text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is a remarkable fact that in brane-world theories the true scale, $`M_{}`$, of quantum gravity may be substantially lower than the traditional Planck scale, $`M_{pl}`$, possibly approaching the TeV-scale, and this radical departure from the standard picture is not excluded  (for earlier works on brane theories see ). This observation has naturally excited a large amount of activity investigating both the structure of these theories and their experimental signals . One of the most striking consequences of lowering the Planck scale to the TeV region is that the properties of small black holes are substantially altered . A black hole of given mass $`M`$ is now much lighter, larger, and colder than a usual black hole of the same mass, provided only that the Schwarschild radius $`r_H`$ of the black hole is smaller than the size of the extra dimensions $`r_H<R`$. In this limit, the black hole is well-described as a $`(4+n)`$-dimensional black hole centered on the brane, but extending out into the $`n`$ extra dimensions. The horizon radius $`r_H`$ of such a black hole is ,

$$r_H=\frac{1}{M_{}}\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\left(\frac{8\mathrm{\Gamma }((n+3)/2)}{(n+2)\pi ^{(n+1)/2}}\right)^{1/(n+1)}.$$
(1)
(Note that, following common practice, we work in the approximation that the brane tension itself does not strongly perturb the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional black hole solutions.)

In particular it is likely (though not proven) that black holes are much easier to produce, with production cross-section at parton-parton c.o.m. energies $`\sqrt{s}`$ close to the geometrical cross-section of a black hole of mass $`M=\sqrt{s}`$  (for supporting evidence see, e.g., , for claims to the contrary, see )

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{prod}}(s)\pi r_H^2=\frac{1}{M_{}^2}\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\{\frac{8\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n+3}{2}\right)}{n+2}.\}\right)^{2/(n+1)}$$
(2)
If this is the case, then for $`M_{}𝒪(\mathrm{TeV})`$ there are striking consequences for the high-energy interactions of cosmic rays , and, moreover, the LHC will become a ‘black-hole factory’ .

After such black holes are produced they decay by the emission of Hawking radiation. It is expected that black holes produced by a collision on our brane, e.g. $`p\overline{p}BH+X`$ at a hadron collider, will decay mostly to particles on our brane , and thus be indirectly observable via this characteristic Hawking radiation. This radiation is usually described as ‘thermal’ in character with a temperature

$$T_{BH}=\frac{(1+n)}{4\pi }\frac{1}{r_H}$$
(3)
(in $`G_N=k_B=c=\mathrm{}=1`$ units). However, because of the non-trivial metric in the region exterior to the horizon there exists an effective potential barrier in this exterior region. This potential barrier backscatters a part of the outgoing radiation back into the black hole, the amount depending on the energy of the radiation. Thus the original blackbody radiation is modified by a frequency-dependent filtering function, $`\sigma (\omega )`$, caused by the gravitational potential of the black hole. The function, $`\sigma (\omega )`$, is known as the ‘greybody factor’. The black hole differential decay rate into particles of energy $`\omega `$ is then given by the Hawking formula

$$\frac{dE(\omega )}{dt}=\underset{\mathrm{},b}{}\sigma _{\mathrm{},b}(\omega )\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{exp}\left(\omega /T_{BH}\right)1}\frac{d^{n+3}k}{(2\pi )^{n+3}}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ labels the angular momentum quantum number, $`b`$ labels any other quantum numbers of the emitted particle, as well as the particle type, and in the phase-space integral $`|k|=\omega `$ for a massless particle.111An alternate form for the decay rate that is sometimes useful in the massless particle case involves the absorption probability $`|𝒜(\omega )|^2`$ whose relation to $`\sigma (\omega )`$ is given in Eq.(13): $`dE(\omega )/dt=_{\mathrm{},m,b}|𝒜(\omega )|^2\omega d\omega /[2\pi (\mathrm{exp}\left(\omega /T_{BH}\right)1)]`$. Here $`m`$ is the azimuthal quantum number.

Greybody factors are important theoretically because they encode information on the near horizon structure of black holes. Indeed one of the most exciting features of BH production at the LHC would be the opportunity to investigate Hawking emission in detail for clues as to how the infamous apparent violation of the laws of quantum mechanics by black hole evaporation (the ‘information paradox’ of black holes ) is resolved – if it is, that is!

Greybody factors can be important experimentally because they modify the spectrum in the region where most particles are produced thus altering the characteristic spectrum by which we hope to identify a ‘BH event’. In particular the functional dependence of $`\sigma _b(\omega )`$ on the energy $`\omega `$ depends on the spin of the emitted particle, and on whether it is brane-localised or free to propagate in the bulk of the extra dimensions.

One can compute the greybody factor by first computing the absorption cross section for the appropriate type of particle incident on the background metric that describes the brane black hole. This is because the greybody factor in the Hawking formula for the emission rate of a given type of outgoing particle, $`b`$, at energy $`\omega `$ equals the absorption cross section $`\sigma _{b,abs}(\omega )`$ for a particle of type $`b`$ incoming at energy $`\omega `$. In fact it is this property which implies the greybody factors do not invalidate the thermal nature of the black hole. Since the outgoing transmission and incoming absorption coefficients are equal to one another, equilibrium still occurs if the black hole is placed in a heat bath.

The semiclassical calculation of Hawking emission is only reliable when the energy of the emitted particle is small compared to the black hole mass $`\omega M`$, since only in this case is it correct to neglect the back reaction of the metric during the emission process. This in turn requires that the Hawking temperature $`T_{BH}M`$, which is equivalent to demanding that the black hole mass $`MM_{}`$, as can be seen from Eqs.(3) and (1). Inevitably this condition breaks down during the final stages of the decay process, but for those black holes of initial mass larger than $`M_{}`$ most of the evaporation process is well-described by the semi-classical calculation.

In this paper we calculate the greybody factor for the simplest case of scalar particles, both free to propagate in the bulk, and localized on the brane (e.g., the Higgs). Section 2 contains a discussion of the metric used in calculating the greybody factors and the quality of the approximations used. To orient the reader through our analysis, Section 3 presents the calculation of bulk scalar emission in $`(4+n)`$-dimensions, in the simple case of S-wave emission. Section 4 performs the calculation of the greybody factor for bulk scalar emission for arbitrary partial wave. The primary result of this section, the general formula for the greybody factor, is given in Eq.(37). Section 5 contains the calculation of brane-localized scalar emission, where the brane is embedded in a $`(4+n)`$-dimensional bulk. The primary results of this section are given in Eqs.(47) and (48). We conclude in Section 6. For ease of use, the results of our calculations for the greybody factors, for the most important ($`\mathrm{}=0,1,2`$) angular momentum modes, and for the $`n=2,4,6`$ extra dimensions are collected in Tables 1 and 2.

## 2 Black hole metrics and greybody factors

Let $`V=(2\pi R)^n`$ be the volume of the $`n`$ extra dimensions, which are here taken to be of common radius $`R`$. Then Gauss’ Law relates the 4d Planck mass $`M_{pl}`$ to the new fundamental scale of gravity by $`M_{pl}^2=V_nM_{}^{2+n}`$. A black hole of mass $`MM_{pl}(M_{pl}/M_{})^{(2+n)/n}10^{15+32/n}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is, for distances $`rR`$, well approximated  by the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole with line-element

$$ds^2=h(r)dt^2+h(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2+n}^2,$$
(5)
where

$$h(r)=1\left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right)^{n+1},$$
(6)
with the horizon radius, $`r_H`$, given in Eq.(1). In Eq.(5) the angular part is

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2+n}^2=d\theta _{n+1}^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{n+1}\left(d\theta _n^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _n\left(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\phi ^2)\mathrm{}\right)\right),$$
(7)
with $`0<\phi <2\pi `$ and $`0<\theta _i<\pi `$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$. However, because of the compactification of the extra dimensions, the metric for this black hole at distances $`rR`$ goes over to that of the usual 4-dimensional Schwarzschild solution

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{M_{pl}^2r}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2M}{M_{pl}^2r}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.$$
(8)
The matching of the two expressions, Eqs.(5) and (8) at $`rR`$ is of course just an approximation to the exact metric for such a black hole. An exact expression is not necessary to derive the form of the greybody factor to a very good approximation for the energies of interest.

To understand this consider the case where a scalar field propagates in the full $`(4+n)`$-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole background. The scalar wave equation $`g^{IJ}\varphi _{,I;J}=0`$ in this background is separable if we make the ansatz

$$\varphi (t,r,\theta _i,\phi )=e^{i\omega t}R_\omega \mathrm{}(r)\stackrel{~}{Y}_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the $`(3+n)`$-spatial-dimensional generalisation of the usual spherical harmonic functions depending on the angular coordinates . Upon substituting this ansatz, the scalar wave equation implies a second-order differential equation for the radial wavefunction $`R_\omega \mathrm{}(r)`$:

$$\frac{h(r)}{r^{n+2}}\frac{d}{dr}\left[h(r)r^{n+2}\frac{dR}{dr}\right]+\left[\omega ^2\frac{h(r)}{r^2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+n+1)\right]R=0.$$
(10)
The greybody factor for BH decay into scalars will be found from the solutions to this equation.

We can transform this equation to a more convenient form by defining a new (“tortoise”) radial coordinate $`y`$ by

$$y=\frac{lnh(r)}{r_H^{n+1}(n+1)}\frac{dy}{dr}=\frac{1}{h(r)r^{n+2}}$$
(11)
in terms of which the radial equation becomes

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dy^2}+r^{2n+4}\left[\omega ^2\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+n+1)h(r)}{r^2}\right]\right)R(y)=0.$$
(12)
Since the coordinate position $`r_H`$ of the horizon is defined by the (largest) solution to $`h(r_H)=0`$, the horizon in terms of $`y`$ is at $`y\mathrm{}`$, as can been seen from Eq.(11). Eq.(12) is analogous to the Schrodinger equation for a particle in an effective potential.

Non-trivial backscattering occurs in this metric when the 2nd of the two terms in the \[\]-parentheses in Eq.(12) is comparable or larger than the 1st. For black holes at the LHC the typical energies of emitted radiation we are interested in range from $`\omega _{max}T_{BH}=(1+n)/4\pi r_H(\mathrm{few})100\mathrm{GeV}`$ to a minimum of $`(\mathrm{few})\mathrm{GeV}`$ (this minimum might be set by the energy threshold of the detectors – the precise value will not matter). For the range of parameters, $`n`$, and $`M_{}`$, of interest, this gives a range of $`\omega `$ from $`\omega _{max}\stackrel{<}{}1/2r_H`$ to $`\omega _{min}\stackrel{>}{}1/200r_H`$. Thus, inspecting the potential terms of Eq.(12) we see that the potential is only large enough to lead to backscattering over the range of distances $`r`$ from $`𝒪(1)r_H`$ to $`𝒪(100)r_H`$.

A similar analysis can be performed for the 4d asymptotic metric of Eq.(8). In this case one finds that significant backscattering of the quanta of interest would only occur when distances were of order $`rM/M_{pl}^2r_HR`$. But at such distances the 4d asymptotic form of the metric is not applicable, being replaced by the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional metric used above. Instead what happens is that the change-over from the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional to 4-dimensional regime, at distances of order $`rR`$, only significantly backscatters quanta of energy $`10^3\mathrm{eV}`$ or less. In other words, the backscattering due to the effect of the compactification of the extra dimensions only affects very low energy quanta which are experimentally irrelevant. Even more so this applies to the change in backscattering at distances $`rR`$ due to the difference between the approximate form of the black hole metric, Eqs. (5) and (8), and the exact black hole solution.

Overall, the lesson is that upto corrections that only apply for very low energy, the greybody factors for brane black holes may be calculated using purely the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional regime of the black hole metric. In the remainder of this paper we will follow this procedure. Thus our task is now to return to the radial equation Eq.(10) or (12) and compute the greybody factor.

In particular, via the equivalence of $`\sigma (\omega )`$ to the absorption cross section, the greybody factor can be computed by first evaluating the absorption probability, $`|𝒜(\omega )|^2`$, from the ratio of the in-going flux at the future horizon to the incoming flux from past infinity (with the boundary condition that there is no outgoing flux at the horizon), and then using the generalised $`(4+n)`$-dimensional optical theorem relation

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(\omega )=\frac{2^n\pi ^{(n+1)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }[(n+1)/2]}{n!\omega ^{n+2}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+n+1)(\mathrm{}+n)!}{\mathrm{}!}|𝒜|^2$$
(13)
between the absorption cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(\omega )`$ and the absorption probability $`|𝒜|^2`$ for the $`\mathrm{}`$’th partial wave. This formula includes a summation over the multiplicity of individual ‘azimuthal’ components for each given partial wave $`\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`2\mathrm{}+1`$ in 3 spatial dimensions, $`(\mathrm{}+1)^2`$ in 4 spatial dimensions, etc.). A simple summation is appropriate because we deal with a non-rotating black hole.

The radial equation, however, is not in general exactly soluble, therefore, we will employ an approximation method based on splitting the radial domain into ‘near-horizon’ (NH) and ‘far-field’ (FF) regions. The solutions (satisfying appropriate boundary conditions) in these two regions will be computed and then matched in a transition region to find the complete solution. This procedure leads to an expression for $`|𝒜_{\mathrm{}}(\omega )|^2`$ correct in leading order in an expansion in the dimensionless quantity $`\omega r_H`$.

## 3 Bulk scalar emission: S-wave example

Because the radius and temperature of the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional black hole are always comparable, Eq.(3), the dominant scalar decay mode is that into the S-wave, $`\mathrm{}=0`$. We will first solve the problem in this case, which will also serve as an illuminating example for the full case studied in Sections 4 and 5.

We will first compute the solution in the ‘near-horizon’ (NH) region. The radial equation for the S-wave, in terms of the $`y`$-coordinate defined in Eq. (11), becomes

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dy^2}+\omega ^2r^{2(n+2)}\right)R(y)=0.$$
(14)
By expanding close to the horizon $`r=r_H+\delta r`$ ($`\delta rr_H`$), we obtain $`\delta rr_H\mathrm{exp}\left((n+1)r_H^{n+1}y\right)`$ as $`y\mathrm{}`$. Thus the radial equation Eq.(14) becomes in the near-horizon limit

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dy^2}+\omega ^2r_H^{2(n+2)}\right)R(y)=0,$$
(15)
up to exponentially small corrections in $`y`$. The general near-horizon solution is therefore

$$R_{NH}(y)=A_+\mathrm{exp}(ir_H^{n+2}\omega y)+A_{}\mathrm{exp}(ir_H^{n+2}\omega y).$$
(16)
In order to calculate the greybody factor, we must impose the boundary condition that near the horizon the solution is pure in-going. Therefore, we need to set $`A_+=0`$.

We now turn to the far-field region which is defined by $`rr_H`$. In this limit, $`h(r)1`$ and, by setting $`R(r)=f(r)/r^{(n+1)/2}`$, Eq.(10) can be rewritten as

$$\frac{d^2f}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{df}{dr}+[\omega ^2\frac{(n+1)^2}{4r^2}]f=0,$$
(17)
which has the form of a Bessel differential equation . The general solution for the radial function $`R(r)`$ is therefore given by

$$R_{FF}(r)=\frac{B_+}{r^{(n+1)/2}}J_{(n+1)/2}(\omega r)+\frac{B_{}}{r^{(n+1)/2}}Y_{(n+1)/2}(\omega r),$$
(18)
where $`J_{(n+1)/2}(\omega r)`$ and $`Y_{(n+1)/2}(\omega r)`$ are the Bessel functions of the first and second kind, respectively.

As we will soon see, the two coefficients $`B_+`$ and $`B_{}`$, and more specifically their ratio, will help us define the greybody factor. To compute this ratio, we need to match the far-field solution, Eq.(18), on to the near-horizon solution, Eq.(16), in the intermediate region. To this end, we expand the near-horizon solution, in the regime $`\omega r1`$ and $`rr_H`$, leading to 222This expansion allows $`\omega \stackrel{<}{}1/r_H`$, the typical emitted energy, when $`MM_{}`$, as is anyway required for the reliability of the semiclassical approach.

$$R_{NH}(r)A_{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{\omega r}{n+1}\left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right)^{n+2}\right\}A_{}\left\{1+i\frac{\omega r}{n+1}\left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right)^{n+2}\right\}.$$
(19)
We also expand the far-field solution, Eq.(18), in the same regime $`\omega r1`$, which gives

$$R_{FF}(r)\frac{B_+}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+3}{2})}\left(\frac{\omega }{2}\right)^{(n+1)/2}\frac{B_{}}{r^{n+1}}\left(\frac{2}{\omega }\right)^{(n+1)/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+1}{2})}{\pi }.$$
(20)
Matching the above expression with Eq.(19), we find the result

$$\frac{B_+}{B_{}}=i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+3}{2})^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{n+2}}{\pi (\omega r_H)^{n+2}}.$$
(21)
The reflection coefficient $``$ for scattering in the gravitational potential of the black hole Eq.(5) is defined as the ratio of the outgoing and incoming amplitude at infinity. To compute this, we expand the far-field solution Eq.(18), in the limit $`\omega r\mathrm{}`$, which yields

$$R_{FF}(r)\frac{(B_+iB_{})}{\sqrt{2\pi \omega r^{n+2}}}e^{i\left(\omega r(n+2)\pi /4\right)}+\frac{(B_++iB_{})}{\sqrt{2\pi \omega r^{n+2}}}e^{i\left(\omega r(n+2)\pi /4\right)},$$
(22)
and which, in turn, leads to the following expression for the reflection coefficient

$$=\frac{\mathrm{outgoing}\mathrm{amplitude}}{\mathrm{incoming}\mathrm{amplitude}}=\frac{B_+iB_{}}{B_++iB_{}},$$
(23)
up to a purely imaginary phase that will drop out when the magnitude of $``$ will be computed. The absorption probability is then defined as

$$|𝒜|^2=(1||^2)\frac{\pi (\omega r_H)^{n+2}}{2^n\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+3}{2})^2},$$
(24)
where, in the final expression, we have expanded to leading order in $`(\omega r_H)`$. This is the final result for the S-wave greybody factor for scalars in a $`(4+n)`$-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole background. We may easily check that, for $`n=1`$, we correctly reproduce the result

$$|𝒜|^2=\frac{\pi }{2}\omega ^2r_H^3=\frac{\omega ^3}{4\pi }A_H,$$
(25)
where $`A_H=2\pi ^2r_H^3`$ is the area of the horizon, presented in Ref. .

## 4 Bulk Scalar emission for $`\mathrm{}0`$

We will now generalise the above analysis in the case where the scalar modes are not spherically symmetric, $`\mathrm{}0`$. For readers more interested in our final results, rather than the techniques used to solve the problem, we suggest jumping to Eq.(37) and following discussion.

We will start with the derivation of the solution in the near-horizon zone. Starting from Eq.(10), and making a change of variable, we may write the scalar field equation in the form (here, we adopt the method of Ref. )

$$h(1h)\frac{d^2R}{dh^2}+(1h)\frac{dR}{dh}+\left[\frac{(\omega r)^2}{(n+1)^2h(1h)}\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1+n)}{(n+1)^2(1h)}\right]R=0.$$
(26)
Near the horizon, $`rr_H`$ and the quantity $`(\omega r)^2`$ can be set equal to $`(\omega r_H)^2`$. Then, by using the redefinition $`R(h)=h^\alpha (1h)^\beta F(h)`$, the above equation takes the form of the hypergeometric equation

$$h(1h)\frac{d^2F}{dh^2}+[c(1+a+b)h]\frac{dF}{dh}abF=0,$$
(27)
with $`a=b=\alpha +\beta `$ and $`c=1+2\alpha `$, where

$$\alpha _\pm =\pm \frac{i\omega r_H}{n+1},\beta _\pm =\frac{1}{2}\pm \frac{1}{n+1}\sqrt{\left(l+\frac{n+1}{2}\right)^2(\omega r_H)^2}.$$
(28)
Equation (27) has as a solution the hypergeometric function $`F(a,b,c;h)`$. The criterion for the convergence of the hypergeometric function demands that $`(cab)>0`$, which forces us to choose $`\beta =\beta _{}`$. Then, the general solution of Eq.(26) may be written as

$$R_{NH}(h)=A_{}h^{\alpha _\pm }(1h)^\beta F(a,b,c;h)+A_+h^{\alpha _\pm }(1h)^\beta F(ac+1,bc+1,2c;h).$$
(29)
Expanding the above solution in the limit $`rr_H`$, or $`h0`$, and choosing $`\alpha =\alpha _{}`$, we obtain the result

$$R_{NH}\left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right)^{\beta (n+1)}\left[A_{}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega r_H^{n+2}y\right)+A_+\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega r_H^{n+2}y\right)\right],$$
(30)
which again imposes the condition333Note that the choice $`\alpha =\alpha _+`$ would have led again to Eq.(30) with $`A_{}A_+`$, and therefore to the choice $`A_{}=0`$. As both values of $`\alpha `$ appear in the general solution Eq.(29), it is only a matter of choice which one of the two terms will be associated with the incoming mode. $`A_+=0`$.

The derivation of the far-field-zone solution closely follows the analysis performed in the case where $`\mathrm{}=0`$. The same redefinition of the radial function leads again to a Bessel equation whose general solution is now given by

$$R_{FF}(r)=\frac{B_+}{r^{(n+1)/2}}J_{\mathrm{}+(n+1)/2}(\omega r)+\frac{B_{}}{r^{(n+1)/2}}Y_{\mathrm{}+(n+1)/2}(\omega r).$$
(31)
Both solutions, near-horizon and far-field, need to be “stretched” and matched in the intermediate region. Expanding first Eq.(31), in the limit $`\omega r1`$, gives

$$R_{FF}(r)\frac{B_+r^{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{n+3}{2})}\left(\frac{\omega }{2}\right)^{\mathrm{}+(n+1)/2}\frac{B_{}}{r^{\mathrm{}+n+1}}\left(\frac{2}{\omega }\right)^{\mathrm{}+(n+1)/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{n+1}{2})}{\pi }.$$
(32)
The near-horizon solution needs to be “shifted” first and expressed in terms of $`1h`$, before being expanded in the limit $`rr_H`$. By using a standard formula , we write

$`R_{NH}(h)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{}h^\alpha [(1h)^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha \beta )^2}}F(a,b,a+bc+1;1h)`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`(1h)^{1\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta 1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )^2}}F(ca,cb,cab+1;1h)].`$
We can now expand the above expression in the limit $`h1`$ and take

$$R_{NH}(h)A_{}\left(\frac{r}{r_H}\right)^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha \beta )^2}+A_{}\left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right)^{\mathrm{}+n+1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta 1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )^2}.$$
(34)
Matching the two solutions Eq.(32) and Eq.(34), we obtain the ratio

$$\frac{B_+}{B_{}}=(\frac{2}{\omega r_H})^{2\mathrm{}+n+1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{n+1}{2})^2(\mathrm{}+\frac{n+1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )^2}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha \beta )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta 1)}.$$
(35)
The definition of the reflection coefficient $``$ is still given by Eq.(23). In turn, the absorption probability can be written, in terms of $`B=B_+/B_{}`$, as

$$|𝒜|^2=(1||^2)=\frac{2i(B^{}B)}{BB^{}+i(B^{}B)+1}.$$
(36)
Due to the fact that the argument of the Gamma functions appearing in the expression of $``$ are non-trivial complex numbers, we can not write the absorption coefficient in a simple way in the general case. However, the above expression can be further simplified in the limit $`\omega r_H1`$, in which case $`BB^{}i(B^{}B)1`$, and, therefore, $`|𝒜|^2`$ may be written as

$$|𝒜|^2=\frac{4\pi ^2}{2^{4\mathrm{}/(n+1)}}(\frac{\omega r_H}{2})^{2\mathrm{}+n+2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{\mathrm{}}{n+1})^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{}}{n+1})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{n+3}{2})^2}.$$
(37)
This is our major result for the case of bulk scalar fields. Eq.(37) nicely displays the leading functional dependence of the greybody factor on $`\omega r_H`$ for varying partial wave, $`\mathrm{}`$, and number of extra dimensions, $`n`$. For the case of $`\mathrm{}=0`$, this may be further evaluated to give

$$|𝒜|_{\mathrm{}=0}^2=(\frac{\omega r_H}{2})^{n+2}\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(n+3)/2]^2},$$
(38)
in complete agreement with the result, Eq.(24), of our earlier analysis in the case $`\mathrm{}=0`$. In fact, for an $`s`$-wave massless bulk scalar, the absorption probability $`|𝒜|^2`$ has the exact form that allows the greybody factor $`\sigma (\omega )`$ to reduce to the horizon area of the black hole in agreement with previous work . The numerical value of the results for the cases $`\mathrm{}=0,1,2`$ for $`n=2,4`$ and $`6`$ are shown in Table 1.

If we fix the number of extra dimensions and vary only the angular momentum number, the absorption probability decreases as $`\mathrm{}`$ increases. This decrease is caused by the fact that the power of the expansion parameter $`(\omega r_H)^{2\mathrm{}+n+2}`$, in the leading term, increases with $`\mathrm{}`$. Since $`(\omega r_H)1`$, this means that $`|𝒜|^2`$ becomes more and more suppressed as $`\mathrm{}`$ increases. The numerical coefficient in front of the leading term also decreases with $`\mathrm{}`$ (see Table 1). The same behaviour is observed if we fix instead $`\mathrm{}`$ and vary $`n`$.

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\text{}\mathrm{𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞}\mathrm{𝟏}:\mathrm{Absorption}\mathrm{probabilities}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}(4+\mathrm{n})\mathrm{bulk}\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{field}}\\ & & \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐}& \mathrm{}=0& |𝒜|^2\frac{4}{9}(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=1& |𝒜|^2\frac{2^{2/3}}{(15)^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(4/3)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/6)^2}\pi (\omega r_H)^6+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=2& |𝒜|^2\frac{2^{2/3}}{(105)^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/3)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(7/6)^2}\pi (\omega r_H)^8+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟒}& \mathrm{}=0& |𝒜|^2\frac{4}{(15)^2}(\omega r_H)^6+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=1& |𝒜|^2\frac{2^{6/5}}{(105)^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(6/5)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(7/10)^2}\pi (\omega r_H)^8+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=2& |𝒜|^2\frac{2^{2/5}}{(105)^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(7/5)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(9/10)^2}\pi (\omega r_H)^{10}+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟔}& \mathrm{}=0& |𝒜|^2\frac{4}{(105)^2}(\omega r_H)^8+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=1& |𝒜|^2\frac{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}2}^{3/7}}{(105)^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(8/7)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(9/14)^2}\pi (\omega r_H)^{10}+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=2& |𝒜|^2\frac{2^{6/7}}{(1155)^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^4}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(9/7)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(11/14)^2}\pi (\omega r_H)^{12}+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \end{array}`$

## 5 Brane-localized scalar emission for $`\mathrm{}0`$

We now turn to the study of the case where the scalar field is confined on a four-dimensional brane embedded in a $`(4+d)`$-dimensional Schwarzschild spacetime. The scalar field propagates in a four-dimensional background whose metric tensor is given by the induced metric at the location of the brane. The induced metric follows from the $`(4+d)`$-dimensional one by fixing the values of the extra angular coordinates: $`\theta _n=\pi /2`$ for $`n2`$, and it may be written as

$$ds^2=h(r)dt^2+h(r)^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$
(39)
where $`h(r)`$ is still given by Eq.(6). The scalar field equation may be separated in the same way

$$\varphi (t,r,\theta ,\phi )=e^{i\omega t}R_\omega \mathrm{}(r)Y_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(40)
where $`Y_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are now the usual 3-dimensional spherical harmonic functions. The above ansatz allows us to write the equation for the radial part as

$$\frac{h(r)}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left[h(r)r^2\frac{dR}{dr}\right]+\left[\omega ^2\frac{h(r)}{r^2}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)\right]R=0.$$
(41)
The presence of the metric function $`h(r)`$ makes once again the derivation of the general solution extremely difficult. We will follow the same method as in the previous section and compute the solution in the two radial domains, near-horizon and far-field, which will then be “stretched” and matched in the intermediate region.

Having become familiar with the analysis, we will proceed to derive directly the solution in the general case $`\mathrm{}0`$. We start with the solution in the ‘near-horizon’ (NH) region. In terms of $`h`$, the radial differential equation now takes the form

$$h(1h)\frac{d^2R}{dh^2}+\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{(2n+1)}{(n+1)}h\right]\frac{dR}{dh}+\left[\frac{(\omega r_H)^2}{(n+1)^2h(1h)}\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{(n+1)^2(1h)}\right]R=0.$$
(42)
By using the same redefinition $`R(h)=h^\alpha (1h)^\beta F(h)`$, the above equation assumes the standard form of a hypergeometric equation with indices $`a=\alpha +\beta +\frac{n}{(n+1)}`$, $`b=\alpha +\beta `$ and $`c=1+2\alpha `$, where

$$\alpha _\pm =\pm \frac{i\omega r_H}{n+1},\beta _\pm =\frac{1}{2(n+1)}(1\pm \sqrt{(2l+1)^24(\omega r_H)^2}).$$
(43)
The criterion for the convergence of the hypergeometric function, $`(cab)>0`$, demands again $`\beta =\beta _{}`$. The general solution of Eq.(42) has again the form of Eq.(29). Expanding near the horizon and imposing the condition that only incoming waves exist near $`rr_H`$, we find that $`A_+=0`$ for $`\alpha =\alpha _{}`$. At this point, we can also “shift” the solution and write it in terms of $`1h`$, in the same way as in the previous section. If we finally expand for $`rr_H`$, or equivalently $`h1`$, we obtain the solution

$`R_{NH}(h)A_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_H}}\right)^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\beta \frac{n}{n+1})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha \beta \frac{n}{n+1})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha \beta )}}`$
$`+A_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_H}{r}}\right)^{\mathrm{}+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta +\frac{n}{n+1}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta +\frac{n}{n+1})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )}}.`$ (44)
The far-field-zone solution can be easily found to be given in terms of the Bessel functions $`J_{\mathrm{}+1/2}(\omega r)`$ and $`Y_{\mathrm{}+1/2}(\omega r)`$. Expanding the general solution in the limit $`\omega r1`$, finally gives

$$R_{FF}(r)\frac{B_+r^{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{3}{2})}\left(\frac{\omega }{2}\right)^{\mathrm{}+1/2}\frac{B_{}}{r^{\mathrm{}+1}}\left(\frac{2}{\omega }\right)^{\mathrm{}+1/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})}{\pi }.$$
(45)
Matching the two asymptotic solutions, we obtain the ratio

$$\frac{B_+}{B_{}}=(\frac{2}{\omega r_H})^{2\mathrm{}+1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})^2(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\beta \frac{n}{n+1})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta +\frac{n}{n+1})}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha \beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha \beta \frac{n}{n+1})\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta +\frac{n}{n+1}1)},$$
(46)
which can be used to determine the absorption coefficient according to Eq.(36). We may, however, obtain a simplified expression, in the limit $`\omega r_H1`$, which reads

$$|𝒜|^2=\frac{16\pi }{(n+1)^2}(\frac{\omega r_H}{2})^{2\mathrm{}+2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\mathrm{}+1}{n+1})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{\mathrm{}}{n+1})^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{n+1})^2}.$$
(47)
The expression of the absorption coefficient $`|𝒜|^2`$ for the values $`n=2,4`$ and 6 of the number of extra dimensions, and $`\mathrm{}=0,1,2`$ of the angular momentum number, are shown in Table 2.

Finally, employing the relation between the absorption probability and the greybody factor, Eq.(13), leads to

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(\omega )=\frac{4\pi ^2(2\mathrm{}+1)}{(n+1)^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\mathrm{}+1}{n+1})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{\mathrm{}}{n+1})^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{n+1})^2}(\frac{\omega r_H}{2})^2\mathrm{}r_H^2.$$
(48)
In this equation, we have set $`n=0`$ in Eq.(13) as the partial waves are purely confined to the 3-spatial-dimensional brane, the only dependence on $`n`$ being in $`|𝒜|^2`$.

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\text{}\mathrm{𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞}\mathrm{𝟐}:\mathrm{Absorption}\mathrm{probabilities}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}(4\mathrm{D})\mathrm{brane}\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{field}}\\ & & \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐}& \mathrm{}=0& |𝒜|^24(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=1& |𝒜|^2\frac{16\pi ^2}{243}(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=2& |𝒜|^2\frac{4}{(15)^2}(\omega r_H)^6+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟒}& \mathrm{}=0& |𝒜|^24(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=1& |𝒜|^2\frac{4}{25}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/5)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(6/5)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(8/5)^2}(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=2& |𝒜|^2\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/5)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(7/5)^2}{(15)^2}(\omega r_H)^6+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟔}& \mathrm{}=0& |𝒜|^24(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=1& |𝒜|^2\frac{4}{49}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/7)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(8/7)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(10/7)^2}(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}=2& |𝒜|^2\frac{4}{(21)^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/7)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(9/7)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12/7)^2}(\omega r_H)^6+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \end{array}`$

Keeping $`n`$ fixed and varying $`\mathrm{}`$, we see that the absorption probability decreases once again as $`\mathrm{}`$ increases (see Table 2): the dominant term becomes more and more suppressed by extra powers of $`(\omega r_H)`$ and its numerical coefficient also decreases (the introduction of the multiplicity of states with the same angular momentum number $`\mathrm{}`$ does not change this behaviour). If we fix instead $`\mathrm{}`$ and vary $`n`$, a radically different behaviour, from the one observed in the case with a bulk scalar field, emerges: the leading term, in the expansion of $`|𝒜|^2`$ in powers of $`(\omega r_H)`$, remains the same, since it is $`n`$-independent, while its coefficient increases as $`n`$ increases. In other words, for a given partial wave, the absorption probability, and therefore the greybody factor, increases as the number of extra dimensions being projected on the 3-brane also increases.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper, we have studied the problem of scalar emission in a spherically symmetric $`D`$-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole background. The cases of the emission of a $`(4+n)`$-dimensional bulk scalar field and of a 4-dimensional brane-localized scalar field were studied separately and the greybody factor was determined in each case. This quantity causes the spectrum of Hawking radiation to deviate from the black body spectrum as it strongly depends on the energy of the particle mode emitted. Moreover, it encodes information about the gravitational background and thus on the number of extra dimensions that might exist (both in the case where the scalar field is free to propagate in the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional bulk or when the field ‘feels’ the existence of extra dimension only through the induced metric on our 3-brane).

The differential equation for the radial part of the scalar field can be solved by an approximation method valid in leading order in $`(\omega r_H)`$: the solution of this equation was found in the ‘near-horizon’ and ‘far-field’ region and were subsequently ‘stretched’ and matched in an intermediate regime. This matching allows us to determine the absorption coefficient for scattering in the black-hole background, which then leads to the greybody factor, $`\sigma (\omega )`$, according to Eq. (13).

We first focused on the case of a bulk scalar field propagating in a $`(4+n)`$-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole background. The general form for the amplitude probability was determined and an analytical, simplified version was also presented that allowed us to display the leading functional dependence on the expansion parameter $`(\omega r_H)`$ in terms of the number $`n`$ of extra dimension and the angular momentum number $`\mathrm{}`$. Our results in this case are presented in Eq.(37) and in Table 1.

The most phenomenologically interesting case is the one of a scalar field that is confined on a 3-brane and propagates in the induced spacetime background of a black hole (which is necessarily higher-dimensional). The functional form of the resulting greybody factor depends only on the angular momentum number, $`\mathrm{}`$, through $`(\omega r_H)^{2\mathrm{}+2}`$. The dependence on the number of extra dimensions is entirely contained within the coefficient of this leading term. Our primary results are given in Eq.(48) and in Table 2.

It is tempting to compare the results derived in the case of a brane-localized scalar field (which nevertheless is part of a higher-dimensional manifold) with those valid in the case where a purely 4-dimensional scalar field propagates in a Schwarzschild black-hole background. Both cases lead to the same value of $`|𝒜|^2`$ for an $`s`$-wave and, thus, no distinction can be made between the two backgrounds. However, for higher partial waves, the value of the absorption probability in the case of a brane scalar field is always larger than the one for a purely 4D field, a fact which in principle can be used to distinguish between the two cases.

In a companion paper  we employ the techniques developed in the current paper to derive the greybody factors for higher-spin fields localized on a brane. This allows allows us to discuss the physics and phenomenology of black hole decay, as might be observed at the LHC.

## Appendix

For completeness we here present some of the calculation of scalar emission in the case where the scalar field propagates in a purely 4-dimensional Schwarzschild background without the assumption of the presence of extra dimensions. The expression of the absorption coefficient $`|𝒜|^2`$ can be easily found by first putting $`n=0`$ (the number of projected extra dimensions on the 4-dimensional plane) in the result for the ratio $`B_+/B_{}`$. Then, Eq.(46) becomes

$$\frac{B_+}{B_{}}=(\frac{2}{\omega r_H})^{2\mathrm{}+1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})^2(\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )^2}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha \beta )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\beta 1)},$$
(49)
where now

$$\alpha =i\omega r_H,\beta =\frac{1}{2}(1\sqrt{(2l+1)^24(\omega r_H)^2}).$$
(50)
By using then Eq.(36), we obtain the result for $`|𝒜|^2`$ which, in its simplified form, reads

$$|𝒜|^2=16\pi (\frac{\omega r_H}{2})^{2\mathrm{}+2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}+1)^4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{}]^2\mathrm{\Gamma }[2\mathrm{}+2]^2}.$$
(51)
Note that the same results follow by putting $`n=0`$ in all the expressions of section 2.1, as expected.

We display the results for the absorption coefficient in the pure 4-dimensional case and for the values $`\mathrm{}=0,1,2`$ of the angular momentum number in Table 3.

$`\begin{array}{cc}& \\ & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{\text{}\mathrm{𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞}\mathrm{𝟑}:\mathrm{Absorption}\mathrm{probabilities}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}(4\mathrm{D})\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{field}}\\ & \\ & \\ \text{}\mathrm{}=0& |𝒜|^24(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}=1& |𝒜|^2\frac{1}{9}(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}=2& |𝒜|^2\frac{1}{(45)^2}(\omega r_H)^6+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \end{array}`$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Extended objects like walls have attracted much attention recently, mainly because of the possibility of “Brane World” scenario where our four-dimensional spacetime is realized on a wall embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime . Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the most promising ideas to solve the hierarchy problem in unified theories . Walls preserving half of the original SUSY  are called $`1/2`$ BPS states . Junctions preserving $`1/4`$ of SUSY has also been constructed . An interesting model with two chiral scalar fields has also been found allowing BPS two-wall configurations  whose properties are studied with certain Ansatz . By combining the brane-world scenario with SUSY, we have previously proposed a simple mechanism of SUSY breaking due to the coexistence of BPS and anti-BPS walls . We have also invented another model which allows a non-BPS configuration absolutely stable because of the winding number .

Motivated by SUSY field theories in spacetime with dimensions higher than four , walls and junctions are studied in nonlinear sigma models with four supercharges . In order to preserve $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY in four dimensions, only holomorphic field redefinitions are allowed. With the holomorphic field redefinitions, one can transform SUSY field theories with minimal kinetic terms (linear sigma models) into those with nonminimal kinetic terms (nonlinear sigma models). The transformations give a model equivalent to the original model as far as local properties in target space are relevant. However, new physical effects can arise if global properties in target space are different. Typical global property of that kind is the winding number in target space , . BPS walls in compactified base space has been considered, especially in the context of two dimensional SUSY theories, and the importance of winding number has also been noticed previously , .

A typical model admitting winding number is the sine-Gordon model

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \psi \right)^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi .$$
(1.1)
Because of the periodic field variable $`\psi =\psi +2\pi `$, the topology of field space is $`S^1`$. When the base space is compactified ($`y=y+2\pi R`$) to $`S^1\times 𝐑^3`$, we obtain winding number $`\pi _1(S^1)`$ of the mapping $`y\psi `$. If we rewrite the same sine-Gordon model in terms of nonperiodic varialbe $`\varphi =\mathrm{sin}\psi `$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\left(_\mu \varphi \right)^2}{1\varphi ^2}\frac{1}{2}\left(1\varphi ^2\right),$$
(1.2)
it is difficult to recognize the winding number, although the model should be the same as long as the global property like winding number is irrelevant. For instance spectrum of fluctuations is identical for the zero winding number sector. A similar phenomenon occurs in the case of SUSY field theories. If we supersymmetrize the sine-Gordon model in four dimensions, we need a complex scalar field $`\psi =\psi _R+i\psi _I`$. The bosonic part of the Lagrangian reads

$``$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \psi ^{}^\mu \psi \left|\mathrm{cos}\psi \right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`\left(_\mu \psi _R\right)^2\left(_\mu \psi _I\right)^2\left(\mathrm{cos}\psi _R\mathrm{cosh}\psi _I\right)^2\left(\mathrm{sin}\psi _R\mathrm{sinh}\psi _I\right)^2.`$
Since the real part is a periodic variable $`\psi _R=\psi _R+2\pi `$, the topology of field space is now naturally identified as $`S^1\times 𝐑`$. Therefore we can define the winding number $`\pi _1(S^1)`$ of the mapping $`y\psi _R`$ from the compact base space $`y=y+2\pi R`$. We have previously found an exact non-BPS solution of two walls whose stability is guaranteed by the winding number for this model .

The purpose of this paper is to propose a general method to construct non-BPS configurations by introducing winding number and to study the properties of such non-BPS wall configurations, especially possible non-BPS bound state of walls. We introduce winding number by constructing a nonlinear sigma model. This can be achieved by a holomorphic field redefinition transforming the field variable into an angular variable winding around the target space of nontrivial topology such as $`S^1`$. We obtain a non-BPS configurations consisting of a BPS and an anti-BPS configuration by giving half winding number to each (anti-)BPS configuration. For models with single chiral scalar field with only real parameters, we can establish a BPS-like bound: configurations with nonvanishing winding number consisting of $`n`$ (anti-)BPS states has energies larger than or equal to the sum of energies of these $`n`$ (anti-)BPS states. Since a superposition of these $`n`$ (anti-)BPS states becomes a solution when these BPS states are far apart, our bound implies that no stable bound state can be formed in this class of models with single chiral scalar field.

Although we do not find exact solutions with nonvanishing winding number, we can still construct an Ansatz of a non-BPS configuration, which is a superposition of BPS and anti-BPS solutions in terms of the periodic variable, to give nonvanishing winding number. This Ansatz is tested in a model with single chiral scalar field and gives a repulsion between a BPS and anti-BPS walls and produces no bound state in accordance with our BPS-like bound. In contrast, a similar Ansatz for configurations without winding number gives an attraction and shows annihilation into the ordinary vacuum.

The model with two chiral scalar fields admits BPS two-wall configurations with a moduli parameter corresponding to the separation of two walls within the BPS state . This internal structure of the BPS state offers a new possibility to form a bound state of BPS and anti-BPS state, whose stability is guaranteed by the nonvanishing winding number. We construct an Ansatz of four walls comprising BPS two walls and another anti-BPS two walls by superposing these solutions in terms of the periodic variable. We find that the BPS-like bound allows a possibility of configurations whose energy is lower than the sum of BPS and anti-BPS states. We evaluate the energy density of the configuration as a function of the moduli and of the distance between BPS and anti-BPS states. We find an interesting nontrivial behavior of the energy density. We first study configurations in noncompact space in order to find a bound state of BPS and anti-BPS states. For one choice of intermediate vacuum, we find an absolute minimum of energy which is lower than the sum of the BPS and anti-BPS states. Although we use a variational Ansatz which is guaranteed to be a solution only in the limit of infinite separation, mere existence of the configurations whose energies are lower than the sum of the BPS and anti-BPS states is sufficient to conclude the existence of the bound state. The distance between BPS and anti-BPS states and the moduli of these states are approximately evaluated using our Ansatz. For another choice of intermediate vacuum, we find a local minimum at vanishing separation between BPS and anti-BPS states. This suggests an unstable bound state at the coincident limit of BPS and anti-BPS states. For compact space, we always find a minimum of energy when the BPS and anti-BPS states are equally spaced. This is due to a tendency to repel each other as indicated by the BPS-like bound. By the same reason, we can expect that the bound state that we find in the other choice of intermediate vacuum may disappear when the radius of the compact dimension is too small. In fact we find that the absolute minimum is gradually raised as the radius decreases, and disappears below a critical radius.

In the next section, a method is given to introduce winding number by a holomorphic field redefinition and a BPS-like bound is derived for models with single chiral scalar field. In section 3, winding number is introduced into a model with two chiral scalar fields. The energy of non-BPS multi-wall configuration is studied numerically and a bound state of BPS and anti-BPS states is obtained.

## 2 Winding number in SUSY nonlinear sigma models

### 2.1 Introducing the winding number

In order to illustrate our ideas in a simple context, we consider three dimensional domain walls in four-dimensional field theories with four supercharges. A general Wess-Zumino model with an arbitrary number of chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$, a superpotential $`𝒲`$ and a Kähler potential $`K(\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^j)`$ is given by

$$=K(\mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{\Phi }^j)|_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}+\left[𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi }^i)|_{\theta ^2}+\text{h.c.}\right].$$
(2.1)
We shall denote the scalar component of the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ as $`\varphi ^i(x)`$. Let us suppose that we have a wall configuration which depends only on $`x^2=y`$. If the following BPS equation is satisfied, two out of the four supercharges are conserved

$$\frac{\varphi ^i}{y}=K^{ij^{}}\frac{𝒲^{}(\varphi ^{})}{\varphi ^j}.$$
(2.2)
We call such a configuration a BPS wall. The other two supercharges are conserved if the similar equation with opposite sign is satisfied

$$\frac{\varphi ^i}{y}=K^{ij^{}}\frac{𝒲^{}(\varphi ^{})}{\varphi ^j}.$$
(2.3)
We call such a configuration as an anti-BPS wall. Since these walls connect two supersymmetric vacua, we need models with two vacua at least. Simplest model has a single chiral scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with a minimal kinetic term and a cubic superpotential $`𝒲`$

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}+[({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3}}\mathrm{\Phi }^3)|_{\theta ^2}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$ (2.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x_m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}}{x^m}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}g\varphi ^2\right|^2+\mathrm{fermions}.`$
The BPS Eq.(2.2) and anti-BPS Eq.(2.3) have solutions

$$\varphi _{(\mathrm{wall})}(y)=\frac{m}{g}\mathrm{tanh}\left(m(yy_0)\right),$$
(2.5)
$$\varphi _{(\mathrm{antiwall})}(y)=\frac{m}{g}\mathrm{tanh}\left(m(y\overline{y_0})\right),$$
(2.6)
representing walls located at $`y_0`$ and $`\overline{y_0}`$ respectively. For compact space $`y=y+2\pi R`$, we have also found an exact solution of wall and anti-wall configuration which breaks supersymmetry completely

$$\varphi _{(\mathrm{wall}\mathrm{antiwall})}(y)=\frac{m}{g}\frac{k\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1+k^2}}\mathrm{sn}(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1+k^2}}my,k),$$
(2.7)
where $`\mathrm{sn}(u,k)`$ is the Jacobi’s elliptic function, $`0k1`$, and $`R=\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1+k^2}K(k)/(\pi m)`$, where $`K(k)`$ is the complete elliptic integral. This non-BPS solution corresponds to a wall located at $`y=0`$ and an anti-wall at $`y=\pi R`$. The small fluctuations around this background exhibit a tachyon corresponding to wall-antiwall annihilation instability .

A promising idea to stabilize the non-BPS configuration of two walls is to introduce a topological quantum number, typically a winding number into the model. We give a topology of $`S^1`$ to field space so that we can have a notion of winding from a compactified base space which is also $`S^1`$. To achieve that goal, we make a holomorphic redefinition of field $`\varphi `$ into a periodic one $`\psi `$

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{m}{g}\mathrm{sin}\psi (x),\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=\frac{m}{g}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Psi }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta }).$$
(2.8)
In terms of the periodic variable $`\psi `$, the model (2.4) becomes

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g^2}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Psi }|_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{g^2}}\left(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^3\mathrm{\Psi }\right)|_{\theta ^2}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (2.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g^2}}\left|\mathrm{cos}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x^m}}\right|^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \right|^2+\mathrm{fermions}.`$
The field space now acquires the topology of $`S^1\times 𝐑`$. Then the SUSY vacua occurs at $`\psi =\pi \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ with the periodicity $`\psi =\psi +2\pi `$. The BPS equation (2.2) becomes

$$\frac{d\psi }{dy}=\mathrm{cos}\psi .$$
(2.10)
The BPS solution (2.5) is mapped into a solution of this transformed BPS Eq.(2.10)

$$\psi _{(\mathrm{BPS})}(y)=\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left(m(yy_0)\right)\right)$$
(2.11)
connecting the SUSY vacuum $`\psi =\pi /2`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ to $`\psi =\pi /2`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$. The solution of the anti-BPS equation connecting the SUSY vacuum $`\psi =\pi /2`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ to $`\psi =3\pi /2`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ is given by

$$\psi _{(\mathrm{antiBPS})}(y)=\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left(m(y\overline{y_0})\right)\right)+\pi .$$
(2.12)
Since the value of the field $`\psi `$ at the right-end of the BPS wall (2.11) is the same as the left-end of the anti-BPS wall (2.12), there is a possibility to connect these two wall solutions located at $`y_0<\overline{y_0}`$. Such a field configuration should have winding number one.

In fact we have found previously that a similar model with the minimal kinetic term provides the same BPS equation (2.10) and that there is an exact solution for the non-BPS configuration of two walls for compactified space $`y`$ . The configuration was found to wind around the field space $`\psi `$ once and is topologically stable. 111 Since the $`1/2`$-BPS solution is real, we can reinterpret the inverse of the Kähler metric $`K^{ij^{}}`$ as a part of the derivative of a superpotential $`K^{ij}𝒲/\varphi ^j=\stackrel{~}{𝒲}/\varphi ^j`$, as noted in .

In our model with the periodic variable (2.9) we have an exact solution for compactified space

$$\psi _{(\mathrm{wall}\mathrm{antiwall})}(y)=\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{m}{g}\frac{k\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1+k^2}}\mathrm{sn}(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1+k^2}}my,k)\right),$$
(2.13)
obtained by transforming the non-BPS solution (2.7) to our periodic variable $`\psi `$. Since $`0<\frac{k\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{1+k^2}}<1`$ for $`0<k<1`$, the configuration has no winding number and represents the wall-antiwall configuration as in our original model without periodic variable . One also finds that the small fluctuation around the background has exactly the same spectrum including the tachyon instability. This is consistent with the fact that ordinary vacuum is the minimum energy configuration in the vanishing winding number sector.

### 2.2 BPS-like bound for winding field configuration

We are interested in the field configuration with a nonvanishing winding number. Let us consider a BPS-like bound for the energy of the configuration with a nonvanishing winding number. Let us first consider the model (2.9) as the simplest model for illustration. If there is a field configuration with unit winding number, $`\psi `$ should rotate by $`2\pi `$ as $`y`$ increases by $`2\pi R`$. The noncompact space is obtained by the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. Let us call the point $`y_1`$ where $`\psi =\pi /2`$ and $`y_2`$ where $`\psi =\pi /2`$ and assume $`y_1<y_2`$ as illustrated in Fig. 1. The energy of a configuration with one winding number is given in one periodicity domain by

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{y_1+2\pi R}}𝑑y\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g^2}}\left|\mathrm{cos}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{y}}\right|^2+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \right|^2\right]`$ (2.14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{y_2}}𝑑y\left[\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g}}\mathrm{cos}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\left(\mathrm{sin}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^3\psi \right)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y_2}^{y_1+2\pi R}}𝑑y\left[\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g}}\mathrm{cos}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dy}}\left(\mathrm{sin}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^3\psi \right)\right]`$
$``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{g^2}}\left(\mathrm{sin}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^3\psi \right)\right]_{y_1}^{y_2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{g^2}}\left(\mathrm{sin}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^3\psi \right)\right]_{y_2}^{y_1+2\pi R}=2E_{\mathrm{BPS}},`$
where $`E_{\mathrm{BPS}}`$ is the energy of the single BPS or anti-BPS wall. Therefore any configuration with unit winding number has energy larger than or equal to the sum of energies of a BPS wall and an anti-BPS wall. Since this superposition of the BPS and anti-BPS states becomes a solution of equation of motion as their separation goes to infinity, we find that BPS state and anti-BPS state in unit winding number sector always repel each other as they are sufficiently far apart at least. Whether there is any local minimum for finite separation or not is the remaining question which we will address in the next subsection.

This BPS-like bound can also be generalized to other models of a single chiral scalar field using arbitrary superpotential with real parameters. This may be achieved if the parameters of the model can be made real by phase rotations of the fields. Then we can assume that the field configuration is real. Let us suppose that there are two vacua at $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ of the periodic variable $`\psi =\psi +2\pi `$. Without loss of generality we can assume $`𝒲(\psi _1)<𝒲(\psi _2)`$. If there is field configuration with a single winding number which takes value $`\psi _1`$ at $`y_1`$, and $`\psi _2`$ at $`y_2`$, we can apply a BPS bound for the interval $`y_1<y<y_2`$ and anti-BPS bound for the interval $`y_2<y<y_1+2\pi R`$ as in Eq.(2.14). Thus we obtain the energy of the field configuration with single winding number is bounded by $`2E_{\mathrm{BPS}}=2\left(𝒲(\psi _2)𝒲(\psi _1)\right)`$. Similarly we can easily find that winding field configurations consisting of $`n`$ (anti-)BPS states in one periodicity domain $`0y2\pi R`$ have energy larger than or equal to the sum of these BPS states.

### 2.3 Repulsion between BPS and anti-BPS walls

Since we cannot find exact solutions in the sector with nonvanishing winding number, we shall use approximate evaluation of the possible configurations inspired by the BPS (2.11) and anti-BPS (2.12) solutions. This is at least sufficient to give an upper bound of the energy of the possible minimum energy solution from the viewpoint of a variational approach.

Let us consider a superposition of the BPS wall solution (2.11) centered at $`y=0`$ and the anti-BPS solution (2.12) centered at $`y=a`$

$$\psi (y)=\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left(my\right)\right)+\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left(m(ya)\right)\right)+\frac{\pi }{2}$$
(2.15)
connecting the SUSY vacuum $`\psi =\pi /2`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ to $`\psi =3\pi /2`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$, and has unit winding number. Although this is not a static solution of the equation of motion for finite separation $`a`$, it reduces to a solution in the limit $`a\mathrm{}`$. Defining a dimensionless coordinate

$$umy,u_ama,$$
(2.16)
the energy of this configuration is found to be

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g^2}}\left|\mathrm{cos}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{y}}\right|^2+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \right|^2\right]`$ (2.17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{g^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}du[({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}u}{\mathrm{cosh}(uu_a)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(uu_a)}{\mathrm{cosh}u}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(uu_a)}})^2`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}u}{\mathrm{cosh}(uu_a)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(uu_a)}{\mathrm{cosh}u}})^4].`$
One should note that the field (2.15) as well as its derivative are non-singular in the entire region of $`y`$. On the other hand, the energy density in the integrand of Eq.(2.17) has contributions from the kinetic term (first term) and the potential term (second term), both of which have powers of $`\mathrm{cos}\psi `$ vanishing at vacua. As a consequence, the energy density of the two wall configuration in Eq.(2.17) has a zero at $`y=a/2`$ for any values of $`a0`$ and exhibits two separated peaks for two walls. This is true even for $`a=0`$ where the field $`\psi `$ itself shows no sharp separation of two walls as shown in Fig.2b.

A typical field configuration at $`u_a=ma=10`$ in Fig. 2a shows $`\psi `$ winding once to form two walls. Even at the coincident limit $`a0`$ of two walls, field configuration is nontrivial as shown in Fig. 2b. The energy as a function of the wall separation $`a`$ is shown in Fig. 3, where the parameters are set to $`m=1,g=1`$. We see that the energy is always larger than the sum of the isolated wall and anti-wall and reduces to the sum at $`a\mathrm{}`$ in accordance with our BPS-like bound. Therefore we find that BPS wall and anti-BPS wall repel each other and have no stable bound state in the unit winding number sector.

To examine how well our Ansatz carries the correct behavior of the lowest energy configuration, we also compute the energy of the corresponding Ansatz in vanishing winding number sector:

$$\psi _{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{winding}}(y)=\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left(my\right)\right)\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left(m(ya)\right)\right)\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(2.18)
$`E_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{winding}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{g^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}du[({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}u}{\mathrm{cosh}(uu_a)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(uu_a)}{\mathrm{cosh}u}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}u}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(uu_a)}})^2`$ (2.19)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}u}{\mathrm{cosh}(uu_a)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(uu_a)}{\mathrm{cosh}u}})^4].`$
A typical field configuration at $`u_a=10`$ in Fig. 4a shows no winding to be compared with Fig. 2a. At the coincident limit $`a0`$ of two walls, the field $`\psi `$ becomes constant as shown in Fig. 4b and reduces to the ordinary vacuum $`\psi =\pi /2`$ in contrast to the unit winding number case in Fig. 2b. In Fig. 5 we show the energy of the two wall configuration in the vanishing winding number sector as a function of the wall separation $`a`$. It reduces to the sum of the BPS energies of two walls at $`a\pm \mathrm{}`$ and vanishes at the coincident point $`a=0`$. This clearly shows that the wall-antiwall configuration in the zero winding number sector is unstable and annihilates into the vacuum.

## 3 Winding number in a model with two fields

### 3.1 Model with two fields

In order to explore a nontrivial behavior of winding number configuration, we consider the next simplest possibility, models with two chiral scalar fields. It has been found that the model with minimal kinetic terms for chiral scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`X`$ with the following superpotential $`𝒲`$ has an integral of motion

$$𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi },X)=\frac{m^2}{g}\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{g}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }^3\frac{g}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }X^2,m,g>0.$$
(3.1)
This model is the simplest modification of our model in Eq.(2.4) in the previous section to allow four degenerate SUSY vacua at $`(\varphi ,\chi )=(\pm \frac{m}{g},0),(0,\pm 2\frac{m}{g})`$. There are BPS wall solutions connecting the vacuum $`(\frac{m}{g},0)`$ to $`(0,\pm 2\frac{m}{g})`$ and solutions $`(0,\pm 2\frac{m}{g})`$ to $`(\frac{m}{g},0)`$. Since both of them turn out to conserve the same supercharge, the smooth connection of these wall solutions located far apart should be a solution of the same BPS equation. A remarkable property of this model is that it admits a BPS solution of two walls connecting $`(\varphi ,\chi )=(\frac{m}{g},0)`$ to $`(\frac{m}{g},0)`$

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g}}f(u),f(u)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}u}{\mathrm{cosh}u+t}},`$
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{m}{g}}h(u),h(u)=2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mathrm{cosh}u+t}}},`$ (3.2)
where $`0t`$ is a moduli parameter . This configuration can be interpreted as a smooth connection of the above two BPS walls connecting between $`(\frac{m}{g},0)`$ and $`(0,\pm 2\frac{m}{g})`$ and between $`(0,\pm 2\frac{m}{g})`$ to $`(\frac{m}{g},0)`$. They are centered at $`y=0`$. If the moduli parameter $`t`$ is larger than one, these two walls are separated by a distance $`y=\widehat{t}`$ where $`\mathrm{cosh}(m\widehat{t})=t`$. The case with $`0t<1`$ corresponds to two walls compressed each other so that the walls merge together completely.

We introduce the concept of winding number by making a holomorphic change of variable (2.8) from $`\varphi `$ to a periodic one $`\psi =\mathrm{arcsin}(g\varphi /m)`$. The bosonic part of our model with the periodic variable is then given by

$`_{\mathrm{bosonic}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g^2}}\left|\mathrm{cos}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x^m}}\right|^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{x^m}}\right|^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi {\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}\chi ^2\right|^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\chi \mathrm{sin}\psi \right|^2.`$ (3.3)
The vacua of this model are at

$$(\psi ,\chi )=(\frac{\pi }{2}+n\pi ,0),(n\pi ,\frac{2m}{g}),(n\pi ,\frac{2m}{g}),$$
(3.4)
with integer $`\mathrm{}<n<\mathrm{}`$. The BPS equations are given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\psi \frac{\psi }{u}=\mathrm{cos}^2\psi ^{}\frac{g^2}{4m^2}\chi ^2,\frac{\chi }{u}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\psi ^{}\chi ^{},umy.$$
(3.5)
One can obtain from (3.2) a BPS two-wall solution which connects $`(\psi ,\chi )=(\pi /2,0)`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ to $`(\psi ,\chi )=(\pi /2,0)`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$

$$\psi _{\mathrm{BPS}}=\mathrm{arcsin}\left(f(u)\right),\chi _{\mathrm{BPS}}^\pm =\pm \frac{m}{g}h(u),$$
(3.6)
where the functions $`f(u),h(u)`$ are defined in (3.2). The ± of $`\chi ^\pm `$ corresponds to the sign of vacuum $`(\psi ,\chi )=(0,\pm 2m/g)`$ in the intermediate region. Another two wall configuration connecting $`(\psi ,\chi )=(\pi /2,0)`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ to $`(\psi ,\chi )=(3\pi /2,0)`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ is given as a solution of anti-BPS equation preserving the opposite combination of supercharges

$$\psi _{\mathrm{antiBPS}}=\mathrm{arcsin}\left(f(u)\right)+\pi ,\chi _{\mathrm{antiBPS}}^\pm =\pm \frac{m}{g}h(u).$$
(3.7)
These solutions are centered at $`y=0`$ and have a moduli $`t`$.

We can construct an Ansatz for the configuration with unit winding number by superposing the BPS two-wall solution with the moduli $`t_1`$ centered at $`y=0`$ and the anti-BPS two wall solution with the moduli $`t_2`$ centered at $`y=a`$

$`\psi _{\mathrm{nonBPS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arcsin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}u}{\mathrm{cosh}u+t_1}}\right)+\mathrm{arcsin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(uu_a)}{\mathrm{cosh}(uu_a)+t_2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},`$
$`\chi _{\mathrm{nonBPS}}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{g}}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t_1}{\mathrm{cosh}u+t_1}}}\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{t_2}{\mathrm{cosh}(uu_a)+t_2}}}\right),`$ (3.8)
where the sign ± for the field $`\chi ^\pm `$ indicates the same ($`+`$) or opposite ($``$) sign of vacuum in the intermediate region around $`y=0`$ and around $`y=a`$. A typical field configuration $`(\psi ,\chi ^+)`$ is illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7a. We have shown the distance $`\widehat{t}_i\mathrm{arccosh}(t_i)/m`$ between walls within the BPS state($`i=1`$) and the anti-BPS state ($`i=2`$). For comparison, field configuration $`(\psi ,\chi ^{})`$ for the vacuum $`(\psi ,\chi )=(0,2m/g)`$ in the intermediate region is illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7b.

### 3.2 BPS-like bound for two fields model

Let us first examine what sort of BPS-like bound can be obtained in the case of two fields. The energy in the one periodicity domain is given by

$$E=_0^{2\pi R}𝑑y\left[\left|\frac{m}{g}\mathrm{cos}\psi \frac{d\psi }{dy}\right|^2+\left|\frac{d\chi }{dy}\right|^2+\left|\frac{m^2}{g}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \frac{g}{4}\chi ^2\right|^2+\left|\frac{m}{2}\chi \mathrm{sin}\psi \right|^2\right].$$
(3.9)
Similarly to the single field model, we assume that the periodic field $`\psi `$ takes values $`\pi /2`$ at $`y_1`$ and $`\pi /2`$ at $`y_2`$. We find

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{y_2}}𝑑y\left[\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g}}\mathrm{cos}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{dy}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}\chi ^2\right|^2+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{d\chi }{dy}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\chi \mathrm{sin}\psi \right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒲(\psi ,\chi )}{dy}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y_2}^{y_1+2\pi R}}𝑑y\left[\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g}}\mathrm{cos}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g}}\mathrm{cos}^2\psi {\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}\chi ^2\right|^2+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{d\chi }{dy}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\chi \mathrm{sin}\psi \right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒲(\psi ,\chi )}{dy}}\right].`$
In the case of single field model, one can specify the value of the superpotential in terms of the value of the field $`\psi `$. Combined with the requirement of nonvanishing winding number and the continuity of a real function $`\psi (y)`$, we are sure that the superpotential has to reach the vacuum value $`𝒲(\psi =\pi /2)`$ before returning back to the original value $`𝒲(\psi =\pi /2)`$ as dictated by the periodicity of the superpotential in our model. This is the origin of the BPS-like bound for the single field model. In the case of two fields, however, the above bound reads

$`E`$ $``$ $`2\left[𝒲\left(\psi (y_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\chi (y_2)\right)𝒲\left(\psi (y_1)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\chi (y_1)\right)\right]`$ (3.11)
$`=`$ $`2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m^3}{3g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}\chi ^2(y_2)\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m^3}{3g^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}\chi ^2(y_1)\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`2E_{\mathrm{BPS}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\left(\chi ^2(y_2)+\chi ^2(y_1)\right).`$
Nonvanishing $`\chi (y_1)`$ and $`\chi (y_2)`$ make this bound lower than twice the BPS energy. In the case of two fields, it is not guaranteed for two fields to take particular value specified by the vacuum at the same time. Consequently the superpotential need not reach the value at the vacuum before returning back to its original value. Since we have just chosen particular points $`y_1,y_2`$ to divide the integration region to evaluate the BPS or anti-BPS bound, it is possible that we can have better bound by choosing other point of division. However, it does not seem to be possible to choose such a point in general situations. Therefore we just conclude that the energy of the winding configuration need not be larger than the sum of BPS and anti-BPS states. This result suggests that there is a possibility for a non-BPS bound state of walls in the case of the two-wall model.

### 3.3 Non-BPS multi-walls in the noncompact space

Here we present energy (3.9) of the non-BPS configuration of four walls with unit winding number (3.8). To avoid too many parameters, we will use the same moduli parameters for both BPS and anti-BPS states $`t_1=t_2t`$ except stated otherwise.

For the case of $`\chi ^\pm `$ with the same sign of the field $`\chi `$ for BPS and anti-BPS walls, we show the energy as a function of separation $`a`$ between BPS and anti-BPS walls, for fixed moduli $`t`$ in Fig. 8. A typical field configuration can be obtained by letting $`\widehat{t}_1=\widehat{t}_2`$ in Figs. 6 and 7a. We observe the following:

1. There exist configurations which have energies lower than the sum of BPS and anti-BPS states in contrast to the single field case. Although we have only a limited Ansatz of field configurations inspired by physical considerations, this fact clearly shows that the BPS and anti-BPS states infinitely far apart is not the lowest energy state in the nonvanishing winding number sector.
2. Among these configurations, we find the minimum energy configuration which has a separation $`a4.73/m`$ of BPS and anti-BPS states and the moduli $`t0.200`$ which is shown in Fig.8. Thus we find an approximate evaluation of the minimum energy configuration for the unit winding number sector.
3. We have also examined the energy as a function of the difference $`t_1t_2`$ between the moduli parameters of the BPS state $`t_1`$ and the anti-BPS state $`t_2`$ as shown in Fig. 9. It shows clearly the configuration achieves the minimum energy for $`t_1=t_2`$.
4. Therefore we find that there exists a non-BPS bound state of walls whose approximate configuration is given by BPS and anti-BPS two walls with moduli parameter $`t_1=t_20.200`$ which are separated by $`a4.73/m`$.

For the case with the opposite sign of the fields $`\chi `$ for BPS and anti-BPS walls, we show the energy as a function of separation $`a`$ between BPS and anti-BPS walls, for fixed moduli $`t0.423`$ in Fig. 10. A typical field configuration can be obtained by letting $`\widehat{t}_1=\widehat{t}_2`$ in Figs. 6 and 7b. We observe the following:

1. We find that energy is always higher than the sum of the BPS and anti-BPS states.
2. There exists a local minimum of energy at zero separation $`a=0`$ between BPS and anti-BPS states for the moduli parameter $`t<3.705`$. The lowest value of this local minimum occurs at the moduli $`t0.423`$ which is shown in Fig. 10.

### 3.4 Non-BPS multi-walls in compactified space

It is interesting to examine if the above non-BPS bound state of walls persists when the space is compactified on $`S^1`$, since one expects a repulsion from the other walls located at $`2\pi R`$ which is the periodicity of the base space $`y=y+2\pi R`$.

When the space is compactified, the BPS states are placed at $`y=2n\pi R`$ and anti-BPS walls at $`y=2n\pi R+a`$ periodically. Then we have an Ansatz

$`\psi _{\mathrm{nonBPS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[\mathrm{arcsin}\left(f(u2nu_0)\right)+\mathrm{arcsin}\left(f(uu_a2nu_0)\right)+\pi \right]{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},`$
$`\chi _{\mathrm{nonBPS}}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g}}\left(h(u2nu_0)\pm h(uu_a2nu_0)\right)\right],`$ (3.12)
where $`umy,u_ama`$ and $`u_0m\pi R`$.

In one periodicity domain $`a\pi R<y<a+\pi R`$, only nearby walls are important. Three walls (placed at $`y=0,a,2\pi R`$) and five walls (placed at $`y=a2\pi R,0,a,2\pi R,a+2\pi R`$) approximations of energy in an interval $`a\pi R<y<a+\pi R`$ are compared in the case of the moduli parameter $`t=0`$. We find an excellent agreement between three wall and five wall approximations. We show the fractional difference $`(E_5E_3)/E_3`$ between energies in compact space in approximations with five walls $`E_5`$ and three walls $`E_3`$ in Table. 1. Therefore we choose to use three wall approximation in the following. The energy density in Eq.(3.9) can be evaluated in the three wall approximation by using the $`f_i=f(u_i),h_i=h(u_i),i=1,2,3`$, and $`u_1=u,u_2=uu_a,u_3=u2m\pi R`$

$`\mathrm{sin}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`f_1\sqrt{(1f_2^2)(1f_3^2)}f_2\sqrt{(1f_3^2)(1f_1^2)}f_3\sqrt{(1f_1^2)(1f_2^2)}+f_1f_2f_3,`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(1f_1^2)(1f_2^2)(1f_3^2)}+f_1f_2\sqrt{(1f_3^2)}+f_2f_3\sqrt{(1f_1^2)}+f_3f_1\sqrt{(1f_2^2)},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{du}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(e^{u_i}+t)(e^{u_i}+t)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t\mathrm{cosh}u_i+1}{\mathrm{cosh}u_i+t}},i=1,2,3.`$ (3.13)
For the choice of same sign of $`\chi `$ for BPS and anti-BPS states, a typical field configuration $`\psi `$ and $`\chi ^+`$ is shown in Fig. 11 for $`2m\pi R=40`$ and $`t=0.2`$ choosing $`a=\pi R`$. The corresponding energy of the unit winding number configuration is shown in Fig. 12a as a function of $`ma`$. We find that there is an absolute minimum at $`ma=4.75`$ which is identical to the noncompact case. We also find a very shallow local minimum at the center $`a=\pi R`$. This comes about because of the compactification. General tendency of the non-BPS walls is that they exert repulsion as we have encountered in the single field case. This repulsion produces a minimum at the central position.

As we decrease the compactification radius $`R`$, the absolute minimum gets shallower as shown in Fig. 12b for the case of $`2m\pi R=20`$ with the same moduli $`t=0.2`$. Eventually the absolute minimum around $`ma=4.75`$ disappears and we obtain only single minimum at the center $`a=\pi R`$ as shown in Fig. 12c. Thus we find that the non-BPS bound state of walls persists for larger values of compactification radius up to $`2m\pi R<16.92`$, and that it becomes unstable for smaller values of the radius.

Let us next examine the case with the opposite sign of the fields $`\chi `$ for BPS and anti-BPS walls. A typical field configuration $`\psi `$ and $`\chi ^{}`$ is shown in Fig. 13 for $`2m\pi R=40`$ and $`t=0.423`$ choosing $`a=\pi R`$. For noncompact space, we have found a local minimum of energies at $`a=0`$. This still persists for $`2m\pi R=40`$, $`2m\pi R=20`$ and $`2m\pi R=10`$ as shown in Fig. 14. The absolute minimum always occurs at the center $`a=\pi R`$ in the case of the opposite sign of the fields $`\chi `$ for BPS and anti-BPS walls. Since the width of the BPS state is of order $`1/m`$, our Ansatz requires $`my`$ to span a region of a few times $`1/m`$ for the field $`\psi `$ to make a full $`2\pi `$ winding. Therefore we should not trust our Ansatz for too small values of radius $`R`$.

### Acknowledgments

We thank Nobuhito Maru and Yutaka Sakamura for a collaboration of previous works where an idea of this work arises. This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, priority area (#707) “Supersymmetry and unified theory of elementary particles” and No.13640269. R.S. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists (No.6665).