format: text

text:
# Top quark associated production of the neutral top-pion at high energy 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ colliders

## Abstract

In the context of topcolor-assisted technicolor (TC2) models, we calculate the associated production of the neutral top-pion $`\pi _t^0`$ with a pair of top quarks via the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$. We find that the production cross section is larger than that of the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}H`$ both in the standard model (SM) and in the minimal supersymmetric SM. With reasonable values of the parameters in TC2 models, the cross section can reach $`20fb`$. The neutral top-pion $`\pi _t^0`$ may be direct observed via this process.

PACS number(s): 12.60.Fr, 14.80.Cp, 12.60.Rc

The mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) remains the most prominent mystery in elementary particle physics despite the success of the standard model (SM) tested by the high energy experimental data. The present and next generation of colliders will help explaining the nature of the EWSB and the origin of fermion masses. The LHC is expected to directly probe possible new physics (NP) beyond the SM up to a scale of a few TeV, while the high energy linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider (LC) is required to complement the probe of the new particles with detailed measurements. Further more, some kinds of NP predict the existence of new particles that would be manifested as rather spectacular resonance in the LC experiments, if the achievable centre-of-mass energy is sufficient. Even their masses exceed the centre-of-mass energy, it also retains an indirect sensitivity through a precision study of the virtual corrections to electroweak observable. A LC represents an ideal laboratory for studying this kind of NP.

Until a Higgs boson with large coupling to gauge boson pair is discovered, the possibility of strong EWSB must be entertained. The most commonly studied class of theories is technicolor (TC), which dynamical break the electroweak symmetry. Although TC models have many theoretical problems as well as conflicts with data and broad classes of these models have been ruled out, there are still viable models worthy of investigation in light of the capabilities of the current generation of experiments.

It is widely believed that the top quark will be a sensitive probe into physics beyond the SM.The properties of the top quark could reveal information about flavor physics, EWSB, as well as NP. Given the large value of the top quark mass and the sizable splitting between the masses of the top and bottom quarks, it is natural to wonder whether $`m_t`$ has a different origin from the masses of the other quarks and leptons. There may be a common origin for EWSB and top quark mass generation. Much theoretical work has been carried out in connection to the top quark and EWSB. The TC2 models, the top see-saw models, and the flavor universal TC2 models are three of such examples. Such type of models generally predict a number of scalars with large Yukawa coupling to the third generation. For example, TC2 models predict the existence of the top-pions ($`\pi _t^\pm `$, $`\pi _t^0`$). These new particles are most directly related to the EWSB. Thus, studying the possible signatures of these new particles at present and future high energy colliders would provide crucial information for the EWSB and can be used to test TC2 theory.

The production of a Higgs boson predicted by the SM or the minimal supersymmetric SM (MSSM) in association with a pair of top-antitop quarks is of extreme interest for two reasons. First, the $`t\overline{t}H`$ production mode can be important for discover of a Higgs boson around $`120130GeV`$ at the LHC, and even at the Run II of the Tevatron with high enough luminosity. Although it has a small event rate($`15fb`$) for a SM-like Higgs boson,and even lower for an MSSM Higgs boson, the signature is quite spectacular. Second, this production mode offers a direct handle on the Yukawa coupling of the top quark, supposedly the most relevant one to understand the nature of fermion masses. Both the LHC and LC can use the second feature to try a precision measurement of the $`t\overline{t}H`$ coupling.

The signals of the $`t\overline{t}H`$ production mode has been studied quite extensively in the LC, Tevatron and LHC in the context of the SM and MSSM. Recently, Ref has investigated the associated production of a neutral scalar predicted by TC2 models with a pair of top quarks at hadron colliders. They find that the neutral scalar may be observed at the LHC via the process $`p\overline{p}t\overline{t}\overline{\varphi }`$. In this paper, we will calculate the production cross section of the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$ and the discuss the possibility of the detecting $`\pi _t^0`$ via this process in the future LC experiments. We find the production cross section is larger than that of the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}H`$. In most of the parameter space of the TC2 models, the production cross section is larger than $`5fb`$ which may be detected in the future LC experiments.

TC2 models generate the large top quark mass through the formation of a dynamical $`t\overline{t}`$ condensation and provide possible dynamical mechanism for breaking electroweak symmetry. In TC2 models, the EWSB is driven mainly by TC interaction, ETC interactions give contribution to all ordinary quark and lepton masses including a very small portion of the top quark mass, namely $`m_t^{}=ϵm_t`$ with $`ϵ1`$. The topcolor interactions also make small contributions to the EWSB and give rise to the main part of the top quark mass $`m_tm_t^{}=(1ϵ)m_t`$ similar to the constituent masses of the light quark in QCD. This means that the associated top-pions $`\pi _t^0`$, $`\pi _t^\pm `$ are not the longitudinal bosons W and Z, but separately, physically observable objects.

To maintain eletroweak symmetry between top and bottom quarks and get not generate $`m_bm_t`$, the topcolor gauge group is usually take to be a strongly coupled $`SU(3)U(1)`$. At the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1TeV`$, the dynamics of a general TC2 model involves the following structure:

$$SU(3)_1SU(3)_2U(1)_{Y_1}U(1)_{Y_2}SU(2)_LSU(3)_{QCD}U(1)_{EM},$$
(1)
where $`SU(3)_1U(1)_{Y_1}(SU(3)_2U(1)_{Y_2})`$ generally preferentially to the third (first and second) generations. The $`U(1)_{Y_2}`$ are just strongly rescaled versions of electroweak $`U(1)_Y`$. The above breaking scenario gives rise to the topcolor gauge bosons including the color-octet coloron $`B_\mu ^A`$ and color-singlet extra $`U(1)`$ gauge bosons $`Z^{}`$. The relevant couplings of the new gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ to ordinary fermions can be written as:

$$\frac{1}{2}g_1[\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{cot}\theta ^{}Z_\mu ^{}(\overline{t}_L\gamma ^\mu t_L+2\overline{t}_R\gamma ^\mu t_R)+\mathrm{tan}\theta ^{}Z_\mu ^{}(\overline{e}_L\gamma ^\mu e_L+2\overline{e}_R\gamma ^\mu e_R)],$$
(2)
where $`g_1`$ is the $`U(1)_{Y_1}`$ coupling constant at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TC}`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ is the mixing angle with $`\mathrm{tan}\theta ^{}=g_1/(2\sqrt{\pi k_1})`$. To obtain proper vacuum tilting (the topcolor interactions only condense the top quark but not the bottom quark), the coupling constant $`k_1`$ should satisfy certain constraint, ie. $`k_11`$. In the following estimation, we will take $`k_1=1`$. The choice $`k_1=1`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta ^{}=0.01`$.

For TC2 models, the underlying interactions, topcolor interactions, are non-universal and therefore do not posses a GIM mechanism. The non-universal gauge interactions can result in the flavor changing (FC) coupling vertices when one writes the interactions in the quark mass eigen-basis. Thus, the top-pions have large Yukawa couplings to the third family quarks and can induce the new FC scalar couplings. For the neutral top-pion $`\pi _t^0`$, the relevant coupling can be written as:

$$\frac{m_t}{\sqrt{2}F_t}\frac{\sqrt{\nu _w^2F_t^2}}{\nu _w}[K_{UR}^{tt}K_{UL}^{tt}\overline{t}_Lt_R\pi _t^0+K_{UR}^{tc}K_{UL}^{tt}\overline{t}c_R\pi _t^0+h.c.],$$
(3)
where $`F_t`$ is the top-pion decay constant and $`\nu _w=\nu /\sqrt{2}=174GeV`$. It has been shown that the values of these coupling parameters can be taken as:

$$K_{UR}^{tt}=K_{DL}^{bb}=1,K_{UR}^{tt}=1ϵ,K_{UR}^{tc}\sqrt{2ϵϵ^2}.$$
(4)
From above discussion, we can see that the $`t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$ production channels can be represent by the processes:

$$e^+e^{}\gamma ^{},Z^{},Z^{}t\overline{t}\pi _t^0$$
(5)
Using Eq.(2)-(4) and other relevant Feynnman rules, we can give the invariant scattering amplitude of the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$.

$$M=M_\gamma +M_Z+M_Z^{},$$
(6)
with

$`M_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{v}(p_{})(i)e\gamma _\mu u(p_+){\displaystyle \frac{ig^{\mu \nu }}{s}}`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\text{/}p_t+\text{/}p_{\pi _t^0}m_t}}\overline{u}(p_t)i\beta \gamma _5ie{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\gamma _\nu v(p_{\overline{t}}),`$
$`M_Z`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{v}(p_{})i\gamma _\mu (v_e+a_e\gamma _5)u(p_+){\displaystyle \frac{ig^{\mu \nu }}{sm_Z^2+im_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z}}`$ (10)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\text{/}p_t+\text{/}p_{\pi _t^0}m_t}}\overline{u}(p_t)i\beta \gamma _5i\gamma _\nu (v_t+a_t\gamma _5)v(p_{\overline{t}}),`$
$`M_Z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{v}(p_{})i\gamma _\mu (v_e^{}+a_e^{}\gamma _5)u(p_+){\displaystyle \frac{ig^{\mu \nu }}{sm_Z^{}^2+im_Z^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}}}`$ (12)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\text{/}p_t+\text{/}p_{\pi _t^0}m_t}}\overline{u}(p_t)i\beta \gamma _5i\gamma _\nu (v_t^{}+a_t^{}\gamma _5)v(p_{\overline{t}}),`$
where

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{\sqrt{2}F_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\nu _w^2F_t^2}}{\nu _w}}K_{UR}^{tt}K_{UL}^{tt},v_e={\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }}(4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 1),`$ (13)
$`a_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }},v_t={\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }}(1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ),`$ (14)
$`a_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }},v_e^{}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\sqrt{4\pi k_1}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta ^{},`$ (15)
$`a_e^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{4\pi k_1}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta ^{},v_t^{}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\sqrt{4\pi k_1},a_e^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{4\pi k_1}.`$ (16)
Where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the centre-of-mass energy of the LC experiments and $`M_Z^{}`$ is the mass of the topcolor gauge boson $`Z^{}`$. The decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}`$ is dominated by $`t\overline{t}`$, $`b\overline{b}`$ and we have:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^{}\frac{g_1^2\mathrm{cot}^2\theta ^{}}{12\pi }M_Z^{}=\frac{1}{3}M_Z^{},$$
(17)
which corresponds to $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta ^{}=0.01`$.

To obtain numerical results we take the SM parameters as $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =0.2315`$, $`\alpha =\frac{1}{128.8}`$, $`m_Z=91.2GeV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.495GeV`$ and $`m_t=175GeV`$. For TC2 models, the parameters $`m_{\pi _t}`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`M_Z^{}`$ are the free parameters. To see how those parameters affect our numerical results, we take $`200GeVm_{\pi _t}450GeV`$, $`0.01ϵ0.1`$, and $`2TeVM_Z^{}6TeV`$.

The $`t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$ production cross section $`\sigma `$ is plotted in Fig.1 as a function of $`m_{\pi _t}`$ for the centre-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}=1.5TeV`$, $`M_Z^{}=2.5TeV`$ and three values of the parameter $`ϵ`$. From Fig.1 we can see that $`\sigma `$ is not sensitive to the value of parameter $`ϵ`$ and decreases with $`m_{\pi _t}`$ increasing. Thus, in the following numerical estimation, we will take $`ϵ=0.05`$. For $`ϵ=0.05`$, $`\sigma `$ varies between $`10.7fb`$ and $`48fb`$ for the neutral top-pion mass $`m_{\pi _t}`$ in the range of $`200400GeV`$.

To see the effect of the extra $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge bosons $`Z^{}`$ mass $`M_Z^{}`$ on the cross section $`\sigma `$, we plot the $`\sigma `$ as function of $`M_Z^{}`$ for $`\sqrt{s}=1.5TeV`$ in Fig.2, in which the full, broken and dotted-dashed curves stand for $`m_{\pi _t}=250GeV`$, $`350GeV`$, and $`450GeV`$, respectively. One can see from Fig.2 that $`\sigma `$ decreases with $`m_Z^{}`$ increasing. In most of the parameter space, the production cross section $`\sigma `$ is larger than $`5.8fb`$.

Recently, Ref. has shown that $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing provides strong lower bounds on the masses of $`B_\mu ^A`$ and $`Z^{}`$ bosons, i.e. there must be larger than $`4TeV`$. In Fig.3 we take $`M_Z^{}=5TeV`$ and plot $`\sigma `$ as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ for three values of the top-pion mass. From Fig.3 we can see that, when $`\sqrt{s}`$ is larger than $`2TeV`$, the cross section $`\sigma `$ is not sensitive to the value of the centre-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. For $`\sqrt{s}=2TeV`$ and $`ϵ=0.05`$, $`\sigma `$ increase from $`6.8fb`$ to $`21.8fb`$ as $`m_{\pi _t}`$ decreasing from $`450GeV`$ to $`250GeV`$.

The process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}H`$ has been extensively studied and calculated both in the SM and in the MSSM at $`O(\alpha _s)`$. The cross section turns out to be highly sensitive to the top Yukawa coupling $`g_{t\overline{t}H}`$ over most of the parameter space. Although the cross section is very smaller than $`2fb`$ for $`m_H=120130GeV`$, the signature for $`t\overline{t}H`$ production mode is spectacular. It has been shown that the top Yukawa coupling $`g_{t\overline{t}H}`$ can be measured with a precision of the order of $`715\%`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=1TeV`$ for $`M_H=120130GeV`$, assuming a b-tagging efficiency between 0.6 and 1 and with a precision of $`5.5\%`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=800GeV`$, when optimal b-tagging efficiency is assumed. The cross section of the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$ is larger than $`5fb`$, even for $`M_Z^{}=5`$TeV and $`ϵ=0.01`$, which is significantly larger than that of the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}H`$. Thus, the top Yukawa coupling $`g_{t\overline{t}\pi _t^0}`$ can be precisely measured in the future LC experiments. The signatures for $`t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$ production mode may be detected.

Since the negative top-pion corrections to the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ branching $`R_b`$ become smaller when the top-pion is heavier, the LEP/SLD data of $`R_b`$ give lower bound on the top-pion mass. Ref. has shown that the top-pion mass is allowed to be in the range of a few hundred GeV depending on the values of the parameters in the TC2 models. So we have take the mass of the top-pion to vary in the range of $`200GeV450GeV`$. For $`200GeVm_{\pi _t}350GeV`$, the dominate decay channel is $`\pi _t^0\overline{t}c`$. If we take $`K_{UR}^{tc}=0.05`$, $`m_{\pi _t}=300GeV`$, we have that the branching ratio $`B_r(\pi _t^0\overline{t}c)`$ is approximately equal to $`60\%`$ and $`B_r(\pi _t^0gg)`$ is only equal to $`16\%`$. This is different from that of Ref., which has assumed that the top-pion can not induce the FC scalar coupling. Thus, the produce mode $`t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$ should be detected via the dominate decay channel $`\pi _t^0\overline{t}c`$, which has been extensively studied in Ref.. For $`m_{\pi _t}>350GeV`$, the branching ratio of the decay channel $`\pi _t^0t\overline{t}`$ is close to $`100\%`$, all other decay channels may be ignored. In this case, the associated production of the $`\pi _t^0`$ with a pair of top quarks induces an four top quark final state, which may be experimentally observable.

From triviality, we see that the SM can only be an effective theory valid below some high energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the strong EWSB theories might be needed. The strong top dynamics models, such as TC2 models, are the modern dynamical models of EWSB. Such type of models generally predict a number of scalars with large top Yukawa couplings. Direct observation of these new particles via their large top Yukawa coupling would be confirmation that the EWSB sector realized in nature is not the SM or part of the MSSM. In this paper, we investigate the top quark associated production with the neutral top-pion $`\pi _t^0`$ and calculated the cross section of the $`t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$ production mode via the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$ in the context of TC2 models. Our results show that the cross section is significantly larger than that of the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}H`$ and is larger $`5fb`$ in most of the parameter space. With reasonable values of the parameters in TC2 models, the cross section can reach $`20fb`$. Thus, the neutral top-pion $`\pi _t^0`$ may be direct observed via the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\pi _t^0`$.

Figure captions

The cross section $`\sigma `$ of the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\pi _t`$ as a function of the mass $`m_{\pi _t}`$ for $`\sqrt{s}=1.5TeV`$, $`M_Z^{}=2.5TeV`$ and $`ϵ=0.03`$ (full curve), $`0.05`$ (broken curve), and $`0.08`$ (dotted-dashed curve).

The cross section $`\sigma `$ versus the mass of $`M_Z^{}`$ for $`ϵ=0.05`$, $`\sqrt{s}=1.5TeV`$ and $`m_{\pi _t}=250GeV`$ (full curve), $`m_{\pi _t}=350GeV`$ (broken curve) and $`m_{\pi _t}=450GeV`$ (dotted-dashed curve).

The cross section $`\sigma `$ versus the center-of mass $`\sqrt{s}`$ for $`ϵ=0.05`$, $`M_Z^{}=5TeV`$ and $`m_{\pi _t}=250GeV`$ (full curve), $`m_{\pi _t}=350GeV`$ (broken curve) and $`m_{\pi _t}=450GeV`$ (dotted-dashed curve).

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3


text:
# Phase diagram and critical properties of the frustrated Kondo necklace model in a magnetic field

## I Introduction

Intermetallic compounds containing rare-earth or actinide elements are known to exhibit a variety of low-temperature phases, including antiferromagnetism, superconductivity, and Kondo-insulator phases. The Kondo lattice model is one of the standard models describing such physics of heavy electron systems. The low-temperature properties of the Kondo lattice model at half-filling, describing a group of compounds called Kondo-insulators, are governed by competition between the Kondo- and the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) interactions. While the Kondo interaction favors the formation of intra-atomic quantum disordered (Kondo singlet) phase, the RKKY interaction favors an antiferromagnetic long-range order. In one-dimension, the Kondo singlet phase is stabilized in the presence of Kondo interaction of any strength, causing an energy gap in the charge and spin excitations, the spin gap being always smaller than the charge gap.ref:1 ; ref:2

The Kondo necklace model is a simplified version of the Kondo lattice model in which the charge degree of freedom is frozen out in order to describe the above-mentioned competition.ref:3  In fact, the Kondo singlet gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ always opens in the Kondo necklace model as long as any finite Kondo interaction is present. ref:4 ; ref:5 ; ref:6 ; ref:7 ; ref:8  Thus the magnetization of this model starts to grow at a finite critical magnetic field $`h=\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$, and continuously increases with increase in the external field. Note that these results for the Kondo necklace model are consistent with the magnetization curve of the Kondo lattice model. ref:9

However, the above situation may be drastically changed when the next-nearest-neighboring conduction electron spins coupled antiferromagnetically. In our previous paper,ref:10  we studied a magnetization process of the Kondo necklace model with next-nearest-neighbor interaction $`J_2`$ which partially frustrates the nearest-neighbor interaction $`J_1`$, making use of a finite size scaling analysis of the numerical exact-diagonalization data,

In Ref. 10 we showed that for $`\lambda =J_2/J_1=1/2`$, the magnetization plateaus appear at zero ($`m=0`$) and a half saturation magnetization ($`m=1/2`$), satisfying the necessary condition for the appearance of plateaus. ref:11  The origin of these plateaus for $`\lambda =1/2`$ can be understood as follows. The spin configuration in the plateau phase at $`m=0`$ is interpreted as the aggregate of intra-atomic Kondo singlets. On the other hand, the spin configuration in the plateau phase at $`m=1/2`$ represents the aggregate of intrachain dimers with broken translational symmetry, resulting from the frustrations due to competition between $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$. However, the $`m=1/2`$ plateau may be completely broken by quantum fluctuations with decreasing $`J_2`$ In fact, the $`m=1/2`$ plateau does not appear at a magnetization curve of the Kondo necklace model without next-nearest-neighbor interaction. This suggests that a quantum phase transition between the plateau and nonplateau phases may occur in $`0<\lambda <1/2`$.

In this paper, we are going to investigate critical properties of frustrated Kondo necklace model

$`_{\mathrm{FKN}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\left\{\left(𝝈_j𝝈_{j+1}\right)_\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda \left(𝝈_j𝝈_{j+2}\right)_\mathrm{\Delta }\right\}`$ (1)
$`+J_K{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{L}{}}}𝝈_j𝑺_j,`$
removing the restriction $`\lambda =1/2`$ imposed in our previous work.ref:10  Here $`\left(𝝈_j𝝈_{j+\delta }\right)_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\delta =1,2`$ denotes the anisotropic spin interaction of the XXZ type,

$`\left(𝝈_j𝝈_{j+\delta }\right)_\mathrm{\Delta }=\sigma _j^x\sigma _{j+\delta }^x+\sigma _j^y\sigma _{j+\delta }^y+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _j^z\sigma _{j+\delta }^z`$ (2)
with Ising anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`𝝈_j`$ are intra-chain spins with $`\sigma =1/2`$, and $`𝑺_j`$ are innercore spins with $`S=1/2`$, hanging from the $`\sigma `$-spin chain. We choose the nearest-neighbor exchange $`J_1`$ as the unit of energy, and the Kondo exchange coupling $`J_K`$ is chosen to be antiferromagnetic ($`J_K>0`$). In the case of the ferromagnetic Kondo coupling ($`J_K<0`$), this model (1) has a connection with the Haldane problem.ref:12

We are also interested in whether or not the above-mentioned non-plateau phase belongs to the universality class of Tomonaga-Luttinger (TL) liquid. This problem is nontrivial in the case of the Kondo necklace model, although it is well known that many one-dimensional quantum spin systems exhibit the TL liquid phase with central charge $`c=1`$ in the conformal field theory.

The paper is organized as follows. In §II, we map model (1) onto the quantum sine-Gordon model by means of bosonization technique, limiting ourselves to the Hilbert space with the half-magnetized states. In §III.1, the phase diagram in the plane of Ising anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the frustration parameter $`\lambda `$ will be constructed, making use of the method of level spectroscopy, on the basis of the assumption that our model (1) is described as the quantum sine-Gordon model. In §III.2, the validity of this assumption will be checked by calculating scaling dimensions and the central charge. It will be shown that the central charge $`c`$ is very close to $`1`$. The final section (§IV) is devoted to a summary and discussion.

## II Bosonization and Effective Hamiltonian

Let us consider the effective Hamiltonian that describes our model in the $`m=1/2`$ plateau phase. We showed in our previous paper ref:10  that inner core spins of the Kondo necklace model with $`\lambda =1/2`$ in the $`m=1/2`$ plateau phase are almost ferromagnetically aligned along the external field ($`z`$-axis). This enables us to replace the inner core spin operators $`𝑺_j`$ with an average $`S_j^z=1/2`$, leading to the effective Hamiltonian of the following form:

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\left\{\left(𝝈_j𝝈_{j+1}\right)_\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda \left(𝝈_j𝝈_{j+2}\right)_\mathrm{\Delta }\right\}`$ (3)
$`h_{\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\sigma _j^z.`$
Here $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}=(hJ_K/2)`$ is the effective magnetic field including the effect of Kondo coupling. Since the total magnetization of the $`\sigma `$ spins is vanishing ($`J_K/2`$ ($`h_{\mathrm{eff}}0`$), the system can be effectively regarded as a $`\sigma =1/2`$ XXZ chain with next-nearest-neighbor interaction in the zero field. The ground state properties of the model have been extensively studied by many authors by means of various methods . ref:13 ; ref:14 ; ref:15 ; ref:16  It is known that the model is transformed into the quantum sine-Gordon model

$`_{\mathrm{SG}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi v_FK}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{v_s}{2\pi K}}\left(_x\varphi (x)\right)^2`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g}{\left(2\pi \alpha \right)^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{8}\varphi (x)\right)],`$
in terms of the Jordan-Wigner transformation and bosonization technique. Here, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ is the momentum density conjugate to the bosonic field $`\varphi (x)`$, satisfying the commutation relation $`[\varphi (x),\mathrm{\Pi }(x^{})]=i\delta (xx^{})`$, and $`\alpha `$ is the lattice constant. The spin wave velocity $`v_s`$, the Luttinger liquid parameter $`K`$, and the umklapp scattering amplitude $`g`$ are respectively given as

$`v_F=2\sqrt{AC},K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{C}{A}}},g=2\pi ^2\lambda ^2D,`$ (5)
where the coefficients $`A`$, $`C`$, and $`D`$ are given by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8\pi }}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{(6+\mathrm{\Delta })\lambda }{\pi }}\right),`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \alpha \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{\Delta })\lambda }{\pi }}\right),`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(2+\mathrm{\Delta })\lambda \right).`$ (6)
Thus the critical properties of our system with $`m=1/2`$ are well described in terms of the quantum sine-Gordon model, although the above expressions for $`A`$, $`C`$, and $`D`$ are valid only when $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`h_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are small. It is well known that the quantum sine-Gordon model exhibits two gapful (corresponding to dimer plateau and Néel plateau) phases and a gapless (TL liquid) phases, depending on the value of $`K`$. These results are derived from the flow diagram of renormalization group equations derived from the scaling of the cut-off $`\alpha \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{d}l}\alpha `$ where $`l=\mathrm{ln}L`$.

Thus the frustrated Kondo necklace model belongs to a universality class of TL liquid if the nonlinear term is renormalized to zero as $`L\mathrm{}`$. In the TL phase the $`\sigma `$-spin excitation is gapless, and the $`\sigma `$-spin correlation functions algebraically decay as

$`(1)^r\sigma _0^z\sigma _r^z\sigma ^z^2r^K,`$ (7)
$`(1)^r\sigma _0^+\sigma _r^{}r^{1/K}.`$ (8)
On the other hand, the dimer plateau phase is characterized by the $`\sigma `$-spin excitation gap, the exponential decay of the $`\sigma `$-spin correlation, and dimer long-rang order. The Néel plateau phase is characterized by the Ising gap for $`\sigma `$-spin and antiferromagnetic long-rang order (Néel order). Also, it is known that the dimer-TL and the Néel-TL transitions are of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) type, and the dimer-Néel transition is of the Gaussian type.

## III Numerical Results

### III.1 Phase diagram

In this section, we are going to determine the boundaries between TL, dimer, and Néel phases on the plane of Ising anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the frustration parameter $`\lambda `$, making use of the method of level spectroscopy. This method is known to be powerful in the determination of the BKT transition points, which is difficult by the standard finite size scaling analysis due to logarithmic corrections. ref:16 ; ref:17 ; ref:18

Since the Hamiltonian (1) is invariant under spin rotation around the $`z`$-axis, translation $`jj+1`$, and space inversion $`jLj+1`$, the eigenvalues of total magnetization $`M`$, wave number $`k=2\pi n/L`$, and parity $`𝒫=\pm 1`$ are good quantum numbers to label the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`_{FKN}`$.

As expected from bosonization, the ground state with $`m=M/L=1/2`$ in all three phases (i.e., TL, dimer and Néel phases) is shown to be labeled by $`(M,k,𝒫)=(L/2,0,1)`$ for the lattice with $`L=4\times (\mathrm{integer})`$ and $`(M,k,𝒫)=(L/2,\pi ,1)`$ for the lattice with $`L=4\times (\mathrm{integer})+2`$ On the other hand, the lowest excited state in TL, dimer, and Néel phases are labeled by $`(M,k,𝒫)=(L/2\pm 1,\pi ,1)`$, $`(L/2,\pi ,1)`$, and $`(L/2,\pi ,1)`$ for $`L=4\times (\mathrm{integer})`$ and $`(M,k,𝒫)=(L/2\pm 1,0,1)`$, $`(L/2,0,1)`$, and $`(L/2,0,1)`$ for the lattice with $`L=4\times (\mathrm{integer})+2`$, respectively. Hereafter, we call each of the excitations in TL, dimer, and Néel phases spin-wave type, dimer, and Néel excitaions. Table 1 summaries the eigenvalues of these symmetry operators in the ground state and three (spin-wave type, dimer and Néel excitations) excitations in the frustrated Kondo necklace model with $`m=1/2`$. In the case of $`L=4\times `$(integer), the (finite size) critical points are determined from the crossing of the minimum excitation energies of the above three types of excitations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{E(M=L/2+1,k=\pi ,P=1)`$ (9)
$`+E(M=L/21,k=\pi ,P=1)`$
$`2E(M=L/2,k=0,P=1)\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{dimer}}`$ $`=`$ $`E(M=L/2,k=\pi ,P=1)`$ (10)
$`E(M=L/2,k=0,P=1),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{N}\text{é}\mathrm{el}}`$ $`=`$ $`E(M=L/2,k=\pi ,P=1)`$ (11)
$`E(M=L/2,k=0,P=1).`$
Note that these minimum excitation energies correspond to the scaling dimensions $`x_{\mathrm{sw}}`$, $`x_{\mathrm{dimer}}`$, and $`x_{\mathrm{N}\text{é}\mathrm{el}}`$ by

$`x_i={\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\pi v_s}}\mathrm{\Delta }E_i(i=\mathrm{sw},\mathrm{dimer}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{N}\text{é}\mathrm{el}),`$ (12)
where $`v_s`$ is the spin wave velocity defined as

$`v_s=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\pi }}\{`$ $`E`$ $`(M=L/2,k=2\pi /L)`$ (13)
$`E(M=L/2,k=0)\}.`$
We defined the gap in the spin-wave type excitation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ as in eq.(9) so that the Zeeman energy due to the external magnetic field

$`_{\mathrm{Zeeman}}=h{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\left(\sigma _j^z+S_j^z\right)`$ (14)
is canceled out.

Let us consider the TL-dimer critical point for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=J_K=1.0`$ in order to illustrate how our method of level-crossing works. In Fig.1, spin-wave, dimer and Néel excitation gaps for $`L=8`$ are shown as functions of the parameter $`\lambda `$. We see from Fig.1 that the spin-wave type excitation is the lowest for $`\lambda <0.35105`$ and so is the dimer excitation for $`\lambda >0.35105`$. On the other hand, the Néel excitation is always higher than spin-wave type and/or dimer excitations.

We have estimated the values of $`\lambda `$ at the crossing point of spin-wave type and dimer excitations for various sizes $`L=6,8,10,12`$ and $`14`$. These are extrapolated to the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, assuming a formula $`\lambda _c(L)=\lambda _c+A/L^2+B/L^4`$. Thus the TL-dimer critical point $`\lambda _c=0.3419\pm 0.0001`$ (See Fig.2) is obtained in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. We have performed similar procedures for various $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s to construct the phase diagram on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ plane, as shown in Fig.3. We assumed that $`m=1/2`$ and $`J_K=J_1`$ in these calculations.

### III.2 Consistency Check

In §II, we assumed that the effective Hamiltonian of our model at $`m=1/2`$ is described by the quantum sine-Gordon model. Our analysis, making use of the method of level spectroscopy, is based on this assumption, according to which the scaling dimension without logarithmic corrections,

$`x={\displaystyle \frac{x_{\mathrm{dimer}}+x_{\mathrm{N}\text{é}\mathrm{el}}+2x_{\mathrm{sw}}}{4}}`$ (15)
should tend to $`1/2`$ on the BKT critical line in the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. We confirmed this relation $`x1/2`$ on the TL-dimer abd dimer-Néel transition lines, as clearly shown in Fig.4. Furthermore, Table.2 indicates that the relations between the scaling dimensions

$`x_{\mathrm{N}\text{é}\mathrm{el}}=x_{\mathrm{dimer}},`$ (16)
$`x_{\mathrm{sw}}x_{\mathrm{dimer}}=1/4`$ (17)
are satisfied on the dimer-Néel (Gaussian) transition points.

We have also estimated the central charge $`c`$ along the TL-dimer and dimer-Néel critical lines from the finite size correction to the ground-state energy

$`E_0ϵ_0L{\displaystyle \frac{\pi v_s}{6L}}c,`$ (18)
where $`ϵ_0`$ is the ground-state energy per site (including two spins) in the thermodynamic limit. As shown in Fig.5, we obtained the value $`c1`$ with small errors. These results provide sufficient evidence that our model can be described by the quantum sine-Gordon model.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper, we have studied critical properties of the frustrated Kondo necklace model with a half-saturation magnetization ($`m=1/2`$), making use of the method of level spectroscopy. The phase diagram on the plane of the Ising anisotropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the frustration parameter $`\lambda `$ is constructed exhibiting two plateau (dimer and Néel) and a TL phases. We also confirmed that the values of scaling dimension without logarithmic corrections \[Eq. (15)\] are close to $`1/2`$ at the TL-dimer (BKT) and dimer-Néel (Gaussian) transition points. The relations between the scaling dimensions \[Eqs. (16) and (17)\] are satisfied as the Gaussian transition points. Furthermore, the central charge $`c1`$ is obtained along the BKT and Gaussian transition lines, by estimating the finite-size correction for the ground state energy \[Eq. (18)\]. Thus we can conclude that the present system belongs to the same universality class as the quantum sine-Gordon model.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Masaaki Nakamura for valuable advice on the method of level spectroscopy, and T. Nikuni for valuable comments and for a critical reading of the manuscript. We have learned a lot about the exact-diagonalization method based on Lanczos algorithm from the program TITPACK version 2 developed by H. Nishimori at Tokyo Institute of Technology. The work was supported in part by Frontier Research Center for Computational Science (FRCCS) of Science University of Tokyo.


text:
# The classical wormhole solution and wormhole wavefuction with a nonlinear Born-Infeld scalar field

## I Introduction

The corresponding Lagrangian of Born-Infeld field has been first proposed by Heisenberg in order to describe the process of meson multiple production connected with strong field regime, as a generalization of the Born-Infeld one, $`L^{BJ}=b^2\left[\sqrt{1\left(1/2b^2\right)F_{ik}F^{ik}}1\right]`$, that removes the point–charge singularity that means classical electrodynamics. When the parameter of the field approaches to zero, the corresponding Lagrangian will reduce to linear case. Born-Infeld type Lagrangians have also been considered in the theory of strings and branes as well as gravity \[5-9\]. It shows that the low energy effective field theory on D-branes is of Born-Infeld type. The consistency of the $`\sigma `$–model for the world sheet of string is shown to require that the brane should be described by Born-Infeld action, just like in the general curved background requiring consistency of string theory leads to the Einstein-Hilbert action.

According to the Euler-Lagrangian equation of motion of Born-Infeld scalar field , we can obtain $`\dot{\phi }`$ at the limit of large and small cosmological scale factors $`R`$ respectively. At such limit condition, we found classical wormhole and quantum wormhole solutions. This paper comprises following contents: In section 2 we obtain the classical wormhole solution of Born-Infeld scalar field. In section 3 we found wormhole wavefunction of our nonlinear scalar field model. In last section, we discuss our results and come to conclusions.

## II Classical wormhole solution

The Euclidean action of gravitational field interacting with a Born-Infeld type scalar field is given by

$$S_E=\frac{R_c}{16\pi G}\sqrt{g}d^4x+L_s\sqrt{g}d^4x$$
(1)
Where we have chosen unit so that $`c=1`$, $`R_c`$ is the Ricci scalar curvature and the Lagrangian $`L_s`$ of the nonlinear Born-Infeld scalar field is

$$L_s=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left[1\sqrt{1\lambda \phi ,_\mu \phi ,_\nu g^{\mu \nu }}\right]$$
(2)
When $`\lambda 0`$, based on Taylor expansion (2) approximates to

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}L_s=\frac{1}{2}\phi ,_\mu \phi ,_\nu g^{\mu \nu }$$
(3)
We choose the standard Euclidean and closed R-W metric

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+R^2\left(\tau \right)\left\{\frac{dr^2}{1r^2}+r^2\left[\left(d\theta ^2\right)+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(d\phi ^2\right)\right]\right\}$$
(4)
Where $`\tau `$ is the Euclidean radial coordinate and $`R\left(\tau \right)`$ is the radius of curvature of a 3D sphere. According to the “cosmological principle”, $`R`$ must only depend on $`\tau `$. We write Einstein equations as

$$\frac{3\dot{R}^2}{R^2}+\frac{3}{R^2}=8\pi GT_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}^0$$
(5)
$$\frac{2\ddot{R}}{R}\frac{\dot{R}}{R^2}+\frac{1}{R^2}=8\pi GT_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}}^1=8\pi GT_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}}^2=8\pi GT_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}3}}^3$$
(6)
Where the upper index “$``$” denotes the derivative with respect to $`\tau `$. We substitute the Lagrangian (2) into Eule-Lagrange equation

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(\frac{L_s}{\dot{\phi }}\right)\frac{L_s}{\phi }=0$$
(7)
Then we obtain

$$\frac{R^6\dot{\phi }^2}{1+\lambda \dot{\phi }^2}=W_0$$
(8)
and consequently

$$\dot{\phi }=\sqrt{\frac{W_0}{R^6W_0\lambda }}$$
(9)
Where $`W_0`$ is a constant of integration. We write components of energy-momentum tensor of Born-Infeld scalar field as

$$T_\nu ^^\mu =\frac{g^{\mu \rho }\phi ,_\rho \phi ,_\nu }{\sqrt{1\lambda \phi ,_\mu \phi ,_\nu g^{\mu \nu }}}\delta _\nu ^\mu L_s$$
(10)
Substitute equations (9) and (2) into (10), we obtain

$$T_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}^0=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left[\sqrt{R^6\lambda W_0}/R^31\right]$$
(11)
$$T_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}}^1=T_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}}^2=T_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}3}}^3=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left[1R^3/\sqrt{R^6\lambda W_0}\right]$$
(12)
Substitute (11) into Einstein equations (5), we can obtain

$$\frac{3\dot{R}^2}{R^2}+\frac{3}{R^2}=\frac{8\pi G}{\lambda }\left[\frac{\sqrt{R^6\lambda W_0}}{R^3}1\right]$$
(13)
$$\dot{R}^2=1\frac{8\pi G}{3\lambda }\left[R^2\sqrt{1\lambda W_0R^6}R^2\right]$$
(14)
From equation (9), we can find that $`R`$ is very small or very large when $`\dot{\phi }`$ is very large or very small respectively. Assuming that $`\dot{\phi }`$ is very small (i.e. $`R`$ is very large), equation (14) becomes

$$\dot{R}^2=1+\frac{4\pi GW_0}{3R^4}$$
(15)
When $`W_0<0`$, the wormhole solution of equation (15) is

$$\frac{\tau }{R_0}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}F[\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\frac{R_0}{R}\right),\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}]\sqrt{2}E[\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\frac{R_0}{R}\right),\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}]+\frac{\sqrt{R^4R_0^4}}{R_0R}$$
(16)
Where $`R_0=\sqrt[4]{\frac{4\pi GW_0}{3}}`$. We note that this wormhole solution has the same format as one obtained by Giddings and Strominger. When $`\dot{\phi }`$ is very large (i. e., $`R`$ is very small), we can obtain from equation (14)

$$\dot{R}^2=1\frac{8\pi G\sqrt{\frac{W_0}{9\lambda }}}{R}$$
(17)
We restrict $`\lambda >0`$, integrating (17) we can obtain wormhole solution of equation (17), that is

$$R\sqrt{1\frac{N}{R}}+N\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\sqrt{\frac{R}{N}1}+\sqrt{\frac{R}{N}}1}{\sqrt{\frac{R}{N}1}\sqrt{\frac{R}{N}}+1}\right]=\tau $$
(18)
Where $`N=8\pi G\sqrt{\frac{W_0}{9\lambda }}>0`$. From equation (18) we can find that $`lim_\tau \mathrm{}R\left(\tau \right)=\mathrm{}`$. Using $`\dot{R}\left(0\right)=0`$ from equation (17) we can obtain the size of wormhole throat: $`R\left(0\right)=N`$ and $`\ddot{R}\left(0\right)=\frac{1}{2N}`$. Thus we obtain a new wormhole solution.

## III Wormhole wavefunction

It is possible that the wormholes are regarded as solutions of quantum-mechanical Wheeler —Dewitt(WD) equation. These wavefunctions have to obey certain boundary conditions in order that they represent wormholes. The wavefunction will be damped at large radius $`R`$, i.e., such wavefunction tends to zero as $`R\mathrm{}`$, and when $`R`$ nears $`0`$ it should be oscillatory. Wavefunction should tend to a constant as $`R0`$. The Lorentz action of the gravitational field interacting with a Born–Infeld type scalar field is given by

$$S=\frac{R_c}{16\pi G}\sqrt{g}d^4x+L_s\sqrt{g}d^4x$$
(19)
Where $`R_c`$ is the Ricci scalar curvature and $`L_s`$ is equation (2). However, in equation (19) , $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is decided by equation (20).The closed R–W spacetime metric is

$$ds^2=dt^2+R^2\left(t\right)\left\{\frac{dr^2}{1r^2}+r^2\left[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(d\phi ^2\right)\right]\right\}$$
(20)
Using equation (20) and integrating space–components, the action (19) becomes (The upper-dot means the derivative with respect to the time $`t`$.):

$$S=\frac{3\pi }{4G}\left(1\dot{R}^2\right)R𝑑t+2\pi ^2R^3\left[\frac{1}{\lambda }\left(1\sqrt{1\lambda \phi ,_\mu \phi ,_\nu g^{\mu \nu }}\right)\right]𝑑t_g𝑑t+_s𝑑t$$
(21)
To quantize the model, we first find the canonical moment $`P_R=\left(\frac{_g}{\dot{R}}\right)=\left(\frac{3\pi }{2G}\right)R\dot{R}`$ , $`P_\phi =\left(\frac{_s}{\dot{\phi }}\right)=\left(2\pi ^2R^3\dot{\phi }/\sqrt{1+\lambda \dot{\phi }^2}\right)`$ and the Hamiltonian $`H=P_R\dot{R}+P_\phi \dot{\phi }_g_s`$,

$$H=\frac{G}{3\pi R}P_R^2\frac{3\pi }{4G}R+\frac{2\pi ^2R^3}{\lambda }\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{\lambda P_\phi ^2}{4\pi ^4R^6}}\right)$$
(22)
For small $`\dot{\phi }`$, the Hamiltonian (22) can be simplified by using the Taylor expansion

$$H=\frac{G}{3\pi R}P_R^2\frac{3\pi }{4G}R+\frac{P_\phi ^2}{4\pi ^2R^3}\frac{\lambda P_\phi ^4}{64\pi ^6R^9}$$
(23)
If $`\dot{\phi }`$ is large, then equation (22) becomes

$$H=\frac{G}{3\pi R}P_R^2\frac{3\pi }{4G}R+\frac{2\pi ^2R^3}{\lambda }$$
(24)
The WD equation is obtained from $`\widehat{H}\psi =0`$ and equations (23) as well as (24) by replacing $`P_Ri\left(\frac{}{R}\right)`$ and $`P_\phi i\left(\frac{}{\phi }\right)`$. Then we obtain

$$\left[\frac{^2}{R^2}+\frac{P}{R}\frac{}{R}\frac{1}{R^2}\frac{}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}\frac{\lambda }{16\pi ^4R^8}\frac{^4}{\mathrm{\Phi }^4}U\left(R\right)\right]\psi =0$$
(25)
and

$$\left[\frac{^2}{R^2}+\frac{P}{R}\frac{}{R}u\left(R\right)\right]\psi =0$$
(26)
Where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2=4\pi G\phi ^2/3`$ and the parameter $`P`$ represents the ambiguity in the ordering of factors $`R`$ and $`\frac{}{R}`$ in the first term of equations (23) and (24). We have also denoted

$$U\left(R\right)=\left(\frac{3\pi }{2G}\right)^2R^2$$

$$u\left(R\right)=\left(\frac{3\pi }{2G}\right)^2R^2\left[1\frac{8\pi G}{3\lambda }R^2\right]$$

Equations (25) and (26) are the WD equations corresponding to action (19) in the cases of small and large $`\dot{\phi }`$ respectively. Together we can obtain the equation of motion of Born–Infeld scalar field when we substitute the Lagrangian $`L_s`$ into the Eule–Lagrangian equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L_s}{\dot{\phi }}\right)\frac{L_s}{\phi }=0$$
(27)
Then we obtain

$$\dot{\phi }=\sqrt{\frac{C}{R^6+C\lambda }}$$
(28)
The upper–dot means the derivative with respect to the $`t`$. Where $`C`$ is a constant of integration. From equation (28) we find that $`R`$ is very small or very large when $`\dot{\phi }`$ is very large or very small respectively. In other word, equations (25) and (26) are the WD equations corresponding to action (19) in the cases of large and small $`R`$ respectively. When $`R`$ is very large, we take the ambiguity of ordering factor $`P=1`$ and set transformation $`\left(R/R_0\right)^2=\sigma `$, with $`R_0`$ the Planck’s length. Choosing appropriate units makes the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}=1`$, speed of light $`c=1`$, and $`R_0\sqrt{\frac{4G}{3\pi }}`$. Then equation (25) becomes

$$\frac{^2\psi }{\sigma ^2}\frac{1}{\sigma ^2}\frac{^2\psi }{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}\frac{\lambda }{16\pi ^4R_0^6\sigma ^5}\frac{^4\psi }{\mathrm{\Phi }^4}\stackrel{}{U}\psi =0$$
(29)
Where $`\stackrel{}{U}=(3\pi /4G)^2R_0^4`$. Assuming $`\psi (\sigma ,\mathrm{\Phi })=Q\left(\sigma \right)e^{K\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, with $`K`$ an arbitrary constant, equation (29) takes the form:

$$\frac{d^2Q}{d\sigma ^2}(\frac{K^2}{\sigma ^2}+\frac{\mu K^4}{\sigma ^5}+\stackrel{}{U})Q=0$$
(30)
Where $`\mu =\lambda /16\pi ^4R_0^6`$. When $`R`$ (and consequently $`\sigma `$) is very large, equation (30) approximates to

$$\frac{d^2Q}{d\sigma ^2}\beta ^2Q=0$$
(31)
Where $`\beta =\left(\frac{3\pi }{4G}\right)R_0^2`$ . The solution of equation (31) is

$$Q=\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \sigma \right)$$
(32)
From (32) we can find that wavefunction $`\psi 0`$ when $`R\mathrm{}`$ (and consequently $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$). If $`R`$ is very small, we take the ambiguity of ordering factor $`P=1`$ and set the transformation $`\left(R/R_0\right)^2=\sigma `$ ,with $`R_0`$ the Planck length. Choosing appropriate units makes the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}=1`$, the speed of light $`c=1`$ and $`R_0\sqrt{\frac{4G}{3\pi }}`$. Then equation (26) becomes

$$\frac{d^2\psi }{d\sigma ^2}\left(\frac{3\pi }{4G}\right)^2R_0^4\left(1\frac{8\pi G}{\lambda }\sigma R_0^2\right)\psi =0$$
(33)
When $`R>>\sqrt{\frac{3\lambda }{8\pi G}}`$(and consequently $`\sigma >>\frac{3\lambda }{8\pi GR_0^2}`$), equation (33) can be approximated as

$$\frac{d^2\psi }{d\sigma ^2}+\gamma ^2\sigma \psi =0$$
(34)
Where $`\gamma =\left(\frac{3\pi ^3}{2G\lambda }\right)^{1/2}R_0^2`$. Equation (34) has the solution

$$\psi =\sqrt{\sigma }Z_{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{2\gamma }{3}\sigma ^{3/2}\right)$$
(35)
Now $`\psi `$ is an oscillatory function. When $`\sigma 0`$ (and consequently $`R0`$), equation (33) can be approximated as

$$\frac{d^2\psi }{d\sigma ^2}\left(\frac{3\pi }{4G}\right)^2R_0^4\psi =0$$
(36)
Equation (36) has the solution

$$\psi =Ne^{\frac{3\pi }{4G}R^2}$$
(37)
In the geometry described by the R-W metric, the probability of wormhole situated between $`RR+dR`$ is

$$\omega \left(R\right)\psi ^2R^2dR$$
(38)
The probability density is $`\psi ^2R^2`$. The position of the maximum probability can be determined by

$$\frac{d}{dR}\left(\psi ^2R^2\right)=0$$
(39)
From (39) we can obtain

$$R=\sqrt{\frac{4G}{6\pi }}$$
(40)
Equation (40) implies that most probable radius of wormhole is of the Planck scale, namely the quantum effect can make a wormhole survive gravitational collapse.

## IV Conclusion

At the extreme limits of small $`\dot{\phi }`$, the classical wormhole solution of the Born–Infeld scalar field has the same format as one obtained by Giddigs and Strominger. If $`\dot{\phi }`$ is very large, a new wormhole solution can be obtained. From the Eule–Lagrange equation of the Born–Infeld scalar field, we find that cosmological scale factors is very large or very small when $`\dot{\phi }`$ is very small or very large respectively. We obtain the wormhole wavefunction. It is the solution of quantum–mechanical Wheeler–Dewitt equation with certain boundary conditions. The wavefunction is exponentially damped for large three geometries and the wavefunction tends to a zero as cosmological scale factors tend to a infinity. They oscillate near zero radius, it tends to a constant as cosmological radius tends to a zero.

###### Acknowledgements.

Part of this work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 10073006 and the National Science Foundation of Shanghai under grant No. 00zd14018.