text:
# Warped compactification on Abelian vortex in six dimensions

## I Introduction

Topological defects appearing in different field-theoretical models and residing in higher-dimensional space-time can be considered as a prototype of four-dimensional world provided the known particles and gravity are localized on them . For example, a domain wall solution of a simple $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory with spontaneous breaking of $`\varphi \varphi `$ symmetry in five-dimensional space-time leads naturally to four-dimensional chiral fermions residing on a domain wall  and to four-dimensional gravity , if some fine-tuning of a bulk cosmological constant to the domain wall tension is made. A number of “thick” wall solutions in scalar field theory coupled to gravity has been found , and the possibility of gravity localization on these walls has been studied.

If a domain wall is replaced by a more complicated topological defect, such as string -, monopole  or instanton  (living, respectively, in 6, 7 or 8 dimensions), the structure of chiral fermionic zero modes, needed for construction of a realistic phenomenology in four dimensions, gets richer. Hence, if the possibility of constructing standard model interactions along these lines from higher dimensions is taken seriously, other fields (scalar, gauge and gravity) must be localized on topological defects as well.

In  was shown that a thin string in 6 dimensions could lead to localization of gravity if certain relations between the tension components are satisfied (for even higher-dimensional generalisations see ). The aim of the present paper is to provide a field-theoretical realisation of this idea and show that an Abelian Higgs model, in which a string defect arises naturally, can lead, at once, to solutions which localize gravity and which have a geometry free of singularities. In the absence of branes a model with an Abelian magnetic field in six dimensions was considered in .

The plan of our paper is the following. In Section II the Abelian-Higgs model coupled to six-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert gravity is formulated. In Section III the properties of six-dimensional cylindrically symmetric warped geometries will be discussed in the absence of defects. This is a necessary step for a classification of the solutions in the presence of vortex-type defects. In Section IV the asymptotics of the solutions will be studied both for the metric and for the scalar and gauge fields. Necessary conditions in order to get string solutions will be formulated. Section VI contains numerical examples of the solutions localizing gravity whose parameter space is analyzed in detail. The thin string limit is considered. In Section VII we discuss solutions leading to gravity localization in the case of higher winding numbers and consider regular string solutions which do not localize gravity. Section VIII contains our concluding remarks. In the Appendix useful results concerning the interplay between the thin string limit and the Bogomolnyi limit have been collected.

## II Abelian-Higgs model in six dimensions

### A Basic equations

The total action of gravitating Abelian Higgs model in six dimensions can be written as

$$S=S_{\mathrm{brane}}+S_{\mathrm{grav}},$$
(2.1)
where $`S_{\mathrm{brane}}`$ is the gauge-Higgs action and $`S_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ is the six-dimensional generalization of Einstein-Hilbert gravity. More specifically,

$$S_{\mathrm{brane}}=d^6x\sqrt{G}_{\mathrm{brane}},_{\mathrm{brane}}=\frac{1}{2}(𝒟_A\varphi )^{}𝒟^A\varphi \frac{1}{4}F_{AB}F^{AB}\frac{\lambda }{4}\left(\varphi ^{}\varphi v^2\right)^2,$$
(2.2)
where $`𝒟_A=_AieA_A`$ is the gauge covariant derivative, while $`_A`$ is the generally covariant derivative §§§The conventions of the present paper are the following : the signature of the metric is mostly minus, Latin (uppercase) indices run over the $`(4+2)`$-dimensional space whereas Greek indices run over the four-dimensional space.. In Eq. (2.2), $`v`$ is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field determining the masses of the Higgs and of the gauge boson

$$m_H=\sqrt{2\lambda }v,m_V=ev.$$
(2.3)
As usual the bulk action is

$$S_{\mathrm{grav}}=d^6x\sqrt{G}\left[\frac{R}{2\chi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }\right],$$
(2.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a bulk cosmological constant, $`\chi =8\pi G_6=8\pi /M_6^4`$ and $`M_6`$ denotes the six-dimensional Planck mass.

From Eqs. (2.1)–(2.4) the coupled system of classical equations of motion can be derived

$`G^{AB}_A_B\varphi e^2A_AA^A\varphi ieA_A^A\varphi ie_A(A^A\varphi )+\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi v^2)\varphi =0,`$ (2.5)
$`_AF^{AB}=e^2A^B\varphi ^{}\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{2}}\left(\varphi ^B\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}^B\varphi \right),`$ (2.6)
$`R_{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{AB}R=\chi \left(T_{AB}+\mathrm{\Lambda }G_{AB}\right),`$ (2.7)
where

$$T_{AB}=_{\mathrm{brane}}G_{AB}+\frac{1}{2}\left[(𝒟_A\varphi )^{}𝒟_B\varphi +(𝒟_B\varphi )^{}𝒟_A\varphi \right]F_{AC}F_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{C}.$$
(2.8)
We are interested in static string-like solutions of Eqs. (2.5)–(2.7) that depend only on the extra coordinates and thus do not break general covariance along the four physical dimensions. For these solutions a six-dimensional metric is

$`ds^2=G_{AB}dx^Adx^B=M^2(\rho )g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu d\rho ^2L(\rho )^2d\theta ^2,`$ (2.9)
where $`\rho `$ and $`\theta `$ are, respectively, the bulk radius and the bulk angle, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the four-dimensional metric and $`M(\rho )`$, $`L(\rho )`$ are the warp factors. The Nielsen-Olesen ansatz for the gauge-Higgs system reads:

$`\varphi (\rho ,\theta )=vf(\rho )e^{in\theta },`$ (2.10)
$`A_\theta (\rho ,\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}[nP(\rho )],`$ (2.11)
where $`n`$ is the winding number.

Inserting Eq. (2.11) into Eqs. (2.5)–(2.7) and using the specific form of the metric given in Eq. (2.9), the equations of motion can be written as

$`f^{\prime \prime }+(4m+\mathrm{})f^{}+(1f^2)f{\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{^2}}f=0,`$ (2.12)
$`P^{\prime \prime }+(4m\mathrm{})P^{}\alpha f^2P=0,`$ (2.13)
$`\mathrm{}^{}+3m^{}+\mathrm{}^2+6m^2+3\mathrm{}m=\mu \nu \tau _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{\mathrm{ph}}}{M^2}},`$ (2.14)
$`4m^{}+10m^2=\mu \nu \tau _\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu _{\mathrm{ph}}}{M^2}},`$ (2.15)
$`2m\mathrm{}+3m^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2}}\tau _\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{\mathrm{ph}}}{M^2}}.`$ (2.16)
The four-dimensional metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ obeys the equation:

$$R_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}\frac{1}{2}R^{(4)}g_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi }{M_P^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ph}}g_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.17)
where the physical cosmological term, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, is an arbitrary integration constant and $`M_P`$ is the four-dimensional Planck mass. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ph}}=0`$ we can choose $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric. This will be the case we will be mostly interested in, even though we will often keep the physical cosmological constant, for sake of completeness.

In Eqs. (2.12)–(2.16) the prime denotes the derivation with respect to the rescaled variable

$$x=\frac{m_H\rho }{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(2.18)
The function $`L(\rho )`$ appearing in the line element of Eq. (2.9) has also been rescaled, namely

$$(x)=\frac{m_H}{\sqrt{2}}L(\rho ).$$
(2.19)
Furthermore, the functions $`m(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{}(x)`$ are simply

$$m(x)=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}M(x)}{dx},\mathrm{}(x)=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}(x)}{dx}.$$
(2.20)
In Eqs. (2.12)–(2.16) dimensionless parameters have been defined as:

$$\alpha =2\frac{m_V^2}{m_H^2},\mu =\frac{2\chi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_H^2},\nu =\chi \frac{m_H^2}{2\lambda },\mu _{\mathrm{ph}}=\frac{16\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ph}}}{M_P^2m_H^2}.$$
(2.21)
Within the mentioned conventions the components of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_A^B`$ turn out to be

$`\tau _0(x)`$ $``$ $`T_0^0=T_i^i={\displaystyle \frac{f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f^21)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\alpha ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^2P^2}{2^2}},`$ (2.22)
$`\tau _\rho (x)`$ $``$ $`T_\rho ^\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f^21)^2{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\alpha ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f^2P^2}{2^2}},`$ (2.23)
$`\tau _\theta (x)`$ $``$ $`T_\theta ^\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f^21)^2{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^2P^2}{2^2}}.`$ (2.24)
Eqs. (2.12)–(2.13) correspond, respectively, to the equations of motion for the scalar and gauge fields whereas Eqs. (2.14)–(2.16) correspond to the various components of Einstein’s equations. Eqs. (2.14)–(2.15) are truly dynamical since they involve $`m^{}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}(x)`$. Eq. (2.16) connects $`m(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{}(x)`$ to the first derivatives of the gauge and scalar degrees of freedom and it is, therefore, a constraint. In the following part of the paper $`\mu _{\mathrm{ph}}=0`$ will be assumed.

### B Boundary conditions

Regular solutions of the equations of motion can be investigated once the boundary conditions are specified. In order to describe a string-like defect in six dimensions we have to demand that the scalar field reaches, for large $`\rho `$, its vacuum expectation value, namely $`|\varphi (\rho )|v`$ for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. In the same limit, the magnetic field should go to zero. Moreover, close to the core of the string both fields should be regular. These requirements can be translated in terms of our rescaled variables as

$`f(0)=0,`$ $`\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}f(x)=1,`$ (2.25)
$`P(0)=n,`$ $`\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}P(x)=0.`$ (2.26)
The requirement of regular geometry in the core of the string reads:

$$M^{}(0)=0,(0)=0,^{}(0)=1,$$
(2.27)
and one can arbitrarily fix $`M(0)=1`$.

These conditions listed in Eqs. (2.26)–(2.27) completely specify a solution. Clearly, Eqs. (2.26)–(2.27) do not tell anything about the asymptotics of the metric at large distances from the string and thus a possibility of gravity localization on a defect remains open. The requirement of gravity localization is equivalent to the finiteness of the four dimensional Planck mass,

$$M_P^2=\frac{4\pi M_6^4}{m_H^2}𝑑xM^2(x)(x)<\mathrm{},$$
(2.28)
which does not hold in general and requires a fine-tuning of parameters of the model, as it will be discussed.

## III Bulk solutions

Outside the core of the string all source terms in Eqs. (2.22)–(2.24) vanish and a general solution to equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4}}=0,`$ (3.1)
$`\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4m}}{\displaystyle \frac{3m}{2}},`$ (3.2)
can be easily found . We will consider the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ only, since the case of a positive cosmological constant in the bulk was studied in . Defining

$$c=\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{10}}>0,$$
(3.3)
the solutions of Eqs. (3.2) can be written as

$$m(x)=c\frac{1ϵe^{5cx}}{1+ϵe^{5cx}},$$
(3.4)
where $`ϵ`$ is an integration constant. Once $`m(x)`$ is known, $`\mathrm{}(x)`$ can be determined from the second of Eqs. (3.2).

In order to understand whether gravity can be localized on any of those solutions we compute $`M`$ and $``$:

$`M(x)=M_0e^{cx}|1+ϵe^{5cx}|^{\frac{2}{5}},`$ (3.5)
$`(x)=_0e^{cx}{\displaystyle \frac{|ϵe^{5cx}1|}{|1+ϵe^{5cx}|^{\frac{3}{5}}}}.`$ (3.6)
If $`ϵ>0`$ or $`ϵ1`$ we have that for $`x\mathrm{}`$ $`Me^{cx}`$. For this solution the integral in (2.28) diverges and thus gravity cannot be localized.

If $`ϵ=0`$ the solution is simply

$$m(x)=\mathrm{}(x)=c,$$
(3.7)
and the warp factors will be exponentially decreasing as a function of the bulk radius:

$`M(x)=M_0e^{cx},`$ (3.8)
$`(x)=_0e^{cx}.`$ (3.9)
The solution of Eqs. (3.7)–(3.9) leads to gravity localization and to a smooth AdS geometry far from the string core. We also note that a pure positive exponential solution can be derived for $`ϵ\pm \mathrm{}`$ taking $`M_0\mathrm{c}_1/|ϵ|^{\frac{2}{5}}`$ and $`_0\mathrm{c}_2/|ϵ|^{\frac{2}{5}}`$ where $`\mathrm{c}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{c}_2`$ are two arbitrary constants.

If $`1<ϵ<0`$, $`M(x_0)=0`$ where $`x_0=\frac{1}{5c}\mathrm{log}1/|ϵ|`$. The geometry is singular at $`x=x_0`$ (see below) and $`x<x_0`$ should be required. In spite of the fact that $``$ diverges at $`x=x_0`$, the integral (2.28) defining the four dimensional Planck mass is finite. So, these geometries can be potentially used for a gravity localization, provided the singularity at $`x_0`$ is resolved by some way, e.g. by string theory . These types of singular solutions were discussed in  for the case of positive cosmological constant.

Finally, if the bulk cosmological constant is zero, the solutions have a power-law behaviour, namely

$$M(x)x^\gamma ,(x)x^\delta ,$$
(3.10)
with

$$d\gamma +\delta =1,d\gamma ^2+\delta ^2=1,$$
(3.11)
where $`d=4`$ is the number of dimensions of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. These solutions belong to the Kasner class. The Kasner conditions leave open only two possibility: either $`\delta =1`$ and $`\gamma =0`$ or $`\gamma =2/5`$ and $`\delta =3/5`$, \[the same fractions as in Eqs. (3.6)\]. None of them could lead to localization of gravity.

In order to study the singularity structure of the bulk solutions without specifying $`ϵ`$, the different curvature invariants may be computed. In the case of warped metrics the Riemann invariant has been calculated in . The explicit form of all the curvature invariants for the metric of Eq. (2.9) is given in  and they are:

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`20m^2+8m^{}+2\mathrm{}^{}+2\mathrm{}^2+8\mathrm{}m,`$ (3.12)
$`R_{AB}R^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`80m^4+20m^2+2\mathrm{}^2+2\mathrm{}^4+64m^{}m^2+4\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{}^{}+28m^2\mathrm{}^2`$ (3.13)
$`+`$ $`32m^3\mathrm{}+8mm^{}\mathrm{}+8m^{}\mathrm{}^{}+8m^{}\mathrm{}^2+8m^2\mathrm{}^{}+8m\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}+8m\mathrm{}^3,`$ (3.14)
$`R_{ABCD}R^{ABCD}`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{}^424m^4+8\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{}^{}+4\mathrm{}^2+32m^2m^{}+16m^2,`$ (3.15)
$`C_{ABCD}C^{ABCD}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}}\left[(m^{}\mathrm{}^{})+\mathrm{}(m\mathrm{})\right]^2.`$ (3.16)
Let us first check the regularity properties of the bulk solutions (3.4). The Ricci and scalar curvature invariants are simply constant for any $`ϵ`$:

$$R=30c^2,R_{AB}R^{AB}=150c^4.$$
(3.17)
The Riemann and Weyl invariants are

$`R_{ABCD}R^{ABCD}={\displaystyle \frac{20c^4\left(e^{20cx}12e^{15cx}ϵ138e^{10cx}ϵ^212e^{5cx}ϵ^3+ϵ^4\right)}{\left(e^{5cx}+ϵ\right)^4}},`$ (3.18)
$`C_{ABCD}C^{ABCD}={\displaystyle \frac{3840c^4e^{10cx}ϵ^2}{\left(e^{5cx}+ϵ\right)^4}}.`$ (3.19)
From these last two expressions we can see that if $`ϵ>0`$ or $`ϵ<1`$ the Weyl and Riemann invariants do not have any pole and thus we have a regular geometry. For $`ϵ=0`$ all curvature invariants are constant and we have a six-dimensional AdS space. On the other hand if $`1<ϵ<0`$ both Weyl and Riemann invariants diverge at a finite value of $`x`$ leading to a singular geometry. The case $`ϵ=1`$ is somewhat specific since a singularity of Kasner type is developed in the origin.

The parameters $`ϵ`$, $`M_0`$, $`_0`$ are not fixed for a bulk space solution. If a string-like defects is placed at the origin $`x=0`$ these constants are no longer arbitrary and are functions of the three parameters of the model, namely, $`ϵ=ϵ(\alpha ,\mu ,\nu )`$, and so on. An everywhere regular geometry is simultaneously achieved together with gravity localization if the parameters lie on the surface $`ϵ(\alpha ,\mu ,\nu )=0`$.

## IV Asymptotics of the solutions

### A The asymptotics of the solutions at the origin

The form of the solutions in the vicinity of the core of the vortex can be studied by expressing the metric functions together with the scalar and gauge fields as a power series in $`x`$, the dimensionless bulk radius. The power series will then be inserted into Eqs. (2.12)–(2.16). Requiring that the series obeys, for $`x0`$, the boundary conditions of Eqs. (2.26) the form of the solutions can be determined as a function of the parameters of the model.

Consider, in particular, the case of $`n=1`$ This analysis can be generalized to the case of higher winding number (namely $`n2`$) as it will be seen in Section VI.. In this case asymptotic solutions close to the core can be written as :

$`f(x)`$ $``$ $`Ax+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4B^2\nu }{3\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2A^2\nu }{3}}1+2B\right){\displaystyle \frac{A}{8}}x^3,`$ (4.1)
$`P(x)`$ $``$ $`1+Bx^2,`$ (4.2)
$`M(x)`$ $``$ $`1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{32}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu B^2}{4\alpha }}\right)x^2,`$ (4.3)
$`(x)`$ $``$ $`x+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}+\nu ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{5B^2}{6\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{6}})\right]x^3.`$ (4.4)
In Eq. (4.4) $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two arbitrary constants which cannot be determined by the local analysis of the equations of motion. These constants are to be found by boundary conditions for $`f(x)`$ and $`P(x)`$ at infinity.

For completeness, we give also the limit of the components of the energy-momentum tensor in the vicinity of the origin:

$`\tau _0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2B^2}{\alpha }}\right],`$ (4.5)
$`\tau _\rho \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2B^2}{\alpha }}\right],`$ (4.6)
$`\tau _\theta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2B^2}{\alpha }}\right].`$ (4.7)
### B The asymptotics of the solutions at infinity

Consider now asymptotics of solutions at large $`x`$, assuming that the geometry is regular at infinity. This situation can be realized both in the case $`ϵ=0`$ \[i.e. Eq. (3.7)\] and in the case Eq. (3.6) either with $`ϵ>0`$ or with $`ϵ<1`$. We can write

$`P(x)=\overline{P}+\delta P(x),`$ (4.8)
$`f(x)=\overline{f}\delta f(x),`$ (4.9)
where, according to Eqs. (2.26) for $`x1`$, $`\overline{P}0`$ and $`\overline{f}1`$.

First, we will consider the case $`ϵ=0`$. From Eq. (2.13) it follows that

$$\delta P^{\prime \prime }3c\delta P^{}\alpha \delta P=0,$$
(4.10)
which implies that, for $`x1`$

$$\delta P(x)e^{\sigma _1x},\sigma _1=\frac{3c}{2}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{4\alpha }{9c^2}}\right].$$
(4.11)
If $`4\alpha 9c^2`$ (the limit of small bulk cosmological constant) the solution is compatible with the gauge field decreasing asymptotically as $`\delta Pe^{\sqrt{\alpha }x}`$ which is the well known flat-space result of the Abelian-Higgs model.

The linearization of the scalar field equation, using a similar procedure, yields

$$\delta f^{\prime \prime }5c\delta f^{}2\delta f=0,$$
(4.12)
leading to the solution

$$\delta f(x)e^{\sigma _2x},\sigma _2=\frac{5c}{2}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{8}{25c^2}}\right].$$
(4.13)
If $`25c^28`$ the perturbed solution goes as $`\delta fe^{\sqrt{2}x}`$ which, again, is the flat-space result.

In Eqs. (4.11)–(4.13) a minus sign should be chosen to obtain an exponentially decreasing behaviour. Moreover, linear approximation is only valid if $`\sigma _2>2\sigma _1+2c`$, in the opposite case $`\delta f\mathrm{exp}(2\sigma _1+2c)`$.

For $`ϵ0`$ the sign in front of $`c`$ in equations (4.10,4.12) must be changed, and we get

$`\delta P(x)e^{\sigma _1x},\sigma _1={\displaystyle \frac{3c}{2}}\left[1+\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{9c^2}}}\right],`$ (4.14)
$`\delta f(x)e^{\sigma _2x},\sigma _2={\displaystyle \frac{5c}{2}}\left[1+\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{25c^2}}}\right].`$ (4.15)
The linear approximation is valid if $`\sigma _2>2\sigma _12c`$, otherwise $`\delta f\mathrm{exp}(2\sigma _12c)`$.

### C String tensions

In the description of string-like defects in four-dimensions it is useful to study the relations obeyed by the string tensions. Indeed, some particular linear combinations of the string tensions may be related to the Tolman mass per unit length and to the angular deficit of the geometry. These quantities can be used in order to classify the physical properties of the solutions and in order to check if they are effectively asymptotically conical .

This analysis is also relevant in our case even though the physical interpretation changes and the specific algebraic relations are different from the well known four-dimensional cases. The components of the string tension are defined as

$$\mu _i=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xM^4(x)(x)\tau _i(x).$$
(4.16)
The integrals appearing at the right hand side always converge for solutions with regular geometry, as follows from the results of the previous subsection.

We will show now that for $`M(x)0,(x)0`$ at $`x\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. in the case we are mostly interested in) the constant $`B`$ in Eq. (4.4) can be analytically determined.

Consider a specific linear combination of Eqs. (2.14)–(2.16), namely

$`2m^{}+4m^2+m\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{4}}\left[\tau _\rho +\tau _\theta \right],`$ (4.17)
$`\mathrm{}^{}+\mathrm{}^2+4\mathrm{}m={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\nu \left[\tau _0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\tau _\rho {\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\tau _\theta \right].`$ (4.18)
Integrating Eqs. (4.17)–(4.18) from zero to $`x_c\mathrm{}`$, we get

$`M^3(x_c)M^{}(x_c)(x_c)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{x_c}}M^4𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{4}}\left(\mu _\rho +\mu _\theta \right),`$ (4.19)
$`M(x_c)^4^{}(x_c)=1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{x_c}}M^4𝑑x\nu \left(\mu _0{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mu _\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\rho }{4}}\right).`$ (4.20)
In the limit $`x_c\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (4.19) is the six-dimensional analog of the relation determining the Tolman mass whereas Eq. (4.20) is the generalization of the relation giving the angular deficit. Therefore the following relation must hold:

$$\mu _0\mu _\theta =\frac{1}{\nu }.$$
(4.21)
This is the fine-tuning relation which has been already found in .

Let us note that if $`ϵ0`$ one can use the asymptotics of the metric found in Eq.(3.6) for computation of the left-hand sides of (4.19,4.20). This gives a more general relation,

$$\mu _0\mu _\theta =\frac{1}{\nu }(110cϵM_0^4_0).$$
(4.22)
The extra term vanishes also for $`ϵ\pm \mathrm{}`$ given the scaling behaviour of $`M_0^4|ϵ|^{\frac{8}{5}}`$ and $`_0|ϵ|^{\frac{2}{5}}`$. So, the condition (4.21) is only necessary but not sufficient in order to have solutions leading to gravity localization.

Being an integral relation we can use (4.21) in order to get informations on the behaviour of the solution in the origin. In order to do so, the left hand side of Eq. (4.21) can be directly expressed in terms of the scalar and vector fields

$$\mu _0\mu _\theta =M^4\left[\frac{P^2}{\alpha ^2}+\frac{f^2P^2}{^2}\right]𝑑x.$$
(4.23)
Using now Eq. (2.13) we arrive at

$$\left(\frac{M^4P^{}}{}\right)^{}=\alpha \frac{f^2PM^4}{},$$
(4.24)
which can be inserted back into Eq. (4.23). Integrating by parts the obtained relation the term containing $`P_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ cancels and we arrive at

$$\mu _0\mu _\theta =\frac{1}{\alpha }\left(\frac{PP^{}M^4}{}|_{\mathrm{}}\frac{PP^{}M^4}{}|_0\right).$$
(4.25)
For the solutions we are interested in the boundary term at infinity vanishes. Using now the asymptotic behaviour for small $`x`$ of Eqs. (4.4) we obtain, from Eq. (4.25),

$$\mu _0\mu _\theta =\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{P^{}}{}|_0.$$
(4.26)
In this case, from Eq. (4.21) and using Eq. (4.25) we have that

$$\frac{\nu }{\alpha }\frac{P^{}}{}|_0=1.$$
(4.27)
According to Eq. (4.4), for $`x0`$, $`P1+Bx^2`$. Using Eq. (4.27) the expression for $`B`$ can be exactly computed

$$B=\frac{\alpha }{2\nu }.$$
(4.28)
This relation is very helpful for numerical integration of equations of motion performed in the following section.

Finally, we would like to notice that the magnetic field can be expressed as $`(\rho )=P^{}(\rho )/(eL(\rho ))`$. Using now Eq. (4.28) we have that $`8\pi (0)=eM_6^4`$.

In closing the present Section we want to stress that the results obtained from the analysis of the relations among the tensions are only necessary conditions in order to find $`ϵ=0`$ solutions. They are not sufficient because $`f^{}(0)A`$ still remains undetermined.

## V Solutions with localization of gravity

In this Section, a numerical search for solutions that localize gravity will be performed. The general method of integration will be firstly outlined. Secondly, some interesting numerical solutions will be presented as an example. Finally, the scan of the parameter space of the model leading to $`ϵ(\alpha ,\mu ,\nu )=0`$ will be presented.

### A Numerical integration

In order to prepare the ground for the numerical integration the system of Eqs. (2.12)–(2.16) can be expressed in a form of a first order non-linear dynamical system. By linearly combining Eqs. (2.12)–(2.16) the following set of equations can be obtained:

$`f^{}=g,`$ (5.1)
$`P^{}=Q,`$ (5.2)
$`^{}=l,`$ (5.3)
$`g^{}=\left(4m+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{}}\right)g(1f^2)f+{\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{^2}}f,`$ (5.4)
$`Q^{}=\left(4m{\displaystyle \frac{l}{}}\right)Q+\alpha Pf^2,`$ (5.5)
$`m^{}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}m^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1f^2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^2P^2}{2^2}}\right),`$ (5.6)
$`l^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}m^23lm{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1f^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7Q^2}{2\alpha ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7f^2P^2}{2^2}}\right),`$ (5.7)
$`M^{}=mM.`$ (5.8)
In order to solve this system the shooting method  has been employed. In the shooting method a boundary value problem is tackled as a series of Cauchy problem. Using forward integration in $`x`$ with a specific set of initial conditions, the asymptotic values of the fields are found. If the asymptotic values are different from the boundaries discussed in Eq. (2.26), the integration is performed again with a different set of initial conditions until the correct asymptotic boundary is reached.

The technical problem is twofold. On one hand the shooting method requires that the initial conditions are given in a range of the parameter space sufficiently close to the one admitting $`ϵ(\alpha ,\mu ,\nu )=0`$ solutions. On the other hand, for the scalar and gauge fields the integration is a boundary value problem whereas, for the warp factors, the integration is a Cauchy problem. The shooting method is implemented in such a way that each forward integration is performed by a Runge-Kutta routine. The differences between the obtained values at large $`x`$ and the boundary values of Eq. (2.26) are considered as functions of the constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ appearing in the asymptotic solution in the vicinity of the core. The Newton method  is then used in order to find the values of $`A`$ and $`B`$ required in order to match the boundaries within the precision of the algorithm.

Therefore, in order to identify a correct set of initial conditions extensive use of backward integrations has been made. Backward integrations have been applied by giving final conditions on warped solutions at large $`x`$ and by integrating the equations from large to small $`x`$. This method allowed to identify a set of initial conditions leading to the correct asymptotic boundaries with warped metrics. This idea has also been applied in a different context always involving warped compactification in string inspired models with quadratic curvature corrections .

### B Some numerical examples

We are now going to give some examples of the numerical integration, see Fig. 1. The values of the scalar and gauge fields are the ones dictated by Eqs. (2.26). At the core of the vortex, the behaviour of the metric and of the other fields follows Eqs. (4.4). For large $`x`$ the metric functions decay exponentially. The asymptotic behaviour of the metric functions for large $`x`$ belongs to the class of solutions discussed in Section II for $`ϵ=0`$, namely $`m\mathrm{}\sqrt{\mu /10}`$.

In the example of Fig. 1, $`\alpha =1.16`$. The relationship (4.28) is satisfied.

The curvature invariants (scalar curvature, Riemann, Weyl and Ricci invariants) defined in Eqs. (3.12)–(3.16) are plotted in Fig. 2 for the solution illustrated in Fig. 1.

The Riemann and Ricci invariants go asymptotically to a constant which is $`𝒪(c^4)`$, whereas the scalar curvature goes to a constant $`𝒪(c^2)`$ as dictated by the asymptotic solutions with $`ϵ=0`$ and derived in Eq. (3.7). The Weyl invariant goes to zero since, asymptotically, the space-time is isotropic. Finally it is interesting to check the behaviour of the various components of the energy momentum tensor, which are reported in Fig. 3.

From Fig. 3 we notice that $`\tau _\theta (x)`$ gets negative and it approaches zero from negative values. This is due to the fact that, in $`\tau _\theta (x)`$ the magnetic stresses dominate leading to locally negative pressure.

In Fig. 4, we show an example where the exponential damping of the metric is slower than in the case showed in Fig. 1. The reason for this behaviour stems from the fact that the value of the cosmological constant (i.e. the $`\mu `$ parameter) chosen in Fig. 4 is roughly one order of magnitude smaller than in the case discussed in Fig. 1. The case $`\alpha =2`$ corresponds to $`m_Vm_H`$, i.e. Bogomolnyi limit where the Abelian-Higgs model in four dimensional flat space obeys interesting properties. This limit is discussed in some details in the Appendix.

To check for the accuracy of numerical integration procedure we consider the constraint equation (2.16) (which was not used in the numerical procedure) that connects $`m(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{}(x)`$ to the $`\tau _\rho (x)`$ component of the energy-momentum tensor:

$$2m\mathrm{}+3m^2+\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{\nu }{2}\tau _\rho =0.$$
(5.9)
Inserting the numerical solutions obtained in the present Section into Eq. (5.9) we should find that Eq. (5.9) is numerically satisfied. The accuracy for which Eq. (5.9) is satisfied indicates the accuracy of the integration.

In Fig. 5 we plot the left hand side of Eq. (5.9) for the solution shown in Fig. 1 of this Section.

As we can see Eq. (5.9) is satisfied with a precision of $`10^{13}`$ in the vicinity of the core and with a precision of $`10^{11}`$ for large $`x`$. For the other solutions similar behaviour can be obtained for the constraint.

### C  The parameter space of the solutions with gravity localization

Up to this moment, examples of compactifications on a vortex were analyzed. A scan in the parameter space of the solution will now be performed.

In order to achieve this program in a systematic way the procedure is, in short, the following. Suppose that we have already a solution that satisfies all the requirements (for example, the one in Fig. 1 or 4). It can be found by a procedure of backward integration discussed above. Then one of the three parameters among $`\alpha `$, $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ is kept fixed, a second is changed by small steps and the third one is tuned to the first two by requiring that

$`\mathrm{}(x)+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{10}}}=0,`$ (5.10)
$`m(x)+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{10}}}=0,`$ (5.11)
are satisfied for large $`x`$. The zeroes of Eq. (5.11) are found by means of a simple bisection method .

Using this procedure a scan of the parameter space of the model has been performed. Let us start by discussing the scan in the $`(\mu ,\alpha )`$ plane at constant $`\nu `$. The results of the study are shown in Fig. 6.

The same type of procedure can be carried on in the case of fixed $`\mu `$. As a result we will get the $`(\alpha ,\nu )`$ projection of the parameter space of the solution. This result is presented in Fig. 7.

Finally we can also investigate the $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ plane at for fixed $`\alpha `$. In this case the results of our study are shown in Fig. 8.

In Fig. 8 we can notice that the limit $`\mu 0`$ at $`\alpha =2`$ implies that $`\nu 2`$. This can be shown analytically, see Appendix.

Finally, in order to give a visual feeling of the fine-tuning surface we can present a three-dimensional plot in the $`(\alpha ,\mu ,\nu )`$ plane. This surface is illustrated in Fig. 9. The points on this surface defines a fine-tuned solution of the types presented in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4.

### D The thin-string limit

The thin string limit was used for gravity localization in . In this limit the energy density of the vortex gets more and more localized in the origin while the exponential damping of the warp factors gets milder as in Fig. 4. Here we will show how the thin-string limit implemented in the Abelian Higgs model.

The main idea of a thin string limit is to replace the real thick string made of the scalar and gauge fields by a thin gravitating object  The physical size of this gravitating object, $`l_0`$, shall be much smaller than the “size” of extra dimensions given by $`r_0=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{cm_H}=\sqrt{\frac{10M_6^4}{8\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$. characterized by three different string tensions defined in Eq. (4.16). Then the parameters of the metric outside the string $`M_0,_0,ϵ`$ and four-dimensional Planck constant are related in a simple way to the string tensions \[i.e. $`\mu _0,\mu _\rho `$ and $`\mu _\theta `$\], to the six-dimensional Planck constant, and to the bulk cosmological constant. These relationships were worked out for the gravity localizing solution in Ref. (see also ), and they can be reproduced as well from Eqs. (4.19)–(4.20) assuming that $`c1`$, which is a condition for a thin string limit in dimensionless variables.

Here we will write somewhat more general equations valid also for $`ϵ0`$ or $`ϵ<1`$ that lead to regular geometry at infinity. For $`c1`$ the integrals and limits $`x_c\mathrm{}`$ can be explicitly taken, and one gets

$`M_0^4_0c(1ϵ)^2+𝒪(c^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{4}}\left(\mu _\rho +\mu _\theta \right),`$ (5.12)
$`M_0^4_0c(1+8ϵ+ϵ^2)+𝒪(c^2)=1\nu \left(\mu _0{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mu _\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\rho }{4}}\right).`$ (5.13)
As the numerical analysis shows (see also analytic discussion in Appendix), in the limit $`c0`$ the parameters $`M_0`$ and $`_0`$ go to some non-zero constants (see, e.g. Fig. 10). Then it is clear from Eqs. (5.12)–(5.13), that the combination $`\mu _\rho +\mu _\theta `$ scales as $`𝒪(c)`$. In fact, as shown in , this feature has a more general character and it is not related to the specific form of the Lagrangian of the Abelian-Higgs model.

It is interesting to ask the question whether a thin string limit $`c1`$ can be organised in a way that :
(i) the four-dimensional Planck scale is a finite constant;
(ii) corrections to the four-dimensional Newton law stay small;
(iii) classical gravity is applicable in the bulk;
and, eventually
(iv) classical gravity is applicable in the core of the string.

In order to answer these questions let us go back to the dimension-full parameters of the model. They are

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }M_\mathrm{\Lambda }^6,M_6,m_H,\lambda ,e^2.$$
(5.14)
The other parameters can be expressed as a function of the previous ones since we know that, for instance,

$$\alpha =\frac{e^2}{\lambda }=2\frac{m_V^2}{m_H^2}.$$
(5.15)
In order to have only two scales in the problem, we can then take $`\alpha `$ to be fixed to given value (for instance $`\alpha =2`$). Once $`\alpha `$ has been fixed, we can see if, in the limit $`c1`$, the requirements (i)–(iv) can be satisfied. In order to solve the problem, we should know the values of $`M_0`$ and $`L_0`$ defined in Eq. (3.7) in the thin string limit and also the limit of parameter $`\nu `$. An analytic discussion of these questions is contained in Appendix. Here we simply state the results. In the limit $`c0`$ and for $`\alpha =2`$, $`\nu =2`$ \[see Fig. 8\], and $`M_0=_0=1`$ \[see Fig. 10\].

(i) The four-dimensional Planck mass

$$M_P^2=\frac{4\pi M_6^4}{m_H^2}𝑑xM^2(x)(x)$$
(5.16)
for small $`c`$ and $`\alpha =2`$ is simply

$$M_P^2=\frac{\sqrt{10\pi }}{3}\frac{M_6^6}{m_H\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}},$$
(5.17)
which must be equal to $`[1.22\times 10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}]^2`$.

(ii) Corrections to 4d gravity were computed in  and are given by $`\frac{4}{3\pi }(r_0/r)^3`$. They are known to be small at the distances smaller than $`0.2`$ mm  and thus we require

$$r_0=\frac{0.2\mathrm{mm}}{\xi },\xi >1.$$
(5.18)
(iii) To parameterize the Planck constant in the bulk, we write

$$M_6=\eta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^3\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(5.19)
The choice of $`\eta 1`$ makes the fundamental Planck scale to be of the order of the weak scale and may potentially lead to the solution of the gauge hierarchy problem . To satisfy the third requirement, we must have the curvature in the bulk to be smaller than $`M_6^2`$, i.e. $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }<M_6`$.

(iv) If we require the validity of gravity on the string we should demand that the (quadratic) curvature invariants of the solution are always much smaller than $`M_6^4`$. In the small $`x`$ limit the curvature invariants are

$`R^2m_H^4{\displaystyle \frac{\left(8\alpha +\nu \left(4\mu +\nu \right)\right)^2}{4\nu ^2}},`$ (5.20)
$`R_{AB}R^{AB}m_H^4{\displaystyle \frac{5\left(8\alpha +\nu \left(4\mu +\nu \right)\right)^2}{64\nu ^2}},`$ (5.21)
$`R_{ABCD}R^{ABCD}m_H^4{\displaystyle \frac{\left(8\alpha +\nu \left(4\mu +\nu \right)\right)^2}{16\nu ^2}},`$ (5.22)
$`C_{ABCD}C^{ABCD}m_H^4{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(8\alpha +\nu \left(4\mu +\nu \right)\right)^2}{320\nu ^2}}.`$ (5.23)
So, we find that this requirement is satisfied if

$$\frac{m_H}{M_6}1.$$
(5.24)
In numbers, the thin string limit $`c1`$ implies

$$c70\times \frac{\xi ^2}{\eta ^4}1,$$
(5.25)
the third condition requires

$$\frac{\eta }{\xi }6\times 10^{16},$$
(5.26)
and the ratio $`\frac{m_H}{M_6}`$ essential for the requirement (iv) is

$$\frac{m_H}{M_6}2\times 10^{17}\frac{\eta ^3}{\xi }.$$
(5.27)
One can see that all these conditions can be satisfied in a wide range of the parameters of the model. For example, the hierarchy $`M_6M_P`$ can be easily achieved for $`\eta 10,\xi 1`$.

If the limit $`c0`$ is taken in mathematical sense, it is impossible to satisfy all four conditions, because the curvature of the space inside the string diverges. However, the first three conditions can be satisfied, if the parameters of the model scale as:

$`m_H=E\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\right)^\beta ,`$ (5.28)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=E^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\right)^{4\beta 3},`$ (5.29)
$`M_6^4=E^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\right)^{2\beta 1},`$ (5.30)
$`\lambda =E^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}\right),`$ (5.31)
with $`1<\beta <\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`E`$ being an arbitrary energy scale.

## VI Extensions

### A Higher windings

The parameter space of the solutions discussed in the previous sections has been derived in the case $`n=1`$. It is also possible to discuss the case of higher windings $`n2`$. The study of these cases can be performed using the same techniques discussed in the case of $`n=1`$. There are obvious differences in the asymptotics of the solutions. For the gauge field we have to require that $`P(0)=n`$. This imposes a different asymptotic solution in the core, namely

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`Ax^n+Fx^{n+2},`$ (6.1)
$`P(x)`$ $`=`$ $`n+Bx^2,`$ (6.2)
$`M(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1+Cx^2,`$ (6.3)
$`(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x+Dx^3.`$ (6.4)
For $`n2`$, we find:

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{32}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2\nu }{4\alpha }},`$ (6.5)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{5B^2}{6\alpha }},`$ (6.6)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`A\left(1+2Bn{\displaystyle \frac{B^2\nu }{3\alpha }}(n5)+{\displaystyle \frac{5n1}{6}}\left(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{4}}\right)\right).`$ (6.7)
With these solutions it is possible to integrate the system by repeating the same procedure discussed in the case $`n=1`$.

Since the winding number determines the value of the gauge field at the origin the relations among the string tensions will also be modified. In particular, Eq. (4.26) becomes, in the case of $`n2`$,

$$\mu _0\mu _\theta =\frac{n}{\alpha }\frac{P^{}}{}|_0,$$
(6.8)
which implies that $`B`$, appearing in Eqs. (6.1)–(6.4), is now

$$B=\frac{\alpha }{2n\nu }.$$
(6.9)
As in the case $`n=1`$ the tuning of the string tensions expressed in terms of $`B`$ is only necessary (but not sufficient) in order to get solutions which lead to gravity localization. Thus, as in the case $`n=1`$, $`A`$ should be again tuned.

In Fig. 11 we illustrate an example of regular solutions with $`n=2`$. The components of the energy-momentum tensor corresponding to the solution of Fig. 11 are reported in Fig. 12.

In Fig. 13 a solution which localizes gravity is reported in the case $`n=3`$.

In Fig. 14 the components of the energy-momentum tensor are reported for the solution illustrated in Fig. 13.

The solutions illustrated in Fig. 11 and 13 lead to regular geometry since all the curvature invariants are finite for any $`x`$. As in the case $`n=1`$ a full scan of the parameter space could be performed following the same procedure outlined in the body of the paper. It is interesting to speculate that these solutions may have some implications in models trying to explain the origin of families in a higher dimensional context . It would then be of some interest to study, in the context of solutions with higher windings, the structure and localization of the fermionic zero modes.

### B String solutions without localization of gravity

The examples discussed up to this point illustrated mainly solutions whose warp factors decrease at infinity. In this section we will give some examples of solutions with the opposite type of behaviour.

In Fig. 15 we show a regular solution of Eqs. (2.12)–(2.16) where the warp factors increase at large distance from the core. The parameters of Fig. 15 are $`\alpha =1`$, $`\nu =1`$, $`\mu =0.1`$.

In the solution of Fig. 15 Eq. (4.28) does not hold. From Eq. (4.28) we should have $`B=0.5`$ whereas, for Fig. 15 $`B0.5`$. In this sense the solution is not fine-tuned. In Fig. 16 we plot the curvature invariants pertaining to the solution of Fig. 15.

For large $`x`$ the asymptotic behaviour illustrated in Fig. 15 can be related to the solutions given in Eq. (3.4).

It is interesting that the same values of $`\alpha `$, $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ selected for the solution of Fig. 15 admit a physically distinct extra solution. It is shown in Fig. 17 and the related curvature invariants are illustrated in Fig. 18.

We will not attempt here a full classification of the solutions. We can notice, however, that the solutions illustrated in Fig. 15 and Fig. 17 can be distinguished (in a coordinate independent fashion) from the behaviour of the curvature invariants in the origin. As we can see from Figs. 16 and 18 the solution of Fig. 17 leads to larger curvature invariants in the origin.

Finally we want to demonstrate that the tuning of the string tensions as implied by Eq. (4.28) is not a sufficient condition in order to obtain solutions with localization of gravity. In Fig. 19 and Fig. 20 we illustrated a regular solution whose parameters are given by $`\alpha =1.75`$, $`\nu =1.29`$ and $`\mu =0.1`$ and tensions fine tuned according to Eq. (4.28). Nevertheless, the metric increases at infinity.

Asymptotically for large $`x`$ the solution of Fig. 19 are the ones of Eq. (3.4) with $`ϵ\mathrm{}`$.

## VII Concluding remarks

In this paper we discussed the possibility of obtaining solutions which localize gravity in six-dimensions. The source of the gravitational field has been assumed to be a generalized version of the Nielsen-Olesen vortex living in the two-dimensional transverse space.

We show that the localization of gravity is possible on a “thick” string and found a fine-tuning condition leading to a set of physically interesting solutions. Since the geometries described in this paper are regular (i.e. curvature singularities are absent) gravity can be described in classical terms both in the bulk and on the vortex. We studied a thin string limit and identified the choice of parameters that may potentially lead to a solution to the gauge hierarchy problem.

Various questions are still open. Our explicit solutions couple together scalar, tensor and gauge degrees of freedom. Therefore they represent an ideal framework where the localization of fields of various spin can be explicitly analyzed in a completely regular geometry. There are also open questions concerning higher windings. It has been shown that also for higher windings there are solutions which localize gravity. It would be natural to ask if these solutions are as stable as the ones obtained in the case of the lowest winding. Finally, since the geometries discussed in this paper are completely regular (in a technical sense) it is interesting to understand their stability against first order (quadratic) corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert action  (which may naturally arise in a string theoretical context).

We thank P. Tinyakov and K. Zuleta for discussions. This work was supported by the FNRS grants no. 21-55560.98, 7SUPJ62239 and by the Tomalla Foundation.

## A The Bogomolnyi limit

In this appendix we show analytically that for the case $`\alpha =2`$ (the Bogomolnyi limit ) the following limits hold:

$`\underset{c0}{lim}\nu (c)=2,`$ (A.1)
$`\underset{c0}{lim}M_0(c)=1,`$ (A.2)
and

$$\underset{c0}{lim}_0(c)=1,$$
(A.3)
if the string tensions are tuned according to Eqs. (4.25)–(4.26). The numerical solution for the Bogomolnyi limit is shown in Fig. 21.

In the Bogomolnyi limit and for $`c=0`$ the equations of motion for the gauge and scalar fields reduce to a coupled set of first order non-linear differential equations which can be written as

$`f^{}=fP,`$ (A.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P^{}}{}}=f^21.`$ (A.5)
If we insert Eqs. (A.5) into Eqs. (2.22)-(2.24) we obtain that

$$\tau _\rho (x)=\tau _\theta (x)=0.$$
(A.6)
The equation for $`M`$ becomes then

$$4m^{}+10m^2=\mu .$$
(A.7)
The limit $`c0`$ implies that $`\mu 0`$. From Eq. (A.7) the only (regular) solution respecting the boundary conditions at the origin is then $`M(x)=M_0=1`$. Thus, this proves Eq. (A.2).

Since $`\tau _\rho (x)=0`$, from Eq. (4.7) we get $`B^2=\alpha /8=1/4`$ and from Eq. (4.28) $`\nu =2`$. Thus, this proves that, once the string tensions are tuned, Eq. (A.1) is valid.

Now, the difference of Eqs. (2.14) and (2.15) yields,

$$(M^3M^{}L)^{}(M^4L^{})^{}=\nu M^4L(f_of_\theta ).$$
(A.8)
By using for $`P(x)`$ Eq. (2.13) we have:

$$M^4L(f_of_\theta )=\left(\frac{PP^{}M^4}{\alpha L}\right)^{}.$$
(A.9)
Thus all terms in (A.8) are total derivatives; integrating both sides from 0 to $`x`$ we obtain

$$m\mathrm{}=\frac{\nu }{\alpha }\frac{PP^{}}{L^2}\left(1+\frac{\nu }{\alpha }n\frac{P^{}}{L}|_0\right)\frac{M_o^4}{M^4L},$$
(A.10)
where $`M_o`$ is the value of $`M`$ on the core of the string and $`n`$ is the winding. In the case of fine-tuned solution, according to Eq. (4.28), the last term in Eq. (A.10) vanishes. Since we just showed that in the limit $`\alpha 2`$ we have $`\nu 2`$ and $`M1`$, from Eq. (A.10) we get

$$LL^{}=PP^{},$$
(A.11)
which gives, after integration over $`x`$,

$$L^2=1P^2,$$
(A.12)
where we used the fact that $`P(0)=1`$. This proves (A.3), because $`P(x)0`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

SUPERCONVERGENCE RELATIONS are sum rules for the discontinuity $`\rho (k^2)`$ of a structure function $`D(k^2)`$ in gauge theories . The transverse gauge field propagator is considered here as a characteristic example. From Lorentz covarriance and a minimal spectral condition, it follows that $`D(k^2)`$ is the boundary value of a function which is holomorphic in the complex $`k^2`$ plane with a cut along the positive real axis. A priori, with the space-time propagator being a tempered distribution, this function is bounded by a polynomial for $`k^2\mathrm{}`$. But for regions in the parameter space where the theory is asymptotically free, the asymptotic forms can be calculated in terms of the weak coupling limit. Using renormalization group methods, one finds for the structure function

$`k^2D(k^2,\kappa ^2,g,\alpha )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha _0}}+C(g^2,\alpha )\left(\beta _0\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\kappa ^2}}\right)^{\gamma _{00}/\beta _0}+\mathrm{},`$ (1)
and the asymptotic term for the discontinuity along the positive, real $`k^2`$-axis is given by

$`k^2\rho (k^2,\kappa ^2,g,\alpha )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{00}}{\beta _0}}C(g^2,\alpha )\left(\beta _0\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{|\kappa ^2|}}\right)^{\gamma _{00}/\beta _01}+\mathrm{}.`$ (2)
Here $`\kappa ^2<0`$ is the normalization point, and

$`\gamma (g^2,\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _{00}+\alpha \gamma _{01})g^2+\mathrm{},`$ (3)
$`\beta (g^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _0g^4+\mathrm{}`$ (4)
are the limits $`g^20`$ of the anomalous dimension and the renormalization group function, while $`\alpha _0=\gamma _{00}/\gamma _{01}`$. It is important that the functional form of the asymptotic discontinuity is independent of the gauge parameter $`\alpha 0`$.

Given the analytic and asymptotic properties of $`D(k^2)`$, this function satisfies the dispersion relation

$`D(k^2)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}{(k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k^2)}}.`$ (5)
For the special case $`\gamma _{00}/\beta _0>0`$, there is sufficient boundedness for the validity of the Superconvergence Relation

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k^2\rho (k^2,\kappa ^2,g,\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\alpha _0}},`$ (6)
which is most directly useful in the Landau gauge, where $`\alpha =0`$:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k^2\rho (k^2,\kappa ^2,g,0)=0.`$ (7)
The superconvergence relations are exact, and are not valid order by order in perturbation theory. They depend upon short- and long-distance properties of the theory. Given $`\beta _0<0`$, it is the sign of the anomalous dimension coefficient $`\gamma _{00}`$ which determines the existence or non-existence of superconvergence in all gauges. In connection with the BRST cohomology, the superconvergence relations can be used in order to argue for the absence of the transverse gauge field quanta from the physical state space of the theory (confinement) . Hence $`\gamma _{00}=0`$ indicates a phase transition similar to $`\beta _0=0`$.

For SQCD with the gauge group $`SU(N_C)`$ and $`N_F`$ flavors, the zero of $`\gamma _{00}(N_F,N_C)`$ is at $`N_F=\frac{3}{2}N_C`$, and that of $`\beta _0(N_F,N_C)`$ at $`N_F=3N_C`$. These values of $`N_F`$ define the lower and the upper limit of the conformal window . The superconvergence relations are valid for $`N_F<\frac{3}{2}N_C`$. As described above, for these values of $`N_F`$, the gauge quanta are not in the physical state space.

There are also superconvergence relations for non-supersymmetric theories, and results similar to those for SQCD were obtained earlier for QCD . With the same gauge group $`SU(N_C)`$ and $`N_F`$ flavors, one has superconvergence and confinement for $`N_F<\frac{13}{4}N_C`$. The window is given by $`\frac{13}{4}N_C<N_F<\frac{22}{4}N_C`$.

It is of interest to consider the possibility of superconvergence relations for theories with space-time non-commutativity. When time is involved, the integrand of a possible sum rule would be expected to have contributions from discontinuities of tachyonic branch cuts which are not directly associated with the input field content of the theory . Dispersion relations for scattering amplitudes are also modified by additional singularities assocated with violations of locality .

The new singularities are very different from the anomalous thretholds, which can be present even in local field theories. These thresholds are well understood as structure singularities associated with the composite structure of the particles involved in the theory . If followed into secondary Riemann sheets by changing the mass variables, the anomalous thretholds are seen to be ordinary crossed-channel thretholds (left hand cuts) of amplitudes connected by unitarity to the one under consideration. There are no structure singularities in the gauge field propagator.

With appropriately generalized BRST-methods, possible superconvergence relations could be of interest for the interpretation of non-commutative gauge theories.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

 R. Oehme, W. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 471; Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 1661; R. Oehme, Phys. Lett. B252 (1990) 641; R. Oehme, W. Xu Phys. Lett. B333 (1994) 172, hep-th/9406081; B384 (1994) 269, hep-th/9604021.

 R. Oehme, Phys. Rev. D42 (1990) 4209; Phys. Lett. B195 (1987) 60; K. Nishijima, Prog.Theor.Phys. 75 (1986) 1221.

 R. Oehme, ‘Superconvergence, Supersymmetry and Conformal Invariance’, in Leite Lopes Festschrift, pp. 443-457, World Scientific 1988 (KEK Library Scan, HEP SPIRES SLAC: Oehme, R.); N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B435 (1995) 129, hep-th/9411149; R. Oehme, Phys. Lett. B399 (1997) 67, hep-th/9701012; ‘Superconvergence and Duality’, Concise Encylopedia of SUPERSYMMETRY, Kluver 2001, hep-th 0101021.

 J. Gomis and T. Mehen, Nucl. Phys. B591 (2000) 265, hep-th/0005129; L. Alvarez-Gaume, J. Barb$`\stackrel{´}{o}`$n and R. Zwicky, hep-th/0103069; (these papers contain further references).

 R. Oehme, ‘Forward Dispersion Relations and Microcausality’, in Quanta, Wentzel Festschrift (University of Chicago Press, 1970) pp. 309-337; Phys. Rev. 100 (1955) 1503; (these papers contain further references).

 R. Oehme, ‘The Compound Structure of Elementary Particles’, in Werner Heisenberg und die Physik unserer Zeit, Festschrift (Verlag Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschweig, 1961) pp. 240-259; Phys. Rev. 111 (1958) 1430; Phys. Rev. 121 (1961) 1840; Nuovo Cimento 13 (1959) 778; (these papers contain further references).


text:
# A JOINT FIT TO THE COSMOLOGICAL MODEL AND THE 𝑇-𝑀 AND 𝐿_𝑥-𝑇 RELATIONS USING CLUSTER DATA

## 1 Introduction

Galaxy clusters have been widely used as cosmological probes. The strong dependence of the cluster mass function with the cosmological model and more particularly of its evolution with redshift makes the study of the cluster population a powerful tool to discriminate among different structure formation scenarios. Following this fact, many works have tried to constrain the cosmological parameters by, given a cosmological model, comparing the theoretical predictions of the cluster mass function (Press-Schechter formalism (PS) (Press & Schechter 1974) or N-body simulations) with cluster data obtained mainly from the X-ray band.
Those theoretical predictions typically provide the cluster abundance as a function of mass and redshift. Redshift estimates can be obtained from optical observations of the cluster and even from X-ray spectroscopic considerations if the data is good enough. But the situation is different with mass estimates. Galaxy cluster masses are uncertain for most of the clusters and error bars are typically of the order of $`20\%`$ or higher. For this reason, it is preferable to use another better determined function different from the mass function to trace the population of galaxy clusters. This can be done for instance by using the luminosity function of X-ray clusters or the temperature function. These functions can be easily connected with the theoretical (and model dependent) mass function (e.g. PS formalism) by defining some cluster scaling relations, $`TM`$ and $`L_xT`$,

$$\frac{dN(T,z)}{dV(z)dT}=\frac{dN(M,z)}{dV(z)dM}\frac{dM}{dT},$$
(1)
where $`dN(T,z)/dV(z)dT`$ is the temperature function and $`dN(M,z)/dV(z)dM`$ is the mass function given for instance by PS. Therefore, if there is an estimate of the cluster temperature function (or the X-ray cluster luminosity function), it would be possible to compare such an estimate with the predictions given by any model.
In this work we will follow this idea but with two important differences with respect to other previous similar works.
As a first important point we will consider different data sets in our fit and not only one as usual. This is important since the best fitting model will be compatible with different data sets and will reduce the degeneracy in the parameters found when only one data set is used.
Our main second difference is that in building the theoretical temperature, X-ray luminosity and flux functions we will consider that the $`TM`$ and $`L_xT`$ relations are not fixed relations but they will be part of our fitting model. This point will prevent us of doing wrong assumptions about these relations.

## 2 Results

We have fitted our model (PS and $`TM`$ and $`L_xT`$) to the following data sets. The cluster mass function of Bahcall & Cen (1993), the temperature function of Henry & Arnaud (1991), the luminosity function of Ebeling et al. (1997), and the flux function of Rosati et al. (1998) and De Grandi et al. (1999), see fig. 2. The fit of the model to these data sets was performed using a Bayesian estimator discussed in Lahav et al. (1999) and as it was shown in Diego et al. (2000) with this estimator the bias in the estimation of the cosmological parameters is very small. A marginalization of the probability over the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ has shown that by combining the different data sets it is possible to drastically reduce the degeneracy between these two parameters, see fig. 1.

The best model (see table 1) was found to be a low density universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.3`$ and $`\sigma _80.8`$. The first three parameters in table 1 are the cosmological ones and they appear in the PS formula for the mass function. The other parameters are for the $`TM`$ and $`L_xT`$ relations.

$$T_{gas}=T_0M_{15}^\alpha (1+z)^\psi ,$$
(2)
where $`M_{15}`$ is the cluster mass in $`h^110^{15}M_{}`$ and,

$$L_x^{Bol}=L_0M_{15}^\beta (1+z)^\varphi .$$
(3)
The constraints found for these relations are consistent with experimental determinations of these scalings. However we found some discrepancy in the $`\alpha `$ parameter mostly due to a bias in our estimator. See, however, Diego et al. (2000) for a detailed discussion on these parameters.

Both the flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and the OCDM ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) models were found to be in good agreement with the data (see fig. 2). In fact both models listed in table 1 are undistinguishable and they reproduce the data with almost the same good fit.

The fact that both models are undistinguishable is because in our fit we have used low redshift data (see Diego et al. 2000 for a brief description of each data set). To distinguish the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and OCDM models it is necessary to explore the cluster distribution as a function of redshift. This will be done with more or less success by undergoing X-ray experiments (CHANDRA, Newton-XMM) but the real improvement in the redshift (and sky) coverage of galaxy cluster surveys will come with the near future mm surveys. Through the SZE (Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, Sunyaev & Zeldovich 1972) it will be possible to go deeper in redshift than with X-rays due to the different behaviour of the selection functions in both bands, see Diego et al. (2001). In that work, we have shown how future measurements of the SZE can be used to constrain the cosmological parameters.

In particular we have concentrated on the Planck Surveyor mission which will explore all the sky at different mm frequencies and will detect above 30000 clusters with fluxes above 30 mJy (see Diego et al. 2001 for an explanation of this limiting flux). This huge number of clusters would provide a valuable information about the cluster population. The constraints on the cosmological parameters will increase significantly by fitting the model to Planck observations. However, this information alone will not be enough to distinguish some models like those listed in table 1.

Despite the capabilities of Planck to observe galaxy clusters trough the SZE, it will be unable to determine their redshifts and therefore many models will predict the same cluster population as a function of the SZ flux. In fig. 4 we can see that both models would remain undistinguishable if only the information about the fluxes of the clusters is provided.
To distinguish those models it is required some knowledge about the cluster population as a function of redshift. It will be needed, therefore, an optical follow up of some clusters (if their redshifts have not yet been determined in other wavebands). The number of clusters expected in Planck data is too large to make the follow up of all of them and consequently the cosmological studies based on the evolution of the cluster population must be restricted to a small subsample of the whole catalogue. As an application, we have calculated the minimum number of clusters for which we should determine their redshift in order to distinguish the previously undistinguishable models listed in table 1. In that calculation we have required that the number of clusters above a given $`z`$ must differ at least $`3\sigma `$ for both models. The result is shown in figure 3 for three different selection criteria of the clusters. In each one of the 3 lines we show the total number of clusters randomly selected from the catalogue (with the only condition that the total flux must be $`S_{mm}>100`$ mJy top, $`S_{mm}>30`$ mJy middle and $`30`$ mJy $`<S_{mm}<40`$ mJy bottom) which should be optically observed in order to distinguish (at a 3$`\sigma `$ level) $`N^O`$ and $`N^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at redshift $`z`$ (i.e. the total number of observed clusters needed to have a $`3\sigma `$ difference in $`N(>z)`$ for the two models). As can be seen from the figure, by determining the redshift of about 300 clusters randomly selected from the whole Planck catalogue (fluxes above 30 mJy) it would be possible to distinguish the models listed in table 1 by looking at the different behaviour of the cluster population about redshift $`z0.6`$. To illustrate how it is really possible to distinguish them, in fig. 5 we show the behaviour of both models and the comparison with simulated data (corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and for a survey covering a sample of about 300 clusters). It is evident that by looking at the evolution of the cluster population as a function of redshift (for a small subsample of clusters) it would be possible to distinguish both models.

The previous calculation tell us that an analysis based on a small subsample of the whole Planck catalogue (with $`z`$, fig. 5) could distinguish models which are undistinguishable with recent X-ray data and future Planck data (no $`z`$, fig. 4).

By looking at figures 4 and 5 we see that a powerful analysis should make full use of both data sets since some models would be excluded by the first data set and others would be excluded by the second one. Following Diego et al. (2000) we combined both data sets in order to see how well could be constrained the cosmological parameters with these future data sets. Also following the same work we have considered that the $`TM`$ relation was a free parameter one. The result of this combination of data sets is shown in fig. 6. As can be seen the recovery of the cosmological parameters is very good. A joint fit to the Planck $`N(S)`$ curve and an optically identified $`N(z)`$ curve for a small subsample of clusters of the Planck catalogue will allow an independent test of the cosmological parameters. This result is almost independent of the assumed amplitude $`T_0`$ and scaling exponent $`\alpha `$ in the $`TM`$ relation as it was discussed in Diego et al. (2001). However the method is sensitive to the choice of the redshift exponent $`\psi `$.

We can also conclude that the inclusion in the model of the cluster scaling relations ($`TM`$ and $`L_xT`$) as free parameter ones it is important for the modeling of low redshift data since many models can fit the low redshift data and the assumption of one or another scaling in the $`TM`$ and/or $`L_xT`$ can favor some models to the detriment of others.
On the contrary, when fitting data which includes the cluster evolution with redshift, the evolution of the cluster population with redshift is dominated by the cosmological model and the cluster scaling relations play a secondary role. However, the redshift dependence of these relations (as can be appreciated in fig. 6, $`\psi `$ parameter) should be carefully considered in this case.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Spanish DGESIC Project PB98-0531-C02-01, FEDER Project 1FD97-1769-C04-01, the EU project INTAS-OPEN-97-1192, and the RTN of the EU project HPRN-CT-2000-00124.
JMD acknowledges support from a Spanish MEC fellowship FP96-20194004 and financial support from the University of Cantabria.

## References


text:
# Theoretical confirmation of Feynman’s Hypothesis on the creation of circular vortices in superfluid helium

The changes observed in the topology of superfluid helium vortices have intrigued people for some time now . These vortices either extend from wall to wall, however tangled they may be in between, or else can be roughly circular and freely move around the superfluid . Some time ago, Richard Feynman postulated that two oppositely polarized line vortices could, if they cross at two points, reconnect so as to create a circular vortex that snaps off and subsequently lives a life of its own . This is often simply postulated in numerical experiments, e. g. , . That an opposite line vortex pair solution of the Nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLS) for HeII is unstable has been demonstrated theoretically . Reconnection at a point has been obtained numerically . What remained to prove was that known, stationary, double vortex line solutions can thus reproduce one of the one parameter solitonic family of solutions for circular vortices as found for NLS . In other words, can this reconnection really lead to a full confirmation of Feynman’s hypothesis? Our first step was a similar changeover calculation for a limiting case, unfortunately such that the vortex configuration was degenerate , . However, surprisingly complete dynamic changeover from cylindrical to spherical symmetry of the soliton was observed in . This augured well for the present effort.

An imperfect Bose condensate, such as HeII, can (also imperfectly) be described by a single particle wavefunction $`\psi (𝐱,t)`$ of $`N`$ bosons of mass $`m`$ that obeys the Nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLS), according to Gross, Pitayevski and Ginzburg:

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2\psi +W_0\psi |\psi |^2.$$
(1)
Here $`W_0`$ characterizes the potential between bosons. Opposite vortex pair solutions, as well as those describing circular vortices are known . Each solution has a unique velocity perpendicular to the vortex plane. However, to answer the crucial question of whether dynamics can lead from the former to the latter kind, we must resort to numerics. All theory tells us is that the double line vortex configuration is unstable .

Before giving the results of our simulations, we wish to point out that a preliminary idea of the problem can be gained from the linear equation, $`W_0=0`$. At a vortex, $`\psi =0`$, so the cubic term not contributing locally might not be too surprising. However, the extent of global similarities with solutions to equation (1) may be more so. The preliminary results will help us appreciate just what the role of the nonlinear, $`W_0>0`$, term is in the act of reconnection.

One can easily check by substitution that equation (1), $`W_0=0`$, is solved by

$$\psi =\text{const}\left[a^2x^2+\mathrm{i}b\left(z(t)+\frac{\mathrm{}t}{mb}\right)\right]\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k_zz\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}k_z^2t/(2m)},z(t)=z\frac{\mathrm{}k_z}{m}t,b>0.$$

Vortices are situated where both Re$`\psi `$ and Im$`\psi `$ are zero. They constitute two oppositely polarized lines along $`y`$ at $`x=\pm a`$ and move together at velocity $`U_z=\mathrm{}(k_zb^1)/m`$. There is no correlation between the seperation, $`2a`$, and the uniform velocity $`U_z`$, which can in fact have either sense.

A second solution to equation (1), $`W_0=0`$, is given by :

$$\psi =\text{const}\left[R^2x^2y^2+\mathrm{i}d\left(z(t)+\frac{2\mathrm{}}{md}t\right)\right]\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k_zz\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}k_z^2t/(2m)}.$$
(2)
A circular vortex at $`x^2+y^2=R^2`$ is now moving up $`z`$ at velocity $`U_z=\mathrm{}(k_z2d^1)/m`$. Again, there is no connection between $`R`$ and the uniform velocity, or even with its sense.

Jones and Roberts found both a class of stationary, double line vortex solutions to (1), $`W_0>0`$, as well as circular ones. Correlations between $`a,R`$ and corresponding $`U_z`$ were given in tables. Otherwise, the similarities between their solutions with the above are at first surprising, especially if we choose the velocities in (2) and (3) such as to mimic those of Jones and Roberts. The role of the nonlinear term would then ostensibly be limited to ensuring that $`|\psi |`$ tend to a uniform value in the far field. However, there is a less obvious difference. Even if we perturbed (2) such that two vortices touched at a point, say by adding $`a\mathrm{cos}(k_yy)`$ to $`x`$ initially, a circular vortex would not be produced at any $`t>0`$.

Further calculations will be compared with the solutions of Jones & Roberts. Therefore we cast equation (1) in dimensionless form such that we can use their tables (here $`E`$ is the average energy level per unit mass of a boson):

$$\psi \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}mEt/\mathrm{}}\psi ,𝐱\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{2E}m}𝐱,t\frac{\mathrm{}}{2mE}t,$$
(3)
so finally $`\psi \sqrt{\frac{mE}{W_0}}\psi `$. (Linear models will match the temporal dependence if $`k_z=\sqrt{2E}m/\mathrm{}`$.) Now

$$2\mathrm{i}\frac{\psi }{t}=^2\psi \psi (1|\psi |^2).$$
(4)
If we write $`\psi =\rho ^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S}`$, then $`\rho `$ and $`𝐯=S`$ have a fluid interpretation. The variables $`\rho `$ and $`𝐯`$ satisfy the usual continuity equation, but due to the nonlinear term, the Newtonian equation has a rather strange pressure tensor . This may explain the possibility of reconnection. Importantly, if we encircle a $`\psi =0`$ line once, $`S`$ must increase by $`\pm 2n\pi `$ so that $`\psi `$ is single valued. This was the case for (2) and (3), where $`n=1`$ (unless $`a=0`$ in (2), in which case $`n=0`$). At infinity, $`|\psi |1`$ and this must be included in our initial conditions describing the pair of line vortices.

As initial condition, we took a two vortex configuration in which the seperation and velocity were lifted from Jones and Roberts, Table 2. Thus

$$\psi (t=0)=\frac{r_1r_2}{\sqrt{r_1^2+b^2}\sqrt{r_2^2+b^2}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\theta _1+\theta _2)},$$
(5)
where

$$r_1=(12U^2)(x+a)^2+z^2,r_2=(12U^2)(xa)^2+z^2,\mathrm{tan}\theta _{1,2}=\frac{z}{\sqrt{12U^2}(a\pm x)}.$$

In spite of the scaling of $`x`$, following from the asymptotics of equation (5), , $`\theta _i`$ increase or decrease by $`2\pi `$ when a vortex is encircled once. Note that $`|\psi |1`$ in the far field. The constant $`b`$ was chosen such that the subsequent velocity along $`z`$ in the simulation would agree with that in the formula (we know from Fetter’s solution  that $`b2`$ as $`a\mathrm{}`$ and $`U0`$). Initially we took $`U=0.3`$ and $`a=1.75`$ from Table 2 of , assuming periodic boundary conditions. Next our initial condition was perturbed along cyclic $`y`$ and the dynamic development was followed from equation (4), Fig 1. The circular vortex of Fig. 1c was obtained. Its radius and velocity agree with those predicted by Jones and Roberts. The circular vortex moved forward with uniform velocity and negligible change of shape, thus confirming that it is indeed a Jones & Roberts solution. We repeated the calculation for different initial conditions, always obtaining viable circular vortex solutions, see Fig. 2. Thus, Feynman’s hypothesis is confirmed, completing the tentative steps of  and . Of course, this confirmation is only as conclusive as is the NLS model for a Bose gas. With the above reservation, the experimentally found abundance of circular vortitices in superfluid HeII is now explained theoretically. The proximity at two points of two opposite line vortices in so tangled a web is quite commonplace . The generation of vortex rings due to the helical instability of a vortex line is also of primary interest in superconductivity theory , . Perhaps our experience could be useful there, though unfortunately the equations are more complicated (in the Ginzburg–Landau model, the vector potential $`𝐀`$ appears in an extension of (1). An additional vector equation relates $`𝐀`$ and $`\psi `$).

The authors would like to thank Drs T. Lenkowska Czerwinska and A. A. Skorupski for help in preparing this text.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1. Three stages in a Feynman transformation of two perturbed line vortices into a circular vortex in HeII, as follows from the NLS equation. Densities on the axes are zero.

Figure 2. Our numerically obtained circular vortices (circles) as compared to those of Jones and Roberts (continuous line) in $`R,U`$ space.


text:
# Regeneration of Anti-Protons in Ultrarelativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions work supported by US-DOE grant DE-FG02-88ER40388.

## 1 Introduction

An important question in heavy-ion collisions at high energies concerns whether reinteractions between produced particles are frequent enough to establish and maintain thermal (and/or chemical) equilibrium, which constitutes an inevitable prerequisite to investigate the phase diagram of QCD. One way of addressing this issue is by testing predictions of equilibrium approaches with a large class of observables, aiming at a consistent description within one common scenario. In the context of the SpS heavy-ion experiments, this program has been carried out with remarkable success, as reflected by a simultaneous description of hadron abundances , $`p_t`$-spectra encoding various patterns of hydrodynamic (collective) flow effects , two-particle correlations , etc.. The deduced picture is that of a subsequent chemical and thermal freezeout, being characterized by the respective points $`(\mu _N^{chem},T_{chem})(270,170)`$ MeV  and $`(\mu _N^{therm},T_{therm})(410,120)`$ MeV in terms of temperature and nucleon chemical potential coordinates of the phase diagram. The dynamical justification resides in a hierarchy of hadronic interaction strengths: on the one hand, typical elastic cross sections are large ($``$ 100 mb), supporting thermal equilibrium between $`T_{chem}`$ and $`T_{therm}`$ for about 5-10 fm/c; on the other hand, inelastic (number-changing) reactions have cross sections of 1-2 orders of magnitude smaller so that the net abundances of stable particles (nucleons, pions, kaons) are not significantly altered during the hadronic phase. Furthermore, the nontrivial features observed in electromagnetic spectra, such as the enhancement found in both low- and intermediate-mass dilepton as well as direct photon spectra, can also be accounted for within the same thermodynamic framework (cf. ref.  for a recent review).

In the following we investigate an observable – antiproton yields – that so far has been difficult to accommodate in this viewpoint of the collision dynamics, cf. also ref.  and its application to antihyperons in ref. .

## 2 Antiproton Production at CERN-SpS Energies

A copious production of antiprotons has been among early suggestions for signals of Quark-Gluon Plasma formation in heavy-ion reactions  (based on the much reduced threshold for anti-particle production in a partonic as compared to a hadronic environment). At the SpS the antiproton-to-proton ratio measured in central Pb(158 AGeV)-Pb collisions  is in agreement with the value predicted by the corresponding hadrochemical freezeout, $`\overline{p}/p=\mathrm{exp}[2\mu _N^{chem}/T_{chem}]`$ 5%. The large annihilation cross section of antiprotons ($`\sigma _{p\overline{p}}^{ann}`$ 50 mb at the relevant thermal energies of $`\sqrt{s}`$ 2.3 GeV) renders this a rather puzzling fact, since the pertinent chemical relaxation time,

$$\tau _{\overline{p}}^{chem}=\frac{1}{\sigma _{p\overline{p}}^{ann}(s_{th})\varrho _Bv_{th}},$$
(1)
stays below the fireball lifetime until rather late in the hadronic evolution, cf. fig. 2.

Indeed, standard hadronic transport calculations substantially underestimate the antiproton production. This led to speculations on various in-medium effects such as a shielding of the annihilation  or enhanced production via an increased string tension in the prehadronic stages . However, present transport approaches are not able to consistently treat reactions with more than 2 particles in the incoming channel. Thus, although $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation is included, the inverse reaction of multi-pion annihilation is not, entailing a violation of detailed balance. This observation alone, though, does not yet resolve the puzzle: a naive estimate assuming an equilibrium $`\overline{p}`$ abundance at thermal freezeout results in $`\overline{p}/p=\mathrm{exp}[2\mu _N^{therm}/T_{therm}]=0.1`$ %, a factor $``$50 below the measured value. What is missing here is that, after chemical freezeout – due to effective pion-number conservation – the thermal pion densities exceed their chemical equilibrium values. In statistical mechanics language this can be described by the build-up of finite pion chemical potentials. The thermal rate equation for $`p\overline{p}N_\pi \pi `$ then takes the form

$`_{th}={\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{~}{k}_pd^3\stackrel{~}{k}_{\overline{p}}d^3\stackrel{~}{k}_1\mathrm{}d^3\stackrel{~}{k}_{N_\pi }\delta ^{(4)}(K_{tot})|_{N_\pi }|^2\{z_pz_{\overline{p}}\mathrm{e}^{(E_p+E_{\overline{p}})/T}z_\pi ^{N_\pi }\mathrm{e}^{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\pi }{}}\omega _i/T}\}},`$ (2)
where $`_{N_\pi }`$ is the invariant scattering matrix element. The 4-momentum conserving $`\delta `$-function forces the sum of proton and antiproton energies $`E_{p(\overline{p})}`$ to equal the sum of pion energies $`\omega _i`$. Insisting on chemical equilibrium for the $`p\overline{p}N_\pi \pi `$ reaction thus provides an equation for the antiproton fugacity, $`z_{\overline{p}}=z_\pi ^{N_\pi }z_p`$, implying large enhancement factors in the presence of a finite $`\mu _\pi `$ (note that changes in $`z_{\overline{p}}`$ have negligible feedback on $`z_\pi `$ or $`z_p`$ under SpS conditions). A more detailed calculation  including measured pion-multiplicity distributions and $`cms`$-energy dependencies in $`p\overline{p}`$ annihilation  yields an average fugacity factor

$$z_\pi ^{N_\pi }=\underset{N_\pi =2}{\overset{N_\pi ^{max}}{}}w_{N_\pi }\mathrm{exp}[N_\pi \mu _\pi /T]$$
(3)
with $`w_{N_\pi }`$ the probability weight of the $`N_\pi `$-pion channel. The temperature dependence of the ratio $`\overline{p}/p=z_\pi ^{N_\pi }(T)\mathrm{exp}[2\mu _N^{chem}(T)/T_{chem}]`$ in relative chemical equilibrium is displayed in fig. 2 based on the thermal fireball model of ref. . As a result of large enhancement factors, the antiproton abundance at $`T_{chem}`$ can essentially be supported towards thermal freezeout (where $`z_\pi ^{N_\pi }`$ 25-50), thus demonstrating the importance of multi-pion back-reactions in the presence of pion oversaturation.

## 3 Antiproton Production at RHIC Energies

The same approach can be applied to higher collision energies. First data from RHIC  have shown a $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratio of $``$60% at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 130 AGeV, implying $`\mu _N^{chem}`$ 45 MeV (assuming $`T_{chem}`$ = 180 MeV), cf. fig. 4.

Extrapolating to $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 200 AGeV yields $`\mu _N^{chem}`$=27 MeV corresponding to $`\overline{p}/p`$=75%. Contrary to SpS conditions, the chemical relaxation times for antiprotons quickly exceed the fireball lifetime (cf. fig. 4), i.e., multi-pion annihilation is not frequent enough to support the comparatively large antiproton abundances. Thus, the $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratio at full RHIC energy should be more directly associated with the chemical freezeout stage (the reduction in net-baryon number also leads to a much less pronounced pion oversaturation towards thermal freezeout ).

## 4 Conclusions

We have shown that the backward reaction in $`p\overline{p}N_\pi \pi `$ (with $`N_\pi `$$``$6) gives important contributions to antiproton production in the hadronic phase of heavy-ion collisions at CERN-SpS energies. Coupled with realistic estimates of pion oversaturation effects, one finds a $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratio that with decreasing temperature deviates little from its value at chemical freezeout, sustaining agreement with experiment. This resolves the naive expectation of large annihilation losses towards thermal freezeout, and lends further support to an equilibrium picture of central Pb-Pb collisions. Medium effects in $`p\overline{p}N_\pi \pi `$ reactions are neither required nor excluded, but might be addressed within a time-dependent treatment of the rate equations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We thank K. Redlich for interesting discussion.