text:
# A note on the foundation of relativistic mechanics II: Covariant hamiltonian general relativity

## I The problem

In the companion paper  I have discussed the possibility of a relativistic foundation of mechanics and I have argued that the usual notions of state and observable have to be modified in order to work well in a relativistic context. Here I apply this point of view to field theory. In the context of field theory, the relativistic notion of observable suggests to formulate the hamiltonian theory over a finite dimensional space, for two reasons. First the space of the relativistic (“partial” ) observables of a field theory is finite dimensional. Second, the infinite dimensional space of the initial values of the fields, which is the conventional arena for hamiltonian field theory, is based on the notion of instantaneity surface, which has little general significance in a relativistic context. The possibility of defining hamiltonian field theory over a finite dimensional space has been explored by several authors (See , and ample references therein), developing the classic works of Weil  and De Donder  on the calculus of variations in the 1930’s. In section II, I briefly illustrate the main lines of this formulation using the example of a scalar field, and I discuss its relation with the relativistic notions of state and observable considered in . I then apply these ideas to general relativity (GR) in Section III.

Unraveling the hamiltonian structure of GR has taken decades. The initial intricacies faced by Dirac  and Bergmann  were slowly reduced in various steps, from the work of Arnowit, Deser and Misner all the way to the Ashtekar formulation  and its variants. Here, I discuss a far simpler hamiltonian formulation of GR, constructed over a finite dimensional configuration space and manifestly 4d generally covariant. The formulation is largely derived from the work of Esposito, Gionti and Stornaiolo in . (On covariant hamiltonian formulations of GR, see also .) I discuss two interpretations of this formalism. The first uses the coordinates, while the second makes no direct reference to spacetime. The four spacetime coordinates drop out from the formalism (as the time coordinate drops out from the ADM formalism) in an appropriate sense. I find this feature particularly attractive: the general relativistic spacetime coordinates have no relation with observability and a formulation of the theory in which they do not appear was long due.

I expect this formulation of GR to generalize to any matter coupling and to any diffeomorphism invariant theory. I think that it sheds some light on the coordinate-independent physical interpretation of the theory and helps clarifying issues that appear confused in the hamiltonian formulations which are not manifestly covariant. In particular: what are “states” and “observables” in a theory without background spacetime, without external time and without an asymptotic region? I close discussing the relevance of this analysis for the problem of the interpretation of the formalism of quantum gravity. The formulation presented can be interpreted in terms of Toller’s reference system transformations , and provides a physical interpretation for the spinnetwork to spinnetwork transition amplitudes which can be computed in principle in loop quantum gravity  and in the spinfoam models .

## II Relativistic <br>hamiltonian field theory

There are several ways in which a field theory can be cast in hamiltonian form. One possibility is to take the space of the fields at fixed time as the (nonrelativistic) configuration space $`Q`$. This strategy badly breaks special and, in a general covariant theory, general relativistic invariance. Lorentz covariance is broken by the fact that one has to choose a Lorentz frame for the $`t`$ variable. I find far more disturbing the conflict with general covariance. The very foundation of general covariant physics is the idea that the notion of a simultaneity surface all over the universe is devoid of physical meaning. Seems to me that it is better not to found hamiltonian mechanics on a notion devoid of physical significance.

A second alternative is to formulate mechanics on the space of the solutions of the equations of motion. The idea goes back to Lagrange. In the generally covariant context, a symplectic structure can be defined over this space using a spacelike surface, but one can show that the definition is surface independent and therefore it is well defined. This strategy as been explored by Witten, Ashtekar and several others . The structure is viable in principle, but very difficult to work with in practice. The reason is that we do not know the space of the solutions of an interacting theory. Therefore we must either work over a space that we can’t even coordinatize, or coordinatize the space with the initial data on some instantaneity surface, and therefore, effectively, go back to the conventional fixed time formulation. Thus, this formulation has the merit of telling us that the hamiltonian formalism is actually intrinsically covariant, but it does not really indicate how to effectively deal with it in a covariant manner.

The third possibility, which I consider here, is to use a covariant finite dimensional space for formulating hamiltonian mechanics. I noticed in the companion paper  that in the relativistic context the double role of the phase space, as the arena of mechanics and the space of the states, is lost. The space of the states, namely the phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is infinite dimensional in field theory, virtually by definition of field theory. But this does not imply that the arena of hamiltonian mechanics has to be infinite dimensional as well. In particular, a main result of  is that the natural arena for relativistic mechanics is the extended configuration space $`𝒞`$ of the partial observables. Is the space of the partial observables of a field theory finite or infinite dimensional?

Consider a field theory for a field $`\varphi (x)`$ with $`k`$ components, defined over spacetime $`M`$ with coordinates $`x`$, and taking values in a $`k`$ dimensional target space $`T`$

$`\varphi :M`$ $``$ $`T`$ (1)
$`x`$ $``$ $`\varphi (x).`$ (2)
For instance, this could be Maxwell theory for the electric and magnetic fields $`\varphi =(\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{B})`$, where $`k=6`$. In order to make physical measurements on the field described by this theory we need $`k`$ measuring devices to measure the components of the field $`\varphi `$, and 4 devices (say one clock and three devices giving us the distance from three reference objects) to determine the spacetime position $`x`$. Field values $`\varphi `$ and positions $`x`$ are therefore the partial observables of a field theory. Therefore the operationally motivated extended configuration space for a field theory is the finite dimensional 4+$`k`$ dimensional space

$$𝒞=M\times T.$$
(3)
A correlation is a point $`(x,\varphi )`$ in $`𝒞`$. It represents a certain value ($`\varphi `$) of the fields at a certain spacetime point ($`x`$). This is the obvious generalization of the $`(t,\alpha )`$ correlations of the pendulum of the example in .

A motion is a physically realizable ensemble of correlations. A motion is determined by a solution $`\varphi (x)`$ of the field equations. Such a solution determines a 4-dimensional surface in the (4+$`k`$ dimensional) space $`𝒞`$: the surface is the graph of the function (2). Namely the ensemble of the points $`(x,\varphi (x))`$. The space of the solutions of the field equations, namely the phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is therefore an (infinite dimensional) space of 4d surfaces in the (4+$`k`$)-d configuration space $`𝒞`$. Each state in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ determines a surface in $`𝒞`$.

Hamiltonian formulations of field theory defined directly on $`𝒞=M\times T`$ are possible and have been studied. The main reason is that in a local field theory the equations of motion are local, and therefore what happens at a point depends only on the neighborhood of that point. There is no need, therefore, to consider full spacetime to find the hamiltonian structure of the field equations. I refer the reader to the ample references therein, and especially the beautiful and detailed . What comes below is a very simple and self-contained illustration of the formalism.

The difference with the finite dimensional case is that curves in $`𝒞`$ are replaced by 4d surfaces. Thus, we need a hamiltonian formalism determining these four dimensional surfaces in $`𝒞`$. At a point $`p`$ of $`𝒞`$, a curve has a tangent, leaving in $`T_p𝒞`$, the tangent space of $`𝒞`$ at $`p`$. A 4d surface has four independent tangents $`X_\mu `$, or a “quadritangent” $`X=ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }X_\mu X_\nu X_\rho X_\sigma `$.

Consider a self interacting scalar field $`\varphi (x)`$ defined on Minkowski space $``$, with interaction potential $`V(\varphi )`$. Its field equation

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi +m^2\varphi +V^{}(\varphi )=0$$
(4)
can be derived from a hamiltonian formalism as follows. To test the theory (4) we need five measuring devices: a clock reading $`x^0`$, three devices that give us the spatial position $`\stackrel{}{x}`$, and a device measuring the value of the field $`\varphi `$. Therefore, the space $`𝒞`$ of the partial observables is the the five dimensional space $`𝒞=\times T`$, with coordinates $`(x,\varphi )`$. Here $`T=IR`$ is the target space of the field: $`\varphi T`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a 10d space with coordinates $`(x,\varphi ,p,p^\mu )`$ carrying the the Poincaré-Cartan four-form

$$\theta =pd^4x+p^\mu d\varphi d^3x_\mu .$$
(5)
Here $`d^4xdx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4`$ and $`d^3x_\mu d^4x(_\mu )`$. (Geometrically, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not the cotangent space of $`𝒞`$; it is a subspace of the bundle of its four-forms, or a dual first jet bundle .) Consider the constraint

$$H=p+({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}p^\mu p_\mu +{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\varphi ^2+V(\varphi ))=0$$
(6)
on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. ($`H`$$`p`$ is the DeDonder-Weyl hamiltonian function.) Let $`\omega `$ be the restriction of the five form $`d\theta `$ to the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ defined by $`H=0`$. Then the solutions of (4) are the orbits of $`\omega `$. An orbit of $`\omega `$ is an integral surface of its null quadrivectors. That is, it is a 4d surface immersed in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose quadri-tangent $`X`$ satisfies

$$\omega (X)=0.$$
(7)
For simplicity, let’s say that this surface can be coordinatized by $`x^\mu `$, that is, it is given by $`(x,\varphi (x),p^\nu (x))`$. Then $`\varphi (x)`$ is a solution of the field equations (4). Thus, (7) is equivalent to the field equations (4).

A state determines a 4d surface $`(x,\varphi (x))`$ in the extended configurations space $`𝒞`$. It represents a set of combinations of measurements of partial observables that can be realized in nature. The phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the space of these states, and is infinite dimensional.

In the classical theory, a state determines whether or not a certain correlation $`(x,\varphi )`$, or a certain set of correlations $`(x_1,\varphi _1)\mathrm{}(x_n,\varphi _n)`$, can be observed. They can be observed iff the points $`(x_i,\varphi _i)`$ lie on the 4d surface that represents the state. Viceversa, the observation of a certain set of correlations gives us information on the state: the surface has to pass by the observed points. In the quantum theory, a state determines the probability amplitude of observing a correlation, or a set of correlations.

Notice that there is an important difference between a finite dimensional system and a field theory. For the first, the measurement of a finite number of correlations can determine the state. In the quantum theory, a single correlation may determine the state. For instance, if we have seen the pendulum in the position $`\alpha `$ at time $`t`$, we then know the quantum state uniquely. It follows that quantum mechanics determines uniquely the probability amplitude $`W(\alpha ^{},t^{};\alpha ,t)`$ for observing a correlation $`(\alpha ^{},t^{})`$ after having observed a correlation $`(\alpha ,t)`$. Clearly

$$W(\alpha ^{},t^{};\alpha ,t)=\alpha ^{},t^{}|\alpha ,t$$
(8)
where $`|\alpha ,t`$ is the eigenstate of the Heisenberg operator $`\widehat{\alpha }(t)`$ with eigenvalue $`\alpha `$. In field theory, on the other hand, an infinite number of measurement is required in principle to uniquely determine the state. We can measure any finite number of correlations, and still do not know the state. Predictions in field theory are therefore always given on the basis of some a priori assumption on the state. In quantum theory, this additional assumption, typically, is that the field is in a special state such as the vacuum. Thus, a prediction of the quantum theory takes the following form: if the system is in the vacuum state and we observe a certain set of correlations $`(x_1,\varphi _1)\mathrm{}(x_n,\varphi _n)`$, what is the probability amplitude

$$W(x_1^{},\varphi _1^{}\mathrm{}x_n^{}^{},\varphi _n^{}^{};x_1,\varphi _1\mathrm{}x_n,\varphi _n)$$
(9)
of observing a certain other set $`(x_1^{},\varphi _1^{})\mathrm{}(x_n^{}^{},\varphi _n^{}^{})`$ of correlations ? The quantities (9) are directly related to the usual $`n`$ point distributions of field theory. The relation is the same as the one that transforms the position basis to the energy basis for an harmonic oscillator, that is, for instance

$$W(x^{},\varphi ^{};x,\varphi )=\underset{n,m}{}\overline{\psi _n(\varphi ^{})}\psi _m(\varphi )n,x^{}|m,x$$
(10)
where $`|n,x(a^{}(x))^n|0`$ is the state with $`n`$ particles in $`x`$. The distributional character of these quantities will be studied elsewhere.

For later comparison with GR, notice that the spacetime component $``$ of the relativistic configuration space $`𝒞=\times T`$ is essential in the description, since the predictions of the theory regard precisely the dependence of the partial observable $`\varphi `$ on the partial observables $`x^\mu `$.

The simplicity, covariance and elegance of this hamiltonian formulation is quite remarkable. I find it particularly attractive from the conceptual point of view, because the notions of observable and state on which it is based are operationally well founded, relativistic and covariant. I now apply these ideas to GR.

## III Covariant hamiltonian GR

GR can be formulated in tetrad-Palatini variables as follows. I indicate the coordinates of the spacetime manifold $`M`$ as $`x^\mu `$, where $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$. The fields are a tetrad field $`e_\mu ^I`$ and a Lorentz connection field $`A_\mu ^{IJ}`$ (antisymmetric in $`IJ`$) where $`I=0,1,2,3`$ is a 4d Lorentz index, raised and lowered with the Minkowski metric. The action is

$$S=e_\mu ^Ie_\nu ^JF_{\rho \sigma }^{KL}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{IJKL}d^4x$$
(11)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }^{IJ}`$ is the curvature of $`A_\mu ^{IJ}`$. The field equations turn out to be

$$D_\nu (e_\rho ^Je_\sigma ^J)ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=0,e_\mu ^IF_{\nu \rho }^{JK}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{IJKL}=0.$$
(12)
where $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative of the Lorentz connection. The first equation implies that $`A_\mu ^{IJ}`$ is the spin connection determined by the tetrad field. Using this, the second is equivalent to the Einstein equations. That is, if $`(e_\mu ^I(x),A_\mu ^{IJ}(x))`$ satisfy (12), then the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)=e_\mu ^I(x)e_{\nu I}(x)`$ satisfies the Einstein equations. I shall thus refer at (12) as the Einstein equations. Below, these equations are derived from a hamiltonian formalism, derived from .

### A First version

Consider the (4+16+24) dimensional space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$ with coordinates $`(x^\mu ,e_\mu ^I,A_\mu ^{IJ})`$. We have $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}=M\times T`$, where $`T`$ is the target space on which the tetrad-Palatini fields of GR take value and $`M`$ is the spacetime manifold on which they are defined.

$$e^I=e_\mu ^Idx^\mu ,A^{IJ}=A_\mu ^{IJ}dx^\mu $$
(13)
are one-forms on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$. For any function or form on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$ with Lorentz indices, the Lorentz covariant differential is defined by

$$Dv^I=dv^I+A_J^Iv^J.$$
(14)
I now introduce the main objects of the formalism: the form on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$

$$\theta =\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{IJKL}e^Ie^JDA^{KL}$$
(15)
and the presymplectic form $`\omega =d\theta `$. (Notice that $`dA^{KL}=d(A_\mu ^{IJ}dx^\mu )=dA_\mu ^{IJ}dx^\mu `$, because $`A_\mu ^{IJ}`$ and $`x^\mu `$ are independent coordinates on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$.) Now, the remarkable fact is that the presymplectic form $`\omega `$ defines GR completely. In fact, its orbits, defined by

$$\omega (X)=0$$
(16)
where $`X`$ is the quadritangent to the orbit, are the solutions of the Einstein equations. That is: assuming for simplicity that the $`x^\mu `$ coordinatize the orbit, namely that the orbit is given by $`(x^\mu ,e_\mu ^I(x),A_\mu ^{IJ}(x))`$, then it follows from (16) that $`(e_\mu ^I(x),A_\mu ^{IJ}(x))`$ solve the Einstein equations. Viceversa, if $`(e_\mu ^I(x),A_\mu ^{IJ}(x))`$ solve the Einstein equations, then $`(x^\mu ,e_\mu ^I(x),A_\mu ^{IJ}(x))`$ is an orbit of $`\omega `$. Equation (16) is equivalent to the Einstein equations. The demonstration is a straightforward calculation given in the Appendix.

### B Second version

The simplicity of the formulation of GR described above is quite striking. I find the following observations even more remarkable. The space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$ contains the field variables $`A_\mu ^{IJ}`$ and $`e_\mu ^I`$ as well as the spacetime coordinates $`x^\mu `$. Since the theory is coordinate invariant, we are in a situation analogous to the finite dimensional cases of the relativistic particle, or the cosmological model, described in . In those examples, the unphysical lagrangian evolution parameter $`t`$ dropped out of the formalism; not surprisingly, since it had nothing to do with observability. Here, similarly, we should expect the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ to drop out of the formalism. In fact, it is well known that the gauge invariant quantities of GR are coordinate independent. They are obtained by solving away the coordinates from quantities constructed out of the fields. Therefore the theory should actually live on the sole field space $`T`$ with coordinates $`A_\mu ^{IJ}`$ and $`e_\mu ^I`$, without reference to the spacetime coordinates $`x^\mu `$. Is this possible ?

The remarkable aspect of the expression (15) of the form $`\theta `$ is that the differentials of the spacetime coordinates $`dx^\mu `$ appear only within the one-forms $`e^I=e_\mu ^Idx^\mu `$ and $`A^{IJ}=A_\mu ^{IJ}dx^\mu `$. This fact indicates that the sole role of the $`x^\mu `$ is to arbitrarily coordinatize the orbits in the 40d space of the fields $`(e_\mu ^I,A_\mu ^{IJ})`$. We can therefore reinterpret the formalism of the previous section dropping the spacetime part of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$.

Let $`V`$ be a 4d vector space. Clearly $`V`$ is not spacetime; it can be interpreted as a “space of directions”. Let $`𝒞`$ be the 40d space of the one-forms $`(e^I,A^{IJ})`$ on $`V`$. Notice that $`𝒞`$ is the space $`𝒞=V^{}𝒫`$ of the 4d one-forms with value in the algebra $`P`$ of the Poincaré group. Choosing a basis $`a_\mu `$ in $`V`$, the coordinates on $`𝒞`$ are $`(e_\mu ^I,A_\mu ^{IJ})`$ and $`𝒞`$ can be identified with the target space $`T`$ of the tetrad-Palatini fields. Consider a 4d surface immersed in $`𝒞`$. The tangent space $`T_p`$ to this surface at a point $`p=(e^I,A^{IJ})`$ is a 4d vector space. This space can be identified with $`V`$. In particular, given an arbitrary choice of coordinates $`x^\mu `$ on the surface, we identify the basis $`_\mu `$ of $`T_p`$ with the basis $`a_\mu `$ of $`V`$. Therefore we have immediately the ten one-forms $`(e^I,A^{IJ})`$ on the tangent space $`T_p`$. That is, $`e^I(_\mu )=e_\mu ^I`$ and $`A^{IJ}(_\mu )=A_\mu ^{IJ}`$.

Consider now a form $`\alpha =\alpha _Ide^I+\alpha _{IJ}dA^{IJ}`$ on $`𝒞`$. $`\alpha `$ is a one-form on $`T_p`$ (valued in the one-forms over $`𝒞`$), and we can write $`\alpha (_\mu )=\alpha _Ide_\mu ^I+\alpha _{IJ}dA_\mu ^{IJ}`$. But notice that $`\alpha `$ determines also a two-form on $`T_p`$ by

$$\alpha (_\mu _\nu )=\alpha _I_\mu e_\nu ^I+\alpha _{IJ}_\mu A_\nu ^{IJ}.$$
(17)
It follows that $`\omega =d\theta `$, with $`\theta `$ given by (15), acts on multivectors in $`T_p`$. In particular, it acts on the quadritangent $`X=ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }_\mu _\nu _\rho _\sigma `$ of $`T_p`$. The vanishing (16) of $`\omega (X)`$ is equivalent to the Einstein equations (see Appendix).

Therefore the theory is entirely defined on the 40d space $`𝒞`$. The states are the 4d surfaces in $`𝒞`$, whose tangents are in the kernel of $`d\theta `$. This is all of GR. The spacetime part $`M`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}M\times 𝒞`$ is eliminated from the formalism. The only residual role of the $`x^\mu `$ is to arbitrarily parametrize the states, precisely as for the unphysical lagrangian parameter in the examples of . Below I study the physical interpretation of $`𝒞`$.

## IV Physical interpretation of $`𝒞`$

### A Classical theory: reference system transformations

As discussed in , in general, coordinates of the extended configuration space $`𝒞`$ are the partial observables of the theory. A point in $`𝒞`$ represents a correlation between these observables, that is, a possible outcome of a simultaneous measurements of the partial observables, which give information on the state of the system, or that can be predicted by the theory. What are the partial observables and the correlations of GR captured in the space $`𝒞`$? Can we give the space of the Poincaré algebra valued 4d one-forms $`𝒞`$ a direct physical interpretation?

Assume that the measuring apparatus includes a reference system formed by physical objects defining three orthogonal axes and a clock. Following Toller , we take a transformation $`𝒯`$ of the Poincaré group (in the reference system) as the basic operation defining the theory. That is, assume that the basic operation that we can perform is to displace the reference system by a certain length in a spacial direction, or wait a certain time, or rotate it by a certain amount, or boost it at a certain velocity. The operational content of GR can be taken to be the manner in which the transformations $`𝒯`$ fit together . That is, we assume that a number of these transformations, $`𝒯_1,\mathrm{},𝒯_n`$, can be performed and that it is operationally meaningful to say that two transformations $`𝒯_i`$ and $`𝒯_j`$ start at the same reference system, or arrive at the same reference system, or one starts where the other arrives. We identify one transformation as the measurement of a partial observable (the value of the partial observable is given by the Poincaré group element giving the magnitude of the transformation).

A set of such measurements is therefore an oriented graph $`\gamma `$ where each link $`l`$ carries an element $`U_l`$ of the Poincaré group. Arbitrarily coordinatize the nodes of the graph with coordinates $`y`$. In the classical theory, we assume that arbitrarily many and arbitrarily fine transformations can be done, so that we can take the elements of the Poincaré group as infinitesimal, namely in the algebra, and the coordinates $`y`$ as smooth. An infinitesimal transformation can therefore be associated to an infinitesimal coordinate change $`dy`$. As there is a 10d algebra of available transformations, there is a 10d space of infinitesimal transformations and the coordinates $`y`$ are ten dimensional. However, it is an experimental fact –coded in the theory– that rotations and boosts close and realize the Lorentz group. That is, the relations between sets of physical rotations or boosts are entirely determined kinematically by the Lorentz group. The same is not true for displacements. Therefore the space of the $`y`$’s is naturally fibrated by 6-d fibers isomorphic to the Lorentz group . Coordinatize the remaining 4d space (the space of the fibers) with 4d coordinates $`x^\mu `$. It follows that the non-trivial infinitesimal transformations assign an element of the Poincaré algebra $`𝒫`$ to an infinitesimal displacement $`dx^\mu `$. A single correlation is then the determination of a Poincaré algebra element for each $`dx^\mu `$. The space of the correlations is therefore the space of the Poincaré algebra valued 4d one-forms, which is precisely $`𝒞`$.

We can restrict the partial observables to a smaller number. First, we are using a first order formalism with configuration variables as well as momenta. Either the $`e^I`$ or the $`A^{IJ}`$ alone suffice to characterize a solution. With the first choice, we can take physical lengths and angles associated to the $`dx^\mu `$ displacements as partial observables. With the second, we can take the Lorentz rotation part of the transformations $`𝒯`$. This gives infinitesimal Lorentz transformations $`R^{IJ}=A_\mu ^{IJ}dx^\mu `$ as partial observables. We can also exploit the internal Lorentz gauge invariance of the theory to partially gauge fix the Lorentz group. As well known, for instance, $`A^{IJ}`$ can be gauge fixed to an element of $`so(3)`$. Finally, one can further gauge fix by solving explicitly the dependence of some partial observables as functions of others; see for instance  for a realistic way of doing this. I shall not deal with this possibility here.

### B Quantum theory: spin networks

In the quantum theory, quantum discreteness does not allow us to go to the continuous description. A finite set of partial measurements must therefore be represented by the graph $`\gamma `$ with elements of the Poincaré group $`U_l`$ associated the links $`l`$. If we restrict to configuration observables we can take the $`U_l`$ to be in the Lorentz group, or, in gauge fixed form, in the rotation group. In general, quantum theory gives the probability amplitude to observe a certain ensemble of partial observables, given that a certain other ensemble of observables has been observed. See Section IV of  and . Therefore, we should expect that the predictions of a quantum theory of GR can be cast in the form of probability amplitudes $`W(\gamma ^{},U_l^{}^{};\gamma ,U_l)`$.

Now, the quantities $`W(\gamma ^{},U_l^{}^{};\gamma ,U_l)`$ are precisely of the form spinnetwork to spinnetwork transition amplitudes which can be computed, in principle, in loop quantum gravity (see , and references therein) and in the spinfoam models (see  and references therein). More precisely, we can write, in analogy with (10)

$$W(\gamma ^{},U_l^{}^{};\gamma ,U_l)=\underset{j^{},j}{}\overline{\psi _j^{}(U_l^{}^{})}\psi _k(U_l)\gamma ^{},j^{}|\gamma ,j$$
(18)
where $`j^{}`$ (respectively $`j`$) represents the possible labels of a spinnetwork with graph $`\gamma ^{}`$ (respectively $`\gamma `$), $`\psi _j(U_l)`$ is the spinnetwork function on the group, and $`\gamma ^{},j^{}|\gamma ,j`$ is the (physical) spinnetwork to spinnetwork transition amplitude. See  for details. Therefore the hamiltonian structure illustrated here provides a conceptual framework for the interpretation of these transition amplitudes. Notice that no trace of position or time remains in these expressions.

## V Conclusion

The shift in perspective defended in the companion paper  is partially motivated by special relativity, but it is really forced by general relativity. The notion of initial data spacelike surface conflicts with diffeomorphism invariance. A generally covariant notion of instantaneous state, or evolution of states and observables in time, make little physical sense. In a general gravitational field we cannot assume that there exists a suitable asymptotic region, and therefore we do not have a notion of scattering amplitude and $`S`$ matrix. In this context, it is not clear what we can take as states and observables of the theory, and what is the meaning of dynamics. In the paper  and in this paper I have attempted a relativistic foundation of mechanics, that could provide clean notions of states and observables, making sense in an arbitrary general relativistic situation, as well as in quantum theory.

I have argued that mechanics can be seen as the theory of the evolution in time only in the nonrelativistic limit. In general, mechanics is a theory of relative evolution of partial observables with respect to each other. More precisely, it is a theory of correlations between partial observables. Given a state, classical mechanics determines which correlations are observable and quantum mechanics gives the probability amplitude (or probability density) for each correlation.

In this paper I have applied the ideas of  to field theory. I have argued that the relativistic notions of state and observable lead naturally to the formulation of field theory over a finite dimensional space. The application of this formulation to general relativity leads to a remarkably simple hamiltonian formulation, in which the physical irrelevance of the spacetime coordinates becomes manifest.

General relativity can be formulated simply as the pair $`(𝒞,d\theta )`$. $`𝒞`$ is the 40d space of the Poincaré valued 4d one-forms, and $`\theta `$ is given by (15). The orbits of $`d\theta `$ in $`𝒞`$, solutions of equation (16), are the solutions of the Einstein equations and form the elements of the phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is all of general relativity.

The compactness and simplicity of this hamiltonian formalism is quite remarkable. Notice for instance that the target space $`T`$, the extended configuration space $`𝒞`$, the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that carries the presymplectic form defining the theory and the constraint surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are all identified. The form $`\theta `$ codes the dynamics as well as the symplectic structure of the theory.

The disappearance of the spacetime manifold $`M`$ and its coordinates $`x^\mu `$ –which survive only as arbitrary parameters on the orbits– generalizes the disappearance of the time coordinate in the ADM formalism and is analogous to the disappearance of the lagrangian evolution parameter in the hamiltonian theory of a free particle . It simply means that the general relativistic spacetime coordinates are not directly related to observations. The theory does not describe the dependence of the field components on $`x^\mu `$, but only the relative dependence of the partial observables of $`𝒞`$ on each other.

We can give $`𝒞`$ a direct physical interpretation in terms of reference systems transformations. This interpretation is illustrated in Section IV. In the quantum domain, it leads directly to the spin-network to spin-network amplitudes computed in loop quantum gravity.

## Appendix

Here we prove the claim that equations (16) is equivalent to the Einstein equations (12). Let us first write $`\omega `$ explicitly. We have from (15)

$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{IJKL}e_\mu ^Idx^\mu e_\nu ^Jdx^\nu `$ (20)
$`(dA_\sigma ^{KL}dx^\sigma +A_\rho ^{KM}dx^\rho A_{\sigma M}{}_{}{}^{L}dx^\sigma )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{IJKL}e_\mu ^Ie_\nu ^JdA_\rho ^{KL}dx_\sigma `$ (22)
$`+ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{IJKL}e_\mu ^Ie_\nu ^JA_\rho ^{KM}A_{\sigma M}{}_{}{}^{L}d_{}^{4}x.`$
It follows

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`d\theta =ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{IJKL}e_\mu ^Ide_\nu ^JdA_\rho ^{KL}dx_\sigma `$ (24)
$`+ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{IJKL}d(e_\mu ^Ie_\nu ^JA_\rho ^{KM}A_{\sigma M}{}_{}{}^{L})d^4x.`$
Coordinatize an orbit with the $`x^\mu `$. The tangents are then

$$X_\mu =\frac{}{x^\mu }+_\mu e_\nu ^I\frac{}{e_\nu ^I}+_\mu A_\nu ^{IJ}\frac{}{A_\nu ^{IJ}}.$$
(25)
The components of $`X=ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }X_\mu X_\nu X_\rho X_\sigma `$ that give a nonvanishing contribution when contracting with $`\omega `$ are the ones with at least two $`_\mu =/x^\mu `$ components. These are (I leave the $``$ understood in the notation)

$`X_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }[_\mu _\nu _\rho _\sigma +`$ (28)
$`+_\mu _\nu _\rho (_\sigma e_\tau ^I){\displaystyle \frac{}{e_\tau ^I}}+_\mu _\nu _\rho (_\sigma A_\tau ^{IJ}){\displaystyle \frac{}{A_\tau ^{IJ}}}+`$
$`+_\mu _\nu (_\rho e_\tau ^I){\displaystyle \frac{}{e_\tau ^I}}(_\sigma A_ϵ^{IJ}){\displaystyle \frac{}{A_ϵ^{IJ}}}+\mathrm{}]`$
From (24) and (28), we obtain

$$\omega (X)=K_I^\mu de_\mu ^I+K_{IJ}^\mu dA_\mu ^{IJ}+K_\mu dx^\mu ,$$
(29)
where

$`K_I^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{IJKL}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\nu \rho }^{JK}e_\sigma ^L,`$ (30)
$`K_{IJ}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{IJKL}D_\nu e_\rho ^Ke_\sigma ^Lϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }.`$ (31)
while $`K_\mu `$ vanishes if $`K_I^\mu `$ and $`K_{IJ}^\mu `$ do. It follows immediately that $`\omega (X)=0`$ give the Einstein equations (12).

The Einstein equations are obtained even more directly in the second version of the formalism. Of the four $`_\mu `$, three contract the three $`e^I`$ and $`A^{IJ}`$ forms, giving their components, and one contracts either $`de_\mu ^I`$ or $`dA_\nu ^{IJ}`$, leaving simply

$$\omega (X)=K_I^\mu de_\mu ^I+K_{IJ}^\mu dA_\mu ^{IJ}$$
(32)
where $`K_I^\mu `$ and $`K_{IJ}^\mu `$ are again given by (31).


format: text

text:
# Effective Lagrangians for physical degrees of freedom in the Randall-Sundrum model

## 1 Introduction

The Randall-Sundrum (RS) model with two branes, first proposed and analyzed in Refs. , has been extensively studied in the literature, see Refs.  \-  for reviews. The interest in this model, known as the RS1 model, is due to a novel solution of the hierarchy problem suggested within it, and to a possibility to check its predictions in the planned collider experiments (see articles  and Refs.  for reviews).

The RS model describes gravity propagating in a five-dimensional space-time with the fifth dimension being compactified to the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$ with the circumference of the circle equal to $`2R`$. Let us denote coordinates of the space-time by $`\{\widehat{x}^M\}=\{(x^\mu ,y)\}`$, $`M=0,1,2,3,4`$, so that $`\{x^\mu \}`$, $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$ are the coordinates of the four-dimensional space-time and $`\widehat{x}^4y`$ is the coordinate along the fifth dimension. $`Z_2`$-symmetry of the orbifold is realized by identifying points $`(x^\mu ,y)`$ and $`(x^\mu ,y)`$, where $`y`$ is a point of the circle. In addition we have the usual periodicity condition which identifies $`(x^\mu ,y)`$ and $`(x^\mu ,y+2R)`$. The branes are located at the fixed points $`y=0`$ and $`y=R`$ of the orbifold.

The action of the RS1 model is equal to

$$S=S_g+S_1+S_2,$$

where $`S_g`$ is the five-dimensional Einstein action with the cosmological term,

$$S_g=\frac{1}{16\pi \widehat{G}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\sqrt{g}d^5\widehat{x},$$
(1)
and $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are the standard actions of the branes:

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`V_1{\displaystyle \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\delta (y)d^5\widehat{x}},`$ (2)
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`V_2{\displaystyle \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\delta (yR)d^5\widehat{x}}.`$ (3)
Here $`\widehat{G}`$ is the five-dimensional gravitational constant, $`g_{MN}`$ is the metric tensor in five dimensions with the signature $`(,+,+,+,+)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{g}=det(g_{\mu \nu })`$ is the determinant of the induced metric.

The exact background solution for the metric in this model is of non-factorizable type and is given by

$$ds^2=\gamma _{MN}d\widehat{x}^Md\widehat{x}^N=e^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +(dy)^2,$$
(4)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric. The function $`\sigma (y)`$ is equal to $`\sigma (y)=k|y|`$ for $`RyR`$ and is continued periodically outside this interval. The parameter $`k`$ has the dimension of mass, and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the brane tensions $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$ are related to it as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=12k^2,V_1=V_2=\frac{3k}{4\pi \widehat{G}}.$$

If $`k>0`$ the brane at $`y=0`$ (brane 1) has positive tension and the one at $`y=R`$ (brane 2) has negative tension.

Though many studies of this model have been done already, some issues have not been properly understood and clarified. Thus earlier papers dealt only with the equations of motion for the linearized gravity, and its Lagrangian description remained practically untouched. In the present paper we first repeat the derivation of the Lagrangian of quadratic fluctuations around the background solution (4) and carry out its diagonalization. We also discuss the problem of imposing a gauge condition in a consistent way and introduce the unitary gauge, in which the radion is represented explicitly by a four-dimensional scalar field.

In the majority of papers on the RS1 model masses and couplings constants in effective theories on the branes are calculated with respect to the induced metric. However, as one can see from Eq. (4), the induced metric on brane 2 contains the conformal factor $`e^{2\sigma (R)}=e^{2kR}`$. Hence the coordinate system $`\{x^\mu \}`$ is not Galiliean on the brane (coordinates are called Galillean if $`g_{\mu \nu }=diag(1,1,1,1)`$, see for example Ref. ) and, therefore, the naive identification of parameters from the Lagrangian leads to wrong conclusions. This issue was recognized and discussed in Ref. . In this paper, a covariant procedure was proposed, which consists in using covariant equations and expressing all coordinate distances in terms of proper distances. For example, within this approach the masses of brane fields, i.e. fields localized on a brane and not propagating in the five-dimensional bulk, were determined from the rate of exponential falloff of the 2-point function. It was shown that such masses measured by brane observers are independent of the warp factor and are given by the Lagrangian masses. In Ref.  it was also confirmed that Newton’s constant of gravitational interaction between two masses depends on the warp factor in the same way as in the conventional interpretation . Also, masses of bulk scalar fields were analyzed there. It was found that an observer on the negative tension brane sees particles with masses $`m_nk`$, whereas an observer on the positive tension brane detects exponentially suppressed masses $`m_nke^{kR}`$.

In the present paper we re-examine these issues and calculate the physical masses and coupling constants on each of the branes in a more straightforward and, as we believe, simpler way. Instead of analyzing the 2-point function and the geodesic equation we pass to the Galilean coordinates and perform necessary rescalings of fields. This allows us to get the correct identification of the physical parameters in the effective theory on the branes. We calculate the mass spectra and couplings of the Kaluza-Klein modes of the gravitons to matter on the branes, as well as the masses of brane fields.

As it is usual in scenarios considered in the literature, we assume that our brane is brane 2 (the one with negative tension) and our considerations lead to a phenomenology very similar to the one discussed in Refs. . However, the general physical picture of the brane world appears to be quite different. Thus, in our approach the fundamental physical scale, i.e. the five-dimensional ”Plank mass” $`M`$, should be in the TeV range. It is very natural to have the value for the parameter $`k`$ in the same TeV range. The four-dimensional Plank scale $`M_{Pl}`$ is the effective scale for the gravitational zero mode interaction on brane 2. The hierarchy is generated by the exponenential term coming from the warp factor $`e^{2\sigma (y)}`$ in Eq. (4). Namely, the Planck mass is related to the fundamental scale by the relation

$$M_{Pl}^2\frac{M^3}{k}e^{2kR},$$

see Refs.  and Sect. 4 of the present article. To reproduce the value of $`M_{Pl}`$ the size $`R`$ has to be chosen such that $`kR30÷35`$. Therefore, the size of the extra dimension is expected to be about 35/TeV111As an alternative interpretation this possibility was mentioned in Ref. ., much larger than 35/$`M_{Pl}`$ discussed in earlier papers. We will show that for these values of the model parameters the coupling of gravity to matter on the ”hidden” brane (brane 1) turns out to be very strong, namely the gravitational constant is proportional to $`M^1`$ and not to $`M_{Pl}^1`$, as on brane 2. There are also some differences in the radion interactions which will be discussed below.

The article is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we review gauge transformations in an arbitrary background and derive an expression for the Lagrangian of quadratic fluctuations which will be convenient for our purposes. In Sect. 3 we use this result for the calculation of the Lagrangian of quadratic fluctuations in the RS1 model, repeat its diagonalization in a systematic way paying attention to the gauge transformations and identify physical degrees of freedom. In parallel we prove the decoupling of the classical equations of motion for these degrees of freedom. In Sect. 4 we study both brane scalar fields and the bulk fields arising from a five-dimensional metric. We calculate their masses and couplings in effective theories on the branes using the Galilean coordinates. Sect. 5 contains some discussion of the results and concluding remarks.

## 2 Second variation Lagrangian in a general background

For the purpose of generality let us consider the standard gravitational action with the cosmological constant in $`(4+d)`$-dimensional space-time with coordinates $`\{\widehat{x}^M\},M=0,1,\mathrm{}d+3`$:

$$S_g=\frac{1}{16\pi \widehat{G}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\sqrt{g}d^{4+d}\widehat{x},$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{G}`$ is the multidimensional gravitational constant, $``$ is the scalar curvature and $`g_{MN}`$ is the metric with signature $`(1,1,\mathrm{}1)`$. For $`d=1`$ this expression coincides with five-dimensional action (1).

Let $`\gamma _{MN}`$ be a fixed background metric. We denote $`\widehat{\kappa }=\sqrt{16\pi \widehat{G}}`$ and parameterize the metric $`g_{MN}`$ as

$$g_{MN}(\widehat{x})=\gamma _{MN}(\widehat{x})+\widehat{\kappa }h_{MN}(\widehat{x}).$$
(6)
If we substitute this formula into (5) and retain only the terms of the zeroth order in $`\widehat{\kappa }`$, we get the following Lagrangian, which is usually called the second variation Lagrangian:

$`L_g^{(2)}/\sqrt{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_Rh_{MN}^Rh^{MN}_Rh^Rh+2_Mh^{MN}_Nh`$ (7)
$``$ $`2^Rh^{MN}_Mh_{RN})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\left)\right(h_{MN}h^{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hh)+`$
$`+`$ $`𝒢^{MN}h_{MR}h_N^R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒢^{MN}h_{MN}h,`$
where $`\gamma =\text{det}\gamma _{MN}`$, $`h=h_M^M`$, and $`𝒢_{MN}=_{MN}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{MN}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$. The Ricci tensor $`_{MN}`$, the scalar curvature $``$ and the covariant derivative $`_M`$ are calculated with respect to the background metric $`\gamma _{MN}`$. This formula in rather complicated notations can be found in .

Action (5) is invariant under general coordinate transformations $`\widehat{y}^M=\widehat{y}^M(\widehat{x})`$, the corresponding transformation of the metric being

$$g_{RS}^{}(\widehat{y})\frac{\widehat{y}^R}{\widehat{x}^M}\frac{\widehat{y}^S}{\widehat{x}^N}=g_{MN}(\widehat{x}).$$
(8)
Let us consider infinitesimal coordinate transformations

$$\widehat{y}^M(x)=\widehat{x}^M+\widehat{\kappa }\xi ^M(\widehat{x}).$$

Representing the initial and transformed metrics as

$`g_{MN}(\widehat{x})`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{MN}(\widehat{x})+\widehat{\kappa }h_{MN}(\widehat{x}),`$
$`g_{MN}^{}(\widehat{y})`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{MN}(\widehat{y})+\widehat{\kappa }h_{MN}^{}(\widehat{y}),`$
substituting these formulas into Eq. (8), and keeping the terms up to the first order in $`\widehat{\kappa }`$ we arrive at the following transformation law for the variation $`h_{MN}`$:

$$h_{MN}^{}(\widehat{x})=h_{MN}(\widehat{x})\left(_M\xi _N+_N\xi _M\right)$$
(9)
(see, for example, Ref. ). It is easy to check that the action built with the second variation Lagrangian (7) is invariant under transformations (9) which, therefore, can be interpreted as gauge transformations of the field $`h_{MN}`$.

Suppose that the background metric $`\gamma _{MN}`$ is a solution of the Einstein equations

$$_{MN}\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{MN}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=8\pi \widehat{G}T_{MN}$$

with some energy-momentum tensor of the matter $`T_{MN}`$. Expressing $`𝒢_{MN}`$ and $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ in terms of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{MN}`$, substituting it into (7) and transforming the kinetic term to the standard Fierz-Pauli form, we obtain the following second variation Lagrangian

$`L_g^{(2)}/\sqrt{\gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_Rh_{MN}^Rh^{MN}_Rh^Rh+2_Mh^{MN}_Nh`$ (10)
$`2_Mh^{MN}^Rh_{RN})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^{MN}h^{PQ}_{MPNQ}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^{MN}h_{NP}_M^P+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2(d+2)}}\left(h_{MN}h^{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hh\right){\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \widehat{G}}{d+2}}T_R^R\left(h_{MN}h^{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}hh\right)+`$
$`+\left(8\pi \widehat{G}T^{MN}h_{MR}h_N^R4\pi \widehat{G}T^{MN}h_{MN}h\right),`$
where $`_{MNPQ}`$ and $`_M^P`$ are the curvature and the Ricci tensors of the metric $`\gamma _{MN}`$ respectively. In the next section this expression will be used for calculation of the second variation Lagrangian in Randall-Sundrum model.

## 3 Second variation Lagrangian in the Randall - Sundrum model

We write the perturbed metric around the RS solution $`\gamma _{MN}`$, Eq. (4), in the form given by Eq. (6) with $`\widehat{\kappa }=M^{3/2}`$, where, as in the Introduction, $`M`$ is the fundamental mass scale (”Planck mass”) of the five-dimensional gravity.

In the RS1 model the brane action terms, Eqs. (2), (3), give rise to the energy-momentum tensor equal to

$$T_{MN}=\frac{3k}{4\pi \widehat{G}}\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{\gamma }}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu \left[\delta (y)\delta (yR)\right],$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=det(\gamma _{\mu \nu })`$. The contribution of the gravitational term $`S_g`$, Eq. (1), is given by formula (10), whereas the contribution of the branes is equal to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }L_{1,2}^{(2)}=3k\left(h_{\mu \nu }h^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{h}\right)\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}\left[\delta (y)\delta (yR)\right],$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{h}=\gamma ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }`$. The complete quadratic Lagrangian for the variation $`h_{MN}`$ can be written as follows:

$`L/\sqrt{\gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_Rh_{MN}^Rh^{MN}_Rh^Rh+2_Mh^{MN}_Nh`$
$`2_Mh^{MN}^Rh_{RN})+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2}}(h_{MN}h^{MN}+hh)+[2kh_{MN}h^{MN}+`$ (11)
$`+kh\stackrel{~}{h}kh_{M\nu }h^{M\nu }+3k(h_{\mu \nu }h^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{h})\left]\right(\delta (y)\delta (yR)).`$
As in Sect. 2, the covariant derivatives $`_M`$ are calculated with respect to the background metric $`\gamma _{MN}`$ of the RS solution and $`h=\gamma ^{MN}h_{MN}`$.

This Lagrangian is invariant under gauge transformations (9). In the case under consideration they can be found explicitly and turn out to be

$`h_{\mu \nu }^{}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)\left(_\mu \xi _\nu +_\nu \xi _\mu +2\gamma _{\mu \nu }_4\sigma \xi _4\right)`$ (12)
$`h_{\mu 4}^{}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`h_{\mu 4}(x,y)\left(_\mu \xi _4+_4\xi _\mu 2_4\sigma \xi _\mu \right)`$
$`h_{44}^{}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`h_{44}(x,y)2_4\xi _4,`$
where the functions $`\xi ^M(x,y)`$ satisfy the orbifold symmetry conditions

$`\xi ^\mu (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\mu (x,y)`$ (13)
$`\xi ^4(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^4(x,y).`$
These gauge transformations in other parameterizations were discussed in papers  and . We will use them to remove the gauge degrees of freedom of the field $`h_{MN}`$. To this end we first make a gauge transformation with

$$\xi _4(x,y)=\frac{1}{4}_y^yh_{44}(x,y^{})𝑑y^{}\frac{x^4}{4R}_R^Rh_{44}(x,y^{})𝑑y^{}.$$

One can easily see that $`\xi _4`$ satisfies the orbifold symmetry condition. After this transformation $`h_{44}`$ takes the form

$$h_{44}^{}\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2R}_R^Rh_{44}(x,y^{})𝑑y^{}$$

and therefore it does not depend on $`y`$. Moreover, there are no residual gauge transformations involving $`\xi _4`$.

Now let us consider the components $`h_{\mu 4}`$. Due to the orbifold symmetry

$$h_{\mu 4}(x,y)=h_{\mu 4}(x,y),$$

the gauge transformations for $`h_{\mu 4}`$ read

$$h_{\mu 4}^{}(x,y)=h_{\mu 4}(x,y)\left(_4\xi _\mu 2_4\sigma \xi _\mu \right).$$

The condition $`h_{\mu 4}=0`$ is imposed by performing gauge transformations (12) with $`\xi _4=0`$ and $`\xi _\mu `$ satisfying

$$\xi _\mu (x,y)=e^{2\sigma (y)}_0^ye^{2\sigma (y^{})}h_{\mu 4}(x,y^{})𝑑y^{}.$$

Note that it satisfies orbifold symmetry condition (13). Thus we have imposed the gauge

$$h_{\mu 4}=0,h_{44}=\varphi (x^\mu ),$$

i.e. $`h_{44}`$ is a function of four-dimensional coordinates only. We will call it the unitary gauge. There still remain gauge transformations satisfying

$$_4\left(e^{2\sigma }\xi _\mu \right)=0.$$
(14)
They will be important for removing the gauge degrees of freedom of the massless mode of the gravitational field.

Varying Lagrangian (11) we get the equations of motion for the fluctuations $`h_{MN}(x)`$ which, in the unitary gauge, reduce to the following equations for the fields $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ and $`\varphi (x)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_\rho ^\rho h_{\mu \nu }_\mu ^\rho h_{\rho \nu }_\nu ^\rho h_{\rho \mu }+h_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }\right)2k^2h_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu _\nu \stackrel{~}{h}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu _\nu \varphi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\left(^\rho ^\sigma h_{\rho \sigma }_\rho ^\rho \stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{h}^{\prime \prime }4\sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{h}^{}_\rho ^\rho \varphi +12k^2\varphi \right)`$
$`+\left[2kh_{\mu \nu }3k\gamma _{\mu \nu }\varphi \right]\left(\delta (y)\delta (yR)\right)=0,`$ (15)
$`(_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}^\nu h_{\mu \nu })^{}3\sigma ^{}_\mu \varphi =0,`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(^\mu ^\nu h_{\mu \nu }_\mu ^\mu \stackrel{~}{h}){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{h}^{}+6k^2\varphi =0,`$ (17)
where the prime denotes the derivative w.r.t. $`y`$. In the chosen gauge Eq. (16) is a constraint. Multiplying Eq. (17) by 2 and subtracting it from Eq. (15) contracted with $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ we obtain an auxiliary equation

$$\stackrel{~}{h}^{\prime \prime }+2\sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{h}^{}8k^2\varphi +_\mu ^\mu \varphi +8k\varphi \left[\delta (y)\delta (yR)\right]=0,$$
(18)
which will be used later.

When written in terms of $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ and $`\varphi (x)`$ the second variation Lagrangian (11) is not diagonal, correspondingly the equations of motion, Eqs. (15) - (17), are coupled. To diagonalize the Lagrangian and to decouple the equations we write the multidimensional gravitational field as

$`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`b_{\mu \nu }(x,y)+\gamma _{\mu \nu }(y)(\sigma (y)c)\varphi (x)`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k^2}}\left[\sigma (y)c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]_\mu _\nu \varphi (x)+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{4k^2}}e^{2\sigma (y)}_\mu _\nu \varphi (x),`$
where $`c`$ is a constant which will be fixed shortly. We will see that the field $`b_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ describes the massless graviton  and massive Kaluza-Klein spin-2 fields, whereas $`\varphi (x)`$ describes a scalar field called the radion. Apparently, the radion as a massless particle was first identified in Ref.  (see also ) and studied in articles . Actually, substitution (19) is suggested by the form of the gauge transformation which transforms the theory from the local Gaussian normal coordinates (i.e. coordinates corresponding to $`g_{44}=1`$, $`g_{\mu 4}=0`$ ), for which the second variation Lagrangian is diagonal in the bulk by construction, to our coordinates. Evidently, just a gauge transformation cannot diagonalize the Lagrangian, because it is gauge invariant. To carry out the diagonalization and to decouple the equations the last term in Eq. (19), the one $`e^{2\sigma }`$, is needed.

It is easy to check that even with arbitrary $`c`$ Eqs. (15) - (17) decouple in the bulk, i.e. for $`0<y<R`$. The junction conditions, coming from Eq. (15), are

$`b_{\mu \nu }^{}(x,y_i){\displaystyle \frac{c}{2k^2}}\sigma ^{}(y_i)e^{2\sigma (y_i)}_\mu _\nu \varphi (x)`$
$`+ϵ_i\left[2kb_{\mu \nu }(x,y_i)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{c}{2k}}e^{2\sigma (y_i)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (y_i)c}{k}}\right)_\mu _\nu \varphi (x)\right]=0,`$
where $`i=1,2`$, $`y_1=0`$, $`y_2=R`$, $`ϵ_1=+1`$, $`ϵ_2=1`$. At $`y=0`$ the terms $`_\mu _\nu \varphi `$ vanish for arbitrary $`c`$. To make them vanish at $`y=R`$ we choose

$$c=\frac{kR}{e^{2kR}1}.$$
(20)
Substituting expression (19) into Eq. (18) we get the equality

$$\left(e^{2\sigma }\stackrel{~}{b}^{}\right)^{}=2c_\mu ^\mu \varphi .$$

Making the Fourier expansion in $`y`$ on the orbifold and taking into account that the l.h.s. does not contain the zero mode, we arrive at the conclusion that the radion field satisfies the equation

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi =0$$
(21)
and $`e^{2\sigma }(e^{2\sigma }b)^{}`$ is a function of $`x`$ only. Applying the same argument the latter implies that $`(e^{2\sigma }b)^{}=0`$ (see details in Ref. ). By performing transformations which satisfy (14) one can impose the gauge

$$\stackrel{~}{b}=b=0.$$
(22)
It is easy to see that there still remain gauge transformations parameterized by $`\xi _\mu =e^{2\sigma }\zeta _\mu (x)`$ with $`\zeta _\mu (x)`$ satisfying $`^\mu \zeta _\mu =0`$. Substituting expression (19) into Eqs. (16), (17) and passing to gauge (22), we arrive at the following relations: $`^\mu ^\nu b_{\mu \nu }=0`$ and $`(e^{2\sigma }^\mu b_{\mu \nu })^{}=0`$. The remaining gauge transformations are sufficient to impose the condition

$$^\mu b_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(23)
Conditions (22) and (23) define the gauge often called the transverse-traceless (TT) gauge. Having imposed this gauge, we are still left with residual gauge transformations

$$\xi _\mu =e^{2\sigma }\zeta _\mu (x),_\rho ^\rho \zeta _\mu =0,^\mu \zeta _\mu =0,$$
(24)
which, as we will see shortly, are important for determining the number of degrees of freedom of the massless mode of $`b_{\mu \nu }`$.

In this gauge Eqs. (16), (17) are trivially satisfied. Eq. (15) becomes

$$\frac{1}{2}_\rho ^\rho b_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}b_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }2k^2b_{\mu \nu }+2kb_{\mu \nu }\left(\delta (y)\delta (yR)\right)=0.$$

Thus, we have decoupled the equations of motion.

Now let us consider the second variation action of the theory. Substituting (19) with $`c`$ given by (20) into Lagrangian (11) and taking into account the TT gauge conditions (22), (23) for $`b_{\mu \nu }`$, we get

$`L/\sqrt{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_\rho b_{\mu \nu }^\rho b^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_4b_{\mu \nu }2_4\sigma b_{\mu \nu })(_4b^{\mu \nu }+2_4\sigma b^{\mu \nu })`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}ce^{2\sigma }_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi .`$
Integrating over $`y`$ we obtain the following four-dimensional effective Lagrangian for the field $`\varphi `$:

$$L_\varphi =\frac{3}{4}c_R^Re^{2\sigma (y)}\sqrt{\gamma }_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi dy=\frac{3}{2}\frac{kR^2}{e^{2kR}1}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi ^\nu \varphi .$$

To bring the kinetic term to the canonical form we rescale the field according to

$$\varphi (x)=\sqrt{\frac{e^{2kR}1}{3kR^2}}\phi (x).$$
(26)
It remains to decompose the field $`b_{\mu \nu }`$ into Kaluza-Klein modes with definite masses and to integrate Eq. (25) over $`y`$. Following Refs.  we write

$$b_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(x)\psi _n(y),$$
(27)
where $`\{\psi _n(y),n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ form the complete orthogonal system of eigenfunctions of the equation

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dy^2}+2k(\delta (y)\delta (yR))2k^2\right]\psi _n(y)=\frac{m_n^2}{2}e^{2k|y|}\psi _n(y)$$

satisfying the normalization condition

$$_R^Re^{2k|y|}\psi _m(y)\psi _n(y)𝑑y=\delta _{mn}.$$

The solutions to the eigenvalue problem are equal to

$$\psi _0(y)=N_0e^{2k|y|},\psi _n(y)=N_n\mathrm{\Psi }_n(y)(n=1,2,\mathrm{}),$$
(28)
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_n(y)=C_1J_2\left(\beta _ne^{(\sigma (y)+kR)}\right)+C_2Y_2\left(\beta _ne^{(\sigma (y)+kR)}\right)$$

and $`J_2(\xi )`$ and $`Y_2(\xi )`$ are the Bessel and Neumann functions respectively. The coefficients $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ and the values of $`\beta _n`$ are determined by the junction conditions at $`y=0`$ and $`y=R`$. One gets that

$$C_1=Y_1\left(\beta _ne^{kR}\right),C_2=J_1\left(\beta _ne^{kR}\right)$$

and $`\beta _n`$ are roots of the equation

$$J_1(\beta _ne^{kR})Y_1(\beta _n)J_1(\beta _n)Y_1(\beta _ne^{kR})=0.$$

As we will see shortly, $`e^{kR}10^{15}`$ so that for small $`n`$ the numbers $`\beta _n`$ satisfy approximately the equation $`J_1(\beta _n)=0`$. The values of the first few $`\beta _n`$ are given by $`\beta _n=3.83,7.02,10.17,13.32`$ for $`n=1,2,3,4`$ respectively. The normalization constants in Eq. (28) are found to be

$$N_0=\frac{\sqrt{k}}{\sqrt{1e^{2kR}}},N_n=\frac{\sqrt{k}}{\sqrt{e^{2kR}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^2(\beta _n)\mathrm{\Psi }_n^2(\beta _ne^{kR})}}.$$
(29)
For small $`n`$ the values of functions (28) at $`y=0`$ and $`y=R`$ can be estimated as

$`\psi _0(0)`$ $`=`$ $`N_0\sqrt{k};\psi _n(0){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k}}{|J_2(\beta _n)|}}e^{kR},(n0)`$ (30)
$`\psi _0(R)`$ $`=`$ $`N_0e^{2kR}\sqrt{k}e^{2kR};\psi _n(R)\sqrt{k}e^{kR}(n0).`$ (31)
Performing mode expansion (27) we obtain the following expression for the four-dimensional effective action (i.e. dimensionally reduced action) of the five-dimensional gravitational field in the RS model:

$`S_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(_\mu b_{\rho \sigma }^{(n)}_\nu b_{ϵ\delta }^{(n)}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\rho ϵ}\eta ^{\sigma \delta }+m_n^2b_{\mu \rho }^{(n)}b_{\nu \sigma }^{(n)}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\rho \sigma })`$ (32)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \phi _\nu \phi ]dx,`$
where $`m_n=\beta _nke^{kR}`$. We see that the effective theory includes a massless spin-2 tensor field (the graviton), an infinite tower of massive spin-2 tensor fields (often referred to as massive KK gravitons) and a massless scalar field (the radion) whose classical equation of motion is Eq. (21). An important point is that, due to the form of the zero mode function (see Eq. (28)), remaining gauge freedom (24) allows transformations

$$b_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(x)b_{\mu \nu }^0(x)=b_{\mu \nu }^0(x)(_\mu \zeta _\nu (x)+_\nu \zeta _\mu (x))$$

of the field $`b_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(x)`$ with $`\zeta _\mu (x)`$ satisfying $`^\mu \zeta _\mu (x)=0`$, $`_\mu ^\mu \zeta _\nu (x)=0`$. This guarantees that the field $`b_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(x)`$ has only two degrees of freedom and, therefore, can indeed be identified with the field of the massless graviton.

It turns out that the five-dimensional gravity, described by effective action (32), looks different, when viewed from different branes. One of the ways to see this property is to consider the interaction of the five-dimensional gravity with matter on the branes. This problem will be addressed in the next section.

## 4 Effective theories on the branes

To begin with let us consider a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ localized on brane $`i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$. Suppose that its dynamics is determined by the standard action with quartic coupling

$$S_{\mathrm{\Phi },i}=_{B_i}𝑑x\sqrt{\gamma (x,y_i)}\left[\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(x,y_i)_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{m^2}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right],$$
(33)
where, as before, $`i=1,2`$ and $`y_1=0`$, $`y_2=R`$. Here we consider the leading approximation in $`\widehat{\kappa }`$, therefore fluctuations $`h_{MN}`$ (see Eq. (6)) are neglected. The induced metric on brane $`i`$ is equal to

$`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\sigma _i}\eta _{\mu \nu },`$ (34)
$`\sigma _1`$ $``$ $`\sigma (0)=0,\sigma _2\sigma (R)=kR.`$
Action (33) can be rewritten as

$$S_{\mathrm{\Phi },i}=_{B_i}𝑑xe^{4\sigma _i}\left[\frac{1}{2}e^{2\sigma _i}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{m^2}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right].$$
(35)
The conventional interpretation is obtained by rescaling the field

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)e^{\sigma _i}\mathrm{\Psi }(x)$$

in order to bring the kinetic term to the canonical form. One gets

$$S_{\mathrm{\Phi },i}=_{B_i}𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{1}{2}m^2e^{2\sigma _i}\mathrm{\Psi }^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\mathrm{\Psi }^4\right].$$

The conclusion, derived on the basis of this formula, states that the mass of the field in the effective theory on brane 2 is $`\stackrel{~}{m}=me^{kR}`$. With $`mM_{Pl}`$ and $`kR30÷35`$ the brane mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}1`$TeV, i.e. the TeV-scale is obtained from the Planck scale due to the exponential factor .

However, the induced metric on brane 2, Eq. (34), contains the exponential factor $`e^{2\sigma _2}=e^{2kR}`$ which is exactly of the same origin as the one discussed above, namely it also comes from the warp factor in the background metric, Eq. (4). The coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$ therefore are not Galilean on this brane. As we already mentioned in the Introduction, coordinates are called Galilean if the metric tensor is $`diag(1,1,1,1)`$, see Ref. .

In Ref.  the correct physical mass of a brane field was determined from the asymptotic behavior of the 2-point function expressed in terms of the proper distance. Here we show that the correct interpretation of the effective theory on brane 2 and correct determination of the mass can be achieved simply by changing to the Galilean coordinates

$$x^\mu z^\mu =e^{kR}x^\mu .$$
(36)
In these coordinates the action $`S_{\mathrm{\Phi },2}`$, Eq. (35), is equal to

$$S_{\mathrm{\Phi },2}=_{B_2}𝑑z\left[\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{}{z^\mu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{}{z^\nu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\frac{m^2}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^4\right],$$
(37)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$. Therefore, the brane field on brane 2 has the physical mass equal to its Lagrangian mass $`m`$. In fact, expression (37) is very easy to understand. Indeed, since Eq. (33) is covariant, by changing the coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$ to $`\{z^\mu \}`$ in it we arrive immediately at Eq. (37).

The general form of the interaction of the five-dimensional gravity with matter is given by the following standard expression:

$$\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}_{B_1}h^{\mu \nu }(x,0)T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}𝑑x+\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}_{B_2}h^{\mu \nu }(x,R)T_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\sqrt{det\gamma _{\mu \nu }(R)}𝑑x,$$
(38)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ are the energy-momentum tensors of the matter on brane 1 and brane 2 respectively. Substituting (19) into (38), decomposing $`b_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ according to (27) and rescaling the field $`\varphi `$ as in Eq. (26), we find that the interaction on brane 1 is given by

$$\frac{1}{2}_{B_1}\left[\kappa _1b_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(x)T^{(1)\mu \nu }+\kappa _2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega _n^{(1)}b_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(x)T^{(1)\mu \nu }\frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{3}}\phi T_\mu ^{(1)\mu }\right]𝑑x.$$
(39)
The coupling constants of the zero mode, the radion and the massive KK modes on brane 1 are equal to $`\kappa _1`$, $`\kappa _2\omega _n^{(1)}`$ and $`(\kappa _2/\sqrt{3})`$ respectively, where

$$\kappa _1=\widehat{\kappa }N_0\frac{\sqrt{k}}{M^{3/2}},\kappa _2=\kappa _1e^{kR},\omega _n^{(1)}=\frac{\psi _n(0)}{N_0}e^{kR}.$$
(40)
Here we used relations (30), which also imply that $`\omega _n^{(1)}1`$ for small $`n`$. In particular, $`\omega _n^{(1)}=2.48,3.34,4.00,4.58\mathrm{}`$ for $`n=1,2,3,4,\mathrm{}`$.

Now let us analyze the interaction of the five-dimensional gravity with matter on brane 2. Again, to have the correct interpretation of the effective theory on brane 2 we change the coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$ for the Galilean coordinates $`\{z^\mu \}`$, Eq. (36). In these coordinates the relevant term in Eq. (38) takes the form

$$\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}_{B_2}h_{\mu \nu }^{}(z,R)T_{\rho \sigma }^{(2)}\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \sigma }𝑑z,$$
(41)
where $`T^{(2),\mu \nu }`$ is the canonical energy-momentum tensor of the matter,

$$h_{\mu \nu }^{}(z,R)=e^{2kR}h_{\mu \nu }(x,R),$$

and the prime labels tensors in the coordinates $`\{z^\mu \}`$. From now on the four-dimensional indices will be raised and lowered using the Minkowski metric tensor $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$.

To get the correct couplings we interprete action (32) as the effective action of the bulk graviton fields and radion on brane 2. In Galilean coordinates (36) it becomes

$`S_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(e^{2kR}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^\mu }}b_{\rho \sigma }^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_\mu }}b^{(n),\rho \sigma }+m_n^2b_{\rho \sigma }^{(n)}b^{(n),\rho \sigma })`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2kR}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^\mu }}\phi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_\mu }}\phi ^{}]dz.`$
Rescaling the graviton field and the radion field as

$$b_{\rho \sigma }^{(n)}(z)=e^{kR}u_{\rho \sigma }^{(n)}(z),\phi ^{}(z)=e^{kR}\chi (z)$$
(42)
respectively, we obtain the effective action in the canonical form

$`S_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{z^\mu }}u_{\rho \sigma }^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_\mu }}u^{(n)\rho \sigma }+(m_ne^{kR})^2u_{\rho \sigma }^{(n)}u^{(n)\rho \sigma })`$ (43)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z^\mu }}\chi {\displaystyle \frac{}{z_\mu }}\chi ]dz.`$
We see that the masses of the gravitons as measured by an observer on brane 2 are equal to

$$M_n=m_ne^{kR}=k\beta _n.$$
(44)
Contrary to the case of brane fields described by action (33), the graviton mass spectrum is multiplied by the scale factor $`e^{kR}`$ when we pass from the coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$ to $`\{z^\mu \}`$. The reason is that expression (32) is not covariant, namely the indices are raised with the Minkowski metric whereas the metric in the coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$ is $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }(x,R)=e^{2kR}\eta _{\mu \nu }`$.

We would like to note that in fact relation (44) between the Lagrangian mass and the mass measured by an observer on brane 2 is valid for bulk fields of any tensor structure (see an example in ).

Using Eq. (19) and making the mode decomposition accompanied by rescaling (42) interaction term (41) on brane 2 takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{B_2}}[\widehat{\kappa }e^{kR}\psi _0(R)u_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(z)T^{(2)\mu \nu }+\widehat{\kappa }{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{kR}\psi _n(R)u_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(z)T^{(2)\mu \nu }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k}}{\sqrt{1e^{2kR}}}}\chi T_\mu ^{(2)\mu }]dz`$ (45)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{B_2}}[\kappa _2u_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(z)T^{(2)\mu \nu }\kappa _1{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\omega _n^{(2)}u_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(z)T^{(2)\mu \nu }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _1}{\sqrt{3}}}\chi T_\mu ^{(2)\mu }]dz.`$ (46)
The couplings of the zero mode, massive KK modes and the radion are $`\kappa _2`$, $`(\kappa _1w_n^{(2)})`$ and $`(\kappa _1/\sqrt{3})`$ respectively, where $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ were defined by Eq. (40) and

$`\omega _n^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _n(R)e^{kR}}{N_0}}.`$
Using Eqs. (31) it can be easily checked that $`\omega _n^{(2)}1.0`$ for small $`n`$.

We see that the order of magnitude of the graviton and radion interactions with matter on both branes are set by two parameters. We have chosen them to be $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$, the couplings of the massless graviton to mater on brane 1 and brane 2 respectively. They differ in the exponential factor $`e^{kR}`$ (see Eq. (40)).

Let us discuss the effective models on brane 1 and brane 2. In the conventional and physically interesting scenario it is assumed that our brane is brane 2, whereas brane 1 accommodates a mirror world. To have usual Newton’s gravity mediated by the massless graviton we identify its coupling constant $`\kappa _2`$ with $`1/M_{Pl}`$. Combining Eqs. (29) and (40) we obtain the following relation between the Planck mass and the fundamental mass scale $`M`$ (recall that $`\widehat{\kappa }^2=M^3`$):

$$M_{Pl}^2=\frac{M^3}{k}\left(e^{2kR}1\right)\frac{M^3}{k}e^{2kR}.$$
(47)
By choosing $`Mk1`$TeV we reproduce the correct value of the Planck mass, if the argument of the exponential factor satisfies $`kR30÷35`$. From Eqs. (40), (46) it follows that, as in the standard scenario, the couplings of the massive KK modes and of the massless radion to matter on brane 2 are of order of $`1\text{TeV}^1`$ . The effective Lagrangian (46) can be rewritten in the following form, from which the above features are clearly seen:

$$\frac{1}{2}_{B_2}\left[\frac{1}{M_{Pl}}u_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}(z)T^{(2)\mu \nu }+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\omega _n^{(2)}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi }u_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(z)T^{(2)\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi \sqrt{3}}\chi T_\mu ^{(2)\mu }\right]𝑑z,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =M_{Pl}e^{kR}=\sqrt{M^3/k}1`$TeV and $`M_{Pl}`$ is given by (47). The masses of the KK excitations are given by Eq. (44). For small $`n`$ the masses $`M_nk1\text{TeV}`$. The presence of the massless radion with such coupling leads to some predictions, which are in contradiction with the available high energy physics data. To avoid this problem several mechanisms for generating a mass for the radion were proposed (see, for example, Ref. ).

Now we turn to the analysis of the positive tension mirror brane (brane 1). The coupling $`\kappa _1`$ of the massless graviton is related to the fundamental mass scale $`M`$ and the parameter $`k`$ as

$$\kappa _1^2=\frac{M^3}{k}\left(1e^{2kR}\right).$$

With the parameters defined by physical conditions imposed on brane 2 the coupling of the massless graviton $`\kappa _11/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$, whereas the couplings of the massive gravitons and of the radion to matter turn out to be $`1/M_{Pl}`$.

Suppose for a moment that brane 1 is our brane. In this case we would have to require that $`\kappa _1M_{Pl}^1`$. This can be achieved by taking $`MkM_{Pl}`$ and keeping $`\mathrm{exp}(kR)1`$. Then, from relations (40), we would get that $`\kappa _1\kappa _2`$, i.e. the interactions of the massive KK modes and of the radion field with matter on brane 1 would be much weaker (exponentially suppressed) than that of the massless graviton. Therefore, on brane 1 the radion field would not affect Newton’s gravity, which is determined by the interaction of the massless graviton in (39). The massive KK modes have masses of the order of $`M_{Pl}e^{kR}`$. Thus, such scenario would be phenomenologically acceptable, but not interesting.

## 5 Conclusions and discussion

We presented a consistent Lagrangian description of linearized gravity in the Randall-Sundrum model with two branes paying attention to some issues which were skipped or received little attention in previous publications. In particular, we discussed the gauge freedom and gauge fixing, and carried out the diagonalization of the Lagrangian and decoupling of the classical equations of motion in detail. We also revised the mode expansion of the bulk gravitational field. These enabled us to identify the physical degrees of freedom in the RS1 model and construct the effective Lagrangian. We would like to note that in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ the radion field $`\varphi `$ drops from the Lagrangian, and we get the same degrees of freedom, as found in  for the case of infinite extra dimension.

An important point in our studies is that the five-dimensional gravity looks different when viewed from different branes. This point was stressed and worked out in some papers, see, for example, . Our central observation is that in order to have the correct interpretation of the effective theories on the branes and to calculate the values of masses and coupling constants measured by a brane observer one has to change to the proper (Galilean) coordinates. We showed that contrary to the conventional interpretation the measured masses of brane fields coincide with the Lagrangian mass (see Eq. (37)). The masses of bulk fields measured on the brane at $`y=R`$ acquire the enhancing exponential factor comparing to the Lagrangian masses, see Eq. (44). As we have mentioned in the Introduction, in Ref.  these mass relations were obtained from the analysis of the 2-point Green functions. We also derived the relation between the Planck mass and the fundamental scale of the five-dimensional gravity, Eq. (47), which differs from the conventional one.

As a matter of fact, instead of choosing the Galiliean coordinates for description of the effective theory on brane 2 only, one can introduce global five-dimensional coordinates $`\{z^\mu ,y\}`$, for which the warp factor on brane 2 is equal to 1, i.e. $`\{z^\mu \}`$ are Galilean coordinates on brane 2. This alternative description was used in Ref.  for derivation of relation (47). All conclusions concerning the physical content of theories on brane 1 and brane 2, obtained there, coincide with ours.

Our expression for the Lagrangian of the effective four-dimensional theory on brane 2 in the physical (Galilean) coordinates, given by (43), (46), differs from the one usually discussed in the literature (see, for example, Refs. ). In particular, we get $`Mk1`$TeV, whereas in the above mentioned papers one needs $`MkM_{Pl}`$. In our case, according to Eq. (44) the spacings between masses in the spectrum are $`kR^1`$, similar to the usual Kaluza-Klein theories with direct product topology of the space-time. If the analysis of the RS model is carried out in non-Galilean coordinates, as it is done in many papers, then the spacings are $`ke^{kR}R^1e^{kR}R^1`$, which is valid only on brane 1.

Essentially, the hierarchy, i.e. the existence of two scales separated by many orders of magnitude, is generated in the same way as in the conventional interpretation. Namely, according to Eq. (47) the scale of five-dimensional theory turns out to be exponentially suppressed with respect to the scale of four-dimensional gravity on brane 2. In fact this possibility was mentioned briefly in Ref.  (see also ). As it can be seen from the first term in Eq. (45), the exponential factor comes from $`e^{kR}\psi _0(R)\sqrt{k}e^{kR}`$, i.e. from the exponential decay of the graviton wave function which is proportional to the warp factor in the background metric.

The relative strengths of interaction of massless and massive gravitons with matter are explained by different rates of the falloff of the wavefunctions of these fields along the fifth direction. Indeed, from Eqs. (45), (46) it follows that

$$\frac{\kappa _2}{\kappa _1\omega _n}=\frac{\psi _0(R)}{\psi _n(R)}e^{kR}.$$

One last remark. Though formulas (40) and (47), expressing the couplings $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ in terms of the parameters $`M`$, $`k`$ and $`R`$ of the model, are different from the ones used in the literature (see ), it is easy to check that the ratios $`\kappa _1/\kappa _2`$ and $`\kappa _1\omega _n^{(2)}/\kappa _2`$ are the same both in physical (Galilean) coordinates $`\{z^\mu \}`$ and in ”non-physical” coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$. For this reason phenomenological predictions obtained in previous papers remain valid.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to G.Yu. Bogoslovsky, Yu.V. Grats and V.A. Rubakov for useful discussions. The work of E.B., Yu.K. and I.V. was supported by RFBR grant 00-01-00704 and the grant 990588 of the programme ”Universities of Russia”. E.B. was supported in part by the CERN-INTAS grant 99-0377 and by the INTAS grant 01-0679. Yu.K. and I.V. were also supported in part by the programme SCOPES (Scientific co-operation between Eastern Europe and Switzerland) of the Swiss National Science Foundation (project No. 7SUPJ062239) and financed by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.