format: text

text:
# MIT-CTP-3261 hep-th/0204056 Marginal perturbations of N=4 Yang-Mills as deformations of AdS₅×𝑆⁵

## 1 Introduction

Much progress has been made in understanding non-perturbative aspects of gauge theories in the last few years. A particularly fruitful approach to studying gauge theories was suggested by Maldacena who conjectured a duality relating quantum field theories to supergravity (and more generally string theory) in appropriate geometrical backgrounds. The conjecture is particularly powerful in the case of conformal field theories which are believed to be dual to anti-de Sitter spaces. The reason why the conjecture is most powerful in the CFT case is that to trust supergravity one normally has to take the ’t Hooft coupling constant to be large and this leads to problems with defining the dual continuum asymptotically free gauge theory.

The greatest success story of Maldacena’s conjecture is that of N=4 Yang-Mills theory which is believed to be dual to type IIB supergravity in an AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 background geometry. In this particular case physicists have been able to calculate Wilson loop correlators, chiral primary operator correlation functions etc111See  for an extensive review and exhaustive references on these topics.. Much is also known about relevant perturbations of this gauge theory on the supergravity side.

In this paper we look for supergravity solutions dual to marginal deformations of N=4 Yang-Mills theory. These deformations were discovered in the field theory context by Leigh and Strassler in a beautiful paper. In  the authors developed non-perturbative methods to establish the existence of exactly marginal operators which preserve at least N=1 supersymmetry.

This paper is structured as follows. In section 2 we briefly describe the exactly marginal superpotentials of Leigh and Strassler. In section 3 we describe how to incorporate some of the isometries of the field theory in the Killing spinor. In section 4 we solve for the fields of IIB supergravity by solving the Killing spinor equations. In section 5 we impose source equations and Bianchi identities on the supersymmetric field configurations of section 4. In section 6 we describe a set of solutions dual to a complex line of conformal field theories. Finally, in section 7 we close with some comments.

## 2 Leigh-Strassler deformations of N=4 Yang-Mills theory

Using field theory techniques, marginal perturbations of $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory were analyzed by Leigh and Strassler in an elegant paper. The essential idea of the analysis is as follows. Using the fact that the $`\beta `$ functions  of the couplings depend only on the anomalous dimensions and gauge group representation of the chiral fields, one can write down the equations for a fixed point as a constraint on the anomalous dimensions. These equations define a hypersurface in the space of couplings. In general the number of equations equals the dimension of the space of couplings and thus the solutions are isolated points in the space of couplings. However, in the presence of additional symmetries the number of independent anomalous dimensions gets reduced and gives rise to a smaller number of constraints resulting in a larger subspace of conformal field theories. Moving in this subspace corresponds to marginal deformations of the field theory. These techniques enable one to obtain exactly marginal perturbations of $`𝒩=4`$ theory.

For the sake of completeness let us briefly review the relevant part of the analysis of Leigh and Strassler. We start with $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(n)`$ , $`n>2`$ written in a $`𝒩=1`$ language, which corresponds to a choice of a complex structure in the space of scalars. The action consists of one vector and three chiral multiplets with a superpotential, $`𝒲=gTr([\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{\Phi }^2]\mathrm{\Phi }^3)`$ where $`g`$ is the gauge coupling. In this form only a $`SU(3)\times U(1)SU(4)`$ part of the R-symmetry is manifest where $`U(1)`$ acts as a common phase on the chiral fields and $`SU(3)`$ is the unitary rotation of the 3 chiral fields.

In order to study marginal perturbations the superpotential is perturbed by special additional terms which generically break the R-symmetry down to $`U(1)`$ and reduce the supersymmetry to $`𝒩=1`$. The general form for the perturbed superpotential considered in  is

$$𝒲=\lambda _1Tr([\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{\Phi }^2]\mathrm{\Phi }^3)+\lambda _2Tr(\{\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{\Phi }^2\}\mathrm{\Phi }^3)+\lambda _3\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^3.$$
(1)
For generic couplings in (1), the R-symmetry is reduced to $`U(1)\times Z_3\times Z_3`$. The first $`Z_3`$ acts as the group of cyclic permutations on the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$’s which implies that the anomalous dimensions of all three chiral fields are equal. The second $`Z_3`$ acts as follows: $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^1,\mathrm{\Phi }^2,\mathrm{\Phi }^3)(\omega \mathrm{\Phi }^1,\omega ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2,\omega ^3\mathrm{\Phi }^3)`$, with $`\omega ^3=1`$, it prevents the mixing of different fields .

The general expressions of the $`\beta `$ functions for the couplings in the superpotential and for the gauge coupling is obtained explicitly  as

$`\beta _{\lambda _i}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _i(\mu )(d_w+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[d_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _i]),`$
$`\beta _g`$ $`=`$ $`f(g[\mu ])\left([3C_2(G)T_i]+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}T(R_i)\gamma _i\right).`$ (2)
Where $`d_w`$, $`d_i`$ are canonical dimensions of the superpotential and the field $`\varphi _i`$, $`\gamma _i`$ is the anomalous dimension of the chiral fields $`\varphi _i`$. $`C_2(G)`$ and $`T_i`$ are the quadratic Casimirs of the adjoint representation and the representation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ respectively. $`f(g)`$ is a function of the gauge coupling which can have a pole at large $`g`$.

In the present case (1), due to the $`Z_3`$ symmetry the $`\beta `$-functions are reduced to the common anomalous dimension $`\gamma _i=\gamma (g,\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3)`$ with scale dependent multiplicative prefactors. As a result vanishing of the $`\beta `$ functions implies a single equation

$$\gamma (g,\{\lambda _i\})=0,$$
(3)
which corresponds to a complex codimension one hypersurface in the four dimensional space of couplings. The origin in $`\{\lambda _i\}`$ is $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. A generic point, however, corresponds to an $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal theory.

As a consequence of the AdS/CFT correspondence there must exist a family of gravity duals corresponding to the margnially perturbed conformal theories which are continuously connected to AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 with isometry same as that of the superconformal group. In the following sections we will construct gravity duals of marginal perturbations of N=4 Yang-Mills theory.

## 3 Constraints on Killing spinors with U(1)$`\times `$Z3 isometry

As indicated in the previous section, for generic values of the coupling constants, $`\lambda _i`$, the global symmetry is broken from SO(6) down to U(1)$`\times `$Z$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times `$Z3222In all that follows we will ignore the second Z3 simply because we donot understand how to incorporate it without requiring more symmetry than we want. Our explicit solutions do not respect it either. We are presently investigating Killing spinors which are invariant under U(1)$`\times `$SU(3), these would be invariant under both the Z3s.. When using N=1 superspace, the maximal manifest global symmetry is U(1)$`\times `$SU(3) where the SU(3) rotates the three chiral multiplets into each other while the U(1) multiplies them all by the same phase. To have a particular N=1 description of the system one picks a complex structure on the scalars so that they can be organized into chiral multiplets. The SU(3) acts in a way which preserves that complex structure.

N=4 Yang-Mills in the AdS/CFT description is realized on the supergravity side by the near-horizon geometry of D3-branes spanning the directions $`0123`$. The transverse directions $`456789`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the scalars of the Yang-Mills theory. To give an N=1 description we define a complex structure on the transverse coordinates as follows:

$$z^m=x^{m+3}+ix^{m+6}$$
(4)
where the label $`m`$ takes values in $`1,2,3`$. Now the $`z^m`$ form a triplet under the SU(3) subgroup of SO(6), and they have the same charge under the U(1).

Suppose we have a Killing spinor $`\eta `$ for a geometry dual to a marginal deformation. Then clearly a U(1)$`\times `$Z3 transform of $`\eta `$ must also be a Killing spinor. While generic elements of SU(3) would transform $`\eta `$ into spinors which do not satisfy the Killing spinor equations. To investigate the constraints imposed by this simple requirement consider the generators of SO(6) in the $`4\overline{4}`$ representation:

$$J_{ij}=i/2[\widehat{\gamma }_i,\widehat{\gamma }_j],i,j=4,\mathrm{},9$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{\gamma }_i`$ are flat space $`\gamma `$-matrices:

$$\{\widehat{\gamma }_i,\widehat{\gamma }_j\}=2\delta _{ij}.$$
(6)
Now consider defining $`\gamma `$-matrices with holomorphic indices corresponding to the complex structure defined above:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\gamma }_{m+3}+i\widehat{\gamma }_{m+6}),`$
$`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_n\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
$`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{n}}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mn},`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_n)^{}.`$
Now consider the following commuting subset of the generators $`J_{ij}`$:

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{1}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{3}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_3)1,`$
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{1}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2,`$ (8)
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{1}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_22\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{3}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_3).`$
We will take $`Q`$ to generate the U(1) and $`H_i`$ to be the two Cartan subalgebra generators of SU(3). We now decompose the $`4\overline{4}`$ representation of the spinors of SO(6) into eigenstates of $`Q`$. There are $`4`$ distinct eigenvalues: $`1,1/3,1/3,1`$, the subspaces corresponding to these eigenvalues are given in terms of states built on the spinor $`\chi `$ which satisfies:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_m\chi =0.$$
(9)
The subspaces are:

$`ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`a^0\chi `$
$`ϵ_{1/3}`$ $`=`$ $`a^i\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{i}}\chi `$ (10)
$`ϵ_{1/3}`$ $`=`$ $`b^{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{i}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{j}}\chi `$
$`ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`b^0\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{1}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{2}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{3}}\chi .`$
The $`a,b`$ coefficients are complex numbers. The subspaces $`ϵ_1,ϵ_{1/3}`$ together span the $`4`$ of SO(6) while the remaining two span the $`\overline{4}`$. Under SU(3) $`ϵ_{\pm 1}`$ are singlets, $`ϵ_{1/3}`$ is in the $`3`$ and $`ϵ_{1/3}`$ in the $`\overline{3}`$.

Now we must find an $`\eta `$ which picks up a constant phase under the U(1), but is not invariant under SU(3) except under its discrete Z3 subgroup of cyclic permutations. Since $`ϵ_{\pm 1}`$ are SU(3) singlets neither one of them is a possibility. Instead we must pick a spinor either from $`ϵ_{1/3}`$ or $`ϵ_{1/3}`$. Since either one will do (upto a redefinition of complex structure $`z^mz^{\overline{m}}`$ they are the same) we pick the following combination from $`ϵ_{1/3}`$:

$$\eta =\underset{m=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\overline{m}}\chi .$$
(11)
Clearly $`\eta `$ is symmetric under S3 (which contains Z3) and picks up a phase under the U(1), while under generic SU(3) rotations $`\eta `$ is not invariant. Note that since $`\eta `$ is a chiral spinor in 10d it satisfies the following chiral property:

$$\widehat{\gamma }^{0123}\eta =i\eta .$$
(12)
## 4 Solving the Killing spinor equations

In this section we solve the Killing spinor equations assuming that the dilaton is constant. The reason why we hold the dilaton constant is that the dilaton is related to the Yang-Mills coupling constant and should not run because of conformal symmetry.

The variation of the dilatino and gravitino under supersymmetry with the dilaton held constant are as follows:

$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{24}}\gamma ^{ijk}\eta G_{ijk}`$
$`\delta \psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`D_i\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{480}}\gamma ^{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}\gamma _i\eta F_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}(\gamma _i^{jkl}G_{jkl}9\gamma ^{jk}G_{ijk})\eta ^{}.`$ (13)
We take the following metric ansatz:

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +2g_{m\overline{n}}dz^mdz^{\overline{n}},$$
(14)
and assume that $`F_5=_5+_5`$, with333We take this ansatz so as to preserve SO(1,3) invariance in the $`0123`$ directions.

$$_5=_{0123m}dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3dz^m+_{0123\overline{n}}dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3dz^{\overline{n}}.$$
(15)
Using the explicit form of the Killing spinor $`\eta `$ given in (11) one finds that the equations (13) are satisfied if the following equations hold:

$`F_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_m\mathrm{\Omega }^4dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3dz^m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_{\overline{m}}\mathrm{\Omega }^4dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3dz^{\overline{m}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}_n\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }^4\sqrt{detg}\widehat{ϵ}_{mpq\overline{rsl}}g^{n\overline{l}}dz^mdz^pdz^qdz^{\overline{r}}dz^{\overline{s}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}_{\overline{n}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }^4\sqrt{detg}\widehat{ϵ}_{\overline{mpq}rsl}g^{l\overline{n}}dz^{\overline{m}}dz^{\overline{p}}dz^{\overline{q}}dz^rdz^s`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`Kdz^1dz^2dz^3`$ (16)
$`_m(\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_{n\overline{p}})`$ $`=`$ $`_n(\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_{m\overline{p}}).`$
Here $`\widehat{ϵ}_{\overline{mpq}rsl}`$ is a completely anti-symmetric symbol with $`ϵ_{123\overline{123}}=1`$.

It is convenient to define the rescaled metric $`\widehat{g}_{m\overline{n}}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_{m\overline{n}}`$. This re-scaled metric is Kahler according to (16). $`\widehat{g}`$ satisfies an additional constraint which comes from the differential equation for the spinor $`\chi `$ imposed by the equations in (13). This differential equation can be expressed in terms of a function $`f`$ defined by $`\chi =f\chi _0`$, where $`\chi _0`$ is a constant spinor:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`_{\overline{m}}\mathrm{ln}f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_{\overline{m}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}\widehat{e}^{p\overline{a}}\widehat{e}_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{s}}_{\overline{m}}\widehat{g}_{p\overline{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}_{\overline{m}}\mathrm{ln}det\widehat{g}`$ (17)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`_m\mathrm{ln}f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_m\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}\widehat{e}^{p\overline{a}}\widehat{e}_{\overline{b}}^{\overline{s}}_m\widehat{g}_{p\overline{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}_m\mathrm{ln}det\widehat{g}.`$
The indices $`a,b`$ are tangent space indices and the $`\widehat{e}`$ are vierbein for the $`\widehat{g}`$ metric. Notice that the index $`a`$ is uncontracted in the two equations above. Thus the equations must be independent of $`a`$ (this is related to the Z3 symmetry), and $`_m\mathrm{ln}det\widehat{g}=0`$. These two constraints are solved by constant metrics $`\widehat{g}`$ symmetric under cyclic interchange of indices. There may be more general solutions.

## 5 Bianchi identities and source equations

Once we have solved the Killing spinor equations we must impose Bianchi identities as well as the source equations determining the various arbitrary functions appearing in the above supersymmetric ansatz. The equations remaining to be imposed or checked are:

$`dF_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}G\overline{G}+\rho _{local}`$
$`dG`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (18)
$`D^{i_3}G_{i_1i_2i_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{3}}F_{i_1i_2i_3i_4i_5}G^{i_3i_4i_5}`$
The third equation in (18) is automatically satisfied. The second equation gives the constraint:

$$_{\overline{m}}K=0.$$
(19)
In other words $`K`$ is a holomorphic function of the $`z^m`$. Finally, the first equation imposes:

$$_{\overline{m}}(\sqrt{detg}g^{n\overline{m}}_n\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }^4)+_m(\sqrt{detg}g^{m\overline{n}}_{\overline{n}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }^4)=i\frac{1}{8}|K|^2+\rho _{local}$$
(20)
where $`\rho _{local}`$ collects sources for any D3-branes in the problem. Expressing this last equation in terms of the rescaled metric $`\widehat{g}`$ one can put it in a somewhat simpler form:

$$_{\overline{m}}(\sqrt{det\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}^{n\overline{m}}_n\mathrm{\Omega }^4)+_m(\sqrt{det\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}^{m\overline{n}}_{\overline{n}}\mathrm{\Omega }^4)=\frac{i}{8}|K|^2+\rho _{local}$$
(21)
Finally using the fact that $`\widehat{g}`$ is Kahler one can further simplify the equation to:

$$2\sqrt{det\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}^{m\overline{n}}_m_{\overline{n}}\mathrm{\Omega }^4=\frac{i}{8}|K|^2+\rho _{local}$$
(22)
This completes the description of a general supersymmetric solution with U(1)$`\times `$Z3 isometry.

## 6 A one-parameter line of solutions

In this section we discuss a class of solutions describing a one-parameter family of fibered AdS5 spaces which satisfy the above equations. Consider the simplest case where the metric:

$$\widehat{g}_{m\overline{n}}=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{m\overline{n}}.$$
(23)
This metric satisfies all the constraints. The only equation we need to solve is (22), which is an ordinary Laplace equation with a source. If we have $`N`$ D3-branes localized at the origin of $`(z^1,z^2,z^3)`$ then consider the following solution:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^4=1+\frac{4\pi g_sN\alpha ^2}{r^4}+\frac{1}{12}|F(z^1+z^2+z^3)|^2.$$
(24)
where $`r^2=_{m=1}^3|z^m|^2`$. We are assuming an asymptotically flat solution, hence $`F`$ must vanish at large $`r`$. Notice that $`F`$ is a holomorphic function of a single variable: $`z^1+z^2+z^3`$. This function satisfies (22) with $`K=F^{}`$.

We will consider a particular form for $`F`$ so that it survives in the near-horizon limit without dominating over the term describing the localized D3-branes. Consider then:

$$F=\frac{d\alpha ^{}}{2(z^1+z^2+z^3)^2}.$$
(25)
We can now take the near-horizon limit of : $`\alpha ^{}0`$ while keeping $`w^m=z^m/\alpha ^{}`$ fixed, we also define $`u=r/\alpha ^{}`$ and $`w^m=uf_m(y_i)`$, where the $`y_i`$ are coordinates on S5 and $`_{m=1}^3|f_m|^2=1`$. The metric in these new coordinates is given by

$$ds^2=\alpha ^{}[(u^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\frac{du^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2u^2})+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{S^5}^2]$$
(26)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2u^2`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{S^5}^2`$ is the metric on S5. The metric is an AdS5 space fibered over a transverse space which is conformal to an S5. The radius of curvature at fixed S5 coordinates is:

$$R_{AdS}^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\sqrt{4\pi g_sN+\frac{1}{48}\frac{|d|^2}{|f_1+f_2+f_3|^4}}.$$
(27)
The 3-form $`G`$ can be written as:

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{(z^1+z^2+z^3)^3}}dz^1dz^2dz^3`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{(w^1+w^2+w^3)^3}}dw^1dw^2dw^3`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{(f_1+f_2+f_3)^3}}[df_1df_2df_3+{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u}}(f_1df_2df_3f_2df_1df_3+f_3df_1df_2)].`$
Both the metric and the $`G`$-field has an isometry group $`SO(4,2)\times U(1)\times Z_3`$ where the $`Z_3`$ acts as cyclic permutation of the labels of $`z^m`$. The symmetry of the solution under the last two factors is obvious. In order to check the invariance under SO(4,2), recall that it consists of the following generators: the generators of Poincare transformation acting on $`x`$’s, scale transformations which act as $`(x,u)(cx,c^1u)`$ and special conformal transformations which act on both $`x`$ and $`u`$. The isometry under the Poincare and scale transformations is obvious. The killing vector for the special conformal transformations in our coordinates is given by

$$\xi =ϵ^\sigma [\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4u^2}_\sigma +x^2_\sigma 2x_\sigma (u_ux^\lambda _\lambda )]$$
(29)
A straightforward evaluation of the Lie derivative on the metric shows it is invariant while for the $`G`$-field it is sufficient to check that the Lie derivative on the 1-form $`\frac{du}{u}`$ vanishes.

Notice that this solution is a one complex parameter family of solutions labeled by $`d`$. When $`d`$ vanishes the space becomes AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 which is dual to N=4 Yang-Mills theory. Thus this solution represents a supergravity dual of a continuous conformal deformation of N=4 Yang-Mills theory. It would be interesting to understand its relation to the Leigh-Strassler deformations and to try to recover the remaining direction of marginal perturbations predicted in.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper we studied new supersymmetry preserving solutions of type IIB supergravity with a constant dilaton. Our aim was to discover backgrounds dual to certain marginal perturbations discovered by Leigh and Strassler  of N=4 Yang-Mills theory.

Under assumptions of preserving certain isometries we were able to solve the Killing spinor equations. The solutions of the Killing spinor equations were given in terms of a constrained Kahler metric, a holomorphic 3-form and a function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. These were related to each other by a source equation.

N=4 Yang-Mills has a single marginal coupling: the Yang-Mills coupling. In this paper we found a solution dual to a gauge theory preserving N=1 supersymmetry with two marginal couplings. These form a new continuous line of supersymmetry preserving solutions parameterized by two complex parameters: $`\tau =C_0+i/g_s`$ and $`d`$ whose gauge theory interpretation we defer for the moment. For a single value of the parameter ($`d=0`$) one recovers the dual of N=4 Yang-Mills theory. At other values there are new gauge theory duals.

There are a number of open questions. Although we set out to find the duals of Leigh-Strassler marginal deformations we have not established the correspondence by relating our $`d`$ to the $`\lambda _i`$ couplings of the superpotential. According to Leigh and Strassler the dimensionality of the space of marginal couplings is 3. It would be very interesting to find the remaining marginal direction. We hope that more general solutions to our equations will yield the full space of theories dual to the Leigh-Strassler deformations. In particular there are more general ansatze for constant metrics which we have not investigated and which may yield new marginal directions. We leave this to future work. Another question is related to the second Z3 symmetry group which is not preserved by our solutions. We have no understanding of why this symmetry is not present in our solutions. One possibility is that the supergravity solution is hinting at a discrete anomaly in the field theory which prevents the Z3 from being realized. By acting on our solution with this Z3 one can generate new solutions, however, the resulting solutions are not invariant under the first Z3 (the group of cyclic permutations).

Note Added: As we were completing the paper for submission we received  which discuss marginal perturbations of theories arising from orbifolds of N=4 Yang-Mills theory.

## 8 Acknowledgements

AF would like to thank Kazutoshi Ohta for discussions and Marcus Quandt for a helpful discussion. SM would like to thank David Kastor for useful discussions . AF is supported by a grant from Vetenskapsrådet (Sweden) and in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement #DF-FC02-94ER40818. SM is supported by NSF Grant PHY-9801875.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The accurate determination of the parameters entering the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix $`V`$ is one of the main physics goals at beauty factories. The large number of produced $`B`$ mesons allows for the study of many decay modes and the measurement of branching ratios (BRs) as small as $`10^6`$. Unfortunately, a precise extraction of the CKM parameters from the data is often hindered by uncertainties on the hadronic parameters accounting for low-energy strong interaction effects. There exist, however, observable quantities that are free, at least to some extent, from hadronic uncertainties. They are obviously highly valued and have been intensively looked for in recent years.

In particular, it has been suggested many years ago that one can build a suitable ratio of the lepton-energy spectrum in the semileptonic decay $`BX_ul\nu `$ and the photon spectrum in $`BX_s\gamma `$ from which the dominant non-perturbative QCD effects due to the heavy-quark Fermi motion drop out . This ratio can be used to extract the combination of CKM matrix elements $`|V_{ub}/(V_{tb}V_{ts}^{})|`$. Theoretically, the cancellation of long-distance effects takes place for hadronic invariant masses as small as $`M_X^2Q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, where $`M_X`$ is the invariant mass of the hadronic system and $`Q`$ is the hard scale of the process (in the $`B`$ rest frame $`Q=2E_X`$, with $`E_X`$ denoting the hadronic energy). In this regime, the dominant non-perturbative effects are described by a single universal function, the shape function, entering the different spectra. At smaller $`M_X^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, however, few resonances dominate the spectra and universality is lost. It remains to be seen whether the region where the shape function provides a good description of hadronic physics is large enough to allow a clean extraction of the CKM parameters.

Several short-distance quantities based on various partially integrated spectra or moments have been proposed in the literature, with a particular attention to the problem of defining the shape function consistently beyond the leading order . Alternatively, one can use a model for the shape function, and estimate the theoretical uncertainty by changing the parameters of the model. This is routinely done in order to implement cuts on $`M_X`$ useful to identify the $`BX_ul\nu `$ sample , an approach which has been actually used to extract $`V_{ub}`$ from the semileptonic decay rate at LEP . Very recently CLEO has also published a $`V_{ub}`$ measurement based on a combined analysis of the electron and photon spectra in semileptonic and radiative decays . Other proposals to identify $`BX_ul\nu `$ events with low theoretical uncertainty include a cut on the invariant leptonic mass $`q^2`$  and a combination of cuts on $`q^2`$ and $`M_X`$ .

In this paper, we propose a phenomenological strategy to investigate the “shape-function region” and possibly to extract the ratio $`|V_{ub}/(V_{tb}V_{ts}^{})||V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. We use the fact that the differential rates $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}/dx`$ for the radiative decay $`BX_s\gamma `$ and $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}/d\xi `$ for the semileptonic decay $`BX_ul\nu `$ probe exactly the same long-distance structure function. The kinematical variables involved are $`x=2E_\gamma /m_B`$ and $`\xi =2t/(1+t)`$ with $`t=\sqrt{1M_X^2/E_X^2}`$. The ratio of the above two distributions is a short-distance quantity, which can be computed in perturbation theory. As we will explain in section 4, to a good approximation it provides a determination of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ in the SM. Including perturbative $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections, one finds

$$\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2C(\alpha _s)\frac{\frac{d}{d\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}}{\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}|_{x=\xi }\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }B(\xi )}$$
(1)
where the coefficient $`C(\alpha _s)`$ and the function $`B(\xi )`$ will be calculated in the following. Clearly, eq. (1) is valid up to higher twist $`O(1x)O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/E_X)`$ contributions.

Our treatment of the semileptonic and radiative decays follows closely refs. . In this approach, the hard scale $`Q`$ is identified as twice the hadronic energy $`2E_X`$ in the $`B`$ rest frame rather than as the heavy-quark mass $`m_b`$. Consequently, the simplest kinematical variable for factorizing long-distance effects in this decay turns out to be a function of $`M_X/E_X`$ and the relevant spectrum is $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}/d\xi `$ rather than $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}/dM_X`$.

The advantages of our method are the following:

* the cancellation of Landau-pole effects and of non-perturbative Fermi-motion effects in the ratio of spectra in eq. (1) is exact and requires no approximation;
* the shape function is defined in a consistent subtraction scheme for infrared (IR) singularities, avoiding double counting of IR logs;
* at least in principle, our ratio is valid point by point on the spectra, namely for any value of $`x=\xi `$.

In a realistic case, some smearing, such as partial integration over the spectra, may be necessary as all these calculations, including ours, rely on local quark–hadron duality. One could integrate eq. (1) over different kinematical ranges and check the stability of the results with respect to the smearing procedure. This, in turn, would amount to a test of the underlying assumptions, and most notably of quark–hadron duality.

In this paper, we present a NLO calculation of the perturbative corrections to eq. (1). To make contact with experiments, we also give expressions of the relevant functions in the presence of kinematical cuts on the hadronic invariant mass $`M_X`$. After inclusion of the NLO corrections, the ratio in eq. (1) allows for a determination of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ with a $`O(5\%)`$ theoretical error.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we introduce the formalism used throughout the paper, while results for the relevant spectra are given in section 3 and in the Appendix. The extraction of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and the test of local duality are discussed in section 4. Section 5 contains our summary.

## 2 Formalism

The heavy-quark Fermi motion in semi-inclusive decays  can be treated in field theory by introducing the shape function $`\stackrel{~}{f}(k_+)`$, also known as the structure or light-cone distribution function of heavy flavours .

The calculation of the spectra in these decays requires the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) of the time-ordered product $`T`$ of two transition operators (currents or effective Hamiltonians). Schematically, this involves the expansion of the propagator

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_X^2+2E_Xk_++k^2+i\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_X^2+i\epsilon }}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2E_Xk_+}{M_X^2+i\epsilon }}\right)^n\right]+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{M_X^2}}\right),`$ (2)
where $`k_+=p_Xk/E_X`$ is the virtuality of the heavy quark ($`p_b=m_Bv+k`$) and $`p_X`$, $`M_X`$ and $`E_X`$ are momentum, mass and energy of the final hadronic state, including the spectator quark222At the leading-twist, the use of the meson mass $`m_B`$ instead of the quark mass $`m_b`$ in the decomposition of heavy quark momentum $`p_b`$ only shifts the integration range of $`k_+`$ .. Since it is expected from the confinement dynamics that $`k_+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, one can identify three different kinematical regions, depending on the value of $`M_X^2`$:

1. When $`M_X^2E_X^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, the OPE converges. At leading twist accuracy, one can safely retain only the lowest order ($`n=0`$) term in eq. (2).
2. When $`M_X^2E_X\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, all the terms in the sum become of order 1. This is precisely the shape-function region. Indeed, the leading-twist terms, i.e. those obtained by neglecting corrections of $`O(k^2/M_X^2)O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/E_X)`$, are resummed by introducing the shape function, formally defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(k_+)=\frac{B|\overline{h}_v\delta (k_+iD_+)h_v|B}{B|\overline{h}_vh_v|B},$$
(3)
where $`D_+`$ is the light-cone plus-component of the covariant derivative and $`h_v`$ is the heavy quark field in the Heavy Quark Effective Theory; $`\stackrel{~}{f}(k_+)`$ gives the probability of finding a heavy-quark with a light-cone residual momentum $`k_+`$ inside the meson. Note that neglecting the terms of order $`k^2/M_X^2`$ in eq. (2) is equivalent to assuming the local quark–hadron duality. As the rate is proportional to the imaginary part of eq. (2), it follows that the distribution in $`k_+`$ coincides with that in $`M_X^2/2E_X`$ and is therefore experimentally accessible.
3. When $`M_X^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, even the resummation fails and the contribution of single resonances to the spectra is not negligible. In this region, terms of $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/E_X)`$ are not negligible and the shape function cannot be defined.

A different framework to factorize long-distance effects is provided by the resummation theory in perturbative QCD . The connection between the two approaches is discussed in refs. . In this framework, a factorized formula for a given distribution, for example the photon spectrum $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}/dx`$ in $`BX_s\gamma `$, reads

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}}{dx}=|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}^0\left[K_{rd}(\alpha _s)f(x;\alpha _s)+D_{rd}(x;\alpha _s)\right],$$
(4)
where $`V_{tb}`$ and $`V_{ts}`$ are the relevant CKM elements, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}^0`$ is a normalization factor, $`x`$ is a properly chosen factorization variable, $`x=2E_\gamma /m_B=1M_X^2/m_B^2`$ in this example, while the coefficient $`K_{rd}`$ and the remainder function $`D_{rd}(x)`$ are short-distance quantities computable in perturbation theory. The form factor $`f(x)`$ contains all the IR logarithms of the form

$$\alpha _s(2E_X)^k\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)}{1x}\right)_+\text{with }0n2k1,$$
(5)
where the plus-distribution is defined as

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)}{1x}\right)_+=\frac{\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)}{1x}\delta (1x)_0^1𝑑y\frac{\mathrm{ln}^n(1y)}{1y}.$$
(6)
The function $`f(x)`$ is well defined for $`1x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_B`$. The universality of $`f(x)`$ stems from the general properties of the soft and the collinear radiation which produce the log-enhanced terms in eq. (5). On the contrary, when 1x
<ΛQCD/mB
<1𝑥subscriptΛ𝑄𝐶𝐷subscript𝑚𝐵1-x\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\displaystyle\hfil#$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\textstyle\hfil#$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\scriptstyle\hfil#$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}\Lambda_{QCD}/m_{B}, $`f(x)`$ is no longer calculable in perturbation theory. However, $`f(x)`$ is related to the shape function $`\stackrel{~}{f}(k_+)`$ in the following way

$$f(k_+)=𝑑k_+^{}C(k_+k_+^{};\alpha _s)\stackrel{~}{f}(k_+^{}),$$
(7)
where $`k_+=m_B(1x)`$ (in the case of $`BX_s\gamma `$, the hard scale is $`2E_X=m_B`$). The coefficient function $`C(k_+k_+^{};\alpha _s)`$ remains perturbative also for $`1x\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_B`$ and allows for a definition of a non-perturbative form factor in this region.

## 3 Results

In this section we present a NLO determination of the short-distance functions entering the formulae of the photon energy spectrum in $`BX_s\gamma `$ and of the $`z`$-spectrum in $`BX_ul\nu `$, written in the factorized form of eq. (4). In the latter case, we also give expressions for the same functions in the presence of kinematical cuts.

### 3.1 Photon spectrum in $`BX_s\gamma `$

The photon spectrum in the radiative $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay can be expressed as in eq. (4). The normalization factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}^0`$ for the $`bs\gamma `$ rate is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}^0\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\frac{G_F^2m_b^3m_{b,\overline{MS}}^2\left(m_b\right)}{32\pi ^3},$$
(8)
where $`\alpha =1/137.036`$ is the fine structure constant. The NLO relation of the $`\overline{MS}`$ mass, $`m_{b,\overline{MS}}(m_b)=4.26\pm 0.09`$ GeV , with the pole mass, $`m_b4.7`$ GeV, both appearing in eq. (8), is

$$\frac{m_{b,\overline{MS}}\left(m_b\right)}{m_b}=1\frac{\alpha _s\left(m_b\right)C_F}{\pi }+O\left(\alpha _s^2\right),$$
(9)
where $`C_F=(N^21)/(2N)`$ and $`N`$ is the number of colours.

The coefficient function $`K_{rd}`$ reads

$`K_{rd}\left(\alpha _s\right)=C_7^{\left(0\right)}\left(\mu _b\right)^2[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s\left(\mu _b\right)}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_i^{\left(0\right)}\left(\mu _b\right)}{C_7^{\left(0\right)}\left(\mu _b\right)}}(\mathrm{Re}r_i+\gamma _{i7}^{\left(0\right)}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu _b}})`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s\left(\mu _b\right)}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{C_7^{\left(1\right)}\left(\mu _b\right)}{C_7^{\left(0\right)}\left(\mu _b\right)}}+O\left(\alpha _s^2\right)];`$
the definitions of $`r_i`$ are collected in the Appendix. We have denoted by $`C_i^{(0)}`$ and $`C_i^{(1)}`$ the LO and NLO contributions to the effective Wilson coefficients of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=1`$ effective Hamiltonian . The scale $`\mu _b`$ is a renormalization scale of $`O(m_b)`$ and $`\gamma _{i7}^{(0)}`$ are elements of the LO anomalous dimension matrix. The terms proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(m_b/\mu _b)`$ make the coefficient $`K_{rd}`$ renormalization scale-independent at the NLO. $`K_{rd}`$ depends on the top mass: for $`M_t=174.3\pm 5.1`$ GeV we find

$$K_{rd}=0.1134\left[1\pm 0.014\pm 0.053_{0.060}^{+0.001}\right],$$
(11)
where the first two errors come from the top uncertainty and from the treatment of the charm quark mass in the matrix elements containing charm loops. We have followed  and used $`m_c/m_b=0.22\pm 0.04`$ in $`r_i`$ (see Appendix). The central value of eq. (11) has been obtained for $`\mu _b=m_b`$ and the last error by varying $`\mu _b`$ between $`m_b/2`$ and $`2m_b`$. We have also included in $`K_{rd}`$ a power correction $`\lambda _2(C_2^{(0)}C_1^{(0)}/6)C_7^{(0)}/9m_c^2`$ related to long-distance contributions from $`(c\overline{c})`$ intermediate states  and the electroweak effects following Ref. . We have adopted a light Higgs boson mass, $`m_h`$, as suggested by global fits, but the sensitivity to $`m_h`$ is very small. The latter two contributions modify $`K_{rd}`$ by about $`+2.4\%`$ and $`3.8\%`$.

As is well known, NLO corrections have an important numerical impact in radiative decays: they increase the inclusive branching ratio by up to more than 30% . In eq. (11) the effect of NLO corrections is about $`(+20\pm 30)`$%, according to the value of $`\mu _b`$ between $`m_b/2`$ and $`2m_b`$. Recently, it has been shown  that the dominant reason for the enhancement of the inclusive BR is the running of the $`b`$ quark mass, which affects differently the light quarks and the top loops. Following this observation, it is possible to stabilize the perturbative expansion for $`BX_s\gamma `$ by a rearrangement of higher-order effects. In this approach, NLO corrections to $`K_{rd}`$ are not smaller, but have a different sign,

$$K_{rd}=0.1448(10.99\alpha _s0.013)=0.1119\left[1\pm 0.014\pm 0.053_{0.088}^{+0.044}\right].$$
(12)
Here the second correction is due to electroweak and $`1/m_c^2`$ effects and the errors have the same meaning as in the previous equation. Notice that now the NLO correction is predominantly due to the matrix elements of the effective operators. For this reason, it is numerically close to the NLO corrections to the coefficient in the semileptonic decay, as we will see later on. In particular, the large scale dependence observed in eq. (12) is mostly due to the large $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections to the matrix elements and is dominated by the scale dependence of $`\alpha _s(\mu _b)`$ and not by the scale dependence of the Wilson coefficients, in contrast to the situation in the preceding equation. In the following numerical studies, we will employ eq. (12).

We stress that the definition of the coefficient function in eq. (10) and of the remainder function given below corresponds to a particular factorization scheme. Specifically, following the convention of , we absorb in $`f(x)`$ only the IR logarithms of eq. (5).

The remainder function is given by (the functions $`d_{ij}(x)`$ are defined in the Appendix)

$$D_{rd}(x;\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _s\left(\mu _b\right)}{\pi }\underset{ij}{\overset{1,8}{}}C_i^{\left(0\right)}\left(\mu _b\right)C_j^{\left(0\right)}\left(\mu _b\right)d_{ij}\left(x\right)+O\left(\alpha _s^2\right).$$
(13)
Let us comment on the behaviour of the remainder function at the end points $`x=0`$ and $`1`$. The functions $`d_{77}\left(x\right)`$ and $`d_{88}\left(x\right)`$ have a logarithmic singularity $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ for $`x1`$, coming from power-suppressed long-distance contributions. They are not factorized into the function $`f(x)`$, which contains only terms of the form $`\mathrm{ln}^n(1x)/(1x)`$. At the lower end-point $`x=0`$, the functions $`d_{77}\left(x\right)`$ and $`d_{78}\left(x\right)`$ are finite, while $`d_{88}\left(x\right)`$ has a power singularity $`d_{88}\left(x0\right)1/x`$. This limit corresponds to a soft (real) photon and the singularity would be regulated by including virtual photon contributions so that $`1/x(1/x)_+`$. These contributions are not relevant to our analysis. Finally, the function $`d_{88}\left(x\right)`$ has a logarithmic singularity for $`m_s0`$ because a non-zero photon energy regulates the soft but not the collinear singularity. In this case, the strange mass has to be retained (we adopt $`m_s=m_b/50`$). The function $`D_{rd}(x)`$ is shown in fig. 1 for different values of $`\mu _b`$.

We also present results for the partially integrated rate, for which a factorized formula also holds,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}(x)_x^1\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}}{dx^{}}𝑑x^{}=|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}^0\left[K_{rd}\left(\alpha _s\right)F(x;\alpha _s)+E_{rd}(x;\alpha _s)\right].$$
(14)
The partially integrated form factor is defined as

$$F(x;\alpha _s)_x^1𝑑x^{}f(x^{};\alpha _s),$$
(15)
while the cumulative remainder function is given by

$`E_{rd}(x;\alpha _s){\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑x^{}D_{rd}(x^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s\left(\mu _b\right)}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{\overset{1,8}{}}}C_i^{\left(0\right)}\left(\mu _b\right)C_j^{\left(0\right)}\left(\mu _b\right)f_{ij}\left(x\right)+O\left(\alpha _s^2\left(\mu _b\right)\right).`$
Note that, contrary to the $`d_{ij}`$ case, the functions $`f_{ij}`$ vanish at the end-point $`x=1`$. The explicit expressions of the functions $`f_{ij}(x)`$ are given in the Appendix, and the cumulative remainder function is shown in fig. 1. Considering that $`K_{rd}F(x)0.1`$ for small $`x`$, the plot on the left side of fig. 1 shows that the scale dependence of the remainder function can be numerically important. However, the scale dependence of $`E_{rd}(x)`$ is almost entirely due to the coupling constant $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$. Given the expression of the partially integrated rate in eq. (14), we observe a significant cancellation between the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ correction in eq. (12) and $`E_{rd}(x)`$. It follows, in agreement with , that the NLO result for total rate is perturbatively quite stable.

### 3.2 $`\xi `$ distribution in semileptonic decay

The starting point for dealing with spectra in $`BX_ul\nu `$ is the triple-differential distribution, which has been computed at order $`\alpha _s`$ in ref. . As demonstrated in ref. , the resummation of threshold logs takes a particularly simple form,

$$\frac{d^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}}{dwdx_ldz}=|V_{ub}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}^0\left[K_{sl}(w,x_l;\alpha _s)f(z;\alpha _s)+D_{sl}(w,x_l,z;\alpha _s)\right],$$
(16)
when one adopts the kinematical variables

$$w=2\frac{E_X}{m_B},x_l=2\frac{E_l}{m_B},z=1\frac{M_X^2}{4E_X^2}.$$
(17)
The main point is that all IR logs are factorized in a function of the single variable $`z`$. Notice that $`z`$ is only defined between 3/4 and unity. As already discussed, this formula can be generalized in the non-perturbative region corresponding to $`M_X^2E_X\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, where $`f(z)`$ is related to the shape function defined in the effective theory by a short-distance factor. The $`O(\alpha _s)`$ expressions for $`K_{sl}(w,x_l;\alpha _s)`$ and $`D_{sl}(w,x_l,z;\alpha _s)`$ can be found in ref. . The integration over $`w`$ and $`x_l`$ involves only short-distance functions and can be easily carried out . The resulting distribution reads

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}}{dz}=|V_{ub}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}^0\left[K_{sl}\left(\alpha _s\right)f(z;\alpha _s)+D_{sl}^z(z;\alpha _s)\right]$$
(18)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}^0=\frac{G_F^2m_b^3m_{b,\overline{MS}}^2(m_b)}{192\pi ^3}.$$
(19)
We have chosen a somewhat unusual normalization factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}^0`$, in analogy with the radiative decay case. With our choice, the perturbative expansion of the total inclusive rate  has a good convergence pattern. The coefficient is given by

$$K_{sl}\left(\alpha _s\right)=1+\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{\pi }\left(\frac{403}{144}\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\right)+O\left(\alpha _s^2\right)10.91\alpha _s.$$
(20)
Let us now consider a change of the factorization variable of the kind

$$1z1z^{}=1z+O(1z)^2.$$
(21)
It simply amounts to a rearrangement of higher-twist contributions and affects only the remainder function. Any ambiguity due to the choice of variable is related to the underlying leading-twist approximation and is common to all leading-twist treatments of the shape function333A first discussion of subleading twist effects in the shape function region has appeared recently . In $`BX_s\gamma `$ they seem to be small for $`E_\gamma <2.3`$ GeV (x
<0.87
<𝑥0.87x\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\displaystyle\hfil#$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\textstyle\hfil#$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\scriptstyle\hfil#$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#$\cr<\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}0.87).. The new factorized differential rate in terms of $`z^{}`$ is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}}{dz^{}}=|V_{ub}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}^0\left[K_{sl}(\alpha _s)f(z^{},\alpha _s)+D_{sl}^z^{}(z^{},\alpha _s)\right],$$
(22)
where

$$D_{sl}^z^{}(z^{};\alpha _s)=\frac{dz}{dz^{}}D_{sl}(z;\alpha _s)+\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{\pi }\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1z^{})+\frac{7}{4}}{1z^{}}\frac{dz}{dz^{}}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1z)+\frac{7}{4}}{1z}\right].$$
(23)
Here we have left implicit the functional dependence of $`z=z(z^{})`$. The differential distributions $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}/dz`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}/dz^{}`$ are two examples of observables which differ only by higher-twist effects. In principle, a comparison between observables of this type could provide some information on the size of higher-twist contributions.

As we are going to directly compare the semileptonic and radiative decays, it is preferable to choose the factorization variable for the two cases in a similar way. In $`BX_s\gamma `$ the variable $`z=1M_X^2/(4E_X^2)`$ can be expressed in terms of the photon energy fraction $`x`$ as $`z=1\frac{1x}{(2x)^2}`$. Since we have factorized IR effects in the radiative decay in terms of a function $`f(x)`$, it seems natural to adopt here a variable $`\xi `$ such that $`1z=(1\xi )/(2\xi )^2`$. Solving for $`\xi `$ we then find

$$1\xi =\frac{1t}{1+t},$$
(24)
where we have introduced the variable ($`0t1`$)

$$t\sqrt{14\left(1z\right)}=\sqrt{1M_X^2/E_X^2}.$$
(25)
Unlike $`z`$, the variable $`\xi `$ is defined between 0 and 1. Using $`dz/d\xi =\xi /(2\xi )^3`$ and the formulae given in , it is straightforward to obtain $`D_{sl}(\xi )D_{sl}^\xi (\xi )`$, which is also shown in fig. 3:

$$D_{sl}(\xi ;\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{\pi }\left[\frac{21+21\xi 5\xi ^2\xi ^3}{12}+\frac{7090\xi +5\xi ^2+8\xi ^3}{70}\mathrm{ln}(1\xi )\right].$$
(26)
The higher-twist logarithms contained in the remainder functions are process-dependent and in general cannot be factorized in the function $`f(\xi )`$. It is nonetheless interesting to note that the IR logarithm for $`\xi 1`$ has a very small coefficient in eq. (26), much smaller than the corresponding coefficient of $`\mathrm{ln}(1z)`$ in $`D_{sl}^z(z)`$.

One can also consider the partially integrated rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}(\xi )_\xi ^1\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}}{d\xi ^{}}𝑑\xi ^{}=|V_{ub}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}^0\left[K_{sl}\left(\alpha _s\right)F(\xi ;\alpha _s)+E_{sl}(\xi ,\alpha _s)\right],$$
(27)
where at $`O(\alpha _s)`$ we find

$`E_{sl}(\xi ;\alpha _s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{\pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{117256756\xi 5898\xi ^2+788\xi ^3+141\xi ^4}{5040}}`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{86210\xi +135\xi ^25\xi ^36\xi ^4}{210}}\mathrm{ln}(1\xi )].`$
If a cut on the hadronic mass $`M_X<m_D`$ is imposed, as often required in a realistic environment, the remainder function in eq. (26) is modified in the region

$$\xi <\xi _01c,c=\frac{m_D^2}{m_B^2}.$$

The new expression is

$`D_{sl}(\xi ;\alpha _s)|_{\xi <\xi _0}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{c^{\frac{3}{2}}\xi }{(1\xi )^{\frac{5}{2}}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(7+6c\right)\left(\xi 2\right)\xi }{2}}`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{70\left(2\xi \right)^2+10c^2\left(1\xi \right)+7c\left(3535\xi +8\xi ^2\right)}{35}}\mathrm{ln}(1\xi )]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2142\xi +\left(21+114c^2+16c^3\right)\xi ^22c^2\left(57+8c\right)\xi ^3+21c^2\xi ^4}{12\left(1\xi \right)^3}}`$
$`+[(1\xi )^2+c^3\xi (23\xi +\xi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2\xi \left(2233\xi +15\xi ^22\xi ^3\right)}{2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1\xi )}{(1\xi )^3}}\}.`$
In the partially integrated case, the remainder function of eq. (28) becomes

$$E_{sl}|_{\xi <\xi _0}(\xi ;\alpha _s)=E_{sl}|_{\xi \xi _0}(\xi _0;\alpha _s)+\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi _0;c)\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi ;c)$$
(30)
for $`\xi <\xi _0`$, with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi ;c)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\xi }D_{sl}(\xi ^{})𝑑\xi ^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{\pi }}\{c^2(2\xi )\xi {\displaystyle \frac{56c\left(1\xi \right)+9\left(2222\xi +3\xi ^2\right)}{24\left(1\xi \right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1\xi )^2}{2}}`$
$``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}c^2{\displaystyle \frac{2c(1428\xi +17\xi ^23\xi ^3)+3\left(3366\xi +44\xi ^211\xi ^3+\xi ^4\right)}{6\left(1\xi \right)^2}}\right]\mathrm{ln}(1\xi )`$
$`+`$ $`c^{\frac{3}{2}}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{360c^2\left(\xi 1\right)35\left(9696\xi +29\xi ^2\right)14c\left(246246\xi +61\xi ^2\right)}{315\left(1\xi \right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}}`$
$`+`$ $`2c^{\frac{3}{2}}(\xi 2){\displaystyle \frac{70\left(2\xi \right)^2+30c^2\left(1\xi \right)+7c\left(4141\xi +8\xi ^2\right)}{105\left(1\xi \right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}}\mathrm{ln}(1\xi )\}.`$
More complicated experimental cuts can be applied taking as a starting point the triple differential distribution  and employing eq. (23).

## 4 Test of local duality and determination of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$

In this section we construct a quantity that has a perturbative expansion in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ free from IR logs. In the shape-function region, this also guarantees the cancellation of non-perturbative effects related to the Fermi motion. Using the universality of the function $`f(x)`$, it follows from eqs. (4) and (18) that

$$\frac{1}{K_{sl}(\alpha _s)}\left[\frac{1}{|V_{ub}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}^0}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sl}}{d\xi }D_{sl}(\xi ;\alpha _s)\right]=\frac{1}{K_{rd}(\alpha _s)}\left[\frac{1}{|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}^0}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}}{dx}D_{rd}(x;\alpha _s)\right]_{x=\xi }.$$
(32)
Normalizing the experimental differential rates to the total semileptonic rate for $`BX_cl\nu `$, the previous equation can be rewritten as

$$R\frac{\frac{d}{d\xi }\mathrm{BR}_{sl,u}\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2\frac{\mathrm{BR}_{sl,c}}{g_{sl}}D_{sl}(\xi ;\alpha _s)}{\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{BR}_{rd}\frac{6\alpha }{\pi }\left|\frac{V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2\frac{\mathrm{BR}_{sl,c}}{g_{sl}}D_{rd}(x;\alpha _s)}|_{x=\xi }=\frac{K_{sl}(\alpha _s)}{K_{rd}(\alpha _s)}\frac{\pi }{6\alpha }\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}}\right|^2,$$
(33)
where $`\mathrm{BR}_{sl,u}`$ and $`\mathrm{BR}_{rd}`$ are the branching ratios of the semileptonic and radiative decay, respectively. $`\mathrm{BR}_{sl,c}`$ denotes the experimental value for the branching ratio of $`BX_cl\nu `$, $`\mathrm{BR}_{sl,c}\mathrm{BR}_{sl,tot}=0.1045\pm 0.0021`$ , while $`g_{sl}=g(m_c^2/m_b^2)`$ is the phase-space function for the semileptonic $`bc`$ decay, with $`g(x)=18x+8x^3x^412x^2\mathrm{ln}x`$. Although it is sufficient to employ the tree-level expression for $`g_{sl}`$ in the above equations, there is an important uncertainty from quark masses. A very accurate determination of this phase-space factor, which could be adopted above, is $`g_{sl}=0.575\pm 0.017`$ . The CKM matrix elements appearing in eq. (33) can be expressed in terms of the Wolfenstein parameters $`\lambda =|V_{us}|0.22`$, $`\overline{\rho }`$, and $`\overline{\eta }`$ as

$$\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2=\lambda \sqrt{\overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}+O(\lambda ^3),\left|\frac{V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2=1+\lambda ^2(2\overline{\rho }1)+O(\lambda ^4)0.97.$$

The r.h.s. of eq. (33) is a purely short-distance quantity calculable in perturbation theory and is independent of the point $`x=\xi `$ where the l.h.s. is evaluated. Hence one expects to find an experimental plateau in the range of $`\xi `$ where the shape function provides a good description of the spectra. In practice, this allows a study of the extension of the shape-function region and a test of the validity of the local quark–hadron duality hypothesis.

The numerical value of $`R`$ depends on the CKM matrix elements. Let us introduce

$$C(\alpha _s)=\frac{6\alpha }{\pi }\frac{K_{rd}(\alpha _s)}{K_{sl}(\alpha _s)}(1.94\pm 0.16)\times 10^3,$$
(34)
where we have estimated the theoretical error due to higher-order QCD corrections and to the top and charm masses on the basis of the results of the previous section, combining different uncertainties in quadrature. The ratio $`R`$ is then given by

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C(\alpha _s)}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}}}\right|^2=5.15\times 10^2(1\pm 0.08)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}}}\right|^2,`$ (35)
Of course, the theoretical error on $`R`$ is not the only perturbative uncertainty affecting eq. (33), as higher-order corrections to the remainder functions $`D_{sl}`$ and $`D_{rd}`$ might not be negligible, although they largely cancel against each other in the ratio $`R`$. In particular, we have seen that the remainder functions are relatively sizeable. The error on the r.h.s. of eq. (33) induced in this way depends on the precise shape of the spectra and cannot easily be estimated.

Provided a plateau can be experimentally identified, eq. (33) provides a stringent constraint on the parameters of the unitarity triangle. In fact, it allows for a model-independent extraction of the ratio of CKM matrix elements $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. This is apparent from the second of eq. (4), which shows that $`|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}/V_{cb}|^2`$ depends only weakly on $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ (whose numerical values are taken from a recent global fit ). Therefore, to very good approximation, a measurement of the two spectra represents a measurement of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. The master formula is

$$\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2C(\alpha _s)\frac{\frac{d}{d\xi }\mathrm{BR}_{sl,u}}{\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{BR}_{rd}|_{x=\xi }h(\xi ;\alpha _s)}C(\alpha _s)\frac{\frac{d}{d\xi }\mathrm{BR}_{sl,u}}{\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{BR}_{rd}}|_{x=\xi },$$
(36)
where $`C(\alpha _s)`$ has been defined in eq. (34) and

$$h(\xi ;\alpha _s)=\frac{6\alpha }{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{BR}_{sl,c}}{g_{sl}}\left[D_{rd}(\xi ;\alpha _s)\frac{K_{rd}}{K_{sl}}D_{sl}(\xi ;\alpha _s)\right].$$
(37)
Whenever kinematical cuts have to be applied, the remainder functions have to be modified accordingly. In the case of a cut on the invariant hadronic mass, the relevant formulae are given in the previous section.

We plot the function $`h(\xi )`$ in fig. 3. Quite remarkably, the two remainder functions cancel each other almost completely in the combination $`h(\xi )`$. In the range, ξ
>0.77
>𝜉0.77\xi\mathrel{\mathchoice{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\displaystyle\hfil#$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\textstyle\hfil#$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\scriptstyle\hfil#$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}{\lower 0.86108pt\vbox{\halign{$\m@th\scriptscriptstyle\hfil#$\cr>\crcr\sim\crcr}}}}0.77, corresponding to the photon spectrum measured by CLEO , the function $`h(\xi )`$ is small with respect to the measured spectrum. Higher order corrections to the remainder functions could partially disrupt the cancellation only if they were very different in the matrix elements of the semileptonic and radiative decays. An additional source of uncertainty is the factor $`K_{rd}/K_{sl}`$ in eq. (37). The effect of the error on this factor given in eq. (34) is also shown in fig. 3. Although it is difficult to assess the impact of higher-order corrections on $`h(\xi )`$, we can certainly neglect it in the final expression as a first approximation. These considerations are fairly independent of the presence of a cut on the hadronic invariant mass. Of course, it is straightforward to include in the analysis the small correction due to the fact that $`|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}/V_{cb}|`$ is not exactly one.

In a realistic analysis, it may be necessary to introduce some smearing over the spectra before applying eq. (36). Some smearing can be provided by partial integration over the spectra. In this case our ratio takes the form

$$\frac{\mathrm{BR}_{sl,u}(\xi )\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2\frac{\mathrm{BR}_{sl,c}}{g_{sl}}E_{sl}(\xi )}{\mathrm{BR}_{rd}(x)\left|\frac{V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2\frac{\mathrm{BR}_{sl,c}}{g_{sl}}E_{rd}(x)}|_{x=\xi }=R,$$
(38)
where $`\mathrm{BR}_{sl,u}(\xi )`$ and $`\mathrm{BR}_{rd}(x)`$ are the partially integrated rates. The value of $`R`$ is given in eq. (35). In analogy to the above discussion, one can vary the value of $`x=\xi `$ where eq. (38) is evaluated and look for the presence of a plateau. The master formula of eq. (36) then becomes

$$\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|^2C(\alpha _s)\frac{\mathrm{BR}_{sl,u}(\xi )}{\mathrm{BR}_{rd}(x)H(\xi ;\alpha _s)}|_{x=\xi }C(\alpha _s)\frac{\mathrm{BR}_{sl,u}(\xi )}{\mathrm{BR}_{rd}(x)}|_{x=\xi }$$
(39)
where again we have neglected

$$H(\xi ;\alpha _s)=\frac{6\alpha }{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{BR}_{sl,c}}{g_{sl}}\left[E_{rd}(\xi ;\alpha _s)\frac{K_{rd}}{K_{sl}}E_{sl}(\xi ;\alpha _s)\right].$$
(40)
Indeed, as can be seen in fig. 3, $`H(\xi ,\alpha _s)`$ is much smaller than the partially integrated branching fraction for $`BX_s\gamma `$ (we recall that BR$`{}_{rd}{}^{}(0.77)3\times 10^4`$ ). Although the uncertainty in the determination of $`H(\xi )`$ is large in relative terms, it seems unlikely that it adds much to the total uncertainty in the extraction of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, which is therefore dominated by the error on $`C(\alpha _s)`$.

We stress that, since relation (32) is valid point by point, it is also possible to take into account a non-uniform experimental efficiency in a model independent way, provided that they are similar for the two rates. For example, in the ideal case of a common efficiency $`ϵ(x=\xi )`$, eq. (39) will involve $`𝑑x^{}ϵ(x^{})𝑑\mathrm{BR}_{rd,sl}/𝑑x^{}`$. In the presence of different efficiencies for the semileptonic and the radiative decays, eq. (39) cannot be used in its present form and alternative startegies should be envisaged, using for instance the same equation translated in the $`N`$-moment space or deconvoluting the efficiencies.

## 5 Conclusions

We have constructed a ratio of spectra of semileptonic and radiative $`B`$ decays, from which non-perturbative Fermi-motion effects completely cancel out. This is a short-distance quantity with an $`\alpha _s`$ expansion not involving any IR logs. In spite of the semi-inclusive character of the spectra involved, the expansion is similar to those of inclusive quantities, such as the total semileptonic width. Combined with the experimental determination of the relevant spectra, our calculation allows for a test of the theory of the shape function and of the local quark–hadron duality hypothesis. If a kinematical “shape-function region”, where the shape function describes well the observed spectra, exists, the ratio $`R`$ introduced in eq. (33) should be independent of the variable $`x=\xi `$. The quantity $`R`$ involves the photon spectrum of radiative decays and the differential semileptonic charmless rate with respect to a certain function $`\xi `$ of the hadronic mass over energy, $`M_X/E_X`$.

If indeed $`R`$ is constant over a sufficiently extended kinematical region, our formalism permits a transparent extraction of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$. This is illustrated by a very simple formula, eq. (36), that links this CKM combination to the above two spectra. Thanks in part to a remarkable cancellation of NLO effects, eq. (36) is a very clean probe of the CKM structure. As this relation is valid point by point, the effects of experimental cuts and of a non-uniform experimental efficiency can in principle be incorporated. Assuming that the data confirm the hypothesis of small higher twist effects, a determination of $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ with a $`5\%`$ theoretical error can be eventually obtained without using any model for the shape function.

The program we have just outlined can already be carried out using CLEO and LEP data, in parallel to the other $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ analyses, based on the electron energy and the hadronic invariant mass spectra. Unfortunately, the available photon spectrum  is provided in the lab frame; this effective smearing may hamper a precise comparison with the $`\xi `$ distribution. Moreover, LEP has a small sample of events and a low signal to background ratio, and therefore the $`\xi `$ distribution cannot be measured very precisely. We hope that some of these problems will be overcome at the $`B`$ factories. Even with the present limitations, however, our method could provide a welcome check of the alternative techniques and we urge our experimental colleagues to implement it.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Marco Battaglia and Riccardo Faccini for useful discussions. M.C. thanks for the hospitality the TH Division of CERN, where part of this work was done. The work of P.G. is supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Union.

## Appendix

In this appendix we give all the relevant constants and functions necessary for the calculation of the differential spectrum $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rd}/dx`$. The non-vanishing functions $`d_{ij}(x)`$ are given by

$`d_{11}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}d_{22}\left(x\right),d_{12}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}d_{22}\left(x\right),`$
$`d_{17}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}d_{27}\left(x\right),d_{18}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}d_{28}\left(x\right),`$
$`d_{22}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16c}{27}}{\displaystyle _0^{x/c}}𝑑t\left(1ct\right)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{G\left(t\right)}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|^2,`$
$`d_{27}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8c^2}{9}}{\displaystyle _0^{x/c}}𝑑t\mathrm{Re}\left[G\left(t\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}\right],`$
$`d_{28}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}d_{27}\left(x\right),`$
$`d_{77}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[7+x2x^22\left(1+x\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1x\right)\right],`$
$`d_{78}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\left[4+x^2+4\left(1x\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(1x\right)}{x}}\right],`$ (41)
$`d_{88}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27x}}\left[8+8xx^22x^3+2\left(22x+x^2\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2\left(1x\right)}{m_s^2}}\right].`$
The constants $`r_i`$ are given by

$`r_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}r_2,\mathrm{Re}r_2=4.09212.78(0.29m_c/m_b),`$
$`r_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\pi ^2,\mathrm{Re}r_8={\displaystyle \frac{4}{27}}\left(332\pi ^2\right).`$ (42)
The remaining $`r_i`$ with $`i=3`$-6 have been calculated recently , but their effect is very small because the corresponding Wilson coefficients are small. They can therefore be safely neglected. The constants $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ depend very sensitively on the precise value of the charm mass. Following the arguments given in , we use $`m_c/m_b=0.22\pm 0.04`$ in $`r_{1,2}`$ and obtain Re $`r_2=4.99\pm 0.50`$. For completeness, we also give the value of $`\gamma _{i7}^{(0)}`$ entering eq. (10),

$$\gamma _{i7}^{(0)}=(\frac{208}{243},\frac{416}{81},\frac{176}{81},\frac{152}{243},\frac{6272}{81},\frac{4624}{243},\frac{32}{3},\frac{32}{9}).$$
(43)
The functions $`f_{ij}\left(x\right)`$ entering the partially integrated spectrum read

$`f_{11}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}f_{22}\left(x\right),f_{12}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}f_{22}\left(x\right),`$
$`f_{17}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}f_{27}\left(x\right),f_{18}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}f_{28}\left(x\right),`$
$`f_{22}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16c}{27}}\left\{\left(1x\right){\displaystyle _0^{x/c}}𝑑t\left(1ct\right)\left|{\displaystyle \frac{G\left(t\right)}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|^2+{\displaystyle _{x/c}^{1/c}}𝑑t\left(1ct\right)^2\left|{\displaystyle \frac{G\left(t\right)}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right|^2\right\},`$
$`f_{27}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8c^2}{9}}\left\{\left(1x\right){\displaystyle _0^{x/c}}𝑑t\mathrm{Re}\left[G\left(t\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}\right]+{\displaystyle _{x/c}^{1/c}}𝑑t\left(1ct\right)\mathrm{Re}\left[G\left(t\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}\right]\right\},`$
$`f_{28}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}f_{27}\left(x\right),`$
$`f_{77}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left(1x\right)\left[31+x2x^23\left(3+x\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1x\right)\right],`$ (44)
$`f_{78}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}\left[12\mathrm{Li}_2\left(x\right)12\left(1x\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1x\right)+252\pi ^224xx^3\right],`$
$`f_{88}\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{81}}\{6\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{m_s}}(34x+x^2+4\mathrm{ln}x)+12\mathrm{Li}_2\left(x\right)+24\mathrm{ln}x+`$
$`3(1x)(3x)\mathrm{ln}(1x)+(1x)(285x2x^2)2\pi ^2\}.`$
The function $`G\left(t\right)`$ in the integrand of $`f_{22}\left(x\right)`$ and $`f_{27}\left(x\right)`$ is given by

$$G\left(t\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{arctan}^2\sqrt{\frac{t}{4t}}\hfill & \mathrm{for}t<4\hfill \\ 2\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{t4}}{2}2\pi i\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{t4}}{2}\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\hfill & \mathrm{for}t4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
The above integrals can be performed analytically with the substitutions $`t=4\mathrm{sin}^2y`$ for $`t4`$ and $`t=4\mathrm{cosh}^2y`$ for $`t4`$. The resulting expressions are quite long and are not reported here. For practical purposes, the compact integral representation given above is adequate.

The relation between the $`d_{ij}`$ and $`f_{ij}`$ functions is simply given by

$$d_{ij}\left(x\right)=\frac{df_{ij}}{dx}\left(x\right).$$
(46)


text:
# 1 The pair-creation and the pair-annhilation by the space-like branes at 𝑡={0,𝑇}.

OCHA-PP-189

April 2002

Stabilization and radion in de Sitter brane-world

Shin’ichi NOJIRI111nojiri@cc.nda.ac.jp, Sergei D. ODINTSOV222 odintsov@mail.tomsknet.ru,

and Akio SUGAMOTO333 sugamoto@phys.ocha.ac.jp

Department of Applied Physics
National Defence Academy, Hashirimizu Yokosuka 239, JAPAN

$`\mathrm{}`$ Lab. for Fundamental Study, Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 634041 Tomsk, RUSSIA

$`\mathrm{}`$ Department of Physics, Ochanomizu University
Otsuka, Bunkyou-ku Tokyo 112, JAPAN

ABSTRACT

We consider the stabilization of de Sitter brane-world. The scalar field bulk-brane theory produces the non-trivial minimum of modulus potential where temporal radion is realized. The hierarchy problem (between Planck and electroweak scales) may be solved. However, the interpretation of radion is not so clear as in AdS brane-world. In particulary, the introduction of two times physics or pair-creation of bulk spaces or identification of one of spatial coordinates with imaginary time (non-zero temperature) may be required.

PACS: 98.80.Hw,04.50.+h,11.10.Kk,11.10.Wx

Keywords: radion, dS/CFT, brane world

The investigation of five-dimensional brane-worlds naturally posed the problem of stabilization of extra dimension. In case of AdS bulk the corresponding mechanism of stabilization has been proposed by Goldberger-Wise via the realization of the minimum of the corresponding modulus effective potential. However, the explicit stabilization of fifth dimension (without fine-tuning) may be presumably realized only by thermal quantum effects . The physics of radion (which vacuum expectation value coincides with the fifth dimension radius) may play an important role in electroweak theory where , for example, S-parameter turns out to be modified.

The interest to AdS brane-worlds is motivated mainly by AdS/CFT correspondence. However, it has been recently proposed dS/CFT correspondence (see for an introduction). As a result it is naturally to search for realistic dS brane-world scenarios. As one step in this direction we study how radion physics (or stabilization of extra dimension) may be realized in dS brane-world.

Let us start from the 5-dimensional de Sitter space as a bulk spacetime:

$$ds^2=G_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =G_{tt}dt^2+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}g_{ij}dx^idx^j=dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2k|t|}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(dx^i\right)^2.$$
(1)
We also consider the scalar field, whose action is given by

$$S_\varphi =\sqrt{G}\left(\frac{1}{2}G^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2\right).$$
(2)
One assumes that there are branes at $`t=0`$ and $`t=T`$, whose action is given by

$$S_0=\sqrt{g}V_0(\varphi ),S_T=\sqrt{g}V_T(\varphi ).$$
(3)
where $`TtT`$ and $`t`$ is identified with $`t`$. Note that in the same way as in AdS bulk one can identify $`T`$ with the vacuum expectation value of temporal radion field. In fact, $`T`$ is a dynamical variable, which can be included in the $`(tt)`$-component $`G_{tt}`$ of the metric tensor in (1). If we change $`G_{tt}`$ as $`C^2G_{tt}`$ by a positive constant $`C`$, the last expression in (1) is changed as $`ds^2=C^2dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2kC|t|}_{i=1}^4\left(dx^i\right)^2`$. Further rescaling the time coordinate $`t\frac{t}{C}`$, we obtain the last expression in (1), again, but the region where the coordinate $`t`$ takes its value is changed as $`\frac{T}{C}t\frac{T}{C}`$. Repeating back this process, we find that $`T`$ is a dynamical variable. In the following, we solve the equation of motion for fixed $`T`$ and after that we substitute the obtained solution into the action (2), where all the dynamical variables except $`T`$ are integrated out.

With the assumption that the bulk de Sitter space is a background, by the variation over the scalar field $`\varphi `$, we obtain the following equation:

$$0=_\mu \left(\sqrt{G}G^{\mu \nu }_\nu \varphi \right)m^2\sqrt{G}\varphi \sqrt{g}V_0^{}(\varphi )\delta (t)\sqrt{g}V_T^{}\delta (tT).$$
(4)
Considering that $`\varphi `$ only depends on $`t`$ and using (1), one can rewrite (4) as

$$0=_t\left(\mathrm{e}^{4k|t|}_t\varphi \right)m^2\mathrm{e}^{4k|t|}\varphi \mathrm{e}^{4k|t|}V_0^{}(\varphi )\delta (t)\mathrm{e}^{4k|t|}V_T^{}\delta (tT).$$
(5)
In the bulk ($`0<t<T`$), the solution is given by

$$\varphi =\mathrm{e}^{2kt}\left(a\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}t}+b\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}t}\right).$$
(6)
Here $`a`$ and $`b`$ are constants of the integration. The solution (6) is similar to that for the case that the bulk is AdS. Indeed, for the space-like radial coodinate as $`r`$, the solution in the AdS bulk is given by

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{AdS}}=\mathrm{e}^{2kt}\left(a\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2+m^2}r}+b\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2+m^2}r}\right).$$
(7)
The main difference is the sign in front of $`m^2`$ in the root. Then in the dS bulk, the solution behaves as an exponential function if $`4k^2>m^2`$ but if $`4k^2<m^2`$ the solution behaves with vibration:

$$\varphi =\mathrm{e}^{2kt}\left(a\mathrm{e}^{i\sqrt{m^24k^2}t}+b\mathrm{e}^{i\sqrt{m^24k^2}t}\right).$$
(8)
Here $`b`$ should be a complex conjugate of $`a`$. If $`4k^2=m^2`$, the solution has the following form:

$$\varphi =\left(a_1+a_2t\right)\mathrm{e}^{2kt}.$$
(9)
The constants $`a`$ and $`b`$ in (6) can be determined to satisfy the boundary condition at $`t=0`$, $`T`$, coming from the $`\delta `$-functions in (5):

$$_t\varphi |_{t+0}_t\varphi |_{t0}=V_0^{}(\varphi ),_t\varphi |_{tT+0}_t\varphi |_{tT0}=V_T^{}(\varphi ),$$
(10)
that is,

$`2\left\{\left(2k+\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)a+\left(2k\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)b\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`V_0^{}(\varphi ),`$
$`2\{(2k+\sqrt{4k^2m^2})a\mathrm{e}^{\left(2k+\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)T}`$
$`+(2k\sqrt{4k^2m^2})b\mathrm{e}^{\left(2k\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)T}\}`$ $`=`$ $`V_T^{}(\varphi ).`$ (11)
By substituting the solution (6) into the action (2), one has

$`S_\varphi =V_4[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2k+\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)^2m^2}{4\sqrt{4k^2m^2}}}a^2(\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2k\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)^2m^2}{4\sqrt{4k^2m^2}}}b^2(\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}1)2m^2abT].`$ (12)
Here $`V_4`$ is the volume of the brane. By combining $`S_\varphi `$ (S0.Ex3) with $`S_0(\varphi _{t=0})`$ and $`S_T(\varphi _{t=T})`$ in (3), we might obtain the effective action for $`T`$. As a special model, we consider the case that

$$V_0^{}=V_T^{}=\alpha (\text{constant}).$$
(13)
Then one can solve (S0.Ex1) with respect to $`a`$ and $`b`$:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \left(2k\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)\left(\mathrm{e}^{\left(2k\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)T}+1\right)}{2m^2\mathrm{e}^{2kT}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}\right)}}`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \left(2k+\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)\left(\mathrm{e}^{\left(2k+\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)T}+1\right)}{2m^2\mathrm{e}^{2kT}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}\right)}}.`$ (14)
By substituting (S0.Ex4) into (S0.Ex3), we obtain

$`S_\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{e}^{4kT}V_4}{16m^2\left(\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}\right)^2}}`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m^2\left(2k\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)^2\right)\left(\mathrm{e}^{\left(2k\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)T}+1\right)^2}{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}}}`$
$`\times \left(\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}1\right)\left(m^2\left(2k+\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)^2\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{e}^{\left(2k+\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)T}+1\right)^2\left(\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}1\right)}{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}}}`$
$`+8m^2T(\mathrm{e}^{\left(2k\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)T}+1)(\mathrm{e}^{\left(2k+\sqrt{4k^2m^2}\right)T}+1)].`$ (15)
One can regard $`S_\varphi `$ as an effective potential for radion $`T`$:

$$V(T)=S_\varphi .$$
(16)
Then when $`T0`$, $`V(T)`$ behaves as

$$V(T)\frac{\alpha ^2V_4\left(2k^2m^2\right)}{m^2\left(4k^2m^2\right)}\frac{1}{T}.$$
(17)
On the other hand, when $`T+\mathrm{}`$,

$$V(T)\frac{\alpha ^2V_4}{16m^2}\left[\frac{8k^22m^2+4k\sqrt{4k^2m^2}}{\sqrt{4k^2m^2}}8m^2T\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T}\right].$$
(18)
Note that $`0<T<+\mathrm{}`$. Eqs.(17) and (18) tell that the potential is bounded below and has non-trivial minimum if $`2k^2>m^2`$. In order to generate the hierarchy between the Planck scale $`10^{19}`$ GeV and weak scale $`10^2`$ GeV, if we assume $`kT50`$ and also $`\sqrt{4k^2m^2}T1`$, we can approximate the potential by (18), which has a minimum at

$$T\frac{1}{2\sqrt{4k^2m^2}}.$$
(19)
Then in order to generate the hierarchy the fine-tuning is

$$4\frac{k^2}{m^2}10^4,$$
(20)
which might be natural if compare with the ratio of the weak and the Planck scale $`10^2/10^{19}=10^{17}`$.

Now as the brane is Euclidean, in order to relate the above theory with the real electroweak physics, we need to Wick-rotate one more spatial coordinate on the brane. Then we have two time coordinates, which might cause the problem with the unitarity. The two time theory might not, at present, be so unnatural as the so-called F-theory  is realization of two time theory. Even in the model here, the de Sitter time might be a rather formal one.

Another way to relate the above model with the real electroweak theory is that one regards a spatial coordinate, say $`x^4`$ in (1) as an imaginary time with a period $`\beta =\frac{1}{T_m}`$. Then the model under discussion describes the theory at finite temperature $`T_m`$. Then the CFT at finite temperature may be naturally described in the present framework. Furthermore if we put $`ds^2=0`$ in (1) by choosing $`x^1=x^2=x^3=0`$, we obtain $`dt=\pm \mathrm{e}^{kt}dx^4`$, that is,

$$x^4x_0^4=\pm \frac{\mathrm{e}^{kt}}{k}.$$
(21)
Here $`x_0^4`$ is a constant of the integration. Since the temperature of the universe is proportional to the inverse of the scale of the universe, Eq.(21) indicates that the temperature decreases exponentially with time.

On the other hand, one can consider the case that the time coordinate is unique. Then if identify the time $`t`$ with $`t`$, the obtained solution describes that the brane decays at $`t=0`$ into two bulk spacetimes (the bulk spacetimes are pair-created) or the bulk spacetimes are pair-annihilated creating a brane at $`t=T`$ as is shown in Fig.1.

If we do not do the identification, the universe has a periodicity of $`2T`$ as shown in Fig.2. When $`0<t<T`$, the scale of the universe shrinks as $`a=\mathrm{e}^{kt}`$ and when $`T<t<2T`$, the universe expands and $`a=\mathrm{e}^{kt}`$. When $`2T<t<3T`$, as $`a=\mathrm{e}^{kt}`$ and $`3T<t<4T`$, as $`a=\mathrm{e}^{kt}`$, etc. In this senario, in order to realize such 5-dimensional universe, which repeats shrinking and expansion, we need a matter to compensate the jump of the first derivative of the metric. The matter is is given by the space-like brane. Then our analysis indicates that the brane can decay by the effect of the scalar field but the brane could be created again, the created brane decays again. The period of repeating the shrinking and expansion depends on the details of the scalar part of the action.

In the usual time-like branes in the AdS bulk spacetime, the branes can propagate in the time direction with a finite velocity, keeping the mutual distance $`R`$. The corresponding solution may exist in the dS bulk case with the role of $`t`$ and $`x^5`$ exchanged. Even if such a solution really exist, this would not change the above senarios drastically.

Thus, our study indicates that if observable Universe is the brane embedded in five-dimensional de Sitter bulk then stabilization of fifth (temporal) dimension may occur via the minimum of modulus effective potential. The analog of radion may be introduced and hierarchy problem may be solved as well. However, as radion is related now with the time the interpretation of the radion physics and its relation with electroweak theory is not so clear as in AdS bulk. In particulary, even the evolution of the observable Universe may be drastically changed or second time coordinate should be introduced. Note finally that very recently (after the first version of this paper appeared), the localization of the graviton on the brane emmbedded in five-dimensional de Sitter bulk was shown in .

Acknoweledgements

This research is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Prioirity Areas (B) of The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (No. 13135101 and 13135208). One of authors (S.O.) acknoweledges support of the Grant No. 13135101, which made possible to finish this work during his visit to Japan.


text:
# Problematic solutions to the Landau-Lifshitz equation

## 1 Introduction

Well-known problems of the Lorentz-Dirac (LD) equation, such as runaway solutions, preacceleration, nonuniqueness, have led to proposals of modified classical equations for the relativistic motion of a point charge in electromagnetic fields, including radiation reaction. Recently Rohrlich has asserted that forms of the Landau-Lifshitz (LL) equation represent the exact equation and should replace the flawed one (LD) derived by Dirac. The purpose of this letter is to point out that solutions to the LL equation are not generally consistent with Maxwell’s equations for the radiation. The result is a fairly simple to show but does not seem to have attracted much attention.

The LD equation for the motion of a point charge $`e`$ of proper velocity $`u`$ in an external electromagnetic field $`𝐅`$ can be written in the index-free formulation based on Clifford’s geometric algebra of physical space as

$$m\dot{u}=e\left(𝐅+𝐅_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿}}\right)u_{\mathrm{}},$$
(1)
where the first term on the right $`f=e𝐅u_{\mathrm{}}e\left[𝐅u+\left(𝐅u\right)^{}\right]/2`$ is the covariant Lorentz force, and $`𝐅_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿}}=m\tau _ed\left(\dot{u}\overline{u}\right)/d\tau `$ is identified as the effective field of self interaction. We use SI units with $`c=1`$, dots indicate derivatives with respect to proper time, and $`\tau _e`$ is two-thirds the time for light to cross the classical electron radius:

$$\tau _e=\frac{2}{3}\frac{Ke^2}{m}6.266\times 10^{24}\mathrm{s}$$
(2)
with $`K=\left(4\pi \epsilon _0\right)^1.`$

Equation (1) can be expanded in components to give the standard tensor-component form $`m\dot{u}^\mu =e\left(F^{\mu \nu }+F_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿}}^{\mu \nu }\right)u_\nu ,`$ where $`F_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿}}^{\mu \nu }=m\tau _ed\left(\dot{u}^{[\mu }u^{\nu ]}\right)/d\tau ,`$ the summation convention is adopted, the brackets $`[\mathrm{}]`$ indicate the antisymmetric part, and the metric tensor is $`\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }\right)=\mathrm{diag}(1,111).`$ However, the component-free algebraic formulation is cleaner and offers additional computational tools. In it, paravectors (scalars plus vectors) represent spacetime vectors. For example $`u=\gamma +𝐮=u^\mu 𝐞_\mu `$ is the proper velocity with time component $`\gamma \gamma 𝐞_0`$ and spatial part $`𝐮.`$ An overbar indicates the Clifford conjugate $`\overline{u}=\gamma 𝐮`$ and the Lorentz-invariant square norm is $`u\overline{u}=\gamma ^2𝐮^2=u^\mu u^\nu 𝐞_\mu \overline{𝐞}_\nu ,`$ which gives the Minkowski spacetime metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=𝐞_\mu \overline{𝐞}_\nu _S`$ as the metric of paravector space, where $`x_S\frac{1}{2}\left(x+\overline{x}\right)`$ is the scalar part of any element $`x.`$ Since $`u`$ is a unit paravector, $`u\overline{u}=1,`$ and the proper acceleration $`\dot{u}`$ is orthogonal to $`u:\dot{u}\overline{u}_S=0.`$ As a consequence, $`\dot{u}\overline{u}`$ is a biparavector (a spacetime plane, represented by a complex vector).

The expansion of $`𝐅_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿}}`$ gives

$$𝐅_{\mathrm{𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿}}=m\tau _e\frac{d\left(\dot{u}\overline{u}\right)}{d\tau }=m\tau _e\ddot{u}\overline{u}P$$
(3)
where the Lorentz-invariant Larmor power $`P=m\tau _e\dot{u}\overline{\dot{u}}`$ is seen from Maxwell’s equations $`\overline{}𝐅=\mu _0\overline{j}`$ to be the power radiated by the accelerating point charge. It is easily seen that the LD equation (1) conserves energy and momentum with the radiation field between any two points on the world line of the charge where the acceleration $`\dot{u}`$ is the same.

The LL equation is obtained by replacing $`m\dot{u}`$ in the radiation term in (1) by the Lorentz force $`f`$

$`m\dot{u}_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ $`=f+\tau _e{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}\left(f\overline{u}\right)u_{\mathrm{}}`$
$`=f+\tau _e\left(\dot{f}+f\overline{\dot{u}}_Su\right),`$ (4)
where the second line follows from the reality of $`f`$ and its orthogonality with $`u.`$This is the equation given by Ford and O’Connell, by Spohn, and by Rohrlich in his (4a). It is easily verified that $`\dot{u}`$ here remains orthogonal to $`u.`$ As Rohrlich noted, the last term in (4) dictates that the Larmor radiation term $`P`$ is replaced in energy-momentum conservation for the LL equation by

$$P_{\mathrm{LL}}=\tau _ef\overline{\dot{u}}_S.$$
(5)
However, this can differ from the Larmor power $`P,`$ and it is $`P`$ that is given by Maxwell’s equations.

The LL equation is the first term in an iterative expansion of the LD equation in powers of $`\tau _e`$ :

$$m\dot{u}^{\left(n+1\right)}=f+m\tau _e\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(\dot{u}^{\left(n\right)}\overline{u}\right)u_{\mathrm{}}$$
(6)
where $`\dot{u}^{\left(n\right)}`$ is the $`n`$th-order approximation of $`\dot{u}`$ and

$$\dot{u}^{\left(0\right)}=f.$$
(7)
The lowest-order difference between the proper accelerations of the LD and LL equations is the second-order term $`\dot{u}\dot{u}^{\left(1\right)}\tau _e^2\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{u}+\dot{u}\overline{\dot{u}}\dot{u}\right).`$

Rohrlich also gives an alternative form \[his (4b)\], obtained by replacing $`\dot{f}=e\dot{𝐅}u_{\mathrm{}}+e𝐅\dot{u}_{\mathrm{}}`$ with

$`\dot{f}_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=eu\overline{}_S𝐅u_{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}𝐅𝐅u_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (8)
$`=e\dot{𝐅}u_{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}𝐅f_{\mathrm{}}.`$ (9)
The difference $`\dot{f}\dot{f}_\mathrm{R}`$ is first order in $`\tau _e.`$

## 2 A simple example

As a simple example by which to compare solutions of the equations, consider one-dimensional motion in a pure electric field $`𝐅=𝐄=E𝐞,`$ where $`𝐞`$ is a fixed unit vector. Express the proper velocity in terms of the rapidity $`w`$ as $`u=\mathrm{exp}\left(w𝐞\right)=\mathrm{cosh}w+𝐞\mathrm{sinh}w.`$ Then $`\dot{u}=\dot{w}u𝐞`$ and the Lorentz force is $`f=e𝐄u.`$The LD equation (1) becomes

$$\dot{w}=\frac{eE}{m}+\tau _e\ddot{w},$$
(10)
whereas the LL equation (4) has the form

$$\dot{w}_{\mathrm{LL}}=\frac{e}{m}\left(E+\tau _e\dot{E}\right).$$
(11)
The LL equation is the first-order iteration of the equation

$`\dot{w}^{\left(n+1\right)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{eE}{m}}+\tau _e\ddot{w}^{\left(n\right)}`$
$`\dot{w}^{\left(0\right)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{eE}{m}}`$ (12)
$`\dot{w}^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{eE}{m}}+\tau _e\ddot{w}^{\left(0\right)}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}\left(E+\tau _e\dot{E}\right)`$
$`\dot{w}^{\left(n+1\right)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\tau _e^k{\displaystyle \frac{d^k}{d\tau ^k}}E\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}\left(1\tau _e{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}\right)^1E`$
In the limit $`n\mathrm{},`$ the iterative solution is seen to approach the LD solution. To lowest order, the difference between the LD and LL equations is the second-order term $`\dot{w}\dot{w}^{\left(1\right)}\left(e/m\right)\tau _e^2\ddot{E},`$ the power difference is $`P_RP\left(e^2/m\right)\tau _e^2E\dot{E},`$ and $`\dot{f}\dot{f}_\mathrm{R}\left(e^2/m\right)\tau _euE\dot{E}`$, none of which generally vanishes.

Ford and O’Connell (1993) derive analytical solutions of the LL equation (11) for motion of a charge through an electric field in the shape of a step:

$$E\left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & x<0\hfill \\ E_0,\hfill & 0<x<L\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & L<x\hfill \end{array}.$$
(13)
They also show that these are the smooth limit of numerical solutions for a smooth rise and fall of the field. Let $`\tau =0`$ be the proper time that the charge enters the field from the left ( $`x=0`$ ) and $`\tau =\tau _1`$ the proper time that it exits at $`x=L.`$ Integration of (11) gives

$$w_{\mathrm{LL}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}w_0,& \tau <0\\ w_0+\epsilon +\epsilon \tau /\tau _e,& 0<\tau <\tau _1\\ w_2=w_0+\epsilon \tau _1/\tau _e,& \tau _1<\tau ,\end{array}$$
(14)
where

$$\epsilon =\frac{eE_0\tau _e}{m}\alpha \frac{\tau _e}{L}.$$
(15)
Note that $`w_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ is discontinuous: it jumps by $`\epsilon `$ as the charge enters the field at $`\tau =0`$ and then by $`\epsilon `$ as the charge leaves at $`\tau =\tau _1`$. Consequently, the acceleration has infinite spikes as the charge enters and leaves the field. In terms of Dirac delta functions $`\delta \left(\tau \right)`$ and Heaviside step functions $`\theta \left(\tau \right),`$

$$\dot{w}_{\mathrm{LL}}=\epsilon \left[\delta \left(\tau \right)\delta \left(\tau \tau _1\right)\right]+\frac{eE_0}{m}\theta \left(\tau \right)\theta \left(\tau _1\tau \right).$$
(16)
Although $`\dot{w}`$ and consequently $`\dot{u}`$ are infinite at $`\tau =0,\tau _1,`$ they are integrable. However, the Larmor radiation, proportional to $`\dot{u}\overline{\dot{u}}=\dot{w}^2,`$ is not. Thus, according to Maxwell’s equations for the field of a point charge, infinite energy is radiated from the discontinuities. The distance $`x`$ traveled in the region $`0<x<L`$ is related to $`\tau `$ by integration

$$x\left(\tau \right)=_0^\tau \mathrm{sinh}w\left(\tau ^{}\right)𝑑\tau ^{}=\frac{L}{\alpha }\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(w_1+\epsilon \tau /\tau _e\right)\mathrm{cosh}w_1\right]$$
(17)
with $`w_1=w_0+\epsilon .`$ In particular, $`x\left(\tau _1\right)=L.`$ The energy gain of the charge is $`m\left(\gamma _2\gamma _0\right),`$ where $`\gamma _j=\mathrm{cosh}w_j`$ and $`w_2=\mathrm{cosh}^1\left(\gamma _1+\alpha \right)\epsilon .`$ To second order in $`\epsilon ,`$

$`\gamma _2\gamma _0`$ $`=\left(\gamma _1+\alpha \right)\mathrm{cosh}\epsilon \sqrt{\left(\gamma _1+\alpha \right)^21}\mathrm{sinh}\epsilon \gamma _0`$ (18)
$`\alpha +\epsilon \left[u_0u_2^{\left(0\right)}\right]+\epsilon ^2\left[\gamma _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\gamma _0+\alpha \right)u_0}{u_2^{\left(0\right)}}}\right].`$ (19)
with $`u_2^{\left(0\right)}=\sqrt{\left(\gamma _0+\alpha \right)^21}.`$

Let’s compare this to solutions of the LD equation (10). In numerical solutions, runaways are avoided by integrating backward in time. In analytical solutions, they are avoided by assuming $`lim_\tau \mathrm{}\tau E\left(\tau \right)=0`$ and putting $`\dot{w}\left(\mathrm{}\right)=0.`$ This gives the usual integral form that includes brief periods of preacceleration:

$`\dot{w}\left(\tau \right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sE\left(\tau +\tau _es\right)e^s`$ (20)
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(e/m\right)E_0e^{\tau /\tau _e}\left(1e^{\tau _1/\tau _e}\right),\hfill & \tau <0\hfill \\ \left(e/m\right)E_0\left(1e^{\left(\tau \tau _1\right)/\tau _e}\right),\hfill & 0<\tau <\tau _1\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \tau _1<\tau \hfill \end{array}.`$ (24)
A further integration gives

$$w\left(\tau \right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}w_0+\epsilon e^{\tau /\tau _e}\left(1e^{\tau _1/\tau _e}\right),\hfill & \tau <0\hfill \\ w_0+\epsilon \left[1+\tau /\tau _ee^{\left(\tau \tau _1\right)/\tau _e}\right],\hfill & 0<\tau <\tau _1\hfill \\ w_2=w_0+\epsilon \tau _1/\tau _e,\hfill & \tau _1<\tau \hfill \end{array}.$$
(25)
## 3 Discussion

Derivations of the LD equation (1) generally assume an expansion $`u`$ in powers of the time difference corresponding to the effective size of the charge. The limit of vanishing size is then taken, traditionally with mass renormalization, although such renormalization can be avoided by taking specified combinations of the self field. One cannot expect the proper velocity to be an analytic function of position in regions where the field itself is discontinuous. However, discontinuous fields are simply idealizations convenient for finding analytic solutions. Solutions of both the LD and LL equations can be found numerically for more realistic field configurations, and they approach the analytic solutions in the appropriate limit.

Rohrlich claims to have derived the LL equation as an exact classical equation for the point charge. However, his derivation, like most others, makes the substitution of an approximate expression from the Lorentz-force equation with the justification that the radiation term is small. He then claims that because higher-order derivates of the velocity than second disappear in Dirac’s derivation when the limit of vanishing charge radius is taken, one should also be able to ignore corresponding derivatives in the field. This approach appears to argue more forcefully for the correctness of the LD equation, which as seen above conflicts with the LL equation. Rohrlich also claims that the LL equation has been obtained in a rigorous mathematical argument by Spohn, but Spohn obtains his critical surface perturbatively and does not claim it to be exact to all orders of $`\tau _e`$.

The LL equation differs from the LD equation only in second order in $`\tau _e`$ and its solutions to realistic problems are practically indistinguishable from those of the LD equation since $`\tau _e`$ is orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest measurable time interval. Nevertheless, as seen above, it is inconsistent with Maxwell’s equations for the radiation of a point charge and this inconsistency is dramatic in the case of rectiliner motion through a stepped field. This is in contrast to the LD equation, which is consistent.

Yaghjian has proposed a different “correction” to the LD equation. (Most of his book discusses a model of the electron as a spherical insulator of finite radius with a fixed surface charge, but the last section discusses the limit of vanishing radius to find the motion of a point charge.) He argues that the radiation terms do not act until the field is turned on and consequently should be multiplied by a scalar function that approaches a step function in the limit of a point charge. This eliminates preacceleration. Although his formulation does not explicitly treat other abrupt changes in the field, for consistency we assume that the sudden drop in the stepped field has no effect on the radiation terms until $`\tau _1`$ when the charge leaves the field. However, this prescription when applied to the stepped field gives precisely the motion of the charge without *any* radiation reaction. It is therefore also inconsistent with energy-momentum conservation and Maxwell’s equation.

As frequently pointed out, the problems of the LD equation occur at distance scales well below the Compton wavelength, where quantum effects become important. Its breakdown in the description of real particles at such scales is therefore not surprising. Attempts appear so far unsuccessful to find an alternative classical equation of motion for the point charge that is free from problems and consistent with energy-momentum conservation and Maxwell’s equations.