1: %% This document created by Scientific Word (R)
2: %% Version 2.0
3:
4:
5: \documentclass[12pt,thmsa]{article}
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: \usepackage{sw20aip}
8:
9: %TCIDATA{TCIstyle=Article/art2.lat,aip,article}
10:
11: \input tcilatex
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Hard component of ultra-high energy cosmic rays and vortons}
15: \author{\and Luis Masperi\thanks{%
16: On leave of absence from Centro At\'omico Bariloche, S. C. de Bariloche,
17: Argentina. E-mail: masperi@cbpf.br} \\
18: %EndAName
19: Centro Latinoamericano de F\'\i sica \\
20: Av. Venceslau Br\'az 71 Fundos, 22290 -140 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil \and Milva
21: Orsaria\thanks{%
22: Present address: Centro Latinoamericano de Fisica (CLAF), Rio de Janeiro,
23: Brazil. E-mail: orsaria@cbpf.br} \\
24: %EndAName
25: Laboratorio TANDAR\\
26: Comisi\'on Nacional de Energ\'\i a At\'omica\\
27: Av. del Libertador 8250, 1429 Buenos Aires, Argentina}
28: \date{}
29: \maketitle
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: Observed events of ultra-high energy cosmic rays may indicate a hard
33: component for the energy spectrum of their flux, which might have origin in
34: the decay of long-lived vortons presumably condensed in the galactic halo.
35: To be consistent with the needed present density, vortons may have been
36: formed during the breaking of an abelian symmetry contained in a large GUT
37: group like $E_6$ and a part of them could have survived the destabilization
38: caused by the electroweak transition.
39:
40: PACS : 98.70.-f , 98.80.Cq , 12.10.Dm
41:
42: Keywords : cosmic rays, cosmic strings, vortons.
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: The events of ultra-high energy cosmic rays (UHECR) corresponding to primary
48: energy above $10^{19}eV$ are difficult to explain\cite{C.T.Norman} with
49: conventional astrophysical objets, both regarding their acceleration
50: mechanism and propagation towards the earth due to the interaction with the
51: cosmic background radiation\cite{K.Greisen} (CBR) if the source is beyond $%
52: \sim 50Mpc.$
53:
54: A possible solution of this enigma is given by the so called top-down
55: mechanism\cite{V.Berezinsky} where long-lived very massive microscopical
56: objects decay producing the UHECR, which is plausible because so far the
57: events of the latter appear to be roughly isotropic.
58:
59: In any case the top-down mechanism would imply physics beyond the standard
60: model of particles and their interactions (SM). One alternative corresponds
61: to superheavy relics\cite{J.Ellis} , quasi-stable because their interactions
62: with the known particles are of gravitational order, which might belong to
63: the hidden sector where supersymmetry is broken. Another possibility is
64: given by cosmic strings\cite{C.T.Hill} formed in the phase transition due to
65: the breaking of a symmetry at the scale of a grand unification theory (GUT).
66: Though the ordinary Kibble strings\cite{T.W.B.Kibble} consisting of Higgs
67: and gauge fields might explain\cite{P.Bhattacharjee} the UHECR using their
68: flux to normalize the model, either the insertion of monopoles forming
69: necklaces\cite{V.Ber} or the superconducting Witten strings\cite{E.Witten}
70: with the addition of fermionic fields which give quasi-stable closed loops
71: called vortons seem more suitable.
72:
73: It is the purpose of the present work to analyze the details of vortons as
74: source of UHECR. It had already been seen\cite{L.Masperi} that they may
75: produce the global flux above $10^{19}eV$ provided their density is
76: dramatically reduced during the electroweak transition in a way that might
77: generate the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe\cite{M.Orsaria} .
78:
79: We now describe the energy spectrum of the flux given by the decay of a
80: superheavy boson emitted by the vorton and conjecture, because of the
81: hadronization of the resulting quark, that it can constitute the hard
82: component that might emerge above the GZK cutoff according to the recent
83: presentation of events\cite{M.Takeda} . Even though vortons should behave as
84: cold dark matter (CDM) and be concentrated in the galactic halo, we also
85: study the softening caused by redshift if they were distributed uniformly in
86: the space as occurs for necklaces and find that it is not possible to
87: distinguish both cases at present, though in the latter situation a more
88: important effect coming from the interaction with CBR\ should produce a
89: depression due to the GZK cutoff followed by a recover of the spectrum\cite
90: {G.Sigl} caused by its hard nature at emission.
91:
92: We then face the difficult problem of the dynamics of strings, crucial for
93: determining the vorton density before and after the electroweak transition.
94: We assume that the GUT model allows superconductivity to appear at the same
95: scale of the string formation and evaluate that the delay in the
96: stabilization of vortons is not too relevant to reduce their density. When
97: the universe cools down to the electroweak temperature, we estimate the
98: conditions for the rate of destabilization of vortons due to disappearance
99: of the Dirac zero-modes which originated the superconductivity of exotic
100: quarks and the replacement with those of ordinary fermions. The result is
101: that the collapse of the most abundant short vortons is sufficiently gradual
102: to avoid the reheating that would dilute the baryogenesis, and the surviving
103: long ones succeed in absorbing the ordinary fermions with parameters
104: compatible with the density and lifetime necessary to explain the UHECR.
105:
106: Finally we discuss which is the possible GUT group consistent with our
107: mechanism. We see that SO(10) is not adequate since at GUT scale only
108: vortons with $\nu _R$ might be formed, which could not give the baryogenesis
109: at the electroweak transition where it is moreover unlikely that long loops
110: might be stabilized by ordinary fermions. On the contrary, E$_6$ is suitable
111: for our purposes because at high temperature vortons with exotic quarks may
112: be formed linked to zero-modes that subsequently disappear at electroweak
113: scale due to mass effects of the light Higgs, whereas new zero-modes for
114: ordinary fermions are allowed by the existence of two additional abelian
115: symmetries of the model apart from the electromagnetic one.
116:
117: \section{Energy spectrum of UHECR flux from vorton decay}
118:
119: Considering sources that emit $\stackrel{.}{n}(t)$ UHECR per unit space and
120: time the total flux on earth will be
121:
122: \begin{equation}
123: F=\frac 1{4\pi }\smallint _{t_{in}}^{t_0}dt\text{ }\stackrel{.}{n}(t)\quad
124: \left( \frac{a(t)}{a(t_0)}\right) ^3\quad , \label{e1}
125: \end{equation}
126: where $a$ is the scale parameter of universe, $t_0$ its present age and $%
127: t_{in}$ an initial time which depends on the assumed distribution of sources
128: but in no case is earlier than that which by redshift produces energies at
129: least $\sim 10^{19}eV.$
130:
131: If the sources are quasi-stable objects like vortons with density $n(t)$
132: each one having at time $t$ a probability $\Gamma $ per unit time of
133: emitting UHECR observed on earth,
134: \begin{equation}
135: F=\frac 1{4\pi }\smallint _{t_{in}}^{t_0}dt\text{ }n(t)\left( \frac{a(t)}{%
136: a(t_0)}\right) ^3\Gamma \quad \text{ }. \label{e2}
137: \end{equation}
138:
139: We assume that the vorton emits by tunneling a superheavy particle X, Higgs
140: or gauge boson of GUT scale, which very quickly decays in quarks and
141: leptons, the former giving the UHECR by hadronization. We will consider two
142: cases: the more plausible one in which vortons, behaving as nonrelativistic
143: particles, condense in the galactic halo, and the other extreme alternative
144: analogous to ordinary cosmic strings in which they are still uniformly
145: distributed in space.
146:
147: \subsection{Condensation in halo}
148:
149: In this case redshift may be neglected and $\Gamma =\frac{N_c}\tau $ , where
150: $\tau $ is the vorton lifetime for emission of X whose decay produces $N_c$
151: UHECR. Then the total flux will be
152: \begin{equation}
153: F_h=\frac{N_c}{4\pi }n_h(t_0)\frac{\Delta t}\tau \text{ }, \label{e3}
154: \end{equation}
155: where $\Delta t\sim 50kpc$ due to the halo size. As it will be seen in the
156: next section, with $\tau $ larger than $t_0$ and $n_h(t_0)$ a fraction of
157: the dark matter in the galactic halo, a flux of UHECR of the expected order
158: is obtained.
159:
160: We now turn to the energy spectrum $F(E)$ such that $F=\smallint dE$ $F(E),$
161: where the limits of integration correspond to the UHECR range. From the
162: probability distribution
163: \begin{equation}
164: \frac{d\Gamma }{dE}=\frac 1\tau \sum_{i=1}^{N_c}\delta (E-E_i)\text{ },
165: \label{e4}
166: \end{equation}
167: the flux spectrum will be
168: \begin{equation}
169: F_h(E)=\frac 1{4\pi }n_h(t_0)\frac{\Delta t}\tau \sum_{i=1}^{N_c}\delta
170: (E-E_i)\text{ }. \label{e5}
171: \end{equation}
172:
173: To compare with observations, one must average on the intervals $\Delta E_i$
174: separating neighbouring particles in energy
175: \begin{equation}
176: \overline{F}_h(E_i)=\frac 1{\Delta E_i}\text{ }\frac{n_h(t_0)}{4\pi }\text{ }%
177: \frac{\Delta t}\tau \text{ }. \label{e6}
178: \end{equation}
179:
180: If events are equally spaced in $\log E,$ which is plausible in
181: hadronization with QCD except for the upper limit $\sim m_X$ as it will be
182: discussed below,
183: \begin{equation}
184: \Delta E_i\sim E_i\text{ },\text{ }\overline{F}_h(E_i)\sim \frac 1{E_i}\text{
185: , } \label{e7}
186: \end{equation}
187: corresponding to a hard component compared with the standard behaviour for
188: lower energy which is roughly $F(E)\sim E^{-3}.$
189:
190: \subsection{Uniform distribution in universe}
191:
192: Since we consider vortons as quasi-stable particles, if we assume a
193: hypothetical uniform density $n_u(t_0)$ at present, from Eq.(2) the spectrum
194: at earth would be
195: \begin{equation}
196: F_u(E)=\frac 1{4\pi }n_u(t_0)\int_{t_{eq}}^{t_0}dt\frac{d\Gamma }{dE_{em}}%
197: \text{ }\frac{dE_{em}}{dE}\text{ }, \label{e8}
198: \end{equation}
199: where the lower limit is approximatively the matter-radiation equivalence
200: time $t_{eq}$ in order to include into UHECR particles redshifted from $\sim
201: 10^{24}eV$ which we take as the maximum energy$.$ If we disregard for the
202: moment the attenuation due to interaction with CBR, the probability
203: distribution is the same as Eq.(4) but referred to emission energy\cite
204: {Y.Chikashige} E$_{em}$%
205: \begin{equation}
206: \frac{d\Gamma }{dE_{em}}=\frac 1\tau \sum_{i=1}^{N_c}\delta (E_{em}-E_i)%
207: \text{ }, \label{e9}
208: \end{equation}
209: where the relation with observed energy is given by redshift $z$%
210: \begin{equation}
211: E_{em}=(1+z)E\text{ , }1+z=\left( \frac{t_0}t\right) ^{\frac 23}\text{ }.
212: \label{e10}
213: \end{equation}
214:
215: Therefore the spectrum Eq.(8) becomes, being $t_0>>t_{eq}$ $,$%
216: \begin{equation}
217: F_u(E)=\frac 3{8\pi }n_u(t_0)\frac{t_0}\tau E^{\frac
218: 12}\sum_{i=1}^{N_c}\frac 1{E_i^{\frac 32}}\theta (E_i-E)\text{ }.
219: \label{e11}
220: \end{equation}
221:
222: The total flux for UHECR defined for $E>E_0$ is, with $E_0<E_i,$%
223: \begin{equation}
224: F_u=\int_{E_0}^\infty dE\text{ }F_u(E)=\frac 1{4\pi }n_u(t_0)\frac{t_0}\tau
225: \left[ N_c-\sum_{i=1}^{N_c}\left( \frac{E_0}{E_i}\right) ^{\frac 32}\right]
226: \text{ }. \label{e12}
227: \end{equation}
228:
229: Averaging the spectrum in intervals defined for convenience as
230: \begin{equation}
231: \overline{F}_u(E_j)=\frac 1{\Delta E_j}\int_{E_{j-1}}^{E_j}dE\text{ }F_u(E)%
232: \text{ }, \label{e13}
233: \end{equation}
234: and with the above hypothesis of $\Delta E_j\sim E_j$%
235: \begin{equation}
236: \overline{F}_u(E_j)=\frac 1{4\pi }\ n_u(t_0)\ \frac{t_0}\tau \ \frac
237: 1{\Delta E_j}\left[ 1-\left( \frac{E_{j-1}}{E_{N_c}}\right) ^{\frac
238: 32}\right] \quad \text{ }, \label{e14}
239: \end{equation}
240: it is clear that redshift will produce a softening of the law $\frac 1{E_j}$
241: through the bracket factor, which will be slight except for the highest $j$.
242:
243: \subsection{Comparison with observations}
244:
245: Considering that the probability per unit time for a vorton to emit
246: particles with energy between $E_L\simeq 10^{19}eV$ and $E_H\simeq 10^{24}eV$
247: from the decay of X is
248: \begin{equation}
249: \int_{E_L}^{E_H}\frac{d\Gamma }{dE_{em}}\text{ }dE_{em}=\frac{N_c}\tau \text{
250: }, \label{e15}
251: \end{equation}
252: the definition of the average on intervals according to Eqs. (9) and (7)
253: \begin{equation}
254: \frac{d\Gamma }{dE_{em}}\simeq \frac 1\tau \frac 1{E_{em}}\text{ },
255: \label{e16}
256: \end{equation}
257: gives, from Eq.(15), N$_c\sim 10$ which is a reasonable value compared with
258: the extrapolation of fragmentation functions\cite{Yu} . This is consistent
259: with the total energy emitted by a vorton per unit time, being $m_X\sim E_H,$%
260: \begin{equation}
261: \int_0^{E_H}dE_{em}\frac{d\Gamma }{dE_{em}}E_{em}=\frac 1\tau E_H\text{ }.
262: \label{e17}
263: \end{equation}
264:
265: Therefore we may take the equally spaced particles in $\log E$ according to $%
266: E_1\simeq 10^{19}eV,$ $E_2\simeq 10^{19.5}eV\;.\;.\;.\;E_9=10^{23}eV,$ $%
267: E_{10}\simeq 10^{23.5}eV,$ and $E_0\simeq 10^{18.5}eV,$ so that with the
268: previous definition $\Delta E_j=\left( 1-\frac 1{10^{0.5}}\right) E_j$ quite
269: compatible with Eq.(16).
270:
271: For the vortons condensed in the halo, since from Eq.(6) the flux in each
272: bin is the same, one might roughly normalize it at the observed value for $%
273: 10^{19}eV$ \textit{i.e.}
274: \begin{equation}
275: \frac{n_h(t_0)}{4\pi }\frac{\Delta t}\tau =\frac 1{km^2\text{ }yr}\text{
276: \quad .} \label{e18}
277: \end{equation}
278: Being the mass of a vorton $\sim N_Lm_X$ and representing a fraction $f$ of
279: the halo average energy density $\sim 0.3$ $\frac{GeV}{cm^3}$ it turns out
280: \begin{equation}
281: \frac{n_h(t_0)}{4\pi }\frac{\Delta t}\tau \simeq \frac f{N_L}\frac{t_0}\tau
282: \frac{10^7}{km^2\text{ }yr}\text{ }, \label{e19}
283: \end{equation}
284: so that for $\tau \sim t_0$ and $N_L\sim 10^3$ which is a sensible number as
285: will be discussed in Sec.III $,$ a fraction $f$ $\sim 10^{-4}$ of dark
286: matter would be enough. More precisely, from the recent presentation of data
287: shown in Fig.1, there seems to be an extragalactic component above the
288: ``ankle'' and then the hard component dominating beyond the GZK cutoff. With
289: this interpretation the contribution of vortons is a small part of flux at $%
290: 10^{19}eV$ and $f$ may be even two orders of magnitude smaller. The fact
291: that our fit normalizes the hard component at $\sim 10^{20}eV$ allows to
292: reproduce data with $m_X\sim 10^{15}GeV$ at variance with a similar
293: discussion for superheavy relics\cite{M.Birkel} .
294:
295: If we instead imagine vortons uniformly distributed, they should constitute
296: a fraction of the critical density of universe $\rho _c(t_0)\simeq
297: 10^{-29}\frac g{cm^3}.$ Disregarding the redshift depression and GZK cutoff $%
298: J=\frac 1{4\pi }n_u(t_0)\frac{t_0}\tau $ gives a flux 3 times larger than
299: that of Eq.(19) because the smaller $n_u$ is compensated by the larger $t_0$
300: compared to $\Delta t.$ The decrease due to redshift corresponds to the
301: bracket in Eq.(12) which is just 0.98. Similarly the bracket in the energy
302: spectrum of Eq.(14) gives $F_u(E)\propto \frac 1{E^{(1+K)}}$ where $K\simeq
303: 0.011$ as is seen by the fit of Fig.2. Therefore it would not be possible to
304: distinguish the two cases with the present statistics by the redshift
305: effect. But certainly more important is the effect of the GZK cutoff which
306: is not so drastic for the hard vorton component\cite{G.Sigl} giving an
307: effective spectrum $F_u(E)\propto \frac 1{E^2}$ between $10^{19}$ and $%
308: 10^{20}eV$ and a recovering behaviour $\propto \frac 1{E^{1.3}}$ in the
309: range from $10^{20}$ to $10^{21}eV.$ Therefore the fraction $f$ of dark
310: matter should be one order of magnitude larger than in the case of
311: condensation in halo. Similarly, it has been evaluated\cite{M.Blanton} that
312: the hard component of UHECR emitted from observed galaxies avoids the GZK
313: cutoff.
314:
315: Regarding the absolute contribution of other galaxies apart from ours, since
316: luminous matter is $\Omega _L\simeq 5$ x $10^{-3}$ and halos are $10$ times
317: larger $\Omega _h\simeq 5$ x $10^{-2}$, a fraction of vortons $\sim 10^{-6}$
318: would give $5$ x $10^{-8}$ of critical density. This would be 200 times
319: smaller than the required extragalactic vortons as said above. This
320: estimation of the negligible contribution of halos of other galaxies is
321: consistent with detailed computations\cite{O.E.Kalashev} .
322:
323: More statistics is needed to test the anisotropy in favour of larger mass
324: concentration in the halo case. It is interesting that UHECR above $5$x$%
325: 10^{19}eV$ seems to show\cite{G.Medina} a small anisotropy not related to
326: the structure of the local universe. One must remark that the uniform
327: distribution of superheavy relics is critically constrained by the diffuse
328: gamma flux at GeV scale from EGRET requiring a low extragalactic magnetic
329: field $\sim 10^{-12}Gauss.$
330:
331: A hard component similar to Eq.(7) appears from accurate calculation\cite
332: {M.Birkel} with QCD but it is also suggested by semiquantitative arguments.
333: On one side the quark which comes from decay of X may be considered as a
334: ultrarelativistic particle suffering a constant force due to friction.
335: Therefore the decrease of its momentum is proportional to time and since
336: this corresponds to hadronization, to produce a more energetic particle it
337: takes more time,\textit{\ i.e.} the law of Eq.(16) follows. In another way,
338: the hadronization results from the emission of a gluon with energy similar
339: to that of the quark and close to its direction. Thus the transition
340: amplitude is $\sim \frac 1E$ and the number of final states $EdE$ to keep a
341: fixed angle around the quark,\textit{\ i.e.} the probability of
342: hadronization from vorton
343: \begin{equation}
344: d\Gamma \simeq \frac 1\tau \frac 1{E\text{ }^2}EdE\text{ }, \label{e20}
345: \end{equation}
346: is Eq.(16).
347:
348: All what said in this Section is valid both for vortons and superheavy
349: relics. The next one will be devoted to dynamics of vortons to discuss in
350: which way they may have the required density for UHECR.
351:
352: \section{String dynamics and vorton densities}
353:
354: The dynamics which may lead to the vorton density necessary for UHECR
355: consists of several stages. First of all we will discuss the possible vorton
356: density above the electroweak (EW) transition temperature. For the formation
357: of vortons there are four temperatures\cite{B.Carter} : production of
358: ordinary strings $T_X$, appearance of superconductivity $T_\sigma $,
359: incorporation of fermionic carriers by loops giving the protovortons $T_f$,
360: elimination of excess energy relaxing to classically stable configuration $%
361: T_r.$ We will take the alternative that superconductivity, \textit{i.e. }%
362: zero-modes of x-y Dirac equation in presence of bosonic string fields,
363: appears in the same phase transition where strings are generated by Kibble
364: mechanism \textit{i.e.} $T_\sigma =T_X$ . This allows the possibility of
365: producing the matter-antimatter asymmetry\cite{M.Orsaria} through the
366: subsequent elimination of most of vortons. The number density of
367: protovortons formed at the temperature $T_f$ is\cite{B.Car}
368: \begin{equation}
369: n(T_f)\simeq \frac 1{\left[ \xi (T_f)\right] ^3}\text{ }, \label{e21}
370: \end{equation}
371: where $\xi $ is the length below which smaller scale structure will have
372: been smoothed by friction damping. Once vortons are formed, their density
373: evolution corresponds to quasi-stable particles in an expanding universe and
374: is related to that of protovortons which originate them by
375: \begin{equation}
376: n_v(T)=n(T_f)\left( \frac T{T_f}\right) ^3\text{ }. \label{e22}
377: \end{equation}
378: If vortons could be formed\cite{R.Brandenberger} in the friction stage of
379: Kibble strings produced in a phase transition of GUT scale $T_X$ , $\xi $ is
380: a sort of average between the string damping time $\tau _d\simeq \frac{T_X^2%
381: }{T^3}$ and the Hubble time $H^{-1}\simeq \frac{m_{pl}}{T^2}$ i.e.
382: \begin{equation}
383: \xi \simeq \sqrt{\tau _dH^{-1}}=\left( m_{pl}\right) ^{\frac 12}\frac{T_X}{%
384: T^{\frac 52}}\text{ .} \label{e23}
385: \end{equation}
386: Since we take $T_\sigma =T_X$ , this will be true if the time necessary for
387: fermions to be absorbed by the string forming protovortons is short.
388: Moreover the subsequent interval for getting rid of excess of energy to
389: reach the optimum radius of stabilized vortons must preserve the friction
390: regime $T>\frac{T_X^2}{m_{pl}}$ to avoid radiation from the not yet static
391: protovortons. If this occurs, from Eqs.(21-23)
392: \begin{equation}
393: n_v(T)\simeq \left( \frac{T_f}{m_{pl}}\right) ^{\frac 32}\left( \frac{T_fT}{%
394: T_X}\right) ^3\text{ }, \label{e24}
395: \end{equation}
396: and since as we will show $T_f$ is close to $T_X$ the large density
397: \begin{equation}
398: n_v(T)\simeq \left( \frac{T_X}{m_{pl}}\right) ^{\frac 32}T^{\text{ }3}
399: \label{e25}
400: \end{equation}
401: is enough to produce the expected matter-antimatter asymmetry if most of
402: vortons collapse at the EW transition\cite{M.Orsaria} . In the chiral case
403: which corresponds to our fermionic carriers, their number in the loop is\cite
404: {B.Car}
405: \begin{equation}
406: N\approx \xi T_X \label{e26}
407: \end{equation}
408: and from $\xi (T_f)$ of Eq.(23) $N\approx \left( \frac{m_{pl}}{T_X}\right)
409: ^{\frac 12}$ which for the GUT scale $T_X\sim 10^{16}GeV$ will give the most
410: abundant vortons with $N\sim 10$ carriers.
411:
412: According to some approches\cite{C.Martins} , it is hard that vortons can be
413: formed in the friction stage of string dynamics. We will use a simplified
414: model to estimate $T_f$ and $T_r$ to verify that they are in the friction
415: regime. Adopting the phenomenological criterium of seeing whether the
416: fermions can be absorbed by the Kibble string to give way to a protovorton
417: before the loop collapses, the rate of their incorporation may be given by
418: \begin{equation}
419: \frac{dn_i(t)}{dt}=\alpha \text{ }n_o\quad ,\text{ } \label{e27}
420: \end{equation}
421: where $n_o$ is the outher fermionic density. We assume, subject to
422: consistency, that the process is fast enough to disregard the universe
423: expansion and consider the above fixed number of fermions to be incorporated
424: to the string. $n_o$ will roughly correspond to a radiation mode at GUT
425: scale $n_o\sim T_X^3.$ We require that the density inside the string passes
426: from zero at the time of Kibble string formation $t=0$ $,$ to a final value $%
427: n_i$ in one direction due to field fluctuation such that $n_iL_p\frac
428: 1{T_X^2}\simeq N$ $,$ where $L_p$ is the protovorton length and $\frac
429: 1{T_X} $ its width . The probability per unit time of fermion absorption $%
430: \alpha =\alpha _0\sqrt{1-v^2}$ will include the Lorentz factor for time
431: dilatation due to the loop velocity of contraction $v$ which is
432: qualitatively consistent with the statement that vorton formation is more
433: difficult for large velocity\cite{C.Martins} . The probability in the rest
434: frame must be $\alpha _0=h$ $m_X$ because it increases with the difference
435: between the mass of the fermion outside due to symmetry breaking at GUT
436: scale and its zero value inside the string which favours its flow there. $h$
437: is a free parameter presumably smaller than 1 if the mass of the exotic
438: fermion is smaller than that of the GUT gauge boson as occurs for most of
439: ordinary fermions compared to EW bosons. Therefore we require from Eq.(27)
440: \begin{equation}
441: \frac N{L_p}=h\text{ }m_X\int_0^{\Delta t}dt\sqrt{1-v^2}\text{ },
442: \label{e28}
443: \end{equation}
444: for $\Delta t$ smaller than the collapse time of string $.$ Since the
445: protovorton must subsequently lose the excess of energy to reach
446: stabilization as a vorton of length $L_v=\frac N{m_X},$ the original length
447: of the string will be $L_0>L_p>L_v$ $.$
448:
449: For the step between the formation of the Kibble string of length $L_0$ up
450: to the absorption of N carriers to have a protovorton of length $L_p$ we
451: consider that the loop contracts due to the tension $\mu =m_X^2$ $,$ which
452: is also the energy per unit length, according to
453: \begin{equation}
454: -m_X^2=\frac d{dt}\left( E\text{ }v\right) \text{ ,} \label{e29}
455: \end{equation}
456: with $E=L$ $m_X^2,$ $v=\frac{dL}{dt}$ $.$ The result is
457: \begin{equation}
458: \frac L{L_0}=\frac 1{\left( 1+v^2\right) ^{\frac 12}}\text{ , } \label{e30}
459: \end{equation}
460: which, inserted into Eq.(28), gives
461: \begin{equation}
462: \frac 2N=h\text{ }\lambda _0^2\text{ }\frac{L_p}{L_0}\text{ }I\text{ },
463: \label{e31}
464: \end{equation}
465: where $\lambda _0=\frac{L_0}{L_v}$ , $I=\int_0^{\pi -2ar\sin \left( \frac{L_p%
466: }{L_0}\right) }dz\left( \cos z\right) ^{\frac 12}.$
467:
468: The procedure is to choose a value of $h$ and $N=10$ as said above if
469: Eq.(25) holds\cite{R.Brandenberger} . Assuming an initial length $\lambda
470: _0, $ one obtains $\frac{L_p}{L_0}$ from Eq.(31) and then the protovorton
471: velocity $v_p$ from Eq.(30) which must be consistent with the subsequent
472: step to determine $\lambda _0$ .
473:
474: This corresponds to the delay between protovorton and vorton. When the
475: former is planar it has an energy
476: \begin{equation}
477: E=\mu L+\frac{N^{\text{ }2}}L\text{ ,} \label{e32}
478: \end{equation}
479: where, to the Kibble contribution of the first term, the kinetic one for
480: massless fermionic carriers is added. Vortons are the classically stable
481: loops corresponding to the minimum of $E$.
482:
483: But on top of the energy $E$ of the ground state of the string Eq.(32), for
484: the protovorton one may add the energies corresponding to the possibility of
485: twisting its $N$ pieces. The energy of each twist may be taken as
486: \begin{equation}
487: E_t=e\frac N{L-L_v}\text{ ,} \label{e33}
488: \end{equation}
489: because for $L>>L_v$ it is reasonable that it corresponds to the current, $e$
490: being the charge. When $L\rightarrow L_v,$ $E_t\rightarrow \infty ,$
491: indicating that only the plane state of the vorton is possible. As a
492: consequence, the thermodynamical calculation of minimization of total free
493: energy $F_{tot}=E+F$ must be done with $F=-T$ $\ln Z$ in terms of the
494: partition function
495: \begin{equation}
496: Z=\sum_{m=0}^N\left( _m^N\right) e^{-\left( \frac{mE_t}T\right) }\text{ ,}
497: \label{e34}
498: \end{equation}
499: where $m$ is the number of twists. $F_{tot}\left( L\right) $ is a function
500: flatter than $E(L)$ but with the same minimum. Its variation is given by
501: \begin{equation}
502: -dF_{tot}\left( L\right) =d\left( Ev\right) v+SdT-\widehat{\mu }dL\text{ ,}
503: \label{e35}
504: \end{equation}
505: where $\widehat{\mu }$ is the chemical potential for the protovorton but,
506: being the last term equivalent to $-dE,$ the equation to be solved involves
507: in the left hand side only the variation of the partition function of
508: twists. Since moreover the second term on the right hand side is small
509: because it corresponds to the reheating produced by the disappearance of a
510: piece of protovorton transformed into radiation, being at this stage the
511: density of protovortons much smaller than that of the radiation, Eq.(35)
512: reduces essentially to
513: \begin{equation}
514: T\text{ }d\ln Z(L)\simeq d\left[ E(L)v\right] v\text{ .} \label{e36}
515: \end{equation}
516:
517: Eq.(36) is solved numerically with the condition that at the end, when the
518: stabilized vorton is reached, $v=0.$ Taking $e\simeq 0.3$ the partition
519: function is evaluated for the two contributions $\widetilde{N}$ $E_t<T$ and $%
520: \left( \widetilde{N}+1\right) E_t>T$ as $Z=Z_1+Z_2$ with
521: \[
522: Z_1=\sum_{m=0}^{\widetilde{N}}\left( _m^N\right) e^{-\left( \frac{mE_t}%
523: T\right) }\simeq \sum_{m=0}^{\widetilde{N}}\left( _m^N\right) \left( 1-m%
524: \frac{E_t}T+...\right) ,\text{ }\left( a\right) \text{ }
525: \]
526: \begin{equation}
527: Z_2=\sum_{m=\widetilde{N}+1}^N\left( _m^N\right) e^{-\left( \frac{mE_t}%
528: T\right) }\simeq \left( _{\widetilde{N}+1}^{\text{ }N}\right) e^{-\left(
529: \widetilde{N}+1\right) \frac{E_t}T}+...\text{ . }\left( b\right) \text{ }
530: \label{e37}
531: \end{equation}
532: Thus Eq.(36) allows to go back step by step obtaining the velocity for each
533: possible initial protovorton length.
534:
535: As said before, the end of the absorption of fermions must be joined to the
536: beginning of the process of stabilization of protovortons. In Fig.3 the two
537: cases of $h=\frac 15$ and $h=\frac 1{13}$ are shown. From these curves the
538: total interval of time from the formation of the Kibble string to the birth
539: of the stabilized vorton may be obtained according to
540: \begin{equation}
541: \Delta t_{tot}=L_v\int_1^{\lambda _0}\frac 1{\left| v\right| }d\left( \frac
542: L{L_v}\right) \text{ .} \label{e38}
543: \end{equation}
544: The results are respectively $\Delta t_{tot}=3.2$ x $10^{-38}\sec $ and $4.5$
545: x $10^{-38}\sec $ for the two cases of $h$.
546:
547: Therefore, since the time after big bang of the GUT transition is at least $%
548: 10^{-36}\sec $, the delay for the formation of vortons appears to be small
549: so that $T_r\approx T_f\approx T_X$ and their density Eq.(25) should hold.
550:
551: The next step is to analyze what happens to vortons, whose density evolves
552: according to Eq.(25), when the universe cools down to the temperature $%
553: T_{EW} $ for the electroweak transition. If the GUT model is such that the
554: zero-modes for heavy quarks disappear, most of vortons collapse and the
555: non-equilibrium process may allow to produce the needed matter-antimatter
556: asymmetry\cite{M.Orsaria} . But if all vortons lose these zero-modes
557: instantaneously the reheating would be so large that the baryogenesis would
558: result very much diluted\cite{W.B.Perkins} .
559:
560: The rate of destabilization of vortons depends on the model, and presumably
561: it is due to the mixture of Higgs mechanisms at GUT and EW scales where the
562: latter is responsible for the loss of zero-modes which allowed the exotic
563: fermion to be stable inside the string. Therefore it is likely that, being
564: the rate of decay of the fermion outside the string $\sim \alpha _{GUT}$ $%
565: m_X,$ the rate of destabilization of vorton is
566: \begin{equation}
567: \gamma \sim \alpha _{GUT}\text{ }m_X\left( \frac{T_{EW}}{T_X}\right) ^2\sim
568: 10^{11}\sec ^{-1}\text{ }, \label{e39}
569: \end{equation}
570: which is smaller than the Hubble parameter at the beginning of the EW
571: transition thus smoothing considerably the reheating effect\cite{M.Orsaria} .
572:
573: Also depending on the model new zero-modes, this time corresponding to
574: ordinary fermions, may appear at the EW temperature. Then vortons stabilized
575: by them may be formed. But since the loops are collapsing due to the loss of
576: the original zero-modes, one has to see whether the ordinary fermions
577: succeed in being absorbed to reach the required density before the strings
578: disappear. It is understandable that the surviving vortons will be the long
579: ones.
580:
581: The string is composed now by superheavy bosons X in its inner core and by
582: the EW bosons in the outer part. The length of the inner core is still $%
583: \frac N{m_X}$ and its width $\frac 1{m_X}$ so that the energy per unit
584: length both of the Higgs potential and magnetic GUT contributions is $\sim
585: m_X^2$ . The outer ring will have a width $\sim \frac 1{m_W}$ and
586: consequently a length $\frac N{m_W}$ so that the Higgs potential and
587: magnetic weak contributions will be $\sim m_W^2<<m_X^2$ . Regarding the
588: density of ordinary fermions to have a new vorton, it must be $n_i\sim m_W^3$
589: .
590:
591: An argument similar to the one following Eq.(27), and since outside the
592: string now $n_o\sim T_{EW}^{\text{ }3},$ indicates that
593: \begin{equation}
594: n_i\simeq h\text{ }T_{EW}^{\text{ }4}\text{ }\Delta t\text{ ,} \label{e40}
595: \end{equation}
596: which requires that $\Delta t$ is smaller than the collapse time $\tau _c$.
597: Since for masses of ordinary fermions $h\sim 10^{-3}$ and $\tau _c%
598: \stackunder{\sim }{>}\frac N{m_{EW}}$ because all the string configuration
599: including its electroweak part must collapse together to avoid energy
600: divergences, Eq.(40) will be satisfied by long strings with $N\sim 10^3$ and
601: not for the most abundant vortons with $N\sim 10.$
602:
603: According to the discussion of Sec.2, the ratio of the density of long
604: vortons $N_L\sim 1000$ which allow to produce UHECR and that of short ones $%
605: N\sim 10$ Eq.(25) which would give the expected baryogenesis should be
606: \begin{equation}
607: \frac{n_L(T)}{n_v(T)}\sim 10^{-27}-10^{-28}\text{ }. \label{e41}
608: \end{equation}
609:
610: It is a very delicate matter to explain this ratio which cannot be related
611: to that of the corresponding Boltzmann factors for vortons but more
612: reasonably to the Kibble loops at the beginning of the acquisition of
613: fermions which means that their energy is one half of that of vortons of the
614: same length L according to Eq.(32), giving a ratio which is still too small.
615:
616: But one must remember that, at variance from vortons which are plane, the
617: protovortons which originated them may be rough and therefore have entropy.
618: Thinking that a protovorton is a chain of $N$ objects that can be horizontal
619: or vertical, the degeneracy without considering the energy of twists is $%
620: d\simeq 2^N,$ which can enlarge the density of long vortons in such a way
621: that Eq.(41) may be satisfied.
622:
623: The last important point is to assure that the vorton lifetime for emission
624: of an X is at least of the order of the universe age to allow the production
625: of UHECR in recent times. The estimation may be done through the bounce
626: instanton where, to simplify things, we consider the vorton as an object in
627: the x-y plane so that the Euclidean action $S_E$ may be taken as the
628: difference of the three-dimensional energy of a tube which contracts
629: emitting an X and that of the non-contracted one. The most important
630: contribution to this difference will be given by the gradient of the GUT
631: Higgs field $\phi $ so that
632: \begin{equation}
633: S_E\sim \int \left( \frac{\partial \phi }{\partial z}\right) ^2\delta \text{
634: }dxdydz\sim \frac{\left( \Delta \phi \right) ^2}{\Delta z}\delta ^2L\text{ }.
635: \label{e42}
636: \end{equation}
637: $\Delta \phi \sim m_X$ because it is the change from broken to unbroken
638: vacuum.$~\delta ^2\sim \frac 1{m_X^2}$ is the section of the inner core of
639: the string where GUT fields are concentrated. Finally $\Delta z\geq
640: m_X^{-1}, $ because the length for the variation of the tube size must be at
641: least of the order of the Compton length of the emitted X particle. Since $%
642: L\simeq \frac{N_L}{m_X},$ Eq.(42) with all the above estimations gives $%
643: S_E\leq N_L$ and the lifetime for the emission of one X is, being the vorton
644: mass $m_v\sim N_Lm_X,$%
645: \begin{equation}
646: \tau \sim \frac 1{m_v}e^{S_E}\leq \frac 1{N_Lm_X}e^{N_L}\text{ },
647: \label{e43}
648: \end{equation}
649: which, as an order of magnitude, ensures $\tau $ larger than $t_0$ for $%
650: N_L\sim 10^3.$
651:
652: In this way we have shown the feasibility of the mechanism for UHECR
653: according to Eq.(19).
654:
655: \section{GUT models and possible vortons}
656:
657: To build a Kibble string it is necessary to break an abelian $\widetilde{U}%
658: (1)$ symmetry different from the electromagnetic $U(1).$ If the model is
659: simply
660: \begin{equation}
661: U(1)\text{ x }\widetilde{U}(1)\rightarrow U(1)\text{ }, \label{e44}
662: \end{equation}
663: one such infinite string is stable. But if $\widetilde{U}(1)$ is contained
664: in a larger group G, a discrete symmetry $Z_N$ of the continuous $\widetilde{%
665: U}(1)$ must remain unbroken to avoid that the corresponding monopoles make
666: the string unstable by cutting it. This depends on the Higgs mechanism and
667: in general the discrete symmetry does not survive if the Higgs field
668: corresponds to the fundamental representation of G.
669:
670: On the other hand the string will become superconducting if a fermion
671: acquires mass through a Higgs that winds it. Subsequent phase transitions
672: caused by different Higgs fields may produce the disappearance of a previous
673: zero-mode.
674:
675: \subsection{SO(10)\ }
676:
677: It has 45 generators and one of its maximum subgroups is $SU(5)$ x $%
678: \widetilde{U}(1)$, suitable for string formation.
679:
680: There should be four subsequent breakings with the indicated relevant Higgs
681: multiplets
682: \begin{equation}
683: SO(10)_{\overrightarrow{\text{ }45\text{ }}}SU(5)\text{ x }\widetilde{U}(1)_{%
684: \overrightarrow{\text{ }126\text{ }}}SU(5)\text{ x }Z_{2\text{ }}
685: \label{e45}
686: \end{equation}
687: \[
688: _{\overrightarrow{\text{ }45\text{ }}}SU(3)_c\text{ x }SU(2)_L\text{ x }%
689: U(1)_Y\text{ x }Z_{2\overrightarrow{\text{ }10\text{ }}}SU(3)_c\text{ x }U(1)%
690: \text{ x }Z_2\text{ }.
691: \]
692:
693: The decomposition in $SU(5)$ x $\widetilde{U}(1)$ of the involved Higgs and
694: fermion multiplets is
695: \begin{eqnarray}
696: 45 &=&1^0+10^2+\overline{10}^{-2}+24^0 \label{e46} \\
697: 126 &=&1^5+\overline{5}^1+10^3+\overline{15}^{-3}+45^{-1}+50^1 \nonumber \\
698: 10 &=&5^1+\overline{5}^{-1} \nonumber \\
699: 16 &=&\overline{5}^{\frac 32}+10^{-\frac 12}+1^{-\frac 52}\ . \nonumber
700: \end{eqnarray}
701:
702: The first breaking must be done by a $\phi _{45}$ non vanishing in the $1^0$
703: component to keep the $SU(5)$ x $\widetilde{U}(1)$ invariance. The second by
704: a $\phi _{126}=\phi _{1^5}$ to preserve $SU(5)$ symmetry. Regarding
705: fermions, since $16\ $x$\ 16=126+120+10,$ only the second breaking produces
706: mass for one of them, the $\nu _R$, through a Majorana term which is
707: invariant under $\widetilde{U}(1)$ as is seen from Eq.(46). There also
708: stable infinite strings\cite{A.C.Davis} are produced with winding number $%
709: n=1 $%
710: \begin{equation}
711: \phi _{1^5\overrightarrow{\quad r\rightarrow \infty \quad }}\eta _{%
712: \widetilde{U}}\ e^{i\theta }\qquad ,\quad \widetilde{A}_{\theta
713: \overrightarrow{\quad r\rightarrow \infty \quad }}\frac 1{5\widetilde{e}}\
714: \frac 1r\quad , \label{e47}
715: \end{equation}
716: and loops will be classically stabilized as vortons by the superconducting
717: current of $\nu _R$. Since $SU(5)$ is still valid, which will presumably
718: require SUSY, $\eta _{\widetilde{U}}\sim 10^{16}GeV.$
719:
720: The third phase transition does not affect the string because it is done by
721: a $\phi _{45}$ in $24^0,$ with components which break $SU(5)$ but keep the
722: invariance under $SU(3)_c$ x $SU(2)_L$ x $U(1)_Y$, that does not feel the $%
723: \widetilde{U}(1)$ charge $\widetilde{e}.$
724:
725: On the contrary the last breaking, the EW one, has several consequences.
726: Since ordinary fermions get Dirac mass from the $SU(5)$ products
727: \begin{equation}
728: \overline{5}\ \text{x}\ 10=5+45\qquad ,\quad 10\ \text{x}\ 10=\overline{5}+%
729: \overline{45}+50\ , \label{e48}
730: \end{equation}
731: the $5^1$ part of $\phi _{10}$ will give mass to the quark $u$ and $%
732: \overline{5}^{-1}$ to quark d. Due to the fact that in $SO(10)$ these masses
733: come from a single mass term $16\ $x$\ 16$, to avoid the degeneracy of $u$
734: and $d$ either one takes different expectation values in the neutral
735: components of $5^1$ and $\overline{5}^{-1},$ or we repeat this term twice
736: with ad-hoc coefficients, one multiplied by $\phi _{10}$ nontrivial in $5^1$
737: and the other with $\phi _{10}$ nontrivial in $\overline{5}^{-1}$ with the
738: same expectation value.
739:
740: Regarding the string, $\phi _{10}$ cannot be constant everywhere because the
741: $\widetilde{U}(1)$ charge would give a contribution to the covariant
742: derivative $D_\theta $ producing a divergent energy. Therefore we must
743: accept the possibility of winding $\phi _{5^1}$ and $\phi _{\overline{5}%
744: ^{-1}}$ and also the inclusion of a neutral $Z$ contribution
745: \begin{eqnarray}
746: D_\theta \phi _{5^1} &=&\left( \frac 1r\frac \partial {\partial \theta }-i%
747: \widetilde{e}\widetilde{A}_\theta -ig_\varphi Z_\theta \right) \phi _{5^1}%
748: \text{ },\text{ } \label{e49} \\
749: D_\theta \phi _{\overline{5}^{-1}} &=&\left( \frac 1r\frac \partial
750: {\partial \theta }+i\widetilde{e}\widetilde{A}_\theta +ig_\varphi Z_\theta
751: \right) \phi _{\overline{5}^{-1}}\text{ . } \nonumber
752: \end{eqnarray}
753: If we assume that the winding number of $\phi _{5^1}$ is $m$, the condition
754: to cancel its covariant derivative is
755: \begin{equation}
756: m-\frac 15-\chi =0\ , \label{e50}
757: \end{equation}
758: where $\chi $ is the contribution of $Z.$ Obviously, to cancel also the
759: covariant derivative of $\phi _{\overline{5}^{-1}}$ , which behaves as $\phi
760: _{5^1}^{*}$ , the same condition Eq.(50) holds meaning that it would wind
761: with $-m$.
762:
763: But the minimization of the magnetic energy of $Z$ requires $m=0$ so that $%
764: \phi _{5^1}$ and $\phi _{\overline{5}^{-1}}$ do not wind and no zero-modes
765: appear for ordinary fermions.
766:
767: Moreover $\phi _{10}$ gives rise to a coupling $\overline{\nu }_R\nu _L$
768: and, since $\phi _{10}$ does not wind, this small massive contribution to
769: the state of $\nu _R$ makes the corresponding zero-mode disappear so that
770: all the vortons would collapse at the EW phase transition\cite{S.C.Davis} .
771:
772: It must be noticed that the situation would change\cite{E.Witten} if an
773: additional Higgs, which does not generate mass, $210=5^{-4}+\overline{5}%
774: ^4+....$ with expectation value in $5^{-4}$ is present. To compensate the
775: covariant derivative of such a nonwinding field
776: \begin{equation}
777: D_\theta \phi _{5^{-4}}=\left( \frac 1r\frac \partial {\partial \theta }+i4%
778: \widetilde{e}\widetilde{A}_\theta -ig_\varphi Z_\theta \right) \phi
779: _{5^{-4}}\quad , \label{e51}
780: \end{equation}
781: $Z_\theta $ needs to behave $Z_\theta \rightarrow \frac 45\ \frac
782: 1{g_\varphi }\ \frac 1r$ which introduced into Eq.(49) requires $m=1$. In
783: this rather artificial way, ordinary fermions would have zero-modes and GUT
784: vortons should not collapse.
785:
786: \subsection{ E$_6$}
787:
788: It has 78 generators and one maximum subgroup is $SO(10)$ x $\overline{U}(1)$
789: with the relevant chain of breakings
790: \begin{eqnarray}
791: &&E_{6~\overrightarrow{\text{ \quad }78\quad \text{ }}}SO(10)\ \text{x}\
792: \overline{U}(1)_{\overrightarrow{\text{ \quad }27\quad \text{ }}}SO(10)....
793: \label{e52} \\
794: &&...SU(3)_c\ \text{x}\ SU(2)_L\ \text{x}\ U(1)_{Y~\overrightarrow{\quad
795: \text{ }27\quad \text{ }}}SU(3)_c\ \text{x\ }U(1)\quad . \nonumber
796: \end{eqnarray}
797:
798: The descompositions in $SO(10)\ $x$\ \overline{U}(1)$ of the fundamental and
799: adjoint representations are respectively
800: \begin{eqnarray}
801: 27 &=&1^1+10^{-\frac 12}+16^{\frac 14} \label{e53} \\
802: 78 &=&1^0+16^{-\frac 34}+\overline{16}^{\frac 34}+45^0\ . \nonumber
803: \end{eqnarray}
804:
805: The first breaking must be done by $\phi _{78}\equiv \phi _{1^0}$ to keep
806: the invariance of $SO(10)\ $x$\ \overline{U}(1)$ and since $27\ $x$\ 27=%
807: \overline{27}_S+351_S+351_A$ , no fermion gets mass in it. Fermion masses
808: come from Higgs in $27$ or $351^{*}$ (which explains the decomposition of $%
809: 126$ in Eq.(46)). Thus the second breaking done by $\phi _{27}\equiv \phi
810: _{1^1}$ to preserve the invariance of $SO(10)$ , gives mass to the exotic
811: fermions contained in $10^{-\frac 12}$ of $27$ through a term $\phi
812: _{1^1}\psi _{10^{-\frac 12}}\psi _{10^{-\frac 12}}$ . These exotic fermions,
813: one quark $D$ of charge $-\frac 13$ with $3$ colours and an electron $E$
814: with its neutrino $N$ may be the carriers of a vorton based on the string
815: \begin{equation}
816: \phi _{1^1}\rightarrow \eta _{\overline{U}}\ e^{i\theta }\qquad ,\quad
817: \overline{A}_\theta \rightarrow \frac 1{\overline{e}}\ \frac 1r\quad .
818: \label{e54}
819: \end{equation}
820:
821: Due to the fact that 27 is the fundamental (spinorial) representation, a $%
822: Z_2 $ symmetry is not preserved and the infinite string is not absolutely
823: stable. However it is stable enough if the scale $\eta _{\overline{U}}\sim
824: 10^{16}GeV$ for the breaking of $\overline{U}(1)$ is at least one order of
825: magnitude lower than that of breaking of $E_6.$
826:
827: In the last breaking, an expectation value of Higgs in $10^{-\frac 12}$
828: gives mass to ordinary fermions through a term $\phi _{10^{-\frac 12}}\psi
829: _{16^{\frac 14}}\psi _{16^{\frac 14}}$ . Regarding the influence of $\phi
830: _{10^{-\frac 12}}$ on the string, the difference with the case of $SO(10)$
831: is that now the $\overline{U}(1)$ charge $-\frac 12\overline{e}$ is common
832: to both $5^1$ and $\overline{5}^{-1}$ of $SU(5)$ x $\widetilde{U}(1),$
833: \textit{i.e.}
834: \begin{equation}
835: D_\theta \phi _{5^1}=\left( \frac 1r\frac \partial {\partial \theta }+i\frac{%
836: \overline{e}}2\overline{A}_\theta -i\widetilde{e}\widetilde{A}_\theta
837: -ig_\varphi Z_\theta \right) \phi _{5^1}\text{ },\text{ }\left( a\right)
838: \label{e55}
839: \end{equation}
840: \[
841: D_\theta \phi _{\overline{5}^{-1}}=\left( \frac 1r\frac \partial {\partial
842: \theta }+i\frac{\overline{e}}2\overline{A}_\theta +i\widetilde{e}\widetilde{A%
843: }_\theta +ig_\varphi Z_\theta \right) \phi _{\overline{5}^{-1}}\text{ . }%
844: \left( b\right)
845: \]
846: If $\phi _{5^1}$ winds at the EW scale as $\phi _{5^1}\rightarrow \eta _{EW}$
847: $e^{im\theta },$ to avoid energy divergence coming from Eq.(55a) it must be
848: \begin{equation}
849: m+\frac 12-\chi =0\text{ ,} \label{e56}
850: \end{equation}
851: where now $\chi $ is the contribution from $\widetilde{A}_\theta $ and $%
852: Z_\theta .$
853:
854: If the minimization of energy favours $\chi =-\frac 12,$ from Eq.(56) $m=-1$
855: and since $\varphi _{5^1}$ gives mass to $u$ and $\nu $ they will have
856: zero-modes and the corresponding carriers will run in the direction $-z$ of
857: the string axis. Now from Eq.(55b) with $\chi =-\frac 12$ the energy
858: divergence is avoided if $\phi _{\overline{5}^{-1}}$ does not wind and,
859: since it gives mass to $d$ and electron, they will have no zero-modes.
860: Conversely if energy minimization favours $\chi =\frac 12,$ $\phi _{%
861: \overline{5}^{-1}}$ will wind as $\phi _{\overline{5}^{-1}}\rightarrow \eta
862: _{EW}$ $e^{im\theta }$ with $m=-1,$ $d$ and $e$ will have zero-modes and
863: they will be the vorton carriers running along $-z$ of string axis.
864:
865: Therefore, with a scheme based on $E_6$, vortons formed at scale $\eta _{%
866: \overline{U}}$ with exotic fermions E and D would remain essentially stable
867: down to scale $\eta _{EW}$ where would incorporate new carriers either $u$
868: and $\nu $ or $d$ and $e.$
869:
870: But if the EW breaking is done with a Higgs in 27 of $E_6$ which has not
871: only expectation value in its component $10^{-\frac 12}$ but also in $%
872: 16^{\frac 14},$ there may be an ordinary-exotic mass term\cite{J.L.Rosner} $%
873: \phi _{16^{\frac 14}}\psi _{10^{-\frac 12}}\psi _{16^{\frac 14}}$ , which
874: will mix E and D with $e$ and $d$. Being $10=5^1+\overline{5}^{-1},$ $5^1$
875: contains $D,$ $\overline{E}$ and $\overline{N}$ and $\overline{5}^{-1}$ $%
876: \overline{D},$ $E$ and $N.$
877:
878: Therefore if the situation that minimizes energy is the first described
879: above, i.e. $\chi =-\frac 12$ , $d$ and $e$ will have no zero-modes and
880: their mixing with D and E will destroy the zero-modes of the latter
881: producing our baryogenesis mechanism. On the other hand, the new zero-modes
882: of $u$ and $\nu $ would be responsible for the quasi-stability of the long
883: vortons from the EW age to our days giving rise, through quantum decay, to a
884: possible source of UHECR.
885:
886: This is in fact what happens. To cancel the large distance covariant
887: derivative of $\phi _{10^{-\frac 12}}$ Eq.(55) avoiding the divergence of
888: energy, one needs, together with the already existing $\overline{A}_\theta $
889: of Eq.(54),
890: \begin{equation}
891: \text{ }\widetilde{A}_\theta \rightarrow \frac{c_1}{\widetilde{e}}\text{ }%
892: \frac 1r\text{ , }Z_\theta \rightarrow \frac{c_2}{g_\varphi }\text{ }\frac 1r%
893: \text{ ,} \label{e57}
894: \end{equation}
895: with $c_1+c_2=\mp \frac 12$ which would allow to choose $\left| c_1\right|
896: =\left| c_2\right| =\frac 14$ in both cases to minimize the magnetic energy $%
897: \frac 12\left( \widetilde{B}^2+B_Z^2\right) .$
898:
899: But we now have the additional condition of cancelling the covariant
900: derivative of $\phi _{16^{\frac 14}}$ . Because of the decomposition of 16
901: Eq.(46) in representations of $SU(5)$ x $\widetilde{U}(1)$ , the mixing term
902: $\overline{D}$ $d$ may come from $\overline{5}^{-1}$ x $10^{-\frac 12}$ and,
903: due to the fact that $\overline{5}$ x $10=5+45$ , invariance is obtained
904: multiplying by a $\phi _{16^{\frac 14}}$ with expectation value in $%
905: \overline{5}^{\frac 32}$ \textit{i.e.} $\phi _{\overline{5}^{\frac 32}}\psi
906: _{\overline{5}^{-1}}\psi _{10^{-\frac 12}}$. To respect the symmetry $%
907: SU(3)_c $ x $U(1)$ the nonvanishing component of $\phi _{\overline{5}^{\frac
908: 32}}$ must be the neutral one so that its covariant derivative is
909: \begin{equation}
910: D_\theta \phi _{\overline{5}^{\frac 32}}=\left( \frac 1r\frac \partial
911: {\partial \theta }-i\frac{\overline{e}}4\overline{A}_\theta -i\frac 32%
912: \widetilde{e}\widetilde{A}_\theta -ig_\varphi ^{^{\prime }}Z_\theta \right)
913: \phi _{\overline{5}^{\frac 32}}\quad .\text{ } \label{e58}
914: \end{equation}
915: Assuming a behaviour $\phi _{\overline{5}^{\frac 32}}\rightarrow \eta _{EW}$
916: $e^{im\theta }$ $,$ the cancellation of energy divergence requires
917: \begin{equation}
918: m-\frac 14-\frac 32c_1+c_2=0\quad , \label{e59}
919: \end{equation}
920: because $g_\varphi ^{^{\prime }}=-g_\varphi $ as $g_\varphi $ corresponds to
921: $5$ and $g_\varphi ^{^{\prime }}$ to $\overline{5}$.
922:
923: With the condition appropriate for our model $c_1+c_2=-\frac 12$ , Eq.(59)
924: is satisfied with $c_1=-0.3$ $,$ $c_2=-0.2$ and $m=0$ producing less
925: magnetic energy than that of the alternative case $c_1+c_2=\frac 12$ which
926: would require much more difference between $\left| c_1\right| $ and $\left|
927: c_2\right| .$
928:
929: The other mixing term $\overline{d}~D$ comes from $\overline{5}^{\frac 32}$
930: x $5^1$ times a nonvanishing $1^{-\frac 52}$ of $\phi _{16^{\frac 14}}$ with
931: a covariant derivative
932: \begin{equation}
933: D_\theta \phi _{1^{-\frac 52}}=\left( \frac 1r\frac \partial {\partial
934: \theta }-i\frac 14\overline{e}\ A_\theta +i\frac 52\widetilde{e}\widetilde{A}%
935: _\theta \right) \phi _{1^{-\frac 52}}\text{ },\text{ } \label{e60}
936: \end{equation}
937: where $Z$ does not appear because $\phi _{1^{-\frac 52}}$ has no
938: interactions of $SU(5)$ and therefore of the SM. If $\phi _{1^{-\frac 52}}$
939: winds with $m$ , to cancel Eq.(60)
940: \begin{equation}
941: m-\frac 14+\frac 52\ c_1=0\quad . \label{e61}
942: \end{equation}
943: and it is easy to see that the case $\chi =-\frac 12$ gives again more
944: balanced values of $c_1$ and $c_2$ than for $\chi =+\frac 12$ , but less
945: than those emerging from Eq.(59). Then, since it is not possible to cancel
946: simultaneously Eqs.(58) and (60) energy saving suggests that only $\phi _{%
947: \overline{5}^{\frac 32}}$ will be nonvanishing.
948:
949: For the model of vortons based on $E_6$ it is better if the breaking of $%
950: SO(10)$ in the missing part of the chain of Eq.(52) does not follow Eq.(45)
951: but the alternative\cite{P.Langacker} maximum subgroup $SU(4)\ $x$\ SU(2)_L\
952: $x$\ SU(2)_R$ to avoid the formation of strings $\widetilde{U}(1)$ which
953: would complicate things and also to make the GUT unification avoiding $%
954: SU(5). $
955:
956: \section{Conclusions}
957:
958: If the explanation of UHECR requires the top-down mechanism, this will imply
959: new physics beyond the SM. In the case of the superheavy quasi-stable
960: particles, possibly indications on the hidden sector of supersymmetry
961: breaking will be given. As for the explanation through cosmic strings GUT
962: will be explored and, particularly with vortons, details of the groups and
963: Higgs breakings may be revealed.
964:
965: We have shown the feasibility of this last mechanism. Obviously, due to the
966: semiquantitative evaluation of several effects, only orders of magnitude
967: could be given. More accurate analysis must be performed particularly
968: regarding the quantum decay of vortons and precise details of the
969: replacement of exotic fermions by ordinary ones at the EW transition as
970: carriers of superconducting current inside the string, as it has been proved
971: to be favourable in the case of the $E_6$ symmetry.
972:
973: Since the features of the UHECR coming from the two quoted alternatives of
974: top-down mechanism are similar due to the fact that they are based on quark
975: hadronization, a deep theoretical study of the models will be useful to
976: falsify some of them.
977:
978: As for the evidence of sources based on superheavy microscopical objects,
979: particles or vortons, there are analysis\cite{V.Berezin} to see if there is
980: a possible anisotropy of observed events towards the massive concentration
981: in the galaxy. To determine this, as well as the suggested hard component%
982: \cite{A.M.Hillas} of the spectrum beyond the GZK cutoff and the required
983: abundance of primary gammas and neutrinos, a much larger statistics is
984: needed as will be supplied by the Auger project\cite{Pierre Auger} .
985:
986: \begin{center}
987: $\mathbf{Acknowledgments}$
988: \end{center}
989:
990: LM thanks CONICET, project PICT 0358, and MO CLAF and Fundaci\'on Antorchas,
991: project A-13798/1, for partial financial supports.
992:
993: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
994: \bibitem{C.T.Norman} C.T. Norman, D.B. Melrose, A. Achterberg, Ap. J.
995: \textbf{454 }(1995) 60; A.V. Olinto, astro-ph/0002006; N. Nagano, A.A.
996: Watson, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{72} (2000) 689.
997:
998: \bibitem{K.Greisen} K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{16} (1966) 798; G.
999: Zatsepin, V. Kuzmin, JETP Lett. \textbf{4 }(1966) 78; F. Aharonian, J.
1000: Cronin, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D 50} (1994) 1892.
1001:
1002: \bibitem{V.Berezinsky} V. Berezinsky, astro-ph/0001163; P. Bhattacharjee,
1003: G. Sigl, Physics Rep. \textbf{327} (2000) 109..
1004:
1005: \bibitem{J.Ellis} J. Ellis, G. Gelmini, J. L\'opez, D.V. Nanopoulos, S.
1006: Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B 373} (1992) 339; V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov,
1007: Yadernaya Fisika \textbf{61} (1998) 1122; V. Berezinsky, M. Kachelriess, A.
1008: Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{79} (1997) 4302; K. Hamaguchi, Izawa K.-
1009: I., Y. Nomura, T. Yanagida, hep-ph/9903207; K. Hamaguchi, Y. Nomura, T.
1010: Yanagida, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D 59} (1999) 063503; R. Benakli, J. Ellis, D.V.
1011: Nanopoulos, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D 59} (1999) 047301; L. Kofman, A. Linde, A.
1012: Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{73} (1994) 3195; D.J.H. Chung, E.W.
1013: Kolb, A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D 59} (1999) 023501; V.A. Kuzmin, I.I.
1014: Tkachev, JETP Letters \textbf{69} (1998) 271.
1015:
1016: \bibitem{C.T.Hill} C.T. Hill, D.N. Schramm, T.P. Walker, Phys. Rev. \textbf{%
1017: D 36} (1987) 1007; P. Bhattacharjee, N.C. Rana, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B 246}
1018: (1990) 365; P. Bhattacharjee, C.T. Hill, D. Schramm, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1019: \textbf{69} (1992) 567; G. Sigl, Space Sc. Rev. \textbf{75} (1996) 375; G.
1020: Sigl, S. Lee, D.N. Schramm, P. Bhattacharjee, Science \textbf{270} (1995)
1021: 1977; R.J. Protheroe, P. Johnson, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{4} (1996) 253;
1022: R.J. Protheroe, T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{77} (1996) 3708.
1023:
1024: \bibitem{T.W.B.Kibble} T.W.B. Kibble, J. Phys. \textbf{A 9} (1976) 1387.
1025:
1026: \bibitem{P.Bhattacharjee} P. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{81}
1027: (1998) 260.
1028:
1029: \bibitem{V.Ber} V. Berezinsky, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{79}
1030: (1997) 5202; V. Berezinsky, P. Blasi, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D 58}
1031: (1998) 103515.
1032:
1033: \bibitem{E.Witten} E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B 249} (1985) 557.
1034:
1035: \bibitem{L.Masperi} L. Masperi, G. Silva, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{8}
1036: (1998) 173; L. Masperi, M. Orsaria, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) \textbf{75 A%
1037: } (1999) 362.
1038:
1039: \bibitem{M.Orsaria} L. Masperi, M. Orsaria, Int. J. Mod. Phys. \textbf{A}
1040: \textbf{14} (1999) 3581.
1041:
1042: \bibitem{M.Takeda} M. Takeda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{81} (1998)
1043: 1163.
1044:
1045: \bibitem{G.Sigl} G. Sigl, S. Lee, D. Schramm, P. Coppi, Phys. Lett. \textbf{%
1046: B 392} (1997) 129; Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz, astro-ph/0008204; L. Masperi, M.
1047: Orsaria, astro-ph/0008525.
1048:
1049: \bibitem{Y.Chikashige} Y. Chikashige, J.i. Kamoshita, astro-ph/9812483.
1050:
1051: \bibitem{Yu} Yu.L. Dokshizer, V.H. Khoze, A.H. Mueller, S.Y. Troyan, Basics
1052: of Perturbative QCD (Editions Frontiers, 1991).
1053:
1054: \bibitem{M.Birkel} M. Birkel, S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{9} (1998)
1055: 173.
1056:
1057: \bibitem{M.Blanton} M. Blanton, P. Blasi, A. Olinto, astro-ph/0009466.
1058:
1059: \bibitem{O.E.Kalashev} O.E. Kalashev, V.A. Kuzmin, D.V. Semikov,
1060: astro-ph/0006349; S.L. Dubovsky, P.G. Tinyakov, JETP Lett. \textbf{68}
1061: (1998) 271.
1062:
1063: \bibitem{G.Medina} G. Medina Tanco, astro-ph/0009336.
1064:
1065: \bibitem{B.Carter} B. Carter, hep-ph/9909513.
1066:
1067: \bibitem{B.Car} B. Carter, A.-C. Davis, hep-ph / 9910560.
1068:
1069: \bibitem{R.Brandenberger} R. Brandenberger, B. Carter, A.-C. Davis, M.
1070: Trodden, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D 54} (1996) 6059.
1071:
1072: \bibitem{C.Martins} C. Martins, E. Shellard, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D 57}
1073: (1998) 173.
1074:
1075: \bibitem{W.B.Perkins} W.B. Perkins, A.-C. Davis, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B 393}
1076: (1997) 46.
1077:
1078: \bibitem{A.C.Davis} A.-C. Davis, S.C. Davis, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D 55}
1079: (1997) 1879.
1080:
1081: \bibitem{S.C.Davis} S.C. Davis, A.-C. Davis, W.B. Perkins, Phys. Lett.
1082: \textbf{B 408} (1997) 81.
1083:
1084: \bibitem{J.L.Rosner} J.L. Rosner, hep-ph/9907438.
1085:
1086: \bibitem{P.Langacker} P. Langacker, Phys. Rep. \textbf{72} (1985) 125.
1087:
1088: \bibitem{V.Berezin} V. Berezinsky, A.A. Mikhailov, astro-ph/9810277; G.A.
1089: Medina Tanco, A.A. Watson, astro-ph/9903182.
1090:
1091: \bibitem{A.M.Hillas} A.M. Hillas, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) \textbf{75 A}
1092: (1999) 109.
1093:
1094: \bibitem{Pierre Auger} Pierre Auger project design report (1997),
1095: http://www-td-auger.fnal.gov: 82.
1096: \end{thebibliography}
1097:
1098: \end{document}
1099: