\section*{2 The formal constructions}

For the formal construction of the asymptotic solution of the
problem (\ref{eq3.10})--(\ref {eq3.11}) we shall use the method
of multiply scale \cite {naif1}. For this purpose we use the
above entered slow variables $ \xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta.$ We
shall search for a solution in the form of $u (x, {\bar
y},t,\varepsilon)=v (x,\xi,{\bar
\eta}, t, \tau, \theta, \varepsilon). $ Taking into account the fact that
derivatives will be transformed by the rules:
\bea*
\partial_{t}u &= &\partial _{t}v+\varepsilon \partial _{\tau}v+\varepsilon ^{2}\partial _{\theta}v
\equiv D_{t}v,\\
\partial_{x}u &=& \partial _{x}v+\varepsilon \partial _{\xi}v\equiv D_{x}v, \\
\nabla _{{\bar y}}u &=&\varepsilon\nabla _{{\bar \eta}}v,
\eea*
we shall obtain the following equation for $v$:
\begin{eqnarray}
[\partial _{t}^{2}-\partial _{x}^{2}+\nu \partial _{x}^{4}]v &+& 2\varepsilon [\partial
_{t}\partial _{\tau}-\partial _{x}\partial _{\xi}+ 2\nu \partial _{x}^{3}\partial
_{\xi}]v + \nonumber \\ &+& \varepsilon ^{2}[\partial _{\tau}^{2}+2\partial _{t}\partial
_{\theta}-\partial _{\xi}^{2}-\Delta _{{\bar \eta}}+
6\nu\partial _{x}^{2}\partial _{\xi}^{2}]v+ \nonumber \\
&+& 2\varepsilon ^{3}[\partial _{\tau}\partial _{\theta} +
2\nu \partial _{x}\partial _{\xi}^{3}]v+
\varepsilon ^{4}[\partial _{\theta}^{2}+\nu \partial _{\xi}^{4}+
\nu  \partial_{{\bar \eta}}^{4}]v+ \nonumber \\
&+& D_{x}g_{1}(D_{x}v,\varepsilon
\nabla_{{\bar \eta}}v)+\varepsilon<\nabla_{{\bar \eta}}\cdot
\bar {g}(D_{x}v,\varepsilon \nabla_{{\bar \eta}}v)>=0
\label{eq3.12}
\end{eqnarray}
with the initial conditions:
\begin{equation}
\left[ \begin{array}{c} v \\ D_{t}v
\end{array} \right]
_{\mid {t=\tau=\theta=0}}=
\varepsilon\sum \limits _{k=0,\pm 1}
\Lambda _{k} (\xi,{\bar \eta})e^{ikx}.
\label{eq3.13}
\end{equation}

The {\it formal asymptotic solution} \ (FAS) of the Cauchy
problem (\ref {eq3.12})--(\ref {eq3.13}) is called  a segment of
series
\begin{equation}
v\sim \varepsilon\sum \limits _ {n = 0} ^ {\infty} \varepsilon ^ {n}
\stackrel {n} {v} (x, t, \xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta),
\label {eq3.14}
\end{equation}
which, first of all, satisfies to equation (\ref {eq3.12}) with
exactitude $ {\cal O}(\varepsilon^{4}) $ and to the initial values (\ref
{eq3.13}) with exactitude $ {\cal O}(\varepsilon^{3}) $ and, secondly,
each consequent term of this segment is less than the previous
one in an $\varepsilon$ order, uniformly in the corresponding domain with
respect to independent variables.

By the method explained below we may construct any length of the
series's segment (\ref {eq3.14}), sequentially defining
dependence of coefficients of asymptotics in all temporal scales.
Only three terms of this series are constructed here. It is
enough for deriving the required residuals. The leading term $\stackrel
{0} {v}$ of the asymptotics is finally defined dependending on
variables $t,\tau,\theta;$ the first correction $\stackrel {1} {v} $ is
completely defined in scales $t,\tau,$ the second correction $\stackrel
{2} {v} $
- in scale $t.$

The coefficients $\stackrel {n}{v}$ are constructed in the form of final
Fourier sums:
\begin{equation}
\stackrel {n}{v}= \sum \limits _{k,\omega}\stackrel {n}{v}_{k,\omega}
(\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta)e^{ikx-i\omega t},
\quad (\stackrel {n}{v}_{k,\omega}=\stackrel {n}{{v}^{*}}_{-k,-\omega}),
\label{eq3.15}
\end{equation}
where sign $*$ denotes complex conjugate. The problem is reduced
to defining the coefficients $\stackrel{n}{v}_ {k,\omega} $.

Substituting serieses (\ref {eq3.14})--(\ref {eq3.15}) into the
equation (\ref {eq3.12}) and equating terms at identical degrees
of parameter $ \varepsilon $ and identical indexes $k,\omega,$ we shall
obtain the equations on $ \stackrel {n} {v} _ {k,
\omega} $. So, on the first step, at $\varepsilon^ {1} $ we obtain the homogeneous
equations on $\stackrel {0}{v}$:
$$
[ \partial _ {t} ^ {2} -\partial _ {x} ^ {2} + \nu \partial _ {x} ^ {4}] \stackrel {0} {v} = 0.
$$
Dispersion relation is defined from here:
$$
\omega ^ {2} -k ^ {2} -\nu k ^ {4} = 0,
$$
whence $\omega=\pm \omega (k) \equiv\pm k\sqrt {1 + \nu k ^ {2}}.$ The
values $ k = 0, \pm 1 $ are taken according to the initial data
(\ref {eq3.13}).
\par
\noindent
Hence, we have the following representation for $\stackrel {0}{v}$:
$$
\stackrel {0} {v} = v _ {0} (\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta) +
\sum \limits _ {k = \pm 1} \sum \limits _ {\omega = \pm \omega (k)}
\stackrel {0} {v} _ {k, \omega} (\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta)
e^{ikx-i\omega t}.
$$
The initial conditions (\ref {eq3.13}) give values of the
functions $v_{0} $ and $\stackrel {0} {v} _ {k, \omega} $ at $ \tau = \theta =
0:$
$$
v_{0\mid \tau = \theta = 0} = \varphi _ {0} (\xi, {\bar \eta}),
$$
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
&[ \stackrel {0}{v}_{k,\omega (k)}+
\stackrel {0}{v}_{k,-\omega (k)}]_{\mid \tau=\theta =0}=
\varphi _{k}(\xi,{\bar \eta}), \nonumber \\
-i\omega (k) &[ \stackrel {0}{v}_{k,\omega (k)}-
\stackrel {0}{v}_{k,-\omega (k)}]_{\mid \tau=\theta =0}=
\psi _{k}(\xi,{\bar \eta}), \quad k=\pm 1.
\end{array}
\label{eq3.17}
\end{equation}

On the second step, equating expressions at $\varepsilon^{2}$, we shall obtain the
inhomogeneous equation:
\begin{equation}
- [\partial _ {t} ^ {2} -\partial _ {x} ^ {2} + \nu \partial _ {x} ^ {4}] \stackrel {1} {v} =
2 [\partial _ {t} \partial _ {\tau} -\partial _ {x} \partial _ {\xi} + 2\nu \partial _ {x} ^ {3} \partial
_ {\xi}] \stackrel {0} {v}.
\label {eq3.18}
\end{equation}
In order that solution $ \stackrel {1} {v} $ shouldn't have secular
(growing at $ t\to\infty $) terms it is necessary to equate to
zero the functions in right-hand side of (\ref {eq3.18}) which
are the solutions of the corresponding homogeneous equation.
Whereas
$$
[\partial _{t}\partial _{\tau}-\partial _{x}\partial _{\xi}+ 2\nu \partial _{x}^{3}\partial
_{\xi}]\stackrel{0}{v}=
-\sum \limits _{k=\pm 1}\sum \limits _{\omega=\pm \omega (k)}
i\omega e^{ikx-i\omega t} [\partial _{\tau}+\omega ^{'}(k)\partial _{\xi}]\stackrel
{0}{v}_{k,\omega},
$$
the right-hand side of (\ref {eq3.18}) consists completely of
solutions of the homogeneous equation. Therefore they should be
excluded from the requirements:
\begin{equation}
[ \partial _ {\tau} + \omega ^ {'} (k) \partial _ {\xi}] \stackrel {0} {v} _ {k, \omega} = 0,
\quad k = 1, \ \omega = \pm \omega (k), \quad \xi\in {\Bbb R}, \ \tau > 0.
\label {eq3.181}
\end{equation}
These equations are trivial and allow in functions $ \stackrel {0} {v} _ {k, \omega}, \
\forall k\neq 0 $ to define a structure of dependence from $ \xi, \tau $ (on
the first slow scale) for all values $\tau\geq0:$
$$
\stackrel {0} {v} _ {k, \omega} (\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta) =
w _ {k, \omega} (\sigma _ {k, \omega}, {\bar \eta}, \theta), \quad
\sigma _ {k, \omega} = \xi -\omega ^ {'} \tau,
\quad k = 1, \ \omega = \pm \omega (k).
$$
Thus the number of independent variables is diminished in the
coefficients of the leading term of the asymptotics. The initial
conditions (\ref {eq3.17}) define functions $w_{k,\omega}$ at $\theta =
0:$
$$
w_{k,\omega}(\sigma _{k,\omega}, {\bar \eta},\theta)_{|\theta =0}=
\frac{1}{2} \left( \varphi _{k}+
\frac{i}{\omega} \psi _{k}\right)(\sigma _{k,\omega},{\bar \eta}),\quad
k=1,\ \omega=\pm \omega (k).
$$
The values of these functions as well as the leading term of the
asymptotics remain undefined from slow dependence on time $\theta$
(in the second scale). In order to define dependence on $\theta$ it
is necessary to analyze the next corrections of the asymptotic
solution.

After the carried out elemination of the secular terms first the
correction satisfies to the equation:
\begin{equation}
[ \partial _ {t} ^ {2} -\partial _ {x} ^ {2} + \nu \partial _ {x} ^ {4}] \stackrel {1} {v} = 0.
\label {eq3.20}
\end{equation}
The particular solution of the equation (\ref {eq3.20}) is trivial: $\stackrel {1}
{v} = 0.$

The general solution of the equation (\ref {eq3.20}) is
supplemented by the solution of the homogeneous one:
$$
\stackrel {1} {v} = \sum \limits _ {k = \pm 1, \pm 2} \sum
\limits _ {\omega = \pm \omega (k)} \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega} (\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta)
e ^ {ikx-i\omega t}
$$
with undefined coefficients $\stackrel {1}{v}_{k, \omega}$ for the time
being.

The initial conditions (\ref {eq3.13}) in an $ \varepsilon ^ {2}$ order
give initial values for these functions and also for
$\partial_{\tau}v_{0}$:

for $ k = 0 $:
$$
\partial _ {\tau} v _ {0} (\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta)
_ {\mid \tau = \theta = 0} = 0;
$$

for $ k = \pm1 $:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
&[\stackrel {1}{v}_{k,\omega (k)}+
\stackrel {1}{v}_{k,-\omega (k)}]_{\mid \tau=\theta =0}=0, \nonumber \\
-i\omega (k) &[ \stackrel {1}{v}_{k,\omega (k)}-
\stackrel {1}{v}_{k,-\omega (k)}]_{\mid \tau=\theta =0}=
-\partial _{\tau}
[\stackrel {0}{v}_{k,\omega (k)}+
\stackrel {0}{v}_{k,-\omega (k)}]_{\mid \tau=\theta =0};
\end{array}
\label{eq3.21}
\end{equation}

for $ k = \pm2 $:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
&[\stackrel {1}{v}_{k,\omega (k)}+
\stackrel {1}{v}_{k,-\omega (k)}]_{\mid \tau=\theta =0}=0, \nonumber \\
-i\omega (k) &[ \stackrel {1}{v}_{k,\omega (k)}-
\stackrel {1}{v}_{k,-\omega (k)}]_{\mid \tau=\theta =0}=0.
\end{array}
\label{eq3.22}
\end{equation}

The amplitudes $ \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega (k)}, \ k=1,2, \  \omega = \pm\omega
(k), $ on this step remain undefined in dependence on $ \tau, \
\theta > 0$. The amplitude of  zero harmonic $v_{0}$  remains undefined
too. The equations for them will be obtained on the following
step.

In an $\varepsilon^{3}$ order we obtain a linear inhomogeneous equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
-[\partial _{t}^{2}-\partial _{x}^{2}+\nu \partial _{x}^{4}]\stackrel{2}{v}&=&
2 [\partial _{t}\partial _{\tau}-\partial _{x}\partial _{\xi}+ 2\nu \partial _{x}^{3}\partial
_{\xi}]\stackrel{1}{v}+ \nonumber \\ &+& [\partial _{\tau}^{2}-\partial _{\xi}^{2}-\Delta
_{{\bar \eta}}+ 2\partial _{t}\partial _{\theta}+6\nu \partial _{x}^{2}\partial
_{\xi}^{2}]
\stackrel{0}{v}+ \nonumber \\
&+& g_{1}^{3,0} \partial _{x}(\partial _{x}\stackrel{0}{v})^{3},
\label{eq3.23}
\end{eqnarray}
from the right-hand side of which it is necessary to eliminate
secular addends. The elemination of secularities reduces to the
equations for amplitudes $ \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega}, \ k = 1, \ \omega =
\pm\omega (k)$ of the first  correction in scale $\xi, \tau:$
$$
2i\omega [\partial
_ {\tau} + \omega ^ {'} (k) \partial _ {\xi}] \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega} = [-2i\omega \partial
_ {\theta} + ((\omega ^ {'}) ^ {2} -1-6\nu k ^ {2})
\partial _ {\xi} ^ {2} -\Delta _ {{\bar \eta}}] w _ {k, \omega} -
$$
\begin{equation}
-3g _ {1} ^ {3,0} w _ {k, \omega} [| w _ {k, \omega} | ^ {2} + 2 | w_{k,-\omega} |^{2}],
\quad k = 1, \ \omega = \pm\omega (k).
\label {eq3.24}
\end{equation}
On the same step we obtain the equations for the amplitude of
zero harmonic of the leading term:
\begin{equation}
\partial _ {\tau} ^ {2} v _ {0} -\Delta _ {\xi {\bar \eta}} v _ {0} = 0.
\label {eq3.25}
\end{equation}
We have obtained the initial conditions for $v_{0}$ on the
previous steps, namely:
\begin{equation}
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
v_{0} \nonumber \\ \partial _ {\tau} v _ {0}
\end{array}
\right] _ {| \tau = \theta = 0} =
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
\varphi_{0}(\xi, {\bar \eta}) \\ 0
\end{array}
\right], \quad (\xi, {\bar \eta}) \in {\Bbb R} ^ {n}.
\label {eq3.26}
\end{equation}

So, on the first slow scale $ \tau $ 0 the amplitudes of the
leading term of the asymptotics are defined from the equations
(\ref {eq3.181}), (\ref {eq3.25}). These equations are linear.
Just this circumstance allows "to attain" up to long times $
t\approx\varepsilon ^ {-2} $ in formal solution. To guarantee the absence
of secularities in first two orders of the formal solution we
should analyze the equations (\ref {eq3.24}), (\ref {eq3.25})
their solutions' boundedness at $\tau\to\infty.$

It is known in case of rapidly decreasing at infinity of the
initial data (\ref {eq3.26}), the solution of the Cauchy problem
for two-dimensional $ (n = 2) $ wave equation (\ref {eq3.25})
decreases at $\tau\to\infty$ \cite {lksh3}. The result of the
uniformly boundedness of the solution of the Cauchy problem (\ref
{eq3.25})--(\ref {eq3.26}) for the case of multidimensions will
be represented in the following section.

Let's pass to the equations (\ref {eq3.24}). Analyzing their
solutions we obtain the equations for $w _ {k, \omega} (\sigma_ {k,
\omega}, {\bar\eta}, \theta) \ (\sigma _ {k, \omega}=
\xi-\omega ^ {'} \tau, k = 1, \ \omega = \pm\omega (k)).$ The right-hand side of
the equations (\ref {eq3.24}) contains the solutions of
homogeneous one as functions depending on $ \sigma = \sigma _ {k,\omega}
=\xi-\omega ^ {'}\tau.$ In order that solutions of inhomogeneous
equations (\ref {eq3.24}) shouldn't contain secular terms we must
eliminate the above  mentioned functions. Equating to zero of
expressions, depending on $\sigma = \sigma_ {k, \omega} $ reduces to
nonlinear Schrodinger equations $ (k = 1, \ \omega = \pm\omega (k)): $
\begin{equation}
[ -2i\omega \partial _ {\theta} + ((\omega ^ {'}) ^ {2} -1-6\nu k ^ {2})
\partial _ {\sigma} ^ {2} -\Delta _ {{\bar \eta}}] w _ {k, \omega} =
3g _ {1} ^ {3,0} w _ {k, \omega} | w _ {k, \omega} | ^ {2}.
\label {eq3.30}
\end{equation}

So, in characteristic directions $ \sigma = \sigma _ {k, \omega} = \xi-\omega ^
{'} \tau = \hbox {const} $ at $ | \xi | + \tau \to \infty $ the
amplitudes of the leading term of the formal solution are defined
from  (\ref {eq3.25}) and (\ref {eq3.30}). According to
$$
\frac{((\omega ^{'})^{2}-1-6\nu k^{2})}{-\omega}=
\frac{1+6\nu k^{2}}{\omega}-\frac{(k+2\nu k^{3})^{2}}
{\omega ^{3}}=\frac{d^{2}\omega}{dk^{2}} \equiv \omega ^{''},
$$
the equation (\ref {eq3.30}) for $w=w_{k,\omega}$ has the form:
\begin{equation}
i\partial _ {\theta} w + \alpha
\partial _ {\sigma} ^ {2} w + \delta
\Delta _ {{\bar \eta}} w
+ \gamma w | w | ^ {2} = 0,
\label {eq3.35}
\end{equation}
where $ \alpha = \omega ^ {"} /2, \ \delta = 1 / (2\omega), \ \gamma = 3g
_ {1} ^ {3,0} / (2\omega). $  The equation (\ref {eq3.35}) describes
the slow (in scale $ \theta = \varepsilon ^ {2} t $) deformation of the
amplitudes of wave packages.

The equation (\ref {eq3.35}) is supplemented by the initial condition:
\begin{equation}
w (\sigma, {\bar \eta}, \theta) _ {| \theta = 0} = w _ {0} (\sigma, {\bar
\eta}),
\label {eq3.36}
\end{equation}
where $ w _ {0} = 1/2\varphi _ {k} + i\delta\psi _ {k}. $

The solvability of the problem (\ref {eq3.35})--(\ref {eq3.36})
in a class of functions decreasing at $ | \sigma | + | {\bar \eta} |
\to\infty$ can be proved similarly \cite {vak1, lk2}. This result
will be represented in the next section. It guarantees decreasing
on infinity with respect to $ \xi, {\bar\eta} $ of the right-hand
sides of the equations for $ \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega}, \ k = 1,
\ \omega=\pm\omega (k):$
\begin{equation}
2i\omega [\partial _ {\tau} + \omega ^ {'} \partial _ {\xi}]
\stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega} =
-6g _ {1} ^ {3,0} w _ {k, \omega} | w _ {k, -\omega} | ^ {2}.
\label {eq3.31}
\end{equation}
Eliminating from the right-hand side of (\ref {eq3.23})  of the
solutions of the corresponding  homogeneous equation at $ k = 2,
\ \omega= \pm\omega (k)$ we shall obtain the equations for $ \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k,
\omega}: $
\begin{eqnarray}
2i\omega [\partial _ {\tau} + \omega ^ {'} \partial _ {\xi}]
\stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega} = 0, \quad k = 2, \ \omega = \pm\omega (k).
\label {eq3.32}
\end{eqnarray}
The equations (\ref {eq3.31}), (\ref {eq3.32}) are supplemented by initial
conditions, which are obtained from (\ref {eq3.21}), (\ref {eq3.22})
accordingly:
\begin{equation}
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
\stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega (k)} \nonumber \\ \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, -\omega (k)}
\end{array}
\right] (\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta) _ {| \tau = \theta = 0} =
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
\varphi _ {+} \nonumber \\ \varphi _ {-}
\end{array}
\right] (\xi, {\bar \eta}), \quad k = \pm 1,
\label {eq3.33}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
\stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega (k)} \nonumber \\ \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, -\omega (k)}
\end{array}
\right] (\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta) _ {| \tau = \theta = 0} =
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
0 \nonumber \\ 0
\end{array}
\right], \quad k = \pm 2,
\label {eq3.34}
\end{equation}
$$
\mbox {where} \quad\varphi _ {\pm} = \mp\frac {1} {2\omega (k)}
\partial _ {\tau} [\stackrel {0} {v} _ {k, \omega (k)} + \stackrel {0} {v} _ {k, -\omega (k)}]
(\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta) _ {| \tau = \theta = 0}.
$$

The Cauchy problem  (\ref {eq3.32}), (\ref {eq3.34}) for $
\stackrel {1} {v}_ {k, \omega}, \ k = 2, \ \omega = \pm \omega (k)$ has only a
trivial solution.

The solution $ \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega} = \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega } (\sigma
_ {\pm}, \bar {\eta}, \tau, \theta), \ k = 1, \  \omega = \pm \omega (k)$ of
(\ref {eq3.31}) with the initial condition (\ref {eq3.33}) is
written out in an explicit form:
$$
\stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega} = \varphi _ {\pm} (\sigma _ {\pm}, \bar {\eta}) +
2i\delta w _ {k, \omega} (\sigma _ {\pm}, \bar {\eta}, \theta)
\int\limits _ {0} ^ {\tau} |w_{k, -\omega} | ^ {2} (\sigma _
{\pm} \pm2\omega ^ {'} \mu,
\bar {\eta}, \theta) d\mu,
$$
which is uniformly bounded with respect to $\tau$.

The functions $ \stackrel {1} {v} _ {k, \omega}, \ k = 1,2, \ \omega = \pm\omega
(k), $ are defined on this step with exactitude up to the
solutions of the corresponding homogeneous equations (\ref
{eq3.31}), (\ref {eq3.32}). Dependence of these functions from
the second slow scale $\theta$ can be defined on the following steps.
But it is not necessary for formal constructions which are given
here.

After the carried out elemination of the secular terms the second
correction satisfies to the equation:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
[\partial _{t}^{2}-\partial _{x}^{2}+\nu \partial _{x}^{4}]\stackrel{2}{v}=&
\sum \limits _{k=\pm 3}\sum
\limits _{\omega=\pm \omega (1);\pm 3\omega (1)}f_{k,\omega}(\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta)
e^{ikx-i\omega t}+\\ & + \sum \limits _{k=\pm 1}\sum
\limits _{\omega=\pm 3\omega (1)}f_{k,\omega}(\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta)
e^{ikx-i\omega t},
\end{array}
\label{eq4.01}
\end{equation}
$$
\mbox {where} \quad f _ {k, \omega} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mu (2-k)(w_{k,\bar{\omega}})^{2}w_{-k,\bar{\omega}},&
\quad k=\pm1,\ \bar {\omega}=\pm\omega(1), \ \omega=3\bar{\omega}; \\
-k\mu (w_{k/3,\bar{\omega}})^{3}, &
\quad k=\pm3,\ \bar {\omega}=\pm\omega(1), \ \omega=3\bar{\omega}; \\
-k\mu (w_{k/3,\omega})^{2}w_{k/3,-\omega}, &
\quad k=\pm3,\ \omega=\pm\omega(1).
\end{array}
\right.
$$

The particular solution of (\ref {eq4.01}) is constructed by Fourier method:
\bea*
\stackrel{2}{v} &=&
\sum \limits _{k=\pm3}\sum \limits _{\omega=\pm \omega (1);\pm 3\omega (1)}
[-\omega^{2}+k^{2}+\nu k^{4}]^{-1} f_{k,\omega}(\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau,
\theta) e^{ikx-i\omega t}+\\ &+& \sum \limits _{k=\pm1}\sum \limits
_{\omega=\pm 3\omega (1)} [-\omega^{2}+k^{2}+\nu k^{4}]^{-1}
f_{k,\omega}(\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau, \theta)e^{ikx-i\omega t}.
\eea*

Thus we constructed  three terms of FAS of the Cauchy problem
(\ref {eq3.10})--(\ref {eq3.11}) at $\varepsilon\to 0$ for long times
$0\leq t\leq {\cal O}(\varepsilon^ {-2}), \ \forall (x, {\bar y}) \in
{\Bbb R}^{n}$. The amplitudes of the leading term of the
asymptotics are taken from (\ref {eq3.35}) and (\ref {eq3.25})
which are supplemented by the initial conditions (\ref {eq3.36})
and (\ref {eq3.26}) accordingly.

As we mentioned before, the construction of FAS can be continued
for deriving higher corrections $\stackrel {q} {v}, \ q\geq 3 $. Here we
constructed three terms because it is sufficient for
justification of the leading term of the asymptotic expansion.

\section*{3 The investigation of standard problems}

It is known that the existence of the solution of the Cauchy
problem for the multidimensional NLS in Sobolev spaces $H^{s}
({\Bbb R}^{n})$ can be proved by different methods \cite {zhiber,
sh3}. However we can't obtain justification of the leading term
of the asymptotics in $H^{s}({\Bbb R}^{n})$. Here justification
is obtained with severe constraints, namely, with analyticity of
input data with respect to spatial variables.

The results of this section of solvability of standard problems
(\ref {eq3.35})--(\ref {eq3.36}) and (\ref {eq3.25})--(\ref
{eq3.26}) represent the generalization of the Cauchy-Kovalevskoi
theorem in Ovsyannikov's style \cite{ovs1}.

{\bf Definition 1.} Here we introduce Banach spaces $ {\cal P} _
{\beta, p} $ of functions $U(m,{\bar l})$  with the finite norm
$$
\parallel U \parallel _{p}
=\sup\limits_{m, {\bar l}} \Big[ (1+\vert m \vert +\vert  {\bar l} \vert)^{p}
e^{\beta (1+\vert m \vert+\vert  {\bar l} \vert)}\vert U(m,
{\bar l})
\vert
\Big],\quad p\geq(n+1),\ \beta>0;
$$
capital letters are used for Fourier-images:
$$
U (m, {\bar l}) = \int\limits _ {{\Bbb R} ^ {n}} u (\xi,
{\bar
\eta}) e ^ {-i (m\xi + < {\bar l} \cdot {\bar \eta} >)} d\xi d {\bar \eta}.
$$
It is necessary to notice, that similar spaces with exponential
weights in Fourier pre-images correspond to analytical functions
in layer $ S (\beta)=\left\{\vert Im\xi \vert, \vert Im\eta _ {2}
\vert, \dots, \vert Im\eta _ {n}\vert \leq\beta \right\}$ \cite {ovs1}.

The solution of the Cauchy problem (\ref {eq3.25})--(\ref
{eq3.26}) can be written out in an explicit form:
$$
v_{0}(\xi,{\bar \eta},\tau)=(2\pi)^{-n}
\int\limits_{{\Bbb R}^{n}}
\Phi_{0}(m, {\bar l})\cos (\sqrt{m^{2}+| {\bar l}|^{2}}\tau)
e^{i(m\xi+< {\bar l}\cdot{\bar \eta}>)}dmd{\bar l}.
$$
As a result we have the following
\begin {theor} \hskip-2mm {\bf}.
Let's suppose  $ \varphi _ {0} (\xi,{\bar \eta}) $ is the analytical
function in layer $ S(\beta _ {0})\ (\beta_{0} = const > 0) $:
Fourier-image $
\Phi _ {0} (m, { \bar l}) \in {\cal P}_{\beta, p}. $
Then the Cauchy problem (\ref{eq3.25})--(\ref {eq3.26}) has the
analytical solution with respect to $ \xi, {\bar
\eta} $ in layer $ S (\beta _ {0}) \ (\beta _ {0} = const > 0):$
Fourier-image belongs to $ {\cal P} _ {\beta, p} $.
\label {th2}
\end {theor}
In particular, we deduce from here that the solution of the Cauchy problem
(\ref {eq3.25})--(\ref {eq3.26}) is uniformly bounded with respect to $\tau$.

Similar statement is valid for the problem (\ref {eq3.35})--(\ref {eq3.36}):
\begin {theor} \hskip-2mm {\bf}.
Let's suppose  $ \varphi _ {k}, \psi _ {k} (\xi, {\bar \eta}), k =
\pm1, $ are the analytical functions in layer $ S (\beta _ {0}) \
(\beta _ {0} = const > 0) $: Fourier-images belong to  $ {\cal P}
_ {\beta, p}.$ There exist values $ \theta _ {0}, \ \beta \in (0,
\beta _ {0}):$ $ \forall\ \theta\in [0, \theta _ {0}] $ the
Cauchy problem (\ref {eq3.35})--(\ref {eq3.36}) has a unique
solution, which is analytical with respect to  $ \xi, {\bar \eta}
$  in layer $S(\beta)$: Fourier-image belongs to ${\cal
P}_{\beta, p}.$
\label {th1}
\end {theor}
The proof is based on the Fourier transformation with respect to
spatial variables $\xi, {\bar\eta} $ and completely similar to
\cite {vak1, lk2}.

The analyticity of solution of (\ref {eq3.31}) for the amplitudes
of the first correction results from the analyticity of the
right-hand side of this equation. However we will later need
estimates of Fourier-images. Therefore the following statement
will be useful:
\newtheorem {lemma} {Lemma}
\begin {lemma}
\hskip-2mm {\bf}.
Let's suppose the function $u=u (\xi, {\bar \eta}, \tau), $ satisfies to the
equation:
$$
[\partial_{\tau}+\zeta\partial_{\xi}]u=v(\sigma_{+},{\bar
\eta})w(\sigma_{-},{\bar \eta}),
\quad\sigma_{\pm}=\xi\mp\zeta\tau,\quad \zeta=\hbox{const}.
$$
Then the following estimate is valid for  Fourier-image $ U = U (m, {\bar l},
\tau)$:
$$
\parallel U
\parallel _ {p} \le
M _ {0} \parallel V \parallel _ {p} \cdot\parallel W
\parallel _ {p}, \quad M _ {0} = \mbox {const} > 0, \
\forall \ V, W \in {\cal P} _ {\beta, p}.
$$
\label {l1}
\end {lemma}

{\it Proof.} Fourier-image $ U = U (m, {\bar l}, \tau) $ can be
written out in an explicit form (sign $ \star $ denotes
convolution with respect to $ (m, {\bar l})):
$
$$
U = V\star\Big (W\frac {\sin m\zeta\tau} {m\zeta} \Big) =
\int\limits _ {{\Bbb R} ^ {n}} V (m-m _ {1}, \bar {l} -\bar {l} _ {1})
W (m _ {1}, \bar {l} _ {1}) \frac {\sin m _ {1} \zeta\tau}
{ m _ {1} \zeta} dm _ {1} d\bar {l} _ {1}.
$$
Let's divide this convolution integral by sum $J _ {1}$ and $ J _
{2} $ with integration due to domains $
\Omega _ {1} =
\{| m _ {1} | > 1, \ \bar {l} _ {1} \in {\Bbb R} ^ {n-1} \}, \quad
\Omega _ {2} =
\{| m _ {1} | \leq 1, \ \bar {l} _ {1}
\in {\Bbb R} ^ {n-1} \} $
accordingly. In what follows we set for being brief:
$
\rho (m, {\bar l})
= (1 + \vert m \vert + \vert {\bar l}
\vert)^{p}e^{\beta (1 + \vert m \vert + \vert {\bar l} \vert)}.
$

Using the norm of space $ {\cal P} _ {\beta, p}, $ we estimate
integral $ J _ {1} $:
$$
| J _ {1} | \leq | \zeta | ^ {-1} \int\limits _ {{\Bbb R} ^ {n}}
| V (m-m _ {1}, \bar {l} -\bar {l} _ {1}) |
| W (m _ {1}, \bar {l} _ {1}) | dm _ {1} d\bar {l} _ {1}
\leq
$$
$$
\leq | \zeta | ^ {-1} \parallel V \parallel _ {p}
\parallel W \parallel _ {p}
\int\limits _ {{\Bbb R} ^ {n}}
\rho ^ {-1} (m-m _ {1}, \bar {l} -\bar {l} _ {1})
\rho ^ {-1} (m _ {1}, \bar {l} _ {1}) dm _ {1} d\bar {l} _ {1}
\leq
$$
$$
\leq M _ {1} | \zeta | ^ {-1} \parallel V \parallel _ {p}
\parallel W \parallel _ {p}
\rho ^ {-1} (m, \bar {l}), \quad
M _ {1} = \mbox {const} > 0.
$$
Let's estimate integral $J _ {2} $:
$$
| J _ {2} | \leq
\int\limits _ {\Omega _ {2}} | V (m-m _ {1}, \bar {l} -\bar {l} _ {1}) |
| W (m _ {1}, \bar {l} _ {1}) | | \frac {\sin m _ {1} \zeta\tau}
{ m _ {1} \zeta} | dm _ {1} d\bar {l} _ {1} \leq
$$
$$
\leq \parallel V \parallel _ {p}
\parallel W \parallel _ {p}
\int\limits _ {\Omega _ {2}}
\rho ^ {-1} (m-m _ {1}, \bar {l} -\bar {l} _ {1})
\rho ^ {-1} (m _ {1}, \bar {l} _ {1}) | \frac {\sin m _ {1} \zeta\tau}
{ m _ {1} \zeta} | dm _ {1} d\bar {l} _ {1}
\leq
$$
$$
\leq M _ {2} \parallel V \parallel _ {p}
\parallel W \parallel _ {p}
\rho ^ {-1} (m, \bar {l}) \int\limits _ {0} ^ {1}
\frac {\sin m _ {1} \zeta\tau} {m _ {1} \zeta} dm _ {1} \leq
$$
$$
\leq \pi M _ {2} | \zeta | ^ {-1} \parallel V \parallel _ {p}
\parallel W \parallel _ {p}
\rho ^ {-1} (m, \bar {l}), \quad M _ {2} =
\mbox {const} > 0.
$$
The result of the obtained estimations is the validity of lemma
\ref {l1}.

\section * {4 Justification of the asymptotics}

In this section we aim to justify an asymptotic expansion. We
must prove that the constructed segment of series (\ref {eq3.14})
gives an asymptotic expansion at $\varepsilon \to 0 $ for some
solution of the input problem (\ref {eq3.10})--(\ref {eq3.11})
for long times $0\le t\le T\varepsilon^ {-2}$.

{\it The proof of the theorem 1.} \ Let's seek for the exact
solution of the problem (\ref {eq3.10})--(\ref {eq3.11}) in the
form of:
$$
u(x, {\bar y}, t, \varepsilon) = \varepsilon \hat {v} +
\varepsilon ^ {2} z (x, \xi, {\bar \eta}, t, \varepsilon),
$$
where the function $\hat {v} = \stackrel {0} v + \varepsilon\stackrel {1} v + \varepsilon ^
{2}\stackrel {2} v $ was constructed in section 2.

Substituting this expansion into equations (\ref {eq3.12}), (\ref
{eq3.13}) we shall obtain the following Cauchy problem for the
function $ z (x, \xi, {\bar\eta}, t, \varepsilon) $ :
\begin{equation}
[ \partial _ {t} ^ {2} - (\partial _ {x} + \varepsilon\partial _ {\xi}) ^ {2} -\varepsilon ^ {2} \Delta _ {{\bar
\eta}} +
\nu (\partial _ {x} + \varepsilon\partial _ {\xi}) ^ {4} + \nu \varepsilon ^ {4} \partial _ {{\bar \eta}} ^ {4}] z =
\varepsilon ^ {2} f,
\label {eq4.02}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
z \nonumber \\ \partial _ {t} z
\end{array}
\right] _ {| t = 0} =
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
z _ {1} \\ z _ {2}
\end{array}
\right] (x, \xi, {\bar \eta}, \varepsilon).
\label {eq4.03}
\end{equation}
Here
$$
f = f _ {0} + D _ {x} f _ {1} + \varepsilon < \nabla _ {{\bar \eta}}
\cdot\bar {f} >,
\quad \bar {f} = (f _ {2}, \dots, f _ {n}),
$$
$$
f _ {0} = f _ {0} (x, \xi, {\bar \eta}, t, \varepsilon), \quad f _ {j} =
f_ {j} (z _ {x}, z _ {\xi}, \nabla _ {{\bar
\eta}} z, x, \xi, {\bar \eta}, t, \varepsilon), \ j = \overline {1, n};
$$
we select the known function:
$$
f_ {0} = 2 [\partial
_ {t} \partial _ {\tau} -\partial _ {x} \partial _ {\xi} + 2\nu \partial _ {x} ^ {3} \partial
_ {\xi}] \stackrel {2} {v} + [\partial _ {\tau} ^ {2} + 2\partial _ {t} \partial
_ {\theta} -\Delta _ {\xi {\bar \eta}} +
6\nu\partial _ {x} ^ {2} \partial
_ {\xi} ^ {2}] (\stackrel {1} {v} + \varepsilon\stackrel {2} {v}) +
$$
$$
+ 2 [\partial
_ {\tau} \partial _ {\theta} + 2\nu \partial _ {x} \partial
_ {\xi} ^ {3}] \hat {v} +
\varepsilon [\partial _ {\theta} ^ {2} + \nu \partial _ {\xi} ^ {4} +
 \partial _ {{\bar \eta}} ^ {4}] (\hat {v} -v _ {0} + \varepsilon\stackrel {1} {v} +
\varepsilon ^ {2} \stackrel {2} {v}) +
g _ {1} ^ {3,0} \partial _ {\xi} (\stackrel {0} {v} _ {x}) ^ {3};
$$
and functions which depend on $z$:
$$
f_{1} = g _ {1} (D _ {x} [\hat {v} + \varepsilon z], \nabla _ {{\bar
\eta}} [\hat {v} + \varepsilon z]) -
g_{1} ^ {3,0} (\stackrel {0} {v} _ {x}) ^ {3} + \nu\partial _ {\xi} ^ {3} v
_ {0};
$$
$$
f_{j} = g _ {j} (D _ {x} [\hat {v} + \varepsilon z], \nabla _ {{\bar
\eta}} [\hat {v} + \varepsilon z]) + \nu\partial _ {\eta _ {j}} ^ {3} v _ {0}; \
j = \overline {2, n}.
$$

In fact we should prove solvability and estimate of the solution
of the nonlinear problem (\ref {eq4.02})--(\ref {eq4.03}) for
residual. Note that in this problem there is present one
"superfluous" spatial variable $\xi$. The relation with the input
problem may be obtained at contraction $\xi=\varepsilon x.$ A similar
method (extension of dimensionality of the problem) separates
periodicity with respect to $x$ from smoothness with respect to
$\xi$ in solution.

The proof of solvability of the problem (\ref
{eq4.02})--(\ref{eq4.03}) is based on the Fourier transformation
with respect to variables $x,\xi, {\bar \eta}$. Thus we pass from
the partial differential equation to the system of ordinary
differential equations for the Fourier-image of residual $Z (k,
m, {\bar l}, t,\varepsilon):$
\begin{equation}
[ \partial _ {t} ^ {2} + \lambda ^ {2}] Z =
\varepsilon ^ {2} F,
\label {eq4.04}
\end{equation}
with the initial conditions
\begin{equation}
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
Z \nonumber \\ \partial _ {t} Z
\end{array}
\right] _ {| t = 0} =
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
Z _ {1} \\ Z _ {2}
\end{array}
\right] (k, m, {\bar l}, \varepsilon).
\label {eq4.05}
\end{equation}
Here $ \lambda ^ {2} = (k + \varepsilon m) ^ {2} + \varepsilon ^ {2} | {\bar l} |
^ {2} + \nu (k + \varepsilon m) ^ {4} + \nu\varepsilon ^ {4} {\bar l} ^ {4}; \
{\bar l} = (l _ {2}, \dots, l _ {n}), \ {\bar l} ^ {4} = l ^ {4}
_ {2} + \cdots + l ^ {4} _ {n}; $ capital letters are used for
Fourier-images:
$$
Z (k, m, {\bar l}) = \sum\limits _ {k\in {\Bbb Z}} \int\limits _ {{\Bbb
R} ^ {n}} z (x, \xi, {\bar \eta}) e ^ {-i (kx + m\xi + < {\bar l} \cdot {\bar
\eta} >)} d\xi d {\bar \eta}.
$$

The right-hand side $F$ in (\ref {eq4.04}) consists of three
addends:
$$
\begin{array} {ll}
F = F _ {0} (k, m, {\bar l}, t, \varepsilon) & + i (k + \varepsilon m) F _ {1}
(kZ, mZ, {\bar l} Z, k, m, {\bar l}, t, \varepsilon) + \\ & + i\varepsilon <
{\bar l} \cdot {\bar F} (kZ, mZ, { \bar l} Z, k, m, {\bar l}, t,
\varepsilon)
>,
\end{array}
$$
and contains various convolutions of functions $ kZ, mZ, {\bar l}
Z $ and some known ones. In what follows sign $\star$ denotes
convolution with respect to $(k, m, {\bar l}).$

Solution $Z_ {0} = Z _ {0} (k, m, {\bar l}, t,\varepsilon)$ corresponding
to the known right-hand side $F_{0}$ can be written out in an
explicit form:
\begin{equation}
[ \partial _ {t} ^ {2} + \lambda ^ {2}] Z _ {0} = \varepsilon ^ {2} F _ {0}.
\label {eqF0}
\end{equation}
We choose the solution of (\ref {eqF0}) which satisfies to the
following initial conditions:
\begin{equation}
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
Z _ {0} \nonumber \\ \partial _ {t} Z _ {0}
\end{array}
\right] _ {| t = 0} =
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
Z _ {1} \\ Z _ {2}
\end{array}
\right] (k, m, {\bar l}, \varepsilon).
\label {eqF0in}
\end{equation}
Let's seek for the solution of the problem (\ref {eq4.04})--(\ref
{eq4.05}) in the form of: $ Z = H + Z _ {0}.$ Then we shall
obtain the following Cauchy problem for $H$:
\begin{equation}
[ \partial _ {t} ^ {2} + \lambda ^ {2}] H = i (k + \varepsilon m) F _ {1} + i\varepsilon < {\bar l}
\cdot {\bar F} >,
\label {eq4.06}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
H \nonumber \\ \partial _ {t} H
\end{array}
\right] _ {| t = 0} =
\left [
\begin{array} {c}
0 \\ 0
\end{array}
\right].
\label {eq4.07}
\end{equation}

The linear term with the factor $\lambda^{2}$ in the left-hand
side of (\ref{eq4.06}) may be excluded by  replacement of the
function using fundamental solution of the corresponding
homogeneous one, namely:
$$
H (k, m, {\bar l}, t, \varepsilon) = Ae ^ {-i\lambda t} + Be ^ {i\lambda t},
$$
where $ A, B = A, B (k, m, {\bar l}, t, \varepsilon). $
$$
\mbox{If}\quad
{ \bf R} = \left[
\begin{array} {c}
A \\ B
\end{array} \right], \quad
{ \bf G} =
\left [
\begin{array} {c} G ^ {+} \\ G ^ {-}
\end{array} \right], \ \
\hbox {where} \ \ G ^ {\pm} = \mp \frac {\Big ((k + \varepsilon m)
F _ {1} + \varepsilon < {\bar l} \cdot {\bar F} > \Big)} {2\lambda} e ^ {\pm i\lambda
t},
$$
we obtain the following differential equation for vector function
$ {\bf R}$:
\begin{equation}
{ \bf R} _ {t} = \varepsilon ^ {2} {\bf G}.
\label {eq4.08}
\end{equation}
The initial condition for (\ref {eq4.08}):
\begin{equation}
{ \bf R} \vert _ {t = 0} = 0.
\label {eq4.09}
\end{equation}
After all the problem (\ref {eq4.08})--(\ref {eq4.09}) is reduced
to the integral equation for $ {\bf R} (k, m, {\bar l}, t,
\varepsilon) $:
\begin{equation}
{ \bf R} (k, m, {\bar l}, t, \varepsilon) =
\varepsilon ^ {2} \int\limits ^ {t} _ {0}
{ \bf G} (k, m, {\bar l}, \mu, {\bf R} (k, m, {\bar l}, \mu,
\varepsilon), \varepsilon) d\mu.
\label {eq4.10}
\end{equation}

Here we use a scale of Banach spaces for the proof of the
existence of solution, analogously \cite {ovs1, vak1, lk2,
lksh2}. Their elements are the functions with the  band of
analyticity  $ \beta (t) > 0 $. This band is narrowed down in due
course. The corresponding norms are defined through the
Fourier-images with exponential weights.

{ \bf Definition 2.} Here we introduce Banach spaces $ {\cal H} _
{\beta, p} $ of functions $ U (k, m, {\bar l}) $ with the finite
norm
$$
\parallel U \parallel _ {\beta, p}
 = \sup\limits _ {k, m, {\bar l}} \Big [(1 + \vert k \vert +
\vert m \vert + \vert {\bar l} \vert) ^ {p} e ^ {\beta (1 + \vert k \vert +
\vert m \vert + \vert {\bar l} \vert)} \vert U (k, m, {\bar l}) \vert \Big],
\quad  p\geq (n + 2), \ \beta > 0.
$$

\begin {lemma} \hskip-2mm {\bf}.
The convolution operator is a bounded one in $ {\cal H} _ {\beta,
p}:$
$$
\parallel U \star V
\parallel _ {\beta, p} \le
M _ {0} \parallel U \parallel _ {\beta, p} \cdot\parallel
V\parallel _ {\beta, p}, \quad M _ {0} = \mbox {const} > 0, \quad
\forall\quad U, V \in {\cal H} _ {\beta, p}.
$$
\end {lemma}

\begin {lemma} \hskip-2mm {\bf}.
The convolution operator is a Lipschitzian one in $ {\cal H}
_ {\beta, p}:\  \forall M _ {1} < \infty $
$$
\parallel U \star U - V \star
V \parallel _ {\beta, p}
\leq 2 M _ {0} M _ {1}
\parallel U - V \parallel _ {\beta, p},
$$
$$
\forall \quad U, V:\quad \parallel U
\parallel _ {\beta, p}, \parallel V \parallel _ {\beta, p}
\leq M _ {1}.
$$
\end {lemma}
The proof of these statements may be obtained analogously \cite
{vak1, lk2}.

The results of it are the boundedness and Lipschitzian of any
degrees of convolution in $ {\cal H} _ {\beta, p}$. We shall
define a degree of convolution by relation $ (\star U) ^ {1} = U,
\quad (\star U)
^ {j} = (\star U) ^ {j-1}
\star U\ (j = 2,3, \dots). $

\begin {lemma} \hskip-2mm {\bf}.
The degree of  convolution is a bounded and Lipschitzian operator
in $ {\cal H}
_ {\beta, p}:\ \forall M _ {1} < \infty, \
\forall j = 1,2, \dots $
$$
\| (\star U) ^ {j} \| _ {\beta, p} \leq M _ {0} ^ {j-1}
\| U \| _ {\beta, p};
$$
$$
\| (\star U) ^ {j} - (\star V) ^ {j} \| _ {\beta, p}
\leq j (M _ {0} M _ {1})^{j-1} \| U-V \| _ {\beta, p};
$$
$$
\forall \quad U, V:\quad \parallel U
\parallel _ {\beta, p}, \parallel V \parallel _ {\beta, p}
\leq M _ {1}, \quad M _ {0} = \mbox {const} > 0.
$$
\end {lemma}
The proof is given by induction with respect to $j$.

We introduce the space $ C ([0, T\varepsilon ^ {-2}] \times [0, \varepsilon _
{0}]; {\cal H}_{\beta, p}) $ of functions $ U (t, \varepsilon) $ which
are continuous with respect to $ (t, \varepsilon) \in [0, T\varepsilon ^ {-2}]
\times [0, \varepsilon _ {0}] $ with the finite norm:
$$
\parallel U \parallel = \sup \limits _ {t\in [0, T\varepsilon ^ {-2}]}
\sup \limits _ {\varepsilon\in [0, \varepsilon _ {0}]}
\parallel U \parallel _ {\beta, p}.
$$

\begin {lemma} \hskip-2mm {\bf}.
The solution $ Z _ {0} (k, m, {\bar l}, t, \varepsilon) $ of the Cauchy
problem (\ref {eqF0})--(\ref {eqF0in})  belongs to $ C ([0, T\varepsilon
^ {-2}] \times [0, \varepsilon _ {0}]; {\cal H} _ {\beta, p})$ provided
theorems \ref {th2} and \ref {th1}.
\label {l7}
\end {lemma}

{\it Proof.} We can write out the solution of ordinary
differential equations (\ref {eqF0})  with initial conditions
(\ref {eqF0in}) in an explicit form, but here it is not
necessary. It is worth mentioning, that the right-hand side
$F_{0}$ of this equation contains Fourier-images constructed
above FAS, hence, $ F _ {0} \in C ([0, T\varepsilon ^ {-2}] \times [0,
\varepsilon _ {0}]; {\cal H} _ {\beta, p}). $ As all addends in $ F _ {0}
$ have the form $ \tilde {z} (k, m, {\bar L},\varepsilon) \exp (i\omega t) $
with $\omega\not = 0 $, where $ \tilde {z} (k, m, {\bar L},\varepsilon)
\in C ([0, T\varepsilon ^ {-2}] \times [0, \varepsilon _ {0}]; {\cal H} _ {\beta, p}), $
the solution $ Z _ {0} (k, m, {\bar l}, t, \varepsilon) \in C ([0, T\varepsilon
^ {-2}]\times [0, \varepsilon _ {0}]; {\cal H} _ {\beta, p}). $
Lemma \ref {l7} is proved.

In what follows we introduce Banach spaces $ {\cal {\bf H}} _
{\beta, p} $ of vector functions ${\bf R}(k,m,$ ${\bar l},t,\varepsilon)$
with continuous components with respect to $ k, m, $$ {\bar l},
t, \varepsilon $ and with exponential decreasing at infinity with respect
to $k,m,{\bar l} $. The norm in space $ {\cal {\bf H}} _ {\beta,
p} $ is defined as the sum of norms of the components of vector $
{\bf R} $ in space $ {\cal H} _ {\beta, p} $:
$$
\parallel {\bf R} \parallel _ {\beta, p} = \parallel
A\parallel _ {\beta, p} +
\parallel B\parallel _ {\beta, p}.
$$
Vector functions $ {\bf R} (k, m, {\bar l}, t, \varepsilon) \in {\cal
{\bf H}} _ {\beta, p} $, which are continuously depending with
respect to $ t \in [0, T\varepsilon ^ {-2}],\varepsilon\in [0, \varepsilon _ {0}] $ are
considered in Banach space $ {\bf C}_ {p} = C ([0, T\varepsilon ^ {-2}]
\times [0, \varepsilon _ {0}]; {\cal {\bf H}}_ {\beta, p}) $ with the
norm:
$$
\parallel {\bf R} \parallel _ {
{ \bf C} _ {p}} = \sup _ {t, \varepsilon} \parallel {\bf R} (k, t, m, {\bar l}, \varepsilon)
\parallel _ {\beta, p}.
$$
\noindent
In what follows the index $ \beta = \beta (\theta) $ will depend on $
\theta =
\varepsilon ^ {2} t $.

The considered equations reduce to integration operator from
(\ref {eq4.10}), which contains both convolution degrees and
exterior factors $ (k + \varepsilon m) / (2\lambda) $; $\varepsilon
l_{j}/(2\lambda)$, which are uniformly bounded (the majorant is
1/2).

Factors $ k $, $ m $, $ l _ {j} $ coming from operators $ \partial _
{x} $,
$
\partial _ {\xi}, $ $ \partial _ {\eta _ {j}} $ are unbounded ones in
$ {\cal {\bf H}} _ {\beta, p} $. But they will be bounded from $
{\cal {\bf H}} _ {\beta, p} $ in $ {\cal {\bf H}} _ {\beta, p-1}
$. On the other hand, the integration operator
$$
I [{\bf R}] = \varepsilon ^ {2} \int\limits ^ {t} _ {0} {\bf R} (k, m, {\bar
L}, \mu, \varepsilon) d\mu
$$
is linear bounded from $ {\bf C} _ {p-1} $ in $ {\bf C} _ {p} $ with $ \beta =
\beta _ {0} -\beta _ {1} \varepsilon ^ {2} t \ (\beta _ {0}, $$ \beta _ {1} = \hbox
{const} > 0) $ on the functions continuously depending with
respect to $t,\varepsilon$. This integration operator has estimate
analogously \cite {vak1, lk2}:
$$
\parallel I [{\bf R}] \parallel _ {
{ \bf C} _ {p}} \le \beta _ {1} ^ {-1} \parallel {\bf R}
\parallel _ {{\bf C} _ {p-1}},
\quad
\forall \quad t \le
\beta _ {0} \beta _ {1} ^ {-1} \varepsilon ^ {-2}.
$$
If now we choose a sufficiently large constant $ \beta _ {1} $,
the composition $I [(k + m + l _ {j}) {\bf R}] $  operator of
multiplication with respect to $ (k + m + l _ {j}) $ with the
integrated one will be the contractive operator in scale of
spaces $ {\cal {\bf H}}_ {\beta, p} $ on functions, continuously
depending with respect to $ t, \varepsilon $. A similar situation is in
case with general operator from (\ref {eq4.10}). Integrals in the
right-hand side (\ref {eq4.10}) will be bounded and Lipschitzian
operators in $ {\bf C}
_ {p} $. Therefore the integration operator from (\ref {eq4.10}) is
contractive in $ {\bf C} _ {p} $ with $ \beta = \beta
_ {0}
-\beta _ {1} \varepsilon ^ {2} t \ (\beta _ {0}, $$ \beta _ {1} = \hbox {const} > 0)
$. This is what ensures a local solvability of integral equations
(\ref {eq4.10}) in $ {\bf C}_{p} $. Thus the upper bound of
existence interval $T\le\beta _ {0} \beta _ {1}^ {-1} \varepsilon ^ {-2}
$  is defined from the condition $
\beta = \beta _ {0}
-\beta _ {1} \varepsilon ^ {2} t \geq 0\ (\beta _ {0}, \beta _ {1} = \hbox {const} >
0) $. Thus the leading term of the asymptotics in (\ref {eq3.14})
is justified. Theorem \ref{th0} is proved.

The author is grateful to L.A.Kalyakin for useful discussions.

\begin {thebibliography} {99}
\bibitem {lk3}
Kalyakin L.A. Long wavelength asymptoticses of the solutions for
the multidimensional Boussinesq equation  //  "Asymptotic
properties of the solutions of differential equations ", 1988. -
Ufa, pp. 29--45.

\bibitem {ds2}
Davey A., Stewartson K. On the three-dimensional packets of
surfase waves // Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 1974, Vol. 338, Ser. A,
pp. 101--110.

\bibitem {djred1}
Djordjevic V.D., Redekopp L.G. On two-dimensional packets of
capillary-gravity waves // J.Fluid Mech., 1977,  Vol. 79, pp.
703--714.

\bibitem {fred1}
Freeman N.C., Davey A. On the evolution of packets of long
surface waves // Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 1975, Vol. 344, Ser. A,
pp. 427--433.

\bibitem {ovs1}
Ovsyannikov L.V. Nonlinear problems of the theory of surface and
internal waves. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1985. - 318 p.

\bibitem {lk1}
Kalyakin L.A. Long wavelength asymptoticses. Integrable equations
as an asymptotic limit of nonlinear systems // Uspehi mat. nauk,
1989, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 5--34.

\bibitem {naif1}
Nayfeh A. Perturbation techniques. Moskva: Mir, 1976. - 455 p.

\bibitem {lksh3}
Kalyakin L.A., Shakir'yanov M.M. The asymptotics of Poisson
integral for long times //  "Problems of mathematics and the
control theory." - 1998. - Ufa, pp. 58--65.

\bibitem {vak1}
Vakulenko S.A. Justification of the asymptotic formula for the
perturbed solution of Klein-Fock-Gordon equation  //
Zap.nauch.semin. LOMI, 1981, Vol.104, pp.84--92.

\bibitem {lk2}
Kalyakin L.A. The asymptotic collapse of one-dimensional wave
packet in nonlinear dispersive medium // Mat.sbornik, 1987,
Vol.132, No.4, pp.470--495.

\bibitem {zhiber}
Zhiber A.V., Shabat A.B. On the Cauchy problem for the nonlinear
Schrodinger equation // Diff. uravneniya, 1970, Vol. 6, No.1, pp.
137 - 146.

\bibitem {sh3}
Shakir'yanov M.M. On the solvability of the boundary value
problem for Davey-Stewartson-II equations // "Asymptoticses and
symmetries in nonlinear dynamical systems", 1995.- Ufa, pp.
96--104.

\bibitem {lksh2}
Kalyakin L.A., Shakir'yanov M.M. Correctness of the
Goursat-Cauchy problem for the Davey-Stewartson type systems of
equations // Dokl. RAN, 1996, Vol.346, No. 4, pp. 445--447.

\end {thebibliography}
\end{document}


\section{INTRODUCTION}

The formation of both stellar mass and supermassive black holes could well lead
to rapidly rotating Kerr black holes. If so, this reservoir
of rotational energy constitutes a potentially important energy
source for driving jets and emission from black hole systems.
Moreover, this energy can be extracted
if the black hole is embedded in a magnetic field (Blandford \& Znajek 1977).
Since all black holes of current astrophysical interest are probably accreting
from magnetized disks, this has led to suggestions that
the Blandford-Znajek process plays a vital role in
Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) and other accreting black
hole systems (Begelman, Blandford \& Rees 1984; Wilson \& Colbert 1995;
Moderski, Sikora \& Lasota 1998; Paczynski 1998; Lee, Wijers \& Brown 1999).

Recent papers (Ghosh \& Abramowicz 1997; Livio, Ogilvie, \& Pringle
1999; Li 1999) have re-evaluated the importance of the Blandford-Znajek
mechanism for AGN in light of advances in the understanding of
accretion disks -- in particular, the demonstration that
turbulence driven by magnetohydrodynamic instabilities (Balbus \&
Hawley 1991) leads to disk angular momentum
transport (Hawley, Gammie \& Balbus 1995; Brandenburg et al. 1995;
Stone et al. 1996; for
a review see e.g. Hawley \& Balbus 1999). Two principal effects lead
to substantial downward revisions in the estimated efficiency of the
Blandford-Znajek mechanism for thin disks. First, in an accretion disk
both the viscosity and the magnetic diffusivity are generated by
the same turbulent processes, and so have comparable magnitudes.
This implies that any external magnetic field can diffuse outward
through the inflowing gas, and will not accumulate on the hole.
Second, the strongest magnetic fields generated by a thin disk are
expected to have characteristic scales of order the disk scale height
$H$, with only weaker large scale fields threading the black hole and
contributing to the extraction of the rotational energy.
Both arguments are weakened for thick disks for which $H \sim R$.

In this Letter, we consider the Blandford-Znajek contribution
to the luminosity of black hole systems at extremely low
accretion rates. Motivated by the hard high energy spectra and
low luminosity of such systems, Narayan \& Yi (1994; 1995) have
developed an advection dominated accretion flow (ADAF) model, in
which radiatively inefficient accretion occurs in a hot, geometrically thick
geometry (see also Rees et al. 1982;
Ichimaru 1977). Strong disk winds may also contribute to the observed
dearth of emission (Blandford \& Begelman 1999).
As Rees et al. (1982) noted, the low
radiative efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm ADAF} = L_{\rm ADAF} / \dot{M} c^2$
of ADAFs means that even rather weak emission arising from the
Blandford-Znajek mechanism could make an important contribution to the
overall luminosity. Here, we concentrate on the extreme case of
isolated black holes accreting from the interstellar medium (ISM),
and show that the power from the Blandford-Znajek process substantially
improves the prospects for detecting any rapidly rotating holes.
We also comment on the implications
for other very low luminosity accreting black holes, particularly
those in quiescent galactic nuclei.

\section{EVALUATING THE BLANDFORD-ZNAJEK POWER}

For a black hole of mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$, with a magnetic
field $B_\bot$ normal to the horizon at $R_h$, the power arising from
the Blandford-Znajek mechanism is given by (e.g. Ghosh \& Abramowicz 1997;
Macdonald \& Thorne 1982; Thorne, Price \& Macdonald 1986),
\begin{equation}
 L_{\rm BZ} = {1 \over 32} \omega_F^2 B_\bot^2 R_h^2 c
 \left( {J \over J_{\rm max}} \right)^2
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where $J_{\rm max} = GM^2 / c$ is the maximal angular momentum of the
hole. The factor $\omega_F^2 \equiv \Omega_F (\Omega_h - \Omega_F) /
\Omega_h^2$ depends on the angular velocity of
field lines $\Omega_F$ relative to that of the hole,
$\Omega_h$. Conventionally, we will assume that $\omega_F = 1/2$,
which maximizes the power output (Macdonald \& Thorne 1982; Phinney
1983; Thorne, Price \& Macdonald 1986).

To estimate $L_{\rm BZ}$ we need to relate
$B_\bot$ to the conditions at the inner edge of an ADAF.
First though, we briefly consider the possibility that $B_\bot$
at the black hole horizon could
exceed the disk field at the inner disk edge, if
the disk is able to advect an organized external magnetic
field inwards. Whether this is possible depends on the relative timescales for
inward advection, controlled by the disk shear viscosity $\nu$, versus
outward diffusion, controlled by the magnetic diffusivity $\eta$.  For
a disk with magnetic Prantl number ${\cal{P}} \equiv \nu / \eta$, the
ability of the disk to advect field lines inwards depends on the
dimensionless parameter ${\cal{D}} = ( R / H ) {\cal{P}}$, where
$H$ is the disk scale height at radius $R$. Lubow, Papaloizou \&
Pringle (1994) found that ${\cal{D}} \lesssim 1$ was a necessary
condition for strong inward field dragging (see also Reyes-Ruiz \&
Stepinski 1996). Since it is generally believed that in a turbulent
medium ${\cal{P}} \simeq 1$ (e.g. Parker 1979), this result implies that
for a thin disk ${\cal{D}} \sim (R/H) \gg 1$, and external fields
cannot accumulate at small radii. For thick disks, where $H \sim R$,
the situation is less clear, but for a lower limit on $B_\bot$
we will assume that even in thick disks, advection of the field is ineffective.
The field at the black hole then reflects only the local disk magnetic
field strength.

To estimate the physical conditions in the inner part of the disk,
we employ the vertically averaged, self-similar ADAF solution of
Narayan \& Yi (1994; Spruit et al. 1987). This solution assumes a
Shakura-Sunyaev (1973) prescription for the shear viscosity,
$\nu = \alpha c_s H$, where $\alpha$ is a free parameter and
$c_s$ is the local disk sound speed. The character of the
solution depends on the parameter $\epsilon^\prime$, where
\begin{equation}
  \epsilon^\prime \equiv { {5/3 - \gamma} \over { f (\gamma - 1) } },
\end{equation}
and $\gamma$ is the ratio of specific heats. The factor $f$
measures the efficiency of radiative cooling, so that $f=1$ corresponds
to the limit of no cooling at all, while $f=0$ resembles the case
of a thin disk in which cooling is efficient. For $\alpha \ll 1$,
as suggested by numerical simulations, the solution for the sound speed
and the radial velocity $v_R$ is (Narayan \& Yi 1994),
\begin{equation}
  v_R    \simeq  - { {3 \alpha} \over {5 + 2 \epsilon^\prime} } v_k, \, \,
  c_s^2  \simeq  { 2 \over {5 + 2 \epsilon^\prime} } v_k^2,
\end{equation}
where $v_k = (GM / R)^{1/2}$ is the Keplerian velocity. Making use
of $H / R = c_s / v_k$, and the continuity equation,
\begin{equation}
  \rho = - \dot{M} / 4 \pi R H v_R,
\end{equation}
we find that the pressure $P = \rho c_s^2$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
 P = { {\dot{M} \sqrt{2}} \over {12 \pi \alpha} } (5 + 2 \epsilon^\prime)^{1/2}
 (GM)^{1/2} R^{-5/2}.
\end{equation}
Studies that have dropped the requirements of
self-similarity and vertical averaging have found that this
solution provides a good approximation to
ADAF flows (Narayan \& Yi 1995).

Numerical simulations of thin, magnetized accretion disks (Hawley, Gammie \&
Balbus 1995; Brandenburg et al. 1995; Stone et al. 1996), have shown that
angular momentum transport is dominated by Maxwell
stresses. The magnetic contribution to $\alpha$
typically exceeds the fluid stresses by an order of magnitude, so that
$\alpha \simeq \alpha_{\rm magnetic}$. The dominant field
component is toroidal, with saturation occurring when $P_{\rm mag} \ll
P$. Initial results from global simulations (Armitage 1998) suggest
that Narayan \& Yi's assumption -- that in thick disks the
magnetic fields possess most of their power in long wavelength
modes of scale $\sim R$ -- is reasonable.

We assume that $P_{\rm mag} = B^2 / 8 \pi \sim \alpha P$
in the inner disk, and make the important assumption that $B_\bot \approx B$.
We further assume that the energy extracted from the hole is {\em not}
all dumped into the internal energy of the accreting gas and lost invisibly
across the horizon -- the fate of the bulk of the accretion energy (Narayan,
Garcia \& McClintock 1997). This is reasonable provided that some fraction of the field
lines threading the hole are open, for example as a result of a wind or a jet.
Evaluating the Blandford-Znajek power for the case of a maximally rotating hole,
where $J = J_{\rm max}$ and $R_h = GM / c^2$, we then obtain,
\begin{equation}
 L_{\rm BZ} \simeq { \sqrt{2} \over 192 } (5 + 2 \epsilon^\prime)^{1/2}
 \dot{M} c^2.
\end{equation}
This corresponds to a constant efficiency, $\epsilon_{\rm BZ} \equiv
L_{\rm BZ} / \dot{M} c^2$, given for the range of thick disk models by,
\begin{eqnarray}
  \epsilon_{\rm BZ} & \simeq & { \sqrt{14} \over 192} \ \  {\rm for} \ \epsilon^\prime=1 \\
  \epsilon_{\rm BZ} & \simeq & { \sqrt{10} \over 192} \ \   {\rm for} \ \epsilon^\prime=0
\end{eqnarray}
This efficiency drops rapidly for more slowly spinning holes, due
to both the $(J / J_{\rm max})^2$ factor in equation
(\ref{eq1}), and because the pressure in the disk, which should be
evaluated at the marginally stable orbit, drops as
$R^{-5/2}$. Nonetheless, it suggests that the Blandford-Znajek
mechanism will be an important power source in the overall
energy budget of ADAFs around rapidly rotating black holes, with
efficiencies of up to $\sim 10^{-2}$. We note that if $\epsilon^\prime > 1$
(corresponding to a thin disk), these scalings suggest still higher
efficiencies. More realistically, the suppressing effects
identified by Livio, Ogilvie \& Pringle (1999)
are expected to be important in this regime. Of course, if
a thin disk existed the holes would be readily detectable
due to the high radiative efficiency ($\sim 0.1$) of thin disk
accretion. Additional electromagnetic extraction of energy
from the inner {\em disk}, which Livio, Ogilvie \& Pringle (1999)
argue is likely to exceed that from the hole itself, would also
boost the efficiency.

\section{ISOLATED BLACK HOLES}

The known neutron stars and stellar mass black holes in mass transfer
binaries must be greatly outnumbered by the isolated populations of
such remnants, accreting only at a very low rate
from the ISM (e.g. Blaes \& Madau 1993). To date, only a few isolated
neutron stars have been identified (Walter \& Matthews 1997; Neuhauser
\& Trumper 1999). Identification of the corresponding black hole
population would provide both a record of massive star
formation in the galaxy, and insight into the behavior of
accretion flows at extremely low $\dot{M}$.

The accretion rate onto a black hole accreting from the ISM is given
by the Bondi-Hoyle rate (Hoyle \& Lyttleton 1939; Bondi \& Hoyle 1944).
For a hole moving with velocity $v_\infty$ through a uniform medium
with sound speed $c_\infty$, the accretion radius is,
\begin{equation}
 R_a = { {2GM} \over {v_\infty^2 + c_\infty^2} }.
\end{equation}
Gas falling within a cylinder of this radius is accreted, so that the accretion
rate is $\dot{M}_{\rm Bondi} = \pi R_a^2 \rho_\infty \sqrt{v_\infty^2 + c_\infty^2}$,
where $\rho_\infty$ is the density far upstream of the accretor.

The most luminous black holes are expected to be those accreting from
nearby, dense, molecular clouds (Fujita et al. 1998). For
gas at temperatures of $T \sim 10^2 \ {\rm K}$, $v_\infty \gg c_\infty$,
and the accretion rate is,
\begin{eqnarray}
 \dot{M}_{\rm Bondi} = 7.3 \times 10^{15}
 \left( {M \over {10 M_\odot}} \right)^2
 \left( { n_\infty \over {10^2 \ {\rm cm}^{-3}} } \right) \nonumber \\
 \left( { v_\infty \over {10 \ {\rm kms}^{-1} } } \right)^{-3} \ {\rm gs}^{-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have taken a density $n_\infty$ (in particles / cm$^3$)
typical for a molecular cloud. The accretion rate will be much lower for
holes accreting from hotter phases of the ISM. For gas at $n_\infty \sim 1 \
{\rm cm}^{-3}$ and $T \sim 10^4 \ {\rm K}$, the same hole accreting
transonically ($v_\infty \approx c_\infty \approx 15 \ {\rm kms}^{-1}$) will
have an accretion rate,
$\dot{M}_{\rm Bondi} = 8 \times 10^{12} \ {\rm gs}^{-1}$.

Some black holes in mass transfer binaries are believed to be rotating
rapidly (Zhang, Cui \& Chen 1997), and we assume that some fraction
of isolated black holes also have rapid ($J \sim J_{\rm max}$) rotation.
Taking the Blandford-Znajek efficiency calculated earlier for the $\epsilon^\prime=1$
ADAF model (appropriate for a fully advection dominated, $\gamma = 4/3$
gas), the estimated power is,
\begin{eqnarray}
  L_{\rm BZ} & \simeq & 1.3 \times 10^{35} \ {\rm ergs}^{-1} \nonumber \\
    (n_\infty &=& 10^2 \ {\rm cm}^{-3}, v_\infty = 10 \ {\rm kms}^{-1}) \nonumber \\
  L_{\rm BZ} & \simeq & 1.4 \times 10^{32} \ {\rm ergs}^{-1} \nonumber \\
    (n_\infty &=& 1 \ {\rm cm}^{-3}, v_\infty = c_\infty = 15 \ {\rm kms}^{-1}).
\label{eq_lum}
\end{eqnarray}
These luminosities are comparable to those predicted on the basis of
models of spherical accretion of magnetized gas (Heckler \& Kolb 1996;
Ipser \& Price 1982, 1983). Spherical models are unrealistic
at least for black holes accreting at high Mach numbers.
The luminosities in equation (\ref{eq_lum}) are considerably higher
than estimates based on the radiative efficiency of an ADAF (Fujita et al. 1998),
which is very low for small $\dot{M}$ (Narayan \& Yi 1995; Mahadevan \&
Quataert 1997). We note that at these accretion rates, the spindown time for
the hole, even including the Blandford-Znajek losses, remains much greater than
a Hubble time (e.g. King \& Kolb 1999).

Our estimates suggest that the prospects for detecting isolated
black holes are substantially better than would be inferred on the
basis of the low radiative efficiency of an ADAF, {\em if} a
reasonable fraction of the holes are rapidly rotating. Indeed,
these estimates are {\em energetically} consistent with associating isolated
black holes with some unidentified EGRET gamma ray sources (Lamb \& Macomb 1997;
Dermer 1997; Yadigaroglu \& Romani 1997). Dermer (1997) estimates that these
sources have characteristic luminosities, in the 100 MeV - 5 GeV band,
of $\sim 2.5 \times 10^{35} \ {\rm ergs}^{-1}$ (for low latitude
sources with $\vert b \vert < 10^\circ$), and $\sim 6 \times 10^{32} \
{\rm ergs}^{-1}$ (for sources with $\vert b \vert > 10^\circ$). This
would be roughly consistent with the estimates for rotating $10
M_\odot$ black holes, provided that the efficiency of gamma ray
emission was very high. High energy emission in AGN
occurs via similar processes (e.g. Levinson \& Blandford 1996).
We note that the rough
proportionality of the luminosity of the unidentified sources on the
ISM density (Dermer 1997) would be consistent with the approximately
constant efficiency of the Blandford-Znajek mechanism.  It would {\em
not} be consistent with an ADAF model, whose radiative efficiency
declines at low $\dot{M}$ (Narayan \& Yi 1995).

\section{ADVECTION DOMINATED FLOWS IN GALACTIC NUCLEI}

Similar considerations apply to other low accretion rate flows that
are advection dominated. The radiative efficiency of an
ADAF is given approximately by,
\begin{equation}
 \epsilon_{\rm ADAF} = 0.1 \left( {\dot{m} \over \alpha^2} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\dot{m} \equiv \dot{M} / \dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$, and the Eddington
accretion rate for an electron scattering opacity $\kappa_{\rm es}$,
and fiducial efficiency $\eta_{\rm Eff}=0.1$, is defined as
$\dot{M}_{\rm Edd} = 4 \pi GM / \eta_{\rm Eff} \kappa_{\em es} c$
(Narayan \& Yi 1995). For an estimated
$\alpha = 0.1$, this implies that the Blandford-Znajek effect
could be an important contributor to the overall power output for $\dot{m}
\lesssim 2 \times 10^{-3}$.

In addition to isolated black holes in the galactic disk, some
supermassive black holes in quiescent galactic nuclei also
fall into this regime (Fabian \& Rees 1995). The weak emission from
the nuclei of these galaxies provides both a test of
the ADAF model (Di Matteo et al. 1999a), and a
possible contributor to the X-ray background (Di Matteo \& Fabian
1997; Di Matteo et al. 1999b).  Taking our estimates at face value,
the good agreement of computed ADAF spectra with
observations in some systems -- especially the
galactic center (Mahadevan 1998) -- would be consistent with the black
holes in those systems {\em not} being close to maximally rotating.

\section{DISCUSSION}

In this Letter, we have discussed the importance of the
Blandford-Znajek (1977) mechanism for ADAFs at low accretion rates.
For these thick disks, which are similar
to the tori originally considered by Rees et al. (1982), the arguments
advanced for the likely irrelevance of the Blandford-Znajek mechanism
(Ghosh \& Abramowicz 1997; Livio, Ogilvie \& Pringle 1999) are considerably
weaker than for thin disks. Even with
pessimistic assumptions, the total electromagnetic power
liberated from the hole or inner disk will exceed the radiative
luminosity for sufficiently low accretion rates. For maximally
rotating black holes, and self-similar ADAF models, we obtain the criteria
$\dot{m} = \dot{M} / \dot{M}_{\rm Edd} \lesssim 2 \times 10^{-3}$. Additional
Blandford-Znajek power
could then be important for the spectra of ADAFs, both for supermassive
black holes in the apparently quiescent cores of elliptical galaxies
(Allen, Di Matteo \& Fabian 1999),
and for stellar mass black holes that are similarly starved of fuel.

For the extreme case of isolated stellar mass black holes accreting from
the local ISM, these results imply that the detectability of any
rapidly rotating holes is substantially better than estimates
based on pure ADAF models (Fujita et al. 1998). The
inferred luminosities are similar to those suggested for some unidentified
EGRET sources (Dermer 1997), if we assume (very optimistically) that most of the
power from the hole is ultimately radiated as gamma-ray emission. With
better signal to noise observations, variability is likely to provide
additional constraints on models for these EGRET sources.
Isolated stellar mass black holes, like those in mass transfer binaries,
will display variability on all timescales exceeding the shortest dynamical
timescales (of the order of milliseconds) available in the system.
For holes accreting at high Mach numbers there may also be additional
quasi-periodic variations arising from `flip-flop' type instabilities
in Bondi-Hoyle accretion, though the persistence of
these features in three dimensional geometry (Ruffert 1997) as opposed
to axisymmetric calculations (Benensohn, Lamb \& Taam 1997), is
not certain. These instabilities have characteristic
timescales of $\sim R_a / c_\infty$, the sound crossing time at the
Bondi accretion radius. These variability signatures
apply both to the high energy emission, and to emission in the
optical wavebands that may be
detectable via current wide area sky surveys (Heckler \& Kolb 1996).

\acknowledgements

We thank Brad Hansen, Norm Murray, Gordon Ogilvie and the referee for useful
discussions on these topics.


\section{Results and discussion}

\begin{figure}[t,scale=2]
\begin{center}\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{fig1a.eps}
\caption{
Magnetoresistance at different temperatures for the field $H_{\bot}$
applied perpendicular to the film plane.
}\label{fig1}\end{center}\end{figure}
\par
The object of investigation was
La$_{1-\mathrm{x}}$Ca$_{\mathrm{x}}$MnO$_{3}$ film with $\mathrm{x}
\approx 1/3$ ($\approx 120$~nm thick) which was grown on LaAlO$_{3}$
substrate by pulsed-laser deposition.
The Curie temperature of the film was about 260 K. The MR behavior
for the magnetic fields applied perpendicular ($H_{\bot}$) and
parallel ($H_{\|}$) to the film plane is shown in Figs. 1 and 2 (in
both cases the magnetic field $\mathbf{H}$ was perpendicular to the
current).  At increasing of $H_{\bot}$ the MR is first negative (at
$H_{\bot} \leq 4$~kOe), then positive (4 kOe $\leq H_{\bot} \leq
12$~kOe), and then negative again. At increasing of $H_{\|}$ the MR
is positive below $H_{\|} \simeq 6$~kOe and negative above it. The
anisotropic behavior of this kind occurs only at low temperatures.
At $T > 20$~K the MR is negative for both directions of magnetic
field (Figs.1 and 2). Besides, we found that in the liquid-helium
temperature range the resistance depends on
angle $\theta$ between $H_{\|}$ and current $I$ approximately in the
following way: $R({\theta})/R(0) = 1 + b\sin^{2}\theta$, where $b >
0$.
\par
The observed puzzling behavior of MR anisotropy is undoubtedly
connected with some interplay of different competing anisotropy
energies in the film studied (shape, strain-induced and intrinsic
magnetocrystalline anisotropy energies). Besides, the surface and inner
layers of ferromagnetic film may have different anisotropy
properties, that can lead in some cases to canted magnetization and to a
reorientation of spontaneous magnetization with varying the temperature
or magnetic field\cite{usadel}. The influence of the angle between
current and magnetization can also give a substantial contribution.
Taking all these into account and particularly the possible bilayer
magnetic structure of ferromagnetic film\cite{usadel} it is possible to
justify the observed results. The precise $\mathbf{M}(T,\mathbf{H})$
measurements are needed however to validate any
particular explanation. We plan to do this.
\par
We thank S.R. Surthi and R.K. Pandey for film preparation. Support at
TAMU was provided by the Robert A. Welch Foundation (Grant No. A-0514) and the
Texas Advanced Research Program (Grant No. 010366-003).  BIB and DGN acknowledge support
by NATO Scientific Division (Collaborative Research Grant No. 972112).

\begin{figure}[btp]
\begin{center}\leavevmode
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{fig2a.eps}
\caption{
Magnetoresistance at different temperatures for the field $H_{\|}$
applied parallel to the film plane.
}\label{fig2}\end{center}\end{figure}


\section{Introduction}
Since the original proposal by Kaluza \cite{kaluza} and by Klein
\cite{klein} the possibility of compactified extra dimensions has
been a recurrent theme in theoretical physics, in particular in
supergravity and string theories. Recent developments have
suggested the possibility of low compactification scales
\cite{antoniadis,arkani}. There  have also been similar
developments on extensions of the Standard Model (SM) to include
compactified extra spatial dimensions \cite{quiros}. A simplest
minimal extension is to 5 dimensions, leading to towers of
Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the SM gauge bosons. Within such
an extension, precision electroweak measurements have been
analyzed to derive bounds on the compactification scale
\cite{rizzo,strumia}.

In this note we present a new discussion of these tests,
analyzing the roles played by precision high-energy measurements
at the $Z$-pole, as summarized in the $\epsilon$ parameters
\cite{altarelli} (or $S$, $T$, $U$ parameters \cite{peskin}), and
by low-energy experiments, in particular the new experiment on
the  weak charge $Q_W$ in atomic cesium \cite{bennett}, whose
implications for various models have already been analyzed in
\cite{decurtis}. The reason why we have chosen to describe the
high-energy measurements in terms of the $\epsilon$'s is that they
are just an efficient way of collecting all the relevant data
about the observables  and also because they can be expressed
easily in analytical way. This can be done by eliminating the KK
excitations and constructing an effective lagrangian around the
$Z$-pole and an effective four-fermi interaction (eliminating
also the $W$ and the $Z$) in the low-energy limit $E<<m_Z$. This
allows us also to perform a simple discussion of the low-energy
observables.

In this paper we  are mainly interested in studying the
compatibility of the model with all the available data. This is
done by considering separately the effects of the different
measurements on the parameter space. The reason why we choose
this procedure is because the low-energy experiments test
phenomenological aspects which cannot be tested from measurements
at the $Z$-pole. The low-energy experiments provide for
measurements of the effective electroweak coupling of the light
quarks and leptons, which in "new physics" schemes might not be
directly related to the studies done at the $Z$-pole.

In particular we have  performed a fit to the high-energy data,
by obtaining bounds on the compactification scale in terms of the
mixing of the KK excitations with the $Z$. These data alone leave
room to the  new physics described here, in fact the $\chi^2_{\rm
min}$/d.o.f. of the fit turns out to be acceptable. On the other
hand the low-energy data leave almost no space to the model. This
is mainly due to the new data on Atomic Parity Violation (APV)
which put a lower limit on the mixing angle $\beta$  of this
model allowing only the region around the maximal mixing. In fact
the new results on APV, if taken literally, disfavor the SM and
all the models giving rise to negative extra contributions to
$Q_W$ at more than 99\% CL. In the maximal mixing region, where
the extra contribution to $Q_W$ turns out to be positive, the
neutrino scattering experiments as NuTeV and CHARM cut off most
of the region allowed by $Q_W$. Furthermore, the regions allowed
by $Q_W$ and by the high-energy data result to be incompatible at
95\% CL.

One could also combine all the previous data obtaining bounds on
the parameter space. We have tried to do this by putting together
the high-energy data with the $Q_W$ measurement. The result is
that, although the allowed region is not very much dissimilar to
the one obtained using only the high-energy data, the
$\chi^2_{\rm min}$/d.o.f. deteriorates in a considerable way.

In Section 2 we present the effective lagrangian obtained after
eliminating the KK modes. This lagrangian is useful to describe
physics at energies much lower than the compactification scale,
as for $E\approx m_Z$. In Sections 3 and 4 we discuss the bounds
from the high-energy and the low-energy data respectively.
Conclusions are given in Section 5.

\section{An extension of the SM in 5 dimensions}
 The extra dimension model we consider, is
the one suggested by \cite{quiros} and it is based on an
extension of the SM to 5 dimensions. The fifth dimension $x^5$ is
compactified on a circle of radius $R$ with the identification
$x^5\to -x^5$ ($Z_2$-parity). Gauge fields and one Higgs field
($\phi_1$) live in the bulk, fermions and a second Higgs field
$\phi_2$ live on the 4D wall (boundary). The action for the SM
with one extra dimension  is obtained from the action for the
general 5D gauge theory. The fields living in the bulk are
defined to be even under the $Z_2$-parity. In the case of an
$SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)$ gauge group, integrating over the fifth
dimension, the resulting  4D theory (in the unitary gauge) is
given by (omitting  the kinetic terms):
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}^{charged}&=&\frac 1 8 \tilde g^2 v^2 \Big[ W_1^2+ c_\beta ^2 \sum_{n=1}^\infty
(W_1^{(n)})^2 + 2 \sqrt {2}
s_\beta ^2 W_1 \sum_{n=1}^\infty  W_1^{(n)}\nonumber\\
&+& 2 s_\beta ^2  ( \sum_{n=1}^\infty W_1^{(n)})^2\Big] + \frac 1 2 \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^2 M^2
(W_1^{(n)})^2 \nonumber\\ &-& \tilde g ( W_1^\mu +\sqrt{2}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty W_1^{(n)\mu}) J_\mu^1 +( 1\to 2)
\label{charged}
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}^{neutral}&=&\frac 1 8 \frac {\tilde g^2}{{\tilde c}_\theta ^2} v^2
\Big[ Z^2+ c_\beta ^2 \sum_{n=1}^\infty (Z^{(n)})^2 + 2 \sqrt {2}
s_\beta ^2 Z \sum_{n=1}^\infty  Z^{(n)}\nonumber\\
&+& 2 s_\beta ^2  ( \sum_{n=1}^\infty Z^{(n)})^2\Big] + \frac 1 2 \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^2 M^2
[(Z^{(n)})^2 +(A^{(n)})^2]\nonumber\\ &-&\frac {\tilde e }{{\tilde s}_\theta {\tilde c}_\theta } (Z^\mu
+\sqrt{2} \sum_{n=1}^\infty Z^{(n)\mu}) J_\mu^Z - {\tilde e} (A^\mu
 +\sqrt{2} \sum_{n=1}^\infty A^{(n)\mu}) J^{em}_\mu
\label{neutral}
\end{eqnarray}
where  $M=1/R$,  $\tilde g$ and $\tilde g'$ are the gauge couplings and
$\tan\tilde\theta=
{\tilde s}_\theta /{\tilde c}_\theta =\tilde g'/\tilde g$, $\tilde e=\tilde g{\tilde s}_\theta $. $W^{(n)}$, $Z^{(n)}$ and
$A^{(n)}$ are the KK excitations of the standard $W$, $Z$ and $A$
fields, $<\phi_{1}>=v\cos\beta\equiv v c_\beta $,
$<\phi_{2}>=v\sin\beta\equiv vs_\beta $, and
\begin{eqnarray}
J_\mu^{1,2}&=&\bar \psi_L \gamma_\mu \frac {\tau_{1,2}}
{2}\psi_L\nonumber\\ J_\mu^Z&=&\bar \psi \gamma_\mu (g_v+\gamma_5
g_a)\psi,~~~~g_v=\frac {T_{3L}} 2- {\tilde s}_\theta ^2 Q, ~~~~g_a=-\frac {T_{3L}} 2
\nonumber\\J_\mu^{em}&=&\bar \psi  \gamma_\mu Q\psi,~~~~
Q = T_{3L} +\frac{B-L} 2
\label{j1}
\end{eqnarray}
The effects of the KK excitations in the low-energy limit
$p^2<<M^2$, can be studied by eliminating the corresponding
fields using the solutions of their equations of motion for
$M\to\infty$ \cite{anic}. In this limit the kinetic terms are
negligible and one gets:
\begin{eqnarray}
W^{(n)}_{1,2}&\sim& - \sqrt{2}\frac {s_\beta ^2}{n^2}\frac{{\tilde
m}^2_W}{M^2} W_{1,2}+\sqrt{2}\frac {\tilde g}{n^2 M^2} J^{1,2}\nonumber\\
Z^{(n)}&\sim&-
\sqrt{2}\frac {s_\beta ^2}{n^2}\frac{{\tilde m}^2_Z}{M^2} Z+\sqrt{2}\frac {\tilde e}{{\tilde s}_\theta {\tilde c}_\theta }
\frac 1{n^2M^2}J^Z\nonumber\\
A^{(n)}&\sim&\sqrt{2} \frac {\tilde e}{n^2 M^2} J^{em}
\label{soluz}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\tilde m}^2_W= \tilde g^2 v^2/4$ and  ${\tilde m}^2_Z={\tilde
m}^2_W/{\tilde c}_\theta ^2$. We use tilded quantities to indicate that, due to
the effects of the KK excitations, they are not the physical
parameters. We do not use tilded notations for the fields because
they are not renormalized at the order ${\cal
O}(1/M^2)$.

By using eq. (\ref{soluz}) in eqs. (\ref{charged}) and
(\ref{neutral}), one can read the mass values for $W$ and $Z$ (to
order ${\cal O}(1/M^2)$)
\begin{equation}
m^2_W = {\tilde m}_W^2 [1-{\tilde c}_\theta ^2s_\beta ^4 X],~~~~ m^2_Z ={\tilde
m}_Z^2 [1- s_\beta ^4 X]
\label{masse}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
X=\frac {\pi^2} {3} \frac {m_Z^2}{M^2}
\end{equation}

The effective couplings are given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}^{charged}_{eff} = -\tilde g J^1_\mu W^{1\mu} (1-s_\beta ^2 {\tilde c}_\theta ^2
X)-\frac{\tilde g^2}{2 m_Z^2} X J^1_\mu J^{1\mu}+(1\to 2)
\label{effch}
\end{equation}

\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}^{neutral}_{eff} &=& -\frac e{{\tilde s}_\theta {\tilde c}_\theta } J^Z_\mu Z^{\mu}
(1-s_\beta ^2
 X)-\frac{e^2}{2 {\tilde s}_\theta ^2{\tilde c}_\theta ^2  m_Z^2} X J^Z_\mu J^{Z\mu}\nonumber\\ &-&e
 J^{em}_\mu A^{\mu}-\frac{e^2}{2  m_Z^2}  X J^{em}_\mu J^{em \mu}
 \label{effneu}
\end{eqnarray}
The electric charge $e$ is identified as  $e=\tilde e =\tilde g {\tilde s}_\theta $
since, being  defined at zero momentum, it is not renormalized.
Notice the presence  in the effective lagrangian  of four fermion
interactions which give additional  contributions to the Fermi
constant and to neutral current processes.

\section{Bounds from the high-energy data}
Let us now study the low-energy effects ($E<<M$) of the KK
excitations. By using the effective lagrangian (\ref{effch}) we
can evaluate the Fermi constant
\begin{equation}
G_F= \frac {\sqrt{2}\tilde g^2}{8 m_W^2}[1+{\tilde c}_\theta ^2 X][1-2 s_\beta ^2 {\tilde c}_\theta ^2 X]
\label{gf}
\end{equation}
Using eq. (\ref{masse}), one gets
\begin{equation}
\frac {G_F}{\sqrt{2}}= \frac {e^2}{8 {\tilde s}_\theta ^2{\tilde c}_\theta ^2 m_Z^2} (1 +\Delta)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta = {\tilde c}_\theta ^2 X ( 1 - 2 s_\beta ^2 - s_\beta ^4 \frac {{\tilde s}_\theta ^2} {{\tilde c}_\theta ^2})
\label{delta}
\end{equation}
By defining an effective $\theta$ angle by $ {G_F}/\sqrt{2}=
 {e^2}/({8 s_\theta ^2c_\theta ^2 m_Z^2})$
we have
\begin{equation}
s_\theta ^2 = {\tilde s}_\theta ^2 (1- \frac {c_\theta ^2 }{c_{2\theta}}\Delta),~~~~
c_\theta ^2 = {\tilde c}_\theta ^2 (1+\frac {s_\theta ^2 }{c_{2\theta}}\Delta)
\label{st}
\end{equation}
By defining
\begin{equation}
\frac {m_W^2}{m_Z^2} = c_\theta ^2 (1-\frac {s_\theta ^2 }{c_{2\theta}}
\Delta r_W)
\end{equation}
we get
\begin{equation}
\Delta r_W = \Delta -  {c_{2\theta}} s_\beta ^4 X
= c_\theta ^2 X(1- 2 s_\beta ^2 - s_\beta ^4)
\end{equation}
Furthermore using the neutral couplings  of $Z$ to fermions
of eq. (\ref{effneu}) and using the definitions of $\Delta\rho$
and $\Delta k$ given in  \cite{altarelli}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&-2(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}m_Z (1+\frac 1 2 \Delta\rho )J^{Z}_\mu Z^\mu\nonumber\\
&&
J_\mu^Z=\bar \psi\gamma_\mu (g_v+\gamma_5
g_a)\psi\nonumber\\
&&g_v=\frac {T_{3L}} 2- s_\theta ^2(1+\Delta k) Q, ~~~~g_a=-\frac {T_{3L}} 2
\label{jz}
\end{eqnarray}
we find
\begin{equation}
\Delta\rho = - \Delta - 2  {s_\beta ^2} X
=-c_\theta ^2 X [1 + \frac {s_\theta ^2}{c_\theta ^2} s_\beta ^2 (1+  c_\beta ^2)]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Delta k = \frac {c_\theta ^2}{c_{2\theta}} \Delta
= \frac {c_\theta ^4}{c_{2\theta}} X (1 - 2 s_\beta ^2 - s_\beta ^4 \frac {s_\theta ^2} {c_\theta ^2})
\end{equation}
Then we can easily compute the contribution to the $\epsilon$
parameters \cite{altarelli} coming from new physics
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_{1N}&=& -c_\theta ^2 X [ 1 + s_\beta ^2 \frac {s_\theta ^2}{c_\theta ^2} (1+  c_\beta ^2)]\nonumber\\
\epsilon_{2N}&=& -c_\theta ^2 X\nonumber\\
\epsilon_{3N}&=& - 2 c_\theta ^2 s_\beta ^2 X\label{eps}
\end{eqnarray}
We have studied the bounds on the model by considering the
experimental values of the $\epsilon$ parameters coming from all
the high-energy data \cite{altadati}
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_1&=& (3.92\pm 1.14)\cdot 10^{-3}\nonumber\\
\epsilon_2&=& (-9.27\pm 1.49)\cdot 10^{-3}\nonumber\\
\epsilon_3&=& (4.19\pm 1.00)\cdot 10^{-3}
\label{epsd}
\end{eqnarray}
We have added to eq. (\ref{eps}) the contribution from the
radiative corrections, assuming  that they are the same as in the
SM. For $m_t=175~GeV$ and $m_H=100(300)~GeV$ one has
\cite{altarelli2}: $\epsilon_1^{\rm rad}= 5.62(4.97)\cdot 10^{-3}$,
$\epsilon_2^{\rm rad}= -7.54(-7.18)\cdot 10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_3^{\rm
rad}=5.11(6.115)\cdot 10^{-3}$. Notice that in principle there
could be also new contributions to the radiative corrections from
the additional charged and neutral Higgs bosons.

The $95\%$ CL lower bounds  on the scale $M$ at fixed $s_\beta $,
coming from the three $\epsilon$ observables,  are shown in Fig. 1
for  $m_H$ = 100 $GeV$ and $m_H$ = 300 $GeV$. The limit does not
depend strongly on $s_\beta $ and it is more restrictive for $s_\beta =1$,
where one gets a lower limit for the compactification scale
$M\sim 3.5~TeV$. Comparable results performing a global fit to
the electroweak precision observables have been obtained also by
\cite{quiros,rizzo,strumia}. These bounds are more stringent than
the ones from the Tevatron upgrade \cite{rizzo}.

\section{Bounds from  low-energy observables}
In this Section  we will be concerned with the low-energy
phenomenology ($E<<m_Z$). To this end we can also eliminate the
$W$ and $Z$ fields obtaining   effective current-current
interactions. In particular we will consider observables from
neutrino scattering and APV for which the relevant effective
lagrangian is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}^{{\rm low-en}}_{eff} = -4 \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \Big[ (
J_\mu^1J^{\mu 1} +(1\to 2)) +(1+s_\theta ^2(1-s_\beta ^2)^2 X) J_\mu^ZJ^{\mu
Z}\Big]
\label{le}
\end{equation}
with $J_\mu^1$ and $J_\mu^Z$ given in eq. (\ref{j1}). Remember
that $J_\mu^Z$ contains a further correction from new physics
since it depends on ${\tilde s}_\theta ^2$. As an example we show the expression
for the atomic weak charge $Q_W$
\begin{equation}
Q_W= {\bar Q}_{W} [1 + s_\theta ^2 X (s_\beta ^2-1)^2]-4\frac{s_\theta ^2c_\theta ^2}
{c_{2\theta}}Z\Delta
\label{qwkk}
\end{equation}
where ${\bar Q}_W$ has the SM expression for $Q_W$ evaluated at
$s_\theta $ given in eq. (\ref{st}), $Z$ is the atomic number and
$\Delta$ is given in eq. (\ref{delta}). In a recent paper
\cite{bennett} a new determination of the weak charge of the
atomic cesium has been reported. This takes advantage from a new
measurement of the tensor transition probability for the $6S\to
7S$ transition in cesium and from improving the atomic structure
calculations in light of new experimental tests. The value
reported  $Q_W(^{133}_{55}Cs)=-72.06\pm (0.28)_{\rm expt}\pm
(0.34)_{\rm theor}$ represents a big improvement with respect to
the old determination \cite{noecker,blundell} since it gives a
measure of $Q_W$ at a level ($\approx
.6 \%$) comparable with the results obtained in high-energy
experiments. On the theoretical side, $Q_W$ can be expressed in
terms of the $S$ parameter \cite{marciano}, or in terms of the
 $\epsilon_3$ parameter \cite{alta} (the dependence on the $T$, or
 $\epsilon_1$, parameters is negligible)
\begin{equation}
Q_W=-72.72\pm 0.13-102\epsilon_3^{\rm rad}+\delta_NQ_W
\label{qwth}
\end{equation}
including hadronic-loop uncertainty. In the above definition of
$Q_W$ we have included only SM contributions to radiative
corrections. New physics is represented by $\delta_N Q_W$. The
discrepancy between the SM and the experimental data is given by
\begin{equation}
Q_W^{expt}-Q_W^{SM}=1.18(1.28)\pm 0.46~~~~{\rm for}~~~~
m_H=100(300)~GeV
\label{qwexpt}
\end{equation}
Therefore if we believe that the latest experiment and the
theoretical determinations of the atomic structure effects are
correct, we conclude that a negative or zero new physics
contribution  is excluded at more than 99\% CL.

In Fig. 2 we show the $95\%$ CL bounds on  $M$ at fixed $s_\beta $
from $Q_W$ (thick  solid lines). The allowed region is the
shadowed one. The actual $Q_W$ measurement leads to a lower bound
$s_\beta >0.707$. The reason why the region  $s_\beta <0.707$ is excluded at
95\% CL by the new APV measurement
is that the new physics contribution to $Q_W$ in that
region is negative definite.

In the same figure we have also plotted the 95\% CL bounds coming
from other low-energy observables. Namely we have considered the
following list of neutrino-nucleon scattering processes
\cite{zeppe,langa}:
\begin{itemize}
\item NuTeV experiment which measures a ratio of cross-sections of
neutral and charged currents denoted by $R^-$ \cite{nutev}. The
experimental result is $R^-=0.2277\pm 0.0021\pm 0.0007$, whereas
the SM value is $R^-_{SM}=0.2297\pm0.0003$;
\item CCFR experiment which
measures a different ratio of neutral and charged cross-sections
with the result \cite{ccfr} $R_\nu=0.5820\pm 0.0027\pm 0.0031$ to
be compared with the SM value $R_\nu^{SM}=0.5827\pm 0.0005$;
\item The experiments CHARM \cite{charm} and CDHS \cite{cdhs} which
give the results
\begin{eqnarray}
R_\nu&=& 0.3021\pm 0.0031\pm 0.0026,~~~~{\rm CHARM}\nonumber\\ R_\nu&=&
0.3096\pm 0.0033\pm 0.0028,~~~~{\rm CDHS}\nonumber\\ R_{\bar\nu}&=&
0.403\pm 0.014\pm 0.007,~~~~{\rm CHARM}\nonumber\\ R_{\bar\nu}&=&
0.384\pm 0.016\pm 0.007,~~~~{\rm CDHS}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with the SM values given by $R_\nu^{SM}=0.3089\pm 0.0003$,
$R_{\bar\nu}^{SM}=0.3859\pm 0.0003$.
\end{itemize}
The expressions for all these observables  can be easily obtained
from the effective lagrangian in eq. (\ref{le}), and therefore we
can evaluate the 95\% CL bounds on $M$ at fixed $s_\beta $. Contrarily
to $Q_W$, all these measurements are compatible with the SM
predictions and therefore the allowed regions in  Fig. 2 coming
from neutrino scattering experiments all contain the line $X=0$
($M\to\infty$), and therefore they lie in the upper part of the
corresponding lines.
We notice that the CHARM measurement of $R_\nu$ (thin  solid
line) and NuTeV result on $R^-$ (long dash line) practically cut
off  the whole region allowed by APV. One understands how this
happens by looking at the values of the pulls of $R_\nu$ and of
$R^-$, which are both negative (-0.9 and
-1.7 respectively \cite{langa}), whereas $Q_W$ has a positive pull
(2.6 \cite{bennett}). The model considered here provides for
positive deviations to $Q_W$, $R_\nu$, $R^-$ around
$\sin\beta=1$.

In order to compare the bounds from APV with the ones from the
high-energy precision measurements expressed in terms of the
$\epsilon$ parameters, we have  also drawn the latter ones in Fig. 2.
Notice that the two regions  are not compatible at 95\% CL. This
follows from  eqs. (\ref{qwth}) and (\ref{qwexpt}) which give a
95\% CL positive lower bound on new physics contributions to
$Q_W$ leading to an upper bound on the compactification scale
\cite{decurtis}. The same comparison is made in Fig. 1 for two
values of the Higgs mass ($m_H=100,~300~GeV$), showing that
increasing the Higgs mass the incompatibility between the two
regions remains.

Nevertheless if we consider a global fit to all the four
observables $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, $\epsilon_3$ and $Q_W$, we have
bounds which are similar to the ones obtained by combining the
three $\epsilon$ variables shown in Fig. 1. However the fit  gives,
for $m_H=100~GeV$, $\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm d.o.f.}$ between 3 and
2.3 and, for $m_H=300~GeV$, $\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm d.o.f.}$
between 4.3 and 2.3 when varying $s_\beta $ . This must be compared
with the fit including only the $\epsilon$ parameters which gives a
$\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm d.o.f.}$ less than 1 for any $s_\beta $ at
$m_H=100~GeV$, and a   $\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm d.o.f.}$ less than
1 except for $s_\beta \approx 0$, where it is of order 2, for
$m_H=300~GeV$.

\section{Conclusions}

In this paper we  have tested  a minimal extension of the SM with
one extra spatial dimension against the existing data on
electroweak observables. In this analysis a relevant role is
played by the new results on APV. In fact, these data put a 95\%
CL lower limit on the mixing angle of the KK modes with the SM
gauge bosons allowing only the region around the maximal mixing
($\sin\beta>0.707$). The inclusion of other low-energy
measurements from neutrino scattering, further restricts this
region. In particular the data from CHARM and NuTeV practically
cut out all the allowed region. Also the high-energy precision
measurements put strong constraints on the compactification scale
which turn out to be incompatible with the restrictions from
$Q_W$. In fact the large deviations  from the SM required from
APV could be explained only with a compactification scale smaller
than the lower bounds from high-energy. For instance, we can read
from Fig. 1 that at $\sin\beta=1$, APV requires $M<2.6~TeV$,
whereas high-energy requires $M>3.6~TeV$.

Therefore our conclusion  is that, by  seriously taking the APV
result, the model  considered here is disfavored at 95\% CL  from
the actual measurements. We have also discussed the possibility
of performing a global fit to the data, by putting together the
high-energy and the APV measurements. In this case the region
allowed is practically coincident with the one coming from
high-energy (since these are the data with smaller error) but the
value of $\chi^2_{\rm min}$/d.o.f. turns out to be unpleasantly
large.

Finally let us notice that the dependence on the extra dimension
is hidden in the variable $X$ which parameterizes all the
deviations from the SM. In the case of more than one extra
dimension, one has $X\to 2\sum_{\vec n} F(\vec n)/(M^2 \vec
n^2)$, with $F(\vec n)$ a positive form factor, and $\vec n$ a
vector with positive integer components in the extra dimensions
\cite{rizzo}.
Since $X$ remains a positive definite quantity all our
conclusions about the incompatibility of APV and high-energy data
remain true. Only the numerical values of the bounds in the
compactification scale obtained for each observable depend on the
actual number of extra dimensions.
\medskip
\begin{center}
{\bf Acknowledgements}
\end{center}
\medskip
R.C.  would like to thank the Theory Division of CERN for the
kind hospitality offered to him during the final stage of this
paper.