text:
# References

Friedmann equation and Cardy formula correspondence in brane universes

Bin Wanga,b,111e-mail:binwang@fma.if.usp.br, Elcio Abdallaa,222e-mail:eabdalla@fma.if.usp.br and Ru-Keng Suc,b,333e-mail:rksu@fudan.ac.cn

a Instituto De Fisica, Universidade De Sao Paulo, C.P.66.318, CEP 05315-970,

Sao Paulo, Brazil

b Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, P. R. China

c CCAST (World Lab), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, P. R. China

## Abstract

We study the brane with arbitrary tension $`\sigma `$ on the edge of various black holes with AdS asymptotics. We investigate Friedmann equations governing the motion of the brane universes and match the Friedmann equation to Cardy entropy formula.

PACS number(s): 04.70.Dy, 98.80.Cq

Motivated by the well-known example of black hole entropy, an influential holographic principle was put forward recently, which suggests that microscopic degrees of freedom that build up the gravitational dynamics do reside not in the bulk spacetime but on its boundary . This principle has been viewed as a conceptual change in our thinking about gravity. Maldacena’s conjecture on AdS/CFT correspondence  is the first example realizing such a principle. Subsequently, Witten  convincingly argued that the entropy, energy and temperature of CFT at high temperatures can be identified with the entropy, mass and Hawking temperature of the AdS black hole , which further supports the holographic principle. In cosmological settings, testing the holographic principle is somewhat subtle. Fischler and Susskind (FS)  have shown that for flat and open Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker(FLRW) universes the area of the particle horizon should bound the entropy on the backward-looking light cone. However violation of FS bound was found for closed FLRW universes. Various different modifications of the FS version of the holographic principle have been raised subsequently \[6-12\]. In addition to the study of holography in homogeneous cosmologies, attempts to generalize the holographic principle to a generic realistic inhomogeneous cosmological setting were carried out in .

Recently, the very interesting study of the holographic principle in FLRW universe filled with CFT with a dual AdS description has been done by Verlinde . He revealed that when a universe-sized black hole can be formed, an interesting and surprising correspondence appears between entropy of CFT and Friedmann equation governing the radiation dominated closed FLRW universes. Generalizing Verlinde’s discussion to a broader class of universes including a cosmological constant , we found that matching of Friedmann equation to Cardy formula holds for de Sitter closed and AdS flat universes. However for the remaining de Sitter and AdS universes, the argument fails due to breaking down of the general philosophy of the holographic principle. In high dimensions, various other aspects of Verlinde’s proposal have also been investigated in a number of works .

In a very recent paper , further light on the correspondence between Friedmann equation and Cardy formula has been shed from a Randall-Sundrum type brane-world perspective . Considering the CFT dominated universe as a co-dimension one brane with fine-tuned tension in a background of an AdS black hole, Savonije and Verlinde found the correspondence between Friedmann equation and Cardy formula for the entropy of CFT when the brane crosses the black hole horizon. This result has been further confirmed by studying a brane-universe filled with radiation and stiff-matter, quantum-induced brane worlds and radially infalling brane . The discovered relation between Friedmann equation and Cardy formula for the entropy shed significant light on the meaning of the holographic principle in a cosmological setting. However the general proof for this correspondence for all CFTs is still difficult at the moment. It is worthwhile to further check the validity of the correspondence in broader classes of situations than . This is the motivation of the present paper. In addition to spherically symmetric AdS Schwarzschild black hole considered in the bulk background, we will consider various black holes with AdS asymptotics including hyperbolic AdS black holes and flat AdS black membrane. Instead of choosing a special value of the brane tension to tune the cosmological constant in the brane-universe to zero, in our following study we will choose an arbitrary value of the tension on the brane to describe the de Sitter and AdS brane universes. We will show that in de Sitter and AdS brane universes, correspondence between the Friedmann equation and Cardy formula hold for all values of curvature constants. The situation when a domain wall with matter is present in addition to the background wall tension will also be addressed.

We start by considering a four-dimensional (4D) brane in a spacetime described by a five-dimensional (5D) AdS black hole. The background metric is

$$ds_5^2=fdt^2+f^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_K^2,$$
(1)
where

$$f=k+\frac{r^2}{L^2}\frac{m}{r^2}.$$
(2)
$`L`$ is the curvature radius of AdS spacetime. $`k`$ takes the values $`0,1,+1`$ corresponding to flat, open and closed geometrics, and $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^2`$ is the corresponding metric on the unit three dimensional plane, hyperboloid or sphere. In the case of $`m=0`$, we have an exact 5D AdS space. For $`m0`$, the black hole horizon locates at

$$r_H^2=\frac{L^2}{2}(k+\sqrt{k^2+4m/L^2}).$$
(3)
The relation betwen $`m`$ to the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass of the hole $`M`$ is

$$M=\frac{3\omega _3}{16\pi G_5}m$$
(4)
where $`\omega _3`$ is the volume of the unit 3 sphere.

As discussed in , we regard the brane as a boundary of background AdS geometry. The location and the metric on the boundary become time dependent. Choosing the gauge where

$$\dot{r}^2=f^2\dot{t}^2f,$$
(5)
the metric on the brane is given by

$$ds_4^2=d\tau ^2+r^2(\tau )d\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^2.$$
(6)
Following , we learn that CFT lives on the brane, which is the boundary of the AdS hole. The energy for a CFT on a sphere with volume $`V=r^3\omega _3`$ is given by $`E={\displaystyle \frac{L}{r}}M`$. The density of the CFT energy can be expressed as

$$\rho _{CFT}=E/V=\frac{3mL}{16\pi G_5r^4}.$$
(7)
According to , the entropy of the CFT on the brane is equal to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the AdS black hole

$$S_{CFT}(4D)=S_{BH}(5D)=\frac{V_H}{4G_5},V_H=r_H^3\omega _3.$$
(8)
The area of AdS equals to the volume of the corresponding spatial section for an observer on the brane. The entropy density in the brane is

$$s=S/V=\frac{r_H^3}{4G_5r^3}=\frac{r_H^3}{2G_4Lr^3}$$
(9)
where $`G_5={\displaystyle \frac{G_4L}{2}}`$.

The induced CFT temperature on the brane is

$$T=\frac{L}{r}T_H,$$
(10)
where $`T_H`$ is the Hawking temperature of the bulk black hole

$$T_H=\frac{1}{4\pi }f^{}(r_H)=\frac{1}{2\pi }[\frac{r_H}{L^2}+\frac{m}{r_H^3}].$$
(11)
The first law of thermodynamics expressed in terms of densities has the form on the brane

$$Tds=d\rho _{CFT}+3(\rho _{CFT}+P_{CFT}Ts)\frac{dr}{r}.$$
(12)
Considering the equation of state $`P_{CFT}=\rho _{CFT}/3`$ and taking $`m=kr_H^2+r_H^4/L^2`$, the term representing Casimir energy density derived from eqs(7,10,11) is

$$\frac{3}{2}(\rho _{CFT}+P_{CFT}Ts)=\frac{\gamma }{r^2}$$
(13)
where $`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{3kr_H^2}{8\pi G_4r^2}}`$.

With the given expressions for the entropy density $`s`$, CFT energy density $`\rho _{CFT}`$ and $`\gamma `$, the entropy density can be expessed in the form of Cardy’s formula

$$s^2=(\frac{4\pi }{3\sqrt{k}})^2\gamma (\rho _{CFT}\frac{\gamma }{r^2}).$$
(14)
It is easy to check that this formula agrees to Eq.(30) in  regardless of different values of $`k`$.

Now we start to study the motion of brane-universe and examine the relation between the Friedmann equation and Cardy formula in the brane-cosmology.

The equation of motion for the scalar factor $`r(\tau )`$ can be obtained from Israel’s matching conditions under the assumption of $`z_2`$ symmetry:

$$K_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_5[T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}T_c^c\gamma _{\mu \nu }],$$
(15)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy momentum tensor on the brane and $`K_{\mu \nu }`$ is the extrinsic curvature.

Introduce a stress-energy tensor on the brane

$$T_{ab}=\sigma \gamma _{ab}$$
(16)
where $`\sigma `$ is an arbitrary brane tension. From (15), the space component of the junction condition gives

$$H^2=\frac{k}{r^2}+\frac{m}{r^4}\frac{1(\sigma /\sigma _c)^2}{L^2}$$
(17)
where $`\sigma _c={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi G_5L}}`$ is the critical brane tension. Taking $`\sigma =\sigma _c`$, (17) reduces to the Friedmann equation of CFT radiation dominated brane universe without cosmological constant discussed in . If $`\sigma >\sigma _c`$ or $`\sigma <\sigma _c`$, the brane-world is a de Sitter universe or AdS universe, respectively.

When the brane crosses the horizon $`r_H`$, eq(17) becomes

$$H^2=\frac{1}{L^2}(\frac{\sigma }{\sigma _c})^2$$
(18)
by taking $`r=r_H`$ and $`m=kr_H^2+r_H^4/L^2`$. The entropy density (9) can be expressed at $`r=r_H`$ as

$$s=\frac{H}{2G_4}(\sigma _c/\sigma ).$$
(19)
Putting (19) in (14) and taking $`r=r_H`$ and $`m=kr_H^2+r_H^4/L^2`$, (14) exactly reproduces the first Friedmann equation.

Using the fact that $`\dot{\rho }_{CFT}=3H(P_{CFT}+\rho _{CFT})`$ and $`P_{CFT}=\rho _{CFT}/3`$, the second Friedmann equation can be obtained

$$\dot{H}=\frac{k}{r^2}\frac{2m}{r^4}$$
(20)
where (7) has been used. When the brane crosses the black hole horizon, (20) can be expressed as

$$\dot{H}=\frac{k}{r_H^2}\frac{2}{L^2}$$
(21)
Employing (21) and (18), the CFT temperature at the black hole horizon is

$$T=\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H}(\frac{\sigma }{\sigma _c}).$$
(22)
From (13), we know

$$T=[\rho _{CFT}+P_{CFT}\frac{2\gamma }{3r^2}]/s.$$
(23)
Substituting (22) and the values of $`s,\gamma ,\rho _{CFT}`$ at the horizon, the second Friedmann equation can be reproduced.

It is interesting to note that when the brane crosses the black hole horizon, Friedmann equation coincides with Cardy formula. This result holds independently of the value of the brane tension $`\sigma `$ and curvature constant $`k`$. The correspondence between Friedmann equations and Cardy formula is valid in all universes.

Now we consider the case in which motion of the brane universe results from matter on the domain wall. We take the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{ab}=\sigma \gamma _{ab}+\rho u_au_b+P(\gamma _{ab}+u_au_b)`$, which corresponds to matter with energy density $`\rho `$ and pressue $`P`$, in addition to the background wall tension $`\sigma `$ . For $`\rho \sigma _c`$, the angular components of (15) give

$$H^2=\frac{k}{r^2}+\frac{m}{r^4}[1(\frac{\sigma }{\sigma _c})^22(\frac{\sigma }{\sigma _c})\frac{\rho }{\sigma _c}]/L^2$$
(24)
when $`\sigma =\sigma _c`$, (24) reduces to the description in  on the motion of brane universe. For $`\sigma _c^2>\sigma ^2+2\sigma \rho `$, (24) is the Friedmann equation for AdS universe; while for $`\sigma _c^2<\sigma ^2+2\sigma \rho `$, (24) describes the de Sitter universe. The Friedmann equation discussed in  is a specific case of (24) where $`\sigma =\sigma _c`$ and $`\rho =0`$.

It has been argued that there is a possible duality relation between classical gravity in 5D AdS bulk and a conformal field theory residing on its boundary brane-world . In this context, the second term in (24) may be interpreted from the boundary theory point of view as the contribution of a true radiation bath of the conformal fields whose energy density satisfies (7).

Considering when the brane pass the black hole horizon, the Friedmann equation (24) can be expressed as

$$H^2=[(\sigma /\sigma _c)^2+2(\sigma /\sigma _c)(\rho /\sigma _c)]/L^2=C/L^2.$$
(25)
The CFT entropy density (9) can thus be written as

$$s=H/(2G_4\sqrt{C}).$$
(26)
Substituting (26) into (14) and choosing values of $`\gamma ,\rho _{CFT},r`$ at the black hole horizon, it is easy to reproduce the first Friedmann equation from the Cardy formula (14).

The second Friedmann equation can be obtained by differentiating (24) with respect to $`\tau `$. For the radiation dominated universe with $`P=\rho /3`$,

$$\dot{H}_1=\frac{k}{r^2}\frac{2m}{r^4}\frac{4\rho \sigma }{L^2\sigma _c^2}.$$
(27)
For matter dominated universe with $`P=0`$, the second Friedmann equation reads

$$\dot{H}_2=\frac{k}{r^2}\frac{2m}{r^4}\frac{3\rho \sigma }{L^2\sigma _c^2}.$$
(28)
The CFT temperature (10) at the horizon may be expressed in the Hubble constant and its time derivative as

$$T_1=\frac{\dot{H}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\rho \sigma }{L^2\sigma _c^2}}}{2\pi H}\sqrt{C}\mathrm{for}P=\rho /3,$$
(29)
$$T_2=\frac{\dot{H}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{3\rho \sigma }{L^2\sigma _c^2}}}{2\pi H}\sqrt{C}\mathrm{for}P=0.$$
(30)
From (23), the second Friedmann equation can be reproduced at the black hole horizon.

In summary, we have investigated the relationship between Friedmann equation and Cardy formula in general cases of brane-universes. We found that when the brane crosses the bulk AdS black hole horizon, the correspondence between Friedmann equations and Cardy formula for CFT entropy holds for all values of curvature constant $`k`$ on de Sitter and AdS universes. At first sight, the result does not look consistent with that in , where the match between Friedmann equation and Cardy formula is obtained only for de Sitter closed and AdS flat universes. But we claim that these two cases are different. Recall that in deriving the result in , we need a universe-sized black hole to be formed. However here in the moving domain-wall, we cannot define a universe-sized black hole embedding into the moving brane-world . The generalized Cardy formula derived in  is the unification between Bekenstein entropy bound and Hubble entropy bound. While the Cardy formula obtained here exactly describes the entropy of radiation bath of conformal fields. Our results generalized the discussion in  and shed further light on the meaning of the holographic principle in cosmological setting.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This work was partically supported by Fundac$`\stackrel{~}{a}`$o de Amparo $`\stackrel{`}{a}`$ Pesquisa do Estado de S$`\stackrel{~}{a}`$o Paulo (FAPESP) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient$`\stackrel{´}{i}`$fico e Tecnol$`\stackrel{´}{o}`$gico (CNPQ). B. Wang would also like to acknowledge the support given by Shanghai Science and Technology Commission as well as NNSF, China under contract No. 10005004. R. K. Su’s work was supported by NNSF of China.


format: text

text:
# References

Numerical results for the Anderson transition. Comment

I. M. Suslov

P.L.Kapitza Institute for Physical problems

117334, Moscow, Russia

E-mail: suslov@kapitza.ras.ru

Abstract

Answer to cond-mat/0106005, cond-mat/0106006 and additional notes are given concerning my previous comment (cond-mat/0105325).

Recently I have discussed the numerical results for the Anderson transition . Objections  and  have appeared after that. We answer here to the arguments of  and give the additional comments.

1. I did not state in  that $`\nu =1`$ (in fact, my most probable value was 1.25). I tried to show that a problem exists: numerical results contradict to all other information on the critical exponents. It is not my personal problem, and it is not my personal affair to solve it. Indeed, a value $`\nu 1`$ is desirable from viewpoint of this other information and I tried to understand, is not it possible to agree it with the raw numerical data by the change of interpretation and by more realistic estimation of errors. I found it possible for the data that I considered as the best. May be I was a little wrong in the latter estimation.

Authors of  argue that I used the systems of too small size ($`28^3`$), ”while currently sizes $`50^3`$ (for ELS) and $`18^2\times 10^8`$ (for TM) are standard” 111 Abbreviations of : TM and ELS — transfer matrix and energy level statistics methods, FSS — finite size scaling.. A size $`18^2\times 10^8`$ should kick a man out his feet, while authors of  know perfectly well that only the minimal length scale ($`L=18`$) is relevant. In fact, such systems are small. 222 I can understand such trick in the text, where authors of  are in the course of discussion, but the same thing is present in the figure capture: ”the system sizes of TM data are larger than for ELS data”. I do not know about ”currently” and ”standard” but only one result is cited in  for systems $`50^3`$ . With my procedure used, authors of  obtained this result with uncertanty $`\nu =1.25÷1.75`$, which is not drastically different from uncertainty $`0.8÷1.7`$ that I have derived from Zharekeshev and Kramer data . So, it is admitted that the largest scale data give uncertainty $`1.25÷1.75`$ and not 1% . At the present stage, I am quite satisfied with such progress.

2. Authors of  claim, that my procedure is not interesting because it does not give increase of accuracy. They are mistaken here: I had not purpose to increase accuracy. I wanted to dig out the real uncertainty of results. According to , estimation of error given by my procedure approximately corresponds to a scattering of results due to different authors. So this estimation is reliable and reasonably conservative. I can hardly dream of this. By the way, only ”people with experience in FSS” can believe in accuracy of several percents, looking at Fig. 1 of .

In fact, authors of  have overlooked the essense of my suggestions. I have introduced some function $`f(L)`$, in order to have a convinient languige for discussion of scaling corrections. My suggestions are simple. Show your function $`f(L)`$, so that we can have a look at it. Then it will be evident, has this function so good power-law behavior as you say, or not. It will be clear, is there change of the effective $`\nu `$ with the length scale, or not. Then we can compare such functions for different quantities and different models, in order to estimate a systematic error. Then we can see, how this error change with $`L`$ and so on.

I do not insist, that my procedure for determination of the function $`f(L)`$ is the best. In fact, it is useful in the case of rather poor raw data. If these data are sufficiently detailed and accurate, it is more preferable to extract the function $`f(L)`$ by direct linearization (in fact, it was admitted in ). Such procedure was used in a number of papers and I have no priority in it. But it was only recently, that explicit plots of such functions have appeared .

3. I agree with , that in the general case a fixed point depends on $`L`$ and irrelevant parameters are uncritical. The fixed point $`\mu ^{}`$ has a regular dependence in $`a/L`$ and the main correction is the ordinary surface effect. With this dependence taken into account, my Eq.(5) takes a form

$$Q(\mu )=F\{\mu ^{}(L/a),A_1(\tau )s^{y_1},A_2(\tau )s^{y_2},A_3(\tau )s^{y_3},\mathrm{}\},$$
$`(5^{})`$
Putting $`A_1(\tau )=b_1\tau `$, $`A_i(\tau )=c_i+b_i\tau `$ ($`i2`$), we have instead (6)

$$Q(\tau ,L)=F\{a/L,b_1\tau (L/a)^{y_1},(c_2+b_2\tau )(L/a)^{y_2},(c_3+b_3\tau )(L/a)^{y_3},\mathrm{}\},$$
$`(6^{})`$
For $`La`$ we have instead (7) and (8) correspondingly

$$Q(\tau ,L)=[F\{0,0,0,0,\mathrm{}\}+B_0(a/L)+B_2(L/a)^{y_2}+B_3(L/a)^{y_3},\mathrm{}]+$$

$$+\tau [C_1(L/a)^{y_1}+C_2(L/a)^{y_2}+C_3(L/a)^{y_3},\mathrm{}]F_0(L/a)+\tau f\left(L/a\right),\tau (L/a)^{y_1}1$$
$`(7^{})`$
and

$$Q(\tau ,L)F\{0,b_1\tau (L/a)^{y_1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{}\}G\left\{\tau (L/a)^{y_1}\right\},\tau (L/a)^{y_1}\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}1.$$
$`(8^{})`$
Correction to the critical point

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau +\mathrm{\Delta }(a/L),\mathrm{\Delta }(a/L)=\left[F_0(L/a)F_0(0)\right]/f(L/a)$$

is essential for small $`\tau `$ in Eq.($`7^{}`$) but is irrelevant in Eq.($`8^{}`$). So unification ($`7^{}`$) and ($`8^{}`$) has a form:

$$Q(\tau ,L)=G\left\{\stackrel{~}{\tau }f(L/a)\right\}.$$
$`(9^{})`$
One should shift the curves for different $`L`$, so as they have a common intersection point, and use the same procedure as in . Such shift is routinely used in the most of papers. There was no need in it for the data of .

For $`d=4ϵ`$ the first irrelevant exponent $`y_2`$ is of the order of $`ϵ`$  and linearization in the parameter $`c_2(L/a)^{y_2}`$ is invalid for $`L\mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}L_0a\mathrm{exp}\{const/ϵ\}`$. The corresponding dependence on $`L`$ is inessential in the restricted intervals of $`L`$ but there is a slow drift of results on the large scale $`L_0`$. May be, it is a clue to the whole problem.

4. There are a lot of vague speculations in  concerning a number of nonlinear parameters. Authors were able to calculate that in my procedure this number is even greater than in their one. In spite of these speculations, it it evident to anyone that

(a) all steps of my procedure are well defined and unambiguous.

(b) authors of  did not give a clear answer to a clear question: how do they avoid ambiguity of their procedure?

With modifications of , my procedure becomes ambiguious too. There is no sense to discuss the results of the unclear procedure.

5. One can carry out a very simple experiment. Take some function, f.e. $`f(x)=x^2/(1+x)`$, add some noise to it, and try to find its asymptotic behavior $`Ax^\alpha `$ at $`x\mathrm{}`$, using only values of $`f(x)`$ for $`x=1,2,\mathrm{},20`$. You will find it rather difficult to formulate a procedure that gives the reliable and reasonably conservative estimation of errors. The more or less successful procedure is as follows. Take an interval $`(x_{min},20)`$ and increase $`x_{min}`$ until a simplest fit $`\mathrm{log}f(x)=C+\alpha \mathrm{log}x`$ give for $`\chi ^2`$ its normal value $`n`$, where $`n`$ is a number of points 333 We suppose that this number is much greater than a number of parameters. . It is a necessary condition for a systematic error to be of the order of a statistical one. Now increase $`x_{min}`$ a little more: then the formal statistical error will give more or less reasonable estimation of the real error. A little more is rather subjective and depends on the degree of conservatism. This procedure is successful, if a noise is uncorrelated and you have reliable estimation of its amplitude. In the general case such procedure is minimal and gives only the lower bound of the error. In my experience, related with a paper  and its development , the noise was strongly correlated and a formal statistical error was typically two orders less than a real one (even for the good values of $`\chi ^2`$). I can only wonder that some people are so confident in their accuracy.

The given example is simple, because corrections to asymptotics are regular. You can increase accuracy of $`\alpha `$ by many orders, fitting $`\mathrm{log}f(x)`$ as $`C_0+\alpha \mathrm{log}x+C_1/x+C_2/x^2+\mathrm{}`$ (this fit is linear and, consequently, unique). It is not the case that is interesting for us.

If a structure of corrections is power-like but unknown, you should use a nonlinear fit $`f(x)=Ax^\alpha +A_1x^{\alpha _1}+A_2x^{\alpha _2}+\mathrm{}`$ and you immediately meet with a problem of many minima. Their origin is rather simple. Take an arbitrary succession $`\alpha ,\alpha _1,\alpha _2\mathrm{}`$ (such that $`\alpha >\alpha _1>\alpha _2>\mathrm{}`$) and use for $`f(x)`$ a linear fit $`Ax^\alpha +A_1x^{\alpha _1}+A_2x^{\alpha _2}+\mathrm{}`$ (only $`A,A_1,A_2,\mathrm{}`$ are changed). It will be successful with sufficient number of terms and $`\chi ^2`$ takes its normal value. Take this result as ”a zero approximation” and use the general nonlinear fit (not only $`A,A_1,A_2,\mathrm{}`$ but also $`\alpha ,\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{}`$ are changed). The quantity $`\chi ^2`$ cannot be essentially lower than its normal value, and can change only slightly. So, there is a local minimum for it, close to ”a zero approximation”. Taking different successions $`\alpha ,\alpha _1,\alpha _2\mathrm{}`$, you can generate a great number of such minima. A value of $`\alpha `$ is different in different successions. So you can obtain an arbitrary result for it 444 It is restricted only by the assumptions made. by such procedure.

I think, it is clear now, why one should not believe in any results obtained with such fits. If a structure of corrections is unknown, one hardly can invent something better than the simplest procedure given in beginning of this section.

6. After  I had a constructive discussion with P. Marko$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{s}}`$555 He has no responsibility for my conclusions. and now I have better understanding of a general situation. Here are my impressions of it.

(i) There is a good paper , where the transfer-matrix method and the system sizes up to $`L=24`$ were used. The raw data are rather detailed and accurate, so a function $`f(L)`$ can be obtained with good accuracy 666 I think, this accuracy is a little exaggerated. One can see in Fig. 2 of  that a number of points deviates from the general smooth dependence in a quantity that is not controlled by the given error. by direct linearization of $`W`$-dependence. More than that, Fig. 2 of this paper shows a number of such functions (in the log–log coordinates) for the different Lyapunov exponents. Some observations can be made in this figure. For $`L\mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}10`$ the slopes of the curves differ very strongly and correspond to values of $`\nu `$ in the interval $`0.8÷1.5`$. For $`L\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}10`$ practically all curves change their slopes and the more or less unique slope (with $`\nu 1.5`$) arises. Nevertheless, the curve for the least exponent $`z_1`$ (which, according to , should reach its asymptotics most quickly) has a tendency to change its slope in the opposite direction. For $`L>12`$, this slope is compatible with a value $`\nu =1.25`$, if a point for $`L=24`$ (evident outliar) is excluded. One can see, that a possible change of the effective $`\nu `$ with $`L`$ is not a fantasy.

(ii) There is a lot of high precision results for $`L\mathrm{¡}\mathrm{}15`$ and they indeed give a value $`\nu 1.5`$. Let us assume, that this value is not true, but effective. Then it should change with increase of $`L`$. In practice, one can double  or triple  this size, though there are not many such attempts. With such increase of $`L`$, a situation cannot improve drastically. One can be able only to see some change of $`\nu `$ with $`L`$. There is a number of reasons, why this change could not be observed reliably:

(a) Accuracy of the raw date is worse by an order of magnitude for $`L\mathrm{¿}\mathrm{}15`$.

(b) A need for a careful treatment was underestimated. The researches were satisfied that the large scale data roughly correspond to well-established results for small $`L`$, though the most of fits are not satisfactory.

(c) When linearization of $`W`$-dependence was used, the interval of linearization was kept fixed. It gives the wrong tendency due to increase of nonlinear effects for the large $`L`$ (see footnote 5 in ). This tendency is not large in magnitude, but the whole situation is rather unstable. One can see in Fig. 2 of  that a shift of the large $`L`$ data in one standard deviation produces essential change of results.

As a consequence, the large $`L`$ data appeared to be practically useless. In fact, this conclusion is supported by authors of , who refer primarily to results for small and not for large $`L`$.

(iii) If the raw data have a quality comparable with , the adequate procedure should contain, in our opinion, the following stages:

(a) In order to have the efficient use of the $`\chi ^2`$ procedure, the statisical uncertainties of the raw data are not simply estimated, but are calculated independently for each point in the course of some formal procedure. Probably, it can be done with the use of different realizations of a random potential.

(b) The function $`f(L)`$ is obtained by linearization of $`W`$-dependence. The interval of linearization is adjusted in accordance with $`\chi ^2`$ and the error is properly estimated. It should be done independently for each $`L`$, but with the use of the same routine. More conservatism is desirable at this stage.

(c) The function $`f(L)`$ is plotted. It is fitted by the power law dependence in the interval $`(L_{min},L_{max})`$ where $`L_{min}`$ is adjusted with the use of $`\chi ^2`$ and $`L_{max}`$ is the largest $`L`$ that is possible to reach. Minimization of $`\chi ^2`$ is a clever procedure and it provides a necessary compromise between the high accuracy data for small $`L`$ and the poor accuracy data for large $`L`$: the latter are properly weighted, but all useful information is extracted of them. Adjustment of $`L_{min}`$ allows to exclude the main body of a systematic error, which is contained in the small $`L`$ data. Excess of conservatism at the stage (b) is partially compensated, because smaller $`L_{min}`$ becomes admittable.

(d) The rest of a systematic error can be controlled by comparison of results for different quantities and different models.

I have impression, that nobody had used this procedure in a full extent 777 Sensitibility of results to restriction of the intervals in $`W`$ and $`L`$ was observed by MacKinnon..

(iv) Some comments concerning the 4D case. The most advanced results are those of Zharekeshev and Kramer . With $`\nu =1`$, they have a parameter $`\tau (L/a)^{1/\nu }`$ (in designations of ) of the order unity, and a condition for linearization of $`W`$-dependence is marginally fulfilled. With $`\nu =1/2`$ (as it should be), the above parameter is $`10`$ and they are deeply in the nonlinear regime. So, a possibility $`\nu =1/2`$, in fact, was not tested numerically.

Some confirmation of these arguments can be found in . Fig. 1,a of this paper shows $`W`$-dependences for another quantity (Lyapunov exponent, but not level statisics) which are essentially more detailed in comparison with . Indeed, they are strikingly nonlinear. More attention should be given to investigation of these nonlinearities.

This work was financially supported by INTAS (Grant 99-1070) and RFBR (00-02-17129).


text:
# Saturation of electrical resistivity in metals at large temperatures

## Abstract

We present a microscopic model for systems showing resistivity saturation. An essentially exact quantum Monte-Carlo calculation demonstrates that the model describes saturation. We give a simple explanation for saturation, using charge conservation and considering the limit where thermally excited phonons have destroyed the periodicity. Crucial model features are phonons coupling to the hopping matrix elements and a unit cell with several atoms. We demonstrate the difference to a model of alkali-doped C60 with coupling to the level positions, for which there is no saturation.

In a metal, the electrical resistivity, $`\rho `$, grows with the temperature $`T`$ due to the increased scattering of the electrons by phonons. Typically, $`\rho (T)T`$ for large $`T`$. For some metals with a very large $`\rho `$, however, the resistivity saturates, i.e., it grows very slowly with $`T`$ for large $`T`$. The resistivity is often described in a semiclassical (Boltzmann) picture, where an electron, on the average, travels a mean free path $`l`$ before it is scattered. The resistivity is inversely proportional to $`l`$. Typically, $`ld`$, where $`d`$ is the atomic separation. For systems with resistivity saturation, however, $`l`$ becomes comparable to $`d`$. Work in the 1970’s suggested that resistivity saturation occurs universally when $`ld`$, the Ioffe-Regel condition, providing an upper limit to the large $`T`$ resistivity of metals. Later work has, however, found exceptions, such as alkali-doped fullerenes.

Intuitively, resistivity saturation seems natural. One might expect that at worst, an electron could be scattered at each atom, leading to $`ld`$. Such a semiclassical picture, however, breaks down when $`ld`$, and it is contradicted by the lack of saturation for fullerenes. Several theories of the saturation have been presented, usually based on generalisations of the semiclassical Boltzmann theory, but none has been generally accepted.

The Bloch-Boltzmann theory starts from a periodic system and treats the scattering mechanisms as small perturbations. Here we consider the opposite limit, where thermally excited phonons have removed all effects of periodicity. In this limit, charge conservation naturally leads to saturation for systems with several atoms per unit cell and strong electron-phonon coupling, in particular for systems where the phonons couple to the hopping matrix elements. We show that this happens to occur when $`ld`$. This does not happen, however, for a model of alkali-doped C60, where the phonons couple to the level positions. We first use an essentially exact quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) calculation to demonstrate saturation in our model. We then introduce a method where the phonons are treated semiclassically and the electrons quantum-mechanically, justifying the method by comparing with the QMC results. This method is sufficiently simple to allow for an interpretation of the results.

Saturation is clearly observed for, e.g., A15 compounds, such as Nb3Sb, while Nb metal shows weak saturation at large $`T`$. We study a model Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ of Nb3Sb, where the Nb atoms have the same positions as in Nb3Sb, but the Sb atoms are neglected. This is compared with a model of Nb. We consider a cluster of $`N`$ atoms, placed on A15 (Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$) or bcc (Nb) lattices with the lattice parameters 5.17 Å (Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$) or 3.28 Å (Nb).

We study the scattering of the electrons from phonons. Each atom is assumed to have vibrations in the three coordinate directions, described by Einstein phonons. The phonon energy, $`\omega _{ph}=14`$ meV, is obtained from an average over the phonons of Nb. For each Nb atom we include the five-fold degenerate ($`n=5`$) $`d`$-orbital. The hopping matrix elements between the orbitals are obtained from Harrison, using a power dependence on the atomic distance $`d`$ ($`1/d^m`$). We use $`m=3.6`$ more appropriate for Nb than $`m=5`$ used by Harrison. To avoid divergencies for very small $`d`$, $`1/d^m`$ is replaced by $`1/(d^m+a^m)`$, with $`a=2`$ Å. The atomic vibrations modulate the hopping matrix elements, both due to the changes of the atomic distances and the relative movements of the orbital lobes. We neglect the influence of the vibrations on the level energies as well as the Coulomb interaction between the electrons. To obtain the resistivity, we calculate the current-current correlation function. The current operator $`𝐣`$ is obtained by using charge and current conservation. Thus the matrix elements between orbitals $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ on sites $`𝐑^\nu `$ and $`𝐑^\mu `$ are

$$𝐣^{\nu \mu }=ie(𝐑^\nu 𝐑^\mu )t_{\nu \mu },$$
(1)
where $`t_{\nu \mu }`$ are the corresponding hopping matrix elements.

This model can be solved essentially exactly by using a determinantal quantum Monte-Carlo (QMC) method, treating the phonons quantum mechanically. For the models studied here, the QMC method has no “sign-problem”. The calculated correlation function (for imaginary time) therefore has only (small) statistical errors. We use a maximum entropy method to obtain the optical conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ on the real frequency axis. The resistivity $`\rho `$ is then $`1/\sigma (0)`$.

The left insert of Fig. 1 shows the QMC result (circles) for $`\rho (T)`$ of the Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ model. We are particularly interested in the large $`T`$ behaviour, which is also the limit where the QMC calculation can be performed with a reasonable effort. The large $`T`$ result extrapolates to a substantial nonzero value. However, since the resistivity of the Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ model must go to zero for $`T=0`$, the QMC calculation clearly shows that the model leads to a drastic reduction of the slope of the $`\rho (T)`$ curve for large $`T`$, usually referred to as resistivity saturation.

To analyse the results, we treat the phonons (semi)classically. The atomic displacements due to the phonons are chosen randomly according to a Gaussian distribution, determined from the average number of phonons at that temperature. For given “frozen” displacements, we calculate the hopping and current matrix elements. The eigenvalues $`\epsilon _i`$ and eigenvectors $`|i`$ of the resulting Hamiltonian are calculated. For an isotropic system, the optical conductivity is then given by

$$\sigma (\omega )\frac{1}{\omega }\underset{ij}{}|i|j_x|j|^2(f_if_j)\delta (\mathrm{}\omega \epsilon _j+\epsilon _i),$$
(2)
where $`f_i`$ is the Fermi function for the state $`i`$.

The left insert of Fig. 1 shows that this approach (broken line) agrees quite well with the QMC calculation for large $`T`$, the temperature range we are interested in, and we expect the semiclassical calculation to remain accurate for $`T\omega _{ph}`$(=0.014 eV). We can therefore interpret the results by analysing the simpler semiclassical calculation. We observe that this model differs qualitatively from the (Ziman solution) of the Boltzmann equation, in which $`\rho (T)T`$ for large $`T`$. In the Boltzmann equation the electrons are treated semiclassically, while here they are treated quantum-mechanically.

Fig. 1 shows that there is a very clear saturation for Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$, while for Nb (right insert) there is only weak saturation at large $`T`$, in agreement with experiment.

We now discuss this saturation. Fig. 2a shows $`\sigma (\omega )`$ for Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ in the semiclassical theory. For small $`T`$, there is a narrow Drude peak at $`\omega =0`$, which is smeared out for large $`T`$. Then $`\sigma (\omega =0)`$ drops correspondingly. For $`\omega >W`$, $`\sigma (\omega )`$ remains zero (apart from a slight broadening introduced in the calculation), where $`W`$ is the band width, since there are no excitations for $`\omega >W`$.

The Drude peak is due to intraband transitions between states with similar values of the wave vector $`𝐤`$. As $`T`$ is raised and the vibrations of the atoms are increased, the states loose their well-defined $`𝐤`$ and band index labels. To illustrate this, we decompose a state $`|i`$ at a finite $`T`$ in the $`T=0`$ states with given $`𝐤`$-vectors. The corresponding weights are labelled $`c(i𝐤)`$. We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as the average of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(i)`$ over all states $`i`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(i)=n_𝐤\underset{𝐤}{}c(i𝐤)^2,$$
(3)
and $`n_𝐤=256`$ is the number of allowed $`𝐤`$-vectors for the systems studied. If each state has $`n_𝐤/m`$ $`𝐤`$-components with equal weights, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m`$. If periodicity is completely lost, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, and if each state has only one $`𝐤`$-component, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=n_𝐤(=256)`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is shown in Fig. 3. It illustrates how the effects of periodicity are lost very quickly for Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ on a temperature scale of just a few hundred K.

For a large $`T`$, the ($`𝐪\mathrm{𝟎}`$) current operator then couples all states to each others. We now make the assumption that at large $`T`$ the coupling between all states is equally strong. This is the opposite limit to the Boltzmann treatment, where $`𝐤`$ is assumed to be a good quantum number. We replace a current matrix element in Eq. (2) by its average $`|j_x^{\mathrm{av}}|^2`$ over all transitions.

Using charge and current conservation (Eq. (1)), we obtain

$$|j_x^{\mathrm{av}}|^2=\frac{e^2d^2}{3N^2n^2}\underset{\nu \mu }{}|t_{\nu \mu }|^2=\frac{e^2d^2}{3Nn^2}\epsilon ^2,$$
(4)
where $`n`$ is the orbital degeneracy, $`\epsilon ^2`$ is the second moment of the density of states $`N(\epsilon )`$ per atom and $`d`$ is a typical atomic separation. We assume some generic shape of $`N(\epsilon )`$. Since we know its second moment, we can then relate $`N(\epsilon )`$ to the $`j_x^{\mathrm{av}}`$. Using this relation, we can calculate $`\sigma (\omega )`$, shown by the broken curve in Fig. 2a. A comparision with the full calculation shows that this approximation becomes rather accurate already at a moderate $`T`$. We find that $`\sigma (0)d^2/\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume per atom. Using the $`T=0`$ nearest neighbour distance for $`d`$, we obtain

$$\rho A\frac{d}{n}.$$
(5)
$`A`$ depends on the precise assumptions of the model, but it is $`0.2`$ m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm if $`d`$ is expressed in Å. Assuming a semi-elliptical density of states $`\sqrt{(W/2)^2\epsilon ^2}`$ and band filling 0.4, we find $`A=0.27`$ and $`0.15`$ m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm for the A15 and bcc lattices, respectively. This is shown by the broken horizontal lines in Fig. 1. Given the simple assumptions, the agreement with the full semiclassical calculations at large $`T`$ is surprisingly good. The corresponding apparent mean-free path is

$$lcn^{1/3}d.$$
(6)
With the assumptions above, we obtain $`c=0.5`$ and $`c=0.6`$ for the A15 and bcc lattices, respectively. Saturation therefore happens roughly when the Ioffe-Regel condition is satisfied, as might have been expected on dimensional grounds.

The derivation of Eq. (6) uses a quantum-mechanical treatment of the electrons. It explains why metals with a large resistivity usually show saturation, and why it happens when $`ld`$.

The $`\rho (T)`$ in Eq. (5) is independent of $`T`$, while Fig. 1 shows a weak $`T`$ dependence even after saturation. This is partly due to the $`T`$-dependence of the Fermi-functions in Eq. (2), which were approximated by $`\theta `$-functions in the derivation above. There is also a $`T`$ dependence due to changes of the shape of the density of states as $`T`$ is increased, which was neglected above by using a “generic” density of states. These effects are only important when $`T`$ is an appreciable fraction of the band width (for realistic values of the electron-phonon coupling).

Eqs. (5, 6) are obtained by assuming that the Drude peak has been smeared out and that $`\sigma (\omega )`$ is spread out over the whole band width. Both the saturation resistivity and the corresponding mean free path are independent of the band width. A scaling of $`t_{\mu \nu }`$ by a factor $`\alpha >1`$ increases $`W`$, and $`\sigma (\omega )`$ extends over a larger energy range. At the same time, however, $`j_x^{\mathrm{av}}`$ is increased (Eq. (1)) in such a way that $`\sigma (0)`$ in Eq. (2) is unchanged. Charge and current conservation therefore plays a crucial role for our results (5,6) .

We next consider a small $`T(>\omega _{ph})`$. Then

$$\rho (T)=8\pi ^2\frac{\lambda Tk_B}{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}^2},$$
(7)
where $`\lambda `$ is the electron-phonon coupling constant and $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}`$ is the plasma frequency

$$(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl})^2=\frac{e^2}{3\pi ^2}\underset{n}{}_{Bz}d^3k[\frac{\epsilon _{n𝐤}}{𝐤}]^2\delta (\epsilon _{n𝐤}E_F).$$
(8)
where $`\epsilon _{n𝐤}`$ is the energy of a state with the band index $`n`$ and the wave vector $`𝐤`$ and $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}`$ depends on the average Fermi velocity.

The straight line given by Eq. (7) (chain lines in Fig. 1), agrees well with the semiclassical calculations for small $`T`$. Typically, this line rises so slowly that it intersects the horizontal line of Eq. (5) well above the melting point for the metal of interest. Then no saturation is found in the accessible temperature range. If, however, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}`$ is small and $`\lambda `$ is large, the two lines cross below the melting temperature. Saturation is then observed. An important difference between Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ and Nb is that Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ has many rather flat bands, due to the large unit cell and many forbidden crossings. The resulting small electron velocities, lead to a small $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}`$. We find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}=3.6`$ and 8.2 eV for Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ and Nb, respectively, which makes the slope of the line in Eq. (7) about a factor of five larger for Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ than for Nb. We find similar $`\lambda `$’s for Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ ($`\lambda =1.0`$) and Nb ($`\lambda =0.9`$). More accurate estimates give $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}=3.4`$ eV (Nb3Sn) and 9.5 eV (Nb) and $`\lambda =1.7`$ (Nb3Sn) and 1.1 (Nb).

It is interesting to replace the $`d`$-orbitals in our Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ model by $`s`$-orbitals. As before, the resistivity shows saturation, but the saturation is a less pronounced than in Fig. 1. The saturation resistivity (Eq. (5)) is larger due to the smaller degeneracy ($`n=1`$).

A very different behaviour is found in the alkali-doped fullerenes, (A3C60 (A= K, Rb)), where the apparent mean free path becomes much shorter than the separations of the C60 molecules. This behaviour was related to the fact that the important (intramolecular) phonons primarily couple to the C60 level energies, instead of the hopping matrix elements. Already at a moderate $`T`$, the resulting fluctuations in the level energies become comparable to the $`T=0`$ width of the narrow $`t_{1u}`$ band, which conducts the current. This leads to a broadening of the $`t_{1u}`$ band and of $`\sigma (\omega )`$ beyond the $`T=0`$ band width. In contrast to the case of a scaling of the hopping parameters, discussed below Eq. (6), this is, however, not accompanied by an increase of the current operator. Thus $`\sigma (0)`$ is reduced, explaining the lack of saturation. This is illustrated in Fig. 2b.

It is interesting to compare the cases when the phonons couple to the level energies (LE coupling) and to the hopping integrals (HI coupling). We have studied the case of HI coupling in a C60 model. By assuming an unrealistically small phonon frequency for the intermolecular vibrations, we can obtain the same value of $`\lambda `$ as for the LE coupling. For the HI coupling, we then find that the resistivity our C60 model shows saturation. We have also considered LE coupling in the Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ model. The resulting resistivity shows a change in slope, somewhat similar to Fig. 1, but with a larger slope for large $`T`$ than in Fig. 1. These results illustrates that it is possible to obtain saturation with LE coupling, but that HI coupling is more appropriate for describing saturation.

Our semiclassical treatment of the two models is closely related to conduction in disordered systems with diagonal (DD) or (ODD) off-diagonal disorder. While DD models can give localization, no localization was not found close to the center of the band in a ODD model. This is consistent with the saturation seen in Fig. 1 for the A15 model, having ODD in the semiclassical treatment. For the C60 model, the semiclassical treatment gives localization for a large DD. The QMC treatment, however, takes into account that the disorder is not static but due to thermal fluctuations and that the scattering can be inelastic. In this QMC treatment we find a lack of saturation, but we have not seen signs of localization.

To summarize, guided by the loss of periodicity at large $`T`$, we have studied the effect of replacing the current matrix element by its average. Together with charge conservation, this leads to clear saturation in a model where the phonons couple to the hopping matrix elements. On the other hand, saturation does not happen in a model for A3C60, where the phonons couple to the level energies. The issue of saturation or not saturation is only raised for experimentally accessible temperatures if $`\lambda `$ is large and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}`$ is small. This is favoured by the relatively flat bands for Nb$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}`$ small) and by the small band width for A3C60 ($`\lambda `$ large and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pl}`$ small).

We would like to thank M. Fähnle, O. Jepsen, E. Koch and R. Zeyher for useful discussions, M. Jarrell for making his MaxEnt program available and the Max-Planck-Forschungspreis for financial support.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since the pionnering work of Amaldi and Schubert, more than twenty years ago, the impact parameter (or $`b`$)-representation has a long history in the analysis of high-energy $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ elastic scattering (e.g. see  and references therein).

Beyond the discussion of the elastic profile and overlap function (e.g.  ), of the shadow and antishadow scattering mode , extrapolations have also been investigated  at the forthcoming facilities of the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

Aside from these explorations, the following mean-squares of impact parameter have not enjoyed much popularity since their introduction

$$_{tot}=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}b𝑑bb^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H(s,b)}{_0^{\mathrm{}}b𝑑b\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H(s,b)},$$
(1)
$$_{el}=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}b𝑑bb^2|H(s,b)|^2}{_0^{\mathrm{}}b𝑑b|H(s,b)|^2},$$
(2)
$$_{in}=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}b𝑑bb^2G_{in}(s,b)}{_0^{\mathrm{}}b𝑑bG_{in}(s,b)},$$
(3)
$`H(s,b)`$ is the elastic scattering amplitude in the $`b`$-representation (or profile function) at a center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`G_{in}(s,b)`$ the inelastic overlap function, sum of all inelastic channels contributions. The reason for this lack of interest up to recently  is probably due to the fact that it is often convenient and sufficient to discuss the three quantities $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H(s,b),|H(s,b)|^2,G_{in}(s,b)`$ versus $`s`$ and $`b`$.

From a fundamental point of view, it is certainly worth to discuss also the corresponding ”root-mean-squares” of the impact parameters ($`b`$-rms)

$$\sqrt{_{tot}},\sqrt{_{el}},\sqrt{_{in}},$$
(4)
in terms of characteristics of the averaged ranges of hadronic forces responsible for elastic and inelastic collision processes. The estimation of the $`b`$-rms could provide a new light on a simple physical picture at very high energy, in particular at the LHC, where the antishadow scattering mode is expected to be a potential discovery (see  and references therein).

It is the aim of this note to complement a traditional study of the impact parameter elastic and inelastic profiles with a description of the space structure of hadrons in elastic scattering at high energy, especially of protons at LHC.

## 2  Choice of an amplitude

We note the definitions (1-3) are written in accordance with the notations used in the unitarity equation

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H(s,b)=|H(s,b)|^2+G_{in}(s,b),$$
(5)
which integrated over $`b`$, running from zero to the infinity, gives simply the summation of the cross-sections : $`\sigma _{tot}(s)=\sigma _{el}(s)+\sigma _{in}(s).`$

In order to estimate $`H(s,b)`$, $`G_{in}(s,b)`$ and the $`b`$-rms, we have chosen the dipole version of the generalized eikonalized (GE) scattering amplitude found in  for both $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ elastic scattering processes. It concerns a generalization of the ordinary eikonal method, constrained by unitarity , taking into account all intermediate multiparticle states involving the crossing-even and crossing-odd combinations of Reggeons. The formalism involves three parameters, $`\lambda _0,\lambda _+,\lambda _{}`$, corresponding to the three possible intermediate states. At the Born level the amplitude involves two secondary Reggeons, constructed from a simple Regge pole in the angular momentum $`j`$-plane, a Pomeron-”dipole”, linear combination of a simple with a double pole and finally an Oddderon-dipole including a factor for damping at $`t=0`$.

The reasons for such a choice are:

* it is a recently published amplitude, implying the most general (to our knowledge) treatment of the eikonalization procedure;
* it leads to a very satisfying fit up to the largest explored 4-momentum transfer squared ($`q^2=t=14`$ GeV2 , neigbouring with the limit of validity of the Regge theory at $`\sqrt{s}=27`$ GeV) and up to the Tevatron energy (1800 GeV) 222 The $`pp`$ cosmic rays data up to 40 TeV were of no help in the fit because of their too large errors, but they are also reproduced by the model. The prediction of the total cross-sectiom at the LHC $`\sigma _{tot}=107`$ mb agrees with most common predictions in the literature (e.g. , see ). .

We add that the effect of eikonalizing the Born amplitude, on the profiles and on the $`b`$-rms and related quantities, may be easily evaluated. We notice that the present nuclear amplitude , that we use, involves an eikonal unitarization while in , that we discuss, a $`U`$-matrix unitarization has been assumed.

In our opinion, the choice of an amplitude, respecting the Froissart-Martin bound and accounting data available in the widest range of high energies and transfers is crucial to get confidence on predictive power outside the fitted sets of data. The CERN LHC at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV \- and also the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at a lower energy $`500`$ GeV - is probably the most interesting case to discuss presently (remember e.g. the accepted project  plans LHC measurements up to $`|t|=10`$ GeV2).

## 3  Results and discussion

Firstly, in order to test and generalize the model independence of the main conclusions already stated in , we performed a similar study, but with the Dipole GE amplitude of . We reproduced similar results concerning $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H(s,b)`$ and $`G_{in}(s,b)`$, versus $`b`$, up to the highest energies.

1. An example is given Table 1 for the central opacity of the nucleon $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H(s,0)`$. The agreement is good with existing experimental values. Prediction is also given for the LHC (where the black disk limit is overtaken)
2. In qualitative agreement with , we confirm that $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H(s,b)`$, respecting the unitarity limit 1, remains central all the way, exceeding the black disk limit 1/2 above the threshold calculated value

$$\sqrt{s}3\mathrm{TeV}$$

and then $`G_{in}(s,b)`$ undergoes a transition : from central it becomes peripheral. In other terms we find that, beyond this threshold, its maximum (= 1/4) is shifted from $`b=0`$ towards increasing $`b`$. The ”interaction radius” ($`R=R(s)`$), where the maximal absorption takes place is e.g. $`R.6`$ fm at 14 TeV (see Fig.1) and would smoothly becomes $`R1.2`$ fm at 1000 TeV. We also find a hollow appearing at the center in $`G_{in}(s,b)`$ becoming deeper and deeper when $`s`$ increases: e.g. 0.23 at 14 TeV (Fig.1), 0.15 at 1000 TeV.
3. It is a consequence of the chosen model  that $`H(s\mathrm{},b)\frac{i}{2\lambda _+}`$, with $`\lambda _+=0.5`$, respecting the unitarity inequality $`|H(s,b)|1`$, dictates at the center $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H(s\mathrm{},b=0)1`$, $`G_{in}(s\mathrm{},b=0)0`$.
4. Thus, from our calculations, the appearance of the antishadow mode reveals at small values of $`b`$, in a natural way at a high energy, in conformity with its original introduction  and further studies (e.g.  ). It is worth emphazing that the antishadow scattering mode is predicted here using a hadron-hadron amplitude quite different from those used in other calculations. This enforces the model independence of such a prediction but of course only experiments at very high energy could decide whether it exists or no. We found a calculated energy threshold for its apparition above the Tevatron, but below the LHC 333 It has been estimated 2 TeV in  and 6 TeV in , to be compared to 3 TeV here. .
5. It is interesting to mention the effect of eikonalization by changing $`H,G_{in}(s,b)`$, once eikonalized and fitted, into $`h,g_{in}(s,b)`$, at the Born level and non-refitted. Returning to the Born level brings forwards the antishadow mode characterics i.e. minoration of the energy threshold and majoration of the interaction radius. The drastic effect of eikonalization, well known on the currently fitted observables, is clearly visible, at the LHC energy for example, on $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H`$ and $`G_{in}`$ (see Fig.1): the antishadow scattering holds at $`b\text{ }<0.6`$ fm after eikonalization and at $`b\text{ }<0.9`$ fm at the Born level (these values correspond to the maximum 1/4 taken by $`G_{in}`$ and to the crossing of the black disk limit 1/2 by $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H`$ at the LHC).

Secondly, in order to complete the preceding study, we have also calculated the three (total, elastic and inelastic) root-mean-squares of the impact parameter, defined in (4) and interpreted as characteristics of the ranges of hadron forces responsible for corresponding collisions. There are plotted in Fig.2, versus $`\sqrt{s}`$, at the Born level and after the generalized eikonalization.

The main remarks suggested by these curves are in order

1. A common gross characteristic of the $`b`$-rms is to have a mild dependence on the process and on the energy beyond the ISR up to the LHC. Roughly speaking, they lie between 0.7 fermi and 1.2 fermi.
2. They show almost parallel and linear increases with the energy.
3. To be more precise $`\sqrt{<b^2(s)>_{tot}}`$ goes from 0.9 to 1.2 fm; $`\sqrt{<b^2(s)>_{el}}`$ goes from 0.6 to 0.9 fm; $`\sqrt{<b^2(s)>_{in}}`$ goes from 1.0 to 1.3 fm, when the energy increases through four decades from $`10`$ GeV to $`100`$ TeV.
4. Strictly speaking, the effect of eikonalization is poor on these quantities, in contrast with such effect on current observables (e.g. cross-sections) or on the elastic profile or on the inelastic overlap function, but in agreement with their definitions as averages in the $`b`$ representation which smoothen the differences. The two first pairs of curves (total and elastic) yield almost parallel increases with the energy, the GE case being above the Born case, while the third one (inelastic) exhibits a Born $`b`$, close to GE $`b`$ and becoming greater at high energy. In other terms the inelastic Born line crosses the GE line in the TeV region, this crossing corresponds to the threshold value of the antishadow mode and recalls the importance of neglecting the eikonalization on the inelastic function as discussed above.

The results shown in Fig.2 are in agreement with the results from an analysis  at 53 GeV and 546 GeV, calculated in a central hypothesis, i.e. with a non-existent degree of peripherality (see Table 2), in spite of strong differences in constructing the nuclear amplitude. Furthermore, we note, that the agreement still holds for $`\sqrt{<b^2(s)>_{tot}}`$ when a degree of peripherality is entered in the amplitude. This conforts us in the model independence of the present results.

## 4 Conclusion

In this note, we have used an amplitude  fitted, after a generalized eikonalization process, reproducing all $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ elastic scattering data. We have confirmed and completed conclusions of previous papers  from a study of the impact parameter profiles for elastic and inelastic processes. They concern in particular the transition from the grey to the black disk, which is expected to be followed by the inelastic overlap function and when the energy increases beyond a threshold at $`3`$ TeV, by a black ring surrounding the antishadow scattering mode at the center ($`b=0`$).

According to this scenario, the old picture of a proton getting ”BEL” (blacker, edgier, larger) in $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions, when the energy increases, still holds for both elastic and inelastic processes below the threshold. Above (let us say in the region of LHC energies), the antishadow mode appears in the inelastic collisions for which the proton behaves like a half-transparent core (a grey disk), with an outer shell (a black ring), mainly responsible for inelastic process. No echo is found on the traditional behaviour of the proton in the elastic and total processes.

The ranges of hadronic forces responsible for elastic and inelastic processes, estimated by means of root-mean-squares of the impact parameter are found respectively $`0.8`$ fm and $`1.3`$ fm, at LHC energy. They are only weakly dependent of the eikonalization, enforcing the interest of the Born approximation when estimating such characteristics.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank V. Kundrat, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin for useful comments and E. Martynov for a critical reading of the manuscript.

Figure 1. $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}H(s,b)`$ and inelastic overlap function $`G_{in}(s,b)`$ versus the impact parameter $`b`$ calculated at the LHC energy in the GE formalism, with the fitted amplitude of  for the $`\overline{p}p`$ elastic scattering (solid line). $`R`$ is the ”interaction radius” (see the text). A comparaison is shown with the -non-fitted- Born predictions (dashed line), proving the effect of eikonalization which soffens the antishadow characteristics.

Figure 2. Total, elastic, inelastic root-mean-squares of impact parameter (5) calculated in the GE formalism, with the fitted amplitude of  for the $`\overline{p}p`$ elastic scattering (solid line, the $`pp`$ plots would be indiscernable). A comparaison is shown with the Born predictions (dashed line), proving the small effect of eikonalization on these quantities.


text:
# To be (finite) or not to be, that is the question “Kaluza-Klein contribution to the Higgs mass”

## I Introduction

Electroweak symmetry breaking is one of the important problem in high energy physics and the clear understanding of it is still missing. Radiative electroweak symmetry breaking due to the large Yukawa coupling is one of the appealing aspects of the conventional supersymmetric models, so called MSSM (Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model). Weak scale supersymmetry has been the most popular model beyond the Standard Model due to several attractive aspects including the stabilization of Higgs mass, the gauge coupling unification and good dark matter candidates (LSP in the MSSM), but the complete theory including the supersymmetry breaking sector and the messenger sector is quite complicated and does not look economic. As an alternative to the weak scale supersymmetry, several new ideas  considering extra dimensions got an interest for recent several years. Combining these ideas allows us to have a Scherk-Schwarz supersymmetry breaking mechanism  once the compactification radius is of order $`1/\mathrm{TeV}`$. Also new mechanisms for the generation of electroweak symmetry breaking has been proposed in these models. In the model  it has been claimed that Higgs mass can be predicted once Higgs VEV is determined from Z boson masses with the aid of the finite one loop correction of Kaluza-Klein(KK) contributions to the Higgs mass. The result is insensitive to ultraviolet(UV) physics and all the contributions of energy scales higher than the compactification scale is exponentially suppressed . There has been a suspect  whether the result is just an artifact of the special regularization choice, “Kaluza-Klein regularization”, or it is independent of the regularization choice. It has been shown in  that the result is highly sensitive to the cutoff of the Kaluza-Klein modes. Consequent papers  revealed the opposite conclusion that the UV insensitive result is robust. The result of  shows that the finite size resolution of the brane Yukawa coupling makes the effective Yukawa couplings of higher KK modes soften and allows us to have a UV insensitive result. In  it has been shown that the finiteness of the KK one loop correction is maintained in all different regularizations which keep the supersymmetry manifest. In  five dimensional mixed position-momentum space has been considered to show the ultraviolet(UV) insensitive characters of the physics. In this paper we follow the calculations given in the papers and show that the finiteness of the one loop correction is based on the infinite sum of the Kaluza-Klein states which is unphysical. Under very reasonable assumptions that the momentum cutoff should be given isotropically in five dimensional theory ($`p_0,p_i`$ and $`p_5=m_{\mathrm{KK}}`$), the truncated series can not be approximated by the infinite sum. It is shown that the contributions of heavier Kaluza-Klein modes are not exponentially suppressed and are equally important for given four dimensional momentum. Thus it is important to see the contributions of higher four dimensional momentum near the physical cutoff since these are the main contributions in the quadratically divergent corrections. For fixed four dimensional momentum near the cutoff, the integrand appearing in the Higgs mass one loop corrections becomes $`e^p`$ after summing up all the Kaluza-Klein modes, in other words infinite $`p_5`$ integration. However, this is not the right procedure since the inclusion of the Kaluza-Klein modes whose masses are heavier than the cutoff does not have any sense. The exponential suppression of the four dimensional momentum brings us the finite result even after sending our four dimensional cutoff to infinity. It is very unnatural that the conclusion can be obtained only when we summed up all the Kaluza-Klein states first. In the next section, we briefly review the basic setup. Then one example of the series is illustrated which is directly related to the Kaluza-Klein contributions and shows clearly what gives wrong interpretations. The argument based on mixed position-momentum space is reexamined and it is shown that the supersymmetry breaking is in the bulk and exponential suppression of heavier Kaluza-Klein modes are not true. Using these, we comment on the papers claiming the UV insensitiveness that all the results are based on the infinite sum of Kaluza-Klein states. Since supersymmetry is broken even above the compactification scale (actually supersymmetry is broken at the fundamental scale in the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism). supersymmetry is not a symmetry that we should keep in choosing the proper regularization. Finally we summarize it.

## II basic setup

The constrained standard model  from extra dimension can be summarized as follows. ***It is well summarized in , and we do not repeat the explanation in detail. Consider five dimensional theory with supersymmetry whose minimal multiplet corresponds to N=2 multiplets in 4-D language. After the compactification of one extra dimension to $`\frac{S_1}{Z_2\times Z_2^{}}`$, we obtain the Kaluza-Klein spectrum whose zero modes are the same as that of the conventional standard model. One $`Z_2`$ breaks half of the supersymmetry and the other $`Z_2^{}`$ breaks the other supersymmetry. Among $`N=2`$ vector multiplets, only vector fields can have zero modes under this orbifold compactification since others carry nonzero parity under the discrete symmetry. the quarks and leptons have zero modes after the compactification by the same reason from $`N=2`$ hypermultiplets. After all if we look at the spectrum below the compactification scale ($`1/R`$), it is the same as that of the standard model. In the standard model one loop correction to the Higgs mass is known to be quadratically divergent and it becomes one of the important theoretical motivations towards new theories beyond the standard model. However, in the constrained standard model with extra dimensions it is claimed that the quadratic divergences do not appear and the one loop correction is determined independently of the detailed nature of the fundamental scale physics. In this paper we examine the calculation based on physical grounds and show that the finiteness is an artifact of the Kaluza-Klein regularization, and the result of the calculation is highly sensitive to the UV physics.

## III series convergence

The question of whether the series converges is the basic one that can be asked first. Any truncation of the series gives quadratic divergences except an infinite sum reminds us divergent series. For instance, Taylor series expansion of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x}}`$ $`=`$ $`1x+x^2x^3+\mathrm{}`$ (1)
is a convergent series when $`|x|<1`$ but is not a convergent one otherwise. When we use a formula for the sum of a series, it is valid only when the series itself is convergent (whether absolutely or conditionally). Infinite sum has no meaning for divergent series. The remaining thing is to show that the Kaluza-Klein sum has a similar problem with the above non-convergent series.

There are two equivalent ways of calculating the one loop contributions of the Kaluza-Klein states to Higgs mass. One loop effective potential calculation is easy and we can get the mass from it by differentiating the potential by Higgs fields.

$`V_{1\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )}\mathrm{log}\frac{p^2+m_{Bk}^2(\varphi )}{p^2+m_{Fk}^2(\varphi )}},`$ (2)
$`m_{Fk}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2k}{R}}+m_t(\varphi ),`$ (3)
$`m_{Bk}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2k+1}{R}}+m_t(\varphi ),`$ (4)
where $`m_{Bk}`$ and $`m_{Fk}`$ are masses of Kaluza-Klein states of bosons and fermions. The most important contribution is from large top Yukawa coupling and we restrict them to stop and top respectively. $`\varphi `$ is a convenient expression for the Higgs field, and $`R`$ is the compactification radius and $`k`$ is an integer representing the quantized momentum along the fifth dimension.

Direct calculation of the one loop Higgs mass corrections involves a sum of different Kaluza-Klein contributions.

$`m_H^2`$ $``$ $`y_t^2{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )}\left[\frac{1}{p^2+m_{Bk}^2}\frac{1}{p^2+m_{Fk}^2}\right]}`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )}a_k},`$ (6)
$`a_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Fk}^2m_{Bk}^2}{(p^2+m_{Bk}^2)(p^2+m_{Fk}^2)}}.`$ (7)
Since

$`a_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^4}}`$ (8)
at large four momentum (for $`p>m_{F,B}`$), at least logarithmic divergences are inevitable. For the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ of the theory in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_cN_c(\frac{1}{R})`$, we naturally expect

$`m_H^2N_c({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}})^2\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ (9)
There are two useful expressions for the infinite series.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{x^3}{x^2+k^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{\mathrm{sinh}\pi x}},`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^3}{x^2+k^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{\mathrm{tanh}\pi x}}.`$ (11)
By substituting $`x`$ to $`p`$ and $`k`$ to $`m_k`$ with appropriate numerical coefficients, these two expressions are used to derive the finite one loop correction to the Higgs mass.

Furthermore, there are one more nice expressions that should be kept in mind for later purpose.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\pi x}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{(2n+1)\pi x}`$ (12)
$`(x>0)`$ (13)
The above expressions are the key ingredients in deriving the finiteness of the one loop correction to the Higgs mass. The above series is definitely a convergent series and passes the first test. Is it enough that the series is a convergent one? To have an intuition of what is going on, let us look at one example.

$`e^x`$ $`=`$ $`1x+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2!}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^3}{3!}}+\mathrm{}`$ (14)
converges for any value of $`x`$. However, unless $`x1`$, first several terms of the series show divergent behavior. For concreteness, let us take $`x=100`$. The left-handed side gives extremely tiny value $`e^{100}10^{50}`$, which is nearly zero. On the other hand, the right-handed one is

$`1100+5000\mathrm{}`$ (15)
which looks like a divergent series with an amplifying magnitude and alternating sign. The general profile is given in fig. 1 and fig. 2. Furthermore, there are two ways of grouping the series. First, summing the series with grouping two terms with ($`+`$,$``$) order shows that

$`e^x`$ $`=`$ $`(1x)+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2!}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{x}{3}})+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{98}}{98!}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{x}{99}})`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{100}}{100!}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{x}{101}})+\mathrm{}`$
and the first 50 pairs give huge negative values for the series with $`x=100`$. However, the result is very different for a different pairing,

$`e^x`$ $`=`$ $`1x(1{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{x^3}{3!}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{x}{4}})+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{99}}{99!}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{x}{100}})`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x^{101}}{101!}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{x}{102}})+\mathrm{}`$
which shows that the first 50 pairs give extremely huge positive values with $`x=100`$. Generally the maximum of the envelop is at $`N=x`$ ($`N=100`$ in the example with $`x=100`$ and $`N=5`$ for $`x=5`$ as in fig. 3).

Fig. 3 shows at which values of $`N`$ the truncated series has a similar size with the exact series ($`e^x`$). For $`x=5`$, it is near $`N15`$. Generally only beyond $`N=ex`$, the truncated series starts to show the convergent feature.

We can get a very important lesson from this example. Even convergent series can show a strange behavior for the truncation with finite sum. If the truncation happens in the region that we can not see the convergent feature, the approximation of replacing the sum over the finite modes to the infinite sum is not valid anymore. Therefore to know which point is the appropriate truncation capturing the underlying physics is crucial in understanding the justification of the Kaluza-Klein regularization scheme. Since we are dealing with effective theories, there is a physical cutoff scale in the theory beyond which our equipment (for example, perturbative quantum field theory) is inappropriate. The cutoff is at or below the fundamental scale in the five dimension which can be at most the four dimensional Planck scale. Before reaching this fundamental scale, we usually encounter the breakdown of the perturbation for gauge couplings and Yukawa couplings. It is usually 10 or 100 times higher than the compactification scale due to the rapid power running behavior in higher dimensions. Given the cutoff in the theory, it is not physical to take into account all of the Kaluza-Klein states which are heavier than the cutoff scale. From the five dimensional theory point of view, Kaluza-Klein mass is nothing but the momentum along the fifth dimension. The cutoff $`M_{}`$ apply to the momentum $`p_0`$, $`p_i`$ and $`p_5`$ equally in five dimensions. This means that the momentum cutoff in the integral should be comparable to the truncation of the Kaluza-Klein mass terms which is $`p_5`$. If we accept this physical cutoff regularization, the truncation point is located near the maximum of the envelop of the series. In the example, the point is $`k=x`$ which shows a very divergent character. The cutoff of the four momentum and Kaluza-Klein mass are highly correlated in the five dimensional point of view, and the result based on the infinite sum of Kaluza-Klein states is not justified for any value of the four momentum cutoff. For all values of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, the series shows very unpredictable result which is highly sensitive to the UV physics. The sign can not be fixed and this fact reflects the quadratic divergent features directly. The quadratic divergence means incalculability of the one loop, and the usual $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2`$ contribution from the momentum cutoff in analytically continued Euclidean space shows merely the order of the corrections with undetermined sign.

A loop hole should be filled up in the above statements. It is the validity of the momentum cutoff regularization. Usually good regularization should preserve the symmetry that the original theory has since we can not capture the physics correctly otherwise. We are dealing with scalars and fermions, there is no problem related to the gauge invariance. In  the momentum cutoff regularization has been taken as inappropriate one due to the fact that it does not keep the supersymmetry that the original theory possesses. We show that there is no supersymmetry remained after the Scherk-Schwarz compactification. This will be discussed in detail in the next section.

## IV counter term

In the paper  the inability of writing down the counter term for the Higgs mass has been used as one of the supporting evidence for the finite result. If there is no way to write down a counter term at tree level, this fact can be used as a proof that the one loop calculation should be finite. It has been claimed that the counter term can not be written due to supersymmetry and discrete R parities. At one point $`y=0`$, one supersymmetry is unbroken and the usual $`\mu `$ term is forbidden due to the parity. ($`H_1`$ is even and $`H_2`$ is odd.) At other point $`y=\frac{\pi }{2}R`$, the other supersymmetry survives and also the $`\mu `$ term to different chiral multiplet ($`H_1^{}`$ and $`H_2^{}`$) is not allowed due to the different R parity. There is a full N=2 supersymmetry in the bulk and the mass terms for the hypermultiplets are forbidden also by R parity. Combining these facts seems not to allow a mass term for the Higgs scalar, $`m_H^2h^2`$).

However, this argument is not precise and is based on several misunderstandings of the setup. To understand how the supersymmetry is broken in the extra dimension, it is helpful to look at the wave functions of the component fields belonging to the same supermultiplets. Fig. 4 shows one of the examples.

The restoration of one supersymmetry at the boundary is seen from the agreement of two wave functions forming $`N=1`$ supermultiplets. Just slightly away from the fixed point, we can see the difference of two wave function profiles belonging to the same supermultiplets and this can be interpreted as the breaking of the supersymmetry in the bulk. Table 1 shows a qualitative difference between the naive understanding of the supersymmetry breaking and the actual situation.

|  |  | $`y=0`$ | bulk | $`y=\pi R/2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | (one fixed point) |  | (the other fixed point) |
| SUSY (claimed in ) | $`N=1`$ | broken | unbroken | unbroken |
|  | $`N^{}=1`$ | unbroken | unbroken | broken |
| SUSY in real situation | $`N=1`$ | broken | broken | unbroken |
|  | $`N^{}=1`$ | unbroken | broken | broken |

If supersymmetry is broken and is mediated by heavy particles, then it might be true that the contributions beyond the compactification scale ($`\frac{1}{R}`$) is exponentially suppressed and there may be a chance to get an answer which depends only crucially on the physics at the compactification scale. However, in the model considered here, the supersymmetry is broken in the bulk and we start to feel it just away from the brane. Therefore, the argument that forbids the counter term for the scalar Higgs mass is not valid and $`m_H^2h^2`$ is allowed in the bulk since the supersymmetry is broken already. This indicates that the Scherk-Schwarz SUSY breaking does not have a soft nature as you might expect from the Kaluza-Klein regularization procedure.

## V softness/hardness of Scherk-Schwarz SUSY breaking

Scherk-Schwarz SUSY breaking uses different boundary conditions for bosons and fermions along the compact extra dimension. This condition has been imposed from the starting point and the SUSY breaking scale is the fundamental scale at which the theory is defined, even though the supersymmetry breaking itself can be small enough by tuning the phase small or making the compactification radius larger. It is very different from the usual supersymmetry breaking mechanisms in which supersymmetry is broken spontaneously at intermediate energy scales which are relatively low compared to the fundamental scale. For example, in gravity mediated one, SUSY breaking scale is of order $`10^{13}`$ GeV, and in gauge mediation, it can vary from a few tens TeV to intermediate scales. Since the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism gives a hard breaking of supersymmetry, there is no need to use a special regularization incorporating supersymmetry in it.

The best way to look at the softness/hardness of Scherk-Schwarz SUSY breaking is to investigate the wave functions of each KK modes in the bulk. The direct five dimensional calculation might be a good way to look at this problem. However, the indirect way of using KK mode wave functions also shows the physics we want. Since the wave functions belonging to the same $`N=1`$ supermultiplets are different away from the fixed point, supersymmetry is broken except the fixed point. This result is well summarized in the table 1. This observation is very crucial in understanding the one loop correction to the Higgs mass. It is argued that the contribution from high momentum is exponentially suppressed because the fluctuations happen in a small region near the fixed point and can not feel the supersymmetry breaking effects located far apart. This argument does not hold once supersymmetry is broken just away from the fixed point. Even at high energies far above the compactification scale, the fields involved in the loop feel the supersymmetry breaking through the difference of the wave functions in the bulk and these yield quadratic divergences in the one loop calculation of the Higgs mass. Furthermore, the loop integral is over the four momentum and this does not reflect the physics discussed above. The momentum we are interested in is the momentum along the fifth dimension $`p_5`$, in other words Kaluza-Klein mass. If we carefully look at the contributions of heavy Kaluza-Klein modes ($`m_k1/R`$), it is not exponentially suppressed. This observation also shows that the Scherk-Schwarz breaking of supersymmetry does not have a soft nature. This is in accord with the observation of the bulk supersymmetry breaking through the wave function difference between the fields belonging to the same supermultiplet.

## VI other regularizations

There exists a different viewpoint to the same problem. If the starting theory is the ultimate theory and we know everything from the start, then perhaps we should not truncate KK modes at any arbitrary finite order. However, we know that 5-dimensional theory also has a fundamental scale at which the gravity couples strongly, and this prevents us from consideration of full Kaluza-Klein modes. Thus we started from a theory whose limit is clear. There is an upper bound for the cutoff which is below the Planck scale. In this situation, to consider KK modes whose mass is larger than the Planck scale is not the right thing that we should do. If the series is convergent, then the answer would not depend strongly on the truncation of KK modes and we can say that our physical observable is really UV insensitive. However, any truncation of infinite KK mode sum yields extremely strange result and it shows that the result has a strong UV dependence.

The vanishing of tree level Higgs mass is now nothing but the special choice of the counter terms which may not be the proper one. Generic one loop correction overwhelms the tree level one, and the choice of zero mass at the tree level is unnatural. In all places of the extra dimensions they feel the SUSY breaking. The SUSY breaking does not reduce the degree of divergences for the scalar mass. Therefore, Scherk-Schwarz SUSY breaking is the hard breaking and quadratic divergences reappear. In this paper we have shown that the Kaluza-Klein regularization is just one of special mathematical regularization and other regularization gives $`y_t^2/16\pi ^2N_c(\frac{1}{R})^2`$.

Now let us look at the papers supported the UV insensitiveness. First, consider Gaussian spreading of the Yukawa couplings . Finite thickness $`l_s=1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ of the brane gives a field theoretic resolution of the apparent UV divergences. For the branes with Gaussian distributions (or equally for Yukawa couplings with Gaussian spreading),

$`f(y;l_s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }l_s}}e^{\frac{y^2}{2l_s^2}},`$ (20)
the effective couplings of the nth KK modes are

$`y_t^n`$ $`=`$ $`y_t\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{M^n}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}})^2\}.`$ (21)
The above equation clearly shows that the suppression effects due to the finite thickness of the brane appear at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ which is usually regarded as the fundamental scale. This fact just tells us that the Kaluza-Klein modes heavier than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ do not give an important contribution to the Higgs mass correction. Therefore, this method can be used as one of alternating procedure to the finite $`N`$ truncation of Kaluza-Klein modes with momentum cutoff. Unfortunately, this classical regularization still gives us misleading answer if we sum up all the Kaluza-Klein modes. The Poisson resummation formula is used in  and it is essential in deriving the finite answer. There is no physical interpretation for new summation index after the Poisson resummation. The reason why they got the finite answer is the same as the one of infinitely thin brane limit, that the anisotropic treatment of the four momentum and the Kaluza-Klein mass. We can apply the cutoff regularization in this thick brane setup with the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ and get the same divergent feature as long as the KK modes are truncated at the same scale with the four dimensional momentum. If the brane is thicker than the size of the fundamental scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, then the answer may give UV insensitive result. However, the Kaluza-Klein spectrum and wave functions should be obtained with considering these nontrivial brane configuration and the simple Fourier decomposition can not be a solution any longer. Certainly this is not a setup that was originally proposed.

In  (and also in ) the one loop effective potential takes the expression that is completely dominated by the compactification scale. This reminds us of the equation 12.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\pi x}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{(2n+1)\pi x}`$ (22)
$`(x>0)`$ (23)
In the one loop correction to the Higgs mass, after the sum of the infinite Kaluza-Klein modes, we obtain the inverse of the hyperbolic sin function, and it can be expanded as a power series of $`e^{2x}`$. However, at this moment there is no physical meaning to this summation index $`n`$. One thing that should be clearly distinguished is the physical meaning of the four dimensional momentum and the Kaluza-Klein modes. In the calculations using ”Kaluza-Klein regularization”, the suppressed contributions are not for the KK modes but for the four momentum. Therefore, this result is nothing to do with the explanation that the suppression is due to the separation of supersymmetry breaking away from the brane since the relevant object feeling the fifth dimension is the momentum along the fifth dimension, i.e., the Kaluza-Klein modes. Furthermore, as already shown in the previous section, supersymmetry is broken even in the bulk. Therefore, the UV softness of the setup is an artifact of the infinite Kaluza-Klein mode sum.

## VII summary and discussion

We have shown that Scherk-Schwarz mechanism for the supersymmetry breaking has a hard breaking nature such that radiative corrections to the Higgs mass is quadratically divergent. This is clearly seen from the contributions of each modes with the isotropic momentum cutoff regularization. The isotropic momentum cutoff regularization, applying the same cutoff scale to the four momentum and the Kaluza-Klein mass, is the physical one since these are components of the five momentum to which we should apply the cutoff. The “Kaluza-Klein regularization” is an extremely anisotropic regularization in this point of view. The supersymmetry is broken everywhere except the fixed point in the Scherk-Schwarz breaking, and the exponential suppression of higher momentum (KK modes) does not happen. The apparent exponential suppression of higher four momentum is nothing but a sequel of the infinite KK modes sum and is not a reflection of the physics behind it. We have shown that in the physical cutoff procedure, the KK modes near the cutoff is not exponentially suppressed and this entangles the four momentum and the result remains very sensitive to the Kaluza-Klein modes near the cutoff. As a result, quadratic divergences for the four momentum do not disappear.

In most calculations people use the infinite sum of KK modes. However, it is doubtful since large log term is unavoidable if we have different mass scales in a wide range especially in the dimensional regularization scheme. Thus it is more appropriate to use an effective theory after integrating out the heavy particles. The best way to get the correction is the approach based on integrating out and matching. In this way we can reproduce the well known result of power law running of gauge couplings and Yukawa couplings which reflect properties of higher dimensional theories. However, on the contrary to the usual theory in which the mass spectrums are given below the fundamental scale and we can integrate out heavy fields step by step, the Kaluza-Klein decomposition always put their spectrums across the fundamental scale of the higher dimensional setup. It remains an open question whether we can find the correct procedure dealing with the Kaluza-Klein modes without knowing the quantum theory of gravity in higher dimensions. There are interesting works done recently related to this  utilizing the transverse lattice

## acknowledgments

The author thanks K. Choi, J. E Kim, P. Ko, T. Rizzo and M. Schmaltz for discussions.