text:
# YANG-MILLS VACUUM INSTABILITY DUE TO INFRARED FINITE LATTICE GLUON PROPAGATOR

## I Introduction

In recent papers  a general method (prescription) was formulated how to calculate correctly the truly nonperturbative Yang-Mills (YM) vacuum energy density (VED) of the ground state in QCD models by using the effective potential approach for composite operators . This allows one to investigate the vacuum structure by substituting some well justified ansatz for the full gluon propagator ***Recent brief reviews on both the continuum and lattice gluon propagators can be found in Refs. . since in the absence of external sources the corresponding effective potential is nothing else but the VED itself. The truly nonperturbative VED was defined as the truly nonperturbative part of the full gluon propagator integrated over the deep infrared (IR) region (soft momentum region), i.e., the method assumes that all kinds of perturbative contributions must be subtracted from the VED which, in general, is badly divergent. In order to factorize the scale dependence, the effective potential was introduced at a fixed scale. This makes it possible to investigate the structure of the YM vacuum in terms of dimensionless but physically meaningful variables and parameters. The nontrivial minimization procedure, which can be performed in two different ways,Both lead to the same numerical value of the truly nonperturbative VED provided it exists. allows one to determine the value of the soft cutoff as a function of the corresponding scale parameter. This latter is inevitably present in any nonperturbative model (either classical, quantum or lattice) of the full gluon propagator. If the chosen ansatz for the full gluon propagator is realistic then the method will determine uniquely the truly nonperturbative VED, which should be always finite, negative and it should have no imaginary part (ee Ref. ). Let us emphasize that the truly nonperturbatibe VED, provided it is correctly calculated, should be either negative (stable vacuum configurations if it also has nontrivial minimum or minima) or complex (which definetely signals unstable vacuum).

Why is it so important to calculate the truly nonperturbative VED from first principles? First of all, this quantity is important in its own right since it is, by definition, nothing but the bag constant (ie. the bag pressure) apart from the sign . Through the trace anomaly relation  it assists in the correct estimation of such an important phenomenological nonperturbative parameter like the gluon condensate as introduced in the QCD sum rules approach to resonance physics . Furthermore, it helps in the resolution of the $`U(1)`$ problem  via the Witten-Veneziano (WV) formula for the mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson . The problem here is that the topological susceptibility needed for this purpose  is determined by the two point correlation function from which the perturbative contributions should be correctly subtracted \[13-18\]. The same holds true for the above-mentioned bag constant which is a much more general quantity than the string tension since it is relevant for light quarks as well. Thus to correctly calculate the truly nonperturbative VED means to correctly understand the structure of the QCD vacuum in different models.

In our previous publication  (see also the references therein) we have already investigated the structure of the classical vacuum in the Abelian Higgs model of the dual QCD ground state. We have explicitly shown that the vacuum of this model without string and with string contributions is unstable against quantum corrections.

Now the main purpose of this work is to investigate the YM vacuum structure by using an IR finite (IRF) gluon propagator as suggested by lattice simulations in Ref. . Still, let us display a few necessary definitions, to be used later, beforehand.

## II The truly nonperturbative VED

The relevant expression for the truly nonperturbative YM VED as derived (prescribed) in Ref.  is (in Euclidean metrics)

$$ϵ_g^{np}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_0^{q_0^2}𝑑q^2q^2\left[\frac{3}{4}d^{NP}(q^2)\mathrm{ln}[1+3d^{NP}(q^2)]\right],$$
(1)
where $`q_0^2`$ is the above-mentioned soft cutoff which separates the deep IR region (where the nonperturbative dynamics becomes dominant) from the perturbative region (see below). The truly nonperturbative gluon form factor is defined as follows:

$$d^{NP}(q^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP})=d(q^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP})d(q^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}=0).$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}`$ is the also above-mentioned scale parameter that is responsible for the nonperturbative dynamics in the model under consideration. This definition explains the difference between the truly nonperturbative part $`d^{NP}(q^2)`$ and the full gluon propagator $`d(q^2)`$ which is nonperturbative itself. Moreover, it guarantees that the truly nonperturbative VED (2.1) is a manifestly gauge invariant quantity. Though the full gluon propagator is explicitly gauge dependent, its truly nonperturbative part is not like that since the explicit gauge dependence (in fact the longitudinal term which is not renormalized) vanishes along with the perturbative terms contained in $`d(q^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}=0)d^{PT}(q^2)`$. (The longitudinal part, which explicitely depends on the gauge, is always perturbative.) It is easy to see that by ”PT” we mean the intermediate (IM) and the ultraviolet (UV) regions (the IM region remains $`terraincognita`$ in QCD). Fortunately the ”PT” part is of no importance here.

Thus the separation of ”NP vs. PT” becomes exact because of the definition (2.2). The separation of ”soft vs. hard” momenta also becomes exact because of the minimization procedure. The analysis of the truly nonperturbative VED (2.1) after the above-mentioned scale factorization provides, in addition, an exact criteria to distinguish between stable and unstable vacuum. Thus the truly nonperturbative VED, as it is given in Eq. (2.1), is uniquely defined. It is truly nonperturbative since it contains no perturbative information at all. This is rather similar to the lattice approach where, by using different ”smoothing” techniques such as ”cooling” , ”cycling” , etc., it is possible to ”wash out” all type of perturbative fluctuations and excitations of the gluon field configurations from the QCD vacuum in order to deal only with the true nonperturbative structure.

The above briefly-described general method  can serve as a test of different quantum, classical as well as lattice models of QCD.

## III MMS IRF gluon propagator

Let us investigate the quantum structure of YM vacuum with the IRF behaviour of the full gluon propagator (in the Landau gauge) as suggested by lattice calculations in Ref.  by Marenzoni, Martinelli and Stella (MMS). The propagator was parametrized as follows (from the very beginning in our notations and Euclidean metrics):

$$d(q^2)=\frac{q^2}{M^2+Zq^2(q^2a^2)^\eta }.$$
(3)
Here $`M`$ is the mass scale parameter which is responsible for the nonperturbative dynamics in this model, i. e., $`M=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}`$ in our notation. When the parameter $`M`$ formally goes to zero, only the perturbative part remains. The best estimates for the parameters $`M`$ and $`a`$ are $`M=160MeV`$ and $`a^12.0GeV`$ (the inverse lattice spacing). The exponent is $`\eta 0.53`$ (this mimics an anomalous dimension for the gauge field) and the renormalization constant is $`Z0.1`$. Let us remind the reader that within the general method , the nonperturbative scale parameter is considered free, i.e., as ”running” (when it formally goes to zero then only the perturbative phase survives in the model) and its numerical value will be used only, provided it exists at all, at the final stage in order to numerically evaluate the corresponding truly nonperturbative VED. The subtraction procedure in (2.2) now looks like

$$d^{NP}(q^2)=d(q^2,M^2)d(q^2,M^2=0)=\frac{M^2}{Z(q^2a^2)^\eta [M^2+Zq^2(q^2a^2)^\eta ]}.$$
(4)
### A Fixing the lattice spacing

In order to factorize the scale dependence in (2.1), let us first choose the lattice spacing $`a`$ as an extra scale parameter . Then $`d^{NP}(q^2)`$ in Eq. (3.2) becomes

$$d^{NP}(z,b)=\frac{1}{Zz^\eta [1+Zb^1z^{1+\eta }]},$$
(5)
where

$$z=q^2a^2,z_0=q_0^2a^2,b=M^2a^2.$$
(6)
Here $`z_0`$ is the corresponding dimensionless soft cutoff while the parameter $`b`$ has a very clear physical meaning, i. e., when it is zero (which means that $`M^20`$) only the perturbative phase remains.

Substituting (3.3) and (3.4) into the effective potential (2.1), one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_g(z_0,b)=a^4ϵ_g^{np}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\left\{I_1(z_0,b)+I_2(z_0,b)\right\},$$
(7)
where the integrals are given as follows:

$`I_1(z_0,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z_0}{}}}𝑑zz\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{Zz^\eta [1+Zb^1z^{1+\eta }]}}\right),`$ (8)
$`I_2(z_0,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z_0}{}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{z^{1\eta }}{1+Zb^1z^{1+\eta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{3z_0^{2\eta }}{4Z(2\eta )}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{1+\eta }};{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{1+\eta }}+1;Z{\displaystyle \frac{z_0^{1+\eta }}{b}}),`$ (9)
and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1,\mathrm{};\mathrm{};Zz_0^{1+\eta }/b)`$ denotes the hypergeometrical function.

From these expressions it is possible to show that the effective potential (3.5) in the perturbative limit ($`b0`$) vanishes indeed, while at infinity ($`b\mathrm{}`$) to-leading order becomes constant and it depends on $`Z`$ , $`z_0`$ and $`\eta `$. So at first sight, it seems the effective potential at a fixed scale (3.5) as function of the parameter $`b`$ may have a nontrivial minimum.

Note however that the first integral in Eqs. (3.6) always exhibits an imaginary part at any finite values of $`z_0`$ and $`b`$. To show this it suffices to investigate the function under logarithm in Eqs. (3.6)

$$RR(z,Z,b,\eta )=1\frac{3}{Zz^\eta [1+Zb^1z^{1+\eta }]}.$$
(10)
Let us notice that $`R(z=0)=\mathrm{}`$ holds true for $`anyfixed`$ $`Z`$, $`b`$ and $`\eta `$. Since $`R`$ is regular as a function of $`z`$ in the whole open interval $`(0,z_0]`$ for any $`Z`$, $`b`$ and $`\eta `$The poles at $`1+Zb^1z^{1+\eta }=0`$ do not lie in the interval $`[0,z_0]`$ since $`z_0`$ is always positive, by definition., it simply follows from the Boltzano-Weierstrass theorem that there exists an open interval (with $`z=0`$ as the left open end point) where $`R`$ is negative, provided $`R`$ becomes non-negative somewhere in the interval $`(0,z_0]`$. If this were not true then $`R`$ must be negative in the whole interval $`(0,z_0]`$. Having such an interval where $`R<0`$, and taking into consideration that the logarithm is a monotonous function, we certainly have an imaginary part in the effective potential (3.5) for any finite set of parameters $`Z,b,\eta ,z_0`$.

Let us derive also the formal ”stationary” condition with respect to $`b`$, namely $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g(z_0,b)/b=0`$. Then from Eqs. (3.5) and (3.6), one obtains

$$\underset{0}{\overset{z_0}{}}𝑑zz^2\frac{Z\phi (z,b)z^\eta +1}{\phi ^2(z,b)[Z\phi (z,b)z^\eta 3]}=0$$
(11)
with

$$\phi (z,b)=1+Zb^1z^{1+\eta }.$$
(12)
From the estimates for the parameters $`M`$ and $`a`$ mentioned above, it follows that $`b1`$. Still we use $`b1`$ in order to be sure that we do not miss the nontrivial minima. Numerically evaluating the ”stationary” condition (3.8) (on account of the numerical values $`Z0.1`$ and $`\eta 0.53`$), nevertheless we found that only the trivial solution $`z_0=0`$ exists indeed.

Thus the vacuum of this model is unstable and therefore it is physically not acceptable. The MMS IRF gluon model propagator can be related neither to quark confinement nor to dynamical chiral symmetry breakdown (DCSB). This statement is in complete agreement with the conclusion given in Ref. . There it was shown that the MMS gluon propagator neither confines quarks nor it breaks chiral symmetry dynamically. Three special type of expressions for the dressed quark-gluon vertex (free from ghost contributions) were used in their investigation of the quark SD equation. Our result is, however, more general since we do not require a particular choice for the dressed quark-gluon vertex.

### B Fixing the soft cutoff

It is instructive to further investigate the presently discussed model by choosing the dimensionless variables and parameters as follows:

$$z=\frac{q^2}{M^2},z_0=\frac{q_0^2}{M^2}.$$
(13)
For simplicity’s sake, we use the same notations for the dimensionless set of variables and parameters as in Eq. (3.4). Now when the parameter $`z_0`$ goes to infinity (at a fixed soft cutoff, see below) then only the perturbative phase survives ($`M0`$). In this case, $`d^{NP}(q^2)`$ in Eq. (3.2) becomes

$$d^{NP}(z)=\frac{1}{a_1z^\eta [1+a_1z^{1+\eta }]},$$
(14)
where

$$a_1=Z(Ma)^{2\eta }.$$
(15)
Substituting this into the Eq. (2.1) and fixing the soft cutoff itself , one obtains

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_g(z_0;a_1)=\frac{1}{q_0^4}ϵ_g^{np}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\times z_0^2\left\{I_1(z_0;a_1)+I_2(z_0;a_1)\right\},$$
(16)
where the integrals are given as follows:

$`I_1(z_0;a_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z_0}{}}}𝑑zz\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{a_1z^\eta [1+a_1z^{1+\eta }]}}\right),`$ (17)
$`I_2(z_0;a_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4a_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z_0}{}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{z^{1\eta }}{1+a_1z^{1+\eta }}}.`$ (18)
A specific feature of this model is that the combination

$$a_1z_0^\eta =Z(Ma)^{2\eta }(q_0^2M^2)^\eta =Z(q_0^2a^2)^\eta =\nu $$
(19)
is fixed when the soft momentum cutoff $`q_0`$ is fixed (like in this case, see Eq. (3.12)). Thus the effective potential (3.13) and corresponding integrals (3.14) become more complicated functions of $`z_0`$, namely

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_g(z_0,\nu )=\frac{1}{q_0^4}ϵ_g^{np}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\times z_0^2\left\{I_1(z_0,\nu )+I_2(z_0,\nu )\right\},$$
(20)
where integrals are given now as follows:

$`I_1(z_0,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z_0}{}}}𝑑zz\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\nu z_0^\eta z^\eta [1+\nu z_0^\eta z^{1+\eta }]}}\right),`$ (21)
$`I_2(z_0,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3z_0^\eta }{4\nu }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z_0}{}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{z^{1\eta }}{1+\nu z_0^\eta z^{1+\eta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{3z_0^2}{4\nu (2\eta )}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{1+\eta }};{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{1+\eta }}+1;\nu z_0),`$ (22)
and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1,\mathrm{};\mathrm{};\nu z_0)`$ is the hypergeometrical function.

The dependence on the parameter $`z_0`$ becomes more complicated than in Eq. (3.13) indeed. Nevertheless, like in the previous case, it is possible to show again, by analysing the first integral in Eqs. (3.17), that the effective potential (3.16) will have an imaginary part (at any finite values of parameters $`z_0`$ and $`\nu `$). Consequently the vacuum arising from this lattice model gluon propagator is unstable indeed.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank V. Gogohia for suggesting this investigation as well as for many useful discussions and remarks.


format: text

text:
# 1 Possible spectra for the Hamiltonians satisfying equations (7-9). There are 𝑠 extremal states from which the 𝑠 infinite ladders are constructed through the iterated action of 𝐿^†.

Polynomial Heisenberg algebras and higher order supersymmetry

David J. Fernández C.a, and Véronique Hussinb

aDepto Física, CINVESTAV, AP 14-740, 07000 México DF, Mexico; bDépartement de Mathématiques, Université de Montréal, CP 6128, Succ Centre-Ville, Montréal, H3C 3J7 Canada

Abstract. It is shown that the higher order supersymmetric partners of the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian provide the simplest non-trivial realizations of the polynomial Heisenberg algebras. A linearized version of the corresponding annihilation and creation operator leads to a Fock representation which is the same as for the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian.

1. Introduction. The non-linear algebras have attracted attention in recent years due to the fact that they start to be applied in physics. Those structures arise as deformations of a Lie algebra in which some commutation relations are replaced by non-linear functions of the generators \[1-5\]. Of particular interest are the simplest deformations of the standard Heisenberg-Weyl algebra (the so-called polynomial Heisenberg algebras) in which the commutator of the annihilation and creation operators becomes a polynomial in the Hamiltonian but at the same time it commutes with those ladder operators as in the standard case \[6-11\]. Let us notice that these modified algebraic relations provide information about the spectrum, which turns out to be a variant of the equally spaced levels of the harmonic oscillator. Concrete realizations of those algebras arise if the annihilation and creation operators become differential operators of order greater than one . The simplest non-trivial case of such a realization is provided by considering the natural pair of annihilation and creation operators for the Hamiltonians generated by means of the higher order supersymmetric quantum mechanics (HSUSY QM) applied to the harmonic oscillator . This will be the main subject discussed in this paper. In order to do that, firstly we will present some generalities of the polynomial Heisenberg algebras. Then, we will proceed by discussing the standard SUSY and HSUSY QM as a mechanism to generate solvable partner potentials from a given initial one \[11,13-26\]. From that procedure it will be obvious the existence and the corresponding structure of a pair of natural creation and annihilation operators for the HSUSY partners of the oscillator potential, a very original construction proposed by Mielnik for the first order SUSY \[27-28\]. It will be shown that those operators realize in a simple way the polynomial Heisenberg algebras. Later on it will be constructed a ‘linearized’ version of those algebras in which the modified ladder operators act onto the energy eigenstates as the standard generators do in the Heisenberg-Weyl linear case . We will finish the paper with some general conclusions and an outlook for future work.

2. Polynomial Heisenberg algebras. Let us remember the standard algebra of the harmonic oscillator:

$$[H,a]=a,[H,a^{}]=a^{},$$
(1)
$$[a,a^{}]=1.$$
(2)
In the coordinates representation the operators $`\{H,a,a^{}\}`$ are given by:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{1}{2}x^2,$$
(3)
$$a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dx}+x\right),a^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dx}+x\right),$$
(4)
the number operator reads:

$$N=a^{}a,$$
(5)
and there is a linear dependence between $`N`$ and $`H`$:

$`N=H{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N(H).`$ (6)
The polynomial Heisenberg algebras of $`(n1)`$-th order are deformations of the above algebra in which the two commutation relationships (1) are maintained \[6-11\]:

$$[H,L]=L,[H,L^{}]=L^{},$$
(7)
but equation (2) is substituted by:

$$[L,L^{}]N(H+1)N(H).$$
(8)
The generalized number operator, defined by $`N=L^{}LN(H)`$, becomes now a $`n`$-th order polynomial in the Hamiltonian $`H`$:

$$N(H)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(H_i\right),$$
(9)
and $`L,L^{}`$ are realized by $`n`$-th order differential operators. Let us notice that $`[L,L^{}]`$ is a $`(n1)`$-th order polynomial in $`H`$.

The algebraic properties of $`\{H,L,L^{}\}`$ provide already some information about the spectrum of $`H`$. In order to see that, let us analyze the space of solutions of the $`n`$-th order differential equation (the kernel $`K_L`$ of $`L`$):

$$L\psi =0.$$
(10)
Notice that $`K_L`$ is invariant under $`H`$. This and the fact that any solution to (10) obeys:

$$L^{}L\psi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(H_i\right)\psi =0,$$
(11)
suggest to select as the basis of $`K_L`$ those solutions which are simultaneously eigenstates of $`H`$ with eigenvalues $`_i`$:

$$H\psi __i=_i\psi __i.$$
(12)
However, some of the eigenfunctions $`\psi __i`$ could be non-normalizable. Let us suppose that $`s`$ of them, $`\{\psi __i,i=1,\mathrm{},s\}`$, are normalizable, which guarantee that they are orthogonal. Taking those as extremal states one can construct, by means of the iterated action of $`L^{}`$, $`s`$ energy ladders of infinite length and spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=1`$, each one of them starting from $`_i`$ (see Figure 1).

It could happen, however, that for the ladder starting from $`_j`$ there exists a natural number $`l`$ such that:

$$\left(L^{}\right)^{l1}\psi __j0,\left(L^{}\right)^l\psi __j=0.$$
(13)
In such a case, by multiplying $`(L^{})^l\psi __j`$ to the left by $`L`$, it is seen that one of the remaining roots of (11), $`\{_i,i=s+1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is of kind $`_k=_j+l`$, $`k\{s+1,\mathrm{},n\},j\{1,\mathrm{},s\}`$. Thus, the spectrum of $`H`$ will consist of $`s1`$ infinite ladders and a finite one of length $`l`$, starting from $`_j`$ and ending at $`_j+l1`$. An scheme of this situation is represented in figure 2. This discussion means that the $`H`$ of equations (7-9) is not, in general, the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian.

3. Standard supersymmetric quantum mechanics. The standard SUSY algebra with two generators $`Q_1,Q_2`$, as introduced by Witten, reads :

$`[Q_i,H_{\mathrm{ss}}]=0,`$
(14)
$`\{Q_i,Q_j\}=\delta _{ij}H_{\mathrm{ss}}.`$
The simplest realization of such an algebra is of kind:

$`Q_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(Q^{}+Q),Q_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\sqrt{2}}}(Q^{}Q),`$
(15)
$`Q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ B& 0\end{array}\right),Q^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& B^{}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),H_{\mathrm{ss}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B^{}B& 0\\ 0& BB^{}\end{array}\right),`$
where usually $`B^{}`$ is a first order differential operator

$$B^{}A_1^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{d}{dx}+\alpha _1(x,ϵ)\right],B=(B^{})^{},$$
(16)
in such a way that $`H_{\mathrm{ss}}`$ is linear in $`H^p=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{H}& 0\\ 0& H\end{array}\right)`$:

$$H_{\mathrm{ss}}=(H^pϵ).$$
(17)
Notice that the Hamiltonians $`H`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ in the diagonal of $`H^p`$ are intertwined by $`B^{}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}B^{}=B^{}H,$$

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V(x),$$
(18)
$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\stackrel{~}{V}(x).$$

This is equivalent to say that $`V,\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ are related through:

$`\alpha _1^{}(x,ϵ)+\alpha _1^2(x,ϵ)=2[V(x)ϵ],`$
(19)
$`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)=V(x)\alpha _1^{}(x,ϵ).`$
The real number $`ϵ`$ is called factorization energy (although this does not mean that it should be a physical energy of $`H`$):

$`H=BB^{}+ϵ,`$
(20)
$`\stackrel{~}{H}=B^{}B+ϵ.`$
Let us denote by $`\psi _n(x)`$ the eigenfunctions of $`H`$, $`H\psi _n(x)=E_n\psi _n(x)`$. From the intertwining relationship (18) it is simple to get the eigenfunctions of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n(x)=\frac{B^{}\psi _n(x)}{\sqrt{E_nϵ}},\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n(x)=E_n\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n(x).$$
(21)
There is an eigenfunction $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_ϵ(x)`$ additional to those of (21), which satisfies:

$$B\stackrel{~}{\psi }_ϵ(x)=0\stackrel{~}{\psi }_ϵ(x)\mathrm{exp}\left[_0^x\alpha _1(y,ϵ)𝑑y\right].$$
(22)
The corresponding eigenvalue is $`ϵ`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_ϵ(x)=ϵ\stackrel{~}{\psi }_ϵ(x).$$
(23)
We conclude that, departing from $`H`$, a new solvable Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ with eigenfunctions $`\{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_ϵ(x),\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n(x)\}`$ and eigenvalues $`\{ϵ,E_n\}`$ can be generated. Let us remark the importance of the value of $`ϵ`$. It turns out that a necessary condition in order to avoid supplementary singularities of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ with respect to those of $`V(x)`$ is that $`ϵ`$ is less than or equal to the ground state energy $`E_0`$ of $`H`$.

4. Higher order supersymmetric quantum mechanics. Let us construct now a sequence of Hamiltonians $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_m`$ departing from $`H_0`$ as follows :

$`H_iA_i^{}=A_i^{}H_{i1},`$
$`H_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+V_i(x),`$ (24)
$`A_i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+\alpha _i(x,ϵ_i)\right].`$
Taking into account equations (18-19), we get once again a Riccati equation and the corresponding expression of the potential at the $`i`$-th step in terms of the $`(i1)`$-th potential:

$`\alpha _i^{}(x,ϵ_i)+\alpha _i^2(x,ϵ_i)=2\left[V_{i1}(x)ϵ_i\right],`$
(25)
$`V_i(x)=V_{i1}(x)\alpha _i^{}(x,ϵ_i).`$
The factorized expressions arising form the iterative procedure become:

$`H_0=A_1A_1^{}+ϵ_1`$
$`H_i=A_i^{}A_i+ϵ_i=A_{i+1}A_{i+1}^{}+ϵ_{i+1}`$ (26)
$`H_m=A_m^{}A_m+ϵ_m`$
The corresponding eigenfunctions of $`H_i`$ are:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi _{ϵ_i}^{(i)}(x)\mathrm{exp}[_0^x\alpha _i(y,ϵ_i)𝑑y],\hfill & \\ \psi _{ϵ_{i1}}^{(i)}(x)=\frac{A_i^{}\psi _{ϵ_{i1}}^{(i1)}(x)}{\sqrt{ϵ_{i1}ϵ_i}},\hfill & \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \\ \psi _{ϵ_1}^{(i)}(x)=\frac{A_i^{}\mathrm{}A_2^{}\psi _{ϵ_1}^{(1)}(x)}{\sqrt{(ϵ_1ϵ_2)\mathrm{}(ϵ_1ϵ_i)}},\hfill & \\ \psi _n^{(i)}(x)=\frac{A_i^{}\mathrm{}A_1^{}\psi _n^{(0)}(x)}{\sqrt{(E_nϵ_1)\mathrm{}(E_nϵ_i)}},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(27)
The eigenvalues become $`\{ϵ_k,E_n,k=1,\mathrm{},i,n=0,\mathrm{}\}`$.

Let us make now in (14-15) the following identifications:

$`B=A_1\mathrm{}A_m,`$
$`B^{}=A_m^{}\mathrm{}A_1^{},`$
(28)
$`H=H_0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}=H_m.`$
With such a choice one obtains the higher order supersymmetric quantum mechanics in which $`H_{\mathrm{ss}}`$ is a $`m`$-th order polynomial in $`H^p`$ \[11,18-25\]:

$$H_{\mathrm{ss}}=(H^pϵ_1)\mathrm{}(H^pϵ_m).$$
(29)
By simplicity, we have ordered the factorization energies as $`ϵ_m<ϵ_{m1}<\mathrm{}<ϵ_1E_0`$. The final potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ in terms of the initial one is given by:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(x)=V(x)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\alpha _i^{}(x,ϵ_i).$$
(30)
Thus, the point consists in looking for the solutions to the Riccati equation (25) for the various values of $`i`$. It turns out that the $`i`$-th superpotential $`\alpha _i(x,ϵ_i)`$ can be algebraically determined from the $`(i1)`$-th at $`ϵ_i`$ and $`ϵ_{i1}`$ \[22-25\]:

$$\alpha _i(x,ϵ_i)=\alpha _{i1}(x,ϵ_{i1})\frac{2(ϵ_{i1}ϵ_i)}{\alpha _{i1}(x,ϵ_{i1})\alpha _{i1}(x,ϵ_i)}.$$
(31)
We arrive, finally, to the following conclusion: the $`m`$ solutions $`\alpha _1(x,ϵ_i),i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ to the initial Riccati equation (19) determine completely, by means of just an algebraic composition procedure involving equation (31), the final potential (30).

4.1. The harmonic oscillator. By taking $`V(x)=x^2/2`$, it is simple to find the general solution to (19) for an arbitrary fixed value of $`ϵ`$ :

$`\alpha _1(x,ϵ)=`$ $`x+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{12ϵ}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};x^2)+2\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{32ϵ}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{12ϵ}{4})}}x{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{32ϵ}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};x^2)\right]\right\}.`$ (32)
In the first order supersymmetric quantum mechanics, we must have $`|\nu |<1`$ in order to avoid singularities in $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$. The corresponding restriction for $`\nu `$ in the higher order case is, in general, different from the one just pointed out . The eigenfunctions of the new potentials (30) are given by (27). The corresponding spectrum takes the form $`\{ϵ_i,E_n=n+1/2,i=1,\mathrm{},m,n=0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, i.e., there is one infinite ladder of equally spaced levels starting from $`1/2`$ plus $`m`$ finite ones of length one and placed at arbitrary positions $`ϵ_i,i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ below $`1/2`$.

5. Polynomial Heisenberg algebras and HSUSY. An obvious constructions for a natural pair of annihilation and creation operators associated to the HSUSY partners $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ of the oscillator can be seen from figure 3 \[11,27-28\]:

$$D=B^{}aB,D^{}=B^{}a^{}B,$$
(33)
where $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators of the harmonic oscillator. It is simple to show that $`D,D^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ close a polynomial algebra of $`(2m)`$-th order of kind (7-9) :

$`[\stackrel{~}{H},D]=D,`$
$`[\stackrel{~}{H},D^{}]=D^{},`$ (34)
$`[D,D^{}]=N(\stackrel{~}{H}+1)N(\stackrel{~}{H}).`$
The generalized number operator $`N(\stackrel{~}{H})`$ reads:

$$N(\stackrel{~}{H})D^{}D=\left(\stackrel{~}{H}\frac{1}{2}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\left(\stackrel{~}{H}ϵ_i1\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{H}ϵ_i\right).$$

We notice that the eigenstates $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{ϵ_i}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ are annihilated by both $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$. Moreover, any eigenstate $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is connected with its two neighbours $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n1}`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n+1}`$ by means of $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ and the extremal state $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0`$ is just connected with $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1`$ by means of $`D^{}`$ because it is annihilated by $`D`$.

We have provided thus a non-trivial realization of the Polynomial Heisenberg algebra (7-9). Next, we will look for a variant of the annihilation and creation operators whose action onto the basis vectors $`\{|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{ϵ_i},|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n\}`$ becomes similar as for the harmonic oscillator.

6. Linearized polynomial Heisenberg algebra. The pair of annihilation and creation operators $`D_L`$ and $`D_L^{}`$ acting onto $`|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n,n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ as the Heisenberg-Weyl generators take the form :

$`D_L=B^{}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(Nϵ_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(Nϵ_i+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}aB,`$
(35)
$`D_L^{}=B^{}a^{}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(Nϵ_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(Nϵ_i+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}B,`$
$`D_L|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n=\sqrt{n}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n1},`$
$`D_L^{}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n=\sqrt{n+1}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{n+1},`$ (36)
$`[D_L,D_L^{}]|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n=|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n.`$
Let us notice that the expressions (35) for $`D_L`$ and $`D_L^{}`$ are more involved than the corresponding ones for $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ in (33). However, $`D_L`$ and $`D_L^{}`$ act onto $`\{|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n,n=0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ simpler than $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ do. This property arises again for the corresponding coherent states, a point which has been discussed in detail elsewhere .

7. Conclusions and outlook. The HSUSY QM is a powerful tool in order to generate solvable potentials from a given initial one. The point reduces to find solutions to the initial Riccati equation (19) for a set of factorization energies $`\{ϵ_i,i=1,\mathrm{},m\}`$. In the oscillator case it is possible to iterate the process an arbitrary number of times because it is known the general solution to (19) in the full range $`ϵ<E_0`$. The HSUSY partners of the oscillator have a pair of natural annihilation and creation operators generating a $`(2m)`$-th order polynomial Heisenberg algebra. This kind of algebras can be linearized on the subspace spanned by the eigenvectors associated to $`E_n=n+\frac{1}{2},n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ It has been shown as well that $`D_L`$ and $`D_L^{}`$ represent better than $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ the role played by $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ for the oscillator potential.

As a final remark, let us notice that the polynomial Heisenberg algebras can be realized as well by the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian and some deformed versions of the standard annihilation and creation operators . This procedure can be considered artificial in the sense that a complicated algebraic structure is constructed for a system which has from the very beginning an inherently simpler algebra. We conclude that the HSUSY partners of the oscillator provide the simplest systems for which the polynomial Heisenberg algebras arise in a natural way. Let us notice, however, that systems more general than the HSUSY partners of the oscillator exist which have this kind of deformed algebraic structures . The study of such general systems is a subject of current research which will continue in the near future.

Acknowledgments. The authors acknowledge the support of CONACYT (México), project 32086E.

References

* M. Roček, Phys. Lett. B 255, 554 (1991).
* C. Daskaloyannis, J. Phys. A 24, L789 (1991).
* J. Beckers, Y. Brihaye and N. Debergh, J. Phys. A 32, 2791 (1999).
* C. Quesne and H. Vansteenkiste, math-ph/9908021; math-ph/0003025.
* V. Sunilkumar, B.A. Bambah, R. Jagannathan, P.K. Panigrahi and V. Srinivasan, J. Opt. B 2, 126 (2000).
* S.Y. Dubov, V.M. Eleonsky and N.E. Kulagin, Sov. Phys. JETP 75, 446 (1992).
* V.M. Eleonsky and V.G. Korolev, J. Phys. A 28, 4973 (1995).
* N. Aizawa and H.T. Sato, Prog. Theor. Phys. 98, 707 (1997).
* F. Cannata, G. Junker and J. Trost, in Particles, fields and gravitation, J. Rembielinski Ed., AIP Conf. Proc. 453, Woodbury (1998), p. 209.
* M. Arik, N.M. Atakishiyev and K.B. Wolf, J. Phys. A 32, L371 (1999).
* D.J. Fernández and V. Hussin, J. Phys. A 32, 3603 (1999).
* D.J. Fernández, M. Sc. Thesis, CINVESTAV (1984).
* E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 188, 513 (1981).
* C.V. Sukumar, J. Phys. A 18, 2917 (1985).
* F. Cooper, A. Khare and U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rep. 251, 267 (1995).
* D.J. Fernández, J. Negro and M.A. del Olmo, Ann. Phys. 252, 386 (1996).
* G. Junker and P. Roy, Ann. Phys. 270, 155 (1998).
* A.A. Andrianov, M.V. Ioffe, F. Cannata and J.P. Dedonder, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 2683 (1995).
* V.G. Bagrov and B.F. Samsonov, Phys. Part. Nucl. 28, 374 (1997).
* D.J. Fernández, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12, 171 (1997).
* D.J. Fernández, M.L. Glasser and L.M. Nieto, Phys. Lett. A 240, 15 (1998).
* D.J. Fernández, V. Hussin and B. Mielnik, Phys. Lett. A 244, 309 (1998).
* J.O. Rosas-Ortiz, J. Phys. A 31, L507 (1998); ibid 10163 (1998).
* B.F. Samsonov, Phys. Lett. A 263, 274 (1999).
* B. Mielnik, L.M. Nieto and O. Rosas-Ortiz, Phys. Lett. A 269, 70 (2000).
* A. Andrianov, F. Cannata, M. Ioffe and D. Nishnianidze, Phys. Lett. A 266, 341 (2000).
* B. Mielnik, J. Math. Phys. 25, 3387 (1984).
* D.J. Fernández, V. Hussin and L.M. Nieto, J. Phys. A27, 3547 (1994).
* D.J. Fernández, L.M. Nieto and O. Rosas-Ortiz, J. Phys. A28, 2693 (1995).
* A.P. Veselov and A.B. Shabat, Funct. Anal. Appl. 27, 81 (1993).


text:
# Low-lying excitations of a trapped rotating Bose-Einstein condensate

\[

## Abstract

We investigate the low-lying excitations of a weakly-interacting, harmonically-trapped Bose-Einstein condensed gas under rotation, in the limit where the angular mometum $`L`$ of the system is much less than the number of the atoms $`N`$ in the trap. We show that in the asymptotic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ the excitation energy, measured from the energy of the lowest state, is given by $`27N_3(N_31)v_0/68`$, where $`N_3`$ is the number of octupole excitations and $`v_0`$ is the unit of the interaction energy.

PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi, 05.30.Jp, 67.40.Db, 67.40.Vs

\]

The behaviour of a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate under rotation has attracted much attention in the recent years. References  have dealt with this problem theoretically both in the Thomas-Fermi limit of strong interactions, as well as in the limit of weak interactions. Borrowed from the field of nuclear physics, the terminology “yrast state” refers to the state with the lowest energy for a given angular momentum $`L`$ that the system has. Of equal importance to the yrast state are the low-lying excitations, which determine the thermodynamic behaviour of the system, and they are also crucial for the stability of the yrast states under external perturbations.

In the present study we consider the hamiltonian $`H=H_0+V`$. Here

$`H_0={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}\mathbf{}_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\omega ^2r_i^2\right]`$ (1)
includes the kinetic energy of the particles and the potential energy due to the trapping potential, where $`M`$ is the atom mass, and $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the harmonic confining potential, which we assume to be isotropic. Also the interaction between the particles $`V`$ is assumed to be short-ranged,

$`V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_0{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_j),`$ (2)
where $`U_0=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/M`$ is the matrix element for atom-atom collisions, with $`a`$ being the scattering length. We consider the limit of weak interactions, where the typical interaction energy is much less than the typical oscillator quantum of energy,

$`nU_0\mathrm{}\omega ,`$ (3)
with $`n`$ being the density of atoms. The above condition allows us to work in the subspace of single-particle states with no radial excitations,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_m(𝐫)=\frac{1}{(m!\pi a_0^3)^{1/2}}\left(\frac{\rho }{a_0}\right)^{|m|}e^{im\varphi }e^{(\rho ^2+z^2)/2a_0^2}.$$
(4)
Here $`\rho ,z`$, and $`\varphi `$ are cylindrical polar coordinates, and $`a_0=(\mathrm{}/M\omega )^{1/2}`$ is the oscillator length. These states are degenerate in the absence of interactions (while states with radial excitations lie higher by an energy of order $`\mathrm{}\omega `$). The whole problem thus reduces to incorporating the interactions between the atoms, which lift the degeneracy of the states.

One of us has determined in Ref.  the yrast line of a weakly-interacting Bose-Einstein condensate for an effective attraction between the atoms. In the same reference the yrast line has also been determined for the case of an effective repulsion between the atoms and for $`LN`$. In Ref.  we have given a more detailed description of the yrast line within the mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii approximation for a wide range of values of the ratio $`L/N`$.

If one studies the limit $`LN`$, as shown in Ref. , in a state with a $`2^\lambda `$-pole excitation,

$`|\lambda =|(m=0)^{N1},(m=\lambda )^1,`$ (5)
where $`m`$ is the state with angular momentum $`m\mathrm{}`$, the excitation (interaction) energy is

$`ϵ_\lambda =\lambda |V|\lambda 0|V|0=Nv_0\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{\lambda 1}}}\right),`$ (6)
where $`|0=|(m=0)^N`$ is the ground state, and $`v_0=U_0/a_0^3`$. The above equation implies that the highest gain in the interaction energy per unit of angular momentum comes from the $`\lambda =2`$ or 3 excitations, and therefore the quadrupole and octupole excitations are expected to carry the angular momentum for $`LN`$. As a result, in this limit there is a quasi-degeneracy between the low-lying states, as we discuss below in detail. By saying quasi-degenerate states, we mean that the energy separation between them is of order $`v_0`$, and not of order $`Nv_0`$.

Bertsch and Papenbrock  have examined the ground state of a weakly-interacting Bose-Einstein condensate under rotation numerically by diagonalizing the hamiltonian $`H`$ in the subspace of degenerate states (4) for a given angular momentum. In Ref.  Nakajima and Ueda have performed similar numerical calculations in the limit where the angular momentum per particle $`L/N`$ is much less than 1, and have found that the quasi-degenerate states which we mentioned in the previous paragraph lie above the yrast by an energy, which in the asymptotic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ is given by $`1.59N_3(N_31)v_0/4`$, where $`N_3`$ is the number of octupole excitations.

In this study we give an analytical derivation of this result with use of a diagrammatic perturbation-theory approach. The starting point of our analysis is the fact that the quadrupole and octupole $`\lambda =2,3`$ excitations are dominant for $`LN`$ , and we therefore assume that in this limit the angular momentum is carried by $`\lambda =2`$ and $`\lambda =3`$ excitations only. In addition, the condensate is dominated by atoms which do not have any angular momentum. Our approach therefore consists of considering a condensate with $`N_0`$ atoms in the state $`m=0`$, $`N_2`$ atoms in the state with $`m=2`$, and $`N_3`$ in the state with $`m=3`$, and then treating the other states perturbatively by keeping the appropriate diagrams and using perturbation theory to get the correction to the energy. The “bare” interaction energy with particles in the $`m=0`$, 2 and 3 states is given by (see Fig. 1 and Table I)

$`^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_0(N_01)`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}N_2(N_21)+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{32}}N_3(N_31)+`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_0N_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}N_0N_3+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}N_2N_3,`$ (8)
where the interaction energy is measured in units of $`v_0`$. The diagrams shown in Fig. 2 lower the energy, as second-order perturbation theory implies. For example, for the process shown in Fig. 2(a) where two particles with $`m=2`$ scatter to a state with $`m=0`$ and $`m=4`$, and then back to the initial state, the matrix element for each vertex is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{6}}{16}}\sqrt{N_2(N_21)(N_0+1)(N_4+1)}v_0,`$ (9)
where $`N_m`$ is the number of atoms with angular momentum $`m\mathrm{}`$. In Eq. (9) we have included the factor $`N_4+1`$ for clarity, although as we mentioned above $`N_4`$ is assumed to be equal to zero. The result of Eq. (9) is most easily derived by writing the interaction energy, Eq. (2), as

$`V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_0{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}I_{i,j,k,l}a_i^{}a_j^{}a_ka_l,`$ (10)
where $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ are annihilation and creation operators respectively, and

$`I_{i,j,k,l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{}(𝐫)\mathrm{\Phi }_k(𝐫)\mathrm{\Phi }_l(𝐫)𝑑𝐫}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i+j)!}{2^{(i+j)}\sqrt{i!j!k!l!}}}{\displaystyle |\mathrm{\Phi }_0(𝐫)|^4𝑑𝐫}`$ (12)
when $`i+j=k+l`$ and zero otherwise. In the case we consider here only the integrals $`I_{0,4,2,2}`$ and $`I_{4,0,2,2}`$ give a non-zero result reflecting the symmetrization of the bosonic wavefunction.

As Eq. (6) implies, the difference between the energy in the intermediate and the initial states is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=ϵ_4+ϵ_02ϵ_2=Nv_0/8`$. Therefore, according to perturbation theory, the correction to the energy is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{||^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}N_2(N_21)v_0`$ (13)
in the limit $`LN`$. Table I gives the correction to the energy for the processes shown in Fig. 2. Adding these terms to $`^{(0)}`$, we see that the corrected interaction energy $`^{(1)}`$ is, in units of $`v_0`$ and to leading order in $`N^1`$,

$`^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_0(N_01)+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{34}}N_3(N_31)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_0N_2+`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}N_0N_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}N_2N_3{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}N_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_2.`$ (15)
To conserve particle number and angular momentum, we have the following constraints

$`N_0+N_2+N_3=N\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}N_2+3N_3=L.`$ (16)
Using them, we express $`^{(1)}`$ in terms of $`N,L`$, and $`N_3`$, thus finding

$`^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}N(2NL2)+{\displaystyle \frac{27}{68}}N_3(N_31).`$ (17)
The number 27/68 coincides with the numerical result 1.59/4 reported in Ref. . Here $`N_3`$ can take all the non-negative integer values that are consistent with the constraints of Eq. (16). Thus the number of excited states described by Eqs. (16) and (17) is equal to the integer part of $`L/6`$. These statements are exact asymptotically, i.e., for $`N\mathrm{}`$, since there are processes which couple the quadrupole $`m=2`$ excitations with the octupole $`m=3`$ excitations and they contribute terms of order $`1/N`$ to the excitation energy. Concerning the yrast state, a consequence of Eq. (17) is that its energy is given by the expression

$`_0={\displaystyle \frac{N}{4}}(2NL2),`$ (18)
in agreement with Refs. . Finally a result of Eq. (17) is that the yrast state for $`LN`$ is dominated by quadrupole excitations, i.e., to leading order,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_2}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{N}}.`$ (19)
In summary we have developed an effective theory which describes the ground state and the low-lying excited states of a weakly-interacting Bose-Einstein condensate under rotation, in the limit where the angular momentum is much less than the number of atoms. This study demonstrates that there are low-lying excited states which differ by an energy of order $`v_0`$ (and not $`Nv_0`$), and we have found agreement with a previous numerical study  of the same problem. We should point out that for all the values of $`L/N`$ we have examined numerically, except the case $`L/N1`$, we found that the low-lying excited states are separated from the yrast state by an energy of order $`Nv_0`$, and in that respect the limit $`LN`$ seems to be unique.

We would like to thank C. Pethick, A. Jackson and M. Koskinen for useful discussions. G.M.K. would like to thank the Foundation of Research and Technology, Hellas (FORTH) for its hospitality. S.M.R. would like to acknowledge financial support from the “Bayerische Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst”.


text:
# Shocks and sonic booms in the intracluster medium: X-ray shells and radio galaxy activity

## 1. Introduction

In the powerful Faranoff-Riley type II radio galaxies (FR-II; Fanaroff & Riley 1974), jets from a central AGN propagate at relativistic speeds before terminating in a series of shocks resulting from interaction with the surrounding material. The spent jet material is then thought to inflate a broad cocoon which encases the jets and is seen as the observed radio lobes. In very powerful or young sources, the cocoon is probably overpressured (Begelman & Cioffi 1989) with respect to the surrounding ambient material (either the interstellar medium \[ISM\] of the host galaxy, or the intracluster medium \[ICM\] of the host cluster). The cocoon then undergoes supersonic pressure driven expansion into the ambient medium, sweeping the ambient medium into a shocked shell. A contact discontinuity separates the relativistic cocoon material from the shocked ambient material.

X-ray observations provide one with a direct probe of the interaction of the ISM/ICM with the radio galaxy cocoon. X-ray imaging observations with the high resolution imagers (HRIs) on the ROSAT satellite discovered several systems in which the observable radio lobes are seen to reside in evacuated cavities within the ICM which are bounded by shells of enhanced emission (e.g. Cygnus-A: Carilli et al. 1994; Perseus-A: Bohringer et al. 1992; A 4059: Huang & Sarazin & 1998). In order to further explore the shell/cavity in Cygnus-A, Clarke, Harris & Carilli (1997) performed 3D hydrodynamic simulations of a jet propagating into a cluster-like atmosphere. They found that the X-ray cavities are readily identified with the radio cocoon (whose pressure driven expansion excludes the ICM), and that the X-ray shells can be identified with strong shocks in the ICM. Kaiser & Alexander (1999) showed how analytic self-similar hydrodynamic models can be used to obtain similar results. More recently, Rizza et al. (2000) performed 3-D hydrodynamic simulations in an attempt to model subtle X-ray structure in A 133, A 2626, and A2052.

In a complementary study, Heinz, Reynolds & Begelman (1998; hereafter HRB98) used a simple “bubble” model for the cocoon/shock system (Begelman & Cioffi 1989; Reynolds & Begelman 1997) to predict the X-ray appearance of radio galaxies as a function of their age and power. A central assumption used in the HRB98 model is that the presence of an X-ray shell bounding the sides of a radio cocoon indicates a lateral shock front, which in turn implies that the sides of the cocoon are still expanding at supersonic speeds. This assumption is based upon the hydrodynamical fact that, once the sideways expansion of the cocoon becomes subsonic, the contact discontinuity separating the cocoon and the ICM will become susceptible to the Rayleigh-Taylor instability on timescales shorter than the expansion timescale of the cocoon. One might then expect the cocoon to collapse, with the corresponding disappearance of the X-ray cavities.

In this letter, we follow up the study of HRB98 by using moderate-to-high resolution 2-D hydrodynamic simulations to study the interaction of radio-galaxies with the ICM. We find that powerful radio galaxies in which the entire cocoon is supersonic do indeed produce a well defined shell/cavity structure, although backflows within the shocked ICM shell increase its thickness substantially over that predicted by the bubble model (also see Kaiser & Alexander 1999). However, we also find a shell/cavity structure in sources in which the sides of the cocoon are expanding at subsonic speeds (or even not expanding at all). In this case, the cocoon has not had time to collapse, despite the fact that Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities are gradually destroying it. The X-ray shell corresponds to emission from a weak shock or compression wave (i.e. a sonic boom) which is driven into the ICM by the supersonic motion of the cocoon head. We find that ICM material can be lifted into this emitting shell without passing through a strong shock, which has important implications for the temperature structure of such X-ray shells and entropy injection into the ICM. This study is particularly timely given its relevance to Chandra observations of radio galaxies embedded within galaxy clusters.

Section 2 briefly discusses the configuration and results of our hydrodynamic simulations. In Section 3, we compute emissivity maps and discuss the nature of X-ray shells and cavities. Section 4 describes how one may use X-ray data to estimate the power and age of a given radio galaxy. We summarize our conclusions in Section 5.

## 2. Hydrodynamic simulations

The simulations discussed in this paper were performed using the ZEUS3D code (Stone & Norman 1992a,1992b; Clarke, Norman & Fielder 1994) to solve the equations of ideal hydrodynamics. Major advantages of this code are its flexibility in the choice of the computational grid, and the fact that it has been extensively tested. In all of the simulations reported in this paper, this code is used in its pure-hydro form (i.e., there are no magnetic fields present) and we assume axisymmetry, thereby reducing the computational domain to two spatial dimensions.

We model back-to-back jets originating from a source residing in the center of a galaxy/cluster atmosphere, i.e., no assumption regarding reflection symmetry in the plane normal to the jets was made. The simulations were performed in spherical polar coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$, and the computational domain was the region $`r(0.1,10)`$. The ambient galaxy/cluster gas was assumed to be isothermal with a (adiabatic) sound speed of unity ($`c_{\mathrm{ICM}}=1`$) and a density gradient given by a $`\beta `$-model with $`\beta =0.5`$ and core radius $`r_0=2`$:

$$\rho (r)=\frac{1}{[1+(r/r_0)^2]^{3/4}}.$$
(1)
The gravitational potential was set so as to keep this ambient material in hydrostatic equilibrium. It is assumed that the gravitational potential is dominated by background dark matter, i.e., the self-gravity of the gas is negligible. This reasonable assumption prevents us from having to solve Poisson’s equation as part of the hydrodynamic simulations. The jets themselves are initially conical with a half opening angle of $`15^{}`$, and are in pressure equilibrium with the ambient medium. They are given initial densities of $`\rho _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ and Mach numbers (with respect to the sound speed of the injected jet material) of $``$.

In addition to studying X-ray shells/cavities, these simulations were tailored to study mixing across the contact discontinuity and the evolution of passive sources after the jets have turned off. An array of runs was performed to study the influence of the systems parameters and numerical resolution. A full discussion of all of these hydrodynamic simulations, together with a discussion of ICM/cocoon mixing and the evolution of passive sources, will be presented in Reynolds, Heinz & Begelman (2001; hereafter RHB01). Here, we focus on two of those simulations. Run 1 has $`\rho _{\mathrm{jet}}=0.01`$ and $`=10.5`$, giving a kinetic luminosity of $`L_1=24.8`$. Run 2 has the same Mach number but a higher jet density of $`\rho _{\mathrm{jet}}=0.1`$, giving a lower kinetic luminosity of $`L_2=7.7`$. Both of these runs use a $`600\times 600`$ grid in the $`(r,\theta )`$-plane, with non-uniform grid spacing that concentrates resolution towards the cluster center and along the two jet axes.

We can relate quantities within the code to physical quantities by fixing the parameters of the background medium. Suppose we set $`r_0=100\mathrm{kpc}`$, $`c_{\mathrm{ISM}}=1000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and a central number density of $`n_0=0.01\mathrm{cm}^3`$ — values representative of galaxy clusters. Then, one code unit of time corresponds to 50 Myr. The kinetic luminosities of the jets in Run 1 and Run 2 are then $`9.3\times 10^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`2.9\times 10^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, respectively.

The detailed hydrodynamics of the jet is very similar to that found by Lind et al. (1989). In particular, the presence of a conical shock in the jet sprays the jet material into a wide fan as it approaches the end of the cocoon, thereby producing a 2-d version of the “dentist-drill” effect (Scheuer 1974) which spreads the jet momentum over a large working surface. The detailed hydrodynamics of the jet and the contact discontinuity will be discussed in RHB01. Here we focus on the implications of this work for X-ray shells and cavities.

## 3. Shocks and sonic booms: implications for observable X-ray shells

Figure 1 shows density maps, temperature maps and simulated Chandra ACIS-S X-ray maps for time $`t=0.1`$ from Run 1, and times $`t=1.3,2.4`$ from Run 2. The X-ray maps assume a source inclination of $`60^{}`$, and were made by integrating the total X-ray emissivity along lines of sight through the simulated system. The X-ray emissivity was derived using spectra from the mekal thermal plasma model (Mewe, Gronenschild & van den Oord 1985; Arnaud & Rothenflug 1985; Mewe, Lemen & van den Oord 1988; Kaastra 1992) in the xspec software package folded through the Chandra ACIS-S response curve.

The density maps clearly show the disturbance in the ICM, and the contact discontinuity between the disturbed ICM and the low density cocoon. Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities are clearly visible along this contact discontinuity. In the early stages of Run 1 (e.g., left panels of Fig. 1), the entire cocoon is expanding supersonically and a well defined shell of shocked ICM exists around the cocoon. As the simulation progresses, the sideways expansion of the cocoon becomes subsonic and eventually halts altogether. However, the supersonic cocoon head still drives a sideways disturbance into the ICM (in the form of a very weak shock, or a sonic boom) which creates a thick shell of slightly compressed ICM surrounding the radio cocoon. After several ICM dynamical timescales, the cocoon will collapse almost entirely, destroying the shell like appearance of the system. However, there will be a significant portion of the sources lifetime in which one would observe a clear X-ray shell which corresponds to a sonic boom rather than a strong shock.

This distinction between the strong shock and sonic boom is important for the following reason. In the shock scenario, the ICM experiences a significant jump in both density and entropy at it crosses the shock front. Of course, the entropy jump is due to the irreversible thermalization of the bulk kinetic energy of the undisturbed ICM as viewed in the frame of reference of the shock. This leads to a rather thin shell of disturbed ICM that is appreciably hotter than the undisturbed ICM. It also injects substantial entropy into the ICM which may build up and produce observational consequences long after the radio galaxy has died.

On the other hand, there is a negligible entropy jump associated with the sonic boom. Since this is more akin to a compression wave (with a 10–20% jump in density across the wavefront), the only heating of the disturbed ICM is due to adiabatic compression. In the case of a radio galaxy expanding into an isothermal cluster atmosphere, this will produce a thick shell of disturbed ICM. Immediately within the compression wave, the material is slightly hotter due to the action of compressional heating. However, regions of the shell are also slightly cooler than the undisturbed ICM due to the action of adiabatic cooling as material is adiabatically lifted into lower pressure parts of the atmosphere. These effects tend to cancel, producing an observed X-ray shell that is almost the same temperature as the undisturbed ICM. In the case of a cooling flow (where the temperature decreases with decreasing radius), the shell may be significantly cooler than the undisturbed ICM due to the lifting of cool material into the shell. This result, which is in stark contrast with the strong shock scenario, may be very relevant to recent Chandra observations of Hydra-A (McNamura et al. 2000) and Perseus-A (Fabian et al. 2000).

It is also worth noting that a backflow exists in the disturbed ICM which significantly depletes the amount of ICM material near the head of the cocoon. To illustrate this point, the amount of mass contained in the part of the disturbed ICM shell that lies within the cone $`\theta <15^{}`$ is only half of the ICM mass which was swept up in this cone. This, together with the fact that the shock is rather narrow and very hot, makes the strong shock bounding the head of the cocoon very hard to detect in X-ray maps. Indeed, no observations to date have detected thermal emission from this region.

## 4. Further discussion

If we wish to measure physical parameters (e.g., kinetic luminosity and age) of a given radio galaxy, is it important to know whether it is in the strong or weak shock regime. Given X-ray data of sufficient quality, the two regimes can be easily distinguished by the temperature and morphology of the X-ray shell — hot narrow shells indicate strong shocks whereas thick shells with little or no temperature difference (or even a lower temperature) indicate weak shocks.

In the strong shock case, the detailed hydrodynamics of the shocked shell leads to surprisingly large deviations in the thickness of the shell as compared with the simple bubble model. For this reason, the diagnostic diagrams of Heinz et al. (1998) require some modification. New and detailed diagnostic diagrams, based upon applying scaling relations to full hydrodynamic simulations, will be presented in a future publication.

On the other hand, there are some robust diagnostics from the X-ray band that can be used in the weak shock case. Since the lateral expansion velocity of the weak shock is the ICM sound speed, the age of the source is given by

$$t_{\mathrm{RG}}\frac{r_{\mathrm{shell}}}{c_{\mathrm{ICM}}}$$
(2)
where $`r_{\mathrm{shell}}`$ is the lateral size of the observed disturbed shell (which is independent of the inclination angle of the source), and $`c_{\mathrm{ICM}}`$ is the adiabatic sound speed of the ICM. Once the temperature $`T`$ of the ICM has been measured, the sound speed is given by $`c_{\mathrm{ICM}}^2=5kT/3\mu m_\mathrm{p}`$ where $`\mu 0.5`$ is the mean molecular weight of the gas. Assuming an orientation and source geometry, one can estimate the volume of the X-ray cavities $`V`$. The average kinetic power of the source is then given by

$$L_{\mathrm{kin}}=f\frac{pV}{t_{\mathrm{RG}}}$$
(3)
where $`p`$ is the pressure of the displaced ICM which can be estimated from X-ray observations, and $`f2`$ is a factor of order unity which includes the enthalpy term and accounts for spatial gradients in the pressure.

## 5. Conclusions

Guided by 2-D hydrodynamic simulations, we distinguish three regimes of radio galaxy evolution which have importance for understanding the structure of X-ray cavities and shells. In the early life of a powerful radio galaxy, the entire cocoon is expanding supersonically and a strong shock is driven into the ICM in all directions. One would see a relatively narrow and hot X-ray shell surrounding the radio lobes. However, eventually, the lateral expansion velocity of the contact discontinuity becomes subsonic. There can be a substantial phase of the source’s life in which the cocoon is subsonic but has yet to collapse and is surrounded by a rather thick shell of disturbed ICM which has suffered a weak shock or compression wave. X-ray observations of such a system would reveal a rather thick shell bounding a cavity. The temperature of this shell would be very similar to the temperature of the undisturbed ICM. If a cooling flow is present, this shell would contain cooler material that has been lifted from further down in the cluster potential. Even if the ICM is isothermal, regions of the disturbed shell could be slightly cooler due to the action of adiabatic expansion. We also note that a backflow exists in the disturbed ICM shell which significantly depletes the shocked shell near the head of the jet and renders it difficult to observe. After several ICM dynamical timescales, the cocoon will collapse and the apparent X-ray shell will vanish.

Finally, at very late times, after the radio galaxy activity has ceased, the relic lobes may appear as ‘naked’ cavities within the ICM emission (i.e. X-ray cavities that are not bounded by shells). Such structures have been explored in recent work by Churazov et al. (2000).

## Acknowledgements

CSR appreciates support from Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01113.01-98A. This grant was awarded by the Space Telescope Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA under contract NAS 5-26555. We also appreciate support from NASA under LTSA grant NAG5-6337, and the National Science Foundation under grants AST-9529170 and AST-9876887.


text:
# Gravitational Higgs Mechanism

## I Introduction

In the Brane World scenario the Standard Model gauge and matter fields are assumed to be localized on branes (or an intersection thereof) embedded in a higher dimensional bulk . The volume of dimensions transverse to the branes is automatically finite if these dimensions are compact. On the other hand, the volume of the transverse dimensions can be finite even if the latter are non-compact. In particular, this can be achieved by using  warped compactifications  which localize gravity on the brane .

A class of examples with localized gravity is given by domain wall solutions interpolating between two AdS vacua. Such backgrounds spontaneously break diffeomorphism invariance of the theory, which results in gravitational Higgs mechanism. One of the aims of this paper is to study the gravitational Higgs mechanism in some detail. In particular, we compute the spectrum of normalizable modes in domain wall background solutions that arise in the theory of $`D`$-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert gravity coupled to a scalar field with a non-trivial potential. The scalar fluctuations in such backgrounds can be completely gauged away, and so can be the graviphoton fluctuations. On the other hand, we show that the graviscalar fluctuations do not even have plane-wave normalizable modes. As to the $`(D1)`$-dimensional graviton fluctuations, in the case where the domain wall interpolates between two AdS vacua (so that the volume of the transverse dimension is finite) the massive modes are plane-wave normalizable, while the zero mode is quadratically normalizable. We also discuss the case of domain walls interpolating between AdS and Minkowski vacua (in this case the volume of the transverse dimension is infinite) , where we have the same conclusions as in the previous case except that the $`(D1)`$-dimensional graviton zero mode is no longer quadratically normalizable but plane-wave normalizable.

We then discuss the coupling of domain wall gravity to localized $`(D1)`$-dimensional matter. In particular, we point out that this coupling is consistent only if the matter is conformal. This is different from what happens in the Randall-Sundrum model for the reason that there if a discontinuity between the $`\delta `$-function-like limit of a smooth domain wall and the Randall-Sundrum brane - the former breaks diffeomorphisms only spontaneously, while the latter breaks some of the diffeomorphisms explicitly. We also point out that, in the finite volume cases with localized gravity, at the quantum level there is an inconsistency in the coupling between the domain wall gravity and localized matter as the latter generically is no longer conformal. This is not unrelated to the fact that at the quantum level gravity is generically expected to be delocalized due to higher curvature terms . As to the Randall-Sundrum case, where we also expect that gravity is generically expected to be delocalized at the quantum level, an inconsistency in the coupling between brane world gravity and brane matter is generically expected to arise due to the fact that in this case the graviscalar does not decouple in the ultra-violet .

Finally, we point out that the aforementioned difficulties do not arise in the recent proposal of , where we have completely localized gravity on a solitonic brane. In particular, in this case there are no propagating degrees of freedom in the bulk, and no inconsistency related to higher curvature terms or graviscalar coupling is expected to arise at the quantum level.

## II Gravity in Domain Wall Backgrounds

Consider a single real scalar field $`\varphi `$ coupled to gravity with the following actionHere we focus on the case with one scalar field for the sake of simplicity. In particular, in this case we can absorb a (non-singular) metric $`Z(\varphi )`$ in the $`(\varphi )^2`$ term by a non-linear field redefinition. This cannot generically be done in the case of multiple scalar fields $`\varphi ^i`$, where one must therefore also consider the metric $`Z_{ij}(\varphi )`$.:

$$S=M_P^{D2}d^Dx\sqrt{G}\left[R\frac{4}{D2}(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\right],$$
(1)
where $`M_P`$ is the $`D`$-dimensional (reduced) Planck scale, and $`V(\varphi )`$ is the scalar potential for $`\varphi `$. The equations of motion read:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{D2}}^2\varphi =V_\varphi ,`$ (2)
$`R_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{MN}R={\displaystyle \frac{4}{D2}}\left[_M\varphi _N\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{MN}(\varphi )^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{MN}V.`$ (3)
The subscript $`\varphi `$ in $`V_\varphi `$ denotes derivative w.r.t. $`\varphi `$.

In the following we will be interested in solutions to the above equations of motion where the metric has the following warped  form

$$ds^2=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\eta _{MN}dx^Mdx^N,$$
(4)
where $`\eta _{MN}`$ is the flat $`D`$-dimensional Minkowski metric, and the warp factor $`A`$ and the scalar field $`\varphi `$ are non-trivial functions of $`zx^D`$ but are independent of the other $`(D1)`$ coordinates $`x^\mu `$. With this Ansatz we have the following equations of motion for $`\varphi `$ and $`A`$ (prime denotes derivative w.r.t. $`z`$):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{D2}}\left[\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\varphi ^{}\right]V_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A)=0,`$ (5)
$`(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{D2}}(\varphi ^{})^2+V\mathrm{exp}(2A)=0,`$ (6)
$`(D2)\left[A^{\prime \prime }(A^{})^2\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{D2}}(\varphi ^{})^2=0.`$ (7)
We can rewrite these equations in terms of the following first order equations

$`\varphi ^{}=\alpha W_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(A),`$ (8)
$`A^{}=\beta W\mathrm{exp}(A),`$ (9)
where

$`\alpha \sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{D2}}{2}},`$ (10)
$`\beta \sigma {\displaystyle \frac{2}{(D2)^{3/2}}},`$ (11)
and $`\sigma =\pm 1`$. Moreover, the scalar potential $`V`$ is related to the function $`W=W(\varphi )`$ via

$$V=W_\varphi ^2\gamma ^2W^2,$$
(12)
where

$$\gamma ^2\frac{4(D1)}{(D2)^2}.$$
(13)
In the supersymmetric context the function $`W(\varphi )`$ is interpreted as the superpotential, while the equations (8) and (9) are the BPS equations, which imply that the domain wall breaks 1/2 of the original supersymmetries.

A Simple Example

Let us give a simple example of a domain wall solution of the above type. Thus, let

$$W=\xi \left[\zeta \varphi \frac{1}{3}\zeta ^3\varphi ^3\right],$$
(14)
where $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ are parameters. The domain wall solution is then given by:

$`\varphi (y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta }}\mathrm{tanh}\left[\alpha \xi \zeta ^2(yy_0)\right],`$ (15)
$`A(y)={\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{3\alpha \zeta ^2}}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{cosh}\left[\alpha \xi \zeta ^2(yy_0)\right]\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left[\alpha \xi \zeta ^2(yy_0)\right]}}\right\}+A_0,`$ (16)
where $`y_0`$ and $`A_0`$ are integration constants, which we will set to zero in the following. Then the point $`y=0`$ corresponds to the “center” of the domain wall, and at this point the warp factor vanishes: $`A(0)=0`$. For convenience reasons here instead of the $`(x^\mu ,z)`$ coordinate system we are using the $`(x^\mu ,y)`$ coordinate system, where

$$dy=\mathrm{exp}(A)dz.$$
(17)
In the following we will set the integration constant in the solution $`y=y(z)`$ of (17) so that the $`z=0`$ point corresponds to the $`y=0`$ point.

Note that in the above solution the volume of the $`y`$ direction, which is given by

$$v=𝑑y\mathrm{exp}[(D1)A],$$
(18)
is finite. This implies that gravity is localized on the domain wall. In the following we will be interested in precisely such domain walls.

### A Normalizable Modes

Let us now study gravity in the above type of smooth domain wall backgrounds. In particular, here we would like to compute the spectrum of normalizable modes. Thus, let us consider small fluctuations around the domain wall solution (15) and (16):

$$G_{MN}=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\left[\eta _{MN}+\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}\right],$$
(19)
where for convenience reasons we have chosen to work with $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ instead of metric fluctuations $`h_{MN}=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$. Also, let $`\phi `$ be the fluctuation of the scalar field around the background $`\varphi =\varphi (z)`$.

In terms of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ the full $`D`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms (corresponding to $`x^Mx^M\xi ^M`$)

$$\delta h_{MN}=_M\xi _N+_N\xi _M$$
(20)
are given by the following gauge transformations (here we use $`\xi _M\mathrm{exp}(2A)\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M`$):

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}=_M\stackrel{~}{\xi }_N+_N\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M+2A^{}\eta _{MN}\omega ,$$
(21)
where $`\omega \stackrel{~}{\xi }_D`$. As to the scalar field $`\phi `$, we have:

$$\delta \phi =\varphi ^{}\omega .$$
(22)
Since the domain wall solution does not break diffeomorphisms explicitly but spontaneously, the linearized equations of motion are invariant under the full $`D`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms.

In the following we will use the following notations for the component fields:

$$H_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu },A_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu D},\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_{DD}.$$
(23)
In terms of the component fields $`H_{\mu \nu }`$, $`A_\mu `$ and $`\rho `$, the full $`D`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms read:

$`\delta H_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\nu +_\nu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu +2\eta _{\mu \nu }A^{}\omega ,`$ (27)
$`\delta A_\mu =\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}+_\mu \omega ,`$
$`\delta \rho =2\omega ^{}+2A^{}\omega ,`$
$`\delta \phi =\varphi ^{}\omega .`$
In the following we will also use the notation $`HH_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$.

The linearized equations of motion read:

$`_\sigma ^\sigma H_{\mu \nu }+_\mu _\nu H_\mu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \nu }_\nu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \mu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[_\sigma ^\sigma H^\sigma ^\rho H_{\sigma \rho }\right]+`$ (28)
$`H_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\left[H_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{}\right]`$ (29)
$`\left\{_\mu A_\nu ^{}+_\nu A_\mu ^{}2\eta _{\mu \nu }^\sigma A_\sigma ^{}+(D2)A^{}\left[_\mu A_\nu +_\nu A_\mu 2\eta _{\mu \nu }^\sigma A_\sigma \right]\right\}+`$ (30)
$`_\mu _\nu \rho \eta _{\mu \nu }_\sigma ^\sigma \rho +\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[(D2)A^{}\rho ^{}V\mathrm{exp}(2A)\rho \right]=`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{D2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\varphi ^{}\phi ^{}+\eta _{\mu \nu }\phi V_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A),`$ (32)
$`\left[^\mu H_{\mu \nu }_\nu H\right]^{}^\mu F_{\mu \nu }+(D2)A^{}_\nu \rho ={\displaystyle \frac{8}{D2}}\varphi ^{}_\nu \phi ,`$ (33)
$`\left[^\mu ^\nu H_{\mu \nu }^\mu _\mu H\right]+(D2)A^{}\left[H^{}2^\sigma A_\sigma \right]+V\mathrm{exp}(2A)\rho =`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{D2}}\varphi ^{}\phi ^{}\phi V_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A),`$ (35)
$`_\mu ^\mu \phi +\phi ^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\phi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{8}}\phi V_{\varphi \varphi }\mathrm{exp}(2A)`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{}\left[2^\mu A_\mu +\rho ^{}H^{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{8}}\rho V_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A)=0,`$ (37)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ is the $`U(1)`$ field strength for the graviphoton.

Next, let us note that the field $`\phi `$ can be completely eliminated from the above equations of motion . Indeed, this is achieved via diffeomorphisms with

$$\omega =\phi /\varphi ^{}.$$
(38)
That is, $`\phi `$ is not a propagating degree of freedom in this gauge . This is an important point, which implies that not only the $`\phi `$ zero mode but the entire field $`\phi `$ is “eaten” in the gravitational Higgs mechanism.

Note that setting $`\phi `$ to zero uses up some diffeomorphisms, but the residual diffeomorphisms are sufficient to also gauge $`A_\mu `$ away. Indeed, after we remove $`\phi `$ from the equations of motion, we can use the diffeomorphisms with $`\omega 0`$ but non-trivial $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu `$ to set $`A_\mu `$ to zero without otherwise changing the form of the equations of motion. We, therefore, obtain:

$`_\sigma ^\sigma H_{\mu \nu }+_\mu _\nu H_\mu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \nu }_\nu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \mu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[_\sigma ^\sigma H^\sigma ^\rho H_{\sigma \rho }\right]+`$ (39)
$`H_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\left[H_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{}\right]+`$ (40)
$`_\mu _\nu \rho \eta _{\mu \nu }_\sigma ^\sigma \rho +\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[(D2)A^{}\rho ^{}V\mathrm{exp}(2A)\rho \right]=0,`$ (41)
$`\left[^\mu H_{\mu \nu }_\nu H\right]^{}+(D2)A^{}_\nu \rho =0,`$ (42)
$`\left[^\mu ^\nu H_{\mu \nu }^\mu _\mu H\right]+(D2)A^{}H^{}+V\mathrm{exp}(2A)\rho =0,`$ (43)
$`\varphi ^{}\left[\rho ^{}H^{}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{4}}\rho V_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A)=0.`$ (44)
Here we note that the graviscalar component cannot be gauged away after we perform the above gauge fixing.

Here we note that not all of the above equations are independent. Thus, differentiating (39) with $`^\mu `$, we obtain an equation which is identically satisfied once we take into account (42) as well as the on-shell expressions for $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$. Also, if we take the trace of (39), then we obtain an equation which is identically satisfied once we take into account (42), (43) and (44) as well as the on-shell expressions for $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$. This, as usual, is a consequence of Bianchi identities.

Now we are ready to discuss normalizable modes in the above domain wall background. Let us first consider the normalizable modes for the graviscalar $`\rho `$. Thus, we can eliminate $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ from (42), (43) and (44), which gives us the following second order equation for $`\rho `$:

$$\rho ^{\prime \prime }+\psi A^{}\rho ^{}+^\mu _\mu \rho +F\rho =0,$$
(45)
where

$$\psi (z)D+\frac{2\alpha }{\beta }\frac{W_{\varphi \varphi }}{W},$$
(46)
and

$$F(z)2\mathrm{exp}(2A)\left[(D1)\beta ^2W^2W_\varphi ^2+2\alpha \beta WW_{\varphi \varphi }+\alpha ^2W_\varphi W_{\varphi \varphi \varphi }\right].$$
(47)
Let us now assume that $`\rho `$ satisfies the $`(D1)`$-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation

$$^\mu _\mu \rho =m^2\rho .$$
(48)
In the following we will assume that $`m^20`$. As to the $`m^2<0`$ modes, they cannot be normalizable - indeed, the domain wall is a kink-like object, and is therefore stable, so no tachyonic modes are normalizable.

We need to understand the asymptotic behavior of $`\rho `$ at large $`z`$. To do this, let us first note that at large $`z`$ the function $`\psi (z)`$ goes to a constant asymptotic value:

$$\psi (z\pm \mathrm{})\psi _0.$$
(49)
Here for simplicity we are assuming that $`W(\varphi )=W(\varphi )`$, so that the asymptotic values of $`\psi (z)`$ at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$ are the same. Also, note that

$$\psi _0>D.$$
(50)
Thus, for instance, in the example given by (15) and (16) we have

$$\psi _0=D+\frac{3}{2}(D2)^2\zeta ^2.$$
(51)
In the following, since we are interested in the asymptotic behavior of $`\rho `$ at large $`z`$, we will replace $`\psi (z)`$ in (45) by $`\psi _0`$.

To proceed further, it is convenient to rescale $`\rho `$ as follows:

$$\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\psi _0A\right].$$
(52)
At large $`z`$ the equation (45) then reads:

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{\prime \prime }+\left[m^2+F\frac{1}{2}\psi _0A^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{4}\psi _0^2(A^{})^2\right]\stackrel{~}{\rho }=0.$$
(53)
Note that at large $`z`$ the functions $`F`$, $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`(A^{})^2`$ go to zero as $`1/z^2`$. We therefore have the following leading behavior for $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ at large $`z`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(z)=C_1\mathrm{cos}(mz)+C_2\mathrm{sin}(mz),$$
(54)
where $`C_1,C_2`$ are some constant coefficients.

Next, note that the norm for the graviscalar is given by

$$\rho ^2𝑑z\mathrm{exp}(DA)\rho ^2,$$
(55)
where the measure $`\mathrm{exp}(DA)`$ comes from $`\sqrt{G}`$. In terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ we have

$$\rho ^2𝑑z\mathrm{exp}\left[(D\psi _0)A\right]\stackrel{~}{\rho }^2.$$
(56)
Since $`A`$ goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ at large $`z`$, we conclude that, due to (50), none of the $`m^2>0`$ modes are even plane-wave normalizable. Moreover, since the function $`F`$ in (45) is non-trivial, we do not have a quadratically normalizable zero mode either. Thus, we conclude that $`\rho `$ is not a propagating degree of freedom in the above background, and should be set to zero.

Next, let us turn to the normalizable modes for the graviton $`H_{\mu \nu }`$. From (42), (43) and (44) it follows that, since $`\rho 0`$, we have

$$^\mu H_{\mu \nu }^{}=H^{}=0.$$
(57)
This then implies that we can use the residual $`(D1)`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms (for which $`\omega 0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu `$ are independent of $`z`$) to bring $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ into the transverse-traceless form:

$$^\mu H_{\mu \nu }=H=0.$$
(58)
It then follows from (39) that for the modes of the form

$$H_{\mu \nu }=\xi _{\mu \nu }(x^\rho )\mathrm{\Sigma }(z),$$
(59)
where

$$^\sigma _\sigma \xi _{\mu \nu }=m^2\xi _{\mu \nu },$$
(60)
the $`z`$-dependent part of $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies the following equation:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }=0,$$
(61)
Let us rescale $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(D2)A\right].$$
(62)
The equation (61) now reads:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{\prime \prime }+\left[m^2\frac{1}{2}(D2)A^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{4}(D2)^2(A^{})^2\right]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0.$$
(63)
At large $`z`$ we therefore have:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(z)=D_1\mathrm{cos}\left(mz\right)+D_2\mathrm{sin}\left(mz\right),$$
(64)
where $`D_1,D_2`$ are some constant coefficients.

Next, note that the norm for the graviton is given by

$$H_{\mu \nu }^2𝑑z\mathrm{exp}[(D2)A]\mathrm{\Sigma }^2,$$
(65)
where, unlike the graviscalar case, the measure $`\mathrm{exp}[(D2)A]`$ comes from $`\sqrt{G}R`$. In terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ we have

$$H_{\mu \nu }^2𝑑z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2.$$
(66)
Thus, we see that the $`m^2>0`$ modes of $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ are plane-wave normalizable. Moreover, we also have a quadratically normalizable zero mode for $`H_{\mu \nu }`$. This zero mode is given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=0`$.

Thus, as we see, in smooth domain wall backgrounds of the aforementioned type only the $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ components correspond to propagating degrees of freedom, while others either can be gauged away or do not have normalizable modes. This is a result of the gravitational Higgs mechanism.

Infinite Volume Cases

We would like to end this subsection with the following remark. Above we considered domain walls interpolating between two AdS vacua. Here we note that we can also have domain walls interpolating between AdS and Minkowski vacua . Let us consider a simple example of such a domain wall. Thus, let

$$W=\xi \left[\zeta \varphi \frac{1}{3}\zeta ^3\varphi ^3\frac{2}{3}\right],$$
(67)
where $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ are parameters. The domain wall solution is then given by:

$`\varphi (y)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta }}\mathrm{tanh}\left[\alpha \xi \zeta ^2(yy_0)\right],`$ (68)
$`A(y)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{3\alpha \zeta ^2}}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{cosh}\left[\alpha \xi \zeta ^2(yy_0)\right]\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left[\alpha \xi \zeta ^2(yy_0)\right]}}\right\}`$ (70)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\beta \xi (yy_0)+A_0,`$
where, as before, $`y_0`$ and $`A_0`$ are integration constants.

Note that in the above solution the volume of the $`y`$ direction, which is given by (18), is infinite. This implies that gravity is not localized on the domain wall. The above computations for the spectrum of normalizable modes can be straightforwardly applied to this case as well. In particular, it is not difficult to show that, as before, the only normalizable modes are those corresponding to the $`(D1)`$-dimensional graviton $`H_{\mu \nu }`$. The difference, however, is that all of the modes $`m^20`$ are only plane-wave normalizable, that is, we do not have a quadratically normalizable zero mode in this case.

### B Comparison with the Global Case

For comparative purposes we would like to end this section by briefly discussing what happens if we turn off gravity. In this case the relevant action is

$$𝒮=d^Dx\left[\frac{4}{D2}(\varphi )^2𝒱(\varphi )\right],$$
(71)
where the potential $`𝒱`$ is given by

$$𝒱=W_\varphi ^2.$$
(72)
Let us focus on backgrounds where $`\varphi `$ depends non-trivially on $`x^Dy`$ but is independent of the other $`(D1)`$ coordinates $`x^\mu `$. The equation of motion for $`\varphi `$ can then be written as

$$\varphi _y=\alpha W_\varphi .$$
(73)
As before, let

$$W=\xi \left[\zeta \varphi \frac{1}{3}\zeta ^3\varphi ^3\right],$$
(74)
where $`\xi `$ and $`\zeta `$ are parameters. The domain wall solution is then given by:

$$\varphi (y)=\frac{1}{\zeta }\mathrm{tanh}\left[\alpha \xi \zeta ^2(yy_0)\right],$$
(75)
where $`y_0`$ corresponds to the “center” of the domain wall, which, in this case, is a kink. In the following we will set $`y_0=0`$.

Let us now discuss the spectrum of normalizable modes. The equation of motion for small fluctuations $`\phi `$ around the background is given by

$$\phi _{yy}+^\mu _\mu \phi \alpha ^2\left[W_{\varphi \varphi }^2+W_\varphi W_{\varphi \varphi \varphi }\right]\phi =0.$$
(76)
Let us assume that $`\phi `$ satisfies the $`(D1)`$-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation

$$^\mu _\mu \phi =m^2\phi .$$
(77)
In the following we will assume that $`m^20`$. As to the $`m^2<0`$ modes, they are not normalizable as the above kink background is stable.

In the background (75) we have:

$$\phi _{yy}+\left\{m^24m_{}^2\left[1\frac{3}{2\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(m_{}y\right)}\right]\right\}\phi =0,$$
(78)
where

$$m_{}|\alpha \xi |\zeta ^2.$$
(79)
The spectrum of normalizable modes is then as follows . There is a quadratically normalizable zero mode given by (note that in this setup the measure in the norm of the $`\phi `$ field is trivial)

$$\phi (x^\mu ,y)=\frac{\chi (x^\mu )}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(m_{}y\right)},$$
(80)
where $`\chi (x^\mu )`$ satisfies the massless $`(D1)`$-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation. The modes with masses $`0<m2m_{}`$ are not normalizable except for an isolated mode with $`m^2=3m_{}^2`$, which is quadratically normalizable. Finally, the modes with masses $`m>2m_{}`$ are plane-wave normalizable. Thus, we have a mass gap in this model. The zero mode is the Goldstone mode of the broken translational invariance in the $`y`$ direction. Upon gauging the diffeomorphisms, that is, once we include gravity, we expect that this mode is eaten in the corresponding gravitational Higgs mechanism. As we saw in the previous subsection, this is indeed the case. Note, however, that in the gravitational Higgs mechanism not only the zero mode but all the other $`\phi `$ modes are eliminated as well including the aforementioned isolated massive quadratically normalizable mode with $`m^2=3m_{}^2`$.

## III Coupling to Localized Matter

In this section we would like to study how gravity in the domain wall background couples to localized matter. To do this, let us introduce a probe $`\delta `$-function-like codimension one brane with matter localized on it. We will refer to the hypersurface corresponding to this brane as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and we will denote its location in the $`z`$ direction via $`z_0`$. For this probe brane not to affect the domain wall background, it must be tensionless, and its coupling to the scalar field $`\varphi `$ must vanish as well.

The term describing the interaction of brane matter with bulk fields is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{int}}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}x\left[\frac{1}{2}T_{\mu \nu }H^{\mu \nu }+\frac{8}{D2}\mathrm{\Theta }\phi \right],$$
(81)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the (properly normalized) energy-momentum tensor, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the coupling of $`\phi `$ to the brane matter. The invariance under the diffeomorphisms (27) and (27) implies that the energy-momentum tensor is conserved

$$^\mu T_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(82)
while the trace of the energy momentum tensor and the coupling to the scalar field must satisfy the following condition (note that $`\varphi ^{}`$ does not vanish anywhere):

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{D2}{8}\frac{A^{}(z_0)}{\varphi ^{}(z_0)}T,$$
(83)
where $`TT_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$.

To proceed further, we need equations of motion for small perturbations in the presence of the above matter sources. As before, in these equations we can gauge $`A_\mu `$ and $`\phi `$ away. Then the resulting equations of motion read:

$`_\sigma ^\sigma H_{\mu \nu }+_\mu _\nu H_\mu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \nu }_\nu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \mu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[_\sigma ^\sigma H^\sigma ^\rho H_{\sigma \rho }\right]+`$ (84)
$`H_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\left[H_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{}\right]+`$ (85)
$`_\mu _\nu \rho \eta _{\mu \nu }_\sigma ^\sigma \rho +\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[(D2)A^{}\rho ^{}V\mathrm{exp}(2A)\rho \right]=M_P^{2D}T_{\mu \nu }\delta (zz_0),`$ (86)
$`\left[^\mu H_{\mu \nu }_\nu H\right]^{}+(D2)A^{}_\nu \rho =0,`$ (87)
$`\left[^\mu ^\nu H_{\mu \nu }^\mu _\mu H\right]+(D2)A^{}H^{}+V\mathrm{exp}(2A)\rho =0,`$ (88)
$`\varphi ^{}\left[\rho ^{}H^{}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{4}}\rho V_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A)=2M_P^{2D}\mathrm{\Theta }\delta (zz_0).`$ (89)
Note that the l.h.s. of the last equation contains no terms with the second derivative w.r.t. $`z`$, while for non-vanishing scalar coupling $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ the r.h.s. contains a $`\delta `$-function source term. This implies that this equation does not have a consistent solution unless we require that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=0.$$
(90)
This together with (83) implies that, unless $`A^{}(z_0)=0`$, we must have $`T=0`$. To avoid this restriction on the trace of the energy-momentum tensor, we must place the brane at the “center” of the domain wall (that is, we must set $`z_0=0`$), where we have $`A^{}(0)=0`$. (Note that if the domain wall interpolates between AdS and Minkowski vacua $`A^{}`$ is non-vanishing everywhere, and the consistency requires that the brane matter be conformal .)

Note that, with $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$, as before (87), (88) and (89) imply that $`\rho `$ must be set to zero. Moreover, we still have (57). It is then not difficult to see that (84) can be satisfied if and only if

$$T=0,$$
(91)
that is, the localized matter must be conformal. If this condition is satisfied, then the solution for the graviton field $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$H_{\mu \nu }(p,z)=M_P^{2D}\mathrm{\Omega }(p,z)T_{\mu \nu },$$
(92)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p,z)`$ is the solution to the following equation

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }(p,z)+(D2)A^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(p,z)p^2\mathrm{\Omega }(p,z)=\delta (z)$$
(93)
subject to the boundary conditions (for $`p^2p_\mu p^\mu >0`$)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(p,z\pm \mathrm{})=0.$$
(94)
Here we have Fourier transformed the $`(D1)`$ coordinates $`x^\mu `$ ($`p^\mu `$ are the corresponding momenta), and Wick rotated to the Euclidean space (where the propagator is unique). The above solution describes a gravitational field of conformal matter localized on the brane.

### A The $`\delta `$-function-like Limit and a Discontinuity

The above result, that localized matter cannot be consistently coupled to domain wall gravity unless the former is conformal, might at first appear surprising. In particular, naively it might seem that in the thin wall limit, where the domain wall becomes $`\delta `$-function like, one should reproduce the setup of , where it appears that non-conformal matter can, at least at the classical level, be coupled to bulk gravity. This, however, is not so for a simple reason which we would like to discuss next.

To begin with, let us note that if we take the limit $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$ in the domain wall solution (15) and (16), we obtain a $`\delta `$-function-like brane solution with vanishing scalar field and the warp factor

$$A(y)=\frac{|y|}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(95)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{3}{2\beta \xi }.$$
(96)
This warp factor is of the same form as in the Randall-Sundrum model , where we have a codimension one brane with tension $`f>0`$ embedded in the bulk with constant vacuum energy density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$:

$$S=f_{\mathrm{brane}}d^{D1}x\sqrt{\widehat{G}}+M_P^{D2}d^Dx\sqrt{G}\left[R\mathrm{\Lambda }\right],$$
(97)
where

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }\delta _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{M}\delta _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{N}G_{MN}|_{z=0}.$$
(98)
Here for definiteness we are assuming that the brane is located at $`z=0`$. With the appropriately fine-tuned brane tension $`f`$ and bulk vacuum energy density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in this model we then have a solution with precisely the warp factor of the form (95) and $`(D1)`$-dimensional Poincaré invariance on the brane.

There is, however, a crucial difference between the above two setups. The smooth domain wall solution, even in the aforementioned limit, breaks diffeomorphisms only spontaneously, while the $`\delta `$-function-like brane source in (97) breaks diffeomorphisms explicitly. We therefore have a discontinuity between the two setups. That is, for any arbitrarily large but finite value of the parameter $`\zeta `$ gravity in the above domain wall background is qualitatively different from that in the Randall-Sundrum model. In particular, in the former case we always have an extra equation (89), which ensures that $`\rho `$ vanishes everywhere, and this, in turn, leads to the requirement that the localized matter be conformal.

On the other hand, in the Randall-Sundrum model there is no analog of (89), and $`\rho `$ need not vanish. As explained in , it is precisely this fact that allows a consistent (classical) coupling between brane matter and bulk gravity in this setup. This is precisely due to the fact that the brane in the Randall-Sundrum model breaks diffeomorphisms explicitly. There is, however, a price one has to pay for this. In particular, even though the graviscalar decouples from the brane matter in the infra-red, its coupling to the trace of the corresponding conserved energy-momentum tensor is non-vanishing in the ultra-violet . As explained in , at the quantum level this then generically leads to an inconsistency in the coupling between brane matter and bulk gravity in the Randall-Sundrum model.

### B Quantum Instability

As we reiterated in the previous subsection, at the quantum level we expect an inconsistency in the coupling between bulk gravity and brane matter in the Randall-Sundrum model. Here we would like to point out that a similar conclusion holds for gravity in the above type of smooth domain wall backgrounds as well.

Thus, since gravity is localized, generically the localized matter will not remain conformal at the quantum level. This then implies that generically we have an inconsistency in the coupling between localized matter and bulk gravity at the quantum level. This gives us a hint that localization of gravity itself might not be stable against quantum corrections. In fact, this is indeed expected to be the case . In particular, generic higher curvature terms actually delocalize gravity. Thus, inclusion of higher derivative terms of, say, the form

$$\lambda d^Dx\sqrt{G}R^k$$
(99)
into the bulk action would produce terms of the form  (the hatted quantities are $`(D1)`$-dimensional)

$$\lambda d^{D1}x𝑑y\mathrm{exp}[(D2k1)A]\sqrt{\widehat{G}}\widehat{R}^k.$$
(100)
Assuming that $`A`$ goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ at $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$, for large enough $`k`$ the factor $`\mathrm{exp}[(D2k1)A]`$ diverges, so that at the end of the day gravity is no longer localized. In fact, for $`D=5`$ delocalization of gravity takes place already at the four-derivative level once we include the $`R^2`$, $`R_{MN}^2`$ and $`R_{MNRS}^2`$ terms with generic coefficients with the only exception being the Gauss-Bonnet combination .

A possible way around this difficulty might be that all the higher curvature terms should come in “topological” combinations (corresponding to Euler invariants such as the Gauss-Bonnet term) so that their presence does not modify the $`(D1)`$-dimensional propagator for the bulk graviton modes . That is, even though such terms are multiplied by diverging powers of the warp factor, they are still harmless. One could attempt to justify the fact that higher curvature bulk terms must arise only in such combinations by the fact that otherwise the bulk theory would be inconsistent to begin with due to the presence of ghosts. However, it is not completely obvious whether it is necessary to have only such combinations to preserve unitarity. Thus, in a non-local theory such as string theory unitarity might be preserved, even though at each higher derivative order there are non-unitary terms, due to a non-trivial cancellation between an infinite tower of such terms.

Recently, however, a novel approach to this problem has been proposed in . The setup of  is the Einstein-Hilbert-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with negative cosmological term. As was shown in , at the special value of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling this theory has a codimension one solitonic brane solution. In this solution the brane is $`\delta `$-function-like, and gravity is completely localized on the brane. That is, there are no propagating degrees of freedom in the bulk, while on the brane we have purely $`(D1)`$-dimensional Einstein gravity. Thus, albeit the classical background is $`D`$-dimensional, the quantum theory is $`(D1)`$-dimensional. The aforementioned troubles with delocalization of gravity as well as consistency of the coupling between brane matter and bulk gravity are therefore absent in the model of . In particular, the brane matter in this model need not be conformal, and the entire setup is stable against quantum corrections<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§The only possible instability is related to $`(D1)`$-dimensional physics, namely, the cosmological constant on the brane. This solution, however, can be embedded in supergravity , where the solitonic brane is a BPS solution preserving 1/2 of the original supersymmetries, and the brane cosmological constant vanishes..

We would like to end our discussion by pointing out that the aforementioned difficulty with higher curvature terms does not arise in theories with infinite-volume non-compact extra dimensions . However, in such scenarios consistency of the coupling between bulk gravity and brane matter might give rise to additional constraints. Thus, in some cases the brane world-volume theory must be conformal In this case gravity is not localized as the volume of the transverse space is infinite, so the requirement that the brane matter is conformal need not be violated at the quantum level. It would be interesting to understand if there is any relation between such setups and . Some speculations on this question were recently given in ..

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Gregory Gabadadze for valuable discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation. Z.K. would also like to thank Albert and Ribena Yu for financial support.