text:
# The role of the field redefinition in noncommutative Maxwell theory

## 1 Introduction

Discussing noncommutative quantum field theories, especially noncommutative gauge field models, one has in principle many possibilities to formulate such models. The traditional approach widely used in many papers, , , , , is based on the fact that noncommutative gauge theory is realized as a theory on the set of ordinary functions by modifying the product of two functions in terms of the $``$-product . The simplest candidate would be a noncommutative counterpart of QED. Due to the noncommutativity also the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ gauge field model (with and without matter) has a non-Abelian structure implying the usual BRST-quantization procedure involving the appearence of $`\varphi \pi `$-ghost fields.

Unfortunately, the perturbative realization of such gauge field models develops unexpected new features: the so called UV/IR mixing emerging from nonplanar graphs. Explicitly, this can be seen by computing one-loop corrections of the vacuum polarization of the photon , . The evaluation of the finite part of the gauge field vacuum polarization shows the existence of singularities in the infrared limit. Those IR-singularities forbid Feynman graph computation of higher loop orders. Presently, one believes that such IR-singularities can perhaps be avoided by an appropriate field redefinition .

A second formulation of noncommutative gauge field models simultaneously incorporates the deformed product and the Seiberg-Witten (SW) map. The SW-map ensures the gauge equivalence between an ordinary gauge field model and its noncommutative counterpart , , , . In this sense it is possible to expand the noncommutative gauge field as series in the ordinary gauge field and the deformation parameter of the noncommutative space-time geometry $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$.

Additionally, one has the possibility to formulate gauge field models on noncommutative spaces via covariant coordinates , , . Also in these approaches the use of the SW-map emerges quite naturally.

The present paper is devoted to study $`U(1)`$ noncommutative Yang-Mills ($`U(1)`$-NCYM) theory in the context of the SW-map for the simplest case allowing only a linear dependence on the deformation parameter $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. The corresponding $`U(1)`$-deformed gauge invariant action has been derived in ,  and recently been used very often to study physical consequences of such a deformed Maxwell theory , , , .

It is remarkable to note that in this simple $`\theta `$-deformed Maxwell theory (in its perturbative realization) at the one-loop level no IR-singularities in the above sense exist , . As is further explained in  a consistent field redefinition (in agreement with the SW-map) allows to add to the gauge field of the $`\theta `$-deformed Maxwell theory further $`\theta `$-dependent and gauge invariant terms. Such additional terms are very useful for studying one-loop corrections of the vacuum polarization of the photon . Since the interaction contains terms linear in $`\theta `$ and trilinear in the Abelian field strength one obtains terms proportional to the square of $`\theta `$ in the corresponding vacuum polarization at the one loop level. However, by redefining the relevant unphysical free parameters of the above mentioned field redefinition one is able to carry out the renormalization procedure in the usual sense at least for this simple case. More recently, it has been argued that the linear $`\theta `$-deformed QED (with the inclusion of fermions) leads to a nonrenormalizable theory  at the one-loop level.

The aim of this paper is to focus on the connection between the above mentioned field redefinition and the so-called BRST-shift symmetry described in , . Especially, we try to explain that the perturbative corrections of the photon self-energy are compatible with the Ward-identity (WI) of the shift symmetry.

The paper is organized as follows: Sec. 2 is concerned with the presentation of the simplest $`\theta `$-deformed Maxwell theory (in terms of the usual Abelian gauge symmetry of the photon field). This is realized by starting with $`U(1)`$-NCYM and using the SW-map to lowest order in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. In a next step one performs a field redefinition in consistency with the SW-map in order to derive the physical consequences leading to the WI for the BRST-shift symmetry.

In order to understand this BRST-shift symmetry we assume the existence of an Abelian gauge invariant action with an appropiate gauge fixing implemented by a multiplier field B:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}[A,B]=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}[A]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{gf}}[B,A].$$
(1)
The description of the shift symmetry is based on the existence of the following redefinition

$$A_\mu =\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu +𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A}),$$
(2)
where the upper index indicates quadratic dependence on $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ which will be needed in the future.

The derivation of the BRST-shift symmetry needs a new type of gauge fixing besides $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{gf}}[B,A]`$. Here we follow ,  adapted for our special case111 In consistency with the formulation of noncommutative gauge field models we use here $``$-products.  by defining:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }^0[A_\mu ,B]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{shift}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{gf}\mathrm{shift}}`$ (3)
$`=\mathrm{\Gamma }^0[A_\mu ,B]+{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y\overline{c}^\mu (x)\frac{\delta \phi _\mu (x)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma (y)}c_\sigma (y)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \left(\phi _\mu A_\mu \right)},`$
where

$$\phi _\mu =\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu +\varphi _\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A}).$$
(4)
The vectorial antighost $`\overline{c}^\mu `$ and ghost field $`c^\mu `$ carry a Faddeev-Popov ghost charge of $`1`$ and $`+1`$, respectively.

Using (2) and (4) one gets

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^0[A_\mu ,B]+d^4x\overline{c}^\mu (x)c_\mu (x)+d^4xd^4y\overline{c}^\mu (x)\frac{\delta \varphi _\mu ^{(2)}(x)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma (y)}c_\sigma (y)\hfill \\ \hfill +d^4x\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \left(\varphi _\mu ^{(2)}𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A})\right).\end{array}$$
(5)
Since $`\varphi _\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A})`$ and $`𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A})`$ are of order $`2`$ in $`\theta `$ no $``$-products are needed. The BRST-shift symmetry is defined as

$$s\overline{c}^\mu =\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ,s\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =c_\mu =s𝔸_\mu ^{(2)},sA_\mu =s\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =sc_\mu =0.$$
(6)
These transformations are manifestly nilpotent. However, eliminating the multiplier field $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ via an algebraic equation of motion yields

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu }=\varphi _\mu ^{(2)}𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A})=0,$$
(7)
and, additionally, from (3) follows

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta A_\mu }=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta A_\mu }\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =0.$$
(8)
This implies for the transformations (6)

$$s\overline{c}^\mu =\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta A_\mu },s\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =c_\mu ,sc_\mu =0.$$
(9)
These equations show explicitly that off-shell nilpotency is lost and that the shift symmetry is no longer linear.

One has to introduce an unquantized external source to describe the nonlinear transformation of $`s\overline{c}^\mu `$. This will be used for the construction of the corresponding WI for the shift symmetry in sec. 2.

## 2 Deformed Maxwell theory—Consequences of the BRST-shift symmetry at the classical level

In order to derive the corresponding $`\theta `$-deformed Maxwell theory one starts with the $`U(1)`$-NCYM model , :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}^{(0)}=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu },$$
(10)
where the field strength in terms of the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ is given by

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu i[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\widehat{A}_\nu ]_M.$$
(11)
The Moyal bracket is defined by

$$[\widehat{A}_\mu ,\widehat{A}_\nu ]_M=\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\mu ,$$
(12)
using the $``$-product

$$A(x)B(x)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu ^\alpha _\nu ^\beta }A(x+\alpha )B(x+\beta )|_{\alpha =\beta =0},$$
(13)
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the deformation parameter of the noncommutative geometry.

The action (10) is invariant under the infinitesimal noncommutative gauge transformation

$$\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu =_\mu \widehat{\lambda }i\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{\lambda }+i\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\lambda }.$$
(14)
It was shown by Seiberg and Witten  that an expansion in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ leads to a map between the noncommutative gauge field $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ and the commutative gauge field $`A_\mu `$ as well as their respective gauge parameters $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ and $`\lambda `$, known as the SW-map. To lowest order in $`\theta `$ one has in the Abelian case , ,

$`\widehat{A}_\mu (A_\mu )`$ $`=A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_\rho \left(_\sigma A_\mu +F_{\sigma \mu }\right)+O(\theta ^2),`$ (15)
$`\widehat{\lambda }(A_\mu ,\lambda )`$ $`=\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }A_\rho _\sigma \lambda +O(\theta ^2).`$
In (15) $`F_{\sigma \mu }`$ is the ordinary Abelian field strength given by

$$F_{\sigma \mu }=_\sigma A_\mu _\mu A_\sigma .$$
(16)
Using (10), (11), (12), (13) and (15) one gets to lowest order in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}=d^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}F_{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)\right)+O(\theta ^2),$$
(17)
which is invariant under the usual Abelian gauge transformation

$$\delta A_\mu =_\mu \lambda .$$
(18)
The action (17) has in its full form, involving all orders of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, infinitely many interactions of infinitely high order in the field. Additionally, since $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ has dimension $`2`$, the model is power-counting nonrenormalizable in the traditional sense.

In order to quantize the model one introduces a Landau gauge fixing

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{gf}}=d^4xB^\mu A_\mu ,$$
(19)
where $`B`$ is the multiplier field implementing the gauge $`^\mu A_\mu =0`$.

Then one establishes the shift symmetry according to , . As is explained in  the relevant field redefinition, compatible with the SW map, takes the following form:

$$A_\mu =\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu +𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A}),$$
(20)
where the upper index again indicates that $`𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A})`$ depends quadraticly on $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. Additionally, $`𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A})`$ is gauge invariant with respect to (18)

$$\delta _\lambda 𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A})=0.$$
(21)
Terms linear in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ are excluded due to the topological nature of the corresponding action.222In  one finds the most general $`𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A})`$.

On the other hand the formula (20) allows the introduction of terms with a quadratic dependence already in the classical action. Such terms are needed for the one-loop renormalization procedure of the vacuum polarization of photons.

In the spirit of ,  one defines now for the deformed Maxwell theory, eq. (17), the corresponding shift-action in the following way, see formula (5)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{shift}}`$ $`={\displaystyle d^4xd^4y\overline{c}^\mu (x)\frac{\delta A_\mu (x)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma (y)}c_\sigma (y)}`$ (22)
$`={\displaystyle d^4x\overline{c}^\mu (x)c_\mu (x)}+{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y\overline{c}^\mu (x)\frac{\delta 𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(x)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma (y)}c_\sigma (y)},`$
where $`\overline{c}^\mu `$ and $`c^\mu `$ are the vectorial shift ghost and antighost fields, respectively. Due to the fact that $`𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}`$ is already of second order in $`\theta `$ one can neglect the stars in the second term of (22).333In (22) we have used $`d^4x\overline{c}^\mu (x)c_\mu (x)=d^4x\overline{c}^\mu (x)c_\mu (x)`$.

Thus, the total action of the model under consideration ready for quantization is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{gf}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{shift}}\hfill \\ \hfill =d^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}F_{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)\right)\\ \hfill +d^4xB^\mu A_\mu +d^4x\overline{c}^\mu (x)c_\mu (x)+d^4xd^4y\overline{c}^\mu (x)\frac{\delta 𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(x)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma (y)}c_\sigma (y).\end{array}$$
(23)
More explicitly, one has

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}=d^4x(\frac{1}{4}(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }4^\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }𝔸^{(2)\nu })\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \rho }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }))+d^4x(B^\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu +B^\mu 𝔸_\mu ^{(2)})\\ \hfill +d^4x\overline{c}^\mu (x)c_\mu (x)+d^4xd^4y\overline{c}^\mu (x)\frac{\delta 𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(x)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma (y)}c_\sigma (y),\end{array}$$
(24)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the usual Abelian field strength in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\beta `$.

From eq. (9) the BRST-shift symmetry of the action (24) is given by

$`s\overline{c}^\tau `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta A_\tau }}|_{A_\mu =\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu +𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{A})}`$ (25)
$`=_\mu F^{\mu \tau }++\theta ^{\tau \sigma }_\mu (F_{\nu \sigma }F^{\mu \nu })\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho (F_{\nu \sigma }F^{\tau \nu })+\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\mu (F_\rho ^\mu F_\sigma ^\tau )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \tau }_\rho \left(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\mu \left(F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\mu \tau }\right)^\tau B`$
$`=_\mu (\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \tau }+^\mu 𝔸^{(2)\tau }^\tau 𝔸^{(2)\mu })+\theta ^{\tau \sigma }_\mu (\stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho (\stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\tau \nu })`$
$`+\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\mu (\stackrel{~}{F}_\rho ^\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_\sigma ^\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \tau }_\rho \left(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \tau }\right)^\tau B`$
$`=:_\mu (\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \tau }+^\mu 𝔸^{(2)\tau }^\tau 𝔸^{(2)\mu })^\tau B+^{(1)\tau }(\stackrel{~}{A}),`$
$`s\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$ $`=c_\mu ,`$
$`sc_\mu `$ $`=sB=0,`$
where

$`^{(1)\tau }(\stackrel{~}{A}):=\theta ^{\tau \sigma }_\mu (\stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\rho (\stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\tau \nu })+\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\mu (\stackrel{~}{F}_\rho ^\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_\sigma ^\tau )`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\rho \tau }_\rho \left(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \tau }\right).`$
One has to comment at this point that the BRST-shift symmetry for the vectorial antighost field $`\overline{c}^\mu `$ is highly nonlinear. Additionally, as is explained in the introduction, the off-shell nilpotency is also lost:

$$s^2\overline{c}^\mu 0.$$
(27)
Since the transformation of the antighost field $`\overline{c}^\mu `$ contains nonlinear expressions one must introduce an external unquantized source $`\rho _\mu `$ for the term $`^{(1)\mu }(\stackrel{~}{A})`$. This implies a further piece in the action (21)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ext}=d^4x\rho _\mu ^{(1)\mu }(\stackrel{~}{A}),$$
(28)
where $`\rho _\mu `$ is gauge invariant.

The new total action becomes therefore

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle }d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }4^\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }𝔸^{(2)\nu })`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \rho }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }))+{\displaystyle }d^4x(B^\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu +B^\mu 𝔸_\mu ^{(2)})`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^4x\overline{c}^\mu (x)c_\sigma (x)}+{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y\overline{c}^\mu (x)\frac{\delta 𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(x)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma (y)}c_\sigma (y)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^4x\rho _\mu ^{(1)\mu }(\stackrel{~}{A})}.`$
Now we are able to characterize the symmetry content of the BRST-shift symmetry by the following nonlinear WI:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒮(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)})=\hfill \\ \hfill d^4x\left(\left(_\rho (\stackrel{~}{F}^{\rho \mu }+^\rho 𝔸^{(2)\mu }^\mu 𝔸^{(2)\rho })^\mu B+\frac{\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta \rho ^\mu }\right)\frac{\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta \overline{c}^\mu }+c_\mu \frac{\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu }\right)=0.\end{array}$$
(30)
Eq. (30) will be the key for the understanding of the radiative corrections of the 2-point vertex-functional at the one-loop-level .

Additionally, our model is also characterized by the gauge symmetry (18) with

$$\delta _\lambda \overline{c}^\mu =\delta _\lambda c^\mu =\delta _\lambda B=0.$$
(31)
This ordinary gauge invariance is described by the following WI operator

$$W_\lambda =d^4x_\mu \lambda \frac{\delta }{\delta A_\mu (x)}$$
(32)
and, as usual, the gauge symmetry is broken by the gauge fixing. This leads to

$$W_\lambda \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}=d^4xB\mathrm{}\lambda 0.$$
(33)
By functional differentiation with respect to $`\lambda (y)`$ one obtains the local version of (33)

$$W(x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}=_\mu \frac{\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)}=\mathrm{}B(x)0.$$
(34)
Due to the fact that this breaking is linear in the quantum field B, there do not arise any problems for the discussion of the gauge symmetry at higher orders of perturbation theory , .

We would like to point out that our model is characterized by two symmetries at the classical level: the gauge symmetry and the BRST-shift symmetry. This implies the existence of two WI’s, (30) and (33). These WI’s have severe consequences for the computation of the 2-point vertex functional.

From eq. (34) follows immediately the well-known transversality condition

$$_x^\mu \frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu (x)\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\rho (y)}|_0=0,$$
(35)
where the subscript indicates vanishing classical fields. However, the WI (30) furnishes a further possibility to calculate

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \rho }=\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu (x)\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\rho (y)}|_0.$$
(36)
The result obtained by direct calculation (functional variation) must be consistent with the result emerging from the WI (30).

However, one has to stress that all considerations done in this section are purely classical—i. e. in the tree approximation.

Therefore, one has to study the consequences of (30). Functional differentiation with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{A}^\rho (z)`$ and $`c_\mu (y)`$ of $`𝒮(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)})`$ gives:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta c^\mu (y)\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\rho (z)}𝒮(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)})|_0=\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\mathrm{}g_{\rho \sigma }_\rho _\sigma \right)(z)\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta c^\mu (y)\delta \overline{c}_\sigma (z)}|_0+\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\rho (z)\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu (y)}|_0\\ \hfill +d^4x\frac{\delta 𝔸^{(2)\lambda }(x)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\rho (z)}\left(\mathrm{}g_{\lambda \sigma }_\lambda _\sigma \right)(x)\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta c^\mu (x)\delta \overline{c}_\sigma (z)}|_0=0.\end{array}$$
(37)
From (29) one gets additionally

$$\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta c^\mu (y)\delta \overline{c}_\sigma (z)}|_0=\delta _\mu ^\sigma \delta (yz)+\frac{\delta 𝔸_\sigma ^{(2)}(z)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu (y)}.$$
(38)
At order $`\theta ^2`$ one has therefore

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\rho (z)\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu (y)}|_0=\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\mathrm{}g_{\rho \mu }_\rho _\mu \right)(z)\delta (yz)\left(\mathrm{}g_{\rho \sigma }_\rho _\sigma \right)(z)\frac{\delta 𝔸^{(2)\sigma }(z)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu (y)}\\ \hfill \left(\mathrm{}g_{\lambda \mu }_\lambda _\mu \right)(y)\frac{\delta 𝔸^{(2)\lambda }(y)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\rho (z)}.\end{array}$$
(39)
The result (39) is fully transversal—a consequence of the gauge symmetry. Since $`𝔸^{(2)\mu }`$ is of order $`\theta ^2`$, (39) yields the well known result for the 2-point free vertex functional for $`\theta ^{\rho \sigma }=0`$

$$\frac{\delta ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\rho (z)\delta \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu (y)}|_0=\left(\mathrm{}g_{\rho \mu }_\rho _\mu \right)(z)\delta (yz).$$
(40)
In the tree approximation there only exists a linear dependence on $`\theta ^{\rho \sigma }`$—therefore $`𝔸^{(2)\mu }`$ is not needed in the action,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}`$ $`={\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\left(F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}F_{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^4xB^\mu A_\mu },`$ (41)
which is needed to calculate eq. (40).

The additional terms proportional to $`\frac{\delta 𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}(x)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma (y)}`$ in (39) become useful if one considers one-loop corrections.

The result (39) is easily reproduced by direct twofold functional derivation of the action (29) with respect to the gauge field $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)`$.

## 3 $`\theta `$-deformed Maxwell theory: one-loop corrections

If one considers only the photon sector of the noncommutative Maxwell theory the relevant action444 Here, the vectorial ghost, the antighost, the $`B`$ field and the external sources are assumed to be zero.  is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+{\displaystyle d^4x_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }𝔸_\nu ^{(2)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle }d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }4^\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }𝔸^{(2)\nu })`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }(\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \rho }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })),`$ (42)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ denotes terms of order 0 and 1 in $`\theta `$. Eq. (3) follows from (29). In order to compensate the one-loop selfenergy corrections one needs the explicit form of $`𝔸_\nu ^{(2)}`$  :

$`𝔸_\mu ^{(2)}`$ $`=\kappa _1^{(2)}g^{\alpha \gamma }g^{\beta \delta }g^{\lambda \rho }g^{\sigma \tau }\theta _{\alpha \beta }\theta _{\gamma \delta }_\lambda _\rho _\sigma \stackrel{~}{F}_{\tau \mu }`$
$`+\kappa _2^{(2)}g^{\alpha \gamma }g^{\beta \lambda }g^{\delta \rho }g^{\sigma \tau }\theta _{\alpha \beta }\theta _{\gamma \delta }_\lambda _\rho _\sigma \stackrel{~}{F}_{\tau \mu }`$
$`+\kappa _3^{(2)}g^{\beta \sigma }g^{\gamma \tau }g^{\alpha \lambda }g^{\delta \rho }\theta _{\mu \beta }\theta _{\gamma \delta }_\alpha _\lambda _\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_{\sigma \tau }`$
$`+\kappa _4^{(2)}g^{\gamma \tau }g^{\beta \delta }g^{\alpha \lambda }g^{\rho \sigma }\theta _{\mu \beta }\theta _{\gamma \delta }_\alpha _\lambda _\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_{\sigma \tau },`$ (43)
which is gauge invariant.

Inserting (3) into (3) one gets for the terms quadratic in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+d^4x\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ((g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}^\mu ^\nu )(\kappa _1^{(2)}\theta ^2\mathrm{}^2+\kappa _2^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \hfill +\kappa _3^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{}^\mu \stackrel{~}{}^\nu \mathrm{}^2+\kappa _4^{(2)}(\theta ^{\mu \alpha }\theta _\alpha ^\nu \mathrm{}^3+(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{}}^\mu ^\nu +\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{}}^\nu ^\mu )\mathrm{}^2+^\mu ^\nu \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{}))\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ,\end{array}$$
(44)
where $`\mathrm{}=^\alpha _\alpha `$, $`\stackrel{~}{}^\alpha =\theta ^{\alpha \beta }_\beta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{}}^\alpha =\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{}_\beta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}=\stackrel{~}{}^\alpha \stackrel{~}{}_\alpha `$ and $`\theta ^2=\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta _{\alpha \beta }`$.

With the help of (3) one verifies by direct calculation that (44) and (39) are consistent.

At the one-loop level this means that the shift symmetry controls the radiative corrections of the perturbative calculation.

In order to cancel the one-loop divergences one performs the following renormalization of $`\kappa _1^{(2)}`$, $`\kappa _2^{(2)}`$, $`\kappa _3^{(2)}`$ and $`\kappa _4^{(2)}`$ :

$`\kappa _1^{(2)}`$ $`\kappa _1^{(2)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{(4\pi )^2ϵ}},`$ $`\kappa _2^{(2)}`$ $`\kappa _2^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{20}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{(4\pi )^2ϵ}},`$ (45)
$`\kappa _3^{(2)}`$ $`\kappa _3^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{60}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{(4\pi )^2ϵ}},`$ $`\kappa _4^{(2)}`$ $`\kappa _4^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{(4\pi )^2ϵ}}.`$
However, one has to stress that (45) represent unphysical renormalizations because the $`\kappa _i^{(2)}`$ parametrize the field redefinition (2) and (20).

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper we have demonstrated the usefulness of the BRST-shift symmetry in connection with the renormalization program of the vacuum polarization of the $`\theta `$-deformed Maxwell theory at the one-loop level. Gauge symmetry and BRST-shift symmetry can be implemented consistently. Unfortunately the non-Abelian extension is plagued by several difficulties.


format: text

text:
# Mechanisms of spin-polarized current-driven magnetization switching

## Abstract

The mechanisms of the magnetization switching of magnetic multilayers driven by a current are studied by including exchange interaction between local moments and spin accumulation of conduction electrons. It is found that this exchange interaction leads to two additional terms in the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation: an effective field and a spin torque. Both terms are proportional to the transverse spin accumulation and have comparable magnitudes.

The concept of switching the orientation of a magnetic layer of a multilayered structure by the current perpendicular to the layers was introduced by Slonczewski and Berger , and has been followed up by Waintal et al.. The central idea is that for a noncollinear configuration of the moments of the magnetic layer the current induces a torque acting on the spins of the conduction electrons which in turn transmit this torque to the background magnetization of the magnetic layers through the exchange interaction between conduction electrons and the local “d” electrons. An alternate mechanism of current induced switching was put forth by Heide et al  in which the current across the magnetically inhomogeneous multilayer produces spin accumulation which establishes an energy preference for a parallel or antiparallel alignment of the moments of the magnetic layers; this magnetic “coupling” was posited to produce switching. Recent experiments have reliably demonstrated that the magnetization of a magnetic layered structure is indeed switched back and forth by an applied current . However, it is unclear whether the magnetization switching is triggered by the current-driven effective field or by the spin torque mechanism or both.

Here we examine the two views of current induced switching, spin torque and effective field, by solving the equations of motion for the spin accumulation and the local magnetization. We find the two mechanisms do coexist; albeit in form very different from that envisaged by the above referenced authors. The salient difference between our treatment of spin diffusion and previous treatments , lies in the inclusion of the exchange interaction between the spin accumulation and the magnetic background. With our results, we can understand these two mechanisms on an equal footing: both are simultaneously derived and both depend on the same set of parameters used for understanding the giant magnetoresistance when the current is perpendicular to the plane of the layers (CPP). Furthermore, we have introduced a new length scale for the transverse spin accumulation and clarified the ferromagnetic layer thickness dependence of the switching dynamics.

Let us consider a magnetic multilayer with the current perpendicular to the plane of the layer (defined as $`x`$-direction). The linear response of the current to the electrical field can be written as a spinor form,

$$\widehat{ȷ}(x)=\widehat{C}E(x)\widehat{D}\frac{\widehat{n}}{x},$$
(1)
where $`E(x)`$ is the electric field, $`\widehat{ȷ}`$, $`\widehat{C}`$, $`\widehat{D}`$, and $`\widehat{n}`$ are the $`2\times 2`$ matrices representing the current, the conductivity, the diffusion constant, and the accumulation at a given position. The diffusion constant and the conductivity are related via the Einstein relation $`\widehat{C}=e^2\widehat{N}(ϵ_F)\widehat{D}`$ for a degenerate metal, where $`\widehat{N}(ϵ_F)`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level. In general, one can express these matrices in terms of the Pauli spin matrix $`𝝈`$,

$$\widehat{C}=C_0\widehat{I}+𝝈𝐂,$$
(2)
$$\widehat{D}=D_0\widehat{I}+𝝈𝐃,$$
(3)
and

$$\widehat{n}=n_0\widehat{I}+𝝈𝐦,$$
(4)
where $`2n_0`$ is the charge accumulation and $`𝐦`$ is the spin accumulation. By placing Eqs. (2)-(4) into (1), we rewrite the linear response in terms of the electric current $`j_e`$ and magnetization current $`𝐣_m`$ as

$$j_e\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{ȷ})=2C_0E(x)2D_0\frac{n_0}{x}2𝐃\frac{𝐦}{x},$$
(5)
and

$$𝐣_m=\mathrm{ReTr}(𝝈\widehat{ȷ})=2𝐂E(x)2𝐃\frac{n_0}{x}2D_0\frac{𝐦}{x}.$$
(6)
It is noted that we have chosen the unit $`e=\mu _B=1`$ for the notation convenience so that the electrical current and the magnetization current have the same unit. For a transition ferromagnet, one defines the spin polarization parameter $`\beta `$ as $`𝐂=\beta C_0𝐌_d`$, where $`𝐌_d`$ is the unit vector to represent the direction of the local magnetization. Similarly, we can introduce a spin polarization $`\beta ^{}`$ for the diffusion constant $`𝐃=\beta ^{}D_0𝐌_d`$. These two polarization parameters are not necessarily the same, i.e., when the density of states are different for spin up and down electrons, $`\beta \beta ^{}`$. By inserting these relations into Eqs. (5) and (6), and eliminating the electric field and charge density, we obtain

$$𝐣_m=\beta j_e𝐌_d2D_0\left[\frac{𝐦}{x}\beta \beta ^{}𝐌_d(𝐌_d\frac{𝐦}{x})\right],$$
(7)
where we have dropped an uninteresting term proportional to the derivative of the charge accumulation $`n_0/x.`$ This result is similar to that obtained by Heide .

We now describe the equations of motion for the spin accumulation and local magnetization when we turn on the interaction between the spin accumulation and the local moment via the sd contact interaction,

$$H_{int}=J𝐦𝐌_d.$$
(8)
With this interaction, the equation of motion for the spin accumulation is

$$\frac{d𝐦}{dt}+(J/\mathrm{})𝐦\times 𝐌_d=\frac{𝐦}{\tau _{sf}},$$
(9)
where $`\tau _{sf}`$ is the spin-flip relaxation time of the conduction electron. The second term on the left hand side represents the processional motion of the accumulation due to the sd interaction when the magnetization directions of the spin accumulation and the local moments are not parallel. Since the conduction electrons carry a spin current given by Eq. (7), we replace $`\frac{d𝐦}{dt}`$ by $`\frac{𝐦}{t}+\frac{𝐣_m}{x}`$. By using Eq. (7), we find

$$\frac{1}{2D_0}\frac{𝐦}{t}=\frac{^2𝐦}{x^2}\beta \beta ^{}𝐌_d\left(𝐌_d\frac{^2𝐦}{x^2}\right)\frac{𝐦}{\lambda _{sf}^2}\frac{𝐦\times 𝐌_d}{\lambda _J^2},$$
(10)
where we have defined $`\lambda _{sf}\sqrt{2D_0\tau _{sf}}`$ and $`\lambda _J\sqrt{2\mathrm{}D_0/J}`$ . The latter gives rise to a new length scale which governs the spin torque created by the current. The significance of this new length scale will be discussed later.

The equation of motion for the local magnetization is

$$\frac{d𝐌_d}{dt}=\gamma _0𝐌_d\times (𝐇_e+J𝐦)+\alpha 𝐌_d\times \frac{d𝐌_d}{dt},$$
(11)
where $`\gamma _0`$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $`𝐇_e`$ is the magnetic field including the contributions from the external field, anisotropy and magnetostatic field, the additional effective field $`J𝐦`$ is due to coupling between the local moment and the spin accumulation, and the last term is the Gilbert damping term.

To solve for the dynamics of the spin accumulation and the local moment, we need to simultaneously determine them using Eqs. (10) and (11). The time scales are very different for the spin accumulation and the local moments. The characteristic time scales of the former are of the order of $`\tau _{sf}`$ and $`\mathrm{}/J`$, see Eq. (9), i.e., of the order of picoseconds ($`10^{12}`$ seconds). For the local moment, the time scale is $`\gamma _0^1(H_e+Jm_{})^1`$. For a magnetic field of the order of 0.1 Tesla, this time scale is of the order of nanoseconds. Therefore, as long as one is interested in the magnetization process of the local moments, one can always treat the spin accumulation in the limit of long times. The two dynamic equations are then simply decoupled: we first solves Eq. (10) with fixed local moments (independent of time) and set the left hand side of Eq. (10) to zero. Once the spin accumulation is obtained, we substitute it into Eq. (11) to solve the dynamics of the local moments.

Before we proceed to solve for the stationary solution of Eq. (10), let us first discuss the general features derived from Eq. (10). We separate the spin accumulation into longitudinal (parallel to the local moment) and transverse (perpendicular to the local moment) modes. Equation (10) can now be written as

$$\frac{^2𝐦_{||}}{x^2}\frac{𝐦_{||}}{\lambda _{sdl}^2}=0,$$
(12)
where $`\lambda _{sdl}=\sqrt{1\beta \beta ^{}}\lambda _{sf}`$, and

$$\frac{^2𝐦_{}}{x^2}\frac{𝐦_{}}{\lambda _{sf}^2}\frac{𝐦_{}\times 𝐌_d}{\lambda _J^2}=0.$$
(13)
The longitudinal spin accumulation $`𝐦_{||}`$ decays at the length scale of the spin diffusion length $`\lambda _{sdl}`$ while the transverse spin accumulation $`𝐦_{}`$ decays as $`\lambda _J`$. The spin diffusion length $`\lambda _{sdl}`$ has been measured to be about 60nm in Co . We estimate $`\lambda _J`$ by taking the typical diffusion constant of a metal to be $`10^3`$ (m2/s) and $`J=0.10.4`$ (eV) so that $`\lambda _J`$ is about 1.2 nm to 2.4 nm. Thus, the transverse spin accumulation has a much shorter length scale compared to the longitudinal one.

Before we apply Eqs. (12) and (13) to a multilayer structure, we take a look at the influence of the spin accumulation on the local moment. As seen from Eq. (11), the longitudinal spin accumulation has no effect on the local moment. We may re-write Eq. (11) in terms of the transverse spin accumulation only,

$$\frac{d𝐌_d}{dt}=\gamma _0𝐌_d\times (𝐇_e+J𝐦_{})+\alpha 𝐌_d\times \frac{d𝐌_d}{dt}.$$
(14)
To discuss the transverse accumulation we introduce a vector $`A`$ such that $`J𝐦_{}=𝐀\times 𝐌_d`$. If one considers a system with two ferromagnetic layers whose magnetization directions are not parallel to each other, the spin accumulation at one layer depends on the orientation of the other. Let us suppose that the above equation is used for the layer F1, i.e., denote $`𝐌_d=𝐌_d^{(1)}`$. The magnetization of the other layer is labeled as $`𝐌_d^{(2)}.`$ Without loss of generality, we can write the two components of the accumulation in the plane transverse to $`𝐌_d^{(1)}`$ as $`J𝐦_{}=a𝐌_d^{(2)}\times 𝐌_d^{(1)}+b(𝐌_d^{(1)}\times 𝐌_d^{(2)})\times 𝐌_d^{(1)}`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are determined by geometric details of the multilayer. Placing this into Eq. (14), we find

$$\frac{d𝐌_d^{(1)}}{dt}=\gamma _0𝐌_d^{(1)}\times (𝐇_e+b𝐌_d^{(2)})\gamma _0a𝐌_d^{(1)}\times (𝐌_d^{(2)}\times 𝐌_d^{(1)})+\alpha 𝐌_d^{(1)}\times \frac{d𝐌_d^{(1)}}{dt}.$$
(15)
Thus the transverse spin accumulation produces two effects simultaneously ( one can call them either fields or torques): one is $`b𝐌_d^{(2)}`$ the “effective field” which gives rise to a precessional motion and the other is $`a𝐌_d^{(1)}\times (𝐌_d^{(2)}\times 𝐌_d^{(1)})`$ which is called the “spin torque”. Both terms lead to significant corrections to the original Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation. It has been shown that both terms are capable to switch the magnetic moments . Note the effective field introduced here looks as if it arises from the current induced coupling named NEXI, however it is different as NEXI was attributed to the longitudinal component of the spin accumulation . In contrast we have shown that only the transverse spin accumulation must be taken into account and that the longitudinal accumulation does not produce any effect on the motion of local moments. An even more striking difference is Heide’s finding that “the presence of a second ferromagnetic layer is not necessary”. This is because his longitudinal accumulation exists for a single F layer, while a second F layer with tilted magnetization is required for transverse accumulation and for our mechanism. It is notable that the “torque” term, first introduced by J. Slonczewski, appears on an equal footing with the effective field $`b𝐌_d^{(2)}`$ as both are related to the transverse spin accumulation.

We now explicitly verify that the solution of the transverse accumulation $`𝐦_{}`$ indeed has our proposed general form and we quantitatively determine the magnitude of the effective field (proportional to $`b`$ term) and the “ spin torque” (proportional to $`a`$ term) entering Eq. (15). To obtain a physically transparent solution of the spin accumulation, we choose an oversimplified case to perform our calculation so that the effective field and spin torque can be analytically derived. We consider a system consisting of a very thick ferromagnetic layer which is assumed to be pinned, a spacer layer which is infinitely thin so that the spin current is conserved across the layer when there is no spin flip scattering in this region, and a thin ferromagnetic layer backed by an ideal paramagnetic layer. In addition we make our calculation simpler by neglecting spin-dependent reflection at the interfaces. In such a system, we look for the solution of the spin accumulation in the thin F1 layer whose magnetization direction is at the positive $`z`$-direction. The magnetization direction of the pinned layer is $`𝐌_d^{(2)}=\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝐞_z\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝐞_y`$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐌_d^{(2)}`$ and $`𝐌_d^{(1)}=𝐞_z`$. From Eqs. (12) and (13), and by assuming the same $`\lambda _{sdl}`$ for the thin magnetic layer, F1, as for the non-magnetic layer which backs it, we write the solution for the F1 layer as

$$m_z(x)=G_1\mathrm{exp}(x/\lambda _{sdl})$$
(16)
$$m_x(x)=G_2\mathrm{exp}(x/l_+)+G_3\mathrm{exp}(x/l_{})$$
(17)
$$m_y(x)=iG_2\mathrm{exp}(x/l_+)+iG_3\mathrm{exp}(x/l_{})$$
(18)
where $`l_{}^1=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\lambda _{sf}^2}\pm \frac{i}{\lambda _J^2}}`$. To determine the constants of integration, we assume the thick magnetic layer F2 is half metallic so that the current is fully spin polarized and we demand that the spin current is continuous across $`F2/N/F1`$ interface ; we find

$$\beta j_e2D_0(1\beta \beta ^{})\left(\frac{G_1}{\lambda _{sdl}}\right)=j_e\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(19)
$$2D_0\left(\frac{G_2}{l_+}+\frac{G_3}{l_{}}\right)=0,$$
(20)
and

$$2D_0(i)\left(\frac{G_2}{l_+}+\frac{G_3}{l_{}}\right)=j_e\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(21)
Thus we determine the constants to be

$$G_1=\frac{j_e\lambda _{sdl}(\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )}{2D_0(1\beta \beta ^{})},$$
(22)
$$G_2=\frac{j_el_+\mathrm{sin}\theta }{4iD_0},$$
(23)
and

$$G_3=\frac{j_el_{}\mathrm{sin}\theta }{4iD_0}.$$
(24)
Therefore, we find the transverse spin accumulation

$$𝐦_{}=\left(\frac{j_e}{2D_0}\right)[\mathrm{Im}(l_+e^{x/l_+})𝐌_d^{(2)}+\mathrm{Re}(l_+e^{x/l_+})𝐌_d^{(2)}\times 𝐌_d^{(1)})]\times 𝐌_d^{(1)}$$
(25)
where we have used $`\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝐞_x=𝐌_d^{(2)}\times 𝐌_d^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝐞_y=(𝐌_d^{(2)}\times 𝐌_d^{(1)})\times 𝐌_d^{(1)}`$. We immediately see that the form of the spin accumulation given above is precisely the form we used in deriving Eq. (15). To obtain the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ entering Eq. (15) we average this spin accumulation over $`0xt_F`$ where $`t_F`$ is the thickness of the F1 layer and find

$$a=\frac{Jj_e}{2D_0t_F}\mathrm{Im}[l_+^2(1e^{t_F/l_+})]$$
(26)
and

$$b=\frac{Jj_e}{2D_0t_F}\mathrm{Re}[l_+^2(1e^{t_F/l_+})],$$
(27)
It is noted that both $`a`$ and $`b`$ change sign under time reversal. The former agrees with that found in ; while the latter has not been considered by these authors. To estimate $`a`$ and $`b`$, we take the limit $`\lambda _{sf}\lambda _J`$ in which case $`l_+=(1+i)\lambda _J/\sqrt{2}`$. By placing this into Eqs. (26) and (27), we find

$$a=\frac{\mathrm{}j_ea_0^3}{\sqrt{2}e\mu _B\lambda _J}\left(\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\xi e^\xi }{\xi }\right)$$
(28)
and

$$b=\frac{\mathrm{}j_ea_0^3}{\sqrt{2}e\mu _B\lambda _J}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi e^\xi }{\xi }\right)$$
(29)
where $`\xi =t_F/(\sqrt{2}\lambda _J)`$, $`a_0`$ is the lattice constant, and we have reinserted the electric charge and Bohr magneton so that $`a`$ and $`b`$ have units of a magnetic field. If we take $`\lambda _J=20`$ Å, $`a_0=2`$Å, $`j_e=10^{11}A/m^2`$, we find $`a=1056`$ (Oe) and $`b=457`$ (Oe) for a typical experiment with $`t_F=25`$Å.

In conclusion we have found that by considering the exchange forces between the conduction electron spin and the background magnetization for the spin current perpendicular to the layers of a magnetic multilayer there exists the effective field and torque, both of which contribute to current driven reversal of the magnetization. We treat both terms on an equal footing and demonstrate that they have a common origin. Our solution differs in two important aspects from previous work: we find the longitudinal spin accumulation does not play a role in the switching, and the spin torque, as well as the effective field, arises from a region in the magnetic layer within $`\lambda _J`$ of the interface. Therefore, the decay length in our theory is related neither to the phase of the wavefunction , nor to the spin diffusion length as in the effective field concept of switching . We would like to acknowledge our very fruitful conversations with Yaroslaw Bazaliy, Piet Brouwer, Carsten Heide, Henri Jaffres, Barbara Jones, Roger Koch, Iouli Nazarov, Dan Ralph, Andrei Ruckenstein and John Slonczewski. Many of them took place this summer at the Aspen Center for Physics this summer and we gratefully acknowledge its hospitality. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (DMR0076171), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Office of Naval Research (Grant No. N00014-96-1-1207 and Contract No. MDA972-99-C-0009 ).


text:
# 1 Volcano potential of type A

DPNU-02-02

hep-th/0202166

Linearized gravity in flat braneworlds with anisotropic brane tension

Masato ITO 111E-mail address: mito@eken.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp

Department of Physics, Nagoya University, Nagoya, JAPAN 464-8602

## Abstract

We study the four-dimensional gravitational fluctuation on anisotropic brane tension embedded in braneworlds with vanishing bulk cosmological constant. In this setup, warp factors have two types (A and B) and we point out that the two types correspond to positive and negative tension brane, respectively. We show that volcano potential in the model of type A has singularity and the usual Newton’s law is reproduced by the existence of normalizable zero mode. While, in the case of type B, the effective Planck scale is infinite so that there is no normalizable zero mode.

Motivated by the Randall and Sundrum model , the localization of the four-dimensional gravity is widely investigated in the framework of warped braneworlds. In the original Randall-Sundrum braneworld of $`AdS_5`$ with an infinite extra dimension, massless gravity is trapped on the brane and massive gravity has continuous spectrum, consequently, the usual four-dimensional Newton’s law can be seen by observer at large distance scale. Following remarkable development of $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence  that the gravitational theories in $`AdS`$ space are dual to conformal field theories on the boundary, the Randall-Sundrum model becomes attractive model in particle physics and cosmology. Moreover there have been many proposals to show how four-dimensional gravity emerges in warped braneworld with infinite extra dimensions . For example, the cases of $`dS_4`$ brane and $`AdS_4`$ brane embedded in $`AdS_5`$ are investigated in detail . In the case of $`dS_4`$ brane, a massless bound state gravity exists. While in the case of $`AdS_4`$ brane, the massless bound state gravity don’t exist and massive gravity has discrete spectrum because the volcano potential blows up at the boundary as if box-like potential. Thus the behavior of gravity is governed by the volcano potential in Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation for gravitational fluctuation.

In this letter, we consider the braneworlds with vanishing cosmological constant in contrast with the Randall-Sundrum model with negative bulk cosmological contrast. We study the fluctuation of gravity on the brane with anisotropic brane tension embedded in this braneworld, and show whether the usual Newton’s law is reproduced or not by investigating the volcano potential of this setup.

We consider a single $`(3+n)`$-brane embedded in the $`(5+n)`$-dimensional world. The brane is located at $`y=0`$, where the $`y`$-direction is assumed to have $`Z_2`$ symmetry. Here the ansatz for $`(5+n)`$-dimensional metric is written in the following form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`a^2(y)\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +c^2(y){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}dz_i^2+dy^2`$ (1)
$``$ $`g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N.`$
Note that the usual four-dimensional spacetime preserves Poinc$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{a}}`$re invariance and the warp factor of four-dimensional spacetime is different from that of the extra $`n`$ dimensional space. It is assumed that $`z`$-directions are compactified in the same radius $`RM_{\mathrm{pl}}^1`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ is Planck scale. We give Einstein equation of this setup, $`_{MN}\frac{1}{2}g_{MN}=\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{MN}\kappa ^2T_{MN}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the bulk cosmological constant and $`T_{MN}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the brane, and $`1/\kappa ^2`$ is the higher dimensional gravitational constant which has mass dimension $`3+n`$. Here it is assumed that the distribution of the brane tension of the brane with $`(4+n)`$-dimensional spacetime is anisotropic and that the effects of matters on the brane are neglected . Hence the energy-momentum tensor of brane is given by

$`T_N^M=\delta (y)diag(V,V,V,V,\underset{n}{\underset{}{V^{},\mathrm{},V^{}}},0),`$ (2)
where $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ represent the brane tension of four-dimensional spacetime and the one of extra $`n`$-dimensional space, respectively.

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, solving Einstein equation with metric of Eq.(1), warp factors have two types as follows

$`\mathrm{Type}\mathrm{A}a(y)=\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{|y|}{d}}\right)^k,c(y)=\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{|y|}{d}}\right)^l,`$ (3)
and

$`\mathrm{Type}\mathrm{B}a(y)=\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{|y|}{d}}\right)^k,c(y)=\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{|y|}{d}}\right)^l,`$ (4)
where $`d`$ is the positive constant and the warp factors are normalized to be unity at $`y=0`$. For both types, $`k`$ and $`l`$ must be determined by the following equations

$`4k+nl=1,4k^2+nl^2=1.`$ (5)
Note that the equations for the exponents are closely similar to the Kasner solutions appearing in the higher dimensional cosmology. The jump condition at $`y=0`$ due to the delta-function leads to the relation between brane tensions as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{1k}}={\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{1l}}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa ^2d}},`$ (6)
where $`+`$($``$) corresponds to the type A(B). From the above equation, due to positive constant $`d`$, type A and type B correspond to positive tension branes and negative tension branes, respectively. This situation is similar to the Randall-Sundrum model with single brane because $`(+)`$ in warp factor $`e^{2|y|/\rho }`$ obtained in the model corresponds to positive (negative) tension brane, where $`\rho `$ is the radius of $`AdS`$. From Eq.(6), anisotropic brane tensions are related through the number of $`n`$. Solving Eq.(5), we have

$`k=k_{1,2}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pm \sqrt{n(n+3)}}{2(n+4)}},l=l_{1,2}={\displaystyle \frac{n2\sqrt{n(n+3)}}{n(n+4)}},`$ (7)
where the subscript $`1`$ and $`2`$ correspond to the choice of taking upper sign and lower sign, respectively. Thus the forms of warp factors depend on both $`n`$ and the choice of sign. From Eq.(7), for arbitrary positive integer $`n1`$, always $`k_{1,2}<1`$ and $`l_{1,2}<1`$.

To see the four-dimensional gravity on the brane, the fluctuation around the background metric is given by $`a^2(y)\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$. Here the dependence of $`z`$-directions in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ are neglected. Although the gravity in the bulk has massive KK-modes along $`n`$ compactified $`z`$-directions with Planck size, these dimensions are invisible at low energy. Namely, at large distance, it is considered that the fluctuations of $`z`$-directions are negligible at this stage. Later we discuss this point.

Setting $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=h_{\mu \nu }(x)c^{n/2}(y)\widehat{\psi }(y)`$, the linearized equation of motion for transverse-traceless mode is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dy^2}}\widehat{\psi }(y)+[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{a^2}}8{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}}+4\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}n{\displaystyle \frac{c^{\prime \prime }}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n(n2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{c^{}}{c}}\right)^2`$
$`2\kappa ^2V\delta (y){\displaystyle \frac{}{}}]\widehat{\psi }(y)=0.`$ (8)
Performing the change of variables, $`\widehat{\psi }(y)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u)(1|y|/d)^{k/2}`$ and $`(1|y|/d)^{1k}=1(1k)|u|/d`$, we can obtain familiar non-relativistic quantum mechanics problem as follows,

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}+V(u)\right]\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u)=m^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }(u),`$ (9)
where $`m^2`$ is the four-dimensional mass. The potential $`V(u)`$ in Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation is so-called the volcano potential which can be written in terms of $`k`$ using Eq.(5)

$`V(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{1k}}|u|\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1k}{d}}\delta (u).`$ (10)
Here upper sign (lower sign) corresponds to the type A(B) as shown in Figure.1(2). In the volcano potential of both types, the eigenvalue becomes positive definite value, $`m^20`$. This is because the bulk equation of Eq.(9) is expressed as $`Q^{}Q\stackrel{~}{\psi }=m^2\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, where $`Q=d/du\pm 2^1(d/(1k)u)^1`$.

Thus since there are no tachyon modes, the gravitational background becomes stable. Due to $`k<1`$ for positive integer $`n`$, the delta function of type A becomes potential of attractive force via positive tension brane and the delta function of type B is potential of repulsive force via negative tension brane. In the case of type A shown in Figure.1, the $`u`$ coordinate runs from $`d/(1k)`$ to $`d/(1k)`$, both side of the volcano potential goes negative infinity at $`u=\pm d/(1k)`$. If we take the upper sign in Eq.(7), $`k_1>0`$ and $`l_1<0`$, then $`c\mathrm{}`$ at $`y=\pm d`$ ( this implies that $`u=\pm d/(1k)`$ ). On the other hand, taking the lower sign, $`k_2<0`$ and $`l_2>0`$, $`a\mathrm{}`$ at the point. This implies that the singularity at $`y=d`$ becomes curvature singularity. However, in this case of $`n=1`$, $`k_2=0`$ and $`l_2=1`$, the warped metrics have no singularity. In the case of type B shown in Figure.2, the $`u`$ coordinate runs from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, $`|V(u)|0`$ for $`|u|\mathrm{}`$. For arbitrary $`n`$, the warped metrics have no singularity.

We solve the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation of linearized gravity with volcano potential for type A and B. For zero mode wavefunction, we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0(u)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{1k}}|u|\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (11)
where the jump condition of delta function is imposed. The wavefunction of the type A (upper sign) is normalizable over limited range $`|u|d/(1k)`$. On the other hand, the wavefunction of the type B (lower sign) is non-normalizable because of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0(u)\mathrm{}`$ for $`|u|\mathrm{}`$. Namely, in the case of type B, the normalizable zero mode wavefunction cannot exist. In the case of type A, the normalizable zero mode wavefunction is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1k}{d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{1k}}|u|\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (12)
For massive mode wavefunction $`m^2>0`$, from Eqs.(9) and (10), the wavefunction of the gravity is written in terms of the superposition of Bessel functions as follows,

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_m^{}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`N_m^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{1k}}|u|\right)^{1/2}`$
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{Y_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{md}{1k}}\right)}{J_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{md}{1k}}\right)}}J_0\left(m\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{1k}}|u|\right)\right)+Y_0\left(m\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{1k}}|u|\right)\right)\right\},`$
where upper sign (lower sign) corresponds to the type A(B) and $`N_m^{}`$ is normalization factor, and the jump condition of delta function is imposed. Thus massive modes are continuous, namely, these aren’t bound states. From Eq.(LABEL:eqn13), the normalization factor of type A is expressed as

$`N_m^{}=\left[2{\displaystyle _0^{u_0}}𝑑tt\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{Y_1(mu_0)}{J_1(mu_0)}}J_0(t)+Y_0(t)\right\}^2\right]^{1/2},`$ (14)
where $`u_0=d/(1k)`$. The normalization factor of type B is given by

$`N_m^+={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m}J_1(mu_0)}{\sqrt{J_1^2(mu_0)+Y_1^2(mu_0)}}}.`$ (15)
The difference between the normalization factor of type A and B comes from the range of $`u`$-coordinate.

We are interested in the realization of the four-dimensional Newton’s law in the framework of model considered here. In the type A, the gravitational potential via zero mode is given by $`VG_N/r`$ at large distance scale, where $`G_N\kappa ^2|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0(0)|^2/R^n=\kappa ^2(1k)/(R^nd)`$. The contribution of massive mode gives small correction to the potential, it is given by $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_m^{}(0)|^2e^{mr}/r`$. In the type B, since there is no normalizable zero mode, the effective four-dimensional Planck scale is infinite. Thus the four-dimensional Newton’s law cannot be reproduced.

As mentioned previously, the $`z`$-dependence of wavefunction $`h_{\mu \nu }(x,y)`$ is neglected here. If the $`z`$-dependence is imposed, the wavefunctions of $`z`$-directions $`\phi (z)`$ become plane waves with KK-mode expansion, namely, $`\phi (z)_pe^{ip_jz^j/R}`$, where $`p_j\mathrm{Z}`$ and $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Furthermore, the eigenvalue of Eq.(9) must be replaced in $`m^2m^2+|\stackrel{}{p}|^2/R^2`$, thus the eigenvalues have both continuous modes and discrete KK-modes. Consequently, the volcano potential of Eq.(10) is not modified even if the fluctuations of $`z`$-directions are taken into account. Although the corrections to Newton’s law via massive modes have the contributions of discrete KK-modes, the contributions are sufficiently suppressed at large distance $`rM_{\mathrm{pl}}^1`$.

In conclusion, we considered a single $`(3+n)`$brane embedded in $`(5+n)`$-dimensional world with vanishing cosmological constant. It assumed that the brane has anisotropic brane tension and that the warp factor of four-dimensional spacetime $`a(y)`$ is different from one of $`n`$-dimensional spaces $`c(y)`$. In this setup, warp factors have two types (A and B) and we pointed out that the type A and the type B correspond to the positive tension brane and the negative tension brane, respectively. The volcano potential of the type A has singularity, $`y`$-coordinate is effectively truncated. At this stage we don’t have quantitative to say about the physical implications of this singularity, we will describe it elsewhere. Investigating the linearized gravity around background metric, there is a normalizable zero mode wavefunction, consequently, the usual four-dimensional gravity is reproduced. On the other hand, the volcano potential of type B has no singularity, and it is shown that there is no normalizable zero mode. Since the effective four-dimensional Planck scale is infinite, the usual four-dimensional gravity cannot be reproduced. In contrast with Randall-Sundrum model, we proposed a simple model in which the localization of gravity is realized in braneworld with not $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ but $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the bulk cosmological constant. Thus the setup with warped geometry is completely different from the setup with non-warped geometry Finally we describe a comment. Since the setup considered here doesn’t include the fluctuations of gravity corresponding to all coordinates, four-dimensional tensor structure cannot be explicitly reproduced. Furthermore these fluctuations play an important role in brane stabilization. In the future this point will be investigated elsewhere.