text:
# Particle-like solutions to higher order curvature Einstein–Yang-Mills systems in 𝑑 dimensions

## 1 Introduction

Gravitational theories in higher dimensions are of current interest in the contexts of the AdS/CFT correspondence and of theories with large and infinite extra dimensions with non-factorisable metrics. Since non-Abelian gauge fields feature in the low energy effective action of string theory, it is interesting to study the properties of the corresponding Einstein–Yang-Mills (EYM) systems. It is our purpose in the present work, to study higher dimensional EYM systems extended by higher order terms in both gravitational and YM curvatures.

In particular, we construct static particle-like solutions in the higher curvature version of Einstein–Yang-Mills systems in $`d`$-dimensional spacetimes in which the $`SO(d)`$ gauge field takes its values in the chiral representation $`SO(d)_\pm `$. This is analogous to the $`4`$ dimensional model with $`SO_\pm (4)=SU_\pm (2)`$ Yang-Mills (YM) field interacting with Einstein gravity, in the work of Bartnik and McKinnon .

In the original system studied in , the gravitational action provides the required scaling behaviour needed to balance the scaling of the static Yang-Mills (YM) system in 3 Euclidean dimensions. This scaling argument is not rigorous because the gravitational action is not positive definite by construction, but nonetheless it enables the construction of particle like solutions. As a result these solutions are unstable and can be viewed as sphalerons rather than solitons. The $`(d1)`$ static solutions we construct here are expected to have such an instability, though in this preliminary work we will not carry out the corresponding stability analysis. We will restrict to the simplest model incorporating only up to the second order curvature terms in both the YM and gravitational sectors.

As it happens, to go to $`8d>4`$ it is necessary to include the second member of the YM hierarchy to provide the requisite scaling, even in the absence of the gravitational GB term. (Similarly for $`12d>8`$ it is necessary to include the thrid member of the YM hierarchy.) We will restrict our considerations to the first two members of the YM hierarchy, and hence to $`d8`$. Thus we will consider systems (a) featuring only Einstein gravity, (b) only GB gravity, and (c) mixed Einstein and GB gravity, but always with the first two members of the YM hierarchy.

In section 2, we introduce the models to be studied and in section 3 we derive the classical equations subject to our spherically symmetric Ansatz. This consists of the $`d`$-dimensional analogue of the $`4`$-dimensional metric Ansatz employed in , and the spherically symmetric Ansatz for the YM field in the $`SO_\pm (d)`$ (chiral) representation in $`d`$-dimensions, analogous with the Ansatz for the $`SU(2)`$ YM field in the $`SO_\pm (4)`$ (chiral) representation in $`4`$-dimensions used in . Section 4 and its subsections are devoted to our numerical study of these systems and we give a summary and discuss our results in section 5.

## 2 The model(s)

The generic system of interest in this work is the superposed Yang-Mills hierarchy  interacting with the superposed gravitational hierarchy consisting of the Einstein and all possible Gauss-Bonnet (GB) terms in a given spacetime dimension $`d`$.

$$=_{grav}+_{YM}.$$
(1)
In this preliminary work, we will carry out this construction for dimensions $`d=6,8`$ only.

The definition we use for the superposed gravitational hierarchy is

$$_{grav}=\underset{p=1}{\overset{P_1}{}}\frac{1}{2p}\kappa _peR_{(p)},$$
(2)
in which the $`p=1`$ term describes the usual Einstein gravity, and the higher $`p`$ terms the successive GB contributions. In (2) $`e=\text{d}ete_\mu ^a=\sqrt{\text{d}etg_{\mu \nu }}`$, $`e_\mu ^a`$ are the vielbeins, and $`R_{(p)}`$ is the $`p`$-Ricci scalar. In terms of the totally antisymmetrised $`p`$-fold product of the Riemann tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ yielding the $`2p`$-form $`p`$-Riemann tensor (with the notation $`[abc\mathrm{}]`$ implying total antisymmetrisation of the indices $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}`$)

$$R_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2p}}^{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{2p}}=R_{[\mu _1\mu _2}^{[a_1a_2}R_{\mu _3\mu _4}^{a_3a_4}\mathrm{}R_{\mu _{2p1}\mu _{2p}]}^{a_{2p1}a_{2p}]},$$
(3)
we define the $`p`$-Ricci scalar and the $`p`$-Ricci tensor as

$`R_{(p)}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2p}}^{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{2p}}e_{a_1}^{\mu _1}e_{a_2}^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}e_{a_{2p}}^{\mu _{2p}}`$ (4)
$`R_{(p)}_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`R_{\mu \mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2p1}}^{aa_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{2p1}}e_{a_1}^{\mu _1}e_{a_2}^{\mu _2}\mathrm{}e_{a_{2p1}}^{\mu _{2p1}},`$ (5)
Leading to the definitions of the $`p`$-Einstein tensor

$$G_{(p)}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}=R_{(p)}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}\frac{1}{2p}e_\mu ^aR_{(p)}.$$
(6)
Note that the $`p`$-Ricci scalar (4) coincides with the Euler-Hirzbruch density111This follows immediately from the alternative definition for the $`p`$-Ricci scalar in $`d`$ dimensions:
$$\widehat{R}_{(p)}=\epsilon ^{\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}\nu _{2p}\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{d2p}}e_{\mu _1}^{a_1}e_{\mu 2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}e_{\mu _{d2p}}^{a_{d2p}}\epsilon ^{b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_{2p}a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_{d2p}}R_{\nu _1\nu _2}^{b_1b_2}R_{\nu _3\nu _4}^{b_3b_4}\mathrm{}R_{\nu _{2p}\nu _{2p}}^{b_{2p}b_{2p}}.$$
in $`d=2p`$ (even) dimensions, and hence is trivial. In dimensions $`d2p`$ on the other hand, it vanishes by (anti)symmetry irrespective if $`d`$ is even or odd. Thus the upper limit in the summation in (2) is $`P_1=\frac{d2}{2}`$ in even, and $`P_1=\frac{d1}{2}`$ in odd dimensions $`d`$.

The definition we use for superposed YM hierarchy is

$$_{YM}=\underset{p=1}{\overset{P_2}{}}\frac{1}{2(2p)!}\tau _pe\text{T}rF(2p)^2,$$
(7)
where $`F(2p)`$ is the $`2p`$-form $`p`$-fold totally antisymmetrised product of the $`SO(d)`$ YM curvature $`2`$-form $`F(2)`$

$$F(2p)F_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2p}}=F_{[\mu _1\mu _2}F_{\mu _3\mu _4}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _{2p1}\mu _{2p}]}.$$
(8)
Even though the $`2p`$-form (8) is dual to a total divergence, namely the divergence of the corresponding Chern-Simons form, the density (7) is never a total divergence since it is the square of one. But the $`2p`$-form (8) vanishes by (anti)symmetry for $`d<2p`$ so that the upper limit in the summation in (7) is $`P_2=\frac{d}{2}`$ for even $`d`$ and $`P_2=\frac{d1}{2}`$ for odd $`d`$.

We define the $`p`$-stress tensor pertaining to each term in (7) as

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{(p)}=\text{Tr}F(2p)_{\mu \tau _1\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{2p1}}F(2p)_\nu {}_{}{}^{\tau _1\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{2p1}}\frac{1}{4p}g_{\mu \nu }\text{Tr}F(2p)_{\tau _1\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{2p}}F(2p)^{\tau _1\tau _2\mathrm{}\tau _{2p}}.$$
(9)
In the present work, we restrict our attention to $`d=6`$ and $`8`$, and in both cases restrict to only the two terms $`p=1`$ and $`2`$, both in the graviational and the YM hierarchies, even though in these dimensions higher values of $`P`$ both in (2) and (7) can be accommodated. This restriction is motivated by our desire to study the simplest nontrivial cases. As for our choice of $`d=6`$ and $`8`$, these are the only even dimensions in which the system consisting of (2) and (7) is nontrivial, and our restriction in this preliminary study is motivated by our desire to maximise the analogy with the study of Bartnik and McKinnon  which is in (even) $`d=4`$. Like in the model of , we will choose the YM gauge group to be $`SO(d)`$, with the YM fields taking their values in the chiral representation $`SO_\pm (d)`$ (which for $`d=4`$ reduces to $`SU_\pm (2)`$).

## 3 The classical equations

In $`d`$ dimensional spacetime, we restrict to static fields that are spherically symmetric in the $`d1`$ spacelike dimensions with the metric Ansatz

$$ds^2=A(r)dt^2+B(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}^2$$
(10)
where $`r`$ is the $`(d2)`$ dimensional spacelike radial coordinate and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}`$ is the $`d2`$ dimensional angular volume element.

We take the static spherically symmetric $`SO(d)`$ YM field in even $`d`$ to be in the $`SO_{(\pm )}(d)`$ (chiral) representation

$$A_0=0,A_i=\left(\frac{w1}{r}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{(\pm )}\widehat{x}_j,\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{d+1}}{2}\right)[\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_j].$$
(11)
The index $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},d1`$ labels the space dimensions of the static fields, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ ($`\mu =1,2,\mathrm{},d`$) being the gamma matrices in $`d`$ dimensions. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{(\pm )}`$ are the generators of the $`SO(d1)`$ subgroup of $`SO(d)`$, the latter being in the chiral representation. We note that (11) is not the most general spherically symmetric Ansatz for a $`SO(d)`$ YM connection and is effectively that of a $`SO(d1)`$ field. In this sense we could regard our gauge fields to be $`SO(d1)`$ rather than $`SO(d)`$ fields. In the low dimensional case $`d=4`$, the generators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^{(\pm )}`$ reduce to the those of $`SU_+(2)`$ and $`SU_{}(2)`$, in which case (11) is indeed general enough. Another difference of $`d>4`$ versus $`d=4`$ is that in the latter case there is a duality between the electric and magnetic fields while in our case this duality is absent. Thus we do not seek to construct dyonic particle like solutions and have set $`A_0=0`$ in (11).

For the system (1) under consideration, namely that with $`P_1=P_2=2`$, the variational equations for the YM and gravitational fields are, respectively

$$\tau _1D_\mu \left(eF^{\mu \nu }\right)+\frac{1}{2}\tau _2\{F_{\rho \sigma },D_\mu \left(eF^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\right)\}=0$$
(12)
$$\kappa _1G_{(1)}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}+\kappa _2G_{(2)}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}=\tau _1T_{(1)}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}+\frac{1}{3!}\tau _2T_{(2)}{}_{\mu }{}^{a}.$$
(13)
It is easy to systematically extend (12) and (13) to the highest values of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ respectively, in any dimension $`d`$.

By virtue of the spherically symmetric YM Ansatz (11) and the metric Ansatz (10), it follows that the Gauss Law equation, namely the $`\nu =0`$ (or $`\nu =t`$) component of (12) is identically satisfied. Amongst the $`\nu =i`$ components, the $`\nu =r`$ also trivialise and the $`d2`$ equations pertaining to the $`\nu =\theta _\alpha `$ components all coincide to give only one equation for (11). We list explicitly the two terms in (11)

$`D_\mu \left(eF^{\mu \theta _\alpha }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(r^{d4}\sqrt{AB}w^{}\right)^{}(d3)r^{d6}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{A}{B}}}(w^21)w`$ (14)
$`\{F_{\rho \sigma },D_\mu \left(eF^{\mu \theta _\alpha \rho \sigma }\right)\}`$ $`=`$ $`3(d3)(d4)(w^21)(\left(r^{d8}\sqrt{AB}(w^21)w^{}\right)^{}`$ (15)
$``$ $`(d5)r^{d10}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{A}{B}}}(w^21)^2w)`$
for all $`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{}(d2)`$.

It follows from the metric Ansatz (10) that the Einstein tensors defined in (6) have nonvanishing components $`G_{(p)}_t^t`$, $`G_{(p)}_r^r`$ and $`G_{(p)}_{\theta _\alpha }^{\theta _\alpha }`$ ($`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},(d2)`$), which can readily be calculated for any $`p`$. Here we list explicitly the two cases of interest, $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$, repectively,

$`G_{(1)}_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}(d2)\left[B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(d3)(1B)\right]`$ (16)
$`G_{(1)}_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}(d2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{BA^{}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(d3)(1B)\right]`$ (17)
$`G_{(1)}_{\theta _\alpha }^{\theta _\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{BA^{\prime \prime }}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}\right)^{}A^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}(d3)(d4)(1B)`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(d3){\displaystyle \frac{(AB)^{}}{A}}],`$
and

$`G_{(2)}_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r^3}}(d2)(d3)(d4)(1B)\left[B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}(d5)(1B)\right]`$ (19)
$`G_{(2)}_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r^3}}(d2)(d3)(d4)(1B)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{BA^{}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}(d5)(1B)\right]`$ (20)
$`G_{(2)}_{\theta _\alpha }^{\theta _\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r^2}}(d3)(d4)[(1B)({\displaystyle \frac{BA^{\prime \prime }}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}\right)^{}A^{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{BA^{}}{A}}\right)B^{}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(d5)(1B){\displaystyle \frac{(AB)^{}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r^2}}(d5)(d6)(1B)^2].`$
It follows from the Ansätze (10) and (11) that the stress tensors defined in (9) have nonvanishing components $`T_{(p)}_t^t`$, $`T_{(p)}_r^r`$ and $`T_{(p)}_{\theta _\alpha }^{\theta _\alpha }`$ ($`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},(d2)`$), which can readily be calculated for any $`p`$. Here we list explicitly the two cases of interest, $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$, repectively,

$`T_{(1)}_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^4r^2}}n_d(d2)\left[2Bw^2+(d3)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2\right]`$ (22)
$`T_{(1)}_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^4r^2}}n_d(d2)\left[2Bw^2+(d3)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2\right]`$ (23)
$`T_{(1)}_{\theta _\alpha }^{\theta _\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^4r^2}}n_d\left[2(d4)Bw^2+(d3)(d6)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2\right],`$ (24)
and

$`T_{(2)}_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(3!)^2}{2^7r^4}}n_d{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)!}{(d5)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2\left[4Bw^2+(d5)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2\right]`$ (25)
$`T_{(2)}_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(3!)^2}{2^7r^4}}n_d{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)!}{(d5)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2\left[4Bw^2+(d5)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2\right]`$ (26)
$`T_{(2)}_{\theta _\alpha }^{\theta _\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(3!)^2}{2^7r^4}}n_d{\displaystyle \frac{(d3)!}{(d5)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2\left[4(d8)Bw^2+(d5)(d10)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2\right].`$ (27)
(24) and (27) are valid for all $`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},(d2)`$. The constants $`n_d=\text{T}r1\mathrm{I}`$, where the dimensionality of the unit matrix is determined by the chiral representations appearing in (11).

Substituting (14)-(15) in (12) results in one equation, and substituting (16)-(27) in (13) results in three equations. Thus we have 4 ordinary differential equations for the 3 radial functions $`A(r),B(r)`$ and $`w(r)`$. This necessitates the verification of the consistency of these 4 equations to ensure that the system is not overdetermined. We have carried out this consistency check in the case at hand with $`P_1=P_2=2`$ in (2) in (7) respectively, for any $`\kappa _1`$, $`\kappa _2`$, $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ and in any dimension $`d`$. We found that the components $`(\theta _\alpha ,\theta _\alpha )`$ of (13),

$$\kappa _1G_{(1)}{}_{\theta _\alpha }{}^{\theta _\alpha }+\kappa _2G_{(2)}{}_{\theta _\alpha }{}^{\theta _\alpha }=\tau _1T_{(1)}{}_{\theta _\alpha }{}^{\theta _\alpha }+\frac{1}{3!}\tau _2T_{(2)}{}_{\theta _\alpha }{}^{\theta _\alpha }.$$
(28)
are identically satisfied by the two other Einstein equations

$`\kappa _1G_{(1)}{}_{t}{}^{t}+\kappa _2G_{(2)}_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _1T_{(1)}{}_{t}{}^{t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\tau _2T_{(2)}_t^t`$ (29)
$`\kappa _1G_{(1)}{}_{r}{}^{r}+\kappa _2G_{(2)}_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _1T_{(1)}{}_{r}{}^{r}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\tau _2T_{(2)}_r^r`$ (30)
together with the YM equation (12). Thus the 3 effective constraints on the 3 radial functions are the 2 equations (29)-(30) plus the YM equation (12). This check of consistency extends by induction to the case of arbitrary $`P_1,P_2`$.

Finally we express these 3 equations employing the same notation as  and , namely

$$A(r)=\sigma ^2(r)N(r),B(r)=N(r).$$
(31)
For the functions $`w(r)`$, $`N(r)`$ and $`\sigma (r)`$, we have

$`2\tau _1`$ $`\left(\left(r^{d4}\sigma Nw^{}\right)^{}(d3)r^{d6}\sigma (w^21)w\right)+`$
$`+`$ $`3\tau _2`$ $`(d3)(d4)(w^21)\left(\left(r^{d8}\sigma N(w^21)w^{}\right)^{}(d5)r^{d10}\sigma (w^21)^2w\right)=0`$ (32)
$`m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}r^{d4}(\tau _1[Nw^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d3)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2]`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _2}{r^2}}(d3)(d4)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2[Nw^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(d5)\left({\displaystyle \frac{w^21}{r}}\right)^2])`$
$$\left[\kappa _1+\frac{\kappa _2}{2r^2}(d3)(d4)(1N)\right]\left(\frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }\right)=\frac{n_d}{8r}\left[\tau _1+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\tau _2}{r^2}(d3)(d4)\left(\frac{w^21}{r}\right)^2\right]w^2.$$
(34)
In (33), the function $`m(r)`$ is defined as

$$m(r)=n_d^1[\kappa _1r^{d3}(1N)+\frac{1}{4}\kappa _2r^{d5}(1N)^2],$$
(35)
which for $`\kappa _2=0`$ and with $`d=4`$ reduces to the definition of the corresponding function $`m(r)`$ used in . For $`\kappa _2=\tau _2==0`$ and with $`d=4`$, equations (32)-(34) coincide with the ordinary diffrential equations of .

## 4 Numerical results

In this section we present the results we obtained for the two cases corresponding to $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$ gravity and for the corresponding space-time dimensions $`d=6`$ and $`d=8`$ where solutions of the extendend Yang-Mills equations (consisting of the superposition of the $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$ members of the YM hierarchy) exist even in the absence of gravity. (The cases of odd values of $`d`$ will be addressed elsewhere). When the two mixing parameters $`\tau _1,\tau _2`$ do not vanish we can set them equal to particular values without losing generality. This can be done by an appropriate rescaling of the overal lagrangian density and of the radial variable. So we take advantage of this freedom and choose $`\tau _1=1,\tau _2=1/3`$ (this simplifies the numerical coefficients in the equations). The limit $`\tau _10`$ is addressed separately.

### 4.1 Boundary conditions

We have solved the above equations with the appropriate boundary conditions for the radial functions $`m(r)`$, $`\sigma (r)`$ and $`w(r)`$ which guarantee the solution to be regular at the origin and to have finite energy. These boundary values are

$$m(0)=0,w(0)=1,$$
(36)
at the origin, and

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\sigma (r)=1,\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}w(r)=1.$$
(37)
at infinity. The condition on $`\sigma `$ results in Minkowskian metric asymptotically.

Further analysis of the YM equation (32) yields

$$w(r\mathrm{})=1+\frac{C}{r^{d3}}$$
(38)
### 4.2 $`p=1`$ gravity: Pure Einstein-Hilbert

We define here $`\alpha ^2n_d/(8\kappa _1)`$ so that $`\alpha ^2=0`$ corresponds to the decoupling of gravity (and therefore to a flat space).

#### 4.2.1 $`d=6`$ case

The flat solution corresponding to the flat case  is characterized by an energy $`M7.096`$ (in the conventions used). This solution is smoothly deformed by gravity and exists up to a critical value $`\alpha _m^20.1266`$.

When $`\alpha ^2`$ increases, the mass of the gravitating solution decreases from $`M7.096`$ (flat case) down to $`M6.56`$; the function $`N(x)`$ develops a local minimum, say $`N_m`$ which becomes deeper while gravity becomes stronger and the value $`\sigma (0)`$ decreases from one. These quantities are plotted in Fig.1 and the mass is reported on Fig. 2

Our numerical analysis strongly indicates that a second branch of regular solutions exists, also termin‘ating at $`\alpha ^2=\alpha _m^2`$.

On this second branch the values $`\sigma (0)`$ and $`N_m`$ increase monotonically with $`\alpha ^2`$. The quantity $`\sigma (0)`$ reaches the value zero $`\alpha ^2\alpha _c^2`$ , with $`\alpha ^20.07`$, as illustrated by Fig. 1.

Accordingly, the metric becomes singular in this limit and no solutions seem to exist on this branch for lower values of $`\alpha ^2`$.

The second branch of solutions therefore exist for $`\alpha _c<\alpha ^2<\alpha _c^2`$. The mass of the solution of the second branch is larger than the corresponding one on the first branch, as illustrated by Fig. 2.

The minimal value of $`N(r)`$ stays well above zero ($`N_{min}0.17`$) so that no horizon is approached. The situation contrasts with the case of the gravitating monopole in 3+1 dimensions . In both cases (the present and that of ) there occur second branches of the solutions after critical values the respective parameters ($`\alpha ^2inourcase`$), these bifurcations are quite different in the two cases. The gravitating monopole bifurcates into a Reissner-Nordsrtom black hole solution while the solutions studied here terminate into a solution presenting a singularity at the origin. Several components of the Riemann tensor are indeed polynomials is the field $`\sigma (r)`$.

For scaling reasons, the parameter $`\tau _2`$ cannot vanish for finite energy solutions to exist. The numerical study of the equation with a varying $`\tau _1`$ (with $`\alpha ^2`$ fixed) reveals that, in the limit $`\tau _10`$, the solutions of the first branch converge to the vacuum solution (with mass equal to zero and with $`w(x)=1`$) When the solutions on the second branch are examined in the same limit, it appears that they stop to exist at a critical value of $`\tau _1`$ where the value $`\sigma (0)`$ becomes zero. In other words, it also terminates into a singular solution for a finite value of $`\tau _1`$ and no regular solution seems to exist for $`\tau _1=0`$.

#### 4.2.2 $`d=8`$ case

The scenario is qualitatively similar to the one of the $`d=6`$ case. Here the flat solution has $`M25.6`$, it gets deformed by gravity up to $`\alpha ^20.0022`$ and the function $`\sigma (r)`$ is such that $`\sigma (0)`$ decreases with $`\alpha ^2`$. At the same time $`N(r)`$ develops a local minimum which becomes deeper. Another branch of solution exists where both $`\sigma (0)`$ and $`N_{min}`$ are lower than their conterparts on the first branch. These relevant quantities are plotted in Figs. 3 and 4. On Fig. 5 we present the profiles of the metric functions for several values of the parameters.

The numerical analysis suggests that this second branch persists up to $`\alpha ^2=0`$ and that in the limit, $`lim_{\alpha ^20}\sigma (0)=0`$. As far as our numerical analysis indicates, the value $`N_m`$ tends to a finite value in this limit so that there occurs no horizon.

We further investigated the two branches of solutions in the limit $`\tau _10`$. It appears that the first branch solution tends to the vacuum while the second one tends to a non trivial solution with a finite mass.

### 4.3 $`p=2`$ gravity: Pure Gauss-Bonnet

This case is not of any particular physical relevance but it is interesting to learn the peculiarities of the pure $`p=2`$ gravity especially when the YM term is also the pure $`p=2`$ member of the YM hierarchy in $`d=8`$. Such a system supports a self-dual YM solution on double–self-dual gravitational background  when the metric has Euclidean signature, so it is interesting to contrast with the case of Minkowskian signature at hand.

#### 4.3.1 $`d=6`$ case

We define the constant $`\beta ^44n_d/\kappa _2`$ in this case. Again the flat solution gets deformed by the gravitating term and a gravitating solution is formed, characterized by $`\sigma (0),N_m`$ (see Fig. 6) and by the mass (see Fig. 7).

While both $`\sigma (0),N_m`$ decrease monotonically as functions of $`\beta ^2`$, the mass first decreases, reaches a minimum for $`\beta ^20.75`$ and then starts to increase very rapidly with $`\beta ^2`$.

In the present case, it is very likely that the gravitating solution exists up to a maximal value of $`\beta ^2`$, say $`\beta _m^2`$ and that, when this limit is approached, $`N_m`$ tends to zero, forming an horizon, while $`M`$ tends to infinity. (Incidentally, $`r_0`$ the value of the radial variable where $`w(r)`$ crosses zero, exhibits the same behaviour). The numerical integration of the equations for $`\beta ^2>0.87`$ becomes difficult and we could not evaluate $`\beta ^2`$ with a good accuracy.

Denoting $`r_m`$ the value of $`r`$ where the function $`N(r)`$ attains its minimum, we observe that the solutions possess a completely different behaviour in the regions $`r>r_m`$ and $`r<r_m`$.

The functions $`m(r),\sigma (r),w(r)`$ vary essentially on the interval $`[0,r_m]`$ and attain their asymptotic values $`m(\mathrm{}),1,1`$ for $`rr_m`$. They are essentially constant on the interval $`r]r_m,\mathrm{}[`$. This feature is illustrated in Fig. 8.

Our belief that the solution stops at some maximal value of $`\beta ^2`$ is reinforced by the fact that our attempts to produce a second branch of solutions turned out to be unsuccessful.

A peculiarity of the equations is that fixing $`\beta ^2`$ and $`\tau _1`$ and varying $`\tau _2`$, is equivalent to a rescaling of the radial variable $`r`$. Fixing $`\beta ^2`$ and decreasing $`\tau _10`$ the numerical results strongly suggest that the solution tends to the vacuum.

#### 4.3.2 $`d=8`$ case

The pattern of solutions is similar to the ones in the $`d=6`$ case. Here the mass attains its minimum at $`\beta ^20.55`$ and again the gravitating solutions seem to exist up to $`\beta ^21.2`$. The relevant quantities characterizing the solutions are plotted in Figs. 9 and 10. The behaviour of the solutions for $`\beta ^2`$ approaching the critical value is illustrated on Fig. 11.

The absence of a solution for the model consisting purely of the $`p=2`$ members of both gravitational and YM hierarchies for Minkowskian signature $`d=8`$ at hand, contrasts with the selfdual (black hole) solutions  in the case of Euclidean signature. (Note that the $`p=1`$ counterpart in Minkowskian $`d=4`$ exists, namely the solutions of , along with the selfdual solutions.) It would be interesting to find out if the situation is different for Minkowskian signature black hole solutions in $`d=8`$.

### 4.4 $`p=1+p=2`$ gravity: Superposed Einstein and Gauss-Bonnet

We finally considered the equations for the case where the $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$ gravities are superposed. We limited our analysis to the case where the $`p=2`$ gravity coupling is slightly smaller (although not too small in order to see the effect of the superposition) than the $`p=1`$ parameter. To fix the idea, we choose $`\kappa _2=(1/2)\kappa _1`$. Our conclusion is that for $`d=6`$ and $`d=8`$ the qualitative properties of the solutions corresponding to p=1 are conserved, namely two branches of solutions are found. The maximal value $`\alpha ^2`$ increases slightly in the mixed case; for instance $`\alpha _m^20.004`$ for our choice of the parameter in the $`d=8`$ case.

## 5 Conclusions

It appears that the difference of the solutions that we have constructed, from the those given in  for the usual EYM system, arises due to the presence of the additional dimensional constants $`\kappa _2`$ and $`\tau _2`$. These constants result in the presence of a nontrivial parameter in the equations, for instance the one we denoted as $`\alpha ^2`$, which contains the gravitational coupling strength. By varying this parameter we were able to construct one or several branches of solutions for the cases considered. In this respect the system of equations studied is analogous to that of the gravitating monopole  where the VEV of the Higgs fields also gives rise to an additional dimensional parameter.

In this prelimary study, we have restricted ourselves to the construction of the simplest static spherically symmetric (in $`d1`$ spacelike dimensions) solutions. Natural extensions of the present work include (i) the construction of solutions with several nodes in the YM function $`w(r)`$, and (ii) the construction of the black hole counterparts of our particle-like solutions. In the latter case these pertain to the fully interacting version of the fixed gravitational background solutions discussed in . Another extension, (iii), concerns the deformation of our solutions due to the inclusion of a cosmological constant . Finally, (iv) the stability analysis of our solutions can be carried out.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by an Enterprise–Ireland grant for International Collaboration project IC/2001/073.

Figure Captions

* The minimal value of the function $`N`$ and the value $`\sigma \left(0\right)`$ are plotted as functions of $`\alpha ^2`$ for $`p=1`$ gravity in $`d=6`$.
* The mass of the solutions for $`p=1`$ gravity in $`d=6`$.
* Idem Fig. 1 in $`d=8`$.
* Idem Fig. 2 in $`d=8`$.
* The profiles for the metric functions $`N\left(r\right)`$, $`\sigma \left(r\right)`$ are presented for different values of $`\alpha ^2`$ for the two branches for $`p=1`$ gravity in $`d=8`$. The lower branch plot of the $`\alpha ^2=0.0008`$ case is not reported because it is very close to the flat solution. Idem \[Figure 6\] Idem Fig. 1 for $`p=2`$ gravity in $`d=6`$.
* Idem Fig. 2 for $`p=2`$ gravity in $`d=6`$,
* The evolutions of $`N\left(r\right),\sigma \left(r\right),w\left(r\right)`$, at the approach of the critical value for $`p=2`$ gravity in $`d=6`$.
* Idem Fig. 1 for $`p=2`$ gravity in $`d=8`$.
* Idem Fig. 2 for $`p=2`$ gravity in $`d=8`$.
* Idem Fig. 8 for $`p=2`$ gravity in $`d=8`$.


format: text

text:
# Moving breathers in a bent DNA model

## 1 Introduction

Discrete breathers are localised oscillations that appear in nonlinear discrete systems. Their existence and stability, under some rather relaxed conditions, was proven by MacKay and Aubry and, ever since, they have been widely studied . These localized excitations, under certain conditions, can move and transport energy along the system and they are usually called moving breathers .

A particularly interesting discrete system is the Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In this system, localization of energy has been suggested as a precursor of the transcription bubble , and moving localized oscillations as a method of transport of information along the double strand .

In order to explain some aspects of DNA dynamics, a great number of mathematical models have been proposed . An interesting approach has been followed by Peyrard and Bishop (PB model) , who proposed a model in order to study the dynamics and the thermodinamics of base pairs opening in DNA denaturation and transcription. In this model, the double strand is equivalent to a Klein-Gordon chain, the variables are the distances between nucleotides within each base pair, and only short range interactions due to the stacking coupling are considered. Other DNA models ignore this kind of interaction and only consider long range interactions, whose origin lies in the dipole moments that characterize the hydrogen bonds between the nucleotides . Nevertheless, we have shown that the existence of stacking interaction is a necessary condition to obtain moving breathers in these last kind of models .

In the framework of the Peyrard-Bishop model, the bending of the molecule is not relevant, because only nearest neighbour interaction is considered. However, when long range interactions are taken into account, the bending becomes relevant, and it can modify the dynamics of the system. Bending of DNA has been studied as an inhomogeneity in a chain with only nearest neighbour interaction , and long range interaction has been taken into account in homogeneous bent DNA models using the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLS) . The relationship between static breathers and bending has also been studied in the framework of the Klein–Gordon equation .

In this paper, we study the properties of moving breathers in a bent DNA chain with short and long range interactions in a modified Peyrard-Bishop model . The origin of the interactions lies, respectively, in the stacking of the base pairs and the finite dipole moment of the hydrogen bonds within each base pair.

We have found that the bending of the chain can drastically change the properties of moving breathers. They can cross the bent region or be reflected, a behaviour which resembles the movement of a particle in a potential barrier. A similar phenomenon has been recently observed in a two–dimensional FPU model for rigid biopolymers .

Another important result is that the moving breather behaves as a quasi-particle with constant mass provided that the phonon radiation is small enough. Under these conditions, we have developed a method for calculating the instantaneous translational kinetic energy of the moving breather.

## 2 The model

We consider a modification of the Peyrard-Bishop model, which consists in the addition of an energy term to the Hamiltonian, that takes into account the long range interaction due to the dipole–dipole forces .

The Peyrard–Bishop model has been studied assuming that the double strand has a planar geometry, i.e., the DNA chain lies in a plane. In order to study the influence on the dynamics of a different geometry, we suppose that the plane has been bent and adapted to a parabola of curvature $`\kappa `$ (that is, the location of the n-th base pair is determined by the equation $`y_n=\kappa x_n^2/2`$) . All the dipole moments are perpendicular to the parabola and parallel among them.

Thus, the hamiltonian of the system can be written as:

$$H=T+U_{BP}+U_{ST}+U_{DD}$$
(1)
where $`T`$ is the kinetic energy:

$$T=\frac{1}{2}m\underset{n}{}\dot{u}_n^2,$$
(2)
being $`u_n`$ the transverse stretching of the hydrogen bonds connecting the two bases and $`m`$ the mass of a nucleotide.

The term $`U_{BP}`$ represents the interaction energy due to the hydrogen bonds within each base pair:

$$U_{BP}=\underset{n}{}V(u_n),$$
(3)
where $`V(u_n)`$ is the Morse potential, i.e., $`V(u)=D(e^{bu}1)^2`$, being $`D`$ the well depth, which represents the dissociation energy of a base pair, and $`b`$ a spatial scale factor.

$`U_{ST}`$ is the short range interaction term, representing the stacking energy between base pairs:

$$U_{ST}=\frac{1}{2}k\underset{n}{}(u_{n+1}u_n)^2,$$
(4)
where $`k`$ is the stacking coupling constant.

$`U_{DD}`$ is the long range interaction term, due to the dipole–dipole interaction. It can be expressed as :

$$U_{DD}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n,i}{}J_{ni}^{}u_nu_i,$$
(5)
where,

$$J_{ni}^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{J^{}}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}_n\stackrel{}{r}_i\right|^3}\hfill & \mathrm{for}in\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{for}i=n.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The vector $`\stackrel{}{r}_n`$ describes the position of the n-th base pair. We assume that the chain is inextensible, so that the distance between neighbouring sites remains constant: $`|\stackrel{}{r}_n\stackrel{}{r}_{n+1}|d`$.

The coupling constant $`J`$ is related to the charge transfer due to the formation of the hydrogen bonds ($`q`$) and the distance between base pairs ($`d`$), in the following way:

$$J^{}=\frac{q^2}{4\pi \epsilon _od^3}.$$
(7)
The Hamiltonian can be written as:

$$H=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}m\dot{u}_n^2+D(e^{bu_n}1)^2+\frac{1}{2}k(u_{n+1}u_n)^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}J_{in}^{}u_iu_n\right),$$
(8)
With an appropriate change of variables , the distance between neighbouring sites is 1 and the dynamical equations become:

$$F(\{u_n\})\ddot{u}_n+(e^{u_n}e^{2u_n})+C(2u_nu_{n+1}u_{n1})+\underset{i}{}J_{in}u_i=0,$$
(9)
where $`C=k/2Db^2`$ and $`J_{in}=J_{in}^{}/2Db^2`$. Furthermore, we define $`J=J^{}/2Db^2`$ as a new dimensionless dipole–dipole coupling constant.

## 3 Moving breathers and parameter values

Our aim is to study the dynamics of a moving breather travelling through a bent chain. In order to obtain a moving breather, we perturb the velocity of a static breather far from the parabola vertex, launching it to the bent part. Static breathers have been calculated using common methods based on the anticontinuous limit . Once a suitable static breather is obtained, it is made movable using the marginal mode method , which basically consists in adding to the velocities of the static breather a perturbation of magnitude $`\lambda `$ colinear to the direction of a linear localized mode, and letting the system evolve in time. In this context, an useful concept for describing the moving breather dynamics is the effective mass , a measure of the moving breather inertia. If the kinetic energy added to the breather is $`E=\lambda ^2/2`$, it is found that the resulting translational velocity of the breather, $`v`$, is proportional to $`\lambda `$ . Consequently, moving breathers can be considered as a quasi-particle with mass $`m^{}`$, which can be defined through the relation:

$$\frac{1}{2}m^{}v^2=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2=E.$$
(10)
A difficult issue is the choice of appropriate values of the parameters in order to fulfill two different requirements. On the one hand, there is only a small range of them that allows breather mobility. On the other hand, the parameters must be consistent with real DNA. The last aspect is controversial by itself as explained below. The requirement that the breathers can move is our first priority, in agreement with the experimentally observed “breathing” modes in DNA .

While there exists a general agreement in the literature about the order of magnitude of the parameters $`D`$ and $`b`$, there are not accurate data about the value of the elastic constant $`k`$, which oscillates between $`0.01eV/`$Å2 and $`10eV/`$Å2 . In their original paper, Peyrard and Bishop  used a set of values $`D=0.33`$ eV, $`b=1.8`$ Å-1 and $`k=3.0\times 10^3`$ eV/Å2. This set of parameters gives a value of $`C=0.014`$. Consequently, as $`C`$ must be greater than $`0.12`$ in order to obtain moving breathers , they would not exist in the Peyrard–Bishop model with these values of the parameters.

For a given model, a tuning procedure must be achieved in order to correctly fit the parameters to experimental results. Even the experimental results are controversial as each one refers to different aspect of DNA dynamics (torsion, bending, stretching, …) . Some recent works propose a generalization of the PB model with different values of the elastic constant $`k`$. In , the selected parameter values gives a coupling parameter $`C=0.63`$. In , normal modes corresponding to hydrogen bonds excitations are theoretically investigated, with a range of the coupling parameter $`C(0.06,0.31)`$ that shows a good agreement with neutron scattering experiments.

In this paper, we have chosen the breather frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{b}=0.8`$, so that the nonlinear effects are significant but not too strong, as the nonlinearities in DNA are thought to be weak. The stacking and dipole–dipole coupling parameters chosen are, respectively, $`C=0.24`$ and $`J=0.02`$, which provides with moving breathers with low phonon radiation for small enough values of $`\lambda `$ . We have considered different spatial configuration varying the parameter $`\kappa `$.

## 4 Numerical results

In figure 1 we show the evolution of the energy centre  of a moving breather in a bent chain. If the added kinetic energy, $`E=\lambda ^2/2`$ is smaller than a critical value $`E_c`$, the breather rebounds, but, if $`E>E_c`$, the breather passes through the bending point. Figure 2 shows that the critical energy increase monotonically with the curvature.

Bending acts as a hindrance for the movement of breathers. This hindrance reminds to the experimented by a particle in a potential barrier. In this case, breather can be consider as a quasi-particle and this barrier can be calculated by finding the points where breathers rebound (or turning points) for different values of $`E`$. Furthermore, if the breather has a constant mass $`m^{}`$, this potential barrier can be obtained using the expression:

$$E_b=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\left(1\left(\frac{v}{v_o}\right)\right)$$
(11)
where $`v`$ is the translational velocity and $`v_o`$ is its value at $`t=0`$. In figure 3 can be observed a good agreement between the barrier calculated using both methods for a given value of $`\kappa `$. The barrier calculated by the second method exhibits an irregular shape, whose origin lies in the non-uniform behaviour of the translational velocity due to the discreteness of the system . This result confirms that, in this case, a moving breather behaves as a particle of constant mass $`m^{}`$.

For the parameters used in our study, we have observed that the effect of the phonon radiation is not negligible if $`E0.03`$, and the properties of the moving breathers change. Thus, in order to have a good agreement between both methods of calculating the potential barrier, the curvature of the parabola must be $`\kappa 4`$ (see figure 2). Otherwise, the value of the energy necessary for a moving breather to cross the bending point will be so high that the phonon radiation will alter the movement.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper, we have studied the behaviour of moving breathers in a bent DNA chain. The movement of a breather is qualitatively similar to the experienced by a particle in a potential barrier. For a given initial velocity, breathers can cross the bending point if the curvature is lower than a critical value. Otherwise, the breather rebounds. This fact suggest that a slight conformational changes in the DNA molecule can modify the dynamic of nonlinear excitations.

Another result is that the breather effective mass remains constant when the breather cross the bending point as long as the curvature is small enough. This fact provides with a method to calculate the instantaneous translational energy, which is given by $`E_{\mathrm{trans}}=m^{}v^2/2`$, being $`v`$ the translational velocity of the breather. In a recent work, it is proposed a method to calculate the translational energy in a $`FPU`$ chain based in the asymmetry between the difference between the maxima of the potential and kinetic energies and the total energy of the moving breather . This analysis can be performed because the maximum kinetic and potential energies coincide with the total energy of the static breather, as the interaction potential is spatially symmetric. However, this method cannot be applied in our Klein–Gordon chain because the on–site potential is not spatially symmetric. A further study could consider a spatially symmetric potential, as the double-well one, in order to find out whether both methods are equivalent.

## Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the European Commission under the RTN project LOCNET, HPRN-CT-1999-00163.

JC acknowledges an FPDI grant from ‘La Junta de Andalucía’.