1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %    INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING                                   %

3: %                                                                      %

4: %   `Preparing an article for publication in an Institute of Physics   %

5: %    Publishing journal using LaTeX'                                   %

6: %                                                                      %

7: %    LaTeX source code `ioplau2e.tex' used to generate `author         %

8: %    guidelines', the documentation explaining and demonstrating use   %

9: %    of the Institute of Physics Publishing LaTeX preprint files       %

10: %    `iopart.cls, iopart12.clo and iopart10.clo'.                      %

11: %                                                                      %

12: %    `ioplau2e.tex' itself uses LaTeX with `iopart.cls'                %

13: %                                                                      %

14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

15: %

16: %

17: % First we have a character check

18: %

19: % ! exclamation mark    " double quote  

20: % # hash                ` opening quote (grave)

21: % & ampersand           ' closing quote (acute)

22: % $ dollar              % percent       

23: % ( open parenthesis    ) close paren.  

24: % - hyphen              = equals sign

25: % | vertical bar        ~ tilde         

26: % @ at sign             _ underscore

27: % { open curly brace    } close curly   

28: % [ open square         ] close square bracket

29: % + plus sign           ; semi-colon    

30: % * asterisk            : colon

31: % < open angle bracket  > close angle   

32: % , comma               . full stop

33: % ? question mark       / forward slash 

34: % \ backslash           ^ circumflex

35: %

36: % ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

37: % abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

38: % 1234567890

39: %

40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

41: %

42: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}

43: \newcommand{\gguide}{{\it Preparing graphics for IOP journals}}

44: %Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required

45: %\usepackage{iopams} 

46: \newcommand{\C}{\mathbbm C}

47: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbbm Z}

48: \newcommand{\Pl}{\mathbbm P}

49: \newcommand{\eqb}{\begin{equation}}

50: \newcommand{\eqe}{\end{equation}}

51: \newcommand{\dmb}{\begin{displaymath}}

52: \newcommand{\dme}{\end{displaymath}}

53: \newcommand{\pd}{\partial}

54: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}

55: \newcommand{\eab}{\begin{eqnarray}}

56: \newcommand{\eae}{\end{eqnarray}}

57: \newcommand{\ra}{\right\rangle}

58: \newcommand{\la}{\left\langle}

59: %\newcommand{\e}{\mbox{e}}

60: %\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

61: %\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

62: \newcommand{\sgn}{\text{sgn}\,}

63: \newcommand{\munu}{{\mu\nu}}

64: \newcommand{\ad}{{\dot{\alpha}}}

65: \newcommand{\bd}{{\dot{\beta}}}

66: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}

67:  

68: \begin{document}

69: 

70: \title[]{SU(2) Yang-Mills thermodynamics and photon physics}

71: 

72: \author{R Hofmann}

73: 

74: \address{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, 

75: Universit\"at Karlsruhe (TH),  

76: Kaiserstr. 12,\\ 

77: 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany}

78: \ead{hofmann@particle.uni-karlsruhe.de}

79: \begin{abstract}

80: 

81: Based on quantitative predictions enabled by a 

82: nonperturbative approach to Yang-Mills thermodynamics it is 

83: explained why the physics of photon {\sl propagation} is not unlikely 

84: rooted in pure SU(2) gauge dynamics.     

85: 

86: \end{abstract}

87: 

88: \pacs{70S15;74A15}

89: \vspace{2pc}

90: \noindent{\it Keywords}: thermal ground state, screening, photon

91: polarization, Planck-scale axion\\ 

92: \submitto{\JPA}

93: 

94: \section{Introduction}

95: 

96: Physics is the endeavor to understand in mathematical terms 

97: the fundamental laws governing our Universe. Quite generally, genuine 

98: progress in learning depends on the sophistication and perseverance 

99: in posing relevant questions. In physics the content of a question -- a

100: prediction -- is mathematically deduced from a prejudice 

101: (principle, postulate), and the prediction is either verified or falsified 

102: by experiment. The more experimentally verified, 

103: independent predictions there emerge without any falsification 

104: the more truth and generality is attributed to the starting principle. 

105: 

106: The purpose of this talk is to discuss 

107: implications of the postulate that the physics of photon 

108: propagation, which conventionally is 

109: associated with a U(1) gauge symmetry, is actually 

110: SU(2) Yang-Mills dynamics. While this 

111: may seem questionable and contrived judging 

112: by a counting of the perturbative degrees of freedom and their 

113: universal interactions a thermodynamic approach to SU(2) Yang-Mills

114: theory clearly suggests otherwise \cite{Hofmann2005B,SHG2006-1,SHG2006-2}. 

115: Namely, in the deconfining phase the gauge symmetry SU(2) is broken 

116: dynamically down to the subgroup U(1) by a 

117: nontrivial thermal ground state. The latter emerges upon a spatial 

118: coarse-graining  over interacting calorons and 

119: anticalorons of topological charge modulus $|Q|=1$

120: \cite{Hofmann2005}. While the thermal ground state is responsible for the

121: emergence of the (temperature-dependent) mass for two out of the three

122: species of gluons, that is, the dynamical gauge-symmetry breaking

123: SU(2)$\to$U(1), it also provides for a scale of maximal resolution 

124: $|\phi|$. The latter uniquely is determined by

125: temperature and the Yang-Mills scale and enforces in the effective

126: theory a rapidly converging loop expansion of thermodynamic

127: quantities. As a consequence, the polarization tensor

128: for the massless mode \cite{SHG2006-1}, computed on the one-loop level

129: yields a numerically reliable result for the modification of the

130: dispersion law, and contact with observation and 

131: experiment can be made once the above postulate is 

132: agreed upon.   

133: 

134: This presentation is organized as follows. In Sec.\,\ref{decsu2} we give

135: a brief summary of deconfining and 

136: preconfining Yang-Mills thermodynamics. The 

137: peculiarities of thermalized photon propagation 

138: in light of the above postulate are discussed 

139: in Sec.\,\ref{post}. In Sec.\,\ref{ev} we argue for a certain amount of

140: experimental evidence, and in Sec.\,\ref{con} we 

141: provide for an outlook on future activity.                 

142: 

143: \section{Deconfining and preconfining SU(2) Yang-Mills

144:   thermodynamics\label{decsu2}}

145: 

146: SU(2) Yang-Mills theory takes place in three 

147: distinct phases. At high temperature $T$ (deconfining phase) one shows 

148: \cite{Hofmann2005,HerbstHofmann2004,Hofmann2007} that an inert (nonfluctuating), adjoint

149: scalar field $\phi$ emerges upon a spatial coarse-graining over

150: interacting calorons and anticalorons of topological charge modulus

151: $|Q|=1$. Performing this coarse-graining over a trivial-holonomy

152: caloron-anticaloron pair in singular gauge and resorting to a particular

153: global gauge choice, one has 

154: %*******

155: \eqb

156: \label{phiwind}

157: \phi=2\,\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda^3\beta}{2\pi}}\,t_1\,\exp(\pm\frac{4\pi

158:   i}{\beta}t_3\tau)\,,

159: \eqe

160: %*******

161: where $\Lambda$ is a purely nonperturbative constant of integration (the

162: Yang-Mills scale) \cite{GiacosaHofmann2006}, 

163: $0\le\tau\le\beta\equiv\frac{1}{T}$ is the euclidean 

164: time, and $t_a$ are SU(2) generators in the fundamental representation 

165: normalized as tr\,$t_at_b=\frac12\delta_{ab}$. The entire effective

166: action (including the coarse-grained sector of topologically

167: trivial field configurations) follows from perturbative 

168: renormalizability \cite{'tHooftVeltman} and gauge invariance, and the 

169: thermal ground state is given by Eq.\,(\ref{phiwind}) and the pure-gauge 

170: configuration $a_\mu^{\tiny\mbox{bg}}=\mp\delta_{\mu

171:   4}\frac{2\pi}{e\beta}\,t_3$. Here $e$ is the effective 

172: gauge coupling whose evolution with temperature is 

173: determined by the Legendre transformations in the 

174: effective theory. This evolution possesses an attractor: Evolving

175: downward in temperature, $e$ rapidly approaches the 

176: plateau $e=\sqrt{8}\pi$ for $\lambda\equiv\frac{2\pi

177:   T}{\Lambda}\gg\lambda_c=13.87$ and runs into a pole of the form 

178: $e\propto-\log(\lambda-\lambda_c)$. Here $T_c$ is the temperature where

179: totally screened magnetic monopoles start to condense. 

180: The ground-state pressure $P^{\tiny\mbox{gs}}$ is

181: negative: $P^{\tiny\mbox{gs}}=-4\pi\Lambda^3 T$. By an admissible change 

182: of gauge, such that $\phi\equiv

183: 2\,\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda^3\beta}{2\pi}}\,t_3$ and

184: $a_\mu^{\tiny\mbox{bg}}=0$, the adjoint Higgs mechanism manifestly 

185: generates quasiparticle masses for the topologically trivial 

186: gauge fields $a^{1,2}_\mu$ while the field $a^3_\mu$ 

187: remains massless. Radiative corrections to thermodynamic quantities are

188: small even though the plateau value of $e$ is not small. They are 

189: computed in a loop expansion in the effective theory 

190: \cite{Hofmann2006}. This expansion converges rapidly because of infrared 

191: stability enabled by quasiparticle masses on tree level 

192: and because of kinematic constraints due 

193: to the existence of the maximal resolution $|\phi|$. In particular, it

194: is sufficient for practical purposes to compute the polarization tensor

195: of the massless mode to one-loop accuracy only \cite{SHG2006-1}. Depending

196: on their frequency, there is screening or antiscreening  

197: in a thermal gas of massless particles due to scattering involving the 

198: massive modes. Because of the dynamical gauge symmetry breakdown

199: SU(2)$\longrightarrow$ U(1) it is tempting to attribute the existence

200: and propagation of the photon to this Yang-Mills theory. In the

201: preconfining phase, that is, for $T$

202: slightly below $T_c$ magnetic\footnote{Magnetic w.r.t. the defining

203:   SU(2) Yang-Mills theory, electric w.r.t. photons.} monopoles start to condense. 

204: In spatial regions, where a stable condensate prevails, the unbroken 

205: U(1) symmetry of the deconfining phase is dynamically broken. For the

206: photon this would mean that an additional polarization emerges if 

207: temperature falls below $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$.   

208: 

209: Because no screening or antiscreening is observed for

210: long-wavelengths photons emitted by astrophysical sources and  

211: propagating towards Earth above the present ground 

212: state of the cosmic microwave 

213: background (CMB) and because this is the situation predicted at $T_c$ 

214: by an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory\footnote{At $T_c$ massive

215:   quasiparticles decouple thermodynamically and thus do 

216: not contribute to screening or antiscreening of the massless mode

217: \cite{SHG2006-1,SHG2006-2,HHR2004}.} we are led to identify $T_c$ with the

218: present value of $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}\sim 2.73\,$K. This, in turn, fixes

219: the Yang-Mills scale as $\Lambda_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}=2.35\times

220: 10^{-4}\,$eV.    

221: 

222: \section{The postulate

223:   SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}\stackrel{\tiny\mbox{today}}=$U(1)$_{\tiny\mbox{photon}}$\label{post}}

224: 

225: Subjecting photon propagation to an SU(2) 

226: gauge principle we refer to the two massive modes as $V^\pm$ and, as usual, 

227: to the massless excitation as $\gamma$. Screening or antiscreening of

228: thermalized $\gamma$-radiation is a small effect for thermodynamic

229: quantities such as the pressure \cite{SHG2006-1} 

230: which peaks at about twice $T_c$. Depending on its frequency $\omega$

231: and spatial momentum $\vec{p}$, 

232: the modification of the U(1) dispersion law is as 

233: %*********

234: \eqb

235: \label{moddisplaw}

236: \omega^2=\vec{p}^2 \longrightarrow

237: \omega^2=\vec{p}^2+G(\omega,|\vec{p}|,T,\Lambda_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}})\,.

238: \eqe

239: %*********  

240: The function $G$ enters the polarization tensor $\Pi_{\mu\nu}$. For

241: $\omega=|\vec{p}|$ the function $G$ is real, corresponds to $\Pi_{11}=\Pi_{22}$ if $\vec{p}$ points

242: into the 3-direction, and is computed according\footnote{If the condition

243:   $\omega=|\vec{p}$ is sizably modified then also Feynman diagram A in

244:   in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-1} contributes, and $G$ acquires an imaginary part.} to the Feynman diagram B

245: in Fig.\,\ref{Fig-1}.

246: %***********************

247: \begin{figure}

248: \begin{center}

249: \leavevmode

250: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

251: \leavevmode

252: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

253: \vspace{4.9cm}

254: \special{psfile=Fig-1.ps angle=0 voffset=-160

255:          hoffset=-195 hscale=90 vscale=60}

256: \end{center}

257: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-1}} The diagrams for the TLM mode polarization tensor.}      

258: \end{figure}

259: %************************  

260: In Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2} the dependence of $G$ on dimensionless 

261: momentum $X\equiv\frac{|\vec{p}|}{T}$ is depicted for various

262: temperatures\footnote{Setting $\omega=|\vec{p}|$ in $G$ makes it a

263:   function of $\omega$ only. This approximation turns out to be 

264: selfconsistent \cite{SHG2006-2} for almost all values of $\omega$.}. 

265: To the left (right) of the cusps $G$ is positive (negative) corresponding

266: to screening (antiscreening). Points lying above the dashed curve are

267: associated with strongly screened modes (screening mass larger than

268: modulus of momentum). 

269: %***********************

270: \begin{figure}

271: \begin{center}

272: \leavevmode

273: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

274: \leavevmode

275: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

276: \vspace{6.5cm}

277: \special{psfile=Fig-2.ps angle=0 voffset=-200

278:          hoffset=-215 hscale=90 vscale=60}

279: \end{center}

280: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-2}} A plot of $\log \frac{|G|}{T^2}$ as a

281:   function of $X$ for $\lambda=1.12\,\lambda_c$ (black),

282:   $\lambda=2\,\lambda_c$ (dark grey), $\lambda=3\,\lambda_c$

283:   (grey),$\lambda=4\,\lambda_c$ (light grey), $\lambda=20\,\lambda_c$

284:   (very light grey). The dashed curve depicts the function

285:   $f(X)=2\log_{10}\,X$. }      

286: \end{figure}

287: %************************ 

288: 

289: What are the implication of the modification in 

290: Eq.\,(\ref{moddisplaw}) for the black-body spectrum? The total energy density

291: $\rho$ of a thermal gas of $\gamma$ is defined as

292: %*******

293: \eqb

294: \label{rhodef}

295: \rho\equiv

296: 2\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\,\omega\,n_B\left(\frac{\omega}{T}\right)\,,

297: \eqe

298: %********

299: where $n_B(x)\equiv\frac{1}{\exp[x]-1}$ denotes the Bose

300: distribution. Expressing the momentum-space measure $d^3p$ 

301: in terms of a frequency measure under consideration of the 

302: modified dispersion law in Eq.\,(\ref{moddisplaw}), one has

303: %********

304: \eqb

305: \label{meastrafo}

306: \int d^3p=4\pi\int d|\vec{p}|\,|\vec{p}|^2=4\pi\int

307: d\omega\,\sqrt{\omega^2-G(\omega)}\,\left(\omega-\frac12\frac{dG(\omega)}{d\omega}\right)\,,

308: \eqe

309: %********  

310: where the additional dependence of $G$ on $T$ is suppressed. In the

311: strong-screening regime the quantity $|\vec{p}|$ would be imaginary, and

312: thus the integration over $\omega$ is restricted to a domain where

313: $\omega^2\ge G$. Thus we can write the spectral intensity $I_{\tiny\mbox{SU(2)}}(\omega)$ of the 

314: SU(2)-modified black body in terms of the spectral intensity

315: $I_{\tiny\mbox{U(1)}}(\omega)$ 

316: of the U(1) black body as  

317: %**********

318: \eqb

319: \label{PmBB}

320: I_{\tiny\mbox{U(1)}}(\omega)\to I_{\tiny\mbox{SU(2)}}(\omega)=I_{\tiny\mbox{U(1)}}(\omega)\times

321: \frac{\left(\omega-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{d\omega}G\right)\sqrt{\omega^2-G}}{\omega^2}\,

322: \theta(\omega-\omega^*)\,,

323: \eqe

324: %**********

325: where $\omega^*$ is the root\footnote{There are actually two roots,

326:   compare with Fig.\,\ref{Fig-2}. For many practical concerns 

327: the lower lying root can safely be set equal to zero.} 

328: of $\omega^2=G$, $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step 

329: function, and 

330: %**********

331: \eqb

332: \label{PiBB}

333: I_{\tiny\mbox{U(1)}}(\omega)=\frac{1}{\pi^2}\,\frac{\omega^3}{\exp[\frac{\omega}{T}]-1}\,.

334: \eqe

335: %**********

336: Fig.\,\ref{Fig-3} depicts the modified black-body spectrum according to

337: Eq.\,(\ref{PmBB}) at $T=10\,$K. 

338: %***********************

339: \begin{figure}

340: \begin{center}

341: \leavevmode

342: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

343: \leavevmode

344: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

345: \vspace{4.9cm}

346: \special{psfile=Fig-3.ps angle=0 voffset=-140

347:          hoffset=-215 hscale=60 vscale=60}

348: \caption{\protect{\label{Fig-3} Dimensionless black-body spectral power 

349: $\frac{I_{\tiny\mbox{SU(2)}}}{T^3}$ as a function of the dimensionless frequency 

350: $Y\equiv\frac{\omega}{T}$. The black curve in the magnified region depicts the modification of 

351: the spectrum as compared to $\frac{I_{\tiny\mbox{U(1)}}}{T^3}$ (grey curve) 

352: for $T=10\,$K.}} 

353: \end{center}     

354: \end{figure}

355: %************************ 

356: For $T<T_c=T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ $\gamma$ starts to acquire a Meissner

357: mass, and the average number of photon polarizations rapidly increases

358: from two towards three. This, in turn, implies a rapid increase of the

359: energy density of the photon gas as compared to its value in the U(1)

360: theory.  

361: 

362: \section{Evidence in nature?\label{ev}}

363: 

364: In \cite{SHGS} an analysis of the predictions of

365: SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ for temperatures offsets\footnote{Defined by $\delta T\equiv T_{\tiny\mbox{rad}}-T_{\tiny\mbox{XCAL}}$,

366:   where $T_{\tiny\mbox{rad}}$ is 

367: extracted by fitting $I_{\tiny\mbox{U(1)}}$ to the 

368: intensity of the radiation and $T_{\tiny\mbox{XCAL}}$ is the (wall) 

369: temperature of the calibrator.} $\delta T$ was performed along the lines of the 

370: COBE Firas situation. Their data of the spectral shape of the 

371: black-body intensity for temperatures in the vicinity of

372: $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}=2.73\,$K was taken during the calibration 

373: stage of the instrument \cite{FIRASdoc}. 

374: A comparison of their temperature 

375: offsets $\delta T$ with the predictions of 

376: SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ reveals 

377: that the predicted anomaly is smaller than the 

378: experimental error in the FIRAS calibration. What is interesting,

379: however, is the sudden increase of $\delta T$ for

380: $T_{\tiny\mbox{XCAL}}<T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$, see Fig.\,\ref{Fig-4}, which

381: we attribute to an increase of the average number of photon 

382: polarizations at the onset of the preconfining phase, for a discussion

383: see \cite{SHGS}.

384: %***********************

385: \begin{figure}[tbp]

386: \begin{center}

387: \leavevmode

388: %\epsfxsize=9.cm

389: \leavevmode

390: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}

391: \vspace{10.5cm} \special{psfile=Fig-4.ps angle=0 voffset=-310 hoffset=-205

392: hscale=65 vscale=65}

393: \caption{Temperature offsets as measured in the FIRAS orbit

394:   calibration. Notice the peak at $T=2.2\,$K. 

395: Figure taken from \protect{\cite{FIRASdoc}}.}

396: \end{center}

397: \label{Fig-4}

398: \end{figure}

399: %************************ 

400: Next there is large-angle suppression 

401: in the CMB TT power spectrum and the statistical correlation of the 

402: low multipoles \cite{Schwarz2007}. Based on the black-body anomaly

403: predicted by SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ a model for the generation of

404: large-angle temperature fluctuations in the CMB was proposed in

405: \cite{SH2007} which has the potential to explain these effect in 

406: terms of a large dynamical contribution to the CMB dipole, see also 

407: \cite{SHGS}. Third, large, old, cold, and dilute clouds of 

408: atomic hydrogen were discovered in between spiral arms of the outer 

409: Milky Way, see \cite{BruntKnee2001}. The puzzling fact about these clouds is

410: their inferred age of about 50 million years. This is much older than 

411: model calculations for the duration for the formation of 

412: sizable fractions of H$_2$ molecules suggest, for one of the newer

413: investigations see \cite{Goldsmith}. In \cite{SHG2006-2} it was pointed

414: out that the interatomic distance of about 1\,cm 

415: between the hydrogen atoms is roughly equal to the 

416: wavelength of screened photons at the relevant (brightness) temperatures 

417: of 5\,K to 10\,K, and that the 21\,cm--line, which thermalizes the cloud 

418: system, propagates. By computing the two-point correlator of the photon 

419: energy density, this observation is confirmed \cite{KHG2007}. That is, 

420: photons, needed to mediate interactions between the hydrogen atoms, are

421: screened due to the nonabelian effects of SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$, and

422: the cloud changes its composition on a much slower rate than 

423: conventionally expected. Fourth, a scenario was discussed in

424: \cite{GH2005} where the nontrivial thermal ground state of

425: SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$, by virtue of dynamical chiral symmetry

426: breaking \cite{BC} and the chiral anomaly \cite{ABJ} invoked at the Planck scale, gives 

427: rise to an ultralight axion field. If CP violating signatures, such as a

428: nonvanishing EB cross correlation at large angles, 

429: will be discovered in future CMB satellite missions, then this Planck-scale

430: axion field would yield a theoretically and observationally backed up 

431: explanation of the present cosmological concordance model. 

432: That is, the physics of visibility (propagating photons) would be

433: unified with the physics of darkness (dark matter and dark energy) in

434: terms of an SU(2) gauge principle. 

435: 

436: Finally, let us discuss an apparent puzzle: Even at room 

437: temperature a sizable fraction of the radiowave spectrum is screened 

438: according to the modified dispersion law in Eq.\,(\ref{moddisplaw}). 

439: But we do not observe this screening in our daily broadcasts. 

440: So why is this? The answer is that the intensity in a beam of 

441: radiowaves of a given frequency, as transmitted by a commonly used 

442: antenna, is by orders of magnitude 

443: larger than its corresponding black-body intensity. Thus those

444: radiowaves are a priori

445: not part of the thermal black-body 

446: spectrum at, say, room temperature. The question then arises

447: how long it takes for radiowaves to decrease their energy by radiating 

448: off $V^\pm$ particles to eventually be part of the thermal 

449: spectrum. The rate for this process is determined by the imaginary part

450: of a two-loop diagram (involving two four-vertices) for the polarization 

451: tensor. Since the real part of a two-loop diagram generally is suppressed by a factor of

452: $\sim 10^{-3}$ \cite{SHG2006-1} as compared to the one-loop result and 

453: since there is an even greater suppression for the imaginary part 

454: we expect no adulteration of radiowave propagate over terrestial

455: distances as compared to the U(1) theory. 

456: Recall, that there is no screening effect or energy loss whatsoever for

457: photon propagation above the present CMB ground state (radiowave

458: propagation in space) due to the thermal decoupling of 

459: $V^\pm$ at $T_c=T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}=2.73\,$K.                      

460:       

461: \section{Conclusions and outlook\label{con}}

462: 

463: In this talk we have given a brief account of why deconfining SU(2)

464: Yang-Mills thermodynamics may be the theory underlying 

465: photon propagation. We have mentioned evidence in favor of 

466: this postulate. A conclusive judgement will, however, 

467: be provided by a direct terrestial measurement of the 

468: spectral intensity of a low-temperature (say, $T=5\,$K to $T=10\,$K)

469: black body at low frequencies. If the spectral gap, as predicted by 

470: SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$, indeed is seen in a precision black-body 

471: experiment then this would imply far-reaching consequences 

472: for our understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking, for a discussion

473: see \cite{SHG2006-2}.  

474: 

475: Some of our future activity will be focussing on predictions of the average number

476: of photon polarizations in the supercooled, finite-volume situation.    

477: 

478: 

479:  \section*{References}

480: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

481: 

482: \bibitem{Hofmann2005B}

483: R. Hofmann, PoS JHW2005, {\bf 021} (2006) [hep-ph/0508176].

484: 

485: \bibitem{SHG2006-1}

486: M. Schwarz, R. Hofmann, and F. Giacosa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 22}, 1213 (2007) [hep-th/0603078].  

487: 

488: \bibitem{SHG2006-2}

489: M. Schwarz, R. Hofmann, and F. Giacosa, JHEP {\bf 0702}, 091 (2007)

490: [hep-ph/0603174].

491: 

492: \bibitem{Hofmann2005}

493: R. Hofmann, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A{\bf 20}, 4123 (2005), Erratum-ibid

494: A{\bf 21}, 6515 (2006) [hep-th/0504064].

495: 

496: \bibitem{HerbstHofmann2004}

497: U. Herbst and R. Hofmann, hep-th/0411214.

498: 

499: \bibitem{Hofmann2007}

500: R. Hofmann, arXiv:0710.0962 [hep-th].

501: 

502: \bibitem{GiacosaHofmann2006}

503: F. Giacosa and R. Hofmann, hep-th/0609172, to appear in

504: Prog. Theor. Phys.

505: 

506: \bibitem{'tHooftVeltman}

507: 't Hooft G., Veltman M. J. G., Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 44} (1972) 189.\\ 

508: \noindent 't Hooft G., Veltman M. J. G., Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 50} (1972) 318.\\ 

509: \noindent 't Hooft G., Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 33} (1971) 173.\\ 

510: \noindent 't Hooft G., Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 62} (1973) 444.

511: 

512: \bibitem{Hofmann2006}

513: R. Hofmann, hep-th/0609033.

514: 

515: \bibitem{HHR2004}

516: U. Herbst, R. Hofmann, J. Rohrer, Acta Phys. Polon. B{\bf 36}, 881

517: (2005) [hep-th/0410187].

518: 

519: \bibitem{FIRASdoc} 

520: FIRAS Explanatory Supplement, available at 

521: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas-exsupv4.cfm.

522: 

523: \bibitem{SHGS}

524: M. Szopa, R. Hofmann, F. Giacosa, and M. Schwarz, arXiv:0707.3020

525: [hep-ph]. 

526: 

527: \bibitem{Schwarz2007}

528: C. Copi, D. Huterer, D. Schwarz, and G. Starkman, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 75},

529: 023507 (2007) [astro-ph/0605135].

530: 

531: \bibitem{SH2007}

532: M. Szopa and R. Hofmann, hep-ph/0703119.

533: 

534: \bibitem{BruntKnee2001}

535: L. B. G. Knee and C. M. Brunt, Nature {\bf 412}, 308-310 (2001).

536: 

537: \bibitem{Goldsmith}

538: P. Goldsmith, D. Li, and M. Kr$\check{\mbox{c}}$o, Astrophys. J. {\bf

539:   654}, 273 (2007).

540: 

541: \bibitem{KHG2007}

542: J. Keller, R. Hofmann, and F. Giacosa, to be published. 

543: 

544: \bibitem{GH2005}

545: F. Giacosa and R. Hofmann, Eur. Phys. J. C{\bf 50}, 635 (2007) [hep-th/0512184].

546: 

547: \bibitem{BC}

548: T. Banks and  A. Casher, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 169}, 103 (1980). 

549: 

550: \bibitem{ABJ}

551: S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. {\bf 177}, 2426 (1969).\\ 

552: \noindent S. L. Adler and W. A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. {\bf 182}, 1517 (1969).\\ 

553: \noindent J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cim. A{\bf 60}, 47 (1969).

554: 

555: \end{thebibliography}

556: 

557: \end{document}

558: 

559: 

560: 

561: