text:
# Magnetic Collimation in PNe

## 1 INTRODUCTION

For over 30 years now, a purely hydrodynamic theory of planetary nebulae (PNe) shaping, known as the “interacting stellar winds” (ISW) model has been studied in considerable detail. The basic idea behind the ISW model is a fast, tenuous wind which overtakes a slow, dense wind from an earlier red giant or supergiant evolutionary phase. Applications of this interacting stellar winds model to elliptical or bipolar PNe relies upon a generalization (GISW) which postulates the existence of an equatorial density enhancement in the slow wind (Kahn & West, 1985; Balick, 1987; Icke, 1988). This density enhancement could be attributed to a binary system at the origin of the out-flowing winds (Soker, 1995; Rasio & Livio, 1994). This is especially true if the binary system suffers common envelope evolution. For isolated star systems other possible explanations for the equatorial density enhancement exist. One physical phenomenon possible of producing slow winds with aspherical densities is described by the “Wind Compressed Disk” model of Bjorkman & Cassinelli (1993) in which streamlines from a sufficiently rapidly rotating star converge on the equatorial plane. Another possible mechanism for producing enhanced equatorial density distributions via an initially dipolar field is described in the recent paper by Matt et al. (2000).

As successful as this GISW model has been for describing PNe, there exist some prominent features which appear in new, high resolution images that can not embraced with the purely hydrodynamic model. These features include the presence of point-symmetric knots or ansae and jets as well as complex multi-lobed outflow structures (Balick, 2000; Manchado et al., 2000; Sahai, 2000). While the GISW model can produce narrow jets (Icke et al., 1992; Frank & Mellema, 1996; Mellema & Frank, 1997) a large scale gaseous torus may be required. Thus the new features seen in observations make alternative models appear more attractive, especially for those nebulae with collimated point symmetric structures. One of the most attractive alternative models which has been proposed is based upon another generalization of the interacting stellar winds scenario as originally described by Chevalier & Luo (1994). In this process, which we will refer to as the “Magnetized Wind Blown Bubble” (MWBB) model, the fast wind carries a weak magnetic field which is strengthened after passing through the wind shock. The nebula is thereby shaped by the latitudinal variation in the total pressure in the hot bubble. This model has been studied numerically by Różycka & Franco (1996) and has been subsequently generalized (García-Segura, 1997; García-Segura et al., 1999) by including a latitudinal variation in the density and velocity of the slow and fast wind based upon the “Wind Compressed Disk” model of Bjorkman & Cassinelli (1993).

In this paper we critically examine assumptions built into the MWBB model. We have studied the model both analytically and numerically and we show that there is a restricted regime for which the assumptions built into the MWBB model can hold. This regime is what must be called the very weak field limit and we show that to date numerical simulations which show collimation are outside of this limit. In $`\mathrm{\S }2`$ we give a brief description of the MWBB model for the sake of completeness and clarity. In $`\mathrm{\S }3`$ we describe some of the previous numerical studies of the MWBB model and the results. In $`\mathrm{\S }4`$ we study the fast wind region appropriate for the MWBB model and show that outside of the very weak field regime the fast wind will be magnetically collimated. The conclusions of this section are applicable to the MWBB model as well as its generalization (García-Segura, 1997; García-Segura et al., 1999). In $`\mathrm{\S }5`$ we discuss the relationship between MHD wind acceleration, collimation as well as its relevance to the jets observed in proto-planetary nebulae (PPNe). We summarize the results of this paper in $`\mathrm{\S }6`$.

## 2 THE MWBB MODEL

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of key ingredients in the MWBB model as originally presented by Chevalier & Luo (1994). The model is based upon the interacting winds picture for planetary nebulae (for a review see Frank (1999)). It is assumed that the flow can be described by four regions separated by three surfaces: the wind shock, the contact discontinuity, and the ambient shock in order of increasing radius.

Similar to the Parker (1958) solar wind solution, the MWBB model posits that the unshocked, fast wind can be described as a spherically expanding flow with foot-points tied to a rotating stellar surface. Applying flux conservation to this quasi-hydrodynamic model results in a poloidal magnetic field $`B_p`$ which scales as $`1/r^2`$ and a toroidal magnetic field $`B_\varphi `$ which for $`rR_{}`$ scales as $`1/r`$, where $`R_{}`$ is the stellar radius. For a radial wind with constant velocity $`v_w`$ the density scales as $`1/r^2`$; hence, the ratio $`\sigma =B_\varphi ^2/(4\pi \rho v_w^2)`$ is constant in the freely expanding wind. This ratio, $`\sigma `$, is the main parameter for the flow.

Next consider the region between the wind shock and the contact discontinuity, the so-called hot bubble. It is argued that the shock front in the stellar wind should occur at $`10^{17}`$ cm. Using the scaling of the magnetic field with radius and reasonable values for the stellar rotation rate and fast wind velocity Chevalier & Luo (1994) argue that at radii of interest $`B_\varphi /B_p10^2`$. Hence they neglect the dynamical influence of the poloidal component of the magnetic field in the hot bubble. It is further assumed that the total differential $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{v}/\mathrm{d}t`$ can be neglected. Hence, the flow in the hot bubble is steady, i.e. locally independent of time, with streamlines given by straight lines in the poloidal plane. The benefit of this assumption is that the calculation of the gas pressure and toroidal field is decoupled from the velocity and the solution is readily obtained.

The region between the contact discontinuity and the ambient shock is argued to be strongly radiating. Thus it can be described in the “thin shell approximation”. The slow wind was taken to be spherically symmetric since Chevalier & Luo (1994) wanted solely to study the effect of the anisotropic (magnetic) pressure in the hot bubble in shaping the nebula.

Using a formulation by Giuliani (1982), Chevalier & Luo (1994) derived and analyzed a set of coupled time dependent equations for the system. By assuming self-similarity they were able to remove the time dependence from the equations. The resulting set of equations still requires numerical integration, though a limiting case for small parameters is analyzed analytically. The result of this limiting case suggests that deviations from spherical symmetry for the termination shock can be expected for $`\sigma 0.006`$. This is further supported by the results of their numerical calculations. To put numbers to this, consider the situation for the PPN phase with $`\sigma =0.006`$, $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}=10^7\mathrm{M}_{}/yr`$, and $`v_w=300km/s`$ at a radius of $`r=10^{17}cm`$. This gives a toroidal magnetic field strength of $`B_\varphi 10\mu G`$. (Note that in this example we have used slower wind speeds which are appropriate to the PPN phase.)

## 3 NUMERICAL STUDIES

The first numerical simulations of the MWBB model were carried out by Różycka & Franco (1996). Following Chevalier & Luo (1994) they neglected the poloidal component of the magnetic field and included only a toroidal magnetic field in the fast wind. Their simulations were cylindrically symmetric, on a grid with $`300\times 500`$ cells and a resolution of about $`10^3`$ pc in each direction. In their study they found that the resulting flow was fairly insensitive to the angular variation in the toroidal magnetic field strength. They also found that for $`\sigma <0.05`$ the flows evolve in a homologous manner as one would expect for a purely hydrodynamic ISW model. Only for $`\sigma >0.05`$ did the simulations develop a strong pole-ward flow in the hot bubble. The authors ascribe this phenomena to the magnetic tension associated with the shock strengthened toroidal magnetic field. The numerical and analytic studies of the MWBB model disagree on the minimum value of $`\sigma `$ necessary for magnetic shaping of the hot bubble. Różycka & Franco (1996) suggest that for $`\sigma <0.05`$, the length scale may simply be much larger than the simulation domain. Other studies of the MWBB model (García-Segura, 1997; García-Segura et al., 1999) included the presence of a gaseous torus as in the GISW model. In these studies a limiting value of $`\sigma >.01`$ was found for effective magnetic collimation.

We note that in the MWBB model the freely expanding wind has an unbalanced Lorentz force associated with the helical magnetic field. This force has a component perpendicular to the wind velocity. Hence, on physical grounds, it is reasonable to expect that on some length scale and for some range of field strengths, or $`\sigma `$, the fast wind will collimate on its own. The fast wind may experience significant collimation before it interacts with the wind shock. The range of initial parameters over which this occurs sets the limits on which the fast wind collimation can be reasonably neglected. It is to this question which we next direct our attention.

## 4 FAST WIND COLLIMATION

A basic premise of the magnetized interacting stellar wind model of Chevalier & Luo is that the fast wind velocity will remain spherically symmetric and that the $`B_\varphi `$ will scale as $`1/r`$ for large $`r`$. This assumption can also be seen in the numerical simulations by noting that the radius of the “wind-sphere” on which the fast wind boundary conditions are set is $`10^{16}10^{17}`$ cm. The Lorentz force, however, is unbalanced, with components in a direction orthogonal to the velocity vector. While weak fields can not appreciably change the magnitude of the momentum, they can deflect the flow over large length scales. The question which remains to be answered is, “will the fast wind collimate on length scales of interest and how does this collimation depend upon the parameter $`\sigma `$?”

We approach this problem from a perturbation analysis in spherical polar coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ with the stellar rotation axis aligned with the radial direction for $`\theta =0`$. We will present two calculations of the deflection, both of which assume purely radial flow for the zeroth order solution. The first calculation is presented as a simple, concrete example and is based upon the Parker wind as described by Brandt (1970). This wind model treats the wind as purely hydrodynamic and neglects the dynamical influence of magnetic fields and rotational motion. The second calculation addresses concerns about the appropriateness of the analysis for small $`r`$ and moderate to large field strengths and is based upon the (Weber & Davis, 1967) model as described by (Barnes, 1974). As we will see, both calculations are in good agreement.

### 4.1 THE PARKER WIND

The Parker stellar wind model is characterized by the following set of assumptions. The gas pressure, density and wind velocity are spherically symmetric ($`v_\theta =v_\varphi =0`$). The magnetic field is given by

$`B_r`$ $`=`$ $`B_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{}}{r}}\right)^2`$
$`B_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`B_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`B_r\left({\displaystyle \frac{r\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}{v_r}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{R_{}}{r}}\right)`$
where $`R_{}`$ is the stellar radius (the base of the stellar corona), $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the angular velocity, and $`B_{}`$ the poloidal component of the magnetic field at the stellar surface. For simplicity we take $`B_{}`$ to be a split monopole field and assume solid body rotation.

To analyze the collimation we need to solve Newton’s equation for the motion in the $`\theta `$-direction. For $`v_rv_\theta `$, Newton’s equation of motion in the $`\theta `$-direction is approximated by

$$\frac{\rho v_r}{r}\frac{}{r}(rv_\theta )=\widehat{e}_\theta \frac{1}{c}(𝐉\times 𝐁)=F_\theta ^L.$$

For $`\theta \pi /2`$ the Lorentz force in the $`\theta `$-direction is given by

$$F_\theta ^L=\frac{B_\varphi ^2\mathrm{cot}\theta }{2\pi r}.$$

Since we seek a closed form solution for the wind collimation, rather than study any particular model for the wind acceleration we note that for $`rR_{}`$

$$|B_\varphi |B_r\left(\frac{r\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}{V_{\mathrm{}}}\right)\left(1\frac{R_{}}{r}\right)$$

where $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the asymptotic value of the radial velocity and we take $`B_r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as positive. Using this expression for the toroidal magnetic field strength we will obtain a lower bound on the deflection. The equation of motion in the $`\theta `$-direction thus becomes

$$\frac{}{r}(rv_\theta )=2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \left(\frac{r^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2B_r^2}{4\pi \rho v_rV_{\mathrm{}}^2}\right)\left(1\frac{R_{}}{r}\right)^2.$$

Next we note that the Michel velocity $`V_m`$ (Michel, 1969; Belcher & MacGregor, 1976) given by

$$V_m^3=\frac{r^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2B_r^2}{4\pi \rho v_r}$$

is a constant for steady, radial flow. Furthermore we note that following the definition of the parameter $`\sigma `$ we have $`\sigma =(V_m/V_{\mathrm{}})^3`$. Collecting terms we can write

$$\frac{}{r}(rv_\theta )=(2\sigma V_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\left(1\frac{R_{}}{r}\right)^2.$$

The integration of this equation is straight forward. Applying the boundary condition that $`v_\theta =0`$ at $`r=R_{}`$ we obtain

$$v_\theta =2\sigma V_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \left(1x^2+2x\mathrm{ln}(x)\right)$$

where $`x=R_{}/r`$. Now to study the deflection or collimation of the fast wind we need to calculate the streamlines of the flow. That is, we wish to integrate the equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta }{\mathrm{d}r}=\frac{v_\theta }{rv_r}$$

Once again we content ourselves with a lower bound for the deflection and substitute $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`v_r`$ in this expression. This equation can then be integrated, resulting in a relation which describes the path taken by a particle as it moves from the point $`(R_{},\theta _{})`$ on the stellar surface to the point $`(r,\theta )`$ some distance away. The solution is

$$\frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta }{\mathrm{tan}\theta _{}}=x^{2\sigma +4\sigma x}\mathrm{exp}\{\sigma (54xx^2)\}$$

where again $`x=R_{}/r`$. For $`rR_{}`$ this equation is well approximated as

$$\frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta }{\mathrm{tan}\theta _{}}\text{e}^{5\sigma }\left(\frac{R_{}}{r}\right)^{2\sigma }.$$

This calculation shows that the fast wind will collimate for sufficiently high values of $`\sigma `$ and long propagation lengths. In Figure 1 we plot the angle $`\theta `$ (in degrees) to which the gas is deflected as a function of $`\sigma `$ for $`\theta _{}=45^{}`$ and $`(r/R_{})=10^3,10^5`$. For example, for $`R_{}=10^{12}`$ cm Figure 1 shows that by the time gas parcels which originate at $`\theta _{}=45^{}`$ reach a radius $`r=10^{17}`$ cm they will be deflected to $`\theta 35^{}`$, $`22^{}`$ for $`\sigma =0.02`$, $`0.05`$ respectively.

We note that the Parker wind model is essentially a hydrodynamic wind model with the magnetic field assumed weak enough to have no dynamical influence. Thus one might worry that the preceding argument is only applicable for $`\sigma 1`$. Furthermore, it is well known that for radii less than or equal to the Alfvén radius, $`R_A`$, the magnetic field enforces near co-rotation of the plasma with the star. Thus there exits the concern that by assuming $`v_\varphi =0`$ we have overestimated the strength of the toroidal magnetic field at small radii and, thereby, overestimated the degree of collimation. In what follows we demonstrate that collimation also occurs when the perturbation calculation includes the plasma rotation (Weber & Davis, 1967; Barnes, 1974).

### 4.2 THE WEBER-DAVIS WIND

In this next calculation we will make use of the Weber & Davis (1967) formalism. As described by (Barnes, 1974) we assume that $`v_\theta =0`$ so that the results can be extended away from the equator. As in the previous calculation we will assume a split monopole field geometry, solid body rotation and spherically symmetric gas pressure and density for simplicity. Furthermore, we will assume that interior to the Alfvén radius that $`v_\theta =0`$ remains a good approximation. We will not assume that the rotational velocity, $`v_\varphi `$, is zero, but instead include it self consistently with the toroidal magnetic field, $`B_\varphi `$.

To analyze the collimation we solve Newton’s equation for the motion in the $`\theta `$-direction. For $`v_rv_\theta `$, Newton’s equation of motion in the $`\theta `$-direction is approximated by

$$\frac{\rho v_r}{r}\frac{}{r}(rv_\theta )\frac{\rho v_\varphi ^2\mathrm{cot}\theta }{r}=\widehat{e}_\theta \frac{1}{c}(𝐉\times 𝐁)=F_\theta ^L.$$

For $`\theta \pi /2`$ the Lorentz force in the $`\theta `$-direction is given by

$$F_\theta ^L=\frac{B_\varphi ^2\mathrm{cot}\theta }{2\pi r}.$$

The equation of motion in the $`\theta `$-direction can thus be rewritten as

$$\frac{}{r}(rv_\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{cot}\theta }{v_r}\left(\frac{B_\varphi ^2}{2\pi \rho }v_\varphi ^2\right).$$

Integrating the azimuthal component of the induction equation gives

$$B_\varphi v_rB_r(v_\varphi r\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta )=0$$

where again $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity at the base of the stellar corona. Integrating the azimuthal component of Newton’s equation of motion gives

$$v_\varphi \frac{B_rB_\varphi }{4\pi \rho v_r}=\frac{L(\theta )}{r}$$

where $`L`$ is the specific angular momentum. At the Alfvén point ($`r=R_A`$) determined by the condition $`4\pi \rho v_r^2=B_r^2`$, these two equations are linearly degenerate giving the so-called Alfvén regularity condition, $`L=R_A^2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Using these relations and a bit of algebra we can solve for $`v_\varphi `$ and $`B_\varphi `$ in terms of parameters evaluated at the Alfvén radius. The equation of motion in the $`\theta `$-direction can then be rewritten in the form:

$$\frac{}{r}(rv_\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{v_r}\left(\frac{2V_m^3}{v_r}(1Y)^2r^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2Y^2\right)$$

where $`V_m`$ is the Michel velocity (defined in the last section) and

$$Y=\frac{(R_A/r)^2\rho /\rho _A}{1\rho /\rho _A}.$$

The parameter $`Y`$ is a measure of the degree of co-rotation of the gas due to the torque applied by the magnetic field and rotational motion of the magnetic foot-points. That is, $`Y=0`$ describes the situation of no rotational motion, $`v_\varphi =0`$, and $`Y=1`$ describes the situation of perfect co-rotation, $`B_\varphi =0`$. The value of $`Y`$ evaluated at the Alfvén radius, $`Y_A`$, must be understood in terms of l’Hôpital’s rule and shows that $`Y_A`$ is also a measure of the radial acceleration of the wind.

For $`rR_A`$, $`Y(R_A/r)^2`$. Thus the equation of motion in the $`\theta `$-direction shows that at large radii the force due to the magnetic field will dominate over the centrifugal force. Unfortunately, it is difficult to proceed further without some knowledge of $`v_r`$ since this controls the radial variation of the parameter $`Y`$. One can show that for $`rR_A`$,

$$YY_A\left(\frac{R_A}{r}\right)^2$$

when the radial velocity variation is slow enough that

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}v_r}{\mathrm{d}r}\frac{2(v_rV_A)R_A^2}{r(r^2R_A^2)}.$$

It is under this condition that we can calculate a lower bound on the collimation of the wind with radius. The equation of motion in the $`\theta `$-direction can be rewritten as:

$$\frac{}{r}(rv_\theta )=2\sigma V_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \left(1\kappa \frac{R_A^2}{r^2}\right),$$

where

$$\kappa =2Y_A+\frac{R_A^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2Y_A^2}{2\sigma V_{\mathrm{}}^2}.$$

Following the same procedure described for the previous calculation we obtain a relation for the streamline connecting the point $`(R_A,\theta _A)`$ to the point $`(r,\theta )`$ which describes a lower bound on the collimation. The result is

$$\frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta }{\mathrm{tan}\theta _A}=x^{2\sigma }\mathrm{exp}\{\sigma (2+\kappa 2(1+\kappa )x+\kappa x^2)\}$$

where $`x=R_A/r`$. For $`rR_A`$ this equation is well approximated as

$$\frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta }{\mathrm{tan}\theta _A}\text{e}^{(2+\kappa )\sigma }\left(\frac{R_A}{r}\right)^{2\sigma }.$$

For comparison with the previous calculation we would like to know, order of magnitude, a reasonable number for the exponent $`(2+\kappa )\sigma `$. Using the definition of $`\kappa `$ we have

$$(2+\kappa )\sigma =2(1+Y_A)\sigma +\frac{R_A^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2Y_A^2}{2V_{\mathrm{}}^2}.$$

To estimate the first term we need an approximation for $`Y_A`$. As described earlier, the parameter $`Y`$ is a measure of the co-rotation of the gas. Therefore, $`Y_A`$ is a measure of the force balance in the $`\theta `$-direction at the Alfvén radius. Balancing the $`\theta `$-component of the Lorentz force and centrifugal force at the Alfvén radius gives $`Y_A=(2\sqrt{2})`$. To estimate the second term in the equation for $`(2+\kappa )\sigma `$, there are two relevant limits which will be discussed more fully in a later section. In the so-called slow rotator limit the second term can be arbitrarily small. In what is called the fast rotator limit, $`V_mV_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`V_A(2/3)V_m`$ (Belcher & MacGregor, 1976). Evaluating the Michel velocity at the Alfvén Radius one finds $`V_m^3=R_A^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2V_A`$. Thus in the fast rotator limit we have

$$(2+\kappa )\sigma =2(1+Y_A)\sigma +\frac{3Y_A^2}{4}.$$

Inserting $`Y_A=(2\sqrt{2})`$, we find the exponentials in both this and the previous calculation to be of order $`1`$. Thus we find good agreement for the intrinsic collimation in both the Parker and Weber-Davis model calculations.

Numerical simulations which start at large radii and assume a spherical flow are thereby constrained to small values of $`\sigma `$. In order to study models with appreciable field strengths (fields beyond the ”very weak limit”) requires following the flow evolution at small radii. This in turn necessitates including the poloidal magnetic field since at small radii the poloidal and toroidal fields are comparable in strength. In summary, we conclude that a full treatment of the propagation and magnetic collimation effects is warranted for the study of magnetized outflows such as the MWBB model.

## 5 WIND ACCELERATION AND COLLIMATION

The collimation of magnetized winds has been extensively studied. In most investigations, however, both the collimation and acceleration (also know as launching) are considered together (Pudritz & Konigl, 2000). In view of the rather extensive literature on the subject it is useful to attempt to put the MWBB model into the context of these investigations. This is particularly true because jets often occur in the PPNe phase (Sahai & Trauger, 1998; Sahai, 2000) before the star has become hot enough to radiatively drive a fast wind (Frank, 2000). The launching of the wind is not addressed in the MWBB model.

The work of Weber & Davis (1967) was the first to explore the role of the magnetic field in launching a wind. This work was carried out in 1.5-D, focusing only on the launching of a wind at the equator of a rotating star. The ability of a magnetized rotator to launch and collimate a wind was explored in axisymmetric calculations in the work of Blandford & Payne (1982) and Sakurai (1985). Since that time many workers have explored magneto-centrifugal winds (see Lamers & Cassinelli (1999) or Pudritz & Konigl (2000) for a recent review of the subject). We note that a majority of the work on wind launching and collimation has focused on the role of accretion disks as the source of the wind. Recently, however, their has been some renewed interest in a star as the magnetized rotator source of the the magnetically launched and collimated wind (Bogovalov & Tsinganos, 1999; Tsinganos & Bogovalov, 2000).

A fundamental assumption of the MWBB model is that the magnetic field in the wind is sufficiently weak that intrinsic MHD wind collimation can be neglected. We now address the issue of the self-consistency of this assumption in terms of the acceleration of the wind. Belcher & MacGregor (1976) utilized the Weber-Davis model to study the transition from stellar winds in which the magnetic field is insignificant to those in which the magnetic field is dominant in driving the wind. The former and later were classified as slow and fast magnetic rotators. This classification can also be described by comparing the Michel velocity $`V_m`$ to the Parker velocity $`V_p`$, where $`V_p`$ is defined as the velocity at infinity in the absence of rotation. Slow magnetic rotators have $`V_mV_p`$, while fast magnetic rotators have $`V_mV_p`$. The important point to note here is that fast magnetic rotators drive winds via the transfer of Poynting flux into kinetic energy flux. In the fast magnetic rotator limit $`V_{\mathrm{}}V_m`$.

Consideration of the parameters used in MWBB models shows that the majority of the MWBB simulations carried out to date (with $`\sigma <0.1`$) are not in the fast rotator regime. (Recall that $`\sigma =(V_m/V_{\mathrm{}})^3`$.) Thus these models are consistent with the assumption that the wind is launched by some means other than conversion of Poynting flux to kinetic energy flux. Conversely the winds used in MWBB studies can not be said to have come from a form of magnetized disk/star rotator wind model since these should have $`V_m/V_{\mathrm{}}1`$. This is an important point as it speaks to the origin of the wind in the PPNe stage. The results of our perturbation analysis are of interest because they show that even a field that can be considered weak (i.e. $`\sigma 1`$) can produce a pre-collimation in the wind before the wind is shocked and the MWBB mechanism becomes operative.

Finally we note that other studies of magnetic winds from slow rotators have shown some degree of collimation. Tsinganos & Bogovalov (2000) found that the solar wind could achieve a significant degree of collimation at large distances when the solar rotation rate was increased by only a factor of 5. These results are consistent with our perturbation analysis.

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we’ve presented an analysis of the MWBB model. We’ve shown that outside of the “very weak field” limit, the inherent magnetic collimation of the fast wind is neglected. In this sense, the numerical models which begin at large radii and include magnetic fields beyond the very weak field limit are not consistent with the assumed conditions at small radii. In addition we have explored the issue of intrinsic collimation in the MWBB winds in light of the combined launching and collimation of winds that is possible through magneto-centrifugal processes (Tsinganos & Bogovalov, 2000). An analysis of conditions used in MWBB studies shows that these winds can not originate from stars lying in the fast magnetic rotator regime. This point is relevant in determining the applicability of the MWBB model PPNe. Many PPNe show collimated flows even though their central stars do not have the photon momentum flux required to drive these outflows (Alcolea et al., 2000; Sahai & Trauger, 1998). The role of magnetic rotators in driving PPNe flows has recently been articulated by Blackman, Frank & Welch (2000) and Blackman et al. (2001).

We wish to emphasize, however, that the fundamental processes described by the MWBB model are sound and, in fact, represent a class of behavior that has not been given adequate attention in the literature on MHD collimation. As the previous MWBB studies have shown the post-shock hoop stresses in a magnetized wind with significant toroidal field will act as an additional collimation mechanism above and beyond the intrinsic collimation provided via the launching process.

Thus magnetohydrodynamic collimation and shaping of Planetary nebulae as well as production of such objects as the knots and jets observed within PNe is a very viable mechanism. The great promise which lies in the incorporation of magnetic fields into models of PNe formation is in the description of the shaping mechanisms. With this should also come a better understanding of the period of stellar evolution during which the mass loss is evolving from a slow to fast stellar wind.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

People believe that our four dimensional world would be obtained from the ten or eleven dimensional superstring theory. The D-brane solutions have attracted large attentions of many people, and an interesting geometry has been obtained from the D3-brane of type IIB theory. Near the horizon of the D3-branes, we find the configuration of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. The string theory under this background would describe the four dimensional conformal symmetric Yang-Mills theory on the boundary of $`AdS_5`$  where flat Minkowski space is realized.

On the other hand, a thin three-brane (RS brane) can be embedded in $`AdS_5`$ space  at any point of the transverse coordinate, which is interpreted as the energy scale of the conformal field theory on the boundary. A promising picture is to consider this three-brane as our four-dimensional world. This picture gives an alternative to the standard Kaluza-Klein (KK) compactification via the localization of the zero mode of the gravitation . It could also give a new explanation for the problems of the hierarchy between Planck mass and the weak-electromagnetic mass scales. This proposal is distinct from the one given in . Further, it opens a new possible explanation of the smallness of the four dimensional cosmological constant in our world without fine-tuning .

In this framework, gravity is defined in the five dimension, but its zero mode is trapped in the brane, then we can observe the usual 4-dim Newton law in the brane-world. Other massive KK modes living in the five dimension are observed as the correction to the Newton law. From the viewpoint of the string theory, the bulk continuum modes are described also by the idea of the AdS/CFT correspondence . The correction to the Newton law can be obtained as the quantum correction from the CFT coupled with the gravitation .

Other than the graviton, there would be many kinds of fields in the bulk to be studied since the five dimensional bulk theory would be obtained by the reduction of the ten dimensional IIB theory or eleven dimensional M theory. In any case, we would obtain many number of scalar fields in the reduced five dimensional theory . Many people have tried to derive the domain wall solution, which could be identified with the RS brane in a thin limit, from the reduced supergravity . In these approaches, the scalar fields play an important role, so it would be important to know their behaviour in constructing the RS brane(s) in the five dimensional space.

The purpose of this paper is to study the scalar with its wide range of mass allowed in the $`AdS_5`$. In general, negative mass squared is allowed and it is bounded from below $`M^24/L^2`$ where $`L`$ is the radius of AdS space . Our interest is to see how this scalar field can be observed from the brane world embedded in $`AdS_5`$. For $`M=0`$ case, it is well-known that the zero mode of this scalar is localized in the brane and KK modes are observed as the correction to the zero mode propagator. We extended the analysis to the general case of the scalar mass $`M`$ according to the technique used in the linearized gravity . In the next section, the solutions of the wave equation are examined to see the localization of some eigenstate of the four dimensional mass of the scalar. In the section three, the propagator for this scalar in the bulk space is given by considering appropriate boundary conditions to see the effective two point function of this scalar in the brane-world. We can see that the two different approaches lead to the consistent results. The most important result is that a tachyonic localized-state appears in the case of bulk tachyonic-scalar, $`M^2<0`$. In section four, an idea for the resolution of this problem is discussed according to the idea of the AdS/CFT correspondence. In the section five, the case of two branes is examined and we find the scalar considered here has nothing to do with the stability of the distance between the two branes. The concluding remarks are given in the final section.

## 2 Localized state of the scalar

Here we start from an effective five-dimensional action which is responsible for the construction of the five dimensional background. It is given in the Einstein frame as,

$$S_5=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}\left\{𝑑X^5\sqrt{G}(R+\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{})+2𝑑x^4\sqrt{g}K\right\},$$
(1)
where dots denote the contents other than the gravitation, and $`K`$ is the extrinsic curvature on the boundary. The brane action,

$$S_{\mathrm{b1}}=\frac{\tau }{2}𝑑x^4\sqrt{g},$$
(2)
is added to $`S_5`$ and we obtain the 5-dimensional AdS background

$$ds^2=e^{2|y|/L}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2$$
(3)
where $`\tau =6/(L\kappa ^2)`$ and $`L=\sqrt{6/\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ which denotes the radius of AdS space. The coordinates parallel to the brane are denoted by $`x^\mu `$ and $`y`$ is the coordinate transverse to the brane.

The fields represented by dots in the bulk action are not needed to construct above background $`AdS_5`$ with RS brane. They are however necessary in solving the problem of the cosmological constant without fine-tuning or in constructing the domain wall solution as a thick brane. Here we concentrate our attention on the problem of the stability of the brane-world when we consider the bulk scalar which does not play any role in constructing the background and it is a part of $`\mathrm{}`$ in (1). We consider the scalar with mass $`M`$, and it is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Then its field equation in the AdS background is given as

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{G}}_A(\sqrt{G}G^{AB}_B\mathrm{\Phi })M^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(4)
where $`A,B`$ denote five dimensional suffices. This equation can be rewritten as a one dimensional eigenvalue equation similar to the Schrödinger equation as follows. By decomposing as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi (x)\widehat{\psi }(y)e^{3|y|/2L}`$ and assuming $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \varphi =m^2\varphi `$, we obtain

$$[_z^2+V(z)]\widehat{\psi }(z)=m^2\widehat{\psi }(z),$$
(5)
where $`z=\mathrm{sgn}(y)L(e^{|y|/L}1)`$ and

$$V(z)=\frac{a}{(|z|/L+1)^2}\frac{3}{L}\delta (z),a=\frac{15}{4L^2}+M^2.$$
(6)
Equation (5) is regarded as the one dimensional Schrödinger equation with the energy eigenvalue $`m^2`$. For the case of $`M=0`$, this is equivalent to the one of the graviton. In this case, $`a=15/4L^2>0`$ and the potential has the shape of a volcano (see Fig. 1). This is a necessary condition to localize the zero mode ($`m=0`$) in the brane.

In general, the shape of the potential varies with the scalar mass $`M`$, which is bounded as $`M^24/L^2`$ in the AdS background by the positivity of the energy. Within this bound, we can see that the volcano type potential disappears at $`M^2=15/4L^2`$, where $`a=0`$. So we expect a tachyonic bound state in the brane at least in the region $`15/4L^2>M^24/L^2`$. This implies that the RS brane-world with flat background would be unstable if the above tachyonic scalar resides in the bulk.

The eigenvalue of $`m^2`$ for the tachyonic bound state is obtained as follows. Firstly, $`m^2`$ is replaced by $`m^2`$ in (5) since we are solving this equation in the region $`m^2<0`$. After this replacing, $`m`$ is considered as a real number. Secondly, we demands that the wave function of the bound state would be normalizable in the sense that the following integral with respect to $`y`$ is finite,

$$𝑑y\sqrt{G}(G^{AB}_A\mathrm{\Phi }_B\mathrm{\Phi }+M^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2)=\sqrt{g}(g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\nu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }+m^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2),$$
(7)
where the right hand side provides the effective action for the bound state scalar, which is denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x)`$. It is related to $`\varphi (x)`$ defined previously by

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x)=\sqrt{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\widehat{\psi }^2e^{|y|/L}}\varphi (x).$$
(8)
Then the condition of the normalizability is equivalent to the finiteness of the integral in (8). In general, the solution of (5) can be written by the linear combination of two kinds of modified Bessel functions. But the solution here is written by one of them due to the requirement of the normalizability,

$$\widehat{\psi }=Nx^{1/2}K_\nu (mx),$$
(9)
where $`x=|z|+L`$, $`\nu =\sqrt{4+M^2L^2}`$ and $`K_\nu `$ denotes the second kind of modified Bessel function, which converges at large $`mx`$.333Here we notice that (9) is obtained as the solution of (5) where $`m`$ is replaced by $`im`$. $`N`$ is a normalization constant.

We need the following boundary condition for this solution at the position of the brane, at $`z=0`$, due to the $`\delta `$-function potential,

$$_z\widehat{\psi }|_{z=0}=\frac{3}{2L}\widehat{\psi }|_{z=0}.$$
(10)
This condition leads to the following,

$$(2+\nu )K_\nu (mL)=(mL)K_{\nu +1}(mL).$$
(11)
This equation determines the eigenvalue of $`m`$.

From the discussion given above, the region to be examined would be restricted to the region $`15/4L^2>M^24/L^2`$ or equivalently $`1/2>\nu 0`$ where the volcano type of shape of the potential disappears. However we solve the above equation (11) by extending the region to $`\nu 0`$. After a numerical research, (i) we can’t find any solution for $`\nu >2`$ expectedly. (ii) At $`\nu =2`$ ($`M=0`$), we find the solution at $`m=0`$, and this reflects the localization of the zero mode of a massless scalar in the bulk. This is parallel to the localization of the zero mode of the graviton. (iii) In the region $`2>\nu >1/2`$, the potential preserves the volcano shape as in the case of $`\nu =2`$, so one would expect to find the localization of the zero mode. However, we couldn’t find it and the localization of a tachyonic state was found instead. (iv) For $`1/2\nu 0`$, the localization of a tachyonic state was found expectedly.

As a result, we find only one solution for $`2\nu 0`$, and there is no solution for $`\nu >2`$. The value of $`m`$ for the localized state changes continuously with $`\nu `$ as shown in Fig. 2.

Namely, $`mL`$ smoothly increases from $`0`$ to about $`1.5`$ as $`\nu `$ decreases from $`2`$ to $`0`$. This seems to be curious, but we can reassure this point in the next section from the analysis of the five dimensional propagator of the scalar. The existence of only one solution for each $`\nu `$ is consistent with the $`\delta `$-functional attractive potential in the eigenvalue equation. The localization of zero mode is realized only for the bulk massless field. The tachyonic localized-state is always seen for the case of the tachyonic bulk scalar, $`M^2<0`$. This can be interpreted as the penetration of the tachyonic state from the bulk into the brane.

## 3 Scalar propagator

According to Ref. , the Green function of the scalar considered in the previous section is examined in the $`d`$+1 dimensional AdS space to see its effective propagator observed in $`d`$ dimensional flat space of the brane. After obtaining the Green function, we go back to the case of $`d=4`$. Here we work in the brane background of the following AdS metric,

$$ds^2=\frac{L^2}{z^2}(dz^2+dx_d^2).$$
(12)
We can consider that the brane is located at $`z=L`$, where $`y/L=\mathrm{ln}(z/L)`$. The scalar Green function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{d+1}(X,X^{})`$ is defined as

$$(^2M^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_{d+1}(X,X^{})=\frac{\delta ^{d+1}(XX^{})}{\sqrt{G}},$$
(13)
with the Neumann boundary condition,

$$_z\mathrm{\Delta }_{d+1}(X,X^{})|_{z=L}=0.$$
(14)
This condition is consistent with the orbifold boundary conditions at the brane.

Equation (13) is rewritten by an ordinary differential equation via following Fourier transform in the $`d`$ dimensions along the brane,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{d+1}(x,z;x^{},z^{})=\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}e^{ip(xx^{})}\mathrm{\Delta }_p(z,z^{}),$$
(15)
and the redefinition of the Fourier component, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p=(\frac{zz^{}}{L^2})^{\frac{d}{2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_p`$ . Then the equation for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_p`$ is obtained as

$$\left(z^2_z^2+z_z+q^2z^2\nu ^2\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_p(z,z^{})=Lz\delta (zz^{}).$$
(16)
where

$$q=\sqrt{p^2},\nu =\sqrt{(d/2)^2+L^2M^2}.$$
(17)
After this, the procedure to obtain the propagator is parallel to . A case that is of particular interest here is that where the arguments of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{d+1}`$ is on the brane, $`z=z^{}=L`$. In this case, the propagator is expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{d+1}(x,L;x^{},L)=\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}e^{ip(xx^{})}\frac{1}{F(q,L,M)},$$
(18)
$$F(q,L,M)=\frac{d2\nu }{2L}+q\frac{H_{\nu 1}^{(1)}(qL)}{H_\nu ^{(1)}(qL)}.$$
(19)
From this result, some interesting features are observed. Hereafter we consider the case of $`d=4`$.

(i) First, this is reduced to the form given in  for $`M=0`$ (or $`\nu =d/2`$), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{d+1}(x,L;x^{},L)`$ is separated to the $`d`$-dimensional massless propagator and the exchange of the Kaluza-Klein states.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{d+1}(x,L;x^{},L)=\frac{d2}{L}\mathrm{\Delta }_d(x,x^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }_{KK}(x,x^{}).$$
(20)
Here

$$_\mu ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_d(x,x^{})=\delta ^d(xx^{}),$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{KK}(x,x^{})=\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}e^{ip(xx^{})}\frac{1}{q}\frac{H_{\frac{d}{2}2}^{(1)}(qL)}{H_{\frac{d}{2}1}^{(1)}(qL)}.$$
(22)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_d(x,x^{})`$ represents the localized massless state in the $`d(=4)`$ dimensional brane. The leading part of the summation of the KK exchanges gives $`1/r^3`$ potential as in the case of the gravity.

(ii) For $`\nu >2`$, we can see the massive pole behaviour by expanding $`F(q,L,M)`$ near small $`qL`$,

$$(d/2\nu )/L+(1/2)(L/(\nu 1))q^2,$$
(23)
which implies a pole at $`(qL)^2=2(\nu 2)(\nu 1)`$. This is of course correct for small $`qL`$, i.e. near $`\nu =2`$, but we can find a massive pole at large $`qL`$ where the above approximate formula can not be applied any more. Then (18) and (19) lead to the statement that we can see a massive four dimensional scalar and the corrections from the KK modes to this massive scalar propagator. But it should be noticed that this massive mode is not localized in the brane since the wave function for this mode is not normalizable. This point can be understood from the potential appearing in the bulk wave-equation for the scalar in the fifth dimensional direction. The states of $`q^2>0`$ would decay into large $`z`$ region outside the wall of the potential, so this state should be regarded as a resonant state with a finite lifetime. This is consistent with the results of , where lifetime of the resonant state is explicitly given for small $`M^2>0`$.

We can assure this point explicitly by rewriting $`F(q,L,M)`$ as

$$F(q,L,M)=\frac{d2\nu }{2L}+q\frac{J_\nu (qL)J_{\nu 1}(qL)Y_\nu (qL)Y_{\nu 1}(qL)+2i/(\pi qL)}{J_\nu (qL)^2+Y_\nu (qL)^2},$$
(24)
and the resonant states are found as the zero points of the real part of $`F(q,L,M)`$, where their imaginary parts are positive definite by the formula $`J_\nu (qL)Y_{\nu 1}(qL)Y_\nu (qL)J_{\nu 1}(qL)=2/(\pi qL)`$. This behaviour is seen at any value of $`\nu `$, and the positions of the zero-points are slightly different near $`q=0`$. For typical values of $`\nu `$, at $`\nu =1.6,2.0`$ and $`2.4`$, $`F(q,L,M)`$ are shown in both regions of $`q>0`$ and imaginary $`q`$ in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively.

(iii) For $`0<\nu <2`$, we know that there is a localized state with $`q^2<0`$ from the analysis of the wave-equation. In fact, we can assure the same result also from the propagator given here. The pole in the region $`q^2<0`$ is obtained as a zero point of $`F(q,L,M)`$ given in (19) by rewriting as $`qiq`$ in (19), i.e. $`F(iq,L,M)=0`$, which is written as

$$(2+\nu )K_\nu (qL)=(qL)K_{\nu +1}(qL).$$
(25)
This is exactly the boundary condition (11), required at the point of brane in solving the wave equation. The pole point of $`qL`$ varies smoothly from $`0`$ at $`\nu =2`$ to $`1.5`$ at $`\nu =0`$ as shown in the previous section. The approximate formula (23) is valid near $`\nu =2`$ also in this case. In any case, we can see a tachyonic state and KK modes in the brane for $`2>\nu 0`$.

The signal of the tachyon can be seen in the potential at the long distance as in the case of $`\nu =2`$, where the massless pole provides the Coulomb potential $`1/r`$ at long distance and the next leading $`1/r^3`$ from the KK-modes. In the case of $`\nu <2`$, the leading potential comes from the tachyon pole, which behaves as $`\mathrm{cos}(|q|r)/r`$, and the next leading coming from positive $`p^2`$ region is $`1/r^3`$. This is easily seen by expanding $`F(q,L,M)`$ at small $`q`$ and performing the Fourier transformation of the leading terms. So we can say that the dominant part of the potential at the long distance is given by the exchange of the tachyon.

Then the brane would be unstable since the tachyon is not allowed in the flat four dimensional brane.

We can summarize the above results from the viewpoint of the exchange of $`\varphi `$ fields between two sources. For $`\nu =2`$, we can see that at large distances on the brane, $`|xx^{}|L`$, the zero mode piece dominates and we reproduce the standard effective action for $`d`$-dimensional scalar exchange, plus sub-leading corrections from the Kaluza-Klein part. This picture is not true for $`\nu >2`$, and we can not see any Coulomb like behaviour. For $`\nu <2`$, the tachyon which is allowed in the bulk $`AdS_5`$ penetrates into the brane as a tachyon in the four dimensional brane, and it provides the dominant part of the potential between two charges at long distance. This leads to the instability of the RS brane with flat four-dimensional metric. A simple way to remove this instability is to add the following quadratic term of the scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the brane action $`S_{\mathrm{bl}}`$,

$$d^4x\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}\frac{d2\nu }{L}\mathrm{\Phi }^2.$$
(26)
Since this term could cancel out the first term of $`F(q,L,M)`$ given in (19), which represents the effective quadratic term of the scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the brane, then we obtain the same propagator with the one of $`M=0`$. Then we can see the localized zero mode for wide range of $`\nu `$, i.e. for $`\nu >1`$.

If we adopt the term (26), the boundary condition of the Green function is changed. By taking into account this term with a coefficient independent on the scalar mass $`M`$, the problem of the localization of a scalar field was also discussed in  from a different viewpoint and in a different region of its mass with our analysis. At present, we can’t say anything definitely about the meaning of this new term.

More probable resolution of this instability will be to solve the equations of motion for the system of gravity and a scalar with a localized brane-action. It would be a challenging subject to find a solution of Randall-Sundrum type brane from a supersymmetric model induced from the super-string theory. And the action would contain a non-trivial potential and the scalar field would be solved as a non-trivial configuration forming the background . The metric might be solved in the form

$$ds^2=e^{A(y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2$$
(27)
and the cosmological constant on the brane can be taken as zero.

In this case, the instability pointed out here would be evaded by the background configuration which control the equations of the fluctuation of the scalar and gravitation.

In the next section, we discuss how this instability would be resolved from the viewpoint of AdS/CFT correspondence. It would give a clue to consider the meaning of the above newly added term and the string induced bulk-action with a scalar.

## 4  AdS/CFT correspondence

The gravitational theory in the background of $`AdS_5`$ is dual to the 4d conformal field theory with a cutoff at the position of the RS brane, so we can replace the five dimensional bulk part by a CFT defined as

$$S_{\mathrm{CFT}}=d^4x(L_{\mathrm{CFT}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\lambda _iO^i),$$
(28)
where $`O^i`$ are the composite operators of the fields contained in $`L_{\mathrm{CFT}}`$ and $`\lambda _i`$ are their corresponding sources which are given as the boundary values of the bulk fields at the brane position. Here we should consider both the gravitation and the scalar on the brane.

Then the effective brane action could be obtained by adding the regularized part of intrinsic curvature  and the localized scalar part, $`L_\varphi `$, as follows

$$S_{\mathrm{b2}}=𝑑x^4\sqrt{g}\left\{L_{\mathrm{brane}}+L_\varphi (\frac{\tau }{2}+b_0)b_2Rb_4R_2\right\},$$
(29)
where $`b_0=(6/L)/(2\kappa ^2)`$, $`b_2=(L/2)/(2\kappa ^2)`$, $`b_4=2L^3/(2\kappa ^2)`$ and

$$R_2=\frac{1}{8}R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{24}R^2.$$
(30)
Since $`\tau =(12/L)/(2\kappa ^2)`$, the cosmological constant on the brane, $`\tau /2+b_0`$, is zero. This is consistent with the Poincare invariant solution. The four dimensional curvature term reflects the localized zero mode of gravity and the curvature squared terms are the correction to the gravity part.

The corrections to $`S_{\mathrm{b2}}`$ would be obtained by the CFT part. It is seen by integrating the fields contained in $`L_{\mathrm{CFT}}`$. In the case of the graviton, this correction has been explicitly shown within one-loop approximation , and the correspondence of this correction and the sum up of the KK modes has been assured.

As for the scalar field, it is difficult to give the explicit form of the composite operator and to separate the propagator obtained in the previous section into two parts, the bounded part and KK modes for general $`\nu `$. Then we don’t try to see the correspondence for the quadratic term of $`\varphi `$ here as shown for the graviton. Instead, we use the AdS/CFT correspondence to see the effective action of the scalar $`\varphi `$ for a calculable case. As in , we consider $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory as the CFT which lives on the boundary of the $`AdS_5`$. The conformal dimension of the operator is given by $`2+\nu `$, so the operator is relevant for $`\nu <2`$. Here we consider the case of $`\nu =0`$.

For $`\nu =0`$, we can consider the mass term of the adjoint scalar fields, which are denoted by $`(B_i)^2`$ ($`i=16N^2`$), of $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory as the corresponding composite operator since it is gauge invariant and has the conformal dimension two. The mass term of the vector would break gauge symmetry, so we do not consider it.

By assuming the availability of the AdS/CFT correspondence, we consider the combined action, $`S_{\mathrm{CFT}}+S_{\mathrm{b2}}`$, to obtain the effective potential of $`\varphi `$ with its higher powers. It is easy to obtain the one-loop correction by integrating the fields in CFT. In the case of $`\nu =0`$, we obtain

$$V_0(\varphi )=m_0^2\varphi ^2+\frac{6N^2}{64\pi ^2}\varphi ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\mu ^2},$$
(31)
where $`m_0`$ denotes the tachyon mass obtained above for $`\nu =0`$ and $`\mu `$ is some mass scale. The first term is included in $`L_\varphi `$ in (29), and $`6N^2`$ represents the degrees of freedom of the adjoint scalar in CFT. Since $`L_\varphi `$ should be obtained from (7) and (8), then the notation $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ should be used instead $`\varphi `$. And $`\varphi `$ of the second term should be written by multiplying $`\widehat{\psi }(0)`$ as $`\widehat{\psi }(0)\varphi `$, which represents $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on the brane. These points are important when we consider the relative ratio of the two terms and the strength of the coupling of the boundary field and composite operator of CFT. But they are not essential hereafter, and we abbreviate its notation as $`\varphi `$.

Further, we should notice that the second term is proportional to $`\varphi ^2`$ not to $`\varphi ^4`$ since $`\varphi `$ couples to the mass term of the CFT scalar (denoted by $`O_0`$) as $`\varphi O_0`$ not as $`\varphi ^2O_0`$ due to its conformal dimension two. Then the above potential can be rewritten as

$$V_0(\varphi )=\frac{6N^2}{64\pi ^2}\varphi ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\widehat{\mu }^2},$$
(32)
where new scale factor $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is defined as $`\frac{6N^2}{64\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\widehat{\mu }^2}=m_0^2`$. Here, we notice that this potential has the same form, except for its sign, with the one obtained from open string field theory  for the tachyon field. This seems curious since there is no definite reason to identify RS brane as D-brane.

If this approximation is available, the above result (32) implies that the scalar field should be shifted to see its stable spectrum from the tachyonic point $`\varphi =0`$ to the minimum point of $`V_0(\varphi )`$. However, the value of $`V_0(\varphi )`$ at its minimum is negative, so the flat metric in the brane is still unstable if there is no extra term to cancel this new cosmological constant. This implies that we must return to the point where we solve the bulk equations to obtain the background metric, $`AdS_5`$, by taking into account of the non-trivial configuration of the scalar fields with negative mass squared. It would be expected in this case that the stable RS brane in the $`AdS_5`$ background would be obtained by a shift of the scalar. Its fluctuation could be observed as a massive particle around a bottom of its effective potential not a tachyon around the top. A simple example would be shown in a separate paper.

It is an open problem to extend this story to the other value of $`\nu >0`$ or to the other dimensional $`AdS`$.444The idea of $`AdS_d`$/CFT correspondence for RS brane has been discussed in  for the case of $`d=35`$. Also in , we can see a related discussion from a different formalism. Here we obtain a resultant potential term, $`\varphi ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\varphi }{\mu ^2}`$, for the tachyonic scalar $`\varphi `$. This form is slightly different from the one considered in the previous section, (26). The problem related to this point would be discussed in the preparing paper.

## 5 Two branes

Here we consider the model of two branes proposed by Randall and Sundrum . In this case, the distance between two branes in the direction of the fifth coordinate is fixed as finite. So the concept of the localization can’t be considered in a strict sense. All modes are confined in the region between the two branes, and $`m`$ would take discrete values instead. However, the localization of the zero gravitational mode would be important in a sense of the wave-function localized near one brane if our world is not five dimensional one.

A problem of this model is to determine the distance at some definite value as a stable point of the brane system. Several people proposed ideas of the resolutions for this issue by considering the bulk fields . In , a scalar field has been introduced with special potentials on the branes in order to fix its boundary values. It can be seen from the effective potential of this scalar zero-mode555Here we use “zero-mode” in the sense that the eigenvalue of the four-dimensional Laplacian is zero in the equation. that there is a stable point at a finite distance between two branes. While the scalar-potential on the branes plays an important role to solve the problem, its origin is obscure.

Here we do not give the answers to these problems. We comment on this problem by considering the scalar without any potential in the branes. The scalar considered in the previous sections is this type of scalar. The strategy is to see the effective potential by integrating the action of the scalar part by substituting the solution of the wave equation in the AdS background with two branes on the boundaries. The equation to be solved is given by (4) $``$ (6) and the boundary conditions, (10) at $`z=0`$ and

$$_z\widehat{\psi }|_{z_c}=\frac{3}{2L(z_c/L+1)}\widehat{\psi }|_{z_c},$$
(33)
at $`z=z_c`$ where the second brane exists.

We give some comments on the solution in this case. The general solution of $`\widehat{\psi }`$ can be written by the linear combination of two independent Bessel functions. The two boundary conditions (10) and (33) determine a relation of two coefficients of the Bessel functions and the four dimensional mass-eigenvalue of the allowable state. The eigenvalues are discrete in this case. So it would be difficult to sum up these discrete states to see the effective potential totally as a function of the distance between two branes. However we can see it easily in our case.

The equations to be solved are rewritten as the equations of $`\chi (y)`$, where it is defined as $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi (x)\chi (y)`$. Then the above boundary conditions are written as,

$$_y\chi |_{y_1}=_y\chi |_{y_2}=0,$$
(34)
where $`y_1(=0)`$ and $`y_2`$ are the positions of the two branes. On the other hand, the scalar part of the action can be written as follows by using its equation of motion in the AdS background;

$`S_\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{classical}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{y_2}}𝑑y{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{G}(G^{AB}_A\mathrm{\Phi }_A\mathrm{\Phi }+M^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2)}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{y_2}}𝑑y{\displaystyle d^4x_\mu \left(\sqrt{G}G^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)}`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\sqrt{G}G^{yy}\mathrm{\Phi }_y\mathrm{\Phi }\right)}|_{y_1}^{y_2}.`$
The first term vanishes since it is total derivative and the second term vanishes due to the boundary conditions (34). Then we can see $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{classical}}=0`$ so that the scalar considered here has nothing to do with the stabilization of two branes at some finite distance.

As in the case of , if some boundary terms of the scalar are added to the brane actions, then the boundary conditions are changed. In this case, $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{classical}}0`$. So we must solve the mass spectrum allowed between two branes and they are summed up to obtain the effective potential as a function of the distance between branes. We are now preparing the paper of this issue.

## 6 Concluding remarks

When we consider some supersymmetric five dimensional theory to construct the brane as a soliton or a domain wall, we must aware about the contents of the theory even if it was not used to solve the equations responsible for the background. It would be important to study the behaviours of various fields in the background obtained as a classical solution. Here we have examined the scalar field in the AdS background, in which the Randall-Sundrum three-brane(s) is (are) embedded. The mass-squared of the scalar is extended to the allowable negative value in the $`AdS_5`$ background. We found a localization-mode of the scalar, which has negative mass-squared in the bulk, on the brane, and this localized mode is also tachyonic in the four dimensional brane-world. This fact implies that the three-brane with flat space would be unstable since a tachyonic scalar is living in this brane world. Other continuous tachyonic-modes would not cause any instability of the three brane since they should be considered as the bulk tachyonic scalar being allowed in $`AdS_5`$.

It would be possible to consider several ways to evade this problem of the instability of the brane. (i) One way is to improve the brane-action by adding a boundary potential of the scalar such that it cancels the tachyonic mass of the localized state. As a result, we could find a massless localized scalar on the brane. But this procedure seems to be artificial since the boundary potential is added by hand. (ii) Second way is to solve the bulk equations by assuming a non-trivial configuration for the tachyonic scalar, and we try to find a solution which forbids the tachyonic localized state. Or we should obtain a brane solution which allows tachyonic localized-scalar. In this approach, it would be necessary to know the fully corrected, complicated potential for the scalar. (iii) As a third possibility to resolve this problem, we have examined the effects of the bulk on the brane from the viewpoint of AdS/CFT correspondence. For $`\nu =0`$, we find an interesting scalar potential which can be related to this problem, but we could not find a general clue to resolving the problem in this direction. To get some definite conclusion in this approach, we should examine the properties of many more bulk-operators.

We will discuss on these points in the future paper. We have also examined the role of the tachyonic scalar in the case of two branes, but we find that this scalar gives no effect to the problem of determining the stable point between two branes.

Acknowledgement: We wish to thank Drs. S. Dubovsky and S. Shatashvili for giving us useful informations and references.


text:
# 1 Embedding the SM gauge group within different sets of D-branes. The extra 𝐷_𝑞 brane (5₂) is marked by a cross.

SUSX-TH/01-008

On the EDM Cancellations in D-brane models
S. Abel, S. Khalil, and O. Lebedev

Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, U. K.

Abstract
We analyze the possibility of simultaneous electron, neutron, and mercury electric dipole moment (EDM) cancellations in the mSUGRA and D–brane models. We find that the mercury EDM constraint practically rules out the cancellation scenario in D-brane models whereas in the context of mSUGRA it is still allowed with some fine-tuning.

One of the most important tests of CP-violation comes from the measurements of the electric dipole moments (EDMs). Non-observation of the EDMs imposes severe constraints on models for physics beyond the Standard Model. The most stringent of these come from continued efforts to measure the EDMs of the neutron , electron , and mercury atom

$`d_n`$ $`<`$ $`6.3\times 10^{26}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cm}(90\%CL),`$
$`d_e`$ $`<`$ $`4.3\times 10^{27}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cm},`$
$`d_{Hg}`$ $`<`$ $`2.1\times 10^{28}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cm}.`$ (1)
In particular, these constraints are a difficult hurdle for supersymmetric theories if they are to allow sufficient baryogenesis. Indeed it is remarkable that the SM contribution to the EDM of the neutron is of order $`10^{30}`$ e cm, whereas the “generic” supersymmetric value is $`10^{22}`$e cm.

There are several proposals to reconcile the EDM constraints and supersymmetry. The EDM bounds may imply that the supersymmetric CP-phases are small  or the sfermions of the first two generations are heavy . Alternatively, they may imply that CP violation has a flavor-off-diagonal character . It has also been realized that in certain regions of the parameter space the constraints on the CP-phases are not severe due to the EDM cancellations . This last possibility will be the subject of our present study. In particular, it has recently been found that simultaneous neutron and electron EDM cancellations may occur in certain D-brane-motivated models  (see also ). We critically examine theoretical aspects of the model of Ref. and analyze whether this scenario satisfies all of the experimental EDM constraints.

In our analysis, we follow the approach of Ibrahim and Nath , and include contributions of the electromagnetic, chromomagnetic, and Weinberg operators to the neutron EDM via Naive Dimensional Analysis (a better justified approach to the NEDM based on the QCD sum rules has recently appeared in ). We have also included the Barr-Zee type contributions to the EDMs  and the gluino-bottom-sbottom contribution to the Weinberg operator. In addition to the electron and neutron EDM constraints, we impose the EDM constraint for the mercury atom. It has been realized that the mercury EDM is mostly sensitive to the quark chromomagnetic dipole moments and that the constraint $`d_{Hg}<2.1\times 10^{28}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{cm}`$ can be translated into

$$|d_d^Cd_u^C0.012d_s^C|/g_s<7\times 10^{27}cm,$$
(2)
where $`g_s`$ is the $`SU(3)_c`$ coupling constant and $`d_i^C`$ are defined in the standard way . This constraint will be crucial in our analysis. Before we proceed, let us briefly review basic ideas of the D-brane models (see also Refs. and ).

Recent studies of type I strings have shown that it is possible to construct a number of models with non–universal soft SUSY breaking terms which are phenomenologically interesting. Type I models can contain $`9`$-branes, $`5_i`$-branes, $`7_i`$-branes, and $`3`$-branes where the index $`i=1,2,3`$ denotes the complex compact coordinate which is included in the $`5`$-brane world volume or which is orthogonal to the $`7`$-brane world volume. However, to preserve $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in $`D=4`$ not all of these branes can be present simultaneously and we can have (at most) either D9-branes with D$`5_i`$-branes or D3-branes with D$`7_i`$-branes.

Gauge symmetry groups are associated with stacks of branes located “on top of each other”. A stack of $`N`$ branes corresponds to the group $`U(N)`$. The matter fields are associated with open strings which start and end on the branes. These strings may be attached to either the same stack of branes or two different sets of branes which have overlapping world volumes. The ends of the string carry quantum numbers associated with the symmetry groups of the branes. For example, the quark fields have to be attached to the $`U(3)`$ set of branes, while the quark doublet fields also have to be attached to the $`U(2)`$ set of branes. Given a brane configuration, the Standard Model fields are constructed according to their quantum numbers.

The SM gauge group can be obtained in the context of D-brane scenarios from $`U(3)\times U(2)\times U(1)`$, where the $`U(3)`$ arises from three coincident branes, $`U(2)`$ arises from two coincident D-branes and $`U(1)`$ from one D-brane. As explained in detail in Ref., there are different possibilities for embedding the SM gauge groups within these D-branes. It was shown that if the SM gauge groups come from the same set of D-branes, one cannot produce the correct values for the gauge couplings $`\alpha _j(M_Z)`$ and the presence of additional matter (doublets and triplets) is necessary to obtain the experimental values of the couplings . On the other hand, the assumption that the SM gauge groups originate from different sets of $`D`$-branes leads in a natural way to intermediate values for the string scale $`M_S10^{1012}`$ GeV . In this case, the analysis of the soft terms has been done under the assumption that only the dilaton and moduli fields contribute to supersymmetry breaking and it has been found that these soft terms are generically non–universal. The MSSM fields arising from open strings are shown in Fig.1. For example, the up quark singlets $`u^c`$ are states of the type $`C^{95_3}`$, the quark doublets are $`C^{95_1}`$, etc. The presence of extra ($`D_q`$) branes which are not associated with the SM gauge groups is often necessary to reproduce the correct hypercharge and to cancel non-vanishing tadpoles.

Recently there has been a considerable interest in supersymmetric models derived from D-branes ,. In the model of Ref., the gauge group $`SU(3)_c\times U(1)_Y`$ was associated with $`5_1`$ branes and $`SU(2)_L`$ was associated with $`5_2`$ branes. It was shown that in this model the gaugino masses are non–universal ($`M_1=M_3M_2`$) so that the physical CP phases are $`\varphi _1=\varphi _3`$, $`\varphi _A`$ and $`\varphi _\mu `$. It was emphasized that the non–universal gaugino phases have an important impact on enlarging the regions of the parameter space where the EDM cancellations occur.

However, closer inspection reveals that such a model cannot produce the correct hypercharge assignment for all of the SM fields. In fact, this model does not distinguish between the up and down quarks, $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, etc. which have different hypercharges and thus cannot be realistic. In realistic models, the hypercharge $`U(1)`$ is an anomaly-free linear combination of two or three $`U(1)`$’s arising from different sets of branes. As a result, the relation $`\varphi _1=\varphi _3`$ can only be obtained if one embeds the SM gauge group within the same set of branes. However, in this case the gaugino masses are universal and the gaugino phase can be rotated away. The relation $`\varphi _1=\varphi _3\varphi _2`$, which was found to be important for the EDM cancellations, does not appear to hold in realistic models. Therefore in what follows, we will consider the EDM cancellations in both the model of Ref. and a more realistic model. We shall find that in both cases, although simultaneous EEDM and NEDM cancellations can occur in considerable regions of the parameter space, imposing the mercury constraint practically rules out the cancellation scenario.

Let us begin by constructing a more realistic D-brane scenario. In order to obtain a model which is close in spirit to that of Ref., one may place the $`U(1)`$ brane on top of the $`U(3)`$ branes. This however implies that the string scale $`M_S`$ is $`6\times 10^8`$ GeV which leads to $`m_{3/2}M_S^2/M_{Pl}10^1`$ GeV , too low a value for the SUSY particle masses. Extra light matter fields are required to mitigate this problem. Another possibility is to consider a model without the $`U(1)`$ brane. This option is also problematic since in this case the up-type Yukawa couplings are not allowed  resulting in a negligible top quark mass, whereas the lepton Yukawa couplings are allowed. It is difficult to imagine how this scenario can account for the observed fermion masses. Therefore, both of these simplified versions of the model are hardly phenomenologically viable.

The model in which $`U(3)`$, $`U(2)`$, and $`U(1)`$ originate from different sets of branes is much more phenomenologically attractive. In this case one naturally obtains an intermediate string scale ($`10^{10}10^{12}`$ GeV), although higher values up to $`10^{16}`$ GeV are still allowed. The Yukawa couplings are also more realistic: both the up and the down type Yukawa interactions are allowed, while that for the leptons typically vanishes (depending on further details of the model) . The hypercharge is expressed in terms of the $`U(1)`$ charges $`Q_{1,2,3}`$ of the $`U(1)_{1,2,3}`$ groups:

$$Y=\frac{1}{3}Q_3\frac{1}{2}Q_2+Q_1,$$
(3)
with the following $`(Q_3,Q_2,Q_1)`$ charge assignment:

$`q=(1,1,0),u^c=(1,0,1),d^c=(1,0,0),`$ (4)
$`l=(0,1,0),e^c=(0,0,1),`$
$`H_2=(0,1,1),H_1=(0,1,0).`$
Using the standard parameterization :

$`F^S=\sqrt{3}(S+S^{})m_{3/2}\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\alpha _s},`$
$`F^i=\sqrt{3}(T_i+T_i^{})m_{3/2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Theta }_ie^{i\alpha _i},`$ (5)
and setting $`\mathrm{\Theta }_3=0`$ for simplicity, the gaugino masses in this model can be written as

$`M_3`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\alpha _s},`$ (6)
$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{i\alpha _1},`$
$`M_Y`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}\alpha _Y(M_S)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _2(M_S)}}\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{i\alpha _1}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\alpha _3(M_S)}}\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\alpha _s}\right),`$
where

$$\frac{1}{\alpha _Y(M_S)}=\frac{2}{\alpha _1(M_S)}+\frac{1}{\alpha _2(M_S)}+\frac{2}{3\alpha _3(M_S)}.$$
(7)
Here $`\alpha _k`$ correspond to the gauge couplings of the $`U(k)`$ branes. As shown in Ref., $`\alpha _1(M_S)0.1`$ leads to the string scale $`M_S10^{12}`$ GeV. Note that $`\varphi _3=\varphi _Y`$ if $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1=0`$; this is however phenomenologically unacceptable since in this case $`M_2=0`$ and the chargino is too light. The soft scalar masses are given by

$`m_q^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2}^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(1\mathrm{\Theta }_1^2\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right],`$
$`m_{d^c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2}^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(1\mathrm{\Theta }_2^2\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right],`$
$`m_{u^c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2}^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right],`$
$`m_{e^c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2}^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{\Theta }_1^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)\right],`$
$`m_l^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2}^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right],`$
$`m_{H_2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{3/2}^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{\Theta }_2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)\right],`$
$`m_{H_1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_l^2,`$ (8)
and the trilinear parameters are

$`A_u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}m_{3/2}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_2e^{i\alpha _2}\mathrm{\Theta }_1e^{i\alpha _1}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\alpha _s}\right],`$ (9)
$`A_d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}m_{3/2}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_1e^{i\alpha _1}+\mathrm{\Theta }_2e^{i\alpha _2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\alpha _s}\right],`$ (10)
$`A_e`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (11)
We note that the Yukawa couplings in Type I models are either 0 or 1, so an additional mechanism is needed to produce the observed femion masses and mixings.

In our EDM analysis, we rotate away the phase of $`M_2`$ by a $`U(1)_R`$ transformation ( the phase of $`B\mu `$ can also be set to zero by a $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ rotation). We observe that the angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ and $`\theta `$ are quite constrained if we are to avoid negative mass-squared’s for squarks and sleptons. For definiteness we assume $`\alpha _1=\alpha _2`$. Then the soft terms are parameterized in terms of the phase $`\varphi \alpha _1\alpha _s`$.

In Fig.2 we display the bands allowed by the electron (red), neutron (green), and mercury (blue) EDMs. In this figure, we set $`m_{3/2}=150`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1^2=\mathrm{\Theta }_2^2=1/2`$, $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta =2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =2/3`$, and $`\alpha _1(M_S)1`$ with $`M_S`$ being the GUT scale. For the plot to be more illustrative, we do not impose any additional constraints besides the EDM ones (i.e. bounds on the chargino and slepton masses, etc.). It is clear that even though simultaneous EEDM/NEDM cancellations allow the phase $`\varphi `$ to be $`𝒪(1)`$, an addition of the mercury constraint requires all phases to be very small (modulo $`\pi `$) and thus practically rules out the cancellation scenario in this context. We find that the mercury EDM behaviour in D-brane models is very different from that of the electron and neutron and thus is crucial in constraining the parameter space.

Next we consider the model of Ref.. As we have argued above, this model can hardly be obtained from D-branes, however one may treat it as an interesting phenomenological scenario motivated by D-branes. The (corrected) soft terms for this model read (for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_3=0`$)

$`M_Y=M_3=A=\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Theta }_1e^{i\alpha _1},`$
$`M_2=\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Theta }_2e^{i\alpha _2},`$
$`m_L^2=m_{3/2}^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta );`$
$`m_R^2=m_{3/2}^2(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{\Theta }_2^2).`$ (12)
To illustrate the EDM constraints, we choose the parameters which allow for simultaneous EEDM/NEDM cancellations, namely $`m_{3/2}=150`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1=0.9`$, and $`\theta =0.4`$ as given in Ref.. Fig.3 shows that the mercury constraint has the same behaviour as in the model considered above and rules out large CP-phases.

Finally, we examine the possibility of simultaneous EDM cancellations in mSUGRA. In contrast to the D-brane models, all of the EDM constraints have similar behaviour in the $`(\varphi _A,\varphi _\mu )`$ plane. In fact they can be approximately described by the relation $`\varphi _\mu a\mathrm{sin}\varphi _A`$ with $`a>0`$. With a favorable choice of the parameters, the three bands will have a significant overlap. In Fig.4 we present points allowed by all three EDM constraints with all the masses set to 200 GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, and $`A=40`$ GeV. Although $`\varphi _A`$ is unconstrained in this case, the phase $`\varphi _\mu `$ is required to be $`𝒪(10^2)`$. To relax this bound one has to either increase the mass scale of the susy spectrum or restrict the range of $`\varphi _A`$. Our mSUGRA results are in agreement with those of Refs. and .

These results reveal that, putting aside the fine-tuning issues, the EDM cancellation scenario is much more favored in the mSUGRA framework than in the D-brane models. This qualitatively agrees with the analysis of Ref. where it was found that in mSUGRA one out of every $`10^2`$ points in the parameter space satisfies the EDM constraints, while for the non-universal case this fraction drastically reduces to $`1/10^5`$.

To conclude, we have analyzed a possibility of simultaneous electron, neutron, and mercury EDM cancellations in D-brane models and mSUGRA. We find that such cancellations cannot occur in presently available semi-realistic D-brane models, while in the mSUGRA framework these cancellations are allowed with some fine-tuning.

The authors are grateful to D. Bailin and C. Muñoz for helpful communications, and to M. Brhlik, M. Gomez, and T. Ibrahim for disscussion of the numerical results.