text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Massive higher spin fields in cosmological, AdS ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$) or dS ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$) backgrounds have recently been shown to exhibit a novel structure in the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane , as compared to their flat space counterparts where only the $`m^2=0`$ theory is distinguished. The background space, with its added parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ affects the lower helicity (in flat space language) modes in such a way that they disappear entirely along lines in the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (half-)plane. Underlying the appearance of these partially massless theories are new gauge invariances. The lower helicities also flip from unitary to nonunitary as the relevant lines are traversed. In particular, for massive spin 2 fields, it is known that the norm of the helicity zero mode changes sign  across the dS line $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$, along which a new local invariance appears . The region $`m^2<2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ is therefore unitarily forbidden.

In this Letter we give a concrete proof of these results, i.e. that the $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ partially massless spin 2 theory describes 4 propagating degrees of freedom (PDoF) corresponding to helicities $`(\pm 2,\pm 1)`$ (but not 0). We then show that massive gravitons are only stable in the unitarily allowed region $`m^22\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$. Stability in (A)dS is defined just as for massless cosmological gravitons , in terms of positivity of the conserved energy associated with the timelike Killing vector within the physically accessible spacetime region, the intrinsic dS horizon.

In our Hamiltonian (3+1) approach, the behavior of the various helicity modes in the unitarily allowed and forbidden $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ regions and along the partially massless line is manifest. Since massive spin 2 is described by small oscillations of the cosmological Einstein theory about its vacuum, deformed by an explicit mass term that breaks the linearized coordinate invariance of the former, we utilize known aspects of the massless model . The constraint structure and rich behavior in the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane of the massive model are, however, very different. \[Our stability analysis is carried out in a dS background, but applies to AdS as well.\]

In outline, we begin in Section 2 by writing down the 3+1 Hamiltonian representation of the massive spin 2 theory in a dS background. Away from the strictly massless $`m^2=0`$ (linearized cosmological graviton) line, helicities $`(\pm 2,\pm 1)`$ are stable and unitary since they are immune to the helicity 0 (scalar) constraint. We derive their actions in Section 3. The renegade 0 helicity, responsible for the non-unitary, unstable region is analyzed in Section 4; we show both that a novel constraint banishes this excitation from the spectrum at $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ and that the helicity 0 action goes from stable to unphysical as this line is crossed. In Section 5, we map the stability regions of the models, and conclude with a brief discussion in Section 6.

## 2 The Action

We begin with the 3+1 form  of the cosmological Einstein action,

$`I_{E\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{(4)}g}\left[{}_{}{}^{(4)}R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[\pi ^{ij}\dot{g}_{ij}+N^0+N_i^i\right]},`$
$$^0=\sqrt{g}\left[R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]+\pi ^{ij}\pi ^{lm}\left[\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}g_{lm}g_{il}g_{jm}\right]/\sqrt{g},$$

$$^i=2D_j\pi ^{ij},N\left(g^{00}\right)^{1/2},N_ig_{0i}.$$

Throughout, latin indices are spatial as are all derivatives and index operations. Our signature is mostly plus, and the intrinsic spatial Ricci tensor $`R_{ij}+_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k`$. We expand (1) about its dS vacuum, using the synchronous (if not fully covering) gauge

$$ds^2=dt^2+f^2(t)dx^idx^i,$$
(2)
$$f(t)e^{Mt},M\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}.$$

In this frame, we will be almost able to remove all explicit time dependence due to $`f`$. Denoting the full metric by $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and its above background value by $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, the deviations are defined by

$`g_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{g}_{ij}+h_{ij}=f^2\delta _{ij}+h_{ij},`$
$`\pi ^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\pi }^{ij}+p^{ij}=2Mf\delta ^{ij}+p^{ij},`$ (3)
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`1+n,g_{00}1+h_{00}=1+n/2+𝒪(n^2).`$
Here $`\overline{\pi }^{ij}`$ is (essentially) the second fundamental form in our gauge; $`p^{ij}`$ is of course the (independent) momentum conjugate to $`h_{ij}`$; with respect to the background, $`p^{ij}`$ is a contravariant tensor density, while $`h_{ij}`$ is a covariant tensor. The shift $`N_i`$ needs no expansion since its background value vanishes.

Before expanding the action (1) to quadratic order in the deviations $`(p^{ij},h_{ij}`$, $`N_i,n)`$, we introduce the mass term. It maintains the background coordinate invariance but breaks the linearized diffeomorphism symmetry of the small oscillations,

$`I_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{^{(4)}\overline{g}}h_{\mu \nu }h_{\rho \sigma }\left[\overline{g}^{\mu \rho }\overline{g}^{\nu \sigma }\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }\overline{g}^{\rho \sigma }\right]}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4xf^1\left[h_{ij}^2h_{ii}^22f^2N_i^24f^2nh_{ii}\right]}.`$
In the last line (and from now on) we indicate the time dependence $`f^1`$ explicitly and contract spatial indices with Kronecker deltas. The massive spin 2 action in a dS background is, therefore,

$$I=I_{E\mathrm{\Lambda }}^Q+I_m,$$
(5)
where

$$I_{E\mathrm{\Lambda }}^Q=p^{ij}\dot{h}_{ij}+n_L^0+_Q^0+N_i_L^i.$$
(6)
We denote an expression’s linear and quadratic parts in the fluctuations $`(p^{ij}`$, $`h_{ij}`$, $`N_i,n)`$ by $`L`$ and $`Q`$, respectively. We also drop all integration signs and integrate freely by parts.

In absence of the mass term (but with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$), the four familiar constraints $`_L^0=0=_L^i`$, imposed by the (lapse and shift) Lagrange multipliers $`n`$ and $`N_i`$, leave only the top, helicity $`\pm `$2, linearized graviton excitations, consonant with the four gauge invariances of the system . Addition of the mass term alters this counting: the $`n^2`$ term is still absent, but (for $`m0`$) an $`N_i^2`$ term is present. Therefore only the $`n`$-constraint remains, generically reducing the 6 canonical pairs $`(p^{ij},h_{ij})`$ to the five physical helicities $`(\pm 2,\pm 1,0)`$ of massive spin 2. However, as we shall demonstrate, along the line $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/32M^2`$ a further constraint appears and excises the scalar helicity 0 mode.

Assuming henceforth that $`m^20`$ (since the stability of linearized cosmological gravitons is understood ), integrating out the shift function $`N_i`$ yields the action

$$I=p^{ij}\dot{h}_{ij}+n(_L^0+f^1m^2h_{ii})+_Q^0\frac{1}{2}f^1\left(\frac{1}{m}_L^i\right)^2\frac{m^2}{4}f^1\left(h_{ij}^2h_{ii}^2\right).$$
(7)
It is very convenient to minimize the explicit time dependence (due to $`f(t)`$) of the action, by making the simple field redefinition

$$h_{ij}f^{1/2}h_{ij},p^{ij}f^{1/2}p^{ij},nf^{3/2}n.$$
(8)
The symplectic terms then become

$$p^{ij}\dot{h}_{ij}f^{1/2}p^{ij}\frac{d}{dt}\left(f^{1/2}h^{ij}\right)=p^{ij}\dot{h}_{ij}+\frac{M}{2}p^{ij}h_{ij}.$$
(9)
It is easy to verify that the only remaining explicit time dependence of the action is through the Laplacian

$$^2=f^2_i^2.$$
(10)
Our analysis makes essential use of the familiar flat 3-space orthogonal decomposition of symmetric 2-tensors,

$$T_{ij}=T_{ij}^{Tt}+2_{(i}T_{j)}^t+\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{ij}\widehat{}_{ij})T^t+\widehat{}_{ij}T^l,$$

$$T_{ii}^{Tt}=0=_iT_{ij}^{Tt}=_iT_i^t,\widehat{}_{ij}_i_j/_k^2,$$
(11)
which, of course, commutes with $`/t`$. The constraint $`_L^0`$, being a scalar linear in the fluctuations, can only depend on the helicity 0, $`(T^t,T^l)`$ parts of $`(h_{ij},p^{ij})`$. Furthermore, since the action is of quadratic order, there is no interaction between distinct helicities, schematically

$$I=I_{\pm 2}(T_{ij}^{Tt})+I_{\pm 1}(T_i^t)+I_0(T^t,T^l),$$
(12)
the hallmark of the orthogonal decomposition (11). We now derive and examine each helicity term in turn.

## 3 Safe Helicities $`(\pm 2,\pm 1)`$

Helicities $`(\pm 2,\pm 1)`$ are the easiest part of the calculation since they are unconstrained (for $`m^20`$). Let us begin with the helicity $`\pm `$2 part, where there is never a constraint. We denote $`(p_{ij}^{Tt},h_{ij}^{Tt})`$ by $`(p_{\pm 2},q_{\pm 2})`$ respectively because, thanks to the transverse-traceless property, indices can only contract in an obvious way111For example $`p_{\pm 2}q_{\pm 2}_{\epsilon =\pm 2}p_\epsilon q_\epsilon =p_{ij}^{Tt}q_{ij}^{Tt}`$.. By explicitly writing out the helicity $`\pm 2`$ dependence of the action (7) \[note that the linearized Einstein tensor gives $`G_L^{Tt}{}_{ij}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}^2q_{ij}^{Tt}`$\] we find

$$I_{\pm 2}=p_{\pm 2}\dot{q}_{\pm 2}\left[\left(p_{\pm 2}+\frac{5M}{4}q_{\pm 2}\right)^2+\frac{1}{4}q_{\pm 2}\left(^2+m^2\frac{9M^2}{4}\right)q_{\pm 2}\right].$$
(13)
A field redefinition

$$p_{\pm 2}\left(p_{\pm 2}\frac{5M}{4}q_{\pm 2}\right)/\sqrt{2},q_{\pm 2}\sqrt{2}q_{\pm 2},$$
(14)
yields the diagonal action

$$I_{\pm 2}=p_{\pm 2}\dot{q}_{\pm 2}\left[\frac{1}{2}p_{\pm 2}^2+\frac{1}{2}q_{\pm 2}\left(^2+m^2\frac{9M^2}{4}\right)q_{\pm 2}\right].$$
(15)
We will explain and meet again the effective mass $`(m^29M^2/4)`$ later, and at present just reassure the reader that this action ensures stable, unitary propagation for all $`m^2`$. Likewise, the string of field redefinitions (8) and (14) is valid for any $`m^2`$. Therefore the helicity $`\pm 2`$ modes propagate according to (15) for all models in the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ half-plane.

Next consider the transverse vector action, $`I_{\pm 1}`$. The decompositions (11,12) implies that the result takes the form $`_iT_j^t_{(i}T_{j)}^{}{}_{}{}^{t}=\frac{1}{2}T_i^t_j^2T_i^{}^t`$, which begs for the field redefinition

$$h_i^tq_{\pm 1}/\sqrt{_j^2},p_i^tp_{\pm 1}/\sqrt{_j^2},$$
(16)
(again we will suppress the sums over helicities $`\pm 1`$). Returning to the action (7) and extracting its helicity $`\pm 1`$ dependence, after a somewhat lengthy computation222Since $`\sqrt{g}R`$ is the usual Einstein action, its quadratic part is $`\frac{1}{2}h_{ij}G_L^{ij}`$, and hence does not contribute in this sector, by the linearized Bianchi identity $`_iG_L^{ij}=0`$. we find

$`I_{\pm 1}`$ $`=`$ $`2p_{\pm 1}\dot{q}_{\pm 1}[2p_{\pm 1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2+m^2}{m^2}}\right)p_{\pm 1}Mp_{\pm 1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8^2+5m^2}{m^2}}\right)q_{\pm 1}`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q_{\pm 1}(m^2+4M^2{\displaystyle \frac{4^2+m^2}{m^2}})q_{\pm 1}].`$
The field redefinition

$$q_{\pm 1}\frac{3Mq_{\pm 1}+2p_{\pm 1}}{2m},p_{\pm 1}\frac{4Mp_{\pm 1}(m^26M^2)q_{\pm 1}}{2m},$$
(18)
yields the desired –stable and unitary– action

$$I_{\pm 1}=p_{\pm 1}\dot{q}_{\pm 1}\left[\frac{1}{2}p_{\pm 1}^2+\frac{1}{2}q_{\pm 1}\left(^2+m^2\frac{9M^2}{4}\right)q_{\pm 1}\right].$$
(19)
The helicity $`\pm 1`$ action is identical to its $`\pm 2`$ counterpart (15) with one important difference: The field redefinition (18) is singular at $`m^2=0`$ (and complex for $`m^2<0`$). This reflects the gauge invariance at $`m^2=0`$ (and instability of the theory for $`m^2<0`$). The vector constraint, imposed by the shift functions $`N_i`$, is reincarnated in the $`m^2=0`$ theory and removes the above helicity $`\pm 1`$ states.

## 4 Dangerous Helicity 0

For $`m^20`$, helicities $`(\pm 2,\pm 1)`$ are unaffected by constraints. The physical helicity 0 state leads a more interesting life as it can be (i) stable and unitary when $`m^2>2\mathrm{\Lambda }/32M^2`$, (ii) absent when $`m^2=2M^2`$ or (iii) unstable and nonunitary for $`m^2<2M^2`$.

Before writing down an action for the helicity 0 excitations (analogously to the helicity $`(\pm 2,\pm 1)`$ ones in (15) and (19)), we analyze the constraint imposed by integrating out the lapse Lagrange multiplier $`n`$. Using $`h_{ii}=h^t+h^l`$ and writing out the linearization of $`_L^0`$ explicitly333We use the linearizations
$$\left(\sqrt{g}R\right)^L=^2h^t,\left(\sqrt{g}\right)^L=(h^t+h^l)/2,$$

$$(\left[\frac{1}{2}\pi ^i{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\pi _{ij}\pi ^{ij}\right]/\sqrt{g})^L=2M(p^t+p^l)+M^2(h^t+h^l).$$
we obtain

$$(^2+\nu ^2)h^t+\nu ^2h^l2M(p^t+p^l)=0,$$

$$\nu ^2(m^22M^2).$$
(20)
The sign of the parameter $`\nu ^2`$ controls the stability, unitarity and PDoF count of the model; negative values will yield non-unitary, unstable helicity 0 excitations.

Let us now examine the effect of the constraint (20) on the symplectic terms in the helicity 0 action

$$I_0=p^l\dot{h}^l+\frac{1}{2}p^t\dot{h}^tH_0(p^l,h^l;p^t,h^t).$$
(21)
We choose (with no loss of generality in curved backgrounds) to eliminate the variable $`p^t`$ via (20)

$$p^t=p^l+\frac{1}{2M}\left((^2+\nu ^2)h^t+\nu ^2h^l\right),$$
(22)
which leads to

$$I_0=\left(p^l\frac{\nu ^2}{4M}h^t\right)\left(\dot{h}^l\frac{1}{2}\dot{h}^t\right)\frac{1}{4}h^t^2h^tH_0(p^l,h^l;h^t).$$
(23)
Diagonalizing the kinetic terms by the field redefinition

$$p^lp_0+\frac{\nu ^2}{4M}h^t,h^lq_0+\frac{1}{2}h^t,$$
(24)
we are finally ready to display the full helicity 0 action

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`p_0\dot{q}_0[{\displaystyle \frac{3\nu ^2m^2}{32M^2}}(h^t)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}h^t(^2[p_0Mq_0]+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2m^2}{4M}}q_0)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m^2}}[p_0Mq_0]^2[p_0Mq_0]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}[p_0Mq_0](p_0{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{3M}}q_0)].`$
The denominators $`M`$ in this expression do not represent a genuine singularity, but arise from choosing to solve the constraint (20) in terms of $`p^t`$. In contrast, the denominators $`m^2`$ are due to integrating out the shift $`N_i`$ and are a reminder (as we have seen already) of the strictly massless $`m^2=0`$ gauge theory. The key point is to notice that the coefficient of $`(h^t)^2`$ vanishes on the critical line $`\nu ^2=0`$ (as well as at $`m^2=0`$, concordant with the previous remark). At criticality, the field $`h^t`$ appears only linearly and is a Lagrange multiplier for a new constraint, whereas for $`\nu ^20`$, we can integrate out $`h^t`$ by its algebraic field equation and there are no further constraints. Let us deal with each of these cases in turn.

### 4.1 $`\nu ^2=0`$: The Partially Massless Theory

Consider the models with mass tuned to the cosmological constant via $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$. As is clear from (LABEL:full), the Lagrange multiplier $`h^t`$ imposes the new constraint

$$p_0Mq_0=0.$$
(26)
Eliminating $`q_0`$ (say) and since $`(p_0\dot{p}_0)`$ is a total derivative, the 0 helicity action (LABEL:full) vanishes exactly,

$$I_0=0.$$
(27)
It is known  that the critical theory possesses a local scalar gauge invariance,

$$\delta h_{\mu \nu }=(D_{(\mu }D_{\nu )}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu })\xi (x).$$
(28)
Thus, our result establishes that its effect is to remove the lowest helicity excitation. Therefore, the total action is

$$I_{\nu ^2=0}=\underset{\epsilon =(\pm 2,\pm 1)}{}\left\{p_\epsilon \dot{q}_\epsilon \left[\frac{1}{2}p_\epsilon ^2+\frac{1}{2}q_\epsilon \left(^2\frac{M^2}{4}\right)q_\epsilon \right]\right\}.$$
(29)
\[The effective mass $`M^2/4`$ is the same one as in (15) and (19), evaluated at $`\nu ^2=0`$.\] These remaining helicity $`(\pm 2,\pm 1)`$ excitations are both unitary  and, as we will show, stable.

### 4.2 $`\nu ^20`$: The Massive Theory

We may now eliminate $`h^t`$ by its algebraic field equation

$$h^t=\frac{8M}{3\nu ^2m^2}^2\left[p_0Mq_0\right]\frac{2}{3}q_0,$$
(30)
which yields the action

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`p_0\dot{q}_0[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24M^2}}\nu ^2m^2q_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6M}}[p_0Mq_0](2^23m^2+9M^2)q_0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\nu ^2m^2}}[p_0Mq_0](4^412\nu ^2^2+9\nu ^2m^2)[p_0Mq_0]].`$
A penultimate field redefinition/canonical transformation

$`p_0`$ $``$ $`p_0+M\left[q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{\nu ^2m^2}}\left(2^2+3\nu ^23M^2\right)p_0\right],`$
$`q_0`$ $``$ $`q_0+{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{\nu ^2m^2}}\left(2^2+3\nu ^23M^2\right)p_0,`$ (33)
diagonalizes the action (LABEL:pre),

$$I_0=p_0\dot{q}_0\left[\frac{1}{2}[\frac{\nu ^2m^2}{12M^2}]q_0^2+\frac{1}{2}[\frac{12M^2}{\nu ^2m^2}]p_0\left(^2+m^2\frac{9M^2}{4}\right)p_0\right].$$
(34)
Before we present the final, complete, action, some important comments on its penultimate form (34) are needed:

* The sign of the parameter $`\nu ^2`$ controls the positivity of the Hamiltonian (and consequently the energy). Therefore we find that the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ plane is divided into a stable region $`m^22\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ and an unstable one $`m^2<2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$.
* A final field redefinition,

$$p_0\frac{\nu m}{2\sqrt{3}M}q_0,q_0\frac{2\sqrt{3}M}{\nu m}p_0$$
(35)
brings the helicity 0 action into the same form as its helicity $`(\pm 2,\pm 1)`$ counterparts (15) and (19), but this is only legal in the stable massive region $`m^2>2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$.
* The $`\nu ^2=0`$ singularity signals the onset of a gauge invariance where the constraint analysis of Section 4.1 must be applied.
* The apparent singularity at $`M=0`$ is spurious and reflects our (arbitrary) choice of solution to the constraint (20).

The final action for massive spin 2 in the region $`m^2>2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ is

$$I_{\nu ^2>0}=\underset{\epsilon =(\pm 2,\pm 1,0)}{}\left\{p_\epsilon \dot{q}_\epsilon \left[\frac{1}{2}p_\epsilon ^2+\frac{1}{2}q_\epsilon \left(^2+m^2\frac{9M^2}{4}\right)q_\epsilon \right]\right\},$$
(36)
and describes stable, unitary, helicity $`(\pm 2,\pm 1,0)`$ excitations.

## 5 Stability: Positivity of the Energy

We are now ready to demonstrate the stability of the model in the allowed region $`m^22\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$. The dS background possesses a Killing vector

$$\overline{\xi }^\mu =(1,Mx^i),\overline{\xi }^2=1+\left(fMx^i\right)^2,$$
(37)
timelike within the intrinsic horizon $`(fMx^i)^2=1`$. Therefore, in this region of spacetime, it is possible to define a conserved energy whose positivity guarantees the stability of the model.

Let us consider helicity $`\epsilon `$ (omitting 0 at criticality) described by the conjugate pair $`(p_\epsilon ,q_\epsilon )`$, whose time evolution is generated by the Hamiltonian

$$H_\epsilon =\frac{1}{2}p_\epsilon ^2+\frac{1}{2}q_\epsilon \left(^2+m^2\frac{9M^2}{4}\right)q_\epsilon .$$
(38)
Hence the field equations are444The resulting second order field equation $`\ddot{q}_\epsilon +\left(^2m^2+\frac{9M^2}{4}\right)q_\epsilon =0`$ agrees precisely with the covariant one, $`(D^2m^22\mathrm{\Lambda }/3)\varphi _{\mu \nu }=0`$ (together with the usual onshell conditions $`D.\varphi _\nu =0=\varphi _\rho ^\rho `$) when written out explicitly in this frame, remembering the field redefinition (8).

$$\dot{q}_\epsilon =p_\epsilon ,\dot{p}_\epsilon =\left(^2m^2+\frac{9M^2}{4}\right)q_\epsilon .$$
(39)
However, the Hamiltonian (38) is not conserved, thanks to the explicit time dependence $`f^2(t)`$ in $`^2`$, which was to be expected since it generates time evolution $`\frac{d}{dt}`$ rather than along the Killing direction $`\overline{\xi }^\mu _\mu `$. Instead, the conserved energy is defined in terms of the stress energy tensor

$$E_\epsilon =T_\epsilon ^0{}_{\mu }{}^{}\overline{\xi }_{}^{\mu }=T_\epsilon {}_{}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}+Mx^iT_\epsilon {}_{}{}^{0}{}_{i}{}^{}.$$
(40)
The momentum density $`T_\epsilon {}_{}{}^{0}_i`$ will be defined below and $`T_\epsilon {}_{}{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}=H_\epsilon `$ is the Hamiltonian in (38). For gravity, the momentum density $`T_i^0`$ is the quadratic part of the coefficient of $`N_i`$, and a similar result holds here. Keeping track of our field redefinitions, we find (modulo irrelevant superpotentials)

$$T_\epsilon {}_{}{}^{0}{}_{i}{}^{}=p_\epsilon _iq_\epsilon +\frac{1}{2}_i\left(p_\epsilon q_\epsilon \right).$$
(41)
It is not difficult (using (39) and spatial integrations by parts) to verify that the energy function

$$E_\epsilon =H_\epsilon Mx^ip_\epsilon _iq_\epsilon \frac{3}{2}Mp_\epsilon q_\epsilon ,$$
(42)
is indeed conserved, $`\dot{E}=0`$.

Finally we come to positivity. Here we need only a simple extension of the method in . Rewriting $`E`$ as

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{x}^i\stackrel{~}{p}_\epsilon \right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(f^1_iq_\epsilon \right)^2fM|x|\left(\widehat{x}^i\stackrel{~}{p}_\epsilon \right)\left(f^1_iq_\epsilon \right)+\frac{1}{2}m^2q_\epsilon ^2,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_\epsilon p_\epsilon \frac{3M}{2}q_\epsilon ,x^i|x|\widehat{x}^i,$$
(43)
the first three terms are positive by the triangle equality within the intrinsic dS horizon

$$fM|x|<1,$$
(44)
and the fourth, mass term is manifestly positive555 The Killing energy of a massive scalar in dS also takes the form (43) and is therefore stable for $`m^20`$. \[In this non-gauge example, there is no analog to the spin 2 instabilities at negative values of $`m^2`$ or $`\nu ^2`$ whose vanishing is associated with gauge invariances.\] Scalars in AdS actually enjoy a somewhat wider stability range, extending to negative values of $`m^2`$  due to a shift in the spectrum of the AdS 3-Laplacian. This broadening is unlikely for spin 2, since its stability is controlled entirely by the above gauge coefficients. This concludes our stability proof.

The instability of the region $`m^2<2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ is also manifest: Consider helicity $`\epsilon =0`$. Recall that once $`\nu ^2<0`$, we cannot make the rescalings with factors $`\nu `$ and $`\nu ^1`$ in the final field redefinition (35). This does not prevent us from constructing a conserved energy with a “triangle” form (43), but the caveat is that $`p_0^2`$ carries a factor $`\nu ^2`$ and likewise $`q_0^2`$ a factor $`\nu ^2`$. Therefore the energy is negative and the theory is unstable in this region. Clearly, helicity 0 is the sole felon responsible for this behavior.

## 6 Discussion

Spin 2 excitations in (A)dS backgrounds have the following features in the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ half-plane: (i) For generic $`m^2`$, there are 5 propagating helicities. (ii) The $`m^2=0`$ strictly massless theory retains only helicity $`\pm `$2 excitations thanks to the gauge invariance of small oscillations of Einstein gravity about its (A)dS vacuum. These are both stable and unitary. (iii) Between the vertical line $`m^2=0`$ and the dS line $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$, all five helicities are present, but the theory is both unstable and non-unitary in the 0 helicity sector. (iv) At the $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ line, a scalar gauge invariance allows both $`\pm 2`$, and $`\pm 1`$, but removes the dangerous helicity 0 excitation. This partially massless model is unitary and stable. Furthermore, it is the unique spin 2 theory whose equation of motion implies propagation along the null cone of the conformally flat dS spacetime . (v) As $`(m^22\mathrm{\Lambda }/3)`$ turns positive beyond this line, all five excitations behave and propagate normally. This region includes all of AdS and Minkowski space.

The splitting of the $`(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ half-plane into forbidden and allowed regions separated by (partially) massless gauge lines occurs for all spins $`s>1`$  and it would be an amusing exercise to carry out a Hamiltonian analysis for spin 3/2, to exhibit the origin of the critical (AdS) line there; the required formalism already exists .

Another interesting question for higher spin theories is whether their propagation is causal . Unitarity, classical stability and causality are all directly related. As shown in  (in a slightly different context), the failure of canonical commutators to support unitary representations also implies acausal propagation: The spin 2 theory is acausal666The $`s=2`$ causality analysis in Einstein spaces of  misinterprets the results of  \[as well as of the incomplete Hamiltonian treatment of \] to draw the erroneous conclusion that the partially massless theory is non-unitary, but points out correctly that propagation is causal. Indeed the $`m^2=2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ theory is the critical case where propagation is null . in the unstable, unitarily forbidden region.

## Acknowledgments

We thank A. Higuchi and I. Bengtsson for interesting correspondence. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant PHY99-73935.


format: text

text:
# Nonlinear energy transmission in the gap

## Introduction

From the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam recursion phenomenon , nonlinear lattice and their numerical simulations have played a key role in the development of nonlinear studies. Since then a whole branch of theoretical physics has evolved with the birth of the concepts of soliton  and integrability , for continuous, discrete and higher dimensional systems . These discoveries have had a enormous impact on the understanding of nonlinear physics .

One of the fundamental studied problem is the energy localization (and transport) by generation (and propagation) of nonlinear coherent structures (solitons, breathers, nonlinear modes) by many different processes such as external forcing, noise, local potential, inhomogeneous forcing, anharmonic perturbation, modulated external forcing etc… . We note that nowadays this problem is more largely studied in the context of discrete systems where intrinsic nonlinear modes (breathers for short) have been shown to play the main part in storage and transport of energy .

Another basic question is the scattering of waves incoming onto a nonlinear medium. Two classes of problems related to wave scattering have been considered in detail: the resonant wave coupling which includes self-induced transparency (SIT) , stimulated Raman scattering , two-photon propagation , etc…, and the self modulation resulting from Kerr effect in optical media  . Within these two classes of problems, solitons have been shown to play the central role in propagating energy in regions of parameter (frequency, energy,…) usually forbidden by the linear theory.

The resonant wave coupling describes the process of interaction of an electromagnetic radiation with a two-level medium through Brillouin selection rules (the nonlinearity is extrinsic). For SIT the linear theory would conclude with resonant absorption of radiation while nonlinearity allows for perfect transparency. The model equations read as coupled Maxwell-Bloch system and the scattering of waves results in a boundary-value problem for the reduced system. The point there is that this boundary-value problem is integrable - see also  \- and it has been shown that the soliton (actually a kink for the phase) is the means which propagates energy through the medium without loss or distortion, provided the input pulse obeys the area theorem . Hence in SIT, the soliton is created by a sufficiently energetic boundary condition. In the inverse spectral transform scheme, this boundary value problem actually maps to a Cauchy problem and the area theorem simply states that the initial datum must produces at least one discrete eigenvalue .

In the case of self modulation, the nonlinearity finds its origin in the medium itself (intrinsic Kerr effect). A process similar to SIT (corresponding to a Cauchy problem in the IST scheme), but with different origin, occurs in fiber guides in nonlinear regime (and with anomalous dispersion) where a sufficiently energetic input light pulse evolves as a soliton of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLS) along the fiber  . Here and in SIT, the energy flows with solitons created by a localized high energy pulse.

A different soliton effect arises in the study of the propagation of light in a medium with forbidden bands (photonic band gaps) for which the concept of gap soliton have been introduced . There it has been shown that the nonlinearity in a dielectric periodic thin-film stack (medium with spatial periodic variation of the refraction index) allows for transmission of radiation inside the gap by means of an envelope soliton. In short, the presence of an envelope soliton in the medium shifts locally the gap and allows for transparency . The model for the slowly varying envelope is the NLS equation . For that reason (transmission of radiation in the gap), and the related switching properties (tranmission with soliton - reflection without), photonic band gap media are the subject of active research, see e.g. . Notice that the creation of the envelope soliton in those media is an open question. Indeed, while the nonlinearity, via NLS, offers possible existence of a soliton, the mechanism of its generation itself is still to be understood. Such a mechanism has been for instance analytically described in the case of stimulated Raman scattering in  with the tool of the inverse spectral transform applied to boundary value problems (another example can be found in ).

Then the mechanism of soliton creation by radiation is of fundamental interest and we consider here the (nonlinear) scattering of waves from a quite elementary point of view. Namely we explore the possibility for a nonlinear medium to build up nonlinear coherent structures under “exposition” to input radiation. The problem we are interested in, very simple in linear systems, concerns the reflection and transmission of a plane wave in an inhomogeneous medium with band pass type dispersion relation: a plane wave created in a medium 1 is sent onto a medium 2 with a different dispersion relation. In particular total reflection occurs when the incoming wave of medium 1 falls onto medium 2 with a frequency inside a frobidden band. We consider then this generic question in the case when the medium 2 is intrinsically nonlinear and modelized by an integrable equation (sine-Gordon).

## Statement of the problem.

We consider then two different media defined by the wave equations

$`x<0:u_{tt}c_1^2u_{xx}+\omega _1^2u=0,`$ (1)
$`x>0:u_{tt}c_2^2u_{xx}+\omega _2^2\mathrm{sin}u=0,`$ (2)
with continuity conditions in $`x=0`$ (inferred here from the natural discrete version of the above system, see later). The scattering of a wave of given frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and normalized amplitude incoming from medium 1 to medium 2, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ lies in the phonon gap of the nonlinear medium ($`\mathrm{\Omega }<\omega _2`$), is described in the linear limit by the general solution (the normalization is chosen such as to have an incident wave $`A\mathrm{sin}(Kx\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$)

$`x<0:u(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}[Ae^{iKx}+Be^{iKx}]+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (3)
$`x>0:u(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}[Ce^{\kappa x}+De^{\kappa x}]+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (4)
with $`K`$ and $`\kappa `$ given from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\omega _1^2+K^2c_1^2=\omega _2^2\kappa ^2c_2^2.$$
(5)
While the linear theory produces an evanescent wave ($`D=0`$), the nonlinearity does not prevent in principle nonlinear superposition111See the comment at the end of the paper of exponentials in (4), possibly allowing energy transmission to the nonlinear medium by means of a soliton. We address then the question wether or not solitons build up under scattering and allow nonlinear transmission of radiation within the gap.

The present study is fully based on numerical simulations and, before going further, it is worth stressing that we will discover that indeed solitons (actually kink-antikink pairs and breathers) are created to allow for energy transmission. Moreover, this process is in essence different either from self-induced transparency in two-level media, or else from gap solitons in photonic band gap media, because reductive perturbation method (or multi-scale expansions) do not apply: the incoming radiation creates large amplitude nonlinear objects.

## Method.

The system (1)(2) is first maped to the following discrete analog where the first nonlinear pendulum $`u_1`$ is coupled to the last linear pendulum $`u_0`$ by the spring $`c_1`$ of the linear chain:

$`n<1:`$ $`\ddot{u}_nc_1^2(u_{n+1}2u_n+u_{n1})/h^2+\omega _1^2u_n=0,`$
$`n=1:`$ $`\ddot{u}_1c_2^2(u_2u_1)/h^2+c_1^2(u_1u_0)/h^2+\omega _2^2\mathrm{sin}u_1=0,`$
$`n>1:`$ $`\ddot{u}_nc_2^2(u_{n+1}2u_n+u_{n1})/h^2+\omega _2^2\mathrm{sin}u_n=0.`$ (6)
This maps to (1)(2) in the continuous limit $`h0`$ and has natural unconstrained continuity conditions in $`n=1`$.

In order to generate in the linear medium 1 an incoming plane wave we follow the work  by making the change of variable from $`u_n(t)`$ to $`f_n(t)`$ :

$$u_n(t)=f_n(t)+AP(n)\mathrm{sin}(Knh\mathrm{\Omega }t),$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given from $`K`$ by (5), where $`A`$ is the amplitude of the incoming wave and where the fuction $`P(n)`$ (a polynomial) is chosen such as to vary from the value $`1`$ for large negative $`n`$ to the value $`0`$ far before the nonlinear medium 2. To set things clear, we have used a medium 1 made of a (linear) chain of $`10500`$ oscillators and the plynomial $`P(n)`$ varies from the value 1 at $`n=10500`$ to zero around $`n=3000`$. The medium 2 (nonlinear chain) is constituted of $`4500`$ pendula. Finally, to simulate the infinite line, strong damping is included at both ends of the interval (so called absorbing boundaries) on a lengh of about $`450`$ particles. All these settings are summarized in figure 1.

The link with the continuous system is acheived with step $`h=1/30`$, for which we shall check that the generated nonlinear structures are continuous objects.

The expression (7) is inserted in system (Method.) which is then solved for $`f_n(t)`$ as a system of $`2N`$ coupled first order differential equations in the variable $`t`$ ($`N=15000`$) with the subroutine DOPRI 5. This method allows to launch a plane wave in the system and its efficiency is first checked by equating both media to the linear one and we obtain a nice plane wave propagating without distortion for very long times (longer than the actual nonlinear experiments) as seen on figure 2(a) where the parameters of the (homogeneous, linear) medium are $`c_1^2=8,\omega _1^2=1`$ and the input wave has frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.29`$ and amplitude $`A=1.42`$. Note in particular that the created wave does vanish for large $`x=nh`$ thus testing the efficiency of the absorbing boundaries (the left-hand side absorbing boundary from $`x=300`$ to $`x=315`$ is not represented but works as well).

Second we have verified that, if the right hand side medium is linear, a wave with frequency in the phonon gap is indeed totally reflected as seen on figure of 2(b), in which the amplitude of the incident wave largely exceeds the threshold amplitude required for nonlinear transmission described later. Here the parameters are $`c_1^2=8,\omega _1^2=1`$ for the left (linear) medium and $`c_2^2=1,\omega _2^2=3`$ for the right (still linear) medium. The frequency of the input plane wave is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.29<\omega _2`$ and its amplitude $`A=1.5`$.

## Results.

Thanks to the scale invariance of the system (1)(2), we can always fix the parameters of one of the two media and vary the others. Herafter we shall then chose the parameters of the nonlinear medium to be

$$c_2^2=1,\omega _2^2=3,$$
(8)
and vary the linear medium ($`c_1`$ and $`\omega _1`$) and the incident plane wave $`A\mathrm{sin}(Kx\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$. We obtain the following results.

1 - An incoming wave with frequency inside the gap of the nonlinear medium ($`\mathrm{\Omega }<\omega _2`$) is transmitted if its average energy $`E`$ exceeds a threshold energy $`E_0`$. For the choice (8) we found $`E_0=1.68`$. The value of $`E`$ we refer to is obtained by averaging over one period the hamiltonian of the linear chain i.e.

$$E=\frac{1}{2}A^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(9)
This energy transmission is accomplished by the generation of kink-antikink pairs and large amplitude breathers. The former occur alone when the incident energy equals the threshold $`E_0`$. Both breathers and kink-antikinks then propagate in the medium. To illustrate this, a typical experiment at energy $`E>E_0`$ is shown on figure 3 where the function $`u(x,t)`$ is drawn at time $`t=120`$ in both media. By looking the picture at different times, we can state that the transmitted wave is made of two breathers followed by two kink-antikink pairs, followed themselves by a new breather.

The various behaviors are then depicted on fig.4 where the wave in the nonlinear medium is drawn for different times either for an incident energy $`E<E_0`$ (total reflection), $`E=E_0`$ (breather generation) and $`E>E_0`$ (kink-antikink and breather creation). Note that the average full width at half maximum of the breather, e.g. the one appearing in fig.4 at $`E=E_0`$, contains about $`73`$ particles, hence being a continuous object.

2 - The found threshold energy $`E_0`$ for nonlinear transmission has the following properties: it does not depend on the incident frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and it does not depend either on the nature of the linear left-hand-side medium (electromagnetic vacuum for $`\omega _1^2=0`$ or dielectric medium for $`\omega _1^20`$). This is illustrated on fig.5 where the dots denote values above which nonlinear transmission becomes effective as functions of the incident frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

3 - This transmission process does not occur if the nonlinear system does not possess soliton solutions. For instance, replacing the nonlinearity $`\mathrm{sin}u`$ by any of its truncated Taylor expansions, we do not obtain energy transmission. We illustrate this on fig.6 where $`\mathrm{sin}u`$ has been replaced by its Taylor expansion up to order $`u^7`$. This indicates that this process does not result from a shift of the stop gap due to nonlinearity. If such would be the case, one would also observe transmission with the Taylor expansion of $`\mathrm{sin}u`$ (and moreover one would also observe transmission of radiation as waves, not as nonlinear objects).

## Conclusion

By modelizing the scattering of a plane wave incoming onto a nonlinear medium, we have discovered the phenomenon that we call nonlinear transmission, and which relies on the property of a soliton-bearing system (like sine-Gordon but unlike nonlinear Klein-Gordon) of being able to superimpose nonlinearly exponential waves. With respect to gap solitons where the incident radiation flows through the medium thanks to the presence of a soliton who shifts the gap (or “opens the door”), here the radiation is totally converted into localized large amplitude nonlinear objects. These nonlinear objects cannot be described by perturbation approaches but require fully nonlinear treatment (e.g. via inverse spectral transform).

This nonlinear transmission has immediate important implications such as nonlinear absorption of radiation (which could play a role in the interpretation of anomalous absorption bands), or else nonlinear tunelling, both in continuous and discrete systems. All this issues will be displayed in forthcoming works but we want to stress here that the theoretical interpretation of the threshold $`E_0`$ of incident average energy is still to be understood.

Note that we have checked that this threshold is not due to discreteness effects (Peierls barrier to ovecome) by duplicating the numerical simulations with different steps. Varying the step size from $`h=1/10`$ to $`h=1/100`$ we have obtained the same threshold of nonlinear transmission.

## Comment

The nonlinear superposition of exponentials, say $`\mathrm{exp}[\xi _1(x,t)]`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}[\xi _2(x,t)]`$, is obtained by just writing down the two-soliton solution of sine-Gordon under the form

$$u(x,t)=4\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{a_1+a_2}{a_1a_2}\frac{e^{\xi _2}e^{\xi _1}}{1+e^{\xi _2+\xi _1}}\right],$$
(10)
where $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are two arbitrary parameters, and where

$$2\xi _j=(a_j+1/a_j)\omega _2/c_2(xx_j)+(a_j1/a_j)\omega _2(tt_j),$$
(11)
with arbitrary constants $`x_j`$ and $`t_j`$ (note that those values allows us to fix arbitrarily amplitudes and phases of both exponentials). It is remarkable that the functions $`\mathrm{exp}[\xi _j(x,t)]`$ are precisely solutions of the linearized sine-Gordon equation

$$v_{tt}c_2^2v_{xx}+\omega _2^2v=0,$$
(12)
and the formula (10) indeed furnishes a nonlinear superposition recipe.

The kink-antikink results from parameters $`a_j`$ real and of same sign (opposite signs produce the 2-kink or the 2-antikink solutions). The breather is obtained by assuming complex constants $`a_j`$ with $`a_2=\overline{a}_1`$. A quite simple exercise allows one to have insight on the creation and propagation of such nonlinear structures. In particular the kink and antikink will be seen to separate as time runs, as on the numerical experiments in fig.4 (use for instance the parameters $`a_1=0.85`$, $`a_2=0.9`$, $`x_1=5`$, $`x_2=5`$, $`t_j=0`$ in the normalized units, i.e. for $`c_2=\omega _2=1`$).

We note finally that the stationary breather furnishes a striking instance of a nonlinear superposition of the evanescent waves in (4). Indeed defining

$$a_1=\overline{a}_2=\kappa \frac{c_2}{\omega _2}+i\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega _2}$$
(13)
we obtain for $`x_j=t_j=0`$

$$u(x,t)=4\mathrm{arctan}\left[i\frac{\kappa c_2}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t\kappa x}e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t\kappa x}}{1+e^{2\kappa x}}\right],$$
(14)
where the relation (5) between $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ simply means that we have chosen $`|a_j|=1`$ (for a stationary breather).


text:
# References

About forces,  acting on radiating charge

Babken V. Khachatryan111E-mail: saharyan@www.physdep.r.am
Department of Physics, Yerevan State University, 1 Alex Manoogian St, 375049 Yerevan, Armenia
Abstract. It is shown, that the force acting on a radiating charge is stipulated by two reasons - owing to exchange of a momentum between radiating charge and electromagnetic field of radiation, and also between a charge and field accompanying the charge.

It is well known that the charged particle moving with acceleration radiates, and as a result an additional force (apart from the external one, $`\stackrel{}{F}_0`$) - force of radiation reaction acts on it. In present paper it is shown, that this force (we shall call it as a self-action force or simply by self-action) is a sum of two parts: the first force is due to the exchange of the momentum between a particle and radiation fields, i.e. the fields, which go away to infinity. For the second force in the exchange of a momentum the fields, accompanying a charge participate as well. These fields do not go away to infinity, i.e. at infinity they have zero flux of energy (details see below).

We shall start with the momentum conservation law for a system of charge and electromagnetic field ,

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\stackrel{}{P}+\frac{1}{4\pi c}_V\left[\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{H}\right]𝑑V\right)=\frac{1}{4\pi }_S\left\{\stackrel{}{E}\left(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{E}\right)+\stackrel{}{H}\left(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{H}\right)\frac{E^2+H^2}{2}\stackrel{}{n}\right\}𝑑S,$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ \- is the particle momentum, $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ \- are the vectors for electromagnetic field, $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ \- is the normal to the surface $`S`$, enclosing volume $`V`$. On the right of formula (1) the external force $`\stackrel{}{F}_0`$ is omitted. From (1) we can see, that apart from external force, two forces act on the particle: force $`\stackrel{}{f}_1`$, expressed by a surface integral, and force $`\stackrel{}{f}_2`$ expressed by a volume integral.

As a surface $`S`$ we shall take sphere of a large radius $`R\mathrm{}`$, with the centre at the point of instantaneous place of the charge, then $`\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{R}/R`$. For $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ we shall use the known expressions for the fields created by a charged particle moving with arbitrary velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}\left(t\right)`$ ,

$$\stackrel{}{H}=\left[\stackrel{}{n}E\right],\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\frac{e\left(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\beta }\right)}{\gamma ^2R^2x^3}+\frac{e}{cRx^3}\left[\stackrel{}{n}[\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\beta },\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}]\right],$$
(2)
where $`c\stackrel{}{\beta }=\stackrel{}{v}`$, $`\gamma =\left(1\beta ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`x=1\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{\beta }`$, $`\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}d\stackrel{}{\beta }/dt`$. Note, that all quantities in the right hand side of equation (2) are taken at the moment $`t^{}=tR\left(t^{}\right)/c`$.

Calculating the force $`\stackrel{}{f}_1`$ we have to substitute in (1) the term with a lowest order of $`R^1`$ (the second term on the right in (2)), corresponding, to spherical electromagnetic fields going away to infinity, i.e. radiation fields. Then, taking into account the remark after formula (2), it is possible to write the force $`\stackrel{}{f}_1`$ in the form

$$\stackrel{}{f}_1=_S\frac{E^2}{4\pi }\stackrel{}{n}𝑑S=\stackrel{}{n}\frac{dI_n}{c},$$
(3)
where $`dI_n`$ \- is the energy, radiated per unit of time in the element of the solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in an arbitrary direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$

$$dI_n=\frac{e^2}{4\pi cx^3}\left\{\dot{\beta }^2+\frac{2}{x}\left(\stackrel{}{n}\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)\frac{\left(\stackrel{}{n}\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)^2}{\gamma ^2x^2}\right\}d\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(4)
The formula (3) allows the following clear interpretation of the origin of the force $`\stackrel{}{f}_1`$ : the radiation in a direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ per unit time carries away with itself momentum $`\stackrel{}{n}dI_n/c`$, and therefore, the charge acquires a momentum $`\stackrel{}{n}dI_n/c`$. As the change of a momentum per unit time is equal to the acting force, then as a result of radiation in a direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ the force will act on the particle, equal to $`d\stackrel{}{f}_1=`$ $`\stackrel{}{n}dI_n/c`$. Integrating over all directions (over total solid angle), we get the expression for the force $`\stackrel{}{f}_1`$(details for calculation see in ):

$$\stackrel{}{f}_1=\frac{I}{c}\stackrel{}{\beta };I=\frac{2e^2}{3c}\gamma ^4\left(\dot{\beta }^2+\gamma ^2\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)^2\right).$$
(5)
Here $`I`$ \- is the instantaneous power of radiation, being a relativistic invariant and having the form ,

$$I=\frac{2}{3}ce^2\frac{du^k}{ds}\frac{du_k}{ds}.$$
(6)
In this formula $`u^k=`$ $`dx^k/ds`$ is the four-velocity and $`ds=cdt/gamma`$ is the Minkowskian interval (we follow the notations of the book ).

Now we turn to the force $`\stackrel{}{f}_2`$. Here it is necessary to take into account the contribution of both summands in formula (2). The calculations are too long and, as it is easy to see, lead to integrals, divergent at both small and long distances. The latters are related to the divergences of the self-energy and momentum for the point charge field. To avoid these difficulties, we shall act as follows. Let’s write a three-dimensional equation of motion $`d\stackrel{}{p}/dt=\stackrel{}{f}=\stackrel{}{f}_1+`$ $`\stackrel{}{f}_2`$ in the four-dimensional (covariant) form

$$\frac{dp^i}{dt}=g^i=g_1^i+g_2^i,$$
(7)
by entering the four-dimensional momentum $`p^i=mcu^i=(\gamma mc,\stackrel{}{p})`$ and force $`g^i=(\frac{\gamma }{c}\stackrel{}{f}\stackrel{}{\beta },\gamma /c\stackrel{}{f})`$. In formula (7) it is necessary to define $`g_2^i`$. Taking into account (5) and 6, it is easy to see, that $`g_1^i`$ has the form

$$g_1^i=\frac{2e^2}{3c}\frac{du^k}{ds}\frac{du_k}{ds}u^i.$$
(8)
As it follows from the definition of the force $`\stackrel{}{f}_2`$ and formula (2), where the vectors $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ and $`\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}`$ enter only, four-dimensional vector $`g_2^i`$ can be expressed through the vectors $`u^i`$, $`du^i/ds`$ and $`d^2u^i/ds^2`$ only. The first possibility disappears as for $`\stackrel{}{v}=const`$, should be $`g_2^i=0`$. The summand containing $`du^i/ds`$ is united with a left-hand side of equation (7) and leads to the renormalization of the charged particle mass, so that it remains the possibility $`g_2^i=\alpha d^2u^i/ds^2`$, where $`\alpha =2e^2/3c`$ is a number (four-dimensional scalar), which is determined from the requirement, that for an arbitrary four-dimensional force $`g^i`$ should be $`g^iu_i=0`$ (to see this it is necessary to use identity $`u^iu_i=1`$ and its consequences as well). Hence

$$g_2^i=\frac{2e^2}{3c}\frac{d^2u^i}{ds^2}.$$
(9)
From (9) the expression for three-dimensional force $`\stackrel{}{f}_2`$ follows which we give for the reference purposes

$$\stackrel{}{f}_2=\frac{2e^2}{3c^2}\gamma ^2\left\{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{\beta }}+\gamma ^2\dot{\beta }^2\stackrel{}{\beta }+3\gamma ^2\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}+\gamma ^2\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\ddot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)\stackrel{}{\beta }+4\gamma ^4\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)^2\stackrel{}{\beta }\right\}.$$

The formulas (7), (8) and (9) lead to well-known expression (see, for example, ) for the four-dimensional self-action force $`g^i`$

$$g^i=\frac{2e^2}{3c^2}\gamma ^2\left(\frac{d^2u^i}{ds^2}+\frac{du^k}{ds}\frac{du_k}{ds}u^i\right).$$

Hence, for the three-dimensional self-action force $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ we find (compare to the corresponding formulas in , )

$$\stackrel{}{f}=\frac{2e^2}{3c^2}\left\{\stackrel{}{A}+\left[\stackrel{}{\beta }\left[\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{A}\right]\right]\right\},$$
(10)
where $`\stackrel{}{A}\gamma ^4\left(\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{\beta }}+3\gamma ^2\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)`$.

In the nonrelativistic case $`\left(\beta 1\right)`$, at first approximation over $`\beta `$ from (10) we get the following expression for the self-action force (by the way we shall indicate, that there was an error in the formula (6) in article )

$$\stackrel{}{f}=\frac{2e^2}{3c^2}\ddot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}+\frac{2e^2}{c^2}\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}.$$
(11)
This force differs from the conventional one $`\stackrel{}{f}^{}=\frac{2e^2}{3c^2}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{\beta }}`$, in which the essential defect is inherent: for uniformly accelerated motion $`\left(\ddot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}=0\right)`$, the force of radiation reaction $`\stackrel{}{f}^{}`$ is zero, while the radiation is not equal to zero $`\left(\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}0\right)`$. The force (11) is deprived of this defect and always is nonzero, if the radiation is nonzero $`\left(\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}0\right)`$. If $`\ddot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}0`$ and the first summand in the right hand side of (11) dominates, then$`\stackrel{}{f}=\stackrel{}{f}^{}`$; depending on the law $`\stackrel{}{\beta }\left(t\right)`$, the second summand can dominate. Generally, for $`\beta 1`$, for self-action force it is necessary to use the formula (11).

The above mentioned allows us to state that the total self-action force acting on a radiating charge is determined by formula (10) and it is more appropriate to call a reaction force of radiation the force $`\stackrel{}{f}_1`$ determined by formula (5). This force is always nonzero when the particle moves with acceleration and hence radiates.

From this point of view let’s consider again uniformly accelerated motion (for arbitrary velocities). It is known that the condition for uniformly accelerated motion has the form

$$\frac{d^2u^i}{ds^2}+\frac{du^k}{ds}\frac{du_k}{ds}u^i=0,$$
(12)
(thence $`g^i=0`$) or in three-dimensional notations

$$\ddot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}+3\gamma ^2\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}\right)\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}=0.$$
(13)
As a result for this motion the vector $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ goes to zero and this is the case for the self-action force. However the radiation and radiation reaction force are nonzero, because the acceleration is nonzero. The latter can be easily obtained from the equation $`d\stackrel{}{p}/dt=\stackrel{}{F}_0+\stackrel{}{f}`$ and is determined by the formula

$$mc\gamma \dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}=\stackrel{}{F}_0+\stackrel{}{f}\stackrel{}{\beta }\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{F}_0\right)\stackrel{}{\beta }\left(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{f}\right).$$
(14)
In our case for $`\stackrel{}{\beta }||\stackrel{}{F}_0`$, $`\stackrel{}{F}_0=const`$, the acceleration is equal to

$$c\dot{\stackrel{}{\beta }}=\frac{\stackrel{}{F}_0}{m\gamma ^3}.$$
(15)
Hence, for the uniformly accelerated motion the only force acting on charge is the external force $`\stackrel{}{F}_0`$ (it can be easily checked that for the acceleration (15) the self-action force is zero). For $`\stackrel{}{\beta }1`$ the acceleration tends to zero, and in the case $`\stackrel{}{\beta }0`$ the acceleration, as it is expected, is equal to $`\frac{\stackrel{}{F}_0}{m}`$.

I am grateful to the participants of the seminar of Chair of Theoretical Physics of Yerevan State University.


text:
# Microwave properties of superconducting 𝑀𝑔𝐵₂

## Abstract

Measurements of the $`10GHz`$ microwave surface resistance of dense $`MgB_2`$ wire and pellet are reported. Significant improvements are observed in the wire with reduction of porosity. The data lie substantially above the theoretical estimates for a pure BCS s-wave superconductor . However the $`R_s(20K)`$ of the wire is an order of magnitude lower than that of polycrystal $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.95}`$ and matches with single crystal $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.95}.`$The results show promise for the use of $`MgB_2`$ in microwave applications.

The discovery  of superconductivity in $`MgB_2`$ with $`T_c=40K`$ has raised a flurry of interest. An important scientific issue is whether $`MgB_2`$ is a conventional type II superconductor or falls in to a different category, such as the high temperature superconducting cuprates which are believed to have an exotic order parameter. A particularly interesting technological possibility is the use of this material as a replacement for $`Nb`$ in microwave applications such as superconducting cavities and accelerators. A $`40K`$ s-wave superconductor would be of enormous benefit for microwave applications since the microwave absorption would be lower than the normal state by $`10^510^4`$ at $`TT_c/220K`$, a temperature easily accessible with modern cryo coolers.

Microwave measurements provide accurate determination of applied and fundamental parameters of superconductivity including $`Z_s(T),`$superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$, penetration depth $`\lambda (T)`$, pairing symmetry, vortex dynamics and pinning force constant $`k(T)`$. Careful study of superconductivity in $`MgB_2`$ is essential to determine the mechanism of microwave absorption and thereby synthesizing better quality materials with low microwave loss. In this report we present the first measurements of the microwave surface impedance $`Z_s=R_siX_s`$ of $`MgB_2`$.

Two types of samples were studied. The first (P-1) is a polycrystalline pellet ($`12mm`$ cubical dimensions) of moderate density which is synthesized by reacting stoichiometric amounts of B and Mg at $`950^{}C`$ for approximately two hours. The other W-1 is a high density $`MgB_2`$ wire (outer diameter $`140\mu m`$) . To synthesize $`MgB_2`$ wire (W-1) powder Mg and a boron fiber of 100 $`\mu m`$ diameter, with central core of Tungsten Boride (15 $`\mu m)`$, in a nominal ratio of $`MgB_2`$ are sealed in to a $`Ta`$ tube. The sealed $`Ta`$ tube is then placed in $`950^{}C`$ in a box furnace for 2 hours and quenched to room temperature. The density of the wire is at least 80% of the theoretical density. Both samples P-1 and W-1 have been extensively characterized by a variety of probes such as XRD, resistivity, SEM and various other probes . Very low dc resistivity $`0.4\mu \mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ at $`T_c`$ has been observed in the wire which is lower than polycrystal samples by approximately two orders of magnitude ($`70\mu \mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ ). The wire is more than $`80\%`$ dense, shows the full $`\chi =1/4\pi `$shielding in the superconducting state and has a sharp transition of width $`0.9K`$ at $`T_c=39.4K`$.

The high precision microwave measurements were carried out in a $`10GHz`$ $`Nb`$ superconducting cavity with a variable temperature sample pedestal . This technique has been used extensively for characterizing the microwave properties of small specimens of high $`T_c`$ and borocarbide superconductors . The sample is placed in the maximum of the microwave magnetic field of $`TE_{011}`$ mode and as it is warmed slowly the surface impedance, $`Z_s=R_siX_s`$ is measured.

The superconducting microwave surface resistance $`R_s(T)`$ of P-1 and W-1 are shown in Fig. 1. The polycrystalline sample is observed to have higher $`R_s`$ when compared to that of wire. Both samples show approximately similar temperature dependence of $`R_s(T)`$ but differ by a large scale factor. The microwave resistivity $`\rho _{\omega n}(T)`$ (Fig. 2) in the normal state is obtained from the surface resistance $`R_{sn}(T)`$ using $`\rho _{\omega n}(T)=2R_{sn}^2(T)/\mu _0\omega `$. The data are in good agreement with independent dc resistivity measurements of the wire. The agreement between the dc and microwave resistivities confirms that the classical skin-depth regime applies in the normal state.

Fig. 3 shows the scanning electron micrographs (SEM) of both P-1 and W-1 samples. The difference between $`R_s`$ of P-1 and W-1 can be attributed to different densities and grain sizes of these two samples. As can be seen from the figure the average grain size in W-1 is as large as $`10`$ $`\mu m`$ while P-1 has smaller grains of size $`0.55\mu m.`$ These differences in grain size and porosity lead to larger absorption in P-1 in two ways. Firstly, they result in coupled Josephson junctions with large effective junction penetration depth, and secondly smaller grain size in P-1 increases the effective surface area of and thereby $`R_s`$. In fact, correction to surface area of P-1 by a factor of 10 does reduce $`R_s`$ reasonably close to that of W-1. Fig.3(c) further clarifies the morphology of the $`MgB_2`$ sheath. Note that the Tungsten Boride core is not seen by the microwaves and is shielded by $`MgB_2`$ because of the small penetration depth $`\lambda 140nm`$ , except for a small contribution at the wire ends which may be responsible for some of the residual loss.

The comparisons to measurements at the same frequency for $`Nb`$, $`Cu`$ and single crystal and polycrystal of $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.95}`$  are shown in Fig. 1. The wire sample starts off with a very low normal state $`R_s`$ slightly below $`Cu`$, and well below the normal state values for $`Nb`$. Very important to note is the comparison to $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.95}`$ where $`R_s(T<T_c)`$ of $`MgB_2`$ wire is far below that of polycrystal $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.95}`$ and comparable to single crystal (Fig. 1) and films  of $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.95}`$ at $`20K`$. At present the improvements in the superconducting state in $`MgB_2`$ are much smaller than in the other superconductors. $`Nb`$ is well established to be an s-wave superconductor and the microwave data are in excellent agreement with BCS calculations of the microwave absorption for an s-wave superconductor with a gap that is consistent with other measurements. On the other hand the origin of the microwave absorption in $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}`$ is still debated, even though a consensus has emerged that the order parameter is d-wave. In $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6+x}`$ the microwave absorption is much larger than expected even for a d-wave superconductor if one uses the quasiparticle scattering time extrapolated from the normal state .

Several reports have already claimed that $`MgB_2`$ is a conventional phonon-mediated superconductor with an s-wave order parameter. In conventional s-wave superconductors the thermodynamic and transport coefficients decay exponentially and there is no quasiparticle excitations at low energies. Tunneling measurements report the ratio $`2\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c3`$ in $`MgB_2`$. A conventional BCS temperature dependence has been observed for the gap.

In order to investigate the mechanism of microwave absorption in $`MgB_2`$ the microwave data are compared with calculations for a BCS s-wave superconductor. We use the relation between the impedance $`Z_s=(\mu _0i\omega /\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_s)^{1/2}`$ and the Mattis-Bardeen complex conductivity $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_s=\sigma _1i\sigma _2`$. The normalized conductivity can be calculated using $`\sigma _1/\sigma _n=2/\text{ }h\omega _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}g(E)[f(E)f(E+\text{ }h\omega )dE`$ and $`\sigma _2/\sigma _n=2/\text{ }h\omega _{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }^\mathrm{\Delta }h(E)[12f(E+\text{ }h\omega )dE`$, where $`g(E)`$ and $`h(E)`$ are appropriate factors incorporating the density of states and BCS coherence factors, and $`f`$ is the Fermi function. The gap temperature dependence was taken to be the well-known gap function for BCS. We have used experimental parameters $`\omega =2\pi 10^{10}(\mathrm{sec})^1`$ and $`T_c=39.4K`$. Using a weak coupling gap ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/kT_c=1.76`$, the calculated $`R_s(T)`$ is compared with the measured data (Fig. 1). It is clear that the measured data are well above the calculated values.

It is possible to arrive at a quantitative fit to the data by varying the gap parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c`$. Including a residual temperature independent contribution $`R_{res}=150\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$, the experimental data are fit with $`R_s(T)=R_{res}+R_{BCS\mathrm{m}od}(T)`$, where $`R_{BCS\mathrm{m}od}(T)`$represents a modified BCS calculation in which the gap ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/kT_c`$is variable in the calculations for $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ mentioned above. Rather good fits are achieved with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)/k_BT_c=0.18`$. Such a low gap is clearly different from the tunneling data . The variable gap ratio in modified BCS calculation is a convenient method of parametrization of the data, although it is possible that there may be two energy scales in the material, with the larger being observed in the tunneling experiments, while the smaller value dominates the microwave absorption.

Interestingly the data for $`MgB_2`$ are similar to those in single crystals of $`RNi_2B_2C`$ ($`R=Y,Er,Ho,Dy,Tm)`$ family of superconductors . The temperature dependence of microwave $`R_s`$ of $`MgB_2`$ and its deviation from the BCS calculation for an s-wave superconductor is more akin to the microwave $`R_s`$ of $`RNi_2B_2C`$ class superconductors which also clearly do not follow BCS s-wave . In both $`MgB_2`$ and $`RNi_2B_2C`$ the microwave $`R_s(T)`$ differs from the BCS calculation with a broad temperature dependence near $`T_c`$ and high absolute values of $`R_s`$. The large microwave absorption observed in these materials was previously attributed to pair breaking, which in the magnetic members of the family could be possibly attributed to pair breaking due to magnetic ions, although a possible additional mechanism due to strong electronic correlations may be required in the non-magnetic member $`YNi_2B_2C`$. The absence of magnetic impurities in $`MgB_2`$ suggests a non-magnetic mechanism. The intriguing similarity between $`MgB_2`$ and $`RNi_2B_2C`$ clearly deserves further attention.

In conclusion substantial improvements in $`R_s`$ of $`MgB_2`$ have been achieved with improvement in sample density. A significant advantage of $`MgB_2`$ is the low normal state resistance due to the intermetallic nature of the compound. The $`R_s(20K)`$ of W-1 is substantially lower than that of polycrystal of $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.95}`$ and close to that of single crystal $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.95}`$. For a $`10GHz`$ $`TE_{011}`$ cavity constructed of $`MgB_2`$ with a geometric factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }780`$, and using $`R_s(20K)=800\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$, the resulting $`Q(20K)=\mathrm{\Gamma }/R_s>10^6`$. This observation is very promising, and further improvements in sample quality would greatly enhance the prospects for microwave applications at temperatures accessible using cost effective cryo coolers.

This work was supported at Northeastern by the Office of Naval Research. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U.S.Department of Energy. The work at Ames was supported by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences.


text:
# Exploring the Vicinity of the Bogomol’nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield Bound

## I Introduction

Domain walls are defect structures that appear in systems engendering spontaneous breaking of discrete symmetry. They are of interest for instance in Condensed Matter, as interfaces in magnetic materials , as seeds for pattern formation , and as interfaces in ferroelectric crystals , and in Cosmology, as seeds for the formation of structures  in the early universe. Domain walls spring through the immersion of kink-like solutions of $`(1,1)`$ space-time dimensions to higher spatial dimensions. Standardly, kinks or domain walls appear in scalar field models, but they may also be present in extended systems, that include fermionic fields, with or without supersymmetry.

Recently, the study of supersymmetric models has brought new issues, as for instance in the investigations of a Wess-Zumino model  engendering the $`Z_3`$ symmetry. This model allows the identification of a Bogomol’nyi equation  for a triple junction that breaks $`1/4`$ supersymmetry of the model. We learn from these works that supersymmetry helps easing calculations concerning the presence of the triple junction . However, supersymmetry seems to play no central role when the issue is the tiling of the plane and not the triple junction ifself . Furthermore, in Ref.  it was shown how to entrap a planar regular hexagonal network of defects inside a domain wall. This model involves three real scalar fields, and engenders the $`Z_2\times Z_3`$ symmetry, but it seems to have no supersymmetric extension.

These facts motivate the study of bosonic models that do not support supersymmetric extensions. However, to keep track of supersymmetry we investigate models that are close to the real bosonic portions of supersymmetric systems. These models are defined by potentials that contain two parts: the first part defines the real bosonic portion of a supersymmetric system; the second part defines the extended model. The first part alone constitutes the basic model, which supports static field configurations that minimize the energy, attained by static field configurations that solve first order differential equations. In particular, we examine models that support topological solutions that belong to the same topological sector, and are degenerate, having the very same energy. An example of this was investigated in , in a model of two coupled scalar fields. This model has been recently extended to the case of several scalar fields in . We explore the possibility of extending this system, in order to remove the degeneracy between the one-field and the two-field solutions. This investigation is of intrinsic interest, and may also help examining applications to Cosmology and to Condensed Matter. In Cosmology we recall the usual route , and also the new possibility . In Condensed Matter, we envisage other issues, concerning for instance the presence of Ising and Bloch wall interfaces in magnetic materials described by the anysotropic XY model , and the structural phase transition in ferroelectric crystals .

The real bosonic sector of supersymmetric systems described by $`n`$ chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c^1,\mathrm{\Phi }_c^2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_c^n`$ contains $`n`$ real scalar fields $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _n`$. The potential $`V`$ is written in terms of the superpotential $`W`$, in a way such that for $`V=V(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)`$ and $`W=W(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)`$ we get

$$V=\frac{1}{2}W_{\varphi _1}^2+\frac{1}{2}W_{\varphi _2}^2+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}W_{\varphi _n}^2$$
(1)
where $`W_{\varphi _i}=W/\varphi _i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. These systems have been investigated in several different contexts in , and in references therein. In the present work we investigate systems where the potential includes an extra piece, that modifies the above potential according to

$$V_ϵ=V+\frac{1}{2}ϵF$$
(2)
where $`ϵ`$ is a parameter, real, and $`F=F(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)`$ is in principle an arbitrary function of the fields. In the present work we show that if $`ϵ`$ is small, we can develop a perturbation procedure that gives closed results up to first order in $`ϵ`$. The perturbation procedure is based on former investigations , and works nicely for potentials of the form (2) when the function $`F`$ obeys some restrictions. We start our investigations using natural units, but we work with dimensionless fields and coordinates, and sometimes we refer to the model with $`ϵ=0`$ as the primary system, and to the complete model, with $`ϵ0`$, as the extended system.

## II General Considerations

In order to better understand the procedure, let us first consider models that are bosonic portions of supersymmetric theories. In this case we have

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_\alpha \varphi _i^\alpha \varphi _iV(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)$$
(3)
where $`V`$ is given by Eq. (1). We work in $`(1,1)`$ space-time dimensions. The equation of motion for static fields are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\varphi _1}{dx^2}}=W_{\varphi _1}W_{\varphi _1\varphi _1}+\mathrm{}+W_{\varphi _n}W_{\varphi _n\varphi _1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\varphi _2}{dx^2}}=W_{\varphi _1}W_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}+\mathrm{}+W_{\varphi _n}W_{\varphi _n\varphi _2}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\varphi _n}{dx^2}}=W_{\varphi _1}W_{\varphi _1\varphi _n}+\mathrm{}+W_{\varphi _n}W_{\varphi _n\varphi _n}`$
These second order equations are solved by field configurations that solve the first order differential equations

$$\frac{d\varphi _1}{dx}=W_{\varphi _1},\frac{d\varphi _2}{dx}=W_{\varphi _2},\mathrm{}\frac{d\varphi _n}{dx}=W_{\varphi _n}$$

These are the Bogomol’nyi equations. The energy of the static solutions can be written as

$$E=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\left(\frac{d\varphi _i}{dx}\right)^2+W_{\varphi _i}^2\right]$$
(4)
In general, the system may have several distinct sectors, which may be identified by the two vacuum states the static solution connect. Thus, if we use the set of numbers $`\{v_a,v_b,v_c,\mathrm{}\}`$ to mark the vacuum states of the model, we can write

$$E^{ab}=E_B^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{d\varphi _i}{dx}W_{\varphi _i}\right)^2$$
(5)
Here $`E_B^{ab}=|W_{ab}|`$, and $`W_{ab}=W(v_a)W(v_b)`$. A pair of vacua defines a topological sector, and in the sector $`(ab)`$ the energy is minimized to the bound $`E_B^{ab}`$ for field configurations that obeys the above first order equations. Solutions of the Bogomol’nyi equations are named Bogomol’nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield solutions , and we refer to this bound as the BPS bound. It is possible that $`W(v_a)=W(v_b)`$, giving a vanishing $`W_{ab}`$. In this case the topological sector cannot support BPS states, and we refer to this as a non-BPS sector – see Ref. . The topological features of these solutions can be accounted for by introducing for instance the topological current

$$j^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta }_\beta \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a column vector, such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^t=(\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _n)`$.

We illustrate the general situation with some examples. We work with natural units. However, we avoid unimportant considerations by considering the Lagrangian density $``$, written in terms of dimensionless fields and coordinates. The usual form of the Lagrangian density is $`^{}=\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is a constant, which carries the correct dimension of the Lagrangian density in natural units.

### A One Real Scalar Field

In the case of one real scalar field we have

$$=\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \varphi ^\alpha \varphi V(\varphi )$$
(7)
The potential $`V(\varphi )`$ speficies the system. As an example we consider the model

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2|\varphi |+\frac{1}{2}$$
(8)
This potential was recently considered in Ref. . There are two minima, at the values $`\{v_1=1,v_2=1\}`$. The equation of motion is $`d^2\varphi /dx^2=\varphi \varphi /|\varphi |`$. It has the solutions $`\varphi _\pm (x)=\pm (x/|x|)[1\mathrm{exp}(|x|)]`$. This model can be written in terms of the function

$$W(\varphi )=\varphi \frac{1}{2}|\varphi |\varphi $$
(9)
This means that the topological sector is a BPS sector. The BPS solution satisfies

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dx}=1|\varphi |$$
(10)
This solution is $`\varphi (x)=(x/|x|)[1\mathrm{exp}(|x|)]`$. It has a kink-like profile, and is linearly stable , minimizing the energy to $`E_B=1`$.

### B Two Real Scalar Fields

We exemplify the case of two real scalar fields by considering the superpotential

$$W(\varphi ,\chi )=\varphi \frac{1}{3}\varphi ^3r\varphi \chi ^2$$
(11)
where $`r`$ is a real parameter. Here the potencial gets to the form

$$V(\varphi ,\chi )=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ^21)^2r\chi ^2+r(1+2r)\varphi ^2\chi ^2+\frac{1}{2}r^2\chi ^4$$
(12)
There are two minima for $`r<0`$, $`v_1=(1,0),v_2=(1,0)`$. For $`r>0`$ thare are four minima, the two former ones, and also the other two $`v_3=(0,\sqrt{1/r}),v_4=(0,\sqrt{1/r})`$.

In this model the first order equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\varphi ^2)r\chi ^2`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\chi }{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`2r\varphi \chi `$ (14)
We see that for $`\chi 0`$ the first order equations demand $`d\varphi /dx=(1\varphi ^2)`$, and the BPS defect solution is $`\varphi (x)=\mathrm{tanh}(x)`$. However, for $`\varphi 0`$ the first order equations demand that $`\chi ^2=1/r`$, that is, that the $`\chi `$ field should be at the corresponding minima. These results are manifestations that the sector defined by the minima $`(\pm 1,0)`$ is a BPS sector, while the other sector, defined by the minima $`(0,\pm \sqrt{1/r})`$ is a non-BPS sector, and the non-BPS solutions are stable if and only if $`1/r<1`$ .

The solution $`\varphi =\mathrm{tanh}(x)`$ and $`\chi =0`$ is a one-field solution, but the system also supports two-field solutions. In the sector that connect the minima $`(\pm 1,0)`$, the two-field BPS solutions have the explicit form

$`\varphi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}(2rx)`$ (15)
$`\chi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}2}\mathrm{sech}(2rx)`$ (16)
which requires that $`1/r>2`$. The one-field and two-field solutions that appear in the sector connecting the minima $`(\pm 1,0)`$ have the same energy, $`E=4/3`$. In the $`(\varphi ,\chi )`$ space the real line $`x𝐑`$ is mapped to line segments: for the one-field solution we get a straight line segment going from $`(1,0)`$ to $`(1,0)`$, and for the two-field solutions we get an ellyptic arc, obeying $`\varphi ^2+\chi ^2/(1/r2)=1`$. These solutions map the Ising and Bloch walls that appear in magnetic systems, respectively, and represent solutions of the anisotropic $`XY`$ model, that describe interfaces between ferromagnetic domains .

## III Extended Systems

Here we deal with systems defined by extended potentials, that differ from the above primary potentials by some slight modifications. We start dealing with the general model

$$V_ϵ=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}W_{\varphi _i}^2+\frac{1}{2}ϵF(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)$$
(17)
where $`ϵ`$ is a real parameter, infinitesimal. In this case we can use such parameter to control the procedure of extending the result beyond the $`ϵ`$-independent value. The correction to the potential depends on $`F=F(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)`$. In general, we may have two different types of functions: functions that respect and functions that do not respect the symmetry of the original system. Both type of functions are important to describe situations where the system is modified by the presence of external fields, chemical potentials, etc. However, in the present work we are interested mainly on topological solitons, in investigating the topological sectors of the model. Thus, we consider the case of functions that respect some symmetry of the primary system. In this case the function $`F`$ accounts for modifications of the original system, without destroying the topological sector one is investigating. This means that in the set of possible vacuum states $`\{v_a,v_b,v_c,\mathrm{}\}`$ of the primary system, at least the vacua $`v_a`$ and $`v_b`$ remain present, althought they can be slightly changed to $`v_a^ϵ`$ and $`v_b^ϵ`$. We shall be investigating slight modifications in the topological sectors of the BPS type, modifications that do not destroy the sectors themselves. In this case we write the static solution $`\varphi _1^ϵ(x),\varphi _2^ϵ(x),\mathrm{},\varphi _n^ϵ(x)`$ of the extended system in terms of the static solution of the original model in the form, up to first order in $`ϵ`$

$$\varphi _i^ϵ(x)=\varphi _i(x)+ϵ\eta _i(x),i=1,2,\mathrm{},n$$
(18)
In the extended system, the energy of static solutions has the form

$$E=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\left(\frac{d\varphi _i}{dx}\right)^2+W_{\varphi _i}^2\right]+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xF(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)$$
(19)
It can be written as, in the case of the BPS sector that connects the vacuum states labeled by $`a`$ and $`b`$,

$$E^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{d\varphi _i}{dx}W_{\varphi _i}\right)^2+E_B^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xF(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)$$
(20)
We now follow Ref. . We see that the field $`\varphi _i^ϵ`$ given by Eq. (18) shows that the first term in the above expression for the energy do not contribute to first order in $`ϵ`$. This fact allows writing the energy in the form

$$E^{ab}=E_B^{ab}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xF(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)+𝒪(ϵ^2)$$
(21)
Here $`E_B^{ab}=|W_{ab}|`$ and $`W_{ab}=W(v_a^ϵ)W(v_b^ϵ)`$. The correction to the potential is small, and we separate two cases: first, the case where the correction does not change the minima of the primary potential, that is, the case where $`v_a^ϵ=v_a`$ and $`v_b^ϵ=v_b`$; and second, the case where the correction slightly modifies the minima of the primary potential. In the first case both $`\varphi _i^ϵ(x)`$ and $`\varphi _i(x)`$ have the same asymptotic behavior, thus $`\eta _i(x)`$ must vanish asymptotically; in the second case $`\varphi _i^ϵ(x)`$ is asymptotically different from $`\varphi _i(x)`$, thus $`\eta _i(x)`$ cannot vanish asymptotically. In both cases the term $`E_B^{ab}`$ exactly reproduces the corresponding term in the primary system, up to first order in $`ϵ`$. This is so because $`W[\varphi _1^ϵ(\pm \mathrm{}),\mathrm{},\varphi _n^ϵ(\pm \mathrm{})]`$ can be expanded to give

$$W[\varphi _1(\pm \mathrm{}),\mathrm{},\varphi _n(\pm \mathrm{})]+ϵ\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _i(\pm \mathrm{})\frac{dW}{d\varphi _i}|_{\varphi _i(\pm \mathrm{})}$$

However, we know that $`\varphi _i(\pm \mathrm{})`$ are minima of the primary model, and are extrema of W. Thus, the second term in the above expression vanishes. For the topological charge, in the first case we see that it does not change, giving $`Q_T^ϵ=Q_T`$. However, in the second case the topological charges change according to $`Q_T^ϵ=Q_T+ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$, where $`Q_T^ϵ`$, $`Q_T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ are $`n`$-component vectors, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q`$ accounts for the difference $`\eta _i(\mathrm{})\eta _i(\mathrm{}),i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$.

The above results are general results, and we illustrate the general procedure with some examples, spliting the investigation in the two subsections that follows, which deal with one and two real scalar fields separately.

### A The case of one real scalar field

In the case of one field, let us first consider the $`\varphi ^4`$ model, defined by the potential

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ^21)^2$$
(22)
We consider $`F_1(\varphi )=(\varphi ^21)^2`$, which is an example where the correction does not change the minima of the primary system, and so $`Q_T^ϵ=Q_T=1`$. In this case the energy becomes

$$E=E_B\left(1+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)$$
(23)
where $`E_B=(4/3)`$. It can be greater $`(ϵ>0)`$ or lesser $`(ϵ<0)`$ than the energy of the unperturbed system.

We notice that the above $`F_1(\varphi )`$ allows rewriting the potential as

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}(1+ϵ)(\varphi ^21)^2$$
(24)
This potential requires that $`ϵ>1`$, and shows that the extended system is very much like the primary model, with the coupling for self-interaction changed by the $`ϵ`$ term. In this case we can find the energy of the static solution exactly. It is

$$E=E_B\sqrt{1+ϵ}$$
(25)
For $`ϵ`$ very small, we expand the above result to get the former answer, Eq. (23), and this shows that our approach works correctly.

As a second example, let us consider the same primary model and another function

$$F_2(\varphi )=(1\varphi ^2)$$
(26)
In this case the correction does change the minima of the primary potential. The new minima are at $`\pm (1+ϵ/4)`$. The energy is

$$E=E_B\left(1+\frac{3}{4}ϵ\right)$$
(27)
It can be greater $`(ϵ>0)`$ or lesser $`(ϵ<0)`$ than the energy of the unperturbed system. The topological charge changes to $`Q_T^ϵ=Q_T(1+ϵ/4)`$.

Here we also notice that with the above correction of Eq. (26) the potential can be rewritten in the form

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi ^21\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)^2$$
(28)
which is correct to first order in $`ϵ`$. In this case the energy of the static solution is

$$E=E_B\left(1+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)^{3/2}$$
(29)
However, since $`ϵ`$ very small, we expand the above result to get the former answer, Eq. (27). We notice that the modification in the minima of the potential changes the topological charge, and also the energy of the topological solution. The energy increases or decreases, depending on the increasing or decreasing of the spontaneous symmetry breaking parameter.

We now consider the model defined in Eq. (8). We extend this model with the above $`F_2(\varphi )`$. The new potential is

$$V_ϵ(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2|\varphi |+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ(1\varphi ^2)$$
(30)
For $`ϵ0`$, small, the minima change from $`v_\pm =\pm 1`$ to $`v_\pm ^ϵ=\pm (1+ϵ)`$. The energy of the topological solution changes to

$$E=1+\frac{3}{2}ϵ$$
(31)
We see that the energy decreases when the spontaneous symmetry breaking parameter decreases.

We notice that the above potential can be written as

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{1+ϵ}\frac{|\varphi |}{\sqrt{1+ϵ}}\right)^2$$
(32)
This result is valid up to first order in $`ϵ`$. It allows introducing a superpotential, and the first order equation is

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dx}=\sqrt{1+ϵ}\frac{|\varphi |}{\sqrt{1+ϵ}}$$
(33)
It has the BPS solution

$$\varphi (x)=(1+ϵ)\frac{x}{|x|}\left(1e^{|x|/(1+ϵ)}\right)$$
(34)
This shows that both the amplitude and width of the former kink-like solution change in the extended model. The energy is $`(1+ϵ)^{3/2}`$, but since $`ϵ`$ is small we can expand this result to get the former answer, given by Eq. (31).

### B The case of two real scalar fields

The case of two fields is more involved, and we envisage several distinct possibilities of illustrating this situation. We consider the example presented in Sec. II. We extend that model with the function

$$F_1(\varphi ,\chi )=(1\varphi ^2)$$
(35)
In this case, in the BPS sector defined by the minima $`(\pm 1,0)`$ the correction to the one-field solution is

$$E_1^1=E_B\left(1+\frac{3}{4}ϵ\right)$$
(36)
In the case of the two-field solution $`(\text{15})`$ and $`(\text{16})`$ we get

$$E_2^1=E_B\left(1+\frac{3}{8}ϵ\frac{1}{r}\right)$$
(37)
We introduce the ratio between energies, $`R=E_2/E_1`$. We see that

$$R_1=1+\frac{3}{8}ϵ\left(\frac{1}{r}2\right)$$
(38)
We consider another perturbation

$$F_2(\varphi ,\chi )=r\chi ^2$$
(39)
It gives

$$E_1^2=E_B$$
(40)
and

$$E_2^2=E_B\left[1+\frac{3}{8}ϵ\left(\frac{1}{r}2\right)\right]$$
(41)
They give

$$R_2=1+\frac{3}{8}ϵ\left(\frac{1}{r}2\right)$$
(42)
We see that $`R_1=R_2`$. The ratio $`R=E_2/E_1`$ does not depend on the way one extends the model, using $`F_1=(1\varphi ^2)`$ or $`F_2=r\chi ^2`$. We notice that the extension with $`F_1=(1\varphi ^2)`$ changes the minima of the primary model from $`(\pm 1,0)`$ to $`(\pm 1\pm ϵ/4),0)`$. Thus, the topological charge of the sector changes according to

$$Q_T=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)Q_T^ϵ=Q_T+ϵ\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1/4}{0}\right)$$
(43)
The other extension, that uses $`F_2=r\chi ^2`$, does not change the minima $`(\pm 1,0)`$, so the topological charge in this BPS sector remains the same $`Q_T^ϵ=Q_T`$. The above examples show two distinct ways of removing the degeneracy between the standard one-field solution and two-field solutions (15) and (16). The two-field solutions are less energetic for $`ϵ<0`$. This means that one favors the non-trivial two-field configuration when the symmetry breaking parameter decreases in one or in the two $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ directions.

There is another way of removing the degeneracy of the one-field and the two-field solutions that appear in the sector connecting the minima $`(\pm 1,0)`$. We consider the case where the extra piece contains interactions between the two fields, for instance

$$F_3^{(k)}(\varphi ,\chi )=r\varphi ^{2k}\chi ^2,k=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(44)
In this case the minima of the primary system do not change, so the topological charge gets no modification. The same happens to the energy of the one-field solution. However, the energy of the two-field solutions changes to

$$E^{(k)}=E_B+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\left(\frac{1}{r}2\right)\frac{1}{2k+1}$$
(45)
We see that in the limit $`k0`$ ones obtains the former result, giving in Eq. (41). We also see that the sign of $`ϵ`$ makes the energy density of the two-field solutions to be higher $`(ϵ>0)`$ or lower $`(ϵ<0)`$ than the energy density of the one-field solution, removing the degeneracy they have in the primary system.

In the former model of two real scalar fields with the function $`F_1(\varphi ,\chi )`$ as in Eq. (35), the potential has the form

$`V_ϵ(\varphi ,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi ^21)^2r\chi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^2\chi ^4`$ (47)
$`+r(1+2r)\varphi ^2\chi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ(1\varphi ^2)`$
There are four minima, two at $`(0,\chi _\pm ),\chi _\pm =\pm \sqrt{1/r}`$, and two at $`(\varphi _\pm ,0),\varphi _\pm =\pm (1+ϵ/4)`$. We compare this potential with the potential of the primary model. The presence of the extra term shows that, for $`r>1`$ the stable non-BPS solution implies

$$V_ϵ(\varphi ,0)=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ^21)^2+\frac{1}{2}ϵ(1\varphi ^2)$$
(48)
and

$$V_ϵ(\varphi ,\pm \sqrt{1/r})=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^4+\left(2r\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}ϵ$$
(49)
This shows that the (squared) mass of the $`\varphi `$meson is, inside the $`\chi `$kink

$$m_\varphi ^2(in)=4\left(1+\frac{1}{2}ϵ\right)$$
(50)
Outside the $`\chi `$kink we get $`m_\varphi ^2(out)=4rϵ`$, which gives the ratio

$$\frac{m_\varphi ^2(in)}{m_\varphi ^2(out)}=\frac{1}{r}\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{2r}\right)ϵ\right]$$
(51)
Thus, if the non-BPS $`\chi `$kink entraps $`\varphi `$mesons in the primary system, the entrapment is still more efficient in the extended system, for $`ϵ<0`$. We see that deviations from the BPS bound may improve the efficiency of the mechanism for the entrapment of the other field.

### C Another case

Let us now consider the model investigated in Ref. . It is described by three real scalar fields, and the potential has the form

$$V(\sigma ,\varphi ,\chi )=\frac{2}{3}\left(\sigma ^2\frac{9}{4}\right)^2+\left(r\sigma ^2\frac{9}{4}\right)(\varphi ^2+\chi ^2)+(\varphi ^2+\chi ^2)^2\varphi (\varphi ^23\chi ^2).$$
(52)
The projection with $`(\varphi ,\chi )(0,0)`$ gives

$$V(\sigma )=\frac{2}{3}\left(\sigma ^2\frac{9}{4}\right)^2$$
(53)
This potential can be written with the superpotential $`W(\sigma )=(3\sqrt{3}/2)\sigma (2\sqrt{3}/9)\sigma ^3`$. This fact shows that the defect $`\sigma (x)=(3/2)\mathrm{tanh}(\sqrt{3}x)`$ that appears in this case is a BPS defect. We can then extend this model adding to the potential in Eq. (52) a term depending on the $`\sigma `$ field, for instance

$$f(\sigma )=\frac{1}{2}ϵ\left(\frac{3}{2}\sigma ^2\right)$$
(54)
We use former results to see that this term contributes to decreasing or increasing the energy of the basic defect, increasing or decreasing the efficiency of the mechanism for the entrapment of the network the other two fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ may generate.

## IV Comments

In this paper we have examined systems described by real scalar fields, in which the energy of static field configurations is in the vicinity of the BPS bound. This bound is attained by field configurations that solve first order equations, and minimize the energy. The BPS bound appears in the real bosonic sector of supersymmetric theories described by chiral superfields. The systems we have investigated are extensions of primary systems, described by potentials given by the functions $`W=W(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{})`$ and $`F=F(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{})`$, in the specific form

$$\frac{1}{2}W_{\varphi _1}^2+\frac{1}{2}W_{\varphi _2}^2+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}W_{\varphi _n}^2+\frac{1}{2}ϵF(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)$$

The parameter $`ϵ`$ is real, and is used to control the deviation from the primary system, described in terms of the superpotential $`W`$.

In the extended system, if the static solutions are similar to the solutions one finds in the primary system, that is, for $`\varphi _i^ϵ(x)=\varphi _i(x)+ϵ\eta _i(x)`$, we could examine the energy related to the new defect solutions $`\varphi _i^ϵ(x)`$, and write the first corrections in $`ϵ`$ in a closed form, independently of the specific form of the new defect solution itself. The formal results are of direct interest to field theory, where they may be used to improve the mechanism for the entrapment of the other field .

We have investigated specific systems, and we have found diverse possibilities of removing the degeneracy between different types of solutions, without destroying the degeneracy of the vacuum states. The examples we have presented serve to illustrate some practical possibilities of removing defect degeneration, and this is of direct interest in application in specific physical situations. In ferroelectric crystals, for instance, the order parameters that control structural phase transitions may be changed by applications of external pressure along specific planar directions in the crystal. This is a tipical scenario for changing the parameters that control spontaneous symmetry breaking inside the crystalline material, changing the energetics of the structural phase transition. In the systems we have examined in the present work, the presence of external pressure may be directly mapped into specific forms of $`F`$, that controls the extended system. The present work opens a new route for exploring systems of coupled scalar fields, intending to mimic specific systems in applications to Cosmology and to Condensed Matter. We postpone to the near future some specific investigations.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank J R S Nascimento and R F Ribeiro for discussions. C A G Almeida thanks Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Regional do Cariri, 63.100-000 Crato, Ceará, Brazil, for support. This work is supported in part by funds provided by CAPES, CNPq, and PRONEX.