format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

SPIN-DRIVEN INFLATION

Yuri N. Obukhov<sup>∗⋄</sup>

Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, D–50923 Köln

Germany

Abstract

Following recent studies of Ford, we suggest – in the framework of general relativity – an inflationary cosmological model with the self-interacting spinning matter. A generalization of the standard fluid model is discussed and estimates of the physical parameters of the evolution are given.

$`{}_{}{}^{})`$ Permanent address: Department of Theoretical Physics, Moscow State University, 117234 Moscow, Russia.

$`{}_{}{}^{})`$ Alexander von Humboldt Fellow.

In the recent paper of Ford  a new inflationary model was proposed in which the inflation mechanism was related to the existence of a self-interacting vector field, replacing the usual scalars. Such a structure could be explained by the nonlinear Lagrangian, effectively arising from a more fundamental interactions between the elements of cosmological matter. However, the vector field of a non-gauge nature does not appear to be a physically important object, in particular, not in cosmology. In this paper we use the main idea of Ford and propose an alternative mechanism for inflation, which is related to the spin of matter. Spin-spin interactions play an important role in many field-theoretical models, in particular in torsion theories . We will not specify the form of a possible fundamental spin-spin interaction (although taking the Poincaré gauge approach  as the basic model), but instead proceed within a similar effective approach in the framework of the spinning fluid variational theory. The crucial point of the proposed generalization is the introduction of a non-linear spin term in the fluid Lagrangian. It represents the contribution of the effectively averaged Poincaré rotational gauge fields, e.g., in the sense of integrating away the torsion .

Let us postulate the Lagrangian for the spinning fluid with self-interaction

$$L_m=ϵ(\rho ,s,\mu ^{ij})\frac{1}{2}\rho \mu ^{ij}b_i^\mu (_\alpha b_j^\nu )u^\alpha g_{\mu \nu }$$

$$+\rho u^\mu _\mu \lambda _1+\lambda _2u^\mu _\mu X+\lambda _3u^\mu _\mu s+\lambda ^{ab}(g_{\mu \nu }b_a^\mu b_b^\nu \eta _{ab})+V(\xi ).$$
$`(1)`$
Here the terms with the Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda `$ describe the usual constraints , imposed on the fluid variables $`\rho `$ (particle density), $`s`$ (specific entropy), $`X`$ (identity Lin coordinate), $`\mu ^{ij}`$ (specific spin density), and $`b_a^\mu `$ (material tetrad, with $`b_0^\mu =u^\mu `$ the 4-velocity of elements). \[Indices from the middle of the Latin alphabet $`i,j=1,2,3`$ refer to the local 3-frame defined by the spacelike vectors of the material tetrad; the Greek indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3`$ refer to space-time coordinates\]. The variable

$$\xi =\frac{1}{2}\rho ^2\mu ^{ij}\mu _{ij}$$
$`(2)`$
is the square of the spin density of the matter. The function $`V(\xi )`$ can be thought as a kind of the effective potential which arises due to the underlying fundamental interactions between particles with spin. A particular example is given by the Einstein-Cartan theory  in which $`V`$ is a linear function of $`\xi `$.

The equations of motion of the fluid and the gravitational Einstein equations are derived from the variation of (1) with respect to the fluid and gravitational variables. This yields the following modified energy-momentum tensor of the spinning fluid

$$T_{\mu \nu }=ϵu_\mu u_\nu ph_{\mu \nu }2(g^{\alpha \beta }+u^\alpha u^\beta )_\alpha (u_{(\mu }S_{\nu )\beta })+$$

$$+g_{\mu \nu }Vh_{\mu \nu }2\xi V^{},$$
$`(3)`$
where $`(^{})`$ denotes the derivative with respect to $`\xi `$, and, as usually, $`p`$ is the pressure, $`S^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\rho b_i^\mu b_j^\nu \mu ^{ij}`$ is the spin density, and the projector on the subspace orthogonal to 4-velocity is $`h_\nu ^\mu =\delta _\nu ^\mu u^\mu u_\nu `$.

The dynamics of the spin is not changed, and the standard equation of motion is valid (which folllows from the variation of (1) with respect to the material tetrad):

$$_\mu (u^\mu S_{\alpha \beta })=u_\alpha u^\lambda _\mu (u^\mu S_{\lambda \beta })u_\beta u^\lambda _\mu (u^\mu S_{\lambda \alpha }).$$
$`(4)`$
For concretness, in (1)-(4) we consider the case of the ordinary spinning fluid. Eq.(4) shows that the motion of spin is not affected by the nonlinearity: this is essentially a rotation, precession. The same, however, is true also for the generalized fluid with magnetic moment and electric charge in the electromagnetic field.

But the dynamics of the fluid itself is changed. It is described by the conservation of the energy-momentum, and for (3) this reads

$$_\mu T_\nu ^\mu =u_\nu (u^\mu _\mu ϵ+ϵ_\mu u^\mu +p_\mu u^\mu )$$

$$h_\nu ^\mu _\mu (p+2\xi V^{})+(p+ϵ+2\xi V^{})a_\nu +_\nu V+u_\nu (_\mu u^\mu )2\xi V^{}$$

$$+2u^\mu S_{\nu \lambda }_\mu a^\lambda +R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }u^\mu S^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
$`(5)`$
Standard projections on the $`u^\mu `$ and the orthogonal directions yield

$$(p+ϵ)_\mu u^\mu +u^\mu _\mu ϵ=0,$$
$`(6)`$
$$(p+ϵ+2\xi V^{})a_\nu h_\nu ^\mu _\mu (p+2\xi V^{}V)+2S_{\nu \mu }u^\lambda _\lambda a^\mu +R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }u^\mu S^{\alpha \beta }=0.$$
$`(7)`$
Now we are in a position to proceed in a way typical for the inflational approach: it is necessary to specify the “effective potential” so that the inflationary stage becomes possible.

It is straightforward to analyse the modification of the standard cosmologies. Let us consider the special case of a flat model with the line element

$$ds^2=dt^2R^2(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2).$$

With the self-interacting spinning fluid (3), the Einstein equations become

$$3\frac{\dot{R}^2}{R^2}=\kappa (ϵ+V),$$
$`(8)`$
$$(2\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}+\frac{\dot{R}^2}{R^2})=\kappa (pV+2\xi V^{}).$$
$`(9)`$
Instead of (9) it is more convenient to use the conservation law (6), which reads as usual:

$$\dot{ϵ}+3\frac{\dot{R}}{R}(ϵ+p)=0.$$
$`(10)`$
Clearly, eqs. (8) and (10) must be supplemented by the equation of state $`p=p(ϵ)`$. Notice that eq. (9) follows from (8) and (10).

It is important to note the specific behaviour of the argument $`\xi `$ of the potential. It is the square of the spin ($`\xi =2S_{\mu \nu }S^{\mu \nu }`$), and from the equations of motion (4) one finds

$$\xi (R(t))=\frac{const}{R^6}.$$
$`(11)`$
Thus, during the expansion of the universe,

$$V(\xi )V(0).$$

Following the lines of reasoning of Ford (who studied inflation with a vector field), one can discuss now the possible form of the potential $`V`$. Most appropriate seems to be what is called in  the “chaotic inflation” model, in which inflation occurs for large $`\xi `$ and reheating as $`\xi 0`$. A potential which provides such a possibility reads

$$V(\xi )=V_0(1e^{\alpha \xi }),$$
$`(12)`$
where the parameters $`V_0,\alpha `$ are chosen from the estimates for the characteristics of the inflationary period.

It is clear from (8) that the cosmological evolution — the dynamics of the scale factor $`R(t)`$ — depends on the relative value of the $`ϵ`$ and $`V`$. Namely, when $`V`$ is much smaller than the energy density, the evolution proceeds as in the standard cosmology. For (12) this occurs inevitably as $`\xi `$ tends to zero. However, if $`ϵ`$ is less than $`V`$ and the latter is approximately constant, the inflation occurs. Let us for definiteness choose the equation of state $`p=\frac{ϵ}{3}`$. Then from (10)

$$ϵ=\frac{const}{R^4}.$$
$`(13)`$
Clearly, at the initial stages (when $`R0`$) the energy density is greater than the constant $`V_0`$ (which is the value of the spin potential at early times, when $`\xi `$ is very large). We can roughly consider the moment when $`ϵ`$ becomes equal $`V_0`$ to be the starting point of inflation. Let us denote the values of the energy and spin density at that moment as

$$ϵ_0,S_0.$$

As the end of the inflationary stage (approximately) could be considered the point $`t=\tau `$ at which the (decreasing) energy density $`ϵ(\tau )`$ again becomes equal to some $`V(\xi (\tau ))`$ (which is decreasing much more fastly). Let us denote the ratio of the scale factors at the beginning and the end of the inflationary stage by

$$E=\frac{R_0}{R(\tau )}.$$
$`(14)`$
One has $`\xi (\tau )=\xi _0E^6=S_0^2E^6,ϵ(\tau )=ϵ_0E^4`$. Hence from (12) one can derive the relation between these quantities:

$$ϵ(\tau )=V(\tau )E^4=1e^{\alpha S_0^2E^6}\alpha S_0^2E^6,$$
$`(15)`$
Assuming, that $`E^110^{20}`$, this gives the estimate for the constant $`\alpha `$ and the initial spin density,

$$\alpha S_0^210^{40}.$$
$`(16)`$
This is large enough, so at the beginning of the inflation $`V`$ is constant, equal to $`V_0`$. Very crudely let us assume that $`V_0=10^{94}\frac{g}{cm^3}`$ ($`=ϵ_0`$), i.e. inflation starts directly at Planckian values. Then at the end of inflation $`ϵ(\tau )=10^{14}\frac{g}{cm^3}`$ which is about the quark density. The duration of the inflational stage is then of order of a Planckian time, estimated by

$$\tau =\frac{20\mathrm{log}10}{\sqrt{\frac{\kappa V_0}{3}}}6\times 10^{43}s.$$
$`(17)`$
Thus in this scheme, analogously to the developments of Ford one can predict an inflation stage during the universe’s evolution, which is caused by a non-linear effective potential arising from a fundamental interaction of the cosmological matter. In our opinion, the spin non-linearity is much more natural than the vector field one, originally used in .

Let us point out that one can also develop the original idea of Ford into a kind of general scheme: it is clear, that the crucial point is to have some self-interacting (i.e. non-linear) system coupled to the Einstein gravity, then for special choices of a “potential” (non-linearity) one can discover inflation.

The estimates derived above can be changed and improved for the potentials different from (12). An interesting problem is to derive the form of the spin nonlinearity $`V`$ when the fluid is considered as a semiclassical description of a realistic quantum matter.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Friedrich W. Hehl for the careful reading the manuscript and useful advice. This research was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Bonn).

References

 L.H. Ford, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 967-972.

 F.W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G.D. Kerlick, and J.M. Nester, Revs. Mod. Phys. 48 (1976) 393; A. Trautman, Symposia Mathematica 12 (1973) 139.

 F.W. Hehl, J. Nitsch, and P. von der Heyde, in: General Relativity and Gravitation: One Hundred Years after the Birth of Albert Einstein, Ed. A.Held (Plenum: New York, 1980) vol. 1, 329; K.A. Pilch, Lett. Math. Phys., 4 (1980) 49; A.A. Tseytlin, Phys. Rev., D26 (1982) 3327; J. Hennig, and J. Nitsch, Gen. Rel. Grav., 13 (1981) 947; L.K. Norris, R.O. Fulp, and W.R. Davis, Phys. Lett., A79 (1980) 278.

 A.A. Tseytlin, J. Phys. A15 (1982) L105.

 Yu.N. Obukhov, and V.A. Korotky, Class. Quantum Grav. 4 (1987) 1633; Yu.N. Obukhov, and O.B. Piskareva Class. Quantum Grav. 6 (1989) L15.


text:
# MZ-TH/00-23 One-loop results for the quark-gluon vertex in arbitrary dimensionBased on the talk given by P. O. at the Zeuthen Workshop “Loops and Legs in Gauge Theories” (Bastei, Germany, April 2000). Published in Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 89 (2000) 277-282.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The quark-gluon vertex is one of the fundamental objects in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) . To calculate various higher-order QCD effects we should have a detailed knowledge of this vertex. For the one-loop quark-gluon vertex we have two contributions. The “Abelian” contribution is equal, up to an overall factor, to the fermion-photon vertex in QED. In the four-dimensional case, off-shell results for the latter have been obtained in  (Feynman gauge) and  (an arbitrary covariant gauge). In three dimensions, results for the massless case are available in .

In special limits some results are also available for the second, non-Abelian contribution. In Ref.  (see also ), the “symmetric” case, $`p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2`$, was treated in an arbitrary covariant gauge, for massless quarks. For massive quarks, this $`p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2`$ case was examined in  (only the coefficient of $`\gamma _\mu `$ was calculated). Some configurations when the gluon (or quark) momentum vanishes were considered in . Some on-shell results are available for massless quarks . Recently we completed a study of the one-loop quark-gluon vertex in an arbitrary covariant gauge and space-time dimension .

## 2 FORMALISM

The lowest-order quark-gluon vertex is

$$g(T^a)_{ji}\left[\gamma _\mu \right]_{\beta \alpha },$$
(1)
where $`T^a`$ are colour matrices corresponding to the fundamental representation of the gauge group. We will consider the SU($`N`$) group, with $`N`$ the number of colours. Extracting the over-all colour structure, we can present the “dressed” (one-particle irreducible) quark-gluon vertex as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^a(p_1,p_2,p_3)=gT^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3),$$
(2)
where $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ are momenta of the quarks, $`p_3`$ is the gluon momentum, all of which are ingoing, $`p_1+p_2+p_3=0`$.

At the one-loop level, we have two contributions to the quark-gluon vertex (see Fig. 1). Their colour factors are proportional to $`\left(C_F\frac{1}{2}C_A\right)`$ and $`C_A`$, where $`C_F`$ and $`C_A`$ denote eigenvalues of the quadratic Casimir operator in the fundamental and adjoint representations, respectively. For the SU($`N`$) gauge group, $`C_A=N`$, and $`C_F=(N^21)/(2N)`$.

### 2.1 Ward-Slavnov-Taylor (WST) identity

The WST identity  for the quark-gluon vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ reads (see, e.g., in )

$`p_3^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ $`=`$ $`G(p_3^2)[S^1(p_1)H(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ (3)
$`\overline{H}(p_2,p_1,p_3)S^1(p_2)],`$
where $`G(p^2)`$ is the scalar function associated with the ghost propagator (the latter is proportional to $`G(p^2)/p^2`$); $`S^1`$ is the inverse quark propagator; the function $`H`$ (and the “conjugated” function $`\overline{H}`$) involves the complete four-point quark-quark-ghost-ghost vertex (for details, see ).

At the one-loop level, it is convenient to “split” the WST identity into two separate relations, corresponding to the contributions of the two diagrams. To do this, we need to rewrite the one-loop contribution to the r.h.s. of (3) in terms of colour coefficients $`(C_F\frac{1}{2}C_A)`$ and $`C_A`$, by analogy with the two contributions to the l.h.s. On the r.h.s., all one-loop contributions are proportional to $`C_A`$, except for the quark self energies, which contain $`C_F`$. Therefore, all we need to do is to represent this $`C_F`$ as $`(C_F\frac{1}{2}C_A)+\frac{1}{2}C_A`$. In this way, we get two separate WST identities for the contributions of diagrams $`a`$ and $`b`$ in Fig. 1111 For a quantity $`X`$, we denote the zero-loop-order contribution as $`X^{(0)}`$, and the one-loop-order contribution as $`X^{(1)}`$, so that the perturbative expansion looks like $`X=X^{(0)}+X^{(1)}+\mathrm{}`$.,

$`p_3^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(1a)}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\left(C_F\frac{1}{2}C_A\right)C_F^1`$
$`\times \left[S^1(p_1)S^1(p_2)\right]^{(1)},`$
$`p_3^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(1b)}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\left[S^1(p_1)\right]^{(0)}H^{(1)}(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$
$``$ $`\overline{H}^{(1)}(p_2,p_1,p_3)\left[S^1(p_2)\right]^{(0)}`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{2}C_AC_F^1\left[S^1(p_1)S^1(p_2)\right]^{(1)}H^{(0)}`$
$`+`$ $`2G^{(1)}(p_3^2)\left[S^1(p_1)S^1(p_2)\right]^{(0)}H^{(0)}.`$ (5)
The first identity has (up to a factor) the same structure as the Abelian (QED) identity. The second identity is a “non-Abelian” one.

### 2.2 Decomposition of the vertex

Because of the WST identity (3), it is convenient to decompose the quark-gluon vertex into a longitudinal part and a transverse part, as proposed in ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(\mathrm{L})}(p_1,p_2,p_3)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(\mathrm{T})}(p_1,p_2,p_3)$$
(6)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(\mathrm{L})}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\lambda _i(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)L_{i,\mu }(p_1,p_2),$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(\mathrm{T})}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}\tau _i(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)T_{i,\mu }(p_1,p_2),$$
(8)
with

$`L_{1,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu ,`$
$`L_{2,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(p/_1p/_2)(p_1p_2)_\mu ,`$
$`L_{3,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(p_1p_2)_\mu ,`$
$`L_{4,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }(p_1p_2)^\nu ,`$ (9)
$`T_{1,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`p_{1\mu }(p_2p_3)p_{2\mu }(p_1p_3),`$
$`T_{2,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`[p_{1\mu }(p_2p_3)+p_{2\mu }(p_1p_3)](p/_1p/_2),`$
$`T_{3,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`p_3^2\gamma _\mu p_{3\mu }p/_3,`$
$`T_{4,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[p_{1\mu }(p_2p_3)p_{2\mu }(p_1p_3)\right]\sigma _{\nu \lambda }p_1^\nu p_2^\lambda ,`$
$`T_{5,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }p_3^\nu ,`$
$`T_{6,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu (p_1^2p_2^2)+(p_1p_2)_\mu p/_3,`$
$`T_{7,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(p_2^2p_1^2)[\gamma _\mu (p/_1p/_2)(p_1p_2)_\mu ]`$
$`(p_1p_2)_\mu \sigma _{\nu \lambda }p_1^\nu p_2^\lambda ,`$
$`T_{8,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu \sigma _{\nu \lambda }p_1^\nu p_2^\lambda +p_{1\mu }p/_2p_{2\mu }p/_1.`$ (10)
The transverse part $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(\mathrm{T})}`$ does not contribute to the WST identity (3), $`p_3^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(\mathrm{T})}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=0`$.

Furthermore, in Ref.  a modification of the basis (8)–(2.2) has been proposed, which has an advantage in dealing with kinematical singularities222In Ref. , the notation $`\sigma _i`$ and $`S_i`$ was used for what we call $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_i`$.. Namely, the transverse part is represented as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(\mathrm{T})}(p_1,p_2,p_3)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)\stackrel{~}{T}_{i,\mu }(p_1,p_2),`$ (11)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{4,\mu }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{p_2^2p_1^2}}\left[2T_{4,\mu }p_3^2T_{7,\mu }\right],`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_4=\frac{1}{4}(p_2^2p_1^2)\tau _4,\stackrel{~}{\tau }_7=\tau _7+\frac{1}{2}p_3^2\tau _4,`$ (13)
whereas $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{i,\mu }=T_{i,\mu }(i4)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i=\tau _i(i=1,2,3,5,6,8)`$. Moreover, in the on-shell limit the following modifications of $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ turn out to be useful:

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2\lambda _2+\frac{1}{2}p_3^2\tau _2,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3\lambda _3\frac{1}{2}p_3^2\tau _1.$$
(14)
Applying charge conjugation to the quark-gluon vertex, i.e., interchanging quark and anti-quark, one obtains (see, e.g., in Ref. ):

$`\mathrm{C}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3)\mathrm{C}^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^\mathrm{T}(p_2,p_1,p_3).`$ (15)
Interchanging the quark momenta ($`p_1p_2`$) and using the fact that $`\mathrm{C}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{C}^1=\gamma _\mu ^\mathrm{T}`$, one finds that all $`L_\mu `$ and $`T_\mu `$ are odd, except for $`L_{4,\mu }`$ and $`T_{6,\mu }`$, which are even. Thus, to satisfy Eq. (15) all $`\lambda `$’s and $`\tau `$’s must be symmetric under the interchange of $`p_1^2`$ and $`p_2^2`$, except $`\lambda _4`$ and $`\tau _6`$, which are odd. An important corollary is that in the case $`p_1^2=p_2^2p^2`$ the $`\lambda _4`$ and $`\tau _6`$ functions must vanish,

$$\lambda _4(p^2,p^2,p_3^2)=0,\tau _6(p^2,p^2,p_3^2)=0.$$
(16)
### 2.3 Integrals

The two one-loop quark-gluon vertex diagrams involve two triangle integrals:

$`J_2(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^nq}{\left[(p_2q)^2m^2\right]^{\nu _1}\left[(p_1+q)^2m^2\right]^{\nu _2}(q^2)^{\nu _3}}},`$ (17)
$`J_1(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^nq}{\left[(p_2q)^2\right]^{\nu _1}\left[(p_1+q)^2\right]^{\nu _2}\left[q^2m^2\right]^{\nu _3}}},`$
where $`n=42\epsilon `$ is the space-time dimension in the framework of dimensional regularization . The subscript of $`J`$ indicates the number of massive propagators (see, e.g., in ).

Tensor integrals can be reduced to the scalar ones using the standard techniques  (see also in ). Using the integration-by-parts technique , all integrals with higher integer powers of propagators can be algebraically reduced to integrals with the powers equal to one or zero (for details, see ).

Two non-trivial integrals appear333 We have extended the notation used in  by introducing the functions $`\phi _i`$ ($`i=1,2`$), where $`i`$ shows the number of massive propagators involved.,

$$J_i(1,1,1)=\text{i}\pi ^{n/2}\eta \phi _i(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2;m),$$
(19)
where we have extracted a factor

$$\eta \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\frac{n}{2}1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n3)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\frac{n}{2})=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1\epsilon )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\epsilon )}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon ).$$
(20)
Then, the following two-point functions appear:

$`J_1(1,1,0)=J_0(1,1,0)=\text{i}\pi ^{n/2}\eta \kappa _{0,3},`$
$`J_1(0,1,1)=J_2(0,1,1)=\text{i}\pi ^{n/2}\eta \kappa _{1,1},`$
$`J_1(1,0,1)=J_2(1,0,1)=\text{i}\pi ^{n/2}\eta \kappa _{1,2}.`$ (21)
We have introduced the functions $`\kappa _i(p_l^2;m)\kappa _{i,l}`$, where $`p_l`$ ($`l=1,2,3`$) is the external momentum of the two-point function, whereas the subscript $`i=0,1,2`$ shows how many of the two internal propagators are massive. For massive lines we can also get “tadpole” integrals:

$`J_1(0,0,1)=J_2(1,0,0)=J_2(0,1,0)`$
$`=\text{i}\pi ^{n/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon )}{\epsilon (1\epsilon )}}(m^2)^{1\epsilon }=\text{i}\pi ^{n/2}\eta m^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa },`$ (22)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\stackrel{~}{\kappa }(m^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(12\epsilon )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1\epsilon )}\frac{1}{\epsilon (1\epsilon )}(m^2)^\epsilon .$$
(23)
Massless tadpoles vanish in the framework of dimensional regularization . In four dimensions, the integrals (19) can be evaluated in terms of dilogarithms .

## 3 OFF-SHELL RESULTS

Before presenting selected results for the $`\lambda `$ and $`\tau `$ functions, let us introduce the following notation for the occurring Gram determinants:

$`𝒦`$ $``$ $`p_1^2p_2^2(p_1p_2)^2,`$ (24)
$`_1`$ $``$ $`𝒦+\left((p_1p_2)+m^2\right)^2,`$ (25)
$`_2`$ $``$ $`(p_1^2m^2)(p_2^2m^2)p_3^2+m^2(p_1^2p_2^2)^2.`$ (26)
We consider the contributions of diagrams $`a`$ and $`b`$ (see Fig. 1) separately,

$$\lambda _i^{(1)}=\lambda _i^{(1a)}+\lambda _i^{(1b)},\tau _i^{(1)}=\tau _i^{(1a)}+\tau _i^{(1b)}.$$
(27)
General results for the longitudinal parts of the vertex are reasonably compact, even in a general covariant gauge and arbitrary dimension (see in ). Below, we show a few selected results.

### 3.1 Longitudinal part

The $`\lambda `$ functions for diagram $`a`$ are

$`\lambda _1^{(1a)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\eta \left(C_F\frac{1}{2}C_A\right)}{(4\pi )^{n/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(1\xi )}{4p_1^2p_2^2}}`$
$`\times \left[p_1^2(p_2^2+m^2)\kappa _{1,2}+p_2^2(p_1^2+m^2)\kappa _{1,1}(p_1^2+p_2^2)m^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\right],`$
$`\lambda _2^{(1a)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\eta \left(C_F\frac{1}{2}C_A\right)}{(4\pi )^{n/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n2)(\xi 1)}{4p_1^2p_2^2(p_1^2p_2^2)}}`$
$`\times \left[p_1^2(p_2^2+m^2)\kappa _{1,2}p_2^2(p_1^2+m^2)\kappa _{1,1}(p_1^2p_2^2)m^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\right],`$
$`\lambda _3^{(1a)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\eta \left(C_F\frac{1}{2}C_A\right)}{(4\pi )^{n/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n\xi )m}{p_1^2p_2^2}}`$
$`\times \left[\kappa _{1,2}\kappa _{1,1}\right],`$
$`\lambda _4^{(1a)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (28)
For diagram $`b`$, the results are a bit longer. Here we present the $`\lambda `$’s in Feynman gauge:

$`\lambda _1^{(1b)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)|_{\xi =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\eta C_A}{(4\pi )^{n/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[2(p_1^2+p_2^22m^2)\phi _1`$
$`4\kappa _{0,3}n\kappa _{1,2}n\kappa _{1,1}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1^2p_2^2)}{𝒦}}((p_1^2p_2^2)\{[(p_1p_2)+m^2]\phi _1+\kappa _{0,3}\}`$
$`+`$ $`[p_2^2(p_1p_2)]\kappa _{1,2}[p_1^2(p_1p_2)]\kappa _{1,1})`$
$``$ $`(n2)({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{p_2^2}}\kappa _{1,2}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{p_1^2}}\kappa _{1,1}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2+p_2^2}{p_1^2p_2^2}}m^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa })],`$
$`\lambda _2^{(1b)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)|_{\xi =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\eta C_A}{(4\pi )^{n/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[{\displaystyle \frac{p_3^2}{𝒦}}([(p_1p_2)+m^2]\phi _1`$
$`+`$ $`\kappa _{0,3}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^2(p_1p_2)}{p_1^2p_2^2}}\kappa _{1,2}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2(p_1p_2)}{p_1^2p_2^2}}\kappa _{1,1})`$
$`+`$ $`(n2)({\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2+m^2}{p_1^2(p_1^2p_2^2)}}\kappa _{1,1}{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^2+m^2}{p_2^2(p_1^2p_2^2)}}\kappa _{1,2}+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{p_1^2p_2^2}}\stackrel{~}{\kappa })],`$
$`\lambda _3^{(1b)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)|_{\xi =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\eta C_A}{(4\pi )^{n/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)m}{2(p_1^2p_2^2)}}(\kappa _{1,1}\kappa _{1,2}),`$
$`\lambda _4^{(1b)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)|_{\xi =0}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (29)
In fact, in an arbitrary gauge ($`\xi 0`$), $`\lambda _4^{(1b)}`$ does not vanish. It is proportional to $`m\xi `$.

### 3.2 Transverse part

In an arbitrary gauge, the $`\tau `$’s are not so compact as $`\lambda `$’s. As an example, we show the result for one of them in the Feynman gauge

$`\tau _1^{(1b)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)|_{\xi =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\eta C_A}{(4\pi )^{n/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)m}{4𝒦}}`$ (30)
$`\times (2[(p_1p_2)+m^2]\phi _1\kappa _{1,2}\kappa _{1,1}+2\kappa _{0,3}`$
$`(p_1p_2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{1,1}\kappa _{1,2}}{p_1^2p_2^2}}).`$
Results for all other functions are listed in .

In the limit of massless quarks, $`m0`$, the results simplify considerably. First of all, in this limit, $`\tau _1^{(1)}=\tau _4^{(1)}=\tau _5^{(1)}=\tau _7^{(1)}=0`$ (this holds also in an arbitrary covariant gauge). Furthermore, $`\phi _1\phi `$, $`\phi _2\phi `$, $`\kappa _{1,i}\kappa _{0,i}`$, $`\kappa _{2,i}\kappa _{0,i}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }0`$.

### 3.3 Renormalization

In the limit $`n4`$ ($`\epsilon 0`$) the only function in the quark-gluon vertex which has an ultraviolet (UV) singularity at one loop is the $`\lambda _1^{(1)}`$ function. Absence of UV-singularities in all other functions $`\lambda _i^{(1)}`$ ($`i>1`$) and $`\tau _i^{(1)}`$ was one of the checks on our results. In an arbitrary covariant gauge, the UV-singular part of $`\lambda _1^{(1)}`$ reads

$$\frac{g^2\eta }{(4\pi )^{2\epsilon }}\left[(1\xi )C_F+\frac{1}{4}(4\xi )C_A\right]\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon }+\mathrm{}\right).$$

To renormalize the results, we need to subtract the $`1/\epsilon `$’s, (possibly) getting some constant $`R`$ instead, $`(1/\epsilon +\mathrm{})\left(R+\mathrm{}\right)`$, which depends on the renormalization scheme. In the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme $`R=0`$, because (see Eq. (20)) $`\eta =e^{\gamma \epsilon }\left[1+𝒪(\epsilon ^2)\right]`$ , so that $`e^{\gamma \epsilon }`$ and $`(4\pi )^\epsilon `$ are absorbed by the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ re-definition of the coupling constant $`g^2`$.

## 4 SPECIAL LIMITS

A few limits are of special interest: (i) the on-shell limit $`p_1^2=p_2^2=m^2`$ (with or without assuming that the vertex function is being sandwiched between Dirac spinors); (ii) the zero-momentum limit, when the gluon momentum vanishes ($`p_3=0`$); (iii) the symmetric case, when $`p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2`$. Since in all these cases we can put $`p_1^2=p_2^2p^2`$, we start by considering this as the first step towards all these limits.

In the case $`p_1^2=p_2^2p^2`$ some of the tensor structures in the quark-gluon vertex become linearly dependent, namely: $`L_{2,\mu }`$ and $`T_{2,\mu }`$, $`L_{3,\mu }`$ and $`T_{1,\mu }`$, $`T_{4,\mu }`$ and $`T_{7,\mu }`$. Moreover, according to Eq. (16), $`\lambda _4`$ and $`\tau _6`$ vanish. Therefore, the quark-gluon vertex in this limit can be written as \[cf. Eqs. (14) and (13)\]

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu |_{p_1^2=p_2^2p^2}=L_{1,\mu }\lambda _1+L_{2,\mu }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2+L_{3,\mu }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3`$
$`+T_{3,\mu }\tau _3+T_{5,\mu }\tau _5+T_{7,\mu }\stackrel{~}{\tau }_7+T_{8,\mu }\tau _8.`$ (31)
Only the $`L_{1,\mu }`$ contribution remains non-transverse in this limit.

### 4.1 On-shell limit

The tensor structure of (4) does not change when we put $`p^2=m^2`$, without assuming that the vertex is sandwiched between Dirac spinors. If we keep $`n`$ as an arbitrary parameter, the limit $`p^2m^2`$ is regular for all scalar functions involved in Eq. (4). For example,

$`\lambda _1^{(1)}(m^2,m^2,p_3^2)=\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\eta }{(4\pi )^{n/2}}}\{(2\xi )C_A\kappa _{0,3}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n2}{n3}}[2(1\xi )C_F+C_A]\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\}.`$ (32)
An interesting feature is that in this limit the integral $`J_2(1,1,1)`$ reduces to the two-point function (with a factor of $`(n4)^1`$ in front), whereas $`J_1(1,1,1)`$ remains non-trivial.

If we recall that the “physical” quark-gluon vertex should be sandwiched between physical states obeying the Dirac equation, then we arrive at

$`\overline{u}(p_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu u(p_2)=F_1(p_3^2)\overline{u}(p_1)\gamma _\mu u(p_2)`$
$`\frac{1}{2m}F_2(p_3^2)\overline{u}(p_1)\sigma _{\mu \nu }p_3^\nu u(p_2),`$ (33)
where $`F_1(p_3^2)`$ and $`F_2(p_3^2)`$ are often called the Dirac and Pauli form factors, respectively. In terms of the (modified) longitudinal and transverse functions we get

$`F_1+F_2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1+p_3^2\tau _32m\tau _5+\frac{1}{2}(p_3^24m^2)\tau _8,`$
$`\frac{1}{2m}F_2`$ $`=`$ $`2m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3\tau _5+\frac{1}{2}p_3^2\stackrel{~}{\tau }_7m\tau _8.`$ (34)
### 4.2 Zero-momentum limit

Let us now consider the off-shell zero-momentum limit $`p_3=0`$ ($`p_2=p_1p`$). Upon putting $`p_1^2=p_2^2=p^2`$, the next step is to put $`p_3^2=0`$ (which implies $`p_3=0`$). In this limit, most of the transverse structures vanish and the quark-gluon vertex looks like

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu |_{p_2=p_1p,p_3=0}`$ $`=`$ $`L_{1,\mu }\lambda _1+L_{2,\mu }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2+L_{3,\mu }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu \lambda _1+4p_\mu p/\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_22p_\mu \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3.`$
Of course, all integrals can be reduced to two-point functions and tadpoles. The corresponding scalar functions are regular in this limit.

In the massless case ($`m=0`$), only two relevant structures remain in (35). The corresponding results have been compared with .

### 4.3 Symmetric case

The limit $`p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2p^2`$ is interesting for studying the $`Z`$-factors and renormalization group quantities in the MOM scheme. Usually, a Euclidean symmetric point is considered, $`p^2=\mu ^2`$. For massless quarks, the one-loop calculation of the quark-gluon vertex was performed in  (see also in ). For massive quarks, one of the scalar functions, the coefficient of $`\gamma _\mu `$, was presented in . We confirm all these results, and also have obtained expressions for the remaining functions (for details, see in ).

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

We have reviewed results for the one-loop quark-gluon vertex in an arbitrary covariant gauge and space-time dimension. The calculation was carried out with massive quarks.

We decomposed the quark-gluon vertex into longitudinal and transverse parts (6) (like the decomposition in QED ). In general, 12 scalar functions (four $`\lambda `$’s and eight $`\tau `$’s) are needed to define the quark-gluon vertex. In particular, we have found that the function $`\lambda _4`$, the coefficient of $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }(p_1p_2)^\nu `$, which does not appear in QED (at least, at the one-loop level), does not vanish in QCD. Moreover, it contributes to the non-Abelian sector of the WST identity (3). Various special cases of the general results were compared with those of Refs.  (see in ).

Starting from the general off-shell expressions in an arbitrary space-time dimension, $`n`$, for the longitudinal and transverse parts of the vertex, we have derived results for the on-shell limits which also are valid for an arbitrary value of the space-time dimension. For special cases, our on-shell results have been compared against those from Refs. .

We have calculated other functions involved and checked that our results obey the WST identity (3), for arbitrary $`n`$ and $`\xi `$.

In principle, some techniques which can be used for the calculation of the two-loop off-shell quark-gluon vertex, at least in the $`m=0`$ case, are already available , although the problem of higher powers of irreducible numerators is still difficult for algorithmization. For special limits, the calculation is very similar to the three-gluon vertex, which was calculated at two loops in  (the zero-momentum limit) and in  (the on-shell case).

Acknowledgements. It is a pleasure to thank the organizers of ‘Loops and Legs 2000’ for creating a stimulating atmosphere at the conference. We are grateful to O.V. Tarasov for useful discussions. This research has been supported by the Research Council of Norway. A. D.’s research was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by DFG. Research by L. S. was supported by the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund.


text:
# August 2000 Maximal 𝜈_𝜇-𝜈_𝜏 oscillations, the see-saw mechanism and the Exact Parity Model

## Abstract

We examine one simple mechanism which leads to approximate maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations in the standard see-saw model. In particular, we show that this scheme could be implemented in the Exact Parity Model (also known as the mirror matter model). Within this framework the solar neutrino problem is solved by maximal $`\nu _e\nu _e^{}`$ oscillations (with $`\nu _e^{}`$ is the essentially sterile mirror partner of $`\nu _e`$) and the LSND evidence for $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations can also be explained.

Neutrino physics continues to provide the most promising window on physics beyond the standard model. The evidence comes from three different classes of experiments, namely the atmospheric, solar and LSND experiments. Of these, the most convincing evidence of neutrino oscillation comes from the atmospheric neutrino anomaly as confirmed by SuperKamiokande. At the present time the only two flavour oscillation solutions consistent with the superKamiokande data are $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _{sterile}`$ oscillations. Recently the superKamiokande collaboration have argued that the $`\nu _\mu \nu _{sterile}`$ solution is disfavoured at more than $`99\%`$ C.L. However this conclusion depends on how the data is analysised and should not be considered as conclusive. Furthermore a global analysis of the $`\nu _\mu \nu _{sterile}`$ solution to the atmospheric neutrino data provides a reasonable fit. Thus, the $`\nu _\mu \nu _{sterile}`$ oscillations remain a viable explanation of the atmospheric neutrino data. However, for the purposes of this paper we will assume that nature chooses the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation solution. The main point of our paper is to point out a rather simple way of achieving approximately maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations in the context of the usual see-saw model in a natural way. We also point out how the solar neutrino and LSND indications for neutrino oscillations could also be understood in this scheme.

In the context of the standard see-saw model, it is well known that the effective mass matrix of the light left-handed neutrinos $`𝐦_L`$ can be obtained from diagonalising the seesaw mass matrix

$$𝐌=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 𝐌_D\\ 𝐌_D^T& 𝐌_R\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
leading to

$$𝐦_L=V_Ld_\nu W_RD^1W_R^Td_\nu V_L^T.$$
(2)
In Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), $`𝐌_D`$ and $`𝐌_R`$ are the $`3\times 3`$ Dirac and Majorana matrix for $`\nu _L`$ and $`\nu _R`$ respectively. $`W_R=V_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}U_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ where $`V_{R,L}`$ and $`U_R`$ are unitary matrices that diagonalise $`𝐌_𝐃`$ and $`𝐌_𝐑`$ as

$$𝐌_D=V_Ld_\nu V_R^{},𝐌_R=U_RDU_R^T,$$
(3)
where $`d_\nu `$ and $`D`$ are diagonal matrices containing real eigenvalues of $`𝐌_D`$ and $`𝐌_R`$, i.e.

$$d_\nu =diag(m_1^D,m_2^D,m_3^D),D=diag(M_1,M_2,M_3).$$
(4)
From general considerations, it seems most natural to assume that $`𝐌_D`$ is hierarchical.Although it is not a necessary condition in the scheme we shall propose here. In addition, it is also most natural to expect that $`𝐌_D`$ is approximately aligned with the charged lepton mass matrix, as a parallel to the charged quark sector. In fact, these features arise in simple GUT models such as $`SO(10)`$ as well as in models with quark lepton symmetry. For $`𝐌_R`$, however, there is no natural expectation as such because the charged leptons and quarks have no Majorana mass due to electric charge conservation. In contrast to the Dirac mass terms in the Standard Model, $`𝐌_R`$ is expected to arise from quite different physics, e.g. from coupling with a distinct Higgs field at a much higher scale. We can then ask the question: Is there any reasonable choice for $`𝐌_R`$ that could lead to approximately maximal $`\nu _{\mu L}\nu _{\tau L}`$ oscillations compatible with the atmospheric neutrino anomaly?

Let’s consider the 2-3 sector of the mass matrices. The symmetric Majorana mass matrix of $`\nu _R`$ can be generally written as§§§ We use the basis with $`V_R=1`$, which we can choose without loss of generality.

$$𝐌_R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _1& \lambda _3\\ \lambda _3& \lambda _2\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
and is diagonalised by

$$U_R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\psi & \mathrm{sin}\psi \\ \mathrm{sin}\psi & \mathrm{cos}\psi \end{array}\right).$$
(6)
The mixing angle among $`\nu _{\mu R}\nu _{\tau R}`$ is parametried by

$$\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\psi =\frac{2\lambda _3}{\lambda _1\lambda _2},$$
(7)
and the eigenvalues are given by

$$M_{2,3}=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(\lambda _2\lambda _1)^2+4\lambda _3^2}.$$
(8)
The mixing angle among $`\nu _{\mu L}\nu _{\tau L}`$ implied by Eq. (2) is easily worked out to be

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _L=\frac{2m_2^Dm_3^D\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi (\frac{1}{M_3}\frac{1}{M_2})}{(m_3^D)^2(\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\psi }{M_2}+\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\psi }{M_3})(m_2^D)^2(\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\psi }{M_2}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\psi }{M_3})}.$$
(9)
Approximate maximal mixing requires the condition

$$\mathrm{tan}^22\theta _L1.$$
(10)
As already mentioned, we will assume that $`𝐌_D`$ is diagonal (i.e $`V_L=1`$), (needless to say, our conclusion requires only that $`V_L`$ is approximately diagonal as in the case of the CKM matrix). The issue is to find the form of $`𝐌_R`$ which then leads to maximal oscillations for the light $`\nu _{\mu L}\nu _{\tau L}`$ states. One possibility already discussed in the literature is that

$$𝐌_R^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& p\\ p& p^2\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
where $`p=\frac{m_2^D}{m_3^D}`$. This case has been studied in Ref. in detail. In this case the light neutrinos are hierarchical. While this is certainly an interesting possibility, it doesn’t seem to be the simplest possibility in our opinion. In particular, as far as we can see there is no obvious approximate symmetry corresponding to the form Eq.(11) (although the authors of Ref. argue that it is more natural than it looks).

It seems to us that the most natural choice of $`𝐌_R`$ which does the trick is where $`𝐌_R`$ is approximately maximally mixed, with

$$|\lambda _3||\lambda _2|,|\lambda _1|.$$
(12)
In this limit, the heavy Majorana mass eigenvalues are \[from Eq. (8)\],

$$M_{2,3}\lambda _3+\frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2}{2},$$
(13)
which are approximately degenerate. It is easy to show that $`𝐌_R`$ is diagonalised by the unitary transformation, Eq.(6) with

$$\mathrm{tan}^2\psi =1\frac{(\lambda _1\lambda _2)}{\lambda _3}+𝒪\left(\frac{\lambda _{1,2}}{\lambda _3}\right)^2.$$
(14)
It is easily checked that indeed, in the limit of Eq. (12),

$$\mathrm{tan}^22\theta _L\left(\frac{2\lambda _3m_2^Dm_3^D}{(m_3^D)^2\lambda _2(m_2^D)^2\lambda _1}\right)^21,$$
(15)
irrespective of whether there is hierarchy in $`m_{2,3}^D`$. Hence maximal mixing for the light $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ states follows in the limit $`|\lambda _3||\lambda _1|,|\lambda _2|`$. Meanwhile, the effective $`\nu _L`$ light Majorana mass matrix has the form:

$$𝐦_L\left(\begin{array}{cc}(m_2^D)^2\left(\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3^2}\right)& \frac{m_2^Dm_3^D}{\lambda _3}\\ \frac{m_2^Dm_3^D}{\lambda _3}& (m_3^D)^2\left(\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3^2}\right)\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
resulting in an approximate degenerate pair of light flavour neutrino masses (where we have made the usual phase transformation to make them positive) of

$$m_L\frac{m_2^Dm_3^D}{\lambda _3}\pm \frac{1}{2}\left((m_2^D)^2\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3^2}+(m_3^D)^2\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3^2}\right).$$
(17)
Observe that in this scenario there is an approximate $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ global symmetry, which may simply be an accidental approximate symmetry of the theory. Nevertheless this approximate global symmetry could play an important role in preventing radiative corrections from spoiling the form of $`𝐦_L`$.

Of course, this see-saw model with an approximately diagonal $`𝐌_D`$ but with the “lop sided” $`𝐌_R`$ is not the only way of achieving approximately maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing. However, it does seem rather nice to us. As mentioned already, this scheme could easily be implemented in standard GUT models as well as models with quark-lepton symmetry. Moreover, as we will show, it fits in nicely with models with unbroken parity symmetry (Exact Parity model). While we arrived at this scheme independently, we have searched the literature and have discovered that similar ideas are contained in Ref. in the context of models with $`U(1)_F`$ family gauge symmetry. Let us now turn to the other neutrino anomalies: The solar and the LSND experiments.

The LSND experiment suggests $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mu e}10^2`$ and $`\delta m^21eV^2`$. This can easily be incorporated into this scheme. We need only assume that $`𝐌_R`$ has the approximate form:

$$𝐌_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \beta \\ 0& \beta & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
where the zero entries are in general non-zero but small (relatively to the other entries).

Within the context of our scheme, the solar neutrino anomaly may be solved by oscillations into a light sterile neutrino (and elegance suggests three such species, which we denote by $`\nu _{e,\mu ,\tau }^{}`$). There are essentially two possibilities: Either small angle $`\nu _e\nu _e^{}`$ MSW solution is invoked or approximately maximal $`\nu _e\nu _e^{}`$ oscillations may be responsible. The latter can explain (and in fact predicted) the approximate $`50\%`$ reduction of solar neutrinos including the observed energy independent superKamiokande flux suppression (although Homestake is a little on the low side). Futhermore, observations from Borexino and Kamland must find at least one “smoking gun” signature if this is the physics responsible for the solar neutrino deficit (and SNO should see no anomolous Neutral current/charged current ratio). On the theoretical front, an elegant motivation for maximal $`\nu _e\nu _e^{}`$ oscillations comes from the observation that gauge models with unbroken parity symmetry predict that each of the three ordinary neutrinos are approximately maximally mixed with a sterile partner if neutrinos have mass. Obviously this would suggest that the most natural explanation for the atmospheric neutrino anomaly is with maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu ^{}`$ oscillations. Nevertheless it is still possible that the atmospheric neutrino anomaly may be predominately due to $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations if the the oscillation length for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu ^{}`$ oscillations is much longer than the diameter of the earth for typical atmospheric neutrino energies. If this is the case then the simple scheme discussed in this paper may easily be invoked to give approximately maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation solution for the atmospheric neutrino anomaly in such models.

To be more concrete, let’s consider the Exact Parity Model (EPM) extended to include a heavy see-saw gauge singlet $`\nu _R`$ (together with it’s parity partner $`\nu _L^{}`$). In each generation there are 4 Weyl neutrino fields, namely, $`\nu _L`$, $`\nu _R`$ and their parity partners $`\nu _R^{}`$ and $`\nu _L^{}`$. With the minimal Higgs and it’s mirror doublet, the mass matrix has the form

$$_{mass}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L(\mathrm{\Psi }_L)^c+H.c.,$$
(19)
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_L=[(\nu _L)^c,\nu _R^{},\nu _R,(\nu _L^{})^c]^T,$$
(20)
and

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& m_a& m_b\\ 0& 0& m_b& m_a\\ m_a& m_b& M_a& M_b\\ m_a& m_b& M_b& M_a\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
Note that $`m_{a,b}`$ are mass terms that arise from spontaneous symmetry breaking, while $`M_{a,b}`$ are bare mass terms, all being free parameters of the theory. The masses are assumed to be real without loss of generality. In the parity diagonal basis $`\nu _L^\pm =\frac{\nu _L\pm (\nu _R^{})^c}{\sqrt{2}}`$ and $`\nu _R^\pm =\frac{\nu _R\pm (\nu _L^{})^c}{\sqrt{2}}`$, the mass matrix of Eq. (21) is diagonalised to give eigenvalues $`m_+,m_{},M_+,M_{}`$, where $`m_\pm ,M_\pm `$ are functions of $`m_{a,b}`$ and $`M_{a,b}`$. Following the usual nomenclature, $`m_+,m_{}`$ refer to the masses of light neutrino parity states of $`\nu _L^\pm `$, whereas $`M_+,M_{}`$ are the masses of the heavy parity states $`\nu _R^\pm `$. In the limit $`M_\pm m_\pm `$ the singlet states decouple from the SU(2) doublet states. It is straight forward to generalise the 1 generation case to describe cross generational mixing among the 2-3 sector. Introducing 2 arbitrary intergenerational mixing angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ to parametrise the generation mixing between the +(-) parity states $`\nu _2^+`$ and $`\nu _3^+`$ ($`\nu _2^{}`$ and $`\nu _3^{}`$), the active flavour states will have the form

$`\nu _{\mu L}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _{2L}^+}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _{3L}^+}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi \nu _{2L}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi \nu _{3L}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (22)
$`\nu _{\tau L}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _{2L}^+}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _{3L}^+}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi \nu _{2L}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi \nu _{3L}^{}}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (23)
From Eq. (23), the transition probability from $`\nu _{\mu L}`$ to $`\nu _{\tau L}`$ in the relativistic limit is

$`P(\nu _{\mu L}\nu _{\tau L})`$ $`=`$ $`|\nu _{\tau L}|\nu _{\mu L}(t)|^2`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\pi L}{L_+}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^22\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\pi L}{L_{}}})`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\varphi \mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi L}{L_{}}})\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi L}{L_+}})\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi L}{L_{int}}}),`$ (26)
where the oscillation lengths are

$$L_\pm =\frac{4\pi E}{\delta m_{32}^{\pm }{}_{}{}^{2}},L_{int}=\frac{4\pi E}{\delta m_g^2}.$$
(27)
In the above equations, $`E`$ denotes the energy of $`\nu _{\mu L}`$, $`L`$ is the distance from where it is produced, $`\delta m_{32}^{\pm }{}_{}{}^{2}(m_3^\pm )^2(m_2^\pm )^2`$ and $`\delta m_g^2(m_3^+)^2+(m_2^+)^2(m_2^{})^2(m_3^{})^2`$. Note that $`L_{int}`$ and $`L_\pm `$ are independent of each other because the mass square scale difference $`\delta m_{32}^{\pm }{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`\delta m_g^2`$ are independent of each other in the theory.

The limit of the (accidental?) $`U(1)_{L_\mu L_\tau }`$ global symmetry would mean (i) $`\varphi \theta \frac{\pi }{4}`$ and (ii) the eigen masses of the two generations will be approximately degenerate, i.e. $`(m_3^+)^2(m_2^+)^2,(m_3^{})^2(m_2^{})^2`$. To produce $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ maximal oscillations in the EPM, we also need to render approximate equality in the oscillation lengths, $`L_+L_{}`$ and $`L_{int}L`$. This happens when the coupling between the ordinary and mirror neutrinos is small (so that $`m_3^+m_3^{},m_2^+m_2^{}`$). In this limit, the standard two-neutrino oscillation formula

$$P(\nu _{\mu L}\nu _{\tau L})=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{\pi L}{L_+})$$
(28)
is then recovered. Thus for atmospheric neutrinos, which have typical energy $`E\text{GeV}`$, we require $`L_{int}10,000\text{km}`$. In this limit, the atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillations approximately reduce to pure $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations.

Thus we have shown that this “lop sided” $`𝐌_R`$ scenario does fit in nicely with the EPM. Hence, if experiments do end up proving that the atmospheric neutrino anomaly is due to $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations, and the solar problem is due to maximal $`\nu _e\nu _{sterile}`$ oscillations then this is consistent with the EPM. Of course, within the framework of the EPM we would most naturally expect the atmospheric neutrino anomaly to be solved by maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu ^{}`$ oscillations, since then we can solve the atmospheric neutrino anomaly and solar neutrino problem by the same mechanism. This would seem to be theoretically most satisfying.

The implications for the early Universe of such models with sterile/mirror neutrinos have been discussed in some detail in the literature (see e.g. Ref. and references there-in). Models with sterile neutrinos have the amusing feature that they typically lead to the dynamical generation of a large neutrino asymmetry. This leads to a number of interesting effects for big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), and the microwave background. For example, it was shown in Ref. that the maximal $`\nu _e\nu _e^{}`$ oscillations do not necessarily lead to adverse implications for BBN even if $`\delta m^2`$ is relatively large $`10^3eV^2`$ because of the suppression of the oscillations due to the dynamically generated $`L_{\nu _\mu },L_{\nu _\tau }`$ asymmetry. Further implications for models with degenerate $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ are discussed in Ref..

In conclusion, we have suggested a simple scheme to achieve approximately maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations which is one of the possible solutions to the atmospheric neutrino anomaly. In the context of this scheme, we have shown that the Exact Parity model could also accommodate $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations in place of the usual $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu ^{}`$ oscillations. This scheme is also compatible with the LSND oscillation signal, which leaves the solar neutrino problem to be solved by $`\nu _e\nu _{sterile}`$ oscillations.

Acknowledgements

R.F. is an Australian Research Fellow. T. L. Yoon is supported by OPRS and MRS


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In Riemann geometry, it is known that the biggest symmetry(isometric) groups of the Minkowski space, de Sitter Space (dS) and Anti-de Sitter (AdS) space have same number of generators. They can be identified, in a unified way, as the classical manifold $`D_\lambda (n+1)`$ with $`\lambda =0,+1`$ and $`1`$, respectively. Thus, the dS and the AdS space are the simplest generalization of the Minkowski space with constant curvature. The dS, in particularly, the AdS space and quantum field theory based on it has been an interested topic of mathematicians and physicists for a long time. There has recently been a revival of interest in AdS space brought about by the conjectured duality between physics in the bulk of AdS and a conformal field theory (CFT) on the boundary. The so-called AdS/CFT correspondence states that string theory in the AdS space is holographically dual to a CFT on boundary of the AdS. A strong support for the proposal comes from comparing spectra of Type IIB string theory on the background of AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ and low-order correlation functions of the $`3+1`$ dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory. The dual super Yang-Mills theory lives on the boundary of the AdS space. This is one of the most important progresses in the superstring theory. Many new results have been obtained by making use this conjecture.

However, up to now, almost all discussions on the AdS/CFT correspondence were based on the so-called Euclidean version of the AdS, or an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional unit ball $`B^{n+1}`$. To prove the AdS/CFT conjecture or to investigate its delicious implications in physics theory, one should work on the more challenging topic of duality between physics theories on the AdS space and its boundary, the compact Minkowski space.

In this paper, by describing the unit ball $`B^n`$ as a submanifold of an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional embedding space, we first present Poisson kernels for the Laplace operator with a general nonzero eigenvalue $`m_0`$ and relations between them in a unit ball $`B^n`$ with Hua’s metric and conformal flat metric. Results for Euclidean version of the AdS are recovered in a different view. Then we discuss the AdS geometry with right signature within the framework of the classical manifolds and the classical domains. It is proved that the AdSn+1 is isomorphic to $`RP^1\times B^n`$ and the boundary of the AdS is isomorphic to $`RP^1\times S^{n1}`$. Bulk-boundary propagator for a massive scalar field in the AdS is replaced by what in the $`RP^1\times B^n`$ based on the global geometric properties of AdS. The bulk/boundary correspondence in this case is also demonstrated.

## 2 Poisson kernels for a scalar field in unit ball

A unit ball $`B^n`$ can be described as the image of a two-to-one map of the hypersurface

$$\xi ^n\xi ^n\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\xi ^i\xi ^i=1$$
(1)
in the space $`(\xi ^0,\xi ^1,\mathrm{},\xi ^{n1})`$.

An explicitly $`SO(1,n)`$ invariant metric of the $`B^n`$ can be introduced

$$ds^2=d\xi ^nd\xi ^n\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}d\xi ^id\xi ^i.$$
(2)
By denoting

$$x^i=\frac{\xi ^i}{\xi ^n},\left(i=0,1,\mathrm{},n1,\xi ^n0\right),$$
(3)
$`n`$-dimensional vector $`x(x^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^{n1})`$, and $`x^{}`$ transfer of the $`x`$, we can rewrite the $`B^n`$ as usual

$$xx^{}<1.$$
(4)
The reduced metric from Eq.(2) in the coordinate $`\{x^i\}`$ is of the form

$$ds^2=\frac{dx(Ix^{}x)^1dx^{}}{1xx^{}}.$$
(5)
Another set of coordinates for the unit ball $`B^n`$ can be introduced

$$z^i=\frac{\xi ^i}{\xi ^n+1},\left(i=0,1,\mathrm{},n1;\xi ^n0\right).$$
(6)
In this coordinate, the unit ball $`B^n`$ is also described as usual

$$zz^{}<1.$$
(7)
The reduced metric from Eq.(2) in terms of the coordinate $`\{z^i\}`$ is

$$ds^2=\frac{4}{(1zz^{})^2}dzdz^{}.$$
(8)
There is a one to one transformation between the two sets of coordinates $`\{x^i\}`$ and $`\{z^i\}`$

$$x^i=\frac{2z^i}{1+zz^{}}.$$
(9)
Therefore, the conformal flat metric (8) and the Hua’s metric (5) are different representations of the $`SO(1,n)`$ invariant metric. And we can work by using one of them and got same results include invariant differential form and Poisson kernel.

The equation of eigenvalues for the Laplace operator in the unit ball $`B^n`$ is

$$\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{}{x^i}\left(\sqrt{g}g^{ij}\frac{}{x^i}\right)+m_0^2\right]\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=0.$$
(10)
The Poisson kernel for a massless scalar field has been discussed

$$G_B^E(x,u)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{(1xx^{})^{n1}}{(12ux^{}+xx^{})^{n1}},\mathrm{for}\mathrm{conformal}\mathrm{flat}\mathrm{metric},\hfill \\ \frac{(1xx^{})^{\frac{n1}{2}}}{(1ux^{})^{n1}},\mathrm{for}\mathrm{Hua}^{}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{metric}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
The bulk field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ determined by the fields living on the boundary $`\varphi (u)`$ is of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\frac{1}{\omega _{n1}}_{uu^{}=1}\mathrm{}G_B^E(x,u)\varphi (u)\dot{u}.$$
(12)
Now, we write down a general Poisson kernel for the Laplace operator with nonzero eigenvalue $`m_0^2`$

$$G_B^\pm (x,u)=\left(G_B^E(x,u)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{4m_0^2}{(n1)^2}}\right)}.$$
(13)
The Poisson kernels $`G_B^\pm (x,u)`$ satisfy the following properties:

* It is definitely positive.
* On the boundary, we have

$$G_B^\pm (v,u)=\{\begin{array}{c}0,uv,\\ \mathrm{},u=v.\end{array}$$
(14)
* It satisfies the equation of eigenvalues for the Laplace operator with a eigenvalue $`m_0^2`$.

## 3 Conformal boundary and AdS

In an $`(n+2)`$-dimensional embedding space, the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional AdS space AdSn+1 can be written as

$$\xi ^0\xi ^0\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\xi ^i\xi ^i+\xi ^{n+1}\xi ^{n+1}=1.$$
(15)
From the above definition of AdS, we know that $`\xi ^0`$ and $`\xi ^{n+1}`$ can not be zero simultaneously, and at least two charts of coordinates $`[(n+1)`$-dimensional\] $`𝒰_1`$ ($`\xi ^{n+1}0`$) and $`𝒰_0`$ ($`\xi ^00`$) should be needed to describe the AdS.

In the chart AdS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_1`$, we introduce a coordinate

$$x^i=\frac{\xi ^i}{\xi ^{n+1}},(i=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n;\xi ^{n+1}0).$$
(16)
The AdS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_1`$, in the coordinate $`\{x^i\}`$, is described by

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{AdS}_{n+1}𝒰_1:\sigma (x^i,x^j)>0,\hfill \\ \sigma (x^i,x^j)1+\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _{ij}x^ix^j,\eta =\mathrm{diag}(1,\underset{n}{\underset{}{1,1,\mathrm{},1}}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
In the chart AdS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_0`$, let

$$\begin{array}{c}y^0=\frac{\xi ^{n+1}}{\xi ^0},\hfill \\ y^i=\frac{\xi ^i}{\xi ^0},(i=1,2,\mathrm{},n;\xi ^00).\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
And the AdS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_0`$ can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{AdS}_{n+1}𝒰_0:\sigma (y^i,y^j)>0.$$
(19)
At the overlap region AdS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_0𝒰_1`$ of the two charts $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_0`$, one has relations

$$\begin{array}{c}y^0=\frac{1}{x^0},\hfill \\ y^i=\frac{x^i}{x^0}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
This shows clearly a differential structure of the AdS. The boundary $`\overline{M}^n`$ of the AdSn+1 consists of infinite points not belong to AdS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_1`$ or AdS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_0`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \overline{M}^n:1+\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _{jk}x^jx^k=0,\\ \hfill 1+\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\eta _{jk}y^jy^k=0.\end{array}$$
(21)
A new set of variables in the chart AdS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_1`$ can be introduced as

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi ^0x^0,\hfill \\ \chi ^\mu \sqrt{1+(x^0)^2}x^\mu ,(\mu =1,2,\mathrm{},n).\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
Then, we have

$$\mathrm{AdS}_{n+1}𝒰_1=\{\chi ^0\mathrm{},(\chi ^1,\chi ^2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\chi ^n)\mathrm{}^n|(\chi ^1)^2+(\chi ^2)^2+\mathrm{}+(\chi ^n)^2<1\}.$$
(23)
This shows that, in the chart $`𝒰_1`$, the AdSn+1 is equivalent to $`\mathrm{}\times B^n`$.

In the same way, in the chart AdS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_0`$, let

$$\begin{array}{c}\eta ^0y^0,\hfill \\ \eta ^\mu \sqrt{1+(y^0)^2}y^\mu ,(\mu =1,2,\mathrm{},n).\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
And subsequently, one has

$$\mathrm{AdS}_{n+1}𝒰_0=\{\eta ^0\mathrm{},(\eta ^1,\eta ^2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\eta ^n)\mathrm{}^n|(\eta ^1)^2+(\eta ^2)^2+\mathrm{}+(\eta ^n)^2<1\}.$$
(25)
Therefore, both charts of the AdSn+1, $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_0`$ are equivalent to $`\mathrm{}\times B^n`$.

It should be noticed that, at the overlap region of the two charts, there are relations among the two different sets of coordinate variables

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi ^0=\frac{1}{\eta ^0},\hfill \\ \chi ^\mu =\eta ^\mu ,(\mu =1,2,\mathrm{},n).\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
This fact presents a theorem for the AdS.
Theorem: The AdSn+1 is isomorphic to $`RP^1\times B^n`$ and its boundary is $`RP^1\times S^{n1}`$..

It is well-known that the Study-Fubini metric can be introduced on the $`RP^1`$ space

$$ds_0^2=\frac{(d\chi ^0)^2}{[1+(\chi ^0)^2]^2}=(d\mathrm{arctan}\chi ^0)^2.$$
(27)
As presented at the previous section, on the unit ball $`B^n`$, we have the Hua’s metric

$$ds_n^2=\underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{n}{}}d\chi ^\mu d\chi ^\nu \left(\frac{\delta _{\mu \nu }}{1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\chi ^\alpha \chi ^\alpha }+\frac{\chi ^\mu \chi ^\nu }{(1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\chi ^\alpha \chi ^\alpha )^2}\right).$$
(28)
Thus, a natural metric on the $`RP^1\times B^n`$ is of the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =& ds_0^2ds_n^2\hfill \\ & =& \frac{(d\chi ^0)^2}{[1+(\chi ^0)^2]^2}\underset{\mu ,\nu =1}{\overset{n}{}}d\chi ^\mu d\chi ^\nu \left(\frac{\delta _{\mu \nu }}{1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\chi ^\alpha \chi ^\alpha }+\frac{\chi ^\mu \chi ^\nu }{(1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\chi ^\alpha \chi ^\alpha )^2}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
But, with this metric the $`RP^1\times B^n`$ is no longer AdS group invariant. In what follows, we discuss the bulk/boundary correspondence and related topics in this case.

## 4 Eigenfunctions of Laplace operator on $`RP^1\times B^n`$

Let

$$\theta =\mathrm{arctan}\chi ^0.$$
(30)
Then $`RP^1\times B^n`$ and $`RP^1\times S^{n1}`$ are isomorphic to $`S^1\times B^n`$ and $`S^1\times S^{n1}`$ respectively. Moreover,

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(31)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{}{}\chi ^i\left(\sqrt{g}g^{ij}\frac{}{\chi ^j}\right)$$
(32)
is the Laplace-Beltrami operator of the ball $`B^n`$.

Denote

$$\alpha _k(m_0)=1+\left[1+4\frac{m_0^2k^2}{(n1)^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(33)
and

$$P_{\alpha _k(m_0^2)}(\chi ,u)=\left[G_B(\chi ,u)\right]^{\alpha _k(m_0)},$$
(34)
where $`\chi =(\chi ^1,\mathrm{},\chi ^n)`$. It can be proved that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P_{\alpha _k(m_0)}(\chi ,u)=(k^2m_0^2)P_{\alpha _k(m_0)}(\chi ,u).$$
(35)
## 5 Bulk-boundary propagator on $`S^1\times B^n`$

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\phi ,u)`$ be a field on the boundary $`S^1\times S^{n1}`$ of $`S^1\times B^n`$. Develop it into Fourier series of $`\phi `$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\phi ,u)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[a_k(u)\mathrm{cos}k\phi +b_k(u)\mathrm{sin}k\phi \right],$$
(36)
where

$$a_k(u)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\phi ,u)\mathrm{cos}k\phi d\phi ,b_k(u)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\phi ,u)\mathrm{sin}k\phi d\phi .$$
(37)
Construct a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta ,\chi )`$ on $`S^1\times B^n`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta ,\chi )=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\varphi _k(\chi )\mathrm{cos}k\theta +\psi _k(\chi )\mathrm{sin}k\theta \right],$$
(38)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi _k(\chi )=\frac{1}{\omega _{n1}}_{uu^{}=1}a_k(u)P_{\alpha _k(m_0)}(\chi ,u)\dot{u},\hfill \\ \psi _k(\chi )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{uu^{}=1}b_k(u)P_{\alpha _k(m_0)}(\chi ,u)\dot{u}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
Since

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _k(\chi )=(k^2m_0^2)\varphi _k(\chi )\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _k(\chi )=(k^2m_0^2)\psi _k(\chi ),$$
(40)
then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta ,\chi )`$ must satisfy the equation

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta ,\chi )=m_0^2\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta ,\chi ).$$
(41)
Finally, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta ,\chi )`$ can be expressed into the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta ,\chi )=\frac{1}{2\pi \omega _{n1}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{uu^{}=1}\left[a_k(u)\mathrm{cos}k\theta +b_k(u)\mathrm{sin}k\theta \right]P_{\alpha _k(m_0)}(\chi ,u)\dot{u}\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{2\pi \omega _{n1}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{uu^{}=1}_0^{2\pi }\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\phi ,u)\mathrm{cos}k\phi \mathrm{cos}k\theta +\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\phi ,u)\mathrm{sin}k\phi \mathrm{sin}k\theta \right]P_{\alpha _k(m_0)}(\chi ,u)𝑑\phi \dot{u},\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
or

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta ,\chi )=\frac{1}{V(S^1\times S^{n1})}_{S^1\times S^{n1}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\phi ,u)G_{m_0}(\theta ,\chi ;\phi ,u)𝑑\phi \dot{u},$$
(43)
where

$$G_{m_0}(\theta ,\chi ;\phi ,u)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_{\alpha _k(m_0)}(\chi ,u)\mathrm{cos}k(\phi \theta )$$
(44)
is the propagator.

Acknowledgments

Two of us (Z.C. and H.Y.G. ) would like to thank S. K. Wang and K. Wu for enlightening discussions. The work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China.