text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The peculiar flavor structure of the Standard Model (SM) currently has no generally-accepted explanation. Included in this structure is the prediction that fundamental physics is not invariant under the operations of parity(P), charge(C), or their combination, CP. More precisely, it is the distribution of complex numbers in the SM Lagrangian which lead to $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ at an extremely small Jarlskog  has expressed this as follows: considering the interaction-basis up- and down-quark mass-matrices $`m`$, $`m^{}`$, one can form a rephase-invariant measure of $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ equal to $`a3\sqrt{6}Det(C)/(Tr(C^2))^{3/2}`$ where $`iC[mm^{},m^{}m^{}]`$. Then $`1a+1`$ and $`CP\mathrm{violation}\mathrm{a}0`$. In the SM one finds $`a10^7`$  but observable level . Currently experiments  are taking data or under construction that will very precisely measure the Cabbibo-Maskawa-Kobayashi (CKM)  matrix elements believed responsible for $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ in the SM. Any observed discrepancy with the SM prediction indicates that the SM is incomplete in the flavor sector and new physics must appear in the fundamental theory. An excellent candidate for new physics is Supersymmetry (SUSY) . As SUSY introduces many more potentially large sources of $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ in the mass matrices and various field couplings, its inclusion requires that there be some suitable relationships among the parameters to reproduce the agreement of the existing levels of $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ in $`K`$-decay and electric dipole moment (EDM) data with the SM predictions . The understanding of what $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ parameters are allowed in SUSY models therefore provides a constraint on such models.

The simplest SUSY models can not satisfy the experimental EDM bounds without either setting all SUSY $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ phases to zero or raising SUSY particle masses above $`1TeV`$ . Recent works have noted, however, that the supergravity-broken MSSM with $`O(1)`$ phases for the gaugino masses $`M_i`$, triscalar coupling $`A`$, and Higgs coupling parameter $`\mu `$, and no flavor-mixing beyond the standard CKM matrix can be consistent with existing limits on the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the electron and neutron  . Given this, we may now investigate how the phases in this model will contribute to other $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ observables and how new measurements can constrain the values of these phases. We choose to investigate several $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ observables of the $`B`$-meson system, as $`B`$-processes occupy both a favorable theoretical and experimental position. On the theoretical side, uncertainties from non-perturbative QCD are low due to the large mass of the $`b`$-quark ($`4GeV`$ relative to the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }200MeV`$  characteristic of strong interactions and perturbation theory in $`\alpha _s`$ is reliable. Furthermore, many SM $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ asymmetries in the $`B`$-system are small due to the suppression of CKM matrix elements involving the third generation; new $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ physics may be easily detectable. Experimentally, many dedicated facilities are already or will soon be generating large amounts of high-precision $`B`$-physics data . From our analysis we will see that these experiments will be able to either precisely determine the above set of five phases or reject this particular model of $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ altogether.

We first briefly discuss the features of the MSSM in Section 2 and review the EDM constraints in Section 3. In Section 4 we begin discussion of how the above phases enter observables in various sectors of $`B`$-meson physics through $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ in pure mixing, mixing and decay, and pure decay effects in the processes $`bs\gamma `$, $`B_s^0\varphi \varphi ,J/\psi \varphi `$, and $`B^{}\varphi K^{}`$ . Finally, we collect results and compare with the expected experimental sensitivities in Section 5. Throughout this discussion we reserve most of the more complicated formulae and analyses for the Appendix, to which we will refer the reader at the appropriate points.

## 2 The Model

The setting for our calculations is the MSSM superpotential

$$𝐖=𝐲_𝐮\overline{u}QH_2+𝐲_𝐝\overline{d}QH_1+𝐲_𝐞\overline{e}LH_1+\mu H_1H_2$$
(1)
with the chiral matter superfields for quarks and leptons $`\overline{u}`$ , $`\overline{d}`$ , $`Q`$ , $`\overline{e}`$ , $`L`$ , and Higgs $`H_{1,2}`$ transforming under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ as:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\overline{u}\hfill & & (\overline{3},1,\frac{2}{3})& \overline{d}& & (\overline{3},1,\frac{1}{3})& Q& & \hfill (3,2,\frac{1}{6})\\ \overline{e}\hfill & & (1,1,1)& L& & (1,2,\frac{1}{2})& & & \\ H_1\hfill & & (1,2,\frac{1}{2})& H_2& & (1,2,\frac{1}{2})& & & \end{array}$$
(2)
The $`3\times 3`$ Yukawa matrices $`𝐲_{𝐮,𝐝,𝐞}`$ couple the three generations of quarks and leptons, and the $`\mu `$ parameter couples the two Higgs. In this discussion all flavor and gauge indices are implicit. The superpotential (1) and general considerations of gauge invariance give the minimally supersymmetric $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ Lagrangian

$$_{SUSY}=_{kinetic}\underset{i}{}\frac{dW}{d\varphi ^i}\frac{dW^{}}{d\varphi ^i}\frac{1}{2}\underset{a}{}g_a^2(\varphi ^{}T^a\varphi )^2$$
(3)
where the kinetic terms have the canonical forms

$$_{kinetic}=D^\mu \varphi ^iD_\mu \varphi _ii\psi ^i\overline{\sigma }^\mu D_\mu \psi _i\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu a}F_{\mu \nu a}$$
(4)
with the indices $`i`$ and $`a`$ running over the scalar fields and gauge group representations, respectively. To this Lagrangian we add a soft supersymmetry-breaking ($`\text{ }\text{— }SUSY`$) piece

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _{\text{ }\text{— }SUSY}=& \hfill (M_3\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}+M_2\stackrel{~}{W}\stackrel{~}{W}+M_1\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B})(𝐚_𝐮\overline{u}QH_2+𝐚_𝐝\overline{d}QH_1+𝐚_𝐞\overline{e}LH_1)_{scalar}& \\ & \hfill (_{X_i=Q,\overline{u},\overline{d},\overline{e}}𝐦_𝐢^\mathrm{𝟐}X_iX_i^{}_{i=1,2}m_{H_i}^2H_i^{}H_ib\mu H_1H_2)_{scalar}+h.c.& \end{array}$$
(5)
where ($`\stackrel{~}{g}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$) are the fermionic partners of the gauge bosons of $`SU(3)_C,SU(2)_L,U(1)_Y`$, respectively, and where scalar implies that only the scalar component of each superfield is used. SUSY-breaking of this type is characteristic of supergravity .

An additional simplification is to take the matrices $`𝐦_𝐢^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐚_{𝐮,𝐝,𝐞}`$ in (5) along with the Yukawa matrices $`𝐲_{𝐮,𝐝,𝐞}`$ in (1) to be simultaneously diagonal in the mass basis after electroweak symmetry breaking. This implies

$$\begin{array}{cccc}𝐦_𝐢^\mathrm{𝟐}\hfill & & m_0^2\mathrm{𝟏}& \\ 𝐚_𝐢\hfill & & A𝐲_𝐢& \hfill (i=u,d,e)\end{array}$$
(6)
Thus the only mixing between families is the usual CKM matrix since quark and squark mass matrices are diagonalized by the same rotation.

The full Lagrangian $`_{SUSY}+_{\text{ }\text{— }SUSY}`$ has six arbitrary phases imbedded in the parameters $`M_i(i=1,2,3)`$, $`\mu `$ , $`b`$, and $`A`$. The phase of $`b`$ can immediately be defined to be zero by appropriate field redefinitions of $`H_{1,2}`$. A mechanism to set another phase to zero utilizes the $`U(1)_R`$-symmetry of the Lagrangian which is broken by the supersymmetry-breaking terms, in particular the gaugino masses in (5). We may perform a $`U(1)_R`$ rotation on the gaugino fields to remove one of the phases $`M_i`$. For consistency with  we choose $`M_2`$ real ($`\varphi _20`$). Note that this $`U(1)_R`$ transformation affects neither the phase of $`A`$, since having the Yukawa matrices $`𝐲_𝐢`$ in (1) be real fixes the phases of the same fields that couple to $`A`$, nor the phase of $`\mu `$, as having chosen $`\varphi _b0`$ fixes the phases of $`H_{1,2}`$. Therefore the final set of physical phases we study is $`\{\varphi _{1,3},\varphi _A,\varphi _\mu \}`$ .

## 3 Electric Dipole Moment Constraints

The electric dipole moment (EDM) of an elementary fermion, a manifestly $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ quantity, is the coefficient $`d_f`$ of the effective operator

$$O_{edm}=(i/2)\overline{f}\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }fF^{\mu \nu }$$

where $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ is the electromagnetic field-strength tensor. The SM prediction of this coefficient vanishes at one loop (see Figure 1a) since the CKM phases from the two vertices cancel eachother. For the electron, $`d_e`$ even vanishes at two loops and the three-loop prediction is miniscule, of order $`10^{50}ecm`$ . For the neutron EDM, gluon interactions can give rise to a two-loop contribution to $`d_n`$, but the result is still tiny at $`d_n10^{33}ecm`$ . The above predictions no longer hold if the QCD Lagrangian contains the $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$$`\theta `$-term’ $`\theta \frac{g_{QCD}^2}{32\pi ^2}G^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$, a potentially significant source of $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$, but then the theory is consistent with the EDM limits only if $`\theta <10^9`$ ; such a fine-tuning is unnatural and henceforth we assume that $`\theta =0`$.

Although the amplitude of a typical supersymmetric contribution to the dipole moment (see Figure 1b) suffers relative to the SM contribution by a reduction factor of at least $`(m_W/\stackrel{~}{m})^2`$ from SUSY particles of mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ propagating in the loop, the imaginary piece of the SUSY amplitude could very well dominate over that from the SM. As previous calculations have shown , the diagrams in Figure 1b lead to EDMs in violation of the current limits of $`d_e<4.3\times 10^{27}ecm`$  and $`d_n<6.3\times 10^{25}ecm`$  unless SUSY particles are heavier than $`O(1)TeV`$ or the $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ phases are less than $`O(10^2)`$. However, small phases in fact are not inevitable, for recently it has been pointed out  that a cancellation can occur among the various SUSY diagrams, allowing $`O(1)`$ $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ phases to be consistent with the current EDM experimental limits.

The set of phases $`\{\varphi _{1,3},\varphi _A,\varphi _\mu \}`$ enter in any diagram which involves mixing between the following fields:

* Charginos ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm `$): $`\varphi _\mu `$ lies in the matrix $`𝐌_{\chi ^\pm }`$ which mixes the set $`(\stackrel{~}{W}^+,\stackrel{~}{H}_2^+,\stackrel{~}{W}^{},\stackrel{~}{H}_1^{})`$
* Neutralinos ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$): both $`\varphi _\mu `$ and $`\varphi _1`$ appear in the matrix $`𝐌_{\chi ^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ which mixes
the set $`(\stackrel{~}{W}^0,\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{H}_1^0,\stackrel{~}{H}_2^0)`$
* Scalars: terms in the Lagrangian such as $`\mu ^{}𝐲_𝐮\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}\stackrel{~}{u}H_1^0`$ arising from the second term of (3), and $`\text{ }\text{— }SUSY`$-terms in (5) introduce $`\varphi _\mu `$ and $`\varphi _A`$, respectively, into the scalar mass insertions. The effect is particularly significant in $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-mixing where the Yukawa matrices are large.

The SUSY diagrams which appear in Figure 1(b) fall into three classes, shown in Figure 2. The charged wino-higgsino mixing diagram Figure 2(a) provides the dominant contribution to $`d_f`$, with the phase of $`\mu `$ entering the amplitude as expected. The neutralino-mixing diagram Figure 2(b) is numerically smaller than its charged counterpart, but it is of opposite sign and has the same dependence on $`\varphi _\mu `$; therefore 2(a) and 2(b) partially cancel. The final type of diagram shown in Figure 2(c) has a more complicated phase dependencewe briefly outline this dependence in the Appendix which, in certain regions of parameter space that are not fined-tuned, leads to a destructive interference with the other two diagrams consistent with current experimental bounds on both $`d_n`$ and $`d_e`$ .

If $`O(1)`$ phases are then permissable, it is important to know whether or not other experimental observables can overconstrain these phases. We next show that the $`B`$ system alone provides enough observables to strongly constrain these phases.

## 4 $`B`$ Physics Constraints

There are many reasons to consider the $`B`$-system in particular for measurements of $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ beyond the SM, a few of which are:

* SM contributions to the relevant observables are down by factors of small CKM matrix elements, so generic non-SM $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ physics should give a very clear signal.
* uncertainties arising from strong interactions are small using Heavy Quark Theory
* large amounts of data will be available in the near future

The $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ in question can arise in any of three ways: through $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing, $`B`$-decay, or through their combination .

### 4.1 CP violation in $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing

At any given instant of time, the propagating meson states are linear combinations $`|B_{L,H}p|B^0\pm q|\overline{B}^0`$ which evolve according to the $`2\times 2`$ Hamiltonian with dispersive and absorptive pieces $`𝐌`$ and $`𝚪`$, viz

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c}B^0\\ \overline{B}^0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{11}+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}& M_{12}+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}\\ M_{12}^{}+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{}& M_{11}+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}B^0\\ \overline{B}^0\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
If we denote the time evolution of the states as

$$|B_{L,H}(t)=|B_{L,H}(0)e^{iM_{L,H}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,H}}$$
(8)
then solving (7) it follows  that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}CP\mathrm{violation}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{mixing}\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{M})0\hfill & & \hfill (\mathrm{\Delta }MM_LM_H)\end{array}$$
(9)
Making use of the fact that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }M\hfill & & \hfill (\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_H),\end{array}$$

which holds for both $`B_d^0`$ and $`B_s^0`$ , we obtain the simplifications

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }M2|M_{12}|\hfill & & \hfill \frac{q}{p}\frac{|M_{12}|}{M_{12}}\end{array}$$
(10)
The degree of $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ in mixing is contained in the ratio $`\frac{q}{p}`$, which from (10) is directly proportional to the phase factor in the amplitude of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ box diagram (see Figure 3).

In the SM, the box graph with internal top quarks in Figure 3(a) dominates $`Im(\mathrm{\Delta }M)`$; correspondingly, the strength of SM $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ mixing is CKM-suppressed by a factor $`Arg\left(V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right)^2\eta \lambda ^2`$ which in the Wolfenstein approximation  is $`0.01`$. Any $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ contribution from new physics therefore has a generically large effect if it carries any phases with it at all. The leading supersymmetric chargino graph§§§We neglect gluino boxes in the approximation that SUSY introduces negligable flavor mixing in the down-sector; boxes with additional Higgsinos are likewise suppressed by small Yukawa matrices. Further, we assume that the lightest stop dominates the loops since it is usually the lightest squark. in Figure 3(b) provides the largest MSSM contribution to $`Im(\mathrm{\Delta }M)`$. We have computed this box (see Appendix) and find it to dominate significantly over the SM contribution. For example, at a typical point in SUSY parameter space, with $`A\mu `$, $`tan\beta =5`$, and sparticle masses $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ on the order of $`O(2)\times M_W`$, we obtain

$$Im\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)0.1sin\varphi _\mu cos\varphi _A$$
(11)
which is an order of magnitude larger than the SM expectation and is directly sensitive to
$`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ SUSY phases. However, it is difficult to directly measure $`Im\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)`$ through mixing effects alone; both time-dependent and time-integrated mixing effects are usually governed by $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ which is still mostly real and SM-driven. We must therefore turn to other types of $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ to constrain the MSSM phases.

### 4.2 CP violation from mixing combined with decay

When a particular final state $`f_{CP}`$ with definite CP quantum numbers is accessible to the decays of a $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ with amplitudes $`A_{f_{CP}}`$ and $`\overline{A}_{f_{CP}}`$, respectively, the asymmetry

$$a_{f_{CP}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B^0}f_{CP})\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0f_{CP})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B^0}f_{CP})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0f_{CP})}$$

in the limit of (10) becomes

$$a_{f_{CP}}sin(\mathrm{\Delta }Mt)Im(\frac{q}{p}\overline{\rho }_{f_{CP}})$$
(12)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\rho }_{f_{CP}}\frac{\overline{A}_{f_{CP}}}{A_{f_{CP}}}\hfill & \hfill A_{f_{CP}}(B^0f_{CP})_jA_je^{i(\delta _j+\varphi _j)}\end{array}$$

in general contains a dependence on both the weak phases $`\varphi _j`$ and the strong interaction phases $`\delta _j`$ from each diagram contributing an amplitude $`A_j`$. In Figure 4, for example, the decay of a $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ to the final states $`J/\psi \varphi `$ and $`\varphi \varphi `$ may either proceed directly ($`\overline{B}_s^0f_{CP}`$) or by oscillating first ($`\overline{B}_s^0B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0f_{CP}`$).

In the SM the asymmetries in both of these decays are tiny primarily due to the small $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ mixing effects (see discussion following (10) which effectively give the upper bound

$$a_{\varphi \varphi ,J/\psi \varphi }(SM)\eta \lambda ^20.01$$
(13)
If SUSY exists then both of these asymmetries can be an order of magnitude larger as is evident from (11) and (12). Furthermore, the value of the quantity $`\overline{\rho }_{f_{CP}}`$ will differ from its value in the heavy quark expansion (HQE) by powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_b`$ only  , so we set the strong phases at $`\delta _j=\pi `$ with an uncertainty $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta )/\delta <10\%`$ . In the case of the decay to $`\varphi \varphi `$ Figure 4(b), for example, $`\overline{\rho }_{f_{CP}}1`$, whereas for the decay to $`J/\psi \varphi `$ through the dominant tree-graph Figure 4(a) carries no strong-phase dependence at all. From (11) and (12) it follows as a prediction of our model that

$$a_{J/\psi \varphi ,\varphi \varphi }0.1sin\varphi _\mu cos\varphi _A$$
(14)
We now have two experimental $`B`$-physics signals of new $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ phases which constrain a combination of $`\varphi _\mu `$ and $`\varphi _A`$ independent from those which arise in the EDM bounds.

### 4.3 CP violation in decay

The charged $`B`$-mesons’ decays can also serve to measure our set of phases. The asymmetry in the decay to a final state $`f`$ is

$`a_f{\displaystyle \frac{1|\overline{A}/A|^2}{1+|\overline{A}/A|^2}}`$
$`AAmp(B^+f)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}A_je^{i(\delta _j+\varphi _j)}`$
$`\overline{A}Amp(B^{}\overline{f})={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}A_je^{i(\delta _j\varphi _j)}`$
with $`\delta _j`$ and $`\varphi _j`$ being the strong and weak phases, respectively for the diagram with modulus $`A_j`$ . Rewritten in the form

$$a_f=\frac{\underset{i,j}{}A_iA_jsin(\varphi _i\varphi _j)sin(\delta _i\delta _j)}{_{i,j}A_iA_jcos(\varphi _i\varphi _j)cos(\delta _i\delta _j)}$$
(15)
it is clear that a non-zero asymmetry requires that at least two diagrams contribute with different strong and weak phases.

#### 4.3.1 $`bs\gamma `$

One of the interesting features of this mode is that any physical model that introduces new $`CP\mathrm{violating}`$ phases can result in an asymmetry far greater than that which the SM predicts; yet it must not disturb the branching ratio(BR) for $`bs\gamma `$ which CLEO has measured :

$$BR(bs\gamma )=(2.32\pm 0.57\pm 0.35)\times 10^4$$
(16)
In Figure 5 we show the dominant diagrams; as in the case of the SUSY contributions to the EDMs studied above, the most important non-SM diagrams for $`bs\gamma `$ involve the chargino loop in Figure 5(b) . Since the observed value of the branching ratio (16) agrees very well with the SM prediction , new decay channels are strongly constrained; accordingly, we follow the analysis of  in carefully accounting for the higher-order graphs in Figure 5(c,d,e).

The effective operators involved are

$$\begin{array}{c}O_2\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu q_L\overline{q}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L\hfill \\ O_7\frac{em_b}{4\pi ^2}\overline{s}_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }b_R\hfill \\ O_8\frac{g_sm_b}{4\pi ^2}\overline{s}_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }b_R\hfill \end{array}$$

We leave the evaluation of these operators and all related calculations for the Appendix.

In using these diagrams to compute observables it is important to take into account that the photon involved in the decay $`bs\gamma `$ is monochromatic but the photon in the observable $`BX_s\gamma `$ has a variable energy. In addition to depending on the final state $`X_s`$, the photon energy is also a function of how the b-quark is bound inside the $`B`$-meson; if the recoil energy of the b-quark is small, non-perturbative effects arise for which no reliable models currently exist. These considerations lead us to perform all calculations using a variable outgoing photon energy, $`E_\gamma `$, which is bounded from below: $`E_\gamma >(1\xi )E_{max}`$ , where $`\xi `$ is between 0 and 1 and $`E_{max}`$ is a model-dependent quantity. The actual dependence on $`\xi `$ and $`E_{max}`$ in the computed asymmetry $`a_{bs\gamma }`$ turns out to be negligable, as we demonstrate in the Appendix. Here we present the result

$$a_{bs\gamma }0.01sin(\varphi _\mu )$$

where as in the case $`B_s^0\varphi \varphi `$ the strong phase dependence is included in the coefficient and imparts a $`10\%`$ uncertainty to this prediction. The magnitude of the asymmetry is admitedly not very large, however it is at least twice the SM prediction .

#### 4.3.2 $`B^{}K^{}\varphi `$

One particularly striking signature of the presence of the SUSY phases is in the decay $`B^{}K^{}\varphi `$. Here the flavor structure $`bs\overline{s}s`$ forbids a SM tree graph, so the leading SM graph is a penguin (defined ‘P’), as shown in Figure 6(a).

The leading SUSY contribution in Figure 6(b) is also a type of penguin (hereafter designated a superpenguin, ‘SP’), suppressed however by a factor $`(m_W/\stackrel{~}{m})^2`$ relative to the SM due to a squark propagating in the loop instead of a $`W`$-boson. So far the situation parallels the decay $`B^0\varphi \varphi `$ above, but the major difference is that here the $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ is necessarily direct. Referring back to (15), with $`\{i,j\}`$ running over $`\{u,c,t,\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{c},\stackrel{~}{t}\}`$, we see that the asymmetry receives contributions from 36 interference terms. However the imaginary parts of SP-SP interference terms are zero since the squarks in the loops of SP graphs are heavier than the $`b`$-quark and do not give rise to absorptive phases in the amplitude(i.e. the $`\delta `$ ’s are zero in (15)). This leaves SP-P and P-P terms. The latter, being purely SM terms, must always involve at least one $`u`$-quark to get a nonzero weak phase ($`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}=V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}=A\lambda ^2`$ is real) , whereas the former need not involve $`u`$-quarks since the weak phase difference necessary for a non-zero asymmetry can come from a SUSY coupling in $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ graphs. Therefore the dominant SP-P terms will (in the notation of 15) have $`i\{\stackrel{~}{c},\stackrel{~}{t}\}`$ and $`j\{c,t\}`$, leading over the P-P terms by a factor $`(V_{tb}V_{ts}^{})/Im(V_{bu}V_{us}^{})1/\eta \lambda ^2100`$. Therefore the P-P terms are negligable and the asymmetry is fundamentally due to the SUSY-SM interference. Assuming as before that the lightest $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ dominates the SP, the numerator of (15) only contains the term due to $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-$`c`$ interference:

$$a_{B^{}K^{}\varphi }\frac{A_cA_{\stackrel{~}{t}}sin(\varphi _c\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{t}})sin(\delta _c)}{A_c^2}$$
(17)
We now employ the one-loop perturbative calculation of the strong phase $`\delta _c`$ from the $`c`$-quark loop , and since $`\varphi _c\eta \lambda ^2`$ is negligable and $`\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ is essentially the same phase we calculated for $`bs\gamma `$although the helicity structure of the ingoing $`b`$-quark and outgoing $`s`$-quark is L-R for $`bs\gamma `$, the L-L and R-R helicity structures of $`B_s^{}K^{}\varphi `$ give negligable contributions to the phase of the diagram we obtain

$$a_{B^{}K^{}\varphi }\left(\frac{M_W}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\right)^2sin(\varphi _\mu )$$
(18)
Here we see that the absence of neutral flavor changing currents, the hierarchy of the CKM matrix, and the pattern of CP quantum numbers all conspire in this case to give an asymmetry which is essentially zero in the SM yet for SUSY with typical sparticle masses can be as large as 30%!

## 5 Discussion

We have seen that the $`B`$-system observables above provide many constraints on the phases $`\{\varphi _A,\varphi _\mu \}`$ in the model. We may classify the experiments by the size of the event samples they are expected to provide:

For example experiments at the LHC p-p collider, producing a sample of order $`10^{10}`$ $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ pairs per year

Experiments run at $`e^+/e^{}`$ machines such as CESR(CLEO III),
KEKB(Belle), and PEP-II(BaBar) as well as at hadronic machines such as Fermilab(CDF, DØ) and DESY(HERA-B: actually $`e^+p`$) produce similar samples of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ pairs,
of order $`10^7`$ per year

Any experiment which detects $`N`$ $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ pairs can resolve at the 1 $`\sigma `$-level an asymmetry $`a_p`$ for a process $`p`$ if

$$a_p>\frac{1}{\sqrt{BR(p)N}}$$

Using this criterion, the results in Table 1 summarizes the various modes and their asymmetries, comparing them to the experimental precision expected on each asymmetry. The reader should note that the columns designated ‘H$``$’ and ‘L$``$’ refer to the optimal choice out of the corresponding set of experiments. In some cases experiments in the same set may have drastically different capabilities: for example the production of $`B_s^0`$ in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation requires running on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(5s)`$ resonance, not currently possible at BaBar or Belle, which run at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4s)`$. Correspondingly the only observable in Table 1 available to these latter is the inclusive decay $`bs\gamma `$ in the decay of $`B_d`$-mesons. The decays of the daughter mesons necessary for detection of events is taken into account in the ‘$`BR(p)`$’ column; for example, $`BR(J/\psi (e^+e^{},\mu ^+\mu ^{}))12\%`$ and $`BR(\varphi K^+K^{})50\%`$. More details on the individual capabilities of each experiment may be found in .

Although HQE usually yields results perturbatively convergent in powers of $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_b}`$ , we allow for hadronic uncertainties at the level of $`10\%`$ on all observables in Table 1 . The parameters describing this are the $`\delta _i(i=\mathrm{1..4})`$ which are in general completely independent for the observables in question. A valid test of the model requires a $`10\%`$ measurement of the various asymmetries. Disagreement at higher precision could be ascribed to uncertainties in the strong dynamics.

From the table, we see that L$``$-experiments can only contribute in the asymmetries in
$`B_s^{}K^{}\varphi `$ and $`B_s^0J/\psi \varphi `$. Combined with the H$``$ measurements of all of the decays studied, a determination of $`\varphi _\mu `$ and $`\varphi _A`$ will be possible. Combined with the linear combination of phases which electron and neutron EDM’s constrain (see Appendix) this provides a complete determination of the set of the phases $`\{\varphi _{1,3},\varphi _A,\varphi _\mu \}`$ studied in this model of $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$.

In summary, the possibility that the phase structure of the MSSM extends beyond the trivial one where $`CP\mathrm{violation}`$ is confined to the CKM matrix leads not only to the requirement that SUSY phases respect the present EDM bounds, but also that the range of phases consistent with these bounds agrees with the values which can be extracted from the various $`B`$-system asymmetries considered above. Collectively , measurements of these asymmetries at present and future $`B`$-physics experiments will either determine the phases or rule out this particular SUSY model.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Services, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF0098.

## Appendix

### 1. Cancellation of the EDMs

That the contributions to the EDM in Figure 2(a,b) tend to cancel in a way dependent only on $`sin(\varphi _\mu )`$ is evident from the form of the chargino and neutralino mixing matrices:

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\pm T}𝐌_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm +\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{0T}𝐌_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{𝟎}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0$$

where

$$𝐌_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& M_2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mu \\ M_2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mu & 0& 0\end{array}\right)𝐌_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{𝟎}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& M_2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mu \\ 0& 0& \mu & 0\end{array}\right)$$

assuming $`M_WM_2,\mu `$.

The graph in Figure 2(c) (where $`f`$ is, say, an electron) receives phases from three sources:

* the $`U(1)`$ propagator carries a factor $`e^{i\varphi _1}`$.
* the scalar mass insertion has a SUSY piece given from the first term of (3) which has the form $`𝐲_𝐞\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\overline{e}}\stackrel{~}{e}H_2^0`$ which after $`\mathrm{EW}\mathrm{breaking}`$ becomes $`𝐲_𝐞\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\overline{e}}\stackrel{~}{e}vsin\beta `$
* the scalar mass insertion also has a $`\text{ }\text{— }SUSY`$ piece (see (5) ) of the form $`A𝐲_𝐞\stackrel{~}{\overline{e}}\stackrel{~}{e}H_1^0`$ which becomes $`A𝐲_𝐞\stackrel{~}{\overline{e}}\stackrel{~}{e}vcos\beta `$ after $`\mathrm{EW}\mathrm{breaking}`$.

Putting the above pieces together, the imaginary piece of the neutralino graph in Figure 2(c) carries a phase dependent factor $`(|A|sin(\varphi _A+\varphi _1)+|\mu |tan\beta sin(\varphi _1\varphi _\mu ))`$. Likewise, the corresponding graph for the neutron in the $`SU(6)`$ modelfor alteratives, see  where $`d_n=1/3(4d_dd_u)`$ obtains a factor similar to the electron case, with the replacement $`\varphi _1\varphi _3`$; the numerical demonstration that these diagrams can nearly cancel is given in .

### 2. Calculating the $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ Box

We follow the notation of  in calculating the contribution to $`M_{12}`$ from the chargino box in Figure 3(b):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }=\frac{\alpha _w^2}{16}\underset{h,k=1}{\overset{6}{}}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }^2}(G_{UL}^{jkb}H_{UR}^{jkb})(G_{UL}^{iks}H_{UR}^{iks})(G_{UL}^{ihb}H_{UR}^{ihb})(G_{UL}^{jhs}H_{UR}^{jhs})G_{ijkh}^{}$$

where $`G`$ and $`H`$ are gauge and Higgs vertices and the form factor $`G^{}`$ depends on the masses of the particles involved. We make the assumption that the lightest chargino and lightest stop dominate the loop, and that $`M_WM_2,\mu `$. The final result is

$$Im(M_{12})\left(\frac{2M_W}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\right)^3\left(\frac{sin\varphi _\mu (|A|sin\beta cos\beta cos\varphi _A|\mu |cos^2\beta y_tcos\varphi _\mu )}{\sqrt{|A|^2sin^2\beta +|\mu |^2cos^2\beta |A||\mu |sin\beta cos\beta y_tcos(\varphi _A+\varphi _\mu )}}\right)$$

which assumes a simpler form for typical points in parameter space, as noted above (11). In keeping with prior notation, this defines

$$f(\varphi _\mu ,\varphi _A)\frac{sin\varphi _\mu (|A|sin\beta cos\beta cos\varphi _A|\mu |cos^2\beta y_tcos\varphi _\mu )}{\sqrt{|A|^2sin^2\beta +|\mu |^2cos^2\beta |A||\mu |sin\beta cos\beta y_tcos(\varphi _A+\varphi _\mu )}}$$

### 3. The Operators $`O_{2,7,8}`$

We again follow  in calculating the coefficients $`C_{7,8}`$ of the operators $`O_{7,8}`$ from chargino loops:

$$\begin{array}{cc}C_{7,8\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }=\hfill & \frac{\alpha _w\sqrt{\alpha }}{2\sqrt{\pi }}_{k=1}^6_{j=1}^2\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_k}^2}(G_{UL}^{jkb}H_{UR}^{jkb})(G_{UL}^{jks}H_{UR}^{jks})(F_{1,jk}+e_UF_{2,jk})\hfill \\ & H_{UL}^{jkb}(G_{UL}^{jks}H_{UR}^{jks})\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^\pm }}{m_b}(F_{3,jk}+e_UF_{4,jk})\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`F_{1,2,3,4}`$ are form factors and $`C_7`$ is obtained from the above by setting $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi )`$ and $`e_U=2/3`$; for $`C_8`$ $`\alpha =g^2/(4\pi )`$ and $`e_U=0`$. Including the SM contributions given in , we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_2\hfill & \hfill & 1.11\hfill \\ C_7\hfill & \hfill & 0.310.19e^{i\varphi _\mu }\hfill \\ C_8\hfill & \hfill & 0.150.14e^{i\varphi _\mu }\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`C_2`$, the real part of $`M_{12}`$, is not significantly affected by SUSY.

### 4. Soft Photons in $`bs\gamma `$

In 4.3.1 we noted that the energy dependence of the outgoing photon could have a significant effect on the BR and asymmetry. Here we quote the expression in  for the BR and asymmetry as functions of $`C_{2,7,8}`$ and $`\xi `$ ($`E_\gamma >(1\xi )E_{max})`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{B}R(BX_s\gamma )\hfill & \hfill & 2.57\times 10^3K_{NLO}(\xi )\times \mathrm{B}R(BX_ce\nu )/10.5\%\hfill \\ \mathrm{w}here\hfill & & \\ K_{NLO}(\xi )\hfill & \hfill & _{ij=2,7,8}\left(k_{ij}(\xi )Re(C_iC_j^{})+k_{77}^{(1)}(\xi )Re(C_7^{(1)}C_7^{})\right)\hfill \\ a_{bs\gamma }\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{|C_7|^2}\left(a_{27}(\xi )Im(C_2C_7^{})+a_{87}(\xi )Im(C_8C_7^{})+a_{28}(\xi )Im(C_2C_8^{})\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

The $`\xi `$-dependent quantities are listed in Table 3 which we paraphrase from ; using this, it is straightforward to explicitly calculate the BR and asymmetry for the values of $`C_{2,7,8}`$ given above. The dependence is insignificant for a wide range of $`\xi `$ and in two different models (see Table 2).


format: text

text:
# Spontaneous magnetic moments in YBa2Cu3O7-δ thin films

## Abstract

We have observed spontaneous magnetic moments with random signs in $`c`$-axis oriented thin films of the high-Tc cuprate superconductor YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO), imaged with a scanning SQUID microscope. These moments arise when the samples become superconducting, and appear to be associated with non-ferromagnetic defects in the films. In contrast with granular high-Tc samples, which also show spontaneous moments with random signs, the present samples shield diamagnetically.

It now appears likely that the superconductivity in optimally doped cuprate high-Tc superconductors can be characterized by an orbital component of the pairing wavefunction with predominantly $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry. The $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ order parameter does not violate time reversal symmetry, and little, if any, time reversal symmetry breaking is observed experimentally in the bulk material. Nevertheless, it has been shown theoretically that broken time-reversal symmetry (BTRS) could occur locally in a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ superconductor at certain surfaces and interfaces, or in the presence of non-magnetic and magnetic impurities. The existence of a lowest energy state which is not unique (BTRS) requires an additional component of the order parameter that is $`\pi /2`$ out of phase with the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ component. A $`d_{x^2y^2}+is`$ or $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$ pairing state has been suggested near a surface or twin boundary with (110) orientation, producing a local nodeless global gap function. The predicted BTRS should manifest itself in many effects, including deviations from the well-established Josephson’s sinusoidal current-phase relationship , and the splitting of the zero bias conductance peak induced by the Andreev surface bound states . An intrinsic phase shift in Josephson junctions is a signature of BTRS associated with a grain boundary or a barrier interface and should produce spontaneous supercurrents, possible fractional flux quanta and phase slips .

However, experimental measurements using scanning SQUID microscopy have shown no evidence for BTRS in YBCO tricrystal samples , in YBCO-Pb thin-film SQUIDs , or in sparsely twinned YBCO single crystals . These samples each have some combination of grain boundaries, tunnel junctions, and twin boundaries, which might be expected to induce $`d_{x^2y^2}+is`$ or $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$ local pairing in a bulk $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ superconductor. On the other hand, measurements of the magnetic field dependence of the zero-bias anomaly in thin film YBCO/I/Cu tunnel junctions , and a spontaneous net magnetic moment in bulk SQUID magnetization measurements of $`c`$-axis YBCO thin films , support BTRS. We note that in these last two experiments, evidence for broken time-reversal symmetry was not seen in all samples. In this paper we provide experimental evidence for large spontaneous flux generation in YBCO c-axis oriented thin films, apparently associated with non-ferromagnetic defects in the films. Such spontaneous moments could result in the effects reported in support of BTRS previously . We speculate on the source of our observed magnetic moments.

Our measurements were made on biepitaxial 45o a-axis tilt (twist) grain boundary Josephson junctions (GBJs) employing films with different orientations  (Fig. 1(a) is, for example, the schematic of a tilt GBJ imaged in Fig. 1(b)). Details on the scanning SQUID measurements can be found elsewhere. Our samples employed a (110) MgO film as a seed layer to modify the crystal orientation of YBCO on the (110) SrTiO3 substrate. YBCO grows predominantly along the  or  directions on the SrTiO3 substrate, and along the  direction on the MgO seed layer. These structures allow us to investigate regions with different properties and morphologies simultaneously. Details of the fabrication process of the junctions have been described elsewhere, along with a complete characterization of the microstructure and transport properties . These films are affected by the presence of Y-based impurities, as is commonly observed in YBCO thin films deposited by sputtering . Y2O3 and Y2BaCuO5 (Y211) precipitates are in general found in the (103) and (001) electrodes, as shown by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analyses. The amount of the precipitates can be modified and very roughly controlled by changing the YBCO deposition conditions. The presence of Y211 precipitates can be revealed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) or Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) with some accuracy. TEM analysis shows that there are no grain boundaries in the (001) films .

The spatial distribution of the magnetic flux for a (001)/(103) 45o twist biepitaxial grain boundary sample is shown in Fig. 1(b). The sample was cooled in a field of $``$5 mG and imaged at 4.2K with an octagonal shaped low-Tc SQUID sensor pickup loop 4 microns in diameter. In this image the (103) YBCO film is magnetically smooth, aside from a single dipole feature (often seen in YBCO films), and 4 vortices trapped in the bulk of the film. The vortices in the (103) film are anisotropic, elongated in the a-b plane direction. In contrast, the (001) YBCO on the MgO seed layer has many localized regions of flux, with the fields pointing both out of (white) and into (black) the sample. When the sample is cooled in zero field, the (103) section has no vortices, but the (001) section still shows many localized magnetic moments, averaging to zero net magnetization. The (001) region is so magnetically disordered that vortices are not well separated, and therefore estimates of the total flux in each “vortex” are difficult. Nevertheless, modelling of the most isolated regions of flux give values for the total flux significantly less than the superconducting flux quantum. An example is shown in Fig. 1(c), which shows experimental data and modelling for a cross-section through Fig. 1(b) as indicated by the nearly horizontal dotted line. This cross-section passes directly through two vortices on opposite sides of the grain boundary (indicated by the nearly vertical dashed line). We model the vortices in the (103) region as anisotropic vortices emerging normal to a surface and parallel to the planes of a layered superconductor. The $`z`$-component of such a superconducting vortex is given by :

$$h_z(𝐫,z)=\frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}k\varphi (𝐤)e^{i𝐤𝐫kz},$$
(1)
where

$$\varphi (𝐤)=\frac{\varphi _0(1+m_1k_x^2)}{m_3\alpha _3[m_1k_x^2\alpha _3(k+\alpha _1)+k\alpha _3+k_y^2]},$$
(2)
$`\alpha _1=((1+m_1k^2)/m_1)^{1/2}`$, $`\alpha _3=((1+m_1k_x^2+m_3k_y^2)/m_3)^{1/2}`$, $`k=(k_x^2+k_y^2)^{1/2}`$, $`m_1=\lambda _{ab}^2/\lambda ^2`$, $`m_3=\lambda _c^2/\lambda ^2`$, $`\lambda =(\lambda _{ab}^2\lambda _c)^{1/3}`$, $`\lambda _{ab}`$ is the in-plane penetration depth, $`\varphi _0=hc/2e`$ is the superconducting flux quantum, $`h`$ is Planck’s constant, $`e`$ is the charge on the electron, $`x`$ is the distance perpendicular to the planes, and $`y`$ is the distance parallel to the planes. The $`z`$-component of the field is integrated over the known geometry of the pickup loop to obtain a flux to compare with experiment. The solid line through the vortex to the right of Fig. 1(c) is a fit of Eq. 1 to the experiment (dots) with the height $`z`$=2.45$`\mu `$m of the pickup loop and the $`c`$-axis penetration depth $`\lambda _c`$=5.9$`\mu `$m as the two fitting parameters, with $`\lambda _{ab}`$=0.14$`\mu `$m held fixed. For comparison, the solid line to the left of Fig. 1(c) is the expected flux through the pickup loop for a monopole vortex field source with $`\varphi _0`$ total flux, $`B_z`$=($`\varphi _0/2\pi )z/r^3`$, using $`z`$=2.45$`\mu `$m from the fit to the vortex in the (103) film. The “vortex” in the (001) film is resolution limited using our 4$`\mu `$m SQUID pickup loop, but apparently has less then $`\varphi _0`$ of flux. The dashed curve is the prediction for a monopole source with 0.4$`\varphi _0`$ total flux.

The source of the spontaneous moments in the $`c`$-axis YBCO electrode is not known. To our knowledge this is the first time they have been magnetically imaged in $`c`$-axis YBCO. Since there are no grain boundaries in the (001) films, the magnetic roughness must be related to some other aspect of the morphology of the sample. We speculate that it is due to the presence of defects in the film. Figure 2 shows a comparison of SSM and scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of the same region of $`c`$-axis film. There appears to be some correlation between defects seen in the SEM images and the magnetic structure. The ovals in Figure 2 are intended as guides to the eye of some of these correlations. Since the predominant defects in these films are Y211 precipitates, we speculate that these are causing the spontaneous magnetization in these films. Y211 is insulating, with an antiferromagnetic ordering temperature between 15 and 30K

Figure 3 shows a series of scanning SQUID microscope images of one of our samples for selected temperatures. In these images the sample was cooled in nominal zero field, and then imaged while warming with a square pickup loop 17.8$`\mu `$m on a side. The individual “fractional” vortices are not resolved with this larger pickup loop, as they were using the 4 $`\mu `$m pickup loop. As the critical temperature ($``$ 80K for this film) is approached, “telegraph noise” develops in the images, presumably due to reversals in the sign of the flux generated at particular sites. This “telegraph noise” appears to be driven by interactions with the SQUID pickup loop, as evidenced by the streaking of the images, in the (vertical) scan direction. The total variation in flux decreases as Tc is approached, until above Tc the only magnetic signals present are a few dipoles, presumably due to ferromagnetic particles in the sample. These residual features are square, reflecting the shape of the pickup loop. These images demonstrate that the spontaneous magnetization seen in these samples is intimately related to the superconductivity, and that the defects seen in these films are only weakly, if at all, ferromagnetic above the superconducting critical temperature.

The spontaneous magnetization in these samples is qualitatively similar to that seen in granular BSCCO samples which show the paramagnetic Meissner (Wohlleben) effect, both in terms of its absolute magnitude and its random orientation. However, there is an important difference: these films show diamagnetic shielding at fields of a few milliGauss. An example is shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4a is a scanning SQUID microscope image of a sample cooled in an externally applied field of 2.5mG, using a 17.8$`\mu `$m square pickup loop, and imaged in the same field at a sample temperature of 60K. Also shown are histograms of the relative frequency of flux observed in the upper (001) section of the YBCO film (Fig. 4(b)), and the lower (103) YBCO (Fig. 4(c)). These histograms show that although the measured flux above the (001) section has a large distribution width, it has the same average flux as above the (103) section. Both show diamagnetic shielding on average. In contrast, granular BSCCO samples show paramagnetic shielding when cooled in fields below about 0.5G.

Our measurements show that spontaneously generated moments can occur in samples of high-Tc superconductors which do not have $`\pi `$-loops in the presence of grain boundaries. One explanation for these observations is the existence of an out-of-phase component to the dominant $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ superconducting order parameter, as predicted in the presence of interfaces or impurities . Since such a complex order parameter would break time-reversal symmetry, this interpretation is consistent with the presence of “vortices” which appear to have less than the superconducting quantum of flux. An alternate explanation  is the pinning of a vortex tangle, produced near Tc in a Kosterlitz-Thouless  type transition in the nearly two dimensional superconductor YBCO. This pinning would be facilitated by the disorder present in these films. This explanation seems inconsistent with the temperature dependent measurements (Fig. 3), which show more pronounced magnetic structure as T is reduced. However, it could be argued that the vortex-antivortex fluctuations are too rapid close to Tc to be imaged with the SSM. Our measurements are consistent with the absence of effects associated with time-reversal symmetry breaking in most measurements, and the appearance of such effects, which may be associated with small concentrations of defects, in others. Our experiments raise the possibility of intentionally introducing time-reversal symmetry breaking effects by, for example, photolithographically patterning small defects in high-Tc samples. This could be applicable to (e.g.) the fabrication of elements for quantum computation , opening new perspectives in the design of such devices without necessarily using Josephson junctions. Possible advantages may be also related to the smaller values of the magnetic flux associated with “fractional vortices”.

We would like to thank J.R. Clem, V.G. Kogan, K.A. Moler and C.C. Tsuei for useful discussions, M.B. Ketchen for the design, and M. Bhushan for the fabrication of the SQUIDs used in this study, and F. Carillo, E. Sarnelli and G. Testa for some help in the preparation of the junctions. F.T. has been partially supported by the projects PRA-INFM “HTS Devices” and by a MURST COFIN98 program (Italy).


text:
# OUTP-00-06P, UPR-880T, HUB-EP-00/10 hep-th/0003256 Heterotic M–Theory Cosmology in Four and Five Dimensions

## 1 Introduction

Among the simplest cosmological solutions of string theory are the so called rolling radii solutions . They are characterized by a kinetic–energy driven evolution of the universe. These fundamental solutions of string cosmology provide superinflating cosmological backgrounds as well as subluminally expanding backgrounds of Friedmann–Robertson–Walker type .

In the present paper, we will analyze and discuss rolling radii solutions from the perspective of the string theory/M–theory relation. In particular, we will discuss how a superinflating phase in string cosmology is embedded into an M–theory context. This will be done within the framework of the four–dimensional $`N=1`$ effective action of the $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string theory and the underlying five–dimensional effective action of heterotic M–theory , obtained from 11–dimensional Hořava–Witten theory  by reduction on a Calabi–Yau three–fold with non–vanishing G–flux. This five–dimensional action constitutes an M–theory realization of a “brane–world”. In precisely this context, we will analyze rolling radii solutions and the role the fifth dimension plays in the cosmological evolution they describe. In particular, we will present a new class of non–separating five–dimensional solutions that represents the direct generalization of the well–known four–dimensional rolling radii solutions to heterotic M–theory.

Cosmological rolling radii solutions of M–theory related to branes have first been obtained in ref. . The first cosmological solutions of five–dimensional heterotic M–theory have been found in ref. . These latter solutions are generalized rolling radii solutions with an inhomogeneous fifth dimension. Subsequently, further examples of cosmological solutions to five–dimensional heterotic M–theory have been presented . One purpose of this paper is to clarify the role of the solutions given in ref.  in the present context. Potential–driven inflation and its relation to five–dimensional heterotic M–theory has been first analyzed in ref. . The present paper is somewhat complementary to this work in that it addresses similar questions, however for the case of kinetic–energy driven inflation. Recently, there is also considerable activity, see for example , exploring other cosmological aspects of five–dimensional brane–world theories. M–theory rolling radii cosmology based on vacua with a large number of supersymmetries has been investigated in ref. . In the present paper, we consider a related situation but focus on vacua with the “phenomenological” value of $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions. While this situation is of course physically favorable, we have much less control over quantum effects than in the cases analyzed in ref. . In this paper, we focus on the effect of string loop corrections in four dimensions while, for simplicity, we work at lowest order in $`\alpha ^{}`$. Also, we will not attempt to include non–perturbative effects such as brane instantons. Clearly, it would be interesting to extend the analysis presented in this paper to include some of these effects.

Let us outline the paper and summarize its main results. To set the stage, we first review the relation between the four– and five–dimensional effective actions of heterotic M–theory as presented in ref. . In particular, we show how the relevant four–dimensional fields, that is, the four–dimensional metric $`g_4`$, the dilaton $`S_R`$ and the T–modulus $`T_R`$ arise as moduli of the five–dimensional three–brane vacuum solution. We also review the correspondence between excitations of the bulk fields in the fifth dimension and string loop corrections to the four–dimensional effective action. Correspondingly, the strong coupling expansion parameter $`ϵT_R/S_R`$ can be interpreted as measuring the strength of those bulk excitations as well as the size of the loop corrections. Then, we start with the standard class of four–dimensional rolling radii solutions where we allow the scale factor of the three–dimensional universe, the dilaton and the T–modulus to vary in time. Discarding trivial integration constants, those solutions form a one–parameter set. We then show, using the correspondence between the four– and five–dimensional effective theories, how this complete set can be “lifted up” to approximate solutions of the five–dimensional effective action. Due to the potentials present in the five–dimensional theory, these solutions depend on the fifth coordinate as well as on time and are generically non–separating. They constitute new, non–trivial solution of the five–dimensional effective action of heterotic M–theory that generalize the familiar four–dimensional rolling radii solutions. More specifically, they correspond to a pair of domain wall three–branes with rolling radii. In addition to the overall scaling that is familiar from four–dimensional rolling radii solutions, there is another non–trivial feature of those solutions not visible from a four–dimensional viewpoint. The size of the domain wall bulk excitations (and hence the parameter $`ϵ`$) is generically varying in time. It is this time variation of the internal domain wall structure that makes the solutions non–separating and, hence, non–trivial.

We can classify the solutions according to the time–behavior of $`ϵ`$. It turns out that there are exactly two solutions (out of the one–parameter set) for which $`ϵ=`$ const. In those two cases, one can find exact separable solutions which are precisely the ones that have been given in ref. . For all other cases, $`ϵ`$ varies in time and the corresponding exact solution must be non–separating. As a result, the separable solutions are exactly the ones for which loop corrections (or equivalently five–dimensional bulk excitations) are independent of time and are, hence, under control at all stages of the evolution. The remaining solutions with non–constant $`ϵ`$ split into two (one–parameter) subsets, one with increasing $`ϵ`$ and the other with decreasing $`ϵ`$ in the negative–time branch. Particularly, the former case of increasing $`ϵ`$ is interesting. In this case, an effectively four–dimensional solution is subject to increasing loop corrections that can be described by bulk excitations in the five–dimensional theory. When $`ϵ`$ is of order one, the approximate five–dimensional solution is no longer valid and the subsequent evolution is described by a more complicated non–separating background. In particular, then, the time evolution and the dependence of the fields on the additional dimension are entangled in a complicated way. An interesting question is whether this might help to avoid the curvature singularity at the end of the negative–time branch. Unfortunately, no exact analytic solution is known to us in this non–separating case. However, we present an argument, based on the evolution equations for the induced fields on the boundaries, that a branch change does not occur, even at large values of $`ϵ`$.

## 2 Heterotic M-theory in four and five dimensions

A popular starting point for string cosmology is the lowest–order four–dimensional effective action

$$S_4=\frac{1}{16\pi G_N}_{M_4}\sqrt{g_4}e^{\varphi _4}\left[R_4_\mu \varphi _4^\mu \varphi _4+\frac{3}{2}_\mu \beta _4^\mu \beta _4+\text{(matter field terms)}\right]$$
(2.1)
written in the string frame. This action can be viewed as a universal effective action for $`N=1`$ compactifications (on Calabi–Yau three–folds) of weakly coupled $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string theory. In fact, the field content has been truncated to the fields essential for a discussion of string cosmology, that is, gravity and the two universal moduli $`\varphi _4`$ and $`\beta _4`$. In terms of the dilaton $`S`$ and the conventional T–modulus $`T`$, we can express those fields as

$$S_R=e^{\varphi _4},T_R=e^{\beta _4}.$$
(2.2)
Here $`S_R`$ and $`T_R`$ denote the real parts of the bosonic component in the respective $`N=1`$ superfields.

Given the origin of the above action, it should be possible to relate it to the strong coupling limit of the $`E_8\times E_8`$ string theory  in its effective formulation via heterotic M–theory, that is, M–theory on the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$. In fact, the simplest and perhaps conceptually most interesting connection is the one to five–dimensional heterotic M–theory . Let us, therefore, discuss the simplest version of this five–dimensional theory briefly. For more details, we refer the reader to ref. .

This theory is obtained from its 11–dimensional counterpart by a reduction on a Calabi–Yau three–fold with a non–vanishing G–flux. Then the five–dimensional space–time has the structure $`M_5=S^1/Z_2\times M_4`$ where $`M_4`$ is a smooth $`3+1`$ dimensional space–time. We will use coordinates $`x^\alpha `$ with indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3,5`$ for the full five–dimensional space–time and coordinates $`x^\mu `$ with $`\mu ,\nu ,\rho ,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$ for $`M_4`$. Furthermore, the $`S^1`$ coordinate $`yx^5`$ is restricted to the range $`y[\pi \rho ,\pi \rho ]`$ where $`\rho `$ is the radius of the orbicircle. In these coordinates, the action of the $`Z_2`$ symmetry on $`S^1`$ is defined as $`yy`$. This leads to two four–dimensional fixed planes $`M_4^1`$ and $`M_4^2`$ at $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi \rho `$, respectively. The theory on this space–time constitutes a five–dimensional $`N=1`$ gauged supergravity theory in the bulk coupled to two four–dimensional $`N=1`$ theories on $`M_4^1`$ and $`M_4^2`$. A simple version  of this theory is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}S_5=\frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}\{_{M_5}\sqrt{g}[R+\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \varphi ^\alpha \varphi +\frac{1}{3}v^2e^{2\varphi }]\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{n=1}{\overset{2}{}}_{M_4^n}\sqrt{g}[2\sqrt{2}ve^\varphi +\text{(matter field terms)}]\}.\end{array}$$
(2.3)
Here $`\kappa _5`$ is the five–dimensional Newton constant, $`v`$ is a constant that depends on internal instanton numbers and $`\varphi `$ is the five–dimensional dilaton field. Its geometrical interpretation is to measure the size of the internal Calabi–Yau space such that its volume is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(\varphi )`$. In the same spirit as for the four–dimensional action above, we have confined ourselves to the field content that is essential for our cosmological discussion. The above action constitutes an explicit realization of a five–dimensional brane–world in the context of M–theory, as was first realized in ref. .

How precisely are the effective actions (2.1) and (2.3) related? This has been worked out in ref.  and we would like to briefly review some of the results. Note that for $`v0`$, the action (2.3) does not admit flat five–dimensional space–time as a solution. Instead, its “vacuum” is a pair of domain walls or three–branes specified by the exact solution

$$ds_5^2=a_0^2Hdx^\mu dx^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }+b_0^2H^4dy^2,e^\varphi =b_0H^3$$
(2.4)
with harmonic function $`H=H(y)`$ given by

$$H=c_0+\frac{1}{3}ϵ_0h(y),h(y)=\frac{|y|}{\pi \rho }\frac{1}{2}$$
(2.5)
where $`ϵ_0=\sqrt{2}\pi \rho v`$ and $`a_0`$, $`b_0`$ and $`c_0`$ are arbitrary constants. This solution preserves $`3+1`$–dimensional Poincaré invariance and represents a BPS solution of the five–dimensional supergravity theory described by action (2.3). Hence, a reduction of the five–dimensional theory on this three–brane solution to four dimensions leads to a generally covariant $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theory. This theory is, of course, the four–dimensional effective action of the $`E_8\times E_8`$ string whose universal part has been given in eq. (2.1) above. Phrased in a different way, the four–dimensional theory provides an effective description for the moduli of the domain wall solution. To make this explicit, define constants $`\beta _4`$ and $`\varphi _4`$ by

$$b_0=e^{3\beta _42\varphi _4},c_0=e^{\varphi _4\beta _4}$$
(2.6)
as well as a four–dimensional metric $`g_{4\mu \nu }`$ by

$$g_{4\mu \nu }=a_0^2e^{2\varphi _4}\eta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(2.7)
Note that we can perform a general linear transformation on the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ in the solution (2.4). This converts $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and, hence, $`g_{4\mu \nu }`$ into an arbitrary four–dimensional metric. It follows that, to leading order in $`ϵ_0`$ the solution takes the form

$$ds_5^2=\left(1+\frac{1}{3}ϵh\right)e^{\beta _4\varphi _4}dx^\mu dx^\nu g_{4\mu \nu }+\left(1+\frac{4}{3}ϵh\right)e^{2\beta _4}dy^2,\varphi =\varphi _4+ϵh$$
(2.8)
where

$$ϵ=ϵ_0e^{\beta _4\varphi _4}.$$
(2.9)
and $`h=h(y)`$ is as defined above. The metric $`g_{4\mu \nu }`$ can be interpreted as the four–dimensional string–frame metric. The moduli $`\varphi _4`$ and $`\beta _4`$ measure the internal Calabi–Yau volume $`V`$ and the orbifold size $`R`$, averaged over the orbifold coordinate 111Note in this context that the function $`h(y)`$ in eq. (2.5) has been defined so that its orbifold average vanishes.. The metric and these moduli can now be promoted to four–dimensional fields depending on $`x^\mu `$. As discussed in ref. , the low–energy dynamics of these fields can be obtained by reducing the five–dimensional action (2.3) using the ansatz (2.8). The resulting dynamics is precisely described by action (2.1). Note that this action depends on all three moduli $`a_0`$, $`b_0`$ and $`c_0`$ of the exact three–brane solution. Modulus $`a_0`$ is related to the scale factor in the four–dimensional metric $`g_{4\mu \nu }`$, whereas $`b_0`$ and $`c_0`$ enter the effective four–dimensional action through

$$S_R=b_0c_0^3,T_R=b_0c_0^2,$$
(2.10)
where we have used (2.2) and (2.6). This establishes a direct relationship between five–dimensional solutions based on the three–brane (2.8) and solutions of the four–dimensional effective action (2.1) for the moduli. Hence, via eq. (2.8), any cosmological solution of the four–dimensional theory immediately implies a (approximate) cosmological solution in five–dimensions, and vice versa.

As is apparent from the four–dimensional action (2.1), we are working to lowest order in $`\alpha ^{}`$. Correspondingly, we have neglected higher derivative terms in the five–dimensional action (2.3) as well. For example, to lowest order we expect $`R^2`$ and $`R^4`$ terms in the bulk originating from the $`R^4`$ term in M–theory  as well as $`R^2`$ terms on the boundary . Although it would be interesting to include those corrections, particularly from a five–dimensional viewpoint, for the purpose of this paper we will focus on situations where higher–derivative corrections are still small.

There is another requirement for the four–dimensional effective description to be valid. We have used a linearized approximation in

$$ϵ=ϵ_0e^{\beta _4\varphi _4}\frac{R}{V}\frac{T_R}{S_R}$$
(2.11)
and, hence, $`ϵ`$ should be smaller than one for the action (2.1) to be sensible. What is the meaning of this last condition? Eq. (2.11) leads us to three different interpretations of the so–called strong coupling expansion parameter $`ϵ`$. First, $`ϵ`$ measures the excitation of bulk gravity in the domain wall solution (2.4) due to the bulk and boundary potentials in the five–dimensional action. That is, $`ϵ`$ measures the variation of the metric (and the dilaton) as one moves across the orbifold. Second, it measures the relative size $`R/V`$ of the orbifold and the internal Calabi–Yau space. And third, it measures the relative size of string–loop corrections to the four–dimensional effective action which is indeed proportional to $`T_R/S_R`$. The relation between loop corrections and bulk gravity is not accidental. One can verify that the one loop corrections to the four–dimensional effective action are in fact generated by the non–trivial structure of the domain wall solution . Hence, the linear approximation in $`ϵ`$ implies that we are considering a four–dimensional one–loop effective action or, equivalently, five–dimensional bulk excitations that are well approximated by linearized gravity. In the following, we will use the term “bulk excitations” to mean this non–trivial orbifold dependence induced by the potentials in the five–dimensional theory and related to loop corrections. Note that, due to the $`R^2`$ corrections on the boundaries mentioned above, higher–derivative corrections will also induce a non–trivial orbifold dependence whenever those corrections become relevant. It would be interesting to include those higher derivative terms, specifically the boundary $`R^2`$ terms, in the analysis. A related four–dimensional analysis with $`R^2`$ terms has been performed in ref. . Higher curvature terms in five dimensions have been considered in ref. , however the boundary $`R^2`$ terms were not included in the analysis of this paper. As stated above, in this paper, we confine ourselves to the lowest order in $`\alpha ^{}`$.

Does the five–dimensional action (2.3) and, correspondingly, its exact domain–wall solution (2.4) encode higher loop–effects as well? Certainly it contains information beyond the one–loop level, since the bulk potential in eq. (2.3) which is uniquely fixed by five–dimensional supersymmetry is of the order $`v^2ϵ^2`$. However, higher–order corrections to the five–dimensional action cannot be excluded. Therefore, while one expects higher loop corrections to be described by bulk gravity effects and an action of the type above, there might be modifications of the concrete form (2.3) at higher order.

## 3 Cosmological solutions

Based on the above correspondence between the four– and five–dimensional theories we would now like to discuss the simplest type of cosmological solutions, namely rolling radii solutions. These solutions are characterized by an evolution of the universe driven by kinetic energy and they provide superinflating as well as subluminally expanding cosmological string backgrounds . First, we would like to review those solutions in the four–dimensional context. Then we present new five–dimensional solutions that constitute the generalization of rolling radii solutions to heterotic M–theory. Furthermore, we discuss their relation to the known four–dimensional solutions.

Let us first recall the conventional picture that arises in four dimensions. We choose a four–dimensional metric of Friedmann–Robertson–Walker type with flat spatial sections and scale factor $`\alpha _4=\alpha _4(t_4)`$, that is,

$$ds_4^2=g_{4\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =dt_4^2+e^{2\alpha _4}d𝐱^2.$$
(3.1)
Accordingly, the other two fields are taken to be functions of time only, that is, $`\beta _4=\beta _4(t_4)`$ and $`\varphi _4=\varphi _4(t_4)`$. Then the general solution of the four–dimensional action (2.1) is of the form

$$\alpha _4=p_{4\alpha }\mathrm{ln}|t_4|+\overline{\alpha }_4,\beta _4=p_{4\beta }\mathrm{ln}|t_4|+\overline{\beta }_4,\varphi _4=p_{4\varphi }\mathrm{ln}|t_4|+\overline{\varphi }_4,$$
(3.2)
where $`\overline{\alpha }_4`$, $`\overline{\varphi }_4`$ and $`\overline{\beta }_4`$ are arbitrary constants. The expansion powers $`𝐩_4(p_{4\alpha },p_{4\beta },p_{4\varphi })`$ are subject to the two constraints

$$3p_{4\alpha }p_{4\varphi }=1,9p_{4\beta }^2+4p_{4\varphi }+2p_{4\varphi }^2=4.$$
(3.3)
Apart from trivial integration constants such as $`\overline{\alpha }_4`$, $`\overline{\beta }_4`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }_4`$, we therefore have a one–parameter family of solutions specified by the solutions to eq. (3.3). Generically, the scale factor of the universe as well as both moduli fields evolve in time. As usual, for each set of allowed expansion coefficients, we have a solution in the negative–time branch, that is, for $`t_4<0`$ and a solution in the positive–time branch, that is for $`t_4>0`$. As stands, the former evolves into a future curvature singularity while the latter arises from a past curvature singularity. Frequently, for the discussion of superinflating cosmology, specific solutions are chosen from the set specified by (3.3). These specific solutions are characterized by a constant T–modulus and, hence, by the expansion coefficients

$$𝐩_4^{(T)}=(\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},0,\pm \sqrt{3}1).$$
(3.4)
As discussed in the previous section, the quantity $`ϵ`$, defined in eq. (2.11), is of particular importance in our context as it measures the size of the four–dimensional loop corrections as well as the five–dimensional gravitational bulk excitations. Going back to the general class of solutions, we have from eq. (2.11) and (3.2) that

$$ϵ|t_4|^{p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }}.$$
(3.5)
Generally, therefore, $`ϵ`$ will be time–dependent. However, we can ask if there are special solutions in the above set for which $`p_{4\beta }=p_{4\varphi }`$ and, hence, $`ϵ`$ is constant. Such solutions indeed exist and are characterized by the expansion powers

$$𝐩_4^{(ϵ)}=(\frac{3}{11}\left(1\pm \frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}}\right),\frac{2}{11}\left(1\pm 2\sqrt{3}\right),\frac{2}{11}\left(1\pm 2\sqrt{3}\right)).$$
(3.6)
While, in the following, we will work with the general set of solutions, we will comment on these special cases where appropriate. After this review of the four–dimensional solutions, let us now move on to the five–dimensional case.

Our goal is to specify the five–dimensional origin of the above rolling radii solutions. That is, we would like to find the solutions of the five–dimensional theory (2.3) that, in the small–momentum limit, reduce to the four–dimensional rolling radii solutions. From the action (2.3), it is clear that those solutions, in addition to time, must depend on the orbifold coordinate $`y`$, as long as the constant $`v`$ is non–zero. In fact, while models with $`v=0`$ exist , generically $`v`$ is non–vanishing. As a consequence, exact cosmological solutions of the action (2.3) are not easy to find. The first example has been given in ref.  using separation of variables and we will come back to this example later on. Some generalizations, also based on separation of variables, including those with curved three–dimensional spatial section have been presented subsequently . Exact, non–separating solutions have been found for a related action set up to describe the somewhat different physical situation of potential–driven inflation within M–theory . However, exact non–separating solutions for the action (2.3) are hard to find and not a single example is known to date. In this paper, we will, therefore, content ourselves with giving approximate non–separable solutions. Such solutions can be obtained by “lifting up” the four–dimensional rolling radii solutions to five dimensions using the correspondence (2.8) between the four– and five–dimensional theories. Concretely, by inserting (3.1) and (3.2) into eq. (2.8), we obtain as the approximate solution of the five–dimensional action (2.3)

$$ds_5^2=(1+ϵh/3)\left(dt_5^2+e^{2\alpha _5}d𝐱^2\right)+(1+4ϵh/3)e^{2\beta _5}dy^2,e^\varphi =e^{\varphi _5}(1+ϵh)$$
(3.7)
where we have introduced the five–dimensional “comoving” time $`t_5`$ by

$$dt_5^2=e^{\beta _5\varphi _5}dt_4^2.$$
(3.8)
The five–dimensional scale factors $`\alpha _5`$, $`\beta _5`$ and $`\varphi _5`$ show a power–law behavior

$$\alpha _5=p_{5\alpha }\mathrm{ln}|t_5|+\overline{\alpha }_5,\beta _5=p_{5\beta }\mathrm{ln}|t_5|+\overline{\beta }_5,\varphi _5=p_{5\varphi }\mathrm{ln}|t_5|+\overline{\varphi }_5,$$
(3.9)
similar to the one in four dimensions. The expansion coefficients $`𝐩_5=(p_{5\alpha },p_{5\beta },p_{5\varphi })`$ are subject to the constraints

$$3p_{5\alpha }+p_{5\beta }=1,8p_{5\beta }^24p_{5\beta }+3p_{5\varphi }^2=4$$
(3.10)
and can be obtained from their four–dimensional counterparts using the relations

$`p_{5\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p_{4\alpha }p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }}{2p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }}}`$
$`p_{5\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p_{4\beta }}{2p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }}}`$ (3.11)
$`p_{5\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p_{4\varphi }}{2p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }}}.`$
We recall that the function $`h=h(y)`$ is defined by

$$h(y)=\frac{|y|}{\pi \rho }\frac{1}{2}.$$
(3.12)
The all–important strong coupling expansion parameter $`ϵ`$, defined in eq. (2.11), is expressed in terms of five–dimensional quantities as

$$ϵ=ϵ_0e^{\beta _5\varphi _5}|t_5|^{p_{5\beta }p_{5\varphi }}.$$
(3.13)
We have now found new approximate solutions of the five–dimensional theory that, via the relations (3.11) between the expansion coefficients, are in one–to–one correspondence with the four–dimensional rolling radii solutions given in (3.1), (3.2). Hence, as is the case for their four–dimensional counterparts, these five–dimensional solutions constitute a one–parameter set specified by the solutions to the constraints (3.10). While the lifting procedure from four dimensions makes it rather easy to obtain those solutions, they are quite non–trivial from a five–dimensional viewpoint. In particular, they are generically non–separating, that is, the time– and orbifold–dependence do not generically factorize. This can, for example, be seen from the function $`e^{2\alpha _5}(1+ϵh/3)`$ that multiplies the three–dimensional spatial part of the metric (3.7). Here, the time–dependence resides in $`\alpha _5`$ and $`ϵ`$ while the orbifold–dependence is encoded in $`h`$. Hence, as long as $`ϵ`$ does depend on time (which it generically does), the variables do not separate. From the discussion of the previous section, the approximation that led us to those solutions is valid as long as higher–derivative terms are negligible and, hence, the momenta $`\dot{\alpha _5}`$, $`\dot{\beta _5}`$ and $`\dot{\varphi _5}`$ have to be sufficiently small. Furthermore, the expansion parameter $`ϵ`$ has to be less than one. The above solutions are direct generalizations of the rolling radii solutions to five dimensions. Apart from $`\alpha _5`$, $`\beta _5`$ and $`\varphi _5`$ that describe the overall scaling of the domain–wall configuration, there is also a less trivial dependence on time through the expansion parameter $`ϵ`$. This dependence implies that the size of transverse gravity excitations (the linear slope in $`y`$) varies with time as well.

Can the above approximate five–dimensional solutions be promoted to exact solutions of the action (2.3)? The simplest approach to finding such exact solutions is clearly separation of variables. In fact, in ref.  it was shown that the only separable solutions (assuming a flat three–dimensional spatial universe) for the action (2.3) are precisely of the form

$$ds_5^2=\left(1+\frac{1}{3}ϵh\right)\left(dt_5^2+e^{2\alpha _5}d𝐱^2\right)+\left(1+\frac{1}{3}ϵh\right)^4e^{2\beta _5}dy^2,e^\varphi =\left(1+\frac{1}{3}ϵh\right)^3e^{\varphi _5}$$
(3.14)
where the scale factors $`\alpha _5`$, $`\beta _5`$ and $`\varphi _5`$ evolve according to the general power law (3.9). However, for the above to be an exact solution the particular values

$$𝐩_5^{(ϵ)}=(\frac{3}{11}\left(1\frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}}\right),\frac{2}{11}(1\pm 2\sqrt{3}),\frac{2}{11}(1\pm 2\sqrt{3})).$$
(3.15)
for the expansion coefficients must be chosen. These particular coefficients satisfy the constraints (3.10). Therefore, upon linearizing the exact solutions (3.14) in $`ϵ`$ we recover particular cases of our approximate solution (3.7). This implies that, from our one–parameter set of approximate solutions, exactly two can be promoted to exact separating solutions while all other exact solutions have to be non–separating. There is another way to characterize the two separating solutions. It can be verified, using the map (3.11) and (3.6), (3.15), that the separating solutions correspond to those four–dimensional solutions with constant strong–coupling expansion parameter. This can also be directly seen in five dimension using eq. (3.13) and the fact that $`p_{5\beta }=p_{5\varphi }`$ for the coefficients (3.15). Hence, we have found that the exact separable solutions to our five–dimensional action are precisely those for which the strong–coupling expansion parameter is constant in time, that is

$$ϵ=\text{const}.$$
(3.16)
Recalling the interpretation of $`ϵ`$ from the previous section, those exact separable solutions can, therefore, be characterized as precisely the ones for which the ratio of Calabi–Yau and orbifold volumes is constant. Equivalently, they are precisely the ones for which string loop corrections or excitations of bulk gravity are constant in time. If, on the other hand, these quantities vary in time, the corresponding exact solution is non–separable. For this case, no exact explicit solution has been found yet and it may well be that this can only be achieved using numerical methods.

## 4 Role of the fifth dimension

We would now like to discuss the results obtained so far, particularly in view of a kinetic–energy driven phase of inflation and the role of the fifth dimension in such a context.

A solution of the usual problems of standard cosmology requires the scale factor $`a=e^\alpha `$ of the three–dimensional space to accelerate for some period in the early universe. Such a superluminal evolution is realized precisely if

$$\text{sign}(\ddot{a})=\text{sign}(\dot{a}).$$
(4.1)
where the dot denotes the derivative with respect to comoving time. The condition (4.1) is frame–independent, as it should be. In particular, it can be used either in the four–dimensional string frame or the five–dimensional Einstein frame. Consequently, we have omitted the subscripts specifying the frame. In general, one expects inflating ($`\dot{a}>0`$) as well as deflating ($`\dot{a}<0`$) solutions of eq. (4.1), both of which are suited to solve the problems of standard cosmology . In fact, the sign of $`\dot{a}`$, and hence the notion of expansion and contraction, is not frame–independent. If eq. (4.1) is not satisfied the evolution is decelerated or subluminal. As before there are two cases, namely decelerated expansion ($`\dot{a}>0`$) and decelerated contraction ($`\dot{a}<0`$).

For the solutions given in the previous section, it is easy to verify that the condition (4.1) is satisfied as long as one chooses the time to be negative. In other words, the complete one–parameter set of solutions leads to accelerated evolution in the negative–time branch. In the positive time branch, on the other hand, the condition (4.1) is never satisfied. The evolution is, therefore, always decelerated. Let us assume in the following discussion that $`t_4<0`$. A convenient way to represent the set of solutions is to plot their expansion powers. This has been done in Fig. 1 using the coefficients $`p_{4\varphi }`$ and $`p_{4\beta }`$ for the dilaton and the T–modulus in the four–dimensional string frame, subject to the second condition in (3.3).

Let us now discuss the time evolution for the solutions represented in Fig. 1 in the negative–time branch. We start at $`t_4\mathrm{}`$, assuming an effective four–dimensional description at this time. All solutions will, of course, eventually develop large higher–derivative ($`\alpha ^{}`$) corrections as $`t_40`$. For example, the product of the “momenta” $`\dot{\alpha _4}`$, $`\dot{\beta _4}`$ and $`\dot{\varphi _4}`$ times the orbifold size is proportional to $`|t_4|^{p_{4\beta }1}`$. This increases as $`t_40`$ since $`|p_{4\beta }|<1`$ always. The precise time when the lowest order $`\alpha ^{}`$ approximation is invalidated depends, of course, on initial conditions.

In section 2 we have discussed another sense in which the fifth dimension may become relevant. Namely, the parameter $`ϵ`$ and, hence, the excitation of fields in the fifth dimension may become large. At the same time, this implies large loop corrections. As we have seen, $`ϵ|t_4|^{p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }}`$ and, therefore, its qualitative behavior depends on the sign of $`p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }`$. Consequently, unlike the higher–derivative ($`\alpha ^{}`$) corrections discussed above, $`ϵ`$ does not always increase in time. Instead, we should distinguish the three cases (for the negative–time branch)

* $`p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }>0`$ : Then $`ϵ`$ decreases in time, indicating decreasing bulk excitations/loop corrections. The Calabi–Yau space expands faster than the orbifold. Solutions with this property are represented by the dashed line in Fig. 1.
* $`p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }=0`$ : Then $`ϵ=`$ const, corresponding to constant bulk excitations/loop corrections. The Calabi–Yau space expands at the same rate as the orbifold. As discussed this case corresponds precisely to the two exact separable solutions that can be found. These solutions are indicated by the dots in Fig. 1.
* $`p_{4\beta }p_{4\varphi }<0`$ : Then $`ϵ`$ increases in time indicating increasing bulk excitations/loop corrections. The orbifold expands faster than the Calabi–Yau space. The corresponding solutions are represented by the solid line in Fig. 1.

We see that bulk excitations in the fifth dimension are irrelevant in the first two cases, even as we approach the singularity at $`t_40`$. Of course, the system will still run into a large curvature regime close to the singularity. We note that the “standard” solution with a constant T–modulus and inflation in the $`D=4`$ string frame corresponds to the left circle in Fig. 1. Hence, this solution falls into this category. The right circle, on the other hand, corresponds to a deflating solution in the $`D=4`$ string frame and it falls into the third category.

In general, in this third case, bulk excitations become relevant close to the singularity. Whether that happens before or after the systems enters the large curvature regime depends on initial condition. Let us assume that we first enter a large $`ϵ`$ regime while higher derivative corrections are still small. Then, while $`ϵ`$ grows, our approximate five–dimensional solution (3.7) quickly becomes invalid. We know that the exact solutions that govern the further evolution have to be non–separating. Consequently, the time evolution and the excitation of bulk modes will be entangled in a complicated way. As we have discussed, we expect this to be described by a five–dimensional action of the type (2.3) possibly with additional higher order corrections. It would, therefore, be interesting to study exact non–separating cosmological solutions of the action (2.3) in the region of large $`ϵ`$. Unfortunately, analytic expressions for those solutions are not available and numerical methods might be required.

However, we may try to extract some information about the behavior at large $`ϵ`$ by looking at the four–dimensional metrics that, for a given five–dimensional cosmological solution, are induced on the two boundaries. For example, it would be of interest to know whether or not a solution which is accelerated for small $`ϵ`$ can, when $`ϵ`$ is large, smoothly become decelerated. The answer, unfortunately, is negative, as we now demonstrate. Following ref. , let us write a five–dimensional solution in the general form

$$ds_5^2=e^{2\nu }dt_5^2+e^{2\alpha }d𝐱^2+e^{2\beta }dy^2,$$
(4.2)
were $`\nu `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are functions of $`t_5`$ and $`y`$. Furthermore, we take the dilaton $`\varphi `$ to be a function of $`t_5`$ and $`y`$. The equations of motion for such an ansatz, following from the action (2.3), have been presented in ref. . Particularly useful for the present purpose is the $`55`$ component of the Einstein equation which reads explicitly

$$3e^{2\nu }(\ddot{\alpha }\dot{\nu }\dot{\alpha }^2)3e^{2\beta }(\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\nu ^{}\alpha ^{})=\frac{1}{4}e^{2\nu }\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{1}{4}e^{2\beta }\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{6}v^2e^{2\varphi }.$$
(4.3)
Here the dot (prime) denotes the derivative with respect to $`t_5`$ ($`y`$). Furthermore, working in the boundary picture, the functions in the above ansatz have to satisfy the following conditions

$$e^{\varphi \beta }\nu ^{}|_{y=y_i}=e^{\varphi \beta }\alpha ^{}|_{y=y_i}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}v,e^{\varphi \beta }\nu ^{}|_{y=y_i}=\sqrt{2}v,$$
(4.4)
at the first (second) boundary at $`y_1=0`$ ($`y_2=\pi \rho `$). These conditions arise as a consequence of the $`Z_2`$ orbifolding and the boundary potentials in the five–dimensional action (2.3), as usual. Restricting eq. (4.3) to either one of the boundaries, and using the conditions (4.4), it is easy to show that

$$\ddot{\alpha }_i\dot{\nu }_i\dot{\alpha }_i+2\dot{\alpha }_i^2=\frac{1}{12}\dot{\varphi }_i^2.$$
(4.5)
Here the subscript $`i`$ denotes the value of the respective field at the boundary $`i`$, that is, for example $`\alpha _i(t_5)=\alpha (t_5,y_i)`$. We note that the various potential terms occurring in the Einstein equation and the boundary conditions (4.4) cancel in this relation. As a consequence, we have no unusual, linear relationship between the Hubble parameter and the boundary stress energy in eq. (4.4). The possibility of such unconventional relations has been first observed in ref. . As a check, we can now verify that the relation (4.5) is satisfied by our approximate five–dimensional solutions. Putting eq. (3.7) in the form (4.2) and restricting to the boundaries, we can read off the following expressions

$$\alpha _i=p_{5\alpha }\mathrm{ln}|t_5|\frac{1}{12}ϵ,\varphi _i=p_{5\varphi }\mathrm{ln}|t_5|\frac{1}{2}ϵ,\nu _i=\frac{1}{12}ϵ$$
(4.6)
where the upper (lower) sign refers to the boundary $`i=1`$ ($`i=2`$). Here the expansion coefficient $`p_{5\alpha }`$, $`p_{5\beta }`$ and $`p_{5\varphi }`$ satisfy the relations (3.10). Inserting these expressions and using (3.10), we can indeed verify that eq. (4.5) is satisfied to linear order in $`ϵ`$, as it should be. We can now go further and use the relations (4.5) to deduce properties of the solutions at arbitrary $`ϵ`$. In doing so we have to be careful, of course, since presumably not every set of fields $`(\alpha _i,\nu _i,\varphi _i)`$ satisfying (4.5) can be extended to a full five–dimensional solution. However, conversely, every five–dimensional solution gives rise to induced fields on the boundaries that do satisfy eq. (4.5). It is this latter connection that we are going to use. We introducing the boundary Hubble parameters $`H_i=\dot{\alpha }_i`$ and choose the five–dimensional time coordinate $`t_5`$ such that is becomes comoving time upon restriction to the boundaries. This implies $`\nu _i=0`$ and, hence, eq. (4.5) can be written in the form

$$\dot{H}_i=\left(2H_i^2+\frac{1}{12}\dot{\varphi _i}^2\right).$$
(4.7)
We conclude that $`\dot{H}_i`$ is always negative. Furthermore, the criterion (4.1) for accelerated evolution can be brought into the form $`\text{sign}(\dot{H}_i+H_i^2)=\text{sign}(H_i)`$. From eq. (4.7) we conclude that $`\dot{H}_i+H_i^2<0`$, always. Therefore, the evolution is accelerated exactly if $`H_i<0`$. In this case, the boundaries deflate. On the other hand, for expanding boundaries, $`H_i>0`$, the evolution must be decelerated. Hence, a five–dimensional solution which changes from acceleration to deceleration implies a transition from $`H_i<0`$ to $`H_i>0`$ for the boundary Hubble rates. This, however, cannot happen in a continuous manner since $`\dot{H}_i<0`$. We conclude that a transition from acceleration to deceleration does not take place, even for large values of $`ϵ`$. We note, however, that the physically less interesting transition from deceleration to acceleration is not excluded from the above argument. In conclusion, we have shown that the solutions of our five–dimensional theory do not evolve from acceleration to deceleration. This results holds for arbitrarily large $`ϵ`$ corrections but only to lowest order in $`\alpha ^{}`$. It is quite conceivable that the inclusion of higher order $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections can change this situation similarly to what happens in four dimensions . Some of those $`\alpha ^{}`$ correction arise on the boundaries of the five–dimensional theory and, hence, lead to further bulk inhomogeneities. It would be interesting to generalize the present work by including those corrections.

Acknowledgments A. L. is supported by the European Community under contract No. FMRXCT 960090. B. A. O. is supported in part by DOE under contract No. DE-AC02-76-ER-03071 and by a Senior Alexander von Humboldt Award.