format: text

text:
# Fresnel analysis of the wave propagation in nonlinear electrodynamics

## 1 Introduction

Wave phenomena belong to the most interesting and important processes in physics. Among other field theories, nonlinear electrodynamics attracts much attention in connection with the prominent role played by light in the experimental and theoretical studies of the structure of spacetime and matter.

Nonlinearities in electrodynamical models can arise in different ways in classical and quantum field theories. For example, the old Born-Infeld theory  was a fundamental theory alternative to the classical Maxwell electrodynamics which provided a model of a classical electron. On the other hand, quantum Maxwell electrodynamics predicts nonlinear effects which arise due to the radiative corrections, see . Finally, in the modern string theories a generalized Born-Infeld action naturally arises as the leading part of the effective string action, see, for example.

Wave propagation in the various nonlinear electrodynamical theories was studied previously in  and also in . A general feature revealed in these studies is the existence of birefringence. In crystal optics, the notion of birefringence means the emergence of two rays (ordinary and extraordinary) with different velocities inside the material medium. We will use the expression “birefringence” in a similar sense, associating it with the situation when two different light cones exist for the wave normal covectors. However, the earlier results are incomplete in the sense that the full Fresnel equation, governing the wave normals, was never derived explicitly. Moreover, it was not demonstrated how it happens that the original quartic surface of wave normals reduces to the light cone. That is the primary interest in our study, and we will try to clarify this aspect for the nonlinear electrodynamical models, using and expanding our earlier results obtained within the framework of linear electrodynamics .

Our basic tool will be the general formula for the Fresnel equation derived earlier within linear electrodynamics. Now we observe that the analysis of the wave propagation in a general nonlinear model reduces to the linear case because the jumps of the derivatives of the excitation and of the field strength are in all cases related by a linear law. We can make then use of our master formula for the Fresnel tensor and derive the Fresnel equation for any nonlinear model, and thereby explain the reduction to the light cones.

## 2 Electromagnetic waves and Fresnel tensor

Quite generally, Maxwell’s equations for the excitation 2-form $`H=(𝒟,)`$ and the field strength 2-form $`F=(E,B)`$ read

$$dH=J,dF=0.$$
(2.1)
Here $`J`$ is the electric current 3-form. These equations must be supplemented by a constitutive law $`H=H(F)`$. The latter relation contains the crucial information about the underlying physical continuum (i.e., spacetime and/or material medium). Mathematically, this constitutive law arises either from a suitable phenomenological theory of a medium or from the electromagnetic field Lagrangian. It can be a nonlinear or even nonlocal relation between the electromagnetic excitation and the field strength.

If local coordinates $`x^i`$ are given, with $`i,j,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$, we can decompose the excitation and field strength 2-forms into their components according to

$$H=\frac{1}{2}H_{ij}dx^idx^j,F=\frac{1}{2}F_{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(2.2)
We will study the propagation of a discontinuity of the electromagnetic field following the lines of Ref. , see also Refs. . The surface of discontinuity $`S`$ is defined locally by a function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=const`$ on $`S`$. Across $`S`$, the geometric Hadamard conditions are satisfied:

$`[F_{ij}]=0,[_iF_{jk}]=q_if_{jk},`$ (2.3)
$`[H_{ij}]=0,[_iH_{jk}]=q_ih_{jk}.`$ (2.4)
Here $`\left[\right](x)`$ denotes the discontinuity of a function $``$ across $`S`$, and $`q_i:=_i\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the wave covector. Given the constitutive law $`H(F)`$, which determines the excitation in terms of the field strength, the corresponding tensors $`f_{ij}`$ and $`h_{ij}`$, describing the jumps of the derivatives of field strength and excitation, are related by

$$h_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\kappa _{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}f_{kl}^{},\mathrm{with}\kappa _{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}:=\frac{H_{ij}}{F_{kl}}.$$
(2.5)
We will call $`\kappa _{ij}^{kl}`$ the jump tensor. In linear electrodynamics, its components coincide with the components of the constitutive tensor (which describes the linear law $`H_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\kappa _{ij}{}_{}{}^{kl}F_{kl}^{}`$), and they are independent of the electromagnetic field. However, in general the jump tensor $`\kappa _{ij}^{kl}`$ is a function of the electromagnetic field, the velocity of matter, the temperature, and other physical and geometrical variables. Quite remarkably, all the earlier results obtained for linear electrodynamics remain also valid in the general case because whatever local relation $`H(F)`$ may exist, the relation between the jumps of the field derivatives, according to (2.5), is always linear.

If we use Maxwell’s equations (2.1), then (2.3) and (2.4) yield

$$ϵ^{ijkl}q_jh_{kl}=0,ϵ^{ijkl}q_jf_{kl}=0.$$
(2.6)
Let us introduce the analog of the conventional constitutive matrix

$$\chi ^{ijkl}:=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijmn}\kappa _{mn}{}_{}{}^{kl}=\frac{^{ij}}{F_{kl}},$$
(2.7)
where we denote $`{}_{}{}^{ij}:=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijmn}H_{mn}`$. Similarly to $`\kappa _{ij}^{kl}`$, we will often call the tensor $`\chi ^{ijkl}`$ the jump tensor density.

Now, making use of (2.5) and (2.7), we rewrite the system (2.6) as

$$\chi ^{ijkl}q_jf_{kl}=0,ϵ^{ijkl}q_jf_{kl}=0.$$
(2.8)
Solving the last equation by $`f_{ij}=q_ia_jq_ja_i`$, we finally reduce (2.8)1 to

$$\chi {}_{}{}^{ijkl}q_{j}^{}q_ka_l=0.$$
(2.9)
This algebraic system has a nontrivial solution for $`a_i`$ only when the wave covectors satisfy a certain condition. The latter gives rise to our covariant Fresnel equation

$$𝒢^{ijkl}(\chi )q_iq_jq_kq_l=0,$$
(2.10)
with the fourth order Fresnel tensor density $`𝒢`$ of weight $`+1`$ defined by

$$𝒢^{ijkl}(\chi ):=\frac{1}{4!}\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\chi ^{mnr(i}\chi ^{j|ps|k}\chi ^{l)qtu}.$$
(2.11)
It is totally symmetric, $`𝒢^{ijkl}(\chi )=𝒢^{(ijkl)}(\chi )`$, and thus has 35 independent components.

## 3 Nonlinear electrodynamics

Let us denote the two independent electromagnetic invariants as

$$I_1:=F_{ij}F^{ij},I_2:=F_{ij}\stackrel{~}{F}^{ij},$$
(3.12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{ijkl}F_{kl}`$ and $`\eta ^{ijkl}:=|g|^{1/2}ϵ^{ijkl}`$. The Hodge operator for the exterior forms is denoted by the star , as usual; but we will use a tilde to denote the dual 2-tensors. We will not restrict ourselves to the case of Minkowski spacetime with $`g_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, but instead $`g_{ij}`$ will be considered as an arbitrary curved Lorentzian spacetime metric.

The class of nonlinear electrodynamics models we study are described, in general, by the Lagrangian 4-form

$$V=L\eta ,\mathrm{with}L=L(I_1,I_2).$$
(3.13)
Here, as usual, $`\eta `$ is the 4-form of the spacetime volume. The electromagnetic excitation 2-form, which enters the Maxwell equation (2.1), is derived as the derivative of the Lagrangian form, $`H=V/F`$. Explicitly, we then have the nonlinear constitutive law

$$H=4\left(L_1{}_{}{}^{}F+L_2F\right).$$
(3.14)
We denote the partial derivatives of the Lagrangian function w.r.t. its arguments as

$$L_a:=\frac{L}{I_a},L_{ab}:=\frac{^2L}{I_aI_b},a,b=1,2.$$
(3.15)
In accordance with (2.5) and (2.7), the direct differentiation of (3.14) yields the jump tensor

$$\chi ^{ijkl}=\sqrt{|g|}\left[k_1g^{i[k}g^{l]j}+k_2F^{ij}F^{kl}+k_3\stackrel{~}{F}^{ij}F^{kl}+k_4F^{ij}\stackrel{~}{F}^{kl}+k_5\stackrel{~}{F}^{ij}\stackrel{~}{F}^{kl}+k_6\eta ^{ijkl}\right].$$
(3.16)
The coefficients $`k_A,A=1,\mathrm{},6`$, are functions of the electromagnetic fields:

$$k_1=4L_1,k_2=8L_{11},k_3=k_4=8L_{12},k_5=8L_{22},k_6=2L_2.$$
(3.17)
The identifications (3.17) are derived for the nonlinear Lagrangian (3.13) from the constitutive law (3.14). However, in most computations below we will consider the most general case with unspecified arbitrary coefficients $`k_A`$. This may be useful if we want to study the nonlinear electrodynamics of a more general type, for instance, with the dissipation effects and/or in moving media.

In general, the untwisted tensor density $`\chi ^{ijkl}(x)`$ of weight $`+1`$ has 36 independent components. We can decompose it into irreducible pieces  with respect to the 6-dimensional (“bivector”) linear group as follows:

$$\chi ^{ijkl}={}_{}{}^{(1)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}+{}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}+{}_{}{}^{(3)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}.$$
(3.18)
The irreducible pieces of $`\chi `$ are defined by

$`{}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\chi ^{ijkl}\chi ^{klij}\right)={}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi _{}^{klij},{}_{}{}^{(3)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}:=\chi ^{[ijkl]},`$ (3.19)
$`{}_{}{}^{(1)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}`$ $`:=`$ $`\chi ^{ijkl}{}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}{}_{}{}^{(3)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}={}_{}{}^{(1)}\chi _{}^{klij}.`$ (3.20)
The irreducible pieces $`{}_{}{}^{(1)}\chi `$, $`{}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi `$, and $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}\chi `$ have 20, 15, and 1 independent components, respectively. The possible presence of an axion piece $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}\chi `$ was first studied by Ni , whereas a constitutive law with an isotropic skewon $`{}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi `$ was discussed by Nieves and Pal .

In the Lagrangian models (3.13), the effective constitutive tensor is automatically symmetric, i.e. $`{}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi =0`$, which follows from (3.17), since $`k_3=k_4`$. However, in general the jump tensor (3.16) has all the three irreducible pieces:

$`{}_{}{}^{(1)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{|g|}[k_1g^{i[k}g^{l]j}+k_2F^{ij}F^{kl}+{\displaystyle \frac{(k_3+k_4)}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{F}^{ij}F^{kl}+F^{ij}\stackrel{~}{F}^{kl})`$ (3.22)
$`+k_5\stackrel{~}{F}^{ij}\stackrel{~}{F}^{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}[(k_3+k_4)I_1+(k_5k_2)I_2]\eta ^{ijkl}],`$
$`{}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(k_3k_4)}{2}}\sqrt{|g|}\left(\stackrel{~}{F}^{ij}F^{kl}F^{ij}\stackrel{~}{F}^{kl}\right),`$ (3.23)
$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\sqrt{|g|}\left[(k_3+k_4)I_1+(k_5k_2)I_2+12k_6\right]\eta ^{ijkl}.`$ (3.24)
## 4 Fresnel equation and birefringence

Our study of the algebraic system in the framework of the Hadamard formalism yields the Fresnel equation in the generally covariant form (2.10) with the Fresnel tensor density (2.11). For the explicit jump tensor density (3.16), it thus remains to substitute its components into (2.11). A straightforward calculation yields the result:

$$𝒢^{ijkl}=\frac{k_1}{8}\sqrt{|g|}\left(𝒳g^{(ij}g^{kl)}+2𝒴g^{(ij}t^{kl)}+𝒵t^{(ij}t^{kl)}\right).$$
(4.25)
Here we denote

$$t^{ij}:=F^{ik}F^j{}_{k}{}^{},$$
(4.26)
and

$`𝒳`$ $`=`$ $`k_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{2}}(k_3+k_4)I_2k_1k_5I_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(k_3k_4k_2k_5)I_2^2,`$ (4.27)
$`𝒴`$ $`=`$ $`k_1(k_2+k_5)+(k_3k_4k_2k_5)I_1,`$ (4.28)
$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`4(k_2k_5k_3k_4).`$ (4.29)
The most remarkable property of (4.25) is that it is obviously factorizable into a product of 2 second order tensors. Correspondingly, the quartic Fresnel surface of the wave normals reduces to the product of two second order surfaces:

$$𝒢^{ijkl}(\chi )q_iq_jq_kq_l=\frac{k_1}{8𝒳}(g_1^{ij}q_iq_j)(g_2^{kl}q_kq_l)=\frac{k_1}{8𝒵}(\overline{g}{}_{1}{}^{ij}q_{i}^{}q_j)(\overline{g}{}_{2}{}^{kl}q_{k}^{}q_l).$$
(4.30)
In other words, the wave normals lie not on the quartic surface but on one of the two cones which are determined by the pair of optical metric tensors:

$`g_1^{ij}`$ $`:=`$ $`𝒳g^{ij}+(𝒴+\sqrt{𝒴^2𝒳𝒵})t^{ij},`$ (4.31)
$`g_2^{ij}`$ $`:=`$ $`𝒳g^{ij}+(𝒴\sqrt{𝒴^2𝒳𝒵})t^{ij}.`$ (4.32)
The second equality in (4.30) offers a different description of the cones by means of the conformally equivalent metric tensors:

$`\overline{g}_1^{ij}`$ $`:=`$ $`(𝒴\sqrt{𝒴^2𝒳𝒵})g^{ij}+𝒵t^{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒳}}(𝒴\sqrt{𝒴^2𝒳𝒵})g_1^{ij},`$ (4.33)
$`\overline{g}_2^{ij}`$ $`:=`$ $`(𝒴+\sqrt{𝒴^2𝒳𝒵})g^{ij}+𝒵t^{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒳}}(𝒴+\sqrt{𝒴^2𝒳𝒵})g_2^{ij}.`$ (4.34)
Thus, the general Fresnel analysis demonstrates that in any nonlinear electrodynamics model (3.13) the quartic wave surface always reduces to two light cones. This is the birefringence effect which is thus a general feature of the nonlinear electrodynamics.

## 5 Properties of optical metrics

Let us discuss the results obtained in the previous section. The following general observations are in order.

The Fresnel equation is trivially satisfied for all wave covectors when $`k_1=0`$, see (4.25). Thus, – in order to have waves – every electrodynamical Lagrangian $`L`$ should necessarily depend on the invariant $`I_1=F_{ij}F^{ij}`$ (thus providing $`k_10`$).

Accordingly, we will always assume that $`k_10`$.

In order to have a decent light propagation, the optical metrics should be real and with Lorentzian signature. How can one be a priori sure that for every $`L`$ an optical metric necessarily has these properties?

Using (4.27)-(4.29) we find an explicit expression for the quantity under the square root in the above formulas :

$$𝒴^2𝒳𝒵=N_1^2+N_2N_3,$$
(5.35)
where we have denoted

$`N_1`$ $`:=`$ $`k_1(k_2k_5)+(k_3k_4k_2k_5)I_1,`$ (5.36)
$`N_2`$ $`:=`$ $`2k_1k_3+(k_3k_4k_2k_5)I_2,`$ (5.37)
$`N_3`$ $`:=`$ $`2k_1k_4+(k_3k_4k_2k_5)I_2.`$ (5.38)
The expression (5.35) is always non-negative in every nonlinear theory (3.13) because $`N_2=N_3`$ when we take into account that $`k_3=k_4`$, see (3.17).

The signature of a four-dimensional metric is Lorentzian if and only if its determinant is negative. Straightforward computation yields for the optical metrics (4.31)-(4.32):

$$\left(detg_a^{ij}\right)=\left(detg^{ij}\right)\left[\alpha ^2+\frac{\alpha \beta _a}{2}I_1+\mathrm{sign}(g)\frac{\beta _a^2}{16}I_2^2\right]^2,a=1,2.$$
(5.39)
Here $`\alpha =𝒳`$ and $`\beta _1=𝒴+\sqrt{𝒴^2𝒳𝒵}`$, $`\beta _2=𝒴\sqrt{𝒴^2𝒳𝒵}`$. As we see, both optical metrics have Lorentzian signature as soon as the spacetime metric $`g^{ij}`$ is Lorentzian.

Summarizing, we have demonstrated that (4.31)-(4.32) indeed describe the generic effect of a birefringent light propagation for all nonlinear Lagrangians.

Recently, the emergence of the two “effective geometries” has been described in  without using the Fresnel approach. This result is in a qualitative agreement with our analysis. In order to prove the quantitative correspondence, one needs to show that our optical metrics are conformally equivalent to the effective metrics of . Although the corresponding comparison is rather complicated and the direct proof is still not available, one can verify that $`\sqrt{𝒴^2𝒳𝒵}`$ is equal to $`64\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ of . Moreover, one can recast the optical metrics (4.31)-(4.34) into the form of the so-called Boillat metrics of .

## 6 Special Lagrangians

It is worthwhile to study in a greater detail certain particular nonlinear models which are potentially of physical interest.

### A Lagrangian $`L=L(I_2)`$

When the Lagrangian depends only on the second electromagnetic invariant, we have $`k_1=0`$, and there are no waves in such models.

### B Lagrangian $`L=L(I_1)`$

For the Lagrangian which, on the contrary, depends on the first invariant only, we find $`k_3=k_4=k_5=0`$. Accordingly, from (4.27)-(4.29) we find $`𝒳=k_1^2,𝒴=k_1k_2,𝒵=0`$ and thus (4.31)-(4.32) yield

$$g_1^{ij}=k_1\left(k_1g^{ij}+2k_2t^{ij}\right),g_2^{ij}=k_1^2g^{ij}.$$
(6.40)
Correspondingly, we still have birefringence with some photons moving along the standard null rays of the spacetime metric $`g^{ij}`$, whereas other photons choosing the rays null with respect to the optical metric $`L_1g^{ij}+4L_{11}t^{ij}`$, cf. .

### C Lagrangian $`L=U(I_1)+\alpha I_2`$

This is a simple generalization of the above case. Here $`\alpha `$ does not depend on the electromagnetic field, although it is not a constant, in general. When it depends on the spacetime coordinates, $`\alpha =\alpha (x)`$, one can identify it with the axion field.

Here we again have $`k_3=k_4=k_5=0`$ and we recover the same light cone structure (6.40). To put it differently, axion does not disturb the light cones which are solely determined by the spacetime metric and by the dependence of the Lagrangian on the invariant $`I_1`$.

### D Lagrangian $`L=aI_1+V(I_2)`$

Then $`k_2=k_3=k_4=0`$ which yields $`𝒳=k_1^2k_1k_5I_1,𝒴=k_1k_5,𝒵=0`$. Consequently,

$$g_1^{ij}=k_1\left[(k_1k_5I_1)g^{ij}+2k_5t^{ij}\right],g_2^{ij}=k_1(k_1k_5I_1)g^{ij},$$
(6.41)
i.e., there is again birefringence with one cone determined by the standard spacetime metric.

### E Born-Infeld theory

The Lagrangian of the Born-Infeld (BI) theory  reads:

$$L=b^2\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\frac{1}{16b^4}I_2^2}1\right).$$
(6.42)
Here $`b`$ is the coupling constant. By differentiation, we find:

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`4L_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\frac{1}{16b^4}I_2^2\right)^{1/2}}},`$ (6.43)
$`k_2`$ $`=`$ $`8L_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2b^2\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\frac{1}{16b^4}I_2^2\right)^{3/2}}},`$ (6.44)
$`k_3`$ $`=`$ $`k_4=8L_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{I_2}{8b^4\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\frac{1}{16b^4}I_2^2\right)^{3/2}}},`$ (6.45)
$`k_5`$ $`=`$ $`8L_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\right)}{2b^2\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\frac{1}{16b^4}I_2^2\right)^{3/2}}}.`$ (6.46)
Correspondingly,

$`𝒳`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\right)^2}{\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\frac{1}{16b^4}I_2^2\right)^2}},`$ (6.47)
$`𝒴`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\right)}{b^2\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\frac{1}{16b^4}I_2^2\right)^2}},`$ (6.48)
$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^4\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\frac{1}{16b^4}I_2^2\right)^2}}.`$ (6.49)
As a result, we find $`𝒴^2𝒳𝒵=0`$, and thus the two optical metrics (4.31)-(4.32) coincide,

$$g_1^{ij}=g_2^{ij}=\frac{\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\right)}{\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\frac{1}{16b^4}I_2^2\right)^2}\left[\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\right)g^{ij}\frac{1}{b^2}t^{ij}\right].$$
(6.50)
Birefringence disappears, and the photons propagate along a single light cone determined by the “quasi-metric” of Plebanski

$$\left(1+\frac{1}{2b^2}I_1\right)g^{ij}\frac{1}{b^2}t^{ij}.$$
(6.51)
## 7 No birefringence condition

In this section, we will restrict our attention to the Lagrangian theories for which the constitutive tensor is (3.16), and the coefficients are derived as (3.17). It is important that the Fresnel analysis reveals that $`k_10`$, otherwise there is no decent wave propagation at all.

As it is clear from (5.35), the necessary and sufficient condition of the absence of birefringence is provided by the pair of equations:

$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`k_1(k_2k_5)+(k_3k_4k_2k_5)I_1=0,`$ (7.52)
$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`N_3=2k_1k_3+(k_3k_4k_2k_5)I_2=0.`$ (7.53)
Here the property $`k_3=k_4`$ of the Lagrangian models is used.

Taking into account that all $`k`$’s are the partial derivatives of the Lagrangian $`L`$ w.r.t. $`I_1`$ and/or $`I_2`$ as displayed in (3.17), we can view the above system as a pair of partial differential equations, the solution $`L=L(I_1,I_2)`$ of which describes a model without birefringence (i.e., with a single light cone). At least two such particular solutions are already known: one is rather simple, namely, the standard Maxwell theory with $`L=I_1/4`$. Another is more nontrivial – this is the Born-Infeld theory with the Lagrangian (6.42). One may ask the question: Are these the only solutions of the system (7.52)-(7.53)? The immediate inspection of the system (7.52)-(7.53) shows that the answer is negative. For example, the Lagrangian function $`L(I_1,I_2)=aI_1/I_2`$, with constant $`a`$, satisfies the equations (7.52)-(7.53). Such a nonlinear (and nonpolynomial) model thus also has no birefringence. It is an open problem to find the complete set of solutions of (7.52)-(7.53), leading then to a single light cone.

## 8 Closure condition

Let us denote the “traceless” part of the jump tensor as

$$\overline{)}\chi ^{ijkl}:={}_{}{}^{(1)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}+{}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}.$$
(8.54)
As we know , only the traceless part determines the Fresnel surface, whereas the axion part $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}`$ drops out completely from the wave propagation analysis.

For the general jump tensor (3.16), we find:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{ϵ}_{pqij}\overline{)}\chi ^{ijkl}\widehat{ϵ}_{klrs}\overline{)}\chi ^{rsmn}`$ $`=`$ $`(k_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a_0^2}{k_1^2}})\delta _p^{[m}\delta _q^{n]}+a_0\eta _{pq}^{mn}`$ (8.56)
$`+a_1F_{pq}\stackrel{~}{F}^{mn}+a_2\stackrel{~}{F}_{pq}F^{mn}+a_3F_{pq}F^{mn}+a_4\stackrel{~}{F}_{pq}\stackrel{~}{F}^{mn}.`$
Here the coefficients read:

$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{6}}\left[(k_3+k_4)I_1+(k_5k_2)I_2\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[N_1I_2+{\displaystyle \frac{(N_2+N_3)}{2}}I_1\right],`$ (8.57)
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`(k_3+k_4)k_1k_3k_4I_2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_5}{3}}\left[2(k_3+k_4)I_1+(2k_5+k_2)I_2\right]`$ (8.58)
$`=`$ $`N_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2k_5}{3k_1}}I_2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(N_2+N_3)}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{2k_5}{3k_1}}I_1\right),`$ (8.59)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`(k_3+k_4)k_1k_3k_4I_2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{3}}\left[2(k_3+k_4)I_1+(k_5+2k_2)I_2\right]`$ (8.60)
$`=`$ $`N_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2k_2}{3k_1}}I_2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(N_2+N_3)}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{2k_2}{3k_1}}I_1\right),`$ (8.61)
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`(k_5k_2)k_1+k_2k_5I_1+{\displaystyle \frac{k_3}{3}}\left[2(k_5k_2)I_2+(2k_3k_4)I_1\right]`$ (8.62)
$`=`$ $`N_1\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{2k_3}{3k_1}}I_2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(N_2+N_3)}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2k_3}{3k_1}}I_1\right),`$ (8.63)
$`a_4`$ $`=`$ $`(k_5k_2)k_1k_2k_5I_1{\displaystyle \frac{k_4}{3}}\left[2(k_5k_2)I_2+(2k_4k_3)I_1\right]`$ (8.64)
$`=`$ $`N_1\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2k_4}{3k_1}}I_2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(N_2+N_3)}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2k_4}{3k_1}}I_1\right).`$ (8.65)
The second lines in (8.59)-(8.65) give the $`a`$’s in terms of the combinations (7.52)-(7.53). Certainly, we use the assumption that $`k_10`$.

Like the constitutive tensor of linear electrodynamics, the jump tensor $`\overline{)}\kappa _{ij}^{kl}`$$`=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_{ijmn}`$$`\overline{)}\chi ^{mnkl}`$ determines a linear map in the 6-dimensional space of 2-forms. When the action of this map, repeated twice, brings us (up to a factor) back to the identity map, we speak of the closure property of $`\overline{)}\kappa _{ij}^{kl}`$. The importance of the closure property is related to the fact that ultimately $`\overline{)}\kappa _{ij}^{kl}`$ turns out to the duality operator which determines a unique conformal Lorentzian metric on the spacetime.

In nonlinear electrodynamics, the jump tensor (3.16) has the closure property when

$$a_0=0,a_1=0,a_2=0,a_3=0,a_4=0,$$
(8.66)
as is evident from (8.56).

## 9 Equivalence of closure and no birefringence conditions

In linear electrodynamics, there is much evidence (although the final rigorous proof is still missing) that the quartic Fresnel surface of wave covectors reduces to a unique light cone if and only if the constitutive tensor has the closure property.

For the nonlinear Lagrangian theories it is possible to make some progress in solving the equivalence problem. In a certain sense, the situation here is simpler because we have discovered that the quartic Fresnel surface is always reduced to the product of the light cones (birefringence). The next step is thus to study under which conditions the birefringence disappears and, correspondingly, a unique light cone arises.

Theorem: In the general nonlinear electrodynamical model described by the Lagrangian (3.13), the Fresnel equation implies a single light cone (no birefringence) if and only if the traceless part of the jump tensor satisfies the closure property.

Proof: As a preliminary remark, we note that for the Lagrangian models (3.13) the jump tensor (3.16) is symmetric because $`k_3=k_4`$. As a result, $`N_2=N_3`$.

The necessary condition is evident. The birefringence is absent when $`N_1=N_2(=N_3)=0`$, see (7.53). Then we immediately read from (8.57)-(8.65) that $`a_0=a_1=a_2=a_3=a_4=0`$, and thus the closure is recovered from (8.56).

The sufficient condition is also proved straightforwardly. The closure condition (8.66) has the unique solution

$$N_1=0,\frac{N_2+N_3}{2}=0,$$
(9.67)
when we analyze (8.57)-(8.65). Since for the Lagrangian models we have $`N_2=N_3`$, then (9.67) yields $`N_1=N_2=N_3=0`$. Thus, there is no birefringence.

To put it differently, we have proven that the closure of the traceless jump tensor is the necessary and sufficient condition for the reduction of the fourth order Fresnel wave surface to a single light cone. This is true for all nonlinear Lagrangian electrodynamical theories (3.13). Returning to our studies of the general linear electrodynamics, we expect that a similar result holds true there.

### A On asymmetric jump tensors

Symmetry of the jump tensor is very important in the equivalence proof above. In order to clarify this point, let us consider an arbitrary jump tensor (3.16) without assuming the explicit form of the coefficients (3.17). When $`k_3k_4`$, the jump tensor has the nontrivial skewon part (3.23). Also, $`N_2N_3`$ \[in fact, as we can see from (5.37) and (5.38), $`N_2N_3=2k_1(k_3k_4)`$\].

We can easily verify that the closure of an asymmetric operator is not equivalent to the no-birefringence property. Indeed, take, for instance, $`k_10`$, $`k_2=k_3=0`$, $`k_40`$ and $`k_5=0`$. Then the jump tensor is asymmetric and $`N_1=N_2=0`$ but $`N_30`$. We then obtain a unique light cone because (5.35) vanishes identically. However, the closure condition (8.66) is not satisfied, since (8.57)-(8.65) are nontrivial for $`N_1=N_2=0`$ and $`N_30`$. This also means that the requirement of a unique light cone does not necessarily implies that $`\chi `$ must be symmetric.

The opposite is also true: Suppose an asymmetric jump tensor (3.16) has the closure property, i.e. (8.66) is fulfilled. Then we find (9.67) again. However, (9.67b) yields $`N_2=N_3`$, and consequently (5.35) together with (4.31) and (4.32) describe the case of a birefringent and dissipative wave propagation.

These examples show that the closure of an asymmetric jump (or constitutive) tensor does not guarantee the absence of birefringence, and, vice versa, no-birefringence is not accompanied by the closure property for an asymmetric operator.

## 10 Moving isotropic nonlinear media

Recently, there has been some interest in the light propagating in moving media with nontrivial dielectric and magnetic properties. The first covariant analysis of the Fresnel equation for this case was done by Kremer . An isotropic medium is characterized by the constitutive law

$$^{ij}=\sqrt{|g|}\left[\frac{1}{\mu }F^{ij}+2\left(\frac{1}{\mu }\epsilon \right)u_kF^{k[i}u^{j]}\right],$$
(10.68)
where $`u^i`$ is the 4-velocity of the moving matter (normalized as usual by $`u_iu^i=1`$), and $`\epsilon `$ and $`\mu `$ are the permeability and permittivity functions of the isotropic medium. The case when they do not depend on the electromagnetic field strength (being constant in space and time, for example) was investigated in .

More recently, the nonlinear case when $`\epsilon =\epsilon (F)`$ and $`\mu =\mu (F)`$ are functions of the electromagnetic field has been studied by De Lorenci et al . However, the attention was restricted to certain special cases, and the general result is still missing.

We can perform a fairly complete analysis of the wave propagation in a nonlinear moving media on the basis of our covariant Fresnel equation (2.10). By differentiation, we easily find the jump tensor (2.7):

$`\chi ^{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{|g|}[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu }}g^{i[k}g^{l]j}+4({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}\epsilon )u^{[k}g^{l][i}u^{j]}`$ (10.70)
$`+m^{kl}F^{ij}+2(m^{kl}e^{kl})u_mF^{m[i}u^{j]}].`$
The second line is absent in the linear theory, and the tensors

$$m^{ij}:=\frac{(1/\mu )}{F_{ij}},e^{ij}:=\frac{\epsilon }{F_{ij}},$$
(10.71)
are responsible for the nonlinear electrodynamical effects.

Inspection immediately reveals that the jump tensor density (10.70) contains both an axion and a skewon part. There are claims in the literature that axion and skewon, in general, do not have physical sense. However, here we encounter a simple and a physically sound example with the both parts being nontrivial. The irreducible pieces (3.19)-(3.20) read:

$`{}_{}{}^{(1)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{|g|}[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu }}g^{i[k}g^{l]j}+4({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}\epsilon )u^{[k}g^{l][i}u^{j]}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m^{ij}F^{kl}+m^{kl}F^{ij})+(m^{kl}e^{kl})P^{[i}u^{j]}`$ (10.73)
$`+(m^{ij}e^{ij})P^{[k}u^{l]}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\eta ^{ijkl}[F^{mn}\stackrel{~}{m}_{mn}+2(\stackrel{~}{m}_{mn}\stackrel{~}{e}_{mn})P^mu^n]],`$
$${}_{}{}^{(2)}\chi _{}^{ijkl}=\sqrt{|g|}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(F^{ij}m^{kl}F^{kl}m^{ij}\right)+\left(m^{kl}e^{kl}\right)P^{[i}u^{j]}\left(m^{ij}e^{ij}\right)P^{[k}u^{l]}\right],$$
(10.74)
and for the axion piece, we have

$$\widehat{ϵ}_{ijkl}\chi ^{ijkl}=\sqrt{|g|}\widehat{ϵ}_{ijkl}\left[F^{ij}m^{kl}+2\left(m^{kl}e^{ij}\right)P^iu^j\right].$$
(10.75)
Thus, nonlinear isotropic matter does have axion and skewon induced by nonlinearity.

### A Nonmagnetic matter

Let us consider the case when the magnetic constant is independent of the electromagnetic field, that is $`m^{ij}=0`$. \[In the simplest case, we can restrict the attention to the purely dielectric medium with $`\mu =1`$. However, we will formally keep $`\mu 1`$, for the sake of generality\].

It is convenient to make the evident split of (10.70) into the sum $`\chi ^{ijkl}=\varphi ^{ijkl}+\psi ^{ijkl}`$, with

$`\varphi ^{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{|g|}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu }}g^{i[k}g^{l]j}+4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}\epsilon \right)u^{[k}g^{l][i}u^{j]}\right],`$ (10.76)
$`\psi ^{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{|g|}e^{kl}u_mF^{m[i}u^{j]}.`$ (10.77)
It is straightforward to find the Fresnel tensor for the first piece:

$$𝒢^{ijkl}(\varphi )=\frac{\epsilon }{\mu ^2}\mathrm{sign}(g)\sqrt{|g|}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{(ij}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{kl)}.$$
(10.78)
Here we have denoted the so called Gordon optical metric  as

$$\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{ij}:=g^{ij}+(\epsilon \mu 1)u^iu^j.$$
(10.79)
Its inverse reads

$$\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{ij}{}^{}:=g_{ij}+(\frac{1}{\epsilon \mu }1)u_iu_j,$$
(10.80)
and the determinant can be easily computed: $`det\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}=(detg)/(\epsilon \mu )`$.

Using this optical metric we can simplify the form of (10.76), bringing it to

$$\varphi ^{ijkl}=\frac{2}{\mu }\sqrt{|g|}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{i[k}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{l]j}=2\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon }{\mu }}\sqrt{|\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}|}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{i[k}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{l]j}.$$
(10.81)
Now, for $`\chi =\varphi +\psi `$, using a compact notation by omitting the indices, we have

$$𝒢(\chi )=𝒢(\varphi )+𝒢(\psi )+\frac{1}{4!}\left(O_1+O_2+O_3+T_1+T_2+T_3\right).$$
(10.82)
Here the mixed terms $`O_a`$ contain one $`\psi `$-factor and the $`T_a`$’s two $`\psi `$-factors. Postponing the symmetrization over $`i,j,k,l`$ to the very last moment, these terms read explicitly as follows:

$`O_1(\varphi ,\psi ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\varphi ^{mnri}\psi ^{jpsk}\varphi ^{lqtu},`$ (10.83)
$`O_2(\psi ,\varphi ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\psi ^{mnri}\varphi ^{jpsk}\varphi ^{lqtu},`$ (10.84)
$`O_3(\varphi ,\varphi ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\varphi ^{mnri}\varphi ^{jpsk}\psi ^{lqtu},`$ (10.85)
$`T_1(\psi ,\varphi ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\psi ^{mnri}\varphi ^{jpsk}\psi ^{lqtu},`$ (10.86)
$`T_2(\psi ,\psi ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\psi ^{mnri}\psi ^{jpsk}\varphi ^{lqtu},`$ (10.87)
$`T_3(\varphi ,\psi ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\varphi ^{mnri}\psi ^{jpsk}\psi ^{lqtu}.`$ (10.88)
An important observation is that all $`T`$’s are vanishing for (10.77). Indeed, let us denote $`P^j:=u_iF^{ij}`$, then

$$\psi ^{ijkl}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{|g|}P^{[i}u^{j]}e^{kl}.$$
(10.89)
Then we straightforwardly find, for example,

$`T_1(\psi ,\chi ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`4|g|\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}P^{[m}u^{n]}e^{ri}P^{[l}u^{q]}e^{tu}\chi ^{jpsk}`$ (10.90)
$`=`$ $`2|g|\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\chi ^{jpsk}P^mu^n(P^lu^qP^qu^l)e^{ri}e^{sk}=0.`$ (10.91)
This is zero because either the symmetric $`u^nu^q`$ or symmetric $`P^mP^q`$ is contracted with the antisymmetric $`\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}`$. Note that we on purpose write $`\chi ^{jpsk}`$ as the second argument, because its form is arbitrary, not necessarily equal to (10.76). Analogously, we find:

$`T_2(\psi ,\psi ,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`4|g|\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}P^{[m}u^{n]}e^{ri}P^{[j}u^{p]}e^{sk}\chi ^{lqtu}`$ (10.92)
$`=`$ $`2|g|\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\chi ^{lqtu}P^mu^n(P^ju^pP^pu^j)e^{ri}e^{sk}=0.`$ (10.93)
It is a little bit more nontrivial to prove that $`T_3`$ also vanishes. We have, explicitly:

$`T_3(\chi ,\psi ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`4|g|\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}P^{[j}u^{p]}e^{sk}P^{[l}u^{q]}e^{tu}\chi ^{mnri}`$ (10.94)
$`=`$ $`|g|\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}\widehat{ϵ}_{rstu}\chi ^{mnri}(P^ju^pP^lu^qP^pu^jP^lu^q`$ (10.96)
$`P^ju^pP^qu^l+P^pu^jP^qu^l)e^{sk}e^{tu}=0.`$
The first and the last terms in the parentheses contain the symmetric combinations $`u^pu^q`$ and $`P^pP^q`$ which are vanishing when contracted with the antisymmetric $`\widehat{ϵ}_{mnpq}`$. The two remaining terms in the parentheses are reduced, by means of a relabeling of indices, to $`P^pu^q(P^lu^jP^ju^l)`$. Recalling that at the end we impose the symmetrization over the free indices $`(i,j,k,l)`$, we thus prove that $`T_3(\chi ,\psi ,\psi )=0`$.

Since in all the three formulas (10.91)-(10.96), the argument $`\chi ^{jpsk}`$ is completely arbitrary, we can put $`\chi ^{jpsk}=\psi ^{jpsk}`$, in particular. Then (10.91)-(10.96) yields that $`𝒢(\psi )=0`$. As the next choice, we put $`\chi ^{jpsk}=\varphi ^{jpsk}`$. Then (10.82) combined with (10.91)-(10.96), yields

$$𝒢(\chi )=𝒢(\varphi )+\frac{1}{4!}\left(O_1+O_2+O_3\right).$$
(10.97)
It thus remains to compute the $`O`$-terms. The corresponding calculation is straightforward and simple if we use the representation (10.81). Then we find:

$$O_1(\varphi ,\psi ,\varphi )=O_2(\psi ,\varphi ,\varphi )=O_3(\varphi ,\varphi ,\psi )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\mathrm{sign}(g)\frac{\epsilon }{\mu }\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{(ij}\psi _{}^{k|mn|l)}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{mn}{}^{}.$$
(10.98)
Note that this result is valid for all possible tensors $`\psi `$, not only (10.77) which means that we can further use (10.98) for the future calculations involving more general nonlinear pieces (in particular, for the case with a nontrivial $`m^{ij}`$). Using then (10.98) in (10.97), we get

$$𝒢^{ijkl}(\varphi +\psi )=\frac{\epsilon }{\mu ^2}\mathrm{sign}(g)\sqrt{|g|}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{(ij}\stackrel{1}{g}{}_{}{}^{kl)}.$$
(10.99)
Here we denoted

$$\stackrel{1}{g}{}_{}{}^{ij}:=\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{ij}\frac{\mu }{\sqrt{|g|}}\psi ^{(i|mn|j)}\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{mn}{}^{}.$$
(10.100)
Hence, a purely dielectric nonlinear moving medium will in general exhibit the birefringence effect: the light will propagate in such a medium along the cone of the original optical metric $`\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}^{ij}`$ (one may call it ordinary ray), and along the second cone determined by the metric $`\stackrel{1}{g}^{ij}`$ (“extraordinary” ray).

The explicit form of the extraordinary optical metric is obtained when we substitute (10.89) into (10.100):

$`\stackrel{1}{g}^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{ij}\mu P_ke^{k(i}u^{j)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}u_ke^{k(i}P^{j)},`$ (10.101)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{o}}{g}{}_{}{}^{ij}+\mu e^{k(i}u^{j)}F_{kl}u^l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}u_ke^{k(i}F^{j)l}u_l.`$ (10.102)
Special cases of this general result were considered in .

As an example, let us consider a medium in its rest frame. We use adapted coordinates such that $`u^i=\delta _0^i=(1,\stackrel{}{0})`$. We additionally assume that the dielectric permittivity is given by

$$\epsilon =\overline{\epsilon }+a\stackrel{}{E}^2.$$
(10.103)
Here $`\overline{\epsilon }`$ and $`a`$ are constant parameters. The components of the electric vector are defined as usual, $`\stackrel{}{E}=E_a=F_{0a}`$. Then we find

$$e^{0a}=e^{a0}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}aE^a,\mathrm{and}P^j=u_iF^{ij}=(0,E^b).$$
(10.104)
The spatial indices are lowered and raised with the help of the 3-metric $`\delta _{ab}`$ (we neglect the gravitational). As a result, from (10.104) we obtain

$$P_ke^{ki}=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}a\stackrel{}{E}^2,\stackrel{}{0}),u_ke^{ki}=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}aE^b).$$
(10.105)
Finally, using all this in (10.101) we find the components of the extraordinary optical metric:

$$g^{00}=n^2\left(1+\frac{2a}{\epsilon }\stackrel{}{E}^2\right),g^{ab}=\delta ^{ab}\frac{2a}{\epsilon }E^aE^b.$$
(10.106)
Here $`n:=\sqrt{\epsilon \mu }`$ is the refraction index of the medium. In this way we obtain a natural description of the optical Kerr effect (see , for example) when birefringence is induced by the applied electric field.

## 11 Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, we have performed a systematic analysis of the light propagation in the nonlinear electrodynamics on the basis of the Fresnel approach. We have considered two classes of models: (a) general nonlinear Lagrangian theories, and (b) moving nonlinear matter. In the former case, the Lagrangian (3.13) is an arbitrary function of the two electromagnetic invariants, whereas in the latter case, the permeability and permittivity functions of the medium (10.68) depend arbitrarily on the electromagnetic field.

The study of the first class of models reveals the generic nature of the birefringence effect: The quartic Fresnel surface reduces to the two light cones for all nonlinear Lagrangians. We show that the resulting optical metrics are always real and have the correct Lorentzian signature. In this way, we confirm and extend the recent results of . Furthermore, we are able to demonstrate the validity of the so called closure–no birefringence conjecture in the context of nonlinear electrodynamics: Birefringence is absent (and thus the quartic Fresnel surface reduces to a unique light cone) if and only if the effective constitutive (or jump) tensor satisfies closure property.

The nonlinear moving matter with the constitutive law (10.68) gives a sound example of a model in which the effective constitutive tensor naturally has nontrivial axion and skewon contributions. Accordingly, one should then expect that the Fresnel surface remains quartic, in general . However, for nonmagnetic material media, we show that birefringence is again the generic effect. The Fresnel surface factorizes into two light cones, one of which corresponds to the Gordon optical metric (independent of nonlinearities), whereas the other (10.101) manifests the nonlinear properties of the model. The optical Kerr effect represents a particular example of our general derivations.

Acknowledgments. The work of YNO was partially supported by FAPESP, and GFR would like to thank the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for financial support.


text:
# 1 General remarks on Kaluza-Klein models

## 1 General remarks on Kaluza-Klein models

Perturbative calculations in quantum field theory are often accompanied by the presence of divergences. In the absence of anomalies, these divergences do not lead to inconsistencies, as their presence may be absorbed in the redefinition of the physical quantities of the model as for example the coupling constants of the theory. There are cases such as the Higgs sector in the Standard Model where these divergences are quadratic in the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or even quartic in the case of the vacuum energy. Therefore the physics of the Higgs sector is strongly dependent on the ultraviolet details of the theory. Indeed, in the Standard Model (SM), at one-loop level:

$$m_H^2\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^2$$
(1)
While stabilising the value of the Higgs mass to small values may be done (in a one loop order), this procedure must be repeated to every order in perturbation theory. This then brings a large amount of fine tuning in the theory.

A standard procedure to avoid this problem of the Standard Model is to introduce a supersymmetric extension of it, which is free of quadratic and quartic divergences, provided an additional condition (see later) for $`U(1)_Y`$ sector is respected. However, since supersymmetry is not an exact symmetry in Nature, a softly broken supersymmetry  at some scale $`m_{susy}`$ is actually good enough for the purpose of alleviating the ultraviolet behaviour of the Higgs boson mass. In such a case the quadratic divergence in the Higgs sector is alleviated to one of (rather mild) logarithmic type. In this case the following relation emerges, with this solution to the UV sensitivity of the Higgs mass to hold beyond one loop order:

$$m_H^2m_{Susy}^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{Susy}}$$
(2)
In the limit $`m_{Susy}\mathrm{}`$ the quadratic divergence is however restored, hence the need for a low energy (softly) broken supersymmetry. In this case the Higgs sector is only logarithmically sensitive to/dependent on the ultraviolet cut-off of the theory.

For supersymmetric model building purposes, condition (2) is however not enough for the absence of ultraviolet divergences of the Higgs mass beyond that of logarithmic type in (2) or that induced by the UV behaviour of the couplings of the theory. The reason for this is that there exists a contribution from the Fayet Iliopoulos (FI) term which brings in a quadratic dependence on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the Higgs mass. This contribution is also proportional to the sum of the hypercharges of all massless complex scalars  of the model. Therefore the sum of these hypercharges must be zero to ensure the absence of quadratic divergences, and this is indeed the case of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).

With growing interest in the physics of large extra dimensions various higher dimensional (supersymmetric) extensions of the standard model have been proposed. The simplest of these Kaluza-Klein models involve one additional compact dimension with radius $`R`$ and employ either an orbifold compactification $`S_1/Z_2`$ or $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ with mixed orbifold compactification and Scherk Schwarz breaking  of supersymmetry. One loop corrections to the Higgs mass have been computed in these models in ref., , , , . Employing a specific regularisation scheme one obtains a finite result:

$$m_H^2\frac{\alpha }{R^2}$$
(3)
with no explicit dependence on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For particular models  it has been suggested that the finite result for the Higgs mass holds to all orders in perturbation theory . This assertion is not necessarily justified as we will see later on.

The absence of any explicit cut-off dependence in the one loop expression (3) means that the models have one parameter less and this will allow numerical predictions for the Higgs mass. As with all effective models with additional (large) extra dimension(s), the new guise of the hierarchy problem is in this case that of dynamically “fixing” the value of the compactification scale, $`1/R`$ which in the aforementioned Kaluza-Klein models is required/implicitly assumed to be small, of TeV order. Otherwise, for $`1/R`$ large or of the order of the cut-off, one recovers the quadratic divergence of the Standard Model case, eq.(1), thus the importance of “fixing” $`R`$. One can also say that the need for small $`1/R`$ in Kaluza-Klein models is equally important to the need for a low scale of supersymmetry breaking in supersymmetric models, $`m_{susy}1TeV`$, see eqs.(2). This is because in both cases the Higgs (mass)2 is proportional to the square of these quantities. A very large compactification scale $`1/R`$ would require a fine tuning of the couplings $`\alpha `$ to extremely small values, such that the prediction of the Higgs mass remain within the electroweak scale region, according to eq.(3). This can then significantly affect the phenomenological viability of the Kaluza-Klein models considered.

For a given model one can define the UV sensitivity of the Higgs mass (or amount of fine tuning to keep it close to electroweak scale)

$$\zeta _H\frac{1}{m_H^2}\frac{dm_H^2}{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(4)
Other choices are possible, but the qualitative discussion below will not change. The UV sensitivity for Kaluza-Klein models, if (3) holds beyond one-loop, is controlled by the UV behaviour of the couplings $`\alpha `$. The (gauge or Yukawa) couplings $`\alpha `$ of Kaluza-Klein models inevitably have some UV sensitivity to the cut-off due to their additional dimension(s). A one-loop corrected coupling in (3) amounts to a two-loop order correction to the Higgs mass. This one-loop coupling is in general expected to be linearly dependent on the scale in 5D Kaluza-Klein models. Therefore two loop Higgs mass is expected to have linear UV sensitivity $`\zeta _Hd\mathrm{ln}\alpha /d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }R`$, even though no apparent, explicit cut-off dependence is manifest at one-loop level, eq.(3). In a model by model approach it would be interesting to perform a relative comparison of this linear sensitivity induced beyond one loop, but suppressed by an additional power of the coupling to the logarithmic one of the MSSM case. This would be helpful in establishing accurately if an improvement from the MSSM case is possible beyond one loop order.

Generic five dimensional N=1 supersymmetric Kaluza-Klein models constructed recently fall in two classes: those whose low energy (massless) spectrum is that of the MSSM ,  usually compactified on $`M^4\times S^1/Z_2`$ and those compactified on $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$, where this is just the SM spectrum  Regardless of the details of the phenomenological viability of these models, one of their nice features is the presence of the electroweak symmetry breaking triggered by the boundary conditions one chooses for the 5D multiplets. Indeed the scalar potential in these models can be written in general as

$$𝒱(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}Tr\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{p^2+m_{B_k}^2(\varphi )}{p^2+m_{F_k}^2(\varphi )}$$
(5)
where the masses of the Kaluza-Klein states has the structure

$$m_{B_k}^2=\left[\frac{2}{R}\right]^2(k+q_B)^2+M_\varphi ^2$$
(6)
for bosonic states, with similar definition for the fermionic states. For the case of  $`M_\varphi =0`$ with the field dependence introduced via $`q_{B(F)}`$. At field theory level the apparent “freedom” of choosing the boundary conditions fixes the relative values of $`q_B`$ and $`q_F`$. This in turns fixes the sign of the scalar potential (5) (and of its second derivative) and thus the presence or absence of the electroweak symmetry breaking by one loop radiative effects. In the more general context of string theory, compactified on $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$ with Scherk Schwarz breaking of supersymmetry, it turns out  that integer Kaluza-Klein momenta correspond to bosons $`q_B=0`$ and half-integer momenta correspond to fermions, $`q_F=1/2`$. This boundary condition would not lead to EW symmetry breaking by one loop effects.

The first class of models mentioned (see e.g. ) has some similarities with the MSSM, with the nice benefit of a one-loop cut-off independent Higgs mass, eq.(3) as compared to the MSSM case, eq.(2). They also have electroweak symmetry breaking triggered by the effects of Kaluza-Klein states. However, the couplings of the models run power-like with the scale. One can adopt two views of this situation. One is that the couplings (gauge or Yukawa) are just an input/fixed from experiment, and thus no UV sensitivity of $`m_H`$ exists in one loop order or beyond, if the result (3) holds. The second view \- and we share this point of view - is that in going beyond one loop order, the couplings’ “running” is likely to re-introduce some UV sensitivity of the low energy physics333This second point of view would correspond to the Wilsonian interpretation of the low energy effective field theory. ($`m_H`$), as we discuss in the following. For a specific example  it was shown that Yukawa corrections to the Higgs mass induced by KK states bring in for $`m_H^2`$ a linear divergence at two loop level. This linear divergence can be re-absorbed in this case in the re-normalisation of Yukawa couplings, showing that a non-renormalisation of the superpotential still holds at one loop order (despite breaking supersymmetry by a Scherk Schwarz mechanism). Due to the non-renormalisable character of the models, it is not clear that all (beyond one loop) divergences may systematically be absorbed in the redefinition of physical quantities of the theory. Even so, the conclusion is that two-loop (Yukawa) corrected Higgs mass is a finite function of the re-scaled, linearly divergent, Yukawa coupling. Then some UV sensitivity of the Higgs mass will still exist, brought in by the coupling’ dependence on the UV physics, even though no additional explicit cut-off dependence of $`m_H`$ is present.

In a sense the discussion above suggests that Kaluza-Klein threshold corrections to the Higgs mass (or scalar potential) are related to the Kaluza-Klein threshold corrections to the gauge/Yukawa couplings of the model. In some cases the UV (cut-off or scale) dependence of $`m_H`$ may then be redefined in terms of that of the couplings of the theory. For this reason it is sometimes said that, if the couplings of the theory are kept fixed, just as a final input, the Higgs mass is “calculable”. This does not mean that $`m_H`$ would be UV insensitive. Indeed, if (3) holds beyond one loop in a particular model, the UV sensitivity of $`m_H`$ in that order $`(n)`$ will still be (related to) that of couplings of the model in the corresponding order (usually $`(n1)`$) of perturbation theory.

The second class of models mentioned is that with $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ compactification. An explicit model is provided for example by the construction of ref. with the massless spectrum chosen to be that of the SM. The model has some supersymmetric features, since it is obtained by compactifying N=1 supersymmetric theory in 5 dimensions on $`M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$, with KK states to fall into multiplets of this supersymmetry. However, the massless spectrum is that of the Standard Model with only one Higgs state. It is thus not clear to what extent the initial supersymmetry is able to protect the model from divergences, to give a (one loop) finite Higgs mass of type (3). In  concerns have been raised on the finiteness (beyond one loop) and on the UV insensitivity or amount of fine-tuning of the Higgs mass in such models, with further analysis on the link with string theory in . In  it has been shown that the Higgs mass in this model has a quadratic UV divergence already at one loop order and eq.(3) does not apply. The divergence of the Higgs mass is a consequence of a divergent Fayet Iliopoulos (FI) term of $`U(1)`$ hypercharge. Since it turns out that FI terms are very important for the discussion of generic higher dimensional models , let us briefly describe in the next section the calculation of the FI term in generic models with $`M_4\times S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ compactification.

## 2 The Fayet-Iliopoulos term.

For the purpose of such evaluation  one can start with the 5D N=1 action describing a vector $`V`$ and a hypermultiplet $`H`$  and compactify it on $`M_4\times S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. The vector multiplet has components $`V=(A_M,\lambda ,\mathrm{\Phi },D^a)`$ with $`A_M`$ the vector field, $`\lambda `$ the Majorana gaugino, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a real scalar field, and $`D^a`$ an $`SU_R(2)`$ iso-triplet of auxiliary scalars. The hypermultiplet $`H=(h_\alpha ^i,\zeta _\alpha ,F_\alpha ^i)`$ contains a bi-doublet of $`SU(2)\times SU_R(2)`$ $`h_\alpha ^i`$ (scalars), a hyperino $`\zeta _\alpha `$ and auxiliary (bi-doublet) scalars $`F_a^i`$. The parity assignments for the Kaluza-Klein states are presented in the Table below

| fields | $`h_{n\alpha }^\alpha `$ | $`h_{n\alpha }^\alpha `$ | $`\zeta _n^\alpha `$ | $`A_\mu ^n`$ | $`A_5^n`$ | $`\lambda _i^n`$ | $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ | $`D_n^{}`$ | $`\stackrel{}{D}_n^{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| parities | $``$ | $`++`$ | $`\alpha \alpha `$ | $`++`$ | $``$ | $`ii`$ | $``$ | $`++`$ | $``$ |
| modes $`n`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ |

with $`\alpha ,i=\pm `$. Of the three auxiliary scalars, that form a triplet $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ under $`SU_R(2)`$ of the $`N=1`$ vector multiplet, two are odd under both parities $`\stackrel{}{D}^{}=(1\stackrel{}{a}_R\stackrel{}{a}_R^T)\stackrel{}{D}`$, while the other one $`D^{}=\stackrel{}{a}_R^T\stackrel{}{D}`$ is even.

The corresponding diagram of the FI contribution to the self energy of a scalar is

The dotted line corresponds to the auxiliary field $`D^{||}`$ of the Abelian gauge multiplet in 4D.

We investigate what happens to the FI term in the effective field theory coming from 5D with a mass spectrum of complex scalars of the hypermultiplet, in $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ compactification. We take the charges of these scalars as $`q_n^{++}=q_n^{}=1`$ because they belong to complex conjugate representations. The expression for the one loop contribution to the FI term whose diagram is presented above, is

$$\xi =\underset{n,\alpha }{}gq_n^{\alpha \alpha }\frac{d^4p_4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{p_4^2+(m_n^{\alpha \alpha })^2+m^2}$$
(7)
where $`m_n^{\alpha \alpha }=2n/R`$ and the sum for $`\alpha =+`$ is over $`n0`$, while for $`\alpha =`$ over $`n>0`$ in agreement with parity assignments of the above table.

The expression in (7) is considerably more complicated than the usual 4D case, each scalar mode of the infinite sum brings in a quadratic divergence, and a careful evaluation is required. To compute (7) one can transform the sum into an integral in the complex plane  as a regularisation procedure. With this regularisation we find an integral over the compact dimension of the following structure

$$\xi =g\frac{d^{D_4}p_4}{(2\pi )^{D_4}}_{}\frac{d^{D_5}p_5}{2\pi i}\left[\frac{𝒫^{++}(p_5)}{p_4^2+p_5^2+m^2}\frac{𝒫^{}(p_5)}{p_4^2+p_5^2+m^2}\right].$$
(8)
where we have introduced the “pole functions”  $`𝒫^{++}`$ and $`𝒫^{}`$. For $`\text{Im}p_5>0`$, the pole functions may be written as

$$𝒫^{\alpha \alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{i}{2}\pi R+\frac{\alpha }{p_5}\rho _{}(p_5)\right],\rho _\alpha (p_5)=i\pi R\frac{e^{i\pi Rp_5}}{1+\alpha e^{i\pi Rp_5}}.$$
(9)
For the case $`\text{Im}p_5<0`$ one finds

$$𝒫^{\alpha \alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{i}{2}\pi R+\frac{\alpha }{p_5}+\rho _{}(p_5)\right],$$
(10)
When integrated, the first term in $`𝒫^{\alpha \alpha }`$ accounts for genuine 5D divergences, the second $`(\alpha /p_5)`$ for 4D divergences while the remaining part gives the finite contributions.

Making use of the expressions of $`𝒫^{\alpha \alpha }`$ in the expression (8) we find that the result for $`\xi `$ is:

$$\xi =g\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d^{D_4}p_4}{(2\pi )^{D_4}}_{}d^{D_5}p_5\frac{1}{p_5}\frac{1}{p_4^2+p_5^2+m^2}=g\frac{d^{D_4}p_4}{(2\pi )^{D_4}}\frac{1}{p_4^2+m^2}.$$
(11)
We can safely take $`D_5=1`$ and remove the contour integration in (11) to obtain an expression similar to that in the 4D case. This just shows that the FI term at one loop is simply given by the contribution of the massless complex scalar ($`m0`$) and leads to a quadratic divergence of the zero mode scalar mass (Higgs).

Further gauge corrections exist to the self energy of the zero mode scalar (identified as a Higgs state with continuous line in the diagrams below). They can be computed using the same procedure as for the FI term. The corresponding Feynman diagrams are:

A wavy line stands for a gauge field ($`A_\mu ,A_5`$), a wavy line with an arrow stands for gaugino $`\lambda `$, a line with an arrow - a hyperino $`\zeta `$, a dashed line a real scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and a dotted line is an auxiliary field $`D^a`$. On the orbifold $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ these fields are classified as even or odd under both parities.

The result of evaluating the above contributions to the zero mode scalar is

$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }_G=i\frac{7g^2}{16\pi ^4}\left[\frac{1}{R/2}\right]^2\zeta (3)$$
(12)
Since there is no quadratic divergence in this result, one can safely conclude that it is not possible to cancel the quadratic divergence of the Fayet Iliopoulos term to the scalar mass.

The quadratic divergence of the correction to the Higgs massless mode eq.(11) holds for any finite $`R`$, since it is independent of the radius $`R`$ of the compact dimension. Therefore, we conclude that it is also true in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. This signals that the boundary condition of the orbifolding procedure is not removed in limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. The de-compactification limit is thus not smoothly connected to a supersymmetric theory (obtained through compactification on a circle).

It is perhaps worth mentioning here that finite temperature arguments are sometimes used to justify a soft ultraviolet behaviour of the Higgs mass in 4D effective models with one additional compact dimension (5D N=1 supersymmetric model to start with). They proceed as follows. The inverse radius of the compact dimension corresponds to the temperature. Supersymmetry in the initial 5D model then ensures a vanishing of the potential/Higgs mass in the $`R\mathrm{}`$ (or $`T=0`$) limit. Finite values of $`R`$ would then trigger only finite corrections to the scalar potential/Higgs mass, by analogy with finite temperature calculations of the free energy, since in going from $`T=0`$ to $`T0`$ only finite corrections could appear, if the limit $`T0`$ ($`R\mathrm{}`$) is smooth. However it seems to be impossible to reconcile this mechanism with the phenomenological requirement to obtain a chiral spectrum in 4D, while smoothly varying the radius from $`R\mathrm{}`$ of the N=1 supersymmetric limit in 5D to a broken supersymmetry phase. An orbifold-like compactification is necessary, but then the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ on the orbifold does not restore the full initial supersymmetry at the fixed points, as we just discussed in the example above. In other words finite temperature arguments may apply to a circle compactification of the extra dimension (non-chiral models), but not necessarily to a manifold with fixed points (orbifold compactifications).

At an early stage of the discussion, a further explanation for the finiteness of the Higgs mass was the argument that a counterterm for the Higgs mass was forbidden by the symmetries of the theory. Various symmetries have been suggested in that direction. The result of ref. , however, suggests a new counterterm in the theory that is closely connected to the Higgs mass. The analysis of (localized) anomalies at the fixed points , , ,  clarifies the nature of exact symmetries of the model, which in fact allow a counterterm for the Higgs mass in the $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ model .

The conclusion we draw from the above calculation is that a generic 5D N=1 supersymmetric model, with a compactification $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ with massless sector identical to that of the SM will have a quadratic divergence for the Higgs mass at one-loop level444This seems in disagreement with findings in .. In such case  an improvement from the SM UV behaviour of eq.(1), is not possible. A suggestion to avoid such problem may be to introduce an additional Higgs state as zero mode, at the price of bringing an extra parameter with implications on the predictive power of the model.

## 3 Kaluza-Klein models - the view from string theory

What is the situation in string theory? Afterall this is supposed to provide a more consistent framework for investigating corrections to the Higgs mass and scalar potential. At string level, the latter has a correspondent in the vacuum energy, which receives corrections from the string Kaluza-Klein and winding modes as well as massive states.

Comparing the scalar potential of Kaluza-Klein models with the results from string theory is not straightforward. The models must have similar spectrum, orbifold compactification and supersymmetry breaking mechanism. The Kaluza-Klein models must also be free of anomalies not only in 4 dimensions, but also in their 5D embedding. This is important for it may happen that anomalies in 5D, localised at the fixed points be present in some Kaluza-Klein models considered. In string theory their absence is ensured by some variation of Green-Schwarz mechanism or by the twisted states, whose existence/absence in phenomenological studies of Kaluza-Klein models has so far been somewhat arbitrary. It has been shown , (see also ) in a field theory approach that this is a non-trivial issue and that for some models anomalies localised at the fixed points may be present in 5D, with implications for the overall consistency of the models. We thus assume that these difficulties are overcome, and one is able to identify a consistent Kaluza-Klein model which is indeed the low energy limit of a heterotic or type I string model.

In the string context the phenomenological requirement that $`R`$ be of particular size requires a dynamical mechanism to fix the point in moduli space giving this value. Further, the couplings receive some string scale dependence/sensitivity, thus the need for including the (string) threshold corrections to the gauge or Yukawa couplings for the model considered. Such threshold corrections are due to Kaluza-Klein and winding states associated with the extra compact dimension(s) considered. Our previous discussion at the level of Kaluza-Klein models on the link between UV sensitivity of the couplings and of the Higgs mass/scalar potential has then a correspondent at the string level. The (string) threshold corrections to the gauge/Yukawa couplings may be related to those to the vacuum energy . Therefore the UV sensitivity of the Higgs mass/vacuum energy and of the gauge couplings are related at string level as well.

Since most of the results of 5D N=1 supersymmetric Kaluza-Klein models of growing phenomenological interest invoked a Scherk Schwarz mechanism for supersymmetry breaking, we consider such a case at the level of (heterotic) string theory. The case of type I string is only briefly addressed. We present the results  for the vacuum energy/cosmological constant for a $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold compactification, although the results are rather generic to other compactifications. We limit ourselves to listing some comparative features of the string results, to stress the “regularisation” role of the winding modes and modular invariance.

Consider therefore a heterotic orbifold model with N=1 supersymmetry in four dimensions, which has untwisted N=4 and N=2 sub-sectors. Supersymmetry is broken in these sub-sectors of the orbifold by a Scherk-Schwarz mechanism, by the following choice of the shifts of the internal charges :

$$nn,mm+p\frac{1}{2}n,ppn$$
(13)
where $`n,m,p`$ are respectively the winding and momentum numbers with respect to the compactified direction, while p is the internal $`U(1)`$ fermion charge. A Scherk-Schwarz mechanism with respect to the untwisted planes of the orbifold will break N=2 and N=4 supersymmetry of the completely untwisted sector to N=0, while the N=1 sub-sector is left untouched (no mass shifts in this sub-sector).

Detailed calculations of the vacuum energy in string models with such a mechanism for supersymmetry breaking give the result of eq.(14) below, which unlike that of Kaluza-Klein models, is well defined (finite) in the ultraviolet region. The only model dependence of the result is manifest in the coefficients $`\gamma _N`$. It is important to remark at this stage that the limit of integration in eq.(14) from deep ultraviolet $`t0`$ is introduced by the presence of winding states. Essentially this comes about in the following way. Initially the vacuum energy is defined as equal to two sums over winding and momentum modes of an integral over the fundamental domain $`_2`$ of the string. A technical argument  enables one to re-define the summation indices into linear combinations of winding and momentum modes. One of these re-defined sums when applied to the fundamental domain of integration “unfolds” it to the half strip integration region defined by555Further, the integral over $`\tau _1`$ essentially projects all massive states to keep only those of equal mass levels (physical) and one is left with the integral over $`\tau _2`$ only, eq.(14). $`=\{\tau |1/2\tau _11/2;0\tau _2<\mathrm{}\}`$. In this “unfolding” procedure the winding modes’ contribution is essential, and they ensure that eq.(14) is well defined in the deep ultraviolet. The second (remaining) sum is over the integer $`p`$ which is a mixture of (Poisson re-summed) Kaluza-Klein and of winding numbers and it is present in the formula below:

$$V_h(R)=R_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\tau _2}{\tau _2^{7/2}}\underset{p>0}{}\underset{N0}{}\left\{1(1)^p\right\}e^{\frac{\pi (R/2)^2}{\tau _2}p^2}e^{4\pi \tau _2N}\gamma _N$$
(14)
This gives the full (heterotic) string result for the vacuum energy, generic to orbifold compactifications with Scherk Schwarz breaking of supersymmetry in the untwisted sector. The result is finite and no regularisation is required for the UV region $`\tau _20`$. In this region most contributions are exponentially suppressed in (14), except those of small radius (string units) which may still contribute. The latter may be interpreted as corresponding to Kaluza-Klein states of mass larger than the string scale, $`k/R>M_{string}`$. The presence of such states in the string framework is justified, unlike the case of the (effective) field theory where they may also be manifest, with a less clear physical meaning .

After some algebra the (heterotic) string result can be written as (using $`x_N=exp(4\pi RN^{1/2})`$ and $`i_n(x)=_{k1}x^k/k^n`$)

$`V_h(R)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{93\zeta (5)\gamma _0}{64\pi ^2R^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{R^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{N>0}{}}\gamma _NN[i_3(x_N)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi R\sqrt{N}}}i_4(x_N)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2R^2N}}i_5(x_N)`$ (15)
$`i_3(x_N){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi R\sqrt{N}}}i_4(x_N){\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2R^2N}}i_5(x_N)],`$
with the leading term proportional to $`\gamma _0/R^4`$ and remaining terms exponentially suppressed. $`\gamma _0`$ vanishes if the ground state is supersymmetric. The model dependent coefficients $`\gamma _N`$ have contributions from $`N=4`$ and $`N=2`$ sub-sectors of the initial orbifold, broken to $`N=0`$ by Scherk Schwarz mechanism.

An intriguing feature of the heterotic result eq.(14) is that it is close to the type I result for vacuum energy, with Scherk Schwarz supersymmetry breaking. The type I result is  (for full references and review see )

$$V_I(R)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t^3}\underset{nZ}{}(1)^ne^{\pi tn^2/R^2}\underset{N0}{}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_Ne^{\pi tN}|_{reg.}$$
(16)
Unlike the heterotic string case, a regularisation is necessary in type I string case. In (16) “reg” stands for a regularisation of the divergence introduced by the presence of $`n=0`$ (for $`N=0`$) Kaluza-Klein state. The need for a regularisation in type I case is not new, it is manifest in other calculations as well (for example threshold corrections to the gauge couplings ). This is due to the absence of modular invariance in these models which at heterotic level ensures a finite result. The absence of winding modes requires a regularisation procedure, and a similarity of type I results to those in Kaluza-Klein models with momentum modes only (no windings), will also exist. It is considered that the state $`n=0`$ is not present if eq.(16) is regularised in the transverse closed string channel and one-particle irreducible diagrams are subtracted . Additional arguments for such a regularisation and the absence of the divergence when summing over all open string diagrams, are represented by the (requirement of) tadpoles cancellation .

For comparison of the (heterotic) string result with that of Kaluza-Klein models, we note that the former, eq.(14) can be re-written after introducing a $`p=0`$ state and then Poisson re-summing over $`p`$

$$V_h(R)=_{ϵ^2\alpha ^{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz}{z^3}\underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{e^{\frac{\pi z}{(R/2)^2}s^2}e^{\frac{\pi z}{(R/2)^2}(s+1/2)^2}\right\}\underset{N0}{}e^{\pi zN}\gamma _N.$$
(17)
This expression is very similar to that of regularised Kaluza-Klein models (except the summation over massive modes $`N`$) and that of type I case, eq.(16). The presence of the lower limit of integration $`ϵ^2\alpha ^{}`$ in (17) is needed for bosonic and fermionic terms under the integral be each well defined in the UV (for $`N=0`$, $`z0`$) . Therefore a regularisation is required for a field theory interpretation/limit. Strictly speaking, the summation index $`s`$ in (17) is a “mixture” of Kaluza-Klein number and (Poisson re-summed) winding number, which gives for the contribution to $`V`$ of the momentum modes alone a further constraint $`|s|(M_SR)/ϵ`$. This arises because the cut-off in (17) $`ϵ^2\alpha ^{}`$ excludes the deep ultraviolet ($`\tau _20`$) momentum region, to retain under the integral over $`z`$ only the momentum modes with mass range $`1/z<1/(ϵ^2\alpha ^{})`$. In the field theory case with an infinite string scale ($`\alpha ^{}=0`$), this constraint is removed. One assumes that infinitely many winding modes (and their effects) are entirely decoupled. Then from (13) at zero windings $`n=0`$ a “discrete shift symmetry” emerges for Kaluza-Klein level $`kk+p`$, to require one sum over the whole Kaluza-Klein tower. A result with structure close to that of the full heterotic string result (14), (see also (15), (17)) - which includes winding modes’ effects - is then obtained. In such case, the field theory results and heterotic/type I string results are similar if: in eqs.(15), (17) one makes the formal replacement $`NM_\varphi ^2`$ and ignores the sum over the massive modes $`N`$. In this case the mass of KK states of field theory eq.(6) will appear in the exponents in the integral (17) and in (15).

Since a field theory regime corresponds to a string calculation with an infinite string scale, the string and field theory results may in general be matched exactly only in this limit. Additional finite string effects which vanish in this limit  may not be recovered by the field theory calculation. In general, in the absence of a full string calculation to compare with, one cannot state, on field theory grounds, that the full UV behaviour of a model with extra-dimensions is that found by using momentum modes only. Winding modes, although massive in the field theory limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, can have additional effects. Their presence enables the symmetries of the string (modular invariance) which require integrations take place over the fundamental domain, ensuring an UV finite (heterotic string) result. They then play a (regularisation) role in the UV behaviour of the string models in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. In some cases, for gauge couplings , they also control the exact value of the coefficient of the divergence the string result has in $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit, which is just the limit of the field theory regime. To conclude, to find the full UV behaviour of a model we argued that from a string theory perspective it is more appropriate to consider the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ on the full string result. This should unambiguously determine the UV limit of the model, without being subject to a regularisation scheme dependence induced by field theory calculations.

## 4 Conclusions

We have seen that the request for a better UV behaviour (than in the SM, eq.(1)) of the Higgs mass, in models with extra dimensions, leads to serious constraints on the spectrum and the interactions of the theory. This should not be too surprising as the higher dimensional theory is non-renormalisable. We discussed the ultraviolet sensitivity of Higgs mass in Kaluza-Klein models compactified on $`S_1/Z_2`$ and $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. For the latter class of models with massless modes as in the SM with one Higgs state, a FI term is generated, which introduces a quadratic divergence for the mass of the Higgs particle. In the more general context of a string theory calculation for the vacuum energy, the “regularisation role” of the winding modes was emphasized, as this ensures the finiteness of the (heterotic string) result. This is unlike the type I string case and Kaluza-Klein effective models, which do not have winding contributions to the vacuum energy/scalar potential and where a regularisation is required. To find the right UV behaviour of a model we argued it is more appropriate to consider the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of the full string result, which should unambiguously determine the full UV behaviour of the model.

The requirement of mild UV sensitivity of the Higgs mass leads to significant constraints on the possible higher dimensional extensions of the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ standard model. FI terms of U(1) hypercharge seem to play a central role in this discussion, most notably in the (non-supersymmetric) $`S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ case. Even in the $`N=1`$ supersymmetric models, as e.g. $`S_1/Z_2`$, divergent FI-terms localized at the orbifold fixed points  could lead to a destabilization of the theory. Generically, these problems can be solved by a sufficient amount of supersymmetry and the presence of a second Higgs multiplet with opposite hypercharge. This then leads us back to models very similar to the MSSM with softly broken supersymmetry.

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank S. Stieberger and S. Groot Nibbelink for their collaboration. Work supported in part by a UK PPARC SPG research grant and the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contracts HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Space-time, HPRN-CT-2000-00148 Physics Across the Present Energy Frontier and HPRN-CT-2000-00152 Supersymmetry and the Early Universe.