text:
# A systematic study of the radion in the compact Randall-Sundrum model

## I Introduction

The idea that we may live in a world of more than four space-time dimensions is certainly not new , but in recent years it has received a lot of attention because of the observation that the extra compact dimensions need not all be of the order of the Planck length scale. A large extra dimension of the order of a $`(TeV)^1`$  provides an alternate solution to the hierarchy problem (the desert scenario), namely, it explains in a natural manner the large ratio for the Planck scale to the electro-weak scale. There are basically two interesting approaches to solving this problem. The first, due to Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali , is based on the standard Kaluza-Klein approach, where the higher dimensional space is a direct product of the $`4`$ dimensional space-time and a compact manifold. The second, due to Randall and Sundrum (RS) , uses an alternate and interesting scenario, where the higher dimensional space-time is not factorizable.

The simplest RS model can be envisaged as follows. Let us consider a five dimensional space-time manifold, with the extra coordinate taking values on an orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$, with two fixed points, which are chosen to be at, say, $`0`$ and $`\pi `$. At each of the two fixed points of the orbifold, there is a singular source - a $`3`$-brane - which carries a constant, nonzero tension. In addition, a negative five dimensional cosmological constant is also assumed to be present in the bulk, which leads to a five-dimensional metric that is a slice of the AdS space . Since the warp factor turns out to be an exponential function depending on the extra coordinate, the ratio of the values of the warp factor at the two branes, for such a metric, naturally leads to the ratio of the Planck to $`TeV`$ scales without the need for an extremely large extra dimension. We can think of our physical world as described by one of the two branes, conventionally chosen to be the one at $`\pi `$. In the original RS model, the values of the five dimensional cosmological term and the tensions of the two branes are chosen in such a way, that the effective four dimensional cosmological term is zero and the induced metric is just the Minkowski metric. In this model, the physical distance between the two branes is an arbitrary constant $`r_c`$, whose value cannot be determined from the classical analysis. The stabilization of the size of the extra dimension requires additional mechanisms . Even when the five dimensional cosmological constant and the brane tensions are not fine tuned to cancel (as is the case in the original RS model), it was shown in  that the model admits solutions with induced metrics of dS or AdS type. In such a case, the distance between the two branes can be determined in terms of the parameters of the model.

The classical solutions of the RS model, as discussed above, correspond only to the vacuum sector of the theory when there is no matter present. One can, of course, add matter to the theory, which is assumed to be located on the physical brane. In principle, one can also add bulk matter. In addition, one can also analyze the fluctuations of the five dimensional gravity around the vacuum solution, as well as the fluctuation of the distance between the branes. In this paper, we will not consider the inclusion of matter, and will investigate only the contributions arising from the fluctuations of the metric and the geometry. To fix the terminology, let us note that the four dimensional scalar field, which describes the distance between the two branes, is called the radion. The vacuum expectation value of this field is expected to determine the constant $`r_c`$, although we will not worry about the mechanism that leads to this vacuum expectation value. The radion was first introduced in , where fluctuations of gravity and the radion were simply added to the vacuum values of the metric and $`r_c`$ respectively. Although this is quite natural and is standard in quantum field theory, it was later pointed out in  that the ansatz of  does not solve the linearized Einstein equations. Instead, the authors of  used an alternate form of the metric, that is correct to linear order in the radion fluctuations.

The inclusion of the radion field was of great importance in the construction of the supersymmetric version of the RS model , where the bosonic sector of the theory, in addition to other fields, contains the radion and the graviton (but not its KK tower) to all orders in these fields. The ansatz used in  coincides to linear order with that of , while that in  corresponds to . The two papers contain similar results, which are valid up to second order in the space-time derivatives. The inclusion of the radion in the case of dS and AdS branes has also been discussed in , using an ansatz of the form of .

We believe that, at present, we do not have a complete understanding of the radion in the RS model and it is the proper identification and the consistent inclusion of the radion field in an arbitrary two brane model which is the purpose of this paper. We derive the complete five dimensional Lagrangian for the RS model, including the radion and the graviton (with its KK tower), and study systematically the question of the spectrum of the theory by restricting the Lagrangian up to second order in these fields. We follow the geometrical approach of , where the authors identified the radion field from an analysis of the symmetries of the Einstein equations in the bulk, and derived the form of the five dimensional metric up to linear order in the radion. The work of  emphasizes the importance of the junction conditions which, as we will see, are of utmost importance in our investigation as well and are quite relevant for understanding the mixing between the radion and the graviton and its KK tower. However, in our opinion, there are some features in the analysis of  that remain obscure and we study this problem systematically from the conventional Lagrangian approach. We formulate the RS model as the model of five dimensional space-time with two 3-branes at the fixed points of an orbifold, whose action is manifestly invariant under arbitrary five dimensional transformations, and we carefully elucidate the symmetry properties of the model. Such an approach makes the identification of the radion field unambiguous and free of assumptions. Subsequently, employing the background field method, we are able to make a very general and systematic investigation of the possible vacuum solutions in the RS model as well as give a satisfactory $`5D`$ Lagrangian description (that holds for any vacuum solution) of the radion and the graviton and its KK tower, up to second order in the fields, without mixing between them.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we describe the model, both in an interval as well as on the orbifold. Taking advantage of the symmetries of the theory, we parameterize the metric in a manner that makes the identification of the radion natural and is convenient for our subsequent discussions. The Lagrangian density of the theory is then expressed completely in terms of this parameterization to all orders in the field variables. In section 3, we use the background field method to expand the action as well as the junction conditions to quadratic order in the field variables. The classical equations are solved in a unified manner and we show that a factorizable background metric, in general, defines an Einstein space multiplied by a warp factor. We then discuss the question of diagonalization of the quadratic action as well as the boundary conditions in a systematic manner. In section 4, we rewrite this action as an effective action in 4-dimensions and discuss further the properties of this diagonalized theory. In section 5, we present a brief summary of our results. In appendix A, we describe some relations that are useful in the background field expansion of the theory while in appendix B, we discuss the Kaluza-Klein decomposition of the metric as well as some of the properties of the basis functions.

## II The Model

Let us consider a $`5`$-dimensional space-time manifold with signature $`(,+,+,+,+)`$, which is parameterized by the usual $`4`$-dimensional space-time coordinates as well as a fifth coordinate that is bounded by the locations of two $`4`$-dimensional hypersurfaces. The hypersurfaces can be specified by equations of the forms

$$f_L(x,z)=0,f_R(x,z)=0$$
(1)
The functions $`f_{L,R}`$ are, in general, arbitrary except for the condition that everywhere on the boundary hypersurfaces, the normal fields, given by $`n=df_{L,R}(x,z)|_{f=0}`$, are space-like. The locations of the two hypersurfaces can be determined by inverting (1), namely,

$$z_L=\varphi _L(x),z_R=\varphi _R(x)$$
(2)
where $`\varphi _{L,R}(x)`$ are not necessarily small. Therefore, $`zI_z:=[\varphi _L(x),\varphi _R(x)].`$ From (2) it is clear that under arbitrary $`4D`$ transformations, $`z^{}=z,x^{}=x^{}(x)`$, the functions $`\varphi _{L,R}`$ transform as $`4D`$ scalars.

On this $`5D`$ space-time manifold , one can define a theory which is invariant under arbitrary $`5D`$ transformations. The action has the form

$$S=S_{\mathrm{bulk}}+S_L+S_R$$
(3)
where

$`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{bulk}}}d^5V\sqrt{G}\left(R^{(5)}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (4)
$`S_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{f_i=0}}d^4V\sqrt{g^i}\left(𝒱_i+\mathrm{}\right),i=L,R`$ (5)
Here, $`G_{MN}`$ and $`G`$ are the $`5D`$ metric and its determinant respectively, while $`g_{mn}^i`$ is the $`4D`$ induced metric on the respective boundary hypersurface. In this paper, we use the convention that capital roman letters denote $`5D`$ indices, while lower case roman letters represent $`4D`$ indices. We also use the notations and definitions of  throughout. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a $`5D`$ cosmological constant, $`𝒱_i`$ are the tensions on each of the branes and the dots denote possible terms representing $`5D`$ as well as $`4D`$ matter, which we ignore in the present study.

To obtain the equations of motion, we need to vary the action (3). As long as the positions of the boundaries are not specified (i.e. $`f_{L,R}`$ are arbitrary), it is not enough to consider the variation of the metric alone. We must also extremize the action with respect to the “volume” where the theory is defined. To do so, it will be more convenient to make use of the $`5D`$ coordinate invariance of the model and choose a special coordinate system, where the volume does not depend on dynamical quantities such as $`f_{L,R}`$ and, consequently, is not subject to variations.

Such a transformation can be done in two steps. First, we adopt Gaussian Normal (GN) coordinates with respect to the brane $`\varphi _L`$. In this case, we have $`\varphi _L=\mathrm{constant}`$, which we choose to be zero, namely, $`\varphi _L=0`$. In this coordinate system, the second boundary is located at $`\varphi _R=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x)`$ and the $`5D`$ metric takes the form, $`G_{m5}=0,G_{55}=1`$. Clearly, the function $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x)`$ represents the physical distance between the two boundaries, and can be related to the radion field. Next, we rescale the fifth coordinate $`z=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x)t/\pi ,tI_t:=[0,\pi ]`$ ($`t`$ does not correspond to time which is denoted by $`x^0`$). Introducing a new function $`\varphi (x):=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x)/\pi `$, we have the two boundaries at the fixed end points $`t=0`$ and $`t=\pi `$ respectively and the $`5D`$ volume takes the form: $`M^4\times I_t`$. (A more general transformation of this type has already been discussed in .) Note that neither the above transformations nor the field $`\varphi (x)`$, which we call radion, have to be small. It is worth noting here that $`\varphi (x)`$ is a four dimensional scalar field as the radion should be and it has no dependence on the extra coordinate, a reflection of the fact that there is no Kaluza-Klein tower for the radion.

In these coordinates, the $`5D`$ metric takes the form

$`G_{MN}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{mn}(x,t)& N_n\\ & \\ N_m& \varphi ^2(x)\end{array}\right)`$ (9)
and the inverse metric is determined to be

$`G^{MN}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}g^{mn}(x,t)+\frac{N^mN^n}{N}& & \frac{N^n}{N}\\ & & \\ \frac{N^m}{N}& & \frac{1}{N}\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
where the raising and the lowering of the $`4D`$ indices, $`m,n,\mathrm{}`$, is done with the metric $`g_{mn}(x,t)`$ satisfying $`g_{mn}(x,t)g^{nk}(x,t)=\delta _m^k`$. Furthermore, $`N_m(x,t)=\frac{t}{2}(\varphi ^2(x))_{,m}`$ and $`N(x,t)=\varphi ^2(x)N_m(x,t)N^m(x,t)`$ where a comma denotes a derivative. We see that the metric in these coordinates has a form similar to that of Arnowitt-Deser-Misner . Let us note that, in these coordinates, the induced metric on each of the boundaries is given by

$$g_{mn}^i(x)=g_{mn}(x,t)|_{t=t_i}.$$
(14)
Furthermore, it is easy to show that

$$det\left(G_{MN}(x,t)\right)=Ndet\left(g_{mn}(x,t)\right).$$
(15)
This defines the theory on an interval $`tI_t=[0,\pi ]`$. Let us next replace the interval, $`I_t`$, by the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$. In order to do that, we extend the variable $`0t\pi `$ to the interval $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$, imposing the additional symmetry $`tt`$. As a result, we need to replace $`t`$ by $`\tau =|t|`$ in the metric (9) so that $`g_{mn}(x,\tau )`$ is a symmetric and non-degenerate, but otherwise arbitrary tensor and,

$`N_m(x,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}(\varphi ^2(x))_{,m}`$ (16)
$`N(x,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^2(x)N_m(x,\tau )N^m(x,\tau )`$ (17)
Throughout the paper, we will denote by a dot (e.g. $`\dot{a}`$) differentiation with respect to $`\tau `$, while a prime (e.g. $`a^{}`$) denotes differentiation with respect to $`t`$. We denote the $`4D`$ partial derivatives by a comma (e.g. $`a_{,m}`$), while a covariant derivative is represented by a semicolon.

The action (3), on the orbifold, can be written as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,\pi }{}}S_i`$ (18)
$`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x_\pi ^\pi 𝑑t\sqrt{G}\left(2M^3R^{(5)}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}`$ (19)
$`S_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x_\pi ^\pi 𝑑t\sqrt{g^i}\left(𝒱_i\right)\delta (tt_i)},t_i=0,\pi `$ (20)
where $`R^{(5)}`$ is the Ricci scalar constructed from the $`5D`$ metric $`G_{MN}`$ given in (9) and generalized to the orbifold, as discussed above. In studying the solutions of this theory, the standard approach would be to solve the Einstein equations following from the action (20). However, we note that, since the $`5D`$ metric (9) is already decomposed into a $`4+1`$ form because of the special coordinate choice we have made, it is natural to recast the action first in terms of the $`4D`$ metric, $`g_{mn}(x,\tau )`$, and the radion field, $`\varphi (x)`$, using this parameterization. After some lengthy algebra, we obtain

$$S=2M^3d^4x_\pi ^\pi 𝑑t\sqrt{g}\left(+\underset{i=0,\pi }{}_i\right)$$
(21)
where

$``$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{N}(R^{(4)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2M^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N^mN^n}{N}}R_{mn}^{(4)}`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N}}[g_{mn}^{}(g^{mn})^{}+(g^{mn}g_{mn}^{})^2])+_{high}`$
$`_{high}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{N}}{2N^2}}(g^{mn}N^sN_{s;n}(\varphi ^2)_{,m}N_{;s}^sN^m(\varphi ^2)_{,m}`$ (25)
$`+2N^mN^n[N_{;k}^kN_{m;n}N_{;m}^kN_{k;n}])`$
$`_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_i}{2M^3}}\delta (tt_i)`$ (26)
In the above expression, $`R_{mn}^{(4)}`$ is the Ricci tensor constructed from the metric $`g_{mn}`$, and a semicolon denotes the covariant derivative with respect to this metric. Because of the dependence on the fifth coordinate, all these operations are to be carried out for fixed values of $`t`$. The tensor nature of each of the terms, with respect to $`4D`$ coordinate transformations, can be read off easily.

Here, we would like to emphasize the fact that, although our starting theory was manifestly invariant under $`5D`$ coordinate transformations, only a residual $`4D`$ symmetry survives in (21) because of the special choice of coordinates made. Thus, action (21) is invariant under arbitrary $`4D`$-coordinate reparameterizations, $`xx^{}(x)`$. Let us also note that, since all components of the metric, $`G_{MN}`$, are even functions of the extra coordinate, it follows from the chain rule, $`F^{}(\tau )=\dot{F}(\tau )\tau ^{}`$, that expressions linear in $`\frac{d}{dt}`$ derivative are odd and, therefore, do not contribute to the action. We have omitted such expressions in (23). Furthermore, we have also dropped surface terms arising from integration by parts. This, therefore, gives the complete action involving the graviton (and its KK tower) and the radion.

## III Background Method

To study the solutions of this theory systematically, we use the background field method  (see in particular section 4 in ). We write each of the field variables as a sum of a classical (possibly large) background and a small fluctuation, and expand the action up to quadratic terms in the fluctuations. For the metric we write

$`g_{mn}(x,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}(x,\tau )+h_{mn}(x,\tau )`$ (27)
$`g^{mn}(x,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}(x,\tau )h^{mn}(x,\tau )+h_k^m(x,\tau )h^{kn}(x,\tau )`$ (28)
while, for the radion, we use the decomposition

$$\varphi (x)=r(x)+r(x)d(x)$$
(29)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}(x,\tau )`$ and $`r(x)`$ are the background fields which are assumed to satisfy the classical field equations, while $`h_{mn}`$ and $`d`$ are the corresponding fluctuations (note that we have introduced $`d`$ as a dimensionless field). The new (background) metric satisfies $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}\stackrel{~}{g}^{kn}=\delta _m^n`$, and from now on all indices are lowered and raised with the background metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}`$ and its inverse. For simplicity, we will refer to this as the metric.

Our next task is to decompose the action up to second order in $`h`$ and $`d`$. The zeroth order action leads to the classical equations for the background fields. The linear terms vanish, since the backgrounds satisfy the classical equations and, therefore, the first nontrivial term in the expansion of the action corresponds to the quadratic part of the action in the $`h`$ and the $`d`$ fields. We note here that our interest lies in the case where the classical solutions lead to $`r(x)=r_c=\mathrm{constant}`$ primarily for two reasons. Such a case would correspond to have the highest symmetry and the calculations will be much simpler. When $`r(x)`$ is a constant, it is easy to see that the terms in (25) would contain terms that are at least third order in $`d(x)`$ and, therefore, will not be relevant for our analysis. It is for this reason that we have separated out these terms in (23) and we will neglect this term in the rest of our discussions. On the other hand, if non-constant solutions for $`r(x)`$ are of interest, then, the term in (25) will contribute to the expansion up to quadratic order.

Before carrying out the expansion, however, let us discuss the Israel junction conditions  that are crucial in analyzing solutions in this theory. Let us note that we are considering a theory with singular sources and, in such a case, boundary conditions on the branes are extremely important in determining solutions. The junction conditions for the metric $`g_{mn}`$, can be derived following , and in the present case of an orbifold read as

$$\dot{g}_{mn}(x,\tau )|_{t=t_i}=\xi (t)\frac{𝒱_i}{12M^3}\sqrt{N(x,\tau )}g_{mn}(x,\tau )|_{t=t_i}$$
(30)
where

$`\xi (t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& \mathrm{when}& t=0,\\ 1& \mathrm{when}& t=\pi .\end{array}`$ (33)
Decomposing the metric and the radion as in (28), (29) and using (17) as well as the results from appendix A, we get order by order in the fluctuations

$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{mn}(x,\tau )|_{t=t_i}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (t){\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_ir_c}{12M^3}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}(x,\tau )|_{t=t_i}`$ (34)
$`\dot{h}_{mn}(x,\tau )|_{t=t_i}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (t){\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_ir_c}{12M^3}}\left(h_{mn}(x,\tau )+d(x)\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}(x,\tau )\right)|_{t=t_i}`$ (35)
and so on. The equations following from the action (21) need to be solved subject to these boundary conditions.

### A Classical Action

The zeroth order action (which does not contain $`d`$ or $`h`$) is obtained from (21) with $`g`$ and $`\varphi `$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`r`$ respectively. The equations of motion for the two fields can be obtained by varying with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`r`$ which leads to two equations - one tensor and one scalar. Let us note parenthetically that $`\delta G_{m5}`$ (see (9)) is not independent and, consequently, the $`m5`$ Einstein equation would not be independent.

The zeroth order action or the classical action is easily obtained from (21) to have the form

$`S^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`2M^3{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }dt\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}(r\stackrel{~}{R}+r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2M^3}}`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}[\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}^{}(\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn})^{}+(\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}^{})^2]+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,\pi }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_i}{2M^3}}\delta (tt_i))`$
The Euler-Lagrange equations, following from this action, have the form (upon setting $`r(x)=r_c`$)

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2M^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r_c^2}}\left[\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}^{}(\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn})^{}+(\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}^{})^2\right]`$ (38)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{mk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4M^3}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8r_c^2}}[4\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}^{\prime \prime }4\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}`$ (41)
$`4\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}\stackrel{~}{g}_{am}^{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{bk}^{}3(\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab})^{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}^{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}+2\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}^{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}^{}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,\pi }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_i}{4r_cM^3}}\delta (tt_i)\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}`$
As expected, equation (41) contains singular terms proportional to $`\delta `$-functions. However, let us note that these equations, which are written in terms of derivatives with respect to $`t[\pi ,\pi ]`$, can be simplified if we express them in terms of the variable $`\tau [0,\pi ]`$ (Recall that all the field variables depend on $`\tau `$.). We note that

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}^{}(\tau )=\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{mn}\tau ^{},\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}^{\prime \prime }(\tau )=\ddot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{mn}+\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{mn}\tau ^{\prime \prime }`$

Since $`\tau ^2=1`$, in the classical equations, we can simply replace terms quadratic in single $`t`$ derivatives (primes) by those with $`\tau `$ derivatives (dots). However, in terms with double $`t`$ derivatives, the change to $`\tau `$ derivatives would introduce new delta function singularities because of the $`\tau ^{\prime \prime }`$ term. On the other hand, we note from (34) that $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{mn}`$, on both the branes, is proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}`$ so that these new singular terms cancel precisely the singular delta function terms already present in the equation (41). In fact, this is a general result, namely, singular terms arising from changing “primes” to “dots” exactly cancel the singular boundary terms that appear explicitly in the equations of motion, because of the junction conditions. We would, however, like to stress that, although the dot derivatives appear to be the natural ones in the equations of motion, it is more useful to have the prime derivatives in the action to avoid subtleties in integration by parts.

Rewritten in terms of the $`\tau `$ (dot) derivatives, the equations of motion have the form

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2M^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r_c^2}}\left[\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{mn}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}^{mn}+(\stackrel{~}{g}^{mn}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{mn})^2\right]`$ (42)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{mk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4M^3}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8r_c^2}}[4\ddot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{mk}4\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}\ddot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{ab}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}`$ (44)
$`4\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{am}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{bk}3\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}^{ab}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{ab}\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}+2\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{ab}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{mk}\left(\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}_{ab}\right)^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}]`$
without any singular terms involving $`\delta `$-functions. These are highly nonlinear equations which are clearly nontrivial to solve in general. Therefore, we look for a solution of the metric, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}`$, in the factorizable form,

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{mk}(x,\tau )=a(\tau )\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}(x)$$
(45)
Requiring $`\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}(x)\underset{¯}{g}^{kn}(x)=\delta _m^n`$, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{g}^{mk}=\frac{1}{a}\underset{¯}{g}^{mk},\stackrel{~}{R}_{mk}=\underset{¯}{R}_{mk},\stackrel{~}{R}=\frac{1}{a}\underset{¯}{R}$$
(46)
Using (45) and (46), equations (42) and (44) respectively take the forms

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{R}+a\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2M^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{r_c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2\right]`$ (47)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{R}_{mk}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\underset{¯}{R}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}`$ (48)
where we have defined

$$\lambda =a\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M^3}+\frac{6}{r_c^2}\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\right)$$
(49)
Contracting (48) with $`\underset{¯}{g}^{mk}`$, we obtain

$$\underset{¯}{R}=\lambda $$
(50)
The left-hand-side of (50) is a function of $`x`$ only, while the right hand side depends only on $`\tau `$. It follows, therefore, that $`\lambda =\mathrm{constant}=\underset{¯}{R}`$, which, in turn, implies that the metric $`\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}`$ defines an Einstein space

$$\underset{¯}{R}_{mk}=\frac{\lambda }{4}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}$$
(51)
with constant scalar curvature $`\lambda `$. It follows now from (14) and (46) that the induced metric on each of the branes will define an Einstein space as well, with curvature $`\stackrel{~}{R}(t=t_i)=\frac{\lambda }{a(t=t_i)}`$. We also note that every solution, $`\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}`$, of (51) corresponding to a given $`\lambda `$, will have the same warp factor $`a`$ determined from (47) and (49).

The solutions for the warp factor $`a`$ are already known. The flat case, $`\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}=\eta _{mk}`$, was analyzed in , while the dS and the AdS solutions were derived in . It is clear from the preceding discussion that these solutions exhaust all possible cases for the warp factor and here we will briefly describe an alternate and unified derivation of these solutions for completeness.

The equations (47) and (49) determining the warp factor can be rewritten in a more convenient form

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{r_c^2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2M^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{a}}\right)`$ (52)
$`\ddot{a}a(\dot{a})^2={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda r_c^2}{6}}a`$ (53)
We note from the above equations that a constant solution for $`a(\tau )`$ exists only for the physically uninteresting case when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0=𝒱_i`$, which we will not consider. When $`a\mathrm{constant}`$, equation (53) follows from (52), and, therefore, this is the only equation that we need to analyze. Furthermore, this equation must be supplemented by the boundary conditions (see (34))

$$\dot{a}|_{t=t_i}=\xi (t)\frac{𝒱_ir_c}{12M^3}a|_{t=t_i}$$
(54)
The general solution of (52) is of trigonometric type for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, of exponential type for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ and of polynomial type for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Keeping in mind the spirit of the RS model, where the aim is to solve the hierarchy problem without introducing large numbers, we will consider only the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ here. Following , we define

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{24M^3}=k^2$$
(55)
and parameterize the tensions on the branes, for convenience, as

$$\frac{𝒱_0}{24M^3}=\alpha k,\frac{𝒱_\pi }{24M^3}=\beta k$$
(56)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are arbitrary parameters. In terms of these parameters, the equation for $`a`$ reads

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=4k^2r_c^2\frac{\lambda r_c^2}{3a}$$
(57)
which needs to be solved subject to the boundary conditions

$$\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\tau =0)=2\alpha kr_c,\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\tau =\pi )=2\beta kr_c$$
(58)
The solutions of (57) subject to (58) are easily determined to be

$`a(\tau )=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\lambda }{12k^2}\mathrm{cosh}^2(kr_c(p\tau ))& \mathrm{when}& \lambda >0,\\ \mathrm{exp}(2kr_c\tau ))& \mathrm{when}& \lambda =0,\\ \frac{|\lambda |}{12k^2}\mathrm{sinh}^2(kr_c(p\tau ))& \mathrm{when}& \lambda <0,\end{array}`$ (62)
When $`\lambda 0`$, $`r_c`$ is determined completely in terms of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as

$$kr_c=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{arcth}\left(\frac{\alpha \beta }{1\alpha \beta }\right)$$
(63)
and the parameter $`p`$ is defined through

$`e^{2kr_cp}={\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha }{1\alpha }}`$ $`\mathrm{when}`$ $`\lambda >0,`$ (64)
$`e^{2kr_cp}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +1}{\alpha 1}}`$ $`\mathrm{when}`$ $`\lambda <0,`$ (65)
The range of the parameters, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, can be obtained from three consistency relations. We note that $`r_c>0`$, which through (63) implies that $`0<\frac{\alpha \beta }{1\alpha \beta }<1`$. Furthermore, the right-hand-side of (64) must be positive, so that $`|\alpha |<1`$ for $`\lambda >0`$ and $`|\alpha |>1`$ for $`\lambda <0`$. Finally, we have $`a(\tau )>0`$ for any $`\tau `$ and it follows from (62) that $`p[0,\pi ]`$ when $`\lambda <0`$. It is easy to show that, for the solutions in (62), the right-hand-side of (57) is non-negative for any $`\tau [0,\pi ]`$ and, consequently, this does not introduce any further restriction on the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The limiting case $`\lambda =0`$ cannot be obtained from these and a solution exists only if the two tensions satisfy $`\alpha =\beta =1`$, as can be seen from (62) and (58). In this case, the value of $`r_c`$ remains undetermined.

### B Quadratic Action

If the background fields satisfy the classical equations, then, the linear order terms in the expansion of the action vanish, which can be explicitly checked. The leading nontrivial correction to the action comes at the quadratic order. After some algebra, the part of the action (21), quadratic in $`h_{mn}`$ and $`d`$, can be determined to be (we give some useful relations for this expansion in appendix A)

$$S^{(2)}=2M^3r_cd^4x\sqrt{\underset{¯}{g}}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑t\left(L(d)+L(d\underset{¯}{h})+L(\underset{¯}{h})\right)$$
(66)
where

$`L(d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}r_c^2\tau ^2d^{,m}d_{,m}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{r_c^2}}(a^{})^2d^2`$ (67)
$`L(d\underset{¯}{h})`$ $`=`$ $`a\left(\underset{¯}{h}_{;k}^{mk}\underset{¯}{h}^{,m}\right)d_{,m}{\displaystyle \frac{a\lambda }{4}}d\underset{¯}{h}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{aa^{}}{r_c^2}}d\underset{¯}{h}^{}`$ (68)
$`L(\underset{¯}{h})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\underset{¯}{h}_{ak;m}\underset{¯}{h}^{ak;m}\underset{¯}{h}_{ak;m}\underset{¯}{h}^{am;k}+\underset{¯}{h}_{;k}^{mk}\underset{¯}{h}_{,m}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\underset{¯}{h}^{,m}\underset{¯}{h}_{,m}\right)`$ (72)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{4r_c^2}}\left(\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}^{}(\underset{¯}{h}^{mk})^{}(\underset{¯}{h}^{})^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{aa^{}}{r_c^2}}\left(2\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}^{}\underset{¯}{h}^{mk}\underset{¯}{h}^{}\underset{¯}{h}\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{a\lambda }{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a^{})^2}{r_c^2}}\right)\left(2\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}\underset{¯}{h}^{mk}\underset{¯}{h}^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,\pi }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_i}{16M^3}}\left(2\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}\underset{¯}{h}^{mk}\underset{¯}{h}^2\right)\delta (tt_i)`$
Keeping the factorization of the background metric in mind, we have introduced a new field $`\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}(x,\tau )`$ through

$$h_{mk}=a\underset{¯}{h}_{mk};h^{mk}=a\underset{¯}{h}^{mk};\underset{¯}{h}=\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}\underset{¯}{g}^{mk}$$
(73)
All indices are raised and lowered with the background metric $`\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}`$, which also defines the covariant derivatives. As a result, let us note that $`4D`$ covariant derivatives simply commute with derivatives with respect to $`t`$ (or $`\tau `$).

The boundary condition satisfied by $`\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}`$ is determined from (35) to be

$$\underset{¯}{\overset{\dot{}}{h}}_{mk}(x,\tau )|_{t=t_i}=\xi (t)\frac{𝒱_ir_c}{12M^3}d\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}|_{t=t_i}$$
(74)
The most important feature to note from (66) is the mixing between the fields $`\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}`$ and $`d`$. In order to understand the physical spectrum of the theory, we must, of course, diagonalize the second order Lagrangian density. Unfortunately, this is not the complete story since there is mixing between the two fields arising from the boundary conditions (74) as well. Therefore, we need to diagonalize simultaneously the quadratic Lagrangian density, (66), as well as the junction conditions to linear order, (74). We note that higher order mixing, both in the action as well as in the junction conditions, would simply correspond to higher order interactions and is not of interest for our analysis.

The presence of mixing, in the quadratic action, simply corresponds to the fact that $`\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}`$ and $`d`$ are not the appropriate field variables and the physical fields will be, in general, a linear combination of the two. However, we note that, unlike $`\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}`$, the field $`d`$, in some sense, carries a direct physical meaning - it labels the deviation of the distance between the two branes from the classical value $`r_c`$. Consequently, we prefer to treat the field $`d`$ as physical and look for a general redefinition of the metric fluctuation. The most general linear redefinition of $`\underset{¯}{h}_{mn}`$ can be seen to be

$$\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}(x,\tau )=X_{mk}(x,\tau )+(\mathrm{ln}a+f(\tau ))d(x)\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}+S(\tau )d_{;mk}+Z(\tau )d_{;m}^{;m}(x)\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}$$
(75)
where compatibility with (74) requires (see also (54))

$`\dot{X}_{mk}(x,\tau )|_{t=t_i}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (76)
$`\dot{f}(\tau )|_{t=t_i}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{S}(\tau )|_{t=t_i}=\dot{Z}(\tau )|_{t=t_i}`$ (77)
Note that the term $`L(\underset{¯}{h})`$ is form-invariant under the transformation (75). However, $`L(d)`$ and $`L(d\underset{¯}{h})`$ do transform and it is easy to see that if $`Z0`$, such a transformation will generate mixing between $`X_{mk}`$ and $`d`$ with fourth order derivatives. Since this does not help in diagonalization, we set $`Z=0`$. Furthermore, we find that there is no such $`f`$ and $`S`$ obeying (77) which set the mixing terms, in the Lagrangian density, to zero.

There is another possible solution to the mixing problem. We note here that it is the action that we need to diagonalize (subject to the boundary conditions). Therefore, if we know the KK decomposition for the field $`X_{mk}`$, then the action (66) would be a $`5D`$ action for $`4D`$ fields that depend only on the coordinate $`x`$, with $`t`$-dependent coefficients. It would, therefore, be sufficient to arrange the coefficient functions in front of the mixing terms to vanish when integrated over the extra dimension so that such terms can be removed from the action.

To find a set of basis functions, in terms of which we can decompose the field $`X_{mk}`$, we proceed as follows. Let us assume that the change (75) leads to a diagonalization of the action (it also diagonalizes the boundary conditions because of (76)). Since the transformation (75) is linear and leaves the part of the action depending only on $`\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}`$ form-invariant, the other two terms in the action can only lead to terms that are quadratic in the field $`d`$. As a result, the KK decomposition of $`X_{mk}`$ can be easily studied by analyzing the $`\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}`$ part of the action and we can simply set $`d=0`$ in (66) and (74) for this purpose. Having the basis functions determined in this way, $`X_{mk}`$ can be expanded in this basis ($`d(x)`$ does not have a KK tower) in the action (66), and the resulting action diagonalized at each level of the KK tower. As we will see, this procedure works quite nicely. We discuss the actual solutions of (66) and (74) for $`d=0`$ in appendix B.

The most convenient way to implement the program discussed above, is to first make the change of variables

$$\underset{¯}{h}_{mk}(x,\tau )=X_{mk}(x,\tau )+(\mathrm{ln}a+f(\tau ))d(x)\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}$$
(78)
with

$$\dot{X}_{mk}(x,\tau )|_{t=t_i}=\dot{f}(\tau )|_{t=t_i}=0$$
(79)
The function $`f(\tau )`$ is otherwise arbitrary. Since the new field $`X_{mk}`$ satisfies (79), we can decompose it in the system of basis functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha `$ (whose derivative vanishes at the boundaries, see appendix B for details) as

$$X_{mk}(x,\tau )=\underset{\alpha }{}^{(\alpha )}X_{mk}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )$$
(80)
The action (66) can now be written in the form

$$S^{(2)}=2M^3r_cd^4x\sqrt{\underset{¯}{g}}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑t\left(L(d)+L(dX)+L(X)\right)$$
(81)
where

$`L(d)`$ $`=`$ $`K(\tau )d^{,m}d_{,m}+{\displaystyle \frac{M(\tau )}{r_c^2}}d^2`$ (82)
$`L(dX)`$ $`=`$ $`a(1+\mathrm{ln}a+f)\left[\left(X_{;k}^{mk}X^{,m}\right)d_{,m}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}dX\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{3a^2}{2r_c^2}}\left(\ddot{f}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{f}\right)dX`$ (83)
$`L(X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}a\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \right)^2L_{PF}(^{(\alpha )}X_{mk};m_\alpha ^2)`$ (84)
Here we have defined $`K`$ and $`M`$ as

$`K(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}r_c^2\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}a(\mathrm{ln}a+f)(\mathrm{ln}a+f+2)`$ (85)
$`M(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`6a\ddot{a}(\mathrm{ln}a+f)(\mathrm{ln}a+f+1)3a\dot{f}(a\dot{f}+2\dot{a}(\mathrm{ln}a+f))`$ (87)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,\pi }{}}a^2{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_ir_c}{2M^3}}(\mathrm{ln}a+f)^2\delta (tt_i)`$
and $`L_{PF}`$ represents the Pauli-Fierz term that we will discuss later (it is also discussed in appendix B).

Because of (79), we can also decompose $`f`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha `$ as

$$f(\tau )=\underset{\alpha }{}f_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )$$
(88)
Using (B13) and (B15), we can rewrite the mixing terms, (83), in the action in the form

$`L(dX)`$ $`=`$ $`a(1+\mathrm{ln}a+\rho )\mathrm{\Phi }^0\left[\left({}_{}{}^{(0)}X_{;k}^{mk}^{(0)}X^{,m}\right)d_{,m}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}d^{(0)}X\right]`$ (91)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 1}{}}a(\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha )^2[(I^\alpha +f_\alpha )(\left({}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}X_{;k}^{mk}^{(\alpha )}X^{,m}\right)d_{,m}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}d^{(\alpha )}X)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}f_\alpha m_\alpha ^2d^{(\alpha )}X]`$
where we have introduced the notations

$$\rho =f_0\mathrm{\Phi }^0=\mathrm{constant},I^\alpha =_\pi ^\pi 𝑑ta\mathrm{ln}a\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha ,\alpha 1$$
(92)
and have used the equality $`_\pi ^\pi 𝑑ta\mathrm{ln}a\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha =_\pi ^\pi 𝑑ta(\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha )^2I^\alpha .`$

It is impossible to find a set of constants, $`f_\alpha `$, which will make the mixing terms in the action vanish. As a result, we are forced to make a second transformation involving the second derivative of $`d`$, which is done at each level of the KK tower

$$^{(\alpha )}X_{mk}(x)=^{(\alpha )}H_{mk}(x)+\sigma _\alpha d_{;mk},\alpha 0$$
(93)
The numbers $`\sigma _\alpha `$ can be thought of as the coefficients in the decomposition of the function $`S(\tau )`$, in (75), in the basis functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha `$, namely,

$$S(\tau )=\underset{\alpha }{}\sigma _\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )$$
(94)
Under the transformation (93), the Pauli-Fierz Lagrangian (see (B22)) becomes

$`L_{PF}(^{(\alpha )}X,m_\alpha ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`L_{PF}(^{(\alpha )}H,m_\alpha ^2)m_\alpha ^2\sigma _\alpha \left({}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H_{;k}^{mk}^{(\alpha )}H^{,m}\right)d_{,m}`$ (96)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \sigma _\alpha ^2}{8}}\left(d_{;m}^{;m}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \sigma _\alpha ^2m_\alpha ^2}{8}}d^{,m}d_{,m}`$
and the mixing term (91) takes the form

$`L(dX)`$ $`=`$ $`a(1+\mathrm{ln}a+\rho )\mathrm{\Phi }^0\left[\left({}_{}{}^{(0)}H_{;k}^{mk}^{(0)}H^{,m}\right)d_{,m}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}d^{(0)}H\right]`$ (99)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 1}{}}a(\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha )^2[(I^\alpha +f_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{m_\alpha ^2\sigma _\alpha }{2}})\left({}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H_{;k}^{mk}^{(\alpha )}H^{,m}\right)d_{,m}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(I^\alpha +f_\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}f_\alpha m_\alpha ^2)d^{(\alpha )}H]`$
The mixing for $`\alpha =0`$ can be removed if we choose $`\rho `$ to satisfy

$$_\pi ^\pi 𝑑ta(1+\mathrm{ln}a+\rho )=0$$
(100)
For $`\alpha 1`$, there are two conditions that must hold for the mixing to disappear, namely,

$`I^\alpha +f_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\alpha ^2\sigma _\alpha }{2}}`$ (101)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(I^\alpha +f_\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}f_\alpha m_\alpha ^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (102)
which can be easily solved to give

$`f_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\lambda +6m_\alpha ^2}}I^\alpha `$ (103)
$`\sigma _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{\lambda +6m_\alpha ^2}}I^\alpha `$ (104)
(Note that the above expressions are free from singularities in view of (B19).)

Thus, we see that the transformation (78) together with (93) diagonalizes the quadratic action as well as the boundary conditions, with $`f(\tau )`$ determined from (100) and (103). We note that, while $`\sigma _\alpha `$, for $`\alpha 1`$, is determined from (104) the coefficient $`\sigma _0`$ remains arbitrary. (This arbitrariness is related to the invariance of the theory under a gauge transformation of the graviton of the form (B18).)

The diagonalized action now takes the form

$$S^{(2)}=2M^3r_cd^4x\sqrt{\underset{¯}{g}}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑t\left(L(d)+L(H)\right)$$
(105)
where

$`L(d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 0}{}}a(\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha )^2\sigma _\alpha ^2\right)(d_{;m}^{;m})^2`$ (107)
$`+\left(K(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 1}{}}a(\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha )^2m_\alpha ^2\sigma _\alpha ^2\right)d^{,m}d_{,m}+{\displaystyle \frac{M(\tau )}{r_c^2}}d^2`$
$`L(H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 0}{}}a\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha \right)^2L_{PF}(^{(\alpha )}H_{mk};m_\alpha ^2)`$ (108)
and the functions $`K`$ and $`M`$ are defined in (85) and (87). The properties of the diagonalized theory will be discussed in more detail in the next section.

Let us present here the final structure of the metric $`g_{mk}(x,\tau )`$ after all the transformations. Combining (28), (45), (73), (78) and (93) we have

$`g_{mk}(x,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`a(\tau )[(1+d(x)[\mathrm{ln}a+f(\tau )])\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}(x)+`$ (110)
$`+{}_{}{}^{(0)}H_{mk}^{}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^0+S(\tau )d_{;mk}(x)+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 1}{\overset{(\alpha )}{}}}H_{mk}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )]`$
The functions $`f(\tau )`$ and $`S(\tau )`$ are given in terms of their coefficients (100), (103) and (104) respectively. As we noted earlier, the function $`S(\tau )`$ is determined up to an additive constant. The reason is quite clear. As we will discuss in appendix B, the massless field $`{}_{}{}^{(0)}H_{mk}^{}`$ is determined only up to a gauge transformation (B18) and, therefore, the term proportional to $`d_{;mk}`$ in (75) can be gauged away at any fixed point $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$, in particular, on any one of the two branes, but cannot be gauged away in the whole bulk.

## IV 4D Effective Theory

To study further the properties as well as the physical implications of the diagonalized theory, we need to know the values of the coefficients present in (107) and (108) after integration over the fifth coordinate. Although so far we have treated both the cases, $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\lambda 0`$, on the same footing, it will be more convenient, in this section, to consider these two cases separately.

$`\lambda =\mathrm{𝟎}`$:

Let us note, at the outset, that $`\lambda =0`$ does not automatically imply $`\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}=\eta _{mk}`$. For an arbitrary Einstein space, we have

$$\underset{¯}{R}_{makb}=\frac{\lambda }{12}\left(\underset{¯}{g}_{mb}\underset{¯}{g}_{ak}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}\underset{¯}{g}_{ab}\right)+\underset{¯}{C}_{makb}$$
(111)
where $`\underset{¯}{C}_{makb}`$ is the Weyl conformal tensor, and the solutions for any given $`\lambda `$ are completely degenerate with respect to different choices of $`\underset{¯}{C}_{makb}`$.

When $`\lambda =0`$, it is clear from (103) that $`f_\alpha =0`$ for $`\alpha 1`$, so that $`f(\tau )=\rho `$ and the warp factor is given in (62). With these, a direct evaluation of (100) determines

$$\rho =\frac{2\pi kr_c}{e^{2\pi kr_c}1}<0$$
(112)
The coefficient in front of the kinetic term of the radion can now be determined from (107) and (85) to be

$$\kappa _d=_\pi ^\pi 𝑑tK(\tau )=\frac{3}{2}_\pi ^\pi a(\mathrm{ln}a+\rho )(\mathrm{ln}a+\rho +2)𝑑t=3\pi \rho >0$$
(113)
Similarly, we can obtain the radion mass from (107) and (87) and the explicit evaluation gives

$$_\pi ^\pi a^2(\mathrm{ln}a+\rho )(\mathrm{ln}a+\rho +1)𝑑t=_\pi ^\pi \underset{i=0,\pi }{}a^2\frac{𝒱_ir_c}{2M^3}(\mathrm{ln}a+\rho )^2\delta (tt_i)dt=0$$

Therefore, the radion is massless, since

$$_\pi ^\pi \frac{M(\tau )}{r_c^2}𝑑t=0$$
(114)
The quadratic action, therefore, takes the form

$$S_{eff}=d^4x\sqrt{\underset{¯}{g}}(6\pi |\rho |M^3r_cd^{,m}d_{,m}M^3r_c\underset{\alpha 0}{}L_{PF}(^{(\alpha )}H_{mk};m_\alpha ^2))$$
(115)
Let us next normalize the fields $`d`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H_{mk}^{}`$ in the following way. Let us assume that $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi kr_c)1`$ and express $`M`$ in terms of the $`4D`$ effective Planck mass $`M_{PL}^2=M^3/k`$ . Furthermore, let us define

$`d(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{kr_c\pi }}{\sqrt{24}\pi kr_cM_{PL}}}D(x)`$ (116)
$`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H_{mk}^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{kr_c}M_{PL}}}^{(\alpha )}𝒳_{mk}(x)`$ (117)
In terms of these fields, the quadratic action becomes:

$$S_{eff}=d^4x\sqrt{\underset{¯}{g}}(\frac{1}{2}D^{,m}D_{,m}\underset{\alpha 0}{}L_{PF}(^{(\alpha )}𝒳_{mk};m_\alpha ^2))$$
(118)
The content of the theory, at the quadratic level, is now obvious - there is a massless scalar field (the radion), a massless spin-2 field (graviton) and an infinite tower of massive spin-2 fields with masses $`m_\alpha ^2`$. We see that no ghost fields are present in this theory, since the kinetic term of the radion has the right sign, and the fields $`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}𝒳_{mk}^{}`$ carry precisely spin-2 content. We can, therefore, think of these fields as the physical fields. The non-presence of (ghost) scalar component in the fields $`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}𝒳_{mk}^{}`$ (for $`\alpha 1`$) is due to the conditions (B17) which these fields satisfy. Note that in our framework, the conditions (B17) arise naturally from the equations of motion for these fields (for more details see the appendix in ), and do not have to be imposed by hand.

To understand the coupling of the fields $`D(x)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}𝒳_{mk}^{}`$ to matter, we need to express the metric $`g_{mk}(x,\tau )`$ in terms of these physical fields. To that end, let us recall the expression for the normalized functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )=\frac{\sqrt{kr_c}e^{kr_c\pi }}{J_2(x_\alpha )}e^{2kr_c(\tau \pi )}\left[J_2(x_\alpha e^{kr_c(\tau \pi )})+\frac{\pi }{4}x_\alpha ^2e^{2kr_c\pi }Y_2(x_\alpha e^{kr_c(\tau \pi )})\right]$$
(119)
for $`\alpha 0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^0=\sqrt{kr_c}`$. Here, $`x_\alpha `$’s represent the positive zeroes of the Bessel function $`J_1(x)`$. Furthermore, the masses, $`m_\alpha ^2`$, of the fields $`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}𝒳_{mk}^{}`$ are given by

$$m_\alpha ^2=k^2x_\alpha ^2e^{2kr_c\pi }$$
(120)
On the visible brane, we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau =\pi )=\sqrt{kr_c}e^{kr_c\pi },\alpha 1$$
(121)
while on the hidden brane they are rescaled roughly by a factor ($`\alpha `$-dependent) of the order of $`\mathrm{exp}(2kr_c\pi )`$. Collecting earlier results, we can now write the metric $`g_{mk}(x,\tau )`$ in terms of the physical fields (117) as

$`g_{mk}(x,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2kr_c\tau }[(1{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi e^{2kr_c\pi }+\tau )e^{kr_c\pi }}{\sqrt{6}\pi M_{PL}}}D(x))\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{S(\tau )e^{kr_c\pi }}{\sqrt{24}\pi kr_cM_{PL}}}D_{;mk}(x)`$ (123)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{PL}}}^{(0)}𝒳_{mk}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{kr_c}M_{PL}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 1}{\overset{(\alpha )}{}}}𝒳_{mk}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )]`$
Of particular interest to us is the restriction of (123) to the visible brane, which would determine the coupling of the fields $`D`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}𝒳_{mk}^{}`$ to matter located there.

$`g_{mk}^{vis}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2kr_c\pi }[(1{\displaystyle \frac{e^{kr_c\pi }}{\sqrt{6}M_{PL}}}D(x))\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}(x)`$ (126)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6\pi ^2kr_c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{3kr_c\pi }}{k^2M_{PL}}}\left(e^{kr_c\pi }{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{I^\alpha }{x_\alpha ^2}}\right)D_{;mk}(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{PL}}}^{(0)}𝒳_{mk}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{kr_c\pi }}{M_{PL}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 1}{\overset{(\alpha )}{}}}𝒳_{mk}(x)]`$
Some comments are in order. The couplings of the spin-2 states (126) were already discussed in . The radion has two types of couplings to matter. The non-derivative one, on the visible brane, has strength comparable to that of the massive spin-2 states in (126) which is of the order of $`(TeV)^1`$. This coupling is nonzero on the hidden brane as well, although much weaker (as also discussed in ). The coupling on the hidden brane has its origin in the mixing of the radion with the graviton. The expression for the derivative coupling of the radion is nontrivial, due to the fact that we account for the presence of the massive KK tower of states. As we have noted earlier, the mixing of the radion, involving derivatives, with the graviton in (75) involves only the coefficient $`\sigma _0`$, which is a constant and can, therefore, be gauged away in the whole bulk. However, the mixing of the radion involving derivatives with the massive KK tower in (75) involves coefficients that depend on $`\tau `$, namely, the function $`S(\tau )`$ in (123). As a result, in general, its value will be different at different points of the fifth dimension. The derivative coupling term can be arranged to vanish on the visible brane, but unless the function $`S(\tau )`$ takes special values, the term $`D_{;mk}`$ cannot be simultaneously gauged away on both the branes. Let us estimate the coefficient of this term in (126). Since $`kM_{PL}`$ (see ), the number outside the parenthesis is of the order of $`(TeV)^3`$. The term inside the parenthesis needs a more careful consideration. We use $`kr_c=12`$ and take the values for the first fifty roots, $`x_\alpha `$, with eight digit precision from . A direct numerical evaluation shows that the first term of the series is $`3.5593`$. The subsequent terms, in the series, are of alternating sign and tend to have very slowly decreasing magnitude. We believe that the series is absolutely convergent. The numerical evaluation of the series including the first fifty terms yields the value $`0.74`$ times the first term. This value essentially stabilizes after approximately the twentieth term. The correction to this value from the remainder of the series is of the order of the next term, which is of the order of $`10^3`$. This is roughly the order of magnitude of each of the terms in the series for the next fifty or so terms. The $`200`$-th term, in the series, for example, has a value of the order of $`10^4`$. Therefore, we estimate the term in the parenthesis to be of the order of unity.

$`\lambda \mathrm{𝟎}`$:

When $`\lambda 0`$, the diagonalized quadratic action is of the form

$$S_{eff}=d^4x\sqrt{\underset{¯}{g}}(d)+\underset{\alpha 0}{}d^4x\sqrt{\underset{¯}{g}}^\alpha $$
(127)
where

$`(d)`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _1(d_{;m}^{;m})^2+\zeta _2d^{,m}d_{,m}+\zeta _md^2`$ (128)
$`^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`M^3r_cL_{PF}(^{(\alpha )}H;m_\alpha ^2)`$ (129)
and

$`\zeta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^3r_c\lambda }{8}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 0}{}}\sigma _\alpha ^2\right)`$ (130)
$`\zeta _2`$ $`=`$ $`2M^3r_c\left({\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑tK(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha 1}{}}m_\alpha ^2\sigma _\alpha ^2\right)`$ (131)
$`\zeta _m`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{M^3}{r_c}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }𝑑tM(\tau )`$ (132)
The spin-2 content of the theory has properties similar to the case $`\lambda =0`$ and does not need any further discussion. However, the radion now exhibits new features. The kinetic term has a fourth order derivative term whose coefficient has the sign of $`\lambda `$. Although in principle the $`\lambda 0`$ case can be analyzed in a fashion similar to the $`\lambda =0`$ case, there are some technical complications which make the analysis quite difficult. For example, we do not know of a complete system of functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha `$ that is of a simple form, although equation (B13) can be solved in terms of associated Legendre functions or equivalently in terms of hypergeometric functions. Since the functions $`K(\tau )`$ and $`M(\tau )`$ (see (85), (87)) are given in terms of the function $`f(\tau )`$, which in turn can only be determined from its series expansion, we do not have much knowledge about these functions either. Therefore, we are unable to discuss the values of the coefficients (132) any further. Nonetheless, it is easy to see that the coefficient $`\zeta _1`$ is unlikely to be zero and has the same sign as $`\lambda `$ (It will be zero if all the $`I^\alpha `$’s are to vanish which is highly unlikely although not impossible.). This is sufficient to indicate that higher derivative ghosts will be associated with the radion field in this case.

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we have systematically studied, within the Lagrangian approach, the question of identification and consistent inclusion of the radion field in the two brane Randall-Sundrum model. We have exploited the symmetries of the theory to identify the radion in an unambiguous manner. Using the background field method, we have given a unified derivation of the classical solutions as well as the form of the action at quadratic order in the fields. We have shown that the background metric, in general, corresponds to that of an Einstein space with a warp factor. We have discussed in detail the question of diagonalization of this quadratic action which is essential in understanding the spectrum of the theory. We have studied further the effective 4-dimensional action following from this diagonalized action and it is shown that the radion has no Kaluza-Klein tower and is massless for backgrounds with $`\lambda =0`$. In this case, the graviton as well as the infinite tower of states truly describe spin-2 particles and the theory is free of ghosts. For the case $`\lambda 0`$, however, the situation is less clear and higher derivative ghost terms, involving the radion, appear in the action. The question of matter coupling is also discussed. We would like to emphasize here that there are only two assumptions that we have made, i) the background $`r(x)=r_c=\mathrm{constant}`$ and ii) a factorizable form of the background metric, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{mn}(x,\tau )=a(\tau )\underset{¯}{g}_{mn}(x)`$. The entire analysis, otherwise, is quite general.

Acknowledgement:

This work was supported in part by USDOE Grant number DE-FG-02-91ER40685.

## A Some useful relations

In this appendix, we collect some relations that are useful in the decomposition of the action as well as the junction conditions. For $`N`$ defined in (17), and with (28), (29), we have the following decompositions up to second order in the fluctuations $`h_{mn}`$ and $`d`$.

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`r_c^2\left(1+2d+d^2\tau ^2r_c^2\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}d_{,a}d_{,b}\right)`$ (A1)
$`\sqrt{N}`$ $`=`$ $`r_c\left(1+d+d^2{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2r_c^2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}d_{,a}d_{,b}\right)`$ (A2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_c^2}}\left(12d+3d^2+\tau ^2r_c^2\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}d_{,a}d_{,b}\right)`$ (A3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_c}}\left(1d+d^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2r_c^2}{2}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}d_{,a}d_{,b}\right)`$ (A4)
The determinant of the metric $`g_{mn}`$ can also be decomposed up to quadratic order as (see )

$$\sqrt{g}=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}h\frac{1}{4}h_b^ah_a^b+\frac{1}{8}h^2\right)$$
(A5)
where $`h=\stackrel{~}{g}^{mk}h_{mk}`$, and we have, to quadratic order in the fluctuations,

$$\sqrt{N}\sqrt{g}=r_c\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(1+d+\frac{1}{2}h+\frac{1}{2}dh+\frac{1}{8}h^2\frac{1}{4}h_b^ah_a^b\frac{\tau ^2r_c^2}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}^{ab}d_{,a}d_{,b}\right)$$
(A6)
The decomposition of $`R_{mn}^{(4)}`$ and $`R^{(4)}`$ can be found in  (note that the notations there differ slightly from ours).

## B Kaluza-Klein Decomposition

In this appendix, we describe the Kaluza-Klein decomposition for the fluctuation of the metric, $`H_{mk}`$, and discuss some of the properties of the basis functions. Let us consider the action (66). When $`d=0`$, it is easy to check from eqs. (78) and (93) that

$`h_{mk}=X_{mk}=H_{mk}`$

so that the quadratic action takes the form

$$S(H)=2M^3r_cd^4x\sqrt{\underset{¯}{g}}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑tL(H)$$
(B1)
where

$`L(H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{ak;m}H^{ak;m}H_{ak;m}H^{am;k}+H_{;k}^{mk}H_{,m}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H^{,m}H_{,m}\right)`$ (B2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{4r_c^2}}\left(H_{mk}^{}(H^{mk})^{}(H^{})^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{aa^{}}{r_c^2}}\left(2H_{mk}^{}H^{mk}H^{}H\right)`$ (B3)
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{a\lambda }{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a^{})^2}{r_c^2}}\right)\left(2H_{mk}H^{mk}H^2\right)`$ (B4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,\pi }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱_i}{16M^3}}\left(2H_{mk}H^{mk}H^2\right)\delta (tt_i)`$ (B5)
Here, as usual, $`H=H^{mk}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}`$ and the field $`H_{mk}`$ has to satisfy the boundary condition (see (74))

$$\dot{H}_{mk}(x,\tau )|_{t=t_i}=0$$
(B6)
Varying (B1) with respect to $`H_{mk}`$, we obtain

$`H_{mk;a}^{;a}H_{;a}^{;a}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}+H_{;mk}+H_{;ab}^{ab}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}H_{ma;k}^{;a}H_{ka;m}^{;a}`$ (B7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r_c^2}}\left(\ddot{H}_{mk}\ddot{H}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}\right)+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{r_c^2}}\left(\dot{H}_{mk}\dot{H}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\left(2H_{mk}H\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}\right)=0`$ (B8)
As we have seen from the discussion following (41), all singular terms from the equations of motion disappear when we use dot ($`\tau `$) derivatives. The above equation admits separation of variables and let us introduce a system of functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )`$ such that:

$$H_{mk}(x,\tau )=\underset{\alpha }{}^{(\alpha )}H_{mk}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )$$
(B9)
Then, (B8) can be rewritten as

$`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H_{mk;a}^{;a}^{(\alpha )}H_{;a}^{;a}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}+^{(\alpha )}H_{;mk}+^{(\alpha )}H_{;ab}^{ab}\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}^{(\alpha )}H_{ma;k}^{;a}^{(\alpha )}H_{ka;m}^{;a}`$ (B10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\left(2^{(\alpha )}H_{mk}^{(\alpha )}H\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}\right)m_\alpha ^2\left({}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H_{mk}^{}^{(\alpha )}H\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}\right)=0`$ (B11)
(B12)
$`\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^\alpha +2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{m_\alpha ^2r_c^2}{a}}\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha =0`$ (B13)
where $`m_\alpha ^2`$ represent the separation constants.

Let us first analyze the system of functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )`$, defined through equation (B13). These functions satisfy the boundary condition

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^\alpha (\tau )|_{t=t_i}=0$$
(B14)
as a consequence of the junction conditions (B6) and (B9). They define an orthonormal basis with respect to the scalar product:

$$_\pi ^\pi a(\tau )\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha (\tau )\mathrm{\Phi }^\beta (\tau )𝑑t=\delta ^{\alpha \beta }$$
(B15)
The explicit forms for these functions, when $`\lambda =0`$, have already been obtained in  and  (See also ).

The equations (B11) are simply the equations of motion for spin-$`2`$ fields with mass $`m_\alpha `$ on a background which is an Einstein-space  (for a detailed discussion of the flat case see also ). In  it is shown that, when $`m_\alpha ^2>0`$,

$`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H_{mk;a}^{;a}2\underset{¯}{R}_{ambk}^{(\alpha )}H^{ab}m_\alpha ^2{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H_{mk}^{}=0`$ (B16)
$`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H=^{(\alpha )}H_{mk}^{;k}=0`$ (B17)
and, therefore, we have five propagating degrees of freedom. Here, $`\underset{¯}{R}_{ambk}`$ is the Riemann tensor constructed from the metric $`\underset{¯}{g}_{mk}`$. On the other hand, when $`m_\alpha =0`$, the theory is invariant under the gauge transformation

$$H_{mk}H_{mk}+\xi _{m;k}+\xi _{k;m}$$
(B18)
and describes a massless spin-2 field. In  it was also demonstrated that the masses $`m_\alpha `$ of the states in the KK tower have to satisfy

$$\lambda +6m_\alpha ^20$$
(B19)
Using (B9) and (B13), (52), (53), (B14) and (B15), we can rewrite the action (B1) in terms of the KK states $`{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}H_{mk}^{}`$. After some algebra, we obtain

$$S^{(2)}(d=0)=2M^3r_c\underset{\alpha }{}d^4x\sqrt{\underset{¯}{g}}_\pi ^\pi dt\frac{a}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha )^2L_{PF}(^{(\alpha )}H_{mk};m_\alpha ^2)$$
(B20)
where $`L_{PF}`$ is the generalization of the Pauli-Fierz Lagrangian for a background which is an Einstein space , namely,

$`L_{PF}(H,m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{ak;m}H^{ak;m}H_{ak;m}H^{am;k}+H_{;k}^{mk}H_{,m}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H^{,m}H_{,m}`$ (B21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\left(H_{mk}H^{mk}H^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}\left(2H_{mk}H^{mk}H^2\right)`$ (B22)
It is easy to check that the equations of motion following from (B22) are precisely the same as (B11).


format: text

text:
# Field distribution and flux-line depinning in the mixed-state of MgB2 probed by Conduction Electron Spin Resonance

\[

## Abstract

We report the first observation of the internal magnetic-field distribution and flux-line $`depinning`$ in the vortex-state of a type-II superconductor probed by conduction electrons spin resonance (CESR) technique. The CESR measurements were performed in the recently discovered MgB2 type-II superconductor compound with transition temperature $`T_c39`$ K using microwave sources at $`4.1`$ (S-band) and $`9.5`$ GHz (X-band) corresponding to resonance fields of $`H_r1455`$ and $`3390`$ Oe for $`g2.00`$ in the normal state, respectively. From the distortion of the CESR line in the superconducting state, the field distribution function, $`n(H)`$, in the vortex-state was inferred, and from the broadening of the line a direct estimate of the standard deviation, $`\sigma `$ $`14`$ Oe, was obtained at $``$ $`28`$ K and $``$ $`7`$ K for S-band and X-band, respectively. Furthermore, our experiments allowed the determination of the flux-line lattice $`depinning`$ temperature for both employed microwave frequencies.

76.30.Pk,71.30.+h,71.27.+a

\]

In the early 70’s almost simultaneously three groups reported the observation of electron spin resonance (ESR) of localized magnetic impurities in the mixed-state of type-II intermetallic superconductors. The effects caused by the superconducting state on the resonance lineshape, field for resonance ($`g`$-value), and resonance linewidth were later discussed in detail by Davidov $`et`$ $`al`$.  Concurrently, Orbach  showed that the gross observed features could be explained in terms of the internal magnetic-field distribution in the Abrikosov vortex-lattice.  Following the Lasher’s calculations using the Ginzburg-Landau equations and the analysis of the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data in Vanadium given by Fite and Redfield,  Orbach was able to simulate most of the observed features based on the Abrikosov vortex-lattice internal magnetic-field distribution of a type-II superconductor. Although CESR experiments in normal metals were discovered in the early 50’s,  only in the 80’s Vier and Schultz reported the first observation of CESR in the superconducting mixed-state of the Nb type-II superconductor.  However, due to the low $`H_{c2}`$ \[$`H_{c2}(T=0)4`$ kOe\], strong decrease of the CESR intensity, narrowing effects, relaxation phenomena, and weak pinning in the superconducting state,  these authors have not observed the effects of the vortex-lattice field distribution in their CESR experiments. Nemes $`et`$ $`al.`$  reported the observation of the CESR in the superconducting state of K3C60 \[$`T_c(H=0)19`$ K, $`H_{c2}(T=0)25`$ T\]. Nonetheless, the observed $`T`$-dependence of the CESR linewidth below $`T_c`$ did not allow them to distinguish between the contribution of the field distribution in the vortex-lattice from that of the relaxation processes.  More recently, Simon $`et`$ $`al.`$  reported CESR in MgB2. However, they have observed the vortex-lattice field distribution either, probably, due to the high field/frequency used in their experiments.

In this work we report, the first direct and unambiguous observation of the internal magnetic-field distribution and flux-line $`depinning`$ in a type-II superconductor probed by conduction electrons ($`ce`$). The standard deviation of the field distribution has been quantitatively estimated from the experiment.

The recent discovery of superconductivity in the binary compound MgB2 at $`T_c`$ $`40`$ K  and its high upper critical field $`20`$ T $`H_{c2}^{,c}`$ $``$ $`30`$ T  have attracted much interest and stimulated us to investigate the mixed-state of this type-II superconductor by means of CESR. To probe the vortex-lattice internal magnetic-field distribution by $`ce`$ we have choosen our two lowest available microwave sources to perform the CESR experiments. The S-band ($`\nu 4.1`$ GHz, $`H_r1455`$ Oe for $`g=2.00`$ in the normal state) and X-band ($`\nu 9.5`$ GHz, $`H_r3390`$ Oe for $`g=2.00`$ in the normal state) is well suited for this purpose, since for $`TT_c`$ the CESR field, $`H_r`$, will be above $`H_{c1}500`$ Oe and well below the irreversibility field, $`H_rH_{irr}^{,c}<H_{c2}^{,c}`$ (see below) and, therefore, the $`ce`$ will be certainly probing the internal magnetic-field distribution in the vortex-lattice. Besides, at $`\nu 9.4`$ GHz and $`T40`$ K the lowest estimates for the skin depth $`\delta 1`$ $`\mu `$m \[$`\delta =`$ $`\sqrt{\rho /\pi \mu _0\nu }`$, and $`\rho `$($`T`$) from ref. \] is larger than the average size of our fine powder particles (our MgB2 particle size ranged between $`0.5`$ $`\mu `$m and $`1`$ $`\mu `$m, determined by optical microscopy). These two constrains improve the CESR signal/noise ratio and simplify the analysis of the CESR spectra, since a pure absorption lorentzian line is expected to be observed at all temperatures.

The MgB2 polycrystalline sample was prepared in sealed Ta tubes as described previously. X-ray powder diffraction analysis confirmed single-phase purity and AlB2-type structure for our MgB2 sample. The zero field cooled (ZFC) and field cooled cooling (FCC) diamagnetism was measured by $`dc`$-magnetization in a SQUID MPMS-QD magnetometer at $`10`$ Oe and at the S and X-band CESR fields of $`1455`$ Oe and $`3387`$ Oe, respectively. The CESR experiments were carried out in an ELEXSYS-CW S and X-band Bruker spectrometer using a flexline probehead line with a dielectric ring/split ring low Q cavity module for S-band and a TE102 cavity for X-band. The microwave and external fields were always mutually perpendicular. The microwave power was keept as low as $`0.1`$-$`0.5`$ mW to minimize the unpleasant noise induced by the $`ac`$-microwave and modulation fields in the superconducting mixed-state and, when necessary, $`4`$ scans were accumulated to improve the signal/noise ratio. A $`100`$ kHz field modulation/lock-in signal detection system and a He gas flux $`T`$-controller were used.

Figure 1 presents the FCC X-band CESR spectra at few temperatures above and below the transition temperature $`T_c(3387`$ Oe$`)36`$ K for a fine powder sample of MgB2. Above $`T_c`$ the lineshape is lorentzian. Calibration of the CESR intensity against a strong pitch in KCl at room-$`T`$ leads to $`3.6`$ x$`10^{20}`$ spin/cm3 and a spin susceptibility of $`\chi _s1.4(5)`$ x$`10^5`$ emu/mole. Using a free electron gas approximation ($`\chi =\mu _B^2N(0)`$) we extracted the density of states (DOS) at the Fermi level, $`N(0)0.42(5)`$ states/eV$``$unit cell, which is of the order of that obtained from a band structure calculation.  The inset of Fig. 1 shows the X-band CESR spectra measured at room temperature for a fine powder and for a pellet made out of the same powder. For the pellet sample we observed a CESR of dysonian lineshape with A/B $`2.1`$ (admixture of absorption and dispersion of lorentzian line) indicating a sample size larger than or comparable with the skin depth, $`\delta `$,  and with an intensity smaller than that in the fine powder. These results confirm that the CESR indeed comes from the bulk of the sample under study. We want to point out that in all our experiments a single resonance was always observed. FCC and ZFC X-band CESR in the superconducting mixed-state at $`19.3`$ K for the same sample of Figure 1 are shown in Fig. 2a. It is clear from these measurements that the shift toward higher fields of the CESR, $`20`$ Oe larger for the ZFC experiment, is caused by the diamagnetic shielding effect in the superconducting state. Fig. 2b presents the supercoducting transition measured for this sample by $`dc`$-magnetic susceptibility, $`\chi _{dc}(T)`$, in a ZFC and FCC experiments at $`10`$ Oe, $`1455`$ Oe (S-band), and $`3387`$ Oe (X-band). The inset of Fig. 2b shows, for the three applied fields, the onset of superconductivity, $`T_c(H`$), and the irreversibility points, $`T_{irr}(H)`$. For $`H=`$ $`10`$ Oe we obtained $`T_cT_{irr}=39`$ K.

Regarding the normal state properties of MgB2, we found, for $`T200`$ K and a Pauli-like $`T`$-independent magnetic susceptibility $`\chi _{dc}(T)`$ $`=2.5`$ x$`10^5`$ emu/mole, after taking into account the core diamagnetism. Comparing this value with that obtained from the DOS calculated theoretically, $`N(0)0.65(5)`$ states/eV$``$unit cell and using $`\chi =`$ $`\mu _B^2N(0)`$, one can estimates the Stoner´s factor $`\chi _{dc}/\chi =1/(1\alpha )`$ $`1.19`$ ($`\alpha 0.16(6)`$) due to the electron-electron exchange interactions in MgB2. Estimates of $`\chi `$ using the Sommerfeld constant $`\gamma =1/3\pi ^2k_B^2N(0)(1+\lambda )2.6`$ mJ/mole K2, are not reliable due to the large uncertainty found in the literature for the value of the electron-phonon coupling, $`\lambda `$.

Below we discuss the CESR results obtained in a FCC experiments. The $`T`$-dependence of the relative intensity, $`I`$($`T`$)/$`I^n`$($`40`$ K), the shift of the field for resonance relative to that in the normal state, $`H_r(T)`$-$`H_r^n(40`$ K$`)`$, and the linewidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}`$($`T`$) of the CESR measured at X and S-bands, are presented in Figs. 3a, b, and c, respectively, for the sample of Fig. 1. In the normal state, $`T39`$ K, we found that the CESR lineshape is lorentzian at all $`T`$ and, within the accuracy of the measurements, $`I^n(T)`$ and $`H_r^n(T)`$ are $`T`$-independent indicating that the resonance can be attributed to itinerant $`ce`$ ($`g=2.003(2)`$) as expected for a light metal.  Fig. 3c shows that above $`33`$ K the linewidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}`$, is frequency independent suggesting homogeneous CESR. Between $`40`$ K and $`110`$ K $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}`$ follows roughly the $`T`$-dependence of the resistivity, $`\rho `$($`T`$), examplified by the data reported by Canfield $`et`$ $`al.`$ for a MgB2 wire.  This result suggests that in this temperature region the $`ce`$ spin-lattice relaxation is dominated by phonons via spin-orbit coupling. However, above $`110`$ K a clear departure of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}`$($`T`$) from $`\rho `$($`T`$) is observed, and above $`250`$ K the linewidth levels off at about $`130`$ Oe. This is an intriguing result because it shows that while the $`ce`$ mean-free path is still decreasing at high-$`T`$ the spin-flip scattering remains about the same.

In the superconducting state, $`T39`$ K, the CESR data in both bands present the following features: $`i)`$ a strong drop of the CESR signal/noise ratio becoming almost undetectable at $`4.2`$ K ($`T/T_c0.1`$) in X-band (see Fig. 3a), $`ii)`$ an evident resonance shift toward higher fields (see Fig. 3b and inset), $`iii)`$ the linewidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^s`$, does not change down to $`35`$ K and $`26`$ K for S and X-band, respectively, keeping approximately the same value as in the low-$`T`$ normal state, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^n18`$ Oe (see Fig. 3c), and $`iv)`$ a broadening and distortion of the line (with larger broadening toward the low field side of the resonance) is observed below $`35`$ K and $`26`$ K for S and X-band, respectively. The drop of $`I`$($`T`$)/$`I^n`$($`40`$ K) for $`T39`$ K is attributed to the decreasing of normal $`ce`$ excited across the superconducting gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`1.8÷3`$ meV). The fraction of normal $`ce`$ at $`T7`$ K, $`I(7`$ K$`)/I^n`$($`40`$ K) $``$ $`0.7`$, is relatively large, which is a consequence of the mixed-state in type-II superconductors. The increase of $`H_r`$($`T`$) for $`T35`$ K in Fig. 3b is caused by the partial shielding of the external field by the supercurrents (see also Fig. 1). Below $`50`$ K the linewidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}`$, is the same in both bands and remains constant at $`18(2)`$ Oe down to $`35`$ K and $`26`$ K for S and X-bands, respectively, (see Figs. 3c and 4b).

Besides, in these $`T`$-intervals, as in the normal state, the lineshape remains lorentzian. These results suggest that: $`a`$) for the S and X-bands, the corresponding temperature intervals $`35T37`$ K and $`26T35`$ K may be associated with a vortex-$`viscous`$ motion regime that, via a motional narrowing mechanism, may be responsible for the absence of the inhomogeneous line broadening expected from the magnetic-field distribution in a vortex-$`pinned`$ lattice, and $`b`$) the $`ce`$ relaxation in the superconducting state of MgB2 was found to be $`T`$-independent, except for a tiny decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^s`$ (smaller than our error bars, see Fig. 3c).

However, below $`35`$ K and $`26`$ K for the S and X-band, respectively, the CESR line clearly broadens and distorts revealing the presence of a field distribution that we now attribute to a vortex-$`pinning`$ regime. It is worth mention that this broadening cannot be attributed to a random distribution of the anisotropic upper critical field, $`H_{c2}^{,c}`$, because at the temperature where the S-band CESR starts broad the X-band linewidth remains narrow (see Fig. 3c).

The spectra shown in Fig. 4a are the X-band CESR at $`15.5`$ K and $`23.0`$ K. The observed lineshapes present the general features expected for the CESR absorption derivative of $`ce`$ probing the internal magnetic-field distribution in a vortex-lattice of a type-II superconductor. Notice that the signal/noise ratio is much smaller than that in the normal state due to a decreasing number of normal $`ce`$ in the superconducting state (see above) and the inevitable noise produced by the interaction between vortices and the external microwave and modulation $`ac`$-fields needed for the detection of the CESR.

The left-bottom inset of Fig. 4a shows the theoretical NMR absorption lineshape, $`n(H),`$ calculated by Lasher, using Ginzburg-Landau equations,  due to the internal magnetic-field distribution in a triangular ($`(H_SH_C)/(H_VH_C)7\%)`$ and square ($`(H_SH_C)/(H_VH_C)20\%)`$ Abrikosov vortex-lattice, where the points in space correspond to the maximum, $`H_V`$, minimum, $`H_C`$, and saddle, $`H_S`$ (majority lattice points) fields in the unit cell of a triangular lattice. For simplicity we have assumed an Abrikosov vortex-lattice and calculated the derivative of the convolution of a NMR Lasher-like absorption lineshape, $`n(H)`$, with an absorption lorentzian lineshape to simulate the CESR absorption derivative in the superconducting state. In this simulation we have considered: $`i)`$ for the maximum field, $`H_V`$, the value of the resonance field in the normal state, $`H_r^n3390`$ Oe, $`ii)`$ a linewidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^s\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^n(40`$ K) $`18(2)`$ Oe (no relaxation contributions were contemplated ), and $`iii)`$ two adjustable parameters, $`H_S`$ and $`H_C`$ ($`<H_S<H_V`$) (notice that CESR is an experiment at fixed frequency, therefore, the diamagnetic shift of the line will be always toward higer fields). The results of these convolutions are given in Fig. 4a by the solid lines on the observed spectra. The best simulations for these two spectra were obtained using the distribution function, $`n(H)`$, shown in the right-side insets of Figure 4a. The reasonable agreement obtained between the data and the simulation indicates that the broadening and distortion of the CESR lines may be accounted for by the magnetic-field distribution in the vortex-lattice state and that relaxation process is not present in the superconducting state of MgB2. According to the results presented in the insets of Fig. 4a the field distribution deviates from that expected for ideal eitheir triangular or square vortex-lattice. We attribute this fact to the vortex-lattice distortions due to the presence of relatively strong vortex pinning effect in our sample.

Figure 4b presents a summary of the most relevant CESR data in the superconducting state of MgB2. The closed symbols give the shift of the resonance field in the superconducting state, $`H_r^s(T)`$-$`H_r^n(40`$ K$`)`$, and the solid bars represent the $`\mathrm{"}extra\mathrm{"}`$ broadening of the linewidth in the superconducting state relative to that in the normal state, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^s(T)`$-$`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^n(40`$ K$`)`$ (notice that these solid bars are not $`\mathrm{"}error`$ $`bars\mathrm{"}`$). This $`\mathrm{"}extra\mathrm{"}`$ broadening may actually be directly associated to the standard deviation, $`2\sigma `$, of the field distribution. The temperature where the resonance field, $`H_r^s(T)`$, departures from $`H_r^n(40`$ K$`)`$ agrees, within $`1`$ K, with the critical temperature, $`T_c(H)`$, obtained from the onset of superconductivity in Fig. 2b. The temperature where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^s(T)`$ exceeds that of the normal state $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^n(40`$ K$`)`$, defines the vortex-$`pinning`$ temperature, $`T_p(H)`$. This temperature separates $`pinning`$ and $`viscous`$ vortex motion regime. The microwave field, $`H_1`$, induces a screening current which exerts a force on flux-lines $`j\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ ($`j`$ is the current density) per unit length tilting the flux-lines in the direction of $`H_1`$ $`(H_1H_r)`$. This force is balanced by $`pinning`$ and $`viscous`$ forces $`\alpha _px+\eta v=j\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$,  where $`\alpha _p`$ is the $`pinning`$ constant (Labush parameter), $`x`$ is the vortex displacement, $`\eta `$ is the $`viscous`$ drag coefficient (viscosity), and $`v`$ is the flux line velocity. So, from the equation of motion one gets the vortex resistivity $`\rho _v=(\mathrm{\Phi }_0H/\eta )/(1+i\omega _0/\omega )`$ , where $`\omega _0=\alpha _p/\eta `$, the so-called $`depinning`$ (crossover) frequency, separates the $`pinning`$ ($`\omega \omega _0`$) and $`viscous`$ flux flow ($`\omega \omega _0`$) regimes. We estimate the in-plane viscosity coefficient $`\eta =`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ $`H_{c2}^c/\rho _n10^6`$ Ns/m2, taking $`H_{c2}^c=2`$ T  and $`\rho _n=0.4`$ $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$.cm . From low-$`T`$ ($`T=6`$ K) magnetization hysteresis loop $`M(H)`$ measurements and using the Bean critical state model applied to a disk-shaped sample, we estimate the critical current density $`j_c(T=6`$ K, $`H=H_r=3535`$ Oe$`)`$ $`10^{11}`$A/m2 being in a good agreement with previous results . From the equation for the $`pinning`$ force $`f_p=j_c\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\alpha _p\xi `$ $`(\xi =`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi H_{c2}^c}`$ is the in-plane coherence length $`)`$ we estimate $`\alpha _p1.5`$ x$`10^4`$ N/m2 , and finally $`\omega _01.5`$ x$`10^{10}`$ rad/s $`(\nu _0=\omega _0/2\pi 2`$ GHz$`)`$. Because the obtained value of $`\nu _0`$ is comparable to the measuring frequency, $`\nu `$ $`=9.4`$ GHz, and $`j_c(T)`$ decreases with $`T`$, it is reasonable to assume the vortex $`\mathrm{"}depinning\mathrm{"}`$ occurring at $`TT_p(\nu )`$ and motional narrowing effects may, then, account for the reduction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^s(T)`$ toward $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^n(T)`$. If such an interpretation is correct, $`T_p(\nu )`$ should be shifted to higher-$`T`$ by lowering the measuring frequency. This is actually shown by our experiments at $`4.1`$ GHz (see Fig. 4b). On the other hand, for $`\nu `$ $``$ $`\nu _0`$ no crossover to the $`pinning`$ regime is expected and, therefore, no $`\mathrm{"}extra\mathrm{"}`$ broadening of the line, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}^n(T)`$, would be expected below $`T_c`$. The measurements performed in Ref.  for $`\nu `$ $``$ $`35`$ GHz, which according to our estimation is well above $`\nu _0`$, revealed at $`T=5`$ K a broadening and a splitting of the line that was attributed to the coexistence of CESR in the normal and superconducting state. The dashed line in Fig. 4b is the crossover line which separates $`pinning`$ and $`viscous`$ FLL motion regimes of MgB2 obtained from our CESR experiments. The inset in Fig. 4b presents a low field phase-diagram for the superconducting state of our MgB2 sample extracted from CESR and $`dc`$-magnetization experiments and summarizes the discussion above.

Finally, it is important to mention that the results presented in this letter and those of Simon $`et`$ $`al.`$ are somehow complementary, although below $`T_c`$ none of our spectra showed the CESR corresponding to the normal phase reported in Ref. .

In summary, we demonstrate that CESR can be used for direct probing of the inhomogeneous field dristribution in the mixed state of the MgB2. The standard deviation, $`\sigma `$, of the field distribution has been inferred for various temperatures from the $`\mathrm{"}extra\mathrm{"}`$ broadening of the linewidth. The obtained $`\sigma `$-value of $`14`$ Oe at $`T`$ $``$ $`28`$ K and $`T`$ $`7`$ K for S-band and X-band, respectively, is of the order of the values extracted from the analysis of the muon-spin rotation data in high-Tc cuprates. The small value of $`\sigma `$ ($`0.5÷1\%`$ of the applied fields) is consistent with the relatively large value of the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa =\lambda /\xi 10÷20`$ for MgB2.  Besides, the CESR data has allowed to determine $`\mathrm{"}depinning\mathrm{"}`$ temperature $`T_p`$($`H`$, $`\nu `$) separating vortex-$`pinning`$ and $`viscous`$ vortex motion regimes.

The authors are grateful to Prof. O.F. de Lima for critically reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by FAPESP and CNPq of Brazil.


text:
# Isospectral Theory of Euler Equations

## 1. Introduction

This note is a continuation of the works  and . It focus upon the isospectral property of the Lax pairs of both 2D and 3D Euler equations. It provides efforts towards the connection between isospectral theory and the Clay problem on Navier-Stokes equations.

## 2. 2D Euler Equation

The 2D Euler equation can be written in the vorticity form,

$$_t\mathrm{\Omega }+\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Omega }\}=0,$$
(2.1)
where the bracket $`\{,\}`$ is defined as

$$\{f,g\}=(_xf)(_yg)(_yf)(_xg),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the stream function given by,

$$u=_y\mathrm{\Psi },v=_x\mathrm{\Psi },$$

where $`u`$ and $`v`$ are respectively the velocity components along $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, and the relation between vorticity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and stream function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=_xv_yu=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }.$$

###### Theorem 2.1 (Li, )

The Lax pair of the 2D Euler equation (2.1) is given as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}L\phi =\lambda \phi ,\hfill \\ _t\phi +A\phi =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
where

$$L\phi =\{\mathrm{\Omega },\phi \},A\phi =\{\mathrm{\Psi },\phi \},$$

and $`\lambda `$ is an imaginary constant, and $`\phi `$ is a complex-valued function.

### 2.1. Isospectral Theory and Conservation Laws

Denote by $`H^s`$ the Sobolev space $`H^s(R^2)`$ or $`H^s(T^2)`$, and $`_s`$ the $`H^s`$ norm.

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a solution to the 2D Euler equation (2.1), $`\phi `$ be a solution to the Lax pair (2.2) at ($`\mathrm{\Omega },\lambda `$), then

$$I=\frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\phi \}_s}{\phi _s}$$

is conservation law, i.e., I is independent of $`t`$.

Proof: Take the $`H^s`$ norm on both side of the first equation in the Lax pair (2.2), then

$$I=\frac{\{\mathrm{\Omega },\phi \}_s}{\phi _s}=|\lambda |.$$

By the isospectral property of the Lax pair (2.2), I is independent of $`t`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

An interesting idea is to try to use the conservation law $`I`$ to prove global well-posedness. In this 2D Euler case, the idea is not very important since the global well-posedness is already proved. The hope is to use this idea to prove the global well-posedness of 3D Euler equation.

###### Lemma 2.1

If $`\phi `$ solves the Lax pair (2.2), then $`f(\phi )`$ solves

$$_tf(\phi )+\{\mathrm{\Psi },f(\phi )\}=0,$$
(2.3)
for any $`f`$ smooth enough.

Proof: The proof is completed by direct verification. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2.2

If $`\{\varphi _j\}_{j=1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ is a complete base of $`H^s`$, where $`\varphi _j`$’s are $`f(\phi )`$’s at different values of $`\lambda `$; then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j\varphi _j,$$

where $`a_j`$’s are complex constants.

Proof: Since Equation (2.3) is a linear equation, the claim of Lemma 2.1 implies the current lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.2. The Spectrum of $`L`$

Denote by $`f_\tau `$ the flow generated by the vector field ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_y,\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$) on $`T^2`$.

###### Theorem 2.3

Denote by $`\sigma _X(L)`$ the spectrum of the operator $`L`$ (2.2) in the space $`X`$.

1. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }\text{constant}`$, then $`\sigma _{L^2(T^2)}(L)=iR`$.
2. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the collection of all Lyapunov exponents of the flow $`f_\tau `$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\{0\}+iR\sigma _{H^1(T^2)}(L)`$.

For a proof of this theorem, see .

## 3. 3D Euler Equation

The 3D Euler equation can be written in vorticity form,

$$_t\mathrm{\Omega }+(u)\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega })u=0,$$
(3.1)
where $`u=(u_1,u_2,u_3)`$ is the velocity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_3)`$ is the vorticity, $`=(_x,_y,_z)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\times u`$, and $`u=0`$. $`u`$ can be represented by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for example through Biot-Savart law.

###### Theorem 3.1 (Childress, )

The Lax pair of the 3D Euler equation (3.1) is given as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}L\phi =\lambda \phi ,\hfill \\ _t\phi +A\phi =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
where

$$L\phi =(\mathrm{\Omega })\phi (\phi )\mathrm{\Omega },A\phi =(u)\phi (\phi )u,$$

$`\lambda `$ is a complex constant, and $`\phi =(\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3)`$ is a complex 3-vector valued function.

###### Theorem 3.2 (Montgomery-Smith, )

Another Lax pair of the 3D Euler equation (3.1) is given as

$$\{\begin{array}{c}L\varphi =\lambda \varphi ,\hfill \\ _t\varphi +A\varphi =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.3)
where

$$L\varphi =(\mathrm{\Omega })\varphi ,A\phi =(u)\varphi ,$$

$`\lambda `$ is a complex constant, and $`\varphi `$ is a complex scalar-valued function.

### 3.1. Isospectral Theory and Conservation Laws

Denote by $`H^s`$ the Sobolev space $`H^s(R^3)`$ or $`H^s(T^3)`$, and $`_s`$ the $`H^s`$ norm.

###### Theorem 3.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a solution to the 3D Euler equation (3.1), $`\varphi `$ be a solution to the Lax pair (3.3) at ($`\mathrm{\Omega },\lambda `$), then

$$I=\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega })\varphi _s}{\varphi _s}$$

is conservation law, i.e., I is independent of $`t`$.

Proof: Take the $`H^s`$ norm on both side of the first equation in the Lax pair (3.2), then

$$I=\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega })\varphi _s}{\varphi _s}=|\lambda |.$$

By the isospectral property of the Lax pair (3.2), I is independent of $`t`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.1

Of course, the significance of the conservation laws comes from their potential in providing a priori bounds and establishing the global well-posedness of 3D Euler equation, hence, of 3D Navier-Stokes equation (one of the Clay problems).

###### Lemma 3.1

If $`\{\phi _j\}_{j=1,2,\mathrm{}}`$ is a complete base of $`H^s`$, where $`\phi _j`$’s solve the Lax pair (3.2) at different values of $`\lambda `$; then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j\phi _j,$$

where $`a_j`$’s are complex constants.

Proof: The proof is completed by comparing the second equation in the Lax pair (3.2) and the 3D Euler equation. $`\mathrm{}`$