text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Chain polymers carrying electro-negative atoms (e.g. oxygen or nitrogen) in their repeat unit can act as solvents for certain salts. Well-known examples are Li-salts dissolved in polyethylene-oxide (PEO). At temperatures sufficiently above the glass-transition temperature these polymer-salt solutions show significant DC ionic $`(Li^+)`$ conductivities. Such ”polymer electrolytes” offer widespread applications in batteries, sensors and fuel cells. From the scientific point of view, an important goal is to improve our understanding of the electrical conduction mechanism in polymer electrolytes, and in particular to elucidate the interplay between ion diffusion and the polymer network dynamics.

Dynamic Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of the diffusion coefficient of few particles (ions) in a rearranging environment of polymer chains is hampered by the need to move every monomer (polymer bead or ion) with the same probability. Therefore most of the computational time is spent moving the polymeric host without affecting the ionic configurations. On the other hand, earlier studies indicate that important features of the ion diffusion within a dynamical matrix of chain molecules can be described by a more coarse-grained model. The idea is to map the diffusion process onto DBP-theory  and to determine the central quantity entering this theory, the renewal time distribution $`\psi (t)`$, from the time dependence of the local occupational correlation function due to the polymer chain dynamics. In this communication we perform tests of such a procedure for a hard-core lattice gas and for tracer diffusion in systems of athermal lattice polymers. It turns out that the DBP-concept compares favourably with simulations of the complete system dynamics and thereby saves about one order of magnitude in computer time.

## 2 Hard-core lattice gas

In order to explain our procedure we treat the simple case of a hard-core lattice gas, i.e. point particles moving on a lattice with no interaction besides hard core repulsion. The tracer diffusion constant $`D(c)`$ as a function of concentration $`c`$ is known to a high degree of accuracy via dynamic pair approximations  which yield a tracer correlation factor

$$f(c):=\frac{D(c)}{D_0(1c)}=\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }}{1[(32c)/(2c)]\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }},$$
(1)
with $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }0.209`$ for a simple cubic lattice.

Now we consider a lattice with static disorder in which randomly chosen sites are blocked and thus not accessible for the tracer particle. For this standard percolation problem we denote the mean square displacement of the tracer by $`r^2(t)_0`$. If on the other hand the blocked sites are globally and instantaneously rearranged according to an arbitrary waiting-time distribution $`\psi (t)`$, generalized DBP-theory yields the following diffusivity at zero frequency in $`d=3`$ dimensions

$$D=\frac{1}{6}\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\psi (t)r^2(t)_0}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt\psi (t)}$$
(2)
Our aim is to map the complete system of coupled ions and lattice chains onto this coarse-grained DBP-model. While $`r^2(t)_0`$ can be obtained in a straightforward manner from simulations of ion diffusion in the frozen network, the determination of $`\psi (t)`$ requires more explanation. Within the spirit of previous work on the hard-core lattice gas we propose to determine $`\psi (t)`$ from the local occupational correlation function $`n_i(t)n_i(0)`$ of a site i adjacent to a fixed tracer position. Let us introduce the probability $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ that no renewal takes place within the time interval $`[0,t]`$ after a previous renewal at an arbitrary $`t_0<0`$. The joint probability $`n_i(t)n_i(0)`$ that the lattice point $`i`$ is occupied at $`t=0`$ and at $`t`$ (not necessarily by the same particle) consists of two distinct contributions. The first one is the probability that $`i`$ is occupied at $`t=0`$ and that no renewal occurs until $`t`$, which is given by $`c\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$. The second contribution describes the situation where one or more renewals have taken place until $`t`$. The corresponding probability is given by $`c^2(1\mathrm{\Phi }(t))`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ is related to $`n_i(t)n_i(0)`$ via

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\frac{n_i(t)n_i(0)c^2}{c(1c)}$$
(3)
According to , $`\psi (t)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(t)\overline{\lambda }^1`$ where $`\overline{\lambda }=_0^{\mathrm{}}t\psi (t)𝑑t`$ denotes the mean renewal time. Equation (2) thus can be rewritten as

$$D=\frac{1}{6}\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(t)r^2(t)_0}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(t)}$$
(4)
where we obtain $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ from (3) by means of MC simulations for $`n_i(t)n_i(0)`$. The resulting $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ can be fitted with sufficient accuracy by a combination of $`P`$ exponential functions,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{P}{}}a_i\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _it)$$
(5)
On the other hand, $`r^2(t)_0`$ can by expressed in terms of the simulated mean square displacement $`r_n^2_0`$ of a tracer particle making $`n`$ steps in a frozen network via

$$r^2(t)_0=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(\omega _0t)^n}{n!}\mathrm{exp}(\omega _0t)r_n^2_0$$
(6)
where $`\omega _0`$ is the attempt frequency of the tracer. Inserting (5) and (6) into (4) and carrying out the integration one gets

$$\frac{D}{\omega _0}=\frac{1}{6}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{i=1}{\overset{P}{}}(\frac{\lambda _i}{\omega _0})^2a_i\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{r_n^2_0}{(\lambda _i/\omega _0+1)^{n+1}}$$
(7)
Independent calculations for $`c1`$ showed that in order to keep the error caused by the finiteness of $`N`$ and $`p`$ below the statistical error, values of $`P=3`$ and $`N=40`$ were sufficient. Note that the main decay of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ is roughly represented by a single exponential with decay rate $`\lambda _0=(d\mathrm{\Phi }/dt)_{t=0}=(5/6)\omega _0`$.

In Figure (1) we compare the results of this theory with MC simulations (see also ) and the dynamic pair approximation equation (1) and also with an existing effective medium approximation (EMA) for a percolating lattice renewing itself with only one rate constant $`\lambda =5/6\omega _0`$ .

As one can see, using more than one rate constant in the representation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ according to (5) improves the results significantly. This observation suggests to apply the generalized DBP-theory to the situation described in the next section where the non-exponential character of the renewal process is even more pronounced.

## 3 Results for athermal chains and conclusion

In the case of a hard-core lattice gas the procedure described bears no computational advantage over existing methods but was merely considered as a test case. The situation changes, however, when we apply our approach to ion diffusion in a polymer network. No analytic approximations for $`D(c)`$ of a quality similar to (1) are available then, and full simulations of $`D`$ become much more demanding because of the internal degrees of freedom of the host molecules and the larger statistical errors connected with the small concentration of tracer particles.

Let us consider, for example, a system where the chains are made of ten beads, assigned to lattice sites, and linearly connected via nearest-neighbour bonds. Apart from site exclusion, which mimics a hard–core repulsion, no explicit interactions between beads are assumed. The size of the simulation box is $`L=10`$ and periodic boundary conditions in all directions are employed. For the chain dynamics we use the standard algorithm as described in Ref. , while point-particles individually perform nearest-neighbour hops.

To apply our theory we again determine $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ in analogy to the hard-core lattice gas, see (5), which is now highly non-exponential, indicating the importance of temporal correlations in the associated renewal processes. A superposition of three exponential functions in (5), however, still gives a good description of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$. Mean-square displacements $`r_n^2_0`$ of ions within a frozen network of chains are determined using $`N=200`$ steps, and the diffusion constant is calculated as before via equation (7). In Fig.(2) we compare our results for the tracer correlation factor as a function of the total concentration of occupied sites, c, with full MC simulations. Due to the connectivity of chains blocking effects at a given $`c`$ on average are reduced and the correlation factor $`f(c)`$ is larger than in the case of point particles, at least as long as $`c0.8`$. More important from the computational point of view is the fact that DBP-theory very well agrees with the full simulations, but saves about one order of magnitude in computer time. Mapping that problem onto a coarse-grained DBP-model thus appears to constitute an accurate and efficient method for investigating diffusion through a dynamic host of chain molecules. To support this conclusion further work is being carried out, in particular under varying chain lengths.


format: text

text:
# Mass Follows Light

## 1 Introduction

The shape of the dark matter halo surrounding a luminous galaxy is a powerful means of exploring the mutual interactions of the two components. Pure dark matter halos tend to be flattened and triaxial (e.g. Bardeen et al. 1986; Frenk et al. 1988, Dubinski & Carlberg 1991, Warren et al. 1992, also Bullock, Moore, and Navarro in these proceedings), but the shape is then modified by interactions with the cooling baryons which reduce the triaxiality and the axis ratios (e.g. Evrard et al. 1994, Dubinski 1994). Many lines of observational evidence indicate that luminous galaxies are nearly oblate (see the review by Sackett 1999). While the halos of disk galaxies are rounder than the stellar distribution, Buote & Canizares (1996, 1997, 1998) typically found that the flattening of the X-ray isophotes of elliptical galaxies implied a mass distribution flatter than the luminous galaxy.

The over 60 known gravitational lenses provide a newer laboratory for comparing the mass and the light. Both the projected mass enclosed by the Einstein ring and the projected quadrupole of the gravitational field at the ring are accurately measured with little dependence on the details of the model (see Kochanek 1991, Wambsganss & Paczynski 1994, Witt & Mao 1997). The lensed images are typically 1-1.5 effective radii from the center of the lens galaxy where the quadrupole will have significant contributions from both the luminous galaxy and the dark matter halo. Even interior to the Einstein ring, there is a significant contribution of the dark matter to the enclosed mass (about half) and the matter inside and outside the Einstein ring make comparable contributions to the overall quadrupole. Thus, by comparing the gravitational field to the luminous lens galaxy we can determine whether the mass and the light are aligned and whether they have similar shapes. Keeton et al. (1998) presented a preliminary case for alignment but found little evidence for a correlation in the axis ratios.

On a practical level, modeling uncertainties for gravitational lenses could be considerably reduced if the shape and orientation of the lens galaxy could be used to constrain the mass distribution. CMB anisotropy models have strong degeneracies between many cosmological parameters and the Hubble constant (e.g. Eisenstein, Hu & Tegmark 1998), increasing the need for precise, independent determinations of the Hubble constant. It is unlikely that the local distance ladder (e.g. Mould et al. 2000) will exceed 10% accuracy, so it is important to find new methods for measuring $`H_0`$. The most promising new approach is to use time delay measurements in gravitational lenses. There are 9 lenses with time delay measurements (see Schechter 2000), although many still have large uncertainties in the delays. However, once the delay errors are negligible, the only important sources of uncertainty in the estimates of the Hubble constant are the systematic errors in the lens models needed to interpret the delays. These systematic errors arise from the paucity of constraints on the models of most lenses compared to the number of parameters necessary for realistic mass models which include our uncertainties about the structure of galaxies. We can obtain more constraints either by finding additional lensed structures, particularly Einstein ring images of the source’s host galaxy (see Kochanek et al. 2001), by using the observed properties of the lens galaxy as constraints on the mass distribution, or by using the lens sample as a whole to derive statistical constraints on the mass distribution.

The radial distribution of the dark matter clearly differs from that of the luminous lens galaxy, as constant mass-to-light ratio ($`M/L`$) models for lenses generally work poorly (e.g. Lehar et al. 2000, Keeton et al. 2000, Cohn et al. 2001). We may, however, be able to use the shape of the luminosity distribution, the orientation of its major axis and its axis ratio, as a constraint on the shape of the mass distribution. We must, however, have clear experimental evidence for such a correlation. In §2 we examine the alignment of the mass with the light using simple statistical methods. In §3 we discuss statistical lens constraints in general, and in §4 we summarize our conclusions.

## 2 The Alignment of Mass and Light

We selected 20 lenses from the CfA-Arizona Space Telescope Lens Survey (CASTLES, Falco et al. 2000) based on two criteria. First, the HST data had to be of sufficient quality to determine the ellipticity and orientation of the primary lens galaxy. Second, there should be a single dominant lens galaxy. The HST images were fit with photometric models including the lensed images and the lens galaxy following the procedures outlined in Lehar et al. (2000). We also modeled each lens as a singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) and determined the best fit model axis ratios, orientations and their uncertainties.

We can measure the misalignment between the luminous lens galaxies and the SIE models by the misalignment angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =|(\theta _L\theta _M)\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}180}^{}|`$ where $`\theta _L`$ and $`\theta _M`$ are the major axis position angles of the galaxy and the model with $`0^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 90^{}`$. If the two angles were uncorrelated, then the integral distribution would be linear, with $`P(>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )=1(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta /90^{})`$. If the two angles were perfectly correlated, we would still see a finite width distribution because of the uncertainties in estimating both $`\theta _L`$ and $`\theta _M`$. If the uncertainty in measuring $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ is $`\sigma 90^{}`$, then we would expect $`P(>\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )=\text{Erfc}(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta /\sqrt{2}\sigma )`$ where Erfc$`(x)`$ is the complementary error function. Fig. 1 shows that the observed distribution of misalignment angles matches neither the random nor the correlated distributions. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K–S) test probabilities that the data are drawn from the random or perfectly correlated distributions are $`4\times 10^6`$ and $`3\times 10^4`$ respectively.

Before we can draw any conclusions about misalignments between the mass and the light, we must compensate for the effects of tidal shear perturbations. All lenses are modified by tidal shear perturbations due to nearby galaxies and the group or cluster halo in which the lens resides (see Keeton et al. 1997), or perturbations from large scale structure (see Barkana 1996, Keeton et al. 1997) along the ray. The lens model fits the average quadrupole of the gravitational field, which is a combination of the quadrupole from the lens galaxy and the tidal shear. We can define the shapes of the light, the mass and the model and the tidal shear by the pseudo-vectors $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}=ϵ\{\mathrm{cos}2\theta _ϵ,\mathrm{sin}2\theta _ϵ\}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }=\gamma \{\mathrm{cos}2\theta _\gamma ,\mathrm{sin}2\theta _\gamma \}`$ where $`ϵ`$ is the ellipticity ($`ϵ=1b/a`$ for axis ratio $`0b/a1`$), $`\gamma `$ is the magnitude of the shear, and $`\theta _ϵ`$ and $`\theta _\gamma `$ are the orientations of the major axes. There are four “shapes” associated with each lens $`i`$: the shape of the luminous galaxy, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{Li}`$, the shape of the lens model, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{Mi}`$, the shape of the mass distribution of the lens galaxy, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{Gi}`$, and the external shear at the lens galaxy, $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }_i`$. A good approximation is that lens models which produce the same Einstein ring shape will be nearly indistinguishable (see Keeton et al. 1997, Kochanek et al. 2001), which corresponds to the constraint $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{Mi}=\stackrel{}{ϵ}_{Gi}+6\stackrel{}{\gamma }_i`$. The factor of $`6`$ is for SIE models, but has little effect on the conclusions.

By studying the correlations between the shapes of the models, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_M`$, and the shapes of the luminous lens galaxies, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_L`$, we can statistically estimate the correlations between the shapes of the mass and the light and the strength of the external tidal shears. For our first analysis we will examine only the misalignment angle distribution. We assume that $`ϵ_Gϵ_M`$ as an estimate for the ease with which the external shear can twist the major axis of the model away from the major axis of the mass distribution. If $`\theta _G\theta _L`$ is the misalignment between the mass and the light, the simplest model for its distribution is a Gaussian of width $`\sigma _\theta `$,

$$P(\theta _G\theta _L)=\mathrm{exp}((\theta _G\theta _L)^2/2\sigma _\theta ^2)/\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _\theta .$$
(1)
We wrap the tails of the Gaussian onto the $`0^{}`$ to $`90^{}`$ range of the misalignment angle. We assume the two shear components are Gaussian variables, so the probability distribution for the total shear is

$$P(\gamma )=2\gamma \mathrm{exp}(\gamma ^2/\gamma _{rms}^2)/\gamma _{rms}^2$$
(2)
where $`\gamma _{rms}`$ is the rms shear. The shape of the shear distribution is not critical because of the small sample size. We used Monte Carlo simulations to model the misalignment angle distribution including the effects measurement errors, and then used the K–S test to see if the distribution agreed with the data. Fig. 2 shows contours of the K–S test probability as a function of the rms misalignment angle, $`\sigma _\theta `$, and the strength of the tidal shear, $`\gamma _{rms}`$. Although the sample is too small to determine the origin of the misalignments, we are restricted to a narrow parameter range. In the limit where there is no tidal shear, the width of the misalignment distribution must be $`\sigma _\theta =16^{}`$ ($`14^{}<\sigma _\theta <20^{}`$), while in the limit where there are no misalignments, the rms shear must be $`\gamma _{rms}=0.04`$ ($`0.033<\gamma _{rms}<0.055`$), where we have used maximum likelihood methods to convert the K-S probability distributions into uncertainties.

We can measure the dispersion $`\sigma _\theta `$ by adding a prior probability for the strength of the tidal shear based on the survey of shear in lenses by Keeton et al. (1997). The typical perturbation from large scale structure is $`\gamma _{rms}0.03`$ based on standard normalizations for the non-linear power-spectrum (see Barkana 1996, Keeton et al. 1997), and the typical perturbation from objects clustered with the lens produces an effective perturbation of $`\gamma _{rms}0.05`$ (see Keeton et al. 1997). The total rms shear is then $`\gamma _{rms}0.06`$ after adding the two terms in quadrature. We include this estimate as a log-normal prior for $`\gamma _{rms}`$, assuming that its value is uncertain by a factor of two. After adding the prior to the likelihoods, the best models have $`\sigma _\theta 0^{}`$ and an upper bound of $`\sigma _\theta <10^{}`$ on the rms misalignment. The results are not sensitive to the exact value we use for the prior, as raising $`\gamma _{rms}`$ by 50% lowers the bound to $`9^{}`$ and lowering it by 50% raises the bound to $`12^{}`$. Fig. 3 shows the likelihood ratios as a function of the rms misalignment angle.

## 3 Statistical Lens Constraints

Our results on the alignment of the mass and light are an example of a broader approach to improving the constraints on gravitational lenses. The problem with models of individual lenses is that they frequently have too few constraints to avoid degeneracies between physically interesting parameters. This is particularly vexing for the gravitational lenses with time delays, where there is usually a degeneracy between the value of $`H_0`$ and the radial density profile of the lens galaxy (see, e.g., Impey et al. 1998, Witt et al. 2000). Most of these problems can be eliminated using statistical constraints from the properties of the lens population.

One example of a statistical constraint method is the bounding of the central densities of lenses, most recently by Rusin & Ma (2001). Almost all lenses lack visible central (“odd”) images, which sets a lower bound on the central density of a successful model. As an example, consider a modern density model with a central density cusp $`\rho r^\beta `$ ($`1<\beta <2`$) inside break radius $`a`$, and a steeper $`\rho r^n`$ ($`3<n<4`$) profile outside. The models of most lenses will have a degeneracy between the physical parameters $`a`$ and $`\beta `$ in which the break radius decreases as the central cusp is softened so as to keep the central density high enough to make the central image invisible (see Munoz et al. 2001). The ellipticity of the lens also rises as the mass becomes more centrally concentrated in order to keep the same quadrupole moment at the Einstein ring. However, most of these permitted models for the individual lenses imply statistical properties for the lens population which are not consistent with the observed properties. Rusin & Ma (2001) used this to show that for models with break radii larger than the Einstein ring radius, only cusps steeper than $`\beta >1.8`$ were statistically consistent with the data.

Our limit on the alignment of mass and light is a second example of a statistical constraint. We know that successful models of individual lenses require contributions from both the ellipticity of the lens and external tidal perturbations but cannot determine all their parameters without degeneracies (see Keeton et al. 1997). However, by performing a joint analysis of the models for a sample of lenses, we have shown that the mass and luminosity distributions of the lens are aligned within a reasonably tight statistical limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^2^{1/2}<10^{}`$. We can also assign a prior on the typical strength of the tidal shear with $`\gamma _{rms}0.05`$. These two restrictions can now be used to reduce the parameter degeneracies in lens models.

The next step from these two simple examples is to attack the problem of statistical constraints formally. There are two complimentary approaches. First, models of individual lenses should be weighted by the likelihood of observing them given the model parameters. This is the generalization of the limits on central densities. Second, the statistical properties of lens samples should be homogeneous. This is the generalization of our bound on the alignment of mass and light.

In our first generalization we consider models of a particular lens, where we can add the statistical constraint that models in which the observed configuration is probable should be favored over those where it is not. Consider the case of a density cusp with parameters $`\beta `$ and $`a`$ where in fitting the observed properties of the lens the fit statistic $`\chi ^2(\beta ,a)`$ has a degeneracy between the parameters. For any model ($`\beta `$, $`a`$) we can also calculate the probability $`p_{tot}(\beta ,a)`$ that a lens with such physical properties will be found, and the probability $`p_{obs}(\beta ,a)`$ that it will have the observed configuration. If two models are consistent with the observed configuration, we should statistically favor the model in which the observation is more likely by adopting the modified likelihood

$$2\mathrm{ln}L(\beta ,a)=\chi ^2(\beta ,a)\chi ^2(\beta ,a)+2\mathrm{ln}(p_{obs}(\beta ,a)/p_{tot}(\beta ,a)).$$
(3)
While for a particular lens this may bias the solution, for an ensemble of lenses it should be correct. The Rusin & Ma (2001) limit on the cusp exponent can be thought of as a variant of this general approach.

In our second generalization we consider (Bayesian) models for a population of lenses. For the problem of ellipticity and shear we considered in §2, the fit statistic $`\chi _i^2(\stackrel{}{p}_i)`$ for lens $`i`$ depends on the four parameters for the angular structure, $`\stackrel{}{p_i}=(ϵ_{Gi},\theta _{Gi},\gamma _i,\theta _{\gamma i})`$. Our calculation in §2 simplified the $`\chi ^2`$ by assuming it could be approximated by a degenerate constraint, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}_M=\stackrel{}{ϵ}_G+6\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, on the variables. In a Bayesian formalism, the probability of the data $`D_i`$ given the parameters $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ is $`P(D_i|\stackrel{}{p}_i)\mathrm{exp}(\chi _i^2(\stackrel{}{p})_i/2)`$, and we use Bayes theorem ($`P(p|D)P(D|p)P(p)`$) to estimate the probability of the parameters given the data and the priors. Several of the parameters have non-uniform Bayesian priors. In particular, the major axis of the mass is constrained by that of the light by the prior $`P(\theta _{G_i}|\theta _{Li},\sigma _\theta )`$ given in eqn. (1), and the shear is constrained by the rms shear by the prior $`P(\gamma _i|\gamma _{rms})`$ given in eqn. (2). These priors introduce new parameters, $`\gamma _{rms}`$ and $`\sigma _\theta `$, which require their own priors, $`P(\gamma _{rms})`$ and $`P(\sigma _\theta )`$. Thus, the Bayesian probability for a sample $`i=1\mathrm{}N`$ lenses is

$$P(\stackrel{}{p}_i,\gamma _{rms},\sigma _\theta |D_i)P(\gamma _{rms})P(\sigma _\theta )\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^NP(\gamma _i|\gamma _{rms})P(\theta _{G_i}|\theta _{Li},\sigma _\theta )P(D_i|\stackrel{}{p}_i).$$
(4)
While this looks formidable, we can find the probability distribution for any particular variable simply by marginalizing (integrating) over the remaining variables. For example, the Bayesian equivalent of the likelihood shown in Fig. 2 is found by integrating over all the lens parameters,

$$P(\gamma _{rms},\sigma _\theta |D_i)P(\gamma _{rms})P(\sigma _\theta )\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^N𝑑\stackrel{}{p}_iP(\gamma _i|\gamma _{rms})P(\theta _{G_i}|\theta _{Li},\sigma _\theta )P(D_i|\stackrel{}{p}_i).$$
(5)
For variables constrained by the data, the final probability distribution will be significantly narrower than the prior distribution ($`P(\gamma _{rms})P(\sigma _\theta )`$). Our analysis in §2 is a simpler, more intuitive implementation of this approach, but it is easier to add parameters or to include terms like those from eqn. (3) in a more general Bayesian formalism.

## 4 Conclusions

Almost all the lens galaxies we consider are massive early-type galaxies, which have the most complex formation history of normal galaxies. First, CDM prolate-triaxial halos form in which the baryons cool into a disk and form stars. The cooling baryons compress the dark matter and the oblate shape of the baryonic potential begins to destroy the triaxiality of the dark matter. After the halo undergoes several major mergers, the disks are destroyed to leave a nearly oblate early-type galaxy with some fossil evidence for the disks. Despite this complicated formation history we can show that the final mass and luminosity distributions are aligned to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^2^{1/2}<10^{}`$ (in projection) by examining the statistics of the misalignments between lens models and lens galaxies. The quadrupole of the mass includes similar contributions from both the luminous and the dark matter, so a small misalignment between the mass and the light should imply a small misalignment between the dark and the light.

Our approach to measuring the misalignment of mass and light is an example of a statistical lens constraint. Where models of individual lenses frequently have awkward degeneracies between physical parameters, the most famous of which is that between the Hubble constant and the radial mass distribution of the lens, samples of lenses generally should not. To lay the basis for this new approach to lens modeling, we have outlined two general and complimentary approaches to developing statistical constraints for gravitational lenses, one of which is a generalization of the methods we used to study the alignment of mass and light. Given a sample of lenses with time delay measurements (there are now 9 lenses with time delays), these statistical approaches should greatly reduce the uncertainties in estimates of the Hubble constant over that in any single system.

Acknowledgments: CSK thanks the remainder of the CASTLES collaboration for its comments. Support for the CASTLES project was provided by NASA through grants GO-7495, GO-7887, GO-8175 and GO-8804 from STScI. CSK is also supported by the Smithsonian Institution and NASA grants NAG5-8831 and NAG5-9265.

## References


text:
# Deuteron Electromagnetic Properties with a Poincaré-Covariant Current Operator within Front-Form Hamiltonian Dynamics

## 1 Introduction

In Ref.  we have constructed an electromagnetic current operator for bound systems of interacting particles that satisfies Poincaré, parity and time-reversal covariance, together with Hermiticity and current conservation. This operator has been used to evaluate the deep inelastic structure functions (DISF) in an exactly solvable two-body model in Ref. , and the deuteron elastic form factors (ff) in Refs. . Our current operator is obtained within the front-form Hamiltonian dynamics, starting from the free current in the Breit frame where initial and final three-momenta of the interacting system are directed along the spin quantization axis, $`z`$. In order to implement Hermiticity a term which implicitely introduces two-body terms in the current has to be considered. In the elastic case the continuity equation is automatically satisfied. By using this covariant current, one gets rid of the well-known ambiguities, which in the front-form approach plague the extraction of elastic and transition form factors for spin $`1`$ systems, when the free current is considered in the $`q^+=0`$ reference frame. Indeed, in our approach the results for elastic and transition form factors, as well as for deep inelastic structure functions, are independent of the matrix elements of the current which are employed in the calculation, as it must be. Then the deuteron elastic ff and DISF can be safely calculated from front-form deuteron wave functions.

In this paper we report the results of our thorough investigation on the sensitivity of deuteron ff to different realistic $`NN`$ interactions and to different nucleon form factor models -. Furthermore we report our studies on the extraction of the neutron structure function, $`F_2^n(x)`$, from the deuteron deep inelastic structure function, $`F_2^D(x)`$ and on the relevance of our Poincaré-covariant relativistic approach .

## 2 Deuteron Elastic Form Factors

As a first application of our current operator for elastic electron scattering, we determined  the deuteron magnetic and quadrupole moments, $`\mu _d`$ and $`Q_d`$, by adopting front-form deuteron wave functions corresponding to a large set of realistic $`NN`$ interactions ($`RSC`$, $`Paris`$ , $`Argonne`$ $`V14`$  and $`V18`$ , $`Nijmegen1`$, $`2`$, $`93`$ and $`Reid93`$ , $`CDBonn`$ ). For both quantities a linear behaviour against the deuteron asymptotic normalization ratio $`\eta =A_D/A_S`$ was found (see Fig. 1). Therefore, the usual disagreement between theoretical and experimental results is largely removed and explicit contributions of dynamical two-body currents and isobar components in the deuteron should play a minor role at $`Q^20`$, using our Poincaré-covariant relativistic framework .

In this section the deuteron electromagnetic form factors, obtained with our current operator, are analyzed in detail by studying the dependence on different realistic $`NN`$ interactions and on different nucleon form factor models, but, first of all, let us note the large differences between relativistic and non relativistic calculations, even at low momentum transfer values ($`Q^20.20.3`$ $`(GeV/c)^2`$) .

As shown in Figs. 2, 3 and 4, different interactions yield huge effects on $`A(Q^2)`$ at $`Q^21`$ $`(GeV/c)^2`$, while for $`B(Q^2)`$ and the tensor polarizations their effects are large already at $`Q^20.5`$ $`(GeV/c)^2`$ (see also Ref. ). In Fig. 2 a suitable reduced plot as been used for $`A(Q^2)`$ and $`B(Q^2)`$ to allow a closer comparison between theoretical results and experimental data. An interesting correlation between the S-state deuteron momentum distribution and the deuteron form factors has been found. Indeed, interactions which have essentially the same S-state momentum distribution, $`n_o(k)`$, as the $`AV18`$ and $`Reid93`$ interactions, give the same results for $`A(Q^2)`$, $`B(Q^2)`$ and the tensor polarizations (for this reason the curves corresponding to $`Reid93`$ are not reported in the figures). Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 5, the behaviour of $`B(Q^2)`$ and of the S-state deuteron momentum distribution for corresponding interactions is similar. In order to perform the comparison between the deuteron ff and S-state momentum distribution on a quantitative basis, we report in Fig. 6 the position of the minimum of $`B(Q^2)`$ and the position of the second zero of $`T_{20}(Q^2)`$ against the nonrelativistic S-state kinetic energy, $`T_S`$. A distinct linear behaviour has been found: an higher value of $`T_S`$ moves the minimum of $`B(Q^2)`$ and the second zero of $`T_{20}(Q^2)`$ to a lower momentum transfer -.

Within an analysis which neglects two-body currents and isobar components, this behaviour suggests the possibility of a description of the experimental data for $`T_{20}(Q^2)`$ with interactions exhibiting high values of $`T_S`$ . Let us note that recent measurements of the $`SD`$ mixing parameter, $`ϵ_1`$ , point to a stronger tensor force than the one exhibited by the interaction models we have analyzed. In turn, a stronger tensor force is favoured by an high degree of locality, which yields significantly larger kinetic energies and, in particular, larger values of $`T_S`$ . Then, one can argue that a $`NN`$ interaction, able to reproduce the recent measurements of $`ϵ_1`$, could yield agreement between experimental and theoretical values for $`T_{20}(Q^2)`$ and a minimum for $`B(Q^2)`$ slightly lower than the value indicated by the available experimental data. Therefore, if the new, more precise, measurement of $`B(Q^2)`$ which is planned at TJNAF will show a lower value for the position of the minimum, both $`T_{20}(Q^2)`$ and $`B(Q^2)`$ could be reproduced, without a relevant role of dynamical two-body currents and isobar components.

Different nucleon ff models have very large effects on $`A(Q^2)`$, small effects on $`B(Q^2)`$ and negligible effects on the tensor polarizations $`T_{20}(Q^2)`$, $`T_{21}(Q^2)`$, $`T_{22}(Q^2)`$ (see Figs. 3(b), 7(a) and Ref. ). In view of the large uncertainties in the experimental knowledge of the neutron charge ff, we have tried to find a phenomenological description for the nucleon charge ff, able to describe the deuteron elastic data for $`A(Q^2)`$ and, at the same time, to reproduce the recent data for the ratio $`G_E^p/G_M^p`$ . The proton and neutron magnetic ff have been fixed to the model of Ref.  and the parametrization of the same model has been used for the proton and neutron charge ff, but changing the values of the parameters. As shown by the solid and long-dashed lines in Fig. 7(a), corresponding to the $`RSC`$ and $`Reid93`$ interactions, respectively, an excellent agreement with the experimental data for $`A(Q^2)`$ can be obtained, except for small differences in the region around $`Q^2=1`$ $`(GeV/c)^2`$. The obtained $`G_E^p(Q^2)`$ goes exactly through the data of Ref. , while $`G_E^n(Q^2)`$ turns out to be somewhat higher than the Gari-Krümpelmann model around $`Q^2=0.8`$ $`(GeV/c)^2`$ and smaller beyond. Similar results can also be obtained using other realistic interactions. Changing the $`NN`$ interaction a range of possible values for $`G_E^n(Q^2)`$ could be identified.

However, these results on $`G_E^n(Q^2)`$ cannot be taken too seriously. Indeed, the contributions of explicit two-body currents and of isobar components in the deuteron wave function have to be thoroughly investigated, before drawing definite conclusions.

## 3 Deuteron Deep Inelastic Structure Function

The Poincaré-covariant current operator can also be applied to the deep inelastic electron scattering off nuclei . In convolution models  the deuteron DISF, in the Bjorken limit, is

$`F_2^D(x)={\displaystyle _x^{M_D/M}}[F_2^p(x/z)+F_2^n(x/z)]f^D(z)𝑑z`$ (1)
where $`x=Q^2/(2M\nu )`$, while $`M`$ and $`M_D`$ are the nucleon and deuteron masses, respectively. The distribution $`f^D(z)`$ describes the structure of the deuteron system. In the usual approach , which makes use of the impulse approximation within an instant-form framework, the distribution $`f^D(z)`$ has the following expression

$`f_{IF}^D(z)={\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{p}n^D(|\stackrel{}{p}|)\delta \left(z\frac{pq}{M\nu }\right)zC}`$ (2)
where $`n^D(|\stackrel{}{p}|)`$ is the nucleon momentum distribution in the deuteron, $`C`$ a normalization factor, $`q(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ the four-momentum transfer, and $`p`$ the four-momentum of an off-mass shell nucleon, i.e., $`p(p^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$ with $`p^0=M_D\sqrt{M^2+|\stackrel{}{p}|^2}`$. Within the front-form Hamiltonian dynamics, using the Poincaré-covariant current operator, the expression for the deuteron DISF is again given by Eq. (1), but the distribution $`f^D(z)`$ reads as follows  (see also Ref. ):

$`f_{FF}^D(z)={\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{k}n^D(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\delta \left(z\xi \frac{M_D}{M}\right)}`$ (3)
where $`\xi =p^+/P^+=[k_z+\sqrt{M^2+|\stackrel{}{k}|^2}]/[2\sqrt{M^2+|\stackrel{}{k}|^2}]`$. It has to be stressed that, at variance with the instant-form dynamics, in the front-form Hamiltonian dynamics the nucleons are always on their mass shell, i.e. $`p^2=M^2`$. In Fig. 8(a) we report the deuteron DISF obtained with the nucleon momentum distribution corresponding to the $`AV18`$ $`NN`$ interaction, using the model of Ref.  for the nucleon DISF. The difference between the results obtained with the two different expressions for $`f^D(z)`$ is very small, except at $`x1`$.

In Ref.  it has been proposed to extract the ratio $`r(x)=F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)`$ from the experimental data for the deuteron DISF, $`F_2^{Dexp}(x)`$, by the following recurrence relation :

$`r^{(n+1)}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{F_2^{Dexp}(x)[1+r^{(n)}(x)]}{_x^{M_D/M}[1+r^{(n)}(x/z)]F_2^p(x/z)f^D(z)𝑑z}}1`$ (4)
It was shown  that a rapid convergence can be obtained, largely independent on the assumed zero-order approximation, $`r^{(0)}(x)`$, up to $`x0.90`$.

In order to investigate the sensitivity of the extraction of $`r(x)`$ to different expressions for $`f^D(z)`$ (cf. Eq. (2) and (3)), we have extracted $`r(x)`$ by simulating the data of the deuteron DISF, $`F_2^{Dexp}`$, through a theoretical evaluation. As a matter of fact, the deuteron DISF has been calculated by Eq. (1) using for $`f^D(z)`$ the average of $`f_{FF}^D(z)`$ and $`f_{IF}^D(z)`$, corresponding to the $`AV18`$ $`NN`$ interaction and the model of Ref.  for the nucleon DISF. Then, Eq. (4) has been applied, by inserting in the denominator $`f_{FF}^D(z)`$ or $`f_{IF}^D(z)`$, alternatively, always corresponding to the $`AV18`$ interaction. As shown in Fig. 8(b), the differences in the extracted functions $`r(x)`$ become quite sizeable at $`x0.7`$. Moreover we have shown that the differences in the extracted values of $`r(x)`$ are of the same order if $`f_{FF}^D(z)`$ or $`f_{IF}^D(z)`$ are used to generate the simulated data, instead of their average value. Therefore a Poincaré-covariant treatment of relativity appears to be important in the extraction of the neutron deep inelastic structure function at high $`x`$. An analysis of the experimental data for $`F_2^D`$ will be performed in Ref. .

## 4 Conclusions

Deuteron elastic form factors and deep inelastic structure functions have been studied within the front-form Hamiltonian dynamics, using a Poincaré-covariant current operator for bound systems of interacting particles, which satisfies parity and time-reversal covariance, as well as Hermiticity and current conservation. The current is built up from the free one in the Breit reference frame where three-momentum transfer of the interacting system is directed along the spin quantization axis, $`z`$. This current allows one to obtain elastic and transition form factors, as well as deep inelastic structure functions, with no ambiguity.

The Poincaré-covariant relativistic approach has been shown to have a big impact with respect to nonrelativistic calculations, both in the elastic and deep inelastic case and even at low momentum transfer values.

As far as the elastic ff are concerned, the usual disagreement between theoretical and experimental values for $`\mu _d`$ and $`Q_d`$ is largely removed and therefore contributions beyond impulse approximation are expected to play a minor role at $`Q^20`$. Large effects have been found from different nucleon form factor models and different realistic $`NN`$ interactions. It is especially noteworthy an interesting correlation between the deuteron S-state kinetic energy, $`T_S`$, and the positions of the minimum of $`B(Q^2)`$ and of the second zero of $`T_{20}(Q^2)`$.

We stress that, when comparing the theoretical results of different approaches with the experimental data for the deuteron ff, all the observables should be considered at the same time, before drawing definite conclusions on the quality of the various approaches. Furthermore, the possible different $`NN`$ interactions and nucleon ff models should be carefully investigated.

Our next step will be to study within our approach the role of contributions from explicit two-body current and from isobar configuration in the deuteron wave function.

As far as the deep inelastic structure function is concerned, the relevance of a Poincaré-covariant relativistic approach has been clearly shown in the extraction of the neutron DISF from the deuteron DISF. Even if the effects in the calculation of $`F_2^D(x)`$ are small, the consequences of Poincaré-covariance in the extraction of the neutron DISF become important at high $`x`$, especially in view of the experiments planned at TJNAF for measuring $`F_2^n(x)`$ up to $`x=0.83`$ .

## Acknowledgments

The authors are highly indebted to S. Scopetta for his kind help in obtaining the deuteron deep inelastic structure function and in the extraction of the neutron deep inelastic structure function.


text:
# Correlations of errors in a CP-violation neutrino factory experiment

## 1 Introduction

The ultimate aim of the next generation of neutrino experiments has to be the measurement of the CP phase of the MNS mixing matrix, $`\delta `$. Assuming that high-energy electrons and positrons cannot be distinguished by detectors, our only source of information in a neutrino factory experiment is the number of wrong- and right-sign muons, corresponding (for neutrinos from muon decay) to oscillation of $`\overline{\nu _e}`$ and no oscillation of $`\nu _\mu `$ respectively. It has recently been realised that uncertainties in the electron density along the neutrino flight path may be sufficient to cause problems at long baselines and high energies. This talk is a summary of our recent work towards resolving the issue of optimal baseline and muon energy for the measurement of $`\delta `$ at a neutrino factory .

## 2 Hypothesis testing

We considered an indirect CP-violation experiment with $`10^{21}`$ useful muon decays and $`10^{21}`$ antimuon decays111Note that despite the difference in cross-section of neutrinos and antineutrinos, if an explicit demonstration of CP violation is not the aim of the experiment then it is not necessarily advantageous to run for twice as long with muons as antimuons in the storage ring. For a fixed time period, the most efficient proportions of muon to antimuon running are determined by maximising the overall number of wrong-sign muons and antimuons whilst retaining sufficient wrong-sign antimuons to give significant data in that channel. We found that equal numbers of muon and antimuon decays gave slightly better statistics for the oscillation parameters studied than the usual 2:1 ratio of muons to antimuons.. Taking into account all of the channels $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu _e}\overline{\nu _\mu }`$, $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu _\mu }\overline{\nu _\mu }`$, we examined whether or not a hypothesis of CP phase equal to $`\overline{\delta }`$ is rejected when the true value is $`\delta `$. To test this hypothesis, we used a parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ as defined in . The electron number density as a function of distance from the source, $`N_e(x)`$, is an input for the oscillation probabilities but is not known exactly. The current best estimate of the density of the Earth as a function of radius is the Preliminary Reference Earth Model, derived from seismological data . However, it is known that there are sizeable latitude-longitude dependent fluctuations in matter density and composition in the crust and upper mantle , so local deviations from this spherically-symmetric model may be considerable. To investigate the effect of the uncertainty in electron number density on the usefulness of an experiment, we introduced a parameter $`C`$, the overall normalisation of the PREM. Hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ is a function of six oscillation parameters (3 times $`\theta _{ij}`$, 2 times $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2`$ and $`\delta `$), as well as $`C`$, where $`C=1`$ corresponds to the model as given and fluctuations away from the PREM can be represented by changing the value of $`C`$. The background rate $`f_B`$ and systematic error on the background $`\sigma _B`$ were also included in the analysis.

## 3 Minimisation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$

To find the optimum energy and baseline, we used the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{min}^2`$, defined as the minimum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ when we simultaneously vary the mixing angles and mass-squared differences within the region allowed at the 90% confidence level by the atmospheric and solar neutrino data . The matter effect normalisation $`C`$ was varied by 5% between 0.95 and 1.05. This minimum was found numerically using a ‘downhill simplex’ method . Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{min}^2`$, we found the minimum data size $`D`$, expressed in kt$``$yr, which is needed to reject a hypothesis $`\overline{\delta }=0`$ at the 3$`\sigma `$ confidence level when the true value of $`\delta `$ is $`\pi /2`$.

## 4 Conclusions

The necessary data size as a function of $`L`$ and $`E_\mu `$ was found to have a minimum of around 60 kt$``$yr, but the optimal baseline and muon energy varied considerably with the values of $`\delta `$, $`\theta _{13}`$, $`f_B`$ and the threshold energy for neutrino detection, $`E_{th}`$. At very high energies, the contribution of the systematic error to the total error becomes large, and sensitivity is lost. Also, the correlation ($`\delta C`$) becomes strong at long baselines, so the optimal $`L`$ is shorter than might otherwise be expected. The set of parameters $`L=`$2000km, $`E_\mu =`$20GeV gave the largest range of sensitivity to $`\delta `$, down to $`\theta _{13}0.3^{}`$ for $`f_B=10^3`$, $`E_{th}=0.1`$GeV and a 500kt detector, as shown in Fig. 1.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Consider the Randall-Sundrum (RS) scenario , i.e., a non-factorizable geometry with one extra fifth dimension. This dimension, called $`y`$, is compactified on an orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$ of radius $`R`$ such that $`\pi Ry\pi R`$. The orbifold fixed points at $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi R`$ are the locations of the two three-branes. We will below, instead of $`y`$, use the nondimensional coordinate $`\varphi `$, defined by $`\varphi =y/R`$, thus lying in the interval $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$. The RS 5D metric is

$$ds^2=e^{2kR|\varphi |}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu R^2d\varphi ^2,$$
(1)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$=diag(-1,1,1,1) with $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$. The 5D metric is $`g_{MN}`$ with capital subscripts, $`M=(\mu ,5)`$. The parameter $`k10^{19}`$ GeV is of Planck scale, related to the AdS radius of curvature, which is $`1/k`$. The points $`(x^\mu ,\varphi )`$ and $`(x^\varphi ,\varphi )`$ are identified. The metric (1) is valid if the 5D cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the 5D Planck mass $`M_5`$ are related through

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=6M_5^3k^2.$$
(2)
The cosmological constants at the boundaries have to fulfil the constraints $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =\mathrm{\Lambda }/k`$. This is the fine-tuning problem in the RS model. The 4D Planck mass $`M_P`$ is related to $`M_5`$ through

$$M_P^2=\frac{M_5^3}{k}\left(1e^{2\pi kR}\right).$$
(3)
The $`\varphi =0`$ brane (Planck brane) is associated with the mass scale $`M_P`$, whereas the $`\varphi =\pi `$ brane (TeV-brane) is associated with the scale $`M_Pe^{\pi kR}`$ lying in the TeV region provided that $`kR12`$.

Assume now that there is a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the bulk, with action

$$S_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}d^4x_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\varphi \sqrt{G}\left\{G^{AB}_A\mathrm{\Phi }_B\mathrm{\Phi }\left(m^2+\frac{2\alpha k}{R}(\delta (\varphi )\delta (\varphi \pi ))\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right\}.$$
(4)
Here $`\alpha `$ is a nondimensional constant which parametrizes the mass on the boundaries. All fields in the 5D bulk can be regarded as Kaluza-Klein modes, which in turn can be considered as 4D fields on the brane with an infinite tower of masses. The mass spectrum $`m_n`$ of the Kaluza-Klein modes in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given  by roots of

$$j_\nu (x_n)y_\nu (ax_n)j_\nu (ax_n)y(x_n)=0.$$
(5)
Here $`x_n=m_n/ak`$, $`a=e^{\pi kR}`$, $`\nu =\sqrt{4+m^2/k^2}`$, and the altered Bessel functions are

$$j_\nu (z)=(2\alpha )J_\nu (z)+zJ_\nu ^{}(z),y_\nu (z)=(2\alpha )Y_\nu (z)+zY_\nu ^{}(z).$$
(6)
## 2 Effective potential for fermions in 5D AdS space at finite temperature

Following Ref. , we consider the energy (effective potential) for a bulk quantum field on a 5D AdS background at finite temperature. For a fermion of momentum $`𝐩`$ and mass m the partition function $`Z_p^f`$ is $`2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta E_p/2)`$, where $`\beta =1/T`$ is the inverse temperature and $`E_p=\sqrt{𝐩^2+m^2}`$. The total fermionic partition function $`Z^f`$ in a three-dimensional volume $`V`$ then becomes

$$\beta F^f=\mathrm{ln}Z^f=V\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{ln}\left[2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\beta E_p}{2}\right)\right],$$
(7)
$`F^f`$ being the free energy. The corresponding thermodynamic energy $`E^f`$ is

$$E^f=\frac{}{\beta }(\beta F^f)=V\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{E_p}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta E_p}{2}\right).$$
(8)
As already mentioned, the 5D Kaluza-Klein modes can be considered as 4D fields on the brane with an infinite tower of masses, so by summing up the KK modes given by Eq. (5) we get the following expression for the total KK energy:

$$E^{fKK}=\left[\frac{\sqrt{𝐩^2+a^2k^2x^2}}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\sqrt{𝐩^2+a^2k^2x^2}\right)\right].$$
(9)
Here the functional $``$ is defined by

$$[f(p,x)]=V\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{i}{2\pi }_C𝑑x\frac{d}{dx}f(p,x)\mathrm{ln}[j_\nu (x)y_\nu (ax)j_\nu (ax)y_\nu (x)],$$
(10)
the contour $`C`$ encircling the positive real axis.

Since the zero temperature contribution to the energy, $`E^f(\mathrm{})`$, has been calculated in Ref. , we subtract this contribution from $`E^f(\beta )`$ in Eq. (8) and consider henceforth

$$\stackrel{~}{E}^f(\beta )=E^f(\beta )E^f(\mathrm{}).$$
(11)
This quantity is finite. In terms of the variable $`q`$ defined via $`|𝐩|=q/\beta `$ we can write Eq. (11) as

$$\stackrel{~}{E}^f(\beta )=\frac{V}{2\pi ^2\beta ^4}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑qq^2\frac{\sqrt{q^2+\beta ^2m^2}}{e^{\sqrt{q^2+\beta ^2m^2}}+1}.$$
(12)
This expression holds for arbitrary temperatures. Assume now that the temperature is low, $`\beta 1`$. Then it is convenient to change the variable from $`q`$ to $`s`$ via $`q=\sqrt{s^2+2\beta ms}`$, whereby

$`\stackrel{~}{E}^f(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2\pi ^2\beta ^4}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{(s+\beta m)^2\sqrt{s^2+2\beta ms}}{e^{s+\beta m}+1}}`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Vm^{5/2}e^{\beta m}}{(2\pi \beta )^{3/2}}}`$
to leading order. We assume that $`\beta m1`$; then, because of the factor $`e^{\beta m}`$ we need to include only the lowest root $`x=x_1`$ in Eq. (5), corresponding to $`n=1`$. When $`a`$ is small, this yields $`j_\nu (x_1)=0`$ (we assume $`\alpha +\nu 2`$), so that $`x_1`$ is of order unity. Adding the contribution from the zero-point energy we find the following effective potential:

$$V^f(a)=k^4B_2^f\left(a^{2\mu }+\frac{B_3^f}{B_2^f}(\beta k)^{3/2}a^{5/2}e^{\beta kax_1}\right),$$
(14)
where $`\mu =\nu +2`$. We have here defined

$$B_2^f=\frac{V}{16\pi ^2}\frac{2^{12\nu }}{\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{2\nu +3}\frac{K_\nu ^{}(t)}{I_\nu ^{}(t)}>0,$$
(15)
$$B_3^f=\frac{V}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}x_1^{5/2}.$$
(16)
We have now come to the main point: when $`\beta k`$ is large, the effective potential (14) has a nontrivial minimum. The order of magnitude of $`a`$ at the minimum, $`a=a_m`$, is given roughly by

$$a_m\frac{1}{\beta k}\mathrm{ln}\beta k.$$
(17)
As mentioned above, taking $`kR12`$ means that the $`\varphi =\pi `$ brane is associated with the TeV region. That means, $`e^{\pi kR}10^{17}`$. With $`k10^{19}`$ GeV we thus see that with $`1/\beta 10`$ GeV we get $`\beta k10^{18}`$, thus $`a_m10^{17}`$ according to Eq. (17). The weak scale, $`a_mk10^2`$ GeV, can in this way be generated.

As a numerical example, assume that $`\alpha =2`$. If $`\nu =5/2`$ or $`\mu =\nu +2=9/2`$ we get $`x_1=3.6328`$, $`B_3^f/B_2^f=11.9408`$, and the minimum occurs at $`a_m=5.15\times 10^{17}`$.

In conclusion, a bulk quantum fermion may generate a thermal (flat) 5D AdS brane-world with the necessary hierarchy scale. This example shows that quantum bulk effects in a brane-world $`AdS_5`$ at nonzero temperature may not only stabilize the brane-world but also provide the dynamical mechanism for the resolution of the hierarchy problem, with no fine-tuning.

Our example involving a single fermion is somewhat unsatisfactory because the minimum at $`a0`$ is only local. A somewhat more extended discussion, involving both bosons and fermions, is given in Ref. .

We mention that a very recent approach to stabilize the radius of the brane-world $`AdS_5`$ is the paper of Flachi et al. .

Finally, as a general remark, we mention that the RS scenario is of interest also for quantum gravity (for a general treatise on QG, see Ref. ).