\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{(a^2+b^2)\left((3a^4+3b^44b^2a^2)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{a^2}{b^2}\right)(a^4b^4)\right)}{2(a^2b^2)^3}}`$
$`+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ab}{h^2}}\right))+O(h^6).`$
Note that the contribution to the mass squared is negative, and typically of somewhat larger magnitude than the positive gauge contribution. For $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _32`$ we have a top Yukawa coupling of order 1, and a reasonably sized contribution to the quadratic term in the potential from the top sector. The top sector contribution to the quartic term is positive, and logarithmically enhanced. Although this is parametrically of higher order than the quartic term from the gauge sector, numerically it is comparable. It is straightforward to find values of $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`f`$ which give the correct Higgs vev without significant fine tuning. Parametrically, $`f4\pi M_W/(\sqrt{N_c}\lambda _t^2)`$, and the masses of new heavy particles should naturally be of order a few TeV.

## 3 The little Higgs as a Composite Higgs

We now turn to the effective theory above 10 TeV. We assume The $`SU(5)/SO(5)`$ symmetry breaking pattern arises from condensation of a new set of fermions, called Ultrafermions, which transform in a real representation of a new strong gauge group, called Ultracolor . This will result in composite NGBs, like the pions of QCD. For concreteness, we take Ultracolor to be an $`SO(7)`$ gauge group.

### 3.1 Matter content

We thus assume that above 10 TeV we have an $`SO(7)\times SU(3)\times SU(2)^{}\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge theory, with the fermion matter content of the following table:

Fermions

|  | $`SO(7)`$ | $`SU(3)_c`$ | $`SU(2)^{}`$ | $`SU(2)`$ | $`U(1)_Y`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\overline{e}_i`$ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| $`\mathrm{}_i`$ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1/2 |
| $`q_i`$ | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1/6 |
| $`\overline{u}_i`$ | 1 | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | 1 | -2/3 |
| $`\overline{d}_i`$ | 1 | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | 1 | 1/3 |
| $`\lambda `$ | 21 | $`1`$ | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| $`\varphi _{\overline{3}}`$ | 7 | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | 1 | -2/3 |
| $`\varphi _3`$ | 7 | $`3`$ | 1 | 1 | 2/3 |
| $`\varphi _2^{}`$ | 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | -1/2 |
| $`\varphi _2`$ | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1/2 |
| $`\varphi _0`$ | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| $`\overline{\psi }`$ | 1 | $`\overline{3}`$ | 1 | 2 | -7/6 |
| $`\psi `$ | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7/6 |

Here $`i=1,2,3`$ is a generational index. The conjectured dynamics of the strong $`SO(7)`$ gauge interaction will be discussed below. The only role of the fields $`\psi `$, and $`\overline{\psi }`$ is to cancel $`SU(2)^2U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)^2U(1)`$ anomalies. Note that this theory is free of gauge anomalies.

The approximate SU(5) global symmetry of the littlest Higgs nonlinear sigma model acts on the fermions $`\varphi _2`$, $`\varphi _2^{}`$, and $`\varphi _0`$. This symmetry is explicitly broken by the $`SU(2)^{}\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge interactions and by four fermion operators.

In order to account for quark, lepton and $`\psi ,\overline{\psi }`$ masses, we assume the effective Lagrangian contains terms:

$`L`$ $``$ $`m_\lambda \lambda \lambda +m_3\varphi _{\overline{3}}\varphi _3+m_0\varphi _0\varphi _0+h_qQ\varphi _{\overline{3}}\varphi _2\lambda +h_{\overline{u}}\overline{U}\varphi _3\varphi _0\lambda +h_s^{}\psi \varphi _{\overline{3}}\varphi _2^{}\lambda `$ (38)
$`+h_s\overline{\psi }\varphi _3\varphi _2\lambda +h_{ij}^u\varphi _2\varphi _0\overline{u}_iq_j+h_{ij}^d(\varphi _2\varphi _0)^{}\overline{d}_iq_j+h_{ij}^e(\varphi _2\varphi _0)^{}\overline{e}_i\mathrm{}_j`$
$`+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
The mass terms $`m_\lambda ,m_3,`$ and $`m_0`$ are small compared to the $`SO(7)`$ strong coupling scale. Only $`m_3`$ plays an important role in the dynamics of the theory. $`m_0`$ and $`m_\lambda `$ give mass to otherwise dangerous axions. $`m_0`$ can be anywhere between a GeV and about a hundred GeV, while $`m_\lambda `$ could be as large as a few TeV. $`m_3`$ is assumed to be about a TeV. The $`h_q`$ and $`h_{\overline{u}}`$ terms are going to lead to the seesaw top quark mass. The four fermi coupling constants $`h^u,h^d,`$ and $`h^e`$ are small, and the light fermions are very weakly coupled to the strong dynamics.

### 3.2  Dynamical Assumptions

Here I describe the dynamical assumptions which will lead to the low energy effective theory of the previous section.

Take the SO(7) gauge interaction to be confining at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is at or above the chiral symmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 4\pi f`$. Neglecting all weak interactions and the terms in eq. 38, the global symmetries of the theory are an SU(11) which acts on the 11 fermions in the fundamental representation of SO(7) (all the $`\varphi `$ fields) and an anomaly free U(1), carried by $`\lambda `$ as well as the $`\varphi `$ fields. The ’tHooft anomaly matching conditions  require either spontaneous symmetry breaking or massless composite fermions. There are no simple massless fermion solutions to all the ’tHooft anomaly matching conditions for the $`SU(11)\times U(1)`$, so it is expected that at least part of the global symmetry is spontaneously broken from fermion condensates. We assume a $`\lambda \lambda `$ condensate, spontaneously breaking the U(1). It is conceivable that SU(11) is spontaneously broken to SO(11) by a $`\varphi \varphi `$ condensate, but it is also possible to match the ’tHooft conditions in a simple way, with massless composite spin 1/2 fermions formed of $`\varphi \varphi \lambda `$, in an antisymmetric tensor representation of SU(11). Note that the anomaly of the antisymmetric tensor of the SU(11) is 7, so such massless bound states match the SU(11) anomaly of the fundamental fermions. We therefore make the reasonable assumption that the $`\varphi \varphi `$ condensate does not form, and, in the absence of the terms in eq. 38, the SU(11) is not spontaneously broken.

If there were fewer fermions, this simple anomaly matching will not work, and we might expect confinement to trigger chiral symmetry breaking. Furthermore the mass term $`m_3`$ explicitly breaks the SU(11) symmetry to $`SU(5)\times SU(3)`$, and some of the composite fermions which are massless in order to match the SU(5) anomalies contain $`\varphi _3`$ and $`\varphi _{\overline{3}}`$ as constituents. It therefore seems likely that if the mass term $`m_3`$ becomes too large, the remaining SU(5) chiral symmetry must spontaneously break to SO(5). We assume this happens with $`m_3`$ a few TeV. All the composite fermions will then acquire a mass. In particular, the composites $`X,\overline{X}`$, of the previous section which s transform as $`(5,3)`$ and $`(5,\overline{3}))`$, are made from $`\lambda \varphi _3\varphi _2,\lambda \varphi _3\varphi _2^{},\lambda \varphi _3\varphi _0,\lambda \varphi _{\overline{3}}\varphi _2,\lambda \varphi _{\overline{3}}\varphi _2^{},\lambda \varphi _{\overline{3}}\varphi _0`$. However, in our case the mass of $`X`$, $`\overline{X}`$, besides being proportional to the $`SU(5)`$ chiral symmetry breaking scale, must also contain the mass term $`m_3`$ which breaks the approximate $`SU(6)`$ symmetry acting on $`\varphi _3`$ and $`\varphi _{\overline{3}}`$. Thus, it should be proportional to $`4\pi f\frac{m_3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The coupling $`\lambda _1`$ of the previous section, should be of order $`4\pi m_3/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We therefore take $`m_3`$ to be a few TeV.

Using naive dimensional analysis, we find the couplings $`\lambda _{2,3}`$ of the previous section are, respectively, of order $`h_{q,\overline{u}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3/(16\pi ^2f)`$. A toy set of assumptions, which we discuss more fully in , suggests that a reasonable value for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is about 50 TeV, and that for this value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a mass $`m_3`$ of a few TeV can drive chiral symmetry breaking provided the spectrum of spinless mesons below 50 TeV contains a scalar in the symmetric tensor representation of SU(11) of mass $``$10 TeV. Such an apparently unnaturally light scalar could result from the number of flavors of the SO(7) theory being very near the critical number of flavors which divides a confining from a conformal phase. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10,50`$ TeV, the couplings $`\lambda _{2,3}`$ will be of order 2 when the coefficient of the four fermi coupling is $`h_{q,\overline{u}}(4\pi )^2/(30\mathrm{TeV})^2,(4\pi )^2/(250\mathrm{TeV})^2`$ respectively. Such four fermi couplings will either require additional, strongly coupled fields of mass $`<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30},250`$ TeV, or substantial anomalous scaling above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Flavor changing neutral currents are not a problem provided either these new fields couple weakly to the light quarks and leptons, or provided anomalous scaling or a high compositeness scale allows the new fields to be sufficiently heavy. A more thorough discussion of these issues will be presented in ref. .

## 4 Recap

We have presented a sequence of natural effective field theories, with no severe finetuning or phenomenological difficulties, describing electroweak symmetry breaking. The underlying theory is a strongly coupled, perhaps nearly conformal theory, valid to some very high energy scale. At some scale above 10 TeV, perhaps of order 50 TeV, a mass term for some fields steers the theory into a confining phase, with an unbroken approximate SU(11) chiral symmetry and relatively light composite fermions. At 1 TeV, another mass term explicitly breaks the SU(11) chiral symmetry down to SU(5), and drives spontaneous breaking of SU(5) symmetry to SO(5). All the light composite fermions obtain mass at this scale. Most of the resulting pseudo-Goldstone bosons get mass from explicit symmetry breaking at the TeV scale, or are eaten by TeV mass gauge bosons. The exception is the little Higgs, a doublet which receives a small, ultraviolet-insensitive negative mass squared from loops in the top quark mass sector. Although this Higgs is a composite particle, it acts like a weakly coupled elementary scalar in the effective theory, whose condensate produces electroweak superconductivity.

This theory provides an example of dynamical symmetry breaking, which phenomenologically resembles the minimal Standard Model at low energies. At the TeV scale, it distinguishes itself via a new weakly coupled fermions <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2These include an excellent candidate for dark matter ., a weak triplet of new gauge bosons, and a scalar triplet. The underlying strong dynamics is well hidden until much higher energies.

## Acknowledgments

This talk was based on work partially supported by the DOE under contract DE-FGO3-96-ER40956, and done in collaboration with Nima Arkani-Hamed, Andy Cohen, Emmanuel Katz, Jaeyong Lee and Devin Walker.


format: text

text:
# Weyl Manifolds and Gaussian Thermostats

## 1. Introduction

We consider a class of mechanical dynamical systems with forcing and a thermostating term based on the Gauss’ Least Constraint Principle for nonholonomic constraints, \[G99\]. It was originally proposed as a model for systems out of equilibrium, \[HHP87\], \[GR97\], \[G99'\], \[R99\].

Let us consider a mechanical system of the form

$$\dot{q}=v,\dot{v}=\frac{W}{q}+E,$$

where $`q,v`$ from $`^n`$ are the configuration and velocity coordinates, $`W=W(q)`$ is a potential function describing the interactions in the system and $`E=E(q)`$ is an external field acting on the system. The total energy $`H=\frac{1}{2}v^2+W`$ does change because of the effect of the field $`E`$. We modify the system by applying the Gauss’ Principle to the constraint $`H=h`$ to obtain the isoenergetic dynamical system

$$\dot{q}=v,\dot{v}=\frac{W}{q}+E\frac{E,v}{v^2}v,$$
$`1.1`$
with possible singularities where $`v=0`$. In the special case when $`W=0`$ we have the isokinetic dynamics. The thermostating term in the equations 1.1 is called the Gaussian thermostat. The numerical discovery, \[ECM90\] that the Lyapunov spectrum, at least in the isokinetic case, has the shifted hamiltonian symmetry raised the issue of the mathematical nature of the equations 1.1.

On every energy level $`H=h`$ the equations 1.1 define a dynamical system. In the isokinetic case the change in $`h`$ is equivalent to the appropriate rescaling of time and the multiplication of the external field $`E`$ by a scalar.

###### Example 1.2

Let $`𝕋^2`$ be the flat torus with coordinates $`(x,y)^2`$ and $`E=(a,0)`$ be the constant vector field on $`𝕋^2`$. The Gaussian thermostat equations on the energy level $`\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2=1`$,

$$\ddot{x}=a\dot{y}^2,\ddot{y}=a\dot{x}\dot{y},$$

can be integrated and we obtain as trajectories translations of the curve

$$ax=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cos}ay$$

or the horizontal lines. Assuming that $`E`$ has an irrational direction on $`𝕋^2`$ we obtain the following global phase portrait for the isokinetic dynamics. In the unit tangent bundle $`S𝕋^2=𝕋^3`$ we have two invariant tori $`A`$ and $`R`$ with minimal quasiperiodic motions, $`A`$ contains the unit vectors in the direction of $`E`$ and it is a global attractor and $`R`$ contains the unit vectors opposite to $`E`$ and it is a global repellor. It can be established (\[W00\]) that these invariant submanifolds are normally hyperbolic so that the phase portrait is preserved under perturbations. This example reveals that Gaussian thermostats, even in the most restricted isokinetic case are not in general hamiltonian with respect to any symplectic structure. In part of the phase space they may contract phase volume and hence have no absolutely continuous invariant measure.

The involution $`I(q,v)=(q,v)`$ conjugates the forward and backward in time dynamics, i.e., the system is reversible. Reversibility is close to the hamiltonian property, for instance, when accompanied by enough recurrence it can replace symplecticity in KAM theory,\[Se98\].

Dettmann and Morriss, \[DM96\], proved the shifted symmetry of the Lyapunov spectrum, in the case of isokinetic dynamics with a locally potential field $`E`$ by exposing the locally hamiltonian nature of the equations. For the system 1.1 with $`W=0`$ and $`E=\frac{U}{q}`$ the change of variables

$$p=e^Uv,\frac{dt}{d\tau }=e^U,$$

brings 1.1 to the form

$$\frac{dq}{d\tau }=\frac{H}{p},\frac{dp}{d\tau }=\frac{H}{q},H=\frac{1}{2}e^{2U}p^2=\frac{1}{2}v^2.$$

Under the same assumptions, Choquard, \[Ch97\], found a variational principle, also involving the factor $`e^U`$ which in the physically interesting examples is multivalued, thus making the whole description only local. Liverani and Wojtkowski, \[WL98\], made the observation that although the form

$$dpdq=e^U\left(dvdqdU(vdq)\right),$$

like the coordinate system $`(p,q)`$ is defined only locally, the globally defined form $`\omega =dvdqdU(vdq)`$ can be used to develop hamiltonian-like formalism.

The three formulations above (\[DM96\],\[Ch97\],\[WL98\]) apply only to isokinetic dynamics with a locally potential field $`E=U`$. In \[W00\] a geometric setup was proposed that covers all cases, i.e., isoenergetic and isokinetic, with a potential vector field $`E`$ and nonpotential as well. We will describe now this setup in detail.

## 2. Weyl manifolds and W-flows

Let us consider a compact $`n`$-dimensional riemannian manifold $`M`$ and its tangent bundle $`TM`$. The metric $`g`$ will be also denoted by $`,`$. For a smooth vector field $`E`$ on $`M`$ the equations of isokinetic dynamics (the Gaussian thermostat) on the energy level $`v^2=1`$ have the coordinate free form

$$\frac{dq}{dt}=v,\frac{Dv}{dt}=EE,vv,$$
$`\mathrm{2..1}`$
where $`\frac{D}{dt}`$ denotes the covariant derivative, i.e., $`\frac{D}{dt}=_v`$ and $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection. We obtain a flow on the unit tangent bundle $`SM`$ of $`M`$.

Let $`\phi `$ be the 1-form associated with the vector field $`E`$, i.e., $`\phi ()=E,`$. The form $`\phi `$ and the riemannian metric $`g`$ define a Weyl structure on $`M`$, which is a linear symmetric connection $`\widehat{}`$ given by the formula (cf. \[F70\])

$$\widehat{}_XY=_XY+\phi (Y)X+\phi (X)YX,YE,$$

for any vector fields $`X,Y`$ on $`M`$. The Weyl structure is usually introduced on the basis of the conformal class of $`g`$ rather than $`g`$ itself, but in our study we fix the riemannian metric $`g`$, which plays the role of a physical space. If we change the metric $`g`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{g}=e^{2U}g`$, then the 1-form $`\phi `$ is replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\phi +dU`$. Hence if the vector field $`E`$ has a potential, i.e., $`E=U`$ then the Weyl structure coincides with the Levi-Civita connection of the rescaled metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$.

The defining property of the Weyl connection is that it is a symmetric linear connection $`\widehat{}`$ such that (cf. \[F70\])

$$\widehat{}_Xg=2\phi (X)g,$$
$`2.2`$
for any vector field $`X`$ on $`M`$, which is equivalent to the requirement that the parallel transport defined by the linear connection preserves angles. We consider the geodesics of the Weyl connection. They are given by the equations in $`TM`$

$$\frac{dq}{ds}=w,\frac{\widehat{D}w}{ds}=0,$$
$`2.3`$
where $`\frac{\widehat{D}}{ds}=\widehat{}_w`$. These equations provide geodesics with a distinguished parameter $`s`$ defined uniquely up to scale. It follows from 2.2 and 2.3 that $`\frac{d|w|}{ds}=\phi (w)|w|`$. Assuming that at the initial point $`q(0)`$ we have $`|w|=1`$ we obtain

$$|w|=e^{_{q(0)}^{q(s)}\phi }.$$

This formula shows that unless the form $`\phi `$ is exact we should not expect the geodesic flow in $`TM`$ of a Weyl connection to preserve any sphere bundle. We introduce the flow

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^t:SMSM,$$

which we call the W-flow for the field $`E`$, by parametrizing the geodesics of the Weyl connection with the arc length given by $`g`$. In other words the projection of a trajectory of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^t`$ to $`M`$ is a geodesic of the Weyl connection, $`t`$ is the arc length parameter defined by the metric $`g`$ and the trajectory itself is the natural lift of the geodesic to $`SM`$. By direct calculation we obtain

###### Theorem 2.4

The isoenergetic dynamics

$$\frac{dq}{dt}=v,\frac{Dv}{dt}=W+E\frac{E,v}{v^2}v.$$
$`2.5`$
on the energy level $`\frac{1}{2}v^2+W=h`$, reparametrized by the arc length defines a flow on $`SM`$ which coincides with the W-flow for the vector field

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=\frac{W+E}{2(hW)}.$$

(We assumed implicitly that $`v^2`$ does not vanish on the energy level set.) In particular in the isokinetic case on the energy level $`v^2=1`$ we obtain that the equations 2.1 define the W-flow for the field $`E`$ itself.

This theorem can be interpreted as a generalization of the Maupertuis metric,\[A89\]. Indeed, in the case of $`E=0`$ we have

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=\frac{W}{2(hW)}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(hW)\right),$$

and hence the Weyl connection for the field $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is the Levi-Civita connection for the Maupertuis metric $`(hW)g`$.

In this formulation it becomes transparent how the isoenergetic case differs from the isokinetic. In the former case, if $`E=U`$ has a (local) potential, the vector field $`\stackrel{~}{E}=\frac{(W+U)}{2(hW)}`$ does not have a potential unless $`dWdU=0`$, i.e., unless $`W`$ and $`U`$ are functionally dependent. It fits well with the result of Bonetto,Cohen and Pugh \[BCP99\] that the isoenergetic dynamics does not in general posses the shifted hamiltonian symmetry of the Lyapunov spectrum. This result implies that the W-flows for nonpotential vector fields are not in general conformally symplectic for any choice of the conformally symplectic structure,\[WL98\].

3. Jacobi equations, curvature of Weyl connec-

tions and linearizations of W-flows

We are interested in studying hyperbolicity of the dynamical system 2.1 on $`SM`$. Since it was revealed to be a modification of the geodesic flow of a connection, it is natural to check if the Anosov theory of riemannian geodesic flows can be extended in this direction. The first step in such a study must be the investigation of linearized equations of 2.1. For riemannian geodesic flows a very useful linearization is furnished by the Jacobi equations. The Jacobi equations are valid not only for a Levi-Civita connection but for any symmetric connection. To describe them let us consider a one parameter family of geodesics of the Weyl connection, i.e., a family of solutions of 2.3 parametrized by the parameter $`u`$ close to zero,

$$q(s,u),w(s,u)=\frac{dq}{ds},|u|<ϵ.$$

We introduce the Jacobi field

$$\xi =\frac{dq}{du}\text{ and }\widehat{\eta }=\widehat{}_\xi w.$$

The Jacobi equations read

$$\frac{\widehat{D}\xi }{ds}=\widehat{\eta },\frac{\widehat{D}\widehat{\eta }}{ds}=\widehat{R}(\xi ,w)w,$$
$`3.1`$
where for any tangent vector fields $`X,Y`$,

$$\widehat{R}(X,Y)=\widehat{}_X\widehat{}_Y\widehat{}_Y\widehat{}_X\widehat{}_{[X,Y]}$$

is the curvature tensor of the Weyl connection.

Let us split the vector field $`\widehat{\eta }=\widehat{\eta }_0+\widehat{\eta }_1`$ into the component $`\widehat{\eta }_1`$ orthogonal to $`w`$ and the component $`\widehat{\eta }_0`$ parallel to $`w`$. The equations 3.1 can be split accordingly

$$\frac{\widehat{D}\widehat{\eta }_1}{ds}=\widehat{R}_a(\xi ,w)w,\frac{\widehat{D}\widehat{\eta }_0}{ds}=\widehat{R}_s(\xi ,w)w,$$
$`3.2`$
where $`\widehat{R}_a(X,Y)`$ is the antisymmetric and $`\widehat{R}_s(X,Y)`$ the symmetric part of the Weyl curvature operator $`\widehat{R}(X,Y)=\widehat{R}_a(X,Y)+\widehat{R}_s(X,Y)`$ ($`\widehat{R}_s`$ is called the distance curvature and $`\widehat{R}_a`$ the direction curvature, cf. \[F70\]).

We are faced now with two tasks, to derive the linearization of 2.1 from the equations 3.1 and to study the curvature tensor of the Weyl connection.

Together with the family of Weyl geodesics let us consider the respective family of trajectories of the W-low 2.1

$$q(t,u),v(t,u)=\frac{dq}{dt},|u|<ϵ.$$

We define again the Jacobi field by $`\xi =\frac{dq}{du}`$. Letting $`\eta =_\xi v=_v\xi `$ we can consider $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ as coordinates in the tangent space of $`SM`$, which is described by $`v,\eta =0`$. Further we replace $`\eta `$ with $`\chi `$, the component of $`\widehat{}_\xi v`$ orthogonal to $`v`$. It can be calculated that

$$\chi =\eta +E,v\xi \xi ,vE$$

and hence we can use $`(\xi ,\chi )`$ as linear coordinates in the tangent bundle of $`SM`$. Note that $`v,\eta =0`$ is equivalent to $`v,\chi =0`$ and in these new coordinates the velocity vector field of the W-flow 2.1 is simply $`(v,0)`$. Now the linearization of 2.1 can be written as

$$\frac{\widehat{D}\xi }{dt}=\chi +\phi (\xi )v,\frac{\widehat{D}\chi }{dt}=\widehat{R}_a(\xi ,v)v+\phi (v)\chi .$$
$`3.3`$
We will rewrite the equations 3.3 as ordinary linear differential equations with time dependent coefficients. To achieve that we need to choose frames in the tangent spaces of $`M`$ along the trajectory where we linearize the W-flow. The Weyl parallel transport along a path is a conformal linear mapping and the coefficient of dilation is equal to $`e^{\scriptscriptstyle \phi }`$. We choose an orthonormal frame $`v,e_1,\mathrm{},e_{n1}`$ in an initial tangent space $`T_{q_0}M`$ and parallel transport it along a trajectory of our W-flow in the direction $`vSM`$. We obtain the orthogonal frames which we normalize by the coefficient $`e^{\scriptscriptstyle \phi }`$ and denote them by $`v(t),e_1(t),\mathrm{},e_{n1}(t)`$. Let $`(\xi _0,\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{n1})`$ and $`(0,\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _{n1})`$ be the components of $`\xi `$ and $`\chi `$ respectively in these frames. Let further $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }=(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{n1})^{n1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=(\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _{n1})^{n1}`$. The equations 3.3 will read then

$$\frac{d\xi _0}{dt}=\phi (\xi \xi ,vv),\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\xi }}{dt}=\phi (v)\stackrel{~}{\xi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi },\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\chi }}{dt}=\stackrel{~}{\xi }$$
$`3.4`$
where the operator $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\widehat{R}_a(\xi ,v)v^{n1}`$ (the vector $`\widehat{R}_a(\xi ,v)v`$, being orthogonal to $`v`$, is considered as an element in $`^{n1}`$ by the expansion in the basis $`e_1(t),\mathrm{},e_{n1}(t)`$). Note that $`\widehat{R}_a(\xi ,v)v`$ and $`\phi (\xi \xi ,vv)`$ depend $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }^{n1}`$ alone.

The linearized equations 3.4 for $`(\stackrel{~}{\xi },\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ differ from the Jacobi equations in the riemannian case by the presence of the “nonconservative” term $`\phi (v)\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ in the first equation and the properties of the operator $``$, which although defined analogously in terms of the curvature tensor is not in general symmetric. The curvature tensor can be calculated directly, \[W00\], but the result is somewhat cumbersome. However the sectional curvatures $`\widehat{K}(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ of the Weyl connection in the direction of a plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ defined as

$$\widehat{K}(\mathrm{\Pi })=\widehat{R}_a(X,Y)Y,X,$$

for any orthonormal basis $`\{X,Y\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, are pleasantly transparent

$$\widehat{K}(\mathrm{\Pi })=K(\mathrm{\Pi })E_{}^2div_\mathrm{\Pi }E,$$
$`3.5`$
where $`K(\mathrm{\Pi })`$ is the riemannian sectional curvature in the direction of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, the vector field $`E_{}`$ is the component of $`E`$ orthogonal to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`div_\mathrm{\Pi }E=_XE,X+_YE,Y`$, the partial divergence of the vector field $`E`$, i.e., the exponential rate of growth of the area in the direction $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ under the flow in $`M`$ of the vector field $`E`$.

There is a problem with this sectional curvature. It does not depend on the Weyl connection alone, it is also effected by the choice of the riemannian metric $`g`$ in the conformal class. However the sign of sectional curvatures is well defined.

If $`M`$ is 2-dimensional then $`E_{}=0`$. Moreover on a compact manifold $`M`$ with a Weyl connection there is a unique metric in the conformal class, called the Gauduchon gauge, \[Ga84\], such that the vector field $`E`$ is divergence free. We obtain that in dimension 2 the curvature of a Weyl connection with respect to the Gauduchon gauge is equal to the gaussian curvature of the Gauduchon gauge.

Let us summarize our discussion. We have a workable linearization 3.4 of the dynamical system 2.1 and a geometric tool (the sectional Weyl curvature 3.5) to describe its properties. We are ready to draw conclusions about hyperbolic properties of the W-flows under the assumption of negative Weyl sectional curvature.

## 4. Hyperbolic properties of W-flows

We obtain the information about hyperbolicity of W-flows studying the quadratic form $`𝒥`$ in the tangent spaces of the phase space $`SM`$, defined by $`𝒥(\xi ,\chi )=\xi ,\chi `$. The form $`𝒥`$ factors naturally to the quotient bundle (the quotient by the span of the vector field 2.1, i.e., in the $`(\xi ,\chi )`$ coordinates the quotient by the span of $`(v,0)`$). The quotient space can be represented by the subspace $`\xi ,v=0`$, but this subspace is not invariant under the linearization 3.4 of the flow. The form $`𝒥`$ in the quotient space is nondegenerate and it has equal positive and negative indices of inertia.

We take the Lie derivative of $`𝒥`$ and obtain

$$\frac{d}{dt}𝒥=\chi ^2\phi (v)𝒥\widehat{K}(\mathrm{\Pi })\xi ^2,$$
$`4.1`$
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the plane spanned by $`v`$ and $`\xi `$. Because of the middle term, which is absent in the riemannian case, the negativity of the sectional curvature does not guarantee that 4.1 is positive definite. However it does have a weaker property that it is positive where $`𝒥=0`$. We call a flow with this property strictly $`𝒥`$-separated,\[W01\]. A strictly $`𝒥`$-separated flow has a dominated splitting, \[M̃84\], i.e., it has a continuous splitting into “weakly stable” and “weakly unstable” subspaces on which the rates of growth are uniformly separated, but which are not necessarily decay and growth respectively. For example the dominated splitting allows exponential growth in the “weakly stable” subspace, but then all of the “weakly unstable” subspace grows with a bigger exponent. It needs to be stressed that the splitting is done in the quotient space, because in contrast to the riemannian/contact case we do not have a priori any invariant subspaces transversal to the flow direction.

It turns out that negative sectional Weyl curvatures guarantee even more hyperbolicity.

###### Theorem 4.2

If the sectional curvatures of the Weyl structure are negative everywhere in $`M`$ then the W-flow is strictly $`𝒥`$-separated and hence it has the dominated splitting into the invariant subspaces $`^+`$ and $`^{}`$. Moreover there is uniform exponential growth of volume on $`^+`$ and uniform exponential decay of volume on $`^{}`$.

###### Corollary 4.3

If the sectional curvatures of the Weyl structure are negative everywhere in $`M`$ then for any ergodic invariant measure of the W-flow the largest Lyapunov exponent is positive and the smallest Lyapunov exponent is negative.

We can apply this corollary to an individual periodic orbit and we obtain linear instability. Moreover there are also no repelling periodic orbits under the assumption of negative sectional Weyl curvature.

The 2-dimensional case is special. We have

###### Theorem 4.4

For a 2-dimensional compact surface $`M`$ if the curvature of the Weyl structure is negative, i.e, $`\widehat{K}=KdivE<0`$ on $`M`$, then the W-flow is a transitive Anosov flow.

For a locally potential vector field $`divE=\mathrm{}U`$ and we get

###### Corollary 4.5

If $`K<\mathrm{}U`$ on a 2-dimensional surface $`M`$ then the W-flow is a transitive Anosov flow.

###### Corollary 4.6

If the local potential is harmonic and the Gaussian curvature $`K<0`$ on $`M`$ then the W-flow is a transitive Anosov flow.

We conclude that in the case of fields given by automorphic forms on surfaces of constant negative curvature, which were studied by Bonetto, Gentile and Mastropietro, \[BGM00\], the flow is always Anosov. Further it follows from the theory of SRB measures that if such a flow is Anosov then it is also automatically dissipative, i.e., the SRB measure is singular, \[W00'\].

Note that in this situation we can multiply the vector field $`E`$ by an arbitrary scalar $`\lambda `$ and we still get a transitive Anosov flow. It would be interesting to understand the asymptotics of the SRB measure as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. Is the limit supported on the union of the integral curves of $`E`$? Let us stress that this scenario differs from the perturbative conditions in \[Go97\], \[Gr99\], \[W00'\], where the geodesic curvature of the trajectories cannot be too large. Our trajectories may have arbitrarily large geodesic curvatures and yet they form a transitive Anosov flow.

5. Examples, extensions, open problems and disa-

ppointments

A. In view of Theorems 4.2 and 4.4 it is natural to ask, if the negative sectional Weyl curvature is enough to guarantee the Anosov property for the W-flow. It follows immediately from 4.1 and 3.5 that if for every plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ the sectional Weyl curvatures satisfy

$$\widehat{K}(\mathrm{\Pi })+\frac{1}{4}E_\mathrm{\Pi }^2=K(\mathrm{\Pi })div_\mathrm{\Pi }EE^2+\frac{5}{4}E_\mathrm{\Pi }^2<0,$$

then the W-flow is Anosov. We propose

###### Conjecture 5.1

There are manifolds of dimension $`3`$ and tangent vector fields $`E`$ such that the Weyl sectional curvatures are negative everywhere but the W-flow is not Anosov.

It is also plausible that under the assumption of negative sectional curvatures we can obtain W-flows which are nontransitive Anosov flows, as in the examples of Franks and Williams, \[FW80\].

To resolve these issues we would like to construct examples of Weyl manifolds with negative sectional curvatures which are not small deformations of riemannian metrics of negative sectional curvature. In that direction we found some obstructions.

###### Proposition 5.2

There are no Weyl structures with negative sectional curvatures in a small neighborhood of the homogeneous Weyl structure on an n-dimensional torus (as in Example 1.2).

###### Conjecture 5.3

There are no Weyl structures of negative sectional curvature on n-dimensional tori.

It is so for $`n=2`$ since for 2-dimensional manifolds the Weyl curvature is equal to the gaussian curvature of the Gauduchon gauge.

The presence of a negative term in the formula for the Weyl sectional curvature 3.5 gives the impression that it is easier to find manifolds with negative Weyl curvature than with negative riemannian curvature. The following two observations suggest that it is not necessarily so.

If $`(M_i,g_i,E_i),i=1,2`$ are two Weyl manifolds then their cartesian product has a natural Weyl structure, and the Weyl sectional curvature in the direction of the plane spanned by $`(E_1,0)`$ and $`(0,E_2)`$ is either mixed (positive, negative and zero) or always zero (iff $`|E_i|=const,i=1,2`$). Hence just like in the riemannian case, product manifolds cannot have negative sectional curvature.

Secondly, if we look for interesting homogeneous Weyl structures we are confronted with the phenomenon that on symmetric spaces of noncompact type, \[H78\], there are no homogeneous Weyl structures at all (except for the riemannian metric itself). The only simply connected homogeneous riemannian manifolds with a compact factor and nonpositive sectional curvature are symmetric spaces,\[AW76\].

###### Conjecture 5.4

The only simply connected homogeneous Weyl manifolds with a compact factor and negative Weyl sectional curvatures are riemannian symmetric spaces.

We obtain a homogeneous Weyl manifold by taking a left invariant metric $`g`$ on a Lie group and a left invariant vector field $`E`$. It is known that on unimodular Lie groups the only left invariant metrics with nonpositive riemannian sectional curvature are metrics with zero curvature, \[AW76\],\[M76\]. In contrast, by 3.5 the $`n`$-dimensional torus, $`n3`$, with a constant vector field $`E`$ has negative Weyl sectional curvature in the direction of any plane except for the planes that contain $`E`$, where it vanishes.

Another instructive example is the 3-dimensional Lie group SOL,\[T98\], which has mixed riemannian sectional curvatures, but for one of the left invariant fields the Weyl sectional curvature is nonpositive, with some negative curvature.

A weaker version of Conjecture 5.4 is

###### Conjecture 5.5

There are no left invariant Weyl structures with negative Weyl sectional curvatures on unimodular Lie groups.

B. Billiard systems are a natural extension of geodesic flows. Similarly we can consider billard W-flows on Weyl manifolds with boundaries by augmenting the continuous time dynamics with elastic reflections in the boundaries. For example we can remove from a Weyl manifold some subsets (“obstacles”). In case of convex obstacles in a cube (or a flat torus), we obtain Sinai billiards, which have good statistical properties.

We can introduce Weyl strict convexity of the obstacles by requiring that the Weyl geodesics in the exterior of the obstacle can have locally at most one point in common with the obstacle. It can be calculated that this property has the following infinitesimal description. Let $`N`$ be the field of unit vectors orthogonal to the obstacle and pointing out of it. The riemannian convexity of the obstacle at a point is defined by the positive definiteness of the riemannian shape operator $`K\xi _0=_{\xi _0}N`$, where $`\xi _0`$ is from the tangent subspace to the obstacle. Similarly we introduce the operator

$$\widehat{K}\xi _0=K\xi _0+N,E\xi _0,$$
$`5.6`$
which is the orthogonal projection of the ” Weyl shape operator” $`\widehat{}_{\xi _0}N`$ to the tangent subspace. An obstacle is (strictly) Weyl convex if $`\widehat{K}`$ is positive (definite) semidefinite.

Assuming that the obstacles are Weyl convex we obtain hyperbolic properties of the billiard W-flows, \[W00\], in parallel with Section 4.

Two dimensional Lorentz gas with round scatterers of radius $`r`$, a constant electric field $`E`$ and the Gaussian thermostat is a model of this kind. It was studied numerically by Moran and Hoover, \[MH87\]. Chernov et al,\[CELS92\], obtained exaustive rigorous results about its SRB measures in the case of small fields and finite horizon. We can prove the uniform hyperbolicity of the model when $`r|E|<1`$ and this inequality is sharp. Indeed, the exponential map $`F(z)=e^{|E|z},`$ takes the trajectories of the W-flow onto the straight lines and being conformal it respects the reflections from the boundary. Hence the mapping $`F`$ takes the billiard W-flow into a billiard flow, at least locally (globally we get billiards on the Riemann surface of the logarithm). However the image of a disk of radius $`r`$ under the exponential mapping is strictly convex if and only if $`r|E|<1`$. Once the obstacles loose convexity we readily find elliptic periodic orbits which rules out global hyperbolicity, \[W00\].

C. For obscure reasons in hamiltonian systems of many particles interacting by a pair potential, which are expected to have in general good statistical properties (and do have them in numerical experiments), hyperbolicity in all of the phase space is rarely encountered. The notable exceptions are the Boltzmann-Sinai gas of hard spheres,\[S00\], and also the one dimensional systems of falling balls, \[W98\],\[W99\]. In particular, beyond the 2 dimensional examples of Knauf, \[K88\],(which have Weyl counterparts, \[W00\]), we do not know of systems equivalent to geodesic flows on manifolds with negative sectional curvatures.

For systems of particles in an external field the Gaussian thermostat provides additional interactions and the resulting system is not hamiltonian. Examining the simplest examples we find that also in this case the zero and positive Weyl sectional curvatures are common.

For noninteracting particles we get a cartesian product of Weyl manifolds and hence we get zero sectional curvature in some directions, as in A.

When we consider the system of two elastic disks in the 2-dimensional torus, the cylinders that are cut out from the four dimensional configuration space are Weyl convex, but the zero Weyl curvature is enough to allow the presence of local simple attractors of the type of Example 1.2, which rules out global fast mixing and decay of correlations.

For the Lorentz gas of two noninteracting point particles in a 2 dimensional torus with round scaterrers, an external field and the Gaussian thermostat, the calculation of 5.6 shows that the obstacles (products of disks) in the four dimensional torus of configurations are not Weyl convex everywhere.

These examples indicate that in the setup of Weyl geometry there is no more freedom for the occurence of global hyperbolicity then in the riemannian realm. The difficulty in constructing natural examples satisfying the Chaotic Hypothesis of Gallavotti,\[G01\], seems to be parallel to the scarcity of multidimensional hamiltonian systems with strong mixing properties, \[L00\].

## References


text:
# Heat capacity of square-well fluids of variable width

## I Introduction

Thermodynamic and structural properties of square-well (SW) fluids have been profusely studied both from theory and from computer simulation K59 ZFDBST03 . From the theoretical side, the first few virial coefficients have been obtained K59 ; BH67 ; VYM02  and the radial distribution function has been evaluated from numerical solutions of integral equation theories, such as Percus–Yevick T73a ; T73b ; T74 ; DFFGSSTVZ01 ; ZFDBST03 , Yvon–Born–Green JKLFF81 , HNC HMF76 , MSA HSKGKQ84 ; DFFGSSTVZ01 , Rogers–Young LKLLW99 , ORPA LKLLW99 , and HRT RK02 . Simpler analytical approximations have also been proposed N77 ; SS77 ; TL93 ; TL94a ; TL94b ; BYS:94 ; AS01 . The thermodynamic properties have been derived from the theoretical structure functions as well as from perturbation theory SHB70 ; SHB71 ; HBS76 ; HSS80 ; CS94 ; BG99 . Access to the “experimental” properties of SW fluids has been made possible via molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo simulations AYM:72 ; HMF76 ; HSS80 ; HSKGKQ84 ; LLA90 ; VMRJM92 ; EH99 ; LS02 ; ZFDBST03 . Special attention has received the determination of the critical point of SW fluids T73a ; T73b ; T74 ; HSS80 ; VMRJM92 ; CS94 ; BV98 ; EH99 ; NF00 ; VL00 ; AS01 ; RK02 ; ZFDBST03 , both from the theoretical and simulational viewpoints. The main reason for this wide interest lies in the fact that a SW fluid is perhaps the simplest one whose particles have attractive as well as repulsive interactions. In general, theories are easier to apply to SW fluids than to other fluids with more realistic potentials. In addition, the SW potential seems to be particularly sensitive to the performance of a theory. Therefore, this kind of fluid is an excellent testing-ground for many theories of fluids and so the study of SW fluids can be considered as a first step towards our understanding of the properties of fluids with more sophisticated interactions. There is an additional reason explaining the recent revival of interest in SW fluids. The SW potential possesses, besides the diameter of the hard core and the depth of the well, an additional parameter measuring the width of the well. This makes the SW potential with a small width especially suited to model the effective interactions among colloidal particles HSKGKQ84 ; LKLLW99 ; DFFGSSTVZ01 ; ZFDST01 ; ZFDBST03 . In this context, the glass transition DFFGSSTVZ01 ; ZFDST01  and a solid-to-solid isostructural transition LS95  have been studied for narrow SW systems.

Despite the extensive number of studies devoted to the SW fluid, relatively little attention has been paid to several thermodynamic properties. This is the case for the heat capacity. To the best of our knowledge, there are available AYM:72 ; HMF76  only a few simulation data of this property for SW fluids. Theoretical calculations of the same quantity are equally scarce HMF76 . In the present paper we have carried out Monte Carlo simulations of the constant-volume excess heat capacity $`C_V^E`$ of SW fluids for several values of the potential width and, for each of them, for several densities and temperatures. Moreover, in order to put clear the sensitivity of this property to the accuracy of a theory, the simulation data are compared with the results obtained from the Barker–Henderson (BH) BH:67a ; BH:67b  perturbation theory and with those derived from the theoretical model proposed by Yuste and Santos BYS:94 , recently simplified by Acedo and Santos AS01 .

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we summarize the theoretical foundations of the MC procedure used and we describe the simulations performed and the results obtained. In Section III, we present an outline of the above-mentioned theories. Finally, in the last section the theoretical results are compared with simulation data and discussed.

## II Monte Carlo simulations

In a square-well (SW) fluid, particles interact by means of a potential of the form

$$u\left(r\right)=\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\text{if}r\sigma \\ ϵ\text{if}\sigma <r\lambda \sigma \\ 0\text{if}r>\lambda \sigma \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\lambda `$ is the potential width in units of the particle diameter $`\sigma `$ and $`ϵ`$ is the potential depth.

Constant-volume averaged excess heat capacity per particle in a SW fluid can be expressed in the form AYM:72 :

$$\frac{C_V^E}{Nk}=\frac{1}{T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{\left(MM\right)^2}{N},$$
(2)
where $`N`$ is the number of particles, $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`T^{}=kT/ϵ`$ is the reduced temperature, and $`M`$ is the number of pairs of interacting particles, that is, the number of pairs of particles whose centers lie separated by a reduced distance $`r^{}=r/\sigma \lambda `$.

The averages involved in equation (2) can be calculated by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations in the NVT ensemble. Therefore, we have proceeded to calculate by means of MC NVT the constant-volume averaged excess heat capacity per particle for SW fluids with well widths $`\lambda `$ ranging from $`1.1`$ to $`1.5`$. For each value of $`\lambda `$, $`C_V^E`$ has been evaluated for several densities along isotherms. To this end, a system consisting of $`512`$ particles placed in a cubic box with periodic boundary conditions was used. Particles were initially placed in a regular configuration and then the system was allowed to equilibrate for $`2\times 10^4`$ cycles, each of them consisting of an attempt move per particle, the first $`10^4`$ cycles at a very high temperature and the remaining ones at the desired temperature. The calculation of $`C_V^E`$ was performed by averaging over the next $`5\times 10^5`$ cycles, performing partial averages every $`10^4`$ cycles with the aim of estimating the statistical error from the standard deviation. The use of such a huge number of cycles in the calculations was motivated by the need of ensuring that the values of $`C_V^E`$ converged to a constant value, apart from statistical fluctuations. In fact, we realized that for low values of the number of cycles used in the calculations, the values of $`C_V^E`$ increase with the number of cycles used.

The results are shown in Table 1. We have considered four isotherms for $`\lambda =1.1,1.2,1.3`$ and three isotherms for $`\lambda =1.5`$. The lowest temperature in each case is larger than the estimated critical temperature HSS80 ; VMRJM92 ; CS94 ; BV98 ; EH99 ; VL00 ; AS01 ; RK02 : $`T_c^{}0.5,0.6,0.8,1.2`$ for $`\lambda =1.1,1.2,1.3,1.5`$, respectively.

## III Theory

### III.1 Barker–Henderson perturbation theory

In the second-order Barker–Henderson perturbation theory BH:67a ; BH:67b , the free energy is expressed in the form

$$\frac{F}{NkT}=\frac{F_0}{NkT}+\frac{F_1}{NkT}\frac{1}{T^{}}+\frac{F_2}{NkT}\frac{1}{T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},$$
(3)
where $`F_0`$ is the free energy of the hard-sphere (HS) reference system and $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are the first- and second-order perturbative terms, respectively. According to this theory, the constant-volume excess heat capacity per particle is given by

$$\frac{C_V^E}{Nk}=\frac{2}{T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{F_2}{NkT},$$
(4)
where

$$\frac{F_2}{NkT}=\pi \rho kT\left(\frac{\rho }{P}\right)_0_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[u_1^{}\left(r\right)\right]^2g_0\left(r\right)r^2𝑑r$$
(5)
in the so-called macroscopic compressibility approximation, whereas

$$\frac{F_2}{NkT}=\pi \rho kT_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[u_1^{}\left(r\right)\right]^2\left\{\frac{\left[\rho g_0\left(r\right)\right]}{P}\right\}_0r^2𝑑r$$
(6)
in the so-called local compressibility approximation. In Eqs. (5) and (6), $`\rho =N/V`$ is the number density, $`u_1^{}(r)=u_1(r)/ϵ`$ is the perturbative contribution to the potential function, which in a SW potential is $`u_1^{}(r)=1`$ for $`\sigma <r<\lambda \sigma `$, $`P`$ is the pressure, and $`g_0(r)`$ is the radial distribution function (r.d.f.) of the hard-sphere reference fluid.

In recent years, several analytical and very accurate expressions for the r.d.f. $`g_0(r)`$ of the HS fluid have been proposed BS:91 ; BLS:96 ; TL:95 . They can be used to determine $`F_2`$ in expressions (5) and (6). Regarding $`(\rho /P)_0`$, which appears explicitly in expression (5) and implicitly in (6), it can be obtained from the well-known Carnahan–Starling CS:69  equation of state

$$Z_0=\frac{P_0V}{NkT}=\frac{1+\eta +\eta ^2\eta ^3}{\left(1\eta \right)^3},$$
(7)
where $`\eta =(\pi /6)\rho \sigma ^3`$ is the packing fraction.

### III.2 Yuste–Acedo–Santos model

The internal energy can be obtained from the r.d.f $`g(r)`$ through the energy equation

$$U=\frac{3}{2}NkT+2\pi N\rho _0^{\mathrm{}}u\left(r\right)g\left(r\right)r^2𝑑r,$$
(8)
whence

$$\frac{C_V^E}{Nk}=\frac{2\pi \rho }{k}_0^{\mathrm{}}u\left(r\right)\left[\frac{g\left(r\right)}{T}\right]_Vr^2𝑑r.$$
(9)
In the special case of the SW potential (1), Eqs. (8) and (9) become

$$U=\frac{3}{2}NkT12Nϵ\eta _1^\lambda g\left(r^{}\right)r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝑑r^{},$$
(10)
$$\frac{C_V^E}{Nk}=12\eta _1^\lambda \left[\frac{g\left(r^{}\right)}{T^{}}\right]_\eta r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝑑r^{},$$
(11)
respectively. The r.d.f $`g(r^{})`$ of the SW fluid depends on the packing fraction $`\eta `$, the reduced temperature $`T^{}`$ and, parametrically, on the well width $`\lambda `$. In principle, one has to resort to numerical solutions of integral equation theories. On the other hand, particularly suitable for the purpose of obtaining the heat capacity is the heuristic model proposed by Yuste and Santos BYS:94  and recently simplified by Acedo and Santos AS01 , which is analytical and fairly accurate. Henceforth we will refer to this model as the Yuste–Acedo–Santos (YAS) model. It is based on expressing the Laplace transform $`G(t)`$ of $`r^{}g(r^{})`$ in the form

$$G\left(t\right)=t\frac{F\left(t\right)e^t}{1+12\eta F\left(t\right)e^t}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(12\eta \right)^{n1}t\left[F\left(t\right)\right]^ne^{nt},$$
(12)
where the auxiliary function $`F(t)`$ is assumed to have the form BYS:94 ; AS01

$$F(t)=\frac{1}{12\eta }\frac{e^{1/T^{}}+K_1t\left(e^{1/T^{}}1+K_2t\right)e^{(\lambda 1)t}}{1+S_1t+S_2t^2+S_3t^3}.$$
(13)
The coefficients $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$ are explicit functions of $`\eta `$, $`T^{}`$ and $`\lambda `$ determined from consistency conditions. We refer the interested reader to Refs. BYS:94 ; AS01  for further details. The YAS model (13) reduces to the exact solutions of the Percus–Yevick (PY) equation in the limit of hard spheres ($`\lambda 1`$ or $`T^{}\mathrm{}`$) W63 ; T63 , as well as in the limit of sticky hard spheres ($`\lambda 1`$ and $`T^{}0`$ with $`T^{}1/\mathrm{ln}(\lambda 1)`$) B68 . From that point of view, the approximation (13) can be seen as a simple extension to finite widths of Baxter’s solution of the PY equation for sticky hard spheres.

Upon Laplace inversion of Eq. (12), the final expression of the r.d.f. reads

$$g\left(r^{}\right)=r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(12\eta \right)^{n1}f_n\left(r^{}n\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(r^{}n\right),$$
(14)
where the functions $`f_n(r^{})`$ are the inverse Laplace transforms of $`t[F(t)]^n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(r^{})`$ is Heaviside’s step function. Therefore, to determine the r.d.f. for $`r^{}<n+1`$ only the first $`n`$ terms in the summation (14) are needed. In particular, for the values of $`\lambda 2`$ considered in this paper, one has

$$g(r^{})=\frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}{12\eta }\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}z_i\frac{e^{1/T^{}}+K_1z_i}{S_1+2S_2z_i+3S_3z_i^2}e^{z_i(r^{}1)},1<r^{}\lambda ,$$
(15)
where $`z_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) are the three roots of the cubic equation $`1+S_1t+S_2t^2+S_3t^3=0`$. Inserting Eq. (15) into Eq. (11), we finally get

$$\frac{C_V^E}{Nk}=\frac{}{T^{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{e^{1/T^{}}+K_1z_i}{S_1+2S_2z_i+3S_3z_i^2}\left[z_i^11+(\lambda z_i^1)e^{z_i(\lambda 1)}\right].$$
(16)
The heat capacity can also be obtained from the YAS r.d.f. by following the virial and compressibility routes to the equation of state. The reason for the choice of the energy route (8) is two-fold. First, it is obviously the most direct route to determine the heat capacity. Second, we have checked that the other routes yield results that present larger deviations from the simulation data. This latter observation is consistent with the case of the PY theory for sticky hard spheres WHB71  and for SW fluids T73b ; T74 .

## IV Results and discussion

Results obtained for $`C_V^E`$ from the second-order Barker–Henderson perturbation theory within the local compressibility approximation as well as within the macroscopic compressibility approximation are compared in Figs. 14 with the simulation data of Table 1. We can see that although the local compressibility approximation provides a better agreement with simulation data, both approximations are rather poor at low temperatures. This might be due either to the insufficient accuracy of both the local compressibility and the macroscopic compressibility approximations or to the fact that higher order terms, beyond the second one, in the expansion of the Helmholtz free energy in power series of the inverse of the reduced temperature, have a nonnegligible contribution to the heat capacity. In order to determine which of these two possibilities is the right one, we can use for $`F_2`$ in Eq. (4) simulation data, thus avoiding theoretical approximations. These simulations were performed by Barker and Henderson BH:72  who reported the results in terms of a function depending on forty five parameters for each density. These parameters were determined from a least squares fitting of their simulation data. Since the use of that fitting is somewhat tedious, we have preferred to use directly simulation data for $`F_2`$, which are available for several densities and well widths LS:03 , to determine $`C_V^E`$ from Eq. (4). As one can see in Figs. 14, results thus obtained are much closer to the theoretical results derived from the BH second-order perturbation theory than to the values of $`C_V^E`$ obtained from direct simulations, except in the high density limit. This means that the main reason of the failure of the Barker-Henderson perturbation theory in predicting the heat capacity of SW fluids arises in the truncation of the perturbative series at the level of the second order term, the higher order terms having a nonnegligible contribution. This is in contrast with the situation for the equation of state BH:67a ; LS:XX , which is accurately given by the second-order BH perturbation theory even at relatively low temperatures for wide ranges of densities and potential wells. The reason is that, as pointed before, the constant-volume excess heat capacity is a thermodynamic property particularly sensitive to the performance of a theory and therefore the influence of higher order terms, which is small in the equation of state, may be important in the heat capacity. This is particularly true for low values of the potential width, since the lower the potential width, the slower the convergence of the BH perturbation theory at low temperatures H83 .

A much better agreement is obtained with YAS theory, Eq. (16), at low to moderate densities, as shown in the same figures. This theory, in contrast to the BH theory, provides a better agreement with the simulation data of $`C_V^E`$ as the potential width decreases. This is consistent with the fact that, as said before, the YAS model is an extension to $`\lambda >1`$ of the PY solution for sticky hard spheres and hence it is expected to be as accurate as the PY theory at least for small $`\lambda 1`$. The structural properties predicted by the YAS model for the SW fluid also exhibits a good agreement with simulation data for low values of $`\lambda 1`$ whereas the accuracy worsens as $`\lambda `$ increases BYS:94 ; AS01 . Figures 14 show that, given a well width $`\lambda `$, the YAS values of $`C_V^E`$ are more accurate as the temperature increases and/or the density decreases.

In conclusion, we have performed Monte Carlo simulations of the constant-volume excess heat capacity of SW fluids of variable width for a wide range of densities and at several characteristic temperatures. This thermodynamic quantity vanishes for hard spheres and so it represents an important measure of the influence of attractive forces on the state of the fluid. Moreover, the heat capacity seems to provide a rather stringent test to assess the accuracy of theoretical approaches. In this paper we have compared the simulation data with the Barker–Henderson perturbation theory BH:67a ; BH:67b  and with a non-perturbative theory developed by Yuste, Acedo, and Santos BYS:94 ; AS01 . While the former theory presents a poor performance, which can be attributed to the truncation of the perturvative series to second order rather than the inaccuracy of the theory itself, the non-perturbative theory does a fairly good job, especially for narrow wells, except at low temperatures and high densities. Although a potential well of $`\lambda =1.5`$ is appropriate for many simple fluids, SW fluids with lower values of $`\lambda `$ may be of interest because the properties of certain colloidal suspensions are well reproduced by considering SW interactions with narrow potential widths. Therefore, as several theories for SW fluids have achieved a considerable accuracy for the equation of state and the pair correlation function of SW fluids, the constant volume excess heat capacity seems to be a suitable thermodynamic property to discriminate between them. In this context, we expect that our simulation data can stimulate other studies on the heat capacity of SW fluids of variable width and can be used to check the reliability of other approximations.

The present work has been partially supported by the Spanish Dirección General de Investigación (DGI) under grants No. BFM2000-0014 (J.L. and J.R.S) and No. BFM2001-0718 (L.A and A.S.).

## List of figures