text:
# Localized gravity on FRW branes

## I Introduction

The idea that our universe has dimensions more than four has been around since the first attempts to unify fundamental forces. The Kaluza-Klein theories were one of the first attempts towards this direction in which the size of extra dimension was taken to be of the order of Planck length. In its new avatar in the form of brane world scenarios, it has attracted much attention in recent times. In these models our physical universe is envisioned as a four dimensional hypersurface in a five dimensional bulk spacetime. The standard model matter is confined to the brane but gravity, by its universal character, can propagate in the extra dimension.

Early attempts in this direction were based on extra dimensions being of the order of millimeter arkani  which is less than the current observational limits on low scale gravity. The warped extra dimension models of Randall and Sundrum (RS) rs1 ; rs2  have seen intense activity. Their two brane model had a brane with negative tension which led to anti gravity shiromizu  and was hence ruled out. In their single brane model, the flat brane sits in an AdS bulk which is $`Z_2`$ symmetric. The $`Z_2`$ symmetry of the extra dimension arises from the reduction of M theory to $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string theory witten . RS were able to recover Newton’s inverse square law with correction terms. These correction terms arise from the massive Kaluza-Klein(KK) modes on the brane and their effect can be tested at sub-millimeter level hoyle . There have also come about quite a few generalizations, for eg. in the form of thick branes (see for eg. csaki ), AdS branes karch  and brane models without $`Z_2`$ symmetry colyuri .

The brane and bulk spacetimes are joined through the Israel junction conditions israel . The Einstein equation on the brane is modified and there are various interesting cosmological consequences of the modifications cosmo1 , including CFT effects cft . Some of the important solutions of bulk spacetime are branes in AdS bulk and FRW branes in Schwarzschild-AdS (S-AdS) bulk karch ; bdel ; kraus ; s-ads ; sd2 .

Extra dimensions, though introduced to deal with problems in standard model of particle physics and also motivated by unification schemes, give a new color to the cosmological aspects of our physical universe. The S-AdS bulk modifies the Friedmann equation on the brane which now contains two extra terms. First is a matter density squared term and the other is a dark radiation term propotional to the mass parameter of the bulk black hole. The latter is contribution of the bulk Weyl curvature. The density squared term dies out at low energies and the dark radiation term is severely constrained by the big bang nucleosynthesis. Ultimately, at low energies there survives no observational signature which can distinguish this theory from the standard cosmology. However, there have been some attempts by incorporating string theory motivated correction terms in the action which result in modifications available at the low energy sector gb . They can be tested against current observations, eg. supernova Ia observations sn . Such observations have provided a valuable tool to test standard cosmological model and other novel ideas like those with variable cosmological constant vishwa . In one of the studies based on AdS-CFT correction to S-AdS bulk it was found that the theory provides a definite low energy signature which fits very well with the supernova Ia observations for a wide range of parameters and also brings relief to the age of the universe problem in the standard cosmological model svd .

However, before one addresses the cosmological problems it is important to answer the question of localization of gravity on the brane harboring such models. Localization is not guaranteed a priori as we shall see that it does not happen for all FRW models, and in particular for negative cosmological constant on the brane. Apart from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the curvature index $`k=0,\pm 1`$ and presence of black hole in the bulk which will make Weyl curvature in the bulk non-zero will also have bearing on this question. In particular, for the conformally non flat Nariai bulk, it has been shown that there can not exist any normalizable bound massless graviton sd1 . Another example of non localization is provided by AdS brane in AdS bulk karch  and we shall in this investigation establish that this feature holds good more generally even when brane is non empty. We shall establish the general result: *gravity is never localized whenever $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ on a dynamic brane, is localized for $`k=1`$ only when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0,M0`$ and is else always localized on the brane for all other FRW models*.

The cosmologically interesting FRW brane resides in S-AdS bulk for which the most pertinent question of localization was addressed by authors for a special case sd2 . Here we would expand upon our previous work and deal with all possible cosmological scenarios. We would consider the perturbations of the bulk metric to study allowed ground state of massless graviton on the brane together with motion of brane in the bulk spacetime. It is well known that a small off tuning from the critical brane tension makes the brane dynamic kraus . For an FRW expanding universe on the brane, brane will have to be moving in bulk spacetime. Hence the brane equation of motion would also play a critical role alongside the perturbation equation in determining localization of gravity on the brane. In particular, localization would require brane to be ever expanding which would rule out negative cosmological constant on the brane. This is a definite prediction of the brane world cosmology. The most critical and attractive feature of brane world gravity is that it is localized on the brane. Localization could hence serve as compatibility criterion for cosmological models. Further, it is interesting that brane dynamics in the bulk, apart from other physical considerations, also determines that mass of the bulk black hole must be positive.

In the previous studies, the Gaussian normal coordinates for AdS bulk were employed, we shall however carry out the perturbation analysis in the natural curvature coordinates for S-AdS bulk spacetime. This should not matter in the end for localization must be coordinate independent physical property. In Sec. II, we carry out the perturbation analysis and recover RS model results in Sec. III. In the following three sections are discussed the cases of the curvature parameter $`k=0,1`$ and $`1`$ for the vanishing and non vanishing mass of the bulk black hole. We would show that a number of interesting cosmological models are indeed compatible and allowed, in particular inflationary universes with positive cosmological constant on the brane which is favored by the current observations sn . For completeness we shall also consider static brane which will not be of practical use for it can not harbor expansion. This will be followed by conclusion.

In the next section we study the graviton fluctuations of the bulk metric and derive the wave equation governing the effect of extra dimension on its modes.

## II Perturbation of the bulk metric

In this section we would derive the wave equation of the metric fluctuations of the S-AdS bulk,

$$ds^2=e^{2\beta }dt^2+e^{2\beta }dy^2+y^2\left[\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right]$$
(1)
where

$$e^{2\beta }=\left(k+\frac{y^2}{l^2}\frac{M}{y^2}\right).$$
(2)
Here $`k=+1,0,1`$ is the spatial curvature index, $`l`$ is the curvature radius of the bulk spacetime and $`M`$ is the mass parameter of the black hole. It comes as a constant of integration in the solution of the Einstein equation in the bulk,

$$G_{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_5g_{ab},\mathrm{\Lambda }_5=6/l^2.$$
(3)
The Latin indices run from 0…4 and the Greek indices would run from 0…3. The event horizon of the black hole would be at

$$y_h^2=\frac{l^2}{2}\left(k+\sqrt{k^2+\frac{4M}{l^2}}\right)$$
(4)
which thus restricts $`M0`$ for $`k=0,1`$ and $`Ml^2/4`$ for $`k=1`$. The extra dimension is the radial coordinate of the bulk black hole. The perturbations of the above metric over the background metric $`g_{ab}^{(B)}`$, i.e. $`h_{ab}=g_{ab}g_{ab}^{(B)}`$, satisfies the following wave equation

$$\mathrm{}_5h_{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_5h_{ab}.$$
(5)
We are interested in finding out the effect of extra dimension on the behavior of gravitons on the brane. We choose the metric perturbations in the extra dimension to vanish,

$$h_{ty}=h_{ry}=h_{\theta y}=h_{\varphi y}=h_{yy}=0$$
(6)
and further impose the transverse-traceless gauge conditions on the metric fluctuations,

$$^\mu h_{\mu \nu }=0,h^\mu {}_{\mu }{}^{}=0.$$
(7)
With these conditions the wave equation can be written down as

$$\mathrm{}_5h_{ab}=A_{ab,i}^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^iA_{ab}^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aj}^iA_{ib}^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bj}^iA_{ia}^j=\mathrm{\Lambda }_5h_{ab}$$
(8)
where

$$A_{ab}^i:=g^{ij}\left(h_{ab,j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aj}^kh_{kb}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bj}^kh_{ak}\right).$$
(9)
We would look for the plane wave solutions of the form

$$h_{ab}=e_{ab}\mathrm{\Psi }(y)e^{ip_jx^j}$$
(10)
where the polarization tensor $`e_{ab}`$ is orthogonal to a unit time-like vector $`u^a=(1,0,0,0,0)`$ i.e. $`e_{ab}u^b=0`$. Solving the wave equation and using $`p^2=m^2`$ as the constant of separation of variables it can be shown that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y)`$ satisfies the following equation,

$$\left(\frac{y^2}{l^2}\frac{M}{y^2}+k\right)\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }+\left(\frac{3M}{y^3}\frac{k}{y}+\frac{y}{l^2}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\frac{2M}{y^4}\mathrm{\Psi }+m^2\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(11)
where prime denotes a derivative with respect to $`y`$. This equation can be written down in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{\prime \prime }+a_1(y)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}+a_2(y)\mathrm{\Psi }=0$$
(12)
which can be transformed into a wave equation form with the transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y)=\varphi (y)\psi (y)`$ where $`\varphi (y)`$ is such that it eliminates the first order derivative terms. Substituting this in eq.(11) we get the desired wave equation,

$$\frac{1}{2}\psi (y)^{\prime \prime }+V\psi (y)=m^2\psi (y).$$
(13)
This equation holds all the information about the effect of extra dimension on the gravitons on the brane. The form of $`V`$ is quite complicated. The potential is made up of two parts, $`V=V_f+V_m`$, where the free part is

$`V_f=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6l^2(5My^4ky^6)}{8(y^5+l^2(My+ky^3))^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Ml^2}{y^2(y^4Ml^2+kl^2y^2)}}`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y^8+l^4(15M^2+22kMy^23k^2y^4)}{8(y^5+l^2(My+ky^3))^2}}`$
and the interaction part is given by

$$V_m=\frac{m^2l^2y^22m^2(y^4Ml^2+kl^2y^2)}{2(y^4Ml^2+kl^2y^2)}.$$
(15)
It is composed of two types, one is free of mass of graviton and the other depends on it. So different gravitons would see a slightly different potential produced by the bulk. Such potentials are analog to the ones obtained in oscillator problems where natural frequency is a function of coordinates. Since our brane is curved and dynamic, such interaction terms are to be expected. In the following sections we would discuss how different values of $`k`$ and $`M`$ affect propagation of graviton modes.

The effective four dimensional cosmological constant on the brane and the Gravitational constant can be determined from the Israel junction conditions israel

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_5}{2}+\frac{16\pi ^2}{3}G_5^2\sigma ^2,G=\frac{4\pi }{3}G_5^2\sigma $$
(16)
where $`\sigma `$ is the brane tension and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`G`$ are the four dimensional effective cosmological and gravitational constants. The value of effective cosmological constant is hence determined by the bulk parameters and the brane tension. By a proper fine tuning of the brane tension the effective cosmological constant on the brane can be made to vanish. We would denote this special fine tuned brane tension by $`\sigma _0`$ which equals $`(3/4\pi G_5l)`$. Hence for $`\sigma \sigma _0`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$.

The junction conditions also determine how the brane moves in the bulk. In RS case the brane was static but in general the brane would be moving and that would affect the boundedness of the modes. The junction conditions also reflect that the FRW brane evolves in time and its trajectory is determined by the following equation kraus ,

$$\dot{y}^2\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho \left(1+\frac{\rho }{2\sigma }\right)y^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}y^2\frac{M}{y^2}+k=0.$$
(17)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{3}{l^2}(1\sigma ^2/\sigma _0^2).$$
(18)
Here dot refers to the derivative w.r.t. proper time ($`\tau `$).

The brane trajectory hence also depends on the presence of matter on the brane. The normalization of the ground state wavefunction is determined by the shape of the potential $`V`$. For massless graviton to remain bound to the brane, the potential $`V_f`$ should remain negative for the entire range of $`y`$ once it crosses the horizon, as exhibited in Figs. 1 and 2. Further, for the massive modes $`V_m>0`$ at large $`y`$. The massless mode can be viewed as $`m0`$ limit and hence for normalization of the ground state wavefunction $`V_f`$ should asymptote to zero. This would certainly be so for expanding brane and it could be made so for a static brane by proper choice of parameters. On the other hand, it would not be so for an oscillating brane.

Localization of gravity on the brane would thus hinge on two properties, one $`V_f<0`$ for the entire range of $`y`$ and two the brane is ever expanding and has no bounce. The latter requirement means $`\dot{y}`$ must never vanish. We shall now analyze for what choice of the parameters this condition could be satisfied? Putting $`\dot{y}=0`$ in eq.(17) and neglecting the density squared term at low energies $`(\rho \sigma )`$ we get,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }y^43ky^2+8\pi G\mu y+3M=0$$
(19)
where $`\rho _=\mu /y^3`$ for a matter dominated universe, which would be the case at low energy. Clearly for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$, this equation would always admit a real positive root indicating oscillatory motion for the brane. Thus even in the presence of black hole on the bulk and matter on the brane and irrespective of the curvature index $`k`$, no localization of massless graviton can occur on the brane for negative cosmological constant. This is the generalization of the AdS non-localization result karch . Similar would be the case for $`k=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. The case $`k=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ would have either two or none positive real roots. It would hence be possible to make suitable choice of parameters to avoid bounce. For all other cosmological cases, there would exist expanding brane solution. We shall rule out $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ and $`k=1,\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ cases from further considerations.

At large $`y`$, energy density term in eq.(17) will not be very effective for it will at best go as $`y^3`$ or $`y^4`$ according as matter or radiation dominance. Thus asymptotically brane motion would essentially be governed by the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We would hence for our study set $`\rho =0`$, in which case eq.(17) becomes

$$\dot{y}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}y^2\frac{M}{y^2}+k=0.$$
(20)
Since this equation is non linear in its highest order of derivative, it will not have unique solution. The metric on the brane would be FRW,

$$ds_4^2=d\tau ^2+y^2(\tau )\left(\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right)$$
(21)
where $`d\tau ^2=exp(2\beta (t))(1exp(4\beta (t))(dy/dt)^2)dt^2`$. Thus a physically acceptable solution of eq.(20) with a normalizable bound massless mode of the Schroedinger equation, eq.(13), would ensure localization of gravity on the brane harboring FRW cosmologies. Our physical universe could then be envisioned as emerging out of the horizon like a white hole wh .

## III Recovering the Randall-Sundrum result

In the Randall-Sundrum case, bulk is AdS with a flat brane, i.e. the effective cosmological constant on the brane is zero. This case arises from eq.(1) for $`k=M=0,\sigma =\sigma _0`$, hence, the metric becomes

$$ds^2=\frac{y^2}{l^2}dt^2+\frac{l^2}{y^2}dy^2+y^2\left(dr^2+r^2dr^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right).$$
(22)
This metric can be transformed into the RS form by using the following transformation

$$\eta =l\mathrm{ln}(l/y),d\eta =\frac{l}{y}dy$$
(23)
Defining $`d\stackrel{~}{x}_1^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_2^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_3^2l^2(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2)=l^2(dr^2+r^2dr^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)`$ we get

$$ds^2=d\eta ^2+e^{2\eta /l}(d\stackrel{~}{t}^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_1^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_2^2+d\stackrel{~}{x}_3^2)$$
(24)
where $`d\stackrel{~}{t}dt`$. From the brane trajectory equation we get

$$\dot{y}^2=0,y(\tau )=constant,$$
(25)
i.e. the brane is static in the bulk. In the RS case the brane was at $`\eta =0`$, this implies through our transformation (eq.(23)) that the brane in our case is at $`y=l`$. Hence the constant above equals $`l`$.

The bulk potential $`V`$ is as shown in Fig. 1. The Schroedinger equation, eq.(13), in this case reduces to

$$\frac{1}{2}\psi (y)^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{8y^2}\psi (y)+\frac{m^2l^2}{2y^2}\psi (y)=0.$$
(26)
The wavefunction near the brane is then the linear combination of Bessel functions,

$$\psi (y)=\sqrt{y}\left(C_1J_0(my)+C_2Y_0(my)\right)$$
(27)
which at the brane ($`y=l`$) becomes

$$\psi (y)=\sqrt{l}\left(C_1J_0(ml)+C_2Y_0(ml)\right).$$
(28)
From Fig. 1 we note that for the massless mode $`V0`$ as $`y\mathrm{}`$. For all other massive modes, $`V>0`$ as $`y\mathrm{}`$. The behavior of the potential tells that in addition to the continuum of massive modes there is a possibility of the existence of discrete massive modes for gravitons of mass less than $`1/2l`$. However, for very small $`l`$ the massive modes effectively form a continuum extending down to the massless case. The difference in asymptotic behavior of the potential for the massless and massive modes also reflects the decoupling between the two. The boundary conditions on the wavefunction on the brane and far away from it lead to $`C_1=m^{1/2}`$ and $`C_2=\pi \sqrt{m}`$ thus yielding $`\psi _m=(ml)^{1/2}`$ on the brane as in the RS case. At large distance from the brane the continuum wavefunction tends to that of plane waves.

The massive modes will produce corrections over the Newtonian gravity reproduced by the normalizable massless graviton. The massive modes would constitute a Yukawa like interaction between two mass point particles $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ on the brane with an appropriate plane wave density measure. The effective gravitational potential on the brane becomes,

$`U(\stackrel{~}{r})`$ $``$ $`G{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{\stackrel{~}{r}}}+Gl{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{\stackrel{~}{r}}}e^{m\stackrel{~}{r}}ml`$
$`U(\stackrel{~}{r})`$ $``$ $`G{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2}{\stackrel{~}{r}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}}\right),`$ (29)
where $`\stackrel{~}{r}^2=\stackrel{~}{x}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{x}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{~}{x}_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. The contributions from the massive modes are exponentially suppressed for $`m`$ greater than $`1/\stackrel{~}{r}`$ and hence one recovers Newtonian gravity on the brane.

## IV Other cosmological models for $`k=0`$

We would now study other cosmological cases which arise apart from RS with $`k=0`$. The simplest are the ones in which the mass of the bulk black hole is zero, but brane tension is not fine tuned to $`\sigma _0`$. If the brane tension is tuned less than the critical value $`\sigma _0`$ there would exist no physical brane trajectory, however for tuning it more than $`\sigma _0`$ the brane would expand forever in the bulk.

Case (I): $`\sigma >\sigma _0`$ , $`M=0`$. In this case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and hence eq.(20) becomes,

$$\dot{y}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}y^2=0,y(\tau )=le^{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}\tau }.$$
(30)
The brane starts expanding out exponentially from its initial position and keeps expanding forever.

The Schroedinger equation for this case is the same as for the RS case. The only difference is that it is now moving and does not stay fixed. Since the brane is now moving we would parameterize the small deviations from the initial position by a dimensionless parameter defined as $`\alpha =1y_i^2/y^2`$, where $`y_i`$ is the initial position of the brane i.e. $`y_i=l`$. Solving eq.(26), the wavefunctions for this case are,

$$\psi (y)=\sqrt{y}\left(C_1J_0(\sqrt{1\alpha }my)+C_2Y_0(\sqrt{1\alpha }my)\right).$$
(31)
The boundary conditions imply that $`C_1=m^{1/2}`$ and $`C_2=\pi m^{1/2}`$. The potential plot is again shown by Fig. 1. The continuum as before is suppressed by a factor of $`ml`$ and the massless mode as before yields effective Newtonian gravity near the horizon. As the brane expands out, the discrete modes also turn to continuum. The Hubble parameter for this case is given by

$$H=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}$$
(32)
and thus an inflationary universe is born. We thus see that when the brane tension is greater than the RS case (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$) we recover Newtonian gravity with correction due to massive KK modes, and when it is less than the RS case (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$) there does not exist a physically permissible motion for the brane.

Now we would consider the cases when the mass parameter of the bulk black hole is non zero. There would occur the horizon at $`y_h=(\sqrt{M}l)^{1/2}`$. The graviton potential is shown in Fig. 2. We first consider the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

Case (II): $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$), $`M0`$. This case is the RS case with a black hole in the bulk. The motion of the brane is determined by,

$$\dot{y}^2\frac{M}{y^2}=0.$$
(33)
Using the initial condition $`y(0)=0`$ we get

$$y(\tau )=\pm \sqrt{2}M^{1/4}\sqrt{\tau },$$
(34)
the physically acceptable solution. The brane evolves to expand as $`y(\tau )\tau ^{1/2}`$. The mass of the black hole tends to increase the rate of expansion of the brane.

Case(III): $`\sigma >\sigma _0`$ , $`M0`$. In this case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and the dynamics of the brane is given by

$$\dot{y}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}y^2\frac{M}{y^2}=0.$$
(35)
which leads to the following physical solution consistent with $`Z_2`$-symmetry,

$$y(\tau )=\left(\sqrt{\frac{3M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\mathrm{sinh}(2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}\tau )\right)^{1/2}.$$
(36)
The brane expands out exponentially and keeps expanding. The potential for massless and massive modes is shown in Fig. 2 by dashed and solid curve respectively. To the right of the event horizon it resembles RS potential.

We now solve for the Schroedinger equation (eq.(13)) in near the horizon approximation by introducing a dimensionless parameter $`\alpha =1\sqrt{M}l/y^2`$. The wavefunctions are,

$$\psi (y)=\sqrt{y}\left(C_1I_\gamma (\nu y^2)+C_2I_\gamma (\nu y^2)\right)$$
(37)
where

$$\gamma =\frac{\sqrt{5\alpha ^24}}{4\alpha },\nu =\sqrt{(2\alpha ^2+\alpha 1)/(2\alpha M)}\frac{m}{2}.$$
(38)
The boundary conditions on the wavefunction near and far away from the brane lead to $`C_1=m^{\gamma +1/2}l^\gamma M^{1/4}`$ and $`C_2=0`$. The massive modes are $`ml`$ suppressed on the brane and as the brane expands out in the negative potential the discrete modes join the continuum. The presence of discrete modes has also been linked to temperature of the brane temp . The trapped massless mode leads to recovery of Newtonian potential with massive modes contributing to the RS correction. As the brane expands and the discrete modes enter continuum, the temperature of the brane decreases which is in accordance with the fact that the universe cools down as it expands.

The Hubble parameter for the case $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ is given by

$$H=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\frac{1}{2\tau }.$$
(39)
The Einstein’s equations on the brane are

$$G_\tau ^\tau =\mathrm{\Lambda }8\pi G\stackrel{~}{\rho },$$
(40)
and

$$G_r^r=G_\theta ^\theta =G_\varphi ^\varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda }+8\pi G\stackrel{~}{p}$$
(41)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, and which are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\frac{3M}{8\pi Gy^4},\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{M}{8\pi Gy^4},$$
(42)
satisfying the radiation equation of state $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=3\stackrel{~}{p}`$. For the case $`\sigma >\sigma _0`$ the Hubble parameter takes the form

$$H=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}\mathrm{coth}(2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}\tau )$$
(43)
with the same effective energy density and pressure. In the cases when $`M`$ is zero, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\stackrel{~}{p}=0`$. Thus we see that for curvature index $`k=0`$, except for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ all other FRW models are allowed.

We would now consider the models for $`k=1`$.

## V Cosmological models for $`k=1`$

In this case when $`k=1`$ and if there is no black hole in the bulk i.e. $`M=0`$, there can be no localization of gravity possible. This is because $`V>0`$, always, which would imply absence of bound state on the brane and hence ruled out from further consideration. This shows that presence of black hole is necessary to sustain FRW cosmology for the positive curvature brane.

However the situation changes dramatically with the presence of black hole for which the horizon would occur at $`y_h^2=l^2(1+\sqrt{1+(4M/l^2)})/2`$. The potential is similar to the one shown in Fig. 1, with a negative well at the horizon and $`V_f`$ asymptoting to zero. We would now turn to motion of the brane. For $`k=1`$, since the cases $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ have already been ruled out, we are thus left with the solitary case of $`\sigma >\sigma _0`$ , $`M0`$. In this case the effective cosmological constant on the brane is positive. This case has been reported sd2  earlier. The brane trajectory is given by

$$\dot{y}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}y^2\frac{M}{y^2}+1=0,$$
(44)
which has the following solution

$$y(\tau )=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\left[1+n\mathrm{sinh}(2x)\mathrm{cosh}(2x)\right]^{1/2}$$
(45)
where $`n=2\sqrt{M\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}`$ and $`x=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}\tau `$. For $`n<1`$ the brane expands till $`\mathrm{tanh}(2x)=n`$ and then recollapses to origin. Thus localization of massless mode is not possible for $`n<1`$. However, for $`n>1`$ solution is inflationary and thus the brane would expand out exponentially. It could take off from the origin and then crosses the horizon and expands forever. With the expansion of the brane the discrete massive modes turn into continuum. To obtain the wavefunctions we solve the Schroedinger equation in the approximation $`Ml^2`$. The horizon in this approximation occurs at $`y_h=\sqrt{M}`$. We parameterize the location off the brane by introducing a parameter $`\alpha =1M/y^2`$ and solving the Schroedinger equation we get,

$$\psi (y)=\sqrt{y}\left(C_1I_{\gamma /2}(\nu y)+C_2I_{\gamma /2}(\nu y)\right)$$
(46)
where

$$\gamma =\sqrt{14l^4(12\alpha )(M2\alpha l^2)/M^3}$$
(47)
and

$$\nu =\sqrt{(1\alpha )(M2\alpha l^2)}ml/M.$$
(48)
The boundary conditions on the wavefunction at the brane and far away from it lead to $`C_1=(ml)^{(1+\gamma )/2}M^{\gamma /4}`$ with $`\gamma <2`$ and $`C_2=0`$. The massive continuum is $`ml`$ suppressed at the location of the brane. The massless mode generates the Newtonian potential and the high energy correction due to massive modes dies out as the brane expands out from the horizon. The Hubble parameter for this case is,

$$H=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}\frac{\left[n\mathrm{cosh}(2x)\mathrm{sinh}(2x)\right]}{\left[1+n\mathrm{sinh}(2x)\mathrm{cosh}(2x)\right]}$$
(49)
which implies an inflationary universe at large $`\tau `$. The effective energy density and pressure on the brane would once again be the same as given earlier in eq.(42).

In this case, note that $`n>1`$ is essential for localization which would mean $`M>3/(4\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. That puts a constraint on the black hole mass.

## VI Cosmological models for $`k=1`$

In this case the potentials for $`M=0`$ and $`M0`$ are similar to the one shown in Fig. 2. In the absence of the black hole the horizon lies at $`y_h=l`$. This case is similar to the flat $`k=0`$ case.

Case(I): $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$, $`M=0`$. This case is analog of RS case for $`k=1`$. The brane dynamics equation yields,

$$\dot{y}^21=0,y(\tau )=\pm \tau .$$
(50)
The motion is hence unbounded. The brane expands out linearly from the origin, crosses the horizon and continues expanding forever.

Case (II): $`\sigma >\sigma _0`$ , $`M=0`$. In this case eq.(20) takes the form

$$\dot{y}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}y^21=0,y(\tau )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}\tau )}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}}.$$
(51)
Thus we have an inflationary solution. The brane expands out exponentially from the origin and expands for ever.

Introducing a parameter $`\alpha =1l^2/y^2`$ we solve the Schroedinger equation to get the following solution,

$$\psi (y)=\sqrt{y}\left(C_1J_\gamma (\nu y)+C_2J_\gamma (\nu y)\right)$$
(52)
where $`\gamma =\sqrt{\alpha ^24}/(2\alpha )`$ and $`\nu =2m/\sqrt{\alpha }`$ with constants $`C_1=m^{1/2\gamma }l^\gamma `$ and $`C_2=m^{1/2+\gamma }l^\gamma `$. The Hubble parameter for the case $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ brane is

$$H=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\frac{1}{\tau }$$
(53)
whereas for the $`\sigma >\sigma _0`$ brane it is given by

$$H=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}\mathrm{coth}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}\tau ).$$
(54)
It is easy to check using Einstein’s equations on the brane that the effective energy density and pressure on the brane vanish.

We now consider the cases when there is a black hole in the bulk. The event horizon is at $`y_h^2=l^2(1+\sqrt{1+(4M/l^2)})/2`$.

Case(III): $`\sigma =\sigma _0`$ , $`M0`$. The brane dynamics is given by,

$$\dot{y}^2\frac{M}{y^2}1=0$$
(55)
which results in two physical solutions

$$y_1(\tau )=\sqrt{\tau (\tau +2\sqrt{M})},y_2(\tau )=\sqrt{\tau (\tau 2\sqrt{M})}.$$
(56)
For the first solution the brane starts expanding out from the origin at $`\tau =0`$ and keeps expanding, whereas in the second case it does not start expanding out from the origin until $`\tau =2\sqrt{M}`$. The first solution has a time hole in the region $`0\tau 2\sqrt{M}`$ whereas the second has in the region $`0\tau 2\sqrt{M}`$. For large $`\tau `$ the behavior of the brane is $`y|\tau |`$.

Case(IV): $`\sigma >\sigma _0`$ , $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, $`M0`$. The trajectory of the brane in this case is governed by

$$\dot{y}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}y^2\frac{M}{y^2}1=0.$$
(57)
This equation has two physical solutions,

$$y_1(\tau )=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\left[\mathrm{cosh}(2x)+n\mathrm{sinh}(2x)1\right]^{1/2}$$
(58)
and

$$y_2(\tau )=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\left[\mathrm{cosh}(2x)n\mathrm{sinh}(2x)1\right]^{1/2}.$$
(59)
The brane would be ever expanding for the first and for $`n<1`$ for the second solution. That means there would always exist an expanding solution.

Note that though for $`k=1`$ case a black hole with negative value of mass parameter is allowed through the horizon equation with the constraint $`Ml^2/4`$, it is clear from eqs.(56,58,59) that a negative $`M`$ would make the solutions imaginary. Thus we come to an important result that the black hole mass parameter which enters in the metric as constant of integration and can in principle be positive or negative, cannot be negative.

Solving the Schroedinger equation in the approximation $`Ml^2`$ and introducing a parameter $`\alpha =1l^2/y^2`$ the wavefunctions can be obtained as

$$\psi (y)=\sqrt{y}\left(C_1I_{\gamma /2}(\nu y)+C_2I_{\gamma /2}(\nu y)\right)$$
(60)
where

$$\gamma =\sqrt{(\alpha 4)/\alpha },\nu =\sqrt{5\alpha M3M2\alpha l^4m^2}/(\sqrt{2\alpha }l^2).$$
(61)
The boundary conditions on the brane and far away from the brane determine $`C_1=m^{\gamma +1/2}l^\gamma `$ and $`C_2=0`$. The massive continuum as before is suppressed by $`ml`$ factor on the brane. The Hubble parameters for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case ($`y_1(\tau )`$ and $`y_2(\tau )`$) are given by

$$H_1=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\frac{\tau +\sqrt{M}}{\tau (\tau +2\sqrt{M})}$$
(62)
and

$$H_2=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\frac{\tau \sqrt{M}}{\tau (\tau 2\sqrt{M})}.$$
(63)
For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ case, the Hubble parameters corresponding to the two solutions read as

$$H_1=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_4}{3}}\frac{\left[n\mathrm{cosh}(2x)+\mathrm{sinh}(2x)\right]}{\left[1+\mathrm{cosh}(2x)+n\mathrm{sinh}(2x)\right]}$$
(64)
and

$$H_2=\frac{\dot{y}}{y}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_4}{3}}\frac{\left[n\mathrm{cosh}(2x)\mathrm{sinh}(2x)\right]}{\left[1\mathrm{cosh}(2x)+n\mathrm{sinh}(2x)\right]}$$
(65)
with the same $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ as in eq.(42).

We have summarized the results of localization of gravity for various possible cosmological scenraios in Table 1.

## VII Static branes

We now wish to look for the brane solutions when the brane remains static in the bulk potential. Though such solutions can not harbor expansion and hence are not of much cosmological interest. It is however interesting to see how a proper fine tuning of parameters can keep the brane static which would otherwise be moving. Static brane in other than S-AdS bulk has also been considered gergely .

Since the matter density on a static brane would remain constant, the $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^2`$ terms would effectively behave as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term in eq.(17), which for $`\dot{y}=0`$ becomes,

$$\frac{\eta }{3}y^2+\frac{M}{y^2}k=0$$
(66)
where

$$\eta =8\pi G\rho \left(1+\frac{\rho }{2\sigma }\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(67)
For the brane to remain fixed at a location, time derivative of eq.(66) must also vanish which would require $`2\sqrt{M\eta /3}=k`$. Putting that back in eq.(66) we get $`y^2=2M/k`$ . It is interesting to see a balance between the black hole mass and energy density on the brane required to keep it fixed at a location which is again determined by the black hole mass. Clearly $`k`$ cannot be negative, however $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the static brane could be positive, negative or zero. The localization compatibitlity condition for the static brane is that it cannot have negative curvature.

When it is flat $`k=0`$, both $`M`$ and $`\eta `$ have to vanish and we have the generalization of the RS model for non empty brane, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ necessarily. The brane could be located anywhere other than $`y=0`$. When $`k`$ is non zero, it must be $`k=1`$, the brane would be located at $`y^2=2M>y_h^2`$ which means it would always lie outside the horizon. In this case, both $`M`$ and $`\eta `$ will have to be non zero. Static brane thus brings out a close relationship between the bulk black hole and energy distribution on the brane.

## VIII Conclusion

Localization of gravity on the brane is certainly a critical requirement for brane world cosmology. We have established the general result that for a dynamic FRW brane in S-AdS bulk, gravity is never localized whenever $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4<0`$, is localized for $`k=1`$ only when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4>0`$ and $`M0`$ and else is always localized on the brane for all other FRW models.

Localization hinges on two features: one, potential for zero mass graviton to be negative and second, brane must always be expanding or static at a location. Except for the case $`k=1`$, the former condition holds good without any constraint on the parameters. For $`k=1`$, presence of black hole in the bulk is necessary to make $`V_f<0`$. That is, black hole in the bulk helps confinement of gravitons on the brane. In all other cases, the critical role is played by eq. (19), which determines whether brane would have bounce or not. For ever expansion, this equation must not have a real positive root. It is clear that only negative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and positive $`k`$ favor bounce and consequently oscillatory universe, while $`M`$ helps expansion. Asymptotically, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominates over all others and hence when it is negative, there would always occur a bounce and thereby no localization. Presence of black hole critically matters only in the case of $`k=1`$, where it turns potential negative. In all other cases, its role is facilitative rather than critical. Non negative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and non positive curvature index augurs well with expansion and from the bulk they are joined constructively by mass of the black hole. The opposing effect comes from negative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and positive $`k`$. It is expansion which is critical for localization of gravity for zero mass graviton should asymptotically see vanishing potential. It would be interesting to investigate the localization of other spin fields and new interactions which might result in this setting, as has been done for the case of RS brane bajc .

Though static branes are not of cosmological interest, they exhibit a direct relation between mass of the bulk black hole and energy distribution on the brane. A static brane cannot have negative curvature. When it is flat, both black hole mass and effective cosmological constant $`\eta `$ must vanish and this gives the non emepty brane generalization of RS brane. It could be located freely anywhere except at $`y=0`$. When $`k=1`$, both black hole mass and $`\eta `$ must be non zero and its location is fixed at $`y^2=2M`$ which would always lie outside the horizon. The brane is kept static by the balance between black hole mass and $`\eta `$, which should always be positive. On the other hand $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ could have any sign.

Based on localization of gravity on the brane it clearly follows that brane world cosmology makes the definite prediction that in a dynamic universe *the cosmological constant on the brane cannot be negative and the Universe must be ever expanding*. This is an observationally testable prediction. The present observations indicate accelerating expansion which augurs well with this prediction. The main message of our study is that FRW cosmologies on the brane with S-AdS bulk spacetime are well founded gravitationally.

We thank Luis Anchordoqui, Roy Maartens, Carlos Nunez, S. Shankaranarayanan and R. G. Vishwakarma for various useful discussions and comments. PS is supported by a research grant from Council for Scientific & Industrial Research.


format: text

text:
# Probing Vortex Unbinding via Dipole Fluctuations

## Abstract

We develop a numerical method for detecting a vortex unbinding transition in a two-dimensional system by measuring large scale fluctuations in the total vortex dipole moment $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ of the system. These are characterized by a quantity $``$ which measures the number of configurations in a simulation for which the either $`P_x`$ or $`P_y`$ is half the system size. It is shown that $``$ tends to a non-vanishing constant for large system sizes in the unbound phase, and vanishes in the bound phase. The method is applied to the $`XY`$ model both in the absence and presence of a magnetic field. In the latter case, the system size dependence of $``$ suggests that there exist three distinct phases, one unbound vortex phase, a logarithmically bound phase, and a linearly bound phase.

PACS numbers: 05.10.-a, 64.60.-i, 75.10.Hk

Introduction – Topological defects play a crucial role in two dimensional classical systems and in 1+1 dimensional quantum systems. The paradigm of these is the $`XY`$ model, which is known to undergo a vortex-unbinding transition in the Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) universality class . Highly analogous transitions occur for vortices in superfluids and thin-film superconductors, as well as for dislocations and disclinations in two dimensional crystals. Wordline dislocations in one dimensional quantum systems are important for describing tunneling , and the question of whether these are bound or unbound is closely related to whether the system is metallic or insulating.

The KT phenomenology has been highly successful in describing defect unbinding in a variety of situations. For the $`XY`$ model, fitting to the expected finite-size scaling of the helicity modulus in simulations yields an estimate of $`T_{KT}=0.892`$ . However, the concepts of vortices and defect unbinding are more general than the systems in which a KT transition takes place. In some situations a symmetry-breaking field, for example, a magnetic field tending to align the spins in the $`XY`$ model, may be present . A recent renormalization group (RG) study  has suggested that vortex unbinding does occur in such systems, although the transition is considerably altered from the KT behavior. It is thus important to develop criteria by which one may determine whether a given system is in a bound or unbound vortex state which are independent of precise matching to the KT theory. In this article, we present a method by which this may be accomplished, which focuses on a measure $``$ of extreme fluctuations in the system vortex dipole moment. Using a Langevin dynamics simulation of the $`XY`$ model, we show that the method locates $`T_{KT}`$ with reasonable accuracy. We then include a magnetic field in the Hamiltonian, and show that there are both bound and unbound vortex phases. The bound phase has two distinct behaviors: for smaller fields, $``$ vanishes as a power of the system size $`L`$; for larger fields, $``$ vanishes exponentially with $`L`$. The two behaviors are consistent with the results of the RG analysis , which predicted both a logarithmically bound vortex phase and a linearly confined one, in addition to the unbound (deconfined) vortex phase.

Characterizing Vortex Dipole Fluctuations – A total vortex dipole moment may be defined for configurations of any system containing vortices with well-defined locations. For concreteness, we will work with the $`XY`$ model (planar spins of fixed length) on a square lattice. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{ij}`$ denote the angular difference between nearest neighbor spins $`ij`$, which we reduce to the interval $`\pi <\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{ij}\pi `$ by adding or subtracting $`2\pi `$ if necessary. The vorticity $`q_i`$ around an elementary plaquette $`P`$ is then $`q_i=(1/2\pi )_P\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{ij}`$, which takes on the values $`1,`$ $`0`$, $`1`$. For any configuration of the $`XY`$ system this rule assigns vortex charges to the sites $`\stackrel{}{R}_i`$ of the dual lattice. The corresponding dipole moment could be defined by

$$\stackrel{}{P}=q_i\stackrel{}{R}_i.$$
(1)
However, there is a problem associated with the use of periodic boundary conditions: for a $`L\times L`$ system one may add $`(n_i^xL,n_i^yL)`$ to $`\stackrel{}{R}_i`$ (with $`n_i^x,n_i^y`$ integers) and retain a perfectly sensible definition of $`\stackrel{}{P}`$. For a given configuration, we can use this to reduce $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ so that its components are restricted to the interval $`L/2P_{x,y}L/2`$; or we can extend its definition by adding factors of $`L`$ so that $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ remains a continuous function as a vortex crosses a periodicity boundary. We will refer to these alternate definitions of the dipole moment as $`\stackrel{}{P}_{red}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ext}`$, respectively. Note that $`P_{red}^{x,y}`$ will jump discontinuously by $`L`$ whenever a vortex crosses a boundary.

The bound vortex phase has the property that the dipole moment remains finite, since the pairs do not separate; in the unbound phase, the diffusion of vortices implies a diffusion of the dipole moment, so that its magnitude can become arbitrarily large. In a finite system, this presumably translates into the statement that the diffusion of $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ext}`$ becomes very small below the unbinding temperature.

A feature of vortex unbinding transitions is that the transition occurs via rare but extreme fluctuations . One way to characterize such fluctuations is to look for system configurations with extreme values of $`\stackrel{}{P}_{red}`$. Loosely speaking, if we wish to characterize a configuration in terms of an effective single vortex-antivortex pair, when $`P_x`$ or $`P_y`$ is $`L/2`$, the pair is at its maximum separation. If such extreme configurations persist as $`L\mathrm{}`$, the system is then in an unbound phase. By contrast, we expect the number of such configurations to vanish in the large size limit when the system is in a bound phase.

This expectation may be more carefully justified by considering effective theories of vortices in their bound and unbound phases. An unbound vortex system behaves as a two-dimensional metal in which the discreteness of the underlying vortex charges may be neglected. An effective Hamiltonian takes the form

$$H_{unb}^{eff}=\frac{K}{2}d^2xd^2x^{}\rho (\stackrel{}{x})G(|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|)\rho (\stackrel{}{x}^{})+\frac{\mu }{2}d^2x\rho ^2(\stackrel{}{x}),$$
(2)
where $`G(r)(2\pi )^1\mathrm{log}(r/a)+`$const, with $`a`$ a microscopic length of order the lattice constant of the system, and $`\mu `$ is an effective chemical potential, essentially the core energy of the vortices. For this continuum system, we can adopt a definition of the ($`x`$-component of the) dipole moment which incorporates the periodic boundary condition,

$`P_{eff}^x`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2x\rho (\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi x}{L}}\right]`$ (3)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\pi }}Im\{\rho (k_x=2\pi /L,k_y=0)\}.`$ (4)
The fraction $``$ of configurations with $`P_{eff}^x=L/2`$ is thus given by the probability of finding $`Im\{\rho (k_x=2\pi /L,k_y=0)=\pi `$. This is easily evaluated by re-expressing $`H_{unb}^{eff}`$ in terms of a wavevector sum instead of a real space integral. Noting that the Fourier transform of $`G(r)`$ for small wavevectors is $`G(k)1/k^2`$, one obtains

$$e^{\frac{1}{L^2T}[\frac{1}{2}K\left(\frac{L}{2\pi }\right)^2+\mu ]}e^{K/8\pi ^2T}$$
(5)
for the probability of obtaining an extreme dipole fluctuation in the large size limit. Notice the $``$ does not vanish as $`L\mathrm{}`$, supporting our argument above that large dipole fluctuations survive in the unbound vortex state.

To analyze the bound vortex state, we focus on the two dimensional Coulomb particle Hamiltonian

$$H_{CG}=\frac{K}{2}d^2xd^2x^{}m(\stackrel{}{x})G(|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|)m(\stackrel{}{x}^{}),$$
(6)
where $`m(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is an integer degree of freedom, and the partition function involves a sum over all complexions of $`m`$ satisfying $`d^2xm(\stackrel{}{x})=0`$. The probability of an extreme fluctuation in the system dipole moment may be expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{m\}}{}}e^{H_{CG}[m]/T}\delta [Imm(\stackrel{}{k}_d)\pi ]`$ (7)
$`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda e^{i\lambda \pi }{\displaystyle \underset{\{m\}}{}}e^{H_{CG}[m]/T}e^{i\lambda Imm(\stackrel{}{k}_d)},`$ (8)
where we have adopted the same definition of $`P_{eff}^x`$ as in Eq.4, with $`\rho (\stackrel{}{x})`$ replaced by $`m(\stackrel{}{x})`$, and $`\stackrel{}{k}_d(2\pi /L,0)`$. In the bound state the integer nature of $`m(\stackrel{}{x})`$ may not be ignored; however, we can make progress by adopting the dual description of the partition function . This involves employing the Poisson resummation formula to rewrite Eq. 8 as

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda e^{i\lambda \pi }𝒟\varphi \underset{\{n\}}{}e^{H_{CG}[\varphi ]/T}e^{i\lambda Im\varphi (\stackrel{}{k}_d)}e^{2\pi i_\stackrel{}{x}\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})n(\stackrel{}{x})}.$$
(10)
The integration over the continuous field $`\varphi `$ may be carried through, with the result

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda e^{i\lambda \pi }\underset{\{n\}}{}e^{\frac{T}{2K}_\stackrel{}{k}|2\pi n(\stackrel{}{k})\lambda Imn(\stackrel{}{k}_d)\delta _{\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}_d}|^2/G(k)}.$$
(11)
A bound vortex fixed point is generated by replacing $`K`$ with a renormalized value, and exchanging the sum over integers $`n`$ in Eq. 11 with a functional integral over continuous fields . The resulting model represents the rough phase of a solid-on-solid model. Once the integer sum has been replaced by an integral, the $`\lambda Imn(\stackrel{}{k}_d)`$ term in the integrand may be shifted away and the functional integral in fact has no dependence on $`\lambda `$. It then immediately follows that $`=0`$ for the bound vortex phase.

These considerations lead us to expect that one should observe large vortex dipole fluctuations in the unbound phase, but not in the bound one. We now demonstrate this is indeed the case using a Langevin dynamics simulation.

Simulation – Our simulations focus on the $`XY`$ model for which we assign dynamics to the spins and coupling to a heat bath to generate a distribution of configurations. The equations of motion for our system are taken to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{d^2\theta (\stackrel{}{x})}{dt^2}=\frac{\delta H_{XY}}{\delta \theta (\stackrel{}{x})}+\zeta (\stackrel{}{x})\eta \frac{d\theta (\stackrel{}{x})}{dt}.$$
(12)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an effective moment of inertia for the $`XY`$ spins, which for simplicity we set to 1 in the simulations, $`\zeta `$ is a random torque which models coupling to a heat bath, and $`\eta `$ is a viscosity. To satisfy the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the random torques are drawn from a distribution satisfying $`<\zeta (\stackrel{}{r},t)\zeta (\stackrel{}{r}^{},t^{})>=2\eta T\delta _{\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}^{}}\delta (tt^{})`$ with $`T`$ the temperature of the system. Finally, our $`XY`$ Hamiltonian is

$$H_{XY}=K\underset{<\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{x}^{}>}{}cos[\theta (\stackrel{}{x})\theta (\stackrel{}{x}^{})]h\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}cos\theta (\stackrel{}{x})$$
(13)
where we take the angles $`\theta (\stackrel{}{x})`$ to reside on an $`L\times L`$ square lattice. To perform the simulation, we have discretized the time derivative in Eq. 12 and used a standard random number generator  to generate a realization of $`\zeta (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ at each time step. A typical run consists of $`10^6`$ Langevin sweeps for equilibration, followed by $`9\times 10^6`$ measurement steps. In accumulating the data, we repeated runs for each set of parameters with $`10`$ different seeds, allowing us to estimate our statistical errors. Simulations were performed for system sizes as large as $`L=199`$, although most of the simulations were in the range $`19L59`$.

Our measurement consists of counting the number of times a component of the system dipole moment $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ext}`$ passes through $`(n+\frac{1}{2})L`$ for $`n`$ any integer. We then plot the number of such events divided by the total simulation time, yielding a measure of the fraction of configurations $``$ for which the system has attained its maximal value. One advantage of the Langevin dynamics approach is that the vortex dipole moment $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ext}`$ changes by several steps with each Langevin sweep, but these steps are always much smaller than $`L`$ except for very small values of $`L`$. This allows us to detect when $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ext}`$ has passed through $`(n+\frac{1}{2})L`$ even if in the immediate time step before and the step after $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ext}`$ was not measured to be precisely at this value. A larger number of events can then be accumulated than one might in a Monte Carlo simulation employing a cluster algorithm, since the configurations generated in the latter are not related in any simple way, forcing one to count only configurations for which $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ext}`$ is precisely $`(n+\frac{1}{2})L`$. Note that we count passages in both directions; this tells us how often $`\stackrel{}{P}_{red}`$ visits its extremal value.

As a check on the method, we first present results of simulations in the absence of the symmetry-breaking field, for which vortices unbind in a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition. Fig. 1 illustrates these for $`L=59`$, $`h=0`$ and $`K=1`$. One can see $``$ decreases sharply as the temperature approaches $`T0.9`$ from above, so that $``$ appears to be vanishing quite close to the accepted value of $`T_{KT}^{XY}=0.892`$. The differing behavior of $``$ above and below the transition can be further confirmed by examining its size dependence: for $`T`$ below the transition temperature, $``$ decreases with system size, apparently approaching zero as $`L\mathrm{}`$, whereas for higher values of $`T`$, $``$ increases, approaching a constant value from below. These differing size dependences strongly support the idea that $``$ distinguishes the bound and unbound phases.

We now turn to the case $`h>0`$, for which we show some typical results in Fig. 2. The behavior of $``$ as a function of system size takes three differing forms, depending on the values of $`h`$ and $`T`$. At high temperature and low fields, $``$ clearly approaches a non-vanishing value in the large system size limit (e.g., $`h=0.18`$ curve in Fig. 2). Unlike the $`h=0`$ case the asymptotic value of $``$ is approached from above, indicating the that symmetry breaking field has had some effect, although for small enough $`h`$ the vortices remain unbound. At intermediate values of $`h`$, we find $``$ decreasing as a power law in $`1/L`$ ($`h=0.3`$ curve), indicating a bound vortex phase behaving as one would expect for logarithmically interacting vortices. Finally, at the largest values of $`h`$ ($`h=0.5`$ curve), $``$ decreases exponentially with $`L`$, as might be expected for vortices interacting with a linear binding potential.

Our results indicate that in the presence of a magnetic field, there exists an unbound vortex state and two different bound vortex states in the $`XY`$ model. This behavior is precisely what was predicted in the $`RG`$ analysis of Ref. . At low temperatures, vortex-antivortex pairs are connected by a string of overturned spins, leading to linear confinement. As temperature is increased, fluctuations can lead to a roughening of the strings binding the vortices, driving the effective string tension to zero. The vortex-antivortex pairs nevertheless retain a logarithmic attraction and remain bound as the system passes through the transition. At still higher temperatures, a second transition occurs in which the vortices do ultimately unbind. A remarkable feature of these transitions is that they are extremely continuous, so that no singularity is expected in the free energy as the transitions occur. Measurements of the specific heat and magnetization in our simulations show no indications of any such singularities. Thus, one is forced to probe the vortices directly in order to detect their unbinding, as we have done by probing the system vortex dipole moment. It is interesting to note that, in the absence of singularities in the free-energy, it is unclear whether vortex unbinding should be thought of as a true thermodynamic phase transition. To our knowledge, this is the first example of a defect-unbinding transition that does not have the full character of a phase transition.

In summary, we have developed a method of detecting vortex unbinding in two-dimensional systems by tracking extreme fluctuations in the vortex dipole moment of the system. For a system of size linear $`L`$, the fraction of configurations $``$ having a dipole moment component $`P_x`$ or $`P_y`$ equal to its largest value consistent with periodic boundary conditions ($`L/2`$) approaches a constant for large sizes when vortices are unbound, and vanishes when vortices are bound. We have demonstrated this for the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in $`XY`$ model, for which $``$ can locate the transition temperature with reasonable accuracy. In the presence of a magnetic field tending to orient the spins, we have found that there is an unbound vortex state and two possible bound vortex states, one consistent with logarithmic binding of the vortices, the other with linear confinement. The method presented here is easily generalizable, and should be applicable to systems with other topological, point-like defects.

Acknowledgments – The authors are indebted to the Center for Computational Sciences at the University of Kentucky for providing computer time. Helpful discussions with Dr. Donald Priour are gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by NSF Grant No. DMR-01-08451.


text:
# SUSY-Induced Top Quark FCNC Processes at Linear Colliders

## I Introduction

The study of flavor-changing neutral-current (FCNC) interactions has been playing an important role in testing the Standard Model (SM) and probing new physics beyond the SM. As the most massive fermion in the SM, the top quark is naturally regarded to be more sensitive to new physics than other fermions. In the SM, due to the GIM mechanism, the top quark FCNC interactions are absent at tree level and extremely small at loop levels. In some new physics models beyond the SM the top quark FCNC may be significantly enhanced. Searching for the top quark FCNC would be a good probe for new physics.

Intensive activities to explore the top quark FCNC couplings have been undertaken in recent years. On the experimental side, the CDF and D0 collaborations have reported interesting bounds on the FCNC top quark decays  from Run 1 experiment and will tighten the bounds from the on-going Run 2 experiment. On the theoretical side, various FCNC top quark decays and top-charm associated productions at high energy colliders were extensively studied in the SM , the Minimal Supersymmetric Model (MSSM)  and other new physics models . These studies showed that the SM predictions for such top quark FCNC processes are far below the detectable level and the MSSM can enhance them by several orders to make them potentially accessible at future collider experiments .

Due to its rather clean environment, the next generation linear collider (NLC) will be an ideal machine to probe new physics. In such a collider, in addition to $`e^+e^{}`$ collision, we can also realize $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision and $`e^{}\gamma `$ collision with the photon beams generated by the backward Compton scattering of incident electron- and laser-beams . The SUSY induced top-charm FCNC will give rise to various processes at the NLC, i.e., the top-charm associated productions via $`e^+e^{}`$, $`e^{}\gamma `$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions as well as the top quark rare decays $`tcV`$ ($`V=g`$, $`\gamma `$ or $`Z`$). It is noticable that some of these processes, like the top-charm associated productions in $`\gamma \gamma `$ or $`e^{}\gamma `$ collision, have not been studied in the framework of the MSSM. The production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision may be more important than in $`e^+e^{}`$ collision studied in the literature . The reason is twofold. Firstly, the process $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ is a good probe of new physics because it is essentially free of any SM irreducible background . Secondly, unlike the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{c}`$, which is $`s`$-channel suppressed in high energy collisions, there are $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel contributions to $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ and thus its cross section may be much larger at the NLC. It is also noticable that all these FCNC processes at the NLC involve the same part of the parameter space of the MSSM ***Since the FCNC decay $`tch`$ involves more parameters, we do not include it in our analysis.. Therefore, it is necessary to perform a comparative analysis for all these processes to find out which process is best to probe the top quark FCNC. This is the aim of this article.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we discuss the mixing between top-squark and charm-squark and derive the FCNC interaction Lagrangian in SUSY-QCD. In Sec. III, we calculate the $`t\overline{c}`$ productions in $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`e^{}\gamma `$ colllisions induced by such FCNC SUSY-QCD interactions. Numerical results for these productions at the NLC are given in Sec. IV, with the comparison to $`t\overline{c}`$ production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collision and various FCNC top quark decays. Finally, a brief discussion and conclusion can be found in Sec. V.

## II Flavor mixing of top-squark and charm-squark and the induced FCNC

Many popular SUSY models predict the flavor mixings of sfermions. For the squark sector, despite of the possible strong constraints on the down type squark flavor mixings from the low-energy experimental data The down type squark flavor mixings in large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit could enhance the FCNC $`B`$ decays by several orders  and will face tests in the on-going $`B`$-factory experiments., the mixings between top-squark and charm-squark are subject to no strong low-energy constraints .

Such a mixing between top-squark and charm-squark is well motivated in low-energy supergravity models (SUGRA) . In these models squark mass matrices are diagonalized simultaneously as with the quark matrices at the Planck scale. But when the terms evolve down to low energy, this diagonality is violated by radiative corrections. Due to large top quark mass, at low energy it is found  that the mixing between top-squark and charm-squark may be significant. Note that only $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ mixes with top-squark while $`\stackrel{~}{c}_R`$ does not in the approximation of neglecting charm quark mass. As shown in , the mixing between $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ is most likely to be large, which is proportional to a sum of some soft masses.

Motivated by the above arguments, in our analysis we assume the existence of the mixing between $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ and parameterize the mixing as $`\delta _LM_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_1}`$, where $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$ ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_1}`$) is the soft mass parameter for left-handed squark of third (second) generation and $`\delta _L`$ is a dimensionless parameter representing the mixing strength. $`\delta _L`$ can be calculated in terms of other parameters in a given model like mSUGRA . But in our calculation we retain it as a free parameter in the range of $`01`$ .

Considering the mixing between $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ and neglecting the mixing between $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_R`$, we obtain the $`3\times 3`$ mass-square matrix in the basis $`(\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R,\stackrel{~}{c}_L)`$:

$`_{mass}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{t}_L^{}& \stackrel{~}{t}_R^{}& \stackrel{~}{c}_L^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+m_t^2+D_L& m_tX& \delta _LM_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_1}\\ m_tX& M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2+m_t^2+D_R& 0\\ \delta _LM_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_1}& 0& M_{\stackrel{~}{Q_1}}^2+m_c^2+D_L\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{t}_L\\ \stackrel{~}{t}_R\\ \stackrel{~}{c}_L\end{array}\right)`$ (8)
where $`D_Lm_Z^2\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )(\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}s_W^2)`$, $`D_R=\frac{2}{3}m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )s_W^2`$, $`X=A_t+\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta `$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2`$ is the soft-breaking mass term for right-handed top-squark. $`A_t`$ is the coefficient of the trilinear term $`H_2\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{U}`$ in soft-breaking terms, $`\mu `$ is the mixing mass parameter between $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ in the superpotential and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ is ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets.

The mass-square matrix in Eq.(8) can be diagonalized by a $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrix $`V`$, which rotates the interaction eigenstates ($`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$) into mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2,3}`$. Such a rotation results in the FCNC in both the weak interaction sector and the strong SUSY-QCD sector. Of course, the latter will be dominant. So in our analysis we only consider the FCNC in SUSY-QCD sector, given by

$`_{FCNC}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_sT^a\left[\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}}_a(V_{i1}^{}P_LV_{i2}^{}P_R)t\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{}+\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}}_aV_{i3}^{}P_Lc\stackrel{~}{q}_i^{}\right],`$ (9)
where $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$.

## III Calculations

The SUSY-QCD FCNC in Eq.(9) will induce the top-charm associated production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision, as shown in Fig. 1. Throughout our calculations the charge conjugate production channel, i.e., the production of $`\overline{t}c`$, has also been included. Neglecting the charm quark mass, the amplitude of this process is given by

$`=2i\alpha \alpha _sQ_c^2C_F\overline{u}_t\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }P_Lv_cϵ_\mu (\lambda _1)ϵ_\nu (\lambda _2)`$ (10)
with $`Q_c=2/3`$, $`C_F=4/3`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`c_1p_t^\mu p_t^\nu +c_2p_c^\mu p_c^\nu +c_3p_t^\mu p_c^\nu +c_4p_t^\nu p_c^\mu +c_5p_t^\mu \gamma ^\nu +c_6p_c^\mu \gamma ^\nu +c_7p_c^\nu \gamma ^\mu +c_8p_t^\nu \gamma ^\mu `$ (13)
$`+c_9g^{\mu \nu }+c_{10}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +c_{11}p_t^\mu p_t^\nu \mathit{}_2+c_{12}p_c^\mu p_c^\nu \mathit{}_2+c_{13}p_t^\mu p_c^\nu \mathit{}_2+c_{14}p_t^\nu p_c^\mu \mathit{}_2+c_{15}p_t^\mu \gamma ^\nu \mathit{}_2`$
$`+c_{16}p_c^\mu \gamma ^\nu \mathit{}_2+c_{17}p_c^\nu \gamma ^\mu \mathit{}_2+c_{18}p_t^\nu \gamma ^\mu \mathit{}_2+c_{19}g^{\mu \nu }\mathit{}_2+c_{20}i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma _\alpha k_{2\beta }.`$
Here $`k_{1,2}`$ denote the momentum of incoming photons and $`p_{t,c}`$ the momentum of outgoing top and charm quarks. The coefficients $`c_i`$ can be obtained by a straightforward calculation of the diagrams shown in Fig. 1 and their expressions are presented in the Appendix.

We checked that our results satisfy the Ward identity, $`k_1^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }=0`$ and $`k_2^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }=0`$. We also checked that all ultraviolet divergences canceled in our results due to the unitary of $`V`$, which is essentially guaranteed by the renormalizability of the MSSM. Note that when $`t`$ or $`u`$ approaches 0, which is physically permitted, $`c_i`$ tend to be very large. Indeed, this is the advantage of such a process over $`e^+e^{}t\overline{c}`$ which has only $`s`$-channel contribution and thus is suppressed at high energy colliders.

The $`t\overline{c}`$ production in $`e^{}\gamma `$ collision proceeds through the process $`e^{}\gamma e^{}\gamma ^{}\gamma e^{}t\overline{c}`$, where the $`\gamma `$-beam is generated by the backward Compton scattering of incident electron- and laser-beam and the $`\gamma ^{}`$ is radiated from $`e^{}`$ beam. The subprocess $`\gamma ^{}\gamma t\overline{c}`$ has the same Feynman diagrams shown in Fig. 1. In our calculation we use the Weizs$`\ddot{a}`$cker-Williams approximation  which treats $`\gamma ^{}`$ from $`e^{}`$ beam as a real photon. Thus the process can be approximated by the simpler fusion reaction $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ and its cross section is given by

$`\widehat{\sigma }_{e\gamma et\overline{c}}(s_{e\gamma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{(m_t+m_c)^2/s_{e\gamma }}^1}dxP_{\gamma /e}(x,E_e)\widehat{\sigma }_{\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}}(s_{\gamma \gamma }=xs_{e\gamma }),`$ (14)
where $`P_{\gamma /e}(x,E_e)`$ is the probability of finding a photon with a fraction $`x`$ of energy $`E_e`$ in an ultrarelativistic electron and is given by

$`P_{\gamma /e}(x,E_e)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+(1x)^2}{x}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{E_e}{m_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}2)+1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(2x)^2}{2x}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{22x}{2x}}\right)\right).`$ (15)
Note that there are also intermediate $`Z`$-boson contribution for the process $`e\gamma et\overline{c}`$. However, such contributions are suppressed by the probability function of finding a $`Z`$-boson in an ultrarelativistic electron  and can be safely neglected.

For both $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider and $`e\gamma `$ collider, the photon beams are generated by the backward Compton scattering of incident electron- and laser-beams just before the interaction point. The events number is obtained by convoluting the cross section with the photon beam luminosity distribution. For $`\gamma \gamma `$ collider the events number is obtained by

$`N_{\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}\frac{\mathrm{d}_{\gamma \gamma }}{\mathrm{d}\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}}\widehat{\sigma }_{\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}}(s_{\gamma \gamma })}_{ee}\sigma _{\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}}(s_{ee}),`$ (16)
where $`\mathrm{d}_{\gamma \gamma }/\mathrm{d}\sqrt{s_{\gamma \gamma }}`$ is the photon beam luminosity distribution and $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}}(s_{ee})`$, with $`s_{ee}`$ being the energy-square of $`e^+e^{}`$ collison, is defined as the effective cross section of $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$. In optimum case, it can be written as

$`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}}(s_{ee})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{(m_t+m_c)/\sqrt{s_{ee}}}^{x_{max}}}2zdz\widehat{\sigma }_{\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}}(s_{\gamma \gamma }=z^2s_{ee}){\displaystyle _{z^2/x_{max}}^{x_{max}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x}}F_{\gamma /e}(x)F_{\gamma /e}({\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{x}}),`$ (17)
where $`F_{\gamma /e}`$ denotes the energy spectrum of the back-scattered photon for unpolarized initial electrons and laser photon beams given by

$`F_{\gamma /e}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(\xi )}}\left(1x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{4x}{\xi (1x)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4x^2}{\xi ^2(1x)^2}}\right).`$ (18)
The definitions of parameters $`\xi `$, $`D(\xi )`$ and $`x_{max}`$ can be found in . In our numerical calculation, we choose $`\xi =4.8`$, $`D(\xi )=1.83`$ and $`x_{max}=0.83`$.

For the $`e^{}\gamma `$ collider the effective cross section of $`e\gamma et\overline{c}`$ is defined as

$`\sigma _{e\gamma et\overline{c}}(s_{ee})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{ee}}}{\displaystyle d\sqrt{s_{e\gamma }}\frac{\mathrm{d}_{e\gamma }}{\mathrm{d}\sqrt{s_{e\gamma }}}\widehat{\sigma }_{e\gamma et\overline{c}}(s_{e\gamma })}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{(m_t+m_c)/\sqrt{s_{ee}}}^{x_{max}}}2zdz\widehat{\sigma }_{\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}}(s_{\gamma \gamma }=z^2s_{ee}){\displaystyle _{z^2/x_{max}}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x}}P_{\gamma /e}(x,E_e)F_{\gamma /e}({\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{x}}).`$ (20)
The process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{c}`$ and the top quark rare decays $`tcV`$ ($`V=\gamma ,Z,g`$) were already calculated in the literature. Here for comparison we recalculated all of them. The lengthy expressions are not presented here.

## IV Numerical Results

The relevant SUSY parameters all the top-charm productions and top quark rare decays are $`\delta _L`$, $`X(=A_t+\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}1}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. To find out typical magnitudes of these processes, we scan over these SUSY parameters by requiring $`5\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}86.4`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>190`$ GeV , $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q1}}1`$ TeV and restricting other soft mass parameters to be of sub-TeV scale.

Our scan results are plotted in Figs. 2 and 3. For the productions one sees that the typical values are $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma t\overline{c})10^2`$ fb and $`\sigma (e\gamma et\overline{c})10^3`$ fb and in optimum cases $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma t\overline{c})0.7`$ fb and $`\sigma (e\gamma et\overline{c})0.04`$ fb. While for the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{c}`$, the cross section can only reach $`0.02`$ fb, one order of magnitude lower than that of $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ and comparable with that of $`e\gamma et\overline{c}`$. The reason for this, as we pointed out before, is due to the $`t`$-channel enhancement for $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ and $`s`$-channel suppression for $`e^+e^{}t\overline{c}`$. For the top quark rare decays we see that the optimum values are $`Br(tcg)10^5`$, $`Br(tcZ)10^7`$ and $`Br(tc\gamma )10^7`$, which agree with previous results .

Comparing with predictions in other models, such as R-parity violating model  and the type III two Higgs doublet model, we find that the optimum value of $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma t\overline{c})`$ in SUSY-QCD is larger. Note that our results for $`\sigma (e^+e^{}t\overline{c})`$ are quite different from those in Ref. where the optimum value of $`\sigma (e^+e^{}t\overline{c})`$ can reach $`0.1`$ fb. The reason for the difference is that in Ref.  a non-unitary flavor changing matrix is used. During our scan, we find that, only in case of a light top-squark with mass of $`100200`$ GeV and a large mass splitting of a few hundreds GeV in squark spectrum can relative large cross sections of these processes be obtained. This is due to a GIM-like cancellation which occurs in the limit of degenerate squark masses as a result of the unitarity of the rotation matrix $`V`$.

The SM and MSSM predictions for the top-charm FCNC processes are summarized in Table I. Note that since the SM prediction for the process $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ has not been done in the literature, the SM value shown in the table is calculated by us. This is an arduous work. There are 66 diagrams contributing $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ in $`R_\xi `$ gauge and often the contribution from a single box diagram can be decomposed into dozens of terms. In order to avoid artificial error, we use FormCalc in our calculations. From Table I, we see that the MSSM can enhance the cross section of top-charm associated production processes by several orders.

Table 1: Theoretical predictions for the top-quark FCNC processes. SUSY-QCD predictions are the maximum values. The collider energy is $`500`$ GeV for productions.

|  | SM | SUSY QCD |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma t\overline{c})`$ | $`𝒪(10^8)`$ fb | $`𝒪(10^1)`$ fb |
| $`\sigma (e^{}\gamma e^{}t\overline{c})`$ | $`𝒪(10^9)`$ fb | $`𝒪(10^2)`$ fb |
| $`\sigma (e^+e^{}t\overline{c})`$ | $`𝒪(10^{10})`$ fb | $`𝒪(10^2)`$ fb |
| $`r(tcg)`$ | $`𝒪(10^{11})`$ | $`𝒪(10^5)`$ |
| $`r(tcZ)`$ | $`𝒪(10^{13})`$ | $`𝒪(10^7)`$ |
| $`r(tc\gamma )`$ | $`𝒪(10^{13})`$ | $`𝒪(10^7)`$ |

The behaviours of the SM cross sections versus the collider energy are shown in Fig. 4 for three different production processes. We see that the cross section of $`e^+e^{}t\overline{c}`$ drops quickly with the increase of collider energy due to the $`s`$-channel suppression.

Let us focus on the most important process $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ and study some of its features. For example we fix $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q1}}=1000`$ GeV, and choose $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=600`$ GeV, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=400`$ GeV for scenario I (relatively light squarks for the third-family) and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=800`$ GeV, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=600`$ GeV for scenario II (relatively heavy squarks for the third-family).

The cross section of $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ as a function of $`\delta _L`$ is shown in Fig. 5. This figure shows that the cross section is enhanced dramatically with the increase of $`\delta _L`$. Clearly this is due to the fact that large $`\delta _L`$ will not only enhance the mixing between top-squark and charm-squark but also enlarge the mass splitting between the squarks. In Fig. 6 we show the dependence of $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma t\overline{c})`$ on $`X`$. We see that $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma t\overline{c})`$ increases as $`X`$ gets large. The reason is that large $`X`$ enhances the mass splitting between the top-squarks and thus lead to a weak cancellation between different Feynman diagrams.

The dependence of $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma t\overline{c})`$ on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and $`\sqrt{s}`$ is shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, respectively. Fig. 7 shows that the cross section drops when gluino becomes heavier, showing the decoupling effect of the MSSM.

From Figs. 5-8 one finds that the cross section in scenario I is always larger than that in scenario II. The reason is that scenario I has the relative light squarks for the third-family which lead to a larger mass splitting in squark spectrum.

## V Summary and Conclusion

We have performed a comparative analysis for the SUSY-induced top-charm FCNC processes at the NLC. These processes include the top-charm associated productions via $`e^+e^{}`$, $`e^{}\gamma `$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions as well as the top quark rare decays $`tcV`$ ($`V=g`$, $`\gamma `$ or $`Z`$), all of which involve the same SUSY parameters.

In the production channels the $`t\overline{c}`$ production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision was found to occur at a much higher rate than $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`e^{}\gamma `$ collision. In some part of parameter space, the production rate of $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{c}`$ can reach $`0.7`$ fb. This means we may have $`70`$ events each year for the designed luminosity of $`100`$ fb-1/year at the NLC. Since the SM value of the production rate is completely negligible, the observation of such $`t\overline{c}`$ events would be a robust indirect evidence of SUSY.

Note that in practical experimental searches of such $`t\overline{c}`$ events, a careful study of backgrounds is needed. To efficiently suppress the backgrounds, the signal events may be hurt by $`50\%`$ or more . Using polarization at a linear collider can help to suppress the background, as analyzed in the second reference of .

In the rare decay channels the $`tcg`$ was found to have the largest branching ratio which can reach $`10^5`$, in agreement with previous studies. Although $`10^5`$ $`t\overline{t}`$ events could be produced at the NLC each year, studies  showed that the sensitivity to such rare decays can only reach $`5\times 10^4`$. So the MSSM prediction for the branching ratio of $`10^5`$ is too low to be accessible at the NLC unless the designed luminosity can be further upgraded.

Therefore, we conclude that, to probe the SUSY-induced FCNC top quark interactions at the NLC, $`t\overline{c}`$ production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision is the best channel.

Note that in our analysis we assumed flavor mixing occurs between $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$, which is favored in SUGRA models. Other kinds of mixings like the mixing between $`\stackrel{~}{c}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$  may also be of phenomenological interest. However, we believe our conclusion will be quite model-independent since our results reflect the basic features of the processes.

## Acknowledgment

We thank Kaoru Hagiwara and Tao Han for very helpful discussions. This work is supported by Young Outstanding Foundation of Academia Sinica.

## Appendix

Before presenting the explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }`$, we define the following abbreviations

$`\widehat{s}`$ $`=`$ $`(k_1+k_2)^2=(p_t+p_c)^2,`$ (21)
$`\widehat{t}`$ $`=`$ $`(p_tk_2)^2=(k_1p_c)^2,`$ (22)
$`\widehat{u}`$ $`=`$ $`(p_tk_1)^2=(k_2p_c)^2,`$ (23)
$`\widehat{V}_{13}B_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{1\beta }V_{\beta 3}^{}B_i(p_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta },m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}),`$ (24)
$`\widehat{V}_{13}B_i^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{1\beta }V_{\beta 3}^{}B_i(p_c,m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta },m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}),`$ (25)
$`\widehat{V}_{13}B_i^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{1\beta }V_{\beta 3}^{}B_i(p_t+k_2,m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta },m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}),`$ (26)
$`\widehat{V}_{13}C_{ij}^e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{1\beta }V_{\beta 3}^{}C_{ij}(k_1,p_ck_1,m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta },m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta },m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}),`$ (27)
$`\widehat{V}_{13}C_{ij}^d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{1\beta }V_{\beta 3}^{}C_{ij}(k_2,p_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta },m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta },m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}),`$ (28)
$`\widehat{V}_{13}D_{ij}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{1\beta }V_{\beta 3}^{}D_{ij}(k_2,p_t,p_c,m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta },m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta },m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},m_{\stackrel{~}{U}_\beta }),`$ (29)
where $`V`$ is squark mixing matrix and B, C and D are loop functions defined in .

Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_t^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Box1}^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Box2}^{\mu \nu }`$ (30)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_u^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_t^{\mu \nu }|_{(k_1k_2,\mu \nu ,tu})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Box2}^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Box1}^{\mu \nu }|_{(k_1k_2,\mu \nu ,tu})`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Box1}^{\mu \nu }`$ in Eq.(30) can be expressed in the form of Eq.(13) and their corresponding coefficients $`c_i`$ are given as

$`c_{t,1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\widehat{t}m_c^2}}(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}(C_{22}^dC_{23}^d)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23}C_{12}^d),`$ (31)
$`c_{t,4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\widehat{t}m_t^2}}(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}(C_{23}^eC_{22}^e)+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23}C_{12}^e)+c_{t,1},`$ (32)
$`c_{t,5}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_t^2(\widehat{t}m_c^2)}}(m_t^2\widehat{V}_{13}(B_0^a+B_1^a)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\widehat{V}_{23}B_0^a),`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_t^2(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\widehat{V}_{23}B_0^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{t}m_t^2)(\widehat{t}m_c^2)}},`$
$`\times (\widehat{t}\widehat{V}_{13}(B_0^c+B_1^c)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\widehat{V}_{23}B_0^c)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\widehat{t}m_c^2}}\widehat{V}_{13}C_{24}^d+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\widehat{t}m_t^2}}\widehat{V}_{13}C_{24}^e,`$
$`c_{t,6}`$ $`=`$ $`2\widehat{V}_{13}(C_{23}^eC_{22}^e)+c_{t,5},`$ (37)
$`c_{t,8}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_t^2(\widehat{t}m_c^2)}}(m_t^2\widehat{V}_{13}(B_0^a+B_1^a)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\widehat{V}_{23}B_0^a)`$ (42)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_t^2(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\widehat{V}_{23}B_0^b+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(\widehat{t}m_t^2)(\widehat{t}m_c^2)}}`$
$`\times (\widehat{t}\widehat{V}_{13}(B_0^c+B_1^c)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\widehat{V}_{23}B_0^c)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\widehat{t}m_c^2}}(\widehat{t}\widehat{V}_{13}(C_{12}^d+C_{23}^d)+m_t^2\widehat{V}_{13}(C_{22}^dC_{23}^d)`$
$`+2\widehat{V}_{13}C_{24}^dm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\widehat{V}_{23}C_{12}^d){\displaystyle \frac{4}{\widehat{t}m_t^2}}\widehat{V}_{13}C^e_{24},`$
$`c_{t,10}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{m_t^2(\widehat{t}m_c^2)}}(m_t^2\widehat{V}_{13}(B_0^a+B_1^a)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\widehat{V}_{23}B_0^a)`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{(\widehat{t}m_t^2)(\widehat{t}m_c^2)}}(\widehat{t}\widehat{V}_{13}(B_0^c+B_1^c)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\widehat{V}_{23}B_0^c)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_t}{\widehat{t}m_c^2}}\widehat{V}_{13}C_{24}^d+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}}{(\widehat{t}m_t^2)(\widehat{t}m_c^2)}}(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}(B_0^c+B_1^c)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23}B_0^c),`$
$`c_{t,16}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\widehat{t}m_t^2}}(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}(C_{23}^eC_{22}^e)+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23}C_{12}^e),`$ (46)
$`c_{t,18}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\widehat{t}m_c^2}}(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}(C_{22}^dC_{23}^d)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23}C_{12}^d),`$ (47)
$`c_{t,19}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{t,20}=c_{t,5},`$ (48)
$`c_{Box1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`4(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23})(D_{22}D_{24})+4m_t\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{32}D_{36}),`$ (49)
$`c_{Box1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`4(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23})(D_{23}D_{25})4m_t\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{310}D_{39}),`$ (50)
$`c_{Box1,3}`$ $`=`$ $`4(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23})(D_{25}D_{26})4m_t\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{310}D_{37}),`$ (51)
$`c_{Box1,4}`$ $`=`$ $`4(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23})(D_{24}D_{26})4m_t\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{36}D_{37}),`$ (52)
$`c_{Box1,5}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{311}D_{312}),`$ (53)
$`c_{Box1,6}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{311}D_{313}),`$ (54)
$`c_{Box1,7}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{V}_{13}D_{313},`$ (55)
$`c_{Box1,8}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{V}_{13}D_{312},`$ (56)
$`c_{Box1,9}`$ $`=`$ $`4(m_t\widehat{V}_{13}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\widehat{V}_{23})D_{27}+4m_t\widehat{V}_{13}D_{312},`$ (57)
$`c_{Box1,11}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{22}D_{24}D_{34}+D_{36}),`$ (58)
$`c_{Box1,12}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{23}D_{25}D_{35}+D_{38}),`$ (59)
$`c_{Box1,13}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{25}D_{26}D_{310}+D_{35}),`$ (60)
$`c_{Box1,14}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{24}D_{26}D_{310}+D_{34}),`$ (61)
$`c_{Box1,19}`$ $`=`$ $`4\widehat{V}_{13}(D_{27}D_{311}).`$ (62)