text:
# Wedderburn Polynomials over Division Rings

(Date: January 3, 2000.)

## Abstract.

A Wedderburn polynomial over a division ring $`K`$ is a minimal polynomial of an algebraic subset of $`K`$. Special cases of such polynomials include, for instance, the minimal polynomials (over the center $`F=Z(K)`$) of elements of $`K`$ that are algebraic over $`F`$. In this note, we give a survey on some of our ongoing work on the structure theory of Wedderburn polynomials. Throughout the note, we work in the general setting of an Ore skew polynomial ring $`K[t,S,D]`$.

Some of the results in this note were presented by the first author in a lecture (with the same title) at the National Conference on Algebra VII, at Beijing Normal University in October, 1999. We owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Zhang Yingbo, who kindly provided a Chinese translation of an English version of this article.

§1. Introduction

The main object of this paper is the study of a class of polynomials over a division ring $`K`$, which we call Wedderburn polynomials (or simply W-polynomials). Roughly speaking, a W-polynomial over $`K`$ is one which has “enough zeros” in $`K`$. (For a more precise definition, see (3.1).) In the case when $`K`$ is a field, W-polynomials are simply those of the form $`(tc_1)\mathrm{}(tc_n)`$, where $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_n`$ are distinct elements of $`K`$. In the general case of a division ring $`K`$, a W-polynomial still has the form $`(tc_1)\mathrm{}(tc_n)`$, although the $`c_i`$’s need no longer be distinct. And even if the $`c_i`$’s are distinct, $`(tc_1)\mathrm{}(tc_n)`$ need not be a W-polynomial. The recognition of a W-polynomial, for instance, is already a very interesting problem over a division ring $`K`$.

The early work of Wedderburn \[We\] (ca. 1921) showed that, if $`aK`$ is an algebraic element over the center $`F`$ of $`K`$, then the minimal polynomial of $`a`$ over $`F`$ (in the usual sense) is a W-polynomial in $`K[t]`$ (and in particular splits completely over $`K`$). This classical result of Wedderburn has led to much research on $`K[t]`$, and has found important applications to the study of subgroups of the multiplicative group $`K^{}`$, central simple algebras of low degrees and crossed product algebras, PI-theory, Vandermonde matrices, Hilbert 90 Theorems, and the theory of ordered division rings, etc. For some literature along these lines, see \[Al\], \[HR\], \[Ja3\], \[La\], \[LL1\]-\[LL3\], \[Ro1\]-\[Ro3\], \[Se\], \[RS\], … , etc.

Our definition of W-polynomials was directly inspired by the afore-mentioned work of Wedderburn, although our W-polynomials will have coefficients in $`K`$, instead of in $`F`$. These W-polynomials have different properties and characterizations, and seem to be quite basic in working with the polynomial theory over $`K`$. We have recently initiated a systematic investigation of the theory of W-polynomials. In this note, we’ll give a synopsis of some of the results obtained so far. These include, for instance:

* A theorem on the left-right symmetry of W-polynomials;
* Several criteria for the factors and products of W-polynomials to be W-polynomials;
* Some “Rank Theorems” describing the behavior of the rank of algebraic sets with respect to union, intersection, and certain other transformations;
* Applications of quadratic W-polynomials to the study of certain “metro-equations” in division rings; and
* A study of the relationship between the set of W-polynomials and the set of algebraic subsets of $`K`$, from the viewpoint of complete modular lattices.

Following Ore \[Or\], we work in the setting of skew polynomials (rather than just ordinary polynomials) over the division ring $`K`$. This added degree of generality is definitely worthwhile considering that skew polynomials have become increasingly important with the growing interests in quantized structures and noncommutative geometry. The basic mechanism of skew polynomials is recalled in §2, where we also set up the terminology and general framework for the paper. Wedderburn polynomials are introduced in §3, and the synopsis of the main results on W-polynomials is given in §§ 4-8.

Details of the research reported in this note (including the proofs of the results indicated above) will appear in the authors’ forthcoming papers \[LL4\] and \[LL5\].

§2. Skew Polynomial Rings and Algebraic Sets in $`K`$

To work with skew polynomials, we start with a triple $`(K,S,D)`$, where $`K`$ is a division ring, $`S`$ is a ring endomorphism of $`K`$, and $`D`$ is an $`S`$-derivation on $`K`$. (The latter means that $`D`$ is an additive endomorphism of $`K`$ such that $`D(ab)=S(a)D(b)+D(a)b,a,bK`$.) In this general setting, we can form $`K[t,S,D]`$, the Ore skew polynomial ring consisting of polynomials of the form $`b_it^i`$ ($`b_iK`$) which are added in the usual way and multiplied according to the rule

$`(2.1)`$
$$tb=S(b)t+D(b)(bK).$$

In case $`(S,D)=(I,0)`$ (we’ll refer to this as the “classical case”), $`K[t,S,D]`$ boils down to the usual polynomial ring $`K[t]`$ with a central indeterminate $`t`$. Throughout this paper, we’ll write $`R:=K[t,S,D]`$. It is easy to check that $`R`$ admits an euclidean algorithm for right division, so $`R`$ is a principal left ideal domain.

In working with $`R`$, it is important to be able to “evaluate” a polynomial $`f(t)=b_it^i`$ at any scalar $`aK`$, that is, to define $`f(a)`$. Following our earlier work \[LL1\], we take $`f(a)`$ to be $`b_iN_i(a)`$, where the “$`i`$th power function” $`N_i`$ is defined inductively by

$`(2.2)`$
$$N_0(a)=1,\text{and}N_i(a)=S(N_{i1}(a))a+D(N_{i1}(a)),aK.$$

That this gives the “right” definition of $`f(a)`$ is seen from the validity of the Remainder Theorem \[LL1: (2.4)\]: there is a unique $`qR`$ such that

$$f(t)=q(t)(ta)+f(a).$$

From this, it follows immediately that $`f(a)=0`$ iff $`ta`$ is a right factor of $`f(t)`$.

Another remarkable fact about evaluating skew polynomials at scalars is the “Product Formula” \[LL1: (2.7)\] for evaluating $`f=gh`$ at any $`aK`$:

$`(2.3)`$
$$(gh)(a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if}h(a)=0,\hfill \\ g(a^{h(a)})h(a)\hfill & \text{if}h(a)0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here, for any $`cK^{}`$, $`a^c`$ denotes $`S(c)ac^1+D(c)c^1`$, which is called the $`(S,D)`$-conjugate of $`a`$ (by $`c`$). With this general conjugation notation, it is easy to verify by a direct calculation that

$`(2.4)`$
$$(a^c)^d=a^{dc}\text{for\hspace{0.33em}any}c,dK^{}.$$

From this, it follows readily that $`(S,D)`$-conjugacy is an equivalence relation. In the following, we shall write

$`(2.5)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{S,D}(a):=\{a^c:cK^{}\};$$

this is called the $`(S,D)`$-conjugacy class of $`a`$. All such classes form a partition of $`K`$. For instance, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{S,D}(0)`$ is the set of all logarithmic derivatives $`\{D(c)c^1:cK^{}\}`$. And, in the classical case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{I,0}(a)`$ is just the “usual” conjugacy class

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(a)=\{cac^1:cK^{}\}.$$

Next, we introduce a basic notation for this paper. For $`fR`$, let

$`(2.6)`$
$$V(f):=\{aK:f(a)=0\}.$$

We’ll say that a set $`\mathrm{\Delta }K`$ is algebraic (or, more precisely, $`(S,D)`$-algebraic) if $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(f)`$ for some nonzero $`fR`$. In this case, the set of polynomials vanishing on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ forms a nonzero left ideal in $`R`$. The monic generator of this left ideal is called the minimal polynomial of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$; we denote it by $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The degree of $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is called the rank of the algebraic set $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$; we denote it by rk$`(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. According to the Remainder Theorem, $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is just the (monic) “llcm” (least left common multiple) of the linear polynomials $`\{ta:a\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$. As in \[La: Lemma 5\], it is easy to see that $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has always the form $`(tc_1)\mathrm{}(tc_n)`$ where each $`c_i`$ is $`(S,D)`$-conjugate to some element of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Of course, all of the above was inspired in part by classical algebraic geometry. Going a little further, we get a theory of polynomial dependence (or P-dependence for short) for the elements of $`K`$. By definition, an element $`dK`$ is P-dependent on an algebraic set $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ if $`g(d)=0`$ for every $`gR`$ vanishing on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We see easily that the set of elements P-dependent on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is precisely $`V(f_\mathrm{\Delta })`$, which we shall henceforth call the “P-closure” of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and denote by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. As in \[La\], we can also define P-independence and the notion of a P-basis for an algebraic set $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in a natural manner. The cardinality of a P-basis for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is just rk$`(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. If $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ is a P-basis of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (where $`n=\text{deg}(f_\mathrm{\Delta })`$), then $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is in fact the llcm of the linear polynomials $`\{ta_i:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}in\}`$. We refer the reader to \[La\] for the rudiments of the theory of P-dependence. (Although this theory was developed in \[La\] in the case $`D=0`$, it holds word-for-word also in the $`(S,D)`$-case.)

§3. The Class $`𝒲`$ of Wedderburn Polynomials

We now come to the principal object of the paper.

Definition 3.1. A polynomial $`fR`$ is said to be a Wedderburn polynomial (or simply a W-polynomial) if it is the minimal polynomial of some algebraic set in $`K`$, or, equivalently, if $`f=f_{V(f)}`$. The set of W-polynomials in $`R`$ will be denoted throughout this paper by the symbol $`𝒲`$.

Some easy characterizations of W-polynomials are given in the following result.

Proposition 3.2. For a monic polynomial $`fR`$ of degree $`n`$, the following are equivalent:

(1) $`f`$ is a W-polynomial;

(2) rk$`(V(f))=n`$ (“$`f`$ has enough zeros”);

(3) For any $`pR`$, $`V(f)V(p)pRf`$.

To motivate the study of W-polynomials, we mention the following basic examples.

Examples 3.3.

(1) The constant polynomial $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}R`$ is a W-polynomial, as it is the minimal polynomial of the empty (algebraic) set $`\mathrm{}`$.

(2) For any $`aK`$, $`ta`$ is a W-polynomial, as it is the minimal polynomial of the singleton (algebraic) set $`\{a\}`$.

(3) An easy argument shows that a monic quadratic polynomial $`fR`$ is a W-polynomial iff $`|V(f)|2`$. Alternatively, the quadratic W-polynomials are those of the form $`\left(tb^{ba}\right)(ta)`$, where $`ab`$ in $`K`$. For instance, over the quaternions, with $`(S,D)=(I,0)`$, $`f:=t^2+1𝒲`$ since $`V(f)`$ contains $`i`$ and $`j`$; but $`g:=(tj)(ti)𝒲`$, since $`V(g)=\{i\}`$.

(4) If $`K`$ is a field and $`(S,D)=(I,0)`$, the algebraic sets are precisely the finite subsets of $`K`$. It follows that, in this case, the W-polynomials are precisely the completely split polynomials $`(ta_1)\mathrm{}(ta_n)`$ where the $`a_i`$’s are distinct elements in $`K`$.

(5) Let $`(S,D)=(I,0)`$, and let $`aK`$ be any element that is algebraic over $`F=Z(K)`$, with minimal polynomial $`f(t)F[t]`$ (in the usual field-theoretic sense). By Wedderburn’s Theorem in \[We\], the conjugacy class $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=\mathrm{\Delta }(a)`$ is algebraic (in our sense), with $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }=f(t)`$. Therefore, $`fF[t]`$ is a W-polynomial over $`K`$. From this example, we see that the W-polynomials introduced in (3.1) are a generalization of the minimal polynomials of algebraic elements studied by Wedderburn in \[We\].

One reason the family $`𝒲`$ commands our interest is that there are many possible ways to characterize the Wedderburn polynomials. The characterizations in (3.2) above are only the simpler ones that follow directly from the definitions. To close this section, we’ll mention below a few other more substantial characterizations.

Consider for the moment the case where $`K`$ is a field and $`(S,D)=(I,0)`$. For a monic polynomial $`f=t^n+b_{n1}t^{n1}+\mathrm{}+b_0R`$, we have the following well-known “companion matrix”:

$`(3.4)`$
$$C(f):=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\\ b_0& b_1& b_2& \mathrm{}& b_{n1}\end{array}\right),$$

whose characteristic and minimal polynomials are both $`f`$. For this companion matrix to be diagonalizable, the classical criterion is that $`f`$ has $`n`$ distinct (characteristic) roots in $`K`$. By (3.3)(4) above, this is also the criterion for $`f`$ to be a Wedderburn polynomial! Through this example, we see that W-polynomials ought to be related to diagonalization questions in general.

In the case when $`R=K[t,S,D]`$, we can consider the $`R`$-module $`R/Rf`$ as a left $`K`$-vector space, with the $`K`$-basis $`\{1,t,\mathrm{},t^{n1}\}`$. With respect to this basis, $`C(f)`$ is the matrix corresponding to left multiplication by $`t`$. However, this action of $`t`$ is only a pseudo-linear transformation (in the sense that $`t(kv)=S(k)t(v)+D(k)v`$, for $`kK`$ and $`vR/Rf`$). Upon a change of $`K`$-basis on $`R/Rf`$, the matrix of a pseudo-linear transformation will change by an “$`(S,D)`$-conjugation” (analogous to the $`(S,D)`$-conjugation of elements defined in §2). Using such a generalized notion of conjugation on matrices, we have the following characterization result for $`W`$-polynomials, which, in particular, extends the classical results on the diagonalizability of the companion matrix $`C(f)`$.

Theorem 3.5. For any polynomial $`f=t^n+b_{n1}t^{n1}+\mathrm{}+b_0R`$, the following are equivalent:

(1) $`f`$ is a product of linear factors, and $`R/Rf`$ is a semisimple $`R`$-module.

(2) The companion matrix $`C(f)`$ in $`(3.4)`$ can be $`(S,D)`$-conjugated to a diagonal matrix.

(3) There exists an invertible Vandermonde matrix 111For any given triple $`(K,S,D)`$, the general Vandermonde matrix $`V(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)`$ is defined to be the $`n\times n`$ matrix whose $`(i+1)`$st row is $`(N_i(c_1),\mathrm{},N_i(c_n))`$, where $`N_i`$ is the $`i`$th power function (with respect to $`(S,D)`$) defined in (2.2). $`V=V(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)`$ over $`K`$ such that $`C(f)V=S(V)\text{diag}(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)+D(V)`$. (Here, $`S`$ and $`D`$ operate on matrices in the obvious way.)

(4) deg$`(f)=_{j=1}^r\text{dim}_{C_j}E(f,a_j)`$.

In this theorem, we have slipped in another characterization (4), which requires some notational explanations. The elements $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_r`$ there are representatives of the $`(S,D)`$-conjugacy classes of $`K`$ in which $`f`$ has roots, and the “exponential space” $`E(f,a_j)`$ is defined to be

$$\{0\}\{xK^{}:f(a_j^x)=0\}.$$

This is a right vector space over the division subring

$$C_j:=\{0\}\{cK^{}:a_j^c=a_j\}\text{(the “}(S,D)\text{-centralizer” of }a_j\text{)}.$$

For any $`f`$, it is true that $`_{j=1}^r\text{dim}_{C_j}E(f,a_j)\text{deg}(f)`$; (4) of the theorem above tells us that equality here is a criterion for $`f`$ to be a Wedderburn polynomial.

§4. Left-Right Symmetry of W-Polynomials

According to the discussions in §2, W-polynomials are the (monic) llcm’s of polynomials of the form $`ta`$ ($`aK`$). In other words, a monic polynomial $`f`$ belongs to $`𝒲`$ iff the left ideal $`Rf`$ can be expressed as an intersection of the form $`R(ta)`$, where $`a`$ ranges over some subset of $`K`$. From this description, it would appear that $`𝒲`$ is a family dependent on the left structure of the ring $`R`$. Our first result on $`𝒲`$ is that it is in fact a left-right symmetric family.

To state this symmetry result more formally, let us introduce the following notations. Let $`𝒲^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the family of monic polynomials $`fR`$ such that $`Rf`$ is an (arbitrary) intersection of principal left ideals of the form $`R(ta)`$ ($`aK`$), and let $`𝒲_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the family of monic polynomials $`fR`$ such that $`Rf=R(ta_1)\mathrm{}R(ta_n)`$, where $`a_iK`$ and $`n=\text{deg}(f)`$. By using right (instead of left) principal ideals, we can similarly define two families of monic polynomials $`𝒲^r`$ and $`𝒲_0^r`$. The symmetry result \[LL4: (4.5)\] states the following:

Theorem 4.1. $`𝒲=𝒲^{\mathrm{}}=𝒲_0^{\mathrm{}}=𝒲_0^r=𝒲^r`$.

The first two equalities here are already covered by our previous discussions, so the gist of the theorem is in the last two equalities. We refer the reader to \[LL4\] for the proof of (4.1), but let us give here some indication of how one could achieve a passage from the left structure of $`R`$ to its right structure. The following result, in fact, gives a constructive description of the inclusion $`𝒲_0^{\mathrm{}}𝒲_0^r`$ in (4.1).

Theorem 4.2. Suppose $`fR`$ is monic of degree $`n`$, and $`Rf`$ has a representation as $`R(ta_1)\mathrm{}R(ta_n)`$. (In other words, $`f`$ is the minimal polynomial of the P-independent set $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$.) If $`h_i`$ is the minimal polynomial of $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n\}`$, then, for $`b_i:=a_i^{h_i(a_i)}(1in)`$, we have a representation $`fR=_{i=1}^n(tb_i)R`$.

A constructive description of the reverse inclusion $`𝒲_0^r𝒲_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ can be given “similarly”.

The Symmetry Theorem (4.1) serves to show that the family $`𝒲`$ of Wedderburn polynomials is sufficiently intrinsic to the ring $`R`$ to be characterizable in terms of either its left structure or its right structure. In the case when $`S`$ is an automorphism of $`K`$, this is not too surprising, and was in fact known in a more general form to Ore (see \[Or: Ch. II, Th. 4\]). But if $`S`$ is just an endomorphism of $`K`$, the situation is different. In case $`S(K)K`$, $`R`$ is not a principal right ideal domain (or even a right Ore domain), so there is an apparent disparity between the left and the right structures of $`R`$. Here, one seems to have no à priori reason to expect a symmetry result such as (4.1).

What comes to one’s rescue is the notion of a semifir due to P. M. Cohn. A semifir is a domain in which every finitely generated left ideal is free of a unique rank — and this is known to be a left-right symmetric notion (see \[Co2\]). Since our ring $`R=K[t,S,D]`$ is a principal left ideal domain, it is a (left and and hence right) semifir. From this fact, it turns out that one has enough symmetry information on $`R`$ to prove Theorem 4.1. We refer the reader to \[LL4\] for the details of the proof.

An interesting byproduct of these considerations is a theory of left roots of polynomials in $`R`$. For $`fR`$, we have defined earlier

$`(4.3)`$
$$V(f)=\{aK:f(a)=0\}=\{aK:fR(ta)\};$$

such elements $`a`$ should be called the right roots of $`f`$. We can correspondingly define

$`(4.4)`$
$$V^{}(f)=\{bK:f(tb)R\};$$

such $`b`$’s may then be called the left roots of $`f`$. This opens the way to many more interesting facts. For instance, in analogy to (3.2)(3), one can prove the following characterization of W-polynomial in terms of left root sets:

Proposition 4.5. For any monic $`f`$, we have $`f𝒲`$ iff, $`qR`$, $`V^{}(f)V^{}(q)`$ implies $`qfR`$.

In general, however, the right and left root sets $`V(f)`$ and $`V^{}(f)`$ behave rather differently, especially in the case when $`S(K)K`$. In this case, the theorem below says that $`V^{}(f)`$ is situated in a very special way with respect to the coset partition of $`K`$ modulo the additive subgroup $`S(K)`$. This result has no right root analogue, and thus represents a new feature of the left root theory.

Theorem 4.6. For any nonzero polynomial $`f`$, either all left roots of $`f`$ lie in a single $`S(K)`$-coset of $`K`$, or no two left roots lie in the same $`S(K)`$-coset. If $`f`$ is monic, then necessarily all left roots of $`f`$ lie in a single $`S(K)`$-coset of $`K`$.

§5. Factor Theorem, Product Theorem, and the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-Transform

Wedderburn polynomials turn out to have very tractable properties under multiplication and division. In this section, we’ll state several theorems on the factors and products of W-polynomials.

First we have to clarify what exactly is meant by the word “factor” in this paper. Throughout the sequel, we’ll say that a polynomial $`p`$ is a factor of another polynomial $`f`$ if $`f=p_1pp_2`$ for some $`p_1,p_2R`$. Right and left factors of $`f`$ have their usual meanings, and these are, of course, particular kinds of factors in our sense. The main result about factors of W-polynomials is the following (cf. \[Or: Ch. II, Th. 3\]):

Factor Theorem 5.1. For any monic $`fR`$, the following are equivalent:

(1) $`f`$ is a W-polynomial ;

(2) $`f`$ splits completely, and every monic factor of $`f`$ is a W-polynomial ;

(3) $`f`$ splits completely, and every monic quadratic factor of $`f`$ is a W-polynomial.

Next, we’ll discuss the situation of products. In the classical case when $`(S,D)=(I,0)`$ and $`K`$ is a field, we see already that the product of two W-polynomials need not be a W-polynomial. In fact, if $`g,h𝒲`$ in this case, we’ll have $`gh𝒲`$ iff $`V(g)V(h)=\mathrm{}`$. One must then look for generalizations of this statement to the case of $`R=K[t,S,D]`$ (for any triple $`(K,S,D)`$).

To solve this problem, we need the tool of a certain “$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-transform”. In the Product Formula (2.3) for evaluating $`gh`$ at $`a`$, we first encountered the expression $`a^{h(a)}`$ (in case $`h(a)0`$); similar expressions also occurred in the statement of Theorem (4.2). This led us to the following formal definition.

Definition 5.2. For $`hR=K[t,S,D]`$, we define the “$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-transform” (associated to $`h`$)

$`(5.3)`$
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_h:KV(h)K$$

by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h(x)=x^{h(x)}`$, whenever $`h(x)0`$. (We do not attempt to define $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h`$ on $`V(h)`$.) Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h`$ always preserves the $`(S,D)`$-conjugacy class of its argument $`x`$.

Examples 5.4.

(1) Say $`h`$ is a nonzero constant (polynomial) $`cK^{}`$. Then, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c(x)=x^c`$ for all $`xK`$, so $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c`$ is defined on all of $`K`$ and is exactly $`(S,D)`$-conjugation by the element $`c`$. (In particular, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is just the identity map on $`K`$.) In view of this example, we can think of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-transform as a kind of generalization of $`(S,D)`$-conjugation.

(2) In the case $`D=0`$ and $`h=t`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t(a)=a^a=S(a)aa^1=S(a)`$ for any $`a0`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t`$ is the restriction of $`S`$ to $`K^{}`$.

With the aid of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-transform, one can prove the following result which gives various criteria for the product of two W-polynomials to be another W-polynomial.

Product Theorem 5.5. For $`f=ghR`$ where $`g,h`$ are monic, the following are equivalent:

(1) $`f𝒲`$;

(2) $`g,h𝒲`$, and $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}Rg+hR`$;

(3) $`g,h𝒲`$, and $`V(g)\text{im}(\mathrm{\Phi }_h)`$;

(4) $`g,h𝒲`$, and, $`aV(g),bV^{}(h)`$, we have $`(ta)(tb)𝒲`$.

The formulation (4) of a W-polynomial criterion in terms of quadratics is particularly nice since (3.3)(3) makes it quite easy to recognize quadratic W-polynomials; see also Theorem (8.2) below.

§6. Three Rank Theorems

In this section, we state a few theorems concerning the ranks of algebraic sets. Recall that, for an algebraic set $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, rk$`(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the degree of its minimal polynomial $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the P-closure $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is (or may be taken to be) $`V(f_\mathrm{\Delta })`$. We’ll say that an algebraic set $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is full if $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The first rank formula below gives a relation between the ranks of the union and intersection of algebraic sets. The formula is obviously prompted by the well-known dimension equation in the theory of finite-dimensional vector spaces. However, the use of the P-closures in the intersection $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ below adds a subtle element to the formula. (Of course, the formula would look simpler if we restrict ourselves to full algebraic sets. But this would be an unnecessary sacrifice of generality.)

First Rank Theorem 6.1. For any two algebraic sets $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we have

$$\text{rk}(\mathrm{\Delta })+\text{rk}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\text{rk}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma })+\text{rk}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right).$$

In particular, $`\text{rk}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma })=\text{rk}(\mathrm{\Delta })+\text{rk}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ iff $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{}`$.

We move on now to the Second Rank Theorem, which deals with the change of the rank of an algebraic set under a $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-transform, say $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h`$. One basic example to keep in mind is when $`h`$ is a constant polynomial $`cK^{}`$. In this case, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h`$ is $`(S,D)`$-conjugation by $`c`$ (see (5.4)(1)), which is easily seen to be rank-preserving on algebraic sets. In the general case, a $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-transform $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h`$ will be rank-decreasing, and the precise result is as follows.

Second Rank Theorem 6.2. Let $`hR`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }K`$ be an algebraic set disjoint from $`V(h)`$. Then

$$\text{rk}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_h(\mathrm{\Delta })\right)=\text{rk}(\mathrm{\Delta })\text{rk}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}V(h)\right).$$

In particular, $`\text{rk}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_h(\mathrm{\Delta })\right)=\text{rk}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ iff $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}V(h)=\mathrm{}`$.

A powerful application of the rank formula for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_h`$ is the following result giving a natural bound on the rank of the zero set of a product of two arbitrary polynomials.

Third Rank Theorem 6.3. For $`f=ghR\{0\}`$, we have

$$\text{rk}(V(f))\text{rk}(V(g))+\text{rk}(V(h)).$$

In spite of its simplicity, (6.3) is not an easy result. Note, for instance, the following interesting application of it to W-polynomials. Suppose $`g,h`$ above are monic, of degrees $`r`$ and $`s`$ respectively. If we are given $`f:=gh𝒲`$, then by (3.2), $`\text{rk}(V(f))=\text{deg}(f)=r+s`$, and (6.3) gives

$$\text{rk}(V(g))+\text{rk}(V(h))r+s=\text{deg}(g)+\text{deg}(h).$$

This implies that $`\text{rk}(V(g))=r`$ and $`\text{rk}(V(h))=s`$, and hence (again by (3.2)) $`g,h𝒲`$. This conclusion amounts essentially to the implication $`(1)(2)`$ in the Factor Theorem (5.1).

§7. A Duality Between Two Complete Modular Lattices

The considerations in the previous sections lead us quickly to the construction of several lattices. There is only one more piece missing in the whole puzzle. This is given by the following proposition, where “rgcd” is used as an abbreviation for “right greatest common divisor”.

Proposition 7.1. The intersection of any nonempty family of full algebraic sets $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_j:jJ\}`$ is also a full algebraic set, with minimal polynomial given by rgcd$`\{f_{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}:jJ\}`$.

Remark 7.2. The fact that $`_j\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ has minimal polynomial $`\text{rgcd}\{f_{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}:jJ\}`$ is generally not true if the algebraic sets $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ are not all full. For instance, in the division ring $`K`$ of real quaternions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{i\}`$ is full and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{j,k\}`$ is not full. The rgcd of $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }=ti`$ and $`f_\mathrm{\Gamma }=t^2+1`$ is $`ti`$. But $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{}`$ has minimal polynomial $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$.

Now consider the poset $`=(K,S,D)`$ of all full algebraic sets in $`K`$ (with respect to $`(S,D)`$), where the partial ordering is given by inclusion:

$`(7.3)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{for}\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

This poset is a lattice, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (which lies in $``$ by (7.1)), and with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. (The union $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is algebraic, but may not be full, as the case $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|=|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=1`$ already shows.) Note that the lattice $``$ has a smallest element, given by the empty set $`\mathrm{}`$ (see (3.3)(1)).

If $`K`$ itself is not $`(S,D)`$-algebraic, $``$ will not have a largest element. In this case, we can define an augmented lattice $`^{}`$ by adjoining to $``$ a largest element. If $`K`$ is $`(S,D)`$-algebraic, then it is the largest element in $``$, and we can simply define $`^{}`$ to be $``$.

To get a lattice in the context of (skew) polynomials, we consider the set $`𝒲=𝒲(K,S,D)`$ of all W-polynomials, partially ordered by:

$`(7.4)`$
$$fhRfRhh\text{is\hspace{0.33em}a\hspace{0.33em}right\hspace{0.33em}divisor\hspace{0.33em}of}f(\text{for}f,h𝒲).$$

The poset $`𝒲`$ is again a lattice: for $`f,h𝒲`$ as above, $`fh`$ is given by $`\text{rgcd}(f,h)`$ (this being a W-polynomial by the Factor Theorem), and $`fh`$ is given by $`\text{llcm}(f,h)`$ (this being a W-polynomial since it is the minimal polynomial of $`V(f)V(h)`$). The lattice $`𝒲`$ has a largest element, given by $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, and it will have a smallest element iff $`K`$ happens to be $`(S,D)`$-algebraic. (The smallest element in the latter case is the minimal polynomial of $`K`$ itself.) In analogy with the case of full algebraic sets, we can introduce an augmented W-polynomial lattice $`𝒲^{}`$, which is defined to be $`𝒲`$ if $`K`$ is $`(S,D)`$-algebraic, and $`𝒲`$ adjoined with the polynomial $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ otherwise (this being smaller than all other W-polynomials).

Once we have set up the augmented lattices $`^{}`$ and $`𝒲^{}`$ as above, we can use (6.1), (7.1), etc. to prove the following duality result.

Theorem 7.5. For a fixed triple $`(K,S,D)`$, we have the following:

(1) $`^{}`$ and $`𝒲^{}`$ are both complete modular lattices. The maps $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`fV(f)`$ (extended in the obvious way) define mutually inverse lattice dualities between $`^{}`$ and $`𝒲^{}`$.

(2) The map “rk” (extended in the obvious way) is the “dimension function” on the modular lattice $`^{}`$ (in the sense of lattice theory), and the degree map “deg” is the “dual dimension function” on the modular lattice $`𝒲^{}`$.

(3) The minimal elements (the so-called atoms) of the lattice $`^{}`$ are the singleton subsets of $`K`$, and the maximal elements of the lattice $`𝒲`$ are the monic linear polynomials in $`R`$.

(4) For $`fh𝒲`$, the “interval” $`[f,h]`$ in the lattice $`𝒲`$ is isomorphic to the lattice of all $`R`$-submodules of $`Rh/Rf`$.

In our proof of (1) of this theorem in \[LL5\], the modularity of $`^{}`$ is not proved directly, but is rather deduced from the modularity of $`𝒲^{}`$. It is, therefore, of interest to record the following statement, which essentially amounts to the modular law for $`^{}`$.

Proposition 7.6. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be algebraic sets, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are full, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is P-dependent on $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then it is already P-dependent on the smaller set $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

§8. The $`(S,D)`$-Metro Equation

In the theory of division rings, the study of the equation $`axxb=c`$ has had a long history, going back to the work of R. E. Johnson \[Jo\] and N. Jacobson \[Ja2\]. By a slight abuse of the terminology of P. M. Cohn (\[Co1\], \[Co3\]), we shall call $`axxb=c`$ a “metro equation” over $`K`$. It turns out that the notion of metro equations bears a close relationship to that of Wedderburn polynomials.

First, we generalize the classical metro equation notion to our $`(S,D)`$-setting. This is not difficult: for $`a,b,cK`$, let us call

$`(8.1)`$
$$axS(x)bD(x)=c$$

the $`(S,D)`$-metro equation (associated with $`a,b,c`$). (Of course, when $`(S,D)=(I,0)`$, (8.1) boils down to the ordinary metro equation $`axxb=c`$.) In the case $`c=0`$, (8.1) has an obvious solution $`x=0`$, so in the following, we’ll assume $`c0`$ whenever (8.1) is considered. The following result gives the precise relationship between (8.1) and quadratic Wedderburn polynomials, in the general $`(S,D)`$-setting.

Theorem 8.2. For any $`a,bK`$ and $`cK^{}`$, the following are equivalent:

(1) The $`(S,D)`$-metro equation $`axS(x)bD(x)=c`$ has a solution in $`K`$;

(2) $`(tb^c)(ta)𝒲`$;

(3) $`1R(tb^c)+(ta)R.`$

Here, $`(2)(3)`$ follows directly from (5.5), so what is new in (8.2) is the equivalence $`(1)(2)`$. Just for the sake of illustration, let us give the proof for this equivalence in the “classical case”, namely, when $`(S,D)=(I,0)`$. This will, in fact, serve as the one and only proof given in this entire paper.

What we are trying to prove here is that $`axxb=c`$ has a solution in $`K`$ iff the quadratic

$$f(t):=\left(tb^c\right)(ta)=t^2\left(a+b^c\right)t+b^caK[t]$$

(where now $`b^c:=cbc^1`$) is a W-polynomial. For the latter to be true, we need to have a (right) root of $`f`$ in $`K`$ that is different from $`a`$ (see (3.3)(3)). Write such a root (if it exists) in the form $`acx^1`$ (where $`xK^{}`$). For this to be a right root of $`f`$, we need:

$`0=f\left(acx^1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(acx^1)^2\left(a+b^c\right)(acx^1)+b^ca`$
$`=`$ $`\left(acx^1ab^c\right)(acx^1)+b^ca`$
$`=`$ $`\left(cx^1b^c\right)(acx^1)+b^ca`$
$`=`$ $`c\left(x^1a+bx^1+x^1cx^1\right),`$
that is, $`x^1abx^1=x^1cx^1`$. Multiplying this equation by $`x`$ from the left and from the right, we get it down to $`axxb=c`$. Therefore, finding a root for $`f`$ other than $`a`$ amounts exactly to solving the metro equation $`axxb=c`$!

Example 8.3. Let $`K`$ be the division hull of the Weyl algebra $`u,v`$, with the relation $`uvvu=1`$. Choosing $`a=b=u`$, we see that the metro equation $`axxb=1`$ has a solution $`x=v`$. Thus, it follows from (8.2) that $`f(t):=(tu)^2`$ is a W-polynomial over $`K`$. (Two roots for $`f`$ are $`u`$ and $`uv^1`$, according to the calculation above.) This example is interesting, as it shows that a Wedderburn polynomial may very well have repeated linear factors.

Theorem (8.2) has some nice applications to the solvability of the metro equation (8.1) in case the $`(S,D)`$-conjugacy class of $`b`$ is an algebraic set. We close by stating the following consequence of (8.2).

Proposition 8.4. Suppose the $`(S,D)`$-conjugacy class $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=\mathrm{\Delta }^{S,D}(b)`$ is algebraic, and let $`aK\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`cK^{}`$. Then $`(tb^c)(ta)𝒲`$, and the $`(S,D)`$-metro equation (8.1) has a unique solution.


format: text

text:
# Gravity in Randall-Sundrum Brane World Revisited

## I The Model

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 .

In this paper we study gravitational interactions between matter sources localized on the brane in the Randall-Sundrum model, whose action is given by:

$$S=f_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}x\sqrt{\widehat{G}}+M_P^{D2}d^Dx\sqrt{G}\left[R\mathrm{\Lambda }\right].$$
(1)
For calculational convenience we will keep the number of space-time dimensions $`D`$ unspecified. In (1) $`M_P`$ is the $`D`$-dimensional (reduced) Planck scale, while $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the bulk vacuum energy density, which is assumed to be a negative constant. The $`(D1)`$-dimensional hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, that is, the brane, is the $`z=0`$ slice of the $`D`$-dimensional space-time, where $`zx^D`$. Next,

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }\delta _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{M}\delta _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{N}G_{MN}|_{z=0},$$
(2)
where the capital Latin indices $`M,N,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},D`$, while the Greek indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},(D1)`$. The quantity $`f`$ is the brane tensionThere might be additional bulk fields other than gravity. We will assume that such fields have vanishing expectation values. Also, there might be various fields localized on the brane. If the brane world-volume theory is not conformal, then, as was pointed out in , quantum loops of these fields are generically expected to induce, among other terms, the $`(D1)`$ dimensional Einstein-Hilbert term on the brane. We will discuss the consequences of this at the end of the paper. For now, however, we will ignore any such terms and stick to the original action (1)..

The equations of motion following from the action (1) read:

$$R_{MN}\frac{1}{2}G_{MN}R+\frac{1}{2}G_{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{G}}}{\sqrt{G}}\delta _{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\delta _{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{f}\delta (z)=0,$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}f/M_P^{D2}`$.

In the following we will be interested in solutions to the equations of motion following from the action (1) with the warped metric of the following form:

$$ds_D^2=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\eta _{MN}dx^Mdx^N,$$
(4)
where $`\eta _{MN}`$ is the flat $`D`$-dimensional Minkowski metric, and the warp factor $`A`$, which is a function of $`z`$, is independent of the coordinates $`x^\mu `$. With this ansätz, we have the following equations of motion for $`A`$ (prime denotes derivative w.r.t. $`z`$):

$`(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}(2A)=0,`$ (5)
$`(D2)\left[A^{\prime \prime }(A^{})^2\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}(A)\stackrel{~}{f}\delta (z).`$ (6)
This system of equations has a solution if we fine-tune the brane tension to the bulk vacuum energy density as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{16}\frac{D1}{D2}\stackrel{~}{f}^2.$$
(7)
Assuming that the brane tension is positive, the solution is then given by

$$A(z)=\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{|z|}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+1\right],$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }4(D2)/\stackrel{~}{f}`$, and we have chosen the integration constant such that $`A(0)=0`$.

The volume of the transverse dimension, which is given by $`𝑑z\mathrm{exp}(DA)`$, is finite in the above solution, and so is the normalization of the $`(D1)`$-dimensional graviton zero mode wave-function, which is given by $`𝑑z\mathrm{exp}[(D2)A]`$. That is, gravity is localized on the brane, and at long distances we expect that gravity is $`(D1)`$-dimensional. In particular, at long distances we expect $`(D1)`$-dimensional Newton’s law to be valid for matter sources localized on the brane, and the number of the graviton degrees of freedom which couple to the corresponding conserved energy-momentum tensor on the brane should be $`(D1)(D4)/2`$ (which for $`D=5`$ is 2). On the other hand, at short distances we expect that gravity is $`D`$-dimensional. In particular, at short distances we expect the $`D`$-dimensional Newton’s law to take over. As to the tensor structure of graviton propagator, consistency tells us that we should also expect it to be that of the $`D`$-dimensional massless graviton propagator. The number of the graviton degrees of freedom which couple to the conserved energy-momentum tensor on the brane should then be $`(D2)(D3)/2=(D1)(D4)/2+1`$ (which for $`D=5`$ is 3)Note that the other $`D3=D(D3)/2(D2)(D3)/2`$ degrees of freedom (that is, those corresponding to the graviphoton) do not couple to the conserved energy-momentum tensor on the brane..

## II Brane World Gravity

To understand how such a smooth crossover between the number of relevant degrees of freedom occurs in this model, let us study small fluctuations around the solution:

$$G_{MN}=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\left[\eta _{MN}+\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}\right],$$
(9)
where for convenience reasons we have chosen to work with $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ instead of metric fluctuations $`h_{MN}=\mathrm{exp}(2A)\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$.

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

$$^\mu T_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(10)
The graviton field $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ couples to $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ via the following term in the action (note that $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }`$ at $`z=0`$ as we have set $`A(0)=0`$):

$$S_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{1}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}xT_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{h}^{\mu \nu }.$$
(11)
Next, starting from the action $`S+S_{\mathrm{int}}`$ we obtain the following linearized equations of motion for $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ (the capital Latin indices $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ are lowered and raised with the flat $`D`$-dimensional Minkowski metric $`\eta _{MN}`$ and its inverse):

$`\left\{_S^S\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}+_M_N\stackrel{~}{h}_M^S\stackrel{~}{h}_{SN}_N^S\stackrel{~}{h}_{SM}\eta _{MN}\left[_S^S\stackrel{~}{h}^S^R\stackrel{~}{h}_{SR}\right]\right\}+`$ (12)
$`(D2)A^{}\left\{\left[_S\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}_M\stackrel{~}{h}_{NS}_N\stackrel{~}{h}_{MS}\right]n^S+\eta _{MN}\left[2^R\stackrel{~}{h}_{RS}_S\stackrel{~}{h}\right]n^S\right\}+`$ (13)
$`(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2\eta _{MN}\stackrel{~}{h}_{SR}n^Sn^R=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{MN}\delta (z),`$ (14)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{h}_M^M`$, and for notational convenience we have introduced a unit vector $`n^M`$ with the following components: $`n^\mu =0`$, $`n^D=1`$. The components of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{MN}`$ are given by:

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }f\rho ,`$ (15)
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=A_\mu f,`$ (16)
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{DD}=0,`$ (17)
Here and in the following we use the notations:

$$H_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu \nu },A_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}_{\mu D},\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_{DD}.$$
(18)
Also, we will use the notation $`HH_\mu ^\mu `$, and the Greek indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ are lowered and raised with the flat $`(D1)`$-dimensional Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and its inverse.

The above equations of motion are invariant under certain gauge transformations corresponding to unbroken diffeomorphisms. In terms of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}`$ the full $`D`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms

$$\delta h_{MN}=_M\xi _N+_N\xi _M$$
(19)
are given by the following gauge transformations (here we use $`\xi _M\mathrm{exp}(2A)\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M`$):

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{h}_{MN}=_M\stackrel{~}{\xi }_N+_N\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M+2A^{}\eta _{MN}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_Sn^S.$$
(20)
Note, however, that the presence of the brane (whose tension is non-vanishing) breaks the full $`D`$-dimensional diffeomorphism invariance (20) to a smaller subset of gauge transformations. To deduce the unbroken gauge transformations, let us first rewrite the equations of motion (14) in terms of the components:

$`\left\{_\sigma ^\sigma H_{\mu \nu }+_\mu _\nu H_\mu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \nu }_\nu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \mu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[_\sigma ^\sigma H^\sigma ^\rho H_{\sigma \rho }\right]\right\}+`$ (21)
$`\left\{H_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\left[H_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{}\right]\right\}`$ (22)
$`\left\{_\mu A_\nu ^{}+_\nu A_\mu ^{}2\eta _{\mu \nu }^\sigma A_\sigma ^{}+(D2)A^{}\left[_\mu A_\nu +_\nu A_\mu 2\eta _{\mu \nu }^\sigma A_\sigma \right]\right\}+`$ (23)
$`\left\{_\mu _\nu \rho \eta _{\mu \nu }_\sigma ^\sigma \rho +\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[(D2)A^{}\rho ^{}+(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2\rho \right]\right\}=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }\delta (z),`$ (24)
$`\left[^\mu H_{\mu \nu }_\nu H\right]^{}^\mu F_{\mu \nu }+(D2)A^{}_\nu \rho =M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu D}\delta (z),`$ (25)
$`\left[^\mu ^\nu H_{\mu \nu }^\mu _\mu H\right]+(D2)A^{}\left[H^{}2^\sigma A_\sigma \right](D1)(D2)(A^{})^2\rho =0,`$ (26)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ is the $`U(1)`$ field strength for the graviphoton.

In terms of the component fields $`H_{\mu \nu }`$, $`A_\mu `$ and $`\rho `$, the full $`D`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms read:

$`\delta H_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\nu +_\nu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu +2\eta _{\mu \nu }A^{}\omega ,`$ (27)
$`\delta A_\mu =\stackrel{~}{\xi }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}+_\mu \omega ,`$ (28)
$`\delta \rho =2\omega ^{}+2A^{}\omega ,`$ (29)
where $`\omega \stackrel{~}{\xi }_D`$. It is not difficult to check that (26) is invariant under these gauge transformations. On the other hand, the invariance of (21) requires $`\left[\omega \delta (z)\right]^{}=0`$. This then implies that $`\omega (z=0)=0`$. Finally, the invariance of (25) can be seen to imply $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu ^{}\delta (z)=0`$, which implies $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu ^{}(z=0)=0`$. Thus, the unbroken diffeomorphisms are given by (27), (28) and (29) subject to the following conditions:

$`\omega (z=0)=0,`$ (30)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu ^{}(z=0)=0.`$ (31)
Note that it is the presence of a non-zero tension brane that is responsible for this reduction of gauge symmetry in the system. The condition (30) can be intuitively understood by noting that $`A^{}`$ is discontinuous at $`z=0`$, so that $`\omega `$ must vanish at $`z=0`$ or else the gauge transformation (27) for $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ would be discontinuous. On the other hand, (31) becomes evident upon examination of (25). The r.h.s. of this equation, which is given by $`M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu D}\delta (z)=A_\mu \stackrel{~}{f}\delta (z)`$, is nothing but the mass term for the graviphoton on the brane, so that the corresponding gauge transformation on the brane should be vanishing.

Before we turn to solving the above system of equations, the following observation is in order. Note that the l.h.s. of (25) does not contain terms with second derivatives w.r.t. $`z`$. This then implies that, to have a consistent solution, we must have

$$A_\mu (z=0)=0.$$
(32)
In fact, this is consistent with the fact that the graviphoton does not couple to the conserved energy-momentum tensor on the brane.

### A Partial Gauge Fixing

Note that a physical solution to the above system of equations must satisfy the physical boundary conditions, namely, that all perturbations should decay to zero away from the brane. In particular, the graviphoton field $`A_\mu `$ must satisfy this requirement as well. It is not difficult to see that, since it vanishes on the brane, to have $`A_\mu 0`$ at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$, we must assume that $`A_\mu `$ vanishes everywhere. Note however, that this actually is not an additional requirement. Indeed, we can always gauge $`A_\mu `$ away. Thus, it vanishes on the brane. On the other hand, away from the brane (that is, at $`z0`$) we can always use the unbroken diffeomorphisms (28) to set $`A_\mu `$ to zero. Thus, consider diffeomorphisms with $`\omega 0`$. We can then always choose $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu `$ such that the gauge transformed $`A_\mu `$ identically vanishes. In the following we will refer to this gauge fixing as partial gauge fixing (as opposed to the complete gauge fixing which we will discuss in the next subsection).

After the aforementioned partial gauge fixing, we have the following equations of motion:

$`\left\{_\sigma ^\sigma H_{\mu \nu }+_\mu _\nu H_\mu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \nu }_\nu ^\sigma H_{\sigma \mu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[_\sigma ^\sigma H^\sigma ^\rho H_{\sigma \rho }\right]\right\}+`$ (33)
$`\left\{H_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\left[H_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{}\right]\right\}+`$ (34)
$`\left\{_\mu _\nu \rho \eta _{\mu \nu }_\sigma ^\sigma \rho +\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[(D2)A^{}\rho ^{}+(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2\rho \right]\right\}=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }\delta (z),`$ (35)
$`\left[^\mu H_{\mu \nu }_\nu H\right]^{}+(D2)A^{}_\nu \rho =0,`$ (36)
$`\left[^\mu ^\nu H_{\mu \nu }^\mu _\mu H\right]+(D2)A^{}H^{}(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2\rho =0.`$ (37)
To solve this system of equations, it is convenient to perform the Fourier transform for the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ (we will denote the corresponding momenta via $`p^\mu `$), and Wick rotate to the Euclidean space (where the propagator is unique). The equations of motion for the Fourier transformed quantities read:

$`\left\{p^2H_{\mu \nu }+p_\mu p_\nu Hp_\mu p^\sigma H_{\sigma \nu }p_\nu p^\sigma H_{\sigma \mu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[p^2Hp^\sigma p^\rho H_{\sigma \rho }\right]\right\}+`$ (38)
$`\left\{H_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}\left[H_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }H^{}\right]\right\}+`$ (39)
$`\left\{p_\mu p_\nu \rho +\eta _{\mu \nu }\left[(D2)A^{}\rho ^{}+\rho \left(p^2+(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2\right)\right]\right\}=M_P^{2D}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }(p)\delta (z),`$ (40)
$`\left[p^\mu H_{\mu \nu }p_\nu H\right]^{}+(D2)A^{}p_\nu \rho =0,`$ (41)
$`\left[p^\mu p^\nu H_{\mu \nu }p^2H\right]+(D2)A^{}H^{}(D1)(D2)(A^{})^2\rho =0.`$ (42)
Let us assume that $`T(p)T_\mu ^\mu (p)0`$. 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:

$`\rho =M_P^{2D}dT(p),`$ (43)
$`H_{\mu \nu }=M_P^{2D}\left\{aT_{\mu \nu }(p)+\left[b\eta _{\mu \nu }+cp_\mu p_\nu \right]T(p)\right\}.`$ (44)
Plugging this back into the equations of motion, we obtain five equations for four unknowns $`a,b,c,d`$. However, one of these equations is identically satisfied once we take into account the other four (as well as the on-shell expression for $`A`$). After some straightforward computations we obtain the following system of four independent equations:

$`a^{\prime \prime }+(D2)A^{}a^{}p^2a=\delta (z),`$ (45)
$`(D2)A^{}d=a^{}+(D2)b^{},`$ (46)
$`A^{}\left[(D2)p^2c^{}a^{}\right]=p^2\left[a+(D2)b\right],`$ (47)
$`a+(D3)bc^{\prime \prime }(D2)A^{}c^{}+d=0.`$ (48)
Here we note that (45) must be solved subject to the boundary conditions $`a(z\pm \mathrm{})=0`$ (for $`p^2>0`$).

Note that (48) contains the second derivative of $`c`$ but no $`\delta `$-function term. This then implies that $`c^{}`$ must be continuous at $`z=0`$. However, since $`A^{}`$ is discontinuous at $`z=0`$, the only way that we can satisfy (47) is then to assume that $`c^{}`$ vanishes at $`z=0`$. Taking into account that at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$ $`c`$ must go to zero, we can assume that $`c`$ identically vanishes. Then we have only three unknowns left, namely, $`a,b,d`$, but we still have four equations. However, one of these equations, namely, (46), is automatically satisfied once we take into account the other three equations (as well as the on-shell expression for $`A`$). In terms of the solution to (45) (which can be expressed via Bessel functions ), we thus have the following expression for $`b`$

$$b=\frac{1}{D2}\left[a+\frac{1}{p^2}A^{}a^{}\right].$$
(49)
Note that $`d=a(D3)b`$.

Using the above results we obtain:

$`H_{\mu \nu }(p,z)=M_P^{2D}a(p,z)\left\{T_{\mu \nu }(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{D2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}A^{}(z)\left(\mathrm{ln}[a(p,z)]\right)^{}\right]\eta _{\mu \nu }T(p)\right\},`$ (51)
$`\rho (p,z)=M_P^{2D}{\displaystyle \frac{a(p,z)}{D2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{D3}{p^2}}A^{}(z)\left(\mathrm{ln}[a(p,z)]\right)^{}\right\}T(p).`$
This solution gives the form of (linearized) gravitational interactions between matter sources localized on the brane including the tensor structure of the corresponding graviton propagator. In fact, this is a physical solution - it satisfies the physical boundary conditions at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$, where both $`H_{\mu \nu }(p,z)`$ and $`\rho (p,z)`$ decay to zero as they should. In fact, in the following we will argue that the leading ultra-violet behavior of $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\rho `$ on the brane following from the above solution is independent of the gauge choice.

### B Complete Gauge Fixing

Recall that above we set $`c`$ to zero, which left us with three unknowns $`a,b,d`$ yet four equations. However, as we mentioned above, only three out of these four equations are independent. This gives us a hint that, before we set $`c`$ to zero, there was still some residual gauge symmetry left in the system. This, in fact, is indeed the case. The simplest way to see this is to note that we can actually gauge both $`A_\mu `$ and $`\rho `$ away. Indeed, even though $`\omega `$ must vanish at $`z=0`$, $`\omega ^{}`$ need not. It is then not difficult to see that we can simultaneously gauge $`A_\mu `$ and $`\rho `$ away.

One way to do this is to actually start from the solution (51) and (51), and find a gauge transformation that gauges $`\rho `$ away but does not affect $`A_\mu `$, which is vanishing. The corresponding gauge parameters are given by ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was defined after (8)):

$`\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{M_P^{2D}}{4(D2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{T(p)}{p^2}}\left[2a^{}\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{sign}(z)\left(|z|+\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\right],`$ (52)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{M_P^{2D}}{8(D2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{ip_\mu T(p)}{p^2}}\left[4a\mathrm{\Delta }+z^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }|z|\right],`$ (53)
where we are working with the Fourier transformed quantities. Note that these gauge parameters formally satisfy the conditions (30) and (31). Here we note that $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu `$ is given by the above expression up to an arbitrary additive contribution independent of $`z`$, which can be absorbed into $`(D1)`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms (for which $`\omega 0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu `$ are independent of $`z`$).

Next, the gauge transformed field $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by:

$`H_{\mu \nu }M_P^{D2}=a\left[T_{\mu \nu }(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{D2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }T(p)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(D2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{T(p)}{p^2}}+`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(D2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu T(p)}{p^2}}\left[4a\mathrm{\Delta }+z^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }|z|\right].`$ (55)
This expression has some peculiar properties. First, the last term diverges as $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$, so that $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ given by this expression is no longer a small perturbation around the background. Moreover, even though this term is proportional to $`p_\mu p_\nu `$, a probe bulk matter source, for which $`p^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{bulk}}(p)`$ need not vanish, will feel this field away from the brane. Second, even if we consider only bulk matter sources with $`p^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{bulk}}(p)=0`$, so that the last term in (55) cannot be measured, the second term in (55) is still felt by such a probe bulk matter source (unless its energy-momentum tensor is traceless). This term, however, is independent of $`z`$ (while the first term in (55) decays to zero at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$), so there is a non-vanishing perturbation even infinitely far away form the brane. That is, the above gauge transformed solution does not satisfy the physical boundary conditions at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$.

Another way of arriving at the above result is to use the complete gauge fixing to begin with, that is, to set $`A_\mu `$ as well as $`\rho `$ to zero before solving the equations of motion. This amounts to setting $`d`$ to zero in the system of equations (45), (46), (47) and (48). Once again, we now have three unknowns $`a,b,c`$ and four equations. However, as before, only three of these equations are independent. In fact, upon solving this system of equations for $`a,b,c`$, we obtain precisely (55) (up to terms which can be gauged away using the aforementioned $`(D1)`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms).

Thus, as we see, the scalar degree of freedom $`\rho `$ cannot be gauged away in the sense that, if we do gauge it away, the corresponding gauge transformed solution is not physical. In particular, it does not satisfy the physical boundary conditions at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$. However, above we saw that we cannot gauge $`\rho `$ away everywhere, but we could ask whether $`\rho `$ can be gauged away on the brane (while it is non-vanishing in the bulk) and still satisfy the physical boundary conditions.

The answer to this question is positive, but there is an important point arising in such gauge fixing that we would like to discuss here. Thus, consider a gauge transformation with the following properties:

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu (z)=ip_\mu _0^z𝑑z_1\omega (z_1),$$
(56)
where $`\omega (z)`$ satisfies the following conditions:

$$\omega (0)=0,\omega ^{}(0)=\frac{1}{2(D2)}\frac{T(p)}{p^2}\left[p^2a(p,0)\frac{D3}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\right],$$
(57)
and $`\omega (z)`$ goes to zero at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$ fast enough so that $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu (z)`$ also goes to zero. Moreover, let us require that at any finite $`z`$ none of the quantities $`\omega (z)`$, $`\omega ^{}(z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu (z)`$ have poles for any values of $`p^2`$ even after we rotate back to the Minkowski space. In fact, it is non-trivial that this last condition can be satisfied. Thus, consider $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu (z)`$ infinitesimally close to the brane. From (56) we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu (z)=\frac{ip_\mu }{2}\omega ^{}(0)z^2+𝒪(z^3).$$
(58)
On the other hand, for small $`p^2`$ we have $`a(p,0)=(D3)/2\mathrm{\Delta }p^2+𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, so that $`\omega ^{}(0)`$ does not have a pole at $`p^2=0`$, nor does $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu (z)`$ infinitesimally near the brane. The above gauge transformation then introduces no dangerous poles in $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ or $`\rho `$. Moreover, it is not difficult to see that the gauge transformed graviphoton still vanishes everywhere. The gauge transformed graviscalar $`\rho `$ now vanishes on the brane, but it is non-vanishing outside of the brane. Finally, the above gauge transformation does not affect the graviton components on the brane as $`\omega (0)=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu (0)=0`$, and we have

$$H_{\mu \nu }(p,0)M_P^{D2}=a(p,0)\left[T_{\mu \nu }(p)\frac{1}{D2}\eta _{\mu \nu }T(p)\right]\frac{1}{2(D2)\mathrm{\Delta }}\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{T(p)}{p^2}.$$
(59)
Here we note that this result is the same as that obtained using the “brane bending” procedure of <sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§Some issues in the “brane bending” procedure were discussed in .. In fact, the gauge transformation with the properties (56) and (57) precisely corresponds to the “brane bending” procedure, where the graviscalar component vanishes on the brane due to the fact that the “brane bending” brings us to the Gaussian normal coordinates w.r.t. the brane, where the $`(DD)`$ component of the metric perturbation vanishes .

There is, however, a subtlety arising in using the above gauge fixing which sets $`\rho `$ to zero. From the above discussion it is clear that there is no subtlety as far as the infra-red behavior of the graviton propagator is concerned. The subtlety, however, does arise in the ultra-violet. Thus, consider the variations due to the above gauge transformation in $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ infinitesimally near the brane:

$`\delta H_{\mu \nu }(z)=`$ $`ip_\mu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\nu ip_\nu \stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu +2\eta _{\mu \nu }A^{}\omega =`$ (61)
$`p_\mu p_\nu \omega ^{}(0)z^2\left[1+𝒪(z)\right]\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\omega ^{}(0)|z|\left[1+𝒪(z)\right].`$
It is not difficult to see that at large $`p^2`$, that is, for $`p^2\mathrm{\Delta }^21`$, we have $`a(p,0)1/2p`$, where $`p\sqrt{p^2}`$. This then implies that at large $`p^2`$ we have

$$\omega ^{}(0)\frac{1}{2(D2)}\frac{T(p)}{2p}.$$
(62)
Thus, as we see, in (61) the term proportional to $`p_\mu p_\nu `$ has the following momentum structure at large $`p^2`$:

$$\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p},$$
(63)
so that the graviton propagator blows up in the ultra-violet infinitesimally near the brane. Such a behavior is not acceptable for the graviton propagator, in particular, the corresponding perturbation is no longer small for large $`p^2`$. This implies that the diffeomorphisms required for setting $`\rho `$ to zero on the brane actually are not allowed.

Here, however, we would like to discuss the diffeomorphisms that do not lead to ultra-violet inconsistencies of the aforementioned type. Thus, consider diffeomorphisms where we still have (56) as well as $`\omega (0)=0`$, but $`\omega ^{}(0)`$ goes to zero at large $`p^2`$ as

$$\omega ^{}(0)\frac{1}{p^\alpha }.$$
(64)
(We are assuming that $`\omega (z)`$ is such that this gauge transformation does not introduce any infra-red problems, in particular, it does not introduce any dangerous poles.) For the gauge transformed $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ not to blow up at large $`p^2`$, we must then assume that $`\alpha 2`$. Note that, if this condition is satisfied, the gauge transformation in $`\rho (z=0)`$ only introduces terms which are subleading compared with the leading behavior of $`\rho (z=0)`$ given by (51) at large $`p^2`$. That is, the allowed diffeomorphisms are such that they introduce only subleading terms into $`\rho (z=0)`$ at large $`p^2`$. In fact, the corresponding gauge parameter $`\omega ^{}(0)`$ vanishes in the ultra-violet limit. This fact will become important when we discuss quantum corrections on the brane.

### C Long and Short Distance Behavior

Let us now use (51) to obtain the tensor and momentum structures of the graviton propagator at small and large $`p`$. At large distance scales $`r\mathrm{\Delta }`$, that is, at small momenta $`p1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we have

$$a(p,z=0)=\frac{1}{Lp^2}+\mathrm{},$$
(65)
where the ellipses stand for subleading corrections, and

$$L\frac{\widehat{M}_P^{D3}}{M_P^{D2}}=𝑑z\mathrm{exp}[(D2)A]=\frac{2}{D3}\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(66)
Here $`\widehat{M}_P`$ is the $`(D1)`$-dimensional (reduced) Planck scale corresponding to the $`(D1)`$-dimensional Newton’s constant which determines the strength of gravitational interactions mediated by the localized graviton zero mode. On the other hand, $`A^{}(0\pm )=1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`a^{}(p,z=0\pm )=1/2`$ (the latter can be seen from (45)). We therefore obtain that at small momenta

$$H_{\mu \nu }(p,z=0)\widehat{M}_P^{3D}\frac{1}{p^2}\left[T_{\mu \nu }(p)\frac{1}{D3}\eta _{\mu \nu }T(p)\right].$$
(67)
Both the momentum and tensor structures in this expression for the gravitational field on the brane are $`(D1)`$-dimensional. Thus, at large distances we have the $`(D1)`$-dimensional $`1/r^{D4}`$ Newton’s law, and the number of degrees of freedom which couple to $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ (which can be read off the coefficient $`1/(D3)`$ in front of the $`\eta _{\mu \nu }T(p)`$ term) is $`(D1)(D4)/2`$. In particular, note that the coupling of the scalar degree of freedom $`\rho \stackrel{~}{h}_{DD}`$ to brane matter is suppressed by an extra factor of order $`p^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ compared with that of the graviton $`H_{\mu \nu }`$. This can be seen from the fact that at $`p^20`$ we have $`d(p,0)=a(p,0)(D3)b(p,0)\mathrm{const}.\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$ (this follows from the fact that the next-to-leading correction in (65) is $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })`$). This then implies that

$$\rho (p,z=0)\mathrm{const}.\times \widehat{M}_P^{3D}\mathrm{\Delta }^2T(p).$$
(68)
This, in particular, implies that at long distances we indeed have $`(D1)`$-dimensional gravity. In fact, let us note that the long distance behavior of $`\rho (p,z=0)`$ given by (68) is gauge dependent, and it is not difficult to see that we can always go to a gauge where the coupling of $`\rho (p,z=0)`$ to the brane matter vanishes as $`p^20`$.

Next, let us see what happens at small distance scales $`r\mathrm{\Delta }`$, that is, at large momenta $`p1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We now have

$$a(p,z)\frac{1}{2p}\mathrm{exp}(p|z|),$$
(69)
so that we obtain

$$H_{\mu \nu }(p,z=0)M_P^{2D}\frac{1}{2p}\left[T_{\mu \nu }(p)\frac{1}{D2}\eta _{\mu \nu }T(p)\right].$$
(70)
Both the momentum and tensor structures in this expression for the gravitational field on the brane are $`D`$-dimensional. Thus, at small distances we have the $`D`$-dimensional $`1/r^{D3}`$ Newton’s law, and the number of degrees of freedom which couple to $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ (which can be read off the coefficient $`1/(D2)`$ in front of the $`\eta _{\mu \nu }T(p)`$ term) is $`(D2)(D3)/2=(D1)(D4)/2+1`$. The extra degree of freedom is precisely the scalar $`\rho `$ which no longer decouples at large momenta. This can be seen from the fact that at large $`p`$ we have $`d(p,0)a(p,0)/(D2)`$, and

$$\rho (p,z=0)M_P^{2D}\frac{T(p)}{2(D2)p}.$$
(71)
Note that that (70) and (71) are in complete agreement with the corresponding expressions in the case of a tensionless brane embedded in the Minkowski bulk  as they should be. Indeed, at large $`p`$ the leading behavior of gravity in Randall-Sundrum brane world is expected to be the same as in the limit where the bulk vacuum energy density $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as well as the brane tension $`f`$ go to zero with the fine-tuning relation (7) fixed. In this limit we precisely have a tensionless brane in the Minkowski bulk. On the other hand, as we pointed out in the previous subsection, the allowed gauge transformations do not affect the leading behavior of $`\rho (p,z=0)`$ at large $`p`$ given by (71). That is, the coupling of $`\rho `$ to the brane matter is non-vanishing at large $`p`$, and it cannot be gauged away using the allowed diffeomorphisms.

## III Implications

The fact that $`\rho `$ couples to the brane matter in the ultra-violet has important implications. Thus, note that the brane world-volume theory is not conformal as long as gravity is localized. This then implies that quantum corrections will generically generate various terms in the brane world-volume for the fields that couple to the brane matter. In the Randall-Sundrum model these fields are $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\rho `$. It is clear that the corresponding terms in the brane world-volume action should respect the $`(D1)`$-dimensional diffeomorphisms on the brane (for these diffeomorphisms $`\omega 0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_\mu `$ are independent of $`z`$). Let us confine our attention to such terms that are quadratic in $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and/or $`\rho `$, and contain at most two derivatives w.r.t. $`x^\mu `$. Then the most general corrections of this type into the brane world-volume action are given by the following terms:

$`S_H=\widehat{M}_P^{D3}C_1{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^{D1}x\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[_\sigma H^\sigma H_\sigma H_{\mu \nu }^\sigma H^{\mu \nu }\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[^\mu H_{\mu \sigma }_\nu H^{\nu \sigma }^\mu H_{\mu \nu }^\nu H\right]\right\},`$ (72)
$`S_\rho =\widehat{M}_P^{D3}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^{D1}x\left\{C_2\left[_\nu H^\mu H_{\mu \nu }\right]^\nu \rho C_3m_\rho ^2\rho ^2C_4_\mu \rho ^\mu \rho \right\}.`$ (73)
The terms combined into $`S_H`$ correspond to expanding the termThe fact that this term is generically generated by quantum effects on a brane was pointed out in . The fact that it should be included in the Randall-Sundrum model was pointed out in .

$$\widehat{M}_P^{D3}C_1_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}x\sqrt{\widehat{G}}\widehat{R}$$
(74)
around the Minkowski background: $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+H_{\mu \nu }`$ ($`\widehat{R}`$ denotes the $`(D1)`$-dimensional Ricci scalar constructed from the metric $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }`$). Note that this term renormalizes the $`(D1)`$-dimensional Planck scale, and one can show that it does not introduce any inconsistency as far as the coupling between bulk gravity and brane matter is concerned.

On the other hand, as we will point out in a moment, the terms appearing in (73) are a bit more harmful. The term with the coefficient $`C_2`$ corresponds to expanding the term

$$\widehat{M}_P^{D3}C_2_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}x\rho \sqrt{\widehat{G}}\widehat{R}$$
(75)
around the Minkowski background. The term proportional to $`C_3`$ (that is, the mass term for $`\rho `$) corresponds to expanding the term

$$\widehat{M}_P^{D3}C_3_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}x\sqrt{\widehat{G}}V(\rho )$$
(76)
around the Minkowski background. Here $`V(\rho )`$ is the scalar potential for $`\rho `$, which is also expanded w.r.t. $`\rho `$. The first term in this latter expansion is given by

$$\widehat{M}_P^{D3}C_3V(0)_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}x\sqrt{\widehat{G}}.$$
(77)
This term renormalizes the brane tension. Then to preserve $`(D1)`$-dimensional Poincaré invariance on the brane we need to accordingly fine-tune the bulk vacuum energy density. This fine-tuning is the usual fine tuning of the $`(D1)`$-dimensional cosmological constant, and it will not concern us here. On the other hand, the term linear in $`\rho `$, which is given by

$$\widehat{M}_P^{D3}C_3V_\rho (0)_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}x\rho \sqrt{\widehat{G}},$$
(78)
deserves a more careful consideration. Indeed, if $`V_\rho (0)0`$, this term corresponds to a tadpole for $`\rho `$ when expanded around the classical vacuum. It is not difficult to see that such a tadpole would destabilize the background. The reason for this is that in the presence of such a tadpole the r.h.s. of the $`(DD)`$ component of (3), that is, the r.h.s. of (5) now contains the delta-function source term, while its l.h.s. does not contain terms with the second derivative w.r.t. $`z`$. This implies that $`\rho =0`$ does not correspond to a consistent background. On the other hand, if $`V_\rho `$ vanishes for some other $`\rho =\rho _0`$, we must then expand around this point instead of $`\rho =0`$. We can then always bring the corresponding solution to the form we have been using by appropriate rescalings. The important point here, however, is that a priori there is no guarantee that the scalar potential for $`\rho `$ has an extremum. Thus, for instance, $`V(\rho )`$ could have a runaway behavior. That is, in this model we a priori have to deal with a type of the moduli problem. In the following we will, however, assume that (possibly after the aforementioned rescalings) we have $`V_\rho (0)=0`$. Finally, let us mention that the term in (73) proportional to $`C_4`$ is the kinetic term for $`\rho `$.

In fact, there is one more term which will be relevant for the following discussion. Thus, at the quantum level there might be generated a non-vanishing coupling of $`\rho `$ to the brane matter analogous to that for the graviton $`H_{\mu \nu }`$. That is, instead of (11) we can consider a more general coupling

$$S_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{1}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^{D1}xT_{MN}\stackrel{~}{h}^{MN}.$$
(79)
Here we will assume that $`T_{\mu D}=0`$ as $`A_\mu `$ does not couple to the conserved energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ on the brane. However, the coupling $`T_{DD}`$ generically need not vanish at the quantum level.

Here we note that the terms in (73) as well as the $`T_{DD}`$ coupling in (79) are not invariant under the diffeomorphisms given by (27), (28) and (29) subject to the conditions (30) and (31) (while the correction given by $`S_H`$ is) as in these diffeomorphisms $`\omega ^{}(0)`$ need not vanish. However, as we pointed out in the previous section, not all of these diffeomorphisms are allowed - $`\omega ^{}(0)`$ must vanish fast enough with $`p^2\mathrm{}`$ or else the gauge transformed graviton propagator blows up near the brane in the ultra-violet. That is, generically there is nothing preventing the terms in (73) as well as the $`T_{DD}`$ coupling in (79) from being generated at the quantum level. In fact, the corresponding counterterms are precisely related to ultra-violet divergences in the theory.

The trouble with the terms appearing in (73) as well as the aforementioned coupling $`T_{DD}`$ is that they give rise to a source term on the r.h.s. of (37), while its l.h.s. does not contain terms with the second derivative w.r.t. $`z`$. It is then clear that, to have a consistent solution to (37), the total source term on its r.h.s. should vanish. This, however, generically implies that we need to fine-tune parameters $`C_2,C_3,C_4`$ as well as the coupling $`T_{DD}`$ to have a continuous solution for $`\rho `$ and $`H_{\mu \nu }`$. Indeed, the values of $`\rho `$ and $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ at $`z=0`$ are completely determined in terms of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. Note that this fine-tuning is independent of the aforementioned fine-tuning required for maintaining vanishing cosmological constant on the brane.

Note that if we naively perform the “brane bending” procedure, in the corresponding Gaussian normal coordinates $`\rho `$ does not couple to the brane matter, so in this gauge it might seem that the aforementioned dangerous terms are not generated. However, in the presence of (non-conformal) matter on the brane, in this gauge the brane is no longer straight but is bent w.r.t. the coordinate system that is straight w.r.t. the AdS horizon . A priori it is then unclear how to compute quantum corrections due to the brane matter loops on such a brane, so that the conclusion that the aforementioned terms are not generated in this gauge might be incorrect. In fact, had such a conclusion been correct, we would have a puzzle - physics should certainly be independent of the gauge choice, and in the gauge where $`\rho `$ is non-vanishing on the brane the corresponding terms are generically expected to be generated. Note, however, that the resolution of this issue appears to be quite simple if we take into account our previous discussions - the gauge corresponding to the Gaussian normal coordinates appears to suffer from ultra-violet divergences in the graviton propagator, and is not suitable for discussing the aforementioned quantum corrections on the brane.

Thus, as we see, the fact that $`\rho `$ cannot be gauged away necessitates fine-tuning at the quantum level to preserve consistent coupling between bulk gravity and brane matter. A similar observation was recently made in  in a somewhat different context, namely, within the setup of  where the extra dimension has infinite volume. Because of the latter fact, however, consistent coupling between bulk gravity and brane matter can be achieved in the setup of  if the brane world-volume theory is conformal .

## IV Remarks

Let us now comment on quantum corrections in the bulk. In particular, as was pointed out in , in warped backgrounds with finite-volume non-compact extra dimensions one must be cautious about higher derivative terms in the bulk action. Note that as long as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M_{}^2`$, where $`M_{}`$ is the cut-off scale for higher derivative terms in the bulk action, then contributions of such terms as far as the domain wall solution is concerned are under control . However, as was pointed out in , higher curvature terms in such warped compactifications generically lead to delocalization of gravity. Thus, inclusion of higher derivative terms of, say, the form

$$\zeta d^Dx\sqrt{G}R^k$$
(80)
into the bulk action would produce terms of the form

$$\zeta d^{D1}x𝑑z\mathrm{exp}[(D2k)A]\sqrt{\widehat{G}}\widehat{R}^k.$$
(81)
Assuming that $`A`$ goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ at $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$, for large enough $`k`$ the factor $`\mathrm{exp}[(D2k)A]`$ diverges, so that at the end of the day gravity is no longer localized.

A possible way around this difficulty might be that all the higher curvature terms should come in “topological” combinations (corresponding to Euler invariants such as the Gauss-Bonnet term ) so that their presence does not modify the $`(D1)`$-dimensional propagator for the bulk graviton modes. That is, even though such terms are multiplied by diverging powers of the warp factor, they are still harmless. One could attempt to justify the fact that higher curvature bulk terms must arise only in such combinations by the fact that otherwise the bulk theory would be inconsistent to begin with due to the presence of ghosts. However, it is not completely obvious whether it is necessary to have only such combinations to preserve unitarity. Thus, in a non-local theory such as string theory unitarity might be preserved, even though at each higher derivative order there are non-unitary terms, due to a non-trivial cancellation between an infinite tower of such terms.

We would like to end our discussion by pointing out that the aforementioned difficulty with higher curvature terms does not arise in theories with infinite-volume non-compact extra dimensions . However, consistency of the coupling between bulk gravity and brane matter might give rise to additional constraints. As we have already mentioned, in some cases the brane world-volume theory must be conformal. In such cases it would be interesting to understand if there is a relation to .

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank Gia Dvali, Gregory Gabadadze and especially Tom Taylor for valuable discussions. Parts of this work were completed while I was visiting at Harvard University, New York University and Northeastern 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.