abstract: If Dark Matter is composed of hidden-sector photons that kinetically mix with photons of the visible sector, then Dark Matter has a tiny oscillating electric field component. Its presence would lead to a small amount of visible radiation being emitted from a conducting surface, with the photon frequency given approximately by the mass of the hidden photon. Here, we report on experimental efforts that have started recently to search for such hidden photon Dark Matter in the (sub-)eV regime with a prototype mirror for the Auger fluorescence detector at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology.
author: *Babette Döbrich$^1$, Kai Daumiller$^2$, Ralph Engel$^2$, Marek Kowalski$^{1,3}$, Axel Lindner$^1$, Javier Redondo$^4$, Markus Roth$^2$*
$^1$Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), 22607 Hamburg and 15738 Zeuthen, Germany
$^2$Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), IKP, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany
$^2$Humboldt Universität, Institut für Physik, 12489 Berlin, Germany
$^4$Zaragoza University, Pedro Cerbuna 12, E-50009 Zaragoza, Spain
title:  DESY 14-166
  Hidden Photon Dark Matter Search with a Large Metallic Mirror

# Ultralight Dark Matter and the dish principle

In the literature there is no shortage of well-motivated candidates for cold Dark Matter (DM) particles. Without going into details of their respective theoretical motivation, it is however clear that there is more experimental work needed in the search for its ultra-light candidates below the eV regime: Although different detection schemes have been proposed, only a few laboratory Dark Matter searches are actively searching for low-mass particles such as QCD Axions, see, e.g., recent progress of the Axion Dark Matter eXperiment (ADMX) and EDM-based techniques .

Considerations of general classes of ultra-light particles, dubbed 'weakly interacting slim particles' (WISPs) have shown that such particles could make up the Dark Matter in a rather large parameter space: particularly axion-like particles (ALPs) and massive hidden photons (HPs) can in principle constitute all of the cold Dark Matter mainly through the misalignment mechanism which is also invoked for Axions, see . Whilst the viable parameter space for such ultra-light Dark Matter is likely to be further constrained from cosmological observables, ultimately laboratory experiments should be performed to have certainty on its existence.

On the experimental side, set-ups like ADMX are based on a *resonant* conversion of axions (and WISPs) and are thus ideal to find extremely weakly coupled particles in a rather narrow mass region. This is ideal for a QCD axion Dark Matter search. For covering a wider mass-range, the search for ALP and HP Dark Matter with a spherical mirror has been recently proposed : Here the conversion is *not resonantly amplified* and thus the most immediate experimental setups are less sensitive with respect to the coupling (but have the advantage of broad-band frequency/mass coverage).

Let us recapitulate the idea of the 'dish setup' for HP Dark Matter, analogous considerations hold then for ALPs[^1]: The relevant term for HP DM $\tilde{\gamma}$ is photon-to-hidden-photon coupling, parameterized by the kinetic mixing parameter $\chi$, see, e.g. . It eventually leads to electromagnetic power being emitted by a conducting surface (e.g. mirror) at angular frequencies approximately corresponding to the HP mass, $\omega \simeq m_{\tilde{\gamma}}$ . This is due to the presence of the HP DM together with the usual requirement that for electric fields at the conducting surface $\vec{E}|_{\parallel}=0$. To first order, photons are emitted perpendicular to the surface, with small corrections stemming from directionality of the DM inflow (which can be used to verify its DM origin).

To detect photons induced by this process, the advantage of using a spherical mirror is imminent: photons from far away background sources impinging on the mirror will be focused in the focal point $f=R/2$ whilst the Dark-Matter-induced photons will propagate to the center of the 'mirror sphere'. There, a detector can be mounted. A small off-set away from the center can be understood as follows: Be $\vec{p}$ the momentum of the incoming DM, and $\vec{k}$ the outgoing photon momentum, then $k_\parallel=p_\parallel$ along an infinitely extended surface because there is no boundary change (the approximation is then valid as long as $\lambda$ is much smaller then the surface diameter). With energy conservation $\vec{k}=\sqrt{m^2+|\vec{p}_\bot|^2}\vec{n} +\vec{p}_\parallel$, with normal $\vec{n}$ to the surface. As for the DM $|\vec{p}|\ll m$, the angular off-set of the signal away from the center of the 'dish-sphere' is $\psi\simeq |\vec{p}_\parallel|/m$ and the off-set on the detector is $d_i \simeq \frac{p_i}{m} R$ when the detector is at center $R$ and $i$ labels directions along the surface.

Nicely, thus, such a setup has a directional sensitivity , which is easy to retrace within the common DM halo models. E.g., assuming an isotropic velocity distribution of the DM with respect to the galactic frame, a global off-set of the signal on the order of $\Delta d \sim \Delta v_{\rm detector} R$ is expected due to the movement of the sun in the galactic rest frame as well as a daily modulation on the same order of magnitude (the yearly modulation is negligible due to the small velocity of the earth w.r.t. the sun). Besides the signal-spot movement, a likely velocity distribution $\Delta v_{\rm DM} \sim 10^{-3}$ of the DM leads to a broadening of the signal spot. Ultimately, it is nice that this directional sensitivity can help to verify the Dark Matter nature of a signal.

# Prospective sensitivity with the KIT mirror

```latex
\begin{figure*}[htbp]\begin{tabular}{cc}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{doebrich_babette_fig2.pdf}
\caption{Hidden photon DM parameter
space (blue) and exclusion regions (red/orange).
In green some parameter regions accessible with the metallic
mirror setup with different detector options. See text for details and \cite{Jaeckel:2013ija}
for a comprehensive review of the parameter space.
}
\label{fig:excl}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}

%\hfill
&

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{doebrich_babette_fig1.jpg}
\caption{Spherical prototype mirror for AUGER housed at KIT (campus north).
The grey post at the lower right hand side is the detector mount
located in the center of curvature.
}
\label{fig:dish}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}

\end{tabular}
\end{figure*}
```

The Pierre Auger Observatory uses two types of mirrors (coated glass and coated aluminum) . Both are are segmented due to their rather large overall area of $A\simeq 13 {\rm m}^2$, see Fig. . One prototype aluminum mirror for this experiment is kept at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology (KIT). As the mirrors are spherical with $R=3.4$m, the metallic mirror is ideal for the Dark Matter search described above. Assuming a Dark Matter density of $\rho_{\rm CDM} \simeq 0.3 {\rm GeV}/{\rm cm^3}$ and assuming that HPs make up all of the Dark Matter the power emitted to the center is

$$P= \braket{\alpha^2} \chi^2 \rho_{\rm CDM} A_{\rm dish}  \approx \chi^2 \ (1.87 \times 10^5 \ {\rm Watt}) \ ,$$ where $\braket{\alpha^2}$ is a $\mathcal{O}(1)$-factor related to the polarization of the HPs , which we have taken to be one for simplicity. As mentioned, the experimental advantage now is that the power is concentrated at the center $R$ of the 'mirror sphere', and not at the focal point $f=R/2$.

As benchmark number, one would like to probe the parameter space below $\chi=3 \times 10^{-12} \ 1/m[{\rm eV}]$, which is the limit inferred from the XENON10 experiment , see the orange region labeled 'Xenon' in Fig. .

The setup described above is sensitive to all HP masses whose associated wavelength $\lambda=2\pi/m$ can be: 1) detected by the sensor and 2) properly focused by the mirror (here we assumed $\lambda\ll R$ to use light-ray approximation and neglect diffraction, which would affect our estimates approximately below the mass range at which we cut Fig. ).

For technological simplicity, measurements in the visible are a good starting point, although their range is a limited. As an example, labeled 'PMT' in Fig. , we have plotted the sensitivity range of a readily available[^2], low-noise ($\lesssim$`<!-- -->`{=html}1Hz) cooled PMT with $\sim25$% quantum efficiency in the (300-500)nm regime at a SNR of 3 and 30h measurement time (assuming we are noise-limited by the detector, which is conceivable in the optical).

One can see that even this most simple and realistic setup is quickly sensitive to uncharted parameter space and with a set of PMTs, the near-infrared to UV range can be explored down to $\chi\sim 10^{-13}$ (the overall coverage is a bit limited in the eV-range due to the strong bounds imposed by ).

Since the mirror is by default set up in a room with $\mathcal{O}$(m)-thick concrete walls and further shielding can be constructed if required, measurements down to the GHz-range can be envisioned and are sensitive to larger parameter regions of HP DM. The gray regions in Fig.  indicate the exclusion set through a null-result of different QCD axion haloscopes as described in Sect .

In green and yellow, again we plot parameter space accessible in principle to our set-up, here within a few minutes in an idealized situation where we are limited by detector noise (if the mirror has high reflectivity for the corresponding frequencies, its thermal emission should be low). We sketch the accessible parameter region using the Dicke radiometer equation for a 25K c receiver at hand ($\sim 3.2-4.2$GHz) (lighter green). For slightly higher frequencies we employ the noise figure provided in . One sees that even non-cryogenic options (300K FET, darker green) can cover a neat section of parameter space, we also plot in lighter green the accessible region for a 15K HEMT (yellow).

Note the in the above considerations we have left out implications of directionality discussed in Sect . In the final analysis, the data sets have to be evaluated in a particular DM model in which off-set and modulation can be computed.

In summary, one sees that this rather simple setup offers many options to look for HP Dark Matter. Fig.  just sketches the most immediate options for this setting for good experimental conditions. If we are successful in these first steps, measurements in also in intermediate frequency ranges could be conceived. In the following months, the results of ongoing background measurements and budgetary considerations will determine our next steps.

# Summary

Hidden Photons could constitute (part of) Dark Matter. To test this possibility, cosmological guidance and laboratory experiments are needed. A novel setup with a large metallic mirror that can probe HP masses in the $10^{-5}-10^{0}$ eV-regime down to kinetic mixing values of $\chi \sim 10^{-13}$ is being set up at Karlsruhe. This experiment can nicely complement other broadband efforts to probe even lower HP DM mass-scales with microwave cavities.

*The authors acknowledge the support of the Helmholtz Alliance for Astroparticle Physics, the lasting support of many 'light-movers' and the kind collaboration of I. G. Irastorza, J. Jaeckel, D. Horns, H. Krüger, A. Lobanov, H.-J. Mathes, A. Ringwald, J.-E. v. Seggern, G. Woerner and D. Veberic on different aspects of this experiment. BD would like to thank the PATRAS 2014 workshop organizers for a topical and motivating conference.*

[^1]: From the experimental point of view, to look for ALP DM with this technique is rather involved, since for a decent sensitivity the mirror has to be strongly magnetized with field strengths on the order of a few Tesla . For the experimental setup at KIT described here, this will likely not be possible.

[^2]: see, e.g. <http://my.et-enterprises.com/pdf/9893_350B.pdf>.


abstract: The abstract should summarize the context, content and conclusions of the paper. It should not contain any references or displayed equations. Typeset the abstract in 10 pt Times Roman with baselineskip of 12 pt, making an indentation of 1.6 cm on the left and right margins.
address: University Department, University Name, Address
City, State ZIP/Zone, Country
firstname.lastname@example.com[^1]; Group, Company, Address
City, State ZIP/Zone, Country
firstname.lastname@example.com
author: FIRST AUTHOR[^2]; SECOND AUTHOR
title: INSTRUCTIONS FOR TYPESETTING MANUSCRIPT
  USING LaTeX[^3]

# The Main Text

Contributions are to be in English. Authors are encouraged to have their contribution checked for grammar. American spelling should be used. Abbreviations are allowed but should be spelt out in full when first used. Integers ten and below are to be spelt out. Italicize foreign language phrases (e.g. Latin, French).

The text is to be typeset in 11 pt Times , single-spaced with baselineskip of 13 pt. Text area is 17.8 cm (7 inches) across and 24.4 cm (9.6 inches) deep (including running title). Final pagination and insertion of running titles will be done by the publisher.

# Major Headings

Major headings should be typeset in boldface, with the first letter of important words capitalized.

## Subheadings

Subheadings should be typeset in bold italics, with the first letter of first word capitalized and the section number in boldface.

### Sub-subheadings

Typeset in italics (section number to be in roman) and capitalize the first letter of the first word only.

## Numbering and spacing

Sections, subsections and sub-subsections are numbered with Arabic numerals. Use double spacing after major and subheadings, and single spacing after sub-subheadings.

# Lists of Items

Lists are broadly classified into four major categories that can randomly be used as desired by the author:

## Numbered and lettered list

Note: For all the above mentioned lists (with the exception of alphabetic list), it is obligatory to enter the last entry's number in the list within the square bracket, to enable unit alignment.

## Bulleted and unnumbered list

1.  The `\begin{itemlist}` command is used for the bulleted list.

2.  The `\begin{unnumlist}` command is used for creating the unnumbered list with the turnovers hangindent by 1 pica.

Lists may be laid out with each item marked by a dot:

Items may also be numbered with lowercase Roman numerals:

# Theorems and Definitions

    \begin{theorem}
    We have $\# H^2 (M \supset N) < \infty$ for an inclusion ...
    \end{theorem}

    \begin{theorem}[Longo, 1998]
    For a given $Q$-system...
    \[
    N = \{x \in N; T x = \gamma (x) T, T x^* = \gamma (x^*) T\},
    \]
    and $E_\Xi (\cdot) = T^* \gamma (\cdot) T$ gives ...
    \end{theorem}

## Proofs

The WSPC document styles also provide a predefined proof environment for proofs. The proof produces the heading 'Proof' with appropriate spacing and punctuation. It also appends a 'Q.E.D.' symbol, $\blacksquare$, at the end of a proof, e.g.

    \begin{proof}
    This is just an example.
    \end{proof}

to produce

*Proof.* This is just an example. ◻

The proof environment takes an argument in curly braces, which allows you to substitute a different name for the standard 'Proof'. If you want to display, 'Proof of Lemma', then write e.g.

    \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma]
    This is just an example.
    \end{proof}

produces

*Proof of Lemma.* This is just an example. ◻

# Equations

Displayed equations should be numbered consecutively in each section, with the number set flush right and enclosed in parentheses: $$\mu(n, t) = \frac{\displaystyle\sum^\infty_{i=1} 1(d_i < t, N(d_i) = n)}
{\displaystyle\int^t_{\sigma=0} 1(N(\sigma) = n)d\sigma}\,\,
.\label{this}$$

Equations should be referred to in abbreviated form, e.g. "Eq. ()" or "(2)". In multiple-line equations, the number should be given on the last line.

Displayed equations are to be centered on the page width. Standard English letters like x are to appear as $x$ (italicized) in the text if they are used as mathematical symbols. Punctuation marks are used at the end of equations as if they appeared directly in the text.[^4]

# Illustrations and Photographs

Figures are to be inserted in the text nearest their first reference. Please send one set of originals with copies. If the publisher is required to reduce the figures, ensure that the figures (including lettering and numbers) are large enough to be clearly seen after reduction.

Figures are to be sequentially numbered with Arabic numerals. The caption must be placed below the figure. For those figures with multiple parts which appear on different pages, it is best to place the full caption below the first part, and have e.g. "Fig. 1 (*continued*)" below the last part. Typeset in 9 pt Times Roman with baselineskip of 11 pt. Use double spacing between a caption and the text that follows immediately.

Previously published material must be accompanied by written permission from the author and publisher.

Very large figures and tables should be placed on a separate page by themselves. Landscape tables and figures can be typeset with the following environments:

# Tables

Tables should be inserted in the text as close to the point of reference as possible. Some space should be left above and below the table. Tables should be numbered sequentially in the text with Arabic numerals. Captions are to be centered above the tables. Typeset tables and captions in 9 pt Times Roman with baselineskip of 11 pt.

If tables need to extend over to a second page, the continuation of the table should be preceded by a caption, e.g. "Table 1 ( *continued*)".

|     |     |  3   |  4   |   8   |  10   |
|:----|:---:|:----:|:----:|:-----:|:-----:|
|     |     |      |      |       |       |
|     |     | 1200 | 2000 |       |       |
| NC  |     | 2000 | 2200 |       |       |
|     |     | 2500 | 2700 | 16000 | 22000 |
|     | 10  | 3000 | 3400 | 22000 | 28000 |
|     |     |      |      |       |       |

By using `\tbl` command in table environment, long captions will be justified to the table width while the short or single line captions are centered. `\tbl{table caption}{tabullar environment}`.

For most tables, the horizontal rules are obtained by:

|  |  |
|:---|:---|
| **toprule** | one rule at the top |
| **colrule** | one rule separating column heads from data cells |
| **botrule** | one bottom rule |
| **Hline** | one thick rule at the top and bottom of the tables with multiple column heads |

To avoid the rules sticking out at either end of the table, add `@{}` before the first and after the last descriptors, e.g. @llll@. Please avoid vertical rules in tables. But if you think the vertical rule is a must, you can use the standard LaTeX `tabular` environment.

Headings which span for more than one column should be set using `\multicolumn{#1}{#2}{#3}` where `#1` is the number of columns to be spanned, `#2` is the argument for the alignment of the column head which may be either c — for center alignment; l — for left alignment; or r — for right alignment, as desired by the users. Use c for column heads as this is the WS style and `#3` is the heading.

# Cross-references

Use `\label` and `\ref` for cross-references to equations, figures, tables, sections, subsections, etc., instead of plain numbers. Every numbered part to which one wants to refer, should be labeled with the instruction `\label`. For example:

    \begin{equation}
    \mu(n, t)=\frac{\sum\limits^\infty_{i=1}1 (d_i < t, N(d_i)=n)}
    {\int\limits^t_{\sigma=0}1 (N(\sigma)=n)d\sigma}.\label{aba:eq1}
    \end{equation}

With the instruction `\ref` one can refer to a numbered part that has been labeled:

    ..., see also Eq. (\ref{aba:eq1})

The `\label` instruction should be typed

# References

References cited in the text should be placed within square brackets and stated as \[surname of author(s), year of publication\], e.g., and, with three or more authors, . If the reference reads as part of the sentence, the square brackets enclose only the year of publication, e.g., "According to Golub and Van Loan \[1989\], …"

A note can be added before Acknowledgments.

This part should come before References. Funding information may also be included here.

Appendices should be used only when absolutely necessary. They should come immediately before References.

If there is more than one appendix, number them alphabetically. $$\mu(n, t) = \frac{\displaystyle\sum^\infty_{i=1} 1(d_i < t, N(d_i) = n)}
{\displaystyle\int^t_{\sigma=0} 1(N(\sigma) = n)d\sigma}\,\,
.\label{that}$$ Number displayed equations occurring in the appendix as (A.1), (A.2), etc.

A complete list of references cited, arranged in alphabetical order according to the surname of the first author, should be provided. References by the same author will follow a chronological sequence, i.e., precedes . Article titles should be stated in full but standard abbreviations should be used for journal names. Typeset reference in 10 pt Times Roman, single spaced with baselineskip of 12 pt.

## Examples

### Journal reference:

=1.12em Pärssinen, A., Jussila, J., Ryynänen, J., Sumanen, L. & Halonen, K. A. I. \[1999\] "A 2-GHz wide-band direct conversion receiver for WCDMA applications," *IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits* **34**, p. 1893.

=1.12em Zhu, Z. & Leung, H. \[1999\] "Optimal synchronization of chaotic systems in noise," *IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst.-I$:$ Fund. Th. Appl.* **46**, 1320–1329.

### Book reference:

=1.12em Golub, G. H. & Van Loan, C. F. \[1989\] *Matrix Comptations*, 2nd Ed. (Johns Hopkins University Press, USA).

=1.12em Lie, D. Y. C. & Wang, K. L. \[2001\] "Si/SiGe processing," *Semiconductors and Semimetals* **73**, eds. Willardson, R. & Weber, E., (Academic Press, San Diego), Chapter 4, pp. 151–197.

### Proceedings reference:

=1.12em Haller, B., Streiff, M., Fleisch, U. & Zimmermann, R. \[1997\] "Hardware implementation of a systolic array signal processor based on CORDIC arithmetic," *Proc. Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Proc.* **5**, pp. 4141–4144.

[^1]: State completely without abbreviations the affiliation and mailing address, including country. Typeset in 11 pt Times Italic.

[^2]: Typeset names in 11 pt Times Roman. Use the footnote to indicate the present or permanent address of the author.

[^3]: For the title, try not to use more than three lines. Typeset the title in 15 pt Times Roman, uppercase and boldface.

[^4]: Sample footnote


author: M. Verma
date: Received 31/10/2017; accepted 24/01/2018
subtitle: Shear flows and head-on collision of new and pre-existing flux
title: On the origin of two X-class flares in active region NOAA 12673

Flare-prolific active region NOAA 12673 produced consecutive X2.2 and X9.3 flares on 6 September 2017. To scrutinize the morphological, magnetic, and horizontal flow properties associated with these flares, a 7-hour time-series was used consisting of continuum images, line-of-sight/vector magnetograms, and 1600 Å UV images. These data were acquired with the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) and the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA). The white-light flare emission differed for both flares, while the X2.2 flare displayed localized, confined flare kernels, the X9.3 flare exhibited a two-ribbon structure. In contrast, the excess UV emission exhibited a similar structure for both flares, but with larger areal extent for the X9.3 flare. These two flares represented a scenario, where the first confined flare acted as precursor, setting up the stage for the more extended flare. Difference maps for continuum and magnetograms revealed locations of significant changes, i.e., penumbral decay and umbral strengthening. The curved magnetic polarity inversion line in the $\delta$-spot was the fulcrum of most changes. Horizontal proper motions were computed using the differential affine velocity estimator for vector magnetograms (DAVE4VM). Persistent flow features included (1) strong shear flows along the polarity inversion line, where the negative, parasitic polarity tried to bypass the majority, positive-polarity part of the $\delta$-spot in the north, (2) a group of positive-polarity spots, which moved around the $\delta$-spot in the south, moving away from the $\delta$-spot with significant horizontal flow speeds, and (3) intense moat flows partially surrounding the penumbra of several sunspots, which became weaker in regions with penumbral decay. The enhanced flare activity has its origin in the head-on collision of newly emerging flux with an already existing regular, $\alpha$-spot. Umbral cores of emerging bipoles were incorporated in its penumbra, creating a $\delta$-configuration with an extended polarity inversion line, as the parasitic umbral cores were stretched while circumventing the majority polarity.

# Introduction

The relationship between sunspot numbers and flare occurrence as a function of the solar cycle was extensively examined, revealing a surge of renewed solar activity occurs a few years after the cycle maximum . noticed, in a correlation analysis of flare occurrence and sunspot number, that the flare occurrence lags behind the sunspot number. For solar cycle 23, found high flare activity in the late declining phase of the cycle. Not only an increased flare activity was noted but many low-latitude coronal holes were repeatedly observed during the declining and minimum phases of solar cycle 23 . In addition, determined that the occurrence rate of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) peaked two years after the cycle maximum, and in the analysis of , the maximum speeds of CMEs also peaked approximately at that time. Recently, reported that the occurrence rates of major flares and front-side halo CMEs are higher during the descending phase of solar cycle 23 as compared to other phases of the cycle. The recent rejuvenation in the Sun's large-scale magnetic field during solar cycle 24 starting in the second half of 2014, was pointed out by . They concluded that this was the result of systematic flux emergence in active regions, whose longitudinal distribution greatly increased the Sun's dipole moment.

The role of horizontal shear flows in building up magnetic stress in flare-productive active regions was already noticed by . Horizontal shear flows are not only responsible for magnetic stress but are also drivers for magnetic reconnection . measured the horizontal flows in active region NOAA 10486 before an X10 flare and found shear flows with local correlation tracking of up to 1.6 km s$^{-1}$ along the polarity inversion line (PIL). These strong shear flows were correlated with white-light flare kernels in the optical range. Strong horizontal shear flows, which decrease with height in the atmosphere, were also observed by in the same active region. Based on photospheric flows and the flux around the PIL, derived indicators for the occurrence of flares. Many case studies established crucial links between photospheric shear flows, build-up of free-energy in a stressed magnetic field topology, and major flares . More recently, and analyzed the horizontal flows in active region NOAA 11158 in relation to an X2.2 flare. The photospheric signatures produced by this major flare were rather diminutive. On the other hand, during the impulsive phase shear flows around the PIL showed a sudden decrease and a change in the intrinsic rotation of the two main sunspots. Recently, reviewed shear motions, sunspot rotation, and flux emergence regarding their role in triggering solar eruptive events.

# Observations and data reduction

Active region NOAA 12673 appeared on the South-East limb of the solar disk on 29 August 2017 as a simple $\alpha$-spot. Over the next few days, it maintained its single-spot configuration. On 3 September 2017, new flux emerged as bipolar regions following the $\alpha$-spot, and by the next day, the region had acquired a complex $\beta\gamma$-configuration, when the positive polarity of the bipoles merged with the main spot. The complexity of the region increased, and a $\delta$-configuration appeared by 5 September 2017, when the negative polarity of the bipoles collided head-on with the main spot. A unique aspect of this flare-prolific active region was the short period of just three hours between two major flares. The X2.2 flare occurred at 08:57 UT followed by an X9.3 flare at 11:53 UT on 6 September (Fig. ). The latter was the strongest flare in solar cycle 24. A detailed description of the magnetic evolution is given by , call attention to an overall extremely high flux emergence rate and non-potential magnetic field topology, and report extremely strong transverse magnetic fields near the PIL of more than 5500 G.

The present work is based on HMI continuum images and magnetograms and UV images obtained by AIA , both on board the Solar Dynamics Observatory . These time-series cover a 7-hour period from 08:00 –15:00 UT. The data were divided in three sets: "pre-flare" one hour before the X2.2 flare (08:00 – 09:00 UT), "interim" two hours between the two X-class flares (9:30 –11:30 UT), and "post-flare" two hours after the X9.3 flare (12:00 –14:00 UT). The goal was to capture differences in the flow fields before, in between, and after the two major flares. The HMI and AIA data had a cadence of 45 s and 48 s, respectively, and the former were adapted to the AIA image scale of 0.6 pixel$^{-1}$. Images and magnetograms were then compensated for differential rotation and rotated to the position, when the active region crossed the central meridian at 19:00 UT on 3 September 2017. The continuum and UV images were corrected for the center-to-limb variation and divided by a 2D limb-darkening function based on the average quiet-Sun intensity.

For tracking the plasma flows we used the Space-weather HMI Active Region Patches (SHARP) vector magnetogram data product with 12-minute cadence . The SHARP maps were generated from polarization measurements at six wavelengths along the Fe i 6173 Å spectral line . The data were inverted using the Very Fast Inversion of the Stokes Vector (VFISV) algorithm based on the Milne-Eddington approximation, and the 180$^\circ$ ambiguity in azimuth was resolved using the minimum-energy code . The inversion provided several physical parameters, including maps of continuum intensity, magnetic field, azimuth, inclination, and line-of-sight (LOS) velocity (see online movie). Since only six wavelength points are used in the inversion of HMI vector magnetograms the errors are usually large in the derived magnetic field parameters. In addition, an upper limit of 5000 G is set for the magnetic field strength. The total magnetic field strength and transverse magnetic field in all 36 maps combined exceed 4000 G only for about 2100 and 250 pixels, respectively. Thus, extremely strong magnetic fields, as reported by , were not observed. From the two types of available SHARP data products , definitive maps were only available for the interim and post-flare phases because of a semiannual spacecraft eclipse period. Thus, five near-real-time maps were used for the pre-flare phase.

In the next step, images and magnetic field maps were corrected for geometrical foreshortening , which resulted in maps, where one pixel corresponds to 400 km $\times$ 400 km. Horizontal proper motions were derived with DAVE4VM using convolution with the Scharr operator and a five-point-stencil with a time difference of 12 min between neighboring magnetograms for the spatial and temporal derivatives of the magnetic field, respectively. The horizontal velocities were averaged over one hour for the pre-flare period, and two hours for the interim and post-flare periods.

# Results

Active region NOAA 12673 produced many C-, 27 M-, and four X-class flares in one week (4 –10 September 2017). The two X-class flares on 6 September 2017 were separated in time by only about three hours (Fig. ). The immediate succession of two major flares motivated this case study. The flare kernels for both flares were identified in continuum and UV images. To extract the photospheric continuum emission, average maps were created using 40 continuum images before 09:06 UT and 11:53 UT for the X2.2 and X9.3 flares, respectively. These background maps were subtracted from individual images covering the next 30 min starting at the flare initiation time. Choosing a threshold of $+0.1\,I_{0}$, where $I_0$ is the quiet-Sun intensity, for the excess intensity was sufficient to unveil the continuum flare emission and its location. To obtain the areal extent with sub-pixel accuracy, the images were magnified by a factor of 2.5 using Fourier interpolation. Small-scale features were discarded and smooth boundaries were ensured using morphological opening. The temporal evolution of regions with continuum flare emission is given by the scale bars in Fig. , where red shows the beginning and yellow the end of the white-light flare.

An average map based on 50 images taken between 07:30 –08:10 UT was used to compute the excess UV emission after both flares. This background map was then subtracted from all individual images over a two-hour period in both the interim and the post-flare phases. The flare ribbons and kernels are characterized by very strong UV emission. Thus, a threshold of 3.5 times the background emission was used to label the flaring regions. A 2D frequency distribution of areas displaying significant UV excess brightenings was superimposed in blue colors on the gray-scale continuum image in both panels of Fig. . Therefore, a strong saturation of the color blue indicates regions, which exhibit the strongest UV flare emissions.

During the X2.2 flare, the white-light flare kernels were confined and limited to two small patches near the PIL in the positive polarity of the $\delta$-spot. These kernels appeared almost 10-min after the flare peak time. In contrast, the white-light kernels for the X9.3 flare appeared 3 min after the X-ray emission peaked. They were more extended and formed a two-ribbon configuration on both sides of the PIL. These two ribbons migrated away from the PIL as indicated by the color gradient from dark red to light orange in the right panel of Fig. . Two remote brightenings (yellow) appeared at the periphery of two umbral cores away from the PIL towards the end of the 30-minute interval. The excess UV emission for the X2.2 flare was mainly limited to the $\delta$-spot and was sparsely seen in neighboring sunspots. However, for the X9.3 flare, the flaring area was much larger, and the excess emission stretched to all sunspots in the active region. Even though both X-class flares can be categorized as homologous flares, significant differences in their morphology and temporal evolution are apparent, both for the white-light flare kernels and the excess UV brightenings. The X2.2 flare likely weakened the magnetic topology facilitating the next eruptive flare. Following the evolution in time-lapse movies of the Large-Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph , a CME erupted only for the X9.3 flare, whereas the X2.2 flare stayed confined.

Active region NOAA 12673 contained four major sunspots. The large, central $\delta$-spot was the fulcrum of all flare activity. This spot differed from typical $\delta$-spots and was formed by the head-on collision of newly emerging bipolar regions with pre-existing flux in the form of a simple $\alpha$-spot. This created a complex active region with the main spot containing the $\delta$-configuration and three neighboring spots, i.e., two on top ('c' and 'd' in Fig. ) and spot 'b' at the bottom, which also exhibited peculiar proper motions. Within the $\delta$-spot a curved light-bridge 'a' coincides with the PIL. The umbral cores on both sides of the light-bridge are elongated and curved, which already provides a first indication of shear flows and twist within the flux system. This magnetically "stressed" configuration motivated this study, and difference maps were computed for both continuum images and magnetograms (Fig. ) to clearly identify, where the major changes occurred during and after the major flares.

The difference maps were computed by subtracting time-averaged maps from individual continuum images and magnetograms. Before the X2.2 flare only minute changes occurred in both continuum intensity and magnetic field, with some strengthening of the magnetic field in the upper part of the PIL. Starting with the X2.2 flare, these changes became more apparent in this location, where the reduced/strengthened magnetic fields in positive/negative polarities across the PIL appeared as an X-shaped feature. One and a half hours after the X2.2 flare, considerable changes took place in the vicinity of the PIL. A small dark localized region at coordinates (25 Mm, 50 Mm) appeared in both types of difference maps in the negative polarity of the $\delta$-spot. This is caused by the parasitic polarity trying to bypass the dominant positive polarity of the $\delta$-spot, which leads to flux cancellation. The top of the PIL retained the reduced magnetic field. At this time, prominent changes in intensity and magnetic field became evident in the neighboring sunspots 'b', 'c', and 'd' as well. In the positive-polarity spot 'b' and negative-polarity spots 'c' and 'd', the decay of the penumbra on the side facing the $\delta$-spot was evident in both difference maps. Umbral strengthening in the immediate vicinity of penumbral decay was seen in spots 'b' and 'd'. During and after the X9.3 flare, the changes in all marked locations remained, which indicates that the magnetic topology of the active region reached a new equilibrium.

The regions A – C and D (as marked in Fig. ) were chosen as examples for the regions exhibiting penumbral decay and umbral strengthening, respectively (Fig. ). Aligned and geometrical corrected continuum images and total magnetic flux maps from the inverted vector magnetograms were used to compute the photometric and magnetic flux evolution in these regions. The penumbra and umbra were selected using the intensity threshold of $I_\mathrm{pen} < 0.9\,I_{0}$ and $I_\mathrm{umb} < 0.65\,I_{0}$, respectively, where $I_{0}$ refers to the normalized quiet-Sun intensity (see column two in the online movie). In region B, area and flux decayed after the X2.2 flare, whereas these values declined in region A only after the X9.3 flare. The penumbra decayed at first in region C after the X2.2 flare but in the interim phase, the penumbra replenished and later decayed after the second flare. In contrast, area and flux increased in umbral region D after both flares.

To quantify proper motions in and around the $\delta$-spot, we applied DAVE4VM to vector magnetograms (see Fig. ). The time-series was divided into the three aforementioned flare phases. Only some of the flow features were persistent. Nonetheless, also these region were not static but continuously exhibited dynamic features in all phases: (1) The moat flows around negative polarity spot 'd', positive polarity spot 'b', and the western side of the $\delta$-spot – the moat flows in sunspot 'd' and the $\delta$-spot weakened from pre- to post-flare phase. (2) The pronounced flow pattern that leads to the separation of the negative polarity of the $\delta$-spot and the positive-polarity spot 'b' – the flow vectors in northward direction in the $\delta$-spot were well aligned with the PIL. In the interim phase, these flows appeared to form an inverted S tracing the shape of the PIL. These flows had almost identical values in the pre- and post-flare phases ($\bar{v}_\mathrm{pre} = 0.49$ km s$^{-1}$ and $\bar{v}_\mathrm{post} = 0.50$ km s$^{-1}$). The opposing southward flows in the southern sunspot became more curved with increased areal coverage from pre-flare to interim phase. These flows became somewhat stronger in the interim phase ($\bar{v}_\mathrm{pre} = 0.35$ km s$^{-1}$ to $\bar{v}_\mathrm{post} =
0.37$ km s$^{-1}$) and traced the circumventing motion of spot 'b' around the positive polarity of the $\delta$-spot. In general, the velocities along the PIL remained high during all three phases with some patches of velocities reaching 0.5 – 0.7 km s$^{-1}$. (3) The velocities in the positive part of the $\delta$-spot remained low. Weak curling flows exhibited counter-streaming along the upper part of the PIL with respect to the northward motion seen in the negative polarity of the $\delta$-spot. These flow vectors were seen prominently in the pre-flare and interim phases ($\bar{v}_\mathrm{pre} = 0.21$ km s$^{-1}$ to $\bar{v}_\mathrm{int} = 0.26$ km s$^{-1}$). However, uniform converging motions to the center replaced the curling motions in the post-flare phase.

The LOS velocity maps based on inversions provided the missing information to study flows around the $\delta$-spot in 3D. Only some of the flow features were persistent. The Evershed flow appears in the upper/lower sunspots and the positive polarity of the $\delta$-spot. Although, only two blueshifted patches can be seen in the negative-polarity $\delta$-spot. The flows parallel to the PIL displayed successive red/blue/redshifts. This alternating flow pattern remained persistent before, between, and after both flares.

# Discussion and conclusions

Peculiar horizontal proper motions are at the center of the present work, which were responsible for creating shear and twisting motions powering two X-class flares in declining phase of solar cycle 24. observed a large active region with convoluted magnetic fields along the PIL and with a large curl of the horizontal magnetic field. The field lines along the PIL reconnected with the expanding and stretched-out opposite-polarity regions. Similarly, the extended and curved PIL of the present $\delta$-spot was the site of many flares, specifically two major X-class flares, because of strong magnetic field gradients between drawn out umbral cores of opposite polarity in close proximity. showed that abrupt, significant, and permanent changes of the photospheric longitudinal magnetic field are ubiquitous features of X-class flares, which were observed for the two X-class flares, too.

Persistent flow patterns along PIL contributed to sheared magnetic field structures: (1) Strong shear flows affected the negative, parasitic polarity, which was sliding along the PIL northward. (2) A group of positive-polarity spots bypassed the main spot to the south, and the separation speed increased after the two X-class flares. (3) Rapid penumbral decay weakened the moat flow associated with several sunspots surrounding the main spot.

proposed a "block-induced" eruption model for the X9.3 flare. Newly emerging flux is blocked by already existing flux, which leads to increased flare-productivity. In addition, they conclude that the X9.3 flare was triggered by an erupting filament due to kink instability. However, this flare scenario is not new. A similar flare-prolific active region NOAA 5395 was observed by , which exhibited a complex structure, an extended PIL, coalescence of spots creating a $\delta$-configuration, expulsion of smaller spots in curved trajectories, and strong shear motions. Furthermore, noticed a similar phenomenon on much smaller scales, i.e., the head-on collision of flux systems forming a small $\delta$-spot, which produced many C- and M-class flares. studied a similar $\delta$-spot with complex structure and consecutive flares along the PIL. The $\delta$-spot was formed by compressing and compacting opposite polarities. In addition, a light-bridge coincided with the PIL with strong horizontal motions. The author proposed that flares in evolving $\delta$-spots are caused by the emergence of twisted magnetic flux ropes. The magnetic topology of such regions is governed by tightly twisted (sheet-like) magnetic knots within emerging flux ropes. The elevated flare productivity of such regions is likely the result of internal magnetic structure and formation of anomalous magnetic ropes.

Active region NOAA 12673 started out as a simple $\alpha$-spot. The emergence of multiple bipolar regions to the north and south created a complex active region, when first the leading spots of the same polarity as the $\alpha$-spot were incorporated in the already existing flux system. The $\delta$-configuration was created when the trailing polarity piled up behind the main spot. This $\delta$-spot is different than usual $\delta$-configurations because the PIL is established within the remnants of the compacted bipolar regions. The parasitic polarity is surrounded on three sides by the majority polarity, and it is the northern side, where the extended and curved umbral cores circumnavigate the pre-existing flux system that initiates the flare. This location is also the site of white-light flare emission in both flares. The observed photospheric shear motions created a highly non-potential field configuration, which provided the energy that powered these, in many aspects homologous, X-class flares . However, differences exist, with the former flare being more confined and the later being related to a filament eruption and major CME. The emergence of new flux plays a role in the onset of flares. studied five X-class flares and noticed that the magnetic shear along the PIL increased after all flares. According to authors, the emergence of new flux at the onset of each flare had sufficient energy to power flares and left the photosphere in a more sheared configuration.

The white-light brightenings associated with two X-class flares are similar to those in a case study of , who found low-atmospheric small-scale precursors, i.e., brightenings along the PIL before an M6.5 flare. These brightenings moved along the PIL instead of away and were confined, while the main flare was much more extended, as in the flare model proposed by . In this model, the pre-flare brightenings can be ascribed to heating of the current sheet between the pre-existing large-scale field and small-scale intrusions of parasitic polarity forming barb-like structures along the PIL. This interaction aided the reconnection of the ambient legs of large-scale sheared loops rooted in major flux concentration, thus producing precursor brightenings. The X2.2 and X9.3 flares may not completely follow this scenario, but the similarity arises from small-scale brigthenings appearing along the PIL during the confined X2.2 flare, followed by more extended flare emission in the X9.3 flare, which was associated with a filament eruption and a CME.


UTTG-25-2020

**On the Development of Effective Field Theory**

Steven Weinberg[^1]

footnote-1
*Theory Group, Department of Physics, University of Texas
Austin, TX, 78712*

**Abstract**

This is a lightly edited version of the talk given on September 30, 2020 to inaugurate the international seminar series *All Things EFT*. It reviews some of the early history of effective field theories, and concludes with a discussion of the implications of effective field theory for future discovery.

What is the world made of? This question is perhaps is the deepest and earliest in all of science. Greeks were asking this question a hundred years before the time of Socrates. By the time that I became a graduate student an answer had apparently been settled. The world is made not of water, earth, air or fire, but of fields. There is the electromagnetic field that when quantum mechanics is applied to it is manifested in the form of bundles of energy, momentum – particles that are called photons. There is an electron field that similarly when quantized appears as particles called electrons. And there are other fields that we in the late 1950s knew we did not yet know about. The weak and the strong interactions were pretty mysterious. It was clear that there had to be more than just electrons and photons. But we looked forward to a description of nature as consisting fundamentally of fields as the constituents of everything.

The quantum field theory of electrons and photons in the late 1940s had scored a tremendous success. Theorists – Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga, Dyson – had figured out after decades of effort how to do calculations preserving not only Lorentz invariance but also the appearance of Lorentz invariance at every stage of the calculation. This allowed them to sort out the infinities in the theory that had been noticed in the early 1930s by Oppenheimer and Waller, and that had been the *bête noire* of theoretical physics throughout the 1930s. They were able to show in the late 1940s that these infinities could all be absorbed into a redefinition, called a renormalization, of the electron mass and charge and the scales of the various fields. And they were able to do calculations of unprecedented precision, which turned out to be verified by experiment: calculations of the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.

More than that, and this particularly appealed to me as a graduate student, renormalization theory didn't always work. It wouldn't work unless the theory had a certain kind of simplicity. Essentially the only coupling constants allowed in the theory, in units where Planck's constant and the speed of light were 1, had to be dimensionless, like the charge of the electron: $e^2/4\pi$ is $1/137$. And this provided not only a means of dealing with the infinities but a rationale for the simplicity of the theory. Of course we always like simple theories. But when we have discovered successful simple theories we always should ask why are they so simple? Renormalizability provided an answer to that question. Of course it was only an answer if we thought that these were really the fundamental theories that described nature at all scales. Otherwise, anything else might intervene to get rid of the infinities.

We hoped that we would see the rest of physics – the mysterious strong and weak nuclear forces – brought into a similar framework. And that is indeed what happened in the following decades in the development of the Standard Model. Once we got past the obscurities produced by spontaneous symmetry breaking in the weak interactions and color trapping in the strong interactions, the Standard Model was revealed to us as a theory that was really not very different from quantum electrodynamics. We had more gauge fields, not just the electromagnetic field but gluon and $W$ and $Z$ fields. There were more fermions, not just the electron but a whole host of charged leptons and neutrinos and quarks. But the Standard Model seemed to be quantum electrodynamics writ large. One could perhaps have been forgiven for reaching a stage of satisfaction that, although not everything was answered, although there were still outstanding questions, that this was going to be part of nature at the most fundamental level.

Now that has changed. In the decades since the completion of the Standard Model a new and cooler view has become widespread. The Standard Model, we now see – we being, let me say, me and a lot of other people – as a low-energy approximation to a fundamental theory about which we know very little. And low energy means energies much less than some extremely high energy scale $10^{15}-10^{18}\;{\rm GeV}\,$. As a low energy approximation we expect corrections to the Standard Model. These corrections are beginning to show up. Some of them have already been found.

This whole point of view goes by the name of effective field theory. It's had applications outside elementary particle physics in areas like superconductivity. I am not going to in this talk try to bring the subject up-to-date, including all the applications of effective field theory to hadronic physics, and to areas of physics outside particle physics, like superconductivity. That's going to be done by subsequent lecturers in this series by physicists who played a leading role in the development of effective field theory beyond anything that I knew about it in the early days. They are true experts in the field. I won't dare to try to anticipate what they will say. I'll talk about a subject on which I am undoubtedly the world's expert and that is my own history of how I came to think about these things. I'm a little bit unhappy that I am putting myself too much forward. Other people came to effective field theories through different routes. I'm not going to survey anyone else's intellectual history except my own.

From my point of view, it started with current algebra. The late 1950s and early 1960s were a time of despair about the future – about the practical application of quantum field theory to the strong interactions. Although we could believe that quantum field theory was at the root of things we didn't know how to apply quantum field theory to the strong interactions. Perturbation theory didn't work. Instead, a method was developed called current algebra in which one concentrated on the currents of the weak interactions, the vector and axial vector currents, using their commutation relations, their conservation properties and in particular a suggestion made by Nambu that the divergence of the axial vector current was dominated by one pion states. This current algebra was used in a very clunky way, requiring very detailed calculations that just called out for a simpler approach to derive useful results, including the Goldberger-Treiman formula for the pion decay amplitude and the Adler-Weisberger sum rule for the axial vector coupling constant.

After a while some of us began to think that although these results were important and valuable, perhaps we were giving too much attention to the currents themselves, which of course play a central role in the weak interactions. We ought to concentrate on the symmetry properties of the strong interactions which made all this possible. In particular, the existence of a symmetry which gradually emerged in our thinking, chiral $SU(2)\times SU(2)$, which is just isotopic spin symmetry applied separately to the left handed and right handed parts of what we would now say are quark fields.

This symmetry is a property of the strong interactions which would be important even if there weren't any weak interactions. And it was employed to derive purely strong interaction results, like for example, the scattering lengths of pions on nucleons and pions on pions and more complicated things like the emission of any number of soft pions in high energy collisions of nucleons or other particles. When this was done using these, as I said, clunky methods of current algebra, looking at the results, they seemed to look like the results of a field theory. You could write down Feynman diagrams just out of the blue which would reproduce the results of current algebra.

And so the question naturally arose, is there a way of avoiding the machinery of current algebra by just writing down a field theory that would automatically produce the same results with much greater ease and perhaps physical clarity? Because after all in using current algebra one had to always wave one's hands and make assumptions about the smoothness of matrix elements, whereas if you could get these results from Feynman diagrams you could see what the singularity structure of the matrix elements was and make only those smoothness assumptions that were consistent with that.

At the beginning this was done using a standard theory with the chiral symmetry that we thought was at the bottom of all these results, the linear sigma model, and then re-defining the fields in such a way that the results would look like current algebra. The effect of the redefinition was the introduction of a non-linearly-realized chiral symmetry. Eventually the linear sigma model was scrapped; instead the procedure was simply to ask, what kind of symmetry transformation for the pion field alone, some transformation into a nonlinear function of the pion field, would have the algebraic properties of chiral symmetry, based on the Lie algebra of $SU(2)\times SU(2)$.

That theory had the property that in lowest order in the coupling constant $1/F_\pi$ the results reproduced the results of current algebra. Why did it? Well, it had to, because a theory having chiral and Lorentz invariance and unitarity and smoothness satisfied the assumptions of current algegra and therefore had to reproduce the same results. For example current algebra calculations gave a pion-pion scattering matrix element of order $1/F_\pi^2$, where $F_\pi$ is the pion decay amplitude, so if you use this field theory and just threw away everything except the leading term which is of order $1/F_\pi^2$, this matrix element had to agree with the results of current algebra.

In this way phenomenological Lagrangians were developed that could be thought of as merely labor-saving devices, which were guaranteed to give the same results as current algebras because they satisfied the same underlying conditions of symmetry and so on, and that could be used in lowest order because current algebra said the result was of lowest order in the $1/F_\pi$ coupling – that is, $1/F_\pi^2$ for $\pi\pi$ scattering and also for pion-nucleon scattering. If you had more pions you would have more powers of $1/F_\pi$. But the results would always agree with current algebra.

No one took these theories seriously as true quantum field theories at the time. (I am talking about the late 1960s.) No one would have dreamed at this point of using the phenomenological Lagrangian in calculating loop diagrams. What would be the point? We knew that it was the tree approximation that reproduced current algebra. As I said, these phenomenological Lagrangians were simply labor-saving devices.

The late 1960s and 1970s saw many of us engaged in the development of the Standard Model. During this time I wasn't thinking much about current algebra or phenomenological Lagrangians. The soft pion theorems had been successful, not only in agreeing with experiment, but also in killing off a competitor of quantum field theory known as S-matrix theory. S-matrix theory had been the slogan of a school of theoretical physicists headed by Geoff Chew at Berkeley. I had been there at Berkeley in its heyday but had never bought on to it.

Their idea was that field theory is hopeless. It deals with things we will never observe like quantum fields. What we should do is just to study things that are observable, like S-matrix elements: apply principles of Lorentz invariance, analyticity and so on, and get results like dispersion relations that we can compare with observation. It was even hoped that stable or unstable composite particles like the $\rho$ meson provide the force that produces these composites, so that using this bootstrap mechanism one could actually do calculations. This never really worked as a calculational scheme, but was extremely attractive philosophically because it made do with very little except the most fundamental assumptions, without introducing things like strongly interacting fields that we really didn't know about. But the chiral symmetry results, the soft-pion results, showed that some of the approximations assumed in using S-matrix theory, like strong pion-pion interactions at low energy, just weren't right. Chiral symmetry provided actual calculations of processes like $\pi\pi$ and $\pi$-nucleon scattering, which made the ideas of S-matrix theory seem unnecessary, attractive as the philosophy was.

S-matrix theory had been largely killed off and chiral symmetry had been put in the books as a success, but we were all involved in applying the ideas of quantum field theory in the weak and the electromagnetic interactions and then the strong interactions, building up the Standard Model, which was beginning to be very successful experimentally. It was a very happy time for the interaction between theory and experiment. During this period of course I was teaching. It was in the course of teaching that my point of view changed, because in teaching quantum field theory I had to keep confronting the question of the motivation for this theory. Why should these students take seriously the assumptions we were making, in particular the formalism of writing fields in terms of creation and annihilation operators, with their commutation relations. Where did this come from? The standard approach was to take a field theory like Maxwell's theory and quantize it, using the rules of canonical quantization. Lo and behold, you turn the crank, and out come the commutation relations for the operator coefficients of the wave functions in the quantum field.

I found that hard to sell, especially to myself. Why should you apply the canonical formalism to these fields? The answer that the canonical formalism had proved useful in celestial mechanics in the 19th century wasn't really very satisfying. In particular, suppose there was a theory that in other ways was successful but couldn't be formulated in terms of canonical quantization, would that bother us? In fact, we have quantum field theories like that. They're not realistic theories. They're theories in six dimensions, or theories we derive by compactifying six dimensional theories. We have quantum field theories that apparently can't be given a Lagrangian formalism – that can't be derived using the canonical formalism. So I looked for some other way of teaching the subject.

I fastened on a point of view that is really not that different from S-matrix theory. One starts of course by assuming the rules of quantum mechanics as laid down in the 1920s, together with special relativity and then one makes an additional assumption, the cluster decomposition principle, whose importance was emphasized to me by a colleague at Berkeley, Eyvind Wichmann, while I was there in the 1960s. The cluster decomposition principle says essentially that unless you make special efforts to produce an entangled situation the results of distant experiments are uncorrelated. The results of an experiment at CERN are not affected by the results being obtained by an experiment being done at the same time at Fermilab. The natural way of implementing the cluster decomposition principle is by writing the Hamiltonian as a sum of products of creation and annihilation operators with non-singular coefficients. Indeed, this had been done for many years by condensed matter physicists not because they were interested in quantum field theory as a fundamental principle, but in order to sort out the volume dependence of various thermodynamic quantities. They were managing this by introducing creation and annihilation operators long before I began to teach courses in quantum field theory.

It gradually appeared to me in teaching the subject that although individual quantum field theories like quantum electrodynamcis certainly have content quantum field theory in itself has no content except the principles on which it's based, namely quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance, and the cluster decomposition principle, together with whatever other symmetry principles you may want to invoke, like chiral symmetry and gauge invariance.

This means that if we think we know what the degrees of freedom are – the particles we have to study – like for example, low energy pions, that if we write down the most general possible theory involving fields for these particles, including all possible interactions consistent with the symmetries, which in this case are Lorentz invariance and chiral $SU(2)\times SU(2)$, if we write down all possible invariant terms in the Lagrangian, and we work to all orders in perturbation theory, the result can't be wrong, because it's just a way of implementing these principles. It is just giving you the most general possible matrix element consistent with Lorentz invariance, chiral symmetry, quantum mechanics, cluster decomposition, and unitarity.

Now, this may not sound as if it's a very useful realization. If you tell someone to calculate using the most general possible Lagrangian with an unlimited number of free parameters and calculate to all orders in perturbation theory they're likely to seek some advice elsewhere on how to spend their time. But it's not that bad, because even if the theory has no small dimensionless couplings, you can use this approach to generate a power series in powers of the energy that you're interested in. For instance, if you're interested in low-energy pions and you don't want to consider energies high enough so that $\pi\pi$ collisions can produce nucleon-antinucleon pairs, you will be dealing with typical energies $E$ well below the nucleon mass. This very general Lagrangian gives you a power series in powers of $E$. Specifically, aside from a term that depends only on the nature of the process being considered, the number of powers of $E$ arising from a given Feynman diagram is the total number of derivatives acting at all the vertices, plus half the number of nucleon lines connected to all the vertices, plus twice the number of loops.

Now, chiral symmetry dictates that the number of derivatives plus half the number of nucleon fields in each interaction is always equal to or greater than two. The diagrams that give the lowest total number of powers of $E$ are those constructed only from interactions where that number equals two, with no loops. For pion-pion scattering the leading term comes from a single vertex with just two derivatives. For pion-nucleon scattering there is a diagram with a single vertex with one deerivative to which are connected two nucleon lines. Thsee diagrams are the ones that we had been using since the mid 1960s to reproduce the results of current algebra.

But now the new thing was that you could consider contributions of higher order in energy. If you look for terms that have two additional powers of energy they could come from diagrams where you have one interaction with the number of derivatives plus half the number of nucleon fields equaling not two but four, plus any number of interactions with this number equal to two, and no loops. Or you could have only interactions with the numbers of derivatives plus half the number of nucleon fields equal to two, that is, just the basic interactions that reproduce current algebra, plus one loop. The infinity in the one loop diagram could be canceled by that one additional vertex that has, say, not two derivatives but four derivatives. In every order of perturbation theory as you encounter more and more loops, because you are allowing more and more powers of energy, you get more and more infinities, but there are always counterterms available to cancel the infinities. A non-renormalizable theory, like the soft pion theory, is just as renormalizable as a renormalizable theory. You have an infinite number of terms in the Lagrangian, but only a finite number are needed to calculate S-matrix elements to any given order in $E$.

Similar remarks apply to gravitation, which I think has led to a new perspective on general relativity. Why in the world should anyone take seriously Einstein's original theory, with just the Einstein-Hilbert action in which only two derivatives act on metric fields? Surely that's just the lowest order term in an infinite series of terms with more and more derivatives. In such a theory, loops are made finite by counterterms provided by the higher order terms in the Lagrangian. This point of view has been actively pursued by Donoghue and his collaborators.

Teaching came to my aid again. At the blackboard one day in 1990 it suddenly occurred to me that one of the kinds of interaction that has the number of derivatives plus half the number of nucleon fields equal to two is the interaction with no derivatives at all and four nucleon fields. It had taken me a decade to realize that four divided by two is two. This sort of interaction is just the kind of hard-core nucleon-nucleon interaction that nuclear physicists had always known would be needed to understand nuclear forces. But now we had a rationale for it. In a calculation of nuclear forces as a power series in energy, the leading terms are just the ones that the nuclear physicists had always been using, pion exchange plus a hard core. This point of view has been explored by Ordoñez and van Kolck and others.

In the theories that I have been discussing, the chiral symmetry theory of soft pions and general relativity, the symmetries don't allow a purely renormalizable interaction. In a theory of gauge fields and quarks and leptons and scalars you can have a renormalizable Lagrangian. Throwing away everything but renormalizable interactions you have just the Standard Model, a renormalizable theory of quarks and leptons and gauge fields and a scalar doublet. But now we can look at the Standard Model as one term in a much more general theory, with all kinds of non-renormalizable interactions, which yield corrections if higher order in energy.

In these corrections the typical energy $E$ must be divided by some characteristic mass scale $M$. For the chiral theory of soft pions this mass scale is $M\approx 2\pi F_\pi$, about $1200\,{\rm MeV}$. For the theory of weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions $M$ is probably a much higher scale, perhaps something like the scale of order $10^{15}{\rm GeV}\,$ where Georgi, Quinn and I found the effective gauge couplings of the weak, strong, and electromagnetic interactions all come together. Or perhaps it's the characteristic scale of gravitation, the Planck scale $10^{18}\;{\rm GeV}\,$. Or perhaps somewhere in that general neighborhood. It is the large scale of $M$ that made it a good strategy in constucting the Standard Model to look for a renaormalizable theory .

We now expect that there are corrections to the renormalizable Standard Model of the order of powers of $E/M$. How in the world are we ever going to find corrections that are suppressed by such incredibly tiny fractions? The one hope is that those corrections can violate symmetries that we once thought were inviolable, but that we now understand are simply accidents, arising from the constraint of renormalizability that we imposed on the Standard Model.

Indeed, quite apart from the development of effective field theory, one of the great things about the Standard Model was that it explained various symmetries that could not be fundamental, becasue we already knew they were only partial or approximate symmetries. This included flavor conservation, such as strangeness conservation, a symmetry of the strong and electromagnetic interactions that was manifestly violated in the weak interactions. Another example was charge conjugation invariance – likewise a good symmetry of strong and electromagnetic but violated by weak interactions. The same was true of parity, although in this case you have to make special accommodations for non-perturbative effects. All thse were accidental symmetries. imposed by the simplicity of the Standard Model necessary for renormalizability plus other symmetries like gauge symmetries and Lorentz invariance that seem truly exact and fundamental. Chiral symmetry itself is such an accidental symmetry, though only approximate. It becomes an accidental exact symmetry of the strong interactions in the limit in which the up and down quark masses are zero, as does isotopic spin symmetry. Since these masses are not zero but relatively small chiral symmetry is an approximate accidental symmetry.

Now, coming back to effective field theory, there are other symmetries within the Standard Model that are accidental symmetries of the whole renormalizable theory of weak, strong, and electromagnetic interactions: in particular baryon conservation and lepton conservation are respected aside from very small non-perturbative effects (well, very small at least in laboratories, though maybe not so small cosmologically). If baryon and lepton conservation are only accidental properties of the Standard Model maybe they are not symmetries of nature. In this case there is no reason why baryon and lepton conservation should be respected by non-renormalizable corrections to the Lagrangian, and so you would expect terms of ${\cal O}(E/M)$ or ${\cal O}((E/M)^2)$ or higher order as corrections to the Standard Model that violate these symmetries.

Wilczek and Zee and I independently did a catalog of the leading terms of this type. Some of them – those involving baryon number non-conservation – give you corrections of ${\cal O}((E/M)^2)$. They have not been yet been discovered experimentally. But there are other terms that produce corrections of ${\cal O}(E/M)$ that violate lepton conservation, and they apparently have been discovered, in the form of neutrino masses. I wish I could say that the effective field theory point of view had predicted the neutrino masses. Unfortunately it must be admmitted that neutrino masses were already proposed by Pontecorvo as a solution to the apparent deficit of neutrinos coming from the Sun. So though I can't say that the effective field theory approach had predicted neutrino masses, I do think that it gets a strong boost from the fact that we now have evidence of a correction to the renormalizable part of the Standard Model. But of course there already was a known correction. Gravitation was always there, warning us that renormalizable quantum field theory can't be the whole story.

I expect that sooner or later we will be seeing another departure from the renormalizable Standard Model in the discovery of proton decay, or some other example of baryon nonconservation. In a sense baryon nonconservation has already been discovered, because we know from the present ratio of baryon number to photon number that in the early universe before the temperature dropped to a few GeV there was about 1 excess quark over every $10^9$ quark-antiquark pairs. This has to be explained by the non-renormalizable corrections to the Standard Model, and indeed it has been explained, unfortunately not just by one such model but by many different models. We don't know the actual mechanism for producing baryon number in the early universe, but I have no doubt that it will be found.

There are still unnatural elements in the Standard Model. I said that you would expect the leading terms that describe physical reactions to be given by the renormalizable theory – here the Standard Model – with the effects of non-renormalizable terms suppressed by powers of $E/M$. Those corrections come from interactions that have coupling constants whose dimensions have negative powers of mass, $1/M$, $1/M^2$, and so on. But what about interactions that have positive powers of mass? Why aren't they there at ${\cal O}(M^n)$? Well unfortunately we don't have a good explanation.

The cosmological constant is such a term. It has the dimensions of energy per volume, in other words $M^4$. We don't know why it's as small as it is. There is also the bare mass of the Higgs boson. That's the one term in the Standard Model Lagrangian whose coefficient has the dimensionality of a positive power of mass. We don't know why it is not ${\cal O}(10^{15}{\rm GeV}\,)$. These are great mysteries that confront us: Why are the terms in our present theory that have the dimensions of positive powers of mass so small compared to the scale that we think is the fundamental scale, somewhere in the neighborhood of $10^{15}-10^{18}\;{\rm GeV}\,$? We don't know.

With the new approach to the Standard Model I think we have to say that this theory in its original form is not what we thought it was. It's not a fundamental theory. But at the same time I want to stress that the Standard Model will survive in any future textbooks of physics in the same way that Newtonian mechanics has survived as a theory we use all the time applied to the solar system. All of our successful theories survive as approximations to a future theory.

There's a school of philosophy of science associated in particular with the name of Thomas Kuhn, that sees the development of science – particularly of physics – as a series of paradigm shifts in which our point of view changes so radically that we can barely understand the theories of earlier times. I don't believe it for a minute. I think our successful theories always survive, as Newtonian mechanics has, and as I'm sure the Standard Model will survive, as approximations.

Now we have to face the question, approximations to what? We think the Standard Model is a low energy approximations to a theory whose constituents involve mass scales way beyond what we can approach in the laboratory, scales on the order of $10^{15}$, $10^{18}{\rm GeV}\,$. It may be a field theory. It may be an asymptomatically safe field theory, which avoids coupling constants running off to infinity as the energy increases. Or it seems to me more likely that it's not a field theory at all, that it's something like a string theory. In this case we will understand the very successful field theories with which we work as effective field theories, embodying the principles of quantum mechanics and symmetry, applied as an approximation valid at low energy where any theory will look like a quantum field theory.

**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number Phy-1914679 and also with support from the Robert A. Welch Foundation, Grant No. F-0014.

[^1]: Electronic address: email@example.com