Summary Talk at the 3rd KEK Topical Conference on CP Violation

Abstract: A summary of the contributions to this topical conference is presented. The topics discussed ranged from detailing what we know about CP violation, to what we hope to learn in the future, to still unsolved mysteries in the subject.

\section{Introduction}
Reflecting on how to summarize the many interesting and lively contributions
made in the 3$^{rd}$ KEK Topical Conference on CP Violation, I decided to
divide my remarks into three categories:

\begin{enumerate}

\item[i)] What do we know about CP violation
\item[ii)] What are we likely to learn in the future
\item[iii)] The mysteries.
\end{enumerate}

I believe both the subject matter and the various talks we heard during this
Topical Conference nicely fit in one of these categories.
Furthermore, by proceeding in this way it allows me to follow the well
established tradition of scientific discourse, where one starts on
solid ground, proceeds to a more speculative level and ends by discussing
things in which one has no clear understanding at all!

\section{\bf What do we know about CP violation}

The study of CP violation is now 30 years old and thus
certainly is a mature subject.
Nevertheless, we still have very limited experimental information
information on this phenomena:

\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)] Our only positive evidence for CP violation is in the neutral
Kaon system, where we have measurements of two complex ratios
$\eta_{+-}$ and $\eta_{oo}$ and of the semileptonic $K_L$ symmetry,
$A_{K_{L}}$.

\item[ii)]  We have, however, a variety of bounds on possible other CP
violating phenomena, most notably very stringent  bounds on the electric
dipole moment of the neutron and of the electron \cite{PDG}.

\item[iii)]  Furthermore, one can  adduce evidence from astrophysics
and cosmology that CP violating phenomena played an important
role in the evolution of our universe.
In particular, the ratio of baryon to photons in the universe now
$n_B/n\gamma \sim 4 \times 10^{-10}$ \cite{asymmetry} is a measure of CP
violation, if the baryon asymmetry in the universe is generated
dynamically \cite{Sakharov}.
\end{enumerate}

Both the evidence for CP violation in the neutral Kaon system, as well
as the bounds on the neutron and electron dipole moments,
are consistent with
the Cabibbo Kobayashi Maskawa (CKM) paradigm \cite{CKM},
where CP violation
arises as a result of having a complex quark mixing matrix.
It is likely, however, that the baryon to photon ratio is connected with
a different source of CP violation, lying beyond the standard model.
I would like to expand on the first of these statements here and I will
return to the second point towards the end of this talk.

Qualitatively the measured CP violating parameters in the neutral
K-system can be summarized by the following observations:

\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)]  The dominant source of CP violation comes as a result of
$K-\bar K$ mixing $(\Delta S = 2$ CP violation).  Thus
\[
\eta_{+-} = \epsilon + \epsilon' \simeq \eta_{oo} = \epsilon - 2
\epsilon'~~,
\]
since the $\Delta S = 1$ CP-violating parameter $\epsilon '$ is
much smaller than the $\Delta S = 2$ CP violating parameter
$\epsilon$.

\item[ii)]  The width matrix in the $K-\bar K$ system is dominated by
the $2\pi$ intermediate state and CPT is conserved.
This circumstance leads to the following two relations \cite{Cronin},
which are well satisfied experimentally
\[
A_{K_{L}} \simeq 2 Re \eta_{+-}~,
\]
\[
 \phi_{+-} \simeq \phi_{SW} =
\tan^{-1} \frac{2\Delta m}{\Gamma_{S}-\Gamma_{L} }
\simeq 45^o~.
\]
\end{enumerate}

The CKM paradigm provides a semiquantitative explanation of the first of
these observations, while (assuming CPT conservation) the second set of
results follows essentially kinematically, given the strong $\Delta I=
1/2$ enhancement of the $2\pi$ channel.
Indeed, this enhancement is also partly responsible for the reason why CP
violation due to mixing is much greater than that due to
$\Delta S =1$ processes (direct CP-violation).
However $\epsilon ' \ll \epsilon$ follows also because the $\Delta S
= 1$ processes are Zweig-rule violating processes, involving
electromagnetic or  gluonic Penguin contributions \cite {GP}.
Schematically, one finds in the CKM model that \cite{Puri}
\[
\frac{\epsilon '}{\epsilon} \sim \frac{ReA_{2}} {ReA_{0}} \left
[\frac{\alpha_s}{12\pi} \ell n~ m_{t}^2/m_{c}^2 \right ] \sim
10^{-3}\quad ,
\]
where the first factor above contributes the $\Delta I = 3/2$ to
$\Delta I = 1/2$ suppression of about 1/20.
Furthermore, the CKM model also provides a qualitative
understanding of why
$\epsilon$ is of $O(10^{-3})$ without having to appeal to the presence
of a small CP violating phase.
Again, qualitatively, one has in the case of 3 generations \cite{Puri}

\[
\epsilon \sim \frac{Im M_{12} }{Re M_{12}} \sim
\frac{s_{12} s_{23} s_{13} \sin\delta}{s_{12}^2} \sim
10^{-3} \sin \delta~.
\]
That is, $\epsilon$ is small because the product of mixing angles
entering in the box graph contributing to this parameter is already
experimentally of $O(10^{-3})$, independent of what the phase $\delta$
is.

It turns out that the CKM model also provides a qualitative
explanation for
why no electric dipole moment for the neutron has been observed.
It is easy to convince oneself that there is no one-loop contribution to
the edm, since all the phase information cancels.
Remarkably, \cite{Shabalin} in the CKM model also the sum of all
two-loop graphs cancels, so that the first non-trivial contribution
arises at the three-loop level.
This contribution can be estimated to be of order \cite{Puri}

\[
d_n \sim e~m_{d} \frac{\alpha^2\alpha_{s} }{\pi^3}
\frac{m_{t}^2 m_{b}^2}{M_{W}^6}
s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}\sin\delta \sim 10^{-32} ecm
\]
which is many orders of magnitude below the present bound \cite
{PDG}.

Since the experimental value of $\epsilon$ (or
$\eta_{+-})$ just fixes the value of the CP phase $\delta$-assuming the
mixing angles are known precisely (see below for a more detailed
discussion) --
the value of $\epsilon '$ is the only quantitative test of the CKM model
available at present.
However, as we learned from the talk of Tschirhart, \cite {Tschirhart}
the experimental situation remains inconclusive, because the CERN and
FNAL experiments do not quite agree on what $\epsilon '$ is.
One has
\[
Re \frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon} =
\left \{\begin{array} {ll}
(23\pm 7)\times 10^{-4} & [{\rm NA}31] \\
(7.4 \pm 5.9) \times 10^{-4} & [{\rm E}731]
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Futhermore, as Reina \cite{Reina} showed, the theoretical calculation of
this ratio still has rather large hadronic matrix element uncertainties,
and also suffers from a lack of accuracy in the knowledge of the
values of the relevant CKM matrix elements.
Although the best theoretical analysis of the problem seems to favor
the lower Fermilab value (see below), it is really too early to make
a definite pronouncement on this score.

Irrespective of theoretical prejudices, it is important to resolve in
the Kaon system the experimental controversy regarding
$\epsilon '/\epsilon$.
A clear measurement of a non zero value for $\epsilon '$ would provide
the first proof of the existence of direct CP violation -- something
that if one believes in the CKM paradigm one knows  must exist!
A measurement of $\epsilon '/\epsilon$ to the level of $10^{-4}$ should
emerge in the next round of CP violation experiments at CERN and
Fermilab \cite{Tschirhart} and possibly from the Frascati $\Phi$
Factory \cite{Bertolucci}.
Other precision experiments using both  charged and neutral Kaons,
which are now

\begin{table*}[hbt]
\newlength{\digitwidth}\settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
\caption{Prospects and Expectations for CP Violation Tests in
Rare Decays \protect\cite{WW}}.
\label{tab:ground}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\hline
Process & \mbox{ } &  CKM Expectations  & \mbox{ } &
Experimental Prospects  \\ [1mm]
\hline
$K_S \rightarrow 3\pi^0$ & & $\epsilon^\prime_{000}/\epsilon \sim 10^{-2}$&
& $\delta \eta_{000} \sim 4 \times 10^{-3}$ \\ [1mm]
$\eta_{000} = \epsilon + \epsilon^\prime_{000}$ & & & &
[$\Phi$ Factory] \\ [1mm]
\hline
$K^\pm\rightarrow \pi^\pm \pi^\mp \pi^\pm$ & & $\Delta\Gamma \leq 10^{-6}$
& & $\delta(\Delta\Gamma)\sim 5\times 10^{-5}$ \\ [1mm]
$\Delta\Gamma=\frac{\Gamma_+-\Gamma_-}{\Gamma_++\Gamma_-}$ &  &
$\Delta g \leq 10^{-4}$ & & $\delta(\Delta g)\sim 5\times 10^{-4}$ \\  [1mm]
$\Delta g=\frac{g_+-g_-}{g_++g_-}$ & &  & & [$\Phi$ Factory] \\  [1mm]
\hline
$K^\pm\rightarrow \pi^\pm \pi^0\gamma$ & & $\Delta\Gamma \sim 10^{-3}-10^{-5}$
& & $\delta(\Delta\Gamma)\sim 2\times 10^{-3}$  \\ [1mm]
$\Delta\Gamma=\frac{\Gamma_+-\Gamma_-}{\Gamma_++\Gamma_-}$ & &    & &
[$\Phi$ Factory] \\ [1mm]
\hline
$K_L\rightarrow \pi^0 \ell^+\ell^-$ & & $B_{\rm direct} \sim 10^{-11}-10^{-13}$
& & $B\leq 7\times 10^{-11}$ \\  [1mm]
$B(K_L\rightarrow \pi^0 \ell^+\ell^-)$ & &   & & [KTeV; NA48] \\  [1mm]
\hline
$K_L\rightarrow \pi^0 \nu \bar\nu$ & & $B\sim 10^{-12}$ &  &
$B\sim 10^{-8}-10^{-9}$ \\ [1mm]
$B(K_L\rightarrow \pi^0\nu \bar\nu)$ & &  &  & [KTeV] \\  [1mm]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\bigskip
\noindent
in the planning stage, potentially have bearing on
whether direct CP violation exists.
However, as Table 1 shows, these experiments are
unlikely to reach the required level
of sensitivity \cite {Tschirhart}\cite{Bertolucci}

I should comment that it is quite important also to try to pursue
experiments which are particularly sensitive to non-CKM sources of CP
violation.
A well-known example is offered by attempts to measure an electric
dipole moment for the neutron.
Two other nice examples were discussed in this Conference.
Shimizu\cite{Shimizu} reported on an ongoing
experiment at KEK aimed at looking
for T-violation in slow neutron capture in a polarized $^{134}La$
target.
Values of the triple correlation parameter
\[
\lambda \sim \langle \vec\sigma_n \cdot (\vec k \times \vec I_{La})\rangle
\]
down to $\lambda \sim 10^{-2}$ should be accessible
in this experiment, which in
sensitivity compares to a measurement of the neutron edm to $d_n \sim 5
\times 10^{-24}$ ecm.
A second experiment discussed here by Y. Kuno \cite{Kuno} --
and whose theoretical implications were illustrated by C. Geng
\cite{Geng} -- concerns measuring the transverse muon polarization in
charged $K$ decay $(K^+ \rightarrow \pi^o \mu^+ \nu_\mu)$.
This polarization again is proportional to a triple correlation
\[
\langle p_T\rangle \sim \vec\sigma_{\mu} \cdot (\vec p_{\pi^o}
\times \vec p_{\mu})
\]
and is sensitive to a possible effective scalar weak interactions,
such as those induced by an extended Higgs sector.
Writing this effective scalar interaction as
\[
M_{\rm eff} \simeq G_F \sin \theta_c m_K \xi \bar{\mu} (1-\gamma_5)
\nu_\mu ~,
\]
through a measurement of $\langle P_T\rangle$ the E246 experiment at
KEK should be sensitive to values of $Im\xi$ down to
$\delta Im\xi = 2 \times 10^{-3}$.
Such a measurement, particularly if there is a
light charged Higgs, is much more
sensitive to possible CP violating phases in the Higgs sector than a
direct measurement of $d_n$ \cite {Geng}.

Even though it is important to test for non CKM CP violating phenomena,
clearly a dominant theme in the study of CP violation in the future will
remain trying to ascertain how well the CKM paradigm actually works.
For these purposes, in my view, the more relevant tests will occur not
in the Kaon system but in the decay of neutral $B$'s to CP-self
conjugate final states.
To understand the expectations of the CKM model for these decays, it
will be useful for me
to enter into a bit of detail on  what is known about the CKM
matrix itself.

It is convenient to write the CKM matrix in
the Wolfenstein form \cite{LW},
where the three mixing angles are expanded in terms of powers of the
Cabibbo angle,
$\sin\theta_c \simeq \lambda \simeq 0.22$. One has \cite{LW}
\[
\sin\theta_{12} = \lambda ~~ \sin\theta_{23} = A \lambda^2 ~~
\sin\theta_{13} = A\sigma\lambda^3  \, .
\]
\noindent
As we shall see, experimentally both A and $\sigma$ are of $O(1)$.
In terms of the above, to $O(\lambda^3)$ the CKM matrix can be written
as
\[
V_{\rm CKM} =
\left|
\begin{array}{clcr}1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2}
& \lambda & A\lambda^3 \sigma e^{-i\delta} \\
- \lambda & 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & A \lambda^2 \\
A\lambda^3 (1-\sigma e^{i\delta}) & -A\lambda^2 & 1
\end{array} \right|.
\]
Often, instead of $\sigma$ and the CP violating phase $\delta$, one uses
instead the parameters $\rho$ and $\eta$ with
\[
\sigma e^{i\delta} = \rho - i\eta \, .
\]

Experimentally $A$, which is related to $V_{cb}$, is knows to about 10\%,
while both $\sigma$ and $\delta$, or $\rho$ and $\eta$, are known to
only about 30\%.
These errors, however, are $\bf{not}$ measurement errors, but arise from
trying to extract theoretically these parameters from experiment.
These uncertainties were discussed in considerable detail in this
Conference.
The parameter $A$ is extracted from semileptonic B decays, either through
an inclusive analysis or by focusing on some particular exclusive mode.
In the former case, one needs to remove the sensitivity of the rate on
the uncertain $m_b$ mass $(\Gamma \sim m_b^5!)$.
For the exclusive case, heavy quark effective theory (HQET) determines
the form factors at zero recoil for the process $B \rightarrow D^* \ell
\nu$ \cite{Neubert}. However one needs to extrapolate the data to this
point,
which induces in general uncertainties. (For a contrary opinion,
see M. Tanaka \cite{Tanaka} in these proceedings).
Using a new average value for the B lifetime, mostly determined by LEP
data and by CDF data,

\[
\langle \tau_B\rangle = 1.535 \pm 0.025~~ ps~,
\]
M. Witherell \cite{Witherell} in this Conference concluded from a
combined fit of the Cleo semileptonic data that
\[
|V_{cb} | = 0.042 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.004 ~.
\]
Here the last error is an estimate of the model dependence of the
results.
The equivalent value obtained by extrapolating to the zero recoil point
the data for the exclusive $\bar B^o \rightarrow D^{*+} \ell^-\nu$
decay
measured by Argus and Cleo gives \cite{Witherell}
\[
|V_{cb}| = 0.040 \pm 0.006
\]
The average  of these two determinations \cite{Witherell} yields
\[
|V_{cb}| = 0.041 \pm 0.005 ~~ {\rm or} ~~
A = 0.85 \pm 0.10
\]

One can perhaps imagine reducing the above error to the 5\% level in the
future.
For the inclusive analysis, the model dependence of the results can be
alleviated since corrections to the parton model results are under
control, via a combination of a QCD operator product expansion and a
$1/m_{b}$ expansion \cite {BSUV}.
Furthermore, more data for the process $B \rightarrow D^* \ell \nu$
should allows a better extrapolation to be done in the exclusive
analysis.

This optimism, however, is not quite warranted for the case of $\sigma =
\sqrt{\rho^2+\eta^2}$.
This parameter is related to $|V_{ub}|$. First of all,
at the moment, we still do not
have any uncontroversial indications for an exclusive signal, like $B
\rightarrow \rho \ell \nu$. Furthermore,
for the inclusive case, to see evidence for $V_{ub}$ one must look very
near the kinematic end point
for the electron spectrum in
semileptonic B decays,
since beyond $P_\ell = 2.3~~ GeV$ the decay $B\rightarrow X \ell \nu$,
with X containing a charmed state, is kinematically forbidden.
Using the recent data from Cleo for leptons beyond the charm end
point, Witherell\cite{Witherell} arrives at the following two values for
$|V_{ub}|/|V_{cb}|$, depending on whether he
extracts this value from the data by using
a partonic approach
[ACM model \cite{ACM}] or whether he sums over exclusive final states
[IGSW model \cite{IGSW}]:
\[
\frac{|V_{ub}|}{|V_{cb}|} =
\lambda\sigma
= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
        0.076 \pm 0.008~ [ACM]\\
        0.101 \pm 0.010~ [IGSW]
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\noindent
Expanding the theoretical uncertainty somewhat, this analysis leads to
a value for the CKM matrix element ratio
\[
|V_{ub}|/|V_{cb}| = 0.085 \pm 0.025 ~~{\rm or}~~ \sigma = 0.38 \pm 0.11
\]

In this Conference, C. S. Kim \cite{Kim} presented a thorough analysis of
the model dependence of the results for $|V_{ub}|/|V_{cb}|$.
For this ratio one is really much more dependent
on models, since it is difficult
to apply the QCD operator expansion technique as one has no longer a
controlled $1/m_{b}$ expansion.
Rather, the expansion
\vbox{
\vspace{6cm}
\noindent
Fig. 1.  Allowed region in the $\rho-\eta$ plane.  Also shown in the
figure are what parameters determine the boundary of this
region.
}
\vspace{.5cm}

\noindent
parameter because of soft gluon emission, here is more
like $1/m_{b}(1-E_{e}/E_{\rm max})$ which fails
near the
end point\cite{MW}.  It is a very crucial question--and one of
much
current interest -- whether
one can avoid these difficulties somehow and obtain a more reliable
estimate for $\sigma$.

Information on the CP violating phase $\delta$ comes, of course, from
the measured value for $\epsilon$.
However, since $\delta$ also enter in $V_{td}$, one can obtain some
restriction on this parameter from the observed $B_d-\overline{B}_d$ mixing
parameter $x_d$, which is proportional to $|V_{td}|^2$.
Again, there are theoretical uncertainties here related to the poor
knowledge of the hadronic matrix element connected with $|\epsilon|$
and $|x_d|$.
The former is characterized by the, so-called, $B_K$ parameter, which
lattice computations give to a 20\% accuracy [$B_K = 0.8 \pm 0.2$
\cite{Martinelli}].
For $x_d$ the relevant parameter \cite{Puri} is an effective B-decay
coupling constant, which is again best determined through lattice
computations \cite{Martinelli}
\[
f_B^{eff} = \sqrt{B_B\eta_B} f_B = (200 \pm 35) MeV
\]

Because of these matrix element uncertainties, the rather
precisely measured values for
$|\epsilon|$ and $x_d$ give allowed bands in the $\sigma-\delta$ or
$\rho-\eta$ plane.
As an illustration, the overlap of these bands with the region allowed
by our present (imperfect) knowledge of $\sigma = \sqrt{\rho^2 + \eta^2}$
is shown in Fig. 1, assuming $m_t = 140$ GeV.
One sees from this figure that the physically allowed values for $\rho$
and $\eta$ in the CKM model are now constrained to a rather small region
in the $\rho-\eta$ plane.

I will return below to discuss the implications of Fig. 1
for CP violation in B decays.  I note here only that, for $m_t$=140 GeV,
using my guesstimate of the calculations presented by Reina\cite{Reina}
for the matrix element involved in $\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon$ one has
\[
\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon=(11\pm 4)\times 10^{-4} A^2\eta~.
\]
\noindent
Fig. 1 makes apparent that the expected value for $\epsilon'/\epsilon$
in the CKM model favors the result obtained by the Fermilab E731
experiment. \cite{Tschirhart}

\section{What are we likely to learn in the future?}

One should see considerable clarification of the nature of CP violation in
the coming years.  In the Kaon sector, as Tschirhart\cite{Tschirhart} and
Bertolucci\cite{Bertolucci} discussed, new experiments at FNAL [KTeV] and
at CERN [NA48], as well as at the Frascati $\Phi$ Factory [KLOE], should
push the error on $\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon$ to $O(10^{-4})$.
However, the next round of rare K decays which are
sensitive to the phase $\delta$ of the CKM matrix [cf. Table 1] will
only set limits rather than provide a new measurement for this phase.

Even though the efforts to uncover CP violating phenomena in the
Kaon sector are impressive, it is clear that much of the future
experimental activity will be focussed in the B sector.  After a long
struggle, not one but two asymmetric B-factories will begin construction
in 1994 and are aiming to take first data in 1998.  Although nobody at
this Conference discussed in detail the SLAC B factory, the talk by
Abe\cite{Abe} on the KEK project served to give an indication of the
general characteristics of these facilities.  The KEK B-factory will have
two new rings in the existing Tristan tunnel, with 3.5 GeV positrons and 8 GeV
electrons directly injected into these storage rings.
The beams will cross at an angle of 2.8 mrad and the machine parameters
are designed so as to achieve an initial luminosity of ${\cal{L}}=2\times
10^{33}~cm^{-2}~sec^{-1}$.  Eventually, by increasing the beam current,
at KEK one hopes to achieve ${\cal{L}}=10^{34}~cm^{-2}~sec^{-1}$.
As we shall see,
this high luminosity is necessary if one wants to insure the full reach for
measuring the CP violation asymmetries expected in the B sector in the
CKM model.

It was clear at the Conference, however, that
considerable other activity is also
going on in the world in B-physics.  Indeed, through the 1990's much will
be learned about the B system from experiments at LEP and at the Fermilab
Collider and, particularly, at the CESR ring in Cornell.  This was nicely
illustrated in the talks of Witherell\cite{Witherell} and Lockeyer
\cite{Lockeyer}.
As an example of the nice results obtained,
Witherell
showed evidence at the $10^{-5}$ BR level
for the important
2-body decay mode $B\rightarrow \pi\pi/K\pi$
measured at CESR
(the CLEO II data cannot
yet distinguish among these two possibilities, for lack of statistics).
Lockeyer showed
a clear discovery signal for the $B_s$ meson,
through the decay $B_s\rightarrow \psi\phi$, seen by CDF.  These results,
besides their intrinsic value, are also important ``engineering" information
for efforts to study CP violation and $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing at both
electron and hadronic colliders.

Lockeyer's talk at the Conference
\cite{Lockeyer} made it clear that hadronic colliders can be very
competitive and complementary to the $e^+e^-$ B-factories in this
respect, because the more difficult experimental environment of hadron
machines can be compensated by the enormous rate for B production.  For
instance, with the main injector luminosity, there will be about $10^{11}$
B's produced per year at the Fermilab Collider, while at the LHC one will
have over $10^{12}$ B's/year.
Because of these high rates, a
very active program of experiments for
the year 2000 and beyond are now being considered.  Fermilab has
called for new collider expressions of interests by May 1994 and the LHC
experiments committee will be
examining three LOI for dedicated B detectors in
the same time frame.  How competitive all of these efforts will be to the
B factories will depend (besides on schedules!) on the ability to make
progress on triggering on certain modes (e.g. $B_d\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$)
and on B-tagging in the harsh hadronic environment.\cite{Lockeyer}

The detailed physics which will be pursued at the B factories
and in the hadronic colliders was discussed at this
Conference by H. Quinn\cite{Quinn}.  Fundamentally what
one wants to check first is whether the CKM paradigm is
correct.  This can be done best in the neutral B system
by testing the, so called, unitarity triangle\cite{triangle}.
Of course, this is not the only place where one can look for
CP violating effects in the B system.  However, both in
charged B decays--discussed in this Conference by Hou\cite{Hou}
--or in radiative B decays, like $B\rightarrow K\pi\gamma$--discussed
here by Soni\cite{Soni}--the actual expectations for CP violating
phenomena are much more dependent on hadronic dynamics and even
the cleanest cases are often rather rate limited.

The unitarity of the 3 generation CKM matrix implies for the $d-b$
piece that
\[
V_{ud}V^*_{ub}+V_{cd}V^*_{cb}+V_{td}V^*_{tb}=0
\]
or, approximately, to $O(\lambda^3)$
\[
V_{ub}^*+V_{td} \simeq \lambda V^*_{cb}=A\lambda^3~.
\]
Since $V^*_{ub}\simeq A\lambda^3~(\rho+i\eta)$ and
$V_{td}=A\lambda^3~(1-\rho-i\eta)$, one sees that the
unitarity of the CKM matrix gives one a triangle in the
$\rho-\eta$ plane.  This triangle has a base going from
$\rho=0$ to $\rho=1$ and its apex is any of the points
($\rho,\eta$) which are allowed in Fig. 1.  Remarkably,
the three angles in this ``unitary triangle"\cite{triangle}
are in principle measurable in B decays to CP self-conjugate
states\cite{selfconjugate}.  Hence these decays should
provide a direct test of the CKM paradigm.  As shown in Fig. 2
the angle $\beta$ spans a much narrower range than the
angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$.  For example, for
$m_t$ = 140 GeV one has $16^\circ\leq \beta \leq 27^\circ$.

\vbox{\vspace{6 cm}
\noindent
Fig. 2.  Two examples of unitarity triangles allowed by the
CKM paradigm for $m_t$ = 140 GeV.
}
\vspace{.5cm}
The angles $\alpha,\beta$ and $\gamma$ in the unitarity triangle
can be extracted by measuring asymmetries in the decay of neutral B
mesons to self-conjugate final states $f$, where $\bar{f}=
\eta_ff$ with $\eta_f=\pm 1$.  As Quinn\cite{Quinn} showed, a
state born at $t=0$ as a B meson which decays into a final
state $f$, has a different time evolution than a state which at
$t=0$ was a $\bar{B}$.  One finds, under the assumption that
only one weak amplitude dominates\cite{selfconjugate}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma~(B_{\rm phys}(t)\rightarrow f) & = & \Gamma(B\rightarrow f) \\
        & \times & e^{-\Gamma t} \{1-\eta_f \lambda_f \sin\Delta mt\}
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma(\bar{B}_{\rm phys}(t)\rightarrow f) & = & \Gamma(B\rightarrow f) \\
       & \times  & e^{-\Gamma t} \{1+\eta_f\lambda_f \sin\Delta mt\}
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\lambda_f$ contains information about CP violation.  In the
CKM model $\lambda_f$ depends directly on the angles of the
unitarity triangle and one finds

\[
\lambda_f=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sin~2\alpha & {\rm for}~B_d~{\rm decays~ involving~a} \\
 &~b\rightarrow u~
                                   {\rm transition} \\
& \\
\sin~2\beta & {\rm for}~B_d~{\rm decays~ involving~a}  \\
& ~b\rightarrow c~
  {\rm transition} \\
& \\
\sin~2\gamma & {\rm for}~B_s~{\rm decays~ involving~a}  \\
& ~b\rightarrow u~
  {\rm transition} \\
& \\
0 & {\rm for}~B_s~{\rm decays~ involving~a} \\
& ~b\rightarrow c~
  {\rm transition}
\end{array}
   \right.
\]

The prototype decay for measuring the angle $\beta$ is the
decay $B_d\rightarrow \psi K_S$.  Given the allowed region in
the $\rho-\eta$ plane of Fig. 1, the relevant asymmetry between
the rates of $(B_d)_{\rm phys}$ and $(\bar{B}_d)_{\rm phys}$ into this
mode is very large [e.g. for $m_t$ = 140 GeV, one has
$0.53\leq \sin~2\beta\leq 0.81$].  Furthermore, for the
decay $B_d\rightarrow \psi K_S$ the assumption of having
only one (effective) weak amplitude is well justified
\cite{LP}, since in this case both the weak transition
$b\rightarrow c\bar{c}s$ and the associated Penguin amplitude
have the same weak phase.  Thus this decay mode has excellent
theoretical prospects.  As Abe\cite{Abe} discussed in his talk,
the process $B_d\rightarrow \psi K_S$ is also fine from an
experimental point of view.  Using the leptonic decays of the
$\psi$ and the charged pion decays of the $K_S$, Abe
estimates that with an integrated luminosity of $100~fb^{-1}$ the
error in $\sin~2\beta$ at the KEK B factory should be
$\delta\sin~2\beta$
= 0.081.  Obviously, this measurement would
suffice to establish that $\sin~2\beta$ is non-vanishing, if it is
in the range expected in the CKM model.  Furthermore, this is not
the only decay of $B_d$ states
in which $sin~2\beta$ is accessible\cite{Quinn}.
Indeed, as Hall\cite{Hall} commented, it is likely that besides the Cabibbo
angle and $V_{cb}$, $\sin~2\beta$ will
eventually be the next best known weak
parameter connected to the CKM matrix.

The angle $\alpha$, whose prototype decay is $B_d\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$,
appears to be much harder to pin down.  In principle, for the case of
$B_d\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ the Penguin amplitude has a different
phase than the decay amplitude, and so this decay is not theoretically
pristine.  However, the fact that likely \cite{Witherell}
\[
BR(B_d\rightarrow \pi K)\simeq BR(B_d\rightarrow \pi\pi)
\]
may alleviate this problem, since $B_d\rightarrow \pi K$ is purely
Penguin dominated and the $b\rightarrow s$ Penguin contribution should
be much bigger than the $b\rightarrow d$ Penguin contribution.  So,
effectively, also for $B_d\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ one probably has
only one dominating weak amplitude.  At any rate, as Quinn\cite{Quinn}
discussed, one can in principle disentangle this issue by doing a Dalitz
analysis of the decay $B_d\rightarrow \rho\pi$.  What is more
troubling is that the allowed unitarity triangles permits
the value $\alpha=90^\circ$
(see Fig. 2) and thus the asymmetry in this case is not necessarily
large.  In fact, as Nir\cite{Nir} and others have emphasized, any value for
$\sin~2\alpha$ is consistent with what we presently know about the CKM
matrix.  At a B factory, assuming that $BR(B_d\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-)
=2\times 10^{-5}$, the relevant error on $\sin~2\alpha$, again with
$100~fb^{-1}$ of data, is about twice as large as that for
$B_d\rightarrow \psi K_S$ ($\delta\sin~2\alpha=0.17$\cite{Abe}).  So
it remains to be seen if one can make a clear measurement of this
angle.

The angle $\gamma$ is even harder to determine.  First of all, to
study it most simply one needs to measure $B_s$ decays and these
will not be accessible at the asymmetric B factories.  However,
prototype decays like $B_s\rightarrow \rho K_S$ do suffer from
``Penguin pollution"\cite{LP} and may not be theoretically pristine
enough.  As Gronau and London\cite{GL} emphasized, it is possible to
extract $\gamma$ by studying $B_d$ decays to non CP self-conjugate
states, like $B_d\rightarrow D^oK^*$.  However, then one is forced
to compare different processes and the prospects for an accurate
determination are not very sanguine\cite{Quinn}.

In my view, measuring a large asymmetry connected with $\sin~2\beta$
in B decays will go a long way towards establishing the validity of
the CKM paradigm.  It is of course true that, accidentally, the rate
difference between $(B_d)_{\rm phys}\rightarrow \psi K_S$ and
$(\bar{B}_d)_{\rm phys}\rightarrow \psi K_S$ could be large in a
non CKM context, but it would be a remarkable coincidence.  This
said, however, as Quinn\cite{Quinn} emphasized here, it is important
to check that the unitarity triangle actually closes.  For instance,
as Branco\cite{Branco} discussed in his talk, it is relatively easy
to change the mixing phase in the $B_d-\bar{B}_d$ mass matrix and
this, effectively, makes the $3\times 3$ CKM matrix non-unitary.
Clearly, much experimental and theoretical work still awaits us before
it can be said that we understand the phase structure in the flavor
sector.  If some discrepancies from the CKM expectations were to be
found in B decays, looking at processes like $B_d\rightarrow K_S K_S$,
which is a pure $b-s$ Penguin decay (and thus should have zero asymmetry)
might be a good diagnostic\cite{Quinn}.

\section{The mysteries}

There were a number of talks in the Conference which addressed important
and still mysterious structural issues in particle physics, like
supersymmetry and supersymmetry breaking and
neutrino masses and mixing.  I have
decided not to attempt to summarize
these talks here because they either were not
quite germane to the main topic of the Conference or they were given too
near to my own concluding talk to sensibly be able to report on them.  I
would like, however, to end by discussing two topics briefly which are
both germane to CP violation and where the issues remain quite open and
challenging.  These concern: baryogenesis at the electroweak scale, which
was addressed here by Shaposhnikov\cite{Shaposhnikov}, Dine\cite{Dine}
and Yanagida\cite{Yanagida}, and the strong CP problem of which
various aspects of it were discussed in the Conference by Vainshtein
\cite{Vainshtein}, Kikuchi\cite{Kikuchi}, Branco\cite{Branco} and
Schierholz\cite{Schierholz}.

There are a number of issues which are widely agreed
upon concerning electroweak baryogenesis and before I try to
outline where the controversies reside, it might be useful if I
summarized these non-controversial points first.  The standard
model possesses 2 of the Sakharov conditions\cite{Sakharov}
necessary for baryogenesis: it violates C and CP and it
violates baryon number, B.  The violation of baryon number in the
standard model is a quantum effect\cite{GTH} and is the result of
a chiral anomaly\cite{Anomaly} in the (B+L)--current.  Since this
current is carried by all the quarks and leptons, there is a selection
rule governing (B+L)--violating processes relating the total change in
this quantity to the number of generations $N_g$ (presumably $N_g=3$):
\[
\Delta(B+L)=2N_g~.
\]

Since $2N_g$ is also the possible amount by which the
topological index of the
electroweak gauge field vacuum configurations
changes by, (B+L)--violating
processes in the standard model involve non-trivial changes in these
configurations.  At zero temperature, these gauge field vacuum
changes are strongly suppressed by a tunneling factor\cite{GTH} and
baryon number violation is vanishingly small
($\Gamma_{\rm B+L~viol.}\sim {\rm exp}~-4\pi/\alpha_W$, with
$\alpha_W=\alpha/\sin^2\theta_W\sim 1/30$).  However in a
temperature bath--like in the early universe--these gauge field
vacuum changes can occur via thermal fluctuations, and the rate
for (B+L)-violation can become important.  This was the crucial
observation of Kuzmin, Rubakov and Shaposhnikov\cite{KRS}.  One
finds, in fact, a rate for (B+L)-violation that is suppressed by a
Boltzmann factor below the temperature of the electroweak phase
transition and is unsuppressed above\cite{Dine}\cite{Shaposhnikov}:
\[
\Gamma_{\rm B+L~viol.}\sim\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
e^{-E_{\rm sph}(T)/T} & T<T_c \\
(\alpha_WT)^4        & T>T_c
\end{array}
    \right.
\]
Here $E_{\rm sph}(T)$ is, roughly, the height of the barrier separating
the two gauge vacua and is related to the electroweak order parameter:
\[
E_{\rm sph}(T) \sim M_W(T)/\alpha_W \sim
\langle\phi(T)\rangle/g_2~.
\]

A comparison of the above rate to the rate of expansion of the
universe, given by the Hubble constant at tempeature
$T~(H\sim T^2/M_{\rm Planck})$, shows that, as a result of
standard model interactions, (B+L)-violating processes are
in equilibrium ($\Gamma_{\rm B+L~viol.}>H$) during a large
temperature interval in the universe:
\[
T^*\sim 10^2 {\rm GeV} \leq T \leq T_{\rm max}\sim 10^{12} {\rm GeV}~.
\]
During this period, any primordial (B+L)-asymmetry in the universe
will be erased\cite{KRS}.  This phenomena has obviously a direct
bearing on the presently observed B-asymmetry in the universe and
suggests two different alternatives:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)] The observed B-asymmetry ($\eta_B\sim 4\times 10^{-10}$) is
a result of a primordial (B-L)-asymmetry (or of a primordial
L-asymmetry, as in the model discussed by Yanagida\cite{Yanagida}
at this Conference) which is not affected by standard model
processes.
\item[ii)] There is no primordial (B-L)-asymmetry and since any
primordial (B+L)-asymmetry is erased during the evolution of the
universe, the observed B-asymmetry must be generated at the
electroweak phase transition.
\end{enumerate}

The talks of Dine\cite{Dine} and Shaposhnikov\cite{Shaposhnikov} here
concentrated on this second very intriguing possibility.  To generate
$\eta_B$ at the electroweak phase transition, three conditions need to
hold.  First, the electroweak transition must be first order, so
that the last Sakharov\cite{Sakharov} condition for baryogenesis--that
baryon number violating proceseses must be out of equilibrium--is
satisfied.  However, at the electroweak phase transition one must,
in addition, make sure that this transition is sufficiently {\bf strongly}
to first order, so that the generated asymmetry is not subsequently
erased.  This second condition requires that $\Gamma_{\rm B+L~viol.}
(T^*) < H(T^*)$, which will obtain provided $E_{\rm sph}(T^*)/T^*$ is
sufficiently big.  Numerically\cite{Dine} this
requires
\[
\langle\phi(T^*)\rangle/T^* \geq  1~.
\]
Finally, one must also require that the true-vacuum nucleation
during the phase transition is both sufficiently efficient, and
sufficiently {\bf fermion-antifermion asymmetric} (this is where
CP violation enters into the problem), so that the resulting $\eta_B$
produced is big enough.  This is the most tricky part,
requiring a real calculation of the kinetics of the problem.

It is in these last two points where there is not full agreement
in the literature--a disagreement which was exemplified here by
the two different points of view expressed by Dine\cite{Dine} and
Shaposhnikov\cite{Shaposhnikov}.  Using the finite temperature
effective potential $V_{\rm eff}(\phi,T)$ for the standard model
Higgs sector one can calculate $\langle\phi(T^*)\rangle/T^*$.
As pointed out long ago by Shaposhnikov and collaborators
\cite{BKS}, $\langle\phi(T^*)\rangle/T^*$ will only be large
provided one has a light Higgs boson in the theory.  Conversely,
using the bound on the Higgs mass provided by LEP
($M_H > 62.5$ GeV\cite{LEP8}), from a calculation of $V_{\rm eff}(\phi,T)$
one can obtain an upper bound for $\langle\phi(T^*)\rangle/T^*$.
Recent calculations of $V_{\rm eff}(\phi,T)$\cite{DHLL} for the case
of one Higgs doublet using the LEP bound
give $\langle\phi^*(T)\rangle/T^* \leq 0.5$.
This led Dine\cite{Dine} to conclude that one cannot generate the
baryon asymmetry at the electroweak scale in this simplest model of
symmetry breakdown.

Shaposhnikov\cite{Shaposhnikov} disagreed
with this conclusion
for two reasons.  First, he did not trust the calculation of
$V_{eff}(\phi,T)$ because of infrared problems.  Second, he believes
that for this dynamical problem it does not suffice to compute
$\langle\phi(T^*)\rangle/T^*$ via an effective potential, but one
must really compute directly $\Gamma_{\rm B+L~viol.}(T^*)$.  I
believe the first objection is not that germane, at least for the
region of Higgs masses in question.  However, the second point
may well be relevant. In this case it may be premature to imagine
that there is a conflict between electroweak baryogenesis and a one Higgs
doublet model of symmetry breaking.

The second area of disagreement between Dine and Shaposhnikov is more
technical and is connected with the actual mechanism by which a
fermion number asymmetry is generated at the electroweak phase
transition.  Roughly speaking, as a bubble of true-vacuum nucleates
during the phase transition, the bubble wall because of CP violating
interactions will have different transmission coefficients for
fermions and antifermions.  The net baryon asymmetry $\eta_B$ is
proportional to the difference in transmission rates for baryons
and antibaryons at the bubble wall.  Dine\cite{Dine} argued that
this rate difference in the CKM model--as in the vacuum--is
irrelevantly small (of $O(10^{-22})$) because it is totally GIM
suppressed.  One finds:

\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_B & \sim & \left[(m_t^2-m_c^2)(m_t^2-m_u^2)(m_c^2-m_u^2) \right.\\
& \times & (m_b^2-m_s^2)
(m_b^2-m_d^2)(m_s^2-m_d^2) \\
 & \times & \left. s_{12} s_{23}s_{13} \sin\delta \right]\frac{1}{M^{12}_W}~.
\end{eqnarray*}

Shaposhnikov\cite{Shaposhnikov}, on the other hand, argues that
in a thermal bath the GIM factor is largely erased, so that in
the standard model one can in fact obtain a sizeable asymmetry.
Although I cannot really judge whether the calculation of
$\eta_B$ presented by Shaposhnikov (based on the work of Farrar
and Shaposhnikov \cite{Farrar}) is reliable, it seems likely to
me that thermal effects can help ameliorate the GIM suppression
one naively calculates.

My own conclusion regarding electroweak baryogenesis is that it
is unlikely that it
actually proceeds in the simplest model of symmetry
breaking.  With one Higgs doublet, the electroweak phase transition
is probably not sufficiently strongly first order to prevent
sizable erasure of the produced asymmetry. Furthermore, this asymmetry is
already probably too small due to having too simple a source for
CP violation.  However, in extended Higgs models, both of these
difficulties are ameliorated.  Hence, if the baryon asymmetry in
the universe was produced at the electroweak scale, one should
expect to have other sources of CP violation, besides the CKM phase
be relevant at low
energies.  Thus electroweak baryogenesis and an edm in the
$10^{-26}$ ecm range may well be closely connected!

Let me end by making a few remarks on the strong CP problem.  The
presence of the term
\[
{\cal{L}}_{\rm strong~CP}= \bar{\theta}
\frac{g_3^2}{32\pi^2} F_a^{\mu\nu} \tilde{F}_{a\mu\nu}~,
\]
with $\bar{\theta}$ being the sum of the QCD vacuum angle $\theta$ and
the contribution from the quark mass matrix
\[
\bar{\theta} = \theta + \arg \det M~,
\]
follows from a careful examination of the correct vacuum
structure of QCD\cite{CDG}.  Although one can try to avoid the
appearance of the strong CP interaction by modifying the $|\theta\!>$-
vacuum structure of QCD, as it has been suggested recently by
Samuel\cite{Samuel}, one then gets back into trouble with the old U(1)
problem that $m_\eta \not= \sqrt{3}~m_\pi$!  This is basically the
criticism presented here by Kikuchi\cite{Kikuchi} to the ``solution"
to the strong CP problem of Samuel.  The renormalization properties of
$\bar{\theta}$ discussed in the talk by Vainshtein\cite{Vainshtein} made
it apparent that in all aspects this parameter acts precisely as would
the coefficient of any dimension 4 operator.  The concomitant GIM
factors which entered in Vainshtein's discussion are also totally
natural, since as any quark becomes massless it is necessary that
$\bar\theta\rightarrow 0$\cite{JR}.

Unfortunately, these comments do not bring one closer to a solution
to the strong CP problem.  The present bounds on the neutron edm
require that $\bar\theta < 10^{-9}-10^{-10}$\cite{Baluni} and there
is no immediate explanation why this effective angle should be so
small.  Of course, I am still prejudiced towards the solution to
this problem which I proposed with Helen Quinn some time ago
\cite{PQ}!  However, one has no proof as yet for the presence of
a $U(1)_{PQ}$ global symmetry since no axions (visible or invisible)
have been found.  In my view, the PQ solution is preferable to
solutions of the strong CP problem involving soft CP breaking, since
models of this type run into a variety of difficulties unless one is
very careful.  This was nicely illustrated
at this Conference by the example discussed
by Branco\cite{Branco}.

The difficulties which soft CP breaking models
encounter are different depending
on whether the breaking of CP occurs at low scales (i.e. near the
electroweak scale) or at high scales (i.e. near a GUT scale).  In the
first case, as in the model Branco discussed, one has
problems with the enormous energy density that resides in the walls
separating domains in the universe, which vastly exceeds
the universe's closure density\cite{KOZ}.  If CP is broken
spontaneously at high scales, one can avoid this domain wall problem
through inflation.  However, then it is difficult to transmit the CP
violating phase generated at the high scale to the low energy sector
\cite{Blois}.  The most successful models of this type have been
devised by Nelson and by Barr\cite{BN} and, in general, tend to be
of a superweak variety.  Therefore, if these ideas are correct one
would expect quite different predictions for CP violation in the
B system!

These brief comments on electroweak baryogenesis and on the strong CP
problem emphasize an important lesson, which is worthwhile keeping
in mind.  Namely, that even though the elucidation of some of the
deep mysteries may perhaps escape us theoretically at the moment, new
experimental data can have a profound impact on our understanding.
Indeed, new data may expose our present beliefs only as theoetical
prejudices.  Let us hope that future experiments probing for CP
violation may have this salutary effect!

\section{Acknowledgements.}

I am grateful to H. Sugawara and K. Hagiwara for their hospitality
at KEK during this very stimulating Conference. I am also indebted
to the KEK Laboratory and the joint NSF Japan-USA Collaborative program
for travel support.  This work was supported in part by the
Department of Energy under Grant No. FG03-91ER40662.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph)


Propagation of cosmic rays: nuclear physics in cosmic-ray studies

Abstract: The nuclei fraction in cosmic rays (CR) far exceeds the fraction of other CR species, such as antiprotons, electrons, and positrons. Thus the majority of information obtained from CR studies is based on interpretation of isotopic abundances using CR propagation models where the nuclear data and isotopic production cross sections in p- and alpha-induced reactions are the key elements. This paper presents an introduction to the astrophysics of CR and diffuse gamma rays and discusses some of the puzzles that have emerged recently due to more precise data and improved propagation models. Merging with cosmology and particle physics, astrophysics of CR has become a very dynamic field with a large potential of breakthrough and discoveries in the near future. Exploiting the data collected by the CR experiments to the fullest requires accurate nuclear cross sections.

\section{Introduction}

The origin of CR have been intriguing scientists since 1912 when
V.\ Hess carried out his famous balloon flight to measure the ionization
rate in the upper atmosphere.
The energy density of relativistic particles (CR) is $\sim$1 eV cm$^{-3}$
and is comparable to that of the interstellar radiation
and magnetic fields, and turbulent motions of the interstellar
gas. This makes CR one of the essential factors determining
the dynamics and processes in the interstellar medium (ISM).  The observations
of the Small Magellanic Cloud \citep{sreekumar93} by
the EGRET (Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope) on board of
the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) have
shown that the CR are a Galactic and \emph{not} a
``metagalactic'' phenomenon. Observations of the Large Magellanic
Cloud \citep{sreekumar92}, in turn, have shown that $\gamma$-ray\
flux is consistent with CR having a density comparable
to that in our Galaxy.

\iffalse
Observations of the Large Magellanic
Cloud \citep{sreekumar92}, in turn, have shown that $\gamma$-ray\
flux is consistent with an estimate based on quasi-static
equilibrium of CR and the ISM.
\fi

Major cosmic accelerators are supernova remnants
(SNRs), with a fraction of CR coming from
pulsars, compact objects in close binary systems, and stellar winds.
Observations of X-ray and $\gamma$-ray\ emission from these objects reveal
the presence of energetic electrons thus testifying to efficient
acceleration \cite{koyama-allen}.
The total power of Galactic CR sources needed to sustain the observed CR
density is estimated at $5\times10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ which implies
the release of energy in the form of CR of
$\sim$$5\times10^{49}$ erg per supernova (SN) if the SN
rate is $\sim3$ per century.

\begin{figure}[!b]
  \resizebox{\fw}{0.29\textwidth}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f1}}
\caption{Basic processes in the ISM.}
\label{processes}
\end{figure}

Propagation in the ISM changes the initial composition
and spectra of CR species (Fig.~\ref{processes}). The destruction of
primary nuclei via spallation gives rise to secondary nuclei and
isotopes which are rare in nature, antiprotons, and pions
($\pi^\pm$, $\pi^0$) that decay producing secondary $e^\pm$'s and $\gamma$-rays.
CR are ``stored'' in the Galaxy for tens of millions
years before escaping into the intergalactic space.

Although much progress has been made since the
direct measurements in space have become possible,
the detailed information refers only to the environment near
to the sun. The CR source composition
and CR propagation history are imprinted in their
isotopic abundances while diffuse $\gamma$-rays\
and synchrotron emission from different directions
carry clues to the proton and
electron spectra in distant locations.
These are the only
pieces of the universal puzzle that we
have and exploiting them requires extensive modeling.

\section{Indications of new phenomena?}

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\fw}{!}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f2}}
\caption{Spectrum ($E^2\times Flux$) of diffuse $\gamma$-rays\ from the inner Galaxy
as measured by the EGRET.
Curves indicate individual components: $\pi^0$-decay (NN),
electron bremsstrahlung (EB), inverse Compton (IC), and
isotropic diffuse emission (ID). Adapted from \cite{hunter97}.}
\label{hunter}
\end{figure}

The puzzling excess in the EGRET data above 1 GeV (Fig.~\ref{hunter})
relative to that
expected \cite{hunter97,M04rev} has shown up in all models that are tuned to
be consistent with local nucleon and electron spectra
\cite{SMR00,SMR04a}. The excess has shown up in all directions,
not only in the Galactic plane.
An apparent discrepancy between the radial
gradient in the diffuse Galactic $\gamma$-ray\ emissivity and the
distribution of CR sources (SNRs) has worsened the problem
\cite{SMR00}.

\begin{figure}[b]
  \resizebox{\fw}{0.195\textwidth}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f3}}
\caption{Positrons/(all leptons) ratio in CR compared to calculations
in a leaky-box model \cite{protheroe} (solid) and GALPROP diffusion model
\cite{MS98} (dashes). Adapted from \cite{coutu}.}
\label{positrons}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\fw}{0.28\textwidth}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f4}}
\caption{Spectrum of secondary antiprotons in CR as calculated
in reacceleration (solid lines) and optimized (dots) models.
The upper curves -- interstellar,
lower curves -- modulated ($\Phi=550$ MV) to compare with data.
Adapted from \cite{SMR04a}.}
\label{pbars}
\end{figure}

Positron fraction $e^+$/(all leptons) in CR as measured by HEAT
\cite{heat_positrons} also exhibits an excess above $\sim$8 GeV (Fig.~\ref{positrons})
compared to predictions of the diffusion model for secondary production \cite{MS98}.

Secondary antiprotons are produced in the same interactions
of CR particles with interstellar gas as $e^+$'s and diffuse $\gamma$-rays.
Recent $\bar p$ data with larger statistics
\cite{Orito00-Maeno01-beach-boezio01-bergstrom}
triggered a series of calculations of the secondary $\bar p$
flux in CR.
The diffusive reacceleration models have certain
advantages compared to other propagation models: they naturally reproduce
secondary/primary nuclei ratios in CR, have only three
free parameters, and agree better with
K-capture parent/daughter nuclei ratio.
The detailed analysis shows, however, that the reacceleration models
underproduce $\bar p$'s by a factor of $\sim$2 at 2 GeV \cite{M02}
(Fig.~\ref{pbars})
because matching the B/C ratio at all energies requires the diffusion
coefficient to be too large.

If these excesses are not a simple artefact,
they may be telling us about processes in the ISM, in the Local Bubble,
or signaling exotic physics (e.g., WIMP annihilation, primordial
black hole evaporation), but also may indicate a flaw in the current models.

\section{Cosmic Rays and Diffuse $\gamma$-rays}
The modeling of CR diffusion in the Galaxy includes the
solution of the transport equation with a given source distribution
and boundary conditions (free escape into the intergalactic
space) for all CR species.
The transport equation describes diffusion and energy losses
and may also include \cite{Zirakashvili96-seo-ptuskin03}
the convection by a hypothetical Galactic wind,
distributed acceleration in the ISM due to the Fermi
second-order mechanism (reacceleration),
and non-linear wave-particle interactions.

The study of transport of the CR nuclear component
requires the consideration of nuclear spallation,
radioactive decay, and ionization energy
losses. Calculation of isotopic abundances involves
hundreds of secondary nuclei produced in
CR interactions with interstellar gas.
A thorough data base of isotopic
production and fragmentation cross sections is thus
a critical element of propagation models
that are constrained by the abundance measurements of isotopes, $\bar p$'s,
and $e^+$'s in CR.

As solar activity changes with a period of 11 years
so does the intensity of CR, but in opposite direction:
with an inverse correlation. The ``solar modulation''
is a combination of effects of convection by the solar
wind, diffusion, adiabatic cooling, drifts,
diffusive acceleration and affects CR below 20 GeV/nucleon.
The theory of solar modulation is far from being
complete \cite{potgieter}.
The Ulysses spacecraft first provided measurements
of the solar wind and magnetic field outside the ecliptic
helping us to understanding the global
aspects of modulation, while
Pioneer and the two Voyagers have explored the outer
solar system. Recently there appear some indications that
Voyager 1, currently at $13.3\times10^9$ km (88 AU) from the sun,
may be close to the termination shock, the heliospheric boundary.
If true, in a few years it will become the first spacecraft ever
to reach interstellar space.

The diffuse
continuum emission is the dominant feature of the $\gamma$-ray\ sky
(Fig.~\ref{skymap}).
It is evidence of CR proton and electron
interactions with gas and the interstellar radiation field (ISRF),
and is created via $\pi^0$-decay, inverse Compton, and bremsstrahlung.
This emission in the range 50 keV
-- 50 GeV has been systematically studied in by OSSE
(Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment), COMPTEL
(Imaging Compton Telescope), and EGRET on the CGRO and in
earlier experiments \cite{hunter97,M04rev}.
The GLAST (Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope) will improve
the sensitivity for the diffuse emission by a factor of 30.

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\fw}{!}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f5}}
\caption{The EGRET sky: diffuse $\gamma$-ray\ emission \cite{M04rev}.}
\label{skymap}
\end{figure}

Increasingly accurate balloon-borne and
spacecraft experiments are demanding
propagation models with improved predictive capability.
Incorporation of the realistic astrophysical input increases the
chances of the model to approach reality and dictates that
such a model should be numerical. Besides the nuclear data,
such a model has to include the detailed
3-dimensional maps of the Galactic gas derived from radio and IR surveys, the
Local Bubble and local SNRs, the spectrum of the ISRF,
magnetic fields, details of composition of interstellar dust, grains,
as well as theoretical works on CR acceleration and
transport in Galactic environments.
The most advanced model to date, GALPROP, is a three dimensional model
\cite{SMR00,M02,SM98}. It is widely used as a
basis for many studies, such as search for dark matter
signatures, origin and evolution of elements, the spectrum and origin of Galactic
and extragalactic diffuse $\gamma$-ray\ emission, heliospheric modulation.
The model calculates CR propagation for nuclei
($_1^1$H to $_{28}^{64}$Ni), $\bar p$'s, $e^\pm$'s, and
computes $\gamma$-rays\ and synchrotron emission in the same framework;
it includes all relevant processes and reactions.
It is an excellent tool to cross-test various hypotheses \cite{SMR04a,MSR98}.

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\fw}{\fh}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f6}}
\caption{Boron/carbon ratio in CR as calculated in the reacceleration
model. Lower curve -- interstellar ratio, upper curve -- modulated ($\Phi=450$
MV) to compare with data. Adapted from \cite{SMR04a}.}
\label{bc}
\end{figure}

\section{Nuclear physics in CR studies}

The abundances of stable ($_3$Li, $_4$Be, $_5$B,
$_{21}$Sc, $_{22}$Ti, $_{23}$V) and radioactive secondaries
($^{10}_{4}$Be, $^{26}_{13}$Al, $^{36}_{17}$Cl, $^{54}_{25}$Mn) in CR
are used to derive the diffusion
coefficient and the halo size \cite{SM98,ptuskin-webber}.
The derived source abundances of CR
may provide some clues to mechanisms and sites of CR acceleration.
However, the interpretation of CR data, e.g.,
the sharp peak in the secondary/primary nuclei
ratio (Fig.~\ref{bc}), is model dependent.
The leaky-box model fits the secondary/primary ratio by
allowing the path-length distribution vs.\ rigidity to vary.
The diffusion models are more physical and explain the shape of
the secondary/primary ratio in terms of
diffusive reacceleration (distributed energy gain) in the ISM,
convection by the Galactic wind,
or by the damping of the interstellar turbulence by
CR on a small scale.

The secondary/primary nuclei ratio is sensitive to the
value of the diffusion coefficient and its energy dependence.
A larger diffusion coefficient leads to a
lower ratio since the primary nuclei escape faster from the Galaxy
producing less secondaries and vice versa.
The abundance of radioactive secondaries
(e.g., $^{10}$Be/$^9$Be) is sensitive to the Galactic halo size, the
Galactic volume filled with CR. The larger the halo the longer
it takes for radioactives to reach us thus decreasing the ratio
$^{10}$Be/$^9$Be.

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\fw}{0.28\textwidth}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f7}}
\caption{Cross section for the reaction $^{nat}$Si$(p,x)^{26}$Al.
Calculations: semi-empirical systematics \cite{webber_cs,ST},
CEM2K \cite{mashnik04}, evaluated \cite{MMS01}.
Adapted from \cite{mashnik04}.}
\label{Al}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[b]
  \resizebox{\fw}{!}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f8}}
\caption{Determination of the Galactic halo size based on radioactive
secondaries: using semi-empirical systematics \cite{SM01} -- dashes,
light shaded area shows the range consistent with all ratios;
using evaluated cross sections -- solid, heavy shaded area shows the
range consistent with all ratios. Adapted from \cite{MMS01}.}
\label{halo}
\end{figure}

Current CR experiments,
such as Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), Ulysses, and
Voyager, deliver excellent quality spectral and isotopic data.
Meanwhile, isotopic production cross sections have for a long time
been the Achilles' heel of CR propagation models, and now
become a factor restricting further progress.
Interpretation of CR data requires massive calculations
of isotopic production involving $p$'s and $\alpha$'s, however,
the widely used semi-empirical systematics are
frequently wrong by a significant factor \cite{MMS01,yanasak-MM03};
this is reflected in the value of propagation parameters.
Figs.~\ref{Al} and \ref{halo} illustrate the effect of isotopic
cross sections on the derivation of the halo size from radioactive
secondaries. Using the semi-empirical systematics leads to
the huge error bars where the upper limits are
consistent with infinite halo size \cite{SM01}.
Using the evaluated cross sections
dramatically reduces the error bars and gives a
consistent value: 4--6 kpc \cite{MMS01}.
Unfortunately, the evaluated cross sections in the required energy
range are mostly unavailable.

\iffalse
Unfortunately, the evaluated cross sections are mostly unavailable
for the CR community.
\fi

K-capture isotopes in CR
(e.g., $^{49}_{23}$V, $^{51}_{24}$Cr) can
serve as important energy markers and can be used to study
the energy-dependent effects such as diffusive
reacceleration in the ISM and heliospheric
modulation \cite{soutoul98,jones01b,niebur03}.
Such nuclei usually decay via electron-capture and have a short lifetime
in the medium. In CR they are stable or live longer
as they are created bare by fragmentation
of heavier nuclei while their $\beta^+$-decay mode is suppressed.
At low energies, their lifetime depends on the balance between
the processes of the electron attachment from the ISM
and stripping. The probability of attachment is
strongly energy-dependent, increasing toward low energies, while
the probability of stripping is flat. This
makes the abundances of K-capture isotopes in CR energy-dependent
(Fig.~\ref{K-cap1}). Without K-capture,
the ratio $^{51}$V/$^{51}$Cr in CR would be flat because both
nuclei are secondary. The electron K-capture
$^{51}$Cr(EC)$^{51}$V increases the ratio at low energies.
Reacceleration (energy gain)
increases it even further. On the contrary, solar modulation
flattens the ratio (Fig.~\ref{K-cap2}), which is very steep in the ISM.

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\fw}{0.28\textwidth}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f9}}
\caption{$^{51}$V/$^{51}$Cr ratio in CR as calculated with/without
K-capture. Adapted from \cite{jones01b}.}
\label{K-cap1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[b]
  \resizebox{\fw}{0.28\textwidth}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f10}}
\caption{$^{51}$V/$^{51}$Cr ratio in CR as calculated for
different levels of solar modulation. Interstellar
ratio corresponds to $\Phi=0$ MV. Adapted from \cite{niebur03}.}
\label{K-cap2}
\end{figure}

Study of the light nuclei in CR (Li--O) allows
us to determine propagation parameters
averaged over a larger Galactic region, but the local ISM
is \emph{not} necessarily the same and the \emph{local} propagation
parameters may significantly differ. The best way to study the local
ISM is to look at isotopes with shorter lifetimes
(e.g., $^{14}$C) and heavy nuclei since
large fragmentation cross sections lead to a small ``collection area.''

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\fw}{\fh}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f11}}
\caption{(Galactic CR sources)/(solar system) abundances of different
elements vs.\ FIP. Adapted from \cite{meyer97}.}
\label{fip}
\end{figure}

The CR source composition is derived from direct CR data
by correcting for the effects of propagation, spallation, and solar
modulation.
The elements with low first-ionization potential (FIP) appear to be
more abundant in CR sources relative to the high-FIP
elements, when compared with the solar system material (Fig.~\ref{fip}).
This might imply that the source material for
CR includes the atmospheres of stars with
temperatures $\sim$$10^4$ K \citep{casse78}.
A strong correlation between FIP and ``volatility''
(most of low-FIP elements are
refractory while high-FIP elements are volatile) suggests that
CR may also originate in the interstellar dust,
pre-accelerated by shock waves \citep{meyer97,epstein80}. $_{11}$Na,
$_{31}$Ga, $_{37}$Rb and some other elements $Z>28$ break
this correlation. CR data tend to prefer volatility over FIP, but
uncertainties in the derived source abundances (cross
sections!) prevent an unambiguous solution.

Isotopic peculiarities of CR composition are also important.
For example, the $^{22}_{11}$Ne/$^{20}_{11}$Ne
enrichment might tell us that CR are produced
in cores of superbubbles \cite{higdon03} created by multiple
correlated SNe.

\section{Scent of new physics}

Galactic and extragalactic space presents a test range
where nature runs its numerous experiments continuously for billions
of years. This is an arena where all fundamental forces perform
in an exotic show involving yet-to-be-discovered particles,
new elements, giant nuclei bound by gravitation
-- neutron stars, and singularities -- black holes,
and engineering the largest-scale grid of structures in the universe.
CR and diffuse $\gamma$-rays, therefore, could contain signatures
of exotic physics,
however, conventional CR present an enormous background for tiny
exotic signals.

The growing number of experiments forces us to the conclusion that
the universe is dominated by the dark matter (DM) and dark energy. A preferred candidate
for non-baryonic DM is a weakly interacting
massive particle (WIMP). The WIMP is the lightest neutralino $\chi^0$
\cite{jkg-bergstrom00}, which arises in supersymmetric
models of particle physics, or
a Kaluza-Klein hypercharge $B^1$ gauge boson \cite{matchev}.
Annihilation of neutralinos creates a soup of
particles, which eventually decay to ordinary baryons and leptons.
The DM particles in the halo
or at the Galactic center \cite{gunn-stecker-silk-gondolo-silk-gondolo}
may thus be detectable via their annihilation products
($e^+$, $\bar p$, $\bar d$, $\gamma$-rays) in CR
\cite{bergstrom99-baltz99-baltz03-darksusy04}. The approach is to scan the
SUSY parameter space to find a candidate able to fill the
excesses in diffuse $\gamma$-rays, $\bar p$'s, and
$e^+$'s over the predictions of a conventional model (as discussed above).
Preliminary results of the ``global fit'' to the
$e^+$'s, $\bar p$'s, and diffuse $\gamma$-ray\ data simultaneously
look promising \cite{deboer1-deboer2}. In particular, the
DM distribution with two-ring structure
allows the EGRET $\gamma$-ray\ data and the rotation curve of the Milky Way
to be fitted, while the ring radii, 5 and 14 kpc, surprisingly well
coincide with the observed rings of cold H$_2$ gas and stars, respectively.

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\fw}{0.28\textwidth}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f12}}
\caption{Longitude profile of diffuse $\gamma$-ray\ emission \cite{SMR04a}.
Lines (top to bottom): total, $\pi^0$-decay, inverse Compton, bremsstrahlung,
extragalactic background.}
\label{longitude}
\end{figure}

In terms of conventional
physics, the spatial fluctuation of CR intensity may also
provide a feasible explanation. The CR $\bar p$ data
can be used to derive the Galactic
average proton spectrum (Fig.~\ref{pbars}, optimized model),
while the electron spectrum is adjusted using
the diffuse $\gamma$-rays\ \cite{SMR04a}.
The model shows a good agreement with EGRET spectra of diffuse $\gamma$-ray\
emission ($<$100 GeV) from different sky regions (Fig.~\ref{longitude}).
The increased Galactic contribution to the diffuse emission reduces
the estimate of the extragalactic $\gamma$-ray\ background \cite{SMR04a,SMR04b}.
The new extragalactic background \cite{SMR04b} shows a positive
curvature (Fig.~\ref{egrb}),
which is expected if the sources are unresolved blazars
or annihilations of the neutralino DM \cite{salamon-ullio,mannheim}.
The discrepancy between the radial
gradient in the diffuse Galactic $\gamma$-ray\ emissivity and the
distribution of SNRs can be solved \cite{SMR04c}
if the ratio H$_2$/CO in the ISM increases
from the inner to the outer Galaxy.
The latter is expected from the Galactic metallicity gradient.

The difficulty associated with $\bar p$ may also indicate new effects.
The propagation
of low-energy particles may be aligned to the magnetic field lines
instead of isotropic diffusion \cite{M02}. Our local environment (the Local
Bubble) may produce a fresh ``unprocessed'' nuclei component in CR
at low energy \cite{M03}; the evidence for SN
activity in the solar vicinity in the last few Myr supports this idea.

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\fw}{0.28\textwidth}{\includegraphics{moskalenko_f13}}
\caption{Spectrum of extragalactic diffuse $\gamma$-ray\ emission \cite{SMR04b}.
Adopted from \cite{mannheim}.}
\label{egrb}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}

Several topics are expected to become the subject of intensive
studies in the coming years.
PAMELA (Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei
Astrophysics) is designed to measure $\bar p$'s,
$e^\pm$'s, and isotopes H--C over 0.1--300 GeV.
Future Antarctic flights of a new BESS-Polar instrument
(Balloon-borne Experiment with a Superconducting Spectrometer)
will considerably increase the accuracy of data on $\bar p$'s
and light elements. The AMS (Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer)
onboard the International Space Station
will measure CR particles and nuclei
$Z\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\lower-2pt\hbox{$<$}}26$
from GeV to TeV energies. This is complemented by measurements of
heavier nuclei $Z>29$ by (Super-)TIGER (Trans-Iron Galactic Element Recorder).
The future GLAST mission will be capable of measuring $\gamma$-rays in the range 20
MeV -- 300 GeV; besides other goals, it should deliver a final
proof of proton acceleration in SNRs -- long awaited by the CR
community. A breakthrough on SUSY and high-energy interactions
should come with operation of the new CERN large hadronic collider, LHC.
Not surprisingly,
the success of the state-of-the-art CR experiments depends heavily
on the quality of nuclear data and especially $p$- and
$\alpha$-induced reactions at intermediate energies from
tens of MeV -- few GeV. Challenging these new frontiers is thus impossible
without involvement of the nuclear physics community.

This work was supported in part by a NASA Astrophysics Theory Program grant,
US DOE, and the CRDF Project MP2-3025.

\iffalse
We cordially invite the entire nuclear physics
community to join in this exciting endeavor.

\doingARLO[\bibliographystyle{aipproc}]
          {\ifthenelse{\equal{\AIPcitestyleselect}{num}}
             {\bibliographystyle{arlonum}}
             {\bibliographystyle{arlobib}}
          }
\fi

\bibliographystyle{aipproc}

Astrophysics (astro-ph); High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); Nuclear Experiment (nucl-ex); Nuclear Theory (nucl-th)


Electronic, Magnetic and Transport Properties of Graphene Ribbons Terminated by Nanotubes

Abstract: We study by density functional and large scale tight-binding transport calculations the electronic structure, magnetism and transport properties of the recently proposed graphene ribbons with edges rolled to form nanotubes. Edges with armchair nanotubes present magnetic moments localized either in the tube or the ribbon and metallic or half-metallic character, depending on the symmetry of the junction. These properties have potential for spin valve and spin filter devices with advantages over other proposed systems. Edges with zigzag nanotubes are either metallic or semiconducting without affecting the intrinsic mobility of the ribbon. By varying the type and size of the nanotubes and ribbons offers the possibility to tailor the magnetic and transport properties, making these systems very promising for applications.

\section{Introduction}

The atomic structure of graphene edges is important for the determination
of the electronic and magnetic properties of graphene, especially for narrow
graphene nanoribbons\cite{Son2006,Han2007,Koskinen2008,Wassmann2008,Girit2009,LiuZ2009,Wimmer2010,Yazyev2010,Ostaay2011,JiaXT2011,Kunstmann2011,KatslesonBook}.
Recent theoretical work\cite{Ivanovskaya} on the stability of different graphene
edges structures has shown that graphene edges can fold back on
themselves and reconstruct as nanotubes, with low formation energy (see atomic structures in figure \ref{fig:zzacnt}). In this article, we show that, beside protecting the edges from contamination and reconstructions,
nanotubes at the edges may lead to magnetism and are not detrimental for the electronic mobility despite the row of $sp^{3}$ hybridized  atoms at the ribbon-tube junction.  We study the electronic and magnetic
properties of these systems by a combination of density functional theory (DFT) and
large scale tight binding (TB) simulations of transport properties. Our calculations suggest that these systems could be used for a variety of applications that we sketch in figure \ref{app}.

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{zz_ac.eps}
\caption{(a-h) Structure and spin density for symmetric (left) and asymmetric (right)
AC nanotube terminated edges. (a,b) Atomic structure; (c,d) Side,
(e,f) 3D and (g,h) top view of schematic spin representation. The box with
dashed line in (g,h) indicates half of the unit cell in the DFT calculation.
For the symmetric case, the contribution to the magnetic moment from atoms
belonging to the A- and B- sublattices are $m_{A}$ = 0.958 $\protect\mu _{B}$
and $m_{B}$ = -0.217 $\protect\mu _{B}$ (per half unit cell), and for the
asymmetric case $m_{A}$ = 1.048 $\protect\mu _{B}$ and $m_{B}$ = -0.300
\protect\mu _{B}$. The maximum of the magnetic moment is located on the
atom indicated by the arrow with the value $m_{max}$ = 0.379 $\protect\mu _{B}$
in both symmetric and asymmetric cases. (i,j) 3D and top view of AC nanoribbons terminated by ZZ nanotubes. The box with
dashed line in (j) indicates half of the unit cell in the DFT calculation.}
\label{fig:zzacnt}
\end{figure}

We consider systems formed by a nanoribbon terminated on both sides by the same armchair (AC) or zigzag (ZZ) nanotube. We notice that a ribbon with AC edges is terminated by
ZZ nanotubes and a ribbon with ZZ edges is terminated by AC nanotubes.
Nanoribbons  terminated by AC nanotubes present interesting magnetic properties.
By rolling the ZZ edges of a nanoribbon, two types of AC nanotubes can be formed, as shown in figure \ref{fig:zzacnt}.
If the atoms at the nanoribbon ZZ edge  scroll and bind to the same sublattice
sites within the nanoribbon, the formed AC nanotube has mirror symmetry with
respect to the nanoribbon plane; if the bonding sites belong to
opposite sublattice, there is no such kind of symmetry (compare figure \ref{fig:zzacnt}b to figure \ref{fig:zzacnt}a).
We call these two cases \textit
symmetric} and \textit{asymmetric} which
corresponds to \textit{armchair} and \textit{armchair-like} in Ref. \cit
{Ivanovskaya}, respectively. The common point of these two cases is that
the sublattice symmetry is broken, because all the $sp^{3}$ hybridized carbon atoms
at the junction belong to one sublattice. Due to Lieb theorem \cite{Yazyev2010,KatslesonBook}, this gives the possibility of spin
polarization around the junctions. Since the theorem applies to the Hubbard model, accurate calculations for the real system are necessary to
investigate this possibility.

\begin{table}[tbp]
\caption{Total spin magnetization $S$ (in unit of $\protect\mu _{B}$ per unit cell) as a
function of the index of AC nanotube ($N,N$) and size of nanoribbon
$P$ (in unit of ZZ rows). The results in this table
are for samples obtained by rolling the edges of the same unrolled graphene ribbon with width of $40$ ZZ rows.}
\label{tab:spin}\centerin
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline

N & P & S (symmetric) & S (asymmetric)\\ \hline
9 & 4 & 0.000 & 1.499 \\
8 & 8 & 0.995 & 1.499 \\
7 & 12 & 1.371 & 1.499 \\
6 & 16 & 1.481 & 1.499 \\
5 & 20 & 1.500 & 1.500 \\
4 & 24 & 1.500 & 1.500 \\
3 & 28 & 1.494 & 1.500 \\ \hline

\end{tabular
\end{table}

In order to study the magnetic properties, we performed spin polarized DFT calculations by SIESTA\cite{SIESTA-1, SIESTA-2, SIESTA-3}.
We used generalized gradient approximation with Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof parametrization (GGA-PBE) \cite{GGA-PBE} and
a standard built-in double-$\zeta $ polarized (DZP) \cite{DZP-NAO} basis set
to perform geometry relaxation.
We found that, in both symmetric and asymmetric cases, there is spin polarization near the ribbon-tube junction, i.e., near the $sp^{3}$ hybridized carbon atoms.
Note that the bond distance of these four-fold coordinated atoms is $1.54$~\AA~ like in diamond.
The spin polarization is mainly located in the nanoribbon for the symmetric
case and within the tube for the asymmetric case (see the isosurface plot
of the spin density together with its symbolic representation in figure \re
{fig:zzacnt}c-h). The up/down spins are distributed over the A/B sublattices
respectively. The label $m_{max}$  indicates the atom with the highest magnetic moment.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{apps-sketch.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Sketch of spintronics devices based on carbon nanoribbons terminated  by AC nanotubes.
 (a) A spin valve based on the symmetric case: a gate can be used to switch  from the antiferromagnetically coupled state to the ferromagnetically coupled excited state, favouring spin transport from one nanotube to the other across the ribbon. (b)  For both symmetric and asymmetric case,  high magnetoresistance could be achieved by applying magnetic fields of different sign at the ends of the nanoribbons, as proposed in \cite{KimWY2008} for ZZ nanoribbons.
(c)  For the asymmetric case, a gate along the ribbon could be used to switch  between two half-metallic energy regions  to realize either a spin filter or a spin valve.
 }
\label{app}
\end{figure}

For the symmetric case, the value of the spin polarization
increases with increasing nanoribbon width, and saturates at
1.50 $\mu _{B}$ per unit cell, when the nanoribbon width is wider than 16 ZZ
rows; For the asymmetric case, the spin
polarization is always 1.50 $\mu _{B}$ per unit cell, irrespective of the
nanoribbon width and nanotube radius (see Table \ref{tab:spin}).

For the asymmetric case the spins are located inside the two
nanotubes and therefore the exchange interaction between opposite edges is negligible.
For the symmetric case, the
spins on the two edges are coupled  antiferromagnetically, similarly to  hydrogen terminated
graphene edges\cite{Yazyev,Bhandary}:  for the structure shown in figure \re
{fig:zzacnt}a, the energy of  antiparallel spin configurations is $22$ meV per unit cell (see figure \ref{fig:zzacnt}g) lower than for parallel configurations.
This sizeable coupling across the ribbon makes the symmetric systems promising as spin valve devices\cite{Hill2006}. In figure \ref{app}a we show a configuration similar to that proposed for dumbbell graphene structures on the basis of the Hubbard Hamiltonian in the  mean field approximation\cite{MaZL2011}. A gate could be used to bring the system from the antiferromagnetically coupled state to the ferromagnetically coupled excited state, favouring spin transport from one nanotube to the other across the ribbon.
Moreover, both for the symmetric and asymmetric case, the magnetic moments along the ribbon-tube junction are qualitatively similar to the case of ZZ edges of nanoribbons. Therefore, high magnetoresistance could be expected, as proposed in \cite{KimWY2008} for nanoribbons with ZZ edges, by applying magnetic fields of different sign at the ends of the nanoribbon.  A sketch of this device for our systems is shown in figure \ref{app}b.

The spin polarized density of states (DOS) reveals other features of interest for spintronics related to half-metallic character.
In figure \ref{ldosarmchair}a and \ref{ldosarmchair}b we show the spin polarized DOS for the symmetric and asymmetric case respectively. We see that the symmetric case is metallic for both spins in the whole range of energy.  The asymmetric case, instead, is a half-metal near the Fermi energy $E_F$, namely it is metallic  for spin up and insulating for spin down.  The half-metallic character of our systems  provides opportunities as spin filters without the need of external electric fields\cite{SonYW2006}, magnetic fields\cite{Abanin2006}, ferromagnetic strips\cite{ZhangYT2010}, impurities\cite{Hod2007,ZhengXH2009,Soriano2010} or defects\cite{Martins2008,Lisenkov2012}. Furthermore, there is the opposite half-metallic character at higher energies. Around 0.4 eV, there is  insulating character for spin up and metallic character for spin down. As sketched in figure \ref{app}c, a gate along the ribbon could be used to switch  between these two half-metallic energy regions  and affect selectively  the spin transport.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{dos_sym.eps}
}

\mbox{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{dos_asym.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Density of states calculated by  DFT  for ZZ nanorribons
with (a) symmetric and (b) asymmetric AC nanotube terminated edges ($N=5$ and $P=20$ for
both cases). The arrows in (b) indicate the half-metalic energy regions for either spin up or spin down.}
\label{ldosarmchair}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\mbox{
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{gapa.eps}
} \mbox{
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{gapb.eps}
}
\caption{Band gap size-dependence in ZZ nanotube terminated AC nanoribbons.
(a) Fixed nanoribbon with 15 AC rows for varying size of the terminating  ZZ nanotube.
(b) Fixed ZZ nanotube ($8,0$ and $7,0$) edges for varying
width of the AC nanoribbon. }
\label{fig:gaps}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\mbox{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{dos_acdftvstb.eps}
} \mbox{
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{mobilityzigzagtube.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) Comparison of DOS of a  nanoribbon with 15 AC rows terminated by
 (8,0) ZZ nanotubes calculated by DFT and TB.
(b) Comparison of the mobility of a nanoribbon with 15 AC rows, terminated either by (8,0) ZZ nanotubes or by AC edges in TB. The charge
density $n_{e}$ is obtained from the density of state $\protect\rho $ in
panel (a) by $n_{e}\left( E\right) =\protect\int_{0}^{E}\protect\rho
\left( \protect\epsilon \right) d\protect\epsilon $. The sample
contains $600000\times 47$ carbon atoms for the case with ZZ nanotube
terminated edges, and $2000000\times 15$ for the case with AC edges.}
\label{dczigzag}
\end{figure}

We come now to the case with ZZ nanotubes shown in figure \ref{fig:zzacnt}i-j. For this case,  there is only one type of ribbon-tube junction that preserves sublattice symmetry
implying that there is no magnetization nor midgap states\cite{Yazyev2010,KatslesonBook}. The electronic
structure and transport properties, however,  strongly depend on the AC ribbon width
and on the ZZ tube radius. In TB models, a AC nanoribbon  is metallic
 if the number of AC rows is equal to $3l+2$, where $l$ is a positive
integer, and semiconducting otherwise\cite{Son2006,Ezawa2006}. Furthermore, ZZ
nanotubes are metallic for index equal to  $3l$\cite{Dubois}. In more
general models, the properties of AC nanoribbons and ZZ nanotubes
may differ from the ones predicted by TB, due to possible  self
passivation of the edges for nanoribbons and for the $\sigma -\pi $ band mixing for small
nanotubes\cite{Dubois}. By using DFT calculations, we found that our joined system
becomes a semiconductor with a gap of the order of few hundreds meV
if both nanoribbon and nanotube are semiconducting. The energy
gap as a function of geometry is shown in figure \ref{fig:gaps}. The size of the
nanotube has to be large enough for the opening of a band gap (figure
\ref{fig:gaps}a). For the joined system with semiconducting ZZ
nanotubes, there is a clear periodicity (3 ZZ rows) in the
dependence of the energy gap on the nanoribbon width (figure \re
{fig:gaps}b). For the studied cases, the value of the gap varies between 30 and
600 meV.

Since we want to calculate the transport properties by means of a simpler model, suitable for large samples,
we have also calculated the energy structure of our system by  $\pi $-band TB calculations where we consider only the nearest-neighbor
hopping $t=2.7$ eV between the carbon atoms\cite{WK10,YRK10} for all bonds. The comparison between the gaps calculated by TB and DFT shown in figure \ref{fig:gaps}a gives the same periodicity and a qualitative agreement. For the case of a AC nanoribbon with 15 rows terminated by (8,0) ZZ nanotubes we compare in figure \ref{dczigzag}a the TB and DFT DOS, which again are in qualitative agreement as to support the validity of the transport calculations we show next.
The electronic transport properties of a semiconducting
nanoribbon with or without nanotube terminated edges are obtained by
using  large scale TB simulations with about thirty million carbon atom
\cite{WK10,YRK10}. In figure \ref{dczigzag}b we show that the electronic mobility parallel to the edges  as a function of charge density are
quite similar in these two cases. The mobility of the joined system
is about $2250$  $cm^{2}V^{-1}s^{-1}$ at charge density $n_{e}\sim 10^{13}cm^{2}$, which is only slightly smaller than the one of the AC nanoribbon
at the same charge concentration.

In summary, we have studied the electronic and magnetic properties of graphene nanoribbons
with three types of nanotube terminated edges. The spin magnetization is
found to be 1.5 $\mu _{B}$ per unit cell in the ground state of both
symmetric and asymmetric AC nanotube terminated edges. For symmetric
AC nanotube terminated edges, the spin density is located in the ribbon whereas, for the asymmetric case, it is located within the tube.
In the ZZ nanotube terminated edges, there is a band gap opening of the
order of few hundreds meV, if the constituent tube and
nanoribbon are both semiconducting. The conductivity and mobility
 in the presence of ZZ nanotube terminated edges is
comparable to the one of the AC nanoribbon itself.

Our calculations suggest that these systems are not only advantageous because the edges
 are protected against any kind of chemically induced disorder but also because, by tailoring the  ribbon/tube structure, they offer a wealth of possible applications for transport and spintronics.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
The support by the Stichting Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) and
the Netherlands National Computing Facilities foundation (NCF) are
acknowledged. We thank the EU-India FP-7 collaboration under MONAMI and the
grant CONSOLIDER CSD2007-00010.

\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{iopart-num}

Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics (cond-mat.mes-hall); Materials Science (cond-mat.mtrl-sci); Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph)