text:
# Butterfly Hysteresis and Slow Relaxation of the Magnetization in (Et4N)3Fe2F9: Manifestations of a Single-Molecule Magnet

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of macroscopic quantum spin tunneling and molecular magnetic hysteresis at cryogenic temperatures in the spin cluster compounds \[Mn12O12(OAc)16(H2O)4\] $``$2HOAc$``$4H4O ($`\mathrm{𝐌𝐧}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$), \[Fe8O2(OH)12(tacn)6\]8+ (tacn = 1,4,7–triazacyclononane) ($`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟖}`$), and various Mn4 clusters \[Mn4O3X (OAc)3(dbm)$`3`$\] (dmb- = dibenzoylmethanate, X = F, Cl, Br, OAc) ($`\mathrm{𝐌𝐧}_\mathrm{𝟒}`$) has revitalized the field of molecular magnetism. Chemists have joined forces with physicists in an attempt to fully characterize and understand the new phenomena and to develop strategies to design and prepare other members of this new family of single molecule magnets (SMMs). So far a number of further SMMs have been discovered, mostly by means of ac susceptibility, among them several manganese clusters, as well as tetranuclear vanadium and iron complexes. All these compounds contain clusters with at least four paramagnetic centers.

Here we report low-temperature magnetic properties of (Et4N)3Fe2F9 ($`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$), which clearly show effects of slow relaxation and quantum tunneling. To our knowledge the \[Fe2F9\]3- dimer is the smallest exchange-coupled unit so far to exhibit this type of phenomenon.

## 2 Experimental

(Et4N)3Fe2F9 was prepared as small needle-shaped crystals according to ref. . The product was characterized by X-ray powder diffraction using the structural information from ref. . It crystallizes in the space group P63/m with the trigonal axes of the \[Fe2F9\]3- dimers parallel to the hexagonal $`c`$ axis, see the inset of Fig. 1. Due to their water sensitivity, single crystals of $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ were sealed in glass capillaries for the magnetic measurements. The crystals were perfectly transparent, indicating that no hydrolysis occurred.

Magnetic measurements were performed using a Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) magnetometer (Quantum Design MPMS-XL-5 with a 5 T (50 kG) magnet), with the magnetic field $`H`$ parallel and perpendicular to the crystallographic $`c`$ axis.

## 3 Results

The single-crystal magnetic susceptibility is shown for $`Hc`$ and $`Hc`$ orientations in Fig. 1. Below 25 K it is highly anisotropic, and was fitted using the spin Hamiltonian

$$=J(\widehat{S}_1\widehat{S}_2)+D\underset{i=1,2}{}[\widehat{S}_{z_i}^2\frac{1}{3}(S_i(S_i+1)]+\underset{i=1,2}{}g_i\mu _B\widehat{S}_iH$$
(1)
with $`J=2.23`$ K, $`D=0.215`$ K, and $`g`$ = 2.00. The exchange splitting is ferromagnetic with an $`S`$ = 5 dimer ground state, separated by 11.2 K from the next higher $`S`$ = 4 state. The single-ion axial anisotropy parameter $`D`$ can be correlated with the zero-field-splitting (ZFS) parameter of the dimer ground state by $`D_{S=5}=4/9D=0.096`$ K.

Magnetization measurements with $`Hc`$ showed the expected behavior for the above Hamiltonian and parameters, see the inset of Fig. 2. The results of magnetization measurements with $`Hc`$ ($`H_z`$) were unusual. Fig. 2 shows 1.8 K results obtained with two different sweeping rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. They exhibit a peculiar butterfly-shaped hysteresis with no remnant magnetization at $`H_z=0`$. Similar behavior has been observed in $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐧}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ at 3.25 K, i.e. just above the blocking temperature. The breadth of the wings increases with decreasing temperature and with increasing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is direct evidence for a slow relaxation process at 1.8 K. The effect is strongly $`T`$ dependent, and we could observe it up to 5 K. For an infinitely slow $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the butterfly hysteresis would disappear and the adiabatic curve (full line in Fig. 2) would be obtained. In order to quantitatively determine the relaxation dynamics, we performed magnetization relaxation experiments at fixed magnetic field $`H_z`$ and temperature $`T`$, after saturation at 30 kG and subsequent quick reduction ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }150`$ G/s) to the indicated $`H_z`$ value. Typical decay curves are depicted in Fig. 3a for some selected values of $`H_z`$ and $`T`$. The relaxation depends on both. At 1.8 K and $`H_z`$ = 3.3 kG the relaxation is so slow that the equilibrium magnetization has not been reached after 40 minutes. For $`H_z=0`$ at 1.8 K, on the other hand, the decay is about 4 times faster. At all fields the relaxation rate increases with temperature, as shown for $`T=1.8`$ K and 3.0 K at $`H_z=0`$ in the lower panel of Fig. 3a. Relaxation times $`\tau `$ were obtained from single-exponential fits to the relaxation curves for various $`H_z`$ and $`T`$ values. The field dependence of $`\tau `$ at 1.8 K, shown in Fig. 3b, exhibits 3 distinctive dips at $`H_z=0`$, 1.1, and 2.7 kG. The temperature dependence of $`\tau `$ for a given value of $`H_z`$ was fitted with the Arrhenius law

$$\tau =\tau _0exp(\mathrm{\Delta }E/kT).$$
(2)
At $`H_z=0`$ the obtained parameter values are $`\tau _0=70`$ s and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=2.2`$ K, corresponding to $`\tau =238`$ s at 1.8 K.

Fig. 4 shows magnetization data obtained as follows: After saturation at +30 kG the field was quickly ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }150`$ G/s) reduced to the given $`H_z`$ values, including negative ones. The magnetization was measured within 50 s after reaching $`H_z`$. During such a fast sweep from +30 kG to $``$2.5 kG, e.g., the magnetization switches instantaneously from positive to negative saturation when crossing $`H_z=0`$.

## 4 Analysis and Discussion

Except for the butterfly hysteresis, the low-temperature magnetization curves in Fig. 2 are perfectly reproduced with the parameter values derived from the DC magnetic susceptibility data in the temperature range 1.8 K – 300 K. Furthermore, the shortest Fe–Fe distances between neighboring dimers are at least 8 Å, which makes interdimer interactions extremely inefficient. Therefore the observed slow relaxation and butterfly hysteresis must be a genuine property of the \[Fe2F9\]3- dimer.

Our interpretation is based on a comparison with the observed behavior of single-molecule magnets such as $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐧}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$, as well as the formalism developed for their interpretation. The appropriate picture representing the ZFS of the $`S=5`$ dimer ground state with the negative $`D_{S=5}`$ is shown in Fig. 5. The barrier height in Fig. 5 at $`H_z=0`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(|D_{S=5}|)S^2=2.40`$ K. This is slightly larger than the kinetic activation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=2.2`$ K determined from the magnetization relaxation. This difference is small, an indication that, if tunneling processes do contribute to the relaxation at the lowest temperatures, this contribution is not a dominant one. In the $`C_{3h}`$ dimer symmetry, the full anisotropy Hamiltonian includes the higher–order terms $`B_4^0\widehat{O}_4^0`$, $`B_6^0\widehat{O}_6^0`$, and $`B_6^6\widehat{O}_6^6`$. The $`B_6^6\widehat{O}_6^6`$ term mixes wavefunctions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_S=\pm 6`$. This allows for resonant tunneling at $`H_z=0`$ between the $`M_S`$ levels $`3/+3`$ and at applied fields when the $`M_S=2/+4`$ and $`1/+5`$ levels cross, leading to significantly lower values of $`\tau `$ at these fields and hence to dips in a $`\tau `$ vs $`H_z`$ plot. Therefore the observed dips in Fig. 3b are direct evidence for tunneling processes in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The dips are located at $`H_z=0`$, 1.1, and 2.7 kG instead of 0, 1.4, and 2.85 kG, respectively, calculated without the higher-order terms. This indicates nonzero values for the parameters $`B_4^0`$ and $`B_6^0`$. In $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, the drop of $`\tau `$ due to resonant tunneling compared to pure thermal relaxation at non-resonant fields is only about 25-75%, see Fig. 3b. In contrast, $`\tau `$ decreases by 1–2 orders of magnitude in $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐧}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ when resonant tunneling is possible. This is in line with our conclusion from the kinetic energy barrier, that although they occur, quantum tunneling processes are not dominant in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Instead, the purely thermal relaxation is dominant at all temperatures and field values. This distinctly different behavior from other SMMs is due to the combination of two facts: i) the thermal barrier in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ does not exceed the barrier for tunneling processes by more than a factor of 1.6; and ii) the tunneling is phonon assisted and thus slowed down by an extremely slow energy exchange between the spin system and the phonon bath. This latter effect will now be analyzed.

The prefactor $`\tau _0=70`$ s obtained from the Arrhenius analysis of the relaxation dynamics at $`H_z=0`$ is unusually large, $`711`$ orders of magnitude larger than in $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐧}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ and other SMMs . It is much larger than the timescale of ac magnetic susceptibility measurements, which are usually used to characterize and quantify the relaxation behavior in SMMs. Only due to this extremely high $`\tau _0`$ value are we able to observe a slow relaxation phenomenon below 5 K with a barrier height of only $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.40`$ K. In the SMMs reported so far, for comparison, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ranges from 7.6 K in \[Mn4O3F(OAc)3(dbm)3\] to 79 K in (PPh4)\[Mn12O12(O2CEt)16(H2O)4\]. As indicated in Fig. 5, the magnetization in Fe2 can relax both by thermal activation over the energy barrier (full arrows) and by tunneling between the $`M_S=3/+3`$ levels (dashed arrows). Both mechanisms rely on an interaction between the spin system and the crystal lattice degrees of freedom, i.e. on spin-phonon coupling. In this process, energy quanta corresponding to the energy differences between adjacent spin levels are exchanged between the spin system and the phonon bath. The extremely large $`\tau _0`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ results from an extreme inefficiency of these processes below 5 K, and this can be ascribed to the following two factors: a small spin-phonon coupling parameter $`g_0`$ and a small density of phonon states in resonance with the energy spacings in Fig. 5. Quantitatively, the rate constant of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_S=\pm 1`$ transition induced by phonon absorption or emission can be expressed as:

$$W_{M_S\pm 1,M_S}=\frac{g_0^2S_{\pm 1}}{48\pi \rho v^5\mathrm{}^4}\frac{(\epsilon _{M_S\pm 1}\epsilon _{M_S})^3}{e^{(\epsilon _{M_S\pm 1}\epsilon _{M_S})/kT}1},$$
(3)
where $`S_{\pm 1}=(SM_S)(S\pm M_{S+1})(2M_S\pm 1)^2`$. The number of phonons involved in the process depends on their energy ($`\epsilon _{M_S\pm 1}\epsilon _{M_S}`$) and the energy distribution of the density of states, expressed by the sound velocity $`v`$ in eq. 3, the mass density $`\rho =1.36`$ g/cm3 and the Bose population factor ($`e^{(\epsilon _{M_S\pm 1}\epsilon _{M_S})/kT}1`$). We note that ($`\epsilon _{M_S\pm 1}\epsilon _{M_S}`$) is about 1 order of magnitude smaller in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ than in $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐧}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ and other SMMs. In all the SMMs reported so far, the clusters are relatively large in size and contain organic ligands such as acetate. This gives rise to a large number of vibrational and rotational low-energy internal modes, leading to a high density of states in the energy range most relevant for spin-phonon coupling. This is in sharp contrast to $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, in which the \[Fe2F9\]3- unit consists of atomic ligands with stiff Fe–F bonds, reflected in the absence of low-energy vibrational or rotational modes. Compared to the other SMMs, the stiffness of the \[Fe2F9\]3- unit results in a strongly increased average sound velocity $`v`$ in the crystal. Thus in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ the density of phonon states $`\rho _{ph}1/v^3`$ is extremely low in the relevant energy range. The magnitude of the spin-phonon coupling parameter $`g_0`$ is governed by the strengths of spin-orbit and electron-phonon (orbit-lattice) couplings. The latter is expected to be smaller in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ compared to other SMMs due to the great stiffness of the \[Fe2F9\]3- unit. As spin-orbit coupling - in terms of the ZFS parameter $`D_S`$ for the ground spin state - is also smaller in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ compared to other SMMs, we can expect a smaller spin-phonon coupling constant $`g_0`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Thus the efficiency of spin-phonon coupling is greatly reduced in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ compared to other SMMs, and the smaller ($`\epsilon _{M_S\pm 1}\epsilon _{M_S}`$)3, the larger $`v^5`$, and the smaller $`g_0^2`$ factors all contribute to the drastic reduction of the transition rate constant $`W`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. As a consequence, the prefactor $`\tau _0`$ in the Arrhenius expression is increased by 7–11 orders of magnitude.

The magnetization data shown in Fig. 4 obtained with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }150`$ G/s exhibit a very fast reversal of the magnetization around $`H_z=0`$. We ascribe this to a so-called phonon avalanche, arising from a resonance of phonon absorption on one side of the barrier with phonon emission on the other side. A similar phenomenon has been observed in $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐧}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ at $`H_z0`$, induced by heat pulses or extremely high sweeping rates. The butterfly shape of the hysteresis in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is very similar to that reported for K6\[V15As6O42(H2O)\] $``$ 8H2O, but in the latter system it has been attributed to a phonon bottleneck arising from dissipative spin reversal in the absence of an energy barrier. Our results show that a butterfly-shaped hysteresis can also occur in the presence of a barrier.

Due to the phonon avalanche in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, the reversal of the magnetization at $`H_z=0`$ is a much faster process than its relaxation to equilibrium. The smaller the sweeping rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the magnetization experiment, the closer is the system to equilibrium, as is nicely demonstrated by the decrease of the butterfly hysteresis with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Fig. 2. After a fast ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }150`$ G/s) reduction of $`H_z`$ to 0, the system is therefore still out of equilibrium at the beginning of the relaxation measurement. Since its reversal is so fast, the magnetization then overshoots, i.e. it becomes slightly negative, before it relaxes to its adiabatic value. Therefore there is an observable negative magnetization relaxation at $`H_z=0`$, see Fig. 3a, despite the fact that the butterfly hysteresis passes through the origin of the coordinates in Fig. 2.

In conclusion, we have shown $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to exhibit unusually slow magnetization relaxation effects below 5 K. These can be ascribed to an energy barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.40`$ K resulting from the $`S=5`$ dimer ground state of \[Fe2F9\]3- and a negative axial anisotropy. The relaxation partly occurs via a thermally-assisted quantum tunneling process. Compared to other SMMs, the energy exchange between the spin system and the phonons is extremely inefficient in $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Therefore the SMM phenomenon is observed at temperatures comparable to the barrier height and far above the blocking temperature, which for $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is expected to lie in the mK regime. To our knowledge the $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ dimer is the smallest spin cluster so far to exhibit slow relaxation.

Acknowledgement. This work has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and by the TMR program Molnanomag of the EU (HPRN-CT-1999-00012).

## Figure Captions

Fig. 1 Temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi T`$ of a single crystal of (Et4N)3Fe2F9 in the range 1.8–50 K (circles). The crystal was oriented with its $`c`$ axis parallel ($`Hc`$) and perpendicular ($`Hc`$) to the magnetic field of 1 kG. The solid lines are calculated using eq. 1 with the parameters $`J=2.23`$ K, $`D=0.215`$ K, and $`g`$ = 2.00. The inset shows the \[Fe2F9\]3- dimer molecule and the magnetic field direction for both $`Hc`$ and $`Hc`$ orientations.

Fig. 2 Positive wings of the butterfly hystereses of the magnetization in $`Hc`$ orientation at 1.8 K for sweeping rates of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$3 G/s ($``$) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$1 G/s ($``$). The 1.8 K magnetization in $`Hc`$ is shown in the inset. The solid lines are the adiabatic curves, calculated with $`J=2.23`$ K, $`D=0.215`$ K, and $`g`$ = 2.00 derived from susceptibility measurements.

Fig. 3 a) Relaxation of the magnetization at fixed $`H_z`$ and $`T`$ as indicated, after saturation at 30 kG and quick ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }150`$ G/s) sweep of the field to the indicated $`H_z`$ value. The solid lines are fits to a single exponential law. Note the different scale for the $`H_z=0`$ measurements. b) Dependence of the relaxation time $`\tau `$ from $`H_z=0`$ with errors (3$`\sigma `$). The dotted line is a guide to the eyes.

Fig. 4 Magnetization data for $`Hc`$ orientation at 1.8 K obtained as follows: After saturation at +30 kG, the field was quickly ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }150`$ G/s) reduced to the given $`H_z`$ values including negative ones, and the magnetization was measured within 50 s after reaching $`H_z`$. The solid line is the calculated adiabatic magnetization curve at 1.8 K, see also Fig. 2.

Fig. 5 Schematic plot of the potential energy vs magnetization direction for a $`S=5`$ ground state split by a negative axial zero–field splitting at $`H_z=0`$. The potential energy barrier is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(|D_{S=5}|)S^2=2.40`$ K. The full and broken arrows denote the thermal relaxation and possible tunneling pathways, respectively.

## Figures


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Theoretical models with internal compactified space-like dimensions play a special role in string theory , particle physics , and cosmology . To be consistent with phenomenological requirements, the volumes of internal dimensions have to be stabilized, i.e. the corresponding moduli, or radions, have to acquire a regular mass term. Depending on the model at hand, a mass for a radion field may vary in a wild range from $`10^3`$ eV to the Planck scale. The stabilization of extra dimensions is a phenomenological necessity both in models with a smooth distribution of matter in the extra dimensions and in models with branes, where the metric may acquire a strong dependence on the coordinates of the extra dimensions, $`a=a(y,z,..)`$. One of the most interesting recent developments for model-building is the idea that the strong dependence of the scale factor on the coordinates in extra dimensions may have profound consequences for the gauge hierarchy problem in particle physics .

The presence of matter in these models, either placed on the brane or smoothly distributed in the bulk, usually has a linear coupling to the radion field, displacing the radion from its vacuum value, and creating the $`T_n^n`$ pressure-like components of the energy-momentum tensor, where $`n`$ labels the internal dimensions. The presence of this extra-dimensional pressure enables one to recover the usual $`4D`$ cosmological expansion  and cures the crisis in “brane cosmology”  that consists of a drastically different cosmological evolution at late times. The firm connection between the stabilization mechanism and extra-dimensional pressure was further exemplified in Refs. .

The static solution for the radion field equations ($`\dot{b}=0`$) implies that the energy density, “normal” $`4D`$ pressure of matter and the extra-dimensional pressure $`T_n^n`$ must be related by an integral condition. The first of a series of conditions was found in Ref. , in the context of the Randall-Sundrum model, and presented as a topological constraint necessary for the consistency of the particular solution. A similar integral condition, suitable for a non-warped case, $`a(y)=const`$, was found in Ref.  and it was shown to be associated with the stabilization of the size of extra dimension. Finally, a whole family of different sum rules was presented in Ref. , applicable to the case of matter that is uniformly distributed ($`x^\mu `$-independent) in “our” dimensions. One of these sum rules was shown  to provide a consistency check for solutions with a constant radion field ($`\dot{b}=0`$). The same sum rules were generalized in 6 dimensions in  and in d dimensions in .

This paper extends the analysis given in Ref.  and includes the case where the scale factor depend on the extra-dimensional coordinate of a 5D spacetime. This results in a constraint on the components of the higher-dimensional energy momentum tensor, the extremization constraint, that generalizes the simplest constraint obtained in . Using the fact that the variation over $`b`$ with branes at fixed positions, $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, is equivalent in fact to the variation over the length of the extra-dimensional circle, we reduce integral constraints to a set of algebraic relations between brane Lagrangians and the bulk Lagrangian, calculated at the position of the branes.

The presence of a stabilization mechanism leads to the radion relaxation to its minimum at $`b=b_0`$, with $`\dot{b}=0`$. However, the inverse is not true. The existence of a solution with $`\dot{b}=0`$ might be a result of a fine-tuning that does not lead to a physically viable “brane model”. Indeed, small perturbations of the solution around the extremal point $`b=b_0`$ may prove to be unstable. Such an instability can manifest itself as a tachyonic mass and/or a ghost-like signature for the kinetic term of the radion. To decide whether a particular brane world scenario is stable against radial perturbations or not, one has to find a close family of solutions around $`b=b_0`$ and expand in $`bb_0`$. In many existing brane-world scenarios such an analysis is possible, whereas in some models that specify $`a(y)`$ and $`T_n^m`$ only at a given point $`b=b_0`$, the stability cannot be analyzed. In cases when it is possible, the analysis of the stability ($`\ddot{b}/b<0`$) can be done with the use of Einstein’s equations  or directly in the action . We choose the latter method, and obtain a rather compact algebraic formula for the radion mass squared, again in terms of brane parameters and bulk quantities calculated at the position of the branes. The stabilization constraint can be regarded as the condition on the positivity of the radion mass squared.

After obtaining the generic forms of the $`\dot{b}=0`$ and $`\ddot{b}/b<0`$ constraints, we apply them for some particular realizations of brane-world models. We exemplify how the extremization constraint ($`\dot{b}=0`$) is satisfied in a number of static, five-dimensional models, namely, in the Randall-Sundrum model , in the two-brane model with a Casimir force , and in the two-brane model with a classical massless bulk scalar . In the above cases, we also analyze the stabilization constraint and determine whether, or under which assumptions, the radion has a positive or negative mass squared. The results of this paper can be used to check the consistency of various brane model solutions and present a useful formalism that helps to analyze the stability of a particular extra-dimensional solution against small perturbations of the radius of the internal spacetime.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the complete study of the $`5D`$ case addressing the generic form of the stabilization and extremization constraints. Section 3 applies the derived constraints to particular brane-world models. Section 4 presents our conclusions.

## 2 The radion potential in 5-dimensions

Here, we assume that the brane self-energies, $`V_i`$, do not depend on the four-dimensional coordinates either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, $`V_i`$’s can be, at most, functions of the extra coordinate $`y`$. In this case, we may write down the following ansatz for the five-dimensional spacetime

$$ds^2=a(t,y)^2(dt^2+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j)+b(t)^2dy^2$$
(2.1)
where $`a(t,y)`$ stands for the conformal factor multiplying a four-dimensional, flat line element and $`b(t)`$ denotes the scale factor of the extra dimension.

We first focus on the gravitational part of the theory. For the above ansatz, the 5D scalar curvature takes the form

$$\widehat{R}=R^{(4)}(t,y)\frac{2}{b}D_\mu D^\mu b+\widehat{R}^{(y)}=\frac{6\ddot{a}}{a^3}\frac{2}{b}D_\mu D^\mu b+\left(\frac{12a^2}{a^2b^2}\frac{8a^{\prime \prime }}{ab^2}\right).$$
(2.2)
The last two terms inside brackets, denoted as $`\widehat{R}^{(y)}`$, are the part of the five-dimensional scalar curvature involving solely derivatives with respect to the extra coordinate $`y`$. The covariant derivative of the scale factor $`b(t)`$ will turn out to be a total derivative in 4D spacetime, and hence drops out. The scalar curvature $`R^{(4)}(t,y)`$ is still $`y`$-dependent and, therefore, the purely time-dependent, four-dimensional scalar curvature $`^{(4)}`$ needs to be extracted. For this reason, we define $`a(t,y=0)a_0(t)`$ and write the conformal factor as

$$a(t,y)=a_0(t)\stackrel{~}{a}(t,y)$$
(2.3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}(t,y=0)1`$, by definition111Note that, in the case of static branes, this definition is not necessary as $`a_0(t)`$ reduces to a constant.. $`a_0(t)`$ will play the role of the 4D metric component that we need for the effective theory and so we write

$$R^{(4)}(t,y)=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{a}^2}^{(4)}\frac{6}{\stackrel{~}{a}^3a_0^4}_\mu [a_0^4^\mu \stackrel{~}{a}],$$
(2.4)
with $`^{(4)}=6\ddot{a}_0/a_0^3`$.

We now turn to the action of the five-dimensional gravitational theory, which can be written as

$$S=d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{G}\left\{\frac{\widehat{R}}{2\kappa _5^2}+\right\}$$
(2.5)
where $`\kappa _5^2`$ stands for the five-dimensional Newton’s constant and $``$ is a generic Lagrangian that may include bulk cosmological constants, brane-self energies and various bulk and brane matter fields. The integral over $`y`$ is performed over a compact dimension. We can recover finite volume, but infinite extra dimension type models by sending one of the branes off to infinity. In case when two infinitely thin branes are located at $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, the domain of integration over $`y`$ can be decomposed into three separate pieces that represent the integral over the bulk and the integrals across the branes:

$$=_{y_1}^{y_2}+_{y_2}^{y_1}+_{y_1ϵ}^{y_1+ϵ}+_{y_2ϵ}^{y_2+ϵ}.$$
(2.6)
The part of the above action consisting of the five-dimensional scalar curvature, $`\widehat{R}`$, will provide the kinetic part of the four-dimensional effective action describing the dynamics of the graviton and the radion field. By using the expressions (2.2) and (2.4) and integrating by parts, the gravitational part takes the form

$`S_G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{G}\frac{\widehat{R}}{2\kappa _5^2}}`$ (2.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g_4}\left\{\left(𝑑y\stackrel{~}{a}^2b\right)\frac{^{(4)}}{2\kappa _5^2}+\frac{3}{\kappa _5^2}𝑑y_\mu (\stackrel{~}{a}b)^\mu \stackrel{~}{a}+𝑑y\stackrel{~}{a}^4b\frac{\widehat{R}^{(y)}}{2\kappa _5^2}\right\}},`$
with $`\sqrt{G}=a_0^4\stackrel{~}{a}^4b`$ and $`\sqrt{g_4}=a_0^4`$. In order to obtain standard 4D Einstein gravity we perform a conformal transformation of the four-dimensional metric tensor in order to eliminate the coupling between the radion field and the scalar curvature $`^{(4)}`$. We set:

$$(g_4)_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{A(b)}(\overline{g}_4)_{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g_4}=\frac{1}{A^2(b)}\sqrt{\overline{g}_4},$$
(2.8)
where

$$A(b)=\frac{\kappa _4^2b}{\kappa _5^2}𝑑y\stackrel{~}{a}^2(t,y),$$
(2.9)
which leads to the result

$$^{(4)}=A(b)\left[\overline{}^{(4)}+3D_\mu D^\mu \mathrm{ln}A(b)\frac{3}{2}_\mu \mathrm{ln}A^\mu \mathrm{ln}A\right].$$
(2.10)
Then, the entire action can be written as,

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}_4}\left\{\frac{\overline{}^{(4)}}{2\kappa _4^2}+B(b)_\mu b^\mu b+\overline{V}_{eff}(b)\right\},$$
(2.11)
with

$$B(b)=\frac{3}{\kappa _5^2}\frac{1}{A(b)}\frac{\left(𝑑y_\mu (\stackrel{~}{a}b)^\mu \stackrel{~}{a}\right)}{_\mu b^\mu b}\frac{3}{4\kappa _4^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}A}{b}\right)^2,$$
(2.12)
and

$$\overline{V}_{eff}(b)=\frac{1}{A^2(b)}𝑑y\stackrel{~}{a}^4b\left\{\frac{\widehat{R}^{(y)}}{2\kappa _5^2}+\right\}.$$
(2.13)
Note that, having restored the four-dimensional gravitational term, all remaining terms in the action will constitute the building blocks of the effective action for the radion field. Therefore, terms involving $`x^\mu `$-derivatives of the auxiliary functions $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`A(b)`$ are bound to contribute to the kinetic term of the only remaining degree of freedom in the theory, that is of the radion field, while any other terms will contribute to its effective potential.

At this point, we are able to obtain the constraints on the combination of the scale factors and components of the stress-energy that were previously derived in  and . These constraints were derived under the assumption that $`\delta \stackrel{~}{a}/\delta b=0`$, that is, that the perturbation with respect to the value of the radion field does not affect the value of the scale factor. In this case, $`A(b)`$ is simply proportional to $`b`$ and the variation of the action (2.5) takes the following simple form:

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑y\left[\frac{\delta (\sqrt{G}\widehat{R})}{\delta G_{MN}}\frac{\delta G_{MN}}{2\kappa _5^2}\frac{\sqrt{G}}{2}T^{MN}\delta G_{MN}\right]}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑y\left[\delta \left(\frac{\sqrt{\overline{g}_4}\stackrel{~}{a}^4}{2\kappa _5^2bA^2}\right)\left[\frac{8a^{\prime \prime }}{a}+\frac{12a^2}{a^2}\right]\frac{1}{2}T_5^5a^4\frac{\delta b^2}{b}\frac{1}{2}T_\mu ^\mu a^4b\frac{\delta (a^2)}{a^2}\right]}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{G}\left[\frac{12a^{\prime \prime }}{\kappa _5^2b^2a}+T_\mu ^\mu 2T_5^5\right]\frac{\delta b}{2b}}.`$
Note that the variation in the quantity $`b^2\widehat{R}`$ vanishes with these assumptions. In the above expression we performed an integration by parts and used the standard definition for the stress energy tensor. It is easy to see that the square brackets in the second line of Eq. (2) simply contains a combination of the $`ii`$ and $`55`$ components of Einstein’s equations, $`R_N^M\frac{1}{2}G_N^MR_K^K\kappa _5^2T_N^M=0`$. Obviously, Eq. (2) must vanish identically when $`a(y)`$ is the solution. Integrating by parts the term with $`a^{\prime \prime }`$ we obtain the following constraint:

$$d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{G}\left[\frac{36a^2}{\kappa _5^2a^2}+T_\mu ^\mu 2T_5^5\right]=0.$$
(2.15)
This constraint generalizes a formula from  and includes the dependence of $`a`$ on $`y`$ (i.e. warping). The constraint derived in  is valid only in the case of small $`T_\mu ^\mu `$. Indeed, a non-trivial dependence on $`y`$-coordinate usually arises due to the presence of branes. In this case, $`a^{}/a`$ is proportional to the brane energy density $`\rho `$. In this case, the first term in (2.15) is just an $`O(\rho ^2)`$ correction and can be dropped, leading exactly to the expression found in . For 5-dimensional spacetimes with significant warping, the constraint (2.15) is valid instead. A similar, but not identical, constraint was derived in Ref.  for solutions with large warping by rearranging the components of Einstein’s equations. The same combination $`T_\mu ^\mu 2T_5^5`$ appears in both constraints, however Eq. (2.15) has an extra term, proportional to $`a^2/a^2`$, and a different coefficient in front coming from $`\sqrt{G}`$. The apparent differences are due to the fact that the two constraints were derived with different methods, however, they are both valid under the same assumptions and, are therefore, equivalent.

In the above derivation we assumed that $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`b`$ are totally independent, and this is why the form of the constraint comes out to be identical with the combination suggested by Einstein’s equations. However, in order to study the stability of the physical size of the extra dimension, one can no longer assume that $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`b`$ are independent and that $`A(b)`$ is simply linear in $`b`$. Instead, we would have to consider $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ as a function of $`by`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}=\stackrel{~}{a}(by)`$ and the variation of action over $`b`$ might be a more complicated procedure. It is important to note that there is always a residual symmetry under a simultaneous rescaling of $`y`$ and $`b`$. All physical parameters must remain invariant under $`yCy`$ and $`bb/C`$, where $`C`$ is an arbitrary constant. Below, we will consider a two-brane model with branes positioned at $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$. Then, the extremal size of the extra dimension is given by certain fixed values of $`y_1b_0`$ and $`y_2b_0`$, which are invariant under the above symmetry. The variation over $`b`$ around $`b_0`$ with fixed $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ is equivalent to a variation over the length of the fifth dimension. Moreover, using this rescaling symmetry, we can always choose $`b_0=1`$, i.e. absorb $`b_0`$ into the definition of $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$.

A canonically normalized radion field $`r(t)`$ is obtained by demanding that the kinetic term $`2B(b)_\mu b^\mu b`$ can be written as $`_\mu r^\mu r`$. For small deviations of the scale factor $`b(t)`$ from a stable minimum, $`b_0`$, of its potential, the normalized radion field may be written as: $`r(t)=\sqrt{2B(b_0)}[b(t)b_0]`$, if the radion is not a ghost-like degree of freedom, i.e. $`B>0`$. Note that, in the pursuit of deriving extremization and stabilization constraints, we can continue working with the metric function $`b(t)`$ instead of the radion field $`r(t)`$ since:

$$\frac{\overline{V}_{eff}}{r}|_{r_0}=(\frac{b}{r}\left)\frac{\overline{V}_{eff}}{b}\right|_{b_0},\frac{^2\overline{V}_{eff}}{r^2}|_{r_0}=(\frac{b}{r})^2\frac{^2\overline{V}_{eff}}{b^2}|_{b_0}.$$
(2.16)
Therefore, for a well defined relation between $`r(t)`$ and $`b(t)`$, the transition from one field to the other makes no difference in the vanishing of the first derivative of the effective potential. In the same way, stability of the extra dimension in terms of $`b(t)`$, that is $`_b^2\overline{V}_{eff}>0`$, leads to stability in terms of $`r(t)`$, $`_r^2\overline{V}_{eff}>0`$, and vice versa. We note that in particular models, the value of $`B(b_0)`$ may also be very important because it leads to a rescaling of the mass term, and a very large value of $`B(b_0)`$ may lead to a phenomenologically unacceptably low value of the radion mass.

Before we go into explicit calculation of the variation of the action over $`b`$ with $`b`$-dependent $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$, we would like to specify some components of the matter Lagrangian that we consider here. We allow $``$ to include the bulk Lagrangian and brane self-energies that may depend on the value of bulk fields:

$$𝑑y\stackrel{~}{a}^4b=_{y_1}^{y_2}𝑑y\stackrel{~}{a}^4b_B+_{y_2}^{y_1}𝑑y\stackrel{~}{a}^4b_B+\underset{i=1,2}{}\stackrel{~}{a}^4(by_i)V_i+U(by_1,by_2).$$
(2.17)
In this expression, the bulk Lagrangian may include a variety of fields, however, for the sake of simplicity we will restrict to the case of a single scalar field $`\varphi `$

$$_B=\frac{1}{2b^2}\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dy}\right)^2+V_B(\varphi ).$$
(2.18)
Note that the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ has been absorbed into the definition of $`V_B`$. We also allow the brane self-energies to depend on the value of the same field $`\varphi `$. A constant part of $`V_i`$ at the extremal value $`\varphi =\varphi (b_0y_i)`$ is a usual brane self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=V_i(b_0y_i)`$. Like $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$, $`\varphi `$ is always a function of $`by`$, $`_B=_B(by)`$ and $`V_i=V_i(by_i)`$.

Finally, $`U(by_1,by_2)`$ in (2.17) represents an effective interaction that may arise due to quantum effects in the final volume and which often cannot be formalized in the language of the Lagrange density in $`y`$-space. Sometimes this piece of the potential by itself may lead to the stabilization of the extra dimension. For the remainder of the calculations we would like to keep a generic form for this potential, specifying its form only in particular applications.

We now turn to the explicit calculation of the variation of action with respect to $`b`$. In order to do that, we perform a change of variables, $`\xi =by`$. This change brings about a significant simplification, as $`b`$ now only enters in the calculation through the limits of integration, i.e. at specific points $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$

$$A^2(by_1,by_2)\overline{V}_{eff}=2_{by_1}^{by_2}\stackrel{~}{a}^4(\xi )\left[\frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}\frac{12\stackrel{~}{a}^2(\xi )}{\stackrel{~}{a}^2(\xi )}+_B(\xi )\right]𝑑\xi +\underset{i=1,2}{}\stackrel{~}{a}^4(by_i)V_i+U(by_1,by_2).$$
(2.19)
where we have now assumed equally spaced branes on the circle. In the above expression, and henceforth, primes denote differentiation with respect to $`\xi `$. Note, that we used the integration by part to remove $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{\prime \prime }`$ from the $`\widehat{R}^y`$-part of the effective potential. This allows us to remove the so-called Gibbons-Hawking boundary terms, i.e. singular terms in $`\widehat{R}^{(y)}`$ when $`a^{\prime \prime }`$ is taken at the positions of the branes. When $`b`$ is taken at its extremum, $`\overline{V}_{eff}`$ can be interpreted as the effective four-dimensional cosmological constant.

The first derivative over $`b`$ is computed trivially, and the result takes the following form:

$`A^2(by_1,by_2){\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{V}_{eff}}{db}}=`$ (2.20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa _4^2}{\kappa _5^2}}Ay_i\stackrel{~}{a}^2(by_i)\overline{V}_{eff}|_{i=1}^{i=2}+y_i\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{12\stackrel{~}{a}_i^2}{\kappa _5^2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^2}}+2_B(by_i)\right]|_{i=1}^{i=2}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{(by_i)}}\left[V_i\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4+U\right],`$
where $`a_ia(by_i)`$. The terms with $`V_i`$’s can be further expanded as

$$\frac{}{(by_i)}V_i\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4=\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4\left[4\frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_i^{}}{\stackrel{~}{a}_i}V_i+\frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }\varphi _i^{}\right].$$
(2.21)
In this expression, the signs of $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i^{}`$ and $`\varphi _i^{}`$ are defined according to the following rule:

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{a}}{d\xi }}|_{(by_1+0)},`$ (2.22)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}_2^{}={\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{a}}{d\xi }}|_{(by_20)},`$ (2.23)
with similar definitions for $`\varphi ^{}`$. In other words, the derivatives are taken on the right side of brane 1, and on the left side of brane 2 since we assumed $`y_1<y_2`$.

To derive the extremization constraint, we put $`b=b_0=1`$, and use equations of motion for the scale factor and $`\varphi `$, as well as junction conditions on the branes, both for the scale factor and the scalar field:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}^{}}{\stackrel{~}{a}}}(y_1)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}}V_1,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}^{}}{\stackrel{~}{a}}}(y_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}}V_2,`$ (2.24)
$`\varphi ^{}(y_1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_1}{d\varphi }},`$ $`\varphi ^{}(y_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_2}{d\varphi }}.`$
The final result takes the following form:

$$2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4y_i\left[_B(y_i)+\frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}V_i^2\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }\right)^2\right]|_{i=1}^{i=2}+\underset{i=1,2}{}y_i\frac{}{(by_i)}U(by_1,by_2)|_{b=b_0=1}=0.$$
(2.25)
Here we used the smallness of the four-dimensional effective cosmological constant and put the first term in (2.20) to zero. This algebraic constraint (as opposed to an integral condition (2)) can be used to check the consistency of particular solutions. We note that in the particular cases that we study later, the separate cancellations occur for $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ proportional terms.

It is easy to see that the extremization constraint is not uniquely defined. Indeed, one can add to (2.25) linear combinations of $`T_5^5(y_i)\kappa _5^2V_i^2/6`$ and $`_B(y_i)V_B(y_i)(dV_i/d\varphi )^2/8`$, since these combinations are equal to zero due to the $`55`$-component of Einstein’s equations and the boundary conditions for the scale factor and the scalar field:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _5^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{a}_i^2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_i^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}}V_i^2=T_5^5(y_i),`$
$`_B(y_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }}\right)^2+V_B(y_i).`$ (2.26)
Using the above relations, we would like to give another legitimate form of (2.25):

$`2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4y_i\left[V_B(y_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}}V_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }}\right)^2\right]|_{i=1}^{i=2}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{(by_i)}}U(by_1,by_2)|_{b=b_0=1}=0.`$ (2.27)
In order to obtain a radion mass term and impose a stabilization constraint, we differentiate $`d\overline{V}_{eff}(b)/db`$ over $`b`$:

$`A^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\overline{V}_{eff}}{db^2}}=`$ (2.28)
$`y_i^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{12}{\kappa _5^2}}(\stackrel{~}{a}_i^2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^2)^{}+2(_B(by_i)a_i^4)^{}\right]|_{i=1}^{i=2}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_i^2(\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4V_i)^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_iy_j{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{(by_i)(by_j)}}U.`$
Not shown here are the terms proportional to the first and second derivatives of $`A(b)`$. These terms exist in principle, but vanish when $`b=b_0`$ because of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}=0`$ and because of the extremization constraint (2.25), and thus have no relevance for the calculation of the radion mass term. It is easy to see that the above expression contains $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i^{\prime \prime }`$. This may look worrisome as $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{\prime \prime }`$ has a singularity right at the position of the branes. However, in view of the definitions (2.22) the double derivatives in (2.28) should be understood as the limit of the continuous part of $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{\prime \prime }(y)`$ at $`yy_i`$.

As in the case of the extremization constraint, the expression (2.28) can be significantly simplified at $`b=b_0=1`$, because of the use of the boundary conditions and the equations of motion for the scale factor and the scalar field. The extensive use of these relations allows to reduce (2.28) to the following rather compact expression:

$`A^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\overline{V}_{eff}}{db^2}}|_{b=b_0=1}={\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa _5^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_i^2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4V_i\left[T_5^5(y_i)+_B(y_i){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }}\right)^2\right]`$ (2.29)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_i^2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2V_i}{d\varphi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_B}{d\varphi }}(y_i)\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_iy_j{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{(by_i)(by_j)}}U|_{b=1}.`$
The stabilization constraint is the requirement on the positivity of (2.29). This result can be further modified to an equivalent form, using relations (2.26) and the extremization constraints (2.25) and (2.27). One of these forms contains only bulk and brane potentials and their derivatives over $`\varphi `$:

$`A^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\overline{V}_{eff}}{db^2}}|_{b=b_0=1}={\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa _5^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_i^2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4V_i\left[V_B(y_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}}V_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }}\right)^2\right]`$ (2.30)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_i^2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2V_i}{d\varphi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_B}{d\varphi }}(y_i)\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}y_iy_j{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{(by_i)(by_j)}}U|_{b=1}.`$
The generalization of (2.25), (2.27), (2.29) and (2.30) to the case of multiple scalar fields is straightforward.

## 3 Applications to brane-world models

1. No branes, trivial scalar field profiles.

In this case we take $`V_i0`$, $`\varphi =const`$, $`V_B\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i=1`$. In the absense of branes, the individual positions $`y_i`$ lose their meaning and translational invariance in $`y`$-direction requires that all quantities depend only on the difference $`y_2y_1`$, which is simply related to the size of the compact dimension. Therefore, $`\overline{V}_{eff}(by_1,by_2)=\overline{V}_{eff}(b(y_2y_1))`$. Furthermore, since $`V_i=0`$, we also have $`T_5^5=0`$ (in the absence of branes this is true for all $`y`$). Looking at the extremization constraints, we immediately discover that

$$2\mathrm{\Lambda }_B(y_2y_1)+\frac{dU}{db}|_{b=1}=0.$$
(3.1)
The requirement $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}=0`$ is equivalent to the condition $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }_B(y_2y_1)+U=0`$ that ensures the vanishing of the other components of $`T_M^N`$. The stabilization constraint reduces to

$$A^2\frac{d^2\overline{V}_{eff}}{db^2}|_{b=b_0=1}=\frac{d^2U}{db^2}|_{b=1}>0.$$
(3.2)
Particular examples of such a stabilization due to the Casimir force generated by multiple massive and massless scalar fields while classical bulk profiles of these fields are trivial were considered recently in Ref. .

2. Randall-Sundrum model: empty bulk, empty branes, $`U=0`$.

In this case, the extremization constraint takes the form

$$2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4y_i\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_B+\frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2\right]|_{i=1}^{i=2}=0,$$
(3.3)
and leads to the usual relation between the bulk cosmological constant and the brane tension in the RS model: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_B=\kappa _5^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2/6`$. The radion mass term, Eq. (2.29) is also zero because $`T_5^5+_B=T_5^5+\mathrm{\Lambda }_B=0`$. It can actually be shown that every derivative of the radion effective potential is trivially zero for this particular solution. Going back to the expression of the potential, Eq. (2.13), substituting the relevant quantities inside the integral and performing the integration over the extra coordinate, we are led to the result

$$A^2\overline{V}_{eff}=\sqrt{\frac{6}{\kappa _5^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|}}\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_B+\frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2\right]|_{i=1}^{i=2}$$
(3.4)
We therefore conclude that every derivative of the effective potential with respect to $`b`$, once evaluated for the specific solution, will be identically zero. Therefore, this particular solution is an absolute saddle point (a flat direction) of the radion effective potential.

3. Empty branes, trivial scalar field profile, $`U0`$.

Next, we turn to a particular two-brane-world solution in which the Casimir force generated by a conformally coupled scalar field was taken into account . For the case of an attractive Casimir force, the $`y`$-profile of the scale factor takes the following form:

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(t,y)=\mathrm{cosh}^{2/5}(\omega by),\omega ^2=\frac{25}{24}\kappa _5^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|.$$
(3.5)
For a repulsive Casimir force, the above cosh-like solution is substituted by a sinh-like one and the analysis follows along the same lines. The solution assumed a vanishing 4D cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}=0`$, and no bulk scalar fields contributed classically to the five-dimensional action. For both cases, the presence of the Casimir force is accounted for by the $`U`$ potential in the action:

$$U(by_1,by_2)=\frac{2\alpha }{L^4},$$
(3.6)
where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless constant and $`L`$ the inter-brane distance in 5D conformally-flat coordinates, defined as

$$L=\frac{1}{\omega }I(\omega b)=\frac{1}{\omega }_{\omega by_1}^{\omega by_2}\frac{d\xi }{\mathrm{cosh}^{2/5}\xi }.$$
(3.7)
The extremization constraint (2.27) takes the following simple form:

$$2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4y_i\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_B+\frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2+\frac{4\alpha \omega ^5}{\stackrel{~}{a}_i^5I^5(\omega )}\right]|_{i=1}^{i=2}=0.$$
(3.8)
Indeed, after applying the following relations from ,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2=\frac{6|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|}{\kappa _5^2}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\omega y_i),|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|=\frac{4\alpha \omega ^5}{I^5(\omega )},$$
(3.9)
Eq. (3.8) is satisfied, separately for $`y_1`$\- and $`y_2`$-proportional terms.

Using the above relations, we can calculate the radion mass term from Eq. (2.30):

$`A^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\overline{V}_{eff}}{db^2}}|_{b=1}=10|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|\omega \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{I(\omega )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{\stackrel{~}{a}_1}}\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{y_2^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_1^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{\stackrel{~}{a}_1}}\right]\right\}<0,`$ (3.10)
which coincides with the result of  upon a trivial overall rescaling of $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$. The solution with the attractive Casimir force turns out to have a tachyonic radion, and therefore is unstable.

Before concluding this subsection, we would like to briefly discuss another solution with non-zero $`U`$ and with two positive tension branes (with a negative bulk cosmological constant) which was derived in . The conformal factor, for this solution, had the form

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(t,y)=\mathrm{cosh}^{1/2}(\omega by),\omega ^2=\frac{2}{3}\kappa _5^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|.$$
(3.11)
The individual brane tensions (located at $`y=y_1`$ and $`y=y_2`$) were given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\frac{3\omega }{\kappa _5^2}\mathrm{tanh}(\omega by_i),$$
(3.12)
In this case, the extremization constraint (2.27) becomes,

$$2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4y_i(\mathrm{\Lambda }_B+\frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)|_{i=1}^{i=2}+\underset{i=1,2}{}y_i\frac{}{(by_i)}U(by_1,by_2)|_{b=b_0=1}=0,$$
(3.13)
and easily reduces to

$$2\mathrm{\Lambda }_B(y_2y_1)+\underset{i=1,2}{}y_i\frac{}{(by_i)}U(by_1,by_2)|_{b=b_0=1}=0.$$
(3.14)
As one can plainly see, the existence of this solution requires $`dU/db0`$. In , this term was linked with $`T_5^5`$.

Finally, we apply the stabilization constraint (2.30), which becomes

$$2\omega ^2(y_1^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+y_2^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)+\underset{i=1,2}{}y_iy_j\frac{^2}{(by_i)(by_j)}U|_{b=1}.$$
(3.15)
Thus provided that $`d^2U/db^2`$ is positive and sufficiently large, this solution is stable.

4. Non-trivial $`V_i(\varphi )`$, trivial bulk potential $`V_B=\mathrm{\Lambda }_B`$, $`U=0`$.

Exact solutions of this type, a massless scalar field in the bulk with non-trivial interactions on the branes $`V_i(\varphi )`$, were found in Refs. . Originally, it was hoped that such a solution had some relevance for the cosmological constant problem, until more careful considerations  exemplified the necessity of fine-tuning in this model. For $`y_1<y_2<0`$, the solution was found  to be

$$\stackrel{~}{a}^4(by)=\mathrm{sinh}[\omega b(y)],\frac{1}{b}\frac{d\varphi }{dy}=\pm \frac{\sqrt{2|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega b|y|)},$$
(3.16)
where $`\omega ^2=8\kappa _5^2|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|/3`$, and the sign ambiguity is resolved only when the scalar potential on either of the two branes is specified.

The extremization constraint (2.27) takes the form

$$2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4y_i\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_B+\frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}V_i^2\frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }\right)^2\right]|_{i=1}^{i=2}=0,$$
(3.17)
and is trivially satisfied (separately for $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$) upon the following substitutions:

$$V_i^2=\frac{6|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|}{\kappa _5^2}\mathrm{coth}^2(\omega |y_i|),\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }\right)^2=(\varphi _i^{})^2=\frac{2|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\omega |y_i|)}.$$
(3.18)
These relations allow one to express $`dV_i/d\varphi `$ in terms of $`V_i`$ and the bulk cosmological constant, which obviously requires fine-tuning:

$$\left(\frac{dV_i}{d\varphi }\right)^2=8\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_B+\frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}V_i^2\right].$$
(3.19)
Armed with these relations, we easily obtain the radion mass term from (2.30), if we make one further assumption for $`d^2V_i/d\varphi ^2`$. In the case of linear dependence, $`V_i=\alpha _i\varphi _i`$, the second line in (2.30) is zero and

$$A^2\frac{d^2\overline{V}_{eff}}{db^2}|_{b=1}=\frac{8\kappa _5^2}{3}\underset{i=1,2}{}y_i^2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^4V_i\left[|\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|\frac{\kappa _5^2}{6}V_i^2\right].$$
(3.20)
By using the boundary conditions (3.18) twice, the radion mass term may be written as

$$A^2\frac{d^2\overline{V}_{eff}}{db^2}|_{b=1}=4\omega |\mathrm{\Lambda }_B|\left[y_1^2\frac{\mathrm{coth}(\omega |y_1|)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega |y_1|)}y_2^2\frac{\mathrm{coth}(\omega |y_2|)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega |y_2|)}\right].$$
(3.21)
The above expression is not sign definite. A simple numerical analysis reveals that the sign of the radion mass squared depends on the inter-brane distance (large inter-brane distances add a positive contribution to the radion mass term), and the distance of the brane system from the singularity located at $`y_0=0`$ (small separation between the branes and the singularity adds a negative contribution). When $`|y_1y_0|=|y_1|<|y_1|_{crit}`$, the stability of the system strongly depends on the location of the second brane: if it is located closer to the first brane rather than the singularity, the destabilizing force is minimal and the solution is stable; if, however, the second brane is moved closer to the singularity, the radion field is inevitably tachyonic. On the other hand, for $`|y_1|>|y_1|_{crit}`$, the stabilizing force coming from the large inter-brane distance is dominant, which guarantees the overall stability of the system even when the second brane is placed close to the singularity.

For non-linear interaction terms $`V_i`$, there is an extra term in the expression for the radion mass term proportional to $`d^2V_i/d\varphi ^2`$. If the sign of this term is chosen to be positive then, for large inter-brane distances, this term tends to stabilize the solution even more, while, for small brane separations, it may reduce, or even overcome, the destabilizing force due to the singularity.

As a final comment, let us stress at this point that the two-brane solution with a bulk scalar field, studied above, turned out to be stable, for much of the parameter space, in the absence of a bulk potential $`V_B`$ for the scalar field. This result differs from that in , where the mass of the radion is found to vanish in the limit of the vanishing bulk mass for the $`\varphi `$ field. Our study shows that the non-trivial interaction terms of the scalar field with the branes are sufficient for both fixing the inter-brane distance  and stabilizing the brane-system under small time-dependent perturbations.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper, we have focused on the study of the stabilization of the size of extra dimensions. A variety of solutions in extra-dimensional brane-world models have appeared in the literature that are characterized by a constant radion field ($`\dot{b}=0`$). These solutions correspond to extrema of the corresponding radion effective potential and constraints involving the components of the energy-momentum tensor, for the vanishing of the first derivative of $`V_{eff}`$, have been written down for particular classes of models.

In the context of our analysis, the derivation of those two types of constraints took place in the framework of the four-dimensional, effective theory for the graviton and radion field. We demonstrated that the variation over the size of the extra dimension reduces the integral constraints to a set of algebraic conditions formulated at the positions of the branes. Clearly, the extremization constraints give the same information as Einstein’s equations. However, the stabilization constraint is not trivial. We were able to derive it in terms of the bulk and brane potentials, which may be used for a direct calculation of the radion mass term in many brane-world models.

The resulting constraints were then applied for a number of static, five-dimensional solutions that had previously appeared in the literature. All of them were shown to satisfy the extremization constraint as expected, and furthermore their stability behaviour was studied by making use of the stabilization constraint. The two-brane Randall-Sundrum model was shown to be an absolute saddle point (a flat direction) of the radion potential while the implementation of an attractive Casimir force between the two branes led to an unstable configuration, in agreement with a previous work. Finally, the two-brane model with a bulk scalar field was shown to be stable for large inter-brane distances, i.e. when the branes lie in the exponential regime of the $`\mathrm{sinh}`$-like solution, while a potential instability arises for small brane separations. Of particular importance was the fact that the bulk potential is not a necessary ingredient for stabilizing an extra dimension with the scalar field. Indeed, the interaction terms between the bulk scalar field and the branes lead to a sufficient condition for stabilization.

Acknowledgements

P.K. and K.A.O. would like to thank Ian I. Kogan and Antonios Papazoglou for helpful discussions at early stages of this work. M.P. would like to acknowledge the support of PPARC. The work of K.A.O. was supported partly by DOE grant DE–FG02–94ER–40823.