text:
# Measurement of air shower cores to study the cosmic ray composition in the knee energy region

## I INTRODUCTION

It is commonly understood that the knee of the primary cosmic ray spectrum has its origin in the acceleration and propagation of high energy cosmic rays in the Galaxy. The model of the shock acceleration by supernova blast waves leads to the formation of a power-law spectrum of particle energies with a differential index of about -2 at sources . The plausible propagation models of their confinement by galactic magnetic fields and of their eventual escape from our Galaxy can explain well a steeper power-law spectrum than that at the source region , suggesting a rigidity-dependent bending for different cosmic ray composition. Within the framework of this picture the average mass of primary cosmic rays before the knee should increase with increasing primary energy. In other words, the knee composition should be heavily dominant as the proton spectrum may bend at an energy of about 100 TeV corresponding to a maximum energy gained by shock acceleration at supernova remnants.

While there is no consensus on the origin of cosmic rays with energies beyond the knee, observations of cosmic rays in such a high energy region may naturally stand in need of another acceleration mechanisms  or new cosmic ray sources . Among those, one of the most promising models may be that the cosmic rays come from extra-galactic sources such as active galactic nuclei , although the evidence is far from convincing. However, such an extra-galactic source model should predict proton enriched primary composition around and beyond the knee.

Thus, measurements of the primary cosmic rays around the knee are very important and its composition is a fundamental input for understanding the particle acceleration mechanism that pushes cosmic rays to very high energies. However, because of extremely low and steeply decreasing flux at high energies, direct measurements of primary cosmic rays on board balloons are still limited in the energy region to below a few hundred TeV . To date, the knee composition of primary cosmic rays has been studied by observing air showers with a large aperture ground-based apparatus. For air shower observations, a surface detector array is commonly set up to measure the lateral distributions and the arrival times of shower particles (mostly electrons and photons), which enable us to locate the core position, determine the arrival direction, and deduce the shower size and shower age . These are important basic parameters to describe an air shower, although they are not very sensitive to the primary composition. In order to study the composition around the knee, measurements of muon content in each air shower  or muons in deep underground , measurements of lateral distribution of air shower Cherenkov lights , or maximum depth of shower development using air Cherenkov telescopes , and multiparameter measurements of air showers  have been carried out and devoted to making the conclusion about the knee composition. In spite of great efforts so far, however, there is a divergence of conclusions on the composition from experiment to experiment and the knee composition is still the question at issue. Another approach may be required to get more direct information about the composition.

Within the ground-based air shower experiments those set up at higher altitudes are preferable for the physics studies at the knee region. The reasons include ; first, maximum development of showers with the knee energies is closer to the observation level, so that the shower is less fluctuated and the energy determination is more precise and less dependent upon the unknown composition  ; second, the energy flow in the core region of air showers is less attenuated and easier to observe with conventional calorimeters. High energy air-shower cores are sensitive to the composition of the primary cosmic rays around the knee. Air-shower cores contain a large part of the primary energy in the early stage of shower development, but with increasing atmospheric depth they are rapidly diffused with dissipation of their energies. Hence, the measurement of air-shower cores should be implemented at high altitude with a detector having a reasonably large area. In general a thick shower detector is required when one wants to record all (or most) hadronic components in the core, but this needs enormous heavy materials to absorb them in the detector. At high altitude, however, this can be achieved by observing the electromagnetic components in the core with a thin detector, since these are mostly the cascade products induced by high energy $`\pi ^0`$-decay $`\gamma `$ rays which are produced in the air shower cores. Therefore, the electromagnetic components in the core well reflect the major behavior of the whole hadronic components, keeping the sensitivity to the primary composition.

In this paper we report our study of the primary composition in the knee region using data of the Tibet burst detector and the air-shower array II. The experiment, including the apparatus and its performance, data set and background analysis, is introduced in Sec. II. The air-shower simulation and detector response calculation are described in Sec. III. The results and discussions are described in Sec. IV. A brief summary is given in Sec, V.

## II EXPERIMENT

### A Apparatus

We started a hybrid experiment of the emulsion chamber, the burst detector and the air shower array (Tibet-II) at Yangbajing (4300 m above sea level), Tibet in 1996 . The Tibet-II array consists of 221 scintillation counters of 0.5 m2 each which are placed on a 15 m square grid and has been operated since 1995. Any fourfold coincidence in the detectors is used as the trigger condition for air-shower events. Under this condition the trigger rate is about 200 Hz with a dead time of about 12% for data taking. The energy threshold is estimated to be about 7 TeV for proton induced showers. The precision of the shower direction determination is about $`1^{}`$, which has been confirmed by observing the Moon’s shadow . The main aim of Tibet-II is to search for $`\gamma `$-ray point sources at energies around 10 TeV. But it can also be used for the measurement of the spectrum of the total cosmic ray particles , and for the study of topics in the knee region by providing information of the shower size, direction, core position, and arrival time of each air-shower event to the core detectors .

The emulsion chambers and the burst detectors are used to detect high-energy air-shower cores accompanied by air showers induced by primary cosmic rays with energies above 1014 eV. They are set up separately in two rooms as shown in Fig. 1 and placed near the center of the Tibet-II array. A basic structure of each emulsion chamber used here is a multilayered sandwich of lead plates and photosensitive x-ray films. Photosensitive layers are put every 2 cascade unit (c.u.) (1 c.u. = 0.5 cm) of lead in the chamber as shown in Figure 2. There are 400 units of emulsion chamber, each with an area of 40 cm $`\times `$ 50 cm with the total thickness of 15 c.u., giving the total sensitive area of 80 m2, and 100 units of burst detectors each with an effective area of 160 cm $`\times `$ 50 cm. Four units of the emulsion chamber are put above one unit of the burst detector. A 1 cm iron plate is put between emulsion chambers and burst detectors.

Each burst detector consists of a plastic scintillator with the size of 160 cm $`\times `$ 50 cm and thickness of 2 cm, and four photodiodes (PDs) are attached at four corners of each scintillator to read light signals generated by shower particles produced in the lead and iron absorber above the detector. From the analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) values of four PDs the total number (i.e., burst size $`N_b`$) and the position of the number-weighted center of all shower particles that hit a burst detector can be estimated. The response of the burst detector is calibrated using electron beams from an accelerator. The performance of the burst detector and the calibration using the electron beams are briefly summarized in the Appendix. It is confirmed that the measurable shower size by each burst detector ranges from $`10^4`$ to $`3\times 10^6`$, roughly corresponding to showers with energies ranging from several times 100 GeV to about 300 TeV. A burst event is triggered when any two-fold coincidence of signals from four PDs of a burst detector appears. The coincidence of a burst event and an air-shower event is made by their arrival times, and the coincidence of a burst event and a family event observed in the emulsion chamber is made by their positions and directions. (A burst event and its accompanying air shower have the same direction.)

In this analysis we use only the data obtained from all burst detectors and the Tibet-II array, while the emulsion chamber data will be reported elsewhere in the very near future. Using the burst detector array shown in Fig. 1, the electromagnetic components in the air-shower cores can be measured in the area within a radius of several meters.

### B Data set

The data set of the burst detector used for this work was taken from 16 October 1996 to 1 June 1999. First we scanned the target maps of all events with the naked eye. All those events showing a systematic noise configuration were ruled out during the first scanning. Then we removed the events that were not coincident with the air-shower events recorded by the Tibet-II array. Finally we imposed the following conditions on the events : (1) when the number of fired detectors is only one, its size $`N_b`$ should be larger than $`5\times 10^4`$ ; and (2) when more than one detector is fired, the largest size (hereafter for each event we call the detector that observed the highest burst size the TOP detector) should be larger than $`5\times 10^4`$ and also the size of any other one should be larger than $`3\times 10^4`$ (minimum size).

From this procedure, we selected 9278 events in total. Two examples of the burst detector events are shown in Fig. 3, where the scale of the marks is logarithmically proportional to the burst size. A remarkable core structure in the event pattern may be recognized.

### C Background analysis

We carefully examined whether some background exists in the data of each event since the whole burst detector is separated into two sections and there is a distance of 9 m between them. In the following, we call the section containing the TOP detector as the “TOP section”, and the other as the “OTHER section”. We first examined whether those bursts located far from the TOP detector still contain signals or not. For this, we divided all events into five groups according to the TOP detector in which each event was in the first, second, third, fourth and fifth column of the TOP section, and then the size distribution of any one burst detector in the OTHER section was obtained, respectively, for each group. It is expected that if the bursts recorded in the OTHER section contain signals, their burst size distribution should be different with different event groups because they have different core distances. However these five distributions, which are taken from the first year’s data set, are almost the same as seen in Fig. 4, showing to be independent of the core distance. This suggests that when the distance to the TOP detector (i.e., to the air-shower core), is larger than 10 m almost all recorded bursts are formed by noises ranging from $`10^2`$ to $`3\times 10^4`$ under our experimental conditions. The same burst size distributions in the OTHER section are seen from the data sets of the second and third year’s observation, showing that a stable noise existed during the whole period of the operation. Therefore, the distribution showing in Fig. 4 is recognized as the background coming from our experimental conditions. These noises may be mostly induced by an incomplete ground connection of the detectors to the earth. Actually, when the thunder is rumbling, an increase of the noises is observed. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that some background may still exist in the data of the TOP section although the minimum shower size for the burst detector is set to be $`3\times 10^4`$ in the present analysis. The treatment of the background is discussed later when the data are compared with the simulation.

## III MONTE CARLO SIMULATION

### A Air-shower simulation

Air showers induced by different primary particles were generated by using the Monte Carlo codes CORSIKA-QGSJET  and COSMOS  which have been used for many cosmic ray experiments and shown to be able to explain many quantities at the energy region below and around the knee fairly well. The all-particle spectrum measured by the Tibet AS$`\gamma `$ Collaboration  is used as the input of simulations. The minimum energy of primary particles to be sampled is taken to be 500 TeV and the zenith angle at the top of the atmosphere is uniformly sampled between $`0^{}`$ and $`45^{}`$. Since the chemical composition of primary particles is unknown around the knee region, four different composition models are examined to compare with the experiment. While two of them, being pure protons and pure irons, are extreme assumptions, these provide some boundary of predictions used as the first check of the interaction models adopted in the Monte Carlo simulation. When some data happen to be outside the boundary, this may raise some points in the interaction models that must be ruled out. Two others are the heavy dominant (HD) and proton dominant (PD) models , which are shown in Fig. 5. In both models the chemical composition is divided into seven groups : proton, helium, light ($`L,Z=8`$), medium ($`M,Z=14`$), heavy ($`H,Z=25`$), very heavy ($`VH,Z=35`$) and iron. The HD model may be related to a supernova acceleration and rigidity dependent propagation model in that the proton component is assumed to bend at energy of about 100 TeV. The fraction of the iron component increases with increasing primary energy, resulting in the primary becoming heavy dominant at the knee. The PD model assumes a proton dominant chemical composition over the whole knee energy region, while all components bend at energies of 2000 TeV. In both HD and PD models the summation of all individual spectra of different nuclear species is fitted to the observed total particle spectrum as shown in Fig. 5.

In this simulation all shower particles are followed by a full Monte Carlo method until their energies become 1 GeV. Although the smallest burst size to be observed per detector is taken to be $`3\times 10^4`$ (see Sec. II B), corresponding to a few to 10 TeV for a single $`\gamma `$-ray or a single electron incident on the surface of the burst detector, we need to follow shower particles untill 1 GeV since a large number of low energy particles near the shower core hitting the detector make a contribution to the observed burst size that is not negligible.***Setting the lowest energy at 1 GeV does not mean the observational threshold of our burst detector is as low as 1 GeV. The major contribution to the burst events as we analyzed in this work comes from particles with energy higher than 100 GeV. However, we determined that a contribution from shower particles lower than 1 GeV is insignificant, i.e., smaller than $`1\%`$.

### B Simulation for burst detector

Shower developments in the burst detector were calculated based on the data obtained using a Monte Carlo code, EPICS . When an air-shower event reaches the observation level it is dropped within the area of 14 m$`\times `$21 m (294 m2) for that one section of the whole burst detector is assumed to be located in its central part. For each air-shower particle with energy higher than 1 GeV (electrons, positrons and $`\gamma `$ rays. Further interactions of pions and muons in the detector are neglected.) its cascade development in the detector is calculated analytically and then the number of cascade particles just below the lead and iron plates is obtained. The analytical formulae used here were made by modifying the well known cascade functions  and the parameters involved in the formulae were adjusted by using the data from a set of Monte Carlo events generated by EPICS. Fluctuations of the number of cascade particles are adequately taken into account. Air-shower cores enter at various positions of the burst detector and then charged particles passing through the scintillator emit photons. Photons are assumed to attenuate in the scintillator as $`r^{1.2}`$, where $`r`$ is the distance between the shower hit position and one of the four PDs (see Appendix). In this detector simulation, these are taken into account to get an ADC signal from each photodiode. A size $`N_b`$ and its hit position of burst event in each detector are then estimated with the same procedure as the experiment. Because of the saturation of ADC outputs, the detectable size per burst detector is limited to be smaller than about $`3\times 10^6`$.

### C Background treatment

As shown in the previous section, there exist some noises in the data, so their effects must be carefully taken into account. We also found that for the experimental data it is difficult to subtract the background in the TOP section in a correct way. Then an opposite approach is adopted here. That is, in order to compensate the effects from the background we added the experimental background to the simulation samples as follows: for any one of the simulated events, a background event is randomly taken from the experimental background data set that contains about $`10^4`$ events, and then this background event is added to the simulated event at their corresponding positions of the noise detectors.

## IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

### A Event selection

For a further analysis, we selected the events from both the experimental data set and the Monte Carlo data set by imposing the following criteria (for convenience hereafter we call it “criteria-A”) : (1) Zenith angle $`45^{}`$ ; (2) burst size of the TOP detector, $`N_b^{top}5\times 10^4`$ ; (3) burst size of any non-TOP detector, $`N_b^{nontop}`$ $`3\times 10^4`$ ; and (4) number of fired detectors, $`N_{bd}4`$.

By this selection 1046 events are obtained from the experimental data set. The time interval between two neighboring events is examined and an exponential-type distribution is confirmed, indicating a good randomness of this data sample. The effective running time of this sample is estimated to be 7.54 $`\times 10^7`$ s. Also, as we adopt only the burst events which are coincident with the air-shower events recorded by the Tibet-II array, a dead time of 12 % for data taking of the array must be taken into account. Hence, when we discuss the flux of the burst events, we should use 1172 ( = 1046 $`\times `$ 1.12) as the number of burst events satisfying criteria-A.

For the simulations, as mentioned above, we generated air-shower events using different primary assumptions for which the primary particles were sampled from the same all-particle spectrum starting from 500 TeV. 14810, 9143, 8463 and 10591 events satisfying criteria-A were obtained by the composition assumptions of pure protons, PD, HD, and pure irons, respectively, which are about 8 - 14 times larger than the experimental data set. Figure 6 shows the energy distributions of the primary particles responsible for generating the samples of selected burst events for these four assumptions. It is seen that the mode energy of primary protons capable of generating the selected burst events is about 2500 TeV, while about 5000 TeV for irons. Therefore, the burst event samples satisfying criteria-A can easily manifest the behavior of primary particles in the knee region.

### B Flux of the burst events

We first discuss the primary composition from the point of the intensity of the burst events satisfying criteria-A.

Using the all-particle spectrum obtained by the Tibet air-shower experiment, the number of primary particles with energies above 1016 eV and with zenith angles less than 45, which fall within the effective burst-detector area of 2 $`\times `$ 294 m2 (corresponding to the effective area of two separated rooms) during the running time of $`7.54\times 10^7`$ s, is calculated to be 1105. From the simulations, on the other hand, the efficiencies of the primary particles with energy in excess of 1016 eV to generate the burst events satisfying criteria-A are calculated to be 0.33, 0.32, 0.31, and 0.30 for the primary models of pure protons, PD, HD, and pure irons, respectively. Thus, among the 1105 incidences with energies higher than $`10^{16}`$ eV, 365, 354, 343, and 332 events satisfying criteria-A should be observed for four primary composition models, respectively.

The simulation study also tells us that when the composition models of pure protons, PD, HD, and pure irons are assumed, the fractions of the selected burst events induced by the primaries with energies above $`10^{16}`$ eV to the total selected burst events are calculated to be 0.11, 0.16, 0.25, and 0.39, respectively. Accordingly the total selected events expected to be observed are 3438, 2245, 1391 and 845 events, respectively. These values should be compared with 1,172 events which are truly observed with the experiment. The ratios of the Monte Carlo expectation to the observation are 2.9, 1.9, 1.2 and 0.7 for the four primary models, respectively. One can see that the HD model is consistent with the experiment, that is, the primary composition around the knee is required to be heavily enriched.

In the following, all the simulation results are normalized to the experimental one to discuss the behavior of the burst events. Therefore, all the distributions are given in the ordinate with “number of events” that may just correspond to the amount of our experimental exposure which is directly related to the absolute intensity. The error bars of the data in the following figures are statistical ones.

Shown in Figs. 7 and 8 are the total burst size $`N_b`$ distribution, where the summation is done over all fired detectors satisfying criteria-A for each event, and its accompanying air-shower size $`N_e`$ distribution, respectively. A steep slope of the burst size spectrum at their large size region is attributed to the saturation effect of ADC outputs from the PDs which are not included in the simulation. Disregarding a well-ground discrepancy at their large size region, it is well seen that the intensity of the total burst size spectrum, i.e. the measured total electromagnetic component of the air-shower cores in the knee region, is compatible with the prediction of HD, while it is a factor of 2 lower than that of PD. A similar situation is also seen in the air-shower size spectrum.

Figure 9 shows the the ratio of $`N_b`$ to $`N_e`$. It is seen that this ratio is sensitive to the primary composition at the region of the ratio $`>1.5`$ and the data are consistent with the HD model. According to the Monte Carlo simulation, there is a tendency for the events with larger $`N_b`$ and smaller $`N_e`$ to be mostly induced by protons and helium nuclei. Incidentally, it may be said that although the data are seemingly consistent with the HD model, the saturation effect of the burst size determination (this is not taken into the simulation) and the to-be-improved air-shower size fit seen in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 may cause some deviation from the HD model. We confirmed, however, that even if such corrections are made the result does not change much.

### C Lateral spreads of the burst events

Figure 10 shows the distribution of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }r`$ of each burst, where $`r`$ is the the distance (in meters) between the TOP detector’s position and the other detector’s position, and the summation is over the whole fired detectors in each event. A double peak seen in the distribution is due to an oblong arrangement of the burst detector units with a regular spacing as shown in Fig. 1. It is seen that the proton-induced events make more sharp distribution than heavier nuclei. The experimental data are also consistent with the HD model.

To examine the sensitivity of the lateral spread of air-shower cores to the composition, we made the distributions of the value $`log<N_b>/<r>`$ for the experimental and simulated data as shown in Fig. 11, where $`<N_b>`$, the averaged burst size for one event, is divided by $`<r>`$, the averaged lateral distance between the fired detector and the TOP detector for the same event, and the distribution is made over all selected burst events. The distributions of the lateral gradient of burst size defined as $`[log(N_b^{top})log(N_b)]/r`$ for each burst of all events are also presented in Figure 12. Both distributions seem to be more sensitive than others to the composition. In both cases the HD composition model can explain the experiment well.

The number of fired burst detectors $`N_{bd}`$ also depends on the lateral spread of their air-shower core. In criteria-A at least four detectors are required to be fired and the average number ranges from 5.3 to 6.6. The $`N_{bd}`$ distribution is shown in Fig. 13 and is also consistent with that of the HD model as discussed above.

### D Systematic uncertainties

We briefly discuss the systematic errors of our results. The largest one is from the uncertainty of the total primary flux. We used the all particle spectrum measured by the Tibet air-shower experiment, and the systematic errors of this result are estimated to be 20%-30% for absolute intensity. The other may come from the Monte Carlo code we used. In this study, we used the CORSIKA-QGSJET code. While CORSIKA-QGSJET uses a quark-gluon string phenomenology to describe the hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus interactions, COSMOS is another code using a different physics picture ( a Lund string model in the lower energy region, but a quasi-scaling assumption in the higher energy region) for the hadronic and nuclear interactions. It is confirmed that an air-shower simulation using COSMOS+HD and a detector response calculation using EPICS give almost completely the same results as CORSIKA+HD. We compare the distributions of the total burst size and the total lateral distance, those obtained by using both codes, in Figs. 14 and 15, respectively. It is seen that two simulation codes give almost the same results for both distributions. Hence, the results discussed above do not depend on the Monte Carlo code we used.

## V SUMMARY

We carried out a hybrid experiment, consisting of the burst detector and emulsion chamber array and the Tibet-II air shower array, at Yangbajing (4300 m above sea level) in Tibet during the period from 1996 through 1999. From this experiment, we observed more than 1000 burst events (high-energy air-shower cores) accompanying air showers with energies at the knee region. Using this data set, we studied the cosmic ray composition at the knee energy region in comparison with extensive Monte Carlo data. All the behavior of the observed burst events are shown to be compatible with the heavily enriched primary composition at the knee. This result suggests that the mean mass number of the primary particles around 1016 eV is close to silicon or medium nuclei when the composition shown in Fig. 5(top) is assumed. If we combine this with the proton spectrum observed with the same experiment , the cosmic composition at the knee region may be in favor of shock acceleration at supernova remnants, suggesting a break of the proton spectrum at energies around 100 TeV.

We are planning to set up a large-scale burst array, consisting of 20 $`\times `$ 20 scintillation counters of 0.20 m2 each (50 cm $`\times `$ 40 cm) which are placed at a 1$``$2 m grid, near the center of the Tibet air shower array. A 5 cm lead plate may be put on the top of each scintillator to detect the burst events accompanying air showers. By operating this new burst array for 1 yr, we may observe about 2500 proton-induced events and about 700 iron-induced evens whose primary energies are in the knee region. A Monte Carlo study shows that such burst array can provide information about each component of the primary cosmic rays at the knee with sufficient statistics. This experiment will start within a few years.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research and also for International Science Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture in Japan and the Committee of the Natural Science Foundation and the Academy of Sciences in China. The support of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (L.K.D., X.W.X., and C.S.Z.) is also acknowledged.  APPENDIX
PERFORMANCE OF THE BURST DETECTOR USED IN THIS EXPERIMENT  Each burst detector contains a plastic scintillator with the size of 160 cm $`\times `$ 50 cm $`\times `$ 2 cm. A PIN PD (HPK S2744-03) with an effective area of 2 cm $`\times `$ 1 cm was equipped at each four corner of each scintillator, as shown in Fig. 16. To detect signals from a PD for burst particles ranging from 103 to 107, a preamplifier with an amplification factor of 260 operating in the frequency range from 17 kHz to 44 MHz (current-current type) was developed. An ADC value from each PD, depending on the size and the hit position of a burst (shower) fallen in the burst detector, can be expressed as $`KN_b(r)`$, where $`r`$ is the distance between a PD and the burst position in the scintillator, $`N_b`$ is the burst size and $`K`$ is a constant. Using the ADC values from four corners, we can estimate the size and hit position for each burst event using a least-square method. In this formula, $`f(r)`$ denotes the attenuation of photons in the scintillator. In general $`f(r)`$ can be expressed as exp(-$`r/\lambda `$) except at small distance $`r`$ and $`\lambda `$ takes a value around 350 cm for the present scintillator. Since the size of the burst detector is smaller than the attenuation length, errors of the burst hit position become very large. So first we slightly polished one face of each scintillator with rough sandpaper (No.60) to make photons scatter randomly on this face. Then we found that $`f(r)`$ can be well approximated as $`r^\alpha `$ and $`\alpha `$ $``$ 1.1 - 1.2. This relation was confirmed by using a nitrogen gas laser and also cosmic ray muons. This dependence on the distance $`r`$ is sufficient to estimate the burst position in the detector. We also installed a calibration unit which consists of four blue light-emitting diodes (LEDs) each having a peak wave length of 450 nm. The LED unit is put on the center of each scintillator and is illuminated to transmit light through the scintillator to each PD at the corner uniformly, and then all the ADC’s are calibrated at every 10 min for actual run. This calibration system provides information about a relative change of ADC values, which may cause a large error for the estimation of burst hit positions and burst sizes. We examined the performance of the burst detector using electron beams of 1.0 GeV/c from the KEK-Tanashi Electron Synchrotron. The beam consisted of spills containing about 108 particles with a time spread of about 10 $`\mu sec`$. In order to generate mimic burst events from these bunched beams, we randomly extracted part of the particles from the beam spills by adjusting a gate width of ADC to 1.2 $`\mu s`$. The number of electrons passing through a given gate width was estimated by the signals from a probe scintillator of 10 cm $`\times `$ 10 cm placed upstream. Consequently, the electron beams, ranging from several $`\times 10^4`$ to $`3\times 10^5`$ per pulse, were vertically exposed to 23 positions on the surface of the burst detector as shown in Fig. 17. Figure 18 shows the dependence of the ADC values on the distance $`r`$, obtained with the electron beams, where $`r`$ is the distance between the beam hit position and PD. The result can be well fitted by a power law of $`r`$, where the number of incident electrons measured by the probe scintillator was normalized to 105 particles. Using the ADC values from four PDs, the beam positions exposed on the face of the detector and its intensities (number of electrons) were estimated to compare with the true ones. The distribution of the difference between estimated and actual hit positions is shown in Fig. 19. We present scatter plots of the estimated and irradiated number of electrons in Fig. 20, and the distribution of the ratio between them is shown in Fig. 21. From these figures, it is concluded that the hit position of a burst in each detector can be estimated with an inaccuracy less than 10 cm and errors for the size estimation are smaller than 10 % for the bursts with size $`>10^5`$ particles.


format: text

text:
# 1 Motivations from Physics and Mathematics

## 1 Motivations from Physics and Mathematics

Diverse branches of physics and mathematics provide many examples of quantities which are known to have the same statistical properties as the eigenvalues of large random matrices. This is the case for quantum chaos — the study of the quantum mechanics of systems which exhibit chaos at the classical level. Here random matrices have emerged as a paradigm, in that those systems for which the underlying classical mechanics is chaotic are observed to have energy levels with the same statistical properties as the eigenvalues of large random matrices, while systems with integrable classical dynamics do not. Many examples are known from the study of two-dimensional billiard systems — a single particle in a closed domain in two dimensions. One of the most celebrated is the Sinai billiard, which is a square billiard with a hard wall circular scatterer in the centre. Numerical studies show that this system, which is known to be chaotic at the classical level, has energy levels with the same statistical properties of large real symmetric matrices (see e.g. ). The status of our understanding is reflected in a conjecture by Bohigas-Giannoni-Schmit which states:

> “The spectra of time-reversal invariant systems whose classical analogues are K-systems show the same fluctuation properties as predicted by the GOE.”

Here GOE refers to the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble of random real symmetric matrices and K-systems are the most strongly mixing classical systems. The time reversal symmetry is responsible for the requirement that the random matrices have real entries.

Another fascinating and enigmatic connection is that of random matrix theory and number theory, which concerns the statistics of the large zeros of the Riemann zeta function on the critical line. Incredible numerical evidence of Odlyzko  based on the calculation of the critical zeros well into the asymptotic regime (zero number $`10^{20}`$ and $`10^6`$ of its neighbours) has convincingly shown their statistics to accurately follow the Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE) of random Hermitian matrices predictions. This connection was first observed in analytic work of Montgomery  on the pair correlations of the zeros. Denoting

$$s_n=\text{“sevenrm1}\text{/}\text{“sevenrm2}+iE_n,d(E)=\underset{n1}{}\delta (EE_n),$$
(1)
for the zeros and their density respectively, the asymptotic pair correlation was evaluated as

$`1+S(\stackrel{~}{ϵ})\underset{E\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d(E)d(E+ϵ)}{d(E)d(E+ϵ)}}`$ $`=\delta (\stackrel{~}{ϵ})+1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\pi \stackrel{~}{ϵ}}{(\pi \stackrel{~}{ϵ})^2}}`$ (2)
$`=1+S_{GUE}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ})`$ (3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}ϵ/d(E)`$. This prediction, and other statistical measures of the asymptotic zeros such as spacing statistics, were tested in the numerical work of Odlyzko with almost perfect agreement being found at a graphical level.

## 2 Matrix Ensembles, Statistical Mechanics of Levels

We take as an example of a random matrix ensemble the GUE, which in application to chaotic quantum systems applies in the case of no time-reversal symmetry $`[H,T]0`$. One constructs a $`N\times N`$ Hermitian matrix $`X`$ by taking real diagonal elements $`x_{jj}`$ to be independently chosen with p.d.f.

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}e^{x_{jj}^2},$$
(4)
and upper triangular elements $`x_{jk}u_{jk}+iv_{jk}`$ are independently chosen with p.d.f.

$$\frac{2}{\pi }e^{2(u_{jk}^2+v_{jk}^2)}=\frac{2}{\pi }e^{2|x_{jk}|^2}.$$
(5)
The joint p.d.f. for elements of $`X`$ is then

$$P(X)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{x_{jj}^2}\underset{1j<kN}{}e^{2|x_{jk}|^2}=\underset{1j,kN}{}e^{|x_{jk}|^2}=e^{\mathrm{Tr}(X^2)}.$$
(6)
This distribution function is invariant under arbitrary unitary transformations

$$P(U^1XU)=P(X),$$
(7)
and hence the naming of the ensemble. The Gaussian form of the p.d.f. can be uniquely characterised by the invariance (7) and the factorisation property

$$P(X)=\underset{j,k}{}f(x_{jk}).$$
(8)
Alternatively it is the unique p.d.f. which maximises the entropy

$$S[P]=\mu (dX)P\mathrm{log}P,$$
(9)
subject to the constraint $`\mathrm{Tr}X^2=N^2`$. Primary interest centres on the eigenvalue level statistics and so a description in terms of eigenvalues is required. This is achieved by the mapping

$$\text{“sevenrm1}\text{/}\text{“sevenrm2}N(N+1)\text{elements}\{x_{ij}\}\{\begin{array}{cc}N\text{eigenvalues}\hfill & \lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _N\hfill \\ \text{“sevenrm1}\text{/}\text{“sevenrm2}N(N1)\text{variables}\hfill & p_1,\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where the $`p_i`$ are related to the eigenvectors. Using the transformation of Hermitian matrices to the diagonal representation the volume form is correspondingly transformed as

$$(dX)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_{jj}\underset{1j<kN}{}du_{jk}dv_{jk}=(U^{}dU)\underset{1j<kN}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\lambda _j.$$
(11)
This eigenvalue and eigenvector dependence thus factorises. The eigenvalue pdf can then be written as

$$P(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N)=\frac{1}{C_N}e^{_j\lambda _j^2}\underset{1j<kN}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^2.$$
(12)
This p.d.f. is proportional to the Boltzmann weight factor

$$p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=\frac{1}{C_{\beta N}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}w(x_j)\underset{1j<kN}{}|x_jx_k|^\beta =\frac{1}{Z_N}e^{\beta U(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)},$$
(13)
from equilibrium statistical mechanics for a system of $`N`$ charges on the line (or circle) at temperature $`1/\beta `$ located at positions $`x_j`$, and with the total potential energy

$$U(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{1jN}{}\mathrm{ln}w(x_j)\underset{1j<kN}{}\mathrm{ln}|x_jx_k|,$$
(14)
(with $`\mathrm{log}w(x)=x^2`$) composed of a 1-body confining potential (the first term) and a 2-body electrostatic interaction (the second term). Consequently a configuration integral can be defined

$$Z_N=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_Ne^{\beta U}.$$
(15)
The gap probability, or probability for the exclusion of eigenvalues from an interval $`I`$, is a fundamental statistic underlying the spacing distribution and is defined by

$$E_\beta (0;I)=\frac{1}{Z_N}_{\overline{I}}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}_{\overline{I}}𝑑x_Ne^{\beta U},$$
(16)
with $`\overline{I}=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})\backslash I`$, however this form is often not suitable to work with. Instead we seek a form involving the $`n`$-particle distribution function

$`\rho _n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ $`<{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1\mathrm{}j_nN}{}}\delta (x_1x_{j_1})\mathrm{}\delta (x_nx_{j_n})>,`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N!}{(Nn)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_N}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x_{n+1}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x_Ne^{\beta U(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)}.`$ (17)
This can be done by introducing the generating functional

$$Z_N[a]\frac{1}{Z_N}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_N\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[1+a(x_l)\right]e^{\beta U(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)},$$
(18)
expanding out the product and using the definition (17) to obtain the formula

$$Z_N[a]=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_n\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}a(x_l)\rho _n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n).$$
(19)
Choosing $`a(x)`$ to be the characteristic function of $`I`$ so that

$`a(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if}xI\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if}xI,\hfill \end{array}`$ (20)
we see that (18) coincides with the definition (16) of $`E_\beta (0;I)`$ and (19) then gives

$$E_\beta (0;I)=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{n!}_I𝑑x_1\mathrm{}_I𝑑x_n\rho _n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n).$$
(21)
The probability $`E_\beta (0;I)`$ determines the p.d.f. that given there is a particle at $`a_1`$, the nearest neighbour to the right is at $`a_2`$, through the formula

$`p_\beta (0;(a_1,a_2))`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)}{\rho (a_1)Z_N}}{\displaystyle _{\overline{I}}}𝑑x_3\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\overline{I}}}𝑑x_Ne^{\beta U(a_1,a_2,x_3,\mathrm{},x_N)},`$ (22)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho (a_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{a_1a_2}}E_\beta (0;(a_1,a_2)).`$ (23)
The distribution $`p_\beta (0;(a_1,a_2))`$ is readily measured empirically, especially in the bulk region of the spectrum when translation invariance gives $`p_\beta (0;(a_1,a_2))=p_\beta (0;|a_1a_2|)`$.

## 3 Fredholm Integral Operators

For $`\beta =2`$ the probability $`E_\beta (0;I)`$ can be written as the determinant of a Fredholm integral operator . To show this we make use of the fact that the general $`n`$-particle distribution has the determinant representation

$$\rho _n(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=det[K(x_i,x_j)]_{i,j=1}^n,$$
(24)
where, with $`\{p_n(x)\}_{n=0,1,\mathrm{}}`$ the orthonormal polynomials with respect to the weight function $`w(x)`$,

$$K(x,y)[w(x)w(y)]^{1/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}p_n(x)p_n(y),$$
(25)
With $`a_n`$ denoting the coefficient of $`x^n`$ in $`p_n(x)`$ the Christoffel-Darboux summation gives

$`K(x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{a_{N1}}{a_N}}[w(x)w(y)]^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{p_N(x)p_{N1}(y)p_{N1}(x)p_N(y)}{xy}},`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (x)\psi (y)\varphi (y)\psi (x)}{xy}}`$ (26)
The determinant formula (24) substituted in (21) gives a well known  expansion formula for the determinant of an integral operator in terms of its kernel. Explicitly

$$E(0;I)=det(𝕀𝕂)$$
(27)
where $`𝕂`$ is the integral operator on $`I`$ with kernel $`K(x,y)`$.

Tracy and Widom  have shown that by introducing a number of auxiliary quantities related to $`𝕂`$, for some special choices of $`w(x)`$ and $`I`$ the Fredholm determinant (27) can be specified in terms of the solution of a nonlinear equation. The auxiliary quantities required are the operators

$$\frac{𝕂}{𝕀𝕂}R(x,y),\frac{𝕀}{𝕀𝕂}\rho (x,y),$$
(28)
where the notation $`𝔸A(x,y)`$ denotes that the integral operator $`𝔸`$ has kernel $`A(x,y)`$; the pair of functions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q(x)& =_I𝑑y\rho (x,y)\varphi (y)(𝕀𝕂)^1\varphi ,\hfill \\ \hfill P(x)& =_I𝑑y\rho (x,y)\psi (y)(𝕀𝕂)^1\psi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
$$q_j\underset{xa_j}{lim}Q(x),p_j\underset{xa_j}{lim}P(x);$$
(30)
and the scalar products

$`u`$ $`=\varphi |Q={\displaystyle _I}𝑑yQ(y)\varphi (y),`$
$`v`$ $`=\psi |Q={\displaystyle _I}𝑑yQ(y)\psi (y)=\varphi |P={\displaystyle _I}𝑑yP(y)\varphi (y),`$ (31)
$`w`$ $`=\psi |P={\displaystyle _I}𝑑yP(y)\psi (y).`$
The essence of the Tracy & Widom machinery in this setting is to set up a system of partial differential equations for the above quantities with respect to the endpoints of the interval, defined by $`I=(a_1,a_2)`$. One set of equations are universal while a second set of differential equations describes the coincident functions and their derivatives, and includes specific features of the particular orthogonal polynomial system at hand. In particular one requires the differential-recurrence relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill m(x)\varphi ^{}(x)& =A(x)\varphi (x)+B(x)\psi (x),\hfill \\ \hfill m(x)\psi ^{}(x)& =C(x)\varphi (x)A(x)\psi (x),\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
where $`m,A,B,C`$ are polynomials in $`x`$ parameterised by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill m(x)& =\mu _0+\mu _1x+\mu _2x^2,\hfill \\ \hfill A(x)& =\alpha _0+\alpha _1x,\hfill \\ \hfill B(x)& =\beta _0+\beta _1x,\hfill \\ \hfill C(x)& =\gamma _0+\gamma _1x,\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
which is a common structure for the classical orthogonal polynomials.

## 4 Spacing p.d.f. and Painlevé transcendents

The classical weights are

$$w(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{x^2},\hfill & \mathrm{Gaussian}\hfill \\ x^ae^x,x>0,\hfill & \mathrm{Laguerre}\hfill \\ (1x)^a(1+x)^b,1<x<1,\hfill & \mathrm{Jacobi},\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
which together with their corresponding orthonormal polynomials give rise to functions $`\varphi (x)`$, $`\psi (x)`$ satisfying (32) and (33). For general parameters in all these cases, it has only been possible to characterise $`E_2(0;I)`$ in terms of a nonlinear equation when the interval $`I`$ includes an endpoint of the support of $`w(x)`$ and so depends only on one variable. It turns out that then the auxiliary quantities $`q^{}/q`$, $`p^{}/p`$ and $`RR(s,s)`$, as well as the probability $`E_2(0;I)`$ can be expressed in terms of Painlevé transcendents.

In Tables 1–3 we list the evaluations for the three classical weights respectively. Also listed are the specific coefficients (33), and an equation or equations (integrals of motion) relating the quantities.

To illustrate the construction of these tables, consider the Jacobi weight with $`I=(1,s)`$. Direct application of the Tracy and Widom theory gives the coupled differential equations

$`[\mathrm{ln}E_2]^{}`$ $`=R,`$ (35)
$`(1s^2)q^{}`$ $`=[\alpha _0+\alpha _1s+v]q+[\beta _0+u(2\alpha _11)]p,`$ (36)
$`(1s^2)p^{}`$ $`=[\gamma _0w(2\alpha _1+1)]q[\alpha _0+\alpha _1s+v]p,`$ (37)
$`u^{}`$ $`=q^2,`$ (38)
$`v^{}`$ $`=qp,`$ (39)
$`w^{}`$ $`=p^2,`$ (40)
$`(1s^2)R`$ $`=[\gamma _0w(2\alpha _1+1)]q^2+[\beta _0+u(2\alpha _11)]p^2+[\alpha _0+\alpha _1s+v]2qp`$ (41)
$`\left[(1s^2)R\right]^{}`$ $`=2\alpha _1qp,`$ (42)
From this system of differential equations two integrals can be constructed , which are given in Table 3, and using these a sequence of eliminations leads to a second degree second order differential equation for $`\sigma (s)(1s^2)R(s)`$. This was first found in an indirect manner in . In Table 3 we identify the solution of this equation with a number of P-VI transcendents, and give that specific mapping in the first case listed. For this purpose we use theory from .

## 5 Conclusions

In this work we have considered the evaluation of the gap probability $`E_2(0;I)`$ for the classical weights (34) with $`I`$ including an endpoint of the support. This quantity, and the auxiliary quantities $`p^{}/p`$, $`q^{}/q`$ and $`RR(s,s)`$, are given in terms of Painlevé transcendents thereby extending findings of earlier works . Our approach has been to construct all the integrals of the motion which allows us to reduce the system of differential equations arising in the Tracy and Widom formalism to a single second order ODE by the most direct path possible. Furthermore we have displayed the appearance of the Painlevé transcendents in the random matrix context in a transparent manner, which we consider to be essential for an understanding of the relevance of integrability in this situation.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the theories where our four dimensional world is a 3-brane embedded in a higher dimensional space , the conventional Kaluza-Klein scenario would be modified drastically. In most works on the Kaluza-Klein compactification thus far, a higher dimensional manifold is assumed to be composed of as a direct product of a non-compact four dimensional Minkowski space-time and a compact internal manifold with the size of the compact space being set by the Planck scale. However, in this approach it seems to be quite difficult to stabilize the size of all the internal dimensions around the Planck scale via some non-perturbative effects. This problem should be solved in the brane world 222In a supersymmetric model, flat directions could appear so that the stability problem of moduli seems at first glance to be not so important as in a non-supersymmetric model. But in this case, we need the fine-tuning of the parameters..

In recent years, an alternative scenario of the compactification has been put forward . This new idea is based on the possibility that our world is a 3-brane embedded in a higher dimensional space-time with non-factorizable warped geometry. In this scenario, we are free from the moduli stabilization problem in the sense that the internal manifold is noncompact and does not need to be compactified to the Planck scale any more, which is one of reasons why this new compactification scenario has attracted so much attention. An important ingredient of this scenario is that all the matter fields are thought of as confined to the a 3-brane, whereas gravity is free to propagate in the extra dimensions. Such localization of matters would be indeed possible in D-brane theory  and M-theory , but at present it is far from complete to realize the Rundall-Sundrum model  within the framework of superstring theory. Thus, it is worthwhile to explore whether such localization is also possible in the local field theory.

In fact, the localization mechanism has been recently investigated in $`AdS_5`$ space . In particular, it is shown that spin 0 field is localized on a brane with positive tension which also localizes the graviton , while spin 1 field is not localized neither on a brane with positive tension nor on a brane with negative tension . Moreover, it is shown that spin 1/2 and 3/2 fields are localized not on a brane with positive tension but on a brane with negative tension . Thus, in order to fulfill the localization of Standard Model particles on a brane with positive tension, it seems that some additional interactions except gravity must be also introduced in the bulk.

More recently, the possibility of extending the Randall-Sundrum domain wall model to higher dimensional topological objects was explored . In particular, we find that Einstein’s equations admit a string-like defect with codimension 2 in addition to a domain wall with codimension 1 333In this terminology, topological defects with codimension 3 and 4, respectively, would be called a monopole-like defect and an instanton-like defect.. In particular, the existence of the string-like defect makes it possible to think of a 3-brane in the six dimensional anti-de Sitter space.

In this string-like defect model, the localization of bulk fields has been also investigated. In Ref. , it is shown that spin 2 graviton is localized on the 3-brane and the corrections to Newton’s law are more supressed than in the domain wall model. Afterwards, the present author has explored the localization of various spin fields on the string-like defect in a general dimension and obtained the following facts  : spin 0, 1 and 2 bosonic fields are localized on a string-like defect with the exponentially decreasing warp factor, whereas spin 1/2 and 3/2 fermionic fields are localized on a defect with the exponentially increasing warp factor. These results for the localization of various spin fields coincide with the corresponding ones  in the Randall-Sundrum model  and many brane model  except spin 1 vector field. It is of interest that there is no localized vector field on the brane in the domain wall model 444See Ref.  for an interesting possibility of electric charge non-conservation in brane world where a higher-dimensional generalization of the Randall-Sundrum model is used in order to localize gauge fields on a brane., while vector field can be localized on the defect in the string-like model. This phenomenon can be briefly explained as follows: In the Randall-Sundrum model, we can see that the overall coefficient in front of gauge field action is divergent so that we do not have a normalizable zero mode of the bulk gauge field. On the other hand, in our string-like model, we have an additional warped factor coming from part of the angular variable in the background metric in addition to the conventional warped factor. Combined with these two warped factors, the coefficient in front of the action becomes finite so the zero mode of the bulk gauge field is normalizable and is consequently localized on the string-like defect.

One aim of the present paper is to investigate this interesting property of bulk bosonic fields in the string-like defect model in more detail. The case of spin 2 graviton field has been already examined in Ref. , so we will concentrate on the study of spin 0 scalar and spin 1 vector fields. We will show that there are an infinite number of massless Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes which are degenerate with respect to the radial quantum number, but only one massless field among them is coupled to fermion on the string-like defect. Moreover, the KK excitations of gauge field have vanishing coupling to spin 1/2 fermion on the defect, so gauge field can exist in the bulk without meeting any phenomenological constraints on the model, which should be contrasted with the Randall-Sundrum domain wall model where the strong coupling of the KK excitations of gauge field to the brane fermion gave rise to a potential internal inconsistency within the theory .

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we review a string-like defect solution with codimension 2. In Section 3, the Kaluza-Klein decomposition of scalar field is studied in a background obtained in Section 2. Then, in Section 4, the procedure used in Section 3 is applied to the case of gauge field. The final section is devoted to discussions.

## 2 A string-like defect

Let us start with a brief review of a string-like defect solution to Einstein’s equations with sources to fix our notations and conventions . We consider Einstein’s equations with a bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and an energy-momentum tensor $`T_{MN}`$ in general $`D`$ dimensions:

$`R_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}R=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{MN}+\kappa _D^2T_{MN},`$ (1)
where $`\kappa _D`$ denotes the $`D`$-dimensional gravitational constant. Throughout this article we follow the standard conventions and notations of the textbook of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler .

Let us adopt the following metric ansatz:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}dx^adx^b`$
$`=`$ $`e^{A(r)}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+e^{B(r)}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2,`$
where $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ denote $`D`$-dimensional space-time indices, $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ do $`p`$-dimensional brane ones, and $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ do $`n`$-dimensional extra spatial ones, so the equality $`D=p+n`$ holds. (We assume $`p4`$.) And d$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$ stands for the metric on a unit $`(n1)`$-sphere, which is concretely expressed in terms of the angular variables $`\theta _i`$ as

$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2=d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\theta _3^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3d\theta _4^2+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _id\theta _n^2.`$ (3)
Moreover, we shall take the ansatz for the energy-momentum tensor respecting the spherical symmetry:

$`T_\nu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\nu ^\mu t_o(r),`$
$`T_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`t_r(r),`$
$`T_{\theta _2}^{\theta _2}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\theta _3}^{\theta _3}=\mathrm{}=T_{\theta _n}^{\theta _n}=t_\theta (r),`$ (4)
where $`t_i(i=o,r,\theta )`$ are functions of only the radial coordinate $`r`$.

With these ansatzs, after a straightforward calculation, Einstein’s equations (1) reduce to

$`e^A\widehat{R}{\displaystyle \frac{p(n1)}{2}}A^{}B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)}{4}}(A^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{4}}(B^{})^2`$
$`+(n1)(n2)e^B2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa _D^2t_r=0,`$ (5)
$`e^A\widehat{R}+(n2)B^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{p(n2)}{2}}A^{}B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{4}}(B^{})^2`$
$`+(n2)(n3)e^B+pA^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+1)}{4}}(A^{})^22\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa _D^2t_\theta =0,`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p2}{p}}e^A\widehat{R}+(p1)(A^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}A^{}B^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)}{4}}(A^{})^2`$
$`+(n1)[B^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}(B^{})^2+(n2)e^B]2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa _D^2t_o=0,`$ (7)
where the prime denotes the differentiation with respect to $`r`$, and $`\widehat{R}`$ is the scalar curvature associated with the brane metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. Here we define the cosmological constant on the $`(p1)`$-brane, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$, by the equation

$`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_p\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }.`$ (8)
In addition, the conservation law for the energy-momentum tensor, $`^MT_{MN}=0`$ takes the form

$`t_r^{}={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}A^{}(t_rt_o)+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}B^{}(t_rt_\theta ).`$ (9)
Our purpose is to find a string-like defect solution, that is, $`n=2`$, with a warp factor $`A(r)=cr`$ ($`c`$ is a positive constant) to the above equations. (The case of $`n=1`$ corresponds to a domain wall solution.) The necessity of this exponentially decreasing warp factor is to bind gravity to the p-brane. For generality, we consider a general space-time dimension $`D`$ and a general brane dimension $`p`$ with $`D=p+2`$, but the physical interest, of course, lies in the case of six space-time dimensions ($`D=6`$) and a 3-brane ($`p=4`$). In the case of $`n=2`$, under the ansatz $`A(r)=cr`$, Einstein equations (5), (6), (7) are of the form

$`e^{cr}\widehat{R}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}cB^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)}{4}}c^22\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa _D^2t_r=0,`$ (10)
$`e^{cr}\widehat{R}{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+1)}{4}}c^22\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa _D^2t_\theta =0,`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p2}{p}}e^{cr}\widehat{R}{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}cB^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)}{4}}c^2+B^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(B^{})^22\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa _D^2t_o=0,`$ (12)
and the conservation law takes the form

$`t_r^{}={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}c(t_rt_o)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B^{}(t_rt_\theta ).`$ (13)
From these equations, general solutions can be found as follows:

$`ds^2=e^{cr}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+e^{B(r)}d\theta ^2,`$ (14)
where

$`B(r)=cr+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{pc}}\kappa _D^2{\displaystyle ^r}𝑑r(t_rt_\theta ),`$ (15)
$`c^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p(p+1)}}(8\mathrm{\Lambda }+8\kappa _D^2\alpha ),`$
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{p2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p=2\kappa _D^2\beta .`$ (16)
Here $`t_\theta `$ must take a definite form, which is given by

$`t_\theta =\beta e^{cr}+\alpha ,`$ (17)
with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ being some constants. Moreover, in order to guarantee the positivity of $`c^2`$, $`\alpha `$ should satisfy an inequality $`8\mathrm{\Lambda }+8\kappa _D^2\alpha >0`$.

Two types of special solution deserve more scrutiny. A specific solution is the one without sources $`(t_i=0)`$. Then we get a special solution which was found for a $`\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙}`$ string in Ref. , and for a $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ string in Ref. :

$`ds^2=e^{cr}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+R_0^2e^{cr}d\theta ^2,`$ (18)
with $`R_0`$ being a length scale which we take to be of order unit. Here the positive constant $`c`$, the brane scalar curvature and the brane cosmological constant are respectively given by

$`c^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p(p+1)}},`$
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{p2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p=0.`$ (19)
In this case, as in the corresponding domain wall solution, the bulk geometry is the anti-de Sitter space, and the brane geometry is Ricci-flat with vanishing cosmological constant. It has been recently found that this special solution corresponds to a $`\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙}`$ defect in the sense that the energy-momentum tensor is strictly vanishing outside the string core

Another specific solution occurs when we have the spontaneous symmetry breakdown $`t_r=t_\theta `$ :

$`ds^2=e^{cr}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+R_0^2e^{c_1r}d\theta ^2,`$ (20)
where

$`c^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p(p+1)}}(8\mathrm{\Lambda }+8\kappa _D^2t_\theta )>0,`$
$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{8}{pc}}\kappa _D^2t_\theta ,`$
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{p2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p=0.`$ (21)
Notice that this solution is more general than the previous one (18) since this solution reduces to (18) when $`t_\theta =0`$. In Ref. , the solution (20) was called a $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ defect since there appears a hedgehog type configuration outside the string core.

To close this section, let us comment on an interesting $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ defect recently found in a general dimension in Ref. . To gain the $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ topological defect, the antisymmetric tensor field with rank $`n2`$ is added to the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant. Then the energy-momentum tensor associated with the $`(n2)`$-form field in the bulk has the property

$`t_0=t_r=t_\theta .`$ (22)
The ansatz taken in Ref.  is

$`A(r)=cr,B(r)=constant.`$ (23)
With this ansatz (23), it is easy to see that Einstein’s equations (5), (6), (7) and the conservation law (9) require important equations

$`t_0=t_r=constant,t_\theta =constant,`$ (24)
in addition to the other inessential equations for the present consideration. These conditions (24) is more general than (22), so if an energy-momentum tensor satisfies (24), Einstein’s equations with such energy-momentum tensor would admit the $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ topological defect with the background metric (23) as a solution in a general space-time dimension. Finally, note that this new $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ defect has the same property as the domain wall with respect to the localization of various bulk fields.

## 3 Kaluza-Klein decomposition of scalar field

In previous paper, it was shown that spin 0, 1, and 2 bosonic fields are localized on the p-brane defect with the exponentially decreasing warp factor, while spin 1/2 and 3/2 fermionic fields are not so in the string-like defect . Thus, it is natural to consider first the case of a bulk scalar field. The case of a bulk vector field will be examined in the next section. The spin 2 graviton was examined in detail in Ref.  so we skip this case in this paper. From now on, for clarity we shall limit our attention to a $`\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙}`$ string-like solution (18) since the generalization to a $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ solution (20) is straightforward. Of course, we have implicitly assumed that various bulk fields considered below make little contribution to the bulk energy so that the solution (18) remains valid even in the presence of bulk fields.

Let us consider the action of a massless real scalar coupled to gravity:

$`S_\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}g^{MN}_M\mathrm{\Phi }_N\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (25)
from which the equation of motion can be derived:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_M(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}_N\mathrm{\Phi })=0.`$ (26)
From now on we shall take $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and define $`P(r)=e^{cr}`$. In the background metric (18), the equation of motion (26) reads

$`P^1\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+P^{\frac{p+1}{2}}_r(P^{\frac{p+1}{2}}_r\mathrm{\Phi })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_0^2}}P^1_\theta ^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0.`$ (27)
Let the KK expansion of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^M)={\displaystyle \underset{n,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi ^{(n,l)}(x^\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{\chi _n(r)}{\sqrt{R_0}}}Y_l(\theta ).`$ (28)
Here $`Y_l(\theta )`$ are in general the eigenfunction of the scalar Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on a unit $`(n1)`$-sphere with the eigenvalues $`l(l+n2)`$. Now we are taking account of a stringy defect with codimension 2, i.e., $`n`$ is chosen to 2, so we have an equation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_l(\theta )=l^2Y_l(\theta ),`$ (29)
with $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. And $`Y_l(\theta )`$ satisfy the following orthonormality condition

$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\theta Y_l(\theta )Y_l^{}(\theta )=\delta _{ll^{}}.`$ (30)
Using the KK expansion (28), the equation of motion (27) reduces to the well-known Klein-Gordon’s equation with the KK masses $`m_n`$:

$`\left(\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu m_n^2\right)\varphi ^{(n,l)}=0,`$ (31)
where we have required $`\chi `$ to satisfy the following differential equation:

$`\left(P^{\frac{p1}{2}}_rP^{\frac{p+1}{2}}_r{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{R_0^2}}\right)\chi _n=m_n^2\chi _n.`$ (32)
Actually, it is easily shown that by means of Eqs. (28), (29), (30) and (32) the starting action (25) can be written as

$`S_\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle d^px\left[\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi ^{(n,l)}_\nu \varphi ^{(n,l)}+m_n^2\varphi ^{(n,l)}\varphi ^{(n,l)}\right]},`$ (33)
where we have also used the orthonormality condition

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rP^{\frac{p1}{2}}\chi _n\chi _n^{}=\delta _{nn^{}}.`$ (34)
To analyse the scalar KK mass spectrum, it is necessary to solve Eq. (32) explicitly. Defining $`M_n^2=m_n^2\frac{l^2}{R_0^2}`$, $`z_n=\frac{2}{c}M_nP^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`h_n=P^{\frac{p+1}{4}}\chi _n`$, Eq. (32) can be written in the form

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dz_n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz_n}}+\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_n^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p+1}{2}}\right)^2\right\}\right]h_n=0,`$ (35)
which is nothing but the Bessel equation of order $`\frac{p+1}{2}`$. Thus, the solutions are of the form

$`\chi _n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_n}}P^{\frac{p+1}{4}}\left[J_{\frac{p+1}{2}}(z_n)+\alpha _nY_{\frac{p+1}{2}}(z_n)\right],`$ (36)
where $`N_n`$ are the wavefunction normalization constants and $`\alpha _n`$ are constant coefficients. The differential operator in (32) is self-adjoint provided that one imposes the boundary conditions

$`\chi _n^{}(0)=\chi _n^{}(\mathrm{})=0.`$ (37)
These boundary conditions lead to the relations

$`\alpha _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\frac{p1}{2}}(z_n(0))}{Y_{\frac{p1}{2}}(z_n(0))}}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\frac{p1}{2}}(z_n(\overline{r}))}{Y_{\frac{p1}{2}}(z_n(\overline{r}))}},`$
where $`\overline{r}`$ indicates the infrared cutoff, which is taken to be an infinity at the end of calculations. Incidentally, in deriving (38) we have used the formula holding in the Bessel functions

$`Z_\nu ^{}(z)=Z_{\nu 1}(z){\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{z}}Z_\nu (z),`$ (39)
with $`Z`$ being $`J`$ or $`Y`$. Now in the limit $`M_n<<c`$, the KK masses can be derived from the equation

$`J_{\frac{p1}{2}}(z_n(\overline{r}))=0,`$ (40)
which gives us the approximate mass formula

$`M_n={\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}(n+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\pi e^{\frac{1}{2}c\overline{r}},`$ (41)
Moreover, the normalization constant $`N_n`$ takes the approximate form in the limit $`M_n<<c`$,

$`N_n=\sqrt{c}{\displaystyle \frac{z_n(\overline{r})}{2M_n}}J_{\frac{p+1}{2}}(z_n(\overline{r})).`$ (42)
Note that in the limit $`\overline{r}\mathrm{}`$, $`M_n`$ approach zero as in the graviton , which is a characteristic feature of noncompact extra dimensions. The KK masses of a scalar field are given by not $`M_n`$ but $`m_n`$, so it turns out that they approach $`\frac{l^2}{R_0^2}`$. Accordingly, only the $`s`$-wave ($`l=0`$) mode becomes massless on the string-like defect while the other modes are massive. Here it is worth noticing that the massless $`s`$-wave mode is degenerate with respect to the radial quantum number $`n`$ since the KK masses depend on only $`l`$ in the limit $`\overline{r}\mathrm{}`$. Thus, we are in danger of the existence of an infinite number of massless modes on the defect, which seems to be against the phenomenology. Luckily enough, however, as will be shown below, only a unique massless mode with $`n=0`$ couples to fermion on the defect since the coupling constant between the remaining massless modes with $`n1`$ and the defect fermion vanishes in the infinite volume limit. It would be then natural to identify this massless zero mode with $`n=0`$ as the Higgs field in our world from the phenomenological viewpoint.

As is shown in Ref. , spin 1/2 fermion is localized on a defect with the exponentially rising warp factor, so it is necessary to invoke additional interactions except gravity in a model in order to localize spin 1/2 fermion on our defect, which has the exponentially decreasing warp factor. In this letter, we simply consider fermion on the string-like defect.

To see that only the massless zero mode with $`n=0`$ couples to fermion on the defect, it is useful to examine the Yukawa coupling whose interaction term is given by

$`S_{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }}=g_\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }\delta (r)}.`$ (43)
The integration over the angular variable and the KK expansion (28) yield

$`S_{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }}=g_\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{R_0}{\displaystyle d^px\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi ^{(n,0)}(x)\chi _n(0)}.`$ (44)
The wavefunction for the zero mode is a constant and from the orthonormality condition (34) we have the zero mode

$`\chi _0=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{c(p1)}{2}}}.`$ (45)
For the excited KK modes $`\chi _n(0)`$ with $`n1`$, it is easy to evaluate $`\chi _n(0)`$ in the limit $`M_n<<c`$

$`\chi _n(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_n}}J_{\frac{p+1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{c}}M_n)=\sqrt{c}P^{\frac{1}{4}}(\overline{r}),`$ (46)
where (42) was used. Moreover, defining the effective p-dimensional coupling constant as $`\stackrel{~}{g}_\mathrm{\Phi }=g_\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{\frac{c(p1)}{2}R_0}`$, the Yukawa interaction can be expressed as

$`S_{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }}=\stackrel{~}{g}_\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle d^px\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\varphi ^{(0,0)}(x)+\sqrt{\frac{2}{p1}}P^{\frac{1}{4}}(\overline{r})\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi ^{(n,0)}(x)\right]}.`$ (47)
From this equation, it is obvious that the effective coupling of the excited KK modes with $`n1`$ to the defect fermion vanishes in the limit $`\overline{r}\mathrm{}`$ owing to the presence of $`P^{\frac{1}{4}}(\overline{r})`$ in front of the second term. On the other hand, the massless zero mode with $`n=0`$ has a coupling constant of order one. Hence, only the massless zero mode lives in the string-like defect.

## 4 Kaluza-Klein decomposition of vector field

Next we turn our attention to the case of vector field. It was shown in the Randall-Sundrum model in $`AdS_5`$ space that spin 1 vector field is not localized neither on a brane with positive tension nor on a brane with negative tension so the Dvali-Shifman mechanism  must be invoked for the vector field localization . On the other hand, we have shown that spin 1 vector field $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}`$ localized on a string-like defect like spin 0 scalar and spin 2 graviton fields . So we do not need to introduce additional mechanism for the vector field localization in the case at hand. The localization of vector field on the defect therefore allows us to think of the bulk vector field.

Let us start with the action of the $`U(1)`$ vector field:

$`S_A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{MR}F_{NS}},`$ (48)
where $`F_{MN}=_MA_N_NA_M`$ as usual. (The extension to the case of non-Abelian gauge fields is straightforward.) From this action the equations of motion are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_M(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{NS})=0.`$ (49)
With the background metric (18) and the gauge conditions $`_\mu A^\mu =A_\theta =0`$, these equations become

$`\left(\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu +P^{\frac{3p}{2}}_rP^{\frac{p1}{2}}_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_0^2}}_\theta ^2\right)A_\lambda P^{\frac{3p}{2}}_rP^{\frac{p1}{2}}_\lambda A_r=0,`$ (50)
$`\left(\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_0^2}}_\theta ^2\right)A_r=0,`$ (51)
$`_r\left(P^{\frac{p1}{2}}_\theta A_r\right)=0.`$ (52)
Let us take the following forms of the KK decomposition for later convenience:

$`A_\mu (x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_\mu ^{(n,l)}(x^\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{f_n(r)}{\sqrt{R_0}}}Y_l(\theta ),`$
$`A_r(x^M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_r^{(l)}(x^\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{g(r)}{\sqrt{R_0}}}Y_l(\theta ).`$ (53)
Then, from Eq. (51) we have

$`\left(\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{R_0^2}}\right)A_r^{(l)}(x^\mu )=0.`$ (54)
In addition, Eq. (52) leads to a general solution for $`g(r)`$.

$`g(r)=\alpha P^{\frac{p1}{2}},`$ (55)
with $`\alpha `$ being an integration constant. Finally, using (55), Eq. (50) reduces to the form

$`\left(\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu m_n^2\right)A_\lambda ^{(n,l)}(x^\mu )=0.`$ (56)
Here we have required $`f_n(r)`$ to satisfy the differential equation

$`\left(P^{\frac{p3}{2}}_rP^{\frac{p1}{2}}_r{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{R_0^2}}\right)f_n(r)=m_n^2f_n(r).`$ (57)
As in the case of a scalar field, let us substitute the KK expansion (53) and the solution (55) into the starting action (48), whose result is given by

$`S_A={\displaystyle d^px\underset{n,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\lambda \rho }F_{\mu \lambda }^{(n,l)}F_{\nu \rho }^{(n,l)}\frac{1}{2}m_n^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }A_\mu ^{(n,l)}A_\nu ^{(n,l)}\right]}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{c(p1)}}[P(\overline{r})^{\frac{p1}{2}}1]\times {\displaystyle d^px\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu A_r^{(l)}_\nu A_r^{(l)}+\frac{l^2}{R_0^2}A_r^{(l)}A_r^{(l)}\right]},`$ (58)
where we have used (30) and the orthonormality condition for $`f_n(r)`$

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rP^{\frac{p3}{2}}f_nf_n^{}=\delta _{nn^{}}.`$ (59)
Note that the coefficient in front of the action of the scalar field $`A_r`$ becomes divergent in the limit $`\overline{r}\mathrm{}`$, but this divergence can be absorbed in the redefinition of the field $`A_r^{(l)}`$. That is, by performing the field-redefinition $`A_r^{(l)}\alpha \sqrt{\frac{2}{c(p1)}}\sqrt{P(\overline{r})^{\frac{p1}{2}}1}A_r^{(l)}`$, we arrive at the expression

$`S_A={\displaystyle d^px\underset{n,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{1}{4}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\lambda \rho }F_{\mu \lambda }^{(n,l)}F_{\nu \rho }^{(n,l)}\frac{1}{2}m_n^2\eta ^{\mu \nu }A_\mu ^{(n,l)}A_\nu ^{(n,l)}\right]}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^px\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu A_r^{(l)}_\nu A_r^{(l)}+\frac{l^2}{R_0^2}A_r^{(l)}A_r^{(l)}\right]}.`$ (60)
Here notice that the second integral describes that the ’gauge-scalar’ has the same structure as the action of scalar field (33). Thus, following the similar argument to the case of a scalar field, it is straightforward to show that only the massless zero mode of the ’gauge-scalar’ couples to fermion on the defect. Therefore, in what follows, we shall consider the $`p`$-dimensional gauge field $`A_\mu `$.

To examine the KK spectrum, we can follow a similar path of argument to that of a scalar field in Section 3. This time, by defining $`h_n=P^{\frac{p1}{4}}f_n`$, Eq. (57) can be written as

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dz_n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz_n}}+\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_n^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}\right)^2\right\}\right]h_n=0,`$ (61)
whose solution is also expressed in terms of the Bessel functions of order $`\frac{p1}{2}`$

$`f_n(z_n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_n}}P^{\frac{p1}{4}}\left[J_{\frac{p1}{2}}(z_n)+\alpha _nY_{\frac{p1}{2}}(z_n)\right],`$ (62)
where $`N_n`$ are new wavefunction normalization constants and $`\alpha _n`$ are new constant coefficients. The same boundary conditions (37) for $`f_n(r)`$ lead to the relations

$`\alpha _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\frac{p3}{2}}(z_n(0))}{Y_{\frac{p3}{2}}(z_n(0))}}`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\frac{p3}{2}}(z_n(\overline{r}))}{Y_{\frac{p3}{2}}(z_n(\overline{r}))}}.`$
In the limit $`M_n<<c`$, the KK masses can be derived from the equation

$`J_{\frac{p3}{2}}(z_n(\overline{r}))=0,`$ (64)
which gives us the approximate mass formula

$`M_n={\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}(n+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{4}}1)\pi e^{\frac{1}{2}c\overline{r}},`$ (65)
And the normalization constant $`N_n`$ takes the approximate form

$`N_n=\sqrt{c}{\displaystyle \frac{z_n(\overline{r})}{2M_n}}J_{\frac{p1}{2}}(z_n(\overline{r})).`$ (66)
Note that in the limit $`\overline{r}\mathrm{}`$, the KK masses of vector field are given by $`\frac{l^2}{R_0^2}`$ like the scalar case. Hence as expected, only the $`s`$-wave ($`l=0`$) becomes massless on the p-brane defect while the other modes are massive. This time, compared to the scalar case, it is more important to show that only one massless mode with $`n=0`$ lives in the defect since such a massless zero mode would be regarded as the unique ’photon’ on the defect.

We are now ready to consider the coupling of the gauge KK modes to spin 1/2 fermion on the p-brane defect. The fermion kinetic and gauge interaction terms are given by

$`S_\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}i\mathrm{\Gamma }^M(_\mu +ig_AA_\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }\delta _M^\mu \delta (r)},`$ (67)
where the curved gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ and the flat gamma ones $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are related through the relations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =P^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^\mu `$. Upon integrating over $`\theta `$ and using the KK expansion (53), we obtain for the gauge-fermion interaction term

$`S_{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }A}=g_A\sqrt{R_0}{\displaystyle d^px\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_\mu ^{(n,0)}(x)f_n(0)\mathrm{\Psi }}.`$ (68)
The wavefunction for the zero mode is again a constant and the orthonormality condition (59) gives us the zero mode

$`f_0=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{c(p3)}{2}}}.`$ (69)
Recall that this zero mode is localized on the string-like defect and is identified with the usual ’photon’ of the p-dimensional Minkowski space-time  while it is not localized on the domain wall . For the excited KK modes $`f_n(0)`$ with $`n1`$, it is easy to evaluate $`f_n(0)`$ in the limit $`M_n<<c`$

$`f_n(0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_n}}J_{\frac{p1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{c}}M_n)=\sqrt{c}P^{\frac{1}{4}}(\overline{r}),`$ (70)
where (66) was used. Then, defining the effective p-dimensional $`U(1)`$ coupling constant as $`\stackrel{~}{g}_A=g_A\sqrt{\frac{c(p3)}{2}R_0}`$, the interaction term reads

$`S_\mathrm{\Psi }^{int}=\stackrel{~}{g}_A{\displaystyle d^px\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \left[A_\mu ^{(0,0)}(x)+\sqrt{\frac{2}{p3}}P^{\frac{1}{4}}(\overline{r})\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_\mu ^{(n,0)}(x)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }}.`$ (71)
From this equation, it is obvious that the coupling of the excited KK modes to the defect fermion vanishes in the limit $`\overline{r}\mathrm{}`$ owing to the presence of $`P^{\frac{1}{4}}(\overline{r})`$ as in the scalar field. On the other hand, the massless zero mode has a coupling constant of order one as desired. Thus, this model is consistent with gauge fields existing in the bulk, which should be contrasted with the Randall-Sundrum model . Of course, further studies are necessary to assure the consistency of the model at hand at the quantum level.

## 5 Discussions

In this paper we have explored the possibility of placing spin 0 scalar field and spin 1 vector gauge field in the bulk in the string-like defect model in detail. We have derived the scalar and the gauge field KK spectra from examination of the action of the theory and also analyzing the equations of motion.

We then computed the scalar-fermion and the gauge-fermion interactions on the string-like defect and found that the excited KK states with respect to the radial quantum number do not couple to fermion on the defect in the infinite cutoff limit, whereas the massless zero modes, which are nothing but the ’Higgs’ particle and the usual ’photon’ of the Minkowski space-time in the cases of scalar and gauge boson, respectively, couple to fermion with order unit. Since it has been already shown that spin 2 graviton is localized on the defect  and yields the desired Newton’s law with tiny correction terms on the defect , the model which we consider equips with desirable physical properties. Of course, to make the model at hand more realistic we need additional interactions except gravity for localizing fermions on the defect, but we wish to insist that a supergravity model corresponding to the present model would resolve this problem in a natural way even if we could localize fermionic fields by introducing additional interaction terms between bosons and fermions by hand.

Let us restrict the following argument to the case of $`p=4`$ and $`D=6`$. In this case, it is of interest to imagine that 10D superstring theory might be compactified on Calabi-Yau two-fold, i.e., K3 by the conventional Kaluza-Klein mechanism, yielding 6D theory and then the 6D theory is compactified to our four dimensional space-time according to the alternative compactification scenario discussed in this paper. Here it is worthwhile to mention that the 6D local field theory is a very interesting field theory. (Correspondingly, 6D supergravity theory possesses a richer structure than 5D supergravity theory in many respects.) For instance, the 6D local field theory is a free theory with trivial cubic scalar self-interaction with unrenormalizable Einstein-Hilbert and Yang-Mills actions, so it is expected that ’little’ superstring theory may play an essential role. Furthermore, our model in 6 space-time dimensions has a physical setting where our world is a 3-brane embedded in 6D space-time with non-factorizable warped geometry. Interestingly enough, the metric of two internal dimensions is conformally flat, so the powerful (Euclidean) conformal field theory technique can be naturally applied to our model.

Finally let us comment on a supersymmetric realization of the present model. A lot of attention has been recently devoted to the construction of a supersymmetric Randall-Sundrum model  and advocated some no-go theorems. Then it is of interest to ask whether there are supersymmetric relations between our 6D model and 5D Randall-Sundrum model. Through a simple KK dimensional reduction, it seems that the background metric in our model reduces to the one in the Randall-Sundrum model. At the same time, N=2, 6D supergravity would reduce to N=2, 5D supergravity. Thus, if we cannot construct a supersymmetric version of the Randall-Sundrum model, it might be also difficult to construct a supersymmetric model of our 6D theory. But there recently appeared an interesting construction of a supersymmetric Randall-Sundrum model . The corresponding construction of our 6D model is now in an active investigation so we hope to report this construction in near future.

Acknowledgement

We are indebted to M. Tonin for valuable discussions and continuous encouragement. We wish to thank Dipartimento Di Fisica, ”Galileo Galilei”, Universita Degli Studi Di Padova, for a kind hospitality, where most of parts of this work have been done.