text:
# Brane Worlds, the Cosmological Constant and String Theory

## 1 Introduction

The traditional method of compactification of superstring theory involves writing the ten dimensional manifold as a direct product of a non-compact Minkowskian four manifold and a compact Euclidean six manifold $`M_{10}=M_4M_6`$, with the size of the compact space being set by the string scale. The four manifold is identified with the space we observe around us and is therefore taken to be flat. The compact manifold is taken to be a Ricci flat K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler manifold (i.e. a Calabi-Yau space or an orbifold) so that we obtain $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry (SUSY) in the four manifold . The latter is required for at least two reasons. The first is the so-called hierarchy problem involving the stabilization of the weak scale to quantum corrections. With (softly broken) $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY one can protect this hierarchy. The other issue is that of the cosmological constant (CC). Again supersymmetry offers the hope of stabilizing this against quantum corrections i.e. if the ultraviolet theory (say at the string scale) has zero cosmological constant then as long as SUSY is preserved it will remain zero. In this case case, however, once SUSY is broken, it is difficult to see how one can prevent a CC, at least of order the mass splitting between fermions and bosons, from being generated.

Actually getting a realistic model where this is achieved would be progress, since there would also be standard model phase transitions which are also of the same order and could in principle cancel the SUSY breaking effects. Nevertheless at this point it is, we believe, fair to say that even this has not yet been achieved in a natural way, since typical cosmological constants that are generated upon SUSY breaking are at an intermediate scale of $`𝒪(10^{11}GeV)`$ (which is the actual scale of SUSY breaking in the so-called hidden sector).

To get a zero (or small) CC requires fine tuning of some parameter in the scalar potential of $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity. However string theory has no tunable parameters. In fact it is not very clear how to even generate the potential for the moduli (the dilaton, the size and shape of the compact manifold) but it is generally agreed that, either stringy or low energy field theoretic, non-perturbative effects will give such a potential and stabilize these moduli. 111For a recent discussion highlighting the problems involved with references to earlier literature see .

Let us first think about the field theoretic stabilization mechanism. One possibility is to have several gauge groups in the hidden sector whose gauginos condense. This is the so-called race track model. The effective superpotential needs to be a sum of three exponentials of the moduli fields, two are needed to get a weak gauge coupling minimum and an intermediate scale of SUSY breaking and a third is needed in order to fine tune the cosmological constant to zero. This model has various problems associated with the steepness of the potential (see  for a recent discussion) but even apart from that it seems unlikely that the sort of fine tuning that is required is allowed by string theory. An alternative would be to have the moduli stabilized by string scale physics. In this case however one needs to find field theoretic models which solve the practical cosmological constant problem i.e. obtain a model with CC only at the weak scale as advocated in . Even this seems a non-trivial task; in particular, it seems that one needs a constant in the superpotential to do so and to get a zero (or small) cosmological constant would seem to require a fine tuning that would really be at variance with what one expects from string theory. Similar remarks apply to all models proposed so far for getting standard model physics out of string theory (including many brane world type scenarios based on type I string theory) once one tries to get flat four dimensional space after SUSY breaking.

The main point of this paper is to propose a string theoretic brane world scenario for getting a zero cosmological constant based on arguments sketched in . This would imply a radical departure from what happens in the standard string compactification models discussed in the above paragraphs. Instead of compactifying to four flat dimensions with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, we compactify the ten dimensional theory (here we will concentrate on type IIB) on a five sphere (or squashed sphere) to five dimensions . In contrast to the standard compactifications we will now have a potential for at least the T-moduli (i.e. the size and shape of the squashed sphere) and of course a bulk cosmological constant. What we have is five dimensional gauged supergravity but the four dimensional world, instead of being a further compactification of this, is viewed as a brane sitting in this five dimensional bulk. As discussed in , there are various possibilities for getting flat four dimensional space on the brane without fine tuning222For a discussion of a case which apparently does not involve a choice of integration constant but involves a bulk singularity see the first paper of . Apart from the difficulty of interpreting this naked singularity (which is common to all the models in both papers of  this model has the problem that the brane tension chosen is not renormalization group (RG) invariant. For comments on these models along these lines see , . none of which explain why the cosmological constant is zero. But unlike in the standard compactifications, where it is difficult to understand even how is the CC tuned to zero, in our case we believe there is a viable scenario whereby with a choice of integration constants and a compactification parameter (which is not determined by the ten dimensional theory) flat space four dimensional solutions can be obtained.

Although our discussion is confined to an analysis of a five dimensional effective action coming from compactifying a ten dimensional action for type IIB supergravity on a (squashed) sphere, we believe that is quite likely that there is a string construction in such a Ramond-Ramond (RR) background. In fact, recently there has been considerable progress in constructing such theories . Thus we think that the model that we propose here could be promoted to the complete string theory.

Another issue that we should discuss here is that of singular brane configurations versus smooth configurations. We take the point of view that our branes are D-branes and/or orientifold planes so that as far as the low energy effective action is concerned their thickness is infinitesimal.333We stress that although flat space considerations imply that gravity cannot be confined to a D-brane (as one wants for a one brane RS type scenario) in a warped background this is not necessarily the case. Their transverse size in other words is set by the string scale and to the extent that we are working in the low energy effective action we can ignore their thickness. Thus we will be looking for solutions to the bulk equations in the presence of these branes, which will act as singular source terms as for instance in section 3 of . We believe that the considerations of  where the authors look for brane scenarios that try to mimic the Randall - Sundrum (RS) scenarios  and/or  without putting in sources (and finding a negative result) are not relevant to our construction. On either side of our branes we will have smooth solutions to the supergravity equations which will then be matched at the position of the branes. It should also be pointed out here that a model for the real world would in fact require a brane which carried gauged degrees of freedom and so we really would want to think in terms of D-branes rather than smooth brane like configurations. The picture that we have (i.e. basically that in ,) actually implies the physical existence of a brane (on which the standard model should live) placed in the bulk supergravity space.

Our model has the explicit D-brane/orientifold planes at the fixed points of the $`\frac{S^1}{Z_2}`$ orbifold in the ($`x^4`$) fifth direction. We assume that the ten dimensional dilaton is frozen by string scale dynamics. When the squashing modes are constant but at a certain critical point with non-zero values, the bulk is a $`𝒩=2`$ background. Turning on the breathing mode $`\phi `$ of the sphere should not affect the supersymmetry. The supersymmetry of the D/orientifold 3-plane would be $`𝒩=1`$. This should give a solution of the RS type without fine tuning and with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. After supersymmetry breaking however one does not expect a solution for arbitrary values of the radius of the $`S^1`$. In this case, in addition to the radius of the circle, there are also two integration constants from the metric factor and breathing mode and the constant coming from the compactification, \- four constants in all that will be determined by the two pairs of matching conditions at each brane. Thus all the constants are completely fixed.

As stressed in , this is of course not a solution to the cosmological constant problem since there is no explanation of why the integration constants are chosen to give the values that they need to have in order to get flat branes. Nevertheless we believe it is progress in that at least there is an explanation as to how one might get a zero CC in a string theoretic scenario after SUSY breaking.444While this paper was being prepared for publication a paper which discusses an alternate scenario for two flat branes without fine tuning appeared. Our mechanism is replaced there with an assumption about supersymmetry in the bulk and on the “Planck brane” . However we do not understand how a fine tuning in the bulk potential is avoided in this case.

It should also be pointed out that the brane world scenario appears to be the only context, within string theory, that the idea of using the free parameter (from the point of view of the ten dimensional theory) in the potential of gauged supergravity, to adjust the cosmological constant to zero, can be made use of. This is because this mechanism can only be used in type IIA or IIB theories (and orientifolds thereof) and the standard model/real world in such theories necessarily lives on a D-brane.

In the next section we discuss a possible string theory set up in which the scenario we have in mind may be realized. In section 3 we discuss special bulk solutions to the five dimensional equations and in section 3.1 we display approximate general solutions with all the allowed integration constants that are necessary to obtain a solution with two branes. In section 4 we summarize the physics of the construction and its significance, and then speculate on possible phenomenological applications.

## 2 The String Theory Setup

We wish to consider type IIB string theory compactified on a five sphere or squashed sphere. Typically this background is obtained by turning on the five form RR flux. We assume that string theory on such a background exists perhaps along the lines discussed by Berkovits et al . If this is indeed justified, it should follow that the entire D-brane machinery can be taken over.

Thus we look at $`S^1/Z_2`$ orientifold of the five dimensional theory resulting from the (squashed) sphere compactification with $`S^1`$ being a circle of radius $`R`$ and the $`Z_2`$ action being $`x^4x^4`$. The theory is a five dimensional gauged supergravity which contains in addition to the dilaton-axion, 40 other scalars some of which can be interpreted as squashing modes of the five sphere. These fields are massless in the limit when the gauge coupling is zero. In addition there is the so called (compactification scale) “breathing mode” and of course the gauge fields which along with the two 2-form fields associated with the F and D strings will be set to zero in the following. Also we assume that the ten dimensional dilaton is frozen by string scale dynamics.

Let us first consider the round sphere compactification. The ten dimensional metric is written as

$$ds_{10}^2=e^{2\alpha \phi }ds_5^2+e^{2\beta \phi }ds^2(S^5)$$

with $`\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}},\beta =\frac{3}{5}\alpha `$. The ans$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$tz for the self-dual 5 - form is

$$H_{(5)}=4me^{8\alpha \phi }ϵ_{(5)}+4mϵ_{(5)}(S^5),$$
(1)
where $`ϵ_{(5)}`$ and $`ϵ_{(5)}(S^5)`$ are the volume forms of the non-compact and compact spaces respectively. The effective five dimensional action is then

$$S=d^5x\sqrt{G_5}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2+e^{\frac{16\alpha \phi }{5}}R_58m^2e^{8\alpha \phi }\right],$$
(2)
where $`R_5`$ is the scalar curvature of the five sphere and we have set to zero all fields that are irrelevant to our discussion. Note  that this action allows the $`AdS_5`$ solution with constant breathing mode $`\phi =\phi _0`$ given by

$$e^{\frac{24\alpha }{5}\phi _0}=\frac{R_5}{20m^2}$$
(3)
and

$$R_{MN}=4m^2e^{8\alpha \phi _0}G_{5}^{}{}_{MN}{}^{}.$$
(4)
Now the fifth dimension is a $`\frac{S^1}{Z_2}`$ orbifold. The fixed points would be orientifold planes and we place D-branes at one or other (or both) fixed points so as to have two (composite) branes at the ends of the fifth dimension. The picture is just like that in the ten dimensional type IA situation analyzed by Polchinski and Witten . In the original ten dimensional framework, the self dual five form field strength would satisfy in the presence of a collection of $`n_0`$ branes located near $`x^4=0`$ and extending in the $`x^1,x^2,x^3`$ directions (counting -16 for the orientifold fixed plane), the equation $`dH_{(5)}=n_0\tau \delta (x^4)dx^4ϵ_5(S_5)`$, where $`\tau `$ is the charge of a single brane. We take $`x^0`$ to be the time like direction and $`x^5,\mathrm{},x^9`$ the directions along the five sphere. Substituting expression (1) into this, gives $`_{x^4}m(x^4)=n_0\tau \delta (x^4)`$. The solution for $`H_{(5)}`$ now takes the form as before, i.e. (1), but with $`m`$ being now a piece wise continuous function of $`x^4`$ with a jump $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=n_0\tau `$ at $`x^4=0`$ and a similar jump at $`x^4=\pi R`$. Using also the symmetry under $`x^4x^4`$, we find the sort of situations illustrated in figs. 1, 2, 3.

Note that the quantization of $`H_5`$ also follows directly from its coupling to the $`D3`$ brane. Consistent coupling requires by a standard argument $`\tau _{S_5}H_5=2\pi n`$ where $`n`$ is an integer and $`\tau =2\pi M_s^4`$ is the $`D_3`$ brane charge in terms of the string scale $`M_s`$. Using equation (1) for $`H_5`$ and $`_{S_5}=\pi ^3r^5`$ we then get

$$m=n\left(\frac{1}{M_s^44\pi ^3r^5}\right).$$

The units for $`m`$ given in the figures is then the quantity in parantheses in the above equation.

In the above, we should point out that we have assumed not only that there is a valid string description as in Berkovits et al  but also that the corresponding five dimensional orientifolds have charges $`16`$. These values are just given for illustrative purposes and of course if the general scenario is valid with however different charges, then the examples would have to be modified accordingly. We should also point out that alternatively, one might try to justify such a picture by considering the following procedure. First, compactify type I string theory on a five torus. Taking the T-dual picture one has a type IIB orientifold with $`2^5`$ orientifold 3-planes at the fixed points of the $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry of the dual torus and 32 D3-branes to cancel the tadpoles. Now let the size of the dual torus go to infinity while keeping some number of the D-branes at the fixed point at the origin. Now adding the point at infinity should give presumably an $`S^5/Z_2`$. It is not quite clear to us which compactification makes sense in the complete string theory but given that the 5D gauged supergravity models appear to come from five sphere or squashed sphere compactifications we will just consider these, assuming that a theory along the lines of Berkovits et al  will allow our scenario.

As we will see below, the bulk is taken to be at the $`𝒩=2`$ critical point of the gauged supergravity potential. In the presence of the branes this is then broken down to $`𝒩=1`$ so that one may have a phenomenologically acceptable model on one or the other brane. Let us pick the one at $`x^4=0`$ to situate the standard model. The other one can then play the role of a hidden sector (as in the Horava-Witten theory ) where supersymmetry can be broken and then communicated to the visible brane. The only new point here is that any cosmological constant that is generated as a result of the SUSY breaking is compensated by adjustment of integration constants and $`R_5`$.

It should be remarked here that $`R_5`$ is on the same footing as the other integration constants (which occur in the five dimensional theory) from the point of view of the ten dimensional theory. It is not a modulus. The relevant modulus is the field $`\phi `$. $`R_5`$ is, from the point of view of the ten dimensional theory, and presumably of string theory, an integration constant appearing in the ansatz for the ten dimensional metric. For compactification on a Ricci flat metric such as a Calabi-Yau metric, this constant can be absorbed into $`\phi `$. In our case as long as $`m`$ is non-zero i.e. the potential is not runaway, $`R_5`$ cannot be absorbed into the modulus $`\phi `$. We stress again that this is not a mechanism that was available with standard compactification scenarios (Calabi-Yau, Orbifold etc).555Recently, other warped compactifications, in the context of M/F theory, have appeared  where a RS type scenario with explicit branes is constructed. However for these Calabi-Yau compactifications with G-flux, it is not possible to use our mechanism, since the compact space is Ricci flat, so one does not have the required freedom in the choice of constants to cancel the CC.

The next issue is what is the appropriate 5D effective theory. Our choice is the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric vacuum of  which corresponds to two non trivial scalars relaxed to their critical values plus a non trivial breathing mode, a generalization of the model with one squashing mode and a non trivial breathing mode model of . The scalar potential of this model is expected to have a contribution from the curvature of the compact space and a number of contributions from non-trivial 5-form and 3-form fluxes. For simplicity, we will truncate the potential only to the curvature term and the 5-form flux term since these are sufficient to demonstrate our point. A more complete treatment should include all the other terms. The potential is then just as in the round sphere case (2), and it is:

$$V(\phi )=R_5e^{a\phi }+8m^2e^{b\phi }.$$
(5)
## 3 Flat Domain Wall Solutions - Brane Worlds

The equations of motion corresponding to the action (2) with $`\phi =\phi (x^4)`$ and the flat four dimensional domain wall $`5D`$ metric

$$ds_5^2=e^{2A(x^4)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +(dx^4)^2,$$
(6)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=diag(1,+1,+1,+1)`$, are

$$\phi ^{\prime \prime }+4A^{}\phi ^{}=\frac{V(\phi )}{\phi },$$
(7)
$$A^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{6}\phi ^2,$$
(8)
$$A^2=\frac{1}{12}V(\phi )+\frac{1}{24}\phi ^2.$$
(9)
The prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`x^4`$. We emphasize that our domain wall ansatz is that we are looking for solutions with flat four dimensional slices of the five dimensional geometry.

It has been shown that by introducing a “superpotential” $`W`$, the second order differential equations reduce to , :

$$\phi ^{}=\frac{W(\phi )}{\phi },$$
(10)
$$A^{}=\frac{1}{6}W,$$
(11)
$$V(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{W}{\phi }\right)^2\frac{1}{3}W^2.$$
(12)
This is a system of decoupled first order differential equations instead of the coupled second order differential equations that we had before. A particular ansatz for $`W`$ that satisfies the last condition for $`V(\phi )`$ of the form (5), is

$$W=p_1e^{\frac{a}{2}\phi }+p_2e^{\frac{b}{2}\phi },$$
(13)
with

$$p_1=\pm 2\sqrt{\frac{2R_5}{a(ba)}}\mathrm{and}p_2=\pm 2\sqrt{\frac{16m^2}{b(ba)}}.$$
(14)
This ansatz essentially solves the system, but it seems that we have to pay a price. Namely, we have lost one integration constant because (13) is a particular solution of (12) and does not have the integration constant that a general solution should have.

Note that the original second order system apparently has four integration constants. However, (9) is a constraint equation which gives one relation between these constants. Also the zero mode of $`A`$ can always be absorbed in a rescaling of coordinates. Thus the original system has two independent integration constants. As stressed by , the first order system must be completely equivalent to the second order system and the parameter space should have the same dimension. This is of course possible only if we use the general solution for $`W`$ in which case the first order system will also have two independent integration constants, one in the solution for $`W`$ and one in the solution for $`\phi `$. Of course if we work with the particular solution (13), we would be restricting ourselves to a one parameter subspace of the solution space. We will come back to the problem of the lost integration constant later.

For the moment, we have to solve the following system of first order differential equations:

$$\phi ^{}=\frac{1}{2}ap_1e^{\frac{a}{2}\phi }+\frac{1}{2}bp_2e^{\frac{b}{2}\phi },$$
(15)
$$A^{}=\frac{1}{6}p_1e^{\frac{a}{2}\phi }\frac{1}{6}p_2e^{\frac{b}{2}\phi }.$$
(16)
Integrating (15) gives the Lerch transcendent  as the solution,

$$r+c_1^\phi =\frac{2}{ap_1}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\frac{bp_2}{ap_1})^n}{(ab)n+a}\left[1e^{\left(n(ba)a\right)\phi }\right],$$
(17)
which is quite hard to invert for general $`\phi `$, so as to obtain an exact solution for the warp factor. It is much easier to work in certain interesting limits:

* $`\phi \phi _0`$.

Let us first solve (15) and (16) for $`\phi =\phi _0`$, the value of $`\phi `$ at the critical point of $`V`$. We have $`\phi ^{}=0`$ and therefore $`\frac{W}{\phi }=0`$, which implies through $`(\text{12})`$ that this vacuum characterizes a critical point (in fact a minimum) of the scalar potential. Furthermore, from (16) we see that it corresponds to an exact $`AdS`$ vacuum, since $`A`$ has a linear dependence in $`x^4`$. The condition, therefore, that determines $`\phi _0`$, is

$$ap_1e^{\frac{a}{2}\phi _0}+bp_2e^{\frac{b}{2}\phi _0}=0.$$
(18)
Let us now solve the equations for a vacuum that is near the $`\phi =\phi _0`$ vacuum. For that, we assume

$$\phi =\phi _0+ϵf(x^4),$$
(19)
with $`ϵ`$ a small number. Substituting this ansatz into (15), we find that $`f`$ satisfies the differential equation $`f^{}=4kf`$ and therefore

$$\phi =\phi _0+c_1^\phi e^{4kx^4},k^2=\frac{1}{32}a(ba)R_5e^{a\phi _0},$$
(20)
where $`k`$ and $`p_1`$ are of opposite signs and $`c_1^\phi `$ is the integration constant with $`ϵ`$ absorbed in it. Solving (16) for $`A`$, yields the (almost $`AdS`$) warp factor:

$$A(x^4)=kx^4+𝒪(ϵ^2).$$
(21)
The first term in the above, corresponds to the $`AdS`$ part. The solution (20) and (21), however, is valid only for large $`|x^4|`$. In particular, if $`k<0`$ (that is if $`p_1>0`$) then the solution is valid when $`x^4+\mathrm{}`$ and if $`k>0`$ ($`p_1<0`$) then the solution is valid when $`x^4\mathrm{}`$. Finally, (18) implies that $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ must come with opposite signs.
* $`\phi +\mathrm{}`$.

In this limit, we have

$$\phi ^{}\frac{1}{2}bp_2e^{\frac{1}{2}b\phi },$$
(22)
which can be integrated to give

$$\phi =\frac{2}{b}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{b^2}{4}p_2x^4+c_1^\phi \right)\right],$$
(23)
where $`c_1^\phi `$ is an integration constant. The above solution is valid for $`\frac{b^2}{4}p_2x^4+c_1^\phi 0^+`$. The solution for the warp factor turns out to be

$$e^{2A(x^4)}=\left(\frac{b^2}{4}p_2x^4+c_1^\phi \right)^{\frac{4}{3b^2}},$$
(24)
up to an (irrelevant) overall integration constant. Thus in this limit, we have $`e^{2A}0^+`$.
* $`\phi \mathrm{}`$.

In this limit, we have

$$\phi ^{}\frac{1}{2}ap_1e^{\frac{1}{2}a\phi },$$
(25)
giving

$$\phi =\frac{2}{a}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a^2}{4}p_1x^4+c_1^\phi \right)\right],$$
(26)
which implies that $`\frac{a^2}{4}p_1x^4+c_1^\phi +\mathrm{}`$ for any finite $`c_1^\phi `$.

The warp factor is

$$e^{2A(x^4)}=\left(\frac{a^2}{4}p_1x^4+c_1^\phi \right)^{\frac{4}{3a^2}},$$
(27)
up to the usual overall constant. Thus, we have $`e^{2A}+\mathrm{}`$ in this limit.

As was already noticed in , the above solution has two separate branches, one which corresponds to $`\phi (\phi _0,+\mathrm{})`$ for $`x^4(\mathrm{},\frac{4}{b^2p_2}c_1^\phi )`$ and one which corresponds to $`\phi (\phi _0,\mathrm{})`$ for $`x^4(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$. We will see later that the separation of the solution in two distinct branches is probably special to our specific choice (13) of $`W`$ and that this choice is equivalent to choosing a gauge where $`c_2^\phi =0`$. The first branch is singular at $`x^4=\frac{4}{b^2p_2}c_1^\phi `$ because the warp factor vanishes, so we neglect it.

As an example, in fig. 4, we plot the first branch solutions ($`I`$ and $`II`$) for the warp factor found in . They correspond to $`p_1<0`$ and $`p_1>0`$ respectively, i.e. solution $`II`$ can be obtained from solution $`I`$ by a reflection around the origin $`x^4=0`$. Solution $`I`$ corresponds to patching together in a smooth way the above found solutions for $`\phi \phi _0`$ and $`\phi \mathrm{}`$ in which case the singularity encountered in the $`\phi +\mathrm{}`$ regime is avoided. Solutions $`I`$ and $`II`$ individually do not possess reflection symmetry around the origin, but they are the ones appropriate for constructing models with explicit branes inserted in the bulk. More specifically, we can construct a brane world scenario as follows: Consider the solutions of fig. 4 and choose a region in the $`x^4`$ coordinate, symmetric around $`x^4`$. The region is, say, the interval $`[\pi R,+\pi R]`$. If $`\pi R<x^4<0`$, take solution $`I`$ as it is and if $`0x^4+\pi R`$, take solution $`II`$ to get a $`Z_2`$ symmetric situation. The orbifold will then be the region $`0<x^4<\pi R`$. A one brane world can be obtained by taking $`R`$ to infinity. This construction, for the warp factor, is illustrated in fig. 5.

With the $`D`$3-branes present, the $`5`$ dimensional action is modified to:

$`S(\phi )={\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{G_5}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2V(\phi )\right]}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{G_4^{(1)}}T^{(1)}(\phi )}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{G_4^{(2)}}T^{(2)}(\phi )},`$ (28)
where $`G_{4\mu \nu }^{(i)}`$ is the induced metric on the $`(i)`$’th brane by $`G_{5\mu \nu }`$, and for our metric it is simply $`G_{4\mu \nu }^{(i)}=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, and $`T^{(1)}(\phi )`$ and $`T^{(2)}(\phi )`$ are the tensions of the branes. The dependence of $`T`$ on $`\phi `$ is kept arbitrary since it will in general be affected by quantum effects on the brane when supersymmetry is broken. The action for the branes is written in the static gauge so that the embedding functions are $`x^\mu (\xi )=\xi ^\mu `$, $`\mu =0,\mathrm{},3`$ and we ignore their fluctuations. Also of course we have set all other fields on the brane to the minimum of the quantum effective action so that what we have kept is just an effective description of the ground state of the theory on the brane.

Now, in addition to the equations of motion, we have to satisfy the jump conditions at $`x^4=0`$ (and $`x^4=\pi R`$ in the two brane case), which constitute the connection between the two solutions at opposite sides of the brane(s). They are:

$$2A^{}(x^4)=+\frac{1}{6}T^{(1)}(\phi (x^4))_{x^4=0},$$
(29)
$$2A^{}(x^4)=\frac{1}{6}T^{(2)}(\phi (x^4))_{x^4=\pi R},$$
(30)
$$2\phi ^{}(x^4)=\frac{T^{(1)}}{\phi }(\phi (x^4))_{x^4=0},$$
(31)
$$2\phi ^{}(x^4)=+\frac{T^{(2)}}{\phi }(\phi (x^4))_{x^4=\pi R}.$$
(32)
### 3.1 More General Solutions

In a two-brane world, we need both nontrivial integration constants of the second order equations of motion (7), (8) and (9), because we have only $`R_5`$ and the size of the orbifold $`R`$ to satisfy four jump conditions. One might think a solution with two branes and a pure $`AdS`$ bulk is possible , since there are only two non trivial jump conditions to satisfy (one for each brane) and two available constants, $`R_5`$ and $`R`$. However, as was pointed out in , the two branes have equal and opposite tensions at every point of the RG flow and the tension for a flat brane solution is fixed only in terms of $`R_5`$. The orbifold size does not enter the jump conditions and therefore it can not be used. In order to have a solution without fine tuning, we need a nontrivial scalar field in the bulk. But then, our initial choice of $`W`$ does not provide us with the two required integration constants, since as we explained, we have lost one integration constant in the choice (13). We therefore look for more general solutions to the equations of motion.

We make the ansatz

$$\phi =\phi _0+ϵf_1(x^4)+ϵ^2f_2(x^4)+ϵ^3f_3(x^4)+\mathrm{}$$
(33)
$$A=kx^4+ϵg_1(x^4)+ϵ^2g_2(x^4)+ϵ^3g_3(x^4)+\mathrm{}$$
(34)
with $`k>0`$, and we substitute it into (7), (8) and (9). We obtain an infinite set of differential equations. We show the result for (7) and (8), up to order $`ϵ^3`$:

$$f_1^{\prime \prime }+4kf_1^{}+pf_1=0,g_1^{\prime \prime }=0$$
(35)
$$f_2^{\prime \prime }+4kf_2^{}+pf_2\frac{1}{2}a(a^2b^2)R_5e^{\frac{1}{2}a\phi _0}f_1^2+4f_1^{}g_1^{}=0,g_2^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{6}f_1^2=0$$
(36)
$`f_3^{\prime \prime }+4kf_3^{}+pf_3a(a^2b^2)R_5e^{\frac{1}{2}a\phi _0}f_1f_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}a(a^3b^3)R_5e^{\frac{1}{2}a\phi _0}f_1^3+`$
$`+4f_1^{}g_2^{}+4f_2^{}g_1^{}=0,g_3^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}f_1^{}f_2^{}=0,`$ (37)
where $`p=32k^2`$. The above pattern (that presumably continues), suggests that we can write the general solution for the field $`\phi `$ as:

$$\phi (x^4)=\phi _0+c_1^\phi e^{4kx^4}+c_2^\phi e^{8kx^4}+P(x^4,c_1^\phi ,c_2^\phi ),$$
(38)
where the part of the expression with the exponentials is the general solution to the equation $`f^{\prime \prime }+4kf^{}+pf=0`$ and $`P(x^4,c_1^\phi ,c_2^\phi )`$ is some function of $`x^4`$ containing also the two integration constants and $`ϵ`$ has been absorbed into the integration constants. By looking at (35), (36) and (37), one can see that the solution is a small deviation from $`AdS`$ in two cases. One case is when $`x^4\mathrm{}`$. Then, the expansion in $`ϵ`$ makes sense only if $`c_2^\phi =0`$ and therefore this case is just the solution (20). The second case is when $`x^40`$ and $`c_1^\phi ,c_2^\phi <<1`$. This is a satisfactory solution with two explicit integration constants as long as the jump conditions allow them to be small. Another observation we can make here is that when $`c_2^\phi 0`$, it is not clear that $`\phi `$ has two separate branches. Nevertheless, we can still apply the method for the construction of the orbifold with the only caveat that if the jump conditions require integration constants of order one or larger, we still do not have an explicit solution.

We will now find a solution to the second order equations of motion in the $`\phi <\phi _0`$ region which will be valid for a larger range of the integration constants. Define $`HA^{}`$ and denote $`\frac{}{\phi }`$ with a dot. Also, for simplicity we will assume that $`R_5=8m^2=1`$, even though we have to keep in mind that $`R_5`$ is really a parameter determined by the integration constants. Combining equations (8) and (9), we obtain the equation $`\dot{H}^2=\frac{1}{36}(24H^2+2V)`$. Let us assume that $`24H^2>>2|V|`$. We will verify soon that this is a valid assumption in the regime of interest. Then, we can easily solve for $`H`$: $`H=e^{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\phi }`$, where we have chosen the positive branch of the square root. Using the value of $`\phi _0`$ from the minimization of $`V`$, we deduce that $`2V`$ could be consistently dropped provided that

$$\frac{1}{12}e^{a\phi }\left(1\frac{a}{b}e^{(ba)(\phi \phi _0)}\right)<<e^{2\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\phi }.$$
(39)
Since our solution corresponds to $`\phi (\mathrm{},\phi _0)`$, a numerical estimate tells us that the above is true if, approximately, $`3<\phi <0.6`$ (for $`R_5=8m^2=1`$, we get from (18) $`\phi _00.6`$). Next, using the above solution for $`H`$, equation (7) becomes $`\phi ^{\prime \prime }+4e^{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\phi }\phi ^{}\dot{V}=0`$. In the $`\phi <\phi _0`$ region the potential $`V`$ approaches zero exponentially and its shape in this regime is rather flat, which means that $`\dot{V}0`$. Indeed, one can neglect $`\dot{V}`$ in the equation for $`\phi `$ provided that

$$|ae^{a\phi }+be^{b\phi }|<<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}e^{\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\phi }|\phi ^{}|\mathrm{and}|\phi ^{\prime \prime }|.$$
(40)
Then we can solve for $`\phi `$ and we obtain

$$\phi (x^4)=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{c_2^\phi }{1+12e^{\frac{\sqrt{6}}{3}c_2^\phi (c_1^\phi +x^4)}}+c_2^\phi (c_1^\phi +x^4)+\frac{\sqrt{6}}{4}\mathrm{ln}6.$$
(41)
By computing $`\phi ^{}`$ and $`\phi ^{\prime \prime }`$ from the above expression, one can verify that (40) is true in the relevant range of $`\phi `$ for a large range of $`c_1^\phi `$ and $`c_2^\phi `$, when $`x^4𝒪(010)`$. 666(40) is in fact true for any finite $`x^4`$ for appropriate choice of the order of magnitude of the integration constants, but the regime around $`x^4=0`$ is the interesting one since it is where the branes are located.

For $`\phi >>\phi _0`$, we can take similar steps. We can again assume for simplicity that $`R_5=8m^2=1`$. The derivative of the warp factor is obtained by solving the equation $`\dot{H}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}e^{\frac{b}{2}\phi }`$, which yields $`H=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3b}e^{\frac{b}{2}\phi }`$ up to an irrelevant integration constant. The equation for $`\phi `$ becomes $`\phi ^{\prime \prime }=be^{b\phi }`$, where we have ignored the smaller terms. The solution for $`\phi `$ is then

$$\phi (x^4)=\frac{\sqrt{15}}{10}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{c_1^\phi }{2}\left[1+\mathrm{tan}\left(c_1^\phi \frac{5}{3}(x^4+c_2^\phi )^2\right)\right]\right].$$
(42)
Finally, we assure that one can solve the equations of motion in an analogous fashion for arbitrary $`R_5`$.

We can now construct the orbifold as in fig.5 and satisfy the four jump conditions. An interesting fact is that to do so, along with $`c_1^\phi `$ and $`c_2^\phi `$, we have to use $`R_5`$ and $`R`$, which provides us with a RG scale dependent determination of the $`5D`$ dilaton and the orbifold size.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have suggested a string theoretic framework for a two brane scenario. The main issue we have addressed is the possibility of obtaining a flat four dimensional world on the branes. The supersymmetric case is a degenerate one in which the matching conditions (equations (29-32)) are automatically satisfied. When supersymmetry is broken however these conditions are non-trivial. The solutions to the equations of motion and constraint have two independent integration constants. In addition there is the distance between the branes yielding in general three adjustable constants in all. As was observed in  this would mean that there would have to be a tunable parameter either in the bulk potential or the brane tension.

The main observation of this paper is that there is a possible string construction in which the appearence of such a tunable parameter in the five dimensional theory is manifest. Indeed at the ten dimensional level there is no tuning, the parameter appears in the compactification and is in this sense an integration constant. Its appearence is related to the fact that we are dealing with a Ricci non-flat compactification (which gives a potential with a critical point for the breathing mode).

Solutions in the presence of supersymmetry breaking necessarily must have the complete set of free parameters that we have enumerated above. In particular the solutions for the warp factor and the breathing mode must contain the two independent integration constants. Unfortunately it was not possible to obtain exact analytic solutions displaying this but we have shown how to obtain approximate solutions that contain the two integration constants. In other words we have demonstrated the existence of (approximate) solutions that can be used to support flat branes after supersymmetry breaking, justifying the picture illustrated in figure 5.

There is one major unsolved problem though. What we have done strictly speaking is to demonstrate the existence of a flat two brane scenario after supersymmetry breaking in the context of type IIB supergravity. In the paper we have suggested that this ought to imply that there is a corresponding microscopic i.e. string theoretic implementation but this was not explicitly demonstrated. In particular in the supersymmetric situation, the D-brane tension in five dimensions should be obtained from the usual formula for D-brane tension in ten dimensions. However, as was demonstrated in recent papers 777These appeared after the first version of this paper was published on the e-print archive hep-th. , five dimensional supersymmetry requires that the tension $`T(\phi )`$ is essentially the superpotential $`W`$ of equation (13). It is not at all clear how this comes from the usual ten dimensional action for the D3 brane though it is possible that this action needs to be modified for string theory in the presence of RR flux and Ricci-non-flat compactifications. Perhaps one should expect a simple relation to the 10 dimensional tension only at the maximally supersymmetric point, the $`𝒩`$=8 critical point (3). At this point one finds that the tension in five dimensions $`T(\phi _0)=\frac{3}{4}T_{D_3}`$, a relation that was first found by . However this apparently can be justified from the string point of view . Perhaps this is all that is needed, but the matter is not entirely clear to us and is currently under investigation.

The phenomenological importance of our scenario is that we can have a $`𝒩=2`$ bulk five dimensional theory (by compactifying on a squashed five sphere as for example in , so that the brane theory would be $`𝒩=1`$ in four dimensions. The implication in four dimensions is that we have an adjustable constant (essentially an integration constant) in the superpotential that can be used to set the cosmological constant to zero after supersymmetry breaking (say by gaugino condensation). If this scenario can be completely justified (i.e. if the problem mentioned above can be solved) then it would be the first time that a string theoretic justification could be given for adding an adjustable constant to the superpotential.

###### Acknowledgments.

This work is partially supported by the Department of Energy contract No. DE-FG02-91-ER-40672.


format: text

text:
# On unentangled Gleason theorems for quantum information theory

## I Introduction

In an interesting recent paper Wallach  obtained an *unentangled* Gleason theorem. His work was motivated by fundamental problems in quantum information theory, in particular: to what extent do local operations and measurements on multipartite quantum systems suffice to guarantee the validity of a theorem of Gleason-type and thus a Born-type rule for probabilities? His positive result is formulated in terms of partially defined frame functions, defined only on the *unentangled states* of a finite product of finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. We shall show that Wallach’s theorem, and also its generalisation to infinite dimensions, can readily be derived from results which were obtained by us in our investigations of generalised Gleason theorems for quantum bi-measures and multi-measures . The physical motivation for our earlier work arose from the so-called histories approach to quantum mechanics . Our more general approach relies on the generalised Gleason theorem obtained by Bunce and one of us .

## II Preliminaries

Throughout this note $``$ is a Hilbert space, $`𝒮()`$ is the set of unit vectors in $``$, and the sets of projections, compact operators or bounded operators are denoted by $`𝒫(),𝒦(),`$ or $`()`$ respectively.

A *quantum measure* for $``$ is a map $`m:𝒫()`$ such that $`m(p+q)=m(p)+m(q)`$ whenever $`p`$ and $`q`$ are orthogonal. If $`m`$ takes only positive values and $`m(1)=1`$, then $`m`$ is a *quantum probability measure*. If, whenever $`\{p_i\}_{iI}`$ is a family of mutually orthogonal projections, $`_im(p_i)`$ is absolutely convergent and $`m(_ip_i)=_im(p_i)`$, then $`m`$ is said to be *completely additive*.

The essential content of Gleason’s original theorem  is that if $`m`$ is a positive, completely additive quantum measure on $`𝒫()`$, then it has a unique extension to a positive normal functional $`\varphi _m`$ on $`()`$, whenever the Hilbert space $``$ is not of dimension 2. It then follows from routine functional analysis that there exists a unique positive, self-adjoint trace class operator $`T`$ on $``$ such that $`\varphi _m(x)=\mathrm{Tr}(Tx)`$ for each $`x()`$, i.e., $`m(p)=\mathrm{Tr}(Tp)`$ for each $`p𝒫()`$. As a tool to help him prove his theorem, Gleason introduced the notion of a frame function. A (positive) *frame function* for $``$ is a function $`f:𝒮()^+`$ such that there exists a real number $`w`$ (the *weight* of $`f`$) such that, for any orthonormal basis of $``$, $`\{x_i\}_{iI}`$, $`_if(x_i)=w`$. There is a bijective correspondence between frame functions for $``$ and positive, completely additive quantum measures on $`𝒫()`$, see .

## III Unentangled frame functions and quantum multi-measures

Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ be Hilbert spaces. An *unentangled* element of $`_1\mathrm{}_n`$ is a vector which can be expressed in the form $`x_1\mathrm{}x_n`$. (Unentangled elements are sometimes referred to as *simple tensors*.) Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)`$ be the set of all unentangled vectors of norm 1 in $`_1\mathrm{}_n`$. Every element in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)`$ can be expressed as a tensor product of unit vectors in $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ respectively. Following Wallach , an *unentangled frame function* for $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ is a function $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)^+`$ such that, for some positive real number $`w`$ (the *weight* of $`f`$) whenever $`\{\xi _i\}_{iI}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`_1\mathrm{}_n`$ with each $`\xi _i\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)`$, then $`_if(\xi _i)=w`$. The physical idea behind this definition is that the elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)`$ represent the outcomes of elementary local operations or measurements.

It turns out that unentangled frame functions have natural links with quantum multi-measures. For the purposes of this note we define a (positive) *quantum multi-measure* for $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ to be a function $`m:𝒫(_1)\times \mathrm{}\times 𝒫(_n)^+`$, such that $`m`$ is completely orthoadditive in each variable separately, see . (Our results in  apply to more general, vector valued quantum multi-measures.) When $`n=2`$, a multi-measure is called a *bi-measure*. These arise naturally in the study of quantum decoherence functionals .

###### Lemma III.1

Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ be Hilbert spaces, none of which is of dimension 2. Let $`m`$ be a (positive) quantum multi-measure for $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$. Then there exists a unique bounded, multi-linear map $`M:(_1)\times \mathrm{}\times (_n)`$, such that

$`M(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)=m(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)\text{ for each }p_j(_j).`$Furthermore, given $`r`$, with $`1rn`$ and assuming $`n2`$, for each positive $`x_j(_j)`$, with $`1jn`$ and $`jr`$, the map $`yM(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{r1},y,x_{r+1},\mathrm{},x_n)`$ is a positive normal functional on $`(_r)`$.

*Proof*: The existence and uniqueness of $`M`$ is a consequence of results obtained in . Whenever $`x`$ is a positive operator in $`()`$, there exists a sequence of commuting projections $`\{p_j\}_{j=1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`x=x_j\frac{1}{2^j}p_j`$ (for a proof see, e.g.,  page 27). This observation, together with the positivity of $`m`$, shows that if $`x_r`$ is positive for $`r=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, then $`M(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)0`$. It now follows from the results of  that given $`r`$, with $`1rn`$ and assuming $`n2`$, for each positive $`x_j(_j)`$, with $`1jn`$ and $`jr`$, the map $`yM(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{r1},y,x_{r+1},\mathrm{},x_n)`$ is a positive normal functional on $`(_r)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us recall that the algebraic tensor product $`(_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{alg}}(_n)`$ may be identified with the linear span of $`\{x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n:x_j(_j)\}`$ in (the von Neumann tensor product) $`(_1\mathrm{}_n)=(_1)\mathrm{}(_n)`$. Let $`m`$ and $`M`$ be as in Lemma III.1, then by the basic property of the algebraic tensor product, there exists a unique linear functional $`𝔐`$ on $`(_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{alg}}(_n)`$ such that
$`𝔐(x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n)=M(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)`$.

###### Corollary III.2

Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces, none of which has dimension 2. Let $`m`$ be a positive quantum multi-measure for $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$. Then there exists an unentangled frame function $`f`$ for $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ such that, whenever $`\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)`$ and $`p_j`$ is the projection of $`_j`$ onto the one-dimensional subspace generated by $`\nu _j`$,

$`f(\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n)=m(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n).`$

*Proof*: Fix a unit vector $`\nu _j`$ in $`_j`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Then the projection from $`_1\mathrm{}_n`$ onto the subspace spanned by $`\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n`$ can be identified with the projection $`p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n`$ in $`(_1\mathrm{}_n)=(_1)\mathrm{}(_n)`$. Define $`f(\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n)`$ to be $`𝔐(p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)=M(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)=m(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following technical lemma allows us to associate a canonical multi-measure with each unentangled frame function.

###### Lemma III.3

Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ be Hilbert spaces of arbitrary dimension and let $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)^+`$ be an unentangled frame function. Then there is a (positive, completely additive) quantum multi-measure $`m`$ for $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ such that whenever $`\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)`$ and $`p_j`$ is the projection of $`_j`$ onto the one-dimensional subspace generated by $`\nu _j`$,

$`m(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)=f(\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n).`$

*Proof*: To simplify our notation we shall prove this for $`n=2`$, but the method is perfectly general.

Let $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ be projections in $`𝒫(_1)`$ and $`𝒫(_2)`$, respectively. Let $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ be the subspaces of $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ which are the respective ranges of $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$. Let $`\{\xi _j\}_{jJ}`$ and $`\{\psi _i\}_{iI}`$ be orthonormal bases of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, respectively. We wish to define $`m(e_1,e_2)`$ to be

$`{\displaystyle \underset{jJ}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}f(\xi _j\psi _i).`$The only difficulty here is that we do not know that this number is independent of the choice of orthonormal bases for $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, respectively. To establish this we argue as follows.

Let $`w`$ be the weight of $`f`$. Let $`\{\xi _j\}_{jJ^{}}`$ and $`\{\psi _i\}_{iI^{}}`$ be orthonormal bases for $`E_1^{}`$ and $`E_2^{}`$, respectively. Then $`\{\xi _j\psi _i\}_{jJJ^{},iII^{}}`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`_1_2`$. So

$`{\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)J\times I}{}}f(\xi _j\psi _i)+{\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)J^{}\times (II^{})}{}}f(\xi _j\psi _i)+{\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)(JJ^{})\times I^{}}{}}f(\xi _j\psi _i)=w.`$Let $`\{\xi _j^{}\}_{jJ}`$ and $`\{\psi _i^{}\}_{iI}`$ be orthonormal bases of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, respectively. Then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)J\times I}{}}f(\xi _j^{}\psi _i^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)J^{}\times (II^{})}{}}f(\xi _j\psi _i)+{\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)(JJ^{})\times I^{}}{}}f(\xi _j\psi _i)=w.`$Hence

$`{\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)J\times I}{}}f(\xi _j^{}\psi _i^{})`$ $`=`$ $`w{\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)J^{}\times (II^{})}{}}f(\xi _j\psi _i){\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)(JJ^{})\times I^{}}{}}f(\xi _j\psi _i)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(j,i)J\times I}{}}f(\xi _j\psi _i).`$
So $`m`$ is well-defined. It is straightforward to verify that $`m`$ has all the required properties. $`\mathrm{}`$

*Remark*: In the above argument we made essential use of the property that $`f`$ is an unentangled frame function. Suppose that we only knew that $`f`$ satisfied the weaker property: for some positive real number $`w`$ whenever $`\{\xi _i\}_{iI}`$ is a product orthonormal basis of $`_1\mathrm{}_n`$, then $`_if(\xi _i)=w`$. Then the proof of the preceding lemma would break down. This throws fresh light on the counterexample constructed in Proposition 5 in .

In our investigations on quantum decoherence functionals we were led to obtain results on generalised quantum bi-measures and multi-measures . The statement of the next theorem is Wallach’s Theorem 1 . Our proof shows that Wallach’s Theorem is a natural consequence of our earlier results on quantum multi-measures.

###### Proposition III.4 (Wallach, Theorem 1 )

Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ be finite dimensional Hilbert spaces, each of dimension at least 3. Let $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)^+`$ be an unentangled frame function. Then there exists a self-adjoint operator $`T`$ in $`(_1\mathrm{}_n)`$ such that whenever $`\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)`$ and $`p_j`$ is the projection of $`_j`$ onto the one-dimensional subspace generated by $`\nu _j`$,

$`f(\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n)=\mathrm{Tr}((p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)T).`$

*Proof*: Since each of the Hilbert spaces $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ is finite dimensional, $`(_1)\mathrm{}(_n)=(_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{alg}}(_n)`$. Let $`m`$ be the quantum multi-measure constructed from $`f`$ as in Lemma III.3. Let $`𝔐`$ be the linear functional on $`(_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{alg}}(_n)=(_1)\mathrm{}(_n)=(_1\mathrm{}_n)`$ such that $`𝔐(q_1q_2\mathrm{}q_n)=M(q_1,q_2,\mathrm{},q_n)=m(q_1,q_2,\mathrm{},q_n)`$ for each $`q_j𝒫(_j)`$. Since $`𝔐`$ is a linear functional on a finite dimensional space, it is bounded. Hence there is a unique bounded operator $`T`$ in $`(_1\mathrm{}_n)`$ such that $`𝔐(x)=\mathrm{Tr}(xT)`$ for all $`x`$. Thus

$$f(\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n)=𝔐(p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)=\mathrm{Tr}((p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)T).$$
(1)
On taking complex conjugates of the Equation (1) we find that $`T`$ may be replaced by $`T^{}`$. So in (1) we may replace $`T`$ by $`\frac{1}{2}(T+T^{})`$. Hence we may suppose in (1) that $`T`$ is self-adjoint. $`\mathrm{}`$

The work of  shows that Wallach’s Theorem can be generalised to the situation where the Hilbert spaces are not required to be finite dimensional provided an appropriate boundedness condition is imposed. More precisely:

###### Theorem III.5

Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ be Hilbert spaces, each of dimension at least 3.
Let $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)^+`$ be an unentangled frame function. Let $`𝔐`$ be the associated linear functional on $`(_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{alg}}(_n)`$. If the restriction of $`𝔐`$ to $`𝒦(_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{alg}}𝒦(_n)`$ is bounded, then there exists a unique bounded self-adjoint, trace class operator $`T`$ in $`(_1\mathrm{}_n)`$ such that whenever $`\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(_1,\mathrm{},_n)`$ and $`p_j`$ is the projection of $`_j`$ onto the one-dimensional subspace generated by $`\nu _j`$,

$`f(\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n)=\mathrm{Tr}((p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)T).`$

*Proof*: Let $`𝔐_0`$ be the restriction of $`𝔐`$ to $`𝒦(_1)_{\mathrm{alg}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{alg}}𝒦(_n)`$. By hypothesis $`𝔐_0`$ is bounded and so has a unique bounded extension, also denoted by $`𝔐_0`$, to $`𝒦(_1\mathrm{}_n)`$. By standard functional analysis, there exists a trace class operator $`T`$ such that $`𝔐_0(z)=\mathrm{Tr}(zT)`$ for each $`z`$ in $`𝒦(_1\mathrm{}_n)`$. Since each one-dimensional projection in $`(_j)`$ is in $`𝒦(_j)`$,

$`m(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)=M(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n)=𝔐_0(p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)=\mathrm{Tr}((p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)T).`$So

$`f(\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n)=\mathrm{Tr}((p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)T)=T(\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n),\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _n,`$where $`,`$ denotes the inner product on $`_1\mathrm{}_n.`$ It now follows from Lemma 5.9  that $`T`$ is unique. But, arguing as in the proof of Proposition III.4, we can replace $`T`$ by $`\frac{1}{2}(T+T^{})`$. So, by uniqueness, $`T`$ is self-adjoint. $`\mathrm{}`$

*Remark*: When the spaces $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ are finite dimensional, then the boundedness condition of Theorem III.5 is automatically satisfied. So Wallach’s Theorem is a corollary of Theorem III.5 which, in turn, follows from the work of .

Moreover, it can be shown along the lines of  that, for $`n=2`$, there exists a self-adjoint operator $`T`$, not necessarily of trace class, on $`=_1_2`$, such that

$`𝔐(p)=\mathrm{Tr}(Tp)`$for all finite rank projections $`p`$ in $`𝒫()`$ if, and only if, $`𝔐`$ is bounded on one dimensional projection operators whose ranges are generated by vectors in the algebraic tensor product $`_1_{\mathrm{alg}}_2`$.


text:
# TGRS OBSERVATIONS OF GAMMA-RAY LINES FROM NOVAE. II. CONSTRAINING THE GALACTIC NOVA RATE FROM A SURVEY OF THE SOUTHERN SKY DURING 1995–1997

## 1 Introduction

Classical novae are rather frequently observed in our Galaxy (Liller & Mayer 1987, Shafter 1997), and have also been studied in external galaxies ; typically $`N`$ 3–4 per year are detected in our Galaxy (Duerbeck 1995, Warner 1995). Most of the discoveries and observations of Galactic novae have been made by amateur astronomers with little access to spectroscopic and photometric equipment. Sky coverage has been episodic and extremely hard to calculate. Classification attempts have also been hindered. As a result, many of the most basic properties involving their global rate and distribution are surprisingly uncertain. For example, a number of arguments suggest that the Galactic rate of novae must be much higher than $`N`$:

(a) The typical limiting apparent magnitude obtainable with amateur apparatus and methods has been increasing steadily in recent years, but for the period covered by this paper may be taken to be $`m_V8`$, within a very wide range, and with extremely uneven coverage. Application of the expanding-photosphere method to a subset of relatively nearby and bright novae has yielded the empirical relation

$`M_V`$ $`=`$ $`2.41\mathrm{log}t_210.7\text{for 5 d }<t_2<50\text{ d}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`9\text{for }t_25\text{ d}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`6.6\text{for }t_2>50\text{ d}`$ (3)
(Warner 1995) for the absolute magnitude, where $`t_2`$ (the speed class) is the time taken for $`m_V`$ to increase by 2 from discovery. It follows that the distance out to which amateur astronomers are detecting typical novae is $`10`$ kpc, or only about one-half the volume of the Galaxy. Furthermore, the rate of discoveries at the faintest magnitudes ($`m_V>6`$) is greater than what would be extrapolated from brighter novae. This indicates that a new population — presumably associated with the Galactic bulge rather than the disk — is present and poorly sampled (Duerbeck 1990; see below).

(b) Even within that part of the Galaxy which is effectively searched for novae, the discovery rate is blatantly incomplete. Not only does the discovery rate for novae with $`3<m_V6`$ fall below the extrapolated rate for brighter events (thus, in contrast to the preceding argument, suggesting that many events in this range are missed: Duerbeck 1990), but there is a marked deficiency of discoveries in the southern celestial hemisphere (Warner 1995). This is relevant to our work, since the TGRS detector is permanently pointed at the southern sky (§2.1). During its period of operation (1995–1997) five novae were discovered in the southern hemisphere (Harris et al. 1999, hereafter Paper I), but there is no way of knowing how many were missed.222 The discovery process is particularly liable to miss ”fast” novae ($`t_2`$ a few days) which rise and fall in between successive visits to a given location. The possibility of detecting undiscovered novae as bright as $`m_V=3`$ (marginally within TGRS’s capabilities) is one of the justifications for the present work.

(c) In Galactic latitude, the distribution of classical novae is somewhat concentrated toward the equatorial plane (scale heights for disk and bulge populations 125 and 500 pc respectively: Duerbeck 1984, 1990). They must therefore be affected to some degree by interstellar extinction, and a deficiency of discoveries close to the plane is indeed observed (Warner 1995).

In terms of the composition of their ejecta, novae are classified into CO-rich and ONe-rich; it is thought that the distinction reflects the composition of the underlying white dwarf material, with the ONe class coming from more massive progenitors whose cores burned beyond the early He-burning stage which yields C and O. Different levels of positron annihilation line flux are expected from each class (§4). If the progenitors of the ONe subclass are really more massive, they will tend to lie closer to the Galactic plane, and the resulting novae will be more strongly affected by extinction and relatively under-represented in the discovered sample (of which they compose $`1/3`$: Gehrz et al. 1998). Evidence of this has been detected by Della Valle et al. (1992).

(d) The three preceding factors would all tend to enhance the true Galactic nova rate above that observed. However, a second, quite distinct approach to the problem tends to produce systematically lower rates. In this approach, several external galaxies (particularly the Magellanic Clouds, M31 and M33) have been monitored for novae, and their observed rates extrapolated in some fashion to the Milky Way (Ciardullo et al. 1987, Della Valle & Livio 1994). The usual basis for extrapolation is absolute blue luminosity (Della Valle & Claudi 1990). As can be seen in Table 1, the results from this approach are systematically smaller than attempts to correct for the missing Galactic novae directly. The original explanation for this effect was provided by Duerbeck (1990), who postulated two different classes of event by spatial distribution — disk and bulge novae. It was claimed that the bulge population has a systematically slower speed class, and is therefore generally less luminous by Equations (1–3), which might account for the discrepancy, given a larger bulge in the main external source of novae, M31. As will be seen (§4.1), our search method is probably relevant only to a disk population.

A third approach to the problem is theoretically possible, by which classical nova outbursts are assumed to be part of a life-cycle of which other cataclysmic variables are manifestations. The Galactic nova rate is then derived from the assumed space densities of these related objects, together with some model for the outburst recurrence time (Warner 1995). This approach is more reliable at predicting the Galactic space density rather than the global rate, which is more directly related to the measurements we shall present.

It is important to correct for and combine these various factors into an overall global Galactic nova rate, which would govern the input of novae into Galactic chemical evolution, dust grains and interstellar radioactivity (Gehrz et al. 1998). However attempts to do so have yielded wildly discordant results, ranging from 11–260 novae yr-1 (see Table 1).

We have therefore adopted in this work yet a fourth (and simplest) approach which is to make an unbiased search for novae in our Galaxy. The detection of $`\gamma `$-ray lines from radioactive decays of the nucleosynthesis products produced in novae is such an approach; these decays in general emit positrons, whose annihilation with electrons produces a line at 511 keV. An obvious advantage of this approach is the very small absorption of $`\gamma `$-rays in the Galaxy. We will also see that problems of uneven coverage and sensitivity are minimal. These advantages are realised when the $`\gamma `$-ray detector TGRS, on board the WIND mission, is used (§2.1).

In Paper I we determined that TGRS does indeed have the capability to perform a sky survey for classical novae. The target of Paper I was to detect the positron annihilation line in five known novae; although none was detected, the viability of such a method was established. The key to the method (see §2 below) is that the line arises in nova material expanding towards the observer, and is therefore broadened and blueshifted (Leising & Clayton 1987). Its peak is therefore shifted away from a strong background line at exactly 511 keV, which arises in the instrument itself from decays of unstable nuclei produced by cosmic ray spallation.

In the next section we give a brief description of the detector and data, and of our analysis. None of these is substantially different from that of Paper I, where the reader may find a more detailed description.

## 2 Observations and Analysis

### 2.1 Spacecraft and Instrument

The TGRS experiment is very well suited to a search for the 511 keV line, for several reasons. First, it is located on board the WIND spacecraft whose orbit is so elliptical that it has spent virtually all of its mission since 1994 November in interplanetary space, where the $`\gamma `$-ray background level is relatively low. Second, these backgrounds are not only low but very stable over time. Third, TGRS is attached to the south-facing surface of the rotating cylindrical WIND body, which points permanently toward the south ecliptic pole. The detector is unshielded, and TGRS therefore has an unobstructed view of the entire southern ecliptic hemisphere. Taken together, these three facts make possible a continuous and complete survey of the southern sky. Fourth, and most importantly, the TGRS Ge detector has sufficient spectral resolution to detect a 511 keV line which is slightly Doppler-shifted away from the background 511 keV line mentioned in §1. The Doppler blueshift in the nova line, for the epochs $`<`$12 hr which we consider, is predicted to be 2–5 keV (Hernanz 1999, Kudryashov 2000), which compares with the TGRS energy resolution at 511 keV of 3–4 keV FWHM (Harris et al. 1998 and Paper I).

The TGRS detector is a radiatively cooled 35 cm2 n-type Ge crystal sensitive to energies between 20 keV–8 MeV. Since the launch of WIND in 1994 November, TGRS has accumulated count rates continuously in this energy range. The few gaps in the data stream are due either to perigee passes, which are rare (lasting $`1`$ d at several month intervals) thanks to WIND’s very eccentric orbit, or to memory readouts following solar flare or $`\gamma `$-ray burst triggers, which may last for $`2`$ hr. The data were binned in 1 keV energy bins during 24 min intervals.

We searched in data covering a period of nearly three years, from 1995 January to 1997 October. In the fall of 1997 the performance of the detector began to degrade seriously, and the energy resolution became too coarse to resolve the 511 keV background and nova lines. This degradation is believed to result from crystal defects induced by accumulated cosmic ray impacts, which trap semiconductor holes and reverse the impurity charge status. A region of the crystal thus becomes undepleted and the effective area is reduced (Kurczynski et al. 1999). We terminated our search of the data when the photopeak effective area at 511 keV fell below an estimated 80% of its original value. The total live time accumulated was about $`7.7\times 10^7`$ s, which was nominally 88% of the entire interval. In fact, the distribution of live times among the 6 hr intervals was such that 41% of all intervals had the full 6 hr of live time, and almost 99% of intervals contained some live time.

### 2.2 Analysis

Our analysis procedure relies heavily on the most recently theoretically-predicted properties of the 511 keV line (Hernanz et al. 1999, Kudryashov 2000), mainly its light-curve, energy and shape. The timescale over which the background spectra described above are summed is set by the predicted $`\gamma `$-ray light-curve from the ”thermonuclear flash” which powers a nova. In this process a degenerate accreted H layer on the surface of a CO or ONe white dwarf ignites proton capture reactions involving both accreted material and some material dredged up from the interior of the white dwarf. The timescale for this process is set by the $`\beta `$-decay timescales of the unstable nucleosynthesis products of rapid proton capture on C, O and Ne. These unstable species fall into two groups, one having very rapid decays ($``$ minutes: e.g. 13N, 14,15O, 17F) and the more slow-decaying 18F ($`\tau _{1/2}=110`$ min). The light-curve results from the convolution of these decays with the reduction of opacity to 511 keV $`\gamma `$-rays due to envelope expansion; it thus tends to be double-peaked at values $``$10–100 s and $``$3–6 hr (Gómez-Gomar et al. 1998), with significant emission lasting for $`12`$ hr (Hernanz et al. 1999). The 10–100 s peak is ultimately due to the decay of the very short-lived group of isotopes, and is thus especially prominent in the CO nova light-curve (though these isotopes are essential to the energetics of both classes). The 3–6 hr peak reflects the survival of slower-decaying 18F in both classes (Gómez-Gomar et al. 1998).

With these timescales in mind, we summed the 24-min background spectra into 6 hr intervals 333 Not only does this accumulation time contain most of the predicted line fluence, but detection of the line in the following 6 hr period would provide an independent confirmation of a detection. However, we found in Paper I that detection of the line after 12 hr is hindered not only by low flux, but also by worsened blending with the background 511 keV line. The details of how measurements in the 6–12 hr interval may be combined with those in the 0–6 hr interval are given in Paper I. The 4005 resulting 6-hr spectra were fit by a model (described in Paper I) containing the strong background 511 keV line at rest, and a broadened blueshifted nova line. The energies of the nova line were fixed at the predicted values (516 keV after 6 hr, dropping to 513 keV after 12 hr: Gómez-Gomar et al. 1998, Hernanz et al. 1999, Kudryashov 2000). The widths were taken to be 8 keV FWHM and the shapes to be Gaussian, as in Paper I; the shapes are poorly documented in published models, but the approximation is probably reasonable at an epoch of a few hours (Leising & Clayton 1987). Instrumental broadenings of these lines and of the background 511 keV line were very small during 1995–1997 (Harris et al. 1998). Although our analysis is somewhat sensitive to the departure of the actual line parameters from these predictions, we believe that it should be adequate to detect lines in the parameter range appropriate for fast novae. For example, we estimate that lines with energies in the range 513–522 keV are detected with $`50`$% of true amplitude, corresponding to expansion velocities 1200–6500 km s-1 which bracket the range observed in fast novae (Warner 1995).

The 4005 count spectra were fit to the above model (plus an underlying constant term) and the line amplitudes were divided by the photopeak effective area at 511 keV. This photopeak efficiency was determined from Monte Carlo simulations as a function of energy and zenith angle (Seifert et al. 1997), taking into account the effects of hole-trapping in the detector (§2.1); we found that the efficiency remained extremely stable until the fall of 1997, whereupon it rapidly fell to 80% of its value at launch. The effective area is a slowly varying function of the zenith angle of the source. To calculate the average effective area, we assumed the Galactic distribution of the synthetic population of several thousand novae computed by Hatano et al. (1997), for the southern part of which the mean TGRS zenith angle is $`60\mathrm{deg}`$, corresponding to an effective area 13.6 cm2. The fits were performed by the standard method of varying the model parameters to minimize the quantity $`\chi ^2`$, with errors on the parameters computed from the parameter range where $`\chi ^2`$ exceeded the minimum by +1 (Paper I).

With a sufficiently large sample of spectra, there is a probability that a fitted line of any given amplitude may be produced by chance. We therefore imposed a rather high value of significance as the threshold above which a detection would be established. If the significances are normally distributed (see §3 below) then our sample size of 4005 spectra implies that a threshold level of $`4.6\sigma `$ yields a probability $`<1`$% of a single false detection by chance (Abramowitz & Stegun 1964).

## 3 Results

A typical fit to a 6 hr spectrum is shown in Figure 1 (there is a more detailed discussion in Paper I). The fits are generally acceptable, with values of $`\chi ^2`$/d.o.f. close to 1. The amplitudes of the nova lines are significantly positive in all cases (see below). This arises from a significant departure of the blue wing of the 511 keV background line from the Gaussian shape assumed in the fits, whose origin is unclear (Paper I).

The full series of measurements for a nova line of FWHM 8 keV and blueshift 5 keV, (parameters corresponding to typical predicted values after 6 hr: Hernanz et al. 1999 and Paper I) is shown in Figure 2. It can be seen that the systematic positive offset mentioned above was extremely stable throughout the mission; there are very weak linear trends on $``$year timescales which are almost invisible in Fig. 2. We subtracted this quasi-constant systematic value from all nova line measurements.

A very similar time series was obtained for a nova line at position predicted for 12 hr after the explosion (513 keV), except that the error bars were very much larger (see Paper I, §3.4). Each fitted 6 hr line was combined with the following 12 hr fit in the proportions suggested by the light curve of Hernanz et al. (1999). The results closely resembled those of Fig. 2 after subtraction of the quasi-constant systematic, since the 12 hr lines contributed little on account of their large error bars.

It is also clear from inspection of Fig. 2 that there are no highly significant line amplitudes lying above the mean. We further show in Figure 3 that the distribution of significant deviations from the mean is very close to normal. The variability in the error bars comes almost entirely from the variability in live times, which is small (§2.1). There is therefore a well-defined mean $`1\sigma `$ error of $`8.2\times 10^4`$ photon cm-2 s-1 (compare results of Paper I for zenith angle $`60\mathrm{deg}`$). The $`4.6\sigma `$ threshold based on this average error is shown by a dotted line in Fig. 2. The only points lying above this line are a few 6 hr periods with low live time and large errors. We therefore conclude that no previously-undetected novae were discovered by TGRS during 1995–1997, in an almost unbiased search covering a live time of $`7.7\times 10^7`$ s.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Limit on the Galactic nova rate

Recent developments in the theory of nucleosynthesis in classical novae (Hernanz et al. 1999) have been discouraging for our purpose of a positron annihilation $`\gamma `$-ray search, since new measurements of nuclear reaction rates have led to much lower predictions of the flux in this line after 6 and 12 hr. The discussion in Paper I of the capability of constraining the global Galactic nova rate using our present results was therefore over-optimistic. Nevertheless, we will discuss the application of our method in general terms, so that even though important constraints cannot now be derived, it may be useful for more sensitive future experiments (e.g. INTEGRAL) or for more optimistic theoretical predictions.

A formal expression for the number of novae detectable by TGRS is

$`N_{obs}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{gal}T_{tot}{\displaystyle _0^{1.4M_{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(M){\displaystyle f(\varphi >\varphi _{min})w(\varphi >\varphi _{min})𝑑\varphi _{min}𝑑M}`$ (4)
where $`R_{gal}`$ is the Galactic nova rate; $`\varphi _{min}`$ is a given (time varying) threshold flux for detection by TGRS; $`f(\varphi >\varphi _{min})`$ is the fraction of the mass of the Galaxy within TGRS’s detection radius $`r_d`$ and $`r_d=\sqrt{\varphi _{pred}(M)/\varphi _{min}}`$; $`T_{tot}`$ is the total TGRS live time; $`w(\varphi >\varphi _{min})`$ is the fraction of TGRS live time for which $`\varphi >\varphi _{min}`$; $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the distribution of white dwarf masses in classical novae; and $`\varphi _{pred}(M)`$ is the predicted 511 keV line flux at 1 kpc for mass $`M`$.

The white dwarf mass distribution in novae, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M)`$, is very poorly known. Whereas field white dwarf masses appear to peak at $`0.6M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and to decline in number for higher masses up to the Chandrasekhar limit $`1.4M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Warner 1990), the mass distribution in nova systems must be weighted towards higher masses. This is because the thermonuclear runaway occurs when the basal pressure of the material accreted onto the white dwarf exceeds some critical value. The critical pressure is proportional to the -4 power of the white dwarf radius, to the white dwarf mass, and to the accreted mass. Since white dwarf radii decrease with increasing white dwarf mass, the accreted mass necessary to reach critical pressure is a strongly decreasing function of white dwarf mass. If the accretion rate from the secondary star is roughly independent of white dwarf mass, it follows that explosions on more massive white dwarfs will recur after much shorter intervals (Gehrz et al. 1998). There have not been reliable measurements of this effect, although theory indicates that the ratio of ONe:CO novae of 1:2 is compatible with a distribution peaking at about $`1.2M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Truran & Livio 1986). Further, the mass ranges corresponding to the CO and ONe compositions are poorly known and may well overlap (Livio & Truran 1994).

Theoretical predictions of 511 keV line emission are only available for a few values of $`M`$. In Table 2 we show the parameters of the most recent models suitable for use in Eq. (4) (Hernanz et al. 1999). Earlier models suggest that emission from lower-mass CO white dwarf events is considerably less (Gómez-Gomar et al. 1998). In view of the remarks above about the ONe:CO ratio, we will make the crude assumption that the ratio of ”low mass” CO objects to ”high mass” CO objects to ONe objects is 1:1:1, where ”high mass” CO objects have the properties given in Table 2 and ”low mass” CO objects are assumed to produce no 511 keV line emission at all. This eliminates the integral over M in Eq. (4).

The remaining integral in Eq. (4) can be approximated by the value of the integrand when $`\varphi _{min}`$ has its mean value — this follows from our result in §§2.1, 3 that the variation of live times in our sample (and therefore of the errors in Fig. 2) is very small. For a given model in Table 2, therefore, taking $`\varphi _{min}=4.6\times 8.2\times 10^4=3.8\times 10^3`$ photon cm-2 s-1, the problem is reduced to the computation of the fraction $`f`$ of Galactic mass which lies within the radius $`r_d=\sqrt{\varphi _{pred}/3.8\times 10^3}`$ kpc.

As an example, let us consider the Hernanz et al. (1999) model of a $`1.15M_{\mathrm{}}`$ CO nova from Table 2. Here $`\varphi _{pred}=3.1\times 10^3`$ photon cm-2 s-1, so that $`r_d=0.9`$ kpc. Within this value of $`r_d`$ we determined that 0.61% of the Galaxy’s mass resides, according to the widely used Bahcall-Soneira model of the Galaxy (Bahcall & Soneira 1984): one-half of this value (i.e. the southern hemisphere) gives $`f=0.00305`$. For the $`1.15M_{\mathrm{}}`$ CO model, Eq. (1) then reduces to $`R_{gal}=\frac{N_{obs}}{T_{tot}f}`$. Our upper limit for $`N_{obs}`$ is $`<1`$, with 63% probability (for Poisson-distributed events: Gehrels 1986), and the live time is $`7.7\times 10^7`$ s (§2.1), giving us a 63% upper limit on the rate of ”high-mass” CO novae of $`R_{gal}<134`$ yr-1. This is quite close to the exact value 123 yr-1 obtained by explicitly integrating Eq. (4) over $`\varphi _{min}`$ (Table 2).

In the same way we obtain an upper limit of 238 yr-1 on the rate of novae occurring on ONe white dwarfs from Hernanz et al.’s (1999) prediction. Our best result comes from the CO model in Table 2, which we have assumed to be one-third of the total, from which we derive a global Galactic nova rate of $`<369`$ yr-1.

Uncertainties in this value clearly arise from uncertainties in the nova models, in the fraction of white dwarfs in nova systems of each type, in the Bahcall-Soneira model, and in the possibility of distinct spheroid and disk nova populations having differing rates, since our typical detection radius $`<1`$ kpc includes almost none of the Bahcall-Soneira spheroid. Since our results do not significantly constrain previous measurements of the nova rate (Table 1), we do not make estimates of these errors, which will require attention from other, more sensitive experiments (see next section).

### 4.2 Implications for nova detection by other instruments

An attempt has been made, using the BATSE instrument on the Compton Observatory, to detect 511 keV line emission from a recent nearby nova (V382 Vel) by a similar method to that used here and in Paper I (Hernanz et al. 2000). The advantage of observing with BATSE over TGRS is its much larger effective area. Its disadvantages are much poorer energy resolution with a NaI spectrometer, and a background varying on very short ($`<<90`$ min) timescales. The sensitivities achieved are comparable to those obtained here.

Degradation of the Ge detector (§2.1) prevented TGRS from achieving comparable sensitivity on V382 Vel (Harris et al. 2000), so future efforts in this field will rely on BATSE and on the INTEGRAL mission, which is scheduled for launch in 2001 September carrying a Ge spectrometer (SPI) with resolution comparable to TGRS but a much larger effective area. Hernanz et al. (1999) estimated that SPI could detect the model novae of Table 2 out to $`3`$ kpc. However they also pointed out that the short duration of the 511 keV line emission would make it difficult for INTEGRAL to slew to a candidate event. Thus the detection rate would be limited to novae within the SPI field of view, which is $`25\mathrm{deg}`$ FWHM.

The search method which we have used, i.e. an ex post facto search in background spectra, ought to be perfectly feasible with INTEGRAL. The chief requirements for this method are very high energy resolution and a sufficiently low and stable background. While the SPI detector has excellent resolution, the background level in it has not yet been rigorously computed. Nevertheless, qualitative arguments suggest that the background will be no worse than that in TGRS. Like WIND, INTEGRAL will be in a high-altitude elliptical orbit which avoids extensive exposure to Earth’s trapped radiation belts and to albedo $`\gamma `$-rays from Earth’s atmosphere. The main disadvantages of INTEGRAL for nova detection are the small SPI field of view and the planned observing strategy which cuts down the amount of time spent pointing towards the main concentration of novae near the Galactic center.

We can make use of the planned program of INTEGRAL observations of the central Galactic radian in the first year of operation (Winkler et al. 1999) to estimate the rate at which novae might be detected in the SPI data. As previously, we assume that novae follow the Bahcall & Soneira (1984) Galactic distribution. The planned first-year INTEGRAL observations may be approximated by a $`31\mathrm{deg}\times 11\mathrm{deg}`$ grid with $`2\mathrm{deg}`$ spacing between $`30\mathrm{deg}l30\mathrm{deg}`$ and $`10\mathrm{deg}b10\mathrm{deg}`$, the exposure to each point being 1180 s per pass, with 12 passes per year covering the whole grid. Thus the live time for the whole grid is 0.153 yr. From the Bahcall-Soneira model, the pointing geometry, and the SPI aperture $`25\mathrm{deg}`$ we calculated that the INTEGRAL detection radius $`3`$ kpc intercepts $``$0.75% of the Galactic nova distribution. The live time 0.153 yr is then multiplied by a typical Galactic nova rate $`50`$ yr-1, (of which 2/3 are practically detectable, as assumed in §4.1), and by the intercepted fraction, to imply that INTEGRAL ought to detect 0.04 novae yr-1. Unless theoretical estimates of the 511 keV line flux turn out to be considerably larger, the prospects for such a detection appear to be small. The same conclusion probably applies to a different method of detecting 511 keV line emission indirectly, by observing the 170–470 keV continuum produced by Compton scattering in the nova envelope using SPI’s large-area CsI shield (Jean et al. 1999).

We are grateful to M. Hernanz and A. Kudryahov for helpful discussions and for providing pre-publication results, and to J. Jordi (the referee) for constructive comments. Peter Kurczynski (University of Maryland) helped in assessing the instrument performance. Theresa Sheets (LHEA) and Sandhia Bansal (HSTX) assisted with the analysis software.


text:
# Baryon Spectrum in the Large 𝑁_𝑐 Limit11footnote 1Invited talk at NSTAR2000, Newport News, VA, Feb. 19, 2000. William and Mary preprint no. WM-00-103.

## 1 Introduction

It has been known for some time that QCD admits a useful and elegant expansion in powers of $`1/N_c`$, where $`N_c`$ is the number of colors . Given this expansion, it is possible to determine the order in $`N_c`$ of any Feynman diagram or matrix element. The $`1/N_c`$ expansion has been utilized successfully in baryon effective field theories to isolate the leading and subleading contributions to a variety of physical observables .

Here we study the mass spectrum of the nonstrange, $`\mathrm{}=1`$ baryons (associated with the SU(6) 70-plet for $`N_c=3`$) in a large-$`N_c`$ effective theory . We describe the states as a symmetrized “core” of $`(N_c1)`$ quarks in the ground state plus one excited quark in a relative $`P`$ state. “Quarks” in the effective theory refer to eigenstates of the spin-flavor-orbit group, SU(6) $`\times `$ O(3), such that an appropriately symmetrized collection of $`N_c`$ of them have the quantum numbers of the physical baryons. Baryon wave functions are antisymmetric in color and symmetric in the spin-flavor-orbit indices of the quark fields. While this construction assures that we obtain states with the correct total quantum numbers, we do not assume that SU(6) is an approximate symmetry of the effective Lagrangian. Rather, we parameterize the most general way in which spin and flavor symmetries are broken by introducing a complete set of quark operators that act on the baryon states. Matrix elements of these operators are hierarchical in $`1/N_c`$, so that predictivity can be obtained without recourse to ad hoc phenomenological assumptions.

The nonstrange 70-plet states which we consider in this analysis consist of two isospin-$`3/2`$ states, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}`$, and five isospin-$`1/2`$ states, $`N_{1/2}`$, $`N_{1/2}^{}`$, $`N_{3/2}`$, $`N_{3/2}^{}`$, and $`N_{5/2}^{}`$. The subscript indicates total baryon spin; unprimed states have quark spin $`1/2`$ and primed states have quark spin $`3/2`$. These quantum numbers imply that two mixing angles, $`\theta _{N1}`$ and $`\theta _{N3}`$, are necessary to specify the total angular momentum $`1/2`$ and $`3/2`$ nucleon mass eigenstates, respectively. Thus we may write

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}N(1535)\\ N(1650)\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{N1}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{N1}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{N1}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{N1}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}N_{1/2}\\ N_{1/2}^{}\end{array}\right]$$
(1)
and

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}N(1520)\\ N(1700)\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{N3}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{N3}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{N3}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{N3}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}N_{3/2}\\ N_{3/2}^{}\end{array}\right],$$
(2)
where the $`N(1535)`$, $`N(1650)`$, $`N(1520)`$ and $`N(1700)`$ are the appropriate mass eigenstates observed in experiment.

## 2 Operators Analysis

To parameterize the complete breaking of SU(6)$`\times `$O(3), it is natural to write all possible mass operators in terms of the generators of this group. The generators of orbital angular momentum are denoted by $`\mathrm{}^i`$, while $`S^i`$, $`T^a`$, and $`G^{ia}`$ represent the spin, flavor, and spin-flavor generators of SU(6), respectively. The generators $`S_c^i`$, $`T_c^a`$, $`G_c^{ia}`$ refer to those acting upon the $`N_c1`$ core quarks, while separate SU(6) generators $`s^i`$, $`t^a`$, and $`g^{ia}`$ act only on the single excited quark. Factors of $`N_c`$ originate either as coefficients of operators in the Hamiltonian, or through matrix elements of those operators. An $`n`$-body operator, which acts on $`n`$ quarks in a baryon state, has a coefficient of order $`1/N_c^{n1}`$, reflecting the minimum number of gluon exchanges required to generate the operator in QCD. Compensating factors of $`N_c`$ arise in matrix elements if sums over quark lines are coherent. For example, the unit operator $`1`$ contributes at $`O(N_c^1)`$, since each core quark contributes equally in the matrix element. The core spin of the baryon $`S_c^2`$ contributes to the masses at $`O(1/N_c)`$, because the matrix elements of $`S_c^i`$ are of $`O(N_c^0)`$ for baryons that have spins of order unity as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$. Similarly, matrix elements of $`T_c^a`$ are $`O(N_c^0)`$ in the two-flavor case since the baryons considered have isospin of $`O(N_c^0)`$, but the operator $`G_c^{ia}`$ has matrix elements on this subset of states of $`O(N_c^1)`$. This means that the contributions of the $`O(N_c)`$ quarks add incoherently in matrix elements of the operator $`S_c^i`$ or $`T_c^a`$ but coherently for $`G_c^{ia}`$. Thus, the full large $`N_c`$ counting of the matrix element is $`O(N_c^{1n+m})`$, where $`m`$ is the number of coherent core quark generators. A complete operator basis for the nonstrange 70-plet masses is shown in Table 1222Some of these operators have been studied previously .. Index contractions are left implicit wherever they are unambiguous, and the $`c_i`$ are operator coefficients. The tensor $`\mathrm{}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ represents the rank two tensor combination of $`\mathrm{}^i`$ and $`\mathrm{}^j`$ given by $`\mathrm{}_{ij}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\{\mathrm{}_i,\mathrm{}_j\}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{3}\delta _{ij}`$. Note in Table 1 that operators $`1`$, $`2`$$`3`$, and $`4`$$`9`$ have matrix elements of order $`N_c^1`$, $`N_c^0`$, and $`N_c^1`$, respectively.

## 3 Results

Since the operator basis in Table 1 completely spans the $`9`$-dimensional space of observables, we can solve for the $`c_i`$ given the experimental data. For each baryon mass, we assume that the central value corresponds to the midpoint of the mass range quoted in the Review of Particle Properties ; we take the one standard deviation error as half of the stated range. To determine the off-diagonal mass matrix elements, we use the mixing angles extracted from the analysis of strong decays , $`\theta _{N1}=0.61\pm 0.09`$ and $`\theta _{N3}=3.04\pm 0.15`$. These values are consistent with those obtained from radiative decays, as well . Solving for the operator coefficients, we obtain the values shown in Table 2.

Naively, one expects the $`c_i`$ to be of comparable size. Using the value of $`c_1`$ as a point of comparison, it is clear that there are no operators with anomalously large coefficients. Thus, we find no conflict with the naive $`1/N_c`$ power counting rules. However, only three operators of the nine, $`𝒪_1`$, $`𝒪_3`$, and $`𝒪_6`$, have coefficients that are statistically distinguishable from zero! A fit including those three operators alone is shown in Table 3, and has a $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is $`1.87`$. Fits involving other operator combinations are studied in Refs. . Clearly, large $`N_c`$ power counting is not sufficient by itself to explain the $`\mathrm{}=1`$ baryon masses—the underlying dynamics plays a crucial role.

## 4 Interpretation and Conclusions

We will now show that the preference in Table 2 for two nontrivial operators, $`\frac{1}{N_c}\mathrm{}^{(2)}gG_c`$ and $`\frac{1}{N_c}S_c^2`$, can be understood in a constituent quark model with a single pseudoscalar meson exchange, up to corrections of order $`1/N_c^2`$. The argument goes as follows:

The pion couples to the quark axial-vector current so that the $`\overline{q}q\pi `$ coupling introduces the spin-flavor structure $`\sigma ^i\tau ^a`$ on a given quark line. In addition, pion exchange respects the large $`N_c`$ counting rules given in Section 2. A single pion exchange between the excited quark and a core quark is mapped to the operators $`g^{ia}G_c^{ja}\mathrm{}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ and $`g^{ia}G_c^{ia}`$, while pion exchange between two core quarks yields $`G_c^{ia}G_c^{ia}`$. These exhaust the possible two-body operators that have the desired spin-flavor structure. The first operator is one of the two in our preferred set. The third operator may be rewritten

$$2G_c^{ia}G_c^{ia}=C_21\frac{1}{2}T_c^aT_c^a\frac{1}{2}S_c^2$$
(3)
where $`C_2`$ is the SU(4) quadratic Casimir for the totally symmetric core representation (the 10 of SU(4) for $`N_c=3`$). Since the core wavefunction involves two spin and two flavor degrees of freedom, and is totally symmetric, it is straightforward to show that $`T_c^2=S_c^2`$. Then Eq. (3) implies that one may exchange $`G_c^{ia}G_c^{ia}`$ in favor of the identity operator and $`S_c^2`$, the second of the two operators suggested by our fits.

The remaining operator, $`g^{ia}G_c^{ia}`$, is peculiar in that its matrix element between two nonstrange, mixed symmetry states is given by

$$\frac{1}{N_c}gG=\frac{N_c+1}{16N_c}+\delta _{S,I}\frac{I(I+1)}{2N_c^2},$$
(4)
which differs from the identity only at order $`1/N_c^2`$. Thus to order $`1/N_c`$, one may make the replacements

$$\{1\text{ , }g^{ia}G_c^{ja}\mathrm{}_{ij}^{(2)}\text{ , }g^{ia}G_c^{ia}\text{ , }G_c^{ia}G_c^{ia}\}\{1\text{ , }g^{ia}G_c^{ja}\mathrm{}_{ij}^{(2)}\text{ , }S_c^2\}.$$
(5)
We conclude that the operator set suggested by the data may be understood in terms of single pion exchange between quark lines. This is consistent with the interpretation of the mass spectrum advocated by Glozman and Riska . Other simple models, such as single gluon exchange, do not directly select the operators suggested by our analysis and may require others that are disfavored by the data.

## Acknowledgments

C.D.C. thanks the National Science Foundation for support under Grant Nos. PHY-9800741 and PHY-9900657, and the Jeffress Memorial Trust for support under Grant No. J-532.

## References