text:
# Conformal Brane World and Cosmological Constant

## I Introduction

In the Brane World scenario the Standard Model gauge and matter fields are assumed to be localized on branes (or an intersection thereof), while gravity lives in a larger dimensional bulk of space-time . The volume of dimensions transverse to the branes is automatically finite if these dimensions are compact. On the other hand, the volume of the transverse dimensions can be finite even if the latter are non-compact. In particular, this can be achieved by using  warped compactifications  which localize gravity on the brane. A concrete realization of this idea was given in .

Recently it was pointed out in  that, in theories where extra dimensions transverse to a brane have infinite volume, the cosmological constant on the brane might be under control even if brane supersymmetry is completely broken. The key point here is that even if supersymmetry breaking on the brane does take place, it will not be transmitted to the bulk as the volume of the extra dimensions is infinite . Thus, at least in principle, one should be able to control some of the properties of the bulk with the unbroken bulk supersymmetry. One then can wonder whether bulk supersymmetry could also control the brane cosmological constant .

Controlling the brane cosmological constant with bulk supersymmetry, however, appears to be non-trivial. Thus, in  it was pointed out that in the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati model , where a 3-brane is embedded in the 5-dimensional Minkowski space, unbroken bulk supersymmetry is perfectly compatible with non-vanishing, in particular, positive brane cosmological constant. There is a simple reason for this. The bulk curvature in this model is constant, in particular, it vanishes. The Minkowski space can be foliated by codimension one surfaces of vanishing or positive constant curvature. Both of these types of foliations are compatible with bulk supersymmetry, that is, with the existence of Killing spinors in the bulk - the latter is a (local) property of the corresponding space-time, and is independent of the foliation. Note that this also applies to another space of constant curvature which admits Killing spinors, namely, the AdS space. In this case we have foliations with vanishing, positive and negative constant curvature, all of which are perfectly consistent with bulk supersymmetry.

It is then natural to consider examples where the bulk is a space with non-constant curvature, which, nonetheless, admits Killing spinors. It is clear that (in the codimension one case) such a space would have half of the supersymmetries compared with the constant curvature cases. One way to parametrize such a space is to consider a bulk theory where gravity is coupled to a scalar field $`\varphi `$ with a non-trivial scalar potential $`V(\varphi )`$ (that is, $`V(\varphi )`$ is not a constant). For an appropriately chosen scalar potential there exist BPS domain wall solutions which preserve half of the original supersymmetries (that is, half of the supersymmetries corresponding to Minkowski or AdS minima of the scalar potential). The corresponding foliation is then necessarily flat. The reason why this is so different from the cases where the bulk curvature is constant is that in the latter cases one only needs to ensure vanishing of the gravitino variation, while in the presence of a non-trivial bulk potential preserving bulk supersymmetry also requires vanishing of the variation of the superpartner of $`\varphi `$.

This is precisely the proposal of . More concretely, let a codimension one brane (which, for simplicity, is taken to be $`\delta `$-function-like) be embedded in the BPS domain wall background of the aforementioned type. To have an infinite volume extra dimension, the scalar potential is assumed to have one Minkowski minimum and one AdS minimum, and the domain wall interpolates between these minima. Note that such a domain wall (unlike a domain wall interpolating between two Minkowski minima ) does not have to violate the weak energy condition. In particular, if the domain wall is smooth, which is the case if the brane cosmological constant equals the brane tension, then the weak energy condition is not violated . Now, since the volume of the extra dimension is infinite, supersymmetry breaking on the brane does not result in bulk supersymmetry breaking. However, the latter is not compatible with non-zero brane cosmological constant. Thus, even if supersymmetry breaking on the brane does occur, the brane cosmological constant appears to remain zero.

The purpose of this paper, which is essentially a follow-up of , is to point out that the theory living on the brane in the setup of  generically appears to be conformal. One way to see this is to consider small fluctuations around the background in the presence of matter localized on the brane. Then the system of equations for the small fluctuations of the scalar field and the metric is essentially overconstrained, and has consistent solutions if and only if the energy-momentum tensor of the matter localized on the brane is traceless and the coupling of the scalar field to the brane matter is vanishing. This appears to be due to the fact that a tensionless brane by itself does not explicitly break diffeomorphism invariance, so that the latter is broken spontaneously by the domain wall solution. Spontaneous breaking of translational invariance results in the gravitational Higgs mechanism discussed in , in the process of which the trace part $`h_\mu ^\mu `$ of the graviton roughly becomes a pure gauge. This then implies that in such a setup a consistent coupling of bulk gravity to the brane matter is possible only if the latter is conformal.

Thus, the approach of  might provide a realization of a setup where a conformal theory on the brane is gravitationally coupled to a non-conformal theory in the bulk. The conformal property of the brane world-volume theory is then preserved due to bulk supersymmetry, which is unbroken even if the brane theory is non-supersymmetric as the volume of the extra dimension is infinite. In particular, if gravitational interactions localized on the brane are generated via, say, loop diagrams, then the corresponding brane world gravity is expected to be conformal as well.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section II we briefly review the setup of . In section III we study small fluctuations around the solution in the presence of brane matter sources, and discuss the requirement that the brane matter be conformal. Section IV contains concluding remarks.

## II The Setup

In this section we review the setup of . Thus, consider the model with the following action (more precisely, here we give the part of the action relevant for the subsequent discussions):

$$S=\widehat{M}_P^{D3}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}x\sqrt{\widehat{G}}\left[\widehat{R}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right]+M_P^{D2}d^Dx\sqrt{G}\left[R\frac{4}{D2}(\varphi )^2V(\varphi )\right].$$
(1)
For calculational convenience we will keep the number of space-time dimensions $`D`$ unspecified. In (1) $`\widehat{M}_P`$ is (up to a normalization factor - see below) the $`(D1)`$-dimensional (reduced) Planck scale, while $`M_P`$ is the $`D`$-dimensional one. The $`(D1)`$-dimensional hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which we will refer to as the brane, is the $`y=y_0`$ slice of the $`D`$-dimensional space-time, where $`yx^D`$, and $`y_0`$ is a constant. Next,

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }\delta _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{M}\delta _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{N}G_{MN}|_{y=y_0},$$
(2)
where the capital Latin indices $`M,N,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},D`$, while the Greek indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},(D1)`$. The quantity $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the brane tension. More precisely, there might be various (massless and/or massive) fields (such as scalars, fermions, gauge vector bosons, etc.), which we will collectively denote via $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$, localized on the brane. Then $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mathrm{\Phi }^i,_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^i,\mathrm{})`$ generally depends on the vacuum expectation values of these fields as well as their derivatives. In the following we will assume that the expectation values of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ fields are dynamically determined, independent of the coordinates $`x^\mu `$, and consistent with $`(D1)`$-dimensional general covariance. The quantity $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is then a constant which we identify as the brane tension. The bulk fields are given by the metric $`G_{MN}`$, a single real scalar field $`\varphi `$, as well as other fields (whose expectation values we assume to be vanishing) which would appear in a concrete supergravity model (for the standard values of $`D`$).

Let us briefly comment on the $`\sqrt{\widehat{G}}\widehat{R}`$ term in the brane world-volume action. Typically such a term is not included in discussions of various brane world scenarios (albeit usually the $`\sqrt{\widehat{G}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ term is). However, as was pointed out in , even if such a term is absent at the tree level, as long as the brane world-volume theory is not conformal, it will typically be generated by quantum loops of other fields localized on the brane (albeit not necessarily with the desired sign, which, nonetheless, appears to be as generic as the opposite one). This is an important observation, which allows to reproduce the $`(D1)`$-dimensional Newton’s law on, say, a non-conformal brane embedded in $`D`$-dimensional Minkowski space-time . However, as we will see in the following, in the above setup the brane world-volume theory is actually conformal, and $`\widehat{M}_P=0`$.

To proceed further, we will need equations of motion following from the action (1). Here we are interested in studying possible solutions to these equations which are consistent with $`(D1)`$-dimensional general covariance. That is, we will be looking for solutions with the warped metric of the following form:

$$ds_D^2=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,$$
(3)
where the warp factor $`A`$ and the scalar field $`\varphi `$, which are functions of $`y`$, are independent of the coordinates $`x^\mu `$, and the $`(D1)`$-dimensional metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is independent of $`y`$. With this ansätz, we have the following equations of motion for $`\varphi `$ and $`A`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{D2}}\left[\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+(D1)A^{}\varphi ^{}\right]V_\varphi Lf_\varphi \delta (yy_0)=0,`$ (4)
$`(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{D2}}(\varphi ^{})^2+V{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{D3}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{exp}(2A)=0,`$ (5)
$`(D2)A^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{D2}}(\varphi ^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D3}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{exp}(2A)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Lf\delta (yy_0)=0.`$ (6)
Here

$$f\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{exp}[2A(y_0)]$$
(7)
is the effective brane tension. The scale $`L`$, defined as

$$L\widehat{M}_P^{D3}/M_P^{D2},$$
(8)
plays the role of the crossover distance scale below which gravity is effectively $`(D1)`$-dimensional, while above this scale it becomes $`D`$-dimensional. Next, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is independent of $`x^\mu `$ and $`y`$. In fact, it is nothing but the cosmological constant of the $`(D1)`$-dimensional manifold, which is therefore an Einstein manifold, corresponding to the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Our normalization of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is such that the $`(D1)`$-dimensional metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies Einstein’s equations:

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{R}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(9)
Here we note that in the bulk (that is, for $`yy_0`$) one of the second order equations is automatically satisfied once the first order equation (5) as well as the other second order equation are satisfied. As usual, this is a consequence of Bianchi identities.

Note that by rescaling the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ on the brane we can always set $`\mathrm{exp}[A(y_0)]=1`$. Then the $`(D1)`$-dimensional Planck scale is simply $`\widehat{M}_P`$. Let $`\varphi _0\varphi (y_0)`$. Note that the above system of equations has smooth solutions for

$$f(\varphi _0)=f_\varphi (\varphi _0)=0,$$
(10)
that is, if the brane cosmological constant and the brane tension are equal

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(11)
and there is no $`\varphi `$ tadpole due to the brane. In particular, in these solutions $`\varphi `$ and $`A`$ as well as their derivatives $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`A^{}`$ are smooth.

Let us now discuss possible solutions of the above system of equations (4), (5) and (6) for $`f(\varphi _0)=f_\varphi (\varphi _0)=0`$. To obtain an infinite volume solution, let us assume that the scalar potential has one AdS minimum located at $`\varphi =\varphi _{}`$ and one Minkowski minimum located at $`\varphi =\varphi _+`$ (without loss of generality we will assume that $`\varphi _+>\varphi _{}`$). Moreover, let us assume that there are no other extrema except for a dS maximum located at $`\varphi =\varphi _{}`$, where $`\varphi _{}<\varphi _{}<\varphi _+`$, such that $`V(\varphi _{})V(\varphi _+)V(\varphi _{})=|V(\varphi _{})|`$. This latter condition is necessary to sufficiently suppress the probability for nucleation of AdS bubbles in the Minkowski vacuum, which could otherwise destabilize the background . Then we can have smooth domain walls interpolating between the two vacua. In fact, for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$ we have $`\varphi (y)\varphi _\pm `$ as $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}>0`$ we have $`\varphi (y)\varphi _+`$ as $`y+\mathrm{}`$, while $`\varphi (y)\varphi _{}`$ as $`yy_{}`$, where $`y_{}<y_0`$ is finite (here for definiteness we have assumed that the domain wall approaches the Minkowski vacuum as $`y+\mathrm{}`$). As to the warp factor $`A`$, it goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`\varphi \varphi _{}`$ (if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$, then $`A`$ goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ linearly with $`|y|`$, while if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}>0`$, then $`A\mathrm{ln}(yy_{})`$ as $`yy_{}`$). On the other hand, if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$, then $`A`$ goes to a constant as $`y+\mathrm{}`$, while if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}>0`$, then $`A`$ grows logarithmically with $`y`$. In both cases the volume of the extra dimension is infinite as the integral

$$𝑑y\mathrm{exp}[(D1)A]$$
(12)
diverges. Moreover, there are no quadratically normalizable bulk graviton modes. Rather, for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$ we have a continuum of plane-wave normalizable bulk modes (with mass squared $`m^20`$), while for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}>0`$ we have a mass gap in the bulk graviton spectrum, and the plane-wave normalizable modes are those with $`m^2>m_1^2`$, where $`m_1^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ . Thus, without any additional assumptions consistent solutions with vanishing as well as positive brane cosmological constant exist for such potentials.

However, as was pointed out in , as long as the scalar potential $`V(\varphi )`$ is non-trivial, bulk supersymmetry is incompatible with non-zero brane cosmological constant. Indeed, this immediately follows from the bulk Killing spinor equations (following from the requirement that variations of the superpartner $`\lambda `$ of $`\varphi `$ and the gravitino $`\psi _M`$ vanish under the corresponding supersymmetry transformations), which in such backgrounds reduce to:

$`\varphi ^{}=\alpha W_\varphi ,`$ (13)
$`A^{}=\beta W,`$ (14)
where $`W`$ is the superpotential,

$$\alpha \eta \frac{\sqrt{D2}}{2},\beta \eta \frac{2}{(D2)^{3/2}},$$
(15)
and $`\eta =\pm 1`$.

Note that the system of equations (13) and (14) is compatible with the system of equations (4), (5) and (6) if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$, and the scalar potential is given by

$$V=W_\varphi ^2\gamma ^2W^2,$$
(16)
where

$$\gamma \frac{2\sqrt{D1}}{D2}.$$
(17)
Thus, bulk supersymmetry (note that the domain wall solution preserves $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetries corresponding to the minima of $`V`$) is preserved if and only if the brane cosmological constant vanishes. We therefore conclude that even if brane supersymmetry is broken, bulk supersymmetry, which remains unbroken as the volume of the transverse dimension is infinite, ensures that the brane cosmological constant still vanishes in the model defined in (1).

Before we end this section, for illustrative purposes let us give an example of a domain wall of the aforementioned type. Let

$$W=\xi \left[v^2\varphi \frac{1}{3}\varphi ^3\frac{2}{3}v^3\right].$$
(18)
Note that at $`\varphi _{}=v`$ we have the AdS minimum, while at $`\varphi _+=+v`$ we have the Minkowski minimum. To ensure that the condition $`|V(\varphi _{})|V(\varphi _{})`$ is satisfied, where $`\varphi _{}`$ ($`\varphi _{}<\varphi _{}<\varphi _+`$) corresponds to the dS maximum, we must assume $`v1`$. The domain wall solution, which interpolates between the AdS and Minkowski vacua in this case is given by

$`\varphi (y)=v\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha \xi v(yy_1)),`$ (19)
$`A(y)={\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{3\alpha }}v^2\left[\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha \xi v(yy_1))){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(\alpha \xi v(yy_1))}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{3}}\xi v^3(yy_1)+C,`$ (20)
where $`y_1`$ and $`C`$ are integration constants.

Finally, let us note that solutions with non-vanishing $`f(\varphi _0)`$ and $`f_\varphi (\varphi _0)`$ do not interpolate between the AdS and Minkowski vacua. Thus, solutions with positive $`f(\varphi _0)`$ asymptotically approach the AdS minimum on both sides of the brane, while solutions with negative $`f(\varphi _0)`$ asymptotically approach the Minkowski minimum on both sides of the braneNote that $`f(\varphi _0)`$ is the effective brane tension. If $`f(\varphi _0)<0`$, then we have world-volume ghosts unless we assume that the brane is an “end-of-the-world” brane located at an orbifold fixed point. Thus, in solutions with $`f(\varphi _0)<0`$ the geometry of the $`y`$ dimension is that of $`𝐑/𝐙_2`$ (and not of $`𝐑`$), with the orbifold fixed point identified with $`y_0`$ (then the corresponding solution on the covering space has the $`𝐙_2`$ symmetry required for the orbifold interpretation), and the brane is stuck at the orbifold fixed point..

## III Brane Matter Sources

In this section we would like to study gravitational interactions between sources localized on the brane. To do this, let us start from the action (1), and study small fluctuations of the metric $`G_{MN}`$ and the scalar field $`\varphi `$, which we will denote via $`h_{MN}`$ and $`\phi `$, respectively, around the corresponding smooth domain wall solution (with vanishing brane cosmological constant) in the presence of brane matter sources.

In the following it will prove convenient to make the coordinate transformation $`yz`$ so that the background metric takes the form:

$$ds_D^2=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dz^2\right].$$
(21)
That is,

$$dy=\mathrm{exp}(A)dz,$$
(22)
where we have chosen the overall sign so that $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$ as $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$. Moreover, we can fix the integration constant upon solving (22) such that $`y=y_0`$ is mapped to $`z=0`$. So from now on we will use the coordinates $`x^M=(x^\mu ,x^D)=(x^\mu ,z)`$, and prime will denote derivative w.r.t. $`z`$. Moreover, the capital Latin indices $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ are lowered and raised with the flat $`D`$-dimensional Minkowski metric $`\eta _{MN}`$ and its inverse, while the Greek indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ are lowered and raised with the flat $`(D1)`$-dimensional Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and its inverse.

Also, instead of metric fluctuations $`h_{MN}`$, it will be convenient to work with $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ defined via

$$h_{MN}=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}.$$
(23)
It is not difficult to see that in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ the $`D`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms

$$\delta h_{MN}=_M\xi _N+_N\xi _M$$
(24)
are given by the following gauge transformations:

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}=_M\stackrel{~}{\xi }_N+_N\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M+2A^{}\eta _{MN}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_Sn^S.$$
(25)
Here for notational convenience we have introduced a unit vector $`n^M`$ with the following components: $`n^\mu =0`$, $`n^D=1`$.

### A Equations of Motion

To proceed further, we need equations of motion for $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ and $`\phi `$. Let us assume that we have matter localized on the brane, and let the corresponding conserved energy-momentum tensor be $`T_{\mu \nu }`$:

$$^\mu T_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(26)
The graviton field $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ couples to $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ via the following term in the action:

$$S_{\mathrm{int}}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}x\left[\frac{1}{2}T_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }+\frac{8}{D2}\mathrm{\Theta }\phi \right],$$
(27)
where we have also included the corresponding coupling of $`\phi `$ to the brane matter. Next, starting from the action $`S+S_{\mathrm{int}}`$ we obtain the following linearized equations of motion for $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ and $`\phi `$:

$`\left\{_S^S\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}+_M_N\stackrel{~}{h}_M^S\stackrel{~}{h}_{SN}_N^S\stackrel{~}{h}_{SM}\eta _{MN}\left[_S^S\stackrel{~}{h}^S^R\stackrel{~}{h}_{SR}\right]\right\}+`$ (28)
$`(D2)A^{}\left\{\left[_S\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}_M\stackrel{~}{h}_{NS}_N\stackrel{~}{h}_{MS}\right]n^S+\eta _{MN}\left[2^R\stackrel{~}{h}_{RS}_S\stackrel{~}{h}\right]n^S\right\}`$ (29)
$`\eta _{MN}\stackrel{~}{h}_{SR}n^Sn^RV\mathrm{exp}(2A)=`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{D2}}\varphi ^{}\left[\eta _{MN}_S\phi n^S_M\phi n_N_N\phi n_M\right]+\eta _{MN}\phi V_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A)M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{MN}\delta (z),`$ (31)
$`_S^S\phi +(D2)A^{}_S\phi n^S{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{8}}\phi V_{\varphi \varphi }\mathrm{exp}(2A){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{}\left[2^R\stackrel{~}{h}_{RS}_S\stackrel{~}{h}\right]n^S`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{8}}\stackrel{~}{h}_{SR}n^Sn^RV_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A)=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\delta (z),`$ (33)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{h}_M^M`$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{MN}T_{MN}+T_{MN}^{\mathrm{brane}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Theta }+\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mathrm{brane}}`$. Here $`T_{MN}^{\mathrm{brane}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mathrm{brane}}`$ are the corresponding brane contributions (which are linear in $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ and $`\phi `$) coming from the first term in (1)If the brane world-volume theory is not conformal, then we can a priori expect that a kinetic term for the $`\varphi `$ field will also be generated on the brane (just as it happens for the graviton). Then $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mathrm{brane}}`$ also contains a term proportional to $`^\mu _\mu \phi `$ along with the term proportional to $`f_{\varphi \varphi }(\varphi _0)\phi `$. However, at the end of the day we will find that the brane world-volume theory is conformal, so these terms are not generated by quantum effects.. Note that the only non-vanishing components of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{MN}`$ are $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }`$, and we have $`^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=0`$.

The above equations of motion drastically simplify if we perform a gauge transformation (25) with

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M=n_M(\phi /\varphi ^{}).$$
(34)
The new equations of motion then read

$`\left\{_S^S\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}+_M_N\stackrel{~}{h}_M^S\stackrel{~}{h}_{SN}_N^S\stackrel{~}{h}_{SM}\eta _{MN}\left[_S^S\stackrel{~}{h}^S^R\stackrel{~}{h}_{SR}\right]\right\}+`$ (35)
$`(D2)A^{}\left\{\left[_S\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}_M\stackrel{~}{h}_{NS}_N\stackrel{~}{h}_{MS}\right]n^S+\eta _{MN}\left[2^R\stackrel{~}{h}_{RS}_S\stackrel{~}{h}\right]n^S\right\}`$ (36)
$`\eta _{MN}\stackrel{~}{h}_{SR}n^Sn^RV\mathrm{exp}(2A)=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{MN}\delta (z),`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{}\left[2^R\stackrel{~}{h}_{RS}_S\stackrel{~}{h}\right]n^S{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{8}}\stackrel{~}{h}_{SR}n^Sn^RV_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A)=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\delta (z).`$ (38)
Note that these equations of motion no longer contain $`\phi `$. This has a simple physical interpretation . The domain wall background spontaneously breaks translational invariance in the $`z`$ direction. Since this invariance is a gauge symmetry, the corresponding Goldstone mode, which is given by configurations where $`\omega \phi /\varphi ^{}`$ is independent of $`z`$ <sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§To see this, note that the translational Goldstone mode corresponds to fluctuations around the solution given by $`\varphi (z+\omega (x^\mu ))=\varphi (z)+\varphi ^{}(z)\omega (x^\mu )+𝒪(\omega ^2)`$., must be eaten in the corresponding Higgs mechanism. The field which eats the Goldstone mode is nothing but the graviphoton $`h_{\mu D}`$ arising in the decomposition of the $`D`$-dimensional metric fluctuations in terms of $`(D1)`$-dimensional fields . Note, however, that with the above gauge fixing not only the Goldstone zero mode but all $`\phi `$ modes have been eliminated. There is, however, a price we have to pay for this simplification. In particular, the residual gauge invariance which preserves the equations of motion (35) and (38) is given by

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}=_M\stackrel{~}{\xi }_N+_N\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_Sn^S=0.$$
(39)
Note that here $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M`$ need not be independent of $`z`$. Under these residual gauge transformations the fields $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu },A_\mu ,\rho `$, where $`A_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu D}`$ and $`\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_{DD}`$, transform as follows

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\nu +_\nu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu ,\delta A_\mu =\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu ^{},\delta \rho =0.$$
(40)
This implies that we cannot gauge $`\rho `$ away. We can, however, gauge $`A_\mu `$ away. Thus, in the following we will use the gauge where $`A_\mu =0`$. Note that after this gauge fixing the residual gauge transformations are given by

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\nu +_\nu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu ,\delta \rho =0,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu ^{}=0.$$
(41)
We now have the following equations of motion:

$`\left\{_\sigma ^\sigma H_{\mu \nu }+_\mu _\nu H_\mu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \nu }_\nu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \mu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[_\sigma ^\sigma H^\sigma ^\rho H_{\sigma \rho }\right]\right\}+`$ (42)
$`\left\{H_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\left[H_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{}\right]\right\}+`$ (43)
$`\left\{_\mu _\nu \rho \eta _{\mu \nu }_\sigma ^\sigma \rho +\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[(D2)A^{}\rho ^{}\rho V\mathrm{exp}(2A)\right]\right\}=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }\delta (z),`$ (44)
$`\left[^\mu H_{\mu \nu }_\nu H\right]^{}+(D2)A^{}_\nu \rho =0,`$ (45)
$`\left[^\mu ^\nu H_{\mu \nu }^\mu _\mu H\right]+(D2)A^{}H^{}+\rho V\mathrm{exp}(2A)=0,`$ (46)
$`\varphi ^{}\left[H^{}\rho ^{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{4}}\rho V_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(2A)=2M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\delta (z),`$ (47)
where $`H_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$, and $`HH_\mu ^\mu `$.

Not all of the above equations are independent. First, differentiating (42) with $`^\mu `$ (and taking into account that $`^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=0`$), we obtain an equation which is identically satisfied once we take into account (45) together with the equations of motion for $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$. Next, taking the trace in (42), we obtain an equation which together with (45), (46) and the equations of motion for $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$ gives the following equation:

$$\frac{4}{D2}(\varphi ^{})^2\left[H^{}\rho ^{}\right]\rho V_\varphi \varphi ^{}\mathrm{exp}(2A)=M_P^{2D}A^{}\stackrel{~}{T}\delta (z),$$
(48)
where $`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mu ^\mu `$. This equation is compatible with (47) if and only if

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{D2}{8}\frac{A^{}(0)}{\varphi ^{}(0)}\stackrel{~}{T}.$$
(49)
Thus, we already see that the coupling of the brane matter to the bulk scalar cannot be arbitrary but is determined in terms of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. (Note that neither $`A^{}`$ nor $`\varphi ^{}`$ vanish anywhere in the backgrounds we consider here, including the location of the brane $`z=0`$.)

Finally, let us discuss (47). It came from the equation of motion for $`\phi `$, which was a second order equation. However, after we eliminated $`\phi `$ itself, this equation became a first order equation in terms of $`H`$ and $`\rho `$. This then implies that the source term on the r.h.s. of (47) must vanish or else $`H\rho `$ will be discontinuous. Thus, we have arrived at the conclusion that consistency of the above equations implies that we must have

$$\stackrel{~}{T}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=0.$$
(50)
This, in particular, implies that the brane world-volume theory is generically expected to be conformal in this setup. Indeed, it is not difficult to see that (50) can be satisfied if $`TT_\mu ^\mu `$ as well as $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vanish. To ensure conformality of the matter localized on the brane then generically requires that the brane world-volume theory itself be conformal. On the other hand, if this is not the case then to satisfy (50) $`T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (in the best case where $`f_{\varphi \varphi }(\varphi _0)=0`$) must be the same up to a non-vanishing constantTo see this, note that, once we perform the gauge transformation (25) with the gauge parameter given in (34), $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }`$ contains a term proportional to $`(D3)\left[_\mu _\nu \omega \eta _{\mu \nu }^\sigma _\sigma \omega \right]`$. Assuming $`D2,3`$, we then have that on the brane $`^\sigma _\sigma \omega `$ is proportional to $`T`$ with a non-vanishing coefficient. On the other hand, the condition $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=0`$ gives a second order differential equation on the brane for $`\omega `$ with a source term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Hence the aforementioned conclusion about the relation between $`T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$., which generically need not be the case.

Let us verify that, if (50) is satisfied, the above system of equations does have a consistent solution for $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\rho `$. It is not difficult to show that such a solution indeed exists, and is given by (note that $`p^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }(p)=0`$)

$`\rho =0,`$ (51)
$`H_{\mu \nu }(p,z)=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }(p)\mathrm{\Omega }(p,z),`$ (52)
where we have performed a Fourier transform w.r.t. the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ (and the corresponding momenta are $`p^\mu `$). Also, let us Wick rotate to the Euclidean space (where the propagator is unique). The function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(p,z)`$ is a solution to the following equation ($`p^2p^\mu p_\mu `$)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }(p,z)+(D2)A^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(p,z)p^2\mathrm{\Omega }(p,z)=\delta (z)$$
(53)
subject to the boundary conditions (for $`p^2>0`$)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(p,z\pm \mathrm{})=0.$$
(54)
The above solution describes a gravitational field of conformal matter localized on the brane.

### B Additional Evidence

In this subsection we would like to give additional evidence that the condition $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}=0`$ (from which it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$) is indeed necessary. To begin with, let us perform the aforementioned Fourier transform in (42), (45), (46) and (47), and Wick rotate to the Euclidean space. The equations of motion for the Fourier transformed quantities read:

$`\left\{p^2H_{\mu \nu }+p_\mu p_\nu Hp_\mu p^\sigma H_{\sigma \nu }p_\nu p^\sigma H_{\sigma \mu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[p^2Hp^\sigma p^\rho H_{\sigma \rho }\right]\right\}+`$ (55)
$`\left\{H_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\left[H_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{}\right]\right\}+`$ (56)
$`\left\{p_\mu p_\nu \rho +\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[(D2)A^{}\rho ^{}+\rho \left(p^2V\mathrm{exp}(2A)\right)\right]\right\}=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }(p)\delta (z),`$ (57)
$`\left[p^\mu H_{\mu \nu }p_\nu H\right]^{}+(D2)A^{}p_\nu \rho =0,`$ (58)
$`\left[p^\mu p^\nu H_{\mu \nu }p^2H\right]+(D2)A^{}H^{}+\rho V\mathrm{exp}(2A)=0,`$ (59)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{D2}}(\varphi ^{})^2\left[H^{}\rho ^{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{D2}{4}}\rho V_\varphi \varphi ^{}\mathrm{exp}(2A)=M_P^{2D}A^{}\stackrel{~}{T}(p)\delta (z),`$ (60)
where we have taken into account (49).

Let us assume that $`\stackrel{~}{T}(p)0`$. Then the most general tensor structure for the fields $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\rho `$ can be parametrized in terms of four functions $`a,b,c,d`$ as follows:

$`\rho =M_P^{2D}d\stackrel{~}{T}(p),`$ (61)
$`H_{\mu \nu }=M_P^{2D}\left\{a\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }(p)+\left[b\eta _{\mu \nu }+cp_\mu p_\nu \right]\stackrel{~}{T}(p)\right\}.`$ (62)
Plugging this back into the equations of motion, we obtain six equations for four unknowns $`a,b,c,d`$. However, as should be clear from the above discussion, two of them are identically satisfied once we take into account the other four (as well as the equations of motion for $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$). After some straightforward computations we obtain the following system of four independent equations:

$`a^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}a^{}p^2a=\delta (z),`$ (63)
$`(D2)A^{}d=a^{}+(D2)b^{},`$ (64)
$`A^{}\left[(D2)p^2c^{}a^{}\right]=p^2\left[a+(D2)b\right]{\displaystyle \frac{4}{D2}}(\varphi ^{})^2d,`$ (65)
$`a+(D3)bc^{\prime \prime }(D2)A^{}c^{}+d=0.`$ (66)
Note that from the first equation it follows that $`a(p,z)=\mathrm{\Omega }(p,z)`$.

Let $`wa+(D2)b`$. Using the above equations for $`a,b,c,d`$ after some straightforward computations we obtain the following second order equation for $`w`$:

$$w^{\prime \prime }+\left\{(D2)A^{}\left[\mathrm{ln}(F)\right]^{}\right\}w^{}p^2w=F\delta (z),$$
(67)
where $`F(z)`$ is the following function:

$$F\frac{(A^{})^2}{(A^{})^2A^{\prime \prime }}.$$
(68)
Solutions to the above equation for $`w`$ have some peculiar properties. To expose them, we need to study the asymptotic behavior of the function $`\left[\mathrm{ln}(F)\right]^{}`$.

To begin with, it is not difficult to see that

$$F=\frac{\beta }{\alpha }\frac{W^2}{(W_\varphi )^2},$$
(69)
where the superpotential $`W`$ as well as constants $`\alpha ,\beta `$ were defined in section II. It then follows that

$$\left[\mathrm{ln}(F)\right]^{}=2\alpha \mathrm{exp}(A)\frac{(W_\varphi )^2WW_{\varphi \varphi }}{W}.$$
(70)
Let us compute this function in the example discussed at the end of section II. In that example the superpotential is given by (18). We then have

$$\left[\mathrm{ln}(F)\right]^{}=2\alpha \xi v\mathrm{exp}(A)\frac{3+2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{2+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }},$$
(71)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\varphi /v`$. For definiteness let us assume that $`\alpha \xi v>0`$. Then at $`z+\mathrm{}`$ the domain wall solution approaches the Minkowski vacuum where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=+1`$, while at $`z\mathrm{}`$ it approaches the AdS vacuum where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=1`$. It then follows that $`\left[\mathrm{ln}(F)\right]^{}`$ is always negative on the solution. Moreover, at $`z+\mathrm{}`$ (where $`A`$ goes to a constant and $`A^{}`$ goes to zero) $`\left[\mathrm{ln}(F)\right]^{}`$ goes to a constant, which we will denote by $`2\zeta `$. Then for large positive $`z`$ $`w`$ is well approximated by the solution to the following equation

$$w^{\prime \prime }+2\zeta w^{}p^2w=0$$
(72)
subject to the boundary condition $`w(z+\mathrm{})=0`$. This solution is given by

$$w(z)=\mathrm{const}.\times \mathrm{exp}(\lambda z),$$
(73)
where (the other root of the corresponding quadratic equation is negative)

$$\lambda \zeta +\sqrt{\zeta ^2+p^2}.$$
(74)
Note that for $`p0`$ $`\lambda `$ does not vanish but approaches $`2\zeta `$. This implies that even at zero momentum there is a non-trivial solution to (67)Here we should point out that this does not occur if we consider domain walls arising for runaway type of potentials discussed in . Nonetheless, the fact that a non-trivial solution of (67) does exist in the above example if we assume $`\stackrel{~}{T}0`$ might be considered as (at least indirect) evidence that $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$ condition is indeed necessary. At any rate, if this condition is not satisfied, as we have already pointed out, there is a discontinuity in $`H\rho `$, which appears to be inconsistent.. In particular, it is given by $`w(z)=\stackrel{~}{w}(0)`$ for $`z<0`$, $`w(z)=\stackrel{~}{w}(z)`$ for $`z0`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{w}(z)`$ is the solution of the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{w}^{\prime \prime }+\left\{(D2)A^{}\left[\mathrm{ln}(F)\right]^{}\right\}\stackrel{~}{w}^{}p^2\stackrel{~}{w}=0$$
(75)
subject to the boundary conditions $`\stackrel{~}{w}(z+\mathrm{})=0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{w}^{}(0)=F(0)`$ (note that $`F(z)`$ is always positive). The fact that such a solution always exists for $`v1`$ can be seen from the fact that in this case $`(D2)A^{}\left[\mathrm{ln}(F)\right]^{}`$.

The existence of a non-trivial solution at $`p^2=0`$ indicates an inconsistency in the system. Note that if we have $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0`$ to begin with, then we do not have the same system of equations for $`a,b,c,d`$ as above. In fact in this case there is no inconsistency, and we have a consistent solution discussed in the previous subsection.

## IV Remarks

Thus, as we see, in the setup of , where the brane cosmological constant is protected by bulk supersymmetry, to have consistent couplings of the bulk scalar and gravity to matter localized on the brane, it appears to be necessary that the latter is conformal. This then implies that (generically) the brane world-volume theory should itself be conformal. The fact that the brane cosmological constant vanishes is then a trivial consequence of conformal invariance of the brane world-volume theory. However, what appears to be non-trivial is that unbroken bulk supersymmetry in this setup (where the volume of the extra dimension is infinite) actually protects conformality of the brane world-volume theory (which a priori need not even be supersymmetric).

In this context one might hope to use this setup as a possible realization of the conformal approach to phenomenology  (also see ). However, it is still unclear how one could possibly have the brane conformal invariance broken around TeV while having much larger Planck scale on the brane.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank Gregory Gabadadze, Juan Maldacena, Tom Taylor and Cumrun Vafa for valuable discussions. Parts of this work were completed while I was visiting at Harvard University and New York University. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation. I would also like to thank Albert and Ribena Yu for financial support.


format: text

text:
# The Solar Helium Abundance in the Outer Corona Determined from Observations with SUMER/SOHO

## 1 Introduction

The firm prediction of the primordial helium abundance has long been considered one of the outstanding successes of big bang cosmology. It comes out in a remarkably robust manner, from the neutron/proton ratio at weak interaction freeze out, given by $`n_n/n_p=exp\left(Q/kT\right)1/6`$ where $`Q`$ is the proton-neutron mass difference (in energy units), and $`kT1`$ MeV for a radiation dominated universe. Almost all these neutrons end up bound in 4He nuclei giving a big bang mass fraction $`Y_{BB}=2n_n/\left(n_n+n_p\right)=0.286`$. Neutron $`\beta `$ decays before 4He formation reduce $`n_n/n_p`$ to a value closer to 1/7, giving $`Y_{BB}0.25`$. The main sensitivities of $`Y_{BB}`$ are to the neutron half life (higher value gives weak interaction freeze out at a higher temperature, and fewer neutron decays between freezeout and 4He formation), and to the number of light particle species (higher number gives faster expansion rate for a given temperature, and hence weak freeze out at higher temperature). This last sensitivity was used by Steigmann, Schramm, & Gunn (1977) to place a limit on the number of lepton generations. Using modern values for the primordial He abundance ($`Y_{BB}<0.243`$ Olive & Steigmann, 1995) and the baryon/photon ratio in the expressions of Steigmann, Schramm, & Gunn (1977) gives $`n_\nu <4`$, in accordance with experiments on the width of the $`Z_0`$ resonance at CERN and SLC.

Helium is of course continually generated in stars as the end product of reactions of the pp chain. Values for the primordial helium abundance are best determined from metal poor extragalactic H II regions, where recombination spectra of H I, He I, and He II are visible. Extrapolations of He/H against O/H to zero abundance for O yield mass fractions $`Y_{BB}=0.232\pm 0.003(1\sigma )\pm 0.005(\mathrm{syst}.)0.243`$ (Olive & Steigmann, 1995). Sasselov & Goldwirth (1995) argue that a more careful treatment of the atomic physics and radiation transfer for the observed recombination spectra could increase $`Y_{BB}`$ to as much as $`<0.255`$. The solar system is relatively young at $`4.6\times 10^9`$ years, and so the helium abundance of the solar proto-nebula, $`Y_{}`$, is expected to be several times 0.01 higher than the primordial value, a value consistent with measurements in the gas planets of the solar system (c.f Niemann et al., 1996; von Zahn & Hunten, 1996). It was then something of a surprise when values of the present day helium mass fraction, $`Y`$, determined in the solar convection zone from helioseismology (specifically from the discontinuity in the sound speed at the He ionization zones, where the mean particle mass changes) came out similar to the primordial value. Uncertainties in this technique stem from the equation of state and the opacities used for the solar envelope. For instance Basu (1998) obtains $`Y=0.248\pm 0.001`$ and $`Y=0.252\pm 0.001`$ from OPAL and MHD models using data from the SOI/MDI instrument on SOHO. Kosovichev (1997) has obtained $`Y=0.248\pm 0.006`$ and $`Y=0.232\pm 0.006`$ with the same models respectively. These and other helioseismology uncertainties are purely statistical coming from the data inversions. Systematic uncertainties in thermodynamic parameters, e.g. the equation of state, are not accounted for. These results were taken as evidence that gravitational settling of He has occured within the solar envelope, though note that these measurements are made in the solar convection zone, where substantial gravitational settling seems unlikely to occur. The proto-solar He abundance can be determined from solar evolution calculations, including the He settling in the solar radiation zone. The best match to current solar properties (radius, mass, luminosity, etc) is achieved for a $`Y_{}=0.273`$ (Bahcall & Pinsonneault, 1992), although the inclusion of He settling has a rather small effect on $`Y_{}`$. Turck-Chièze & Lopes (1993) calculate a variety of solar evolution models using different opacity databases and treatments of the effects of electron screening on nuclear reaction rates and find $`0.2661Y_{}0.2762`$.

## 2 The He Abundance in the Solar Upper Atmosphere (SUA)

The first direct determination of He abundance from SUA plasmas was done by Gabriel et al. (1995). They used spectra recorded by the CHASE instrument, which was launched into space aboard SPACELAB II, to measure the intensity ratio between the H I Ly $`\alpha `$ I 1216 Å and the He II Ly $`\alpha `$ 304 Å coronal lines, both on the disk and at the limb. The spectrum they used was emitted by a coronal quiet region that extended in height from 45000 to 135000 km (1-3 arcmin) above the limb. By assessing the resonantly scattered components of these lines at the limb the He abundance value they derived was $`Y=0.23\pm 0.03`$. Resonantly scattered He II 304 Å radiation has also been identified in off-limb observations with the Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT) on SOHO (Delaboudinière, 1999).

Raymond et al. (1997) used a spectrum emitted by an equatorial streamer at a height of $`1.5R_{}`$ to determine the coronal He abundance. The spectrum they used was recorded by the Ultraviolet Coronagraph Spectrometer (UVCS) on SOHO. In their analysis they compared intensity of the He II Ba $`\gamma `$ line at 1085 Å with the intensity of an H Ly line. Unfortunately, the He II Ba $`\gamma `$ line was too faint to be detected in their spectra. Therefore, they could only establish the value of 0.048 ($`Y=0.16`$) as an upper limit for the He abundance. The upper value of the abundance that Raymond et al. (1997) derived was only 60% as high as the He abundance value that was derived by Gabriel et al. (1995).

In a study on the plasma properties of a quite sun streamer between $`1.03R_{}`$ and $`1.5R_{}`$ that was based on SUMER spectra, Feldman et al. (1998) showed that elemental settling can greatly influence the composition of SUA plasmas. As a result of this study Feldman et al. (1998) postulated that the low value obtained by Raymond et al. (1997) was a result of elemental settling effects that influence plasma compositions at large heights above the solar surface. The same could perhaps to a smaller extent affect the Gabriel et al. (1995) measurements. To minimize the effect caused at large heights by elemental settling, Feldman (1998) used a spectrum that was emitted by plasma located at a height of $`1.03R_{}`$. In order to improve the statistics of the line intensity ratio Feldman (1998) chose to compare He II Ba $`\gamma `$ 1085 Å intensity with the intensity of the much brighter O VI 2s $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{S}_{1/2}^{}`$-2p $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{P}_{3/2}^{}`$ line at 1031 Å . By using the same set of atomic data as Raymond et al. (1997) he found $`Y=0.25\pm 0.04`$. This result was revised in a preliminary version of this work (Laming & Feldman, 1999b) to $`Y=0.26\pm 0.04`$.

The He abundance has also been measured in situ from particle measurements made in the solar wind. The fast solar wind that is associated with coronal holes has a quite constant He abundance of 4.8 % relative to H ($`Y=0.16`$). The slow solar wind, associated with quiet regions, has a slightly lower He fraction ($`4`$%, $`Y=0.14`$), but is quite variable (see Feldman et al., 1997; von Steiger, Geiss, & Gloeckler, 1997). Some of this variability comes from high speed streams and their associated magnetic sector boundaries, which can increase or decrease the He abundance respectively, together with shorter term variations associated with transient phenomena such as flares. Reames, Meyer, & von Rosenvinge (1994) review a large number of these events.

## 3 SUMER Observations and Analysis

The SUMER observations analysed in this paper are described in detail elsewhere (Feldman et al., 1999). Briefly, an equatorial streamer was observed on 1996 November 21/22 during a spacecraft roll maneuver, so that the SUMER slit was oriented in the east-west direction, instead of the usual north-south direction. We focussed on the data taken with the $`4\times 300`$ arcsec2 slit centered at 1160 arsec from solar center, or 1.177 solar radii. The data were flatfielded and destretched using standard SUMER procedures.

The choice of lines with which to compare the He II emission requires some care. Element abundances in the quiet corona are in general different to those in the photosphere, in that elements with a First Ionization Potential (FIP) less than about 11.5 eV are enriched by a factor of typically 4, relative to hydrogen, whereas the so-called high FIP elements (with FIP greater than 10 eV) have no enrichment at all. In coronal hole regions the FIP effect does not appear to operate, and in active regions it may cause intermediate enrichments between 1 and 4. In very old active regions and polar plumes, enrichments of up to an order of magnitude or more have been reported, and so the best elements for comparison to He II are the high-FIP elements, where no such behaviour has been recorded. These elements include N, O, Ne, Ar.

The most important feature of the abundance determinations of Raymond et al. (1997) and Feldman (1998) is that at sufficiently high altitudes, the solar corona becomes essentially isothermal. This is important since the He II emission lines are very temperature sensitive at transition region temperatures where their emissivity is maximized, but are much less so at coronal temperatures. However the small fraction of He that retains one electron at the temperature in the more quiescent coronal structures emits sufficient radiation to be measured and compared to other ions formed at coronal temperatures, e.g. O VI.

This isothermal property is demonstrated in Figure 3 of Feldman et al. (1998), which shows the apparent element abundance enhancement over that of oxygen as a function of temperature in the equatorial streamer (the same data as analyzed herein for the He abundance) for high and for low FIP elements. In each case the curves overlap close to $`\mathrm{log}T=6.15`$. In non-isothermal conditions the various intersections between the curves for different ions would appear at widely varying temperatures. A similar plot using lines from various ions of Si from this same data set can be found in Figure 4 of Feldman et al. (1999), giving a temperature of $`\mathrm{log}T=6.11\pm 0.04`$. We take this value as the plasma temperature in the analysis that follows. We omitted the curve due to the Li-like ion Si XII from our considerations, since it lies at the extreme short wavelength end of the SUMER bandpass, where calibration difficulties are suspected to exist (Laming et al., 1997).

### 3.1 Instrument Issues

The He II Ba $`\gamma `$ multiplet consists of the 2s-5p 1084.913 Å and 2p-5d 1084.975 Å lines. The He II lines appear in close wavelength proximity but separated from several N II lines (1083.990, 1084.562, 1084.580, 1085,529, 1085.546, 1085.701 Å ) that belong to the 2s22p2 $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{P}`$-2s2p$`{}_{}{}^{33}\mathrm{D}`$ multiplet. The front mirror of the SUMER telescope is not perfectly smooth. As a result the intensity of any line recorded above the limb contains a genuine coronal component and a component due to scattered light that originates from emission formed on the solar disk. (For a description of the scattering properties of the SUMER instrument see Feldman et al., 1999). The He II lines that were recorded at a height of $`1.03R_{}`$ above the quiet limb are no exception. Their intensity needs to be de-convolved to the coronal and scattered components. Figures 1 and 2 show fits to the spectral region around the He II 1085 Å multiplet. The four peaks fitted to the data are from left to right the N II 1083.98, 1084.58 Å transitions, the He II 1084.94 Å Balmer $`\gamma `$ multiplet, and finally a blend of the N II 1085.53, 1085.55, and 1085.68 Å lines. Figure 1 shows a fit to a spectrum taken from pixels between 88 and 118 arcseconds from the solar limb, while Figure 2 shows data from pixels between 243 and 273 arcseconds altitude. In both cases the N II lines are dominated by scattered light. However the increase in the intensity of the He II multiplet relative to the N II lines in Figure 1 is due to the true coronal emission. The ratio between He II and N II far from the solar limb in Figure 2 was used to assess the contribution of scattered light to the He II observed close to the limb, and to subtract it from the total emission leaving only the true coronal emission. Fitted intensities for He II and the ratios of these to the total of N II emission for seven positions off limb are given in Table 1, for each of the two detector positions that recorded these data on the KBr portion of the photocathode. For reference, the results of similar fits to the He II 992 region, giving the intensities of the He II 992.39 Å (Balmer $`ϵ`$) multiplet and its ratio to the nearby N III 991.57 Å line are given in Table 2. The measured intensity ratio He II 992/1085 is $`0.265\pm 0.28`$, about $`1.5\sigma `$ away from the predicted ratio of 0.315 (see discussion of He II intensities below). In view of the radiative and collisional contributions to the excitation of H I discussed later in this paper and in Raymond et al. (1997), we do not expect any radiative excitation component to the coronal He II emission, and so the He II 992 Å intensities are not used in further analysis.

### 3.2 The O Abundance and Emission Lines

At the height of $`1.03R_{}`$ Feldman (1998) assumed that the relative composition between He and O is still photospheric, i.e., no elemental settling effects are as yet at work, and used a value for the oxygen abundance value of log(O)=8.93 (taken from Anders & Grevesse, 1989). The CNO abundances have been recently revised (Grevesse & Sauval, 1998), giving a new value of log(O)=8.83; a decrease of 26%. Thus in comparison to this the He abundance of Feldman (1998) should be revised downwards to 0.063 by number relative to hydrogen, giving a mass fraction $`Y=0.21`$. The uncertainty in this new oxygen abundance is given by Grevesse & Sauval (1998) as 0.06 dex, or $`\pm 15`$%. As we shall see below, this is likely to be the limiting accuracy in determining the He abundance relative to O.

The pixel range over which the O VI line intensities were integrated are given in the first column of Table 3. The intensities measured for the O VI 1031.93 and 1037.60 Å lines are given in the next two columns of Table 3. We assume that these lines are optically thin high in the corona. The intensity ratio $`R`$ between them is given in the fourth column. Under conditions of pure collisional excitation this ratio should be equal to 2, and its increase from this value gives an indication of how much of the O VI intensity is radiatively excited. The fraction of the O VI 1031.93 Å line that is radiatively excited is given in the fifth column, and the sixth column gives intensity ratios for He II 1085/O VI 1031, for the positions off limb where a meaningful value can be derived. These ratios have been corrected for the slightly different spectrometer sensitivity at the two wavelengths. The apparent increase in the abundance ratio He/O with height above the limb is immediately suggestive of gravitational settling, which would deplete O relative to He. Since it is apparent that the SUMER destretching procedures do not necessarily map exposures taken on different detector positions to exactly the same pixels, we have decided to leave out data taken from the extreme ends of the detector. For example note the relative intensities between He II 1085 Å and 992 Å at the two lowest altitudes reported in tables 1 and 2. Another rationale is that the isothermal condition of the solar corona necessary for our analysis is more likely to break down at lower altitudes. As a result our lowest measured position was chosen to be at 88-118 arcseconds, a position which is higher than the one measured by Feldman (1998). At this position, the He/O ratio is still higher than that measured by Feldman (1998).

### 3.3 Atomic Physics Issues

Feldman (1998) used the same atomic data for the O VI and He II transitions as did Raymond et al. (1997). While the O VI rates are straightforward and uncontroversial, those for He II require more attention. Very few calculations available treat the neccesary electron energy region in the excitation process to be relevant to coronal He II emission. Raymond et al. (1997) used He II collision strengths taken from close-coupling approximation calculations (McLaughlin, 1996). These calculations only included levels up to $`n=3`$, and so rates were scaled according to the absorption oscillator strengths to get results for the $`n=5`$ excitation. A correction for the assumed population by cascades of +20% was also included. A particular subtlety of neutral or singly ionized atom excitation is that in general for electron impact energies above the ionization threshold, the ionization channel must be explicitly included in the calculation to get the excitation cross sections right. The reason for this is that the sum of all transition probablities cannot be greater than unity, but if a physically significant process is left out of the calculation, this unitarity bound cannot be guaranteed. Thus the He II data used by Raymond et al. (1997) for collisional excitation are likely to be overestimates of the true excitation rates.

We have recently compiled a model He II ion using electron impact cross section data calculated by Bray et al. (1993). These authors included a full treatment of electron impact ionization, for excitation from the ground state to levels up to $`n=4`$, and electron energies up to 700 eV. We scaled their rates for $`n=4`$ by the absorption oscillator strength to get impact excitation rates going up to $`np`$ states, and by $`1/n^3`$ for $`ns`$ and $`nd`$ states. Proton excitation rates among the $`n=2`$ levels are taken from Zygelman & Dalgarno (1987), and these results are scaled for proton rates among $`n=3`$ and higher levels. Radiative decay rates for E1 transitions were calculated from the expression in terms of hypergeometric functions given in Bethe & Salpeter (1957), and those for the 2E1 transition are taken from Drake & Goldman (1981). We also include radiative recombination into all states of He II from the bare charge state, calculated using a subroutine due to D. G. Hummer (c.f. Hummer & Storey, 1987). This last process produces substantial population in excited levels, and so we investigated various sizes of model ion. We base our results (given in Table 4) on calculations including levels up to $`n=20`$ in He II, i.e. 400 levels in total, plus one for the bare charge state, giving a $`401\times 401`$ matrix to invert. The ionization rate between He II and the bare charge state is taken from Arnaud & Rothenflug (1985). Going up to $`n=30`$ (901 levels) produced further corrections of order 0.5% or less to calculated line emissivities. The density is taken to be $`10^8`$ cm-3, as determined from Figure 5. in Feldman et al. (1999) from the Si VIII lines. Variations in density of up to a factor of two (i.e. much larger than the uncertainty in the plot in this last reference) produce changes in the theoretical emissivities of less than 1%.

The inclusion of radiative recombination produces significant extra emission in lines of the He II Balmer series, leading to an overall lower value of the He abundances than derived in our earlier papers (Laming & Feldman, 1999b; Feldman, 1998), where this process was not included in the analysis. Table 4 should also be considered as superceding Table 6 in (Laming & Feldman, 1999a). We checked our results against Case A recombination spectra for a temperature of 30,000 K tabulated by Clegg et al. (1999) (this is the highest temperature they consider). To simulate a photoionization-recombination equilibrium the ionization rate in our runs at this temperature was increased by a large factor to put essentially all the helium into the bare charge state. Our results in this case were consistently around 6% lower than those of Clegg et al. (1999), for a variety of emission lines and densities, which presumably stems from different choices for atomic data. Our new He II emissivities and those for O VI given as a function of temperature by Laming & Feldman (1999b), give an intensity ratio for He II 1085Å /O VI 1032Å of $`\left(1.59\pm 0.02\right)\times 10^3`$ for a temperature of $`\mathrm{log}T=6.11\pm 0.04`$, using the O and He photospheric abundances from Grevesse & Sauval (1998) (8.83 and 10.93 respectively). When compared with the results in Table 3, this indicates He underabundant relative to O by factors of $`0.45\pm 0.04`$, $`0.47\pm 0.05`$ and $`0.54\pm 0.07`$. The small decrease with height of the above ratio is consistent with a depletion of O relative to He by gravitational settling as mentioned previously. Expressed relative to H the He abundance from the lowest altitude studied is $`0.038\pm 0.007`$ where the 8% measurement error and the 15% uncertainty in the O abundance have been added in quadrature.

### 3.4 The He Abundance Measured Relative to H

Lines of the H I Lyman series are also visible in our SUMER spectra. Far from the limb these are dominated by scattered light from the disk, but for the lowest altitude position consider (88 - 118 arcseconds) some true coronal H I emission is detectable. We subtract off the scattered light component using the same ratio determined from the N II and N III lines in the He II fits, whereby the scattered light at position 88-118 arcseconds is a factor of $`1.825\pm 4`$% more intense than that at 243-273 arcseconds. Feldman et al. (1999) have shown that the gross features of the scattered light are essentially independent of wavelength. However at the few per cent level at which we need to work, we did see a variation in the decrease in the scattered light moving away from the limb, with shorter wavelengths (e.g. C III 977.02 Å ) decreasing less fast than longer wavelengths (e.g. Si III 1113.22 Å ). We therefore found that insignificant improvement in the subtraction of scattered light was to be found by considering more lines than just the two most optimum N II and N III features mentioned above.

From the relative intensities of the Lyman $`\beta `$ 1025.72 Å and the Lyman $`\gamma `$ 972.54 Å we are able to calculate the contribution of radiative excitation to each line. A model H I atom identical in all respects to that for the He II ion was compiled using electron impact data from Bubelev et al. (1995). Proton rates for this model come from a code described in Laming et al. (1996), originally applied to the 2s-2p proton excitation of Li-like ions. Results from this code for He II are in good (i.e. $`<20`$%) agreement with the results of Zygelman & Dalgarno (1987). The ionization rate between H I and the bare charge state is taken from Scholtz & Walters (1991). Again, in checks against Clegg et al. (1999) at 30,000 K a consistent underestimate of around 6% was found, suggesting that in forming the ratio of emission He II/H I, these deviations from Clegg et al. (1999) will cancel allowing us to compute a theoretical line ratio with very high accuracy. Emissivities for the Lyman series of H I from this model are given in Table 5, again for an electron density of $`10^8`$ cm-3. The He II emissivities are as independent of density in this range as the H I results. At $`\mathrm{log}T=6.11\pm 0.04`$ the ratio of Lyman $`\gamma `$/Lyman $`\beta `$ is predicted to be $`0.336\pm 0.002`$. Taking the ratio of disk intensities of these two lines from the scattered light observed between 243 and 273 arcseconds and scaling by the absorption oscillator strengths, the intensity ratio in pure radiative excitation would be 0.088. The observed ratio, after correcting for scattered light, subtracting off the contributions from the He II Balmer multiplets that are blended with the H I Lyman lines (calculated from the observed intensities of the He II 1085 and 992 Å multiplets), and applying the correction for the wavelength dependence of the spectrometer sensitivity gives an observed Lyman $`\gamma `$/Lyman $`\beta `$ intensity ratio of $`0.248\pm 4`$% , where the uncertainty is dominated by the subtraction of scattered light. Thus the collisional $`c_x`$ and radiative $`r_x`$ components of Lyman $`\beta `$ are related by $`c_x=r_x\times \left(0.0880.248\right)/\left(0.2480.336\right)=1.82r_x`$. Hence the fraction of Lyman $`\beta `$ that is collisionally excited is $`c_x/\left(c_x+r_x\right)=1.82/2.82=0.65`$, with a probable error of $`\pm 0.04`$. This reduction of the H I line intensities is summarized in Table 6.

The intensity ratio He II 1085/H I 1025.72 is then $`0.036\pm 9.8`$%. The theoretical ratio based on an He abundance of 0.085 relative to H ($`Y=0.25`$) is $`0.059\pm 0.3`$%, where the error comes from the uncertainty in the temperature. This yields a measurement of the abundance ratio He/H of $`0.052\pm 10`$% by number or a mass fraction of $`Y=0.17\pm 10`$%. The uncertainty is dominated by the counting statistics and subtraction of scattered light for the He II 1085 Å multiplet, and by the determination of the fraction of H I Lyman $`\beta `$ that is collisionally excited. The improvement of this last factor in particular requires subtraction of scattered light to very high precision, and is likely to be the limiting factor.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

Our two measurements of the abundance ratio He/H are affected in opposite directions by gravitational settling (assuming that this affects ions in order of their mass, with O being the most affected and H the least). There are also unknown systematic errors associated with the O VI ionization balance (H I and He II should be much more secure in this respect). Therefore we discuss the He abundance determined relative to H of $`0.052\pm 0.005`$. This is a 1 $`\sigma `$ uncertainty, and includes all known sources of error. Thus, barring any problem with the atomic physics input, we may claim to have the most precise measurement of the helium abundance in the solar corona. The result is strikingly close to He abundance measurements in the slow speed solar wind, especially bearing in mind that this He fraction ($`4`$%) is known to be quite variable. The reason why this result is lower than previous estimates (Feldman, 1998; Laming & Feldman, 1999b) from the same observations is the inclusion of radiative recombination as a population mechanism in He II and H I. It has a stronger effect on lines of the Balmer series, and so the He II 1085 Å emissivity is increased more than that for the H I 1025 Å , leading to a decrease in the inferred He/H abundance ratio. By including a similar correction to the Raymond et al. (1997) measurement an upper limit of He/H $`<0.21`$ is derived.

Our result also agrees well with the modeled valued of the coronal He abundance for steady-state conditions given by Hansteen, Leer, & Holzer (1994). These authors also discuss time dependent solutions, finding enhancements in the coronal He abundance when the coronal temperature and corresponding flux of slow solar wind protons fall below certain limits. This occurs because the proton-He coupling in the solar wind is sufficiently weak that the protons, as they flow out into the solar wind, essentially leave the He behind in the corona. The coronal temperature in our study, $`\mathrm{log}T=6.11\pm 0.04`$ is sufficiently low that according to Hansteen, Leer, & Holzer (1994), this ought to be the case here. However our result for the He abundance is much more consistent with the higher temperature coronal models where Hansteen, Leer, & Holzer (1994) find steady state solutions. Further work (Hansteen, Leer, & Holzer, 1997) has investigated the role of chromospheric mixing processes on the coronal and solar wind He abundances.

Various other authors have suggested that the helium abundance could vary in different solar regions. In a model to explain the observed preferential acceleration of 3He in impulsive solar flares, Fisk (1978) found that the necessary electrostatic ion cyclotron waves were more efficiently excited in plasma by electron drifts where the He abundance was increased from its usual value by a factor 2-3 or more. More recent work on this phenomenon appears to have obviated the need for an increased He abundance (c.f. Steinacker et al., 1997; Miller, 1998, and references therein) in the flare plasma by replacing the electron drift in Fisk’s work with a flare accelerated electron beam. In a review of available measurements and models Drake (1998) concluded that He abundance enhancements on the order of a factor of 2 over photospheric values could not be excluded among different regions of solar and stellar coronae. This work was primarily concerned with observations of thermal bremsstrahlung continua in stellar coronae that appear to be too intense for a hydrogen dominated corona, where an increase in the coronal He abundance would go some way to alleviating this difficulty. Share & Murphy (1998), studying gamma ray spectra observed by the Solar Maximum Mission and the Compton Gamma ray Observatory, found evidence for an enhanced He abundance relative to protons present in flare accelerated particles. Such abundance enhancements by factors of as much as 5 were noted, whereas ambient photospheric material with which the flare accelerated particles interact was found to be adequately described by the usual He abundance relative to H. Of course there is also the possibility the He is depleted in the corona, as evidenced by solar wind observations described above. We defer further comment on this issue of the variability of the He abundance to a later work, but emphasise that the precision of our measurement technique is more than adequate to allow thorough tests of these ideas in various regions of the solar corona.

The one aspect of the quiescent solar corona crucial to our work, that it is essentially isothermal, has recently been questioned by Wolfson et al. (2000). Arguing from YOHKOH SXT observations made of the same streamer at the same time as our SUMER observations, these authors claim that the coronal temperature slowly increases with height above about 1.13 solar radii. The precise nature of their claim does not affect our results (the corona is still isothermal at lower altitudes, where our He abundance measurements are made). Analysis of another equatorial streamer observed on 1996 July 22-27 by both the Ultraviolet Coronagraph Spectrometer (UVCS) on SOHO and the YOHKOH SXT does find isothermal conditions (Li et al., 1998). For the streamer under study in this paper, we still favour conclusions drawn from SUMER observations to those from the YOHKOH SXT, since the SXT data consist of ratios of count rates in two filters, the AlMg and Al filters, not actual spectra, and the strongest lines transmitted by these filters (e.g. O VII, O VIII, Fe XVII) originate from higher temperatures than those present in the equatorial streamer. We determine the temperature from a range of Si ions (see Figure 5 in Feldman et al., 1999) whose temperatures span a more relevant range for this purpose. Of course our abundance determinations use ions usually formed at much lower temperatures than those present in the streamer, but these are hydrogenic ions for which atomic processes can be calculated with very high accuracy.

This work was supported by the NRL/ONR Solar Magnetism and the Earth’s Environment 6.1 Research Option and by NASA Contract W19473. We are grateful to John Raymond for advice and encouragement, and to Igor Bray for making his cross section data available to us in electronic form. The SUMER project is financially supported by DARA, CNES, NASA and the ESA PRODEX program (Swiss contribution). SUMER is a part of SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, of ESA and NASA.