text:
# References

Measure Fields, The Cosmological Constant and Scale Invariance

E. I. Guendelman111Electronic address: guendel@bgumail.bgu.ac.il

Physics Department, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

## Abstract

The consequences of considering the measure of integration in the action to be defined by degrees of freedom independent of the metric are studied. Models without the cosmological constant problem, new ways of spontaneously breaking scale symmetry which have an interesting cosmology and theories of extended objects (string, branes) without a fundamental scale appear possible.

When formulating generally covariant theories, the form for the action $`S=d^Dx\sqrt{g}L`$ is considered. Here $`L`$ is a scalar and $`g=det(g_{\mu \nu })`$, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ being the metric defined on space-time manifold of interest. In this case the metric determines the measure of integration to be $`d^Dx\sqrt{g}`$. The fact is however that one can still maintain general coordinate invariance and replace $`\sqrt{g}`$ by another density $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which depend on degrees of freedom independent of the metric, obtaining then the modified measure $`d^Dx\mathrm{\Phi }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is also a total divergence, then the action $`S=d^Dx\mathrm{\Phi }L`$ is invariant up to the integral of a total divergence under the shift $`LL+constant`$.

A particular realization for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is obtained by considering $`D`$ scalar fields $`\phi _j`$ and defining $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\epsilon ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _D}\epsilon _{j_1\mathrm{}j_D}_{\mu _1}\phi _{j_1}\mathrm{}._{\mu _D}\phi _{j_D}`$.

Realistic gravitational theories without the cosmological constant problem can be constructed using actions of the form $`S=d^Dx\mathrm{\Phi }L_1+d^Dx\sqrt{g}L_2`$, where $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are both independent of the measure fields  $`\phi _j`$. There is a good reason not to consider mixing of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\sqrt{g}`$ , like for example using $`\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{\sqrt{g}}`$. This is because $`S`$ is invariant (up to the integral of a divergence) under the infinite dimensional symmetry $`\phi _a\phi _a+f_a(L_1)`$ where $`f_a(L_1)`$ is an arbitrary function of $`L_1`$ if $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are $`\phi _a`$ independent. Such symmetry is absent if mixed terms are present. Models with two measures could be related to brane scenarios (one measure associated to the brane, the other to the bulk).

We will study now the dynamics of a scalar field $`\varphi `$ interacting with gravity as given by the choice of lagrangians (for $`D=4`$)

$`L_1=\frac{1}{\kappa }R(\mathrm{\Gamma },g)+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi V(\varphi ),L_2=U(\varphi )`$ where $`R(\mathrm{\Gamma },g)=g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{\Gamma }),R_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{\Gamma })=R_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\lambda ,R_{\mu \nu \sigma }^\lambda (\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu ,\sigma }^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \sigma ,\nu }^\lambda +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \sigma }^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \nu }^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \sigma }^\alpha `$. In the variational principle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda ,g_{\mu \nu }`$, the measure fields scalars $`\phi _a`$ and the scalar field $`\varphi `$ are all to be treated as independent variables.

If we perform the global scale transformation ($`\theta `$ = constant) $`g_{\mu \nu }e^\theta g_{\mu \nu }`$ then $`S`$ is invariant provided $`V(\varphi )`$ and $`U(\varphi )`$ are of the form $`V(\varphi )=f_1e^{\alpha \varphi },U(\varphi )=f_2e^{2\alpha \varphi }`$ and $`\phi _a`$ is transformed according to $`\phi _a\lambda _a\phi _a`$ (no sum on a) which means $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(_a\lambda _a\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that $`\lambda =e^\theta `$ and $`\varphi \varphi \frac{\theta }{\alpha }`$.

Let us consider the equations which are obtained from the variation of the $`\phi _a`$ fields. We obtain then $`A_a^\mu _\mu L_1=0`$ where $`A_a^\mu =\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon _{abcd}_\nu \phi _b_\alpha \phi _c_\beta \phi _d`$. Since det $`(A_a^\mu )=\frac{4^4}{4!}\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ we obtain that $`_\mu L_1=0`$, or that $`L_1=M`$, where $`M`$ is constant. This constant $`M`$ appears in a self-consistency condition of the equations of motion  that allows us to solve for $`\chi \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{g}}=\frac{2U(\varphi )}{M+V(\varphi )}`$. $`M`$ produces ssb of scale invariance.

To get the physical content of the theory, it is convenient to go to the Einstein conformal frame where $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\chi g_{\mu \nu }`$ . In terms of $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ the non Riemannian contribution (defined as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \{_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \}`$ where $`\{_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \}`$ is the Christoffel symbol), disappears from the equations, which can be written then in the Einstein form ($`R_{\mu \nu }(\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta })`$ = usual Ricci tensor)

$`R_{\mu \nu }(\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta })\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }R(\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta })=\frac{\kappa }{2}T_{\mu \nu }^{eff}(\varphi )`$,

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{eff}(\varphi )=\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\alpha }\varphi _{,\beta }\overline{g}^{\alpha \beta }+\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }V_{eff}(\varphi )`$ and $`V_{eff}(\varphi )=\frac{1}{4U(\varphi )}(V+M)^2`$. Notice that for generic smooth functions $`V`$ and $`U`$, if $`V+M=0`$ at some point, then generically $`V_{eff}=V_{eff}^{^{}}=0`$ at such point, that is, the ground state has zero vacuum energy without fine tuning!. No assumption of scale invariance in involved in this result.

If $`V(\varphi )=f_1e^{\alpha \varphi }`$ and $`U(\varphi )=f_2e^{2\alpha \varphi }`$ as required by scale invariance, we obtain

$$V_{eff}=\frac{1}{4f_2}(f_1+Me^{\alpha \varphi })^2$$
(1)
We see that as $`\alpha \varphi \mathrm{}`$, $`V_{eff}\frac{f_1^2}{4f_2}=const`$. providing an infinite flat region, so we expect a slow rolling inflationary scenario to be viable. Also a minimum is achieved at zero cosmological constant for the case $`\frac{f_1}{M}<0`$ at the point $`\varphi _{min}=\frac{1}{\alpha }ln\frac{f_1}{M}`$. Finally, the second derivative of the potential $`V_{eff}`$ at the minimum is $`V_{eff}^{\prime \prime }=\frac{\alpha ^2}{2f_2}f_1^2>0`$ if $`f_2>0`$. That is, a realistic scalar field potential, with massive excitations when considering the true vacuum state, is achieved in a way consistent with scale invariance.

Furthermore, one can consider this model as suitable for the present day universe rather than for the early universe, after we suitably reinterpret the meaning of the scalar field $`\varphi `$. This can provide a long lived almost constant vacuum energy for a long period of time, which can be small if $`f_1^2/4f_2`$ is small. Such small energy density will eventually disappear when the universe achieves its true vacuum state. Notice that a small value of $`\frac{f_1^2}{f_2}`$ can be achieved if we let $`f_2>>f_1`$. In this case $`\frac{f_1^2}{f_2}<<f_1`$, i.e. a very small scale for the energy density of the universe is obtained by the existence of a very high scale (that of $`f_2`$) the same way as a small neutrino mass is obtained in the see-saw mechanism from the existence also of a large mass scale. In what follows, we will take $`f_2>>f_1`$.

We can also include a fermion $`\psi `$, where the kinetic term of the fermion is chosen to be part of $`L_1`$, $`S_{fk}=L_{fk}\mathrm{\Phi }d^4x`$ and $`L_{fk}=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }[\gamma ^aV_a^\mu (\stackrel{}{}_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\omega _\mu ^{cd}\sigma _{cd})(\stackrel{}{}_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\omega _\mu ^{cd}\sigma _{cd})\gamma ^aV_a^\mu ]\psi `$ there $`V_a^\mu `$ is the vierbein, $`\sigma _{cd}`$ = $`\frac{1}{2}[\gamma _c,\gamma _d]`$. For self-consistency, the curvature scalar is taken to be (if we want to deal with the spin connection $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda `$ everywhere) $`R=V^{a\mu }V^{b\nu }R_{\mu \nu ab}(\omega ),R_{\mu \nu ab}(\omega )=_\mu \omega _{\nu ab}_\nu \omega _{\mu ab}+(\omega _{\mu a}^c\omega _{\nu cb}\omega _{\nu a}^c\omega _{\mu cb})`$.

Global scale invariance is obtained provided $`\psi `$ also transforms, as in $`\psi \lambda ^{\frac{1}{4}}\psi `$. Mass terms consistent with scale invariance exist: $`m_1\overline{\psi }\psi e^{\alpha \varphi /2}\mathrm{\Phi }d^4x+m_2\overline{\psi }\psi e^{3\alpha \varphi /2}\sqrt{g}d^4x`$.

If we consider the situation where $`m_1e^{\alpha \varphi /2}\overline{\psi }\psi `$ or $`m_2e^{3\alpha \varphi /2}\overline{\psi }\psi `$ are much bigger than $`V(\varphi )+M`$, i.e. a high density approximation, we obtain that the consistency condition is $`\chi =\frac{3m_2}{m_1}e^{\alpha \varphi }`$. Using this, we obtain, after going to the Conformal Einstein Frame (CEF), which involves the transformations to the scale invariant fields $`\overline{V}_\mu ^a`$ = $`\chi ^{\frac{1}{2}}V_\mu ^a`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ = $`\chi ^{\frac{1}{4}}\psi `$ and they lead to a mass term,

$$2m_2(\frac{|m_1|}{3|m_2|})^{3/2}\sqrt{\overline{g}}\overline{\psi }^{}\psi ^{}d^4x$$
(2)
The $`\varphi `$ dependence of the mass term has disappeared, i.e. masses are constants. Low density of matter can also give results which are similar to those obtained in the high density approximation, in that the coupling of the $`\varphi `$ field disappears and that the mass term becomes of a conventional form in the CEF. In this is the case, we study the limit $`\alpha \varphi \mathrm{}`$ . Then $`U(\varphi )\mathrm{}`$ and $`V(\varphi )\mathrm{}`$. In this case, taking $`m_1e^{\alpha \varphi /2}\overline{\psi }\psi `$ and $`m_2e^{3\alpha \varphi /2}\overline{\psi }\psi `$ much smaller than $`V(\varphi )`$ or $`U(\varphi )`$ respectively, we get $`\chi =\frac{2f_2}{f_1}e^{\alpha \varphi }`$. If this is used, we obtain the mass term $`m\sqrt{\overline{g}}\overline{\psi }^{}\psi ^{}d^4x`$, where

$$m=m_1(\frac{f_1}{2f_2})^{\frac{1}{2}}+m_2(\frac{f_1}{2f_2})^{\frac{3}{2}}$$
(3)
The mass term is independent of $`\varphi `$ again. So the interaction of $`\varphi `$ with matter dissapears in the CEF due to scale invariance. This is an explicit realization of the symmetry which Carroll was looking for avoiding interactions of the ’quintessential scalar’ and the rest of the world  and which would apply if we consider the universe being totally in the the region $`\alpha \varphi \mathrm{}`$. The effects of terms which explicitly (rather than spontaneously) break scale invariance have also been studied .

Other scenarios can be explored: taking $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ of the same order of magnitude, we see that the mass of the Dirac particle is much smaller in the region $`\alpha \varphi \mathrm{}`$, for which (3) is valid, than it is in the region of high density of the Dirac particle relative to $`V(\varphi )+M`$, as displayed in eq. (2), if the ”see-saw” assumption $`\frac{f_1}{f_2}<<1`$ is made. Therefore if space is populated by diluted Dirac particles of this type, the mass of these particles will grow substantially if we go to the true vacuum valid in the absence of matter, i.e. $`V+M=0`$. In the region $`\alpha \varphi \mathrm{}`$, we minimize the matter energy, but maximize the potential energy $`V_{eff}`$ and at $`V+M=0`$, we minimize $`V_{eff}`$, and particle masses are big. The true vacuum state must be in a balanced intermediate stage. Clearly how much above $`V+M=0`$ such true vacuum is located must be correlated to how much particle density is there in the Universe. A non zero vacuum energy, which must be of the same order of the particle energy density, has to appear and this could explain the ”accelerated universe” that appears to be implied by the most recent observations, together with the ”cosmic coincidence”, that requires the vacuum energy be comparable to the matter energy.

One can also develop a modified measure theory for the case of extended objects  including super symmetric strings and branes . In the case of strings, we can replace in the Polyakov action, the measure $`\sqrt{\gamma }d^2x`$ (where $`\gamma _{ab}`$ is the metric defined on the world sheet, $`\gamma =det(\gamma _{ab})`$ and $`a,b`$ indices for the world sheet coordinates) by $`\mathrm{\Phi }d^2x`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\epsilon ^{ab}\epsilon _{ij}_a\phi _i_b\phi _j`$. Then for the bosonic string , we consider the action

$$S=𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }[\gamma ^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\frac{\epsilon ^{ab}}{\sqrt{\gamma }}F_{ab}]$$

where $`F_{ab}=_aA_b_bA_a`$ and $`A_a`$ is a gauge field defined in the world sheet of the string. The term with the gauge fields is irrelevant if the ordinary measure of integration is used, since in that case it would be a divergence, but is needed for a consistent dynamics in the modified measure reformulation of string theory. This is due to the fact that if we avoid such a contribution to the action, the variation of the action with respect to $`\gamma ^{ab}`$ leads to the vanishing of the induced metric on the string. The equation of motion obtained from the variation of the gauge field $`A_a`$ is $`\epsilon ^{ab}_a(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{\gamma }})=0`$ . From which we obtain that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=c\sqrt{\gamma }`$ where $`c`$ is a constant which can be seen is the string tension. The string tension appears then as an integration constant and does not have to be introduced from the beginning. The string theory Lagrangian in the modified measure formalism does not have any fundamental scale associated with it. Extensions to both the super symmetric case  and to higher branes ( see both Refs.  and ) are possible.


format: text

text:
# Single neutral heavy lepton production at electron-muon colliders.

## Abstract

New heavy Majorana and Dirac neutrinos production at future electron-muon colliders are investigated. The production of a single heavy neutrino is shown to be more relevant than pair production when comparing cross sections and neutrino mass ranges. The process $`e^\pm \mu ^{}\nu \mathrm{}^\pm W^{}`$ is studied including on-shell and off-shell heavy neutrino effects. Distributions are calculated including hadronization effects and experimental cuts that suppress background, in order to have a clear signal for heavy neutral leptons.

PACS: 12.60.-i, 13.85.-t, 14.60.-z

There is an increasing experimental evidence for neutrino oscillations and non zero neutrino masses. The smallness of neutrino masses is generally understood as a consequence of some see-saw mechanism. This brings the question of the possibility of new heavy neutrino states. So far none of these new states was experimentally observed with masses up to $`M_N`$ 100 GeV. For higher masses there are many suggestions of experimental possibilities in the next high energy hadron-hadron colliders, in electron-positron linear accelerators, in neutrinoless double-beta decay. The properties of these new heavy states are a central point in many of the theoretical models proposed as extentions of the present standard model of elementary particle physics. Besides the masses and mixing angle values, an important point is the Majorana or Dirac nature of new heavy states. This is directly connected with lepton number conservation and to the general symmetries of any extended model.

The suggestion of a new type of electron-muon colliders seems to be an interesting proposal to verify the properties of new heavy leptons. Muon beams are well known to have a reduced synchrotron radiation loss and the absence of an Z-mediated $`s`$ channel makes cleaner the high energy properties of charged current interactions. Another interesting point is the fact that $`e\mu `$ colliders will test directly the properties of two leptonic families. This option was considered recently by Cvetic̆ and Kim , who studied the production of a pair of heavy Majorana leptons in the reaction $`\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+NNW^\pm \mathrm{}_i^{}W^\pm \mathrm{}_j^{}`$ for N on and off shell.

In this paper we call attention to a more feasible channel for detecting neutral heavy leptons in $`e\mu `$ colliders. In many models the mixing of neutral and heavy neutrino states implies  that in the light-to-heavy neutrino vertex we have a single power of the mixing angle, contrary to the double mixing angle power in the heavy-to-heavy neutrino vertex. Another factor that favors single heavy lepton production is a smaller phase space suppression. We are then lead to study the channel $`e^\pm \mu ^{}\nu \mathrm{}^\pm W^{}`$. We have calculated the standard model background contribution for this process and shown that, with appropriated cuts, it can be reduced well bellow the signal. In order to have a more realistic estimate for the signal and background distributions we have hadronized the final W. We discuss throughout this paper both the Majorana and Dirac heavy neutrino contributions.

Most extended models predict new fermions and new gauge vector bosons. Since we presently have no signal for new interactions, we will make the hypothesis that the new heavy neutrino states behave as $`SU_L(2)U_Y(1)`$ basic representations. We can resume the new particle interactions in the neutral and charged current lagrangians:

$$_{nc}=\frac{g}{4c_W}sin\theta _{mix}Z_\mu \overline{\psi _N}\gamma ^\mu \left(1\gamma _5\right)\psi _\nu +h.c..$$
(1)
and

$$_{cc}=\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}sin\theta _{mix}W_\mu \overline{\psi _N}\gamma ^\mu \left(1\gamma _5\right)\psi _e+h.c.$$
(2)
and similar terms for the other leptonic families. In the Majorana case, each completely neutral heavy lepton is coupled to all charged leptons and we are considering only the lower mass state. For the Dirac case, in principle we have three different heavy neutrinos, one for each family. In this last case we have considered their masses to be all equal.

Throughout this paper we will suppose that mixing angles for heavy-to-light neutrinos and new heavy neutrino masses are independent parameters . The light neutrinos couplings to the neutral Z are given by $`g_{V,A}=g_{V,A}^{SM}sin^2\theta _{mix}/2`$. Taking the experimental values for $`g_{V,A}`$ and the standard model predictions we obtain a small upper bound for $`\theta _{mix}`$. A recent estimate  gives $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{mix}<0.0052`$ with $`95\%`$ C.L. This limit value is used throughout this paper for all curves and distributions.

The decay modes for these leptons, in the Majorana case  must include both signatures $`N\mathrm{}^{}W^\pm `$ and $`N\nu _{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})Z`$, with $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$. For the Dirac case, we have the simple decays $`N_\mu \mu ^{}W^+`$ and $`N_\mu \nu _\mu Z`$. For the specific channel considered in this paper we have an undetected final neutrino state. In the heavy Dirac neutrino production we have lepton number conservation, and only reactions like $`e^{}\mu ^+\nu _e\mu ^+W^{}`$ are allowed. But for the Majorana case, as we have lepton number violation, we must sum over all the final neutrino and antineutrino states in $`e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+W^{}\nu _i(\overline{\nu }_j)`$.

From equations 1 and 2 we can readily calculate the decay widths for the neutral leptons and find

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\nu _iZ)={\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{mix}M_N}{128\pi c_W^2}}f(y_Z)`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\mathrm{}^\pm W^{})={\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{mix}M_N}{64\pi }}f(y_W)`$ (4)
where $`f(y)=y3/y+2/y^2`$ and $`y=(M_N/M_{Z,W})^2`$.

In Fig. 1 we show the structure of the Feynman diagrams that contribute for the signal. We have included in our results all the off-shell and on-shell contributions. The calculations for both the standard model background and signal were done using the high energy program CompHep . We call attention to the fact that the N width is very narrow for lower heavy neutrino masses and increase for higher masses. Propagator effects must then be handled with care. Another possible background contribution comes from $`e^{}\mu ^+e^{}\mu ^+Z`$ where the final electron goes along the initial electron direction and escapes from the detection. This contribution is almost eliminated by requiring a good resolution in the hadronization, with an invariant hadronic mass peaked around $`M_W`$.

The cross sections for single and pair heavy neutrino production (on-shell) are displayed in Fig. 2 for $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV. In all our results we have done general detector cuts $`E_{lepton}>5`$ GeV and $`0.995<cos\theta _i<0.995`$, where all angles are defined relative to the initial electron. In the Majorana case we have summed over all the possibilities of undetected final neutrino states. This figure shows clearly the dominance of single heavy neutrino production over pair production. We also show the possibility of Majorana neutrino contribution to $`e^{}\mu ^+W^{}W^+`$ according to Fig. 1b. This channel dominates single and pair Majorana production for neutrino masses above $`\sqrt{s}`$. In Fig. 3 we have the total cross sections for the signal (Dirac and Majorana) and standard model background for the specific final states $`e^{}\mu ^+invisible\mu ^+W^{}`$, where $`invisible`$ means the sum of all undetected possible final neutrino and anti-neutrino states. The standard model background is clearly above the signal and the central problem for a possible experimental detection of heavy neutral leptons is to study the distributions that could separate signal from background.

Angular distributions can be very helpful in separating signal from background as well as Majorana from Dirac heavy neutrinos. In Fig. 4 we show the angular distribution ($`cos\theta _\mu `$) for the final muon (relative to the initial electron). The standard model distribution is peaked at $`cos\theta _\mu 1`$. For lower heavy neutrino masses we have different Dirac and Majorana distribution shapes but for higher masses this difference almost disappears. In Fig. 5 we show the distribution of the angle between the final muon with respect to the direction of the heavy lepton in its center of mass ($`cos\theta _\mu ^{}`$). This distribution shows that we can eliminate most of the standard model contribution with a cut like $`cos\theta _\mu ^{}<0.5`$ and that this cut is almost independent of the heavy neutrino mass.

In order to enhance the relation signal to background, we can apply some heavy neutrino mass dependent cuts, based on kinematical relations only. Let us consider the case where at $`\sqrt{s}`$ center of mass energy particles A and B are produced and then the particle B decays into particles C and D. Let us suppose further that the particles A and C are massless. After doing a simple calculation we obtain that the energy of the particle C, $`E_C`$, should be in the range:

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{s}(M_B^2M_D^2)}{M_B^2}<E_C<\frac{1}{2}\frac{(M_B^2M_D^2)}{\sqrt{s}}$$
(5)
The shaded area in Fig. 6 shows the allowed region for the muon energy $`E_\mu `$ when $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV and final state $`\nu `$, $`\mu ^+`$, $`W^{}`$. For $`M_N=200`$ GeV, 800 GeV and 1600 GeV, we have 8.38 GeV $`<E_\mu <838.62`$ GeV, 158.38 GeV $`<E_\mu <989.91`$ GeV and 638.38 GeV $`<E_\mu <997.47`$ GeV, respectively.

Another interesting heavy neutrino mass dependent variable is the angle between the final particles C and D, originated from the particle B decay in the center of mass of the incident particles. After doing a Lorentz transformation, we obtain that $`cos\theta _{CD}`$ should be in the region:

$$1<cos\theta _{CD}<\frac{\gamma _v^2\sqrt{E_C^2+M_D^2}E_C^{}}{\sqrt{1+\gamma _v}\sqrt{\gamma _v^2(E_C^2+M_D^2)+E_C^2}}$$
(6)
where

$$\gamma _v=\frac{(sM_B^2)}{2\sqrt{s}M_B}\text{}$$
(7)
and

$$E_C^{}=\frac{(M_B^2M_D^2)}{2M_B}$$
(8)
The shaded area on Fig. 7 shows the allowed kinematical region as a function of the heavy neutral particle mass for our case where $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV and A, B, C and D are the standard neutrino, heavy neutral particle, muon and gauge boson W, respectively. For $`M_N=`$ 200 GeV, 800 GeV and 1600 GeV, we have for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{W\mu }`$ the following upper limits: $`0.914`$, $`0.0588`$ and $`0.9003`$, respectively. Dynamical bounds will further limit this area. Another important kinematical constraint comes from the fact that on-shell heavy neutrino contributions are dominant. Then the missing energy of the final neutrino has a sharp distribution given by

$$E_\nu =(sM_N^2)/2\sqrt{s}$$
(9)
The most definite separation between signal and background is given by the correlation between the final missing energy and the invariant visible mass of the system muon \+ hadrons. For the signal the missing neutrino energy is strongly peaked by Eq. 9 and the invariant visible muon \+ hadrons mass is also peaked around $`M_N`$. In order to have a more realistic estimate for the experimental possibilities of detection of heavy neutrino effects we have hadronized the final W, for the signal and the background, using the program Pythia . The results are shown in Figs. 8, 9, 10 for heavy Majorana neutrino masses of 200, 800 and 1600 GeV respectively. In Fig. 8a we show the arbitrary number of events plot in the plane $`E/`$ and muon \+ hadrons invariant mass. For $`M_N=`$ 200 GeV we include only the general detector cuts, $`E/>5`$ GeV; $`E_\mu >5`$ GeV; $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mu |<0.995`$; — $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{hadron}|<0.995`$, and require an hadronic invariant mass limited to $`M_W\pm 2`$ GeV. In this heavy neutrino mass region the background is clearly mixed with the signal. If we start doing more restrictive cuts we can reduce the background contribution. In Fig. 8b we have done the cut $`E/<1050`$ GeV, according to Eq. 9, and added the mass independent cut $`cos\theta _\mu ^{}<0.5`$. If we finally make the more restrictive mass dependent cuts $`0.85<cos\theta _{W\mu }<0.95`$ and $`E_\mu <800`$ GeV we arrive at the result shown in Fig. 8c, where the background was substantially reduced. A similar procedure can be done for higher masses. For instance, in Fig. 9a, even with the general detector cuts we can see the signal above the background. If we improve our cuts to the mass independent region $`cos\theta _\mu ^{}<0.5`$, use $`E/<1050`$ GeV, and employ the more mass dependent cuts $`cos\theta _{W\mu }<0.05`$ and 158 GeV $`<E_\mu <990`$ GeV, we have practically only the signal in Fig. 9b. The same situation is found for $`M_N=`$1600 GeV. In Fig. 10a, the signal is in a region of very low background. If we improve our general and mass independent cuts with new $`cos\theta _{W\mu }<0.9`$ and 638 GeV $`<E_\mu <997`$ GeV, only the signal is left unaffected, as displayed in Fig. 10b.

For single heavy neutrino production, the relation signal to background increases as the heavy neutrino mass increases. Our analysis of single heavy neutrino production via the process $`e^{}\mu ^+invisible\mu ^+W^{}`$ can be generalized for any process of the type $`e^\pm \mu ^{}invisible\mathrm{}^\pm hadrons`$. For values of the center of mass energies other than $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV, we have similar conclusions: heavy neutrino masses can be investigated up to $`\sqrt{s}`$; angular and kinematical cuts can help in establishing distributions that can differentiate signal from background and the strong correlation between the variables $`E/`$ and $`M_{\mu +hadrons}`$ gives a very clear signature for the signal.

Acknowledgments: This work was partially supported by the following Brazilian agencies: CNPq, FUJB, FAPERJ and FINEP.

Figure Captions

1. General Feynman graphs for heavy Majorana and Dirac neutrino contribution to $`e^{}\mu ^+\nu \mu ^+W^{}`$.
2. Single and pair production of on-shell heavy Dirac and Majorana neutrinos at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV for $`e^{}\mu ^+`$ colliders ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{mix}=0.0052`$).
3. Signal and background (standard model) contributions to $`e^{}\mu ^+invisible\mu ^+W^{}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV.
4. Final muon angular distribution relative to the initial electron $`cos\theta _\mu `$, for the standard model background and for Dirac and Majorana heavy neutrinos, at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV.
5. Final muon angular distribution relative to the direction of the heavy lepton in its center of mass $`cos\theta _\mu ^{}`$, for the standard model background and for Dirac and Majorana heavy neutrinos, at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV.
6. Kinematical limits for the muon energy $`E_\mu `$ versus heavy neutrino mass $`M_N`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV.
7. Angular distribution for the angle between the final muon and W, $`cos\theta _{W\mu }`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV.
8. Invariant visible mass $`M_{\mu +hadrons}`$ and missing energy $`E/`$ for background and signal for $`M_N=`$ 200 GeV (in arbitrary units). Fig. 8a was done with the general cuts, Fig. 8b was done with the additional mass independent cuts as discussed in the text and Fig. 8c with the more restrictive cuts.
9. Same as Fig. 8, for $`M_N=`$ 800 GeV at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV.
10. Same as Fig. 8, for $`M_N=`$ 1600 GeV at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2000 GeV.


text:
# Phenomenon of Gamma-Ray Bursts as Relativistic Detonation of Scalar Fields

## 1 Introduction

Now there is no conventional mechanism of origin of gamma-ray bursts (GRB). Also the accumulation of all required energy in initial small volume is rather doubtful. At the same time there are theoretical models in the theory of the early Universe when the beginnings of large volume of relativistic plasma occurs fast enough with expansion of front of a spherical wave (see e.g. an expansion of the bubble at decay of false vacuum (creation of the Universe from the bubble )). We are based on the following assumptions: now the candidate for a dark matter in the Universe are the scalar fields of a various type. The mass of these fields can essentially exceed a mass of luminous matter and then they first form the large-scale structure of the Universe. An apparent matter concentrates in their gravitational potential wells. It is possible that these fields can create and more dense ”star-like” configurations. Such relativistic models also were studied for a number of years . Below will be shown that the similar star-like configurations with sufficiently large size and with big mass density are exist at weak gravitation when the configuration can be described in Newtonian approximation.

Let’s imagine that as a result of collision of relativistic particles some critical size of a fireball is formed (note that last one is present in other models of GRB also ). It is that seed mechanism which effectively transfers scalar fields in creating pairs of unstable elementary particles. Such mechanism can be imagined as a beginning of fast oscillation of a field on exterior boundary of a fireball. Such process is equivalent to a relativistic detonation. The role of a chemical energy turning into relativistic plasma at the front of a detonation wave will be played by the energy of a scalar field which intensively passes in pairs of creating particles - antiparticles. Now such fireball, expanding with a relativistic velocity, will not depend on weak gravitational fields of Newtonian configuration and it can be considered in special relativity.

## 2 Relativistic Detonation

Let’s show the self-similar solution for a spherical relativistic detonation which transfer in the well known solution of Ya. B. Zeldovich in case of small velocities . The set of equations of relativistic hydrodynamics is convenient to present in a spherical frame with use of usual three-dimensional radial velocity of plasma $`v`$ . Thus the equation of motion looks like:

$$\frac{1}{\theta ^2}\left(\frac{v}{\tau }+v\frac{v}{r}\right)+\frac{1}{w}\left(\frac{p}{r}+v\frac{p}{\tau }\right)=0$$
(1)
and the law of conservation of energy:

$$\frac{1}{w}\left[\frac{\epsilon }{\tau }+v\frac{\epsilon }{r}\right]+\frac{1}{\theta ^2}\left(\frac{v}{r}+v\frac{v}{\tau }\right)+\frac{2v}{r}=0,$$
(2)
here $`\theta ^2=1v^2`$, $`w=\epsilon +p`$ and $`c=1`$. As well as in a nonrelativistic case the motion of plasma behind the front of the detonation wave is considered as isentropic and the relevant solution is described only by two equations referred above. The pairs of relativistic particles which are creating in area behind the front of wave generate high-temperature plasma with the equation of state:

$$p=\omega ^2\epsilon ;\omega ^2=\left(\frac{p}{\epsilon }\right)_S=1/3,$$
(3)
where $`\omega `$ is the sound velocity. Similarly to the problem about a spherical detonation we shall search for a solution depending on the self-similar variable

$$\xi =r/\tau .$$
(4)
Thus the set of Eqns. (1), (2) passes in the system of ordinary differential equations and supposes the obtaining of one equation on $`v`$:

$$\frac{dv}{d\xi }\left[\frac{1}{\omega ^2}\left(\frac{v\xi }{1v\xi }\right)^21\right]=\frac{2v}{\xi }\frac{\theta ^2}{1v\xi }.$$
(5)
In a nonrelativistic case ($`v(\xi ),\xi 1`$ ) the last equation passes in classical one . The qualitative analysis of this equation is similar to the known mentioned result. The solutions for $`v`$ and $`\epsilon `$ have the infinite derivative at the front of wave ( $`\xi =𝒟`$ is the velocity of the detonation wave). It follows from the known fact of the detonation theory: the velocity of plasma, outgoing from the wave front, is equal to the sound velocity $`\omega `$. The expression in the parenthesis in the l.h.s. of Eqn. (5) corresponds to the relativistic law of a velocity addition and at $`\xi =𝒟`$ it is equal to $`\omega ^2`$. The last one means that at tending of argument $`\xi `$ to the wave front the whole expression in brackets aspires to zero from above. The r.h.s. of Eqn. (5) remains finite that means tending of the derivative to infinity. The examination of a transformation of the velocity of plasma in a zero for Eqn. (5) is completely similar to the analysis of Ref.  as the motion becomes nonrelativistic. The single unknown parameter in this problem is the velocity of the detonation wave $`𝒟`$. In case of classical detonation it is determined by an internal energy of explosive. For the considered hypothesis it will be defined by the energy flux density and by momenta of a scalar field entering the wave front.

The discussion of the possible mechanism of ”recycling” of the field behind the wave front in relativistic plasma is considered below. Let’s specify here the following estimation of value of $`𝒟`$ and energy density behind the detonation wave. Let’s consider that the scalar field is set in the simplest variant:

$$T_i^k=\phi _{,i}\phi ^{,k}\delta _i^k\left(\frac{1}{2}\phi _{,\mu }\phi ^{,\mu }V(\phi )\right),V(\phi )=m^2\phi ^2/2$$
(6)
and is in scalaron regime (the fast oscillations with frequency $`m`$): $`\phi (r,t)=a(r)\mathrm{sin}mt`$. The spatial changing of the field is considered small. Thus the energy density of such field (in a laboratory frame) is determined by:

$$\epsilon _f=m^2a^2/2.$$
(7)
The expression for $`𝒟`$ and energy density of plasma behind the wave front is determined from conservation laws $`T_0^1(field)=T_0^1(plasma)`$ and $`T_1^1(field)=T_1^1(plasma)`$ for the observer which is in the rest at the wave front. (Remind that the plasma goes away the wave front with the velocity $`\omega `$.) Hence

$$𝒟=\frac{2\omega }{1+\omega ^2};\epsilon _p=\frac{2}{1\omega ^2}\epsilon _f.$$
(8)
In case of relativistic plasma $`\omega =1/\sqrt{3}`$ and $`𝒟=\sqrt{3}/2,\epsilon _p=3\epsilon _f`$. The self-similar solutions for this case are presented in Fig. 1.

## 3 About possible mechanism of transition field - plasma

The most complicated are the processes at the front of detonation wave - transition of the field in plasma. Let’s note that for modern space fields (cluster component of the field in the terminology of Ref. ) the most different masses of quantums of a scalar field are choose. Let’s specify also that explicitly enough the relativistic models of boson stars are studied in different variants . The most beautiful mechanism of the transition field - plasma can be the change of phase at penetration of the field in temperature bath with temperature $`T`$ close to critical at which there is a catastrophic decreasing of a mass of quantums of scalar fields . The strong increasing of the oscillation amplitude behind the wave front realizes in multiple creation of pairs of elementary particles and filling of the next layer by hot plasma. (Other mechanisms of such transition are not excluded also.)

The most simple explanation of duration of radiation of the GRB would be the existence of extended enough area filled by scalar field with energy density and size about 1-10 light second acceptable to the given mechanism that corresponds to duration of complete radiation of the GRB. In considered variant it is close to time of ”burning” of the field by the detonation wave. As the known examples of the field stars correspond to relativistic configurations we think that it is interested to specify a possibility of existence of scalaron Newtonian stars which together with high energy (mass) density would have a large enough expansion commensurable with the mentioned above typical size.

## 4 Newtonian Scalaron Star

The Newtonian gravitational configuration filled by scalar field with Lagrangian density is considered

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\phi _{,i}\phi ^{,i}m^2\phi ^2/2$$
(9)
and equation for the field is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{}{x^i}\left[\sqrt{g}g^{ii}\frac{\phi }{x^i}\right]=m^2\phi ,$$
(10)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the field quantum. In Newtonian approximation

$$g_{00}=1+2\mathrm{\Phi }/c^2;g_{11}=1;g_{22}=r^2;g_{33}=r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$
(11)
Consider further the stationary configuration in which the field $`\phi (r,t)=a(r)\mathrm{sin}mt`$ and the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }/c^2=\mathrm{\Psi }(r),\mathrm{\Psi }>0`$ depends only on $`r`$. Thus the field equation will has the form:

$$\frac{1}{r}\frac{d^2}{dr^2}(ra)+2m^2\mathrm{\Psi }a=0.$$
(12)
The amplitude of the field also has spatial oscillations but by virtue of smallness of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the spatial derivatives are much less temporal one. For this reason the mass density of the field $`\phi `$ is determined by the formula:

$$\rho =\epsilon /c^2=\left[\dot{\phi }/2+m^2\phi ^2/2\right]/c^2=m^2a^2/2c^2.$$
(13)
It gives the basic contribution to gravitation. The spatial derivatives on $`a(r)`$ create an effective pressure counterweighting the forces of gravitation. The potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)`$ has found from the Poisson equation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{4\pi G\rho }{c^2}=\frac{2\pi G}{c^4}m^2a^2.$$
(14)
The set of Eqns. (12), (14) determines the structure of scalaron ”star”. The solutions of the system are convenient for investigation in dimensionless form. Thus the typical quantities used at undimensionality give the possible estimations of values for parameters of such ”star”:

$$r=\mathrm{}\xi ;\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_0U;a=a_0x,$$
(15)
$$\mathrm{}^210^9\frac{n}{m_{eV}\sqrt{\rho _0}}cm^2;\mathrm{\Psi }_010^{18}n\frac{\sqrt{\rho _0}}{m_{eV}};a_010^6\frac{\sqrt{2\rho _0}}{m_{eV}}\left(\frac{erg}{cm^3}\right)^{1/2},$$

here $`\rho _0`$ is the central field density in g/cm3, $`m_{eV}`$ is the mass of a field quantum in eV, $`n1`$ is the dimensionless number.

We take e.g. $`m_{eV}=0.5\times 10^8`$eV and central mass density $`\rho _0=10^{16}`$g/cm3. Then at $`n=5`$ the typical size of the configuration will be $`\mathrm{}10^5`$cm and total mass in the order of $`M=10^{31}`$g. Thus the potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }_00.1`$ that is evidence of applicability of Newtonian gravitation theory in this case. If the mechanism of transition of the field in plasma is realized in the front region then for this rough estimate we have the following:

According to the formulas (8) for the detonation wave going from centre on the initial stage we have temperature about 1 GeV. The more strict analysis of the structure of scalaron configurations presented below shows that the mass density of the scalar field is proportional to $`r^2`$. At the indicated central density $`\rho _0`$ the yield of the detonation wave on boundary of configuration will give effective temperature behind the wave front about 1 MeV. Further the dispersion of such inhomogeneous macroscopic fireball is realized. This problem requires independent research as well as the problem of a relativistic detonation with energy density decreasing on the indicated law. But the rough estimate of average temperature of the whole fireball with the indicated energy $`E=Mc^2`$ shows that it achieves temperatures about 1 MeV at the size about 0.1 light second. Then the electron - positron pairs which ”locked” by radiation disappear and the free dispersion of photons begins. The reorganization of distribution of the density during the dispersion can give an increasing of Doppler frequency of radiation of photons in the head part of the fireball and leading up it up to temperature about GeV again.

Now set of equations in the dimensionless form will be:

$$\frac{1}{\xi }\frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}(\xi U)=x^2;\frac{1}{\xi }\frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}(\xi x)+n^2Ux=0.$$
(16)
Then $`n`$ will be proportional to number of half-waves of the field $`\phi `$ on the typical size of configuration. The numerical solution of Eqns. (16) is presented in Fig. 2.

In the equation on $`x`$ there is the big parameter $`n`$ that allows to search for solution on $`x`$ as :

$$x=f(\xi )\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega };\mathrm{\Omega }=n\underset{0}{\overset{\xi }{}}\sqrt{U}𝑑\zeta .$$
(17)
The argument at a sine is the fast varying function in comparison with the potential $`U`$. Then the solution of the second equation from (16) is possible to present as

$$x=\frac{1}{\xi U^{1/4}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }+\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right).$$
(18)
The obtained formula shows that according to expression (13) it corresponds to $`\rho r^2`$ as was used in estimations mentioned above. The substitution of Eqn. (18) in the equation for potential gives

$$\frac{1}{\xi }\frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}(\xi U)=\frac{1}{2\xi ^2\sqrt{U}}\left[1\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Omega }\right].$$
(19)
Hence the gravitational potential consists of slowly varying part described by the equation

$$\frac{1}{\xi }\frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}(\xi U)=\frac{1}{2\xi ^2\sqrt{U}}$$
(20)
and fast varying one $`\stackrel{}{U}`$

$$\frac{d^2}{d\xi ^2}\left(\xi ^2\frac{d\stackrel{}{U}}{d\xi }\right)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{U}}\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(21)
which in $`1/n^2`$ times less then $`U`$ as follows from Eqn. (21). For this reason it is not taken into account in the whole formulas with $`\sqrt{U}`$. Note that expression on the r.h.s. in Eqn. (20) is valid at $`\xi \xi _01/n`$.

## 5 Conclusion

The authors realize that the considered hypothesis requires an detailed examination in many items. The mechanism of creation of particles behind the front of the detonation wave is not clear in details, though in a series of models there are indication on a strong increasing of a mass of a field quantum at an approaching to critical temperature  that inevitably should result in strong increasing of an oscillation amplitude and creation of particles. The question with values of a mass of quantums of scalar fields existing in the modern Universe which generate dense cluster systems (”stars”) is not clear . The desire to obtain the time of existence of the detonation wave commensurable with observable duration of bursts of GRB has forced to consider lengthy Newtonian scalaron configurations. The problem of their existence and stability is also requires original research. But if to refuse this hypothesis it is possible to consider the ”detonation” of relativistic configurations. Then the finite fireball will be small and the subsequent phenomenon of GRB will require considering its expansion either in vacuum or in an exterior medium. Thus according to available results there will be no problem with insufficiency of an energy for an explanation of the whole observable phenomenon. Anyway, if in the modern Universe there is such unique form of a matter as fields of high density it would be strange for Nature not to take advantage of a possibility to convert their energy to radiation by an explosive way.

Acknowledgements

Authors thank A. Pushkin and V. Belinskii for discussing of this hypothesis on the initial stage of research.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Randall-Sundrum II scenario  has the intriguing feature that despite the existence of a non-compact fifth dimension, gravity is localised on the four-dimensional world-volume of the embedded 3-brane wall. This can also be understood from a Kaluza-Klein perspective, since one can consistently replace the Minkowski metric of the 3-brane world-volume by any Ricci-flat metric (see, for example, ), implying that pure Einstein gravity is certainly contained within the four-dimensional theory:

$$ds_5^2=e^{2k|z|}g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^2.$$
(1)
(The constant $`k`$ will be taken to be positive throughout this paper, since it is required for the trapping of gravity.) It is then natural to ask what kind of theory of gravity it is that resides on the 3-brane. Clearly the answer to this question depends upon the nature of the five-dimensional theory that is used in implementing the Randall-Sundrum scenario.

Naively, one might expect that if the five-dimensional theory is taken to be a gauged supergravity, then the theory on the 3-brane wall would be an ungauged supergravity with the same degree of supersymmetry, since the AdS spacetime preserves all supersymmetry. However, unlike an ordinary Kaluza-Klein reduction on a circle, the fifth direction $`z`$ in (1) is not translationally invariant, and so in particular there will be no gauge-invariant massless Kaluza-Klein vector arising from the reduction.111It was recently observed in  that if one nevertheless writes a “standard” reduction ansatz including a Kaluza-Klein vector, then the inevitable lack of gauge invariance does not manifest itself until beyond the linearised level. This observation is already sufficient to show that the reduced theory in four dimensions cannot have as much supersymmetry as the five-dimensional gauged theory.

The situation can be clarified by looking at the Killing spinors in an AdS background, which in horospherical coordinates is given by $`ds^2=e^{2kz}dx^\mu dx_\mu +dz^2`$. The Killing spinors are of two kinds, given by

$$ϵ_+=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}kz}ϵ_+^0,ϵ_{}=\left(e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}kz}ke^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}kz}x^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right)ϵ_{}^0,$$
(2)
where $`ϵ_\pm ^0`$ are arbitrary constant spinors satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_zϵ_\pm ^0=\pm ϵ_\pm ^0`$. In the Randall-Sundrum model, where the spacetime is taken to be symmetric about $`z=0`$, one replaces $`z`$ by $`|z|`$ in (2):

$$ϵ_+=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}k|z|}ϵ_+^0,ϵ_{}=\left(e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}k|z|}ke^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}k|z|}x^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right)ϵ_{}^0,$$
(3)
Clearly half of the Killing spinors, namely $`ϵ_+`$, will be localised on the brane at $`z=0`$, whilst the other half, $`ϵ_{}`$ will not. This implies that the four-dimensional theory on the world-volume of the 3-brane has only half the supersymmetry of the five-dimensional gauged supergravity.

Thus if one considers Randall-Sundrum II in the framework of five-dimensional simple ($`N=2`$) gauged supergravity, the world-volume theory will then be four-dimensional simple ($`N=1`$) supergravity, whose bosonic sector comprises only the metric. We can also view this as a consistent Kaluza-Klein reduction of $`D=5`$, $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity to $`D=4`$, $`N=1`$ ungauged supergravity.

Four-dimensional $`N=1`$ supergravity does not support any BPS $`p`$-branes. The next simplest example in $`D=4`$ is $`N=2`$ Einstein-Maxwell supergravity, which admits the well-known Reissner-Nordström black hole. Following the previous argument, we would expect that it can be embedded, within the Randall-Sundrum picture, in $`N=4`$ gauged supergravity in $`D=5`$. In section 2, we show that it is indeed the case, and so we can construct a Reissner-Nordström black hole in the world-volume of the 3-brane wall. The $`N=4`$ gauged supergravity itself can be obtained from a consistent 5-sphere reduction of type IIB supergravity , and so this provides a consistent embedding of Einstein-Maxwell supergravity in the world-volume of the ten-dimensional D3-brane. The resulting configuration can be viewed as an open string ending on the D3-brane.

In section 3 we generalise the procedure, to show that six-dimensional ungauged simple supergravity can be obtained as a consistent reduction of seven-dimensional $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity. This allows us to construct a self-dual string in the world-volume of the 5-brane wall of the seven-dimensional gauged theory. This theory itself can be obtained as a consistent 4-sphere reduction of $`D=11`$ supergravity , and so the self-dual string can be lifted to eleven dimensions. The resulting configuration describes a self-dual string living in the M5-brane, which can be viewed as an open membrane ending on the M5-brane. In a similar vein, we also show that five-dimensional ungauged $`N=2`$ supergravity can be obtained as a consistent reduction of six-dimensional gauged $`N=2`$ supergravity. This allows us to obtain solutions for Reissner-Nordström black holes and strings living in the world-volume of the 4-brane wall. Since the six-dimensional gauged supergravity can itself be obtained as a local $`S^4`$ reduction from the massive type IIA theory , we can also view these solutions as living in the world-volume of the D4/D8-brane system.

## 2 Reissner-Nordström black holes in Randall-Sundrum

### 2.1 Einstein-Maxwell supergravity via Randall-Sundrum

Here, we show that we can obtain ungauged four-dimensional Maxwell-Einstein ($`N=2`$) supergravity as a consistent Kaluza-Klein reduction of gauged five-dimensional $`N=4`$ supergravity, within a Randall-Sundrum type of framework. The bosonic sector of the five-dimensional theory comprises the metric, a dilatonic scalar $`\varphi `$, the $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills potentials $`A_{\left(1\right)}^i`$, a $`U(1)`$ gauge potential $`B_{\left(1\right)}`$, and two 2-form potentials $`A_{\left(2\right)}^\alpha `$ which transform as a charged doublet under the $`U(1)`$. The Lagrangian , expressed in the language of differential forms that we shall use here, is given by

$`_5`$ $`=`$ $`R\stackrel{~}{}\text{1}\mathrm{l}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}d\varphi d\varphi \frac{1}{2}X^4\stackrel{~}{}G_{\left(2\right)}G_{\left(2\right)}\frac{1}{2}X^2(\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(2\right)}^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i+\stackrel{~}{}A_{\left(2\right)}^\alpha A_{\left(2\right)}^\alpha )`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }A_{\left(2\right)}^\alpha dA_{\left(2\right)}^\beta \frac{1}{2}A_{\left(2\right)}^\alpha A_{\left(2\right)}^\alpha B_{\left(1\right)}\frac{1}{2}F_{\left(2\right)}^iF_{\left(2\right)}^iB_{\left(1\right)}`$
$`+4g^2(X^2+2X^1)\stackrel{~}{}\text{1}\mathrm{l},`$
where $`X=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}\varphi }`$, $`F_{\left(2\right)}^i=dA_{\left(1\right)}^i+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}gϵ^{ijk}A_{\left(1\right)}^jA_{\left(1\right)}^k`$ and $`G_{\left(2\right)}=dB_{\left(1\right)}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ denotes the five-dimensional Hodge dual. It is useful to adopt a complex notation for the two 2-form potentials, by defining

$$A_{\left(2\right)}A_{\left(2\right)}^1+\mathrm{i}A_{\left(2\right)}^2.$$
(5)
Our Kaluza-Klein reduction ansatz involves setting the fields $`\varphi `$, $`A_{\left(1\right)}^i`$ and $`B_{\left(1\right)}`$ to zero, with the remaining metric and 2-form potentials given by

$`ds_5^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}ds_4^2+dz^2,`$
$`A_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{k|z|}(F_{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{i}F_{\left(2\right)}),`$ (6)
where $`ds_4^2`$ is the metric and $`F_{\left(2\right)}`$ is the Maxwell field of the four-dimensional $`N=2`$ supergravity, and $``$ denotes the Hodge dual in the four-dimensional metric.

To show that this ansatz gives a consistent reduction to four dimensions, we note from (4) that the five-dimensional equations of motion are

$`d(X^1\stackrel{~}{}dX)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{3}X^4\stackrel{~}{}G_{\left(2\right)}G_{\left(2\right)}\frac{1}{6}X^2(\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(2\right)}^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i+\stackrel{~}{}\overline{A}_{\left(2\right)}A_{\left(2\right)})`$
$`\frac{4}{3}g^2(X^2X^1)\stackrel{~}{}\text{1}\mathrm{l},`$
$`d(X^4\stackrel{~}{}G_{\left(2\right)})`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}F_{\left(2\right)}^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i\frac{1}{2}\overline{A}_{\left(2\right)}A_{\left(2\right)},`$
$`d(X^2\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(2\right)}^i)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}gϵ^{ijk}X^2\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(2\right)}^jA_{\left(1\right)}^kF_{\left(2\right)}^iG_{\left(2\right)},`$
$`X^2\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}gA_{\left(2\right)},`$
$`R_{MN}`$ $`=`$ $`3X^2_MX_NX\frac{4}{3}g^2(X^2+2X^1)g_{MN}`$ (7)
$`+\frac{1}{2}X^4(G_M{}_{}{}^{P}G_{NP}^{}\frac{1}{6}g_{MN}G_{\left(2\right)}^2)+\frac{1}{2}X^2(F_M^{iP}F_{NP}^i\frac{1}{6}g_{MN}(F_{\left(2\right)}^i)^2)`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}X^2(\overline{A}_{(M}{}_{}{}^{P}A_{N)P}^{}\frac{1}{6}g_{MN}|A_{\left(2\right)}|^2),`$
where

$$F_{\left(3\right)}=DA_{\left(2\right)}dA_{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{i}gB_{\left(1\right)}A_{\left(2\right)}.$$
(8)
It follows from (6) that

$$F_{\left(3\right)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}kϵ(z)e^{k|z|}(F_{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{i}F_{\left(2\right)})dz+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{k|z|}(dF_{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{i}dF_{\left(2\right)}),$$
(9)
where $`ϵ(z)=\pm 1`$ according to whether $`z>0`$ or $`z<0`$. Thus the equation of motion for $`F_3`$ implies first of all that

$$dF_{\left(2\right)}=0,dF_{\left(2\right)}=0,$$
(10)
and so then, after taking the Hodge dual of the remaining terms in (9), we find from (7) that

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}kϵ(z)e^{k|z|}(F_{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{i}F_{\left(2\right)})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{i}ge^{k|z|}(F_{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{i}F_{\left(2\right)}),$$
(11)
which is identically satisfied provided that

$$g=\{\begin{array}{cc}+k,& z>0,\\ k,& z<0.\end{array}$$
(12)
Since $`k`$ is always positive (to ensure the trapping of gravity), this means that the Yang-Mills gauge coupling constant $`g`$ has opposite signs on the two sides of the domain wall. This requirement is the same as the one imposed in  for the continuity of the Killing spinors across the boundary. This implies, as emphasised in , that the Randall-Sundrum scenario cannot arise strictly within the standard five-dimensional gauged supergravity, where $`g`$ is a fixed parameter. It has a completely natural explanation from a ten-dimensional viewpoint, where $`g`$ arises as a constant of integration in the solution for an antisymmetric tensor, and the imposed $`Z_2`$ symmetry in fact requires that the sign must change across the wall . For convenience, however, we shall commonly treat the coupling constant $`g`$ of the gauged supergravity as if its sign can be freely chosen to be opposite on opposite sides of the domain wall, with the understanding that this can be justified from the higher-dimensional viewpoint.222An alternative possibility, developed in , is to introduce an auxiliary field in the supergravity theory, with the gauge coupling constant (or mass parameter) arising as an integration constant when the auxiliary field is eliminated.

The equations of motion for $`X`$ and $`G_{\left(2\right)}`$ are satisfied since for our ansatz

$$\overline{A}_{\left(2\right)}A_{\left(2\right)}=0$$
(13)
and $`\stackrel{~}{}A_{\left(2\right)}=\mathrm{i}A_{\left(2\right)}`$. The only remaining non-trivial equation in (7) is the Einstein equation. In vielbein components, the non-vanishing components of the Ricci tensor for the metric ansatz

$$d\widehat{s}^2=e^{2k|z|}ds^2+dz^2$$
(14)
are given by

$`\widehat{R}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}R_{ab}(D1)k^2\eta _{ab}+2k\delta (z)\eta _{ab},`$
$`\widehat{R}_{zz}`$ $`=`$ $`(D1)k^2+2k(D1)\delta (z),`$ (15)
where, for future reference, we have given the general expressions for a reduction from $`D`$ to $`(D1)`$ dimensions. Substituting into the five-dimensional Einstein equations, we find that the “internal” $`(zz)`$ component is identically satisfied, whilst the lower-dimensional components imply $`k^2=g^2`$ (consistent with (12)), and

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}(F_{\mu \rho }F_\nu {}_{}{}^{\rho }\frac{1}{4}F^2g_{\mu \nu }),$$
(16)
where $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ is the four-dimensional Ricci tensor. Thus we have shown that the ansatz (6), when substituted into the equations of motion for the five-dimensional $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity, gives rise to the equations of motion (10) and (16) of four-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell supergravity.

The fact that the Kaluza-Klein reduction that we have performed here gives a consistent reduction of the five-dimensional equations of motion to $`D=4`$ is somewhat non-trivial, bearing in mind that the five-dimensional fields in (6) are required to depend on the coordinate $`z`$ of the fifth dimension. The manner in which the $`z`$-dependence matches in the five-dimensional field equations so that consistent four-dimensional equations of motion emerge is rather analogous to the situation in a non-trivial Kaluza-Klein sphere reduction, although in the present case the required “conspiracies” are rather more easily seen.

As in the original Randall-Sundrum model , an external delta-function source is needed at $`z=0`$, to compensate the delta function in the five-dimensional Ricci tensor given by (15) that results from having introduced the modulus signs in $`|z|`$ in (6). Smooth gravity trapping solutions remain elusive, and may be incompatible with supersymmetry in $`D5`$ . Of course if we omitted the modulus signs, our ansatz (6) would satisfy the bulk supergravity equations everywhere.333We should emphasise that from a purely mathematical point of view all the Kaluza-Klein reductions that we consider in this paper can be recast as fully exact consistent reductions, with no delta-function sources needed, if we omit the modulus signs on $`z`$ everywhere. There would also then be no sign-reversal of the gauge-coupling constant $`g`$ on passing through $`z=0`$. However, since our goal is to describe supergravity localised on the domain wall, it is appropriate here to introduce the modulus signs, and pay the price of needing delta-function sources.

One indication of the localisation of gravity in the usual Randall-Sundrum model is the occurrence of the exponential factor in the metric $`ds_5^2=e^{2k|z|}dx^\mu dx_\mu +dz^2`$, which falls off as one moves away from the wall. It is therefore satisfactory that we have found that this same exponential fall-off occurs for the complete reduction ansatz (6), which we derived purely on the basis of the requirement of consistency of the embedding.

In our derivation of the reduction ansatz we have concentrated on the bosonic sectors of the four-dimensional and five-dimensional supergravities. Since we have proved the consistency in the bosonic sector, and since we know that the background where the four-dimensional metric is flat admits Killing spinors (namely the $`ϵ_+`$ spinors given in (2)), it follows that there must exist a straightforward extension of our ansatz to include the fermions. In fact we can easily see that the exponential $`z`$ dependence matches properly in all the equations, with the vielbein and gauge fields having $`e^{k|z|}`$ factors in the reduction, while the Killing spinors have $`e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}k|z|}`$ factors.

### 2.2 Lifting the Einstein-Maxwell embedding to $`D=10`$

The consistent Kaluza-Klein reduction ansatz giving the embedding of the five-dimensional $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity in type IIB supergravity was derived in . The internal reduction manifold is a 5-sphere, which can conveniently be described as a foliation by $`S^3\times S^1`$ surfaces. In this description, the unit $`S^5`$ is given by

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2=d\xi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\xi d\tau ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\xi d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2,$$
(17)
where $`0\xi \frac{1}{2}\pi `$, $`0\tau <2\pi `$, and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ is the metric on the unit 3-sphere. The $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge fields parameterise transitively-acting translations on this $`S^3\times S^1`$ group submanifold, whilst the dilaton $`\varphi `$ parametrises inhomogeneous distortions of the 5-sphere. Lifting our ansatz (6) to $`D=10`$ is rather simple, since the scalar and $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge fields vanish. From , we therefore find that (6) lifts to $`D=10`$ to give

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}ds_4^2+dz^2+g^2\left(d\xi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\xi d\tau ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\xi d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right),`$
$`\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`4gϵ_{\left(5\right)}+4g^5\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}^3\xi d\xi d\tau \mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)},`$ (18)
$`\widehat{A}_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}g^1\mathrm{sin}\xi e^{k|z|\mathrm{i}\tau }(F_{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{i}F_{\left(2\right)}),`$
where hats denote ten-dimensional quantities, $`ϵ_5=e^{4k|z|}ϵ_4dz`$, with $`ϵ_4`$ being the volume form of the four-dimensional metric $`ds_4^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is the volume form of the unit 3-sphere. The complex 2-form $`\widehat{A}_{\left(2\right)}`$ is defined by

$$\widehat{A}_{\left(2\right)}=A_{\left(2\right)}^{\mathrm{RR}}+\mathrm{i}A_{\left(2\right)}^{\mathrm{NS}},$$
(19)
where $`A_{\left(2\right)}^{\mathrm{RS}}`$ and $`A_{\left(2\right)}^{\mathrm{NS}}`$ are the R-R and NS-NS 2-form potentials of the type IIB theory. $`\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}`$ is the self-dual 5-form of the type IIB theory, and the ten dimensional dilaton and axion are set to zero.

### 2.3 Reissner-Nordström black holes on the brane

Having shown that four-dimensional ungauged Einstein-Maxwell supergravity arises as a consistent reduction of $`N=4`$ gauged five-dimensional supergravity, which in turn is a consistent $`S^5`$ reduction of type IIB supergravity, we can now take any solution of the four-dimensional theory and lift it back to $`D=5`$ and $`D=10`$. Examples of particular interest are the BPS Reissner-Nordström black holes in four dimensions, given by

$`ds_4^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^2dt^2+H^2dy^idy^i,`$
$`F_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`2dtdH^1,`$ (20)
where $`H(y^i)`$ is any harmonic function in the transverse 3-space.444We could also, of course, consider magnetically-charge BPS black holes, and non-extremal black holes. This solution lifts straightforwardly to $`D=5`$, using the ansatz (6):

$`ds_5^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}(H^2dt^2+H^2dy^idy^i)+dz^2,`$
$`A_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}e^{k|z|}(dtdH^1+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}ϵ_{ijk}_iHdy^jdy^k).`$ (21)
The solution could be thought of as a string, from the viewpoint of the five-dimensional bulk theory. Thus the solution describes an open string ending on a D3-brane. After lifting further to type IIB supergravity, using (18), we obtain

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}(H^2dt^2+H^2dy^idy^i)+dz^2+g^2\left(d\xi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\xi d\tau ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\xi d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right),`$
$`\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`4ge^{4k|z|}H^2dtd^3ydz+4g^5\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}^3\xi d\xi d\tau \mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)},`$ (22)
$`\widehat{A}_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`g^1\mathrm{sin}\xi e^{k|z|\mathrm{i}\tau }(dtdH^1+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}ϵ_{ijk}_iHdy^jdy^k),`$
where $`k`$ and $`g`$ are related by (12).

## 3 Simple supergravities embedded in gauged supergravities

In this section we shall discuss several examples of the embedding of an ungauged simple supergravity in a gauged supergravity in one higher dimension. We already discussed the embedding of four-dimensional simple supergravity in the introduction. Now, we shall consider two further examples, which are of greater interest in the sense that they contain bosonic fields other than just the metric itself, and so they admit BPS brane solutions.

### 3.1 Embedding minimal $`D=6`$ supergravity in $`D=7`$ and $`D=11`$

Here, we shall show how simple ungauged supergravity in $`D=6`$, whose bosonic sector comprises the metric and a self-dual 3-form, can be embedded in seven-dimensional $`N=2`$ gauged $`SU(2)`$ supergravity. The bosonic sector of the seven-dimensional theory  comprises the metric, a dilatonic scalar $`\varphi `$, the $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills gauge potentials $`A_{\left(1\right)}^i`$, and a 3-form potential $`A_{\left(3\right)}`$. In the language of differential forms, which we shall use here, it can be described by the Lagrangian

$`_7`$ $`=`$ $`R\stackrel{~}{}\text{1}\mathrm{l}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}d\varphi d\varphi g^2(\frac{1}{4}X^82X^32X^2)\stackrel{~}{}\text{1}\mathrm{l}\frac{1}{2}X^4\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(4\right)}F_{\left(4\right)}`$ (23)
$`\frac{1}{2}X^2\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(2\right)}^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i+\frac{1}{2}F_{\left(2\right)}^iF_{\left(2\right)}^iA_{\left(3\right)}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}gF_{\left(4\right)}A_{\left(3\right)},`$
where $`Xe^{\varphi /\sqrt{10}}`$ and $`F_{\left(4\right)}=dA_{\left(3\right)}`$, together with the self-duality condition

$$X^4\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(4\right)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}gA_{\left(3\right)}+\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\left(3\right)},$$
(24)
where $`\omega _{\left(3\right)}A_{\left(1\right)}^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i\frac{1}{6}gϵ_{ijk}A_{\left(1\right)}^iA_{\left(1\right)}^jA_{\left(1\right)}^k`$. In (23) and (24), $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ denotes the Hodge dual in the seven-dimensional metric.

We find that we can consistently reduce this theory to $`D=6`$, using an ansatz where $`A_{\left(1\right)}^i=0`$ and $`\varphi =0`$, together with

$`ds_7^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}ds_6^2+dz^2,`$
$`A_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}e^{2k|z|}F_3,`$ (25)
where $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ is a 3-form in the six-dimensional world-volume of the 4-brane wall. Thus $`F_{\left(4\right)}=ϵ(z)e^{2k|z|}F_{\left(3\right)}dz+1/(2k)e^{2k|z|}dF_{\left(3\right)}`$ and so substituting into (24) we deduce that $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ must be either self-dual or anti-self dual, and $`dF_{\left(3\right)}=0`$. Without loss of generality we shall take $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ to be self-dual, and so we have

$$g=\{\begin{array}{cc}+2\sqrt{2}k,& z>0,\\ 2\sqrt{2}k,& z<0.\end{array}$$
(26)
We find that all the seven-dimensional equations of motion (given, in our present notation, in ), are satisfied provided that $`ds_6^2`$ and $`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ satisfy the six-dimensional equations

$$R_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \rho \sigma }F_\nu {}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma },F_{\left(3\right)}=F_{\left(3\right)},dF_{\left(3\right)}=0.$$
(27)
These are the bosonic field equations of six-dimensional minimal ungauged supergravity.

This embedding of the minimal ungauged six-dimensional supergravity can be lifted further, from $`D=7`$ to $`D=11`$, by making use of the consistent $`S^4`$ reduction of $`D=11`$ supergravity. The reduction to the maximal $`N=4`$ gauged theory was obtained in , and the reduction to the half-maximal $`N=2`$ gauged theory that we are considering here was constructed in . In this embedding, the internal 4-sphere is described as a foliation of $`S^3`$ surfaces, with the $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills potentials parameterising transitively-acting translations on the $`S^3`$ group submanifold. The dilaton parameterises inhomogeneous deformations of the 4-sphere. Since both $`A_{\left(1\right)}^i`$ and $`\varphi `$ vanish in our $`D=7`$ to $`D=6`$ reduction ansatz (25), the lifting to $`D=11`$ is quite simple. Using the results in , we obtain the following expressions for the eleven-dimensional fields $`d\widehat{s}_{11}^2`$ and $`\widehat{A}_{\left(3\right)}`$:

$`d\widehat{s}_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}ds_6^2+dz^2+2g^2\left(d\xi ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\xi d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right),`$
$`\widehat{A}_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\mathrm{sin}\xi e^{2k|z|}F_3+2\sqrt{2}g^3\mathrm{sin}\xi (2+\mathrm{cos}^2\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)},`$ (28)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}`$ is the volume form of the unit 3-sphere, and again $`g`$ is related to $`k`$ by (26). Note that the last term just gives a standard contribution proportional to the $`S^4`$ volume form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(4\right)}=\mathrm{cos}^3\xi d\xi \mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}`$ in the field strength $`\widehat{F}_{\left(4\right)}=d\widehat{A}_{\left(3\right)}`$.

Using these results, we can embed any solution of minimal ungauged six-dimensional supergravity in a “Randall-Sundrum 5-brane wall” solution of seven-dimensional $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity, and then in turn we can embed this in $`D=11`$ supergravity. In particular, we can consider a BPS self-dual string solution living in the 5-brane wall. As a solution of the minimal six-dimensional supergravity, this is given by

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^1(dt^2+dx^2)+Hdy^idy^i,`$
$`F_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`dtdxdH^1\frac{1}{6}_iHϵ_{ijk\mathrm{}}dy^jdy^kdy^{\mathrm{}},`$ (29)
where $`H(y^i)`$ is harmonic in the transverse space. Lifted to $`D=7`$ using the ansatz (25), this gives

$`ds_7^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}\left(H^1(dt^2+dx^2)+Hdy^idy^i\right)+dz^2,`$
$`A_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}e^{2k|z|}\left(dtdxdH^1\frac{1}{6}_iHϵ_{ijk\mathrm{}}dy^jdy^kdy^{\mathrm{}}\right),`$ (30)
as an embedding of the self-dual string in a 5-brane wall solution of seven-dimensional gauged supergravity.

This solution can then be further lifted back to $`D=11`$ using (28), yielding

$`d\widehat{s}_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}\left(H^1(dt^2+dx^2)+Hdy^idy^i\right)+dz^2+2g^2(d\xi ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\xi d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2),`$
$`\widehat{A}_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\mathrm{sin}\xi e^{2k|z|}\left(dtdxdH^1\frac{1}{6}_iHϵ_{ijk\mathrm{}}dy^jdy^kdy^{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ (31)
$`+2\sqrt{2}g^3\mathrm{sin}\xi (2+\mathrm{cos}^2\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)},`$
where the relation between $`k`$ and $`g`$ is given in (26). The solution can be viewed as an open membrane ending on a M5-brane.

### 3.2 Embedding minimal $`D=5`$ supergravity in $`D=6`$ and $`D=10`$

In this section, we shall show that minimal ungauged five-dimensional supergravity can be obtained as a consistent Kaluza-Klein reduction of $`N=2`$ $`SU(2)`$-gauged supergravity in $`D=6`$.

The bosonic fields in this theory comprise the metric, a dilaton $`\varphi `$, a 2-form potential $`A_{\left(2\right)}`$, and a 1-form potential $`B_{\left(1\right)}`$, together with the gauge potentials $`A_{\left(1\right)}^i`$ of $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills. The bosonic Lagrangian , converted to the language of differential forms, is

$`_6`$ $`=`$ $`R\stackrel{~}{}\text{1}\mathrm{l}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}d\varphi d\varphi g^2\left(\frac{2}{9}X^6\frac{8}{3}X^22X^2\right)\stackrel{~}{}\text{1}\mathrm{l}`$
$`\frac{1}{2}X^4\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(3\right)}F_{\left(3\right)}\frac{1}{2}X^2\left(\stackrel{~}{}G_{\left(2\right)}G_{\left(2\right)}+\stackrel{~}{}F_{\left(2\right)}^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i\right)`$
$`A_{\left(2\right)}(\frac{1}{2}dB_{\left(1\right)}dB_{\left(1\right)}+\frac{1}{3}gA_{\left(2\right)}dB_{\left(1\right)}+\frac{2}{27}g^2A_{\left(2\right)}A_{\left(2\right)}+\frac{1}{2}F_{\left(2\right)}^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i),`$
where $`Xe^{\varphi /(2\sqrt{2})}`$, $`F_{\left(3\right)}=dA_{\left(2\right)}`$, $`G_{\left(2\right)}=dB_{\left(1\right)}+\frac{2}{3}gA_{\left(2\right)}`$, $`F_{\left(2\right)}^i=dA_{\left(1\right)}^i+\frac{1}{2}gϵ_{ijk}A_{\left(1\right)}^jA_{\left(1\right)}^k`$, and here $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ denotes the six-dimensional Hodge dual.

We find that the following Kaluza-Klein ansatz gives a consistent reduction to minimal five-dimensional ungauged supergravity. Firstly, we set the potentials $`A_{\left(1\right)}^i`$ and $`B_{\left(1\right)}`$ to zero, and also set $`\varphi =0`$. The remaining fields are then taken to be

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}ds_5^2+dz^2,`$
$`G_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}e^{k|z|}F_{\left(2\right)},`$ (33)
$`A_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}g^1e^{k|z|}F_{\left(2\right)},`$
and the gauge-coupling $`g`$ is taken to be

$$g=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}k,& z>0,\\ \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}k,& z<0.\end{array}$$
(34)
We find that all the six-dimensional equations of motion (given, in our notation, in ), are then satisfied, provided that the fields $`ds_5^2`$ and $`F_{\left(2\right)}`$ satisfy the equations of motion of ungauged minimal five-dimensional supergravity:

$`R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(F_{\mu \rho }F_\nu {}_{}{}^{\rho }\frac{1}{4}F^2g_{\mu \nu }),`$
$`dF_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}F_{\left(2\right)}F_{\left(2\right)},dF_{\left(2\right)}=0.`$ (35)
This embedding of minimal ungauged five-dimensional supergravity on a “Randall-Sundrum 4-brane wall” solution of $`N=2`$ gauged six-dimensional supergravity can be further lifted to $`D=10`$, using the fact that the six-dimensional gauged theory can be obtained via a local $`S^4`$ reduction from the massive type IIA theory . Substituting the ansatz (35) into the reduction ansatz obtained in , we find

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\xi )^{\frac{1}{12}}\left[e^{2k|z|}ds_5^2+dz^2+2g^2\left(d\xi ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\xi d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)\right],`$
$`\widehat{F}_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\xi )^{1/3}[\frac{20\sqrt{2}}{3}g^3\mathrm{cos}^3\xi d\xi \mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(3\right)}`$ (36)
$`+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}g^1g^{2k|z|}F_{\left(2\right)}(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\xi d\xi g\mathrm{sin}\xi dz)],`$
$`\widehat{F}_{\left(3\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\mathrm{sin}\xi )^{1/3}g^1e^{k|z|}F_{\left(2\right)}(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\xi d\xi g\mathrm{sin}\xi dz),`$
$`\widehat{F}_{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\mathrm{sin}\xi )^{2/3}e^{k|z|}F_{\left(2\right)},`$
$`e^{\widehat{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\xi )^{5/6},`$ (37)
where $`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$, $`\widehat{\varphi }`$, $`\widehat{F}_{\left(2\right)}`$, $`\widehat{F}_{\left(3\right)}`$ and $`\widehat{F}_{\left(4\right)}`$ are fields of the massive type IIA theory , in the notation used in .

In a similar fashion to the previous examples, here we can construct non-dilatonic black hole or string solutions in the five-dimensional ungauged supergravity, and lift them first to solutions in the Randall-Sundrum 4-brane wall of the six-dimensional gauged theory, and then lift these further to $`D=10`$. In ten dimensions, the black holes or strings live in the intersection of a D4/D8-brane system.

## 4 Spacetime structure and the AdS horizon

A detailed analysis of the Schwarzschild black hole, embedded in the Randall-Sundrum 3-brane wall, was carried out in . It was shown that it could be viewed as a black string living in the five-dimensional AdS spacetime. Interestingly, although gravity is “localised on the brane” the four-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole has a profound influence on the spacetime geometry even out at the AdS horizon at $`z=\pm \mathrm{}`$, and indeed scalar curvature invariants diverge there . The solution is not expected to be stable against “pinching off,” and it was argued in  that this would happen near the AdS horizon, leading to a stable “black cigar.” In this section we shall present a directly parallel discussion for some of our examples.

In the examples that we have considered in this paper, we can take the $`p`$-brane solutions on the Randall-Sundrum wall to be supersymmetric BPS configurations. It is easily seen that, as in the Schwarzschild example above, scalar curvature invariants will then diverge on the AdS horizon. Indeed, this can already be seen from (15), which shows that if the Ricci tensor in the $`(D1)`$-dimensional spacetime of the brane wall is non-vanishing, then the Ricci tensor of the $`D`$-dimensional bulk spacetime will diverge exponentially as $`|z|\mathrm{}`$. (This is the same degree of divergence as was encountered for curvature invariants in .) For completeness, it is useful to present the full Riemann curvature for the metric reduction ansatz (14). In the natural vielbein basis, the orthonormal components of the Riemann tensor $`\widehat{R}_{ABCD}`$ of the $`D`$-dimensional metric are related to the components $`R_{abcd}`$ for the $`(D1)`$-dimensional metric by

$`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|z|}R_{abcd}k^2(\eta _{ac}\eta _{bd}\eta _{ad}\eta _{bc}),`$
$`\widehat{R}_{zazb}`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\eta _{ab}+2k\delta (z)\eta _{ab}.`$ (38)
If we neglect the delta-function terms arising from the discontinuity on the brane at $`z=0`$, we find that the scalar invariant formed from the square of the Riemann tensor is given by

$$\widehat{R}_{ABCD}\widehat{R}^{ABCD}=e^{4k|z|}R_{abcd}R^{abcd}4k^2e^{2k|z|}R+2D(D1)k^4,$$
(39)
where $`R`$ is the $`(D1)`$-dimensional Ricci scalar. Thus we see that in general non-vanishing curvature in the $`(D1)`$-dimensional metric on the brane wall leads to exponentially-diverging curvature on the AdS horizon, just as in . A non-singular solution was constructed previously for a pp-wave propagating in AdS spacetime; the resulting metric is the generalised Kaigorodov metric, which is homogeneous . A detailed analysis of pp-waves in a Randall-Sundrum brane has been given in .

Following , one can study geodesic motion in the $`p`$-brane metrics living in the Randall-Sundrum walls. We shall first discuss the example of the BPS black holes living in the 3-brane embedded in AdS5. If we consider a single isotropic BPS black hole, then from (21) the five-dimensional metric will be

$$ds_5^2=e^{2k|z|}[((1+\frac{Q}{r})^2dt^2+(1+\frac{Q}{r})^2(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2)]+dz^2.$$
(40)
Solving for geodesics moving in the equatorial plane, one finds that all timelike geodesics have non-constant $`z`$, as do all null geodesics that are not merely null geodesics of the four-dimensional metric. In the half-space $`z>0`$ (which we may consider without loss of generality), we then have

$$e^{kz}=\{\begin{array}{cc}a\mathrm{sin}k\lambda ,& \text{timelike},\\ ak\lambda ,& \text{null},\end{array}$$
(41)
where $`\lambda `$ is an affine parameter and $`a`$ is a constant. Associated with the $`/t`$ and $`/\phi `$ Killing vectors we have the two first integrals

$$\frac{dt}{d\lambda }=Ee^{2kz}\left(1+\frac{Q}{r}\right)^2,\frac{d\phi }{d\lambda }=Le^{2kz}\left(1+\frac{Q}{r}\right)^2r^2,$$
(42)
where $`E`$ and $`L`$ are constants. The radial equation is

$$\left(\frac{d\stackrel{~}{r}}{d\nu }\right)^2+\left[\left(1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}}{\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)^2+\left(1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}}{\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)^4\frac{\stackrel{~}{L}^2}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}\stackrel{~}{E}^2\right]=0,$$
(43)
where we have performed the analogous transformations of the affine parameter to those in , namely

$$\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{a^2k}\mathrm{cot}k\lambda ,& \text{timelike},\\ \frac{1}{a^2k^2\lambda },& \text{null},\end{array}$$
(44)
and defined rescaled quantities

$$r=a\stackrel{~}{r},Q=a\stackrel{~}{Q},L=a^2\stackrel{~}{L},E=a\stackrel{~}{E}.$$
(45)
As in , we have the somewhat intriguing result that after performing the redefinition (44) of affine parameter, the radial equation (43) has reduced to the standard radial equation for timelike geodesics in the four-dimensional metric.

From the above results, we see that geodesics reach the horizon at $`z=\mathrm{}`$ after a finite affine parameter interval, namely for $`\lambda `$ approaching 0 from below. It then follows from (39) that the curvature diverges on the AdS horizon if $`R_{abcd}`$ is non-vanishing for the metric $`ds_4^2`$ on the brane. This will happen, for example, for geodesics that remain at finite $`r`$ (i.e. those describing bound-state orbits). On the other hand the geodesics that reach $`r=\mathrm{}`$ will have $`e^{kz}1/(ak\lambda )`$ and $`r1/(ak^2\lambda )`$. The square of the four-dimensional Riemann tensor for the single isotropic black-hole metric $`ds_4^2`$ is given by

$$R^{abcd}R_{abcd}=\frac{8Q^2(Q^2+6r^2)}{H^8r^8},H=1+\frac{Q}{r},$$
(46)
which goes like $`48Q^2/r^6`$ as $`r`$ tends to infinity. Thus we find from (39) that as the geodesic approaches the AdS horizon, the square of the five-dimensional Riemann tensor goes like

$$\widehat{R}^{ABCD}\widehat{R}_{ABCD}40k^4+48Q^2a^2k^8\lambda ^2,$$
(47)
which therefore remains finite.

As in , we can settle the question of whether these geodesics are actually avoiding the curvature singularity on the horizon by looking at the components of the Riemann tensor in an orthonormal frame parallelly propagated along a timelike geodesic. Such a geodesic, with $`L=0`$, has tangent vector $`u^A`$ given by

$$u=(a^2e^{2kz}1)^{1/2}dzEdt+H^2\left(E^2a^2H^2\right)^{1/2}dr$$
(48)
A unit normal vector $`n^A`$ that is parallelly propagated $`(u^B_Bn^A=0`$) along the geodesic is given by

$$n=a^1e^{kz}\left(E^2a^2H^2\right)^{1/2}dta^1Ee^{kz}H^2dr.$$
(49)
From (38) we then find that in the bulk,

$$\widehat{R}_{ABCD}u^An^Bu^Cn^D=e^{2kz}R_{abcd}u^an^bu^cn^d+k^2.$$
(50)
Using the specific form of the Riemann tensor $`R_{abcd}`$ for the single isotropic black hole then gives

$$\widehat{R}_{ABCD}u^An^Bu^Cn^D\frac{2Qak^2}{\lambda }$$
(51)
as $`\lambda `$ tends to zero, showing that the solution really does have a curvature singularity.

All of the above discussion closely parallels the discussion for the Schwarzschild black hole in Randall-Sundrum in . In that case, the fact that the solution is non-extremal means that it is liable to suffer a Gregory-Laflamme  type of instability, leading to the pinching-off of the five-dimensional black string to give a black cigar. Since we can consider instead an extremal BPS solution, the possibility of such an instability does not then arise. Thus in comparison to the Schwarzschild embedding, the situation here is close, but no cigar.

More generally, we can repeat the above analysis for the self-dual string solution in the 5-brane domain wall, and the black-hole and string solutions in the 4-brane domain wall. We shall just summarise the results here. All the isotropic solutions in the various dimensions that we have discussed in this paper take the form, in the bulk,

$$d\widehat{s}_D^2=e^{2k|z|}\left(H^{2\alpha }dx^\mu dx_\mu +H^{2\beta }(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2)\right)+dz^2,$$
(52)
with $`H=1+Q/r^{n1}`$, where we have

$`D=5:`$ $`\alpha =1,\beta =1,n=2,\text{black hole},`$
$`D=6:`$ $`\alpha =1,\beta =\frac{1}{2},n=3,\text{black hole},`$
$`D=6:`$ $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2},\beta =1,n=2,\text{string},`$
$`D=7:`$ $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2},\beta =\frac{1}{2},n=3,\text{self-dual string}.`$ (53)
For motion in the equatorial plane of the $`n`$-sphere, in the region $`z>0`$, we shall have first integrals

$$\frac{dt}{d\lambda }=Ee^{2kz}H^{2\alpha },\frac{d\phi }{d\lambda }=Le^{2kz}H^{2\beta }r^2,$$
(54)
and the $`z`$ equation will again give

$$e^{kz}=\{\begin{array}{cc}a\mathrm{sin}k\lambda ,& \text{timelike},\\ ak\lambda ,& \text{null},\end{array}$$
(55)
We again have that as $`z`$ approaches infinity, $`e^{kz}1/(ak\lambda )`$ and $`r1/(ak^2\lambda )`$. It is easily seen that in all the cases the square of the hatted Riemann tensor, given by (39), will again go to zero along a timelike geodesic, as the AdS horizon is reached. Differences emerge, however, if we now examine the components of the hatted Riemann tensor with respect to an orthonormal frame parallelly propagated along a timelike geodesic. The analogue of the normal vector $`n`$ in (49) is

$$n=a^1e^{kz}(E^2a^2H^{2\alpha })^{1/2}dta^1Ee^{kz}H^{\alpha +\beta }dr.$$
(56)
Calculating $`\widehat{R}_{ABCD}u^An^Bu^Cn^D`$, we now find

$$\widehat{R}_{ABCD}u^An^Bu^Cn^D=a^2e^{4kz}R_{0101}\lambda ^{n3},$$
(57)
where $`R_{0101}`$ denotes the vielbein component of the $`(D1)`$-dimensional Riemann tensor with 0 being time and 1 being the $`r`$ direction. Thus in those cases where the transverse space has dimension 4, so that the $`n`$-sphere has $`n=3`$, we find that $`\widehat{R}_{ABCD}u^An^Bu^Cn^D`$ remains finite rather than diverging, as $`\lambda `$ tends to zero. This occurs in the case of black-holes living in the 4-brane in $`D=6`$, and self-dual strings living in the 5-brane in $`D=7`$. Although we have only exhibited one parallelly-propagated curvature component, it seems likely that the same feature will occur for all the components. This is because the $`\lambda ^{n3}`$ dependence seen in (57) simply arises from the trade-off between the diverging $`e^{4kz}`$ factor and the $`1/r^{n+1}`$ fall-off of the curvature in the $`(D1)`$-dimensional brane metric.

## 5 Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, we have shown that ungauged $`N=2`$ supergravity arises on the four-dimensional Randall-Sundrum 3-brane wall, obtained as a solution of $`N=4`$ $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauged supergravity in five dimensions. The four-dimensional supergravity emerges through a Kaluza-Klein mechanism, as a consistent reduction from $`D=5`$. Any solution of the four-dimensional $`N=2`$ theory can therefore be lifted back to five dimensions, and it acquires an interpretation as a solution in the Randall-Sundrum wall. In particular, the $`N=2`$ supergravity is large enough to admit BPS black hole solutions, and so we can view these as living within the domain wall. Since the five-dimensional $`N=4`$ gauged supergravity can itself be embedded in the ten-dimensional type IIB theory, via a consistent $`S^5`$ reduction , the solutions can thereby be lifted to $`D=10`$.

We also considered the consistent embeddings of ungauged minimal supergravities in gauged supergravities for a variety of dimensions. The most immediately physically relevant example would be the embedding of four-dimensional simple supergravity in $`N=2`$ gauged five-dimensional supergravity. Since the metric is the only bosonic field in the four-dimensional supergravity, this example does not go beyond previous results, such as in , where Ricci-flat solutions such as the Schwarzschild black hole can be viewed as living on the 3-brane. In this paper we considered instead the minimal ungauged supergravities in $`D=5`$ and $`D=6`$. The former contains gravity and a 2-form field strength in its bosonic sector, while the latter contains gravity and a self-dual 3-form. Both cases, therefore, admit BPS solutions. We showed that the $`D=5`$ minimal supergravity could be embedded in six-dimensional $`N=2`$ $`SU(2)`$-gauged supergravity, whilst the $`D=6`$ minimal supergravity could be embedded in seven-dimensional $`N=2`$ $`SU(2)`$-gauged supergravity. Thus we were able to describe higher-dimensional examples of strings and black holes living in “Randall-Sundrum 4-branes,” and self-dual strings living in “Randall-Sundrum 5-branes.” In each case, a further lifting can be performed, to $`D=10`$ massive IIA, and to $`D=11`$, respectively. In particular, we obtain a solution describing a self-dual string living in the world-volume of an M5-brane. As was shown in , half-maximal gauged supergravities can also embedded in singular warped spacetimes in $`D=11`$ or $`D=10`$. The BPS back hole or string solutions we obtained in this paper can then live in the world-volumes of intersecting M-branes or D-branes in higher dimensions.

We concentrated on relatively simple examples of Kaluza-Klein domain-wall reductions in this paper, but the procedure can be generalised to more complicated cases, with larger gauged supergravities with more supersymmetries.

An analysis of the spacetime structures of the embedded solutions suggests that when the metric on the brane wall has non-vanishing curvature, there will in general be curvature singularities at the AdS horizons, far from the Randall-Sundrum wall. This phenomenon was studied in  for a Schwarzschild black hole. Since in that case the solution is non-supersymmetric, an instability is expected to set in near the horizon, leading to the degenration of the five-dimensional black string to a black cigar. No such instability should occur in our examples, if we take the solutions on the brane wall to be extremal BPS $`p`$-branes. The divergent curvature on the AdS horizons can be taken as an indication that strong-coupling effects are setting in, which would mean that the supergravity solution would no longer be trustworthy in the region near the horizon. However, the analysis that we have carried out should be valid on and near the domain wall itself, where the ungauged supergravity is localised.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Mirjam Cvetič, Gary Gibbons and Kelly Stelle for helpful discussions, and to the Theory Group at CERN for hospitality during the course of this work.