text:
# Proton decay and fermion masses in supersymmetric grand unified theories

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric unification has been the main extension of the Standard Model for about 20 years for three main reasons

1. it provides a natural protection for the weak scale against any large scale as long as supersymmetry breaking is around $`TeV`$ or so
2. it predicts correctly the weak mixing angle  (it actually anticipated experiment) and makes proton decay accessible to experiment
3. via the so-called radiative symmetry breaking, it leads naturally to the Higgs mechanism

Furthermore, in minimal schemes, the enhanced symmetry leads to relations among quark and lepton masses. The most celebrated one is $`m_b=m_\tau `$ at the unification scale , which is corroborated by experiment once the running is taken into account. This would have been a great success if not for the fact that the analog relations fail badly for the second and especially for the first family.

Another novel feature of supersymmetric unification is the new source of proton decay through dimension five operators , generated by the superheavy fermionic fields. This operators originate in Yukawa couplings and are thus intimately correlated with the fermionic mass and mixing angle relations. In this talk, we review in some detail this issue in the context of the minimal SU(5) and SO(10) supersymmetric GUTs. We will argue that the minimal SU(5) theory is still in perfect accord with data. However, the non-zero neutrino masses and the almost perfect conservation of R-parity point naturally toward its SO(10) extension. We will briefly recall the essential features of SO(10) grand unification. We emphasize the attractive feature of R-parity remaining an exact symmetry to all orders in perturbation theory in the minimal model with a renormalizable see-saw mechanism. We also discuss some interesting new results on fermion masses such as the deep connection between $`b\tau `$ unification and the large atmospheric neutrino mixing. We conclude with SO(10) being a complete and realistic model of both unification and fermion masses and mixings.

## 2 The minimal supersymmetric SU(5)

We define the minimal SU(5) supersymmetric theory in the conventional manner, that is, with three generations of fermion superfields and a 24 adjoint ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and 5 ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) and $`\overline{5}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$) Higgs superfields. This implies the well-known relations $`m_D=m_E`$ generation by generation, as we mentioned above. Of course, this must be corrected for the first two generations and in the context of the minimal model this simply implies the existence of higher-dimensional operators cut-off by the Planck scale. Hereafter, by minimal SU(5) we will mean such a theory, where the higher-dimensional operators are taken into account. Notice that this is very similar to the neutrino mass issue in the Standard Model. The nonvanishing neutrino mass does not mean that the Standard Model is ruled out, but simply points out to the existence of higher-dimensional operators.

As mentioned above, supersymmetric GUTs in general, and the SU(5) theory in particular, lead to quite fast proton decay through d=5 operators generated by the superheavy colored triplet Higgs supermultiplet ($`T`$ and $`\overline{T}`$) with masses $`m_TM_{GUT}`$. An important question in recent years was whether the minimal supersymmetric SU(5) theory is already ruled out on this basis, especially after it was found out that the RRRR operators play a crucial role  (in the context of SO(10) this was shown before in ), and it was finally argued that this was indeed true . We will see however that the uncertainty in the masses of the supermultiplets in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the lack of knowledge of sfermion and fermion masses and mixings, and the presence of higher-dimensional operators is sufficient to keep SU(5) still in accord with experiment.

Let us discuss these points carefully:

### 2.1 Determination of $`M_{GUT}`$ and $`m_T`$

The superpotential for the heavy sector is (up to terms $`1/M_{Pl}`$)

$$W=mTr\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\lambda Tr\mathrm{\Sigma }^3+a\frac{(Tr\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)^2}{M_{Pl}}+b\frac{Tr\mathrm{\Sigma }^4}{M_{Pl}}.$$
(1)
Of course, if $`\lambda 𝒪(1)`$, we ignore higher-dimensional terms. However, in supersymmetry $`\lambda `$ is a Yukawa-type coupling, i.e. self-renormalizable. For small $`\lambda `$ ($`\lambda M_{GUT}/M_{Pl}`$), the opposite becomes true and $`a`$ and $`b`$ terms dominate. In this case, it is a simple exercise to show that

$$m_3=4m_8,$$
(2)
where $`m_3`$ and $`m_8`$ are the masses of the weak triplet and color octet in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In the renormalizable case $`m_3=m_8`$. The RGE at one loop for the gauge couplings are readily solved to give:

$`m_T`$ $`=`$ $`m_T^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_3}{m_8}}\right)^{5/2},`$ (3)
$`M_{GUT}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{GUT}^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}^0}{2m_8}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (4)
where the superscript 0 denotes the values in the case $`m_3=m_8`$. Since when (2) is valid, $`m_8M_{GUT}^2/M_{Pl}`$, we can also write

$$M_{GUT}\left[\left(M_{GUT}^0\right)^3M_{Pl}\right]^{1/4}.$$
(5)
From (2) we get

$$m_T=32m_T^0,M_{GUT}10M_{GUT}^0.$$
(6)
Now, $`M_{GUT}^010^{16}`$ GeV and it was shown last year  that $`m_T>7\times 10^{16}`$ GeV is sufficiently large to be in accord with the newest data on proton decay. On the other hand, since

$$m_T^0<3\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(7)
from (6) we see that $`m_3=4m_8`$ is enough to save the theory. Obviously, an improvement of the measurement of $`\tau _p`$ is badly needed. It is noteworthy that in this case the usual $`d=6`$ proton decay becomes out of reach: $`\tau _p(d=6)>10^{38}`$ yrs.

### 2.2 Higher dimensional operators and fermion masses and mixings

In the minimal SU(5) theory at the renormalizable level we have the Yukawa coupling relations at $`M_{GUT}`$

$$Y_U=Y_U^T,Y_E=Y_D,$$
(8)
where in the supersymmetric standard model language the Yukawa sector can be written as

$`W_Y=`$ $`HQ^TY_Uu^c+\overline{H}Q^TY_Dd^c+\overline{H}e^{cT}Y_EL`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}TQ^T\underset{¯}{A}Q+Tu^{cT}\underset{¯}{B}e^c+\overline{T}Q^T\underset{¯}{C}L+\overline{T}u^{cT}\underset{¯}{D}d^c.`$
Also, in the minimal renormalizable model (at $`M_{GUT}`$)

$$\underset{¯}{A}=\underset{¯}{B}=Y_U=Y_U^T,\underset{¯}{C}=\underset{¯}{D}=Y_D=Y_E.$$
(10)
The fact that $`\underset{¯}{A}=\underset{¯}{B}=Y_U`$, $`\underset{¯}{C}=Y_E`$, $`\underset{¯}{D}=Y_D`$, is simply a statement of SU(5) symmetry. On the other hand $`Y_U=Y_U^T`$ and $`Y_D=Y_E`$ result from the SU(4)c Pati-Salam (PS)  like symmetry left unbroken by $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$. Under this symmetry $`d^ce`$, $`uu^c`$, $`de^c`$. It is the above relations that cause the problem, since the color triplet couplings are then well-defined.

Of course, this symmetry is broken by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_4^4`$, where $`\alpha =1,2,3`$; this becomes relevant when we include higher dimensional operators suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/M_{Pl}`$, such as

$$\frac{1}{M_{Pl}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}_f\overline{5}_f$$
(11)
where $`10_f`$ and $`\overline{5}_f`$ stand for the fermion multiplets. Since there are now neither SU(5) nor SU(4)c (PS) symmetries, it is a simple exercise to show that the fermion mass relations now become consistent. For a careful study of proton decay in this context see , where it is shown that this by itself is enough to save the theory.

### 2.3 Sfermion and fermion masses and mixings and proton lifetime

As we said, d=5 proton decay is generated through Yukawa couplings and thus fermion and sfermion masses and mixings play an important role. We shall not discuss this in detail here, since we know nothing about the sfermion properties; this issue belongs to the realm of supersymmetry breaking and is orthogonal to grand unification. It is highly model-dependent, however the constraints from FCNC can be useful in restricting the proton decay predictions. It has been discussed extensively in  and we refer the reader to these works.

In short, the minimal SU(5) supersymmetric theory, although in accord with experiment is highly constrained and thus potentially falsifiable. It is the best, most predictable theory of proton decay, and in our opinion care should be taken before we can proclaim it dead. Certainly, and order of magnitude or two of improvement in proton lifetime measurements is more than welcome.

## 3 Supersymmetric SO(10) theory

SO(10) grand unified theory is an appealing candidate for the unification of quarks and leptons (family by family) and their interactions for a number of reasons:

1. a family of fermions, included the right handed neutrino, fits into a single spinorial representation
2. it offers a natural explanation of the smallness of neutrino mass through the see-saw mechanism
3. as any theory of see-saw mechanism, it incorporates leptogenesis, a simple and appealing mechanism for generating the baryon asymmetry of the universe
4. left-right symmetry in the form of charge conjugation is a finite gauge transformation, which allows for spontaneous parity violation in the context of Left-Right models
5. it contains the Pati-Salam  subgroup which is the prototype of quark-lepton unification; it is this symmetry that leads to the above discussed relation $`m_D=m_E`$.
6. matter parity, which is equivalent to R parity, is also a finite gauge transformation; furthermore, it remains exact after all the symmetry breaking has taken place
7. in the minimal renormalizable see-saw scenario, it can be shown that SO(10) is a realistic theory of fermion masses and mixings; it correlates $`b\tau `$ unification with a large atmospheric neutrino mixing  (see also ) and it predicts the element $`13`$ of the leptonic mixing matrix to be close to the experimental limit

We will now discuss the last two issues in some detail.

### 3.1 SO(10) and R-parity

It is convenient to work with matter parity defined as $`M=(1)^{3(BL)}`$ instead of its equivalent analog R-parity, $`R=M(1)^{2S}`$, since $`M`$ commutes with supersymmetry. In SO(10), under $`M`$

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\stackrel{M}{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\stackrel{M}{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10},`$ (12)
which is equal to $`C^2`$, where $`C`$ is the center of SO(10). Of course, the crucial thing is the gauging of $`BL`$ . Assume next that one utilizes 126-dimensional representation in order to break $`BL`$ symmetry and give a mass to the right-handed neutrino, just as in the original proposal. This allows us to stick to the renormalizable theory and simultaneously to keep R-parity intact. The alternative, to use a 16-dimensional multiplet  in order to break $`BL`$, breaks R-parity at the GUT scale, and the theory must thus be augmented by extra discrete symmetries in order to keep the proton stable. This would take us beyond the SO(10) theory which we pursue here.

This however is not sufficient. Both right-handed and left-handed sneutrino fields can in principle get nonvanishing VEVs and break R-parity. As far as the right-handed sneutrino is concerned, it is a simple exercise to show that the group structure does not allow it . Since its mass is equal to the mass of the right-handed neutrino, and thus very large (close to GUT scale), this fact survives a tiny supersymmetry breaking.

The situation with the left-handed neutrino is far more complex. It belongs to the light sector of the theory and a priori it could be tachyonic to start with, and thus get a VEV. To see that this does not happen requires a subtle interplay between cosmology, phenomenology and the decoupling theorem. First of all, recall that the left-handed sneutrino cannot be a tachyon in the MSSM with R-parity. This we know from the Z-decay width; namely, the opposite would result in the existence of a Goldstone boson, the Majoron ($`J`$), and the Z-boson would decay into a Majoron and its real counterpart ($`R_J`$). The mass of $`R_J`$ is of the order of the sneutrino VEV, and this VEV must be small in order for the Majoron not to get overproduced in stars  and/or for the induced neutrino mass to be small enough. Therefore the left-handed sneutrino VEV would produce a Z decay width incompatible with observations.

A simple application of the decoupling theorem ensures that the same happens in SO(10) theory. In this case a would-have-been Majoron of course gets a mass, but this mass must vanish in the limit of large $`M_R`$, the scale of $`BL`$ breaking. More precisely, one shows that

$$m_J\frac{m_{3/2}^2}{M_R}$$
(13)
where $`m_{3/2}`$ is the scale of low-energy supersymmetry breaking. Obviously $`m_JM_Z`$, and the above reasoning follows through. Remarkably enough, R-parity can be not broken at all in SO(10), independently of the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking .

This important fact holds true for any renormalizable theory of the supersymmetric see-saw mechanism based on spontaneous breaking of $`BL`$ . This not only guarantees a stable enough proton, but also a stable LSP (lightest supersymmetric particle), probably the most natural candidate for the dark matter of the Universe.

### 3.2 SO(10) and fermion masses and mixings

The minimal SO(10) theory, by definition, contains a single 10-dimensional Higgs supermultiplet coupled to fermions. At first glance, in the usual manner, this should imply $`m_D=m_E`$ as stressed repeatedly. Namely, the Higgs that takes the VEV is a bi-doublet (2,2,1) under the Pati-Salam group $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_c`$. However, the 126 representation needed for the see-saw mechanism contains also a (2,2,15) field, and in general this field gets a VEV  . In the supersymmetric theory, this amounts to using a 210 Higgs multiplet at the GUT scale. This has a number of interesting features and should be pursued and studied more carefully.

For us, it is sufficient to have a (2,2,15) with a VEV. This simple fact, surprisingly enough, renders the theory completely realistic as we shall see. On top of that it offers a natural connection between the large $`\mu \tau `$ mixing and $`b\tau `$ unification. This provides a badly needed answer as to why the small quark mixing angle(s) should be accompanied by large leptonic mixing(s). Let us see how this comes about.

First of all, let us recall an important fact in the SO(10) see-saw mechanism. The Yukawa couplings are given by

$$_Y=10_H\psi Y_{10}\psi +126_H\psi Y_{126}\psi ,$$
(14)
where $`\psi `$ stands for the $`16`$ dimensional spinors which incorporate a family of fermions, and $`Y_{10}`$ and $`Y_{126}`$ are the Yukawa coupling matrices in generation space.

From

$$126_H=(3,1,10)+(1,3,\overline{10})+(2,2,15)+(1,1,6)$$
(15)
one has

$$M_{\nu _R}=Y_{126}(1,3,\overline{10})_{126},$$
(16)
where $`(1,3,\overline{10})_{126}=M_R`$, the scale of SU(2)R gauge symmetry breaking.

It can be shown that, after the SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) breaking through $`10_H=(2,2,1)M_W`$, the $`(3,1,10)`$ multiplet from $`126_H`$ gets a small vev

$$(3,1,10)_{126}\frac{M_W^2}{M_P},$$
(17)
where $`M_P`$ is the scale of the breakdown of parity. In turn, neutrinos pick up small masses

$$M_{\nu _L}=Y_{126}(3,1,10)_{126}+m_D^TM_{\nu _R}^1m_D,$$
(18)
where $`m_D`$ is the neutrino Dirac mass matrix. It is often assumed, for no reason whatsoever, that the second term dominates. This is the so-called type I (or canonical) see-saw . In what follows we explore the opposite case,type II (or non-canonical) see-saw. After all, it does not involve Dirac mass terms and so there is no reason a priori in this case to expect quark-lepton analogy of mixing angles. In this sense the type II see-saw is physically more appealing. More than that, we will show that the large leptonic mixing fits perfectly with the small quark mixing, as long as $`m_b=m_\tau `$.

To see this, notice that fermion masses take the following form

$`M_U`$ $`=`$ $`Y_{10}v_{10}^u+Y_{126}v_{126}^u,`$ (19)
$`M_D`$ $`=`$ $`Y_{10}v_{10}^d+Y_{126}v_{126}^d,`$ (20)
$`M_E`$ $`=`$ $`Y_{10}v_{10}^d3Y_{126}v_{126}^d,`$ (21)
$`M_N`$ $`=`$ $`Y_{126}(3,1,10)_{126},`$ (22)
where $`U`$, $`D`$, $`E`$, $`N`$ stand for up quark, down quark, charged lepton and neutrino, respectively, while $`v_{10}^{u,d}`$ and $`v_{126}^{u,d}`$ are the two vevs of $`(2,2,1)`$ in $`10_H`$ and $`(2,2,15)`$ in $`126_H`$, and the last formula is the assumption of the type II see-saw. The result is surprisingly simple. Notice that

$$M_NY_{126}M_DM_E.$$
(23)
Now, let us study the $`2^{nd}`$ and $`3^{rd}`$ generations, and work in the basis of $`M_E`$ diagonal. The puzzle then is: why a small mixing in $`M_D`$ corresponds to a large mixing in $`M_N`$? For simplicity take the mixing in $`M_D`$ to vanish, $`\theta _D=0`$, and ignore the second generation masses, i.e. take $`m_s=m_\mu =0`$. Then

$`M_N\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& m_bm_\tau \end{array}\right).`$ (24)
Obviously, unless $`m_b=m_\tau `$, neutrino mixing vanishes. Thus, large mixing in $`M_N`$ (the physical leptonic mixing in the above basis) is deeply connected with the $`b\tau `$ unification. Notice that we have done no model building whatsoever; we only assumed a renormalizable SO(10) theory and the type II see-saw.

Of course, this is only very qualitative; for a more careful analysis, one needs to switch on $`m_\mu `$, $`m_s`$ and the mixings. This has been done in detail in , and we refer the reader there, suffices it to say that the precise computations confirm the above qualitative analysis.

This is all nice, you may say, but what about three generations? The analysis has just been performed , and it will be reported in the talk by Rabi Mohapatra in this conference. We only cite here the crucial prediction of the theory: the 1-3 leptonic mixing is as large as the experiments allows, making the theory all the more interesting.

## 4 Conclusions

In these talk, we have focused on some of the central issues in supersymmetric grand unification: the predictions for proton decay and its natural connection with fermion masses and mixings. We started off by showing that the minimal supersymmetric SU(5) theory, although still alive, is tightly constrained and can and should be tested by improved proton decay experiments.

To us, however, SO(10) appears a more complete and more appealing theory. First of all, it succeeds where the MSSM and SU(5) fail, that is, in determining the low energy effective theory. We now know that in the context of SO(10), at least with a renormalizable see-saw mechanism, R-parity can never be broken and neutralinos ought to be some or all of the dark matter of the universe. It is reassuring that the same theory provides a complete and consistent description of all fermion masses and mixings. Most important, if you stick to the type II see-saw the $`b\tau `$ unification says simply and clearly that the small quark $`ub`$ mixing must be accompanied by a large atmospheric neutrino mixing. Last but not least, it seems that the 1-3 neutrino mixing will provide a crucial test of the theory in the near future.

In spite of the apparent success, a lot remains to be done. The most urgent and most important task is a careful study of proton decay. Namely, the possible existence of intermediate scales in SO(10) lowers the unification scale, and thus the proton lifetime. This is more than welcome for d=6 operators mediated proton decay, since it makes it accessible to experiment. However dimension 5 operators run the risk of leading to a too fast decay. We have seen that in SU(5) they are safe, but only marginally.

Acknowledgements

We are deeply grateful to our collaborators Charanjit Aulakh, Pavel Fileviez-Pérez, Andrija Rašin and Francesco “Paco” Vissani.


format: text

text:
# Neutron Stars in a Varying Speed of Light Theory

## 1 Introduction

Recently, there has been interest in the possibility that the speed of light $`c`$ might have been larger in the past. The primary theoretical reason for considering this possibility is that such a variation in $`c`$ could solve the horizon and flatness problems of big-bang cosmology, without needing to postulate the existence of an inflationary epoch in the early history of the Universe . This purely theoretical work was given added impetus more recently after the discovery by Webb et al.  that, according to observations of wavelength shifts in the absorption lines of distant quasars, the fine structure constant $`\alpha :=e^2/(\mathrm{}c)`$ seems to have been smaller in the past. This is consistent with the assumption that $`c`$ was larger in the past and, although more recent evidence  has constrained $`\alpha `$ variations more strongly than the Webb data, the possibility of a time varying $`\alpha `$ remains.

One can assume that any changes in the value of $`\alpha `$ are due to variations in one or both of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`e`$. However, the physical consequences of allowing either of these to vary are different from those that arise from a varying $`c`$ theory. For example, Avelino & Martins  have shown that the horizon and flatness problems can only be solved by assuming that $`c`$ is varying. If instead one assumes that either of the other two constants is responsible for the variation of $`\alpha `$, the horizon and flatness problems remain.

To analyse the consequences of allowing a physical “constant” to vary, one needs a self consistent theory which is capable of describing this variation and its effect on other physical processes. Since $`\alpha `$, and by implication $`c`$, may change significantly only over cosmological time and distance scales, it is necessary to develop a theory of gravity which embodies such behaviour. This causes immediate problems when trying to formulate a varying speed of light (VSL) theory since the constancy of $`c`$ is a fundamental assumption of relativistic physics. Several attempts have been made to reconcile such a variation with a relativistic gravitational theory, including a bi-metric theory developed by Clayton & Moffat  and Magueijo’s scalar field theory . It is the latter that we shall focus on here.

In Magueijo’s theory, the timelike coordinate in a coordinate chart no longer represents time as measured by a physical process and is instead replaced by a fourth length coordinate $`\zeta `$. When described in terms of this new coordinate, the structure and properties of a manifold are the same as in any relativistic theory of gravity and all of the rules of differential geometry remain unchanged. In particular, the manifold has a metric, a Riemann curvature tensor, and so on, all of whose components can be expressed in a $`(\zeta ,x^i)`$ coordinate basis, where the $`x^i`$ are spatial coordinates. Time as measured by physical processes is not in general usable as a coordinate on the manifold. However, once a solution is found, physically measured time intervals can then be determined using the relation $`dt=c^1d\zeta `$, where $`c`$ is treated as a scalar field on the manifold. The fact that $`t`$ is no longer necessarily a timelike coordinate is apparent when one considers the possibility that in a solution, surfaces of constant $`c`$ are not necessarily spacelike, so that $`_ac`$ will not be timelike. The VSL theory is superficially similar to Brans Dicke (BD) theory except that the scalar field, instead of determining the strength of the gravitational field, governs the rate of physical processes and, by implication, the rate at which clocks record time.

In any particular VSL theory, one would naturally expect spatial as well as temporal variations in $`c`$ in a spacetime with an inhomogeneous matter field. This is indeed the case, and Magueijo has analysed vacuum, spherically symmetric solutions representing both the weak field produced far from a central source and VSL black holes . In this paper, we analyse the structure of neutron stars in Magueijo’s VSL theory. The purpose of this is twofold: first, to determine the degree to which a VSL neutron star differs from its counterpart in general relativity (GR) or BD theory and second, to serve as a starting point for the theoretical treatment of binary pulsars in a VSL theory, with the ultimate aim of using binary pulsar data to constrain the parameters of the theory.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we give the action for the theory and derive the field equations for spherically symmetric spacetimes. In Section 3 we discuss the vacuum, exterior part of the solutions. In Section 4 we give the equation of state (EOS) of the fluid interior and discuss the issue of particle conservation, while in Section 5 we find the expression which describes the total energy of the solutions. In Section 6 we present the results of numerical integrations of the equations of structure and in Section 7 we discuss the evolution of the mass of a star in a cosmological setting. Finally, in Section 8 we present a few concluding remarks.

## 2 Action and Field Equations

In Magueijo’s VSL theory, the local speed of light $`c`$ is determined by the value of a scalar field $`\varphi `$ such that $`c=c_{\mathrm{}}e^\varphi `$, where $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the speed of light measured far from all gravitating sources. In units in which $`G=1`$, the action is given by111The constants $`ϵ`$ and $`\beta `$ we use here correspond to the constants $`a`$ and $`b`$ used by Magueijo . We use the former notation to avoid confusion with tensor indices.

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi }_𝒱d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[e^{ϵ\varphi }\left(\kappa g^{ab}_a\varphi _b\varphi \right)+16\pi e^{\beta \varphi }L_m\right]\frac{1}{8\pi }_𝒱d^3x\sqrt{h}e^{ϵ\varphi }\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(1)
where $`𝒱`$ is an arbitrary volume of integration, $`𝒱`$ its closed boundary, and $`h_{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ the induced metric and extrinsic curvature on this boundary. The surface term guarantees that the variational derivative of $`I`$ vanishes on $`𝒱`$ and is important when determining the mass of an asymptotically flat spacetime. The constants $`ϵ`$, $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$ are arbitrary. In  the condition $`ϵ\beta =4`$ was imposed since the units of the matter and gravitational terms of the action (1) differ by a factor of $`c^4`$. We shall assume this condition holds here. In addition, we shall assume that the “minimum coupling” assumption of  holds so that $`L_m`$ is independent of $`\varphi `$.

The generalised Einstein equations which lead from this action are

$$G_{ab}=\left(\kappa +ϵ^2\right)_a\varphi _b\varphi (\frac{1}{2}\kappa +ϵ^2)g_{ab}^c\varphi _c\varphi +ϵ(_a_b\varphi g_{ab}^c_c\varphi )+8\pi e^{(\beta ϵ)\varphi }T_{ab},$$
(2)
where $`T_{ab}`$ is the matter energy-momentum tensor, while the scalar field satisfies the wave equation

$$^a_a\varphi =ϵ^a\varphi _a\varphi +\frac{8\pi Ge^{(\beta ϵ)\varphi }}{2\kappa +3ϵ^2}\left(ϵT2\beta L_m\right).$$
(3)
The local matter conservation law for the theory is

$$_aT^{ab}=\beta \left(T^{ab}g^{ab}L_m\right)_a\varphi .$$
(4)
In the vacuum case, where $`L_m=0`$ and $`T_{ab}`$ vanishes, the action and field equations are identical to BD theory with

$$\omega =\frac{\kappa }{ϵ^2},\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{ϵ\varphi },$$
(5)
where $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the BD coupling parameter and scalar field.

We are interested here in asymptotically flat, static and spherically symmetric solutions to the VSL field equations. We use isotropic coordinates and write the line element as

$$ds^2=Bd\zeta ^2+A\left(dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right),$$
(6)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are functions of $`r`$, and $`\zeta `$ is a timelike coordinate with the units of length. We assume that the matter is composed of a perfect fluid with pressure $`p`$, energy density $`\rho `$ and a fluid 4-velocity $`U^a`$, for which the energy-momentum tensor has the usual form

$$T^{ab}=(\rho +p)U^aU^b+pg^{ab}.$$
(7)
In the coordinates we are using, $`U^a=(B^{1/2},0,0,0)`$ and is orthogonal to the hypersurfaces of constant $`\zeta `$.

To integrate the resulting field equations, it is convenient to introduce an auxiliary function

$$Z:=\frac{1}{2B}\frac{dB}{dr}+\frac{1}{2A}\frac{dA}{dr}.$$
(8)
In terms of these variables, the field equations reduce to the following set of coupled ODEs:

$$A^{\prime \prime }=\frac{3A^2}{4A}\frac{2A^{}}{r}+ϵ\varphi ^{}\left(AZ\frac{A^{}}{2}\right)\frac{A\kappa \varphi ^2}{2}+8\pi A^2e^{(ϵ\beta )\varphi }\left[\frac{\rho \left(ϵ^2ϵ\beta \right)+3pϵ^2}{2\kappa +3ϵ^2}\rho \right],$$
(9)
$$Z^{}=\frac{3Z}{r}Z^2ϵ\varphi ^{}\left(Z+\frac{1}{r}\right)+8\pi Ae^{(ϵ\beta )\varphi }\left[2p+\frac{\rho ϵ(ϵ2\beta )3pϵ^2}{2\kappa +3ϵ^2}\right],$$
(10)
$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=\varphi ^{}\left(ϵ\varphi ^{}+Z+\frac{2}{r}\right)+8\pi Ae^{(ϵ\beta )\varphi }\left[\frac{3pϵ\rho (ϵ+2\beta )}{2\kappa +3ϵ^2}\right]$$
(11)
and

$$p^{}=(\rho +p)\left(Z\frac{A^{}}{2A}+\beta \varphi ^{}\right),$$
(12)
where the prime denotes $`\frac{d}{dr}`$.

## 3 Exterior Solution, Boundary Values and Scaling Relations

For a given set of values of $`ϵ`$, $`\beta `$ and $`\kappa `$, the solutions are parameterised by the central density $`\rho _0`$. As in GR, the surface of a stellar solution is defined to be where the pressure vanishes and at this point the solution is matched to a vacuum exterior. Since the vacuum field equations for this theory are identical to BD theory, the vacuum solutions are also identical and, in terms of the variables we are using here, are given by

$$A=A_{\mathrm{}}\left(1+\frac{\mu }{r}\right)^4\left(\frac{r\mu }{r+\mu }\right)^{2(1C/\lambda 1/\lambda )},$$
(13)
$$Z=\frac{2\mu }{\mu ^2r^2}$$
(14)
and

$$\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\frac{C}{ϵ\lambda }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{r\mu }{r+\mu }\right),$$
(15)
where the subscript “$`\mathrm{}`$” denotes the value of quantities at spacelike infinity. In these equations $`\mu `$, $`C`$ and $`\lambda `$ are constants and satisfy the constraint

$$\lambda ^2=(C+1)^2C\left(1\frac{\kappa C}{2ϵ^2}\right).$$
(16)
Equations (13) and (14) together give the more familiar metric component

$$B=B_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{r\mu }{r+\mu }\right)^{2/\lambda }.$$
(17)
These equations hold only when $`ϵ0`$.

We shall assume that the interior neutron star solution matches smoothly to the above vacuum solution at the boundary of the star, in the sense that $`A`$, $`Z`$, $`\varphi `$ and the derivatives of these functions are continuous at the boundary. We can then find the values of the parameters $`\mu `$, $`C`$ and $`\lambda `$ as follows. Differentiating eqns (13) to (15), one can show that

$$X:=Z+ϵ\varphi ^{}=\frac{2\mu ^2}{r^3\mu ^2r}.$$
(18)
Rearranging this equation, we have

$$\mu =\sqrt{\frac{Xr^3}{4+Xr}},$$
(19)
which allows us to determine the value of $`\mu `$. From eqn (14), one can show that

$$\lambda =\left(Z\frac{A^{}}{2A}\right)\frac{2\mu }{r^2\mu ^2},$$
(20)
which allows us to calculate $`\lambda `$ once $`\mu `$ has been found. Finally, from eqn (15), we have

$$C=\frac{\lambda (r^2\mu ^2)ϵ\varphi ^{}}{2\mu },$$
(21)
which allows us to calculate $`C`$.

The minimal VSL theory mentioned in  is the one with $`ϵ=0`$ and its field equations are much simpler than in the more general theory. For this particular case, the above equations have to be modified. The functions $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`Z`$ are given by eqns (13), (14) and (17) with the constant $`C=0`$. The scalar field is now given by

$$\varphi =q\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{r^2\mu ^2}{r^2+\mu ^2}\right),$$
(22)
where $`q`$ is a new constant, related to $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ by

$$q^2\kappa =2\frac{2}{\lambda ^2}.$$
(23)
The Schwarzschild limit discussed in  is the special case of these equations in which $`\lambda =1`$. Note that in all cases in which $`ϵ=0`$, the $`\varphi `$ field need not be homogeneous.

Magueijo  has shown that, by carrying out a weak field analysis and interpreting the results within the framework of the PPN formalism, the parameters $`\kappa `$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\beta `$ are related by the equation

$$\gamma =\frac{ϵ^2+\kappa +\frac{1}{2}ϵ\beta }{2ϵ^2+\kappa \frac{1}{2}ϵ\beta },$$
(24)
where $`\gamma `$ is the PPN parameter which governs, amongst other things, the deflection of light rays near to a massive body such as the Sun. Its limiting value is currently

$$|\gamma 1|0.0003.$$
(25)
Solving this eqn (24) for $`\kappa `$ we have

$$\kappa =\frac{ϵ(ϵ\beta )}{\gamma 1}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\beta 2ϵ^2,$$
(26)
which shows that $`\kappa `$ decreases as $`ϵ0`$ for the case when $`ϵ\beta =4`$. For values of $`ϵ`$ of the order unity, eqn (26) restricts $`\kappa `$ to have a large value similar to that of $`\omega `$ in BD theory. However, if we allow $`ϵ`$ to have an arbitrarily small value, there is no minimum value to $`\kappa `$.

## 4 Equation of State and Particle Conservation

We assume that the perfect fluid matter of the star consists solely of neutrons, each with rest mass $`m`$ and local number density $`n`$. Denoting the internal energy per particle by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, the matter Lagrangian is then given by

$$L_m=mc^2n(1+\mathrm{\Pi })=\rho ,$$
(27)
the latter equality defining the relationship between $`n`$ and $`\rho `$. Under the minimum coupling assumption outlined in , the particle rest energy $`mc^2`$ is constant and hence $`L_m`$ is independent of $`\varphi `$.

We shall consider two equations of state. The first is that of a a non-interacting gas of Fermions, which may be given in the parametric form

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{m^4c^5}{24\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}}\left[\chi (2\chi ^23)\sqrt{\chi ^2+1}+3\mathrm{log}(\chi +\sqrt{\chi ^2+1})\right]`$
(28)
$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{m^4c^5}{3\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}}\chi ^3\sqrt{\chi ^2+1}p.`$
This means that, in practice, eqn (12) becomes a differential equation for $`\chi `$. Note that, under the minimum coupling assumption of , both $`\mathrm{}`$ and the product $`mc`$ scale with $`\varphi `$ in the same way, so that $`mc/\mathrm{}`$ is independent of $`\varphi `$ and hence so are numerical coefficients of eqns (4).

More realistic equations of state are generally given in tabulated form and require complex calculations which take into account particle phase transitions at various densities. However, polytropic equations of state fitted to the tabulated data do exist and our second EOS is of this type. The pressure and density are given in the parameterised form

$`p=Kn_0m\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{n_0}}\right)^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$
(29)
$`\rho =nm+{\displaystyle \frac{Kn_0m}{\mathrm{\Gamma }1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{n_0}}\right)^\mathrm{\Gamma },`$
where the constants are chosen to have the values $`n_0=1.0\times 10^{44}`$m-3, $`K=0.0195`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.34`$. The equations are parameterised by the particle number density $`n`$. This is the EOS used by Damour and Esposito-Farese in their investigation of strong field scalar effects in neutron stars  and is based on tabulated data given in . As before, we assume that the minimum coupling assumption holds so these parameters are independent of the local value of $`c`$.

The first of our equations of state is far from realistic. However, we are interested here primarily in the effect a VSL theory has on the properties of a neutron star and we expect the main features of the solutions to be independent of the choice of EOS. In addition, our choice makes the results we find here easier to compare with the GR stars studied by Oppenheimer & Volkoff  and the BD solutions of Salmona . The second EOS, being more realistic, will be used to place tentative constraints on the theory.

Despite the presence of the factor of $`e^{\beta \varphi }`$ in the matter part of the action (1), the conserved particle number $`N`$ for a neutron star solution is the same as in a metric theory, namely

$$N=_0^{r_s}4\pi r^2A^{3/2}n𝑑r,$$
(30)
where $`n`$ is the local particle number density. In the second EOS outlined above, this is the same quantity which parameterises those equations while in the simpler, non-interacting Fermion EOS, $`n`$ and $`\chi `$ are related by

$$n=\left(\frac{m^3c^3}{3\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}\right)\chi ^3.$$
(31)
In this relation, the bracketed combination of parameters is independent of $`c`$ due to the minimal coupling assumption.

We note here that for a non-perfect fluid matter source, the conserved charge should in general include explicit reference to the fact that $`L_m`$ is not universally coupled. One can show that, for matter Lagrangians $`L_m(\psi )`$ dependent on one or more matter fields $`\psi `$ which are invariant under a field transformation $`\psi \psi +\delta \psi `$, the Nöether current associated with the symmetry is given by

$$J^a=e^{\beta \varphi }I^a,$$
(32)
where $`I^a`$ is the corresponding current in a metric theory in which $`L_m`$ is universally coupled to the metric. This means that one should include a factor of $`e^{\beta \varphi }`$ in the expression for the conserved charge. Such a factor appearing in the Nöether current would indicate a violation of a local energy conservation law. One can show that this does not occur for a perfect fluid source as follows. Dropping the assumption that the solutions are static and contracting eqn (4) with $`U_b`$ we have

$$U_b_aT^{ab}=\beta U_b\left[(\rho +p)U^aU^b+(p+\rho )g^{ab}\right]_a\varphi $$
(33)
which vanishes. Hence, at least for a perfect fluid, the non-spatial components of eqn (4) are trivially zero and the right hand term contributes only to the pressure gradient. Thus there is no violation of the local energy conservation law in this case.

## 5 Mass

Since the solutions are spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat, one may write the ADM mass as the integral

$$M_{ADM}=_0^{\mathrm{}}4\pi r^2G_{ab}U^aU^b𝑑r.$$
(34)
This quantity is independent of the theory of gravity being considered and its value is determined solely by the metric. For both BD and VSL theories, from eqn (13), the ADM mass is also given by

$$M_{ADM}=\frac{2(C+1)\mu }{\lambda }.$$
(35)
The Poisson mass, discussed in , may be defined by the relation

$$M_P:=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{1}{2}r^2B^{}\right)=\frac{2\mu }{\lambda },$$
(36)
where the second equality follows from using eqn (17).

In theories of gravity other that GR, $`M_{ADM}`$ does not describe the total, physical energy of an asymptotically flat solution. For example, in BD theory the energy of a spherically symmetric solution is the Tensor mass

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_T:=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}}\left[M_{ADM}\frac{1}{2}\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(r^2\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dr}\right)\right]=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}}\left(M_{ADM}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_S\right)$$
(37)
so called because it is the active gravitational mass which affects the motion of a test particle composed entirely of gravitational field self energy (such as a black hole). The second equality in eqn (37) defines the scalar charge $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_S`$ associated with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which characterises the extent to which the gravitational energy of the star differs from that of a similar star in GR, and we use a tilde to denote quantities relating to BD theory. Equation (37) includes an overall factor of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ to account for the fact that, as $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ varies, the strength of the gravitational coupling $`G`$ varies and the gravitational energy, which includes implicitly a factor of $`G`$, should vary in the same way.

To find an expression for the energy of a solution of the VSL theory, we shall find an expression for the Hamiltonian. The procedure is almost identical to that given for dilaton theories by Ho, Kim and Park , so we only give the result here. We consider only a static spacetime; the generalisation to a time-dependent spacetime is as straight forwards as it is in GR. We assume that the spacetime is asymptotically flat and use the usual 3+1 splitting, denoting spacelike hypersurfaces by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the hypersurface orthogonal unit timelike vectors by $`U^a`$. The timelike, 2-dimensional boundary of integration at spacelike infinity we denote by $`𝒮_{\mathrm{}}`$ and its outward pointing, spacelike unit normal by $`n^a`$. Starting with the action (1), decomposing $``$ into the Ricci scalar $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}`$ of the spacelike hypersurfaces and a divergence term, and integrating by parts several times, gives the VSL Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^3x\sqrt{g}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ϵ\varphi }}{16\pi G}}\left({}_{}{}^{(3)}(\kappa +2ϵ^2)h^{ij}_i\varphi _j\varphi 2ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)+e^{\beta \varphi }L_m\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _𝒮_{\mathrm{}}}d^2x\sqrt{B\sigma }e^{ϵ\varphi }\left(\theta ϵn^a_a\varphi \right),`$ (38)
where $`\theta `$ is the extrinsic curvature scalar of, and $`\sigma _{ab}`$ the induced metric on, the surface $`𝒮_{\mathrm{}}`$. The integral over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vanishes by virtue of Hamilton’s equation $`\delta H/\delta \sqrt{B}=0`$, where $`\sqrt{B}`$ is the lapse function, and we are left with the surface term. In general, this diverges and we must subtract a reference term $`H_B`$. Following , we choose $`H_B`$ to have the form

$$H_B=\frac{1}{8\pi }_𝒮_{\mathrm{}}d^2x\sqrt{B\sigma _B}e^{ϵ\varphi _B}\theta _B,$$
(39)
where the subscript “$`B`$” denotes quantities evaluated when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is intrinsically flat. The Hamiltonian is then

$$H=\frac{1}{8\pi }_𝒮_{\mathrm{}}d^2x\sqrt{B\sigma }e^{ϵ\varphi }\left(\theta ϵn^a_a\varphi \right)H_B.$$
(40)
We assume that $`\varphi `$ is constant over $`𝒮_{\mathrm{}}`$ and denote its value by $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$. We further assume the $`\varphi _B=\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$. One can then show that eqn (40) reduces to

$$H=e^{ϵ\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}\left(M_{ADM}\frac{1}{2}ϵQ_S\right),$$
(41)
where

$$Q_S:=\frac{1}{4\pi }_𝒮_{\mathrm{}}n^a_a\varphi $$
(42)
is the scalar charge associated with $`\varphi `$. In a spherically symmetric spacetime,

$$Q_S=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(r^2\frac{d\varphi }{dr}\right).$$
(43)
As one would expect from the form of the VSL action, eqn (41) is similar to eqn (37).

There is an ambiguity in the derivation of eqn (41) in that it is not immediately clear if one should multiply $`H`$ by an additional power of $`e^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ to account for the effect on the total energy of varying the value of $`c`$ throughout a solution. This is related to the problem discussed in  of deciding on the power of $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ one must multiply the action (1) by. To show that in fact eqn (41) needs no such additional factor we consider the energy of a star in the weak field limit. Combining the second equality of eqn (27) with the definition of pressure $`p:=mc^2n^2\mathrm{\Pi }/n`$, one can show that

$$(\rho +p)n^{}=np^{}.$$
(44)
Combining this with eqn (12) and integrating gives

$$mc^2n=(\rho +p)\sqrt{B}e^{\beta \varphi }.$$
(45)
We can define a “rest energy” $`M_R=mc^2N`$ for the star, which is simply the sum of the energies of its constituent particles and is its total energy in the weak field limit. Combining eqns (30) and (45) we have

$$M_R=_0^{\mathrm{}}4\pi r^2\sqrt{B}A^{3/2}e^{\beta \varphi }(\rho +p)𝑑r.$$
(46)
In the lowest order weak field limit, $`\rho >>p`$, $`g_{ab}\eta _{ab}`$ and $`\varphi `$ is constant. In this case, eqns (2) and (34) together imply that the weak field ADM mass is

$$M_{ADM}=_0^{\mathrm{}}4\pi r^2\rho e^{(\beta ϵ)\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r,$$
(47)
while the Hamiltonian in this limit is simply $`e^{ϵ\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}M_{ADM}`$. Under the lowest order weak field approximation, this is identical to the quantity defined by eqn (46) indicating that no additional powers of $`e^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ need be included in the energy definition and so we shall adopt eqn (41) as the definition of the energy of the star. Due to this expression’s similarity with eqn (37), we shall henceforth denote the energy of VSL solutions by $`M_T`$.

We may check that our definitions of energy and particle number, defined by eqn (30) are consistent as follows. A necessary condition for the stability of stellar solutions in any theory of gravity is that, given a set of solutions parameterised by a smoothly varying quantity such as their central density, the extremal values of the total energy and the conserved particle number should coincide . Using a method similar to the one outlined in  for boson-fermion stars, it is relatively easy to prove that $`N`$ defined by eqn (30) and our choice of eqn (41) for the energy of a solution are consistent with this requirement in that these two quantities do have coinciding extrema.

In a metric theory, $`M_P`$ defined by eqn (36) is also the Kepler mass $`M_K`$ of the star. However, this is not the case here: the Kepler mass in a VSL theory includes a term proportional to $`\beta `$ which embodies the non-minimal coupling between $`L_m`$ and the metric and, in terms of the variables we are using here, is given by

$$M_K=M_P+\beta Q_S,$$
(48)
where, in terms of $`M_{ADM}`$ and $`Q_S`$, the Poisson mass is

$$M_P=M_{ADM}ϵQ_S.$$
(49)
These definitions are similar to those in BD theory except that in the later case, $`M_P`$ and $`M_K`$ are identical.

## 6 Numerical Results

Equations (9) to (12) are invariant under the rescaling

$$\varphi \varphi +s,AAe^{(ϵ\beta )s}.$$
(50)
We use this property to set $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=0`$ for all solutions. In addition, eqns (9) to (12) are invariant under the rescaling

$$Aa^2A,r\frac{r}{a},ZaZ$$
(51)
and we use this to set $`A_{\mathrm{}}=1`$ for all solutions. Note that this last rescaling implies that $`\mu \mu /a`$. The function $`Z`$ automatically satisfies the boundary condition $`Z_{\mathrm{}}=0`$. We calculate $`\mu `$, $`C`$ and $`\lambda `$ for each solution using eqns (19) to (21), in which we evaluate $`A`$, $`Z`$, $`\varphi `$ and their derivatives at the outermost point of the interior solution. Equation (16) is then used to check the consistency of the numerical calculations. We characterise the size of each solution by the Schwarzschild radius $`R`$, which is related to $`r`$ by

$$R:=\sqrt{A_s}r_s,$$
(52)
where the subscript $`s`$ denotes quantities evaluated at the surface of the star. This is the same definition of radius used in .

Figure 1 shows curves of mass against central density for several sets of solutions with EOS 4. For each set, the value of $`ϵ`$ is fixed, we impose the condition $`ϵ\beta =4`$ and choose the minimum value of $`\kappa `$ consistent with eqn (26). The mass of each solution is calculated using eqn (41). The $`ϵ=4`$ solutions are indistinguishable from those in GR since they are identical to solutions in BD theory with a large value of $`\omega `$. The Figure shows that as $`ϵ`$ and $`\kappa `$ decrease, the energy of all of the solutions decreases. Masses $`M_T`$ and $`M_K`$, along with other data from the same sets of solutions, are shown in Table 1; we do not show values of $`M_P`$ since they are very close to corresponding values of $`M_T`$. The data in the table indicate that, as well as the mass, the radii of the solutions also decreases rapidly with $`ϵ`$.

The response of the properties of the VSL stars to changes in the scalar field coupling strength is in marked contrast to to that for neutron stars in BD theories, data for which are shown in Table 2. (Further data on the structure of BD stars can be found in Salmona  but note that the mass used in this reference is the Poisson mass and the boundary value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is different from our value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}=1`$.) Values of $`\omega `$ have been chosen in the Table to match those of $`\kappa `$ in Table 1 and we show masses $`M_T`$ and $`M_K`$; the Poisson mass $`M_P`$ is identical to $`M_K`$. The data show that increasing the strength of the scalar field’s coupling has a moderate effect in decreasing the energy and radius of the stars, while increasing the Poisson mass.

There are two reasons for the differences between BD and VSL neutron stars’ properties. From eqn (11), for small values of $`ϵ`$, the strength of the coupling between $`\varphi `$ and the matter varies as $`(\kappa /ϵ)^1`$. This quantity increases as $`\kappa `$ decreases, which means that the $`\varphi `$ field becomes more inhomogeneous and the magnitude of $`Q_S`$ increases as we decrease $`ϵ`$. This behaviour is very similar to that for BD theory. However, in contrast with BD theory, the ADM mass, Poisson mass and energy $`M_T`$ differ by multiples of $`ϵQ_S`$ and the product of these two quantities decreases as $`ϵ`$ decreases. This is in contrast with BD theory, where the larger value of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_S`$ serves to increase the Poisson (or Kepler) mass to a value significantly larger that other masses.

The second, and more significant, cause of structure difference between the two theories is due to the non-universal coupling between the matter and the metric in the VSL action. From eqn (12), the pressure gradient has a term involving the product $`\beta \varphi ^{}`$. For all of these solutions, $`\varphi ^{}<0`$ and, under the assumption that $`ϵ\beta =4`$, $`\beta <0`$. Hence the product $`\beta \varphi ^{}>0`$ and since $`p`$ must be a decreasing function of $`r`$, eqn (12) implies that the term involving $`\beta `$ increases the magnitude of the pressure gradient, leading to $`p0`$ at a smaller value of $`R`$ than for a star in metric theory with an identical central density. The significantly smaller physical size of the star means that its energy is also much smaller.

Figure 2 shows mass against central density for sets of solutions with EOS 4, with the same limits on the parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\beta `$ as for the solutions of Figure 1. These solutions show the same overall behaviour as those with the simpler EOS: as the parameter $`\eta `$ decreases, the solutions become less massive for a given central density. As before, the $`ϵ=4`$ solutions are indistinguishable from those of GR. In addition, the central density at which the maximal mass solution occurs increases as $`ϵ`$ decreases, again in a similar way to the solution shown in Figure 1. In addition we have found that, for a given central density, the radius of a solution decreases as $`ϵ`$ decreases. However, both this feature and the reduction in mass are less severe than for the simpler EOS and both maximal mass and minimum radius of the maximal mass solution decrease far less rapidly with decreasing $`ϵ`$. This is due to the difference in the stiffness between the two equations of state.

Since the Figure 2 solutions have a reasonably realistic EOS, we can use them to place a limit on the parameters of the VSL theory for the case studied here in which $`ϵ\beta =4`$. The masses of neutron stars in binary systems detected to date have masses in the range $`(1.36\pm 0.8)`$ solar masses, while neutron stars in orbit about other types of companion body have masses of at least 1.4 solar masses (for a review of this data and references, see ). Hence, for a VSL theory to be viable, it must allow for the existence of neutron stars whose mass is at least 1.3 solar masses. From Figure 2, this implies that the parameter $`ϵ`$ must satisfy the inequality $`ϵ0.00015`$.

## 7 Sensitivity and Evolution of Mass

For many theories of gravity, such as BD theory and other more general scalar-tensor (ST) theories, solar system observations place strong constraints on the theories’ parameters via the PPN formalism, while limits derived from observation of strong field phenomena are far weaker. However, for VSL theories with small values of $`ϵ`$, the PPN limit (26) on $`\kappa `$ is extremely weak and we should therefore look to strong field observations, in particular binary pulsar data, to provide the strongest constraints. The situation here is similar to that found by Damour and Esposito-Farese for certain classes of ST theory which satisfy PPN limits to an arbitrarily high degree but show significant strong field effects  and references therein. We shall leave the full treatment of the motion of binary pulsars in a VSL theory to a future publication. Here we shall briefly mention some of the key ideas involved and use part of the formalism to discuss how VSL stars will evolve in a cosmological setting.

The analysis of binary pulsar motion is based on the parameterised post-Keplerian (PK) formalism, which treats each star as a point mass moving according to quasi-Newtonian equations of motion. Details of the particular theory under study are made manifest by allowing the active, passive and inertial masses of each star to vary according to the value of any ambient, non-metric gravitational fields. At the lowest level of approximation, the variability of a particular mass is quantified by the sensitivity $`s`$, given by

$$s:=\underset{A}{}\frac{(\mathrm{log}M)}{(\mathrm{log}\psi ^A)}|_{\psi _{\mathrm{}}^A},$$
(53)
where $`M`$ is the mass under consideration and the $`\psi ^A`$ are the non-metric gravitational fields. In ST theories of gravity, there is only one extra field, the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and it turns out that active, passive and inertial masses are proportional to each other. For the VSL theory we are considering here, we expect much of the formalism to be very similar to that for BD gravity, since the vacuum, inter-body field equations are the same for both theories. Since the BD and VSL scalar fields are related by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{ϵ\varphi }`$, we shall define $`s`$ to be

$$s=\frac{(\mathrm{log}M)}{(ϵ\varphi )}=\frac{1}{ϵM}\frac{M}{\varphi },$$
(54)
where again $`M`$ denotes any mass.

We shall next derive an expression for the sensitivity associated with the Hamiltonian, identical to the VSL tensor mass $`M_T`$, of a compact object in a VSL theory. We consider first the variation of the Hamiltonian (5) induced by a variation of $`\varphi `$ on $`𝒮_{\mathrm{}}`$. Taking the functional derivative of this equation, performing several integration by parts and noting that the volume term vanishes and the terms involving $`_a(\delta \varphi )`$ in the surface integral cancel, we are left with

$$\delta H=\frac{1}{8\pi G}_𝒮_{\mathrm{}}d^2x\sqrt{B\sigma }e^{ϵ\varphi }\left(ϵ\theta ϵn_aU^b_bU^a+\kappa n^a_a\varphi \right)\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\delta H_B,$$
(55)
where we have assumed that $`\delta \varphi `$ is constant over $`𝒮_{\mathrm{}}`$ and have denoted it by $`\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$. The reference term $`H_B`$ is linear in $`e^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$. Thus

$$\delta H_B=ϵH_B\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{}}.$$
(56)
Combining the above two equations with eqn (5), we have

$$\delta H=\frac{1}{8\pi G}_𝒮_{\mathrm{}}d^2x\sqrt{B\sigma }e^{ϵ\varphi }\left[(\kappa +ϵ^2)n^a_a\varphi ϵn_aU^b_bU^a\right]\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{}}+ϵH\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{}}.$$
(57)
Using the definition (36), one can show that

$$\frac{1}{8\pi G}_𝒮_{\mathrm{}}d^2x\sqrt{B\sigma }n_aU^b_bU^a=\frac{1}{2}M_P.$$
(58)
In addition, the first term of eqn (57) is simply $`\frac{1}{2}(\kappa +ϵ^2)Q_S`$. Thus we have

$$\delta H=e^{ϵ\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\kappa +ϵ^2)Q_S\frac{1}{2}ϵM_P\right]\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{}}+ϵH\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{}}.$$
(59)
Finally, using the relations (41) and (49), and taking the limit $`\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{}}0`$, one can show that

$$\frac{H}{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}=\frac{1}{2}ϵH+e^{ϵ\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}\left(\frac{3ϵ^2+2\kappa }{4}\right)Q_S.$$
(60)
Hence the sensitivity associated with both $`H`$ and the identical quantity $`M_T`$ is

$$s=\frac{1}{2}+e^{ϵ\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}\left(\frac{3ϵ^2+2\kappa }{4ϵ}\right)\frac{Q_S}{M_T}.$$
(61)
Due to the similarities between the two theories, we expect $`s`$ to appear in the PK formalism for a VSL theory in much the same way as in a ST theory. Thus we expect that, for any particular mass $`M`$, presence of the $`\varphi `$ field introduces a strong field correction of the form $`MM(1+\nu s)`$, where $`\nu `$ is a parameter which depends the type of mass considered. Equation (61) then indicates how strong field gravitational effects depend upon the values of $`ϵ`$ and $`\beta `$.

Equation (61) may be used to investigate the gravitational evolution of a compact body in a VSL theory. The scalar field far from a compact body such as a neutron star should match smoothly to the cosmological value of the field. Hence, assuming that a body embedded in a cosmological solution can be modelled approximately by an isolated, asymptotically flat solution, one expects that the boundary field $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ to follow the cosmological evolution of $`\varphi `$. Equation (61) then implies that the evolution of the mass of the body depends strongly on the relative values of $`ϵ`$ and $`\kappa `$. For all of the solutions shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, except the $`ϵ=4`$ solutions, $`s<0`$. The primary reason for this is that, as $`ϵ`$ decreases, the ratio $`\kappa /ϵ`$ which dominates the second term of eqn (61) increases dramatically. In a cosmological solution, $`\varphi `$ should be a decreasing function of cosmological time so as to be consistent with the requirement that $`c`$ was larger in the past. Use of eqn (61) then implies that the energy of these VSL stars increases with cosmological time, the largest rates of increase coinciding with smallest values of $`ϵ`$. This is in marked contrast with ST theories for which, in general, the energy of a compact body decreases with cosmological time .

## 8 Conclusions

We have examined the properties of neutron stars in one particular VSL theory in which the local value of the speed of light is determined by a scalar field $`\varphi `$. The theory bears a more than superficial resemblance to BD and other ST theories, and we have found that the expression giving the energy of an asymptotically flat solution to the VSL field equations is very similar to it counterpart in ST theories. However, despite these similarities, the properties of VSL neutron stars are very different to their counterparts in VSL theories. In particular, for certain choices of $`ϵ`$ and $`\beta `$, VSL neutron stars are limited to being much smaller those in GR and the dependence of mass on the strength of the coupling between $`\varphi `$ and the matter is extremely strong. This allows one to use the mere existence of neutron stars to place constraints on the theory’s parameters, even without having to analyse the motion of binary pulsars: the maximum neutron star mass allowed by the theory must obviously be at least as large as those of observed neutron stars. Unfortunately, neutron star masses are fairly sensitive to the EOS used (see, for example, ), although we have placed a rather crude limit on the parameter $`ϵ`$ using a reasonably realistic equation of state.

We have also given a brief analysis of the evolution of a VSL star in a cosmological setting found that, as the cosmological background evolves and $`\varphi `$ decreases in value, the energy of a VSL star increases in general. This result is independent of the EOS used or even of the type of matter of which the star is composed and could have serious implications for the stability of a star since its fractional binding energy $`(M_TN)/N`$ could eventually become positive.

To properly place limits on the parameters of a VSL theory, one needs a full analysis of the predicted behaviour of binary pulsar motion. However, this is not the only area of astrophysics in which a VSL theory might give significantly different predictions to those of other theories. For example, it was shown in  that black holes in this theory are very different to their GR counterparts in that the proper time taken for an in-falling particle to reach the horizon can be infinite. If this is indeed the case, a varying speed of light may have a significant effect on the physics of black hole accretion disks since matter orbiting the black hole would never enter the black hole horizon.

### Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the University of Sussex for its hospitality while this work was completed.


text:
# Nuclear shadowing and extraction of 𝐹₂^𝑝-𝐹₂^𝑛 at small 𝑥 from deuteron collider data

## Abstract

We demonstrate that leading twist nuclear shadowing leads to large corrections for the extraction of the neutron structure function $`F_2^n`$ from the future deuteron collider data both in the inclusive and in the tagged structure function modes. We suggest several strategies to address the extraction of $`F_2^n`$ and to measure at the same time the effect of nuclear shadowing via the measurement of the distortion of the proton spectator spectrum in the semi-inclusive $`eDe^{}pX`$ process.

preprint: RUB-TP2-06/03

One of the important components of the electron-ion collider project (EIC) EIC  is the measurement of the nonsinglet structure function of the nucleon, $`F_2^pF_2^n`$, down to rather small values of Bjorken $`x`$. A similar program is discussed for HERA III. The main objective of using deuteron beams at HERA is obtaining more accurate information on the nonsinglet structure function of the nucleon at small $`x`$. Since $`F_2^p`$ and $`F_2^n`$ are rather close at small $`x`$, nuclear shadowing significantly affects $`F_2^pF_2^n`$, when extracted from the deuterium data. Indeed, while $`R(F_2^pF_2^n)/F_2^p4\times 10^2`$ for $`x10^2`$, the shadowing correction modifies $`F_2^D`$ by 1-2% and, hence, $`R`$ is modified by twice as much. Therefore it is crucial to determine the value of the nuclear shadowing correction, as well as its uncertainties, both to the inclusive structure function $`F_2^D`$ and to the tagged structure function, when the spectator proton (a proton with momentum $`0.1`$ GeV/c in the deuteron rest frame) is detected ensuring the kinematics maximally close to the scattering off a free nucleon.

In this paper, we analyse both of the above mentioned structure functions using the theory of leading twist nuclear shadowing FS99 , which is based on the existence of the deep connection between the phenomena of high energy diffraction and nuclear shadowing demonstrated within the reggeon calculus for hadron-deuteron scattering by Gribov Gribov , and the Collins factorization theorem for hard diffraction Collins . In the case of the tagged structure functions, we also use the Abramovski$`\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{i}}`$, Gribov, Kancheli (AGK) cutting rules AGK , which relate shadowing effects for the total and partial cross sections. We formulate the requirements necessary for the extraction of $`F_2^n`$ from the deuterium data and demonstrate that a detector with good proton momentum resolution will be able to determine the value of the shadowing correction.

We begin by discussing nuclear shadowing in inclusive DIS off deuterium. On the qualitative level, the Gribov result for nuclear shadowing off the deuteron Gribov  could be understood as a consequence of the interference between the amplitudes for diffractive scattering of the projectile off the proton and off the neutron of the deuterium target. Such interference is possible for small $`x`$, $`x5\times 10^2`$, where the minimum momentum transfer to the nucleon, $`xm_N`$, becomes smaller than the average nucleon momentum in the deuteron. The corresponding double scattering diagram for the $`\gamma ^{}D`$ scattering is presented in Fig. 1. The nuclear shadowing correction to the total $`\gamma ^{}D`$ cross section is given by the imaginary part of this diagram, which is obtained by making all possible unitary cuts (denoted by dashed lines in Fig. 1).

The application of the AGK cutting rules explicitly demonstrates that the imaginary part of the interference graph decreases the total $`\gamma ^{}D`$ cross section by the factor proportional to $`(1\eta ^2)(\mathrm{Im}𝒜)^2`$, where $`𝒜`$ is the amplitude for the photon-nucleon diffractive scattering and $`\eta =\mathrm{Re}𝒜/\mathrm{Im}𝒜`$.

A consideration of the individual unitary cuts in Fig. 1 demonstrates that the interference diagram decreases the cross section of inelastic interactions with a single nucleon (top right and bottom left graphs) by the factor proportional to $`4(\mathrm{Im}𝒜)^2`$, and also results in simultaneous inelastic interactions with two nucleons (botton right graph) with $`\sigma _{double}=2(\mathrm{Im}𝒜)^2`$. Also, the interference diagram increases the probability of diffraction on the nucleus by the factor proportional to $`(1+\eta ^2)(\mathrm{Im}𝒜)^2`$ (top left graph), see Ref. FS96 .

Within the framework of the Gribov theory of nuclear shadowing, the deuterium inclusive structure function reads

$`F_2^D(x,Q^2)=F_2^p(x,Q^2)+F_2^n(x,Q^2)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{1\eta ^2}{1+\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{x_0}}𝑑x_{IP}𝑑q_t^2F_2^{D(4)}(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP},t)`$
$`\times \rho _D(4q_t^2+4(x_{IP}m_N)^2),`$ (1)
where $`F^{D(4)}`$ is the nucleon diffractive structure function, $`\rho _D`$ is the deuteron form factor, and $`|t|=q_t^2+(x_{IP}m_N)^2`$. Since the $`t`$-dependence of $`\rho _D`$ is rather moderate (compared to heavier nuclei), the integral in Eq. (1) is sensitive to $`F^{D(4)}(t)`$ up to $`t0.05`$ GeV2. Also, in Eq. (1), the factor $`(1\eta ^2)/(1+\eta ^2)`$, where

$$\eta =\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{f_{i/N}^D})}{\mathrm{ln}(1/x_{IP})}=\frac{\pi }{2}(\alpha _{IP}(t=0)1),$$
(2)
accounts for the real part of the amplitude for the diffractive scattering AFS99  and leads to a reduction of the shadowing by about 20%. Note that in the reggeon calculus derivation Gribov , it was assumed that $`\eta =0`$, which is natural for the amplitudes slowly increasing with energy. This is not the case for DIS and, hence, $`\eta `$ should be taken into account.

Using the QCD factorization theorem for hard diffraction Collins , it is possible to extend the Gribov theory in order to calculate nuclear shadowing for the quark and gluon parton densities of the deuteron, $`f_{j/D}`$, at small $`x`$ as follows, see Ref. FS99  and subsequent publications FGMS02 ; FGS03 ,

$`f_{j/D}(x,Q^2)=f_{j/p}(x,Q^2)+f_{j/n}(x,Q^2)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{1\eta ^2}{1+\eta ^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{x_0}}𝑑x_{IP}𝑑q_t^2f_{j/N}^D(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP},t)`$
$`\times \rho _D(4q_t^2+4(x_{IP}m_N)^2).`$ (3)
The results of the calculation of the ratios $`F_2^D/(F_2^p+F_2^n)`$ and $`g_D/(2g_N)`$ using the H1 diffractive fit H1:1994  for $`F^{D(3)}`$ are presented in Figs. 2 and 3 for a range of $`x`$ and $`Q`$. In this calculation we used the Paris NN potential. One can see that substantial shadowing is expected for the small $`x`$ region.

Note also that the nuclear shadowing correction to $`F_2^D`$ for $`Q^21`$ GeV2 is expected to be substantially larger than that for $`Q^24`$ GeV2. The enhancement of diffraction at small $`Q^2`$ by higher twist effects such as, for instance, vector meson production, will increase nuclear shadowing up to a factor of two. Note that the application of the Gribov formalism to nuclear shadowing in the NMC kinematics ($`Q^22`$ GeV2), where the double scattering term dominates, leads to a very good description of the data, see e.g. Kaidalov .

Since the diffractive cross sections are likely to be known with accuracy of about 10% for small $`t`$, it appears that the accuracy of the calculation of the nuclear shadowing correction to the inclusive cross section will be better than 0.2% for a wide range of $`Q^2`$. Correspondingly, the theoretical uncertainty for the ratio of $`F_2^n/F_2^p`$ will not exceed 0.4%, which is likely to be smaller than possible experimental systematic errors.

A strategy, which is complimentary to the inclusive measurement of $`F_2^D`$, is the use the neutron and proton tagging. We will primarily focus on tagging of scattering off a neutron via the detection of the spectator protons and will only briefly comment on other possibilities.

It was pointed out above that according to the AGK cutting rules AGK , the overall correction of the nuclear shadowing effect for nondiffrative events is four times larger than for the inclusive scattering. However, it is concentrated at relatively large transverse momenta ($`k_t`$) of the protons and depends on $`k_t`$ rather strongly. Hence, two strategies will be possible. One would be to select only very low $`p_t`$ protons with a gross loss of statistics. The other, more promising approach is to measure the $`p_t`$ dependence of the spectrum up to $`p_t250`$ MeV/c and then to use this for the verification of the theory and for the measurement of the effects of the rescattering (nuclear shadowing) in an independent way with the subsequent correction of the data for this effect. Provided good momentum resolution of the proton spectrometer, one would be able to make longitudinal momentum cuts to suppress/increase the shadowing effect (the shadowing effects are minimal for $`|2p_N/p_D1|0.1`$).

The following analysis demonstrates the dependence of the nuclear shadowing correction to the $`\gamma ^{}DpX`$ cross section on the transverse momentum of the spectator proton $`p_t`$. The impulse approximation expression for the differential cross section of interest reads

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{\gamma ^{}DpX}}{d^3p}|_{\mathrm{IA}}=\sigma ^{\gamma ^{}n}(22x_L)(u^2(p)+w^2(p)),$$
(4)
where $`x_L=E_p/E_D(1p_z/m_N)/2`$ is the Feynman $`x`$ of the spectator proton; $`p=(p_t,p_z)`$ is the three-momentum of the detected (spectator) proton in the deuteron rest frame; $`u`$ and $`w`$ are the $`S`$-wave and $`D`$-wave components of the deuteron momentum space wave function normalized as $`4\pi 𝑑pp^2(u(p)^2+w(p)^2)=1`$; the factor $`22x_L`$ is the Müller flux factor. The presence of leading twist nuclear shadowing adds a nuclear shadowing correction to Eq. (4), so we find for the complete cross section

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{\gamma ^{}DpX}}{d^3p}}=\sigma ^{\gamma ^{}n}(22x_L)(u^2(p)+w^2(p)){\displaystyle \frac{3\eta ^2}{1+\eta ^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _x^{x_0}}dx_{IP}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q_t}{\pi }}F_2^{D(4)}(\beta ,Q^2,x_{IP},t)[u(p)u(p^{})`$
$`+w(p)w(p^{})({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(pp^{})^2}{p^2p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})],`$ (5)
where $`p^{}=p+q_t+(x_{IP}m_N)e_z`$. The additional factor of $`3\eta ^2`$ in front of the shadowing correction is a reflection of the AGK cutting rules. In the considered case, the shadowing correction is given by the sum of the two top graphs in Fig. 1. The left graph corresponds to the enhancement of the diffractive processes by the factor of $`(1\eta ^2)(\mathrm{Im}𝒜)^2`$, while the right graph corresponds to screening from the single inelastic subprocesses and is proportional to $`4(\mathrm{Im}𝒜)^2`$. In Eq. (5), the factor $`u(p)u(p^{})+w(p)w(p^{})(3(pp^{})^2/(2p^2p^2)1/2)`$ is simply the unpolarized deuteron density matrix. Also, we neglected production of deuterons in the diffractive channel, which would somewhat increase the shadowing effect.

As one can see from Eq. (5), nuclear shadowing suppresses the spectrum of the produced protons. This effect can be quantified by considering the ratio $`R`$ of the complete expression given by Eq. (5) to the impulse approximation expression given by Eq. (4). Figure 4 depicts the ratio $`R`$ as a function of Bjorken $`x`$ for $`p_t=(0,100,200)`$ MeV/c and $`p_z=0`$ (top panel) and for $`p_t=0`$ and $`|p_z|=100`$ MeV/c (bottom panel). The calculation is made at $`Q=2`$ GeV.

Two features of Fig. 4 are of interest and importance. Firstly, nuclear shadowing works to decrease the ratio $`R`$ as $`p_t`$ increases. This is expected from the general picture of nuclear shadowing since large $`p_t`$ corresponds to small transverse distances between the two nucleons, which leads to their shadowing, as was first pointed out by Glauber Glauber  and later generalized by Gribov Gribov . Secondly, the suppression of $`R`$ at large $`p_t`$ is strikingly large. This is a common feature of semi-exclusive reactions with nuclei. Indeed, at large $`p_t`$, while the impulse approximation term is suppressed by the nuclear wave function, the rescattering term survives and gives the dominant contribution. An example of this effect in electron-deuteron interactions in the TJNAF kinematics can be found in Ref. FGMSS .

Note also that there is a non-spectator contribution to the nucleon spectrum, which originates predominantly from diffractive scattering off the proton and dominates at large $`p_t`$, $`p_t300`$ MeV/c. As a result of the AGK cancellations, the non-spectator contribution is given by the impulse approximation. The contribution has a broad $`p_t`$ distribution, $`e^{Bp_t^2}`$ with $`B7`$ GeV-2, and can be subtracted using the measurements at, for instance, $`p_t400`$ MeV/c. It appears that it will be possible to use most of the spectator protons from most of the deuteron wave function in the tagged method. Hence the spectator tagging will not lead to a loss of statistics. The method will allow to introduce corrections for nuclear shadowing for small $`p_t`$ with high precision, which would lead to theoretical errors in the determination of $`F_2^n`$ at the level of a fraction of percent.

One can also use simultaneous tagging of protons and neutrons, when both neutron and proton are detected in the reactions $`\gamma ^{}DnX`$ and $`\gamma ^{}DpX`$. In this case, nuclear shadowing will cancel in the ratio $`\sigma ^{\gamma ^{}DnX}/\sigma ^{\gamma ^{}DpX}`$ and the main errors in the measurement of $`F_2^n`$ will be due to the determination of relative efficiencies of the proton and neutron taggers.

One could also try to obtain the ratio $`F_2^n/F_2^p`$ from the comparison of the rate of the tagged proton scattering events with the neutron spectator to inclusive $`eD`$ scattering. Such a strategy could also have certain merits as it avoids the issue of luminosity and does not require a leading proton spectrometer. The disadvantage of this strategy is the sensitivity to the nuclear shadowing effects and errors in the acceptance of the neutron detector. One possible way to deal with the latter problem will be to perform measurements at very small $`x`$ and large energies, where the $`ep`$ and $`en`$ cross sections are equal to better than a fraction of 1% and, hence, one would be able to cross check acceptances of the proton and neutron detectors.

Note also that taking proton data from an independent run will potentially lead to another set of issues such as relative luminosity, the use of different beam energies, etc., which is likely to be on the level of 1%.

In our analysis we neglect possible non-nucleonic components of the deuteron wave function such as kneaded (six-quark) components, etc. Current estimates put an upper limit on the probability of such components on the level of less than one percent, and they are expected to modify predominantly the high-momentum component of the deuteron wave function. Hence, the non-nucleonic components should give a very small (less than one percent) correction for the spectator momenta $`200`$ MeV/c. Moreover, the experiments at the EIC looking for production of baryons such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`N^{}`$ in the spectator kinematics, $`x_L(\mathrm{\Delta },N^{})1/2`$, would allow to put a more stringent upper limit on (discover) non-nucleonic components of the deuteron wave function.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that a combined analysis of inclusive and semi-inclusive scattering off the deuteron coupled with a high resolution proton spectrometer will allow for the measurement of $`F_2^n`$ at small $`x`$ with the theoretical uncertainty of better than 0.5%. It would be a challenge to reduce the experimental systematic errors to a comparable level. The measurement of the shape of the spectator spectrum would allow to determine nuclear shadowing in the deuteron with precision by far exceeding that possible in the inclusive measurements.

This work was supported by GIF, Sofia Kovalevskaya Program of the AvH Foundation and DOE. We thank M. Klein for questions, which sped up our plans to perform this analysis, and for insightful comments.