text:
# Scattering of light by molecules of light

## Abstract

We study the scattering properties of optical dipole-mode vector solitons recently predicted theoretically and generated in a laboratory. We demonstrate that such a radially asymmetric composite self-trapped state resembles “a molecule of light” which is extremely robust, survives a wide range of collisions, and displays new phenomena such as the transformation of a linear momentum into an angular momentum, etc. We present also experimental verifications of some of our predictions.

Since the begining of the history, physics has studied simple objects and the way they arrange to form more complex objects. Some remarkable success included the atomic theory of matter, the discovery of the structure of nucleus in terms of protons and neutrons and, more recently, the substructure of nucleons in terms of quarks. Such concepts seem to be restricted to “solid” objects only, and at a first sight it could seem that nothing similar is possible for light. However, elementary robust objects made of light have been known since the 70’s. In fact, spatial optical solitons— self-trapped states of light with particle-like properties— have attracted a considerable attention during last years as possible building blocks of all-optical switching devices where light is used to guide and manipulate light itself . Recent progress in generating spatial optical solitons in various nonlinear bulk media allows to study truly two-dimensional self-trapping of light and different types of interactions of multi-dimensional solitary waves .

Robust nature of spatial optical solitons as self-trapped states of light that they display in interactions , allows to draw an analogy with atomic physics treating spatial solitons as “atoms of light”. Furthermore, when several light beams generated by a coherent source are combined to produce a vector soliton, this process can be viewed as the formation of composite states or “molecules of light”.

Recently, we have predicted theoretically the existence of a robust “molecule of light”, a dipole-mode vector soliton (or “dipole”, for simplicity) that originates from trapping of a dipole beam by an effective waveguide created by a mutually incoherent fundamental beam . The first observation of this novel type of optical vector soliton has been recently reported in Ref. , where the dipoles have been generated using two different methods: a phase imprinting and a symmetry-breaking instability of a vortex-mode composite soliton .

The concept of vector solitons as “molecules of light” should be compared with photonic microcavity structures, micrometer-sized “photonic quantum dots” that confine photons in such a way that they act like electrons in an atom . When two of these “photonic atoms” are linked together, they produce a “photonic molecule” whose optical modes bear a strong resemblance to the electronic states in a diatomic molecule like hydrogen . Self-trapped states of light we study here can be viewed as the similar photonic structures where, however, the photonic trap and the beam it guides are both made of light creating self-trapped photonic atoms and molecules.

In this Letter we study the scattering properties of dipole-mode vector solitons (“molecules of light”) and analyze, in particular, the interaction between these objects and other robust structures made of light: scalar solitons (“atoms of light”) and other dipoles. We describe a number of interesting effects observed in such interactions, e.g. the absorption of a soliton beam by a dipole and replacement of the soliton with a dipole component, transformation of a linear momentum into an angular momentum with subsequent dipole spiraling, etc. Additionally, we verify experimentally some of these predictions for composite spatial solitons generated in a photorefractive crystal. The versatility of phenomena described here makes the dipole-mode vector soliton a complex object with promising applications in integrated optics in addition to its fundamental interest.

The model and dipole solitons. We consider the propagation of two coherent light beams interacting incoherently in a saturable nonlinear medium. In the paraxial approximation, the beam mutual interaction can be described by a system of two coupled nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equations ,

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{u}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}_{}u+F(I)u,`$ (2)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{v}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}_{}v+F(I)v,`$ (3)
where $`u(𝐫_{},z)`$ and $`v(𝐫_{},z)`$ are dimensionless envelopes of the beams self-trapped in the cross-section plane $`𝐫_{}=(x,y)`$ and propagating along $`z`$. The function $`F(I)=I(1+sI)^1`$ characterizes a saturable nonlinearity of the medium, where $`s`$ is a dimensionless saturation parameter $`(0<s<1)`$ and $`I=|u|^2+|v|^2`$ is the total intensity.

Equations (Scattering of light by molecules of light) describe different types of spatially localized composite solutions. The dipole-mode vector soliton (or “a molecule of light”) is a stationary state which is composed of a nodeless beam in the $`v`$ component and a dipole beam (or a pair of out-of-phase solitons) in the $`u`$ component. Solitons in the $`u`$ component have opposite phases and thus they tend to repel each other, but the role of the beam $`v`$ is to stabilize the structure making it robust. A numerical analysis of the linearized equations (Scattering of light by molecules of light) shows no signs of linear instability of this composite structure . Moreover, it was shown  that such robust dipole-mode vector solitons exist for a wide range of the beam powers $`P_u=|u|^2𝑑𝐫_{}`$ and $`P_v=|v|^2𝐫_{}`$. Since we are interested in showing stability far from the regime in which one beam is dominant and acts as a waveguide, all numerical experiments are performed using as initial states for the collisions experiments stationary states in which $`P_uP_v`$.

Qualitative analysis. We are interested in the dynamics of the dipole under the action of finite external perturbations introduced by its collision with other objects. The word “finite” emphasizes the fact that we can no longer make use of linearized equations and that we must deal with the full system (Scattering of light by molecules of light). This fact, combined with the complex structure of the dipole which lacks radial symmetry, makes analytical predictions on the dipole dynamics very difficult. Nevertheless, as will be shown below, one may extract some general rules on which qualitative predictions may be based.

The idea is that the dipole can be seen as a bound state of a soliton beam (in $`u`$) plus a pair of vortices with opposite charges (in $`v`$), and therefore many effects observed in the beam collisions can be understood once the mutual interaction of these simpler objects is known.

One of the components of the dipole is a soliton beam (to be referred to as soliton hereafter). Spatial solitons are stable localized states which have no nodes and which are the states of minimum energy of the system for a fixed power. When two of these solitons are in different beams (say, one in $`u`$ and the other one, in $`v`$), they interact incoherently and attract each other. Thus, during an incoherent interaction two solitons attract each other and either become bound or scatter. In the former case, we have an example of what we call a molecule of light, which is typically referred to as “vector soliton”. However, when two solitons are in the same component, their mutual interaction depends on their phase difference. When this quantity is small or zero, they interact attractively, whereas if their mutual phases differ by $`\pi `$, they repel each other.

Another nonlinear structure that should be mentioned in this context is a vortex-mode composite soliton introduced in  which in our model (Scattering of light by molecules of light) is an unstable object (see details in ). Vortices may only be partially stabilized (i.e., their decay rate becomes smaller) by sharing space with a large soliton beam (e.g., when a vortex in the beam $`u`$ is guided by an effective waveguide created in the component $`v`$). Thus, a composite state of a vortex plus soliton constitutes an unstable molecule of light.

Concerning a dipole, it can be seen as a pair of vortices as described above or, alternatively, as a bound state of two solitons with a phase difference of $`\pi `$. Although, in principle, these solitons should repel each other, the system is stabilized due to the interaction with a soliton-induced waveguide created in the other component.

Soliton-dipole scattering. The first type of numerical simulations we present here consists in shooting a scalar soliton against a dipole-mode vector soliton. All the simulations discussed here have been performed using a split-step operator technique using FFT, with grid sizes of up to 512$`\times `$512 points covering a rectangular domain of 68$`\times `$34 adimensional units. The initial data are always a combination of stationary states. For instance, when a soliton is launched against a dipole, we start with

$`u(𝐱,0)`$ $`=`$ $`u_{dipole}(𝐱)+u_{soliton}(𝐱𝐝)e^{i𝐩_\mathrm{𝟎}𝐱},`$ (5)
$`v(𝐱,0)`$ $`=`$ $`v_{dipole}(𝐱).`$ (6)
Here $`𝐝=(d_x,d_y)`$, $`d_xd_y`$, $`d_y`$ is the impact parameter, and $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is proportional to the initial (linear) momentum of the incoming scalar soliton. The initial data $`u_{dipole}`$, $`u_{soliton}`$, and $`v_{dipole}`$ are obtained numerically by a suitable minimization procedure outlined in Ref. .

The result is an inelastic collision in which the soliton becomes deflected and the dipole gains both linear and angular momenta. The whole process is depicted in Fig. 1. Soliton scattering occurs when the incident beam has medium to large linear momentum or when it has an appropriate initial phase. For instance, in Fig. 1 the incident soliton has sign $`()`$ and it crashes against the part of the dipole with $`(+)`$ sign. A conservation law forces the dipole to rotate and the soliton becomes deflected, sometimes as much as by a 90 degrees angle.

When the linear momentum of the incident soliton is large, it moves too fast to suffer a destructive influence from the dipole. In Fig. 2 we plot the exchange of the linear momentum between the soliton and dipole as a function of the impact parameter. The effective interaction is clearly attractive: the soliton coming from below ($`d_y<0`$) feels the drag of the dipole above it and gets deflected upwards ($`p_y>0`$), while the dipole moves downwards.

Soliton absortion by a dipole. The second family of numerical experiments is performed with solitons which are slow and, as is usual in scattering processes, the effects of the interaction process may be more drastical. For some impact parameters the soliton gets too close to the lobe of the dipole with the smallest phase difference and fuses with it with some emission of radiation and a subsequent rotation of the dipole. This is well reflected in Fig. 3 (radiation is not seen).

Dipole-dipole collisions. The third family of numerical simulations corresponds to shooting dipoles against each other. These collisions provide a rich source of phenomena depending on the mutual orientation of the dipoles and on the initial energy. Figure 4 summarizes the main results observed. There we see three cases (a-c) in which the dipole solitons are preserved. The figure shows an in-phase collision with weak interaction \[Fig. 4(a)\], an out-of-phase collision with repulsion \[Fig. 4(b)\], and an example of the collision with nonzero impact parameter in which two vortex states are created and they decay into a pair of spiralling solitons \[Fig. 4(c)\].

The last case, Fig. 4(d), shows an interesting inelastic process when two dipoles fuse into a more complex state which then decays creating a new dipole and a pair of simple solitons. All these processes may be understood in terms of the phase of the lobes of each dipole as described above.

Experimental results. Generation of an isolated dipole-mode vector soliton was reported earlier in Ref. . The dipole-mode soliton was created using two different processes: (i) phase imprinting, when one of the beam components is sent through a phase mask in order to imprint the required phase structure, and (ii) symmetry-breaking instability of a vortex-mode composite soliton. In this way, we obtain a dipole-like structure with a phase jump along its transverse direction that is perpendicular to the optical axis of the crystal \[see Fig. 5(a), the beam $`u`$\]. That dipole-like beam is then combined with the second, nodeless beam \[the beam $`v`$ in Fig. 5(a)\], and the resulting composite beam is focused into the input face of the photorefractive SBN crystal (the crystal has the same parameters as in ), biased with the DC field of 1.5-2.5 kV applied along an optical axis. To control the degree of saturation, we illuminate the crystal with a wide beam derived from a while light source. Propagating in an effectively self-focusing saturable medium, such a composite input beam creates a dipole-mode vector soliton, as shown in Fig. 5(b) (both components are shown separately). As discused above, the beam $`v`$ creates an effective asymmetric waveguide that guides a dipole-like mode in the form of two out-of-phase solitary beams that mutually repell each other.

To observe the soliton-dipole interaction effects, we launch a scalar soliton beam against the dipole soliton. The input state is shown in Fig. 5(c), where the dipole-mode soliton is presented by its two-lobe $`u`$ component only. When the soliton interacts with a dipole, it gets deflected and transforms a part of its linear momentum into an angular momentum of the dipole that starts rotating is visible in Fig. 5(d). A qualitative comparison between the theory and experiment is hard to carry out since the original theoretical model is isotropic, while the bias photorefractive crystal is known to possess an anisotropic nonlocal nonlinearity  making the dipole rotation anisotropic, since the dipole structure along and perpendicular to the optical axis is different.

Conclusions. We have studied the phenomenology of collisions of the recently discovered dipole-mode vector solitons with other nonlinear localized structures. Apart from checking the robustness of the dipoles against strong interactions, we have shown that in many cases they behave qualitatively as tightly bound molecules of light, with two major degrees of freedom (rotation as a whole and oscillation of the lobes of the dipole) which can be excited by collisions. Sometimes the dipole excitation is so strong that the structure behaves as a pair of spiraling beams earlier analyzed in Ref. . This is only one of many interesting phenomena observed in simulations which also include excitation of rotational modes by collision with a scalar soliton, annihilation or strong deflection of the incident soliton, etc. Even richer phenomenology is observed when two dipole-mode solitons are made to collide. It is remarkable that the rich behavior observed here may be understood qualitatively in terms of the structure of the objects colliding and the relative phases of the dipole components. Finally, we have also verified experimentally some of our predictions.

A rich variety of the effects described here might make these objects good candidates for practical applicability in the field of integrated optics. In this sense, the dipole-mode vector soliton resembles the operation of an electronic transistor since it is an asymmetric object whose response is nonlinear and depends on the directionality of the input. We think the behavior described here, in addition to its fundamental interest, may have wide applicability in the future.

The work has been partially supported by a grant of the Planning and Performance Fund grant, by APCRC, and by DGICYT (grant PB96-0534).


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0006158, UTPT-00-07

Linearized Gravity about a Brane

Hael Collins hael@physics.utoronto.ca and Bob Holdom bob.holdom@utoronto.ca

Department of Physics

University of Toronto

Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A7, Canada

Abstract

We use the Israel condition to treat carefully the weak-field perturbations due to the presence of matter on a 3-brane embedded between two regions of anti-de Sitter (AdS) space with different curvature lengths. A four dimensional Newton’s Law only emerges at distances that are large compared to the AdS lengths. When a scalar curvature is included in the brane action, however, it is possible to generate a four dimensional theory of gravity even when one or both of the AdS lengths is large compared to distances along the brane. In particular, we provide an example in which the AdS lengths can be larger than the millimeter experimental bound.

June, 2000

1. Introduction.

One of the more intriguing new ideas in the past year has been the suggestion that the physical universe could be embedded as a hypersurface in a higher dimensional bulk space-time where the extra dimensions are non-compact. The fact that the Standard Model has been confirmed to scales approaching the electroweak scale is accounted for in these models by assuming that these fields are confined to this hypersurface, or ‘$`3`$-brane’. Yet since gravity describes the dynamics of space-time itself, some additional feature is needed to produce an effectively four-dimensional theory of gravity, at least on lengths greater than the millimeter scale probed. In the scenario proposed by Randall and Sundrum , the bulk is five dimensional anti-de Sitter (AdS5) space-time whose curvature length provides the threshold above which the effective theory of gravity is approximately Einstein’s theory in four dimensions. At distances shorter than the AdS curvature length, the extra dimension is revealed.

In studying extensions of the original Randall-Sundrum proposal, it is important to have a method for describing the effective theory of gravity seen by an inhabitant of the $`3`$-brane. A natural approach  is to study the perturbations to the background metric produced when matter is placed on the brane. The problem is not as straightforward as it might seem since the presence of brane-matter can alter the position of the brane in some bulk coordinate systems. In  it was shown that this ‘brane-bending’ must be included to cancel the appearance of a spurious scalar gravity term in the effective Einstein equation in the original Randall-Sundrum scenario. A better method was recently introduced by , building upon their earlier work , in which the gauge is chosen so that the brane remains flat, even when matter is placed on the brane. As it is presented in $`[4]`$, this method works best when the model has an orbifold symmetry. In this article, we shall extend the formalism to permit the study of linearized gravity in asymmetric bulk space-time backgrounds.

Central to our discussion is a careful treatment of the boundary conditions at the brane. In the previous analyses of linearized gravity in a brane background, the energy-momentum contribution from the brane to the full bulk Einstein equation was incorporated using a $`\delta `$-function source term. However, some of the functions that multiply this $`\delta `$-function become ill-defined when the bulk space-time no longer has the standard orbifold symmetry. Fortunately, the approach introduced by Israel  relates the discontinuities of functions evaluated on opposite sides of the brane to functions that are well-defined on the brane.

We have also considered the effect of adding a scalar curvature term to the brane action. For our purpose, we shall simply regard this curvature term as the next natural term in an effective theory expansion in powers of derivatives. Such a term can arise in some quantum field theories    from radiative corrections to gravity that involve fields confined to the brane circulating in the loops . Scalar curvature terms also occur extensively in the study of the AdS/CFT correspondence where they are used to regularize the bulk action . Moreover, the brane curvature term is required for the emergence of $`4d`$ gravity in theories in which the brane is embedded in a flat bulk space-time $`[10]`$.

The presence of a curvature term in the brane action leads to a particularly intriguing possibility. Since an effectively $`4d`$ theory of gravity from the bulk arises at distances along the brane greater than the AdS lengths, by adding a curvature term on the brane which has the dominant contribution to gravity at or below these scales, we can obtain a standard $`4d`$ Einstein theory of gravity valid at all testable scales. With these ingredients, we can find a realistic scenario in which the AdS lengths can be above the millimeter scale and the bulk Planck scale is in the TeV range at the cost of mildly fine-tuning the coefficient of the brane curvature term.

The next section contains a detailed derivation of the weak-field perturbation to the background metric due to fields placed on the brane. Although some of this material builds on the elegant formalism of $`[4]`$, we have included the derivation of the bulk equations along with the new material describing the behavior at the boundary for completeness. After a short aside on the gauge invariance of our results, in section 4 we use our results to study the effective theory of gravity along the brane for a universe consisting of a $`3`$-brane separating two regions of AdS5 with different curvatures. In section 5 we introduce a scalar curvature term into the action and show that it can provide a source for four dimensional gravity even in theories that do not have a $`4d`$ Newton’s Law without it. Section 6 concludes with some comments on size of the $`5d`$ Planck mass.

2. Linearized Gravity in an Asymmetric Background.

The action for a $`3`$-brane embedded in a five dimensional bulk space-time can be divided into bulk and brane components. For the bulk, we use an Einstein-Hilbert action while on the brane we initially consider a minimal action containing a surface tension term plus a term for fields confined to the brane:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S& =M_5^3d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sgn(y)}+R\right)+2M_5^3_{\mathrm{brane}}d^4x\sqrt{h}\mathrm{\Delta }K\hfill \\ & +M_5^3_{\mathrm{brane}}d^4x\sqrt{h}\left(\frac{12}{\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{M_5^3}_{\mathrm{fields}}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
$`g_{ab}`$ is the metric for the bulk space-time and $`h_{ab}`$ is the induced metric along the $`3`$-brane. $`M_5`$ is the bulk Planck mass. We shall denote the coordinates along the brane by $`x^\mu `$, where $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$; the fifth coordinate $`y`$ is chosen so that the brane lies at $`y=0`$ and $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3,y`$. Notice that we have allowed the cosmological constant to have different values to either side of the brane, represented by the $`sgn(y)`$-dependence, which leads to different metrics in the two bulk regions. When the metric changes between regions of the bulk, it is necessary to include a term in the boundary action that depends on the trace of the extrinsic curvature, $`K=h^{ab}K_{ab}`$, defined below. Since the boundary for the two bulk regions is provided by the brane itself, we include a term in the brane action for the difference in the extrinsic curvature for the two regions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }K_{ab}K_{ab}|_{y=0^{}}K_{ab}|_{y=0+}`$. For comparison, in the standard Randall-Sundrum universe $`[1]`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=6/\mathrm{}^2`$ when the bulk metric is $`ds^2=e^{2|y|/\mathrm{}}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2`$ for $`_{\mathrm{fields}}=0`$. $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ is the four dimensional Minkowski metric.

The approach that we shall use to extract the theory of gravity for an observer on the $`3`$-brane is to study gravity in the weak field limit, expanding in a small perturbation about the classical background. The treatment of linearized gravity was first presented in $`[2]`$, and then more fully in $`[3]`$. In both these papers the gauge was chosen so that the bulk metric assumed the form

$$g_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2|y|/\mathrm{}}\eta _{\mu \nu }+\gamma _{\mu \nu }& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(2.2)`$
where $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ is regarded as a small perturbation. The remaining gauge freedom is used to choose $`^\mu \gamma _{\mu \nu }=0`$. In these coordinates the presence of matter on the brane distorts its position in the bulk space so that it no longer lies at $`y=0`$. In geometries without the usual orbifold symmetry, this “brane bending” leads to subtleties in correctly imposing boundary conditions at the position of the brane. As a consequence, it is convenient to relax these gauge conditions and instead to work in a gauge where the position of the brane remains fixed at $`y=0`$.

The problem of finding such a gauge in order to study linearized gravity was addressed in $`[4]`$. There, the metric tensor is written using the time-slicing formalism  as

$$g_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }& n_\mu \\ n_\nu & n^2+n_\lambda n^\lambda \end{array}\right)g^{ab}=\frac{1}{n^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }& \widehat{g}^{\mu \lambda }n_\lambda \\ \widehat{g}^{\nu \lambda }n_\lambda & 1\end{array}\right)$$
$`(2.3)`$
where

$$\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=f(y)(\eta _{\mu \nu }+\gamma _{\mu \nu }).$$
$`(2.4)`$
$`n`$ and $`n_\mu `$ are respectively called the lapse function and the shift vector. Here we have written a more general warp factor, $`f(y)`$, to allow configurations in which the brane separates two regions of AdS5 with different cosmological constants. In the limit in which the perturbations about the background are small, we consider $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$, $`n_\mu `$ and $`\varphi n^21`$ all to be small quantities of roughly the same size.

The advantage of this metric is that it admits a foliation of the bulk space by hypersurfaces where $`y`$ is constant. The normal vector to any of these hypersurfaces can be written as

$$N_a=(0,0,0,0,n)N^a=\frac{1}{n}(\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }n_\nu ,1)$$
$`(2.5)`$
and the induced metric along the surface is given by

$$h_{ab}=g_{ab}N_aN_b=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }& n_\mu \\ n_\nu & n_\lambda n^\lambda \end{array}\right)h^{ab}=\frac{1}{n^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{g}^{\mu \lambda }\widehat{g}^{\nu \rho }n_\lambda n_\rho & 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
$`(2.6)`$
In addition to the curvature induced by this metric along a hypersurface, the bulk space also produces an extrinsic curvature structure defined by the symmetric tensor1 Note that we have chosen our sign to agree with that used in $`[4]`$ which is the opposite of that used in  .

$$K_{ab}=h_a^c_cN_b$$
$`(2.7)`$
where the covariant derivative is with respect to the bulk metric. To leading order in the perturbations, the extrinsic curvature is then

$$K_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2n}\left[_y\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }_\mu n_\nu _\nu n_\mu \right]+\mathrm{},$$
$`(2.8)`$
with $`K_{\mu y}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{f^{}}{f}n_\mu `$ and $`K_{yy}=0`$.

One of the new features in a bulk space-time without an orbifold symmetry is that some quantities become ill-defined on the brane. For example, when the cosmological constant differs on the opposite sides of the brane, it changes discontinuously at $`y=0`$. One solution to this problem is to allow the brane to have some finite thickness, so that the transition from one region to another proceeds smoothly. Alternatively, we can use the Israel junction equations which relate changes in bulk quantities to the brane tension and the energy-momentum tensor for fields confined to the brane. This approach avoids evaluating potentially ill-defined functions on the brane.

The behavior of gravity in the bulk is governed by the usual Einstein equation,

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ab}=g_{ab}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sgn(y)}.$$
$`(2.9)`$
At the brane, the change in the extrinsic curvature is determined by the Israel condition $`[13]`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }K_{ab}=8\pi \left[T_{ab}\frac{1}{3}h_{ab}T\right].$$
$`(2.10)`$
$`T_{ab}`$ includes both the brane tension as well as fields living on the brane. Although we shall use the Israel condition to fix the behavior of the metric perturbations at the brane, it is nevertheless useful to write $`(2.9)`$ in the Gauss-Codacci form by decomposing it into the transverse and orthogonal components with respect to an arbitrary $`y=\text{constant}`$ hypersurface,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{R}+K_\nu ^\mu K_\mu ^\nu K^2& =2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sgn(y)}\hfill \\ \hfill _\mu K\widehat{}_\nu K_\mu ^\nu & =0\hfill \\ \hfill R_{\mu \nu }& =\frac{2}{3}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sgn(y)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.11)`$
Here $`\widehat{R}`$ is the scalar curvature associated with $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and is calculated in the appendix. Away from the brane, $`y0`$, the zeroth order terms from $`(2.11)`$ determine the warp factor which appears in the unperturbed metric,2 Since we are writing only the equations for the bulk, we have not included the usual $`\delta `$-function source term for the brane in the $`f^{\prime \prime }`$ equation.

$$\frac{f^2}{f^2}=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sgn(y)}\frac{f^{\prime \prime }}{f}=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sgn(y)}.$$
$`(2.12)`$
In this more general picture, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{sgn(y)}`$ can have different values for $`y>0`$ and $`y<0`$ so that $`f^2`$ becomes ill-defined on the brane.

The terms linear in the perturbations for the first two Gauss-Codacci equations $`(2.11)`$ impose constraints on the metric:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{f}\left[^\mu ^\nu \gamma _{\mu \nu }^\lambda _\lambda \gamma +3\frac{f^{}}{f}^\lambda n_\lambda \right]& =3\varphi \frac{f^2}{f^2}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{f^{}}{f}_y\gamma \hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{f}\left[^\lambda _\lambda n_\mu _\mu ^\nu n_\nu \right]& =\frac{3}{2}\frac{f^{}}{f}_\mu \varphi +_y\left[^\nu \gamma _{\mu \nu }_\mu \gamma \right].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.13)`$
The important feature of these expressions is the appearance of the $`f^1`$ factors on their left sides. For regions of anti-de Sitter space, $`f^1`$ typically grows exponentially as we move farther into the bulk so that at some distance away from the brane, the assumption that $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\varphi `$ are small breaks down, unless we use gauge freedom to set the right sides of both expressions to zero. Therefore, in the bulk we choose, similarly to $`[4]`$,

$$\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\frac{f}{f^{}}_\mu \gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=0$$
$`(2.14)`$
where as $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the traceless part of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}\eta _{\mu \nu }\gamma .$$
$`(2.15)`$
For these equations, $`(2.13)`$ constrains the shift vector to be of the following form:

$$n_\mu =\frac{1}{4}\frac{f}{f^{}}_\mu \gamma +A_\mu .$$
$`(2.16)`$
Here $`A_\mu `$ is a free vector field ($`A_\mu =0`$) with vanishing $`4`$-divergence ($`^\mu A_\mu =0`$). Later we shall use the gauge freedom to choose $`A_\mu =0`$.

For simplicity, we assume that all the matter is confined to the brane. On the brane, the energy-momentum tensor receives contributions from both the brane tension, which we write as $`\frac{6}{\mathrm{}}`$, as well as a term $`t_{\mu \nu }`$ for the fields confined to the $`3`$-brane,

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{3}{4\pi }\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }+t_{\mu \nu }(x).$$
$`(2.17)`$
The energy-momentum $`t_{\mu \nu }`$ determines the behavior of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ so it should also be treated as a small quantity. The surface tension of the brane is related to the discontinuity in the slope of the warp factor at the brane. Explicitly, the unperturbed piece of the Israel condition requires the usual fine-tuning of the brane tension,

$$f^{}|_{y=0}f^{}|_{y=0+}\mathrm{\Delta }[f^{}]=\frac{4}{\mathrm{}}f.$$
$`(2.18)`$
The behavior of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ in the bulk is found using the transverse components of the Einstein equation $`(2.11)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{f^{}}{f}\left[_\mu n_\nu +_\nu n_\mu +\eta _{\mu \nu }^\lambda n_\lambda \right]\frac{1}{2}f^{}\left[2_y\gamma _{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }_y\gamma \frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }_y\varphi \right]\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}_\mu _\nu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}\left[f^{\prime \prime }+\frac{f^2}{f}\right]\eta _{\mu \nu }\varphi \frac{1}{2}f_y^2\gamma _{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}_y\left[_\mu n_\nu +_\nu n_\mu \right]=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.19)`$
where we have substituted the equations determining the warp factor $`(2.12)`$. The transverse components of the Israel condition specify the boundary conditions at the brane,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\frac{1}{2}f^{}\varphi \eta _{\mu \nu }+f_y\gamma _{\mu \nu }_\mu n_\nu _\nu n_\mu \right]=16\pi \left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }t\right]$$
$`(2.20)`$
where we have imposed the zeroth order constraint $`(2.18)`$. In both these expressions we have retained only the linear terms in the metric perturbation. Both $`\varphi `$ and $`n_\mu `$ can be eliminated from these equations through $`(2.14)`$ and $`(2.16)`$ so that

$$_y(f_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu })+f^{}_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }\frac{f^{}}{f}\left[_\mu A_\nu +_\nu A_\mu \right]_y\left[_\mu A_\nu +_\nu A_\mu \right]=0$$
$`(2.21)`$
for $`y0`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left[f_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\frac{f}{f^{}}_\mu _\nu \gamma _\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu \right]=16\pi \left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }t\right]$$
$`(2.22)`$
at the brane, $`y=0`$. Finally by making a gauge transformation to eliminate $`A_\mu `$ and noting that since the metric must be continuous at the brane, so that both $`f`$ and $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ are continuous there, we have the following equations for the behavior of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$,

$$_y(f_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu })+f^{}_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=0$$
$`(2.23)`$
in the bulk and

$$f\mathrm{\Delta }\left[_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }\right]\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\frac{f}{f^{}}\right]_\mu _\nu \gamma =16\pi \left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }t\right]$$
$`(2.24)`$
on the brane.

As in $`[4]`$, we can eliminate the $`\gamma `$ from $`(2.24)`$ by taking the trace of this expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\frac{f}{f^{}}\right]\gamma =\frac{32\pi }{3}t$$
$`(2.25)`$
and inverting the operator $``$$``$ to write formally

$$f_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }|_{y=0^+}f_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }|_{y=0^{}}=16\pi \left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{_\mu _\nu }{}\right)t\right].$$
$`(2.26)`$
As for the case of the orbifold, taking the $`4`$-divergence of this expression shows that the energy-momentum tensor for the brane fields is conserved, $`^\mu t_{\mu \nu }=0`$.

3. Gauge Invariance.

Before considering the weak field behavior for some specific geometries, we should show that both the bulk equation for $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$ $`(2.21)`$ as well as the boundary condition $`(2.22)`$ are left invariant under changes of coordinates that still preserve the position of the brane. Under a small change of coordinates,

$$x^\mu =x^\mu \xi ^\mu (x,y)y^{}=y\xi ^5(x,y);$$
$`(3.1)`$
the statement that the position of the brane is left invariant is that $`\xi ^5(x,0)=0`$. The components of the metric change according to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \gamma _{\mu \nu }& =\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{}\frac{f^{}}{f}\eta _{\mu \nu }\xi ^5_\mu \xi _\nu _\nu \xi _\mu \hfill \\ \hfill n_\mu & =n_\mu ^{}f_y\xi _\mu _\mu \xi ^5\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi & =\varphi ^{}2_y\xi ^5.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.2)`$
The trace and the traceless part of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ transform as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \gamma & =\gamma ^{}4\frac{f^{}}{f}\xi ^52^\mu \xi _\mu \hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }& =\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{}_\mu \xi _\nu _\nu \xi _\mu +\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }^\lambda \xi _\lambda .\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.3)`$
If we maintain the same gauge conditions $`(2.14)`$ before and after the coordinate transformation, we have further that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _y^\lambda \xi _\lambda & =2\xi ^5_y\left(\frac{f^{}}{f}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \xi _\mu +\frac{1}{2}_\mu ^\nu \xi _\nu & =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.4)`$
Lastly, we note that the vector field $`A_\mu `$ transforms as follows:

$$A_\mu =A_\mu ^{}f_y\xi _\mu +\frac{1}{2}\frac{f}{f^{}}_\mu ^\nu \xi _\nu .$$
$`(3.5)`$
We have used this residual gauge freedom to set $`A_\mu =0`$.

The bulk equation $`(2.21)`$ is invariant provided that

$$\left[_\mu _\nu _\lambda \xi ^\lambda +2f^{}\xi ^5\eta _{\mu \nu }2\frac{f}{f^{}}_\mu _\nu \xi ^5\right]_y\left(\frac{f^{}}{f}\right)+f\eta _{\mu \nu }_y\left[\xi ^5_y\left(\frac{f^{}}{f}\right)\right]=0.$$
$`(3.6)`$
$`(2.12)`$ implies that $`f^{}/f=\text{constant}`$ for $`y0`$, so $`(3.6)`$ is satisfied.

Under a coordinate transformation, we also find that the left side of the Israel condition $`(2.22)`$ is invariant when

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left[_\mu _\nu \xi _5\right]2f\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\xi ^5_y\left(\frac{f^{}}{f}\right)\right]=0.$$
$`(3.7)`$
These quantities are evaluated in the bulk on either side of the brane so as we have seen the second term vanishes. $`_\mu _\nu \xi _5`$ also vanishes since $`\xi ^5(x,y)0`$ as $`y0`$, under our constraint that the position of the brane remains fixed. The gauge invariance of the Israel condition demonstrates that $`\gamma (x,0)`$ is a gauge-invariant quantity determined only by the physical fields placed on the brane through $`(2.25)`$. This result is important since, as we shall see in the next section, $`\gamma (x,0)`$ enters the expression for the effective Einstein equations on the brane.

Before concluding this aside on the gauge invariance of $`(2.21)`$$`(2.22)`$, we should mention how the fixed-brane gauge is related to the bent-brane gauges of $`[2]`$ and $`[3]`$. The appearance of the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left[_\mu _\nu \xi _5\right]`$ in the gauge transformed Israel condition shows that if the position of the brane is not kept fixed, then gauge-dependent terms will appear in the expression for $`\gamma `$. Since these terms need to be subtracted from the final expression for the effective theory, it is convenient to work in a gauge in which they are absent. More importantly for a universe without an orbifold symmetry, the bending upon either side of the brane might not be equal so that extra care must be made to properly describe the boundary conditions at the brane.3 This point is stressed in the note accompanying equation $`(3.11)`$ of $`[3]`$. Again, this complication is avoided when the brane’s position is fixed.

4. An Example: A Brane between Two Regions of AdS5.

As an application, we examine in depth the behavior of a universe in which a brane with tension $`6/\mathrm{}`$ separates two regions of AdS5 with different curvatures,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{\begin{array}{cc}6/\mathrm{}_1^2\hfill & \text{for }y>0\hfill \\ 6/\mathrm{}_2^2\hfill & \text{for }y<0\hfill \end{array},$$
$`(4.1)`$
for which the corresponding warp factor is $`f(y)=e^{2y/\mathrm{}_1}`$ for $`y>0`$ and $`f(y)=e^{2y/\mathrm{}_2}`$ for $`y<0`$. The fine-tuning condition for the brane tension $`(2.18)`$ is

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_1}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_2}\right].$$
$`(4.2)`$
Since $`4`$-derivatives appear in the equation determining $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$, it is convenient to Fourier transform in the directions along the brane so that in the region $`y>0`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies

$$_y(e^{2y/\mathrm{}_1}_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu })\frac{2}{\mathrm{}_1}e^{2y/\mathrm{}_1}_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }p^2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=0$$
$`(4.3)`$
with an analogous expression for $`y<0`$ involving $`\mathrm{}_2`$. For $`p^2>0`$, the solution to this differential equation is in terms of Bessel functions,

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,y>0)=c_{\mu \nu }^+(p)e^{2y/\mathrm{}_1}\left[K_2(e^{y/\mathrm{}_1}\mathrm{}_1|p|)+AI_2(e^{y/\mathrm{}_1}\mathrm{}_1|p|)\right].$$
$`(4.4)`$
Since $`I_2(e^{y/\mathrm{}_1}|p|\mathrm{}_1)`$ diverges as $`y\mathrm{}`$, we set $`A=0`$. From $`(2.26)`$ and imposing continuity of the metric across the brane, we discover the following behavior for weak fluctuations about the background solution

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,y)=\frac{16\pi }{|p|}& \left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\hfill \\ & \times \frac{e^{2y/\mathrm{}_1}K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|e^{y/\mathrm{}_1})}{K_1(\mathrm{}_1|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)+K_1(\mathrm{}_2|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|)}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.5)`$
for $`y>0`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,y)=\frac{16\pi }{|p|}& \left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\hfill \\ & \times \frac{e^{2y/\mathrm{}_2}K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|e^{y/\mathrm{}_2})}{K_1(\mathrm{}_1|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)+K_1(\mathrm{}_2|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|)}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.6)`$
for $`y<0`$. The value of the trace $`\gamma `$ at the brane is determined by the Israel condition $`(2.25)`$ to be

$$\gamma (p,0)=\frac{32\pi }{3p^2}\frac{2}{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2}t,$$
$`(4.7)`$
and along with $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$ is needed to find the effective theory of gravity seen by an observer confined to the brane.

A possible source for a discrepancy between a purely four dimensional theory of gravity and the effective low energy theory of gravity for an inhabitant of the $`3`$-brane is in the appearance of deviations from the Einstein equation. The intrinsic Einstein tensor is given by $`[4]`$

$$\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}\left(_\mu _\nu \gamma \eta _{\mu \nu }\gamma \right).$$
$`(4.8)`$
As a first case, we look in the limit in which both of the lengths associated with the bulk AdS5 regions are small compared to the typical length scale probed on the brane, $`\mathrm{}_1|p|,\mathrm{}_2|p|1`$. Using $`K_2(z)=2z^2+\mathrm{}`$ and $`K_1(z)=z^1+\mathrm{}`$ for small $`z`$, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,0)=\frac{16\pi }{p^2}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\frac{2}{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2}+\mathrm{};$$
$`(4.9)`$
combining this with the trace $`(4.7)`$, we recover the standard theory:

$$\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}=\frac{16\pi }{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2}t_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(4.10)`$
Later we shall discuss theories that deviate from this standard behavior.

We also examine whether a stationary point mass $`M`$ on the brane produces a $`1/r`$ Newtonian potential $`[4]`$. For a point source at rest on the brane, the energy-momentum tensor has only one non-vanishing component:

$$t_{00}(x)=\frac{M}{M_5^3}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{x})\text{or}t_{00}(p)=2\pi \frac{M}{M_5^3}\delta (p_0)$$
$`(4.11)`$
where $`M_5`$ is the five dimensional Planck mass. When the velocity of a test mass is small, the gravitational field is stationary and weakly perturbed away from the background metric, we can extract the Newtonian potential by following the motion of a test mass along a geodesic. The leading piece of the geodesic equation in this Newtonian limit is

$$\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{00}^i=\frac{1}{2}_i\gamma _{00}=\frac{1}{2}_i\left(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{00}\frac{1}{4}\gamma \right)$$
$`(4.12)`$
from which we can extract the ordinary Newtonian potential,

$$\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2}=_iV.$$
$`(4.13)`$
Typically in brane-world scenarios the standard model fields are confined to the brane by some unspecified mechanism so that a test mass is not free to move along an arbitrary geodesic, but one constrained to lie within the brane. Thus in the geodesic equation, we have used the Christoffel symbols for the induced metric.

Returning to the limit where $`\mathrm{}_1|p|,\mathrm{}_2|p|1`$, we note that the presence of a point mass on the brane produces a perturbation of

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{00}(p,0)\frac{32\pi }{3p^2}\frac{2}{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2}t_{00}$$
$`(4.14)`$
while the trace $`\gamma `$ is fixed by $`(4.7)`$. Thus when both the curvatures of the AdS regions are small compared to typical lengths probed on the brane, we recover a standard attractive $`1/r`$ potential,4 If the test mass were allowed to move into the bulk we would have used $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^i`$ rather than $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{00}^i`$ in $`(4.12)`$, which has the effect of removing the trace term, and the Newtonian potential would have been enhanced by a factor of $`4/3`$.

$$V(r)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ipx}\gamma _{00}=\frac{M}{M_5^3}\frac{2}{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2}\frac{1}{r}.$$
$`(4.15)`$
The preceding example represents only a slight modification of the standard Randall-Sundrum scenario which corresponds to setting $`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2=\mathrm{}`$. However, we can also study alternative limits such as a universe in which one of the AdS lengths is small compared to the typical scales probed on the brane, $`\mathrm{}_1|p|1`$, but where the other is much larger, $`\mathrm{}_2|p|1`$. This case can be taken as an approximation to a half-AdS, half-flat universe. In this limit, the leading contribution to the traceless piece of the metric perturbation is

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,0)=\frac{16\pi }{|p|}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_1|p|\frac{3}{2}(\mathrm{}_2|p|)^1}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(4.16)`$
where we have used

$$\frac{K_1(\mathrm{}_2|p|)}{K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)}=1\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_2|p|}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_2^2p^2}\right)$$
$`(4.17)`$
and neglected higher order terms as $`\mathrm{}_2|p|\mathrm{}`$. Since the leading behavior is $`|p|^1`$ and not $`p^2`$, the leading contribution to the Newtonian potential has a $`1/r^2`$ behavior:

$$V(r)=\frac{8}{3\pi }\frac{M}{M_5^3}\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{4}{3}\frac{M}{M_5^3}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_2}\frac{1}{r}+\frac{4}{3\pi }\frac{M}{M_5^3}\frac{\mathrm{}_1^2}{r^4}+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(4.18)`$
In the limit $`r\mathrm{}_2`$, the second term is actually a subleading correction. This example confirms the expectation that when the brane borders a flat $`5d`$ region, it is revealed by a $`1/r^2`$ Newtonian potential.

5. A Scalar Curvature Term in the Brane Action.

We have used so far a minimal action on the brane consisting of only a surface tension and a lagrangian for the fields confined to the brane. Yet from an effective field theory approach to the brane action, higher order terms could be present, suppressed by powers of derivatives, that involve powers of the scalar curvature associated with the induced metric on the brane. We shall focus on the simplest such term, a scalar curvature on the brane, whose presence can produce a $`4d`$ Newton’s Law even in theories in which the brane borders a flat bulk region.

The presence of a scalar curvature term in the brane action, which we write with an arbitrary dimensionless coefficient $`b`$ by extracting a factor of the length scale associated with the brane tension,

$$S_{\mathrm{brane}}=M_5^3_{\mathrm{brane}}d^4x\sqrt{h}\left(\frac{12}{\mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{2}b\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{M_5^3}_{\mathrm{fields}}\right),$$
$`(5.1)`$
introduces a new term in the Israel condition $`[13]`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }K_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}+8\pi \left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }t\right]b\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left[_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{6}h_{\mu \nu }\right].$$
$`(5.2)`$
$`_{ab}`$ and $``$ are the Ricci tensor and curvature scalar for the induced metric $`h_{ab}`$. To leading order in the perturbations, these curvatures are given by $`_{\mu \nu }=\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`=\widehat{R}`$; their components are evaluated in the appendix. The new boundary condition imposed at $`y=0`$ is then

$$f\mathrm{\Delta }\left[_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }\right]\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\frac{f}{f^{}}\right]_\mu _\nu \gamma =16\pi \left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\eta _{\mu \nu }t\right]+\frac{1}{2}b\mathrm{}\left[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}_\mu _\nu \gamma \right].$$
$`(5.3)`$
As before, we can remove the $`\gamma `$ terms by taking the trace of $`(5.3)`$,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\frac{f}{f^{}}\right]+\frac{1}{2}b\mathrm{}\right)\gamma =\frac{32\pi }{3}t,$$
$`(5.4)`$
which yields a condition on the traceless part of the metric perturbation similar to that in $`(2.26)`$ except that an additional term with the $`4`$-Laplacian of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$ appears,

$$f_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }|_{y=0^+}f_y\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }|_{y=0^{}}=\frac{1}{2}b\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }16\pi \left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{_\mu _\nu }{}\right)t\right].$$
$`(5.5)`$
For a universe with two regions of AdS5 separated by a $`3`$-brane at $`y=0`$, the value of the Fourier transform of the trace $`\gamma `$ at the brane is given by

$$\gamma =\frac{32\pi }{3p^2}\frac{2}{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2+b\mathrm{}}t.$$
$`(5.6)`$
The solution to the bulk equation $`(2.23)`$ that satisfies this new boundary condition has the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,y)& =\frac{16\pi }{|p|}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\hfill \\ & \times \frac{e^{2y/\mathrm{}_1}K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|e^{y/\mathrm{}_1})}{K_1(\mathrm{}_1|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)+K_1(\mathrm{}_2|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|)+\frac{1}{2}b\mathrm{}|p|K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.7)`$
for $`y>0`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,y)& =\frac{16\pi }{|p|}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\hfill \\ & \times \frac{e^{2y/\mathrm{}_2}K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|e^{y/\mathrm{}_2})}{K_1(\mathrm{}_1|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)+K_1(\mathrm{}_2|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|)+\frac{1}{2}b\mathrm{}|p|K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|)K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.8)`$
for $`y<0`$.

We first summarize the results that we derive below with a figure showing the appropriate effective theory of gravity seen at different scales for different relative choices for $`\mathrm{}_1`$, $`\mathrm{}_2`$ and $`b\mathrm{}`$. For simplicity, the lengths are assumed to be widely separated in scales in this figure so, for example, in the top plot we assume $`b\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2`$. The results derived in the text are more general and often allow two of these lengths to be of the same order. Unless indicated otherwise, the effective theories listed below are only valid at scales much larger or much smaller than the bounding scale $`\mathrm{}_1`$, $`\mathrm{}_2`$ or $`b\mathrm{}`$.

length$`\mathrm{}_1`$$`\mathrm{}_2`$$`b\mathrm{}`$$`4d`$ gravity + scalar graviton$`5d`$ gravity$`5d`$ gravity$`4d`$ gravity...............................................................................................................................................................
length$`\mathrm{}_1`$$`\mathrm{}_2`$$`b\mathrm{}`$$`4d`$ gravity + scalar graviton$`5d`$ gravity$`4d`$ gravity...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
length$`\mathrm{}_1`$$`\mathrm{}_2`$$`b\mathrm{}`$$`4d`$ gravity.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 1. The effective classical theories of gravity for

different regions of the $`(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2,b\mathrm{})`$ parameter space.

In the limit where both of the AdS lengths are small, $`\mathrm{}_1|p|,\mathrm{}_2|p|1`$, the addition of a brane scalar curvature has the familiar $`[13]`$ effect of rescaling the effective Newton’s constant in the low energy theory. To see this effect, we note that when we substitute the leading behavior for $`(5.7)`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,0)=\frac{16\pi }{p^2}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\frac{2}{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2+b\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{},$$
$`(5.9)`$
into the four dimensional Einstein tensor $`(4.8)`$ and use the trace in $`(5.6)`$, we obtain the correct form for four dimensional gravity,

$$\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}=\frac{16\pi }{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2+b\mathrm{}}t_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(5.10)`$
So for sufficiently large distances (the right side of Figure 1), we always recover a standard theory of gravity.

The existence of a $`4d`$ curvature term in the action, however, allows us to consider new corners of the $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2`$ parameter space which did not yield acceptable effective theories in the last section. If we rewrite the expression for $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane as

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,0)=\frac{16\pi }{|p|}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\left[\frac{1}{2}b\mathrm{}|p|+\frac{K_1(\mathrm{}_1|p|)}{K_2(\mathrm{}_1|p|)}+\frac{K_1(\mathrm{}_2|p|)}{K_2(\mathrm{}_2|p|)}\right]^1$$
$`(5.11)`$
we find that since $`0K_1(z)/K_2(z)<1`$ for $`z0`$, all that is needed to recover a $`1/r`$ Newtonian potential is to have $`b\mathrm{}|p|1`$ so that

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,0)=\frac{16\pi }{p^2}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\frac{2}{b\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(5.12)`$
In this limit, both $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\gamma `$ have a leading $`1/p^2`$ behavior which automatically leads to a $`1/r`$ potential:

$$V(r)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{M}{M_5^3}\frac{2}{b\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{4(\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2)+3b\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2+b\mathrm{}}\right]\frac{1}{r}.$$
$`(5.13)`$
This equation is valid regardless of the scale of $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2`$, compared with either the coefficient of the $`4d`$ curvature $`(b\mathrm{})`$ or $`r`$. Yet when we use $`(5.12)`$ with $`(5.6)`$ to evaluate the Einstein equation, we find that for arbitrary values of $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2`$ that a term involving the trace of the energy-momentum tensor for the brane fields appears:

$$\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}=\frac{16\pi }{b\mathrm{}}t_{\mu \nu }\frac{16\pi }{3}\frac{1}{b\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2}{b\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2}\right]\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{_\mu _\nu }{}\right]t+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(5.14)`$
If $`b\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2`$, then the extra term can be neglected and the leading behavior is that of a standard theory of four dimensional gravity,

$$\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}=\frac{16\pi }{b\mathrm{}}t_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(5.15)`$
in agreement with $`(5.10)`$. Note we have implicitly assumed that any higher order terms in the effective theory of gravity on the brane $`(5.1)`$ can be neglected.

We can also study what happens when one or both of the AdS lengths becomes infinite, while keeping $`b\mathrm{}|p|1`$. These limits correspond respectively to universes in which the brane is between a flat and an AdS region or is simply embedded in a flat bulk space-time. In either case, the effective theory is

$$\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}=\frac{16\pi }{b\mathrm{}}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{_\mu _\nu }{}\right)t\right]+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(5.16)`$
The case of a brane embedded in a flat bulk was also investigated in $`[10]`$ where the effective theory on the brane was shown to contain a scalar graviton. From $`(5.16)`$ it would appear that a scalar graviton is a generic feature of branes embedded in (partially) flat space-times.

Thus far we have mapped the behavior of gravity when either $`\mathrm{}_1|p|,\mathrm{}_2|p|1`$ or when $`b\mathrm{}|p|1`$ which covers most of figure 1. What remains is the limit where $`b\mathrm{}|p|1`$. When $`\mathrm{}_2|p|1\mathrm{}_1|p|`$, then dominant contribution from $`(5.11)`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,0)=\frac{16\pi }{|p|}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}(b\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}_1)|p|}+\mathrm{}$$
$`(5.17)`$
while for $`\mathrm{}_2|p|,\mathrm{}_1|p|1`$ we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }(p,0)=\frac{16\pi }{|p|}\left[t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right]t\right]\frac{1}{2+\frac{1}{2}b\mathrm{}|p|}+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(5.18)`$
In either case, we know from our experience in the previous section, $`(4.16)`$, that such a form for $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }`$ leads to a $`1/r^2`$, or five dimensional, Newtonian potential.

6. Conclusions.

We have mapped out the behavior of the theory for different relative scales of the AdS lengths in the bulk, $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2`$, and the coefficient of the brane curvature, $`b\mathrm{}`$, compared to experimentally testable lengths, represented by $`1/|p|`$. When both the AdS lengths are both smaller than a millimeter, then regardless of the size of $`b\mathrm{}`$, the effective theory is standard $`4d`$ gravity.

With the scalar curvature term on the brane a new regime exists, $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2b\mathrm{}`$, in which a realistic classical theory of gravity also emerges. Interestingly we do not need to impose any further constraints—provided $`b\mathrm{}`$ is sufficiently large, $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2`$ do not need to be below the millimeter limit. At distances of the order of $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2`$ or less, the brane curvature term dominates while at large distances, both the brane curvature and the effective bulk theory contribute to a standard $`4d`$ theory of gravity. The largest phenomenologically acceptable AdS5 lengths depend in turn upon the largest plausible value for $`b\mathrm{}`$. In terms of $`M_4`$, the effective $`4d`$ Planck mass, we can estimate $`b\mathrm{}`$ using $`(5.15)`$:

$$b\mathrm{}=\frac{2M_4^2}{M_5^3}.$$
$`(6.1)`$
For example, when $`M_5=1\mathrm{TeV}`$, then $`b\mathrm{}`$ is about 400 AU. Thus the theory can accommodate AdS lengths much larger than the current millimeter bound and still lie safely in the $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2b\mathrm{}`$ regime.

In this regime, if $`b`$ is not unnaturally large, then a clear experimental signature for this universe would be the appearance of a weak correction to the Einstein equation that depends on the trace of the energy-momentum tensor $`(5.14)`$. In terms of the parameterized post-Newtonian formalism $`[12]`$, this extra term in the effective field equations leads to a perturbation in the parameter $`\gamma `$ which measures how the curvature of space depends on the presence of a rest mass. To leading order,

$$\gamma 1=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2}{b\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{}.$$
$`(6.2)`$
The current value of $`|\gamma 1|`$ based on VLBI observations is less than $`3\times 10^4`$ . Thus for a symmetric universe in which $`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2=\mathrm{}`$, this limit constrains $`b4000`$. Alternatively if $`M_51`$ TeV, then from $`(6.1)`$ the model can accommodate AdS lengths as large as $`10^{10}`$ m.

We have here extended the approach of using a gauge in which the position of the brane remains fixed $`[4]`$ to allow an unambiguous statement of the boundary conditions in a setting more general than the standard orbifold universes. A correct understanding of these boundary conditions is crucial for determining the form of the effective theory of gravity on the brane. Our results can be readily generalized. For example, the brane itself might be given some non-trivial global curvature as in  and $`[13]`$ where the AdS bulk metric is replaced with an AdS-Schwarzschild metric. It is also straightforward to include more general actions on the brane; their existence would simply add extra terms to the right side of the Israel equation, $`(2.10)`$.

Appendix A. Conventions and Components.

The conventions that we have used throughout use a metric with signature $`(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$ and a Riemann curvature tensor defined by

$$R_{bcd}^a_d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a_c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bd}^a+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ed}^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^e\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ec}^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bd}^e.$$
$`(\text{A.}1)`$
$`_{bcd}^a`$ and $`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\rho `$, the curvature tensors corresponding respectively to the induced metric $`h_{ab}`$ or its transverse components $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, use the same sign convention.

In extracting the terms in the Einstein equation and the Israel condition, which are linear in the perturbation about the background metric, we have used the following expressions for the Christoffel symbols for the induced metric,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \nu }^\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\left[_\mu \gamma _\nu ^\lambda +_\nu \gamma _\nu ^\lambda ^\lambda \gamma _{\mu \nu }\right].$$
$`(\text{A.}2)`$
while for the bulk metric we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda & =\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \nu }^\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\frac{f^{}}{f}n^\lambda \eta _{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^y& =\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n^2}f^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\left[f^{}\gamma _{\mu \nu }+f_y\gamma _{\mu \nu }\right]+\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu n_\nu +_\nu n_\mu \right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu y}^\lambda & =\frac{1}{2}\frac{f^{}}{f}\eta _\mu ^\lambda +\frac{1}{2}_y\gamma _\mu ^\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{f}\left(_\mu n^\lambda ^\lambda n_\mu \right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu y}^y& =\frac{1}{2}\frac{f^{}}{f}n_\mu +\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi \hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{yy}^\lambda & =\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{f}\left[2_yn^\lambda ^\lambda \varphi \right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{yy}^y& =\frac{1}{2}_y\varphi .\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(\text{A.}3)`$
The linear contributions to the transverse components of the Ricci tensor for the bulk and the induced metrics are respectively

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R_{\mu \nu }& =\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\left[f^{\prime \prime }+\frac{f^2}{f}\right]\left[\frac{1}{n^2}\eta _{\mu \nu }+\gamma _{\mu \nu }\right]+\frac{1}{2}_\mu _\nu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}f_y^2\gamma _{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}f^{}\left[2_y\gamma _{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }_y\gamma \frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }_y\varphi \right]\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{2}\frac{f^{}}{f}\left[_\mu n_\nu +_\nu n_\mu +\eta _{\mu \nu }^\lambda n_\lambda \right]\frac{1}{2}_y\left(_\mu n_\nu +_\nu n_\mu \right)\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }& =\frac{1}{2}\left[_\mu _\nu \gamma +^\lambda _\lambda \gamma _{\mu \nu }_\mu ^\lambda \gamma _{\lambda \nu }_\nu ^\lambda \gamma _{\mu \lambda }\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(\text{A.}4)`$
Finally, the linear terms in the extrinsic curvature are

$$K_\nu ^\mu =\frac{1}{2n}\left[\frac{f^{}}{f}\eta _\nu ^\mu +_y\gamma _\nu ^\mu \frac{1}{f}\left(^\mu n_\nu +_\nu n^\mu \right)\right]$$
$`(\text{A.}5)`$
where $`f(y)`$ is the appropriate warp factor for either bulk region.

References

relax L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “An alternative to compactification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999) \[hep-th/9906064\]. relax J. Garriga and T. Tanaka, “Gravity in the brane-world,” hep-th/9911055. relax S. B. Giddings, E. Katz and L. Randall, “Linearized gravity in brane backgrounds,” JHEP 0003, 023 (2000) \[hep-th/0002091\]. relax I. Y. Aref’eva, M. G. Ivanov, W. Muck, K. S. Viswanathan and I. V. Volovich, “Consistent linearized gravity in brane backgrounds,” hep-th/0004114. relax M. G. Ivanov and I. V. Volovich, “Metric fluctuations in brane worlds,” hep-th/9912242 and W. Muck, K. S. Viswanathan and I. V. Volovich, “Geodesics and Newton’s law in brane backgrounds,” hep-th/0002132. relax W. Israel, “Singular Hypersurfaces And Thin Shells In General Relativity,” Nuovo Cim. B44S10, 1 (1966). relax D. M. Capper, “On Quantum Corrections To The Graviton Propagator,” Nuovo Cim. A25, 29 (1975). relax S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1567 (1980); S. L. Adler, Phys. Lett. B95, 241 (1980); S. L. Adler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 729 (1982); Erratum-ibid. 55, 837 (1983). relax A. Zee, “Calculating Newton’s Gravitational Constant In Infrared Stable Yang-Mills Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 295 (1982). relax G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, “4D gravity on a brane in 5D Minkowski space,” hep-th/0005016. relax See for example R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D60, 104001 (1999) \[hep-th/9903238\] and V. Balasubramanian and P. Kraus, Commun. Math. Phys. 208, 413 (1999) \[hep-th/9902121\]. relax C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation, (W. H. Freeman: San Francisco) 1973. relax H. Collins and B. Holdom, “Brane cosmologies without orbifolds,” hep-ph/0003173. relax C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (1993) and C. M. Will, “The confrontation between general relativity and experiment: A 1998 update,” gr-qc/9811036. relax P. Kraus, “Dynamics of anti-de Sitter domain walls,” JHEP 9912, 011 (1999) \[hep-th/9910149\].


text:
# Issues, Concepts, and Challenges in Spintronics

### ABSTRACT:

We review from a theoretical perspective the emerging field of spintronics where active control of spin transport and dynamics in electronic materials may provide novel device application possibilities. In particular, we discuss the quantum mechanical principles underlying spintronics applications, emphasizing the formidable challenges involving spin decoherence and spin injection facing any eventual device fabrication. We provide a critical assessment of the current status of the field with special attention to possible device applications.

### INTRODUCTION

Spintronics (sometimes also referred to as ’magneto-electronics’ although we prefer the ’spintronics’ terminology because a magnetic field or the presence of a magnetic material is not necessarily essential for manipulating spins) is the emerging field  of active control of carrier spin dynamics and transport in electronic materials (particularly, but not necessarily limited to, semiconductors). In some sense, existing technologies such as GMR-based memory devices and spin valves are elementary spintronic applications where the role of spin, however, is passive in dictating the size of the resistance (or tunneling current) depending on the spin direction controlled by local magnetic fields. Spintronics is projected to go beyond passive spin devices, and introduce applications (and possibly whole new technologies) based on the active control of spin dynamics. Such active control of spin dynamics is envisioned to lead to novel quantum-mechanical enabling technologies such as spin transistors, spin filters and modulators, new memory devices, and perhaps eventually quantum information processing and quantum computation. The possibility of monolithic integration on a single device of magnetic, optical, and electronic applications, where magnetic field and polarized light control spin dynamics, is an exciting new spintronic prospect for creating novel magneto-electro-optical technology. The two important physical principles underlying the current interest in spintronics are the inherent quantum mechanical nature of spin as a dynamical variable (leading to the possibility of novel spintronic quantum devices not feasible within the present-day charge-based electronics) and the inherently long relaxation or coherence time associated with spin states (compared with the ordinary momentum states). The fact that carrier spin in semiconductors can be easily manipulated noninvasively by using local magnetic fields, by applying external electric fields through controlled gates, and even by shining polarized light is an important impetus for developing spintronics applications.

In spite of the great current interest in the basic principles and concepts of spintronics a large number of obstacles need to be overcome before one can manufacture spintronics applications. For example, a basic spintronics transport requirement is to produce and sustain large spin-polarized currents in electronic materials (semiconductors) for long times. This has not yet been accomplished. In fact, it has turned out to be problematic to introduce spin-polarized carriers in any significant amount into semiconductor materials. Similarly, for quantum computation one requires significant and precisely controllable spin entanglement as well as single spin (i. e., a single Bohr magneton) manipulation using local magnetic fields. Currently there is no good idea about how to accomplish this. It is clear that a great deal of basic fundamental physics research will be needed before spintronics applications become a reality.

In this paper we highlight and summarize a few examples of spintronics research with the emphasis on understanding principles and operations with future device potential. We concentrate on the elementary aspects of spintronics which must be understood and developed before any possible applications can be discussed. These aspects are creating, maintaining, manipulating, and measuring spin currents in semiconductors (and related electronic materials), spin entanglement in semiconductor quantum dots in the context of quantum computation, and spin relaxation. The examples are drawn from our own theoretical research on spintronics, and we refer the reader to our existing publications for the details.

### SPIN RELAXATION AND DECOHERENCE

The great promise of spintronic technology is based upon the fundamental ability of electron spins in electronic materials to preserve coherence for relatively long times. A typical electron “remembers” its initial spin orientation for a nanosecond. This time scale is indeed long when compared with the typical times–femtoseconds–for electron momentum relaxation. Perhaps a more revealing quantity than spin lifetime (which is usually called spin relaxation time $`T_1`$ or spin decoherence time $`T_2`$, depending on the context of the experiment) is the spin diffusion length $`L_S`$ which measures how far electrons diffuse in a solid without losing spin coherence. The important fact that $`L_S`$ is typically a micrometer makes spintronics a viable option for future micro- and nanoelectronics; any information encoded in electron spins will spread undisturbed throughout the device. Clearly, the longer the spin lifetime, the better and more reliable will be the spintronic devices. The study of spin relaxation is thus of great importance for spin-based technology (we reviewed the current understanding of spin relaxation processes in electronic systems in Ref. ).

Initial measurements of spin lifetimes were conducted in metals like Na or Li by conduction electron spin resonance (CESR) technique . The most important outcome of these experiments concerned the magnitude of $`T_1`$ (nanoseconds) and its temperature behavior: $`T_1`$ is constant at low temperatures (below, say, 50 K) and is increasing linearly with increasing temperature at elevated temperatures (above, say, 200 K). These two observations helped to shape the theoretical understanding of the processes behind spin relaxation in metals. It is now generally accepted that electron spins in (nonmagnetic) metals decay by scattering off impurities (at low temperatures where $`T_1`$ is constant) and phonons (at higher temperatures where $`T_1`$ grows linearly with increasing temperature). The spin-flip probability of such processes is finite because of the finite spin-orbit interaction induced by either host ions or impurities (this is the so called Elliott-Yafet mechanism of spin relaxation ). We have recently performed the first realistic calculation of $`T_1`$ in a metal (aluminum) . Our calculation not only provides the first direct proof of the validity of the Elliott-Yafet mechanism, but also shows that by engineering the band structure of metals (or semiconductors) it is possible to tailor spin relaxation (e.g., $`T_1`$ can be changed by orders of magnitude by doping, straining, alloying, or changing dimensionality).

An important development came with the discovery of spin injection by Johnson and Silsbee . In the original experiment spin-polarized electrons were injected from a ferromagnetic electrode (permalloy) into a nonmagnetic metal (aluminum), and the spin diffusion length was monitored. This method of measuring $`L_S`$ (and thus spin lifetime) has a great potential since, unlike CESR, spin injection does not need an applied magnetic field which, in some cases, radically affects spin relaxation processes. In addition to providing a useful method for measuring spin relaxation, the Johnson-Silsbee spin injection experiment brought about a whole new field of electronics: spintronics. Indeed, spin injection is the most natural way to integrate spin dynamics with electronic transport in electronic devices. There is no need for magnetic field or radiation to excite spin-polarized electrons. One only needs ferromagnetic electrodes. The last truly fundamental obstacle in the progress towards integrating the new spintronic with the traditional semiconductor technology has been recently overcome with the discovery of spin injection into a semiconductor .

In addition to be able to create the population of spin-polarized carriers, we also need a way to monitor and control the dynamics of spin processes in electronic materials. This quest has been pioneered by Kikkawa and Awschalom . In a typical experiment spin-polarized electrons in a semiconductor like GaAs are excited by a circularly-polarized light and then the electrons’ spin evolution is monitored at small (picosecond) time intervals. Several new exciting results came from such experiments on semiconductors : a dramatic (two orders of magnitude) increase of electron spin lifetime with increased doping, unusually large (hundreds of micrometers) spin diffusion length, and the ability to optically control nuclear spin polarization (with electron spins acting as intermediaries between light and nuclear spins).

### SPIN-POLARIZED TRANSPORT

The goal of employing both spin and charge transport (spin-polarized transport) in potential novel device applications imposes intrinsic limitations on their design: they should consist of either heterostructures or inhomogeneous materials. While similar design constraints have been extensively investigated and well understood in the case of pure charge transport in conventional electronics, it is not clear how the spin degrees of freedom will behave in transport across interfaces in a heterostructure or through an inhomogeneous material. For example, by placing a semiconductor in contact with a nonmagnetic metal a Schottky barrier is formed whose properties will govern charge transport across the semiconductor/metal junction. Currently there is no physical understanding for the corresponding spin-dependent Schottky barrier relevant for spin-polarized transport across interfaces. This is an important issue as some of the proposed spintronic devices  rely on the direct electrical spin injection from a ferromagnet into a semiconductor . The situation is further complicated by the possibility of spin-flip scattering at magnetically active interfaces. These considerations have to be included in assessing the feasibility of various spintronic devices because they imply that the degree of carrier spin-polarization can be strongly modified during transport across semiconductor/ferromagnet interfaces.

Fabricating hybrid structures which would combine a semiconductor and a superconductor would allow investigating some of the aforementioned features and determining the degree of an extrinsically induced carrier spin polarization in the semiconductor. This could be realized by using Andreev reflection which governs transport properties at low applied bias. In this two-particle process an electron incident to the interface at the semiconductor side is accompanied by a second electron of the opposite spin. Both electrons are then transfered into the superconductor where they form a Cooper pair. The probability (measured by, e.g., conductance) of such processes strongly depends on the amount of spin polarization and the spin transparency of the interface .

Material inhomogeneities can also act favorably and be tailored to give desired effect for spin-polarized transport. We illustrate this in our proposal of the spin-polarized p-n junction . Its simple realization would consist of shining circularly-polarized light on the p-doped side of a usual p-n junction. This would create a spin-polarized population of electron-hole pairs. By considering a p-n junction shorter than the spin-diffusion length, combined with a sharp doping profile, it is feasible to create enhanced magnetization in the interior of the semiconductor with the spatial dependence following that of the carrier concentration. Such a p-n junction could be used as a building block for a novel spin transistor applications which would utilize both spin and charge degrees of freedom .

## SPIN-BASED QUANTUM COMPUTATION

Among all possible spintronic devices, by far the most revolutionary is the proposed spin-based quantum computer (QC) which has the promise to vastly outperform classical computers in certain tasks such as factoring large numbers and searching large databases . In QCs electron or nuclear spins are used as the basic building blocks. The spin-up and -down states of an electron or a nucleus provide the quantum bit (qubit), in analogy with “0” and “1” in a classical computer. However, as a quantum mechanical object, a spin can have not only up and down states, but also arbitrary superpositions of these two states. This inherent parallelism and other quantum mechanical properties such as entanglement and unitary evolution are the fundamental differences between QCs and classical computers.

In the search for appropriate hardwares for a QC, many proposals have been put forward . Here we focus on the spin-based solid-state models . One of the first proposals  suggests using quantum-dot-trapped electron spins as qubits. Here a single electron is trapped in a gated horizontal GaAs quantum dot, with pulsed local magnetic field and inter-dot gate voltage governing the single-qubit and two-qubit operation. Another proposal replaces the quantum dot electrons by donor electrons . Here varying the gyromagnetic ratio in a compositionally modulated SiGe alloy allows electron spin resonance for single qubit operations and exchange interaction for two-qubit operations. One important advantage of electron spins is their “maneuverability”: electrons are mobile and can be manipulated by both electric and magnetic fields.

Aside from electron-spin-based QC models, there are also nuclear-spin-based proposals, such as the one using nuclear spins of phosphorus donor atoms in Si as qubits . Here external gates are used to tune the nuclear magnetic resonance frequency, and donor electrons are the intermediaries between neighboring nuclear spins, introducing two-qubit operations through electron exchange interaction and hyperfine interaction. The main advantage of nuclear spin qubits is their exceedingly long coherence time, which allows many coherent operations. Indeed, bulk solution NMR is one of the most advanced QC architectures , even though its ensemble-average character prompts some researchers to question  whether it really possesses all the quantum mechanical powers needed for tasks such as factoring.

The major difficulties facing various QC models are achieving precise control over unitary evolutions and maintaining quantum mechanical coherence. While traditional electronic devices deal with large numbers of electrons at a time, while in spin-based QCs one has to be able to precisely control spins of individual electrons. Furthermore, the electron spins need to be essentially isolated from their environment so that their dynamics is governed by quantum mechanics. If this isolation is imperfect, the spins’ quantum information will leak into their environment, and the dynamics of the spins will become irreversible and classical, so that the QC operation will be disrupted.

Spin decoherence has many different channels such as spin interaction with boundaries, impurities, host nuclei, even with external controls. For example, one common approach to tune the exchange interaction between electrons or electrons and nuclei is to use electrical gates which are connected through a transmission line to the outside. External noise such as Johnson-Nyquist noise can thus cause fluctuations in the gate voltage, which in turn cause errors in the exchange. The rate of this error can be as large as a few MHz , which corresponds to the limits of the currently available error correction schemes. Another error during exchange is caused by inhomogeneous magnetic fields . In essence, the different Zeeman couplings of two neighboring electrons cause mixing of the two-electron singlet and triplet states, therefore preventing the electron spin states from complete disentanglement for swap. This error is proportional to the square of the inhomogeneity , and can usually be corrected. Indeed, there is an existing scheme which can circumvent this error . Furthermore, it has been proposed  that one can utilize certain decoherence-free subspace of four quantum dots as qubits, relying completely on exchange for all operations and eliminating the use of any external magnetic field. Such a scheme is more difficult to realize experimentally, but it does provide the advantage of smaller decoherence because of fewer noise channels.

### ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

This work was supported by the US ONR, DARPA, and LPS.