1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \textwidth 17cm

4: \textheight 21.5cm

5: \hoffset -2.0cm

6: \voffset -1.cm

7: 

8: \def\tablename{\bf Table}

9: \def\figurename{\bf Figure}

10: 

11: % Meta-commands for sparticles :

12: 

13: \def\suL{$\tilde{u}_L$}

14: \def\suR{$\tilde{u}_R$}

15: \def\sdL{$\tilde{d}_L$}

16: \def\sdR{$\tilde{d}_R$}

17: \def\ssL{$\tilde{s}_L$}

18: \def\ssR{$\tilde{s}_R$}

19: \def\scL{$\tilde{c}_L$}

20: \def\scR{$\tilde{c}_R$}

21: \def\sbL{$\tilde{b}_L$}

22: \def\sbR{$\tilde{b}_R$}

23: \def\stL{$\tilde{t}_L$}

24: \def\stR{$\tilde{t}_R$}

25: \def\stone{$\tilde{t}_1\,$}

26: \def\sttwo{$\tilde{t}_2\,$}

27: \def\seL{$\tilde{e}_L$}

28: \def\seR{$\tilde{e}_R$}

29: \def\smuL{$\tilde{\mu}_L$}

30: \def\smuR{$\tilde{\mu}_R$}

31: \def\stauL{$\tilde{\tau}_L$}

32: \def\stauR{$\tilde{\tau}_R$}

33: \def\stauone{$\tilde{\tau}_1$}

34: \def\stautwo{$\tilde{\tau}_2$}

35: 

36: \def\snone{$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$}

37: \def\sntwo{$\tilde{\chi}_2^0$}

38: \def\snthree{$\tilde{\chi}_3^0$}

39: \def\snfour{$\tilde{\chi}_4^0$}

40: 

41: \def\scone{$\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$}

42: \def\sctwo{$\tilde{\chi}_2^{\pm}$}

43: 

44: \newcommand{\imag}{\Im {\rm m}}

45: \newcommand{\real}{\Re {\rm e}}

46: 

47: \def\lsim{\:\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}\:}

48: \def\gsim{\:\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}\:}

49: 

50: 

51: 

52:                %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

53:                %%    BEGINNING OF TEXT      %%

54:                %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

55: 

56: 

57: \begin{document}

58: 

59: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

60: 

61: \mbox{ } \\[-1cm]

62: \mbox{ }\hfill TUM--HEP--452/02\\%[-1mm] 

63: \mbox{ }\hfill hep--ph/0202072\\%[-1mm] 

64: \mbox{ }\hfill \today\\%[-1mm]

65: 

66: \begin{center}

67:   {\Large\bf Production of ultra--energetic cosmic rays through the decay of

68:     super--heavy X particles} \\[8mm]

69:            

70: Cyrille Barbot and Manuel Drees \\[4mm]

71: 

72: {\it Physik Dept., TU M\"unchen, James Franck Str., D--85748

73:  Garching, Germany} \\[1mm]

74: \end{center}

75: 

76: \bigskip

77: \bigskip 

78: \bigskip 

79: 

80: %

81: \begin{abstract}

82: 

83: \vskip 0.5cm

84: 

85: \noindent

86: %PACS number(s): 11.30.Pb, 11.30.Er

87: 

88: We present a new and complete numerical analysis of the decay of

89: super--heavy $X$ particles, assumed to be the origin of cosmic rays

90: with energy beyond the GZK cut--off. The decay of $X$ initiates a

91: ``parton shower'', where we include all degrees of freedom contained

92: in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). Since at energies

93: near $M_X$ all gauge couplings are of similar magnitude, we include

94: all of them, as well as third generation Yukawa couplings. Technically

95: the shower development is described through the DGLAP evolution of the

96: relevant fragmentation functions (FFs). We also carefully treat the

97: decay of the superparticles as well as heavy SM particles created in

98: the shower. Nonperturbative physics is parameterized through the input

99: values of the FFs, which we take from the literature. The final result

100: is the the complete spectrum of all stable particles at the very end

101: of the shower: protons, electrons, neutrinos, photons and neutralinos, for

102: an energy range from $10^{-7} M_X$ to $M_X$. In particular, the flux

103: of high--energy neutralinos is sizable; it might serve as ``smoking

104: gun'' signature for this kind of scenario.

105: 

106: \end{abstract}

107: %

108: 

109: \newpage

110: 

111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

112: \section{Introduction}

113: \label{sec:introduction}

114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

115: \setcounter{footnote}{1}

116: 

117: 

118: The origin of the Ultra Energetic Cosmic Rays (UHECR) is still an

119: enigma for scientists. We neither know how and where they are

120: produced, nor what they are. Photons with energy $E_\gamma \geq

121: 10^{15}$ eV can be absorbed on the cosmic microwave background (CMB)

122: through $e^+e^-$ pair production; at $E_\gamma \sim 10^{20}$ eV, the

123: main energy loss comes through interactions with the radio background.

124: Electrons in addition loose energy through synchrotron radiation in

125: intergalactic and galactic magnetic fields, the strengths of which are

126: not known very well. Protons and heavy nuclei of energies

127: above a few times $10^{19}$ eV loose energy through interactions with

128: the CMB; one would thus expect their spectrum to cut off at that

129: energy (the so called GZK cut-off \cite{GZK:1},\cite{GZK:2}).

130: However, a few events have been observed with energies beyond this

131: cut--off \cite{AGASA}. This means that the UHECR should either have

132: been created within a few interaction lengths from the Earth, i.e. at

133: a distance $\lsim 100$ Mpc, or they should have been produced at even

134: higher energies than are observed now. The first possibility is in

135: principle consistent with the ``classical'' or ``bottom-up''

136: explanation for the origin of UHECR, based on ideas already developed

137: to explain the spectrum of CR at lower energies, i.e. through

138: acceleration by electromagnetic fields; however, no object in our

139: cosmological neighborhood is known which has a sufficiently strong

140: magnetic field extending over a sufficiently large volume. The second

141: possibility would require the existence of very massive and very

142: long--lived $X$ particles, with mass $m_X \gg 10^{20}$ eV and lifetime

143: close to or larger than the age of the Universe. In these ``top-down''

144: scenarios the observed UHECR are the stable decay products of these

145: ultra--massive particles (for reviews, see

146: \cite{reviewSigl},\cite{reviewSarkar}).

147: 

148: In this article we consider a generic top--down scenario.  We provide

149: an improved model of the decay of an $X$ particle, which is

150: independent of the origin and the nature of this particle. In leading

151: order in perturbation theory $X$ decays into a small number of very

152: energetic particles. However, in reality this should be considered

153: to be the starting point of a ``parton shower'', analogous to the

154: formation of hadronic jets in decays of $Z$ bosons studied at LEP. The

155: existence of an energy scale $m_X$ much above the weak scale requires

156: supersymmetry (SUSY) to stabilize the electroweak scale against

157: radiative corrections. We therefore study this shower in the framework

158: of the MSSM, which is the simplest potentially realistic

159: supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (SM). In contrast to

160: previous works

161: \cite{Berezinsky:2000},\cite{Coriano:2001},\cite{Sarkar:2001}, we

162: considered all gauge interactions as well as third generation Yukawa

163: interactions, rather than only SUSY--QCD; note that at energies above

164: $10^{20}$ eV all gauge interactions are of comparable strength. The

165: inclusion of electroweak gauge interactions in the shower gives rise

166: to a significant flux of very energetic photons and leptons, which had

167: not been identified in earlier studies. Moreover, we carefully

168: modeled decays of all unstable particles. As a result, our

169: treatment is the first that respects energy conservation.

170: 

171: In the next Section we describe our treatment of the parton shower in

172: slightly more detail. In Sec.~3 we show some numerical results for the

173: expected spectra of stable particles, and compare it with previous

174: works. Finally, a brief summary and some conclusions are presented in

175: Sec.~4.

176: 

177: 

178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

179: \section{Calculation of the fragmentation functions}

180: \label{sec:cascade}

181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

182: 

183: Consider the two--body decay of an ultra--massive $X$ particle of mass

184: $m_X \gg 10^{20}$ eV into a $q\bar{q}$ pair, in the framework of the

185: MSSM. This triggers a parton shower, which can be understood as

186: follows. The $q$ and $\bar q$ are created with initial virtuality $Q_X

187: \sim \frac{M_X}{2}$. Note that $Q_X^2 > 0$. The initial particles can

188: thus reduce their virtuality, i.e. move closer to being on--shell

189: (real particles), by radiating additional particles, which have

190: initial virtualities $< Q_X$.These secondaries then in turn initiate

191: their own showers. The average virtuality and energy of particles in

192: the shower decreases with time, while their number increases (keeping

193: the total energy fixed, of course). As long as the virtuality $Q$ is

194: larger than the electroweak or SUSY mass scale $M_{\rm SUSY}$, all

195: MSSM particles can be considered to be massless, i.e. they are all

196: active in the shower. However, once the virtuality reaches the weak

197: energy scale, heavy particles can no longer be produced in the shower;

198: the ones that have already been produced will decay into SM particles

199: plus the lightest superparticle (LSP), which we assume to be a stable

200: neutralino. Moreover, unlike at high virtualities, at scales below

201: $M_{\rm SUSY}$ the electroweak interactions are much weaker than the

202: strong ones; hence we switch to a pure QCD parton shower at this

203: scale. At virtuality around 1 GeV, nonperturbative processes cut off

204: the shower evolution, and all partons hadronize. Most of the resulting

205: hadrons, as well as the heavy $\tau$ and $\mu$ leptons, will

206: eventually decay. The end product of $X$ decay is thus a very large

207: number of stable particles: protons, electrons, photons, the three

208: types of neutrinos and LSPs; we define the FF into a given particle to

209: include the FF into the antiparticle as well, i.e. we do not

210: distinguish between protons and antiprotons etc.

211: 

212: Note that at most one out of these many particles will be observed on

213: Earth in a given experiment. This means that we cannot possibly

214: measure any correlations between different particles in the shower;

215: the only measurable quantities are the energy spectra of the final

216: stable particles, $d \Gamma_X / d E_P$, where $P$ labels the stable

217: particle we are interested in.\footnote{Of course, this just describes

218: the spectrum of particle $P$ at the place where $X$ decays. The

219: spectrum can be changed dramatically by interactions with the

220: interstellar and intergalactic medium \cite{reviewSigl}. We will not

221: address this issue in this paper.} This is a well--known problem in

222: QCD, where parton showers were first studied. The resulting spectrum

223: can be written in the form \cite{QCDrev}

224: %

225: \begin{equation} \label{def_ff}

226: \frac {d \Gamma_X} {d x_P} = \sum_I \frac {d \Gamma(X \rightarrow I)}

227: {d x_I} \otimes D^P_I(\frac{x_P}{x_I}, Q_X^2),

228: \end{equation}

229: %

230: where $I$ labels the MSSM particles into which $X$ can decay, and we

231: have introduced the scaled energy variable $x = 2 E / m_X$; for a

232: two--body decay, $d \Gamma(X \rightarrow I) / d x_I \propto

233: \delta(1-x_I)$. The convolution is defined by $f(z) \otimes g(x/z) =

234: \int_{x}^{1} f(z)g\left(\frac{x}{z}\right)\,\frac{dz}{z}$.

235: 

236: All the nontrivial physics is now contained in the fragmentation

237: functions (FFs) $D^P_I(z,Q^2)$. Roughly speaking, they encode the

238: probability for a particle $P$ to originate from the shower initiated

239: by another particle $I$, where the latter has been produced with

240: initial virtuality $Q$. This implies the ``boundary condition''

241: %

242: \begin{equation} \label{boundary}

243: D^J_I(z,m_J^2) = \delta_I^J \cdot \delta(1-z),

244: \end{equation}

245: %

246: which simply says that an on--shell particle cannot participate in the

247: shower any more. For reasons that will become clear shortly, at this

248: stage we have to include all MSSM particles $J$ in the list of

249: ``fragmentation products''. The evolution of the FF with increasing

250: virtuality is described by the well--known DGLAP equations

251: \cite{QCDrev}:

252: %

253: \begin{equation} \label{dglap}

254: \label{e1}

255: \frac{dD_I^J} {d\ln(Q^2)} (x,Q) =

256: \sum_K \frac{\alpha_{KI} (Q^2)} {2\pi} P_{KI}(z) \otimes

257: D_K^J(x/z,Q^2),

258: \end{equation}

259: %

260: where $\alpha_{KI}$ is the coupling between particles $I$ and $K$, and

261: the splitting functions $P_{KI}$ describes the probability for

262: particle $K$ to have been radiated from particle $I$. As noted

263: earlier, for $Q > M_{\rm SUSY} \sim 1$ TeV we allow all MSSM particles

264: to participate in the shower. Since we ignore first and second

265: generation Yukawa couplings, we treat the first and second generations

266: symmetrically. $I,J,K$ in eq.(\ref{dglap}) thus run over 30 particles:

267: 6 quarks $q_L, u_R, d_R, t_L, t_R, b_R$, 4 leptons $l_L, e_R, \tau_L,

268: \tau_R$, 3 gauge bosons $B, W, g$, the two Higgs fields of the MSSM,

269: and all their superpartners. Here we sum over all color and $SU(2)$

270: indices (i.e., we assume unbroken $SU(2)$ symmetry), and we ignore

271: violation of the CP symmetry, so that we can treat the antiparticles

272: exactly as the particles. All splitting functions can be derived from

273: those listed for SUSY--QCD in \cite{Jones}; explicit expressions will

274: be given in a later paper. The starting point of this part of the

275: calculation is eq.(\ref{boundary}) at $Q = M_{\rm SUSY}$. This leads

276: to $30 \times 30$ FFs $D_I^J$, which describe the shower evolution

277: from $Q_X$ to $M_{\rm SUSY}$.

278: 

279: At scales $Q < M_{\rm SUSY}$ all interactions except those from QCD

280: can be ignored. Indeed, at scales $Q < Q_0 \simeq$ 1 GeV QCD

281: interactions become too strong to be treated perturbatively. leading

282: to confinement of partons into hadrons. This nonperturbative physics

283: cannot be computed yet from first principles; it is simply

284: parameterized, by imposing boundary conditions on the

285: $D_i^h(z,Q_0^2)$, where $h$ stands for a long--lived hadron and $i$

286: for a light parton (quark or gluon). Here we used the results of

287: \cite{Poetter}, where the FFs of partons into protons, neutrons, pions

288: and kaons are parameterized in the form $Nx^{\alpha}(1-x)^{\beta}$,

289: using fits to LEP results. Note that these functions are only valid

290: down to $x = 0.1$; for smaller $x$, mass effects become relevant at

291: LEP energies. However, at our energy scale these effects are still

292: completely irrelevant, even at $x=10^{-7}$. We chose a rather simple

293: extrapolation at small $x$ of the functions given in \cite{Poetter},

294: of the form $N'x^{\alpha'}$. We computed the coefficients $N'$ and

295: $\alpha'$ by imposing energy conservation. We had to use the set of

296: NLO FF given in \cite{Poetter}, although our evolution equations are

297: only written at the leading order; the LO set violates energy

298: conservation badly, especially for the gluon FF. This choice renders

299: difficult the comparison with previous results \cite{Sarkar:2001}

300: \cite{Berezinsky:2000}, where the LO set was used. Apart from this

301: difference, our results for the pure QCD case or for the SUSY QCD

302: evolution seem to agree rather well. Starting from these modified

303: input distributions, and evolving up to $Q = M_{\rm SUSY}$ using the

304: pure QCD version of eq.(\ref{dglap}), leads to FFs $D_i^h(x,M^2_{\rm

305: SUSY})$ which describe the QCD evolution (both perturbative and

306: non--perturbative) at $Q < M_{\rm SUSY}$.

307: 

308: Finally, the two calculations have to be matched together. First we

309: note that ``switching on'' $SU(2)$ and SUSY breaking implies that we

310: have to switch from weak interaction eigenstates to mass eigenstates.

311: This is described by unitary transformations of the form $D^S_I =

312: \sum_J |c_{SJ}|^2 D^J_I$, with $\sum_S |c_{SJ}|^2 = \sum_J |c_{SJ}|^2

313: = 1$; here $S$ stands for a physical particle. We used the ISASUSY

314: code \cite{Isasusy} to compute the SUSY mass spectrum and the

315: $|c_{SJ}|$ corresponding to a given set of SUSY parameters. The decay

316: of all massive particles $S$ into light particles $i$ is then

317: described by adding $\sum_S D^S_I \otimes P_{iS}$ to the FFs $D^i_I$

318: of light particles $i$. We assumed that the $x-$dependence of the

319: functions $P_{iS}$ originates entirely from phase space. In this

320: fashion each massive particle $S$ is distributed over massless

321: particles $i$, with weight given by the appropriate $S \rightarrow i$

322: decay branching ratio. Note that this step often needs to be iterated,

323: since heavy superparticles often do not decay directly into the LSP, so

324: that the LSP is only produced in the second, third or even fourth

325: step. All information required to model these cascade decays have

326: again been taken from ISASUSY. The effects of the pure QCD shower

327: evolution can now be included by one more convolution, $D^h_I(Q_X) =

328: \sum_i D^h_i(M_{\rm SUSY}) \otimes D^i_I(Q_X)$. Finally, the decay of

329: long--lived but unstable particles $\mu, \tau, n, \pi, K$ has to be

330: treated; this is done in complete analogy with the decays of particles

331: with mass near $M_{\rm SUSY}$.

332: 

333: Note that the linearity of the evolution equation (\ref{dglap})

334: allowed us to factorize the problem in the fashion described above. We

335: integrate these equations numerically using the Runge--Kutta

336: method. The various FFs are modeled as cubic splines, with about 100

337: $x$ values distributed logaritmically between $x = 10^{-7}$ and $0.5$,

338: and again logarithmically in $1-x$ for $x$ between 0.5 and 1.  This

339: allows us to compute the CR spectrum down to energies of the order of

340: $10^{18}$ eV even if $M_X = M_{\rm GUT} \simeq 10^{16}$ GeV.  We

341: should stress that a good test of our algorithm was the possibility of

342: checking energy conservation at all steps. We found that the ``loss''

343: of energy due to numerical approximations (the loss to particles with

344: $x < 10^{-7}$ being negligible) never exceeds a few percent.

345: 

346: 

347: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

348: \section{Results and discussion}

349: \label{sec:results}

350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

351: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

352: 

353: We are now ready to present results for the FFs of any particle $I$ of

354: the unbroken MSSM produced at high virtuality through the decay of $X$

355: into one of the 7 stable particles $P$. This requires $30\times 7 =

356: 210$ FFs for any set of SUSY parameters, which enable us to predict

357: any CR spectrum near the source for any decay mode of $X$ into MSSM

358: particles. We saw earlier that for 2--body decays of $X$, the spectrum

359: of $P$ is directly given by the relevant FFs; eq.(\ref{def_ff}) shows

360: that any $N-$body decay \cite{Sarkar:2001} can be treated with just

361: one more convolution. We computed all 210 FFs for several sets of soft

362: SUSY breaking parameters, but we found that most features depend very

363: little on this choice. Here we only give results for the ``low

364: $\tan\beta$ gaugino region'' (ratio of Higgs vevs $\tan \beta = 3.6$,

365: gluino mass $m_{\tilde{g}} \sim 400$ GeV, supersymmetric Higgs mass

366: parameter $\mu \sim 500$ GeV, slepton masses around 140 GeV, squark

367: masses around 300 GeV, CP--odd Higgs boson mass $m_A = 180$ GeV and

368: trilinear soft breaking parameter $A_t \sim 1$ TeV). As usual, we show

369: results for $x^3\times D_I^P (x,M_X)$, appropriate for comparing with

370: the flattening of the observed spectrum (beyond the region of the knee

371: characterized by a power law spectrum with power $n \simeq -2.7$). We

372: take $M_X = 10^{16}$ GeV, as appropriate for a GUT interpretation of

373: the $X$ particle. According to ref.\cite{Fodor}, such a large value of

374: $M_X$ is compatible with existing data if most UHECR originate at

375: cosmological distances. Since the FFs evolve only logarithmically with

376: $Q$, the final results for $M_X = 10^{12} - 10^{13}$ GeV \cite{Birkel,

377: Sarkar:2001} would not differ too much from the ones shown here, if

378: they are expressed in terms of the scaling variable $x$.

379: 

380: \begin{figure}[h] 

381: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

382: \begin{minipage}[h]{6.5cm}

383: \input{Low_G_uL.tex}

384: \end{minipage}

385: 

386: \noindent

387: \begin{minipage}[h]{6.5cm}

388: \input{Low_G_uL_.tex}

389: \end{minipage}\hfill%

390: \caption{Fragmentation functions of a first generation $SU(2)$ doublet

391: quark (top) and a squark (bottom) into stable particles. }

392: \label{quarks}

393: \end{figure}

394: 

395: Results for the fragmentation functions of first generation $SU(2)$

396: doublet (s)quarks are shown in fig.~\ref{quarks}.\footnote{Recall that

397:   we assume exact $SU(2)$ invariance for $Q > M_{\rm SUSY}$ and treat

398:   first and second generation (s)quarks symmetrically, so that $q_L$

399:   is actually composed of $u_L, d_L, c_L$, $s_L$ and their

400:   antiparticles, and similarly for $\tilde q_L$.} For small $x \lsim

401: 0.01$, the FFs turn out to be very similar for these two cases.

402: However, at large $x \gsim 0.1$ some differences appear. In particular,

403: an initial squark produces many more hard LSPs than a quark does; in

404: the former case, LSPs carry $\sim 25$\% of the original squark energy,

405: while they only carry $\sim 7$\% of the energy of an initial quark.

406: Similarly, an initial squark produces a significantly larger flux of

407: very energetic neutrinos, since neutrinos are frequently produced in

408: sparticle decays; for $\tan\beta \gg 1$ the majority of these very

409: energetic neutrinos would be $\nu_\tau$, but for the given small value

410: of $\tan\beta$ all three neutrino species are produced with equal

411: abundance. In contrast, in case of an initial quark the three neutrino

412: fluxes are of similar size only at very large $x$; these neutrinos

413: come from the radiation of $SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ gauge bosons early in

414: the shower, and their subsequent decay. At smaller values of $x$ the

415: $\nu_\tau$ component drops quickly relative to the $\nu_\mu$ and

416: $\nu_e$ components, since only the latter are produced in the decays

417: of light mesons, in the ratio of roughly 2:1.

418: 

419: \begin{figure}[h]

420: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

421: \begin{minipage}[h]{6.5cm}

422: \input{Low_G_eL.tex}

423: \end{minipage}

424: 

425: \noindent

426: \begin{minipage}[h]{6.5cm}

427: \input{Low_G_eL_.tex}

428: \end{minipage} \hfill

429: \caption{Fragmentation functions of a first or second generation

430: $SU(2)$ doublet lepton (top) or slepton (bottom) into stable

431: particles. The structures in some of the curves in the lower frame

432: originate from 2--body decay kinematics.}

433: \label{leptons}

434: \end{figure}

435: 

436: Neither ultra--energetic LSPs nor neutrinos have as yet been

437: observed. Among the particles with large cross sections on air, at

438: large $x$ we observe a significantly smaller FF into protons for an

439: initial squark than for an initial quark. The reason is that a quark

440: can directly fragment into a proton, but a squark will decay first,

441: thereby distributing its energy over a larger number of softer

442: particles. Note also that the electromagnetic component (sum of FFs

443: into photons and electrons\footnote{In scenarios where an

444: electromagnetic cascade can take place during the propagation in the

445: extragalactic medium, the spectrum of primary electrons contributes to

446: the spectrum of UHE photons (see \cite{reviewSigl}).}) is always

447: bigger than the FF into protons. This is partly due to direct photon

448: emission during the early stages of the shower; this effect, which was

449: not included in earlier analyses, leads to a very hard component in

450: the photon flux. This component is about two times larger for an

451: initial quark than for a squark, due to the different splitting

452: functions. Since experiments like Haverah Park \cite{HaverahPark}

453: presently favor the hypothesis of hadronic primaries

454: \cite{UHECRconstraints}, this result could lead to problems for

455: top--down models. However, interactions with the intergalactic medium

456: will affect the electromagnetic component even more than the proton

457: flux. Hence top--down models could still be compatible with a primary

458: CR spectrum composed mostly of protons if the flux is dominated by $X$

459: decays at cosmological distances.

460: 

461: Analogous results for $SU(2$) doublet (s)leptons of the first or

462: second families are shown in fig.~\ref{leptons}. In case of an initial

463: lepton, the resulting flux for $x \gsim 0.1$ remains dominated by

464: leptons; due to our assumption of exact $SU(2)$ symmetry at $Q >

465: M_{\rm SUSY}$, electrons, $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$ contribute equally

466: here. The flux of both LSPs and photons is much higher than that of

467: protons in this case. This remains true for an initial slepton, where

468: the LSP component is the dominant one for $x \gsim 0.2$, followed by

469: (charged or neutral) leptons and photons. In both cases the peak of

470: the proton flux (after multiplication with $x^3$) is shifted down in

471: energy by about a factor of 2 compared to the results of

472: fig.\ref{quarks}, and is reduced in size by about one order of

473: magnitude for large $x$. The dominance of the electromagnetic

474: component is therefore much more prominent for primary $X$ decays into

475: (s)leptons than for decays into (s)quarks.

476: 

477: \begin{figure}[h]

478: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

479: \begin{minipage}[h]{6.cm}

480: \input{fragment_X_p.tex}

481: \end{minipage}

482: 

483: \noindent

484: \begin{minipage}[h]{6.cm}

485: \input{fragment_X_gamma.tex}

486: \end{minipage} \hfill

487: \caption{Fragmentation functions of $X$ in QCD, SUSY QCD

488: and the full MSSM for $X \rightarrow q_L\bar{q}_L$ and $X \rightarrow

489: \bar q_L \tilde{q}_L$; the upper (lower) frame is for fragmentation

490: into protons (photons).}

491: \label{compare}

492: \end{figure}

493: 

494: In fig.~\ref{compare} we compare the spectra of

495: protons and photons as predicted by QCD, SUSY QCD and the full MSSM,

496: for hadronic 2--body $X$ decays; in the latter two cases we show results for

497: $X \rightarrow q_L \bar q_L$ as well as $X \rightarrow \tilde q_L \bar

498: q_L$. We see that introducing superparticles into the parton shower

499: reduces the FF into protons by about a factor of 2 at large $x$.

500: Including superparticles not only opens up new channels, i.e.

501: introduces new splitting functions in eq.(\ref{dglap}), it also

502: implies a larger $SU(3)$ gauge coupling at high $Q$, which speeds up

503: the shower evolution through standard splitting functions. Including

504: in addition the full set of gauge and third generation Yukawa

505: interactions has relatively little impact on the proton spectrum.

506: Note, however, the tail of very energetic photons produced by the

507: electroweak gauge interactions. As already seen in fig.~\ref{quarks},

508: at large $x$ the flux of both protons and photons is somewhat smaller

509: for $X \rightarrow q$ decays than for $X \rightarrow \tilde q$.

510: Unfortunately it is difficult to directly compare fig.~\ref{compare}

511: with earlier analyses. As noted in the previous Section, we employ

512: somewhat different input FFs at $Q_0 = 1$ GeV; moreover, most earlier

513: papers did not include the contribution from sparticle decays.

514: 

515: We also compared the spectra of LSPs and leptons for the same set of

516: assumptions as in fig.~\ref{compare}. The LSP flux is very insensitive

517: to the inclusion of electroweak gauge and Yukawa interactions, but

518: changes by a factor of $\sim 5$ at $x = 0.5$ between $X \rightarrow q

519: \bar q$ and $X \rightarrow \bar q \tilde q$ decays. The FFs into

520: leptons gain a very hard component (which, however, falls

521: approximately linearly as $x \rightarrow 1$) once electroweak gauge

522: interactions are included; moreover, if $X$ decays produce a primary

523: squark, subsequent sparticle decays give rise to a large flux of hard

524: leptons at $x \sim 0.25$.

525: 

526: So far we have focused on the large$-x$ region of the FFs. All FFs

527: increase rapidly as $x$ decreases; this is not apparent in the

528: figures, since the increase is over--compensated by the $x^3$ scaling

529: factor used there. This increase towards small $x$ can have quite

530: dramatic effects. For example, we found that the total multiplicity of

531: all stable particles with $x \geq x_{min}$ can approximately be

532: described by $N_{tot}(x_{min}) \sim 2 \cdot x_{min}^{-0.68}$, if $X$

533: decays into quarks and/or squarks. This means that a single $X$ decay

534: will give rise to $\sim 10^5$ stable particles with energy exceeding

535: $5 \cdot 10^{-8} M_X$! The result for pure QCD is only about a factor

536: of 2 lower. The reason is that the shower evolution between $M_{\rm

537: SUSY}$ and 1 GeV is not affected by the presence of superparticles.

538: In this region QCD interactions are strongest; in the pure QCD case

539: this part of the shower evolution therefore contributes more to the

540: final multiplicity than the evolution at $Q > 1$ TeV. The large

541: multiplicity also implies that a full Monte Carlo simulation of this

542: shower \cite{Birkel} would require a very large numerical effort; this

543: illustrates the advantage of using fragmentation functions.

544: 

545: We saw earlier that at large $x$, LSPs play an important role even if

546: the primary $X$ decay does not involve superparticles. We found that

547: the integrated LSP multiplicity can be parameterized as $N_{\rm

548:   LSP}(x_{min}) \sim 0.65 x_{min}^{-0.32}$ for $x_{min} \lsim 0.01$,

549: if $X$ decays into two (s)quarks. This is somewhat smaller than the

550: result of ref.\cite{BerezinskyLSP}, $N_{\rm LSP}(x_{min}) \sim 0.6

551: x_{min}^{-0.4}$. It is also much smaller than the multiplicity of

552: neutrinos, which is about half of the total multiplicity discussed

553: above. The best hope for detecting ultra--energetic LSPs, which would

554: be a ``smoking gun'' signature for any top--down scenario

555: \cite{BerezinskyLSP}, might therefore lie in the LSPs with energies

556: not far below $M_X$, where the neutrino background is smallest. This

557: conclusion is strengthened if most UHECR originate at cosmological

558: distances, since then the interaction of the original protons with the

559: intergalactic medium will produce \cite{reviewSigl} pions, and hence

560: additional neutrinos; of course, these will also have energies well

561: below $M_X$. LSPs essentially do not interact with the intergalactic

562: medium. Nevertheless medium effects will be crucial for turning our

563: FFs into LSPs into predictions for LSP fluxes on Earth, since the flux

564: of protons (possibly plus photons), which is affected by the

565: intergalactic medium, always has to be normalized to the measured

566: value. Moreover, bottom--up models originally produce almost no tau

567: neutrinos. However, atmospheric neutrino data indicate large mixing

568: between $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$, in which case the original $\nu_\mu$

569: flux will be distributed equally between $\nu_\mu$s and $\nu_\tau$s

570: after at most a few kpc of propagation. Therefore a very energetic

571: $\nu_\tau$ flux can unfortunately by itself not discriminate between

572: these kinds of models.

573: 

574: We also saw in figs.~\ref{quarks} and \ref{leptons} that a flux of

575: neutrinos with energies above those of the most energetic protons is a

576: generic feature of top--down models. This signal is especially

577: pronounced if primary $X$ decays produce squarks and/or (s)leptons; it

578: will be strengthened by interactions of the protons with the medium,

579: which move the protons to lower energies. In contrast, in bottom--up

580: models one expects the neutrino flux to cut off at significantly lower

581: energies than the original proton flux. However, even in this kind of

582: model the neutrino flux might extend to higher energies than the

583: observed proton flux once the protons have traveled for a few tens of

584: Mpc. A very hard component in the neutrino flux can therefore only be

585: considered to be a signature for top--down models if it can be shown

586: that most UHECR are produced ``locally'', or if the neutrino spectrum

587: is as shown in the upper fig.~\ref{leptons}, with a sharp peak at the

588: highest energy.

589: 

590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

591: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

592: \label{sec:conclusion}

593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

594: 

595: In this paper we presented a new and quite complete algorithm for

596: treating the decay of a superheavy $X$ particle in the framework of

597: the MSSM. We improved previous analyses by including the full set of

598: MSSM gauge and third generation Yukawa interactions, and by carefully

599: modeling the decays of heavy sparticles and particles.  We applied

600: this algorithm to the ``top--down'' solution of the problem of

601: UHECR. We gave the results in terms of fragmentation functions for any

602: possible decay product of $X$ into stable particles, and studied the

603: consequences for a few primary decay modes of the $X$ particle itself.

604: An important result of this complete study, compared to a simplified

605: SUSY QCD treatment, was the prediction of sizable fluxes of leptons

606: and photons at energies above the peak of the proton spectrum. We also

607: discussed possible ways to distinguish between bottom--up and

608: top--down scenarios, and concluded that the cleanest signal would

609: probably come from the detection of LSPs with energies above the peak

610: of the proton spectrum. Of course, detailed analyses are required

611: before we can conclude that these LSPs are indeed detectable on the

612: background of neutrinos.

613: 

614: So far the only UHECR that have been detected are hadrons, or

615: perhaps photons. If propagation effects can be neglected,

616: our results can be used directly to fit the mass $M_X$ of the

617: primary. If $X$ decays primarily into (s)quarks, the result of such a

618: fit would presumably resemble that of \cite{Sarkar:2001}, if we assume

619: that all events with energy above a few times $10^{19}$ eV originate

620: from $X$ decay. This would favor a relatively ``low'' $M_X \sim

621: 10^{12}$ GeV, well below the GUT scale. On the other hand,

622: ref.\cite{Fodor} found a much higher value of $M_X$, near the GUT

623: scale, if $X$ decays at cosmological distances. However,

624: ref.\cite{Fodor} used a relatively crude model for $X$

625: decay.\footnote{For example, their input FFs violate energy

626: conservation badly.} It might be worthwhile to re--do this analysis,

627: which requires the careful treatment of propagation effects. Finally,

628: there is some evidence that there are two different sources for

629: post--GZK events. For example, it has been claimed \cite{Clusters} that

630: the number of ``doublet'' and ``triplet'' events (which originate from

631: a small patch in the sky) is too high to be compatible with an

632: essentially 

633: isotropic distribution of sources, which is the most plausible

634: assumption for a top--down model\footnote{However, clustering of

635: events can be explained in top--down models with ``clumpy halo''

636: \cite{Blasi:2000,Blasi:2001}}. Current statistics is poor, but

637: there is some indication that this clustering of events occurs only at

638: energy below $10^{20}$ eV. Moreover, most of the experiments (Agasa,

639: Yakutsk, and the Fly's eye collaboration) indicate that there might be

640: a cut--off in the spectrum, at an energy $\sim 4 \cdot 10^{19}$ eV (see

641: \cite{Yoshida} for a review). This might also hint towards a

642: two--component explanation for the events before and above the

643: cut--off \cite{Bird:1993}. If so, it might be best to only use events

644: with energy well above the GZK cutoff, say with $E > 10^{20}$ eV, in

645: the fit of $M_X$; in that case the small number of events would

646: presumably allow large values of $M_X$ even if most $X$ decays are

647: ``local''. In any case, when expressed in terms of the dimensionless

648: scaling variable $x = 2 E/M_X$, the fragmentation functions only

649: depend logarithmically on $M_X$.

650: 

651: If $M_X \gg 10^{21}$ eV the events that have been observed so far

652: would all have $x \ll 1$. The fluxes at small $x$ are much higher than

653: in the large $x$ region. Even if the observed UHE events come from the

654: large $x$ region, i.e. if $M_X \sim 10^{21}$ eV, care has to be taken

655: not to over--produce particles at lower energies. In particular,

656: stringent limits exist on the fluxes of photons in the TeV energy

657: region, and on neutrinos in the multi--TeV region. The interpretation

658: of these limits in the framework of a given top-down model again

659: depends on where $X$ decays occur, i.e. if propagation effects are

660: important or not. We note here that in our case the evolution equation

661: (\ref{dglap}) can still be applied at $x$ as small as

662: $10^{-7}$. Coherence effects, which give rise to the ``MLLA''

663: description of the parton shower, become large \cite{Marchesini} at

664: yet smaller values of $x \sim \sqrt{Q_h/M_X}$, where $Q_h$

665: characterizes the hadron mass scale where strong interactions become

666: non--perturbative. We also checked that the precise form of our

667: small$-x$ extrapolation of the nonperturbative FF's is not important,

668: since the small$-x$ behavior of the final FF's is essentially

669: determined by the perturbative evolution. However, perturbative

670: higher order corrections might be sizable at small $x$; this effect is

671: currently being investigated.

672: 

673: To summarize, we presented a first treatment of superheavy particle

674: decay that includes all relevant particle physics effects at the

675: leading--log order of perturbation theory; in particular, for the

676: first time we were able to account for the entire energy released in

677: the decay. This provides a tool which can be used for detailed tests

678: of the hypothesis that the most energetic cosmic rays originate from

679: the decay of ultra--massive particles. If true, this would give us

680: experimental access to energies well beyond the range that can ever be

681: tested by experiments working at Earth--based colliders.

682: 

683: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

684: \section*{Acknowledgements}

685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

686: 

687: We would like to thank S. Sarkar for a very interesting discussion.

688: This work  was supported in part by the SFB 375 Astro--Teilchenphysik

689: of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

690: 

691: %--------------------------- References -------------------------------

692: 

693: \bibliographystyle{utphys}

694: \bibliography{references}

695: 

696: \clearpage

697: \noindent

698: 

699: \end{document}

700: