text:
# Can a brane fluctuate freely?

## 1 Introduction

Branes, general relativistic objects extended in spacetime, have been discussed in various contexts. In String or M-theory , branes are thought to be a fundamental constituent element. In particular, D-branes on which the endpoints of open strings are restricted to lie have turned out to play an important role. In cosmology, topological defects  such as domain walls and cosmic strings may have influenced the history of our universe significantly. Recently, so called braneworld scenario has attracted much attention, giving an intriguing perspective that our universe is embedded as a brane in a higher dimensional spacetime. In particular, in a model proposed by Randall and Sundrum , the self-gravity of a self-gravitating tension brane plays an important role to reproduce the conventional law of gravity approximately.

The dynamics of branes in a curved spacetime has so far been investigated extensively. One handy approximation to describe the dynamics of a brane is just to ignore its self-gravity, and to treat it as a test membrane on a given background spacetime. As far as a vacuum brane is concerned, its equation of motion follows from the Nambu-Goto action. The brane is supposed to oscillate freely following this equation in the lowest order approximation in which the self-gravity is neglected. Then, turning on the effect of self-gravity, one evaluates the emission of gravitational waves, and takes into account the radiation damping effect as a correction. In the cosmological context this method has been frequently used for the estimate of the emission rate of radiations .

One might anticipate that arbitrary accuracy will be obtained by the successive iteration of this scheme. One way to justify this procedure is to solve both the equation of motion for the brane and the bulk field equations simultaneously, and compare the result with that obtained by the successive approximation. Though this program is impossible to accomplish in general situations, there are actually several exactly solvable cases. Making use of the high symmetry of the background geometries, the full set of perturbation equations of a self-gravitating vacuum brane in $`4`$-dimensional spacetime with infinitesimal width have been solved . The unperturbed configurations considered in these references are composed of maximally symmetric 4-dimensional spacetime and a vacuum de Sitter 2-brane. It has been shown that, once the gravitational backreaction is turned on, a vacuum brane loses its own dynamical degrees of freedom, and the perturbed motion is possible only while incidental gravitational waves come across the brane. Namely, the conclusion of those references was that a gravitating brane is not able to oscillate freely. On the other hand, when we consider a test non-gravitating brane, a small deformation of a brane in a maximally symmetric configuration is described as a scalar field on the unperturbed worldsheet, which obeys the Klein-Gordon equation with negative mass squared . The degrees of freedom corresponding to this scalar field have not been identified in the former description in which the effect of self-gravity is fully taken into account. In this sense, the physical picture described by the dynamics of a self-gravitating brane is quite different from that by a non-gravitating one.

In this paper, we shall revisit the perturbation dynamics of a brane coupled to the bulk gravity, aiming at filling the gap between these two ways of describing the brane dynamics. Just for simplicity, we shall restrict our attention to a vacuum brane of co-dimension one.

In Sec. 2, we remind the description by means of a non-gravitating brane. In the first part of this paper (Secs. 3 \- 5), after briefly summarizing the unperturbed background geometries in Sec. 3, we provide the general formula for bulk and brane perturbations in Secs. 4 and 5, respectively. The formalism developed there is given in terms of the master scalar variable introduced in Refs.  and its variant, which considerably simplifies the perturbation equations. In Sec. 5.1, we discuss the interaction between the motion of a gravitating brane and bulk metric perturbations, deriving the boundary conditions for the bulk perturbations along the brane from the perturbed junction conditions. We also derive the equation of motion for a gravitating brane, and compare it with the equation for a non-gravitating brane in Sec. 5.2. In the second part (Secs. 6 and 7), we address the issue that in which situation the test non-gravitating brane treatment can well approximate the dynamics of a self-gravitating brane. We propose a weak backreaction condition in Sec. 6.1. In the succeeding subsections, we examine perturbations of a de Sitter brane embedded in a de Sitter bulk spacetime (dSn+1-brane $``$ dSn+2-bulk) to show that when the weak backreaction condition holds the dynamics of a self-gravitating brane reproduces the picture described by a non-gravitating brane. In Sec. 7 we complete our explanation of the correspondence between the two different ways of the description of brane dynamics, by constructing the retarded Green’s function for the perturbation of a self-gravitating brane, and by identifying a pole in the expression of the Green’s function with the perturbations corresponding to brane fluctuations. We summarize our results in Sect. 8. In appendix B, we explicitly construct the global solutions for the perturbations in some exactly solvable cases dS3,5-brane $``$ dS4,6-bulk.

## 2 Dynamics of a non-gravitating vacuum brane

First, we recapitulate an approximate treatment given by considering a non-gravitating vacuum brane on a fixed curved background . We are concerned with an $`n`$-brane $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ embedded in $`(n+2)`$-dimensional spacetime $`(\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN})`$. We use $`\stackrel{~}{x}^M`$ for the coordinates of the bulk spacetime, while $`x^\mu `$ for the coordinates on the brane. The metric induced on the brane is given by $`q_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN}_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}^M_\nu \stackrel{~}{x}^N`$. The brane $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ divides the ambient manifold $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ into two parts, which we respectively call $`\stackrel{~}{}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$. Dynamics of a non-gravitating brane follows the equations of motion derived from Nambu-Goto type action

$$S=\sigma _\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{n+1}x\sqrt{det(q_{\mu \nu })}+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _\stackrel{~}{}_{}d^{n+2}\stackrel{~}{x}\sqrt{det(\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN})},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma `$ is the brane tension, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ is the difference of the values of the vacuum energy density between $`\stackrel{~}{}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$. We assume that both $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ are constant throughout this paper. In the non-gravitating brane approximation, we neglect the effects of gravity caused by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ as well as those by $`\sigma `$. Starting with this action, and taking the variation with respect to a small deviation in the brane configuration $`\stackrel{~}{x}^M(x^\mu )`$, we have the equation of motion for a non-gravitating brane as

$$K^\mu {}_{\mu }{}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\sigma }.$$
(2)
Here the extrinsic curvature is defined by $`K_{\mu \nu }:=\stackrel{~}{g}_{LN}_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}^M_\nu \stackrel{~}{x}^L\stackrel{~}{}_Mn^N`$, with $`n^N`$ being a unit vector normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ pointing toward $`\stackrel{~}{}_+`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{}_M`$ the covariant derivative with respect to the bulk metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN}`$.

The perturbations of a brane configuration, $`\stackrel{~}{x}^M\stackrel{~}{x}^M+\delta \stackrel{~}{x}^M`$, can be decomposed as

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{x}^M=Z_{//}^M+Z_{}n^M,$$
(3)
where $`Z_{//}^M`$ is a vector and $`Z_{}`$ is a scalar living on the unperturbed brane worldsheet. The deformations tangential to the brane $`Z_{//}^M`$ are nothing but worldsheet diffeomorphisms, and the only transverse deformation $`Z_{}n^M`$ is physically relevant . Namely, the perturbations of the brane configuration are described by a single scalar field $`Z_{}`$. The deformation of the brane on a fixed bulk generates changes in the induced metric and also in the extrinsic curvature as

$$\delta q_{\mu \nu }=2K_{\mu \nu }Z_{},\delta K_{\mu \nu }=_\mu _\nu Z_{}+\left(\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }K^\sigma {}_{\mu }{}^{}K_{\sigma \nu }^{}\right)Z_{},$$
(4)
where $`_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the unperturbed background induced metric $`q_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }:=n^Mn^N_\mu \stackrel{~}{x}^L_\nu \stackrel{~}{x}^K\stackrel{~}{R}_{MLNK}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{R}^M_{LNK}`$ being the background bulk curvature tensor evaluated at the location of the brane. From the condition that $`\delta K^\mu {}_{\mu }{}^{}=0`$, we obtain

$$\left(\mathrm{}_{(n+1)}m^2\right)Z_{}=0,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{}_{(n+1)}:=^\mu _\mu `$, and the mass-squared is given by

$$m^2=\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }q^{\mu \nu }K^\nu {}_{\mu }{}^{}K_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}=\frac{{}_{}{}^{(n+1)}R}{n},$$
(6)
with $`{}_{}{}^{(n+1)}R`$ being the scalar curvature of the unperturbed worldsheet. Thus the brane perturbation obeys Klein-Gordon type wave equation defined on the unperturbed worldsheet. For dS-branes, the behavior of the solutions of Eq. (5) has been studied in detail in Ref. .

## 3 Background geometry

Next, we discuss the dynamics of a self-gravitating vacuum brane with co-dimension one. We assume that the bulk spacetime of the unperturbed background is maximally symmetric. Namely, it is given by $`(n+2)`$-dimensional de Sitter (dSn+2), Minkowski ($`𝔼`$n+2), or anti-de Sitter (adSn+2) space, depending on the value of the bulk cosmological constant $`\lambda `$. As we will see, the unperturbed geometry induced on the brane also becomes maximally symmetric. Such solutions are well known, but we briefly recapitulate them in order to establish our notation.

Anticipating future extension, we begin with more general framework merely assuming that the bulk metric admits the isometry of (not $`n+2`$ but) $`n`$-dimensional maximally symmetric space $`𝒦^n`$ with constant curvature $`K`$. The metric takes the form of

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}_{(n+2)}^2=\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN}d\stackrel{~}{x}^Md\stackrel{~}{x}^N=g_{ab}(y)dy^ady^b+r^2(y)d\sigma _{(n,K)}^2,$$
(7)
where $`d\sigma _{(n,K)}^2=\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j`$ is the metric of $`𝒦^n`$. We assume that the brane admits the same isometry as $`𝒦^n`$ so that the induced metric $`q_{\mu \nu }`$ takes the form of

$$q_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\alpha _{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left\{d\tau ^2+A^2(\tau )d\sigma _{(n,K)}^2\right\},$$
(8)
where $`\tau `$ is a proper time normalized by a constant $`\alpha _B`$, and $`\alpha _BA(\tau )`$ is the restriction of the function $`r(y)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e., $`\alpha _BA(\tau )=r(y)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We introduced $`\alpha _B`$ just for convenience, and we specify its value later.

The Israel’s junction condition implies that the difference of the values of the extrinsic curvature evaluated on both sides of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is related to the intrinsic energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ as

$$\left[K_{\mu \nu }\right]:=K_{+\mu \nu }K_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\left(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{n}Tq_{\mu \nu }\right),$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2`$ is the $`(n+2)`$-dimensional gravitational constant. This condition comes from the $`(\mu ,\nu )`$-components of the Einstein equations. Hereafter, quantities with subscripts $`\pm `$ denote their value evaluated on the respective sides $`\stackrel{~}{}_\pm `$. We denote the difference of the values of a variable $`Q`$ evaluated on both sides by $`[Q]:=Q_+Q_{}`$ as used above, while the averaged value by

$$\overline{Q}:=\frac{1}{2}(Q_++Q_{}).$$
(10)
On the assumption that the intrinsic energy-momentum tensor of a vacuum brane is given by $`T_{\mu \nu }=\sigma q_{\mu \nu }`$, the junction condition (9) becomes

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{D_{}r}{r}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\sigma }{n}},`$ (11)
where $`D_{}:=n^aD_a`$ and $`D_a`$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the orbit space metric $`g_{ab}`$. In a similar manner we use an abbreviation $`D_{//}`$ to represent the covariant derivative projected in the direction tangential to the brane. Substituting Eq. (9) into the Hamiltonian and the momentum constrains, we also obtain

$`T^{\mu \nu }\overline{K}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n(n+1)}{2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2}}\left[\lambda \right],`$ (12)
$`_\nu T^\nu _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (13)
where we assumed the $`(n+2)`$-dimensional vacuum Einstein equations with cosmological constant, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{MN}=\stackrel{~}{R}_{MN}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{g}_{MN}=\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)\lambda \stackrel{~}{g}_{MN}`$ in the bulk.

Now we focus on the case that $`\stackrel{~}{}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$ are both composed of locally maximally symmetric spacetime. In this case, the metric function $`r(y)`$ satisfies

$$(D_{//}r)^2+(D_{}r)^2K+\lambda r^2=0,$$
(14)
in respective sides, $`\stackrel{~}{}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$. Then, the equation of motion for the brane (11) reduces to

$$\frac{K+(D_{//}r)^2}{r^2}=\frac{n^4(\lambda _+\lambda _{})^2+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^8\sigma ^4+2n^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\sigma ^2(\lambda _++\lambda _{})}{4n^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\sigma ^2}=:\frac{\eta }{\alpha _B^2},$$
(15)
where $`\eta `$ takes a value $`1,0`$, or $`1`$. When $`\eta 0`$, we choose the value of $`\alpha _B`$ so as to satisfy this condition. In the case of $`\eta =0`$, we simply set $`\alpha _B=1`$.

Since $`r(y)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\alpha _BA(\tau )`$ and $`D_{//}=\alpha _{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(_\tau )^aD_a`$ on the brane, Eq. (15) reduces to $`K+(_\tau A)^2=\eta A^2`$. We can immediately solve this equation to find that the brane has a locally maximally symmetric geometry. In all possible combinations of $`K`$ and $`\eta `$, we can introduce Gaussian normal coordinates as

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}_{(n+2)}^2=d\chi ^2+q_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =d\chi ^2+\alpha ^2(\chi )\left\{d\tau ^2+A^2(\tau )d\sigma _{(n,K)}^2\right\},$$
(16)
for the bulk geometry, and thus

$$r(y^a)=\alpha (\chi )A(\tau ).$$
(17)
We specify the position of the brane at $`\chi =\chi _B`$, and therefore $`\alpha _B=\alpha (\chi _B)`$. In these coordinates, the unit normal vector $`n^a`$ to the brane is naturally extended into the bulk by $`(_\chi )^a`$ as the unit normal to $`\chi =const.`$ hypersurface. Correspondingly, the extension of the unit tangent is given by $`\alpha (\chi )^1(_\tau )^a`$. From Eq. (14), we also have

$$\left(\frac{D_{}r}{r}\right)^2=\lambda +\frac{\eta }{\alpha ^2},$$
(18)
or more explicitly $`(_\chi \alpha )^2=\lambda \alpha ^2+\eta `$.

The unperturbed background geometry is summarized as follows.

* $`\eta =1`$; adSn+1-brane $``$ adSn+2-bulk: In this case, $`K`$ must be $`1`$ for the existence of a solution of Eq. (15). The solution

$$A(\tau )=\mathrm{cos}\tau ,(\text{for}K=1),$$
(19)
indicates that the brane is adS space. In order that Eq. (18) has a solution, $`\lambda `$ must be negative. For convenience, we introduce the bulk curvature radius $`\mathrm{}`$ defined by $`|\lambda |=\mathrm{}^2`$. Then, the solution on each side $`\stackrel{~}{}_+`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$ is given by

$$\alpha (\chi )=\mathrm{}\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\chi }{\mathrm{}}\right),\left(\text{for}\lambda <0\right),$$
(20)
up to a shift of the origin of the $`\chi `$-coordinate. The embedding bulk is adS space.
* $`\eta =0`$; $`𝔼_{n+1}`$-brane $``$ adSn+2-bulk or $`𝔼_{n+2}`$: There are two cases $`K=0`$, and $`1`$. In both cases, the solutions

$$A=constant,(\text{for}K=0),A(\tau )=\tau ,(\text{for}K=1),$$
(21)
show that the brane geometry is given by Minkowski space. The warp factor is given by

$$\alpha (\chi )=\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\chi }{\mathrm{}}\right),\left(\text{for}\lambda <0\right),\alpha (\chi )=\alpha _B,\left(\text{for}\lambda =0\right).$$
(22)
The bulk is therefore adS, or Minkowski space.
* $`\eta =1`$; $`\text{dS}_{n+1}`$-brane $``$ $`\text{dS}_{n+2}`$-, $`𝔼_{n+2}`$-, or $`\text{adS}_{n+2}`$-bulk: The scale factor on the brane is given by

$$A(\tau )=\mathrm{sinh}\tau ,(\text{for}K=1),A(\tau )=\mathrm{exp}\tau ,(\text{for}K=0),A(\tau )=\mathrm{cosh}\tau ,(\text{for}K=1).$$
(23)
The warp factor is given by

$$\alpha (\chi )=\mathrm{}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\chi }{\mathrm{}}\right),\left(\text{for}\lambda <0\right),\alpha (\chi )=\chi ,\left(\text{for}\lambda =0\right),\alpha (\chi )=\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\chi }{\mathrm{}}\right),\left(\text{for}\lambda >0\right).$$
(24)
This means that de Sitter brane can be embedded into an ambient spacetime consisting of any combination of the two maximally symmetric spacetimes.

## 4 Bulk-perturbation

In this section, we provide the bulk perturbation equations, following the gauge-invariant formalism for perturbations developed in Ref. . Perturbations of the present bulk geometry can be decomposed into the tensor-type, the vector-type, and the scalar-type components classified by the number of tensor indices tangent to the $`n`$-dimensional invariant space $`(𝒦^n,d\sigma _{(n,K)}^2)`$. The Einstein equations for each type of perturbations decouple from the others. We focus on the scalar-type perturbation since the displacement of a brane does not couple to the others as was shown in Ref. . We introduce the gauge-invariant variables for the scalar-type bulk perturbation. It turns out that these gauge-invariant variables can be described in terms of a single scalar master variable, and the perturbation equations reduce to a single equation for this master variable.

The scalar harmonics $`𝕊`$ defined on $`(𝒦^n,d\sigma _{(n,K)}^2)`$ is a function which satisfies

$$(\widehat{\mathrm{}}+k^2)𝕊_𝐤=0,$$
(25)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}:=\widehat{D}_i\widehat{D}^i`$, and $`\widehat{D}_i`$ is the covariant derivative on $`(𝒦^n,d\sigma _{(n,K)}^2)`$. The scalar-type harmonic vector and tensor are constructed from $`𝕊_𝐤`$ as

$$𝕊_{𝐤i}=\frac{1}{k}\widehat{D}_i𝕊_𝐤,𝕊_{𝐤ij}=\frac{1}{k^2}\widehat{D}_i\widehat{D}_j𝕊_𝐤+\frac{1}{n}\gamma _{ij}𝕊_𝐤.$$
(26)
The metric perturbations of scalar-type are expanded as

$$h_{ab}=\underset{𝐤}{}f_{ab}^𝐤𝕊_𝐤,h_{ai}=\underset{𝐤}{}rf_a^𝐤𝕊_{𝐤i},h_{ij}=\underset{𝐤}{}2r^2\left(H_L^𝐤\gamma _{ij}𝕊_𝐤+H_T^𝐤𝕊_{𝐤ij}\right),$$
(27)
where the coefficients $`f_{ab}`$, $`f_a`$, $`H_L`$, and $`H_T`$ are functions on the $`2`$-dimensional orbit space $`(𝒩^2,g_{ab})`$. In the following we abbreviate the indices $`𝐤`$ labeling the eigenvalues of the harmonics and the summation over them.

Under the action of an infinitesimal coordinate transformation $`\stackrel{~}{x}^M\stackrel{~}{x}^M+\xi ^M`$, the metric perturbations transform as

$$h_{MN}h_{MN}+\overline{\delta }h_{MN}=h_{MN}\stackrel{~}{}_M\xi _N\stackrel{~}{}_N\xi _N.$$
(28)
The generator of infinitesimal gauge-transformation for the scalar-type perturbation is expanded as

$$\xi _a=T_a𝕊,\xi _i=rL𝕊_i.$$
(29)
Then, the metric components, $`f_{ab}`$, $`f_{ai}`$, $`H_L`$, and $`H_T`$, transform as

$`\overline{\delta }f_{ab}=D_aT_bD_bT_a,`$ (30)
$`\overline{\delta }f_a=rD_a\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{r}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{r}}T_a,`$ (31)
$`\overline{\delta }H_L={\displaystyle \frac{k}{nr}}L{\displaystyle \frac{D^ar}{r}}T_a,`$ (32)
$`\overline{\delta }H_T={\displaystyle \frac{k}{r}}L.`$ (33)
From these transformation laws, we find gauge-invariant combinations of the variables as

$$F:=H_L+\frac{1}{n}H_T+\frac{D_ar}{r}X^a,F_{ab}:=f_{ab}+D_aX_b+D_bX_a,$$
(34)
where a vector in $`𝒩^2`$ was introduced by

$$X_a:=\frac{r}{k}\left(f_a+\frac{r}{k}D_aH_T\right),$$
(35)
which transforms as $`\overline{\delta }X_a=T_a`$. Note that $`𝕊_i`$ and $`𝕊_{ij}`$ vanish identically for $`k=0`$ mode, and $`𝕊_{ij}`$ also vanishes for $`k^2=nK`$ mode. The gauge invariant variables which contain expansion coefficients of the harmonics at these special values of $`k^2`$ do not exist from the beginning. Hence, the equations containing these variables are no longer valid. In what follows, we do not consider $`k^2(k^2nK)=0`$ modes.

As shown in Ref. , the bulk Einstein equations for the scalar-type perturbation reduce to a set of equations for the gauge-invariant variables $`F`$ and $`F_{ab}`$ (See appendix A.). Among them, we can identify the constraint equations

$`F^a{}_{a}{}^{}+2(n2)F=0,D_b(r^{n2}F^b{}_{a}{}^{})=2D_a(r^{n2}F).`$ (36)
From these constraint equations, we can show that there exists a master variable $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ in terms of which the gauge-invariant variables above can be expressed as

$`2nr^{n3}F`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\mathrm{}+2{\displaystyle \frac{D^cr}{r}}D_c\right\}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},`$ (37)
$`r^{n3}\{F_{ab}+2(n1)Fg_{ab}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{D_aD_b+{\displaystyle \frac{D_ar}{r}}D_b+{\displaystyle \frac{D_br}{r}}D_a\right\}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},`$ (38)
where $`\mathrm{}:=D^aD_a`$. From the evolution equations of the Einstein equations, the equation for the master variable $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ reduces to

$$\left\{\mathrm{}(n2)\frac{D^cr}{r}D_c\frac{k^2}{r^2}\right\}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=0.$$
(39)
In the Gaussian normal coordinates (16), the master equation above is expressed as

$`\left\{A^{n2}_\tau A^{(n2)}_\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{A^2}}+p^2+\eta \nu ^2\right\}𝒯_p(\tau )=0,`$ (40)
$`\left\{\alpha ^{n3}_\chi \alpha ^{(n3)}_\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}\left(p^2+\eta \nu ^2\right)\right\}_p(\chi )=0,`$ (41)
where we assumed a separable form of the solution as $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=𝒯(\tau )(\chi )`$, and introduced $`p^2`$ as a separation constant. Here, we also defined

$$\nu :=\frac{n2}{2}.$$

The bulk Einstein equations for scalar perturbations and the derivation of the master equation are briefly summarized in appendix A.

## 5 Perturbation of a self-gravitating brane

In this section, analyzing the junction condition, we discuss the interrelation between the bulk metric perturbations and the displacement of the brane. The junction condition provides the boundary condition for the bulk metric perturbations on the brane, which we need in finding the global solutions of the bulk perturbations. Simultaneously, we obtain an expression for the gauge-invariant brane displacement solely written in terms of the master variable from the junction condition. Hence, we find that there are no dynamical degrees of freedom for the brane fluctuations independent of the bulk metric perturbations. Combined with the Hamiltonian constraint, the junction condition also provides the equation for the displacement of a self-gravitating brane, which is to be compared with that for a non-gravitating brane obtained from the Nambu-Goto action.

### 5.1 Coupling of bulk and brane-perturbations

To treat perturbations of a self-gravitating brane in a gauge invariant manner, the bulk metric perturbations have to be taken into account as well as the perturbations of the brane configuration. The perturbation of the brane configuration, $`Z_{}`$, transforms in the same way as a combination of the bulk metric perturbations $`X_{}`$ under the infinitesimal coordinate-transformation (29); $`\overline{\delta }Z_{}=\overline{\delta }X_{}=T_{}`$. Thus we immediately find a gauge-invariant variable corresponding to the displacement of the brane as

$$Y_{}:=Z_{}X_{}.$$
(42)
Since $`Y_{//}:=Z_{//}X_{//}`$ is of no physical relevance as mentioned before, we simply set $`Y_{//}`$ to zero in what follows.

Taking the bulk perturbation into account, we find that the perturbations of the induced metric and the extrinsic curvature are given by

$`\delta q_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2K_{\mu \nu }Z_{}+h_{\mu \nu },`$ (43)
$`\delta K_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu _\nu Z_{}+\left(\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }K^\sigma {}_{\mu }{}^{}K_{\sigma \nu }^{}\right)Z_{}`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n^a\left(\stackrel{~}{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{a\nu }^{}+\stackrel{~}{}_\nu h_{a\mu }\stackrel{~}{}_ah_{\mu \nu }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{}K_{\mu \nu }.`$
Since $`\delta K^\mu _\nu `$ is gauge invariant, we can express it solely in terms of the gauge-invariant variables $`F`$, $`F_{ab}`$, and $`Y_{}`$ as ,

$`\delta K^\tau _\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_{//}F_{//}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_aD_bF^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_{}F^a{}_{a}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K^\tau {}_{\tau }{}^{}F_{////}^{}D_{//}^2Y_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{(n+1)}R}{n(n+1)}}Y_{}\}𝕊,`$ (45)
$`\delta K^\tau _i`$ $`=`$ $`k\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{//}+rD_{//}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y_{}}{r}}\right)\right\}𝕊_i,`$ (46)
$`\delta K^i_j`$ $`=`$ $`\{D_{}F{\displaystyle \frac{D_{//}r}{r}}F_{//}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_{}r}{r}}F_{}({\displaystyle \frac{D_{//}r}{r}}D_{//}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{nr^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{(n+1)}R}{n(n+1)}})Y_{}\}𝕊\delta ^i{}_{j}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r^2}}Y_{}𝕊^i{}_{j}{}^{}.`$ (47)
Let us derive the boundary conditions for the master variable at the location of the brane. The perturbation of the induced metric can be made continuous across the brane

$$\left[\delta q_{\mu \nu }\right]=0,$$
(48)
by appropriately choosing the coordinates tangential to the brane because the intrinsic geometry on both sides of the brane must be identical. From the junction condition (9), we have

$$[\delta K^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}]=0.$$
(49)
For further computation, it is convenient to use the gauge $`Z_{}=0`$ so that $`X_{}=Y_{}`$ on the brane. Then, from the metric continuity (48) we have

$$\left[F\right]=\left[\frac{D_{}r}{r}Y_{}\right],$$
(50)
and

$$\left[F_{////}\right]=2\left[K^\tau {}_{\tau }{}^{}Y_{}^{}\right],$$
(51)
where we have used $`K^\tau {}_{\tau }{}^{}\alpha ^1(_\tau )^aD_{//}n_a`$. Since $`K^\tau {}_{\tau }{}^{}=r^1D_{}r`$ for the present background geometry, we find

$$\left[F_{////}+2F\right]=0.$$
(52)
From Eq. (46) and the component proportional to $`𝕊^i_j`$ in Eq. (47), we have

$`\left[F_{//}\right]=0,`$ (53)
$`\left[Y_{}\right]=0.`$ (54)
From the component proportional to $`𝕊\delta ^i_j`$ in Eq. (47), we obtain

$$2\left[D_{}F\right]=\left[\frac{D_{}r}{r}F_{}\right],$$
(55)
where we have used the formula

$$\frac{D_aD_br}{r}=\lambda g_{ab},$$
(56)
and Eq. (18). No new independent condition is obtained from Eq. (45). Note that the results we obtained are gauge independent, even though they are derived by using a specific gauge.

Now let us express these conditions (52), (53), and (55) in terms of the master variable $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, using Eqs. (37) and (38). Firstly, we rewrite Eq. (52) as

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{D_{//}^2(n2){\displaystyle \frac{D_{//}r}{r}}D_{//}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r^2}}\right\}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]+(n1)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_{}r}{r}}\right)D_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right],`$ (57)
where we have used the formula (15). Further, using the master equation (40), we can write the condition above as

$`(n1)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_{}r}{r}}\right)D_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}\left(p^2+\eta \nu ^2\right)\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right].`$ (58)
Secondly, from the condition (53), we have

$$D_{//}\left(r\left[D_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]\right)=0.$$
(59)
Thirdly, we write down the condition (55) explicitly. From Eqs. (37) and (38), we have

$`2r^{n1}F`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{r(D_{}r)D_{}r(D_{//}r)D_{//}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{n}}\right\}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},`$ (60)
$`r^{n3}\left\{F_{}+2(n1)F\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(D_{}^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{D_{}r}{r}}D_{}\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.`$ (61)
Applying $`D_{}`$ to the first equation, we obtain

$`2r^{n1}\left\{(n1){\displaystyle \frac{D_{}r}{r}}F+D_{}F\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{(D_{}r)^2D_{}+r(D_{}^2r)D_{}+r(D_{}r)D_{}^2`$ (63)
$`(D_{}r)(D_{//}r)D_{//}r(D_{//}r)D_{}D_{//}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{n}}D_{}\}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.`$
Using these relations, we can rewrite the condition (55) as

$$\frac{k^2nK}{nr^2}\left[D_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]=\left(\frac{D_{//}r}{r}\right)r^1D_{//}\left(r\left[D_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]\right),$$
(64)
where we have used

$$\left(\frac{D_{}r}{r}\right)^2\frac{D_{}^2r}{r}=\frac{\eta }{\alpha ^2},$$
(65)
which follows from Eq. (18).

Combining Eqs. (59) and (64), we find

$$\left[D_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]=0.$$
(66)
Thus, $`D_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is continuous across the brane. Then, from Eq. (58), we have

$$\frac{1}{\mu }\left(p^2+\eta \nu ^2\right)\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]=2(n1)\alpha _BD_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(67)
where we have introduced

$$\mu :=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\sigma \alpha _B}{2n}=\frac{\alpha _B}{2}\left[\frac{D_{}r}{r}\right].$$
(68)
The Eqs. (66) and (67) are the boundary conditions for the master variable imposed on the brane.

We should note that the master variable $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is not continuous at the location of the brane. We introduce a new master variable defined by

$$𝒲:=\alpha ^{(n3)}D_{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=𝒯_p(\tau )𝒬_p(\chi )$$
(69)
where

$$𝒬_p(\chi ):=\alpha ^{(n3)}D_{}_p.$$
(70)
From Eqs. (41) and (66), we find that a quantity $`𝒬_p`$ defined by (70) is continuous, and so is $`𝒲`$. In the bulk, $`𝒬_p`$ satisfies the equation

$$\left\{\alpha ^{(n1)}_\chi \alpha ^{n1}_\chi +\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}\left(p^2+\eta \nu ^2\right)\right\}𝒬_p=0.$$
(71)
From Eqs. (41), (70), and (71), we obtain

$$\left(p^2+\eta \nu ^2\right)\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]=\alpha _B^{n1}\left[D_{}𝒲\right].$$
(72)
Then, we can derive the junction conditions for $`𝒲`$ from Eqs. (66) and (67) as

$`\left[𝒲\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (73)
$`\left[D_{}𝒲\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(n1)}{\alpha _B}}\mu 𝒲.`$ (74)
Therefore $`𝒲`$ obeys

$$𝒲:=\left\{\alpha ^{(n1)}_\chi \alpha ^{n1}_\chi \frac{2(n1)}{\alpha _B}\mu \delta (\chi \chi _B)\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}\left(A^{n2}_\tau A^{(n2)}_\tau +\frac{k^2}{A^2}\right)\right\}𝒲=0.$$
(75)
Although we exclusively use this variable $`𝒲`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ in this paper, it will be also worth noting that in the bulk $`\mathrm{\Phi }:=\alpha ^1A^{(n1)}𝒲`$ satisfies the equation for a massive scalar field, $`(\mathrm{}_{(n+2)}n\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ with $`\mathrm{}_{(n+2)}:=\stackrel{~}{}^M\stackrel{~}{}_M`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }:=\alpha ^{(n1)}_\chi (\alpha ^n\mathrm{\Phi })`$ satisfies that for a massless scalar field, $`\mathrm{}_{(n+2)}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. Furthermore, the junction conditions for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are simply given by $`[\mathrm{\Psi }]=[D_{}\mathrm{\Psi }]=0`$.

### 5.2 Equation of motion for $`Y_{}`$

From the condition (12), we can also derive an equation of motion for the brane fluctuations, which is analogous to that for a non-gravitating brane (5). We will see, however, that the equation for the self-gravitating brane differs in that it has a source term written in terms of the bulk metric perturbations.

Let us derive the equation of motion for the gauge invariant displacement $`Y_{}`$. From Eqs. (45) and (47), the trace of $`\delta K^\mu _\nu `$ is computed as

$$\delta K^\mu {}_{\mu }{}^{}=(\{D_{//}^2n\left(\frac{D_{//}r}{r}\right)D_{//}\frac{k^2}{r^2}m^2\}Y_{}+J)𝕊,$$
(76)
with

$`J`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^{(n+2)}D_{//}(r^{n+2}F_{//})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_{}r}{r}}\right)F_{}D_{}F,`$ (77)
where we have used the constraint equations (36). Then from the perturbation of the condition (12),

$$\delta \overline{K}^\mu {}_{\mu }{}^{}=0,$$
(78)
we obtain the equation of motion for $`Y_{}`$ as

$$\left(\mathrm{}_{(n+1)}m^2\right)Y_{}+J=0,$$
(79)
with the mass-squared given by Eq. (6). Since there is no jump in $`Y_{}`$ as shown in Eq. (54), we have replaced $`\overline{Y}_{}`$ with $`Y_{}`$. Similarly, we can show that the source term $`J`$ is also continuous across the brane using Eqs. (53) and (55). Thus, we replace $`\overline{J}`$ with $`J`$. Alternative derivation of Eq. (79) is found in Ref. . The appearance of a source term $`J`$ given by the bulk metric perturbations shows a clear difference from the equation for a non-gravitating brane (5).

More strikingly, $`Y_{}`$ can be expressed solely in terms of the master variable. Using Eq. (11), from Eqs. (50), (51), and (54), we immediately have

$$\left[F_{////}2(n2)F\right]=\frac{2(n1)}{n}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^2\sigma Y_{}.$$
(80)
Then, writing $`F_{////}`$ and $`F`$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, we obtain

$`\mu Y_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4(n1)r^{n3}}}\left(D_{//}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{D_{//}r}{r}}D_{//}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{nr^2}}\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.`$ (81)
Hence, $`Y_{}`$ is entirely expressed by the master variable $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. This equation indicates that the brane loses its own dynamical degrees of freedom, and a self-gravitating brane can oscillate only while bulk gravitational waves keep coming to it. Since this statement was first claimed in Ref. , there has been a worry about the validity of the approximate description considering a non-gravitating brane, in which we assume the existence of the dynamical degrees of freedom corresponding to wall fluctuations a priori.

## 6 Description of brane dynamics in the weak backreaction limit

In this section, we discuss the perturbative motion of a self-gravitating brane and compare it with that obtained by considering a non-gravitating brane, using the formulas developed in the previous sections. We first propose a condition so that the brane fluctuations can be described with neglecting the gravitational backreaction of the bulk perturbations. We call it the weak backreaction condition. Whether or not one can take the weak backreaction limit depends on the system that we are concerned with. Next, analyzing dSn+1-brane $``$ dSn+2-bulk system for $`n3`$, we perturbatively obtain a global solution for the bulk metric perturbations which forms a discrete spectrum. We will see that the motion of a self-gravitating brane corresponding to this special mode reduces approximately to that of a non-gravitating brane. These observations will fill most of the gap between the two ways of describing the brane dynamics argued in the preceding section for $`n3`$. In the last subsection, we separately discuss the case with $`n=2`$, i.e., the case with 4-dimensional bulk.

### 6.1 Weak backreaction limit

Toward a resolution of the paradox mentioned in the preceding section, here a comment on the gauge dependence is in order. We can see from Eq. (81) that

$$F_{ab},FO(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }})O(\mu Y_{}).$$
(82)
Let us assume $`\mu `$ is small. Then, it also follows by definition that

$$f_a,f_{ab},H_L,H_TO(X_{}).$$
(83)
When we choose the gauge such that $`Z_{}=0`$, we have $`Y_{}=X_{}`$, and therefore

$$f_a,f_{ab},H_L,H_TO\left(Y_{}\right).$$
(84)
In this gauge the dynamical degrees of freedom of the brane fluctuations are completely transmuted into those of the bulk metric perturbations. On the other hand, if we choose the gauge such that $`X_{}=0`$, we find $`Y_{}=Z_{}`$, $`F_{ab}=f_{ab}`$, $`f_a=k^1rD_aH_T`$ and $`F=H_L+\frac{1}{n}H_T`$. Therefore

$$f_a,f_{ab},H_L,H_TO\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)O\left(\mu Y_{}\right).$$
(85)
Under this gauge choice, the brane fluctuations are mainly described by $`Z_{}`$, and the perturbation of the bulk geometry stays small. This gauge choice provides a description relatively close to that obtained by considering a non-gravitating brane on a fixed background, if $`\mu `$ is sufficiently small.

Based on the above observation, we propose that the condition that we can neglect the gravitational backreaction effects on the brane motion is specified by

$$\mu 1.$$
(86)
We note that Eq. (15) can be expressed as

$$\frac{\eta }{\mu ^2}=1+\left(\frac{n^2\left[\lambda \right]}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\sigma ^2}\right)^2+\frac{4n^2\overline{\lambda }}{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\sigma ^2},$$
(87)
where $`\eta =1,0,1`$ represents the signature of the intrinsic curvature of the brane as before.

For a $`𝔼`$-brane, Eq. (87) becomes trivial if we choose $`\eta =0`$. But by considering the limit of $`𝔼`$-brane from $`\eta =1`$ or $`1`$ case, one can see that $`\mu ^2`$ goes to infinity in the $`𝔼`$-brane limit. Hence, the condition (86) cannot hold for $`𝔼`$-brane. For dS-, and adS-branes, the weak backreaction condition (86) holds when

$`\left|\left[\lambda \right]\right|`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\sigma ^2,\text{or}\left|\overline{\lambda }\right|\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\sigma ^2.`$ (88)
The junction condition also gives

$$\frac{[K^\mu {}_{\mu }{}^{}]}{\overline{K}{}_{}{}^{\mu }_\mu }=\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\sigma ^2}{n^2\left[\lambda \right]}.$$
(89)
Thus, the former case in Eq. (88) is equivalent to the condition that the gap between the values of the extrinsic curvature on both sides of the brane is sufficiently small.

One can also express Eq. (15) as

$$\frac{\eta }{\alpha ^2\lambda _+}=1+\frac{\left(1n^2[\lambda ]/(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^4\sigma ^2)\right)^2}{2n^2[\lambda ]/(\stackrel{~}{k}^4\sigma ^2)+4n^2\overline{\lambda }/(\stackrel{~}{k}^4\sigma ^2)}.$$
(90)
Hence, apart from the exceptional case that $`\left|\left[\lambda \right]\right|`$ is extremely small compared with $`\left|\overline{\lambda }\right|`$, the weak backreaction condition (86) implies that the curvature radius of the brane is much smaller than that of the bulk, i.e., $`\mathrm{}_+\alpha `$. In the exceptional case ( $`\left|\overline{\lambda }\right|\left|\left[\lambda \right]\right|`$ ) only the second possibility in Eq. (88) can be realized. In this case, we have $`\alpha \mathrm{}_{}\mathrm{}_+`$, and the brane becomes an almost totally geodesic hypersurface. When we impose $`_2`$-symmetry across the brane, we have $`|[\lambda ]|=0`$. Hence, under $`_2`$-symmetry the weak backreaction condition is satisfied only through the second possibility in Eq. (88).

### 6.2 Global solutions in the weak backreaction limit

Here, focusing on dSn+1-brane $``$ dSn+2-bulk system with $`n3`$, we solve the lowest eigenmode of the bulk perturbations assuming the weak backreaction condition (86). We find that there is at least one discrete eigenmode in this system. In the succeeding subsection, we will estimate the amplitude of the source term $`J`$ for this discrete mode, and we will show that the backreaction of the self-gravity on the brane motion is small.

Just for convenience, we introduce a new coordinate $`\zeta `$ in place of $`\chi `$ by

$$\zeta (\chi ):=\frac{d\chi }{\alpha (\chi )}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left\{\frac{1+\mathrm{sin}(\chi /\mathrm{})}{1\mathrm{sin}(\chi /\mathrm{})}\right\}.$$
(91)
In terms of $`\zeta `$, the warp factor is given by $`\alpha =\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}(\chi /\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}/\mathrm{cosh}\zeta `$. Here, as we have used the same functional form of the warp factor on both sides $`\stackrel{~}{}_\pm `$, the $`\chi `$\- and also $`\zeta `$-coordinates become discontinuous at the brane. Hence, in order to manifest this distinction, we associate $`+`$ or $``$ index with the coordinate $`\chi `$ and $`\zeta `$ if necessary. Using the new coordinate, we can rewrite Eq. (71) as

$$\left\{_\zeta ^2+p^2+\frac{\nu (\nu +1)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\zeta }\right\}\left(\frac{𝒬_p}{\mathrm{cosh}^\nu \zeta }\right)=0.$$
(92)
The solution that is regular also at $`\zeta +\mathrm{}`$ is given by

$$𝒬_p=e^{\pi p/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )(\mathrm{cosh}\zeta )^\nu P_\nu ^{ip}(\mathrm{tanh}\zeta ).$$
(93)
Once we notice the relation $`P_\nu ^\nu (\mathrm{tanh}\zeta )=(e^{\nu \pi i}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu ))(2\mathrm{cosh}\zeta )^\nu `$, it is easy to see that there is a solution regular at $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$ for $`p=i\nu `$ in the absence of a brane. Since this solution is constant and hence nodeless, it is the lowest eigenmode if it is normalizable. The standard normalization condition for discrete spectrum using the Hermitian measure is given by $`𝑑\zeta (\mathrm{cosh}\zeta )^{2\nu }𝒬_p𝒬_p^{}^{}=\delta _{pp^{}}`$. Hence, it is actually normalizable for $`n3`$. We separately discuss $`4`$-dimensional bulk case $`(n=2)`$ in the succeeding subsection. We will anticipate that the eigenvalue of this mode will shift from $`p=i\nu `$ once the gravity of the brane is turned on, but the corresponding mode itself will continue to exist. This shift of the eigenvalue can be calculated as follows. Setting $`p^2=\nu ^2+ϵ`$, we seek such a shifted mode, and examine the behavior of $`𝒬_p`$ to the linear order in $`ϵ`$. Let us introduce a function $`(\chi )`$ by

$$𝒬_p=\mathrm{exp}\left(ϵ^\chi 𝑑\chi ^{}(\chi ^{})\right),$$
(94)
where $``$ is supposed not to be very large everywhere. Then, substituting this expression for $`𝒬_p`$ into Eq. (71), we have an equation for $``$ to the lowest order in $`ϵ`$ as

$$\alpha ^{n3}_\chi \left(\alpha ^{n1}\right)+1=0.$$
(95)
Integrating this, we find

$$\frac{D_{}𝒲_{(\pm )}}{𝒲_{(\pm )}}=ϵ_{(\pm )}(\chi _\pm )=ϵ\alpha ^{1n}_{\pm \pi \mathrm{}_\pm /2}^{\chi _\pm }𝑑\chi _\pm ^{}\alpha ^{n3}(\chi _\pm ^{}),$$
(96)
where $`_{(\pm )}`$ and hence $`𝒲_{(\pm )}`$ satisfies the normalizability condition at $`\zeta \pm \mathrm{}`$. The jump in the logarithmic derivative of $`𝒲`$ at the location of the brane is evaluated as

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{D_{}𝒲}{𝒲}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\alpha ^{1n}\left\{{\displaystyle _{\pi \mathrm{}_{}/2}^{\chi _B}}𝑑\chi _{}\alpha ^{n3}(\chi _{})+{\displaystyle _{\chi _{+B}}^{\pi \mathrm{}_+/2}}𝑑\chi _+\alpha ^{n3}(\chi _+)\right\}`$ (97)
$``$ $`ϵ\alpha ^{1n}{\displaystyle _{\pi \mathrm{}_+/2}^{\pi \mathrm{}_+/2}}𝑑\chi _+\alpha ^{n3}(\chi _+)`$ (98)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\pi }ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_+^{n2}}{\alpha ^{n1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu +\frac{1}{2}\right)}},(\text{for}n3),`$ (99)
where we have used the fact that $`\mathrm{}_+\mathrm{}_{}`$ or $`\alpha _B\mathrm{}_+`$ in the weak backreaction limit to obtain the approximation in the second line. Then, from the junction condition (74), we have

$$ϵ=\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu +\frac{3}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu \right)}\left(\frac{\alpha _B}{\mathrm{}_+}\right)^{2\nu }\mu .$$
(100)
Hence, we find that the shifted eigenvalue is given by

$`p`$ $``$ $`i\nu (1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2\nu ^2}})i\nu i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu +\frac{3}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu +1\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _B}{\mathrm{}_+}}\right)^{2\nu }\mu .`$ (101)
### 6.3 Correspondence between two different descriptions of brane dynamics

Now we carefully examine the effective equation of motion for $`Y_{}`$ given in Eq. (79) focusing on the specific mode obtained in the preceding subsection. Using the junction conditions for the master variable, we can express $`J`$ given in Eq. (77) in terms of the master variable $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Inserting Eqs. (37) and (38) into Eq. (77), with the aid of Eqs. (66) and (67), we obtain after some calculation

$$J=\frac{1}{\mu }\left(p^2+\eta \nu ^2\right)𝒪\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right],$$
(102)
with

$$𝒪:=\frac{1}{4(n1)\alpha _B^nA^{n3}}\left\{A^5\frac{}{\tau }A^5\frac{}{\tau }+\frac{1}{n}\frac{k^2}{A^2}+4\left(\eta \frac{K}{A^2}\right)\right\}.$$
(103)
This expression can be also obtained by directly acting the operator

$$D_{//}^2n\left(\frac{D_{//}r}{r}\right)D_{//}\frac{k^2}{r^2}m^2,$$
(104)
on both sides of Eq. (81). By using Eqs. (72) and (74), $`J`$ can be also written by using $`𝒲`$ as

$$J=2(n1)\alpha _B^{2\nu }𝒪𝒲.$$
(105)
The equation (102) involves the eigenvalue $`p^2`$, which is determined only after solving the bulk metric perturbations. Hence, Eq. (79) cannot be regarded as the evolution equation for $`Y_{}`$ in a usual sense. It will be rather appropriate to think that $`J`$ is a measure of the deviation from the equation of motion for the non-gravitating brane case. For the specific mode whose eigenvalue is given by Eq. (101), we have the expression

$$J=\left\{\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu +\frac{3}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\nu \right)}\left(\frac{\alpha _B}{\mathrm{}_+}\right)^{2\nu }+O(\mu )\right\}𝒪\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right],\text{for}n3.$$
(106)
Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is of $`O(\mu Y_{})`$ as discussed at Eq. (82), we can conclude that

$$JO(\mu Y_{}),\text{for}n3,$$
(107)
for this discrete mode. Therefore when the weak backreaction condition $`\mu 1`$ is satisfied, the source term $`J`$ appearing in Eq. (79) can be regarded as a small correction to the equation of motion for a non-gravitating brane (5).

In the above we have identified one discrete spectrum as the perturbation mode corresponding to the brane fluctuations. However, one may be still puzzled with the statement presented below Eq. (81); Even in the limit of the weak backreaction, “a self-gravitating brane can oscillate only while bulk gravitational waves keep coming to it.” We will explain that there is a loophole in this statement, and will find that the picture given by considering a self-gravitating brane is consistent with that obtained by considering a non-gravitating brane. First of all, even if we start with a non-gravitating brane, we can easily imagine that the bulk gravitational waves are emitted as a result of oscillation of the brane at the next level of approximation. The amplitude of the emitted gravitational waves will be proportional to the brane tension and hence proportional to $`\mu `$. As we have seen in Eq. (82), the amplitude of gravitational waves is smaller by factor $`\mu `$ compared with $`Y_{}`$ in the description by a self-gravitating brane. Hence, there is no inconsistency as for the relative amplitudes between bulk gravitational waves and brane fluctuations. The remaining puzzle is the following. Although the brane described by a non-gravitating brane approximation can fluctuate without the incoming gravitational waves, it looks unable to fluctuate without incoming waves in the picture described by the self-gravitating brane. This puzzle is solved by showing that in fact there is a solution for the self-gravitating brane which satisfies no-incoming wave condition.

To show the existence of a solution satisfying no-incoming wave condition, we solve the equation for the $`\tau `$-dependent part of the mode functions (40) with $`A=\mathrm{cosh}\tau `$,

$$\left\{_\tau ^2+\frac{\stackrel{~}{L}(\stackrel{~}{L}+1)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }+p^2\right\}\left(\frac{𝒯_p(\tau )}{\mathrm{cosh}^\nu \tau }\right)=0,$$
(108)
where $`\stackrel{~}{L}:=L+\nu `$ with $`L=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. We consider the mode function that satisfies the positive frequency condition, $`(\mathrm{cosh}\tau )^\nu 𝒯_p(\tau )e^{ip\tau }`$, at $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. This mode function is given by

$`(\mathrm{cosh}\tau )^\nu 𝒯_p(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\pi p}P_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^{ip}(\mathrm{tanh}\tau )`$ (109)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ip\tau }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ip)}}F(\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{L}+1,ip+1;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{2\tau }}})`$ (110)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip)e^{ip\tau }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip+\stackrel{~}{L}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip\stackrel{~}{L})}}F(\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{L}+1,ip+1;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{2\tau }}})`$ (112)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip)e^{ip\tau }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{L}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{L})}}F(ip+\stackrel{~}{L}+1,ip\stackrel{~}{L},ip+1;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{2\tau }}}).`$
Then, the asymptotic behavior of the mode function is given by

$`(\mathrm{cosh}\tau )^\nu 𝒯_p(\tau )`$ $`\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ip\tau }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ip)}},`$ (113)
$`\underset{\tau +\mathrm{}}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip)e^{ip\tau }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip+\stackrel{~}{L}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip\stackrel{~}{L})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip)e^{ip\tau }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{L}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{L})}}.`$ (114)
Choosing the time dependent part in this way, the solution with the eigenvalue given in Eq. (101) asymptotically behaves as $`e^{ip(\tau |\zeta |)}`$ at $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ with $`|\zeta |\tau `$. Therefore the mode function becomes a function of $`\tau |\zeta |`$ alone. This means that there are no-incoming waves. On the other hand, at $`\tau +\mathrm{}`$ there are two components which behave as $`e^{ip(\tau |\zeta |)}`$ and $`e^{ip(\tau +|\zeta |)}`$. Hence, outgoing radiation exists.

Finally we point out that the eigenvalue given in Eq. (101) has imaginary part. This means that the amplitude of this solution decreases like $`\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{}(pi\nu )\tau ]`$. This decrease in amplitude can be understood as radiative damping effect due to gravitational wave emission.

### 6.4 4-dimensional bulk ($`n=2`$) case

For $`n=2`$, there is no normalizable discrete spectrum of $`𝒲`$ corresponding to the brane fluctuations. But we can still construct a solution which satisfies the no-incoming wave condition. When we choose the $`\tau `$-dependent part of the mode function as given in Eq. (112), the no-incoming wave condition is given by $`(\mathrm{cosh}\zeta )^\nu 𝒬_p=e^{ip|\zeta |}`$ at $`|\zeta |\mathrm{}`$. For $`n=2`$, this means that the solution with the no-incoming wave condition becomes

$$𝒬_p=e^{ip\zeta },\text{for}\zeta >\zeta _B,𝒬_p=e^{ip\zeta },\text{for}\zeta <\zeta _B.$$
(115)
Then from the junction condition (74), we have

$$p=i\mu .$$
(116)
For this eigenvalue, we find

$$JO(\mu ^2Y_{}).$$
(117)
As in the cases with $`n3`$, $`Y_{}`$ therefore approximately satisfies the same equation as in the case of a non-gravitating brane. The only difference from the cases with $`n3`$ is that the solution is excluded from a complete set of solutions for $`𝒲`$ since it is not normalizable.

## 7 Green’s function

In the preceding section, we have seen that the solution corresponding to the brane fluctuations is not an eigenmode for the $`n=2`$ case. Thus, one may suspect whether such a mode is physically relevant or not. In this section, we examine the late time behavior of the retarded Green’s function for the master variable $`𝒲`$. Recently, a similar technique was used in the context of braneworld cosmology . We will see that the solution corresponding to the brane fluctuation discussed in the preceding section naturally dominates the late time behavior even if it is not contained in the eigenmodes.

For simplicity, we concentrate on the dS-brane $``$ dS-bulk case as before. The Green’s function for each component in the harmonic expansion in the $`K=1`$ closed chart satisfies

$$G(\tau ,\chi ;\tau ^{},\chi ^{})=\delta (\tau \tau ^{})\delta (\chi \chi ^{}),$$
(118)
where we substitute $`A=\mathrm{cosh}\tau `$ and $`k^2=L(L+n1)`$ in the expression of $``$ given in Eq. (75).

To find the expression for the retarded Green’s function, we first construct $`\delta (\tau \tau ^{})`$ by a superposition of the product of $`\tau `$-dependent part of the mode functions given in Eq. (112). From the expression in the second line of Eq. (112), we can see that this function does not have a pole with respect to $`p`$, although this fact is not manifest from the expression in the last line. For the purpose of constructing $`\delta (\tau \tau ^{})`$, these mode functions are to be normalized with respect to the inner product

$$(𝒯_{p_1},𝒯_{p_2})=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\tau }{(\mathrm{cosh}\tau )^{n2}}𝒯_{p_1}(\tau )𝒯_{p_2}(\tau ).$$
(119)
It is convenient to introduce $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_p(\tau ):=𝒯_p(\tau )`$. In fact, the inner product between $`𝒯_p`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_p^{}`$ is calculated as

$$(𝒯_p,\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_p^{})=\frac{2\pi i\delta (pp^{})}{p\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip+\stackrel{~}{L}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip\stackrel{~}{L})}.$$
(120)
Then, the delta function $`\delta (\tau \tau ^{})`$ is constructed as

$`\delta (\tau \tau ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2\pi i}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip+\stackrel{~}{L}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip\stackrel{~}{L}){\displaystyle \frac{𝒯_p(\tau )\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_p(\tau ^{})}{(\mathrm{cosh}\tau )^{n2}}}.`$ (121)
Here we have not taken into account the contribution from the discrete spectrum. For large negative $`\tau `$ or large positive $`\tau ^{}`$, the integration contour can be closed in the upper half complex plane. In the upper half plane the integrand has poles at $`p=\stackrel{~}{L}i,(\stackrel{~}{L}1)i,\mathrm{},i`$. The contribution from discrete spectrum should cancel that from these poles completely. Hence, the contribution from the discrete spectrum can be taken into account by shifting the integration contour so that it passes beyond $`p=\stackrel{~}{L}i`$.

The Green’s function can be constructed by assuming the following form

$$G(\tau ,\chi ;\tau ^{},\chi ^{})=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p𝒢_p(\chi ,\chi ^{})\frac{ip}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip+\stackrel{~}{L}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ip\stackrel{~}{L})\frac{𝒯_p(\tau )\stackrel{~}{𝒯}_p(\tau ^{})}{(\mathrm{cosh}\tau )^{n2}}.$$
(122)
Then, $`𝒢_p(\chi ,\chi ^{})`$ should satisfy

$$\left\{\alpha ^{(n1)}_\chi \alpha ^{(n1)}_\chi +\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}\left(p^2+\nu ^2\right)\right\}𝒢_p(\chi ,\chi ^{})=\delta (\chi \chi ^{}).$$
(123)
We denote the homogeneous solution corresponding to the outgoing wave at $`\zeta \pm \mathrm{}`$ by $`𝒬_p^{(\pm )}(\chi )`$, with $`\zeta `$ given in Eq. (91). Then we have

$$𝒢_p(\chi ,\chi ^{})=\frac{1}{W_p}\left\{𝒬_p^{(+)}(\chi )𝒬_p^{()}(\chi ^{})\theta (\chi \chi ^{})+𝒬_p^{(+)}(\chi ^{})𝒬_p^{()}(\chi )\theta (\chi ^{}\chi )\right\},$$
(124)
with

$`W_p`$ $`:=`$ $`\{_\zeta 𝒬_p^{()}(\chi )\}𝒬_p^{(+)}(\chi )𝒬_p^{()}(\chi )\{_\zeta 𝒬_p^{(+)}(\chi )\}.`$ (125)
The zeros of $`W_p`$ occurs when $`𝒬_p^{()}`$ is identical to $`𝒬_p^{(+)}`$. Namely, $`W_p`$ vanishes when the solution satisfying the outgoing boundary condition at $`\zeta =\mathrm{}`$ simultaneously satisfies the outgoing boundary condition at $`\zeta =\mathrm{}`$. For $`n=2`$, we found in Sec. 6.4 that the solution with the outgoing boundary condition on both sides satisfies the junction condition when $`p=i\mu `$. Hence there is a zero of $`W_p`$ at $`p=i\mu `$. For $`n3`$, when the imaginary part of $`p`$ is positive, the outgoing boundary condition implies that the wave function takes the decaying component toward $`\zeta \pm \mathrm{}`$. Thus, the wave function $`𝒲`$ with the eigenvalue given in Eq. (101) satisfies the outgoing boundary condition. Therefore this eigenvalue corresponds to a zero point of $`W_p`$ for $`n3`$.

Let us consider the situation that a certain event localized in spacetime excites the brane fluctuations and/or the gravitational waves near the brane. This situation will be heuristically described by adding a localized source term on the right hand side of Eq. (75) as $`𝒲=𝒮`$. The solution is given by using the retarded Green’s function as

$$𝒲=d^{n+2}\stackrel{~}{x}^{}G(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{x}^{})𝒮(\stackrel{~}{x}^{}).$$
(126)
If we consider the behavior of the perturbations at a time sufficiently late after the event, we will be able to close the integration contour in the lower half of the complex $`p`$-plane. Then, the dominant contribution comes from the pole of $`𝒢_p`$ that has the largest imaginary part. The integrand on the right hand side of Eq. (124) has poles at $`p=\stackrel{~}{L}i,(\stackrel{~}{L}1)i,\mathrm{}`$ as well as at the zeros of $`W_p`$. The poles at $`p=\stackrel{~}{L}i,(\stackrel{~}{L}1)i,\mathrm{}`$ do not give a dominant contribution at late time because of the exponential suppression of $`\tau `$-dependent part of the mode function for these special values of $`p`$. As is explained above, the zero of $`W_p`$ with the largest imaginary part is nothing but the eigenfunction corresponding to the brane fluctuations. Therefore the late time behavior is dominated by this eigenfunction. Although this eigenfunction itself has a diverging amplitude at $`|\zeta |\mathrm{}`$ for $`n=2`$, the solution (126) is guaranteed to go to zero for large $`|\zeta |`$ because of the causality of the retarded Green’s function.

## 8 Summary and discussion

We have studied the dynamics of perturbations of a self-gravitating vacuum brane of co-dimension one, taking the $`(n+2)`$-dimensional maximally symmetric configurations as the unperturbed background bulk geometry. In the first part of this paper (Secs. 3 \- 5), we have extended the general formulas for the bulk and brane perturbations in terms of the gauge-invariant master variable, including the boundary conditions for the bulk perturbations on the brane derived from the perturbed junction conditions. We have derived the equation of motion for a self-gravitating brane in more general cases than in literature, confirming that the derived equation is different from that for a non-gravitating brane derived from the Nambu-Goto action. The evolution equation for the brane fluctuations in the case of a self-gravitating brane does not close by itself. It has a source term $`J`$ which is specified by the bulk metric perturbations. We have also shown that the perturbed brane motion $`Y_{}`$ can be completely determined by the bulk metric perturbations. This fact shows that the brane does not have its own dynamical degrees of freedom, hence it cannot oscillate freely. The brane can oscillate only while incoming gravitational waves are present. These results are generalizations of the works , and they made it manifest that the way of describing dynamics of a self-gravitating vacuum brane looks crucially different from what one might naively expect from the analysis of a non-gravitating vacuum brane.

In the second part (Secs. 6 and 7), we have addressed a question, in which situation and in what manner these two ways of describing the brane fluctuations can be consistent, using the formulas developed in the first part. We first proposed the weak backreaction condition to clarify the situation in which the effect of the self-gravity of the brane to the bulk metric perturbations can be regarded as small, and hence the dynamics of a non-gravitating brane well approximates that of a self-gravitating one. The criteria for the weak backreaction condition we have proposed is that a non-dimensional parameter $`\mu `$ proportional to the brane tension and the brane curvature radius, defined in Eq. (68), is sufficiently small. This condition requires that the brane radius is sufficiently small compared to the bulk curvature radius or that the brane is an almost totally geodesic surface with negligible difference in the vacuum energies on both sides of the brane.

We have examined the perturbations of the dS-brane $``$ dS-bulk system in the weak backreaction limit. We have shown that even when the amplitude of the incoming gravitational waves are of order $`O(\mu )`$, the amplitude of the brane perturbation $`Y_{}`$ can be $`O(1)`$. Nevertheless a self-gravitating brane does not have its own dynamical degrees of freedom because the brane fluctuation can be entirely written by the bulk metric perturbations. As mentioned above, in literature we can find the argument that a self-gravitating brane can oscillate only while incoming gravitational waves are present.

We have pointed out a loophole in this argument. If we allow the amplitude of perturbations to increase unboundedly in the past direction, there is a solution which satisfies the no-incoming wave condition. The solution has a discrete spectrum for $`n3`$, while the solution in the case of $`n=2`$ is not normalizable under the usual Hermitian measure. We have also shown that, when the weak backreaction condition holds, the gauge invariant brane fluctuations corresponding to this solution approximately satisfy the same equation as for a non-gravitating brane. The correction due to the effect of self-gravity becomes small of $`O(\mu Y_{})`$ for $`n3`$ and $`O(\mu ^2Y_{})`$ for $`n=2`$.

Nevertheless, from the nature of the unbounded increase of its amplitude in the past direction, one might think that such a solution should be discarded as an unphysical one. For the case of $`n=2`$, the solution is even unnormalizable. However, one can see that this increase of the amplitude in the past direction is a rather expected behavior. In the treatment of the self-gravitating brane, we solve metric perturbations and brane fluctuations simultaneously. Therefore the leading radiation reaction is automatically taken into account. Hence, the radiation damping reduces the amplitude of the perturbation in the future direction, which means that the amplitude should increase toward the past direction.

To reinforce the justification of identifying this solution with the one corresponding to the brane fluctuations, we have considered a situation in which there is an external force which excites the brane fluctuations. Using the retarded Green’s function for the perturbations of the self-gravitating brane system, we analyzed the perturbations induced by an event localized in spacetime. We find that the late time behavior after the event is dominated by the solution with the no-incoming wave condition mentioned above. In this setup, this special solution becomes dominant only at a late epoch, and it is guaranteed that we do not see an unbounded increase of amplitude in the past direction because of the causality.

In the present work, we have considered only maximally symmetric geometries as the background. It will be interesting to study less symmetric background case. Recently there has appeared an interesting work on the interaction between gravitational waves and cylindrically symmetric domain wall , which also provides an example in which dynamics of a self-gravitating brane can be well approximated by a non-gravitating brane.

In the second part of this work, we examined only dS-brane $``$ dS-bulk cases. An anti-de Sitter bulk spacetime plays an important role in the context of braneworld scenario. For the adS-brane $``$ adS-bulk, and $`𝔼`$-brane $``$ adS-bulk cases, however, the spatial section of the bulk spacetime becomes open, and some subtle problems might appear in the boundary condition at the infinity. This issue will be discussed in a separate paper. Studies on the co-dimension two brane and the system composed of many branes will be also interesting.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to J. Garriga for useful suggestions and discussions. To complete this work, the discussion during and after the YITP workshop YITP-W-01-15 on “Braneworld - Dynamics of spacetime boundary” was useful. This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (A.I.) and by the Monbukagakusho Grant-in-Aid No. 14740165(T.T.).

## Appendix

### A. The perturbed Einstein equations and the master equation

The perturbed Einstein equations on a maximally symmetric spacetime can be reduced to the following four gauge-invariant equations on the $`2`$-dimensional orbit space $`𝒩^2`$ for modes with $`k^2(k^2nK)0`$:

$`\mathrm{}F_{ab}+D_aD_cF^c{}_{b}{}^{}+D_bD_cF^c{}_{a}{}^{}+n{\displaystyle \frac{D^cr}{r}}(D_cF_{ab}+D_aF_{cb}+D_bF_{ca})+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r^2}}2(n1)\lambda )F_{ab}`$
$`D_aD_bF^c{}_{c}{}^{}2n(D_aD_b+{\displaystyle \frac{D_ar}{r}}D_b+{\displaystyle \frac{D_br}{r}}D_a)F`$
$`\{D_cD_dF^{cd}+2n{\displaystyle \frac{D_cr}{r}}D_dF^{cd}+n(n1){\displaystyle \frac{D_crD_dr}{r^2}}F^{cd}2n\mathrm{}F2n(n+1){\displaystyle \frac{D^cr}{r}}D_cF+2(n1){\displaystyle \frac{k^2nK}{r^2}}F`$
$`\mathrm{}F^c{}_{c}{}^{}n{\displaystyle \frac{D^dr}{r}}D_dF^c{}_{c}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r^2}}F^c{}_{c}{}^{}(2n+3)\lambda F^c{}_{c}{}^{}\}g_{ab}=0,`$ (127)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{n2}}}D_b(r^{n2}F^b{}_{a}{}^{})+rD_a({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}F^b{}_{b}{}^{})+2(n1)D_aF=0,`$ (128)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{D_aD_b+2(n1){\displaystyle \frac{D_ar}{r}}D_b+(n1)(n2){\displaystyle \frac{D_arD_br}{r^2}}+2(n1){\displaystyle \frac{D_aD_br}{r}}\right\}F^{ab}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{}+(n1){\displaystyle \frac{D^dr}{r}}D_d{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r^2}}+\lambda \}F^c{}_{c}{}^{}+(n1)\{\mathrm{}+n{\displaystyle \frac{D^cr}{r}}D_c{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2nK}{r^2}}\}F=0,`$ (129)
$`2(n2)F+F^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0.`$ (130)
From Eqs. (128) and (130) we have

$`D_b(r^{n2}F^b{}_{a}{}^{})=2D_a(r^{n2}F),F^a{}_{a}{}^{}=2(n2)F.`$ (131)
Then we can show that there is a master scalar $`\mathrm{\Omega }=r\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ on $`𝒩^2`$ by which $`F_{ab}`$ and $`F`$ can be expressed as

$$r^{n2}F=\frac{1}{2n}(\mathrm{}+2\lambda )\mathrm{\Omega },r^{n2}F_{ab}=D_aD_b\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{n1}{n}\mathrm{}+\frac{n2}{n}\lambda \right)\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(132)
which are equivalent to Eqs. (38) and (37). Substituting these into Eq. (127), we have

$$\left(D_aD_b+\lambda g_{ab}\right)E(\mathrm{\Omega })=0,$$
(133)
where

$$E(\mathrm{\Omega }):=r^2\left\{\mathrm{}n\frac{D^cr}{r}D_c\frac{k^2nK}{r^2}(n2)\lambda \right\}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(134)
From this, we can finally obtain the master equation

$$\left\{\mathrm{}n\frac{D^cr}{r}D_c\frac{k^2nK}{r^2}(n2)\lambda \right\}\mathrm{\Omega }=0,$$
(135)
which is equivalent to Eq. (39). For more details of the derivation of the master equation, see Ref. .

### B. Perturbations of dS3,5-brane $``$ dS4,6-bulk system

Here as an exactly solvable system, we consider perturbations of $`3,5`$-dimensional de Sitter brane embedded in $`4`$ or $`6`$-dimensional de Sitter bulk, i.e., $`n=2`$ or $`4`$, and $`\lambda _\pm =\mathrm{}_\pm ^2>0`$. If we write down the radial equation by using the coordinate $`\zeta `$ defined in Eq. (91), we have

$$\left\{_\zeta ^2+p^2+\nu (\nu 1)\frac{\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right\}\left(\alpha ^\nu _p\right)=0,$$
(136)
where $`\nu =(n2)/2`$ as used in the text. Without loss of generality we can set the values of $`\zeta _\pm `$ on the brane to zero. Hence, for $`n=2`$ or $`4`$ the solution in the bulk is simply given by

$`\alpha ^\nu _p=𝒜_\pm (p)e^{ip\zeta _\pm }+_\pm (p)e^{\pm ip\zeta _\pm },`$ (137)
in $`\stackrel{~}{}_\pm `$. We quote the junction conditions (66) and (67) again as

$`\left[_\zeta _p\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left(p^2+\nu ^2\right)\left[_p\right]`$ $`=`$ $`2(n1)\mu _\zeta _p.`$ (138)
#### dS3-brane $``$ dS4-bulk case

This system has been investigated in Refs. . But for the convenience for the readers we quote the results here. We have from the boundary conditions (138),

$`\overline{𝒜}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{},`$ (139)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ip}{2\mu }}\left[𝒜+\right]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_++_+.`$ (140)
Then, we obtain (see Eq. (4.49) in Ref. )

$$_\pm =\frac{i\mu }{p+i\mu }𝒜_\pm +\frac{p}{p+i\mu }𝒜_{}.$$
(141)
We see that for the pole mode $`p=i\mu `$, $`_\pm `$ can be non zero even if $`𝒜_\pm =0`$. Namely, there is a purely outgoing solution for $`p=i\mu `$. For this value of $`p`$, the source term is given by

$$J=\mu \frac{1}{4\alpha _B^2}\left\{5\mathrm{tanh}\tau \frac{}{\tau }\frac{L(L+1)}{2\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau }+4\mathrm{tanh}^2\tau +\mu ^2\right\}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(142)
where we have eliminated the second derivative of $`\tau `$, using the master equation.

#### dS5-brane $``$ dS6-bulk case

From the conditions (138), we have

$`(p^22)\left[𝒜+\right]+6ip\overline{\sqrt{1\lambda \alpha ^2}(𝒜)}+3\alpha ^2\left[\lambda (𝒜+)\right]=0,`$ (143)
and

$$\left[\sqrt{1\lambda \alpha ^2}\left(𝒜+\right)\right]2ip\overline{\left(𝒜\right)}=0.$$
(144)
From these, we obtain the relation between $`𝒜_\pm (p)`$ and $`_\pm (p)`$ as

$$_\pm =U𝒜_\pm +V𝒜_{},$$
(145)
with

$`U`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \left\{12p^2+3\sqrt{1\lambda _+\alpha ^2}\sqrt{1\lambda _{}\alpha ^2}3ip\left(\sqrt{1\lambda _+\alpha ^2}+\sqrt{1\lambda _{}\alpha ^2}\right)\right\}}{ip(p^2+1)(4p^2+1)\mu 6\mu ^2ip3\mu \sqrt{1\lambda _+\alpha ^2}\sqrt{1\lambda _{}\alpha ^2}}},`$ (146)
$`V`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ip(p^2+1)}{ip(p^2+1)(4p^2+1)\mu 6\mu ^2ip3\mu \sqrt{1\lambda _+\alpha ^2}\sqrt{1\lambda _{}\alpha ^2}}}.`$ (147)
The zeros of the denominators are calculated to the linear order in $`\mu `$ as

$$p=\left(1\frac{3}{2}\lambda _+\alpha ^2\mu \right)i,\left(1+\frac{3}{2}\lambda _+\alpha ^2\mu \right)i,\left\{43\lambda _+\alpha ^2\right\}\mu i,$$
(148)
where we have used

$$\left[\sqrt{1\lambda \alpha ^2}\right]=\left[_\chi \alpha \right]=2\mu .$$
(149)
The eigenvalue with the largest imaginary part corresponds to that obtained in Eq. (101).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that in the canonical formalism of general relativity (GR), the Hamiltonian constraint $`0`$ and 3-dimensional diffeomorphism constraint $`_i0`$ form an algebra under the Poisson bracket , which reflects the diffeomorphism structure of space-time. However, the canonical approach does not preserve the covariance of GR manifestly. To recover the manifest covariance of the theory, a new approach, the covariant phase space formalism, has been developed .

In studying the statistical origin of the black hole entropy by use of the covariant phase space method , Carlip treated the Hamiltonian functional conjugate to a vector field the generator of the diffeomorphism algebra just like the Hamiltonian in the canonical approach. The diffeomorphism algebra is assumed to be realized by the Poisson bracket or by the Dirac bracket  on the constraint surface. Unfortunately, the Hamiltonian functional conjugate to a vector field $`\xi ^a`$ does not always exist, as pointed out by Wald , for a given boundary condition. In addition, in the lack of the definition of the Poisson bracket and thus the Dirac bracket in the covariant phase space formalism, Carlip borrowed the Poisson bracket and the Dirac bracket from the ADM formalism .

On the other hand, in both classical and quantum field theories, if a Lagrangian possesses certain symmetries, such as gauge symmetry and Poincaré symmetry, the corresponding Lie algebras can always be generated by the Noether charges of the conservation currents with respect to the symmetries. This spirit should also be available for the diffeomorphism invariance of a diffeomorphism invariant theory such as GR since the set of diffeomorphisms forms an infinite dimensional group under composition . The main purpose of the present letter is to show how the algebra $`diff`$($``$) can be realized from the Noether charges in GR. It is also shown with the help of the null tetrad which is well defined everywhere that the central term of the reduced diffeomorphism algebra on the Killing horizon for a large class of vector fields vanishes.

The letter is arranged in the following way. In the next section, we briefly review the Noether currents with respect to the diffeomorphisms generated by vector fields and their charges in a diffeomorphism invariant theory. In section 3, we show that the diffeomorphism algebra may be realized by the Noether charges and their horizontal variations. In section 4, we study the reduced algebra on the event horizon of black-hole space-time manifold. In the last section, some remarks are given.

## 2 Noether Currents and Their Charges

Let $`𝐋`$ be the Lagrangian 4-form of a diffeomorphism-invariant gravitational metric theory. Its horizontal variation induced by the vector field $`\xi ^a`$ can be written as

$`\widehat{\delta }_\xi 𝐋=𝐄\widehat{\delta }_\xi g+d𝚯(g,\widehat{\delta }_\xi g),`$ (1)
where $`𝐄=0`$ gives rise to the Euler-Lagrange equation for the theory and $`𝚯(g,\widehat{\delta }_\xi g)`$ is the symplectic potential 3-form. On the other hand, using the Lie derivative $`_\xi `$

$`\widehat{\delta }_\xi 𝐋=_\xi 𝐋=d(\xi 𝐋).`$ (2)
Equating Eqs.(1) and (2), one gets

$`d𝐣(\xi )+𝐄\widehat{\delta }_\xi g=0,`$ (3)
where

$`𝐣(\xi )=(𝚯(g,\widehat{\delta }_\xi g)\xi 𝐋)`$ (4)
is the Noether current 1-form with respect to the diffeomorphism generated by a given vector field $`\xi ^a`$. Its (entire) Noether charge is given by the integral over a Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$`Q(\xi )={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝐣(\xi ).`$ (5)
In vacuum GR, the Lagrangian 4-form in units of $`G=c=1`$ reads

$`𝐋={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}R\mathit{ϵ},`$ (6)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature and $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ the volume 4-form. The symplectic potential takes the form of

$`𝚯_{abc}(g,_\xi g)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}[^d(g_{ef}\widehat{\delta }_\xi g^{ef})_e\widehat{\delta }_\xi g^{de}]\mathit{ϵ}_{dabc}.`$ (7)
Thus, the Noether current and the Noether charge may be explicitly written as

$`𝐣_a(\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}G_{ab}\xi ^b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}(^b_a\xi _b^b_b\xi _a)`$ (8)
and

$`Q(\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}(G_{ab}\xi ^b){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d\xi ,`$ (9)
respectively, where $`G_{ab}`$ is the Einstein tensor and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the boundary of the Cauchy surface. On shell, the first terms in Eqs. (8) and (9) vanish and the Noether charge may be expressed as an integral over the boundary of the Cauchy surface. The Noether current (8) is exactly the dual of the current 3-form constructed by Wald et al earlier (see, for example, ). The integrand of the second term in (9) is nothing else but the Noether charge 2-form in . The boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, in general, consists of two closed 2-dimensional surfaces at the two ends of the Cauchy surface. For the whole asymptotically flat region, the Cauchy surface emanates from the bifurcation surface and extends to the spatial infinity. Thus, the boundary of the Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ should be $`S_H^{()}S_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`S_H^{()}`$ is the bifurcation surface. The superscript $`()`$ stands for the opposite orientation. Namely, its normal vector points to the direction of $`r`$ decreasing. Then, the Noether charge becomes the algebraic summation of the partial Noether charges of the closed surfaces, i.e.

$`Q(\xi )=𝒬_{\mathrm{}}(\xi )𝒬_H(\xi ).`$ (10)
In particular, for the stationary, axisymmetric black hole space-time with Killing vector

$`\chi _K^a=t_K^a+\mathrm{\Omega }_H\varphi _K^a,`$ (11)
where $`t_K^a`$ and $`\varphi _K^a`$ are the time-like and space-like Killing vector of the space-time, respectively, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_H`$ the angular velocity on the horizon,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_b^a\chi _K^b_b^b\chi _K^a)=R_b^a\chi _K^b.`$ (12)
From Eq. (8), it follows that $`𝐣_𝐚`$ and thus $`Q(\chi _K)`$ vanishes on shell. Since the mass and the angular momentum of the black hole are, by definition,

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _S_{\mathrm{}}}dt_K`$ (13)
and

$`J={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle _S_{\mathrm{}}}d\varphi _K,`$ (14)
respectively, the expression for $`𝒬_{\mathrm{}}`$ is then

$`𝒬_{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle _S_{\mathrm{}}}d\chi _K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\mathrm{\Omega }_HJ.`$ (15)
On the other hand, the expression for $`𝒬_H`$ takes the form of

$`𝒬_H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle _{S_H}}d\chi _K={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{8\pi }}A,`$ (16)
where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity and $`A`$ the area of the cross section of the event horizon. Thus, the vanishing Noether charge $`Q(\chi _K)=0`$ gives rise to the mass formula

$$Q=\frac{1}{2}M\mathrm{\Omega }_HJ\frac{\kappa }{8\pi }A=0.$$
(17)
The Noether charge may be defined for a finite region of a space-time. When $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not chosen to be the whole of the Cauchy surface but a partial Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ with two boundaries $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ such that $`A_{B_2}>A_{B_1}`$, where $`A_{B_i}`$ stands for the area of surface $`B_i`$,

$`Q_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_p}(\xi )=𝒬_{B_2}(\xi )𝒬_{B_1}(\xi )`$ (18)
gives the Noether charge for the portion of the space-time region $`R\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$.

## 3 Realization of Algebra $`diff`$($``$)

In order to get the realization of algebra $`diff`$($``$), it is needed to consider the two successive horizontal variations of the Lagrangian 4-form induced by two vector fields $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$. Due to the property

$`[\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1},\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}]𝐋=\widehat{\delta }_{[\xi _1,\xi _2]}𝐋,`$ (19)
it is straightforward to get

$`d\{\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}[𝐣(\xi _2)]\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}[𝐣(\xi _1)]𝐣([\xi _1,\xi _2])\}=\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}(𝐄\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}g)\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}(𝐄\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}g)+𝐄\widehat{\delta }_{[\xi _1,\xi _2]}g.`$ (20)
Namely, the combination of the current 1-forms

$`\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}[𝐣(\xi _2)]\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}[𝐣(\xi _2)]𝐣([\xi _1,\xi _2])`$ (21)
is also conserved on shell. The Noether-like charge $`K(\xi _1,\xi _2)`$ with respect to this combination on a Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is then given by

$`K(\xi _1,\xi _2)=\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q(\xi _2)\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}Q(\xi _1)Q([\xi _1,\xi _2]).`$ (22)
It should be noted that in Eq.(22) the (horizontal) variation $`\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}`$ acts on both $`Q`$ and $`\xi _2`$. Namely,

$`\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q(\xi _2)=(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q)(\xi _2)+Q(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}\xi _2)=(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q)(\xi _2)+Q([\xi _1,\xi _2]).`$ (23)
Hence, Eq.(22) gives rise to

$`(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}Q)(\xi _1)(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q)(\xi _2)=Q([\xi _1,\xi _2])+K(\xi _1,\xi _2).`$ (24)
Eq.(24) shows that the Noether charges and their horizontal variations form an algebraic relation of $`diff`$($``$) and that $`K(\xi _1,\xi _2)`$ may be treated as the possible central term. (Note that in Eq.(24) the vector fields keep unchanged under the variation, i.e. $`\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}\xi _2=\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}\xi _1=0`$ .)

Further, the Jacobi identity of the horizontal variations

$`([\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1},[\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2},\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _3}]]+[\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2},[\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _3},\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}]]+[\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _3},[\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1},\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}]])𝐋=0`$ (25)
results in

$`K([\xi _1,\xi _2],\xi _3)+K([\xi _2,\xi _3],\xi _1)+K([\xi _3,\xi _1],\xi _2)=0.`$ (26)
This is the two co-cycle condition for the center term.

To determine the possible central term, one has to calculate $`(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}Q)(\xi _1)(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q)(\xi _2)`$ and $`Q([\xi _1,\xi _2])`$. By definition and the conservation equation $`d𝐣=0`$,

$`(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}Q)(\xi _1)(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q)(\xi _2)={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\xi _2𝚯(g,_{\xi _1}g)\xi _1𝚯(g,_{\xi _2}g)+\xi _1(\xi _2𝐋)\xi _2(\xi _1𝐋).`$ (27)
For vacuum GR, the Lagrangian $`𝐋`$ vanishes on-shell and thus

$`(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}Q)(\xi _1)(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q)(\xi _2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathit{ϵ}_{abcd}[\xi _2^c_e(^e\xi _1^d^d\xi _1^e)\xi _1^c_e(^e\xi _2^d^d\xi _2^e)].`$ (28)
On the other hand,

$`Q([\xi _1,\xi _2])={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathit{ϵ}_{abcd}^c(\xi _1^e_e\xi _2^d\xi _2^e_e\xi _1^d).`$ (29)
The possible central term is then

$`K(\xi _1,\xi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}Q)(\xi _1)(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q)(\xi _2)Q([\xi _1,\xi _2])`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathit{ϵ}_{abcd}\left[_e(\xi _{[1}^c^d\xi _{2]}^e)2\xi _{[1}^{[c}^{e]}_{|e|}\xi _{2]}^d\right].`$
The above analysis may also apply to a hyperbolic region with a partial Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ in the manifold. Namely, the Noether charges $`Q_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_p}(\xi )`$s for the hyperbolic region with a partial Cauchy surface and their horizontal variation form the algebraic relation of $`diff`$($`R\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$),

$`(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}Q_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_p})(\xi _1)(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}Q_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_p})(\xi _2)=Q_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_p}([\xi _1,\xi _2])+K_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_p}(\xi _1,\xi _2).`$ (31)
Since $`Q_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_p}`$ is expressed on shell in terms of the algebraic summation of the boundary terms as Eq. (18), Eq. (31) can be separated into two algebraic relations

$`(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}𝒬_{B_i})(\xi _1)(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}𝒬_{B_i})(\xi _2)=𝒬_{B_i}([\xi _1,\xi _2])+K_{B_i}(\xi _1,\xi _2),i=1,2`$ (32)
with help of Eq. (18).

## 4 Reduced algebra on event horizon of stationary axisymmetric black hole

Let us consider such a partial Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ that it emanates from the bifurcation surface $`S_H`$, extends almost along the generator of event horizon of a black hole and ends at certain place of the stretched Killing horizon  denoted by $`B_ϵ`$. At the end of calculation, this partial Cauchy surface tends to the event horizon by taking $`ϵ0`$. Define a vector field orthogonal to the Killing vector fields (11) by

$`_a\chi _K^2=2\kappa \rho _a,`$ (33)
where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity on the event horizon. The two vector fields $`\chi _K^a`$ and $`\rho ^a`$ may combine into the two null vectors,

$`l^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\chi _K^a+{\displaystyle \frac{|\chi _K|}{\rho }}\rho ^a)`$
$`n^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi _K^2}}(\chi _K^a{\displaystyle \frac{|\chi _K|}{\rho }}\rho ^a).`$ (34)
$`l^a,n^a`$ and $`m^a,\overline{m}^a`$ constitue a null tetrad field in the neigborhood of the event horizon. The Lie bracket of $`l^a`$ and $`n^a`$ reads

$`[l,n]^a=\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{|\chi |}}n^a.`$ (35)
It may also be checked that

$`D\chi _K^2`$ $`:=`$ $`l^a_a\chi _K^2=O(\chi _K^2)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _K^2`$ $`:=`$ $`n^a_a\chi _K^2=O(1).`$ (36)
Therefore, the vector fields of type

$`\xi ^a=Tl^a+Rn^a\text{with }RO(\chi _K^2)`$ (37)
form a closed algebra under the Lie bracket.

For this type of vector fields, the partial Noether charge $`𝒬`$ reads

$`𝒬_S(\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle _S}\widehat{\mathit{ϵ}}_{ab}(DT\mathrm{\Delta }R+\kappa T)`$ (38)
and Eq. (28) for the partial Noether charge $`𝒬`$ reduces to

$`(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _2}𝒬_S)(\xi _1)(\widehat{\delta }_{\xi _1}𝒬_S)(\xi _2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _S}\widehat{\mathit{ϵ}}_{ab}(T_{[1}D\mathrm{\Delta }R_{2]}T_{[1}D^2T_{2]}\kappa T_{[1}DT_{2]})`$ (39)
when the boundary condition $`l_{a;b}(m^a\overline{m}^b+\overline{m}^am^b)|_S=0`$ is satisfied, where $`S=S_H`$ or $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}B_ϵ`$ (denoted by $`B`$ hereafter), and $`\widehat{\mathit{ϵ}}_{ab}`$ is the area 2-form of $`S`$. The straightforward calculation shows

$`𝒬_S([\xi _1,\xi _2])={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _S}\widehat{\mathit{ϵ}}_{ab}(T_{[1}D\mathrm{\Delta }R_{2]}+T_{[1}D^2T_{2]}+\kappa T_{[1}DT_{2]}).`$ (40)
Thus, the central term vanishes!

## 5 Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, as other symmetries in other classical and quantum field theories, the diffeomorphism algebra, reflecting the diffeomorphism invariance of diffeomorphism invariant theories, may be realized by the Noether charges and their horizontal variations. The Noether-charge realization has four remarkable features. First of all, the Noether-charge realization always exists because the Noether charge always exists for any given vector fields and any given boundary conditions. This is in contrast to the Hamiltonian-functional realization, which does not exist for some vector fields and boundary conditions because the Hamiltonian functionals themselves do not always exist . Secondly, the Noether-charge realization is a completely covariant approach. In the present approach, the Poisson bracket and Dirac bracket are not used at all, which are defined in the canonical approach. Thirdly, only the horizontal variations are considered in the Noether-charge realization. Finally, for vacuum general relativity the Noether-charge realization has the same form as the one given by Carlip with the help of the Hamiltonian functionals .

Another conclusion of the present letter is that the central term on Killing horizon for a large class of vector fields vanishes! The key point is that the null tetrad instead of the basis $`\{\chi _K^a,\rho ^a,t_1^a,t_2^a\}`$ is used. The former is well defined everywhere, including on the Killing horizon, while the latter is ill-defined on the Killing horizon. Therefore, the appearance of the central term seems to come from the choice of basis.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Professors/Drs. Z. Chang, C.-B. Liang, Y. Ling, R.-S. Tung, K. Wu, H.-X. Yang, M. Yu, B. Zhou, and C.-J. Zhu for helpful discussion. This project is in part supported by National Science Foundation of China under Grants Nos. 90103004, 10175070.