text:
# Snowmass 2001: Jet Energy Flow Project1footnote 11footnote 1Contribution to the P5 Working Group on QCD and Strong Interactions at Snowmass 2001

## .1 Introduction

The goal of a jet algorithm is to provide a precise mapping between the observed, long distance hadronic final states in high energy interactions and the underlying energetic partons participating in the true short-distance, hard scattering processworkshops . To appreciate this goal imagine comparing the observed final states detected by “real” detectors that have sizes of order centimeters to meters to what would be observed with a detector whose size is characterized by a distance scale of a fraction of a fermi. Between these two scales, i.e., from a fraction of a fermi to centimeters, the short-distance state evolves via higher order perturbative processes and the physics associated with showering and hadronization. These processes allow the short-distance partons, along with the spectators, to evolve into the observed hadrons. During the evolution the 4-momentum associated with an initial short-distance parton is spread out over a number of final state hadrons occupying an extended region of phase space. To achieve our stated goal, the jet algorithm tries to identify these “related” hadrons into a single jet, whose total 4-momentum should track that of the initial parton. To perform this task with precision it is important that the results of applying the jet algorithm are insensitive to both higher order corrections and fluctuations in the showering/hadronization processes. The results of the jet algorithm should also be insensitive to the smearing effects of the detection process itself, e.g., due to the granularity of the detector.

Current jet algorithms attempt to achieve the stated goal in a quite singular way by assigning the observed hadrons to *unique* jets on an *event-by-event* basis. This identification proceeds in the face of the fundamental fact that such a unique assignment cannot be precise. While the underlying parton that initiates the jet is a nonsinglet under the color symmetry of QCD, the hadrons are all color singlets. At the very least, the jets in the final state must represent the correlated evolution of more than one short-distance parton or of a short-distance parton correlated with a spectator parton, i.e., a color singlet set of initial partons. In some sense the most extreme approach is represented by cone algorithms as advocated at the 1990 Snowmass WorkshopSnowmass . Cone algorithms associate hadrons into jets by identifying those that are nearby in angle. The underlying assumption is that the extra radiation produced by higher order corrections, showering and hadronization around an energetic parton appears symmetrically, i.e., occurs independently of the other color charged objects in the final state. The alternative jet algorithm, the $`K_T`$ algorithmktcluster , uses nearness in momentum space to identify the members of a jet and, at least to some extent, recognizes the “color-connectedness” of the radiation producing the final state. However, as noted above, both of these algorithms associate individual hadrons with unique jets on an event-by-event basis. We know that this procedure is only an approximation (due to the color conservation issue) and can lead to undesirable dependence (at least at the 10% level) on the details of the showering and hadronization processes. In the context of cone jet algorithms this latter point is discussed in more detail in another contribution to these Proceedingsbetter jets .

The Jet Energy Flow (JEF) approach described in this note is a simplified version of the more completely developed C-continuous observables or C-algebra formalism of F. V. TkachovTkachov  for describing energy flow in hadronic collisionsEflow . JEF accepts the reality that the hadronic final state represents the collective radiation from several out-flowing color charges, i.e., the underlying short-distance partons. No attempt is made to associate individual hadrons with unique jets, i.e., with unique underlying partons, on an event-by-event basis. Yet the energy flow pattern of an event still provides a footprint of the underlying partons, from which much of the same information provided by the standard jet algorithms can be extracted. As the subsequent discussion will indicate, it is a more reliable characterization of the event in the sense of exhibiting a reduced sensitivity to the showering and hadronization processes. The challenge in the JEF type analysis is to define observables that offer an informative comparison between theory and experiment.

## .2 The JEF Formalism

A primary strength of the JEF approach is that, in contrast with the usual algorithmic approach to jet identification, the JEF formalism generates, event-by-event, a smooth distribution to characterize each event. In that sense, the JEF formalism is more analytic. For example, in the application of the cone algorithm the goal of identifying unique jets leads to the “stability” constraintbetter jets . A set of hadrons or partons that lie within a cone of a defined size $`R`$ are identified as constituting a jet if and only if the energy-weighted centroid of the set of particles coincides with the geometric center of the cone. This constraint results in the non-analytic structure of the implementation of the algorithm, typically in the form of step functions with complicated arguments. Only limited (and typically complicated) regions of the multi-particle phase space contribute to a jet. No such constraint arises in the JEF analysis. This distinction has several important consequences.

1. The more inclusive and analytic calculations characteristic of a JEF analysis are more amenable to resummation techniques and power corrections analysis in perturbative calculations.
2. Since the required multi-particle phase space integrations are largely unconstrained, i.e., more analytic, they are easier (and faster) to implement. Programs like JETRAD spend considerable computer time simulating the complicated phase space required by the algorithmic style jet algorithms.
3. Since the analysis does not identify jets event-by-event, the analysis of the experimental data from an individual event should proceed more quickly.
4. Signal to background optimization can now include the JEF parameters (and distributions). One cannot typically optimize a standard jet algorithm except for a limited number of parameters.

We can define the fundamental distribution of the JEF analysis as follows. We start with a set of 4-vectors, $`p_\mu =(E,p_x,p_y,p_z)`$, that represent either the partons in a perturbative calculation or the hadrons in a simulated or real event. In the latter case these 4-vectors might correspond as well to the location and energy deposited in individual calorimeter cells. If a given event corresponds to the measurement of $`N`$ such 4-vectors, $`\left\{p_\mu ^i\right\}_{i=1}^N=\left\{(E^i,\stackrel{}{P^i})\right\}_{i=1}^N`$, we have the 4-vector distribution for that event defined by

$$P_\mu \left(\widehat{P}\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_\mu ^i\delta \left(\widehat{P}\widehat{P^i}\right),$$
(1)
where the directional unit vector is defined by $`\widehat{P}\left(m\right)=\stackrel{}{P}/\left|\stackrel{}{P}\right|`$ with the 2-dimensional angular variable defined as $`m=(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (typical of lepton colliders) or $`m=(\eta ,\varphi )`$ (typical of hadron colliders, where $`\eta `$ is the pseudorapidity, $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{cot}\theta /2\right)`$). This expression defines the underlying energy flow via $`E\left(m\right)=P_0\left(m\right)`$ with a corresponding expression for the underlying longitudinal momentum flow $`P_z\left(m\right)`$. For the case of hadronic colliders the more familiar underlying transverse energy flow is defined by the composite quantity $`E_T\left(m\right)=\sqrt{P_x^2\left(m\right)+P_y^2\left(m\right)}`$ or $`E_T\left(m\right)=E\left(m\right)\times \mathrm{sin}\theta \left(m\right)`$. Clearly many quantities can be constructed from the 4-momentum distribution of Eq. 1, including the usual cone jet algorithm. The $`E_T(\eta ,\varphi )`$ distribution for a typical CDF jet event is illustrated in Figure 1 along with the cone jets “found” with the CDF cone jet algorithm.

Using the underlying 4-vector distribution we define the jet energy flow (JEF) via a smearing or averaging function $`A`$ as

$$J_\mu \left(m\right)𝑑m^{}P_\mu \left(m^{}\right)\times A\left(m^{}m\right),$$
(2)
where $`A`$ is normalized as

$$𝑑mA\left(m\right)=1.$$
(3)
A simple (but not unique) form for the averaging function in terms of the general 2-tuple of angular variables $`m=(\alpha ,\beta )`$, which provides a direct comparison with the jet cone algorithm, is

$$A\left(m\right)=A(\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }\left(Rr(\alpha ,\beta )\right)}{\pi R^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }\left(R\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}\right)}{\pi R^2},$$
(4)
where $`R`$ is the cone size and $`r(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is the distance measure in the space defined by $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$. For comparison with the existing jet cone analyses we will discuss the case $`m=(\eta ,\varphi )`$. As a specific example we exhibit the jet transverse energy flow (transverse JEF)

$$J_T\left(m\right)=𝑑m^{}E_T\left(m^{}\right)\times A\left(m^{}m\right)=𝑑m^{}\sqrt{P_x^2\left(m^{}\right)+P_y^2\left(m^{}\right)}\times A\left(m^{}m\right)$$
(5)
times a factor of $`\pi R^2`$ ($`E_T=\pi R^2\times J_T)`$ for the case of $`R=0.7`$ in Figure 2 and 3 for the same event displayed in Figure 1. Clearly the same general structure is present in all three figures.

Note that the transverse JEF is smeared on a scale $`R`$ compared to the underlying $`E_T`$ distribution of Figure 1. For comparison the Snowmass cone jet algorithmSnowmass ; EKS  identifies jets at a discrete set of values of locations $`m_j`$ defined by the $`E_T`$ weighted cone “stability” constraint. These stable cone locations $`m_j`$ are the solutions of the equation

$$𝑑m^{}E_T\left(m^{}\right)\times \left(m^{}m_j\right)\times A\left(m^{}m_j\right)=0.$$
(6)
The corresponding cone jet $`E_T`$ values are found by evaluating Eq. 5 (times $`\pi R^2`$) at the jet positions, $`E_{T,j}=\pi R^2\times J_T\left(m_j\right)`$. The non-analytic character of the jet cone algorithm referred to earlier arises from the need to solve Eq. 6 and then work with only the discrete set of solutions, i.e., the jets in an event.

## .3 Observables

We can now proceed to define more general observables. The basic assumption of the JEF approach is that event-by-event each value of the direction $`m`$ is equally likely to correspond to a jet with 4-momentum proportional to $`J_\mu \left(m\right)`$. Relative probabilities of observables having values in a specified range will correspond to the size of the area in $`m`$ covered by the JEF with the correct range of values. To illustrate these ideas, consider a general nth order observable $`C_n`$ represented by an nth order function of $`J_\mu \left(m\right)`$, $`C(J\left(m_1\right),\mathrm{},J\left(m_n\right))`$. The corresponding event probability distribution, including the possibility of providing a set of angular cuts $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, is given by

$`P\left(C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }\left(m_{cut}\right)\right)`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dm_i}{\pi R^2}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(m_im_{cut}\right)}\right)\delta \left(C_nC(J\left(m_1\right),\mathrm{},J\left(m_n\right))\right)`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{JEF}}}{dC_n}},`$
where we have normalized the area to the “cone size” $`\pi R^2`$. (Note that one might also consider applying a cut directly on the $`J\left(m\right)`$, e.g., $`J_0\left(m\right)>E_{cut}`$.) To determine the differential cross section for the observable $`C_n`$ from an experiment we simply sum over events as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dC_n}=\underset{\mathrm{events}}{}P\left(C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }\left(m_{cut}\right)\right),$$
(8)
where $``$ is the integrated luminosity. We obtain an event occupancy probability $`O`$ by integrating over the probability function

$`O(C_n\left(\mathrm{min}\right),C_n\left(\mathrm{max}\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }\left(m_{cut}\right))`$ $`={\displaystyle _{C_n\left(\mathrm{min}\right)}^{C_n\left(\mathrm{max}\right)}}𝑑C_nP\left(C_n|\mathrm{\Omega }\left(m_{cut}\right)\right)`$ (9)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dm_i}{\pi R^2}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(m_im_{cut}\right)}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(C_n\left(\mathrm{max}\right)C(J\left(m_1\right),\mathrm{},J\left(m_n\right))\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Theta }\left(C(J\left(m_1\right),\mathrm{},J\left(m_n\right))C_n\left(\mathrm{min}\right)\right).`$
This final expression indicates that we are simply calculating the relative area in $`m`$ for which the JEF has the correct value to yield the desired value of the observable. We can then count the number of events with effective occupancy number $`O`$ and convert it into a cross section,

$$\sigma (C_n\left(\mathrm{min}\right),C_n\left(\mathrm{max}\right))=\underset{\mathrm{events}}{}O(C_n\left(\mathrm{min}\right),C_n\left(\mathrm{max}\right)|\mathrm{\Omega }\left(m_{cut}\right)).$$
(10)
This formula can be used to construct bin values and the corresponding distribution. Let us illustrate these ideas by considering some explicit examples.

1. The JEF jet mass $`M\left(J\left(m\right)\right)=\pi R^2\times \sqrt{J_\mu \left(m\right)J^\mu \left(m\right)}`$ is an example of a $`C_1`$ observable with a event probability distribution of the form

$$P\left(M_J\right)=\frac{dm}{\pi R^2}\delta \left(M_JM\left(J\left(m\right)\right)\right).$$
(11)
The corresponding occupancy probability has the form

$$O(M_J\left(\mathrm{min}\right),M_J\left(\mathrm{max}\right))=\frac{dm}{\pi R^2}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(M_J\left(\mathrm{max}\right)M\left(J\left(m\right)\right)\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(M\left(J\left(m\right)\right)M_J\left(\mathrm{min}\right)\right)$$

Thus the fraction of the events with a JEF jet with mass in the specified range is proportional to the fractional area in the $`m`$ plane occupied by JEF jets with a mass value in that range. To obtain the final distribution we sum over events. The (simulated) JEF jet mass distribution for the $`W`$ decay into hadrons (treated as a single jet) in the process $`p\overline{p}H+XW^+W^{}+Xl\nu +\mathrm{hadrons}+X`$ is exhibited in Figure 4.
2. The JEF jet transverse energy $`E_T`$ in the variables appropriate to a hadron collider is another $`C_1`$ observable. The relative probability distribution for a CDF type rapidity acceptance and CDF $`E_T`$ definition looks like

$$P\left(E_T\right|\mathrm{\Omega }(0.1<|\eta |<0.7))=\frac{1}{\pi R^2}_{0.1}^{0.7}d\left|\eta \right|d\varphi \delta (E_TE\left(J(\eta ,\varphi )\right)\times \mathrm{sin}\left(\theta \left(\eta \right)\right)),$$
(12)
where the JEF energy distribution is given by $`E\left(J(\eta ,\varphi )\right)=\pi R^2\times J_0(\eta ,\varphi )`$. As suggested above, we can obtain the effective occupancy number of JEF jets (per event) above an energy cut $`E_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ by integrating

$$O\left(E_{T,\mathrm{min}}\right|\mathrm{\Omega }(0.1<|\eta |<0.7))=_{E_{T,\mathrm{min}}}dE_TP\left(E_T\right|\mathrm{\Omega }(0.1<|\eta |<0.7)).$$
(13)
These quantities as evaluated for the sample jet event of Figure 1 are illustrated in Figure 5. The jets found by the standard CDF cone jet algorithm are also indicated as data points in the figures and correlate well with the peaks in the JEF probability distribution.
3. The JEF di-jet invariant mass $`M(J,J)`$ is an example of a $`C_2`$ observable with the form $`M^2(J\left(m_1\right),J\left(m_2\right))=\left(\pi R^2\right)^2\times \left(J\left(m_1\right)+J\left(m_2\right)\right)_\mu \left(J\left(m_1\right)+J\left(m_2\right)\right)^\mu `$, which assumes that the two JEF jets are non-overlapping.. The corresponding probability distribution is defined by

$$P\left(M_{JJ}^2\right)=\frac{dm_1dm_2}{\left(\pi R^2\right)^2}\delta \left(M_{JJ}^2M^2(J\left(m_1\right),J\left(m_2\right))\right).$$
(14)

## .4 An Example JEF Analysis

As an example of a JEF style analysis we briefly review a JEF di-jet analysis performed previouslyGandG . The goal is to calculate the differential transverse energy distribution of a jet in the CDF central rapidity strip, $`0.1<\left|\eta \right|<0.7`$, while requiring that a second jet with transverse energy at least as large as one half of the transverse energy of the central jet, $`E_{T,2}E_{T,1}/2`$, is tagged in a forward region, $`1.2<\left|\eta _2\right|<1.6`$. The corresponding di-JEF probability density function for an event obeying the appropriate cuts is expressed as

$`P_{\mathrm{di}\mathrm{jet}}\left(E_T\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\pi R^2\right)^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\eta _1𝑑\varphi _1𝑑\eta _2𝑑\varphi _2\mathrm{\Omega }\left(0.1<\left|\eta 1\right|<0.7\right)\times \mathrm{\Omega }\left(1.2<\left|\eta _2\right|<1.6\right)}`$ (15)
$`\times \mathrm{\Omega }\left(E_T\left(J(\eta _2,\varphi _2)\right)>E_T\left(J(\eta _1,\varphi 1)\right)/2\right)\times \delta \left(E_TE_T\left(J(\eta _1,\varphi _1)\right)\right).`$
Using this probability function the desired differential cross section is obtained from Eq. 8

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{di}\mathrm{jet}}}{dE_T}=\frac{1}{}\underset{\mathrm{events}}{}P_{\mathrm{di}\mathrm{jet}}\left(E_T\right).$$
(16)
The perturbative results for this cross section at LO and NLO for both the JEF analysis of Eq. 16 and using the standard cone jet analysis of EKSEKS  are exhibited in Figure 6 for the case $`R=0.7`$.

These results illustrate some of the desirable features of the JEF approach. Note first that at smaller $`E_T`$ values both jet definitions yield similar results at both LO and NLO. However, at larger $`E_T`$ values, where the boundaries of phase space play are more relevant, the JEF result is larger than the “traditional” cone jet result and, more importantly, is less sensitive to the higher order corrections. We can understand this reduced sensitivity in terms of the smearing of the rapidity cuts in the JEF analysis. In the JEF analysis the underlying partons can violate the rapidity cuts by as much as $`R`$ and still contribute to a JEF style jet that respects the cut. For example, the parton contributing to the secondary jet is only required to obey $`\left|\eta _2\right|>1.2R=0.5`$ in order to make a nonzero contribution. In contrast, the traditional cone jet with a single parton inside requires the parton to be collinear with the jet and thus in the current analysis receives contributions only from $`\left|\eta _2\right|>1.2`$. This smearing of the details of the rapidity cuts explains both the larger magnitude and the reduced dependence on higher orders of the JEF di-jet analysis. We can expect a similarly reduced dependence on the stochastic effects of showering and hadronization.

## .5 Concluding Remarks

We have discussed a different approach to the jet analysis of hadronic states, the JEF analysis, which follows from the earlier C-algebra formalismTkachov  and which differs from traditional algorithmic approaches in that unique jets are not identified event-by-event. Instead the analysis proceeds through the evaluation of Jet Energy Flow distributions. The brief discussion presented here suggests that the JEF style analysis of hadronic final states in hard scattering processes will provide observable measures of the underlying short-distance parton structure that are less sensitive to higher order corrections and to showering/hadronization corrections than more conventional jet algorithm analyses. Clearly much more needs to be done in order to demonstrate and make use of this conclusion.


format: text

text:
# Borsuk’s Conjecture Fails in Dimensions 321 and 322

Let $`f(n)`$ be the smallest $`f`$ such that any bounded set in $`^n`$ can be partitioned into at most $`f`$ sets of smaller diameter. The famous Borsuk’s conjecture  that $`f(n)=n+1`$ for any $`n1`$ has been spectacularly disproved by Kahn and Kalai . However, the counterexamples in  all have very large dimension. If we define

$$n_0=\mathrm{min}\{nf(n)>n+1\},$$

then the proof of Kahn and Kalai gives $`n_01325`$.

On the other hand we know only that $`n_04`$ (Perkal ; Eggleston ). It is of interest where $`n_0`$ lies. The upper bound on $`n_0`$ was improved to $`n_0946`$ (Nilli ), $`n_0561`$ (Raigorodski ), $`n_0560`$ (Weißbach ), and $`n_0323`$ (Hinrichs ). In fact, we know that $`f(n)>n+1`$ for all $`n323`$.

Here we show that $`n_0321`$.

###### Theorem 1

$`f(321)333`$. Thus, Borsuk’s conjecture fails in all dimensions $`n321`$.

Let us first recall Hinrichs’ construction which utilises $`M=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{24}\mathrm{\Omega }^{24}`$, the set of unit-length elements in the Leech lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{24}`$. Namely, choose an orthonormal basis

$$((𝒆_i)_{i=1}^{24},(𝒇_i)_{i=1}^{24},(𝒈_{i,j})_{1i<j24})$$

in $`R^{324}`$, define $`\mathrm{\Phi }:^{24}^{324}`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{24})=\frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{24}{}}x_i^2𝒆_i+\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{24}{}}x_i𝒇_i+\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{5}}\underset{1i<j24}{}x_ix_j𝒈_{i,j},$$

and consider $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M)`$. Hinrichs \[4, Proposition 3(iii)\] proved that any subset of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M)`$ of smaller diameter has at most $`350`$ elements.

To establish Theorem 1 we show that there is $`NM`$ such that $`|N|116424`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(N)`$ lies within a $`321`$-dimensional affine subspace of $`^{324}`$. Then by \[4, Proposition 3(iii)\] we have

$$\text{diam}(\mathrm{\Phi }(N))=\text{diam}(\mathrm{\Phi }(M)).$$

Applying \[4, Proposition 3(iii)\] again, we conclude that we need at least

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(N)|/350=|N|/350116424/350>332,$$
(1)
parts of smaller diameter to partition $`\mathrm{\Phi }(N)`$, which implies the desired inequality $`f(321)333`$.

In order to prove the existence of $`N`$ we need the following explicit description of $`M`$, taken from Conway and Sloane \[2, §11 of Chapter 4\]. Namely, $`M`$ contains

* $`97152`$ points of the form $`\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}(\pm 2{}_{}{}^{(\times 8)},0{}_{}{}^{(\times 16)})`$,
* $`98304`$ points of the form $`\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}(\pm 3,\pm 1{}_{}{}^{(\times 23)})`$,
* $`1104`$ points of the form $`\frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}(\pm 4{}_{}{}^{(\times 2)},0{}_{}{}^{(\times 22)})`$,

where the actual signs and positions of coordinates are not relevant for our purposes. ($`a^{(\times k)}`$ denotes $`k`$ copies of $`a`$.)

Define the bipartite graph $`G`$ with parts $`M`$ and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\{1,\mathrm{},24\}}{3}\right)`$ so that $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{24})`$ and $`\{k,l,m\}`$ are connected if $`|x_k|=|x_l|=|x_m|`$. Clearly,

$$e(G)=97152\times \left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{8}{3}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{16}{3}\right)\right)+98304\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{23}{3}\right)+1104\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{22}{3}\right)=235642176.$$

Hence, some set $`\{k,l,m\}`$ receives at least $`e(G)/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{24}{3}\right)=116424`$ edges. Let $`NM`$ consist of its neighbours. We have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(N)\{𝒚^{324}𝒆_k𝒚=𝒆_l𝒚=𝒆_m𝒚\text{ and }_{i=1}^{24}𝒆_i𝒚=1\},$$

the latter set being a $`321`$-dimensional affine subspace of $`^{324}`$. Thus $`N`$ has all the required properties.

Remark Similarly, one can find a set $`KM`$ of size $`143136`$ such that for some $`1k<l24`$ and for any $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{24})K`$ we have $`|x_k|=|x_l|`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(K)`$ is ‘$`322`$-dimensional’ and we have $`f(322)|K|/350409`$.

Remark Theorem 1 has been independently discovered by Hinrichs and Richter. Moreover, they report to have proved $`n_0298`$ by showing that the set

$$L=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{24})Mx_1=x_2\}.$$

which lies in a $`298`$-dimensional affine subspace cannot be partitioned into $`299`$ parts of smaller diameter. However, the proof of the latter claim (being currently writen) seems to be long and complicated.


text:
# X-ray and UV Views of Hot Gas in Planetary Nebulae

## 1. Introduction - Origin of Hot Gas in PNe

It is commonly accepted that PNe are formed by the current fast stellar wind sweeping up the former slow asymptotic giant branch (AGB) wind. In this interacting-stellar-winds scenario (Kwok, Purton, & FitzGerald 1978), the physical structure of a PN is similar to that of an interstellar wind-blown bubble as modeled by Weaver et al. (1977). The interior of a PN is filled with shocked fast wind reaching temperatures of $`10^710^8`$ K, and this hot gas is confined within a 104 K nebular shell consisting of swept-up AGB wind. The shocked fast wind per se has too low a density to emit appreciably in X-rays. At the interface between the hot interior and the cool nebular shell, heat conduction lowers the temperature and mass evaporation raises the density of the hot interior gas, producing optimal conditions for X-ray emission. Therefore, soft X-ray emission is expected from the 106 K gas near the interface.

The physical processes taking place at the interface have been mostly a theoretical topic. The interface physics is expected to be complicated by the presence of magnetic field and turbulences. To thoroughly understand the interface physics, observations of the transition region are needed. While the 106 K gas can be observed in X-rays, the adjacent layer of 105 K gas can be observed only in the UV and far-UV through spectral lines of collisionally ionized C, N, and O at high ionization stages.

## 2. X-ray Views of Hot Gas in Planetary Nebulae

X-ray observations of the hot gas in PN interiors can be confused by the X-ray emission from the central star of a PN (CSPN). A hot CSPN with a low opacity in its atmosphere can be a soft X-ray emitter, while a CSPN with a late-type companion may show a coronal X-ray source. The photospheric emission from a hot CSPN peaks below 0.1 keV and can be spectroscopically discerned from thin plasma emission. On the other hand, the coronal emission from a late-type companion may show similar spectral shapes to plasma emission; thus, emission from the hot gas in PN interiors can be unambiguously confirmed only if it is spatially resolved. The quest for diffuse X-ray emission from hot gas in PN interiors is long and difficult, but significant progress has been made as the sensitivity and resolution of X-ray detectors have improved.

### 2.1. X-ray Observing Facilities

Since 1978, several X-ray satellites have been launched with imaging instruments sensitive to soft X-rays in the energy range 0.1–2 keV, where X-ray emission from PNe is expected. Table 1 summarizes the X-ray observing facilities available in the past 25 years. The earlier imaging detectors with spectral capabilities are mostly proportional counters with inherently low angular resolution ($`30^{\prime \prime }`$) and spectral resolution (e.g., $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ 2.2 at 1 keV for ROSAT PSPC). This situation is vastly improved by the advent of solid-state and CCD detectors, e.g., Chandra ACIS has an angular resolution of 1′′ and a spectral resolution of $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$10 at 1 keV. The currently available Chandra ACIS and XMM-Newton EPIC, with their unprecedented spatial and spectral resolutions and sensitivity, are ideal for X-ray observations of PNe.

### 2.2. X-ray Observations of PNe

The earliest X-ray observations of PNe were aimed to detect the photospheric emission from the CSPNs. While Einstein observed PNe several years before $`EXOSAT`$, the first report of X-ray emission from a CSPN was made with EXOSAT observations of NGC 1360 by de Korte et al. (1985). Using Einstein archival data of PNe, Tarafdar & Apparao (1988) reported X-ray emission from NGC 246, NGC 6853, NGC 7293, and A 33. Similarly, Apparao & Tarafdar (1989) used the $`EXOSAT`$ archive and reported X-ray emission from NGC 1535, NGC 3587, NGC 4361, and A 36. The reported emission from A 33 and NGC 1535 was later shown by ROSAT observation to arise from background X-ray sources (Conway & Chu 1987; Chu, Gruendl, & Conway 1998).

The search for diffuse X-ray emission from hot gas in PN interiors was not attempted until ROSAT became available. During the first six months of the ROSAT mission, a PSPC detector was used to scan the whole sky. Using this ROSAT All-Sky Survey, Kreysing et al. (1992) reported diffuse X-ray emission from a number of PNe. Unfortunately, their work was plagued by low S/N ratios in the data, electronic ghost image of the PSPC detectors at energies below 0.2 keV, and mis-identification of nearby or companion coronal sources. After careful scrutiny, the only object in their sample to show X-ray emission marginally more extended than the point spread function of the PSPC was NGC 6543.

During the ROSAT mission, pointed observations of a large number of PNe were made, but only the few positive detections were reported, for example, NGC 246, NGC 1360 (Hoare et al. 1995), NGC 3587 (Chu, Gruendl, & Conway 1998), and NGC 7293 (Leahy, Zhang, & Kwok 1994). When the ROSAT mission concluded in 1998, the ROSAT archive had acquired pointed or serendipitous observations with $``$2 ks exposures for $``$80 PNe. These observations were analyzed, and X-ray emission from 13 PNe was detected (Guerrero, Chu, & Gruendl 2000). Of these 13 PNe, only three had been reported to show extended emission that could be associated with hot gas: NGC 6543 (Kreysing et al. 1992), A 30 (Chu & Ho 1995; Chu, Chang, & Conway 1997), and BD +303639 (Leahy, Kwok, & Yin 2000). In all three cases the X-ray emission was only marginally more extended than the point spread function of the detector used.

An indirect indication of diffuse X-ray emission from hot gas in PNe is provided by the ROSAT PSPC spectra. The PNe detected by $`ROSAT`$ show three types of spectra (Conway & Chu 1997; Guerrero, Chu, & Gruendl 2000). Type 1 spectra, peaking near 0.1–0.2 keV and diminishing above 0.5 keV, are consistent with photospheric emission from hot CSPNs. Type 2 spectra, peaking at $``$0.5 keV, are characteristic for plasma emission. Type 3 spectra, possessing a bright peak near 0.1–0.2 keV and a weak peak at $``$1 keV, are apparently composites of the first two types. Objects with Type 2 spectra are good candidates for diffuse X-ray emission; these include BD +303639 and NGC 6543, and possibly NGC 7009. ASCA observations of BD +303639 have provided high-resolution spectra and confirmed the nature of plasma emission (Arnaud, Borkowski, & Harrington 1996).

Finally, the superb angular resolution of the Chandra X-ray Observatory made it possible to unambiguously resolve the diffuse X-ray emission from PN interiors: BD +303639, NGC 6543, and NGC 7027 (Kastner et al. 2000, 2001; Chu et al. 2001). The unprecedented sensitivity of XMM-Newton made it possible to resolve the faint diffuse X-ray emission from NGC 7009 (Guerrero, Gruendl, & Chu 2002). These observations allow us to examine the distribution and physical conditions of the hot gas in PN interiors.

Table 2 lists all PNe that have been reported to emit X-rays, including a PN that was detected after the X-ray source (RXJ 2117.1+3412) and a PN in the SMC. The possible detections and the mis-identified sources are listed at the bottom of the table. The majority of the valid X-ray sources in PNe consist of X-ray emission from their photospheres, showing Type 1 or Type 3 $`ROSAT`$ PSPC spectra. Objects showing Type 2 $`ROSAT`$ PSPC spectra are the best candidates for diffuse X-ray emission. References are given for each object.

References.— (1) de Korte et al. 1985; (2) Tarafdar & Apparao 1988; (3) Apparao & Tarafdar 1989; (4) Wang 1991; (5) Apparao, Berthiaume, & Nousek 1992 (6) Kreysing et al. 1992; (7) Appleton, Kawaler, & Eitter 1993. (8) Chu, Kwitter, & Kaler 1993; (9) Motch, Werner, & Pakull 1993. (10) Leahy, Zhang, & Kwok 1994; (11) Rauch, Köppen, & Werner 1994; (12) Chu & Ho 1995; (13) Hoare et al. 1995; (14) Arnaud, Borkowski, & Harrington 1996; (15) Leahy et al. 1996; (16) Conway & Chu 1997; (17) Chu, Chang, & Conway 1997; (18) Chu, Gruendl, & Conway 1998; (19) Guerrero, Chu, & Gruendl 2000; (20) Leahy, Kwok, & Yin 2000; (21) Kastner et al. 2000; (22) Chu et al. 2001; (23) Gruendl et al. 2001; (24) Guerrero et al. 2001; (25) Kastner, Vrtilek, & Soker 2001; (26) Guerrero, Gruendl, & Chu 2002.

### 2.3. Physical Properties of Hot Gas in PNe

$`Chandra`$ and XMM-Newton observations have resolved diffuse X-ray emission from four PNe. The X-ray contour maps and spectra of BD +303639, NGC 6543, and NGC 7027 are presented in Figure 1, and those of NGC 7009 in Figure 1 of Guerrero, Gruendl, & Chu (2002, this volume). The physical parameters of these four PNe are summarized in Table 3, where the distance ($`d`$) and size of the nebula, temperature ($`T_\mathrm{e}`$) and rms density ($`<`$$`N_\mathrm{e}`$$`>`$) of the hot gas, absorption column density ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$), and X-ray luminosity ($`L_\mathrm{X}`$) are given. Despite the uncertainty in distances and the large range of absorption column density, it appears that the temperature, density, and X-ray luminosity decrease with increasing nebular size. This trend suggests an evolutionary effect: PNe are brightest in X-rays when they are young.

## 3. UV Views of Hot Gas in Planetary Nebulae

If C+3, N+4, and O+5 are produced by collisional ionization, the C iv $`\lambda \lambda `$1548, 1550, N v $`\lambda \lambda `$1238, 1242, and O vi $`\lambda \lambda `$1031, 1037 lines can be used to diagnose the presence of $`1\times 10^5`$ K, $`2\times 10^5`$ K, and $`3\times 10^5`$ K gas, respectively. Note, however, that C+2, N+3, and O+4, having ionization potentials of 47.9 eV, 77.5 eV, and 113.9 eV, can be photoionized by stars with effective temperatures higher than 35,000 K, 75,000 K, and 125,000 K, respectively. Therefore, UV absorption line studies of 105 K gas need to be carefully designed to minimize the confusion caused by photoionization.

High-dispersion UV observations of nebular C iv and N v absorption lines in PNe have been made with the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) and Hubble Space Telescope (HST). For example, $`IUE`$ observations of NGC 6543 (Pwa, Mo, & Pottasch 1984) and $`HST`$ GHRS observations of A 78 (Harrington, Borkowski, & Tsvetanov 1995) showed nebular C iv absorption. As the He ii or H Zanstra temperatures of their central stars are $``$50,000 K and $``$70,000 K, respectively (Kaler & Jacoby 1991; Kaler 1983), these observations are not useful for the study of 105 K gas. N v lines have small oscillator strengths, so are difficult to detect.

vi lines in the far-UV, being strong and less affected by photoionization, are the best lines to study 105 K gas. High-dispersion spectroscopic observations of the O vi lines have been made with the Orbiting Retrievable Far and Extreme UV Spectrometer (ORFEUS) for only the brightest CSPNs, e.g., NGC 6543 (Zweigle et al. 1997). The spectral resolution of $`ORFEUS`$, $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ = 3000, was not adequate to distinguish clearly among the interstellar and nebular O vi and H2 absorption lines. It was not clear whether nebular O vi absorption was present in the spectrum of NGC 6543.

Finally, the Far-UV Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) (Sonneborn 2002) provides the sensitivity and resolution required to study the nebular O vi absorption and emission lines for a large number of PNe. We have initiated $`FUSE`$ programs to study the hot gas at the interfaces in PNe. We have obtained $`FUSE`$ observations for seven CSPNs for a wide range of stellar temperatures. The spectral region around the O vi lines of these observations is presented in Figure 2. This figure demonstrates clearly that the stellar and interstellar/nebular lines are very complex. The spectra of NGC 2392 and NGC 6058 show narrow absorption components at expected locations for both O vi $`\lambda \lambda `$1031, 1037 lines, and thus provide the most promising candidates for detections of the 105 K gas at the interface. We are in the process of enlarging our sample to include all archival $`FUSE`$ observations of CSPNs in order to empirically sort out the temperature dependence of the spectral features of the stars and to pinpoint the nebular absorption components (Gruendl et al., in preparation).

## 4. Concluding Remarks

$`Chandra`$ and XMM-Newton observations have unambiguously detected diffuse X-ray emission from the hot gas in PN interiors, illustrating that PNe are excellent laboratories to study shocked stellar winds and the interfaces between this hot gas and cool nebular shells. Preliminary results show that the hot gas is overpressurized and drives the nebular expansion. It is puzzling, however, that the shocked stellar winds in PNe can cool from 107–108 K to 2–3$`\times `$106 K within the short dynamic age of the nebular shells, $``$1,000 yrs. Future $`Chandra`$ and XMM-Newton observations of hot interior gas, in conjunction with $`FUSE`$ observations of the interfaces, for PNe with a wide range of morphologies and evolutionary stages are needed to empirically establish our knowledge of the physical conditions and evolution of the hot gas in PN interiors. A sound knowledge of the hot gas in PN interiors is crucial to our understanding of the formation and evolution of PNe as a whole.

#### Acknowledgments.

We gratefully acknowledge the observing times we received from $`Chandra`$, XMM-Newton, and FUSE. This work has been supported by NASA grants associated with these observing programs: SAO GO 0-1004X, NAG 5-10042, and NAG 5-10182.

## References

Apparao, K. M. V., & Tarafdar, S. P. 1989, ApJ, 344, 826

Apparao, K. M. V., Berthiaume, G. D., & Nousek, J. A. 1992, ApJ, 397, 534

Appleton, P. N., Kawaler, S. D., & Eitter, J. J. 1993, AJ, 106, 1973

Arnaud, K., Borkowski, K. J., & Harrington, J. P. 1996, ApJ, 462, L75

Chu, Y.-H., Chang, T. H., & Conway, G. M. 1997, ApJ, 482, 891

Chu, Y.-H., Gruendl, R. A., & Conway, G. M. 1998, AJ, 116, 1882

Chu, Y.-H., Guerrero, M. A., Gruendl, R. A., Williams, R. M., & Kaler, J. B. 2001, ApJ, 553, L69

Chu, Y.-H., & Ho, C.-H. 1995, ApJ, 448, L127

Chu, Y.-H., Kwitter, K., & Kaler, J. 1993, AJ, 106, 650

Conway, G. M., & Chu, Y.-H. 1997, in IAU Symp. 180, Planetary Nebulae, ed. H. J. Habing, & H. J. G. L. M. Lamers (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 214

de Korte, P. A. J., Claas, J. J., Jansen, F. A., & McKechnie, S. P. 1985, Adv. Space Res., 5, 57

Gruendl, R. A., Chu, Y.-H., O’Dwyer, I. J., & Guerrero, M. 2001, AJ, 122, 308

Guerrero, M. A., Chu, Y.-H., & Gruendl, R. A. 2000, ApJS, 129, 295

Guerrero, M. A., Chu, Y.-H., Gruendl, R. A., Williams, R. M., & Kaler, J. B. 2001, ApJ, 553, L55

Guerrero, M. A., Gruendl, R. A., & Chu, Y.-H. 2002, A&A, in press; also in this volume

Harrington, J. P., Borkowski, K. J., & Tsvetanov, Z. 1995, ApJ, 439, 264

Hoare, M.G., Martin, A.B., Werner, K., & Fleming, T. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 812

Kaler, J. B. 1983, ApJ, 271, 188

Kaler, J. B., Jacoby, G. H. 1991, ApJ, 372, 215

Kastner, J. H., Soker, N., Vrtilek, S. D., & Dgani, R. 2000, ApJ, 545, L57

Kastner, J. H., Vrtilek, S. D., & Soker, N. 2001, ApJ, 550, L189

Kreysing, H. C., Diesch, C., Zweigle, J., Staubert, R., Grewing, M., & Hasinger, G. 1992, A&A, 264, 623

Kwok, S., Purton, C. R., & FitzGerald, P. M. 1978, ApJ, 219, L125

Leahy, D. A., Kwok, S., & Yin, D. 2000, ApJ, 540, 442

Leahy, D. A., Zhang, C. Y., & Kwok, S. 1994, ApJ, 422, L205

Leahy, D. A., Zhang, C. Y., Volk, K., & Kwok, S. 1996, ApJ, 466, L352

Motch, C., Werner, K., & Pakull, M. W. 1993, A&A, 268, 561

Pwa, T. H., Mo, J. E., & Pottasch, S. R. 1984, A&A, 139, L1

Rauch, T., Köppen, J., & Werner, K. 1994, A&A, 286, 543

Sonneborn, G. 2002, in this volume

Tarafdar, S. P., & Apparao, K. M. V. 1988, ApJ, 327, 342

Wang, Q. 1991, MNRAS, 252, 47p

Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377

Zweigle, J. et al. 1997, A&A, 321, 891


text:
# Castaing Instability and Precessing Domains in Confined Alkali Gases

## I Introduction

Remarkable observation of spontaneous spatial separation of states in recent experiments on trapped $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$  was immediately followed by three, almost simultaneous theoretical explanations . Though these explanations differ in details, all three exploit the analogy between a two-component $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ gas and a spin-polarized spin-1/2 gas. The analogy is based on the similarity of strong molecular fields in all two-component quantum gases in the Boltzmann temperature range. In spin-polarized gases, this molecular field can cause transverse spin currents  which, in turn, can result in spatial separation of spin-up and spin-down components. An analog of this effect was, according to Refs. , observed in experiment  with $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$.

The aim of this paper is to point out that the analogy between multi-component and spin-polarized gases is even richer. In mid-90s there were several interesting experimental and theoretical publications on spin-polarized systems that are similar in spirit to Refs. . The key is the so-called Castaing instability of systems with inhomogeneous polarization with respect to transverse fluctuations and the formation of precessing magnetic domains. These effects have been studied, both experimentally and theoretically, in the context of spin-polarized helium systems. We will analyze the analogs of these effects for alkali gases and make suggestions for new types of experiments including the observation of the instabilities. So far, there have been no such instability experiments for alkali gases. Though the two-component alkali gases are to a large extent similar to spin-polarized helium, the characteristic parameters are different and the issue should be revisited in application, for example, to $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$. The main difference is the small size and non-uniformity of confined clouds of alkali gases.

## II Main equations

The analogy between spin-polarized quantum gases and multi-component gases (gases of particles with discrete internal degrees of freedom) has been discussed in detail in Ref. . For example, the densities of components of a two-component gas (e.g., $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$) play the role of the spin-up and spin-down components of the spin-polarized gas, while the (Rabi) transitions between the states are similar to the transitions between the spin components and lead to the formation of the transverse (to the quantization axis) magnetization and correspond to the off-diagonal components of the spin density matrix.

First, let us translate the equations of motion of Ref.  onto the language of trapped two-component quantum Boltzmann gas in the $`s`$-wave approximation (in experimentally interesting case, the gas temperature is so low that the particle wavelength is much larger than the scattering length $`a`$). For a two-component gas, the density $`\widehat{n}`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix. The diagonal components $`n_{1,2}`$ of this matrix represent densities of pure components and obey the conservation law

$$_tn_{1,2}(𝐫,t)+_iJ_i^{(1,2)}(𝐫,t)=0,$$
(1)
where $`J_i^{(1,2)}`$ is the corresponding current. The off-diagonal (mixed) matrix element $`n_{12}`$ describes transitions between the components and obeys the equation

$$_tn_{12}(𝐫,t)i\delta Un_{12}(𝐫,t)+_iJ_i^{\left(12\right)}(𝐫,t)=I_{12}^{coll},$$
(2)
where

$$\delta U=U_1(𝐫)U_2(𝐫)+\left(g_{11}g_{22}\right)n(𝐫),$$
(3)
$`U_{1,2}`$ is the trapping potential for the component $`(1,2)`$, and the interaction constants $`g_{ik}`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ are expressed via the corresponding scattering lengths as

$$g_{ik}=4\pi a_{ik}/m,a_{11}=a+a^{},a_{22}=aa^{},a_{12}=a.$$
(4)
Since the asymmetry of scattering is weak, $`a^{}a,`$ the collision integral $`I_{12}^{coll}`$, which is proportional to $`\left(a^{}/a\right)^2`$, is negligible, $`I_{12}^{coll}0`$ . It is convenient to use, instead of matrix equations, the scalar and vector pseudo-spin components of the densities and currents as

$$n=n_1+n_2,𝐌=\frac{1}{2}(n_{12}+n_{21},in_{21}in_{12},n_1n_2)$$
(5)
and the same for the currents $`J_i`$ and $`𝐉_i`$, respectively. In these pseudo-spin notations, the ”magnetic field” or ”Larmor frequency” has the form

$$𝛀_L=(0,0,\delta U).$$
(6)
In $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ this field is low, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L/T1`$. Here, in contrast to experiments with true spins, it is almost impossible to change the direction of the magnetic field without exciting the Rabi transitions by rf pulses.

In the hydrodynamic limit of small gradients, equations of motion (1) -(3) reduce to the well-known Leggett equation for the magnetic moment $`𝐌(t,𝐫)`$ of the spin-polarized gas (see, e.g.,  and references therein):

$$_t𝐌+𝛀_L\times 𝐌+_k𝐉_k=0,$$
(7)
$`_t𝐉_k+𝛀_L\times 𝐉_k+2g𝐌\times 𝐉_k+\left(T/m\right)𝐣_k`$ $`=`$ $`𝐉_k/\tau ,`$ (8)
$`𝐣_k`$ $`=`$ $`_k𝐌+𝐌_kU/T+\left(n/4T\right)_k𝛀_L`$ (9)
where $`U=\left(1/2\right)\left(U_1+U_2+3gn\right)`$, $`g=4\pi a/m`$, and $`\tau `$ is the relaxation time (in this case, the difference between transverse and longitudinal relaxation times is vanishingly small). In equilibrium, when the currents are absent, $`𝐣_k=0,`$ and the ”polarization” $`𝐌_0`$ follows the field and is directed along it:

$$𝐣_k^{\left(0\right)}_k𝐌_0+\left[𝐌_0_kU+n_0_k𝛀_L/4\right]/T=0.$$
(10)
In Eqs. (7)-(9), the Larmor frequency can contain weak coordinate dependence, $`𝛀_L=𝛀_0+\delta 𝛀_L\left(𝐫\right)`$. Under usual assumptions, the terms $`_t𝐉_k+𝛀_0\times 𝐉_k0`$, and Eq.(8) yields the following expression for the spin current:

$`𝐉_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D}{1+\mu ^2M_1^2}}\left[𝐣_k+\mu 𝐣_k\times 𝐌_1+\mu ^2𝐌_1\left(𝐌_1𝐣_k\right)\right],`$ (11)
$`\mu 𝐌_1`$ $`=`$ $`\tau \left(2g𝐌+\delta 𝛀_L\right),`$ (12)
where $`D=\tau T/m`$ is the spin diffusion coefficient.

If the magnetic field and trapping potential are uniform, $`\delta 𝛀_L=0,`$ $`_kU=0`$, Eq. (11) is exactly the same as the standard Leggett equation for the spin current.

## III Formation of domains

Often, the magnetization in polarized helium can be non-uniform and noticeably different from its equilibrium field-driven value. The non-equilibrium polarization can be created by several techniques such as by flipping the magnetization by $`180^{}`$ by a proper rf pulse in a part of a cell, by optical pumping, by connecting two cells with different magnetizations, etc. This initially non-uniform and non-equilibrium polarization can rapidly evolve, by means of non-dissipative coherent spin currents, into a quasi-equilibrium state, which will then slowly relax towards the real equilibrium. Such a quasi-equilibrium state has been thoroughly studied theoretically and experimentally by Fomin and Dmitriev . They demonstrated that a large initial non-equilibrium polarization $`𝐌\left(𝐫\right)`$ can lead to the coherent formation of longitudinal magnetization domains with spatially separated up and down spins. The effect was observed in low temperature $`{}_{}{}^{3}He^4He`$ mixtures and normal liquid $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$. The existence of such domains requires that the width of the domain wall $`\lambda `$,

$$\lambda ^3\frac{D}{\mu M\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_L\right|},$$
(13)
should be smaller than the system size, $`\lambda L`$. Diffusive dissipative processes lead eventually to the homogenization of the system and the disappearance of domains. Numerical analysis the domain formation can be found also in Ref. . Note, that the field gradient $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ is crucial for maintaining the quasi-stationary domain state; without this gradient, a domain-like distribution of magnetization becomes unstable with respect to transverse perturbations (see the next section).

Though the main equations for spin-polarized helium and two-component alkali gases are similar, there are some differences in domain formation between helium and JILA experiments. In JILA experiment , the initial condition corresponds to the large transverse magnetization $`M_{tr}n/2`$ created by a $`90^{}`$ rf pulse. In experiments and calculations of Refs. , the initial state is longitudinal. However, since the formation of domains in Refs.  goes through large transverse currents, the quasi-equilibrium domain state is the same. A more important difference is that the experiments on alkali gases are performed only in small-size traps. Taking into account the trap profile $`U\left(x\right)m\omega _0^2x^2/2`$ and that $`\mu =2g\tau `$, $`D=T\tau /m,`$ $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_L=m\nu ^2x^2/2`$, we get that in the trap of size $`xL=\sqrt{T/m\omega _0^2}`$, the width of the domain wall is

$$\frac{\lambda }{L}\left[\frac{1}{4\pi anL^2}\frac{\omega _0^2}{\nu ^2}\right]^{1/3}.$$
(14)
The typical values of the parameters, $`\tau 10^2`$ $`s`$, $`n410^{13}`$ $`cm^3`$, $`a=510^7`$ $`cm`$, $`m=1.510^{22}`$ $`g`$, $`\omega _07Hz,`$ combined with an estimate $`\nu 0.1Hz`$, lead to

$$\lambda /L0.34.$$
(15)
Therefore, it is conceivable that the separation of components in the JILA experiment is similar to the formation of three Fomin-Dmitriev domains. This picture of domain formation is consistent with the results of Refs. . The temporal symmetry of formation and disappearance of the domains is explained by the fact that in JILA experiments $`\mu M`$ is not very large and the coherent processes, which are responsible for the formation of the domains, have approximately the same time constants as diffusion, which is responsible for the homogenization. Note, that because of the peculiar initial condition - large transverse polarization - the formation of domains does not require the instability in transverse channel as it is often necessary when starting from a non-equilibrium longitudinal configuration (see below).

There is another, earlier unexplained experimental fact. The increase of the field gradient $`\nu `$ resulted in threshold stratification at some value $`\nu >0.18Hz`$ . The above estimates show that at $`\nu 0.2Hz`$ the number of domains can jump to five and give the impression of such stratification. Since the diffusion equilibration accelerates rapidly with an increase in the number of domains, this can also produce an impression of instability in the experiment.

## IV Transverse instability: Application to the JILA experiment

It is worth noting that the dynamics of the domain formation in the experiment can often start as transverse instability in accordance with Castaing’s mechanism . Let us, first, briefly describe the Castaing instability in spin-polarized helium systems and then look at the implications for the JILA-type experiments.

Suppose the system is homogeneously polarized with uniform magnetization $`𝐌_0`$. If one is interested in small fluctuations $`\delta 𝐌`$ in transverse channel that are perpendicular to the equilibrium magnetization $`𝐌_0`$, the linearized Eqs. (7), (11) describe the spectrum of the circularly polarized Silin spin waves,

$$\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\frac{Dk^2}{1+\mu ^2M_0^2}\left(i\mu M_0\right).$$
(16)
When the magnetic moment is driven from the equilibrium and acquires a gradient $`M_0`$ without change in direction, it is often assumed that this inhomogeneity will slowly disappear as a result of some relaxation process. This is not always the case. Often, the magnetic moment develops spontaneously a noticeable transverse component, which, in turn, may cause large longitudinal spin currents. Final relaxation towards the equilibrium is much slower. Castaing  showed that a purely longitudinal state with a non-equilibrium gradient of magnetization becomes unstable with respect to transverse fluctuations $`\delta 𝐌`$. The instability occurs with respect to longwave transverse fluctuations with the wave vectors $`k^2<2\mu 𝐤M_0`$. Mathematically this means that the imaginary component of the spectrum (16) acquires, according to Eq. (11), the additional term,

$$\mathrm{Im}\omega =\frac{D}{1+\mu ^2M_0^2}(k^22\mu 𝐤M_0\frac{\mu ^2M_0^2}{1+\mu ^2M_0^2}).$$
(17)
The imaginary part of the spectrum of transverse fluctuations near the distribution $`𝐌_0`$ becomes negative when

$$k^2<2\mu 𝐤M_0\frac{\mu ^2M_0^2}{1+\mu ^2M_0^2}$$
(18)
The change in sign of $`\mathrm{Im}\omega `$ signals the instability. Since the direction of the vector $`𝐤`$ is not fixed, this condition can always be satisfied in an infinite system for sufficiently longwave fluctuations. In polarized quantum gases, with the exception of small polarizations, the spin rotation parameter $`\mu M`$ is not small, $`\mu M>1`$. Then the condition $`\left(\text{18}\right)`$ is roughly equivalent to

$$k^2<2\mu 𝐤M_0.$$
(19)
This type of instability in transverse channel was observed in several experiments with $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$, Refs.. Though the conditions and the setups varied, the experiments were performed for the systems in which the coherent effects exceeded the diffusion damping, $`\mu M_0>1.`$ Usually, the initial condition corresponded to the large gradient of longitudinal magnetization that could be created, for example, by a $`180^{}`$ pulse in a part of the cell. The instability started in accordance with Castaing criterion and often led to long-lived NMR ringing. Though the Castaing instability in transverse channel often serves as an initial stage of the domain formation, the instability, by itself, is not necessary for the domain formation.

The experiment with trapped $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$  was performed in such a way so that the Castaing instability was not displayed. First, the polarization in the initial state was already transverse thus eliminating the need for strong transverse currents on the initial stage of the domain formation. Second, this transverse magnetization, probably, did not have large non-equilibrium gradients. However, the Castaing instability is within an easy reach and can be observed in a slightly modified experiment.

In JILA-type experiments, the analog of the spin rotation parameter $`\mu M_0`$ is $`\tau gM_0`$. Numerically, this parameter is $`\mu M_0=\tau gM_017\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=M_0/n`$ is the degree of pseudo-spin polarization. For trapped alkali gases, it is difficult to achieve a high degree of the pseudo-spin polarization using the so-called brute force technique, i.e., the effective ”magnetic field” $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$. On the other hand, the preparation of the gas with a high non-equilibrium polarization is even simpler than in helium and does not require elaborate techniques such as optical pumping, Castaing-Nozieres method, etc. For example, one can simply start from a pure component.

The instability should be re-examined for trapped alkali gases for which the confining potential $`U`$ imposes an additional limitation. The reason is that in a system of the size $`L`$, the wave vectors smaller than $`1/L`$ are absent and the condition (18) must be considered in conjunction with the requirement $`k>1/L`$. On the other hand, the polarization gradient $`M_0`$ introduces another length scale, $`L_MM_0/M_0`$, which, depending on the magnitude of the gradient and the length over which it is spread, can be larger or smaller than $`L`$. As a result, the instability condition in finite traps acquires the following threshold with respect to the trap size:

$$L_M/L<\frac{2\mu ^3M_0^3}{1+\mu ^2M_0^2}.$$
(20)
Roughly, the range of the ”dangerous” wave vectors is $`1/L<k<2\mu M_0/L_M`$.

For the instability to develop, the diffusion equilibration of the gradients should not be much faster than the time $`t_C`$ on which the instability develops. The diffusion relaxation of a longitudinal gradient $`𝐌_0`$ takes place on a time scale of the longitudinal spin diffusion. The lower limit for this time can be estimated as $`t_DL^2/D`$. In certain situations of open systems the non-equilibrium gradients can be supported even on much longer times. Assuming that $`\mu M_0`$ is large and $`k`$ is far above the threshold, the estimate of the time $`t_C1/|\mathrm{Im}\omega |`$ from Eq.(17) yields

$$t_CL_M^2/D.$$
(21)
Comparison with the diffusion time shows that the instability in small traps can be observed only if

$$L>L_M.$$
(22)
This is the simplest condition for the observation of the instability in finite isolated traps.

If $`LL_M,`$ the diffusion time is comparable to the time of development of instability. However, since at $`\mu M1`$ the instability is developed at relatively large wave vectors $`k>1/L`$, the signs of the instability should be still clearly visible in experiment as higher harmonics in magnetization distribution in transverse channel, $`i.e`$., ”ringing” similar to that observed in helium experiments, Refs..

Above we neglected the possibility of having gradients of magnetic field which can stabilize the non-uniform distribution of magnetization . In order to observe the instability in the presence of the field gradient, Eq.(22) for $`L_M`$ should be supplemented by the condition that $`L_M`$ is also much smaller than the width of the quasi-stationary domain wall $`\lambda `$, Eq. (13),

$$L_M\left(\frac{D}{\mu M\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_L\right|}\right)^{1/3}L\left[\frac{1}{4\pi anL^2}\frac{\omega _0^2}{\nu ^2}\right]^{1/3}.$$
(23)
According to the estimates from the previous section, $`\lambda L/3`$ for the field gradients $`\nu 0.1Hz`$. This means that if the field gradients are noticeably smaller than this value, Eq. (23) does not impose any new restrictions for the observation of the instability.

Note, that in the situations, when the non-equilibrium gradient is supported externally, i.e., when the quasi-steady currents can flow, the condition (22) is not required. Under such conditions, the scale $`L_M`$ is $`L_ML`$ and the instability develops, as in helium systems, as long as $`\mu M_01`$.

There are many experimental ways for creating a non-equilibrium gradient of polarization of the trapped gases sufficient for the observation the Castaing instability, Eq. (22). As a result of this instability, the polarized system should acquire a rapidly growing perpendicular component, $`𝐌_{tr}𝐌_0`$. The dynamics of similar processes in helium, though in very different geometries, has been studied computationally in Ref. .

In experiment , the $`90^{}`$ rf-pulse created the almost uniform transverse polarization $`𝐌_0`$ in, i.e., the $`x`$-direction in the pseudo-spin space. The spin-rotation parameter was relatively large,

$$\mu M_0\tau gn/29.$$
(24)
\[The trapping potential was responsible for some non-uniformity of polarization. This equilibrium non-uniformity could not lead to any instability; actually, small field gradients help to stabilize the system\]. The small fluctuations $`\delta 𝐌`$ around this configuration were, if one ignores the small magnetic field, the gapless Silin waves, Eq. (16), and there was no instability. However, if the initial polarization $`M_x`$ in experiment  were sufficiently non-uniform for the instability to occur, the observed component separation , i.e., the formation of domains with different $`M_z`$ would have taken place much faster than in Refs. . This can be checked experimentally.

There are several other possible experiments with the instability and domain formation that can be performed with trapped alkali gases along the lines of the helium experiments. First, one can start from a one-component gas and flip the ”magnetization” by $`180^{}`$, i.e., excite the Rabi transition, in a part of a trap. Then one can observe long time magnetization ringing in the system similar to Refs.. In this experiment, however, the transverse polarization might already exist after the pulse on the interface between the components due to some residual non-uniformity of the Rabi frequency . In this sense, it is not clear whether the instability can be unambiguously identified.

The next experiment involves bringing together two clouds consisting of the two different components, which have no memory of each other. Employing the pseudo-spin language, this two clouds are characterized by the opposite polarizations in the $`z`$-direction with no transverse components. Then, the dynamics of mixing of this two clouds can proceed along the line of Castaing instability, as opposed to a trivial (incoherent) diffusion mixing. Accordingly, the transverse non-uniform magnetization will arise spontaneously near the interface between the mixing components. Then it will slowly relax till the equilibrium state is reached. In some sense, this effect is the time reversal analog of the experiment . Indeed, in the case , the initial non-equilibrium transverse polarization resulted in the transient separation of the components. The effect of Castaing instability results in the spontaneous creation of the transverse polarization in the process of the components mixing.

Another possibility is to create a non-uniform stable distribution of longitudinal polarization in which the criterion (22) is violated and then to change rapidly the size of the trap so that to comply with the instability condition (22).

The last suggestion is more speculative. The non-uniformity of the initial non-equilibrium configuration can be caused by the sensitivity of the two-photon Rabi transition to the gradients of difference of the trapping potentials , that is, to the value of the Larmor frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$. This spacial non-uniformity of the pulse frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left(𝐫\right)`$ results in formation of helicoidal structures after the pulse. For example, if the Rabi rotation takes place around the $`x`$-axis, the structure of magnetization $`𝐌\left(𝐫\right)`$ after the pulse of duration $`t`$ has the form $`M_z+iM_y=M_0\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐫)t).`$ Such helicoidal polarization $`𝐌\left(𝐫\right)`$ has large gradients and may be unstable. As was emphasized in Ref., the Rabi frequency gradient $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be controlled with high accuracy. Accordingly, one can control the magnetization gradients. However, the time evolution of the helicoid-like structure $`𝐌\left(𝐫\right)`$ is described by a convoluted set of coupled transverse and longitudinal equations. At present, it is not clear to what extent the instability condition for such helicoids differs from the above equations for simple geometries. This general suggestion can be modified in various ways so that to create different structures some of which can be even one dimensional and are easier to describe theoretically than the helicoids of a general form. However, a practical implementation strongly depends on an available experimental setup.

In most of the suggested experiments, the detection of the instability and the spontaneous formation of the transverse magnetization, i.e., of the large off-diagonal components of the density matrix associated with continuous Rabi transitions, can be done using the Ramsey spectroscopy .

## V Conclusions

In conclusion, we pursued the analogy between the two-component $`{}_{}{}^{87}Rb`$ gases and spin-polarized helium systems. The observed separation of components in experiment  is analogous to the formation of coherent precessing domains in helium . This interpretation is consistent with the conclusions of Refs.. The width of the domain wall agrees with the formation of up to three domains. An increase in the gradient of the pseudo-magnetic field can result in a spontaneous stratification of the system. A polarization gradient in the initial state can drastically speed up the domain formation. Apart from the observation of the domain formation, there are several other interesting experimental possibilities associated with the pseudo-spin Castaing instability in transverse channel. This instability is almost inevitable in highly polarized systems with non-uniform distribution of the pseudo-spin and can be observed in the JILA-type experimental setups. The conditions for this instability in finite traps are delineated.

The authors acknowledge support by the CUNY grant PSC-63499-0032 (A.K.) and by the NSF grant DMR-0077266 (A.M.).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The subject of inducing boundary degrees of freedom from the bulk has a very rich history. There exists a rather general mechanism for gauge degrees of freedom in a topological theory to become dynamical after introduction of a boundary (see e.g.) .

In this paper we consider a similar mechanism but with one unusual ingredient: the boundary of the manifold will be singular. It is “singular” in the sense that its co-dimension is more than one (e.g. marked four dimensional sub-manifold embedded in six dimensions). To treat the sub-manifold as a regular boundary of co-dimension one we “regularize it”. We blow it up to a cylinder and then work with the boundary of this cylinder. At the end we take the limit in which the cylinder shrinks back to the original singular sub-manifold.

The motivation to study singular boundaries comes from the problem of studying the dynamics of solitonic (brane) backgrounds. One often uses the approximation in which the theory of localized zero-modes is separated from the rest of the bulk modes. Instead of original theory one considers the theory on trivial (e.g. flat) background in the bulk plus the lower-dimensional theory in the world-volume of the brane as a theory of localized zero modes of the brane. The total action of the system is a sum of two actions corresponding to each theory. In such an approximation there is a question of how an interaction between the brane and the bulk should be taken into account. One possible regime is when both theories decouple from each other. However, sometimes it is impossible to neglect the interaction. E.g. if the dimension of the sub-manifold (brane’s world-volume) is even and some of zero modes are chiral, the world volume theory could suffer from gauge and gravitational anomalies. In this case the world-volume theory is inconsistent by itself (which actually means that it is the decoupling approximation which is inconsistent ) and it is necessary to take into account an interaction between bulk and world-volume which makes the whole theory anomaly free. This is called “inflow mechanism” of anomaly cancellation. There are several important examples of such cancellation in field and M theory . In general the bulk theory has non-zero gauge variation which is non-zero only on the sub-manifold and cancels the anomalous gauge variation of the world-volume theory.

In this paper we study some other example of such an interaction though we use the same setup. The bulk action is purely topological. Topological terms are not unusual for string theory. Some of M-theory corrections to 11-d SUGRA action have structure of lower dimensional topological terms embedded in eleven dimensions . In general such terms can appear as a higher-derivative correction to some more complicated system. These corrections can have very different origin depending on the bulk theory. For simplicity we consider only topological term by itself to study a new interaction it can be responsible for.

The interaction with the brane is specified by choosing boundary conditions for the bulk fields. Our goal will be to show that introduction of the boundary in this topological theory under some rather general boundary conditions generates the boundary term that contains lower dimensional gravity action.

This work generalizes the result of . That paper gave the realization to the idea suggested by ’t Hooft of canceling the four dimensional cosmological constant by inducing the gravity from topological six dimensional theory. Here, without any relation to cosmological constant problem, we give more accurate mathematical formulation of the mechanism of inducing gravity on the brane from topological term in the bulk. We generalize the construction to the case of higher co-dimensions which can arise in other applications. This generalization is not quite trivial since in the case of co-dimension higher than two the angular form has more complicated dependence on the normal bundle gauge connection.

Besides, we make one more improvement of the construction used in . In this work the boundary conditions were used which violated the covariance under rotations of normal bundle. In this work we resolve that difficulty by finding suitable boundary conditions that are covariant under normal bundle rotations. These boundary conditions have a natural physical interpretation.

One of the interesting implications of our result is in the context of brane-worlds. It can offer mechanism of localizing gravity. We will give a short discussion of that in the conclusion.

## 2 Embedding

Consider 4-d sub-manifold embedded into six dimension, $`W^4M^6`$. This embedding is “singular” in a sense that it can’t be treated as a boundary because the boundary of 6-d manifold is 5 dimensional. To “regularize “ such embedding it is convenient to introduce tabular neighborhood $`W_ϵ`$ of 4-d sub-manifold . Locally $`W_ϵ\times D_ϵ^2`$ , where $`D_ϵ^2`$ is a 2-d disk of radius $`ϵ`$. That is, tabular neighborhood is a cylinder surrounding the brane. The theory in the bulk is defined on the six dimensional manifold with the tabular neighborhood cut out. Its boundary is the boundary of the $`W_ϵ`$ of the tabular neighborhood. Introduction of the boundary requires to impose some boundary conditions for the bulk theory. This will specify an interaction between bulk and brane theories.

## 3 The action

For simplicity the action we want to consider is purely topological. That is, it can be locally expressed as a total derivative. In terms of forms it is written as

$`E_6={\displaystyle _{M^6}}\epsilon _{ABCDEF}\stackrel{~}{R}^{AB}\stackrel{~}{R}^{CD}\stackrel{~}{R}^{EF}`$ (1)
Where $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is a curvature of Lorenz spin-connection. Thus $`E_6`$ represents an Euler class. Since the manifold $`M^6`$ has a boundary $`W_ϵ`$ such an action can be written as a surface term only. We will proceed with determining it.

On the brane the original $`SO(1,5)`$ Lorenz group is broken to $`SO(1,3)\times SO(2)`$. Let’s split the 6-d Lorenz connection $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{AB}`$ into corresponding parts:

$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{ab}=A^{ab}\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{a\alpha }=\pi ^{a\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{\alpha \beta }=\omega ^{\alpha \beta }`$ (2)
where $`a`$,$`b`$ are the indexes in the $`SO(2)`$ part of the bundle and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ in the $`SO(1,3)`$. In these terms the 6-dim curvature $`\stackrel{~}{R}^{AB}=d\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{AB}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }^{AC}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_C^B`$ is :

$`\stackrel{~}{R}^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`F^{ab}(A)\pi _\alpha ^a\pi _\alpha ^b`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{~}{R}^{a\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`D(A,\omega )\pi ^{a\alpha }`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{~}{R}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`R^{\alpha \beta }(\omega )\pi _a^\alpha \pi _a^\beta `$ (5)
Where $`F^{ab}(A)`$ and $`R^{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ are curvatures that correspond to connections $`A`$ and $`\omega `$ , $`D(A,\omega )\pi ^{a\alpha }`$ is a covariant derivative with respect to both bundles $`SO(2)`$ and $`SO(1,3)`$

$`D(A,\omega )\pi ^{a\alpha }=d\pi ^{a\alpha }+\omega _{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}\pi ^{a\beta }+A_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\pi ^{b\alpha }`$ (6)
Now we can express the Euler form as

$`E_6={\displaystyle _{M^6}}\epsilon _{ab}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }d\left[3R^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }A^{ab}6\pi ^{a\alpha }D\pi ^{b\beta }(2R^{\gamma \delta }\pi _c^\gamma \pi _c^\delta )\right]=`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle _{W_ϵ}}\epsilon _{ab}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\left[3R^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }A^{ab}6\pi ^{a\alpha }D\pi ^{b\beta }(2R^{\gamma \delta }\pi _c^\gamma \pi _c^\delta )\right]`$ (8)
## 4 Angular form

The boundary term we just obtained contains the integration over the whole boundary $`W^4\times S_1`$. We would like to reduce it to integration over $`W^4`$ only by performing integration over $`S^1`$ separately. In doing so we define first the form integration of which over the transverse directions is equal to one. This is the volume form. Let us introduce the coordinates on a unit sphere $`S^1`$, $`\widehat{y}^a=y^a/y`$. Then the volume form can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\epsilon _{ab}\widehat{y}^ad\widehat{y}^b`$ (9)
The boundary of the tabular neighborhood is isomorphic to the total space of the $`SO(2)`$ bundle, normal bundle. The base of the normal bundle is sub-manifold $`W^4`$ and $`S^1`$ are fibers. Since we want to perform an integration along the fiber we need to introduce covariant generalization of the volume form which will be globally defined  It requires an introduction of the connection on the normal bundle. The resulting form $`e_1`$ is called an angular form and has the following properties. Its restriction on the fibers is a volume form and

$`de_1=\chi (F)`$ (10)
Where $`\chi (F)`$ is an Euler class of the normal bundle. Such angular forms can be constructed for the case of any even co-dimension. In the case of odd co-dimension the corresponding angular form is closed. We consider the cases of $`e_1`$ . The explicit expression is

$`e_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\epsilon _{ab}\widehat{y}^aD\widehat{y}^b`$ (11)
Where $`D\widehat{y}^a=d\widehat{y}^a+\mathrm{\Theta }_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}\widehat{y}^b`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a connection on the normal bundle.

## 5 Boundary conditions

Next we impose some boundary conditions on the connection $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_a^b`$, that is, specify the coupling of the bulk theory to the brane. We want to do it in such a way that the boundary action Eq. (8) splits into the product of two parts, the angular form and the rest that depends only on the brane coordinates. Then we can perform the integration and get the action defined on the brane only. First, it is required that :

$`\pi ^{a\alpha }_{W_ϵ}=\widehat{y}^ae^\alpha `$ (12)
Next, we require $`e^\alpha `$ to depend on brane coordinates only and to satisfy no-torsion constrain with respect to connection $`\omega ^{\alpha \beta }`$, that is $`D(\omega )e=0`$. Later we’ll see that $`e^\alpha `$ plays a role of induced veilbein on the brane. Under such conditions

$`\pi ^{a\alpha }D(\omega ,A)\pi ^{b\beta }=\widehat{y}^aD(A)\widehat{y}^be^\alpha e^\beta `$ (13)
Second, part of the connection $`A`$ is taken as the connection on the normal bundle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ , the rest will yield the angular form $`e_1`$.

$`A^{ab}_{W_ϵ}=a\widehat{y}^{[a}D(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^{b]}+\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}`$ (14)
Where brackets stand for anti-symmetrization. With such a choice of the connection $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ , $`D(A)\widehat{y}^a`$ is

$`D(A)\widehat{y}^a=D(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^a+a\widehat{y}^{[a}D(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^{b]}\widehat{y}^b=(1a)D(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^a`$ (15)
Since $`\widehat{y}^a\widehat{y}^a=1`$ and $`\widehat{y}^aD\widehat{y}^a=0`$.

Here we should make a short remark. It may look that chosen boundary conditions are very artificial. Nevertheless, one can show though that they are a consequence a very simple requirement of spherical symmetry. All modes which are spherically symmetric in the plane normal to the brane satisfy them.

## 6 Boundary action

Now we can calculate the boundary action Eq. (8) under chosen above boundary conditions.

$`E_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{W_ϵ}}\epsilon _{ab}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }6\widehat{y}^aD\widehat{y}^b`$ (16)
$``$ $`\left[aR^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }+2(1a)R^{\alpha \beta }e^\gamma e^\delta (1a)e^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma e^\delta \right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{W_ϵ}}\epsilon _{ab}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }3\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}R^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }`$
Thus we succeeded in separating angular form and fields on the brane. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-dependent term doesn’t contribute since the integrand form $`\mathrm{\Theta }RR`$ doesn’t have any transverse components. We can perform integration of the rest to get

$`E_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{W_ϵ}}12\pi e_1`$
$``$ $`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\left[aR^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }+2(1a)R^{\alpha \beta }e^\gamma e^\delta (1a)e^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma e^\delta \right]`$
$`=`$ $`12\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{\displaystyle _{W^4}}`$
$`a`$ $`R^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }+2(1a)R^{\alpha \beta }e^\gamma e^\delta (1a)e^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma e^\delta `$ (18)
Thus the $`E_6`$ term is equivalent to the following action on the brane: a topological term, Hilbert-Einstein action and a cosmological term.

## 7  Generalization to co-dimension 4

The whole frame work can be easily generalized to the cases of higher co-dimension. We consider the case of co-dimension four. Thus we have four dimensional sub-manifold $`W^4`$ embedded into eight dimensions. The action is taken to be eight dimensional Euler class

$`E_8={\displaystyle _{M^8}}\epsilon _{ABCDEFGH}\stackrel{~}{R}^{AB}\stackrel{~}{R}^{CD}\stackrel{~}{R}^{EF}\stackrel{~}{R}^{GH}`$ (19)
On the brane the original $`SO(1,7)`$ Lorenz group is broken to $`SO(1,3)\times SO(4)`$. Splitting of the 8-dimensional spin-connection $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ and the curvature tensor $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ stays the same as in Eq. (2) and Eq. (5) correspondingly except that index $`a`$ in $`A=(\alpha ,a)`$ is in $`SO(4)`$ group now. Since $`E_8`$ is a closed form it can be written locally as a total derivative. In terms of the decomposition of $`SO(1,7)`$ fields into $`SO(1,3)\times SO(4)`$ fields it reads

$`E_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{M^8}}\epsilon _{abcd}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }d[6R^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }CS(A)^{abcd}`$
$`+`$ $`\pi ^{a\alpha }D\pi ^{b\beta }(16D\pi ^{c\gamma }D\pi ^{d\delta }+24(R^{\gamma \delta }\varphi ^{cd}+F^{cd}\psi ^{\gamma \delta })`$
$``$ $`48R^{\gamma \delta }F^{cd}16\varphi ^{cd}\psi ^{\gamma \delta })]=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{W_ϵ}}\epsilon _{abcd}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }[6R^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }CS(A)^{abcd}`$
$`+`$ $`\pi ^{a\alpha }D\pi ^{b\beta }(16D\pi ^{c\gamma }D\pi ^{d\delta }+24(R^{\gamma \delta }\varphi ^{cd}+F^{cd}\psi ^{\gamma \delta })`$
$``$ $`48R^{\gamma \delta }F^{cd}16\varphi ^{cd}\psi ^{\gamma \delta })]`$ (21)
Where $`CS(A)`$ is Chern-Simons form of the $`SO(4)`$ connection $`A^{ab}`$

$`CS(A)^{abcd}=dA^{ab}A^{cd}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A^{ax}A_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}A^{cd}`$ (22)
and $`\varphi ^{ab}`$ and $`\psi ^{\alpha \beta }`$ are defined as

$`\varphi ^{ab}=\pi _\gamma ^a\pi _\gamma ^b\psi ^{\alpha \beta }=\pi _c^\alpha \pi _c^\beta `$ (23)
Before introducing the boundary conditions we want to discuss the angular form in this case. Its explicit expression is

$`e_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}\epsilon _{abcd}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{y}^aD\widehat{y}^bD\widehat{y}^cD\widehat{y}^d{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\widehat{y}^aF(\mathrm{\Theta })^{bc}\widehat{y}^d\right]`$ (24)
$`de_3/2=\chi (F)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}\epsilon _{abcd}F(\mathrm{\Theta })^{ab}F(\mathrm{\Theta })^{cd}`$ (25)
Where the covariant derivative is taken with respect to the connection on the normal bundle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The first term in $`e_3`$ contains the volume form on $`SO(4)`$ , $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4=\epsilon _{abcd}\widehat{y}^ad\widehat{y}^bd\widehat{y}^cd\widehat{y}^d`$, the rest is required by the condition of Eq. (25).

The boundary conditions in this case are very similar to the case of lower co-dimension.

$`\pi ^{a\alpha }_{W_ϵ}=\widehat{y}^ae^\alpha `$ (26)
That implies the following for $`\varphi ^{ab}`$ and $`\psi ^{\alpha \beta }`$

$`\varphi ^{ab}_{W_ϵ}=0\psi ^{\alpha \beta }_{W_ϵ}=e^\alpha e^\beta `$ (27)
Next, we require $`e^\alpha `$ to depend on brane coordinates only and to satisfy no-torsion constrain with respect to connection $`\omega ^{\alpha \beta }`$, that is $`D(\omega )e=0`$ Under such conditions

$`\pi ^{a\alpha }D(\omega ,A)\pi ^{b\beta }=\widehat{y}^aD(A)\widehat{y}^be^\alpha e^\beta `$ (28)
Second, part of the connection $`A`$ is taken as the connection on the normal bundle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$

$`A^{ab}_{W_ϵ}=a\widehat{y}^{[a}D(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^{b]}+\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}`$ (29)
The term $`\epsilon _{abcd}\widehat{y}^aD(\theta )\widehat{y}^bF(A)^{cd}`$ will give the angular form $`e_3`$

$`F(A)^{cd}_{W_ϵ}=F(\mathrm{\Theta })^{cd}+a\widehat{y}^{[c}F(\mathrm{\Theta })^{d]x}\widehat{y}^x+a(2a)D(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^cD(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^d`$ (30)
$`\epsilon _{abcd}\widehat{y}^aD(\theta )\widehat{y}^bF(A)^{cd}=\epsilon _{abcd}\widehat{y}^aD(\theta )\widehat{y}^b\left(F(\mathrm{\Theta })^{cd}+a(2a)D(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^cD(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^d\right)`$ (31)
With such choice of the connection $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ , $`D(A)\widehat{y}^a`$ is

$`D(A)\widehat{y}^a=(1a)D(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^a`$ (32)
And thus the term $`\pi D\pi D\pi D\pi `$ gives

$`\pi ^{a\alpha }D(\omega ,A)\pi ^{b\beta }D\pi ^{c\gamma }D\pi ^{d\delta }_{W_ϵ}=`$ (33)
$`=(1a)^3\widehat{y}^aD(\mathrm{\Theta })\widehat{y}^bD\widehat{y}^cD\widehat{y}^de^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma e^\delta `$ (34)
Now we are ready to compute boundary action Eq. (21).

$`E_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{W_ϵ}}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }[(12a+4a^3)e_3R^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`16(1a)^3e_3e^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma e^\delta 24(1a)e_3e^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma e^\delta `$
$`+`$ $`48(1a)e_3R^{\alpha \beta }e^\gamma e^\delta ]+\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Theta },R,e,\widehat{y})`$
Where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Theta },R,e,\widehat{y})`$ represents all terms that do not have enough components in transverse directions to contain the volume form. Thus $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ = 0. Now we can perform the integration to get

$`E_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{W^4}}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }[(12a+4a^3)R^{\alpha \beta }R^{\gamma \delta }`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`\left(16(1a)^324(1a)\right)e^\alpha e^\beta e^\gamma e^\delta `$
$`+`$ $`48(1a)R^{\alpha \beta }e^\gamma e^\delta ]`$
We once again see that $`E_8`$ term with the set above boundary conditions yields a topological, a cosmological and Hilbert-Einstein terms on the brane.

## 8  Conclusions and discussion.

In this letter we addressed the problem of inducing boundary degrees of freedom from a bulk theory whose action contains higher-derivative corrections. As a model example we considered a topological theory with an action that has only a “higher-derivative” term. By choosing specific coupling of the brane to the bulk we showed that the boundary action contains gravity action along with some higher-derivative corrections. The co-dimension of the brane is more than one. In this sense the boundary was singular.

This result is refinement and generalization of the work done in . First of all we considered the case of higher co-dimension. The non-trivial part of it lies in the difference between $`e_1`$ and $`e_3`$ forms , Eq. (11),Eq. (24). The normal bundle connection enters $`e_1`$ in a straightforward way , it just make the volume form covariant. On the other hand $`e_3`$ is the first non-trivial case when an angular form contains other terms besides a covariantized volume form.

There is another (more important) new result. The boundary conditions in  broke the covariance under rotations in the normal bundle. The analog of the condition in Eq. (12) was that only one component $`\pi `$ contained 4-dimensional veilbein, the other was set to zero. That corresponded to choosing one fixed normal vector out of all normal vectors. In this work (as Eq. (12) shows) we keep the normal vector arbitrary and integrate over all of them in the action. In this way the covariance with respect to rotations in the normal bundle is preserved by the boundary conditions. The topological theory considered doesn’t have any metric in the bulk. It has only connection. One can check that if the metric were introduced, the boundary conditions set on the connection would simply require the bulk metric to be spherically symmetric.

Viewed as a new example (relative to inflow mechanism) of the brane-bulk interaction this work has other interesting implementations. It shows how Einstein action on the brane can arise dynamically from higher-derivative terms in the bulk (for a similar result see also ). The origin of this terms can be $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections of string theory. The inclusion of such the Einstein term changes the problem of localization of gravity in brane-world scenarios. The problem is usually addressed in the following framework. The brane is considered as a source to the gravity in the bulk. By solving equations of motion in the bulk one can find the background induced by the source. Then the gravity on the brane is described as a normalizable zero mode of the bulk fluctuations in this background. The other possibility is to consider the theory on the brane that includes the gravity . The attractive feature of this scenario is that localization can be achieved even when the bulk theory is asymptotically flat. Besides, the short distance behavior of the gravitational potential is modified, it becomes lower-dimensional. Depending on the relative strength of bulk and brane gravity terms there is an interesting switching between low and high dimensional regimes ( see also ). The mechanism we investigated here can provide an explanation to how the gravity on the brane can be induced from bulk $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections.

## Acknowledgment

We are very grateful to Giulio Bonelli and Oleg Ruchayskiy for interesting discussions. B.K. would like to thank Olindo Corradini and Peter Langfelder. A.B. thanks Danish research council.