format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0103103, UTPT-01-06

The Randall-Sundrum Scenario with an Extra Warped Dimension

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

Department of Physics

University of Toronto

Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A7, Canada

Abstract

We investigate a scenario with two four-branes embedded in six dimensions. When the metric is periodic and compact in one of the dimensions parallel to the branes, the value of the effective cosmological constant for the remaining five dimensions can assume a variety of values, determined by the dependence of the metric on the sixth dimension. The picture that emerges resembles the Randall-Sundrum model but with an extra warped dimension that allows the usual brane-bulk fine tuning to be satisfied without finely tuning any of the parameters in the underlying six dimensional theory. Although the action contains terms with four derivatives of the metric, we show that when the branes have a finite, natural thickness, such terms have only a small effect on the Randall-Sundrum structure. The presence of these four derivative terms also allows a configuration that resembles that produced by a domain wall but which results from gravity alone.

March, 2001

1. Introduction.

Two of the most enigmatic features of the universe are the weakness of gravity compared to electroweak interactions—the hierarchy problem—and the small size of the cosmological constant. A recent approach  to the hierarchy problem has observed that the presence of a small warped extra dimension could naturally produce an exponential hierarchy between the scales of gravitational and Standard Model interactions. The new element in this and related  scenarios is the introduction of solitonic three-dimensional hypersurfaces, or $`3`$-branes, to which the Standard Model fields are confined while gravity propagates in all the dimensions. These models still require a fine-tuning to produce a low energy effective $`3+1`$ dimensional theory with no cosmological constant.

Extra dimensions might also provide a framework for addressing the cosmological constant problem. Instead of setting the cosmological constant to an unnaturally small value, we can demand only that the theory should admit a nearly flat effectively $`3+1`$ dimensional theory below some high energy scale—regardless of the value of the cosmological constant. This picture was introduced by Rubakov and Shaposhnikov with a six dimensional model . The idea is that the cosmological constant distorts, or warps, some or all of the extra dimensions while leaving the theory with a $`3+1`$ dimensional Poincaré symmetry. If this idea is extended so that this warping is accomplished with a metric that is both smooth and periodic in the extra dimensions, then there is no need to cut off the space or to encounter singularities in the extra dimensions.

An explicit realization occurs in $`4+1`$ dimensions  when the metric is smooth, non-singular and periodic in the extra dimension. We can then choose the extra dimension to be compact with its size given by the period. At large distances compared to this period, the universe appears four-dimensional. The $`4d`$ cosmological constant is determined by both the $`5d`$ cosmological constant and the geometry of the extra dimension. Therefore, we can achieve $`3+1`$ dimensional Poincaré invariance even when the $`5d`$ cosmological constant is not zero by choosing the solution to the field equations with the appropriate behavior in the extra dimension. However, some further mechanism is still required to explain why this particular solution should be preferred.

This note intends to combine these ideas into a scenario that incorporates the Randall-Sundrum picture $`[1]`$ but without finely tuning any of the parameters in the action. The scenario starts with an effective action for gravity in six dimensions including terms with up to four derivatives of the metric. It also includes two parallel $`4`$-branes which are compact in one dimension and extend infinitely in the other three. With some mild bounds on the parameters in the action, we find that the equations of motion allow the geometry of the resulting universe to contain a five-dimensional anti-de Sitter (AdS5) subspace with a warped metric that is periodic in the sixth dimension.

A generic set of four derivative terms in the action apparently implies an infinite tension on the branes; however, this singularity appears as an artifact of the vanishing thickness of the branes. When the brane has a finite thickness, it is possible to show explicitly that the higher derivative terms can be neglected. An action that contains only gravity—including these four derivative terms but without any scalar fields—also admits solutions in which gravity is localized about a codimension one hypersurface. Far from this hypersurface, the metric approaches an AdS metric as in the second Randall-Sundrum model ; however, it is the four derivative terms and not a brane or a scalar field that effects this localization of gravity.

2. Preliminaries and effective action descriptions.

Randall and Sundrum $`[1]`$ proposed that if the universe were to consist of two $`3`$-branes bounding a bulk region of five-dimensional anti-de Sitter space-time, then the redshift induced by the bulk metric at one of the branes could generate an exponential hierarchy between the Planck scale and the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. The action for their scenario contains an Einstein-Hilbert term for the bulk,

$$S_{\mathrm{bulk}}^{\mathrm{RS}}=M_5^3d^4x𝑑r\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}+R\right],$$
$`(2.1)`$
while the branes located at $`r=0`$ and $`r=r_c`$ only contribute through their surface tensions,

$$S_{\mathrm{branes}}^{\mathrm{RS}}=M_5^3_{r=0}d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{h}}\left[2\sigma _{\mathrm{RS}}\right]+M_5^3_{r=r_c}d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{h}}\left[2\sigma _{\mathrm{RS}}\right].$$
$`(2.2)`$
Here $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$ is the metric for AdS5,

$$\widehat{g}_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=e^{2|r|/\mathrm{}}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2,$$
$`(2.3)`$
and $`\widehat{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced metric on the branes. We shall denote the usual space-time directions by $`x^\mu `$, with $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$, and $`r`$ describes the direction orthogonal to the branes with $`M,N\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3,r`$. $`M_5`$ denotes the bulk Planck mass. The bulk Einstein equations determine $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}=\frac{6}{\mathrm{}^2}`$ and the specific choice of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RS}}=\frac{6}{\mathrm{}}`$ for the brane tensions is necessary for the low energy four-dimensional theory to be free of a cosmological constant.

As the cosmological constant and the surface tension appear in the action, they represent fundamental parameters of the theory and we have no reason a priori that the fine-tuning condition is satisfied. If instead the quantities that appear in the action arise from some more fundamental theory, then it might be possible for a dynamical mechanism to exist that favors solutions in which the low energy, four-dimensional theory is nearly flat.

We can adapt the picture developed in $`[4]`$ without branes to one which resembles the Randall-Sundrum construction but where the AdS5 length is not uniquely determined by the higher-dimensional cosmological constant. The structure for such a model would include two extra dimensions—one small periodic dimension to avoid fine-tuning the cosmological constant and a second to generate the electroweak-Planck hierarchy. As in $`[4]`$, we consider gravity as an effective theory, expanded in powers of derivatives, with a scalar field $`\varphi `$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{\mathrm{bulk}}& =M_6^4d^4x𝑑r𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }+R+aR^2+bR_{ab}R^{ab}+cR_{abcd}R^{abcd}+\mathrm{}\right)\hfill \\ & +M_6^4d^4x𝑑r𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}_a\varphi ^a\varphi +\mathrm{\Delta }\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.4)`$
Here $`y`$ represents the coordinate of the extra periodic dimension, with $`a,b,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3,r,y`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`M_6`$ denote the cosmological constant and the six dimensional Planck mass respectively.

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$`y`$$`r`$$`x^\mu `$$`e^{2\left|r\right|/\mathrm{}}`$Planck braneTeV brane
Figure 1. The geometry of a six-dimensional model with two $`4`$-branes. The small periodic coordinate is $`y`$. The direction orthogonal to the $`4`$-branes, $`r`$, becomes the extra coordinate of the Randall-Sundrum model when we integrate out the $`y`$ dimension. We can recover the second Randall-Sundrum model $`[5]`$ by letting $`r_c\mathrm{}`$. The model assumes an orbifold geometry about $`r=0`$.

The existence of metric solutions that are periodic in $`y`$ appears to be a fairly generic feature of actions that include terms beyond the standard Einstein-Hilbert terms $`[4]`$. For example, when the theory is truncated so that the gravitational action contains only terms with up to four derivatives of the metric and including a scalar field $`\varphi `$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=k(_a\varphi ^a\varphi )^2`$, the equations of motion for $`(2.4)`$ admit periodic solutions over a range of the parameters, $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda },a,b,c,k\}`$.

We instead shall focus upon the simpler case where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ describes a Casimir effect. Since the finite $`y`$-direction explicitly breaks $`5+1`$ dimensional Poincaré symmetry, any quantum vacuum contribution can differ in the $`y`$ and $`(x^\lambda ,r)`$ directions. We can include this effect by adding the following energy-momentum tensor to the field equations,

$$T_{}^{\mathrm{vac}}{}_{a}{}^{b}=\mathrm{diag}(C,C,C,C,C,C).$$
$`(2.5)`$
Any contribution proportional to the identity can be absorbed into the definition of the cosmological constant.1 Since we do not require that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vanish, quantum contributions no longer need to cancel the classical contribution to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; rather, they are only regarded as some component of the total $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Satisfactory, periodic solutions then exist when $`C`$ is above a mild bound.

To produce a Randall-Sundrum scenario in five of the dimensions, we shall examine a metric of the form

$$ds^2=g_{ab}(x^\lambda ,r,y)dx^adx^b=e^{A(y)}\widehat{g}_{MN}(x^\lambda ,r)dx^Mdx^N+dy^2$$
$`(2.6)`$
with an AdS5 metric for the $`(x^\lambda ,r)`$-subspace,

$$d\widehat{s}^2=\widehat{g}_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=e^{2|r|/\mathrm{}}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2.$$
$`(2.7)`$
When $`A(y)`$ is a periodic function of $`y`$, we can obtain a compact extra dimension with a very non-trivial $`y`$-dependence without any singularities. The shape of $`A(y)`$ determines the effective cosmological constant of the $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$ metric. Since this metric is conformally flat, the linear combinations of $`R^2`$ terms that represents the squared Weyl tensor will not contribute to the equations of motion. It is convenient to parameterize the two remaining linear combinations by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }20a+6b+4c\stackrel{~}{\lambda }15a+\frac{5}{2}b+c.$$
$`(2.8)`$
Before examining the detailed form of the equations that determine the warp function $`A(y)`$ with a Randall-Sundrum $`5d`$ subspace, we derive a $`5d`$ effective action by integrating out the sixth dimension in the warped background given by the metric $`(2.6)`$. There, the scalar curvature $`R`$ is related to the scalar curvature $`\widehat{R}`$ of the $`5d`$ metric $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$ and derivatives of the warp function,

$$R=e^{A(y)}\widehat{R}5A^{\prime \prime }\frac{15}{2}(A^{})^2.$$
$`(2.9)`$
Here the prime denotes a $`y`$-derivative. Similarly, the components of the Ricci and Riemann tensors in the full theory, $`R_{ab}`$ and $`R_{bcd}^a`$, can be expanded in terms of the analogous tensors for the Randall-Sundrum subspace, $`\widehat{R}_{MN}`$ and $`\widehat{R}_{MNPQ}`$.

Integrating out the small $`y_c`$ dimension in a background such as $`(2.7)`$ where $`\widehat{R}`$ is constant produces a five dimensional effective action,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{\mathrm{bulk}}^{\mathrm{eff}}& =M_5^3d^4xdr\sqrt{\widehat{g}}(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}+\widehat{R}+a_{\mathrm{eff}}\widehat{R}^2+b_{\mathrm{eff}}\widehat{R}_{MN}\widehat{R}^{MN}\hfill \\ & +c_{\mathrm{eff}}\widehat{R}_{MNPQ}\widehat{R}^{MNPQ}+\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.10)`$
This action should reproduce the leading behavior for small $`x^\mu `$-dependent perturbations about AdS5 $`(2.7)`$, $`𝐑^{4,1}`$ or de Sitter space backgrounds. The new parameters that appear in this effective action depend partially upon the “fundamental” parameters of the original action but also upon the behavior of the warp function. Thus, in the low energy theory the $`5d`$ cosmological constant is

$$M_5^3\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=M_6^4_0^{y_c}𝑑ye^{\frac{5}{2}A(y)}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{4}(\varphi ^{})^2+\frac{5}{2}(A^{})^2+\frac{5}{8}\stackrel{~}{\mu }(A^{\prime \prime })^2\frac{5}{24}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(A^{})^4\right]$$
$`(2.11)`$
while the $`5d`$ Planck mass is

$$M_5^3=M_6^4_0^{y_c}𝑑ye^{\frac{3}{2}A(y)}\left[1\frac{1}{8}(3\stackrel{~}{\mu }4\stackrel{~}{\lambda })(A^{})^2\right].$$
$`(2.12)`$
The coefficients of the $`\widehat{R}^2`$ terms are

$$M_5^3a_{\mathrm{eff}}=M_6^4a_0^{y_c}𝑑ye^{\frac{1}{2}A(y)},$$
$`(2.13)`$
with analogous expressions for $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`c_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In these expressions we have freely integrated by parts.

For the theory to resemble the standard Randall-Sundrum picture, the five dimensional theory of gravity should be weak, $`M_5\mathrm{}1`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{}^2`$, we require the effective $`5d`$ cosmological constant to be small which can easily occur when the contribution from the bulk cosmological constant is partially cancelled by effects from the warp function in $`(2.11)`$. In the appendix, we show two such examples of periodic solutions with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}0`$ but small.

In the weak $`5d`$ gravity limit, $`M_5\mathrm{}1`$, the self-coupling terms become negligible and the leading behavior is governed by the Einstein-Hilbert terms in $`(2.10)`$. If we include two $`4`$-branes at $`r=0`$ and $`r=r_c`$ with respective tensions $`\sigma ^{(0)}`$ and $`\sigma ^{(r_c)}`$, then we recover the action considered by Randall and Sundrum $`[1]`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S^{\mathrm{eff}}& =M_5^3d^4x𝑑r\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}+\widehat{R}\right)\hfill \\ & +M_5^3_{r=0}d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{h}}\left[2\sigma _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(0)}\right]+M_5^3_{r=r_c}d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{h}}\left[2\sigma _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(r_c)}\right]+\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.14)`$
Here the effective tension on the $`r=0`$ brane is

$$M_5^3\sigma _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(0)}=M_6^4\sigma ^{(0)}_0^{y_c}𝑑ye^{2A(y)},$$
$`(2.15)`$
with an analogous expression for the $`r=r_c`$ brane. $`\widehat{h}_{MN}`$ represents the metric induced on the branes at $`r=0`$ or $`r=r_c`$ by the metric $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$.

The fine-tunings of the tensions on the Planck brane ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(0)}`$) and the TeV brane ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(r_c)}`$) in $`[1]`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=6\sigma _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(0)}=6\sigma _{\mathrm{eff}}^{(r_c)}.$$
$`(2.16)`$
Goldberger and Wise  showed that including a massive bulk scalar field with quartic couplings to the brane, thereby generating a non-trivial effective potential for $`r_c`$, removes one of the fine-tunings inherent in $`(2.16)`$. Since we expect that some such mechanism can be adapted to our picture, we are left with one condition on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. However, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is itself a derived parameter and solutions of the equations of motion from $`(2.4)`$ can satisfy $`(2.16)`$ without any unnatural choices for the parameters in the action. The vanishing of the $`4d`$ effective cosmological constant in the Randall-Sundrum scenario in this picture thus reduces to a dynamical question as to why the flat solutions are favored.

3. Exact analysis.

We have asserted that the equations of motion for the $`6d`$ action admit solutions for which $`A(y)`$ is periodic with an AdS5 (or a dS5) metric in the remaining dimensions. The method for numerically demonstrating this claim has been detailed in $`[4]`$ for a $`5d`$ dimensional theory with a flat $`4d`$ subspace. The qualitative results do not change when we start from a theory in $`5+1`$ dimensions and alter only slightly when a small cosmological constant appears in the $`5d`$ subspace. The flat solutions, for which $`\widehat{g}_{MN}=\eta _{MN}`$ in $`(2.6)`$, exist in the region of parameter space where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda },\stackrel{~}{\mu }<0\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }>\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{25}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }+5\sqrt{10\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{15}{2}\hfill & \text{for }0<\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{9}{10}\hfill \\ \frac{25}{12}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill & \text{for }\frac{9}{10}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.1)`$
although the exact location of the boundary corresponding to the second case of $`(3.1)`$ has not been precisely determined.

When a $`5d`$ cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is included, the form of $`A(y)`$ alters slightly from its $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$ value; however, the warp function remains periodic as long as $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}|<𝒪(|\mathrm{\Lambda }|)`$. This bound includes the case wherein the $`5d`$ effective theory of gravity is weak. Thus it is possible to satisfy $`M_5^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}^11`$ even while $`M_6^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^11`$.

The bulk equations of motion for a universe with an AdS5 subspace $`(2.7)`$, are obtained by varying the full action $`(2.4)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\mu }\left[\frac{1}{2}A^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }+\frac{5}{2}A^{}A^{\prime \prime \prime }+\frac{15}{8}(A^{\prime \prime })^2+\frac{25}{8}A^{\prime \prime }(A^{})^2\right]& \\ \hfill +\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\left[A^{\prime \prime }(A^{})^2+\frac{5}{8}(A^{})^4\right]2A^{\prime \prime }\frac{5}{2}(A^{})^2& \\ \hfill \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}e^{A(y)}\left[6+(3\stackrel{~}{\mu }4\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\left[A^{\prime \prime }+\frac{3}{4}(A^{})^2\right]\right]& \\ \hfill +\frac{2}{\mathrm{}^4}e^{2A(y)}\left[\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mu }+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\right]& =\mathrm{\Lambda }C+\frac{1}{4}(\varphi ^{})^2\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{5}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\left[A^{}A^{\prime \prime \prime }\frac{1}{2}(A^{\prime \prime })^2+\frac{5}{2}A^{\prime \prime }(A^{})^2\right]+\frac{5}{8}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(A^{})^4\frac{5}{2}(A^{})^2& \\ \hfill \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}e^{A(y)}\left[10+\frac{5}{4}(3\stackrel{~}{\mu }4\stackrel{~}{\lambda })(A^{})^2\right]+\frac{10}{\mathrm{}^4}e^{2A(y)}\left[\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\mu }+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\right]& =\mathrm{\Lambda }+C\frac{1}{4}(\varphi ^{})^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.2)`$
The equation of motion for the scalar field is

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{5}{2}A^{}\varphi ^{}=0$$
$`(3.3)`$
when the scalar field depends only on the $`y`$-direction, $`\varphi =\varphi (y)`$. The sum of the equations in $`(3.2)`$ provide a single differential equation for $`A(y)`$ which we can integrate numerically. Once a periodic solution is found, the difference of these equations determines the behavior of the scalar field. Note that since the scalar field appears in $`(3.2)`$ and $`(3.3)`$ only through its derivatives, only $`\varphi ^{}`$ is guaranteed to be periodic; $`\varphi (y)`$ monotonically increases and must thus assume values only over a compact range.

We have found periodic solutions throughout the parameter space $`(3.1)`$ for small $`5d`$ cosmological constants of either sign. Two such examples are sketched in the appendix. Since the theory is invariant under $`y`$-translations and rescalings in the other five coordinates, we are free to choose coordinates in which $`A(0)=A^{}(0)=0`$ without any loss of generality. We also set $`A^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)=0`$. We then numerically integrated $`(3.2)`$ for an initial choice for $`A^{\prime \prime }(0)`$. What we find is that for a particular value of $`A^{\prime \prime }(0)`$, the warp function returns to its initial conditions after some finite $`y_c`$: $`A(y)=A(y+y_c)`$.

Note that when we substitute the equations of motion $`(3.2)`$ into the expression for the effective cosmological constant $`(2.11)`$,

$$M_5^3\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=M_6^4_0^{y_c}𝑑ye^{\frac{3}{2}A(y)}\left[\frac{6}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{6}{\mathrm{}^2}(b+c)(A^{})^2\frac{4}{\mathrm{}^4}e^{A(y)}(10a+2b+c)\right],$$
$`(3.4)`$
and rewrite this expression in terms of the parameters of the effective theory $`(2.11)`$$`(2.13)`$, we find

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{6}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{4}{\mathrm{}^4}(10a_{\mathrm{eff}}+2b_{\mathrm{eff}}+c_{\mathrm{eff}})=\frac{6}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{8}{\mathrm{}^4}\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}.$$
$`(3.5)`$
We would have obtained the same result by inserting the metric in equation $`(2.7)`$ into the equations of motion for the effective action, $`(2.10)`$.

4. Thick branes.

In passing to the weak gravity limit in order to ignore the $`\widehat{R}^2`$ terms in the $`5d`$ theory $`(2.14)`$, we might worry that while their effect on the bulk dynamics is small, they nevertheless might significantly alter the brane tension. Indeed, the particular linear combination of terms for which

$$\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}16a_{\mathrm{eff}}+5b_{\mathrm{eff}}+4c_{\mathrm{eff}}0$$
$`(4.1)`$
generates terms of the form $`_r^2\delta (r)`$ or $`(\delta (r))^2`$ for $`(2.7)`$ which implies that the brane tension receives an infinite correction. Note that this feature is present in the original Randall-Sundrum scenario. Therefore, in its original form, even in the weak field limit and when the coefficients of the $`\widehat{R}^2`$ terms are small but generic, small effects in the bulk can have a large effect on the brane tension.

The origin for these $`\delta `$-function divergences is the zero thickness of the brane. Yet while we can remove such severe divergences by giving the brane a finite thickness, in order to recover the Randall-Sundrum picture we must additionally show that the $`\widehat{R}^2`$ terms can be neglected in this case. Therefore, we shall examine a solution of the form,

$$\widehat{g}_{MN}dx^mdx^N=e^{\sigma (r)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2,$$
$`(4.2)`$
for the exact $`a_{\mathrm{eff}}=b_{\mathrm{eff}}=c_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$ case, and then study the size of $`\widehat{R}`$ compared to $`M_5^2`$ both near the brane and deeply within the bulk.

An elegant formalism for obtaining a thick domain wall generated by a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$,

$$S=M_5^3d^4x𝑑r\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\widehat{R}\frac{1}{2}\widehat{}_M\mathrm{\Phi }\widehat{}^M\mathrm{\Phi }V(\mathrm{\Phi })\right],$$
$`(4.3)`$
has been used by several authors    who noted that when the scalar potential has the following ‘superpotential’ form,

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{W}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)^2\frac{1}{3}W^2(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
$`(4.4)`$
the $`5d`$ warp function and domain wall profile are respectively,

$$_r\sigma =\frac{1}{3}W(\mathrm{\Phi })_r\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{W}{\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
$`(4.5)`$
We shall use the solution of Gremm $`[9]`$ for a single domain wall at $`r=0`$ ($`r_c\mathrm{}`$) with $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{6}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\sqrt{\frac{6}{\kappa \mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sigma (r)& =\frac{2}{\kappa \mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[2\mathrm{cosh}(\kappa r)\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Phi }(r)& =2\sqrt{\frac{6}{\kappa \mathrm{}}}\mathrm{arctan}\left[\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{1}{2}\kappa r)\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.6)`$
Here $`\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the asymptotic AdS5 length as in $`(2.7)`$ and $`\kappa ^1`$ is the thickness of the brane. The scalar curvature is now free of singularities everywhere,

$$\widehat{R}=\frac{8\kappa }{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{8\kappa }{\mathrm{}}+\frac{20}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)\mathrm{tanh}^2(\kappa r).$$
$`(4.7)`$
From this result we notice that in the bulk ($`r\kappa ^1`$), since $`\widehat{R}20\mathrm{}^2`$, the weak gravity condition is $`M_5\mathrm{}1`$. At the brane ($`r0`$), in order to be able to neglect the $`\widehat{R}^2`$ terms relative to $`\widehat{R}`$, we require

$$M_5\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{\kappa }}1.$$
$`(4.8)`$
Thus, assuming that gravity is weakly coupled in the bulk so that $`M_5\mathrm{}1`$, both $`\kappa \mathrm{}^1`$ and $`\kappa M_5`$ automatically satisfy $`(4.8)`$.

The above analysis applies to the positive tension brane, or ‘Planck brane’ $`[1]`$, although the same infinite corrections to the negative tension brane arise when $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}0`$. Negative tension branes do not admit a thick wall description, at least in the regime in which the $`\widehat{R}^2`$ terms become negligible. However, we can also add a warped, compact extra dimension to a scenario that does not contain any thin negative tension branes, such as that of Lykken and Randall .

The purely gravitational action of $`(2.10)`$, which includes $`\widehat{R}^2`$ terms, can also generate a warp function in the $`5d`$ subspace $`(4.2)`$ that resembles that in $`(4.6)`$ but without the need for a scalar field to generate a domain wall. In this case, we still have2 This configuration corresponds to equation $`(4.6)`$ of $`[4]`$.

$$\sigma (r)=\frac{2}{\kappa \mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[2\mathrm{cosh}(\kappa r)\right],$$
$`(4.9)`$
but where the width, $`\kappa ^1`$, and the asymptotic AdS5 length, $`\mathrm{}`$, are respectively

$$\kappa =\left(\frac{34\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}}}{2\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{}=\left(\frac{34\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)^{1/2},$$
$`(4.10)`$
with $`0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{9}{32}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}<0`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}0`$. This configuration requires one fine-tuning among $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, given in $`[4]`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}=\left(34\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)\left(\frac{9}{8}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}}\right),$$
$`(4.11)`$
which can presumably be effected by the appropriately warped compactification in the sixth dimension.

The $`\widehat{R}^2`$ terms in this case are in no sense negligible—they play the same role as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ above and balance against the $`\widehat{R}`$ term to produce the solution $`(4.9)`$. In particular, $`|\widehat{R}||\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}\widehat{R}^2|`$ for $`r\kappa ^1`$ translates into

$$\frac{45}{2}10\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}}1$$
$`(4.12)`$
which is nowhere satisfied in the allowed range for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

5. Concluding remarks.

An intriguing feature of this model is that for each choice of the parameters in the action that admits a periodic warp function, a family of solutions exists. Elements of this family are specified by the value of the $`5d`$ effective cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Alternatively, since each $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is associated with a unique period—or at worst a discrete set of periods—of the warp function, we can also specify an element by the size of the sixth dimension, $`y_c`$. This behavior differs from a factorizable geometry such as $`𝐑^{3,1}\times S^1`$ or AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^1`$ which has a continuous set of solutions for each $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$—now a fundamental parameter in the action—labeled by a compactification radius which is not fixed by the action.

While this scenario does not require any unnatural choices of the parameters in $`(2.4)`$ to satisfy $`(2.16)`$, this condition is not the unique solution to the equations of motion. Some further dynamical mechanism is still required that favors a bulk $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ that obeys $`(2.16)`$.

The picture that we have described allows solutions with a stable exponential electroweak-Planck hierarchy without an unnatural choice of the parameters in the action. Since this picture crucially relies on the presence of $`R^2`$ terms in the action, it might be worried whether it persists upon including further higher order $`R^n`$ terms. However, in $`[4]`$ we argued that such periodic solutions should exist generically for an action composed of general powers of the curvature tensors. In particular, the small cosmological constant case, $`M_6^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^11`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$ admitted a semi-analytic description of these periodic solutions. Including a small $`5d`$ cosmological constant does not greatly perturb these solutions, so that the physically interesting case in which the effective $`5d`$ theory of gravity is weak should continue to exist even with higher order terms in the underlying six dimensional theory.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Appendix A. Examples of periodic warp functions.

Since the existence of periodic metrics resulting from $`(3.2)`$ can only be demonstrated numerically, it is helpful to present a couple of examples. For a small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, that is $`M_6\mathrm{}1`$, the shape of the warp function $`A(y)`$ and the parameter space in which periodic ones exist $`(3.1)`$ are nearly the same as in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$ case. In figures 2 and 3, the AdS5 length $`\mathrm{}`$ that appears in the $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$ components of the metric is the same in both cases although the forms of $`A(y)`$ differ markedly in the two examples. Figure 2 shows a typical profile of a warp function for a small cosmological constant, $`M_6^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^11`$, while figure 3 shows an example in which $`M_6^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^11`$.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................                                                  $`A(y)`$$`y`$$`0`$$`1`$$`2`$$`0.1`$
Figure 2. A periodic warp function $`A(y)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ and $`\lambda =\mu =0.1`$. The initial condition is $`A^{\prime \prime }(0)=4.63923991`$. The value of the AdS length which appears in $`(2.7)`$ is $`\mathrm{}=10`$.

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................                                                          $`A(y)`$$`y`$$`0`$$`1`$$`2`$$`3`$$`4`$$`5`$$`6`$$`7`$$`8`$$`9`$$`10`$$`11`$$`12`$$`1`$
Figure 3. A periodic warp function $`A(y)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, $`\lambda =2`$ and $`\mu =0.9`$. The initial condition is $`A^{\prime \prime }(0)=3.199870015`$. The value of the AdS length is $`\mathrm{}=10`$.

References

relax L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999) \[hep-ph/9905221\]. relax N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, “The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,” Phys. Lett. B 429, 263 (1998) \[hep-ph/9803315\] and I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, “New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998) \[hep-ph/9804398\]. relax V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “Extra Space-Time Dimensions: Towards A Solution To The Cosmological Constant Problem,” Phys. Lett. B 125, 139 (1983). relax H. Collins and B. Holdom, “The cosmological constant and warped extra dimensions,” hep-th/0009127. relax L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “An alternative to compactification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999) \[hep-th/9906064\]. relax W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, “Modulus stabilization with bulk fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4922 (1999) \[hep-ph/9907447\]. relax M. Cvetič, S. Griffies and S. Rey, “Static domain walls in $`N=1`$ supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 381, 301 (1992) \[hep-th/9201007\]. relax K. Skenderis and P. K. Townsend, “Gravitational stability and renormalization-group flow,” Phys. Lett. B 468, 46 (1999) \[hep-th/9909070\] and O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser and A. Karch, “Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 046008 (2000) \[hep-th/9909134\]. relax M. Gremm, “Four-dimensional gravity on a thick domain wall,” Phys. Lett. B 478, 434 (2000) \[hep-th/9912060\]. relax J. Lykken and L. Randall, “The shape of gravity,” JHEP0006, 014 (2000) \[hep-th/9908076\].


text:
# 1 Topological Background

## 1 Topological Background

In this section we recall some basic definitions and statements from :
Let $`D`$ be a closed disk on $`^2`$, $`KD`$ finite set, $`uD`$. Any diffeomorphism of $`D`$ which fixes $`K`$ and is the identity on $`D`$ acts naturally on $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1=\mathrm{\Pi }_1(DK,u)`$. We say that two such diffeomorphisms of $`D`$ (which fix $`K`$ and equal identity on $`D`$) are equivalent if they define the same automorphism on $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(DK,u)`$. This equivalence relation is compatible with composition of diffeomorphism and thus the equivalence classes form a group.

###### Definition 1.1.

Braid Group $`B_n[D,K]`$.

Let $`D,K`$ be as above, $`n=\mathrm{\#}K`$, and let $``$ be the group of all diffeomorphisms $`\beta `$ of $`D`$ such that $`\beta (K)=K`$, $`\beta |_D=Id_D`$. For $`\beta _1,\beta _2`$ we say that $`\beta _1`$ is equivalent to $`\beta _2`$ if $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ define the same automorphism of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(DK,u)`$. The quotient of $``$ by this equivalence relation is called the braid group $`B_n[D,K]`$.
Equivalently, if we take the canonical homomorphism $`\psi :Aut(\mathrm{\Pi }_1(DK,u))`$, then $`B_n[D,K]=Im(\psi )`$. The elements of $`B_n[D,K]`$ are called braids.

###### Lemma 1.2.

If $`K^{}D^{}`$ in another pair as above with $`\mathrm{\#}K^{}=\mathrm{\#}K=n`$, then $`B_n[D^{},K^{}]`$ is isomorphic to $`B_n[D,K]`$.

This gives rise to the definition of $`B_n`$:

###### Definition 1.3.

$`B_n=B_n[D,K]`$ for some $`D,K`$ with $`\mathrm{\#}K=n`$.

###### Definition 1.4.

$`l(q)`$.

Let $`c`$ be a small loop equal to the oriented boundary of a small environment $`V`$ of $`w_0`$ chosen so that $`q^{}=q(Vq)`$ is a simple path. Then $`l(q)=q^{}cq_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. We also use the notation $`l(q)`$ for the element of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(DK,u)`$ corresponding to $`l(q)`$.

###### Definition 1.5.

A Bush.

Consider in $`D`$ an ordered set of simple paths $`(T_1,\mathrm{},T_n)`$ connecting $`w_iK`$ with $`u`$ such that:
(1) $`i=1,\mathrm{}nT_iw_j=\varphi `$ if $`ij`$.
(2) $`_{i=1}^nT_i=u`$.
(3) For a small circle $`c(u)`$ around $`u`$, each $`u_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=T_ic(u)`$ is a single point and the order in $`(u_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{},\mathrm{}u_{}^{}{}_{n}{}^{})`$ is consistent with the positive (“counterclockwise”) orientation of $`c(u)`$. We say that two such sets $`(T_1,\mathrm{},T_n)`$ and $`(T_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{},\mathrm{},T_{}^{}{}_{n}{}^{})`$ are equivalent if $`i=1,\mathrm{},nl(T_i)=l(T_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{})`$ in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(DK,u)`$.
An equivalent class of such sets is called a bush in $`(DK,u)`$. The bush represented by $`(T_1,\mathrm{},T_n)`$ is denoted by $`<T_1,\mathrm{},T_n>`$.
It is well known that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(DK,u)`$ is a free group.

###### Definition 1.6.

g-base

A g-base of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(DK,u)`$ is an ordered free base of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(DK,u)`$ which has the form $`(l(T_1),\mathrm{},l(T_n))`$ where $`<T_1,\mathrm{},T_n>`$ is a bush in $`(DK,u)`$.

###### Definition 1.7.

$`H(\sigma )`$, half-twist defined by $`\sigma `$.

Let $`D`$ and $`K`$ be defined as above. Let $`a,bK`$, $`K_{a,b}=K\backslash \{a,b\}`$ and $`\sigma `$ be a simple path (without a self intersection) in $`D\backslash D`$ connecting $`a`$ with $`b`$ such that $`\sigma K=\{a,b\}`$. Choose a small regular neighborhood $`U`$ of $`\sigma `$ such that $`K_{a,b}U=\varphi `$, and an orientation preserving diffeomorphism $`\psi :^2^1`$ such that $`\psi (\sigma )=[1,1]=\{z^1|Re(z)[1,1],Im(z)=0\}`$ and $`\psi (U)=\{z^1||z|<2\}`$. Let $`\alpha (r),r0`$, be a real smooth monotone function such that $`\alpha (r)=1`$ for $`r[0,3/2]`$ and $`\alpha (r)=0`$ for $`r2`$. Define a diffeomorphism $`h:^1^1`$ as follows: for $`z^1,z=re^{i\varphi }\text{let}h(z)=re^{i(\varphi +\alpha (r)\pi )}`$. It is clear that the restriction of $`h`$ to $`\{z^1||z|3/2\}`$ coincides with the $`180^{}`$ positive rotation, and that the restriction to $`\{z^1||z|2\}`$ is the identity map. The diffeomorphism $`\psi ^1h\psi `$ induces a braid called half-twist and denoted by $`H(\sigma )`$

###### Definition 1.8.

Frame of $`B_n[D,K]`$

Let $`K=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ and $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}`$ be a system of simple smooth paths in $`DD`$ such that $`\sigma _i`$ connects $`a_i\text{ with }a_{i+1}`$ and $`L=\sigma _i`$ is a simple smooth path. The ordered system of half-twists $`(H_1,\mathrm{},H_{n1})`$ defined by $`\{\sigma _i\}_{i=1}^{n1}`$ is called a frame of $`B_n[D,K]`$

###### Theorem 1.9.

Let $`(H_1,\mathrm{},H_{n1})`$ be a frame of $`B_n[D,K]`$ then, $`B_n[D,K]`$ is generated by $`\{H_i\}_{i=1}^{n1}`$ and the following is a complete list of relations:
$`H_iH_j=H_jH_i\text{ if }|ij|>1`$ (Commutative relation)
$`H_iH_jH_i=H_jH_iH_j\text{ if }|ij|=1`$ (Triple relation).

Proof can be found for example in .
This theorem provides us with Artin’s algebraic definition of Braid group.

## 2 Definition of Hurwitz Moves

###### Definition 2.1.

Hurwitz move on $`G^m`$ ($`R_k,R_k^1`$)

Let $`G`$ be a group, $`\stackrel{}{t}=(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)G^m`$. We say that $`\stackrel{}{s}=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_m)G^m`$ is obtained from $`\stackrel{}{t}`$ by the Hurwitz move $`R_k`$ (or $`\stackrel{}{t}`$ is obtained from $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ by the Hurwitz move $`R_k^1`$) if

$$s_i=t_i\text{ for }ik,k+1,$$

$$s_k=t_kt_{k+1}t_k^1,s_{k+1}=t_k.$$

###### Definition 2.2.

Hurwitz move on factorization

Let $`G`$ be a group and $`tG`$. Let $`t=t_1\mathrm{}t_m=s_1\mathrm{}s_m`$ be two factorized expressions of $`t`$. We say that $`s_1\mathrm{}s_m`$ is obtained from $`t_1\mathrm{}t_m`$ by the Hurwitz move $`R_k`$ if $`(s_1,\mathrm{},s_m)`$ is obtained from $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)`$ by the Hurwitz move $`R_k`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

Hurwitz equivalence of factorization

The factorizations $`s_1\mathrm{}s_m`$, $`t_1\mathrm{}t_m`$ are Hurwitz equivalent if they are obtained from each other by a finite sequence of Hurwitz moves. The notation is $`t_1\mathrm{}t_m\stackrel{HE}{}s_1\mathrm{}s_m`$.

###### Definition 2.4.

Word in $`B_n`$

A word in $`B_n`$ is a representation of braid as a sequence of the frame elements and their inverses.

## 3 Hurwitz Equivalence of Factorizations with Frame Elements

We already proved Proposition 3.3 in . We provide here the proof once again since the logic use is basic for understanding the sequel.

We will need a certain result of Garside:

###### Claim 3.1.

(Garside): Every two positive words (all generators with positive powers) which are equal are transformable into each other through a finite sequence of positive words, such that each word of the sequence is positive and obtained from the preceding one by a direct application of the commutative relation or the triple relation.

Proof: .

The following is obvious, nevertheless we give a short proof for clarification:

###### Claim 3.2.

$`G`$ is a group $`g_1,g_2G`$:
1. If $`g_1g_2=g_2g_1`$ then $`g_1g_2\stackrel{HE}{}g_2g_1`$.
2. If $`g_1g_2g_1=g_2g_1g_2`$ then $`g_1g_2g_1\stackrel{HE}{}g_2g_1g_2`$.

Proof:
1. $`g_1g_2\stackrel{R_1}{}g_1g_2g_1^1g_1=g_2g_1`$.
2. $`g_1g_2g_1\stackrel{R_2}{}g_1g_2g_1g_2^1g_2\stackrel{R_1}{}g_1g_2g_1g_2^1g_1^1g_1g_2`$ but $`g_1g_2g_1=g_2g_1g_2`$, so $`g_1g_2g_1g_2^1g_1^1=g_2`$ and we get $`g_1g_2g_1\stackrel{HE}{}g_2g_1g_2`$

From Garside and the above, we get the following proposition:

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_{n1}`$ be a set of generators of $`B_n`$ and $`H_{i_1}\mathrm{}H_{i_p}=H_{j_1}\mathrm{}H_{j_p}`$ two positive words (with $`i_k,j_k\{1,\mathrm{}n1\}`$) then $`H_{i_1}\mathrm{}H_{i_p}\stackrel{HE}{}H_{j_1}\mathrm{}H_{j_p}`$.

Proof:
Applying 3.1 on $`H_{i_1}\mathrm{}H_{i_p}=H_{j_1}\mathrm{}H_{j_p}`$, we get a finite sequence of positive words $`\{W_r\}_{r=0}^q`$ s.t. $`W_0=H_{i_1}\mathrm{}H_{i_p}`$, $`W_q=H_{j_1}\mathrm{}H_{j_p}`$ and $`W_{r+1}`$ is obtained from $`W_r`$ by a single application of the commutative relation or the triple relation.
An application of the triple relation (as in 3.2) is equal to an application of 2 Hurwitz moves $`R_{t+1},R_t`$. An application of the commutative relation is equal to an application of one Hurwitz move (on the commuting elements). Thus, $`W_0\stackrel{HE}{}W_q`$

###### Definition 3.4.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2B_n[D,K]`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2=(H_1\mathrm{}H_{n1})^n`$ where $`\{H_i\}_{i=1}^{n1}`$ is a frame.

We apply 3.3 on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2`$:

###### Corollary 3.5.

All $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2`$ factorizations $`H_{i_1}\mathrm{}H_{i_{n(n1)}}i_k\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ are Hurwitz equivalent.

###### Notation 3.6.

We use the notation $`a[b]`$ for conjugating $`b`$ to $`a`$.

###### Proposition 3.7.

Let $`\{H(\sigma _i)\}_{i=1}^{n1}`$ be the frame which generates $`B_n[D,K]`$ and $`H_\zeta `$ a half twist. Then $`\{H(\sigma _i)[H_\zeta ]\}_{i=1}^{n1}`$ is also a frame.

Proof:
By III.1.0 of , $`H(\sigma _i)[H_\zeta ]=H(H_\zeta (\sigma _1))`$, thus conjugating $`H_\zeta `$ to the elements in the frame is the same as operating $`H_\zeta `$ on each of the elements in $`(\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1})`$, and we get $`(H_\zeta (\sigma _1),\mathrm{},H_\zeta (\sigma _{n1}))`$ which also defines a frame since:

* $`\sigma _i`$ is a simple smooth path. $`H_\zeta `$ is a diffeomorphism, so $`H_\zeta (\sigma _i)=H_\zeta (\sigma _i)`$ is also a simple smooth path.
* if $`\zeta `$ connects $`a_i`$ with $`a_j`$, $`H_\zeta (\sigma _r)`$ connects $`a_r`$ with $`a_{r+1}`$ when $`ri1,i,j1,j`$. $`H_\zeta (\sigma _{i1})`$ connects $`a_{i1}`$ with $`a_j`$, $`H_\zeta (\sigma _i)`$ connects $`a_j`$ with $`a_{i+1}`$, $`H_\zeta (\sigma _{j1})`$ connects $`a_{j1}`$ with $`a_i`$, $`H_\zeta (\sigma _j)`$ connects $`a_i`$ with $`a_{j+1}`$. This means that $`a_{i1}`$, $`a_{i+1}`$ are connected through $`a_j`$, and $`a_{j1}`$, $`a_{j+1}`$ are connected through $`a_i`$ as shown in Figure 1.

###### Proposition 3.8.

Let $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n1})`$ be the frame which generates $`B_n[D,K]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the factorization $`X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}`$, then:
1. $`X_i\mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{HE}{}\mathrm{\Pi }X_{i1}`$ for $`1<in1`$.
2. $`X_1\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{HE}{}\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }X_{n1}`$.

Proof:
It is enough to show that the words are equal and by 3.3 the factorizations are Hurwitz equivalent.
1. $`X_i\mathrm{\Pi }=X_i\left(X_1\mathrm{}X_{i1}X_i\mathrm{}X_{n1}\right)=X_1\mathrm{}X_iX_{i1}X_i\mathrm{}X_{n1}=X_1\mathrm{}X_{i1}X_iX_{i1}X_{i+1}\mathrm{}X_{n1}=\left(X_1\mathrm{}X_{i1}X_iX_{i+1}\mathrm{}X_{n1}\right)X_{i1}=\mathrm{\Pi }X_{i1}`$.
2. $`X_1\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }=X_1\mathrm{\Pi }X_1\mathrm{}X_{n2}X_{n1}`$ and from 1. We get that $`X_1\mathrm{\Pi }X_1\mathrm{}X_{n2}X_{n1}=X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_{n1}\mathrm{\Pi }X_{n1}`$.

###### Proposition 3.9.

Let $`\{X_i\}_{i=1}^{n1}`$ be the frame which generates $`B_n[D,K]`$. For each $`1jn1`$ the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2`$ factorizations $`(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n`$ and
$`(X_1[X_j]\mathrm{}X_{n1}[X_j])^n`$ are Hurwitz equivalent.

Proof:
We first consider the two extreme cases where $`j=n1`$ and $`j=1`$.
In the case where, $`j=n1`$, by performing the series of Hurwitz moves $`\{R_{m(n1)1}^1\}_{m=1}^n`$ on $`(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n`$ (each of the Hurwitz moves is acting on one of the $`n`$ factors in the product) we get that

$$(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n3}X_{n2}X_{n1})^n\stackrel{HE}{}(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n3}X_{n1}X_{n2}[X_{n1}])^n.$$

Since $`X_i[X_{n1}]=X_i`$ for $`in2`$, all elements in the factorization are of the form $`X_i[X_{n1}]`$ and by 3.7 they are all elements of the same frame. $`(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1}X_{n2}[X_{n1}])^n`$ and $`(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n2}[X_{n1}]X_{n1})^n`$ are both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2`$ factorizations.
Having the same frame elements and from 3.5 they are Hurwitz equivalent, and we get that:

$$(X_1[X_{n1}]\mathrm{}X_{n2}[X_{n1}]X_{n1}[X_{n1}])^n\stackrel{HE}{}(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n.$$

The case where $`j=1`$ is similar by performing the series of Hurwitz moves $`\{R_{m(n1)+1}^1\}_{m=0}^{n1}`$. In the case where $`1<j<n1`$, we perform $`\{R_{m(n1)+j}^1\}_{j=0}^{n1}`$ and get:

$$(X_1,\mathrm{}X_{j1}X_jX_{j+1}\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n\stackrel{HE}{}(X_1,\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_jX_{j1}[X_j]X_{j+1}\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n.$$

Since $`X_j`$ commutes with $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{j2}`$, then by 3.2,
$`(X_1,\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_jX_{j1}[X_j]X_{j+1}\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n\stackrel{HE}{}(X_jX_1,\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_{j1}[X_j]X_{j+1}\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n.`$
(In fact we performed $`\{\{R_{m(n1)+k}\}_{k=j2}^1\}_{m=0}^{n1}`$).

Again, $`X_j`$ commutes with $`X_{j+2},\mathrm{},X_{n1}`$ so by 3.2:
$`(X_jX_1\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_{j1}[X_j]X_{j+1}\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n\stackrel{HE}{}(X_jX_1\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_{j1}[X_j]X_{j+1}X_jX_{j+2}\mathrm{}X_{n1})(X_1\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_{j1}[X_j]X_{j+1}X_jX_{j+2}\mathrm{}X_{n1})^{n2}(X_1\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_{j1}[X_j]X_{j+1}X_{j+2}\mathrm{}X_{n1})`$
which is Hurwitz equivalent to
$`(X_jX_1\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_{j1}[X_j]X_jX_{j+1}[X_j]X_{j+2}\mathrm{}X_{n1})(X_1\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_{j1}[X_j]X_jX_{j+1}[X_j]X_{j+2}\mathrm{}X_{n1})^{n2}(X_1\mathrm{}X_{j2}X_{j1}[X_j]X_{j+1}X_{j+2}\mathrm{}X_{n1})`$
(In fact we performed $`\{R_{j+m(n1)+1}^1\}_{m=0}^{n2}`$)
Let $`(A_1,\mathrm{},A_{n1})`$ be the conjugated frame s.t. $`A_i=X_i[X_j]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }=A_1\mathrm{}A_{n1}`$.
The previous factorization can be written as

$$A_j\mathrm{\Pi }^{n1}A_1\mathrm{}A_{j1}X_{j+1}A_{j+2}\mathrm{}A_{n1}.$$

by 3.8 (1) this factorization is Hurwitz equivalent to:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{j1}A_1\mathrm{\Pi }^{nj}A_1\mathrm{}A_{j1}X_{j+1}A_{j+2}\mathrm{}A_{n1}.$$

and by 3.8 (2) we get that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{j1}A_1\mathrm{\Pi }^{nj}A_1\mathrm{}A_{j1}X_{j+1}A_{j+2}\mathrm{}A_{n1}$$

is Hurwitz equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{j+1}A_{n1}\mathrm{\Pi }^{nj2}A_1\mathrm{}A_{j1}X_{j+1}A_{j+2}\mathrm{}A_{n1}$$

Using 3.8 (1) $`nj2`$ times we get that the above is Hurwitz equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{n1}A_{j+1}A_1\mathrm{}A_{j1}X_{j+1}A_{j+2}\mathrm{}A_{n1}.$$

Since $`A_{j+1}`$ commutes with $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_{j1}`$ then by 3.2:
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{n1}A_{j+1}A_1\mathrm{}A_{j1}X_{j+1}A_{j+2}\mathrm{}A_{n1}\stackrel{HE}{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{n1}A_1\mathrm{}A_{j1}A_{j+1}X_{j+1}A_{j+2}\mathrm{}A_{n1}`$.
By performing $`R_{(n1)^2+j}`$ (on $`A_{j+1}`$), the factorization is Hurwitz equivalent to:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{n1}A_1\mathrm{}A_{j1}X_{j+1}\left[\left(X_{j+1}\left[X_j\right]\right)^1\right]A_{j+1}A_{j+2}\mathrm{}A_{n1}$$

which is exactly $`(A_1\mathrm{}A_{n1})^n`$.

###### Proposition 3.10.

Let $`bB_n[D,K]`$, then the factorizations $`(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n`$ and $`(X_1[b]\mathrm{}X_{n1}[b])^n`$ are Hurwitz equivalent.

Proof:
From , any braid $`PB_n[D,K]`$ can be represented as $`P=\mathrm{\Delta }_n^r\overline{P}`$ where $`\overline{P}`$ is a positive braid. If $`r0`$ then clearly $`A[P]`$ is a conjugation of a positive braid. Assume $`r<0`$, take $`m`$ s.t. $`2m>r`$ and since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2`$ is the generator of the center of $`B_n[D,K]`$, then $`A[P]=A[\mathrm{\Delta }_n^r\overline{P}]=A[\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{r+2m}\overline{P}]`$ which is a conjugation of a positive braid.
For the rest of the proof we may assume that $`P`$ is a positive braid.
The rest of the proof will be performed by induction on the length of the positive braid $`P`$. The case where $`P=X_{i_1}`$ was already proven.
If $`P=X_{i_1}\mathrm{}X_{i_d}X_{i_{d+1}}`$, by the induction assumption,

$$(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n\stackrel{HE}{}(X_1[X_{i_d}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}]\mathrm{}X_{n1}[X_{i_d}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}])^n.$$

The new elements are also a frame, so by applying 3.9 we get the equivalent factorization:

$$((X_1[X_{i_d}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}])[X_{i_{d+1}}[X_{i_d}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}]]\mathrm{}(X_{n1}[X_{i_d}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}])[X_{i_{d+1}}[X_{i_d}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}]])^n.$$

For each $`1jn1`$, $`(X_j[X_{i_d}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}])[X_{i_{d+1}}[X_{i_d}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}]]=X_j[X_{i_{d+1}}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}]`$ and therefore,

$$(X_1\mathrm{}X_{n1})^n\stackrel{HE}{}(X_1[X_{i_{d+1}}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}]\mathrm{}X_{n1}[X_{i_{d+1}}\mathrm{}X_{i_1}])^n.$$

## 4 The Main Result

In the following section we will apply the previous proposition on all frames, by proving that every two frames of $`B_n[D,K]`$ are conjugated.

###### Definition 4.1.

g-base of a frame $`F`$.

Let $`F=(F_1,\mathrm{},F_{n1})`$ ($`F_i=H(\sigma _i)`$) be a frame of $`B_n[D,K]`$. Let the system of paths $`(T_1,\mathrm{},T_n)`$, $`T_i`$ connecting $`u`$ with $`a_iK`$ create a bush s.t.
$`T_i\sigma _j=\{\begin{array}{cc}\varphi ,\text{ if }ji,i1\hfill & \\ a_i,\text{ if }j=i\text{ or }j=i1\hfill & \end{array}`$.
Let $`\gamma _i=l(T_i)`$ then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)`$ is the g-base of the frame $`F`$ as shown in Figure 2.

###### Proposition 4.2.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)`$ is the g-base of two frames, then the frames are equal.

Proof:
Assuming that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the g-base of the two frames $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ where , $`F_1=(H(\sigma _1),\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1}))`$ and $`F_2=(H(\zeta _1),\mathrm{},H(\zeta _{n1}))`$ and $`F_1F_2`$. Since $`F_1F_2`$ then $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ s.t. $`H(\sigma _i)H(\zeta _i)`$.
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the g-base of both frames, then $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\zeta _i`$ connecting $`a_i`$ with $`a_{i+1}`$. $`H(\sigma _i)H(\zeta _i)`$, therefore, $`\zeta _i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are “separated” by a point $`a_ja_i,a_{i+1}`$ as shown in Figure 3. The two paths start at $`a_i`$ and end at $`a_{i+1}`$ therefore creating a cycle with $`a_j`$ inside. Since $`T_j`$ connects $`a_j`$ with $`u`$, $`T_j\sigma _i\varphi `$ or $`T_j\zeta _i\varphi `$ and therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not the g-base of both $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)`$ be the g-base of the frame
$`F=(H(\sigma _1),\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1}))`$ and let $`H_\zeta `$ be a half twist. Then $`(H_\zeta (\gamma _1),\mathrm{},H_\zeta (\gamma _n))`$ is the g-base of the frame $`(H(\sigma _1)[H_\zeta ],\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1})[H_\zeta ])`$.

Proof:
It was already proven in  that any braid $`bB_n[D,K]`$ transforms a g-base to a g-base. By Proposition 3.7, $`(H_\zeta (\sigma _1),\mathrm{},H_\zeta (\sigma _{n1}))`$ defines a frame. Since $`H_\zeta `$ is a diffeomorphism, acting on $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1},\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n`$ does not create new intersection points while swapping $`a_i`$ with $`a_j`$ for both frame and g-base elements. Therefore, $`H_\zeta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the g-base of the conjugated frame.

###### Corollary 4.4.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)`$ be the g-base of $`F=(H(\sigma _1),\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1}))`$ and $`bB_n[D,K]`$, then $`(b(\gamma _1),\mathrm{},b(\gamma _n))`$ is the g-base of the frame
$`(H(\sigma _1)[b],\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1})[b])`$.

Proof:
Induction on the length of $`P`$ using Proposition 4.3.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`(H(\sigma _1),\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1}))`$ be a frame, then for every frame $`(H(\sigma _1^{}),\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1}^{}))`$ there exist a braid $`bB_n[D,K]`$ s.t. $`(H(\sigma _1)[b],\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1})[b])=(H(\sigma _1^{}),\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1}^{}))`$.

Proof:
Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ be the g-bases of $`(H(\sigma _1),\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1}))`$ and $`(H(\sigma _1^{}),\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1}^{}))`$.
In  it was proved that there exists a unique braid $`bB_n[D,K]`$ s.t. $`b(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. From Corollary 4.4 $`(H(\sigma _1)[b],\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1})[b])`$ is a frame with a g-base $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$.
From Proposition 4.2, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ has only one frame, therefore, $`(H(\sigma _1)[b],\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1})[b])=(H(\sigma _1^{}),\mathrm{},H(\sigma _{n1}^{}))`$

We now come to the main result:

###### Theorem 4.6.

Let $`(H_1,\mathrm{},H_{n1})`$ and $`(F_1,\mathrm{},F_{n1})`$ be two frames of $`B_n[D,K]`$, then for every two braids s.t. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2=F_{i_1}\mathrm{}F_{i_{n(n1)}}=H_{j_1}\mathrm{}H_{j_{n(n1)}}`$ the factorizations $`F_{i_1}\mathrm{}F_{i_{n(n1)}}`$ and $`H_{j_1}\mathrm{}H_{j_{n(n1)}}`$ are Hurwitz equivalent.

Proof:
From Corollary 3.5, $`F_{i_1}\mathrm{}F_{i_{n(n1)}}\stackrel{HE}{}(F_1\mathrm{}F_{n1})^n`$ and $`H_{j_1}\mathrm{}H_{j_{n(n1)}}\stackrel{HE}{}(H_1\mathrm{}H_{n1})^n`$.
From Proposition 4.5, $`bB_n[D,K]`$ s.t. $`(F_1,\mathrm{},F_{n1})=(H_1[b],\mathrm{}H_{n1}[b])`$, so from Proposition 3.10, $`(F_1\mathrm{}F_{n1})^n\stackrel{HE}{}(H_1\mathrm{}H_{n1})^n`$ and therefore, $`F_{i_1}\mathrm{}F_{i_{n(n1)}},H_{j_1}\mathrm{}H_{j_{n(n1)}}`$ are Hurwitz equivalent. $`\mathit{}`$