text:
# 1 Discrete vacua. Parameters are taken to be (𝑔₀𝑀⁰,Λ)=(3,1).

TIT/HEP–489

hep-th/0212175

December, 2002

Wall Solution with Weak Gravity Limit
in Five Dimensional Supergravity

Masato Arai a 111e-mail address: arai@fzu.cz , Shigeo Fujita b 222e-mail address: fujita@th.phys.titech.ac.jp , Masashi Naganuma b 333e-mail address: naganuma@th.phys.titech.ac.jp ,

and Norisuke Sakai b 444e-mail address: nsakai@th.phys.titech.ac.jp

a Institute of Physics, AS CR, 182 21, Praha 8, Czech Republic
and
bDepartment of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo 152-8551, JAPAN

Abstract
In five-dimensional supergravity, an exact solution of BPS wall is found for a gravitational deformation of the massive Eguchi-Hanson nonlinear sigma model. The warp factor decreases for both infinities of the extra dimension. Thin wall limit gives the Randall-Sundrum model without fine-tuning of input parameters. We also obtain wall solutions with warp factors which are flat or increasing in one side, by varying a deformation parameter of the potential.

Introduction
One of the most interesting models in the brane-world scenario is given by Randall and Sundrum, where the localization of four-dimensional graviton  has been obtained by a spacetime metric containing a warp factor $`e^{2U(y)}`$ which decreases exponentially for both infinities of the extra dimension $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$

$`ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =e^{2U(y)}\eta _{mn}dx^mdx^n+dy^2,`$ (1)
where $`\mu ,\nu =0,..,4`$, $`m,n=0,1,3,4`$ and $`yx^2`$. They had to introduce both a bulk cosmological constant and a boundary cosmological constant, which have to be fine-tuned each other. Its supersymmetric (SUSY) version has been worked out , and has been argued to help understanding the fine-tuning .

Since the Randall-Sundrum model uses the bulk AdS space, it has implications for the AdS/CFT correspondence , . For that purpose it is also natural to introduce scalar fields forming a smooth wall (thick brane) in supergravity theories. After an extensive studies of BPS walls in four-dimensional supergravity coupled with chiral scalar multiplets , an exact solution of a BPS wall has recently been constructed . Studies of domain wall solutions in gauged supergravity theories in five dimensions revealed that hypermultiplets are needed  to obtain warp factors decreasing for both infinities $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$ (infra-red (IR) fixed points in AdS/CFT correspondence) which are appropriate for phenomenology. It has been shown that the target space of hypermultiplets in five-dimensional supergravity theory must be quaternionic Kähler manifolds  in contrast to the hyper-Kähler target space for five-dimensional global SUSY without gravity. The gravitational deformations have been worked out for massless $`𝒩=2`$ nonlinear sigma models in four dimensions , . However, massive models, namely models with potential terms are needed to obtain domain wall solutions. Massive hyper-Kähler nonlinear sigma models without gravity in four dimensions have been constructed in harmonic superspace as well as in $`𝒩=1`$ superfield formulation , and have yielded the domain wall solution for the Eguchi-Hanson manifold  previously obtained in the on-shell component formulation . Domain walls in massive quaternionic Kähler nonlinear sigma models in supergravity theories have been studied using mostly homogeneous target manifolds. Unfortunately, SUSY vacua in homogeneous target manifolds are not truly IR critical points, but can only be saddle points with some IR directions , . Inhomogeneous manifolds and a wall solution have also been constructed , . However, these manifolds do not allow a limit of weak gravitational coupling, contrary to the model with an exact solution in four-dimensions .

The purpose of our paper is to present an exact BPS domain wall solution in five-dimensional supergravity coupled with hypermultiplets (and vector multiplets). We have obtained a two-parameter family of massive quaternionic nonlinear sigma models which reduces to the Eguchi-Hanson nonlinear sigma model for vanishing gravitational coupling. One of the parameters is the gravitational coupling $`\kappa `$, and the other is an asymmetry parameter $`a`$ for gravitational deformation of potential terms. Having a smooth limit of vanishing gravitational coupling is very useful to obtain inhomogeneous quaternionic Kähler manifolds and also to use it for brane-world phenomenology. The model has two SUSY vacua as genuine local minima up to a critical value of gravitational coupling beyond which the SUSY vacua become saddle points. The BPS domain wall solution for $`|a|<1`$ gives a warp factor decreasing for both infinities of extra dimension $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$, interpolating two IR fixed points. For $`|a|=1`$, the warp factor decreases in one direction, and is flat in the other, interpolating an IR fixed point and flat space. For $`|a|>1`$, the warp factor decreases in one direction, and increases in the other, interpolating an IR and a ultra-violet (UV) fixed points. If we take a thin wall limit for $`a=0`$, we obtain a bulk cosmological constant and boundary cosmological constant satisfying the necessary relation in Ref. from our scalar field configuration automatically. The relation between two cosmological constants is now realized as a consequence of the solution of dynamical equations rather than a fine-tuning between input parameters, similarly to the BPS wall solution in the four-dimensional supergravity . Thus we have obtained the Randall-Sundrum model as a thin-wall limit of a soliton (domain wall) in five-dimensional supergravity. The four-dimensional graviton should be localized on our wall solution .

Our strategy to find a gravitational deformation of nonlinear sigma model is to use the recently obtained off-shell formulation of five-dimensional supergravity (tensor calculus) ,  combined with the quotient method via a vector multiplet without kinetic term and the massive deformation (central charge extension). In the off-shell formulation, we can easily introduce the gravitational coupling to the massive hypermultiplets with linear kinetic term which is interacting with the vector multiplet without kinetic term. By eliminating the vector multiplet after coupling to gravity, we automatically obtain a gravitationally deformed constraint resulting in inhomogeneous quaternionic Kähler nonlinear sigma model with the necessary potential terms. We may call the procedure a massive quaternionic Kähler quotient method. If we apply this method to any global $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY model with two (or more) isolated SUSY vacua and wall solutions connecting them, we should obtain a gravitationally deformed inhomogeneous quaternionic manifold and wall solutions at least for small gravitational coupling.

Bosonic action of our model in 5D SUGRA
In global $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY case, a BPS wall solution in four dimensions has been found in the nonlinear sigma model with the Eguchi-Hanson target manifold and a potential originating from a mass term , . Inspired by this solution, we consider a nonlinear sigma model of hypermultiplets in five-dimensional supergravity which reduces to the massive Eguchi-Hanson nonlinear sigma model in the limit of vanishing gravitational coupling. For this purpose we use the off-shell formulation of Yang-Mills and hypermultiplet matters coupled to supergravity in five dimensions , 111 We adopt the conventions of Ref. except the sign of our metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=diag(1,+1,+1,+1,+1)`$. This induces a change of Dirac matrices and the form of SUSY transformation of fermion. . By using the superconformal tensor calculus , one can obtain the off-shell Poincaré supergravity action after fixing the extraneous gauge freedoms of dilatation, conformal supersymmetry and special conformal-boost symmetry . We start with the system of a Weyl multiplet, three hypermultiplets and two $`U(1)`$ vector multiplets. One of the two vector multiplets has no kinetic term and plays the role of a Lagrange multiplier for hypermultiplets to obtain a curved target manifold. The other vector multiplet serves to give mass terms for hypermultiplets.

After integrating out a part of the auxiliary fields by their on-shell conditions in the off-shell supergravity action , we obtain the bosonic part of the action for our model

$`e^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(_\mu W_\nu ^0_\nu W_\mu ^0\right)\left(^\mu W^{0\nu }^\nu W^{0\mu }\right)`$ (2)
$`^a𝒜_i^\beta d_\beta {}_{}{}^{\alpha }_{a}^{}𝒜_\alpha ^i\kappa ^2[𝒜^\beta {}_{i}{}^{}d_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }_{a}^{}𝒜_\alpha ^j]^2`$
$`[𝒜_i{}_{}{}^{\gamma }d_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(g_0M^0t_0+M^1t_1)_{}^{2}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒜_{\beta }^{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{12}}(g_0M^0)^2(2𝒜_\alpha ^{(i}d^\alpha {}_{\gamma }{}^{}(t_0)_{}^{\gamma \beta }𝒜_\beta ^{j)})^2],`$
$`_\mu 𝒜_i^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu 𝒜_i^\alpha (g_0W_\mu ^0t_0+W_\mu ^1t_1)^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}𝒜_{i}^{\beta },`$ (3)
$`𝒜^i_\alpha `$ $``$ $`ϵ^{ij}𝒜_j{}_{}{}^{\beta }\rho _{\beta \alpha }^{}=(𝒜_i{}_{}{}^{\alpha })^{},`$ (4)
where $`d_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=diag(1,1,1,1,1,1)`$, $`\kappa `$ is the five-dimensional gravitational coupling, $`𝒜_i^\alpha ,i=1,2,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},6`$ are the scalars in hypermultiplets, and $`W_\mu ^0`$ ($`W_\mu ^1`$), $`M^0`$ ($`M^1`$) and $`t_0`$ ($`t_1`$) are vector fields, scalar fields and generators of the $`U(1)`$ vector multiplets with (without) a kinetic term. The gauge coupling of $`W_\mu ^0`$ is denoted by $`g_0`$. Another gauge coupling $`g_1`$ is absorbed into a normalization of $`W_\mu ^1`$ in order to drop the kinetic term by taking $`g_1\mathrm{}`$. Hypermultiplet scalars are subject to two kinds of constraints

$`𝒜^2`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_i^\beta d_\beta {}_{}{}^{\alpha }𝒜_{\alpha }^{i}=2\kappa ^2,`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_1^2}}𝒴_1^{ij}`$ $``$ $`2𝒜_\alpha ^{(i}d^\alpha {}_{\gamma }{}^{}(t_1)_{}^{\gamma \beta }𝒜_\beta ^{j)}=0.`$ (6)
The constraint (5) comes from the gauge fixing of dilatation, and make target space of hypermultiplets to be a non-compact version of quaternionic projective space, $`\frac{Sp(2,1)}{Sp(2)\times Sp(1)}`$, combined with the gauge fixing of $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry. The constraint (6) is required by the on-shell condition of auxiliary fields of the $`U(1)`$ vector multiplet without kinetic term, and corresponds to the constraint for Eguchi-Hanson target space in the limit of $`\kappa 0`$.

The third line of (2) is a scalar potential consisting of two terms : the first term arises from the couplings to scalars in vector multiplets and the second term from eliminating the auxiliary fields of the $`U(1)`$ vector multiplet with kinetic term. The scalar $`M^0`$ is fixed as $`(M^0)^2=\frac{3}{2}\kappa ^2`$ from the requirement of canonical normalizations of the Einstein-Hilbert term and the kinetic term of the gravi-photon $`W_\mu ^0`$ for Poincaré supergravity. The scalar $`M^1`$ without kinetic term is a Lagrange multiplier, and is found to be

$`M^1={\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_i^\gamma d_\gamma {}_{}{}^{\alpha }(t_0t_1)_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒜_{}^{i}_\beta }{𝒜_i{}_{}{}^{\gamma }d_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(t_1)_{\alpha }^{2}{}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒜_{}^{i}_\beta }}g_0M^0.`$ (7)
Let us introduce two two-component complex fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ to parametrize $`𝒜_i^\alpha `$ by a matrix with $`i=1,2`$ as rows and $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},6`$ as columns

$`𝒜_i{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}\overline{𝒜}^{1/2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \kappa \varphi _1& \kappa \varphi _2^{}\\ 0& 1& \kappa \varphi _2& \kappa \varphi _1^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (10)
satisfying the constraint (5) by taking $`\overline{𝒜}=1\kappa ^2(|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2)`$. In this basis, we can choose two $`U(1)`$ generators as

$`t_1{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}i\alpha & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& i\alpha & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\mathrm{𝟏}_2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\mathrm{𝟏}_2\end{array}\right),t_0{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}ia\alpha & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& ia\alpha & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\sigma _3& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& i\sigma _3\end{array}\right),`$ (19)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`a`$ are real parameters and $`\sigma _3`$ is one of the Pauli matrices. The parameter $`\alpha `$ in $`t_1`$ makes target manifold inhomogeneous generally through the constraint (6), and a special case of $`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to a homogeneous manifold of $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$ . Here we define $`\alpha \kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a real parameter of unit mass dimension. We will show later that this choice of two $`U(1)`$ generators makes the hypermultiplet part of this model be Eguchi-Hanson sigma model with mass term in the limit of $`\kappa 0`$ for fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The kinetic terms of scalars in hypermultiplets are rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^1_{kin}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{𝒜}^1[(^\mu \varphi _1^{}_\mu \varphi _1+^\mu \varphi _2^{}_\mu \varphi _2)(|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6)W_\mu ^1W^{1\mu }]`$ (20)
$`\kappa ^2\overline{𝒜}^2[|\varphi _2^{}_\mu \varphi _2+\varphi _1_\mu \varphi _1^{}|^2+|\varphi _1_\mu \varphi _2^{}\varphi _2^{}_\mu \varphi _1|^2],`$
$`W_\mu ^1={\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_\gamma ^id^\gamma {}_{\alpha }{}^{}\stackrel{}{}_{\mu }^{}((t_1)^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}𝒜_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta })}{2𝒜^i{}_{\gamma }{}^{}d_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(t_1)_{}^{2\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}𝒜_{i}^{}^\beta }}={\displaystyle \frac{i(\varphi _1\stackrel{}{}_\mu \varphi _1^{}+\varphi _2\stackrel{}{}_\mu \varphi _2^{})}{2\left(\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6+|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2\right)}},`$ (21)
where $`\varphi _1\stackrel{}{}_\mu \varphi _1^{}\varphi _1_\mu \varphi _1^{}(_\mu \varphi _1)\varphi _1^{}`$. The constraint (6) becomes

$$|\varphi _1|^2|\varphi _2|^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3,\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2=\varphi _2^{}\varphi _1=0.$$
(22)
After solving the constraint (see Eq.(27)) and rewriting the kinetic terms (20) by using independent variables, the target metric is found to be a quaternionic extension of the Eguchi-Hanson metric . Since the metric is Einstein, the Weyl tensor is anti-selfdual and the scalar curvature is negative $`R=24\kappa ^2`$, it is locally a quaternionic manifold  for any values of $`\kappa 0`$.

Potential terms of hypermultiplets become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^1_{pot}`$ $`=`$ $`(g_0M^0)^2\overline{𝒜}^1\left[(a^2\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6+|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2){\displaystyle \frac{[a\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6(\varphi _1\sigma _3\varphi _1^{}+\varphi _2^{}\sigma _3\varphi _2)]^2}{\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6+|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2}}\right]`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3}}(g_0M^0)^2\overline{𝒜}^2\left[|\varphi _1^{}\sigma _3\varphi _2+\varphi _2\sigma _3\varphi _1^{}|^2+|a\mathrm{\Lambda }^3+(\varphi _1\sigma _3\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2^{}\sigma _3\varphi _2)|^2\right].`$
We have now obtained a two-parameter family of gravitational deformations of the Eguchi-Hanson metric by means of the gravitational coupling $`\kappa `$ and another deformation parameter $`a`$ specifying the gravitational deformation of potential terms. This comes about by an asymmetry of $`W_\mu ^0t_0`$ gauging for the central extension (giving mass terms) relative to the $`W_\mu ^1t_1`$ gauging for the constraint (producing curved target space of the nonlinear sigma model).

In order to see that the potential (23) has two vacua as local minima, we introduce the spherical coordinates to parametrize two two-component complex fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ as

$`\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _1^1=g(r)\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\theta }{2})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi })),\hfill & \varphi _1^2=g(r)\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\theta }{2})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })),\hfill \\ \varphi _2^1=f(r)\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\theta }{2})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })),\hfill & \varphi _2^2=f(r)\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\theta }{2})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi })),\hfill \end{array}`$ (27)
where we set

$`f(r)^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3+\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}),g(r)^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3+\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}),`$ (28)
in order to satisfy the constraint (22) . In this coordinate the potential term becomes

$`e^1_{pot}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(g_0M^0)^2}{3(1\kappa ^2\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6})^2}}\left(v_0+v_1\mathrm{cos}\theta +v_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right),`$ (29)
$`v_0`$ $`=`$ $`3\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}\kappa ^2(16r^2+3\mathrm{\Lambda }^6)4a^2\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}3\kappa ^2r^2\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}{\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}},`$
$`v_1`$ $`=`$ $`8a\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{\displaystyle \frac{r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}}{\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}},v_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^6{\displaystyle \frac{32\kappa ^2\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}\kappa ^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}{\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}}.`$
The scalar potential $`V=e^1_{pot}`$ is shown in Fig.1. There exist two vacua at $`(r,\theta )=(0,0),(0,\pi )`$ as local minima (see Fig. 1-(a)). These two vacua become saddle points with an unstable direction along $`r`$ for $`\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3>3/4`$ for $`a=0`$. Fig. 1-(b) shows a typical unstable behavior of potential at $`\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3=0.9`$, which is close to $`\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3=1`$, where the target space of hypermultiplets becomes a homogeneous space of $`SU(2,1)/U(2)`$. For $`a0`$, potential takes different values at these two vacua.

BPS equation
Instead of solving Einstein equations directly, we solve BPS equations to obtain a classical solution conserving a half of SUSY. Since we consider bosonic configurations, we need to examine the on-shell SUSY transformation of gravitino and hyperino

$`\delta _\epsilon \psi _\mu ^i`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_\mu \epsilon ^i{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}M_0𝒴_0^i{}_{j}{}^{}\gamma _{\mu }^{}\epsilon ^j,`$ (30)
$`\delta _\epsilon \zeta ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_\mu 𝒜^\alpha {}_{j}{}^{}\gamma _{}^{\mu }\epsilon ^j(M^1t_1+g_0M^0t_0)^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}𝒜_{}^{\beta }{}_{j}{}^{}ϵ_{}^{j}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}𝒜_j{}_{}{}^{\alpha }M_{0}^{}𝒴_0^j{}_{k}{}^{}\epsilon _{}^{k},`$ (31)
where

$`𝒟_\mu \epsilon ^i`$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma _{ab}\omega _\mu ^{ab})\epsilon ^i\kappa ^2V_\mu {}_{}{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}\epsilon _{}^{j},`$ (32)
$`𝒟_\mu 𝒜_i^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu 𝒜_i^\alpha +\kappa ^2V_\mu {}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}𝒜_{j}^{\alpha }W_\mu ^1t_1^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}𝒜_{i}^{\beta },`$ (33)
$`𝒴_0^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒜_\alpha ^{(i}d^\alpha {}_{\gamma }{}^{}(g_0t_0)_{}^{\gamma \beta }𝒜_\beta ^{j)},V_\mu ^{ij}=𝒜^{\gamma (i}d_\gamma ^\alpha _\mu 𝒜_\alpha ^{j)}.`$ (34)
If we assume the warped metric (1), the SUSY transformation of the gravitino (30) decouples into two parts

$`\delta _\epsilon \psi _m^i`$ $`=`$ $`_m\epsilon ^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _m\gamma ^y_yU\epsilon ^i{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}M^0𝒴_0^i{}_{j}{}^{}\gamma _{m}^{}\epsilon ^j,`$ (35)
$`\delta _\epsilon \psi _y^i`$ $`=`$ $`_y\epsilon ^i\kappa ^2V_y^i{}_{j}{}^{}\epsilon _{}^{j}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}M^0𝒴_0^i{}_{j}{}^{}\gamma _{y}^{}\epsilon ^j.`$ (36)
Let us require vanishing of the SUSY variation of gravitino and hyperino to preserve four SUSY specified by

$`\gamma ^y\epsilon ^i(y)=i\tau _3^i{}_{j}{}^{}\epsilon _{}^{j}(y),`$ (37)
where $`\tau _3`$ is one of the Pauli matrix. Then one of the gravitino BPS conditions (35) gives an equation for the warp factor $`U(y)`$ and an additional constraint

$`_yU=𝒲(\varphi )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa ^2}{3}}g_0M^0\overline{𝒜}^1[a\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(\varphi _1^{}\sigma _3\varphi _1\varphi _2^{}\sigma _3\varphi _2)],`$ (38)
$`\varphi _1^{}\sigma _3\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (39)
The hyperino BPS condition (31) combined with the condition (39) gives

$`\left[_yiW_y^1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}𝒲(\varphi )+\overline{V}\right)+(g_0M^0\sigma _3+M^1)\right](\overline{𝒜}^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi _1)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\left[_yiW_y^1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}𝒲(\varphi )\overline{V}\right)(g_0M^0\sigma _3+M^1)\right](\overline{𝒜}^{\frac{1}{2}}\varphi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (40)
$$\overline{V}\kappa ^2\overline{𝒜}^1(\varphi _1^{}\stackrel{}{}_2\varphi _1\varphi _2^{}\stackrel{}{}_2\varphi _2)/2.$$
(41)
Since Eq.(37) assures that solutions of these BPS equations conserve four SUSY out of eight SUSY, the effective theory on this background has $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY in four dimensions. This should be useful for model building in the SUSY brane-world scenario.

Wall solution and thin wall limit
Let us rewrite the BPS equations in terms of the spherical coordinates (27). After some algebra, we obtain four independent differential equations from Eqs. (40),

$`r{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{2g_0M^0\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}}{\sqrt{4r^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^6}}r(\mathrm{cos}\theta +a\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3),`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{dy}}=2g_0M^0\mathrm{sin}\theta .`$ (42)
Let us obtain the wall solution interpolating between the two vacua: $`(r,\theta )=(0,0),(0,\pi )`$. The boundary condition of $`r=0`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ dictates the solution of (42) as

$`r=0,\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{tanh}\left(2g_0M^0(yy_0)\right),\mathrm{\Phi }=\phi _0,`$ (43)
with $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ undetermined, and $`y_0`$ and $`\phi _0`$ are constants. Substituting these solutions to r.h.s. of Eq.(38), we obtain the BPS solution of the warp factor

$`U(y)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{3(1\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\{\mathrm{cosh}\left(2g_0M^0(yy_0)\right)\}+2ag_0M^0(yy_0)\right].`$ (44)
The warp factor $`e^{2U(y)}`$ of this solution decreases exponentially for both infinities $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$ for $`|a|<1`$ (see Fig. 2) similarly to the case of the bulk AdS space. Therefore a four-dimensional massless graviton should be localized on the wall . The cases of $`|a|=1`$ become the wall solutions interpolating between AdS and flat Minkowski vacua. On the other hand, warp factor increases exponentially either one of the infinities for $`|a|>1`$. Following the AdS/CFT conjecture, a vacuum reached by a decreasing (increasing) warp factor corresponds to IR (UV) fixed point of a four-dimensional field theory . Our BPS wall solutions interpolate two IR fixed points for $`|a|<1`$. Moreover these vacua are local minima of the potential. This implies that no relevant operator exists in these conformal field theories222 One of the authors (NS) thanks Steve Gubser for a discussion on this point. . The wall solutions for $`|a|>1`$ interpolate one IR and one UV fixed points which cannot realize the warped extra dimension, but should be related to a Renormalization Group (RG) flow : the function $`𝒲(\varphi )`$ in BPS equation of warp factor (38) is monotonic without changing its sign along the flow. The family of our BPS solutions contains a parameter $`a`$ interpolating between three classes of field theories : one with two IR fixed points ($`|a|<1`$), another with one IR and one UV fixed point ($`|a|>1`$), and one with one IR fixed point and flat space ($`|a|=1`$). We find it remarkable that a single family of models can realize all these possibilities as we change a parameter.

From Eqs.(36) and (37) we find the Killing spinor $`\epsilon ^i(y)`$ as

$`\epsilon ^i(y)e^{U(y)/2}\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^i,\gamma ^y\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^i=i\tau _3^i{}_{j}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_{}^{j},`$ (46)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^i`$ is a constant spinor.

We can obtain a thin wall limit by taking $`g_0M^0\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ with $`g_0M^0\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$, $`\kappa `$, and $`a`$ fixed. Substituting the solutions (43) and (44) to the Lagrangian of hypermultiplets and taking the thin wall limit, we obtain for $`y_0=0`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}R+e^1_{kin}+e^1_{pot}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{8\kappa ^2(g_0M^0\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)^2}{3(1\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)^2}}\left[a+\mathrm{tanh}(2g_0M^0y)\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{2g_0M^0\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(2\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)}{(1\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_0M^0}{(\mathrm{cosh}(2g_0M^0y))^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}R\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8\kappa ^2(g_0M^0\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)^2}{3}}\left(a+ϵ(y)\right)^2\right]4(g_0M^0\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)\delta (y),`$
where $`ϵ(y)\pm 1`$ is a sign function. We have obtained a boundary cosmological constant from the wall tension $`T_w`$ and a bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+,(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^{})`$ for $`y<0(y>0)`$ as

$`T_w=4(g_0M^0\mathrm{\Lambda }^3),\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{8\kappa ^2(g_0M^0\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)^2}{3}}(1\pm a)^2.`$ (48)
We find that our BPS solution for $`a=0`$ automatically satisfies the fine-tuning condition $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}=\frac{\kappa }{\sqrt{6}}T_w`$ of the Randall-Sundrum model between $`T_w`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, as a result of combined dynamics of scalar field and gravity. In terms of the asymptotic linear exponent $`c`$ of the warp factor $`Uc|yy_0|,c2\kappa ^2(g_0M^0\mathrm{\Lambda }^3)/3`$ for $`|yy_0|\mathrm{}`$, the wall tension $`T_w=24c/(4\kappa ^2)`$, and cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=24c^2/(4\kappa ^2)`$ satisfy precisely the same relation as in Ref. (with $`M_p^3(4\kappa ^2)^1`$). Therefore we have realized the single-wall Randall-Sundrum model as a thin-wall limit of our solution of the coupled scalar-gravity theory, instead of an artificial boundary cosmological constant put at an orbifold point.

By a dimensional reduction, we can obtain from the above hypermultiplet action an $`𝒩=2`$ four-dimensional supergravity theory (eight SUSY) with hypermultiplets. Therefore we can automatically obtain from our BPS wall solution (43)-(44) a BPS wall solution in $`𝒩=2`$ four-dimensional supergravity which is a gravitational deformation of the BPS wall solution ,  in the global SUSY case.

Weak gravity limit
Next, we discuss the properties of our model and solution in the weak gravity limit, which is defined by taking the limit of $`\kappa 0`$ with $`g_0M^0\overline{M}`$ held fixed. We obtain in the limit

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^1(_{kin}+_{pot})`$ $``$ $`(^\mu \varphi _1^{}_\mu \varphi _1+^\mu \varphi _2^{}_\mu \varphi _2)+(|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2)W_\mu ^1W^{1\mu }`$ (49)
$`\overline{M}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2)^2(\varphi _1\sigma _3\varphi _1^{}+\varphi _2^{}\sigma _3\varphi _2)^2}{|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2}},`$
$`W_\mu ^1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i(\varphi _1\stackrel{}{}_\mu \varphi _1^{}+\varphi _2\stackrel{}{}_\mu \varphi _2^{})}{2(|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2)}},`$ (50)
and the constraints (22) are unchanged. The kinetic part in Eq.(49) is identical to the five-dimensional version of the nonlinear sigma model with the target space of $`T^{}𝐂P^1`$, namely the Eguchi-Hanson manifold, in the basis of Curtright and Freedman . The potential term is also identical to the mass term for this nonlinear sigma model, as discussed in Ref.: this mass term is originated from the central extension of global $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY algebra , and can be rewritten as the norm of a tri-holomorphic killing vector for an isometry of target space of the Eguchi-Hanson metric . Therefore the above action (49) has global $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY.

In this limit, BPS equations for scalar fields in the hypermultiplets become

$`r{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{dy}}=0,{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dy}}=2\overline{M}r\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dy}}=0,{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{dy}}=2\overline{M}\mathrm{sin}\theta .`$ (51)
These equations are identical to the BPS equations in the massive Eguchi-Hanson sigma model, whose four-dimensional version has been discussed in Ref.. Therefore the model and the solution we discuss in this paper are consistent gravitational deformation of the massive Eguchi-Hanson nonlinear sigma model in five dimensions and associated BPS wall solutions.

The wall solution for $`\kappa =0`$ is the five-dimensional version of the kink solution in Ref. with the field redefinition in Ref.. Their solutions are exactly identical to our solution (43) obtained for finite $`\kappa `$. It is very interesting that BPS solution for the hypermultiplet $`\varphi `$ in the global SUSY model coincides with that in the corresponding supergravity. This mysterious coincidence has also appeared in the analytic solution in a four-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity model . It is tempting to speculate that this property might be related to the exact solvability of our model.

It has been a long-standing problem to find a consistent gravitational deformation from a hyper-Kähler manifold to a quaternionic Kähler manifold with gravitationally corrected potential terms necessary for wall solutions. We have achieved this goal by using an off-shell formulation of supergravity and the massive quaternionic Kähler quotient method333 Massless quaternionic Kähler quotient method has been used before , . . Supergravity domain walls have been extensively worked out using the on-shell formulation such as in Ref.. Since auxiliary fields are eliminated when we solve BPS equations, it should in principle be possible to obtain BPS solutions from the on-shell formulation. Off-shell formulation of supergravity, however, offers a more powerful tool to obtain supergravity domain walls as gravitational deformations of those in global SUSY models. If we eliminate constraints before coupling to gravity, it is very difficult in general to extend hyper-Kähler nonlinear sigma models with global eight SUSY to quaternionic Kähler nonlinear sigma models coupled to supergravity, because of the complicated gravitational corrections. On the other hand, many hyper-Kähler sigma models can be obtained as quotients of linear sigma models by using vector multiplets as Lagrange multipliers. When we eliminate Lagrange multiplier multiplets after coupling to gravity in the off-shell formulation, we obtain quaternionic Kähler nonlinear sigma models coupled to supergravity. Moreover we can take a weak gravity limit of these models straightforwardly. Therefore the off-shell formulation of supergravity is quite useful to obtain quaternionic nonlinear sigma models as continuous gravitational deformations of hyper-Kähler nonlinear sigma models of the global SUSY.

As noted in Ref., our quaternionic manifold has a conical singularity at $`r=0`$ in $`r,\mathrm{\Psi }`$ plane except for discrete values of gravitational coupling $`\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^3=(k1)/k,k=2,3,\mathrm{}`$ where it can be identified with a removable bolt singularity. Our BPS solution can be realized for this smooth manifold at least for $`k=2,3`$ ($`k=2`$) for $`a=0`$ ($`|a|>1`$) without having saddle points of the scalar potential. Moreover we believe that we can achieve a continuous gravitational deformation avoiding the singularity, if we simply restore the finite gauge coupling $`g_1`$ for the vector multiplet containing $`W_\mu ^1`$ instead of infinite gauge coupling as we did up to now. Let us take a gauged linear sigma model consisting of hypermultiplets interacting with vector multiplets and couple it to supergravity by the tensor calculus . This model is a perfectly consistent interacting supergravity system with eight local SUSY. For finite but large values of gauge coupling $`g_1`$, it effectively reduces to our quaternionic nonlinear sigma model except near the conical singularity where we can no longer neglect the vector multiplet. Only in the neighborhood of the singularity, the manifold loses its simple geometrical meaning of quaternionic manifold consisting solely of hypermultiplets. We may call this situation a resolution of the conical singularity444 One of the authors (NS) thanks Tohru Eguchi for an illuminating discussion on this point.  in the spirit of Ref.. In this model, we can freely take the limit $`\kappa 0`$ to obtain the Eguchi-Hanson manifold. Therefore we believe that this gauged linear sigma model coupled with supergravity is the most appropriate setting for the gravitational deformation of hyper-Kähler manifolds such as Eguchi-Hanson manifold. On the other hand, our BPS wall should still be a valid solution of the gauged linear sigma model coupled with supergravity. This is because our constraints arising from the elimination of the vector multiplet without kinetic term preserve all SUSY, and hence they solve the BPS condition for the vector multiplet trivially. Therefore we anticipate that our solution continues to be a BPS wall solution for the gauged linear sigma model with a finite large coupling $`g_1`$ coupled with supergravity. The only modification should be that the vector multiplet cannot be neglected when we examine the geometry of the target manifold near the resolved conical singularity. We hope to provide a full analysis of the gauged linear sigma model coupled with supergravity in subsequent publications.

Discussion
Finally we discuss implications of our solution on two no-go theorems. It has been shown that wall solutions in supergravity theories always have singularities under several assumptions including non-positive scalar potential . Our BPS wall solution has no singularities of the type they discussed and can be regarded as a counter example of the no-go theorem. This violation of the no-go theorem arises from the fact that a potential becomes positive around the center of the wall contradicting one of their assumptions.

On the other hand, it has been shown that the proposed Nambu-Goldstone (NG) fermion from broken SUSY diverges on the wall in supergravity theories . They considered the result as a no-go theorem for smooth wall solutions such as the one presented here. Recently Cvetic and Lambert have proposed a more proper definition of the wave function of the NG fermion associated with the killing spinor of broken SUSY and have argued that the no-go theorem can be evaded . In fact, we obtained an explicit domain wall solution with warp factor decreasing for both infinities of extra dimensions in five-dimensional supergravity. We regard our result to be an example evading the no-go theorem along the line of Ref..

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for discussion with Keisuke Ohashi. One of the authors (MN) thanks useful discussion with Koji Hashimoto and another (NS) thanks useful discussion with Tohru Eguchi, Steve Gubser, Sergei Ketov and Taichiro Kugo. This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 13640269. The work of M. Naganuma is supported by JSPS Fellowship.


format: text

text:
# Logarithmic perturbation theory for radial Klein-Gordon equation with screened Coulomb potentials via ℏ expansions

## 1 Introduction

Static screened Coulomb potentials have been widely used in nuclear and particle physics, atomic physics, solid-state physics and chemical physics. Usually the bound-state problem with these potentials is considered within a non-relativistic framework. Nevertheless, relativistic effects for a particle under the action of such potential could become important, especially for strong coupling.

Several attempts have been made to describe relativistic systems in a central field due to a time-component of Lorentz four-vector and a Lorentz-scalar interaction within the framework of the Klein-Gordon equation. However, for almost all potentials this equation is not exactly solvable which compels to resort to some approximation methods.

A number of such approaches to solving the radial Klein-Gordon equation in analytical expressions have been developed, including, in particular, the use of the relativistic hypervirial and Hellmann-Feynman theorems , the $`1/N`$-expansions \[2-9\], the method of Regge trajectories \[10-12\], the elements of an $`SO(2,1)`$ Lie algebra  and a perturbation scheme based on a comparison equation .

Despite such a variety of methods one of the most popular techniques is still logarithmic perturbation theory \[16-18\]. Within the framework of this theory, the conventional way to solve the quantum-mechanical bound-state problem consists in changing from the wave function to its logarithmic derivative and converting the Klein-Gordon equation into the nonlinear Riccati equation. In the case of ground states, the consequent expansion in a small parameter leads to a hierarchy of simple equations that permit us to derive easily the corrections to the energy and wave function for each order. However, when radially excited states are considered, the standard approach  becomes extremely cumbersome and, practically, inapplicable for describing higher orders of expansions. At the same time the evaluation of perturbative terms of large orders is needed for applying modern summation procedures because the obtained series are typically divergent.

The above mentioned weakness of the standard approach is caused by factoring out zeros of the wave functions with taking into account corrections to the positions of the nodes. On the other hand, the radial quantum number, $`n`$, that is equal to the number of nodes of the wave function, most conveniently and naturally is introduced in the consideration by means of quantization conditions as well as in the WKB-approach . However, since the WKB-approximation is more suitable for obtaining energy eigenvalues in the limiting case of large quantum numbers but perturbation theory, on the contrary, deals with low-lying levels, the WKB quantization conditions need change.

Recently, a new technique based on a specific quantization conditions has been proposed to get the perturbation series via the semiclassical $`\mathrm{}`$-expansions within the one dimensional Schrödinger equation .

In this paper, we would like to extend similar technique to the bound-state problem for the Klein-Gordon equation with the Coulomb-type potential, contained time component of a Lorentz four-vector and/or a Lorentz scalar term, that receives attention as possible model of quark confinement.

There are several advantages to described approach: no wave functions or matrix elements need to be previously calculated and derived recursion formulae for obtaining perturbation corrections have the same simple form both for ground and excited states.

The proposed technique can be regarded as a further investigation of a part assigned to a rule of achieving a classical limit for radial and orbital quantum numbers in the construction of the semiclassical methods for the Klein-Gordon equation. If the WKB-approach is realized using the rule, $`\mathrm{}0`$, $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`l\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}n=const`$, $`\mathrm{}l=const`$, application of the condition $`\mathrm{}0`$, $`n=const`$, $`l\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}n0`$, $`\mathrm{}l=const`$ was proved to lead to the method of $`1/N`$-expansion  and the method of Regge trajectories . Here we address ourselves to the alternative possibility: $`\mathrm{}0`$, $`n=const`$, $`l=const`$, $`\mathrm{}n0`$, $`\mathrm{}l0`$, that results in the explicit semiclassical treatment of the logarithmic perturbation theory for the radial Klein-Gordon equation.

This paper is organized as follows: section II contains a general discussion of the method and necessary assumptions in semiclassical treatment of the logarithmic perturbation theory. In section III quantization conditions obtained are used for deriving the recursion relations for perturbation expansions. Section IV demonstrates that described approach restores the exact results in the case of the Coulomb potential and gives the example of its explicit application to the bound-state problem in field of the Hulthén potential. This potential, apart from its initial interest as a possible form of nuclear interaction, is exactly solvable for the $`l=0`$ states, thereby providing a consistency check for our perturbation technique. Finally we present a brief summary.

## 2 The method

In this section, we study the bound state problem for a relativistic scalar particle moving in the field of an attractive central real-analytic screened Coulomb potential, admitted bounded eigenfunctions, having in consequence a discrete energy spectrum. This potential has a Coulomb-like behaviour at the origin, caused by the time component of a Lorentz four-vector, $`V(r)`$, and/or a Lorentz-scalar term, $`W(r)`$, which in general can be written as

$$V(r)=\frac{1}{r}\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_ir^iW(r)=\frac{1}{r}\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}W_ir^i.$$
(1)
Notice, that in the last case, when the Coulombic singularity is contained only in one part of potential, another part may be a smooth function described by equation (1) with $`V_0=0`$ or $`W_0=0`$.

In what follows, a scalar potential will be included in the mass term $`m(r)`$, by analogy with ”dynamical mass” models of quark confinement

$$m(r)=m+\frac{W(r)}{c^2}.$$
(2)
Then the reduced radial part of the Klein-Gordon equation takes the form

$$\mathrm{}^2R^{\prime \prime }(r)=\left\{m^2(r)c^2\frac{1}{c^2}[EV(r)]^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)}{r^2}\right\}R(r)$$
(3)
where the particle wave function is $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=R(r)/r`$.

As is customary in the logarithmic perturbation theory, we apply the substitution, $`C(r)=\mathrm{}R^{}(r)/R(r)`$, and go over from (3) to the Riccati equation

$$\mathrm{}C^{}(r)+C^2(r)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)}{r^2}+m^2(r)c^2\frac{1}{c^2}[EV(r)]^2.$$
(4)
Within the framework of the standard approach to the logarithmic perturbation theory, all quantities of the Riccati equation are expanded in formal series in powers of a small screening parameter $`\lambda `$, incoming in a potential functions of the form $`V(r)=r^1f(\lambda r)`$. After such an expansion the screening parameter appears in consideration in combination with derivatives of screening function as $`\lambda ^i\mathrm{d}^if/\mathrm{d}r^i`$.Taking into account this fact, in our approach we do not single out the screening parameter, but incorporate it into coupling constants $`V_i`$ and $`W_i`$ from (1).

Besides, because the Riccati equation (4) has in the relativistic case the same structure as in the nonrelativistic one , these coupling constants, $`V_i`$ and $`W_i`$, appear in common with powers of Plank’s constant. Therefore the perturbation series must be in reality not only expansions in powers of a screening parameter but also the semiclassical $`\mathrm{}`$-expansions, too. As stated earlier, we intend to restore the results of logarithmic perturbation theory for the $`n`$th eigenfunction and corresponding energy eigenvalue by means of the explicit expansions in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$.

For this purpose we apply the method of series expansions in small parameter at the higher derivative, known from the theory of differential equations . Such an approach does not imply knowledge of the exact solution for initial approximation which is obtained automatically. Only the leading order in $`\mathrm{}`$ for the energy eigenvalues need be determined first. With assumption that the energy eigenvalues and the logarithmic derivative of the wave function may be written as an asymptotic power series in the Planck constant, from (4) we then have

$$E=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_k\mathrm{}^{2k}$$
(5)
$$C(r)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_k(r)\mathrm{}^{2k}.$$
(6)
Here we take into account that under substitution into equation(4) the coefficients of odd powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ for the energy expansion (5) and even powers for (6) are equal to zero.

Before proceeding, a few words about the order in $`\mathrm{}`$ of the combination $`\mathrm{}c`$, appeared, as readily seen from (4), in our consideration. For velocities which are small in relation to the velocity of the light $`c`$, relativistic mechanics must go over into classical mechanics. So the non-relativistic energy $`E_{NR}`$ should be regarded as small quantity in comparison to the relativistic rest energy $`mc^2`$.

Because for the Coulomb interaction, which is treated as the dominant part of the screened Coulomb potentials, the non-relativistic quantum-mechanical energy behaves as $`E_{NR}1/\mathrm{}^2`$, from the inequality $`E_{NR}<<mc^2`$ we conclude that $`\mathrm{}cO(1)`$. It means that the factor $`\mathrm{}c`$ is merely the coefficient providing the right dimension.

Therefore, to avoid additional complications, in foregoing consideration we put $`\mathrm{}c=1`$. It is worth noting that analogous statement for transition to classical limit is hold within the framework of the Dirac equation, too .

Further, through the use of the $`\mathrm{}`$-expansions (5) and (6), on collecting coefficients of the same powers of $`\mathrm{}`$, from the Riccati equation (4) we obtain

$`C_0^2(r)=m^2E_0^2`$
$`C_0(r)C_1(r)=E_0\left[V(r)E_1\right]+mW(r)`$
$`C_1^{}(r)+2C_0(r)C_2(r)+C_1^2(r)={\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}E_1^22E_0E_2+2E_1V(r)`$ (7)
$`+W^2(r)V^2(r)`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`C_{k1}^{}(r)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}C_j(r)C_{kj}(r)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}E_jE_{kj}+2E_{k1}V(r)k>2.`$
In the case of ground states, the recurrence system at hand coincides with one derived by means of the standard technique and can be solved straightforwardly. It will be recalled that complications of the logarithmic perturbation theory arise in the description of radial excitations when the nodes of wavefunctions are separated in some factor. We intend to circumvent this difficulty by making use of the quantization condition. Its fundamental idea that stems from the WKB-approach  is well known as the principle of argument in the analysis of complex variables. Being applied to the logarithmic derivative of wave function it means that

$$\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}C(r)dr=\mathrm{}nn=0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(8)
where $`n`$ is a number of nodes of the wave function, $`R(r)`$, and a contour of integration encloses only these nodes.

This condition is exact and is widely used for deriving the high-order corrections to the WKB-approximation  and the 1/$`N`$-expansions . Now one important detail must be noted. The radial and orbital quantum numbers, $`n`$ and $`l`$, correspondingly, are specific quantum notions and need be defined before going over from quantum mechanics to classical physics. Therefore the quantization condition (8) must be supplemented with the rule of achieving a classical limit that stipulates the type of semiclassical approximation.

It should be stressed that in our approach the quantization condition is quite distinguished from the WKB condition (8) in two points: we apply the different rule of achieving a classical limit and choose another contour of integration in complex plain.

Firstly, about the rule of achieving a classical limit.

Unfortunately, under the influence of standard textbooks on quantum mechanics, the semiclassical $`\mathrm{}`$-expansions are usually associated solely with the WKB-approach, for which the rule of achieving a classical limit is

$$\mathrm{}0,n\mathrm{},l\mathrm{},\mathrm{}n=\mathrm{const},\mathrm{}l=\mathrm{const}.$$
(9)
At that time the semiclassical 1/$`N`$-expansion, being complementary to the WKB-method, requires the conditions

$$\mathrm{}0,n=\mathrm{const},l\mathrm{},\mathrm{}n0,\mathrm{}l=\mathrm{const}.$$
(10)
As it will be shown, the semiclassical treatment of logarithmic perturbative theory proved to involve the alternative possibility:

$$\mathrm{}0,n=\mathrm{const},l=\mathrm{const},\mathrm{}n0,\mathrm{}l0.$$
(11)
We should remark that the part of this rule concerned the orbital quantum number, $`l`$, differs from one used within the WKB-approach and the 1/$`N`$-expansion method. In our consideration this part, implying the first order in $`\mathrm{}`$ for the quantity $`\mathrm{}l`$, has been used in deriving the system (2).

The second distinction is concerned with the choice of the path of integration in complex plane.In contrast to the WKB-approach and the 1/$`N`$-method, we choose such a contour of integration which encloses not only the nodes of the wave function but the boundary point, $`r=0`$, as well, and no other singularities.

As it follows from equation (3), the regular branch of the function $`R(r)`$ behaves in a neighborhood of the origin as

$$R(r)_{r0}r^{1/2+\sqrt{W_0^2V_0^2+(l+1/2)^2}}U(r),$$
(12)
where $`U(r)`$ contains only nodes of the wave function. Hence, the direct integration of the logarithmic derivative $`R^{}(r)/R(r)`$ around the origin yields the quantity $`1/2+\sqrt{W_0^2V_0^2+(l+1/2)^2}`$ in addition to nodes in the quantization condition (8) which can be now rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}C(r)dr=\mathrm{}\left(n+1/2+\sqrt{W_0^2V_0^2+(l+1/2)^2}\right)n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}$$
(13)
Taking into account that due to the rule (11) the rihgt-hand side of this equality has the first order in $`\mathrm{}`$, and on substituting the expansion (6), our quantization condition takes its final form

$$\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}C_i(r)dr=\left(n+1/2+\sqrt{W_0^2V_0^2+(l+1/2)^2}\right)\delta _{i,1}n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}$$
(14)
where the Kronecker delta $`\delta _{ij}`$ is used and the quantity, $`W_0^2V_0^2+(l+1/2)^2`$, under square root sign should be not negative from the constraint to obtain a regular bound state wavefunction.

A further application of the theorem of residues to the explicit form of functions $`C_i(r)`$ easily solves the problem of the description of both ground and radially exited states.

## 3 Recursion formulae for perturbation expansions

We proceed now to deriving the recursion relations for obtaining the $`n`$th eigenfunction and corresponding energy eigenvalue.

Let us consider the system (2) and investigate the behaviour of the functions $`C_k(r)`$. From the first equation we have

$$C_0(r)=\sqrt{m^2E_0^2},$$
(15)
where the minus sign is chosen from boundary condition. Then the function $`C_1(r)`$ has a simple pole at the origin, owing to the Coulombic behaviour incoming in one or/and other part of the potential at this point, while the function $`C_k(r)`$ has a pole of the order $`k`$. Hence $`C_k(r)`$ can be represented by the Laurent series

$$C_k(r)=r^k\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_i^kr^i,k1.$$
(16)
With definition of residues, this expansion permits us to express the quantization conditions (12) explicitly in terms of the coefficients $`C_i^k`$ as

$$C_k^{k+1}=N\delta _{0,k}n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}$$
(17)
where $`N=n+1/2+\sqrt{W_0^2V_0^2+(l+1/2)^2}`$.

Thereby the common consideration of the ground and excited states has been indeed proved to be possible.

The substitution of the series (16) into the system (2) and collecting coefficients of the like powers of $`r`$ leads to the recursion relation in terms of the Laurent coefficients, $`C_i^k`$:

$`C_i^k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2C_0^0}}[(ik+1)C_i^{k1}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{i}{}}}C_p^jC_{ip}^{kj}`$
$`+\delta _{k,i}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}E_jE_{kj}2E_{k1}V_{ik+1}`$
$`+\delta _{k,2}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{i}{}}}(V_pV_{ip}W_pW_{ip})\delta _{i,0}\delta _{k,2}l(l+1)`$
$`\delta _{k,1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}mW_i]`$
where for universality of designations we put $`C_0^0=C_0(r)`$, $`C_i^0=0`$, $`i>0`$.

In the case $`ik`$, this formula is intended for obtaining $`C_i^k`$, whereas if $`i=k`$, by equating the explicit expression for $`C_k^{k+1}`$ to the quantization condition (17) we arrive at the recursion formulae for the energy eigenvalues

$`E_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{N^2+V_0^2}}\left(N\sqrt{N^2+V_0^2W_0^2}V_0W_0\right)`$
$`E_k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{C_0^0C_0^1}{2(E_0C_0^1+V_0C_0^0)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_0^1}}[{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{k}{}}}C_p^jC_{kp}^{k+1j}`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Theta }(k2){\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{k}{}}}C_p^1C_{kp}^k+\delta _{k,1}(V_0V_1W_0W_1)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_0^0}}[C_k^{k1}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{k}{}}}C_p^jC_{kp}^{kj}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}E_jE_{kj}`$
$`2E_{k1}V_1+\delta _{k,2}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{2}{}}}(V_jV_{2j}W_jW_{2j})`$
$`\delta _{k,1}2mW_1]\}k0`$
where we use the step function

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Theta }(k)\hfill & =1,k0\hfill \\ & =0,k<0\hfill \end{array}$$

and the plus-sign for $`E_0`$ is chosen since the particle states enter to the bound state gap from the upper continuum.

Thus, the problem of finding the energy-eigenvalues and eigenfunctions for the bound-state problem within the framework of the radial Klein-Gordon equation with screened Coulomb potentials can be considered solved. The equations (3) and (3) have the same simple form both for ground and exited states and define a useful procedure of successive calculation of higher perturbation theory orders convenient both for analytic evaluation and numerical computation by a computer.

## 4 Discussion and examples

In this section we consider specific application of our technique to perturbed hydrogenic problems. But first of all, in the proof of correctness of the recurrent formulae obtained, we check whether the exact results for the pure Coulomb potentials are restored. From equations (3) it is readily seen that $`E_0`$ does be exact solution to the Klein-Gordon equation with time-component of Lorentz four-vector and Lorentz-scalar Coulomb potentials . As an additional check, we demonstrate that in this case our technique restores the exact solution for the eigenfunctions, too.

Changing the variable from $`r`$ to $`\rho `$, with $`\rho =2r(m^2E^2)^{1/2}=2\mu r`$, and putting for simplicity, $`\gamma =\sqrt{(l+1/2)^2+W_0^2V_0^2},\mathrm{}=c=1`$, from the system (3) we find that $`C_k(\rho )=d_k\rho ^k`$, where

$`d_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$
$`d_1`$ $`=n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\gamma `$
$`d_2`$ $`=n(n+2\gamma )`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`d_k`$ $`=(1k)d_{k1}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}d_jd_{kj}k>2.`$
Integration of the functions $`C_0(\rho )`$ and $`C_1(\rho )`$ gives exactly the part of the unnormalized radial wave function

$$R_l(\rho )=e^{\rho /2}\rho ^{1/2+\gamma }P_n(\rho )$$
(21)
which provides the regular behaviour at the origin and correct one at infinity.

The remaining part is a polynomial, $`P_n(\rho )=_{k=0}^na_k\rho ^k`$, that satisfies the equation

$$P_n^{}(\rho )/P_n(\rho )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d_k\rho ^k\left(\frac{1}{2}+\gamma \right)\rho ^1$$
(22)
and whose coefficients are determined by the system

$$a_k(nk)+\underset{j=k+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_jd_{jk+1}=0.$$
(23)
The combination of this equations, multiplied by a suitable $`d_j`$ with a view to taking into account equations (4), arrives at the following relation between two consecutive coefficients

$$\frac{a_{m1}}{a_m}=\frac{(m+1)(m+2\gamma )}{mn1}$$
(24)
that is the recursion formula for the associated Laguerre polynomials $`L_n^{2\gamma }(\rho )`$ (see, for example, ). Thus, described technique restores the exact result for the wave functions , too.

Now, as an example of specific application of our technique we consider energy eigenvalues for the attractive Hulthén potential, having not only time-component of the Lorentz-vector, $`V(r)=\frac{a\lambda }{e^{\lambda r}1}`$, but the Lorentz-scalar term, $`W(r)=\frac{b\lambda }{e^{\lambda r}1}`$, as well. Because this screened Coulomb potential admits of the exact solution only in the case of $`s`$-wave , for describing orbital excitations we can use the perturbation theory. Then the coefficients of expansions (1) determining potentials are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V_0& =a\hfill \\ \hfill V_k& =\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{V_j\lambda ^{kj}}{(k+1j)!}k>0\hfill \\ \hfill W_0& =b\hfill \\ \hfill W_k& =\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{W_j\lambda ^{kj}}{(k+1j)!}k>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
and with applying equation (3) the analytic expressions for perturbation corrections to the bound state energy take the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E_0& =\frac{m}{N^2+a^2}\left(N\sqrt{N^2+a^2b^2}ab\right)\hfill \\ \hfill E_1& =\frac{\lambda }{2m}\left(am+bE_0\right)\hfill \\ \hfill E_2& =\frac{\lambda ^2(bm+aE_0)}{24(am+bE_0)\mu ^2m}\left[3(am+bE_0)^2\mu ^2L\right]\hfill \\ \hfill E_3& =\frac{\lambda b}{2m}E_2\hfill \\ \hfill E_4& =\frac{\lambda ^4\left(bm+aE_0\right)}{5760\left(am+bE_0\right)^3\mu ^4m^3}\hfill \\ & \times \{45[(am+bE_0)^6+5b^2\mu ^2(am+bE_0)^4]\hfill \\ & +L[24a^3m^3bE_0(6E_0^2m^2)+6a^4m^4(7E_0^22m^2)\hfill \\ & am\mu ^2\left(am+2bE_0\right)\left(5LE_0^2+13Lm^26m^2\right)\hfill \\ & +b^2m^2\mu ^2\left(5Lm^223LE_0^2+6E_0^2\right)\hfill \\ & 6b^2\left(am+bE_0\right)^2\left(13m^428m^2E_0^2+5E_0^4\right)\hfill \\ & +6b^2E_0^2(22a^2m^2E_0^22a^2m^45b^2E_0^4)]\}\hfill \\ \hfill E_5& =\frac{\lambda ^5b\left(bm+aE_0\right)}{3840\left(am+bE_0\right)^3\mu ^4m^4}\hfill \\ & \times \{45(am+bE_0)^6+105b^2\mu ^2(am+bE_0)^4\hfill \\ & +L[24a^3m^3bE_0(6E_0^2m^2)+6a^4m^4(7E_0^22m^2)\hfill \\ & am\mu ^2\left(am+2bE_0\right)\left(5LE_0^2+13Lm^26m^2\right)\hfill \\ & +b^2m^2\mu ^2\left(5Lm^223LE_0^2+6E_0^2\right)\hfill \\ & 2b^2\left(am+bE_0\right)^2\left(19m^444m^2E_0^25E_0^4\right)\hfill \\ & +6b^2E_0^2(22a^2m^2E_0^22a^2m^45b^2E_0^4)]\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
where $`\mu ^2=m^2E_0^2`$, $`L=l\left(l+1\right)`$, $`N=n+1/2+\sqrt{W_0^2V_0^2+(l+1/2)^2}`$.

It is readily seen that the use of $`\mathrm{}`$-expansion technique leads to the explicit perturbation expansion in powers of the small parameter $`\lambda `$.

Besides, it is known the $`s`$-wave solution to the Klein-Gordon equation with vector and scalar Hulthén-type potentials, obtained in terms of hypergeometrical functions. From equation for allowed energy values, listed in , one can derive the explicit expression for exact $`s`$-wave energy eigenvalues

$$E=\frac{abm/\mathrm{}^2+\lambda a\kappa ^2/2+\stackrel{~}{N}\kappa c\sqrt{m^2c^2+\lambda mb\lambda ^2\kappa ^2\mathrm{}^2/4}}{\stackrel{~}{N}^2+a^2/(\mathrm{}c)^2}$$
(27)
where $`\stackrel{~}{N}=n+1/2+\sqrt{b^2/(\mathrm{}c)^2a^2/(\mathrm{}c)^2+1/4}`$ and $`\kappa =\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{N}^2+a^2/(\mathrm{}c)^2b^2/(\mathrm{}c)^2}`$.

With performing the perturbation expansion of this expression in powers of $`\lambda `$ we arrive at the system (with $`\mathrm{}c=1`$)

$`E_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ab+\stackrel{~}{N}\kappa }{\stackrel{~}{N}^2+a^2}}`$
$`E_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa (\kappa a+\stackrel{~}{N}b)}{\stackrel{~}{N}^2+a^2}}`$
$`E_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2}{8m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{N}\kappa (\kappa ^2+b^2)}{\stackrel{~}{N}^2+a^2}}`$ (28)
$`E_3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{}^2b}{2m}}E_2`$
$`E_4`$ $`=\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^4{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2+5b^2}{16m^2}}E_2`$
$`E_5`$ $`=\lambda ^3\mathrm{}^6{\displaystyle \frac{b(3\kappa ^2+7b^2)}{32m^3}}E_2`$
which coincides with (26) under the condition $`l=0`$. Note that for $`s`$-waves there exists a critical value of the screened parameter $`\lambda `$ . From (27) the obvious condition

$$m^2c^2+\lambda mb\frac{\lambda ^2\kappa ^2\mathrm{}^2}{4}0$$
(29)
yields

$$\lambda _{cr}=\frac{2mc^2}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{N}^2\mathrm{}^2c^2+a^2}b}.$$
(30)
Then bound states can occur provided the condition $`\lambda <\lambda _{cr}`$.

In order to assess the speed and accuracy of the perturbation technique for the Hulthén potential with various ratios of its components we consider energy eigenvalues for the pure vector case, $`V(r)=\frac{a\lambda }{e^{\lambda r}1}`$; the pure scalar potential, $`W(r)=\frac{b\lambda }{e^{\lambda r}1}`$; and the equally mixed interaction. Typical results of calculation are presented in Tables where sums of first terms from our expansion for the energy eigenvalues for the bound state problem within the framework of the radial Klein-Gordon equation is compared with the results obtained by numerical integration, $`E_{\mathrm{num}}`$ (in relativistic units $`\mathrm{}=c=m=1`$). As the numerical integration procedure was used, the improved shooting method with the Noumerov integration scheme, described in literature , which ensures the necessary exactness of calculation for the Sturm-Liouville problems.

The Table 1 demonstrates dependence of accuracy of the perturbation expansions on the value of the screening parameter $`\lambda `$. In Table 1 are shown the results of the calculations of the sum of first five terms from perturbation expansions for energy eigenvalues, computed for the first excited $`p`$-state ($`n=1`$, $`l=1`$) with parameters $`a=1.0`$, $`b=1.0`$ and the value of $`\lambda `$ varying from 0.05 to 0.15. It is seen that the accuracy of the perturbation description decreases with increasing the parameter $`\lambda `$.

The Table 2 illustrates the speed of the perturbation technique on the energy eigenvalue calculation for the Hulthén potential with various ratios of its component.The sequences of the partial sums of $`k`$ corrections to the energy eigenvalues were computed for the states with $`l=1`$, $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$, and parameters $`a=1.0`$, $`b=1.0`$, $`\lambda =0.05`$.

As can be seen from Table 2 the sequences of partial sums of perturbation corrections to the energy eigenvalues for the Hulth$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$n potential have different behaviour in the pure vector case and for scalar case and mixed interaction.

Because the parameter $`b`$, which determines the scalar interaction, is involved linearly in all perturbation corrections of odd orders, starting from third (see equations (26)), these corrections in the pure vector case become equal to zero. Then we have one subsequence that tends smoothly to the exact value.

When the pure scalar or mixed interaction is considered, we have two subsequences bounded below and above the energy eigenvalues. The average of these subsequences at the point of their maximal drawing together is proved to result in a quite good approximation to the exact value.

## 5 Summary

A new useful semiclassical technique for deriving results of the logarithmic perturbation theory for the bound-state problem withing the framework of the radial Klein-Gordon equation with the screened Coulomb potential having both time-component of Lorentz-vector and a Lorentz-scalar term has been developed. Based upon the $`\mathrm{}`$-expansions and suitable quantization conditions, new handy recursion relations have been obtained. Avoiding the disadvantages of the standard approach these formulae have the same simple form both for ground and exited states and provide, in principle, the calculation of the perturbation corrections up to an arbitrary order in the analytic or numerical form. And, at last, this approach does not imply knowledge of the exact solution for zero approximation, which is derived automatically. As an example of application, perturbation expansions for the energy eigenvalues for the Hultén potential containing the vector part as well as the scalar component have been investigated with proposed technique. The different behaviour of the perturbation series in the case of potential in the form of time-component of a Lorentz-vector and for a Lorentz-scalar interaction has been found.

This research was supported by a grant N 0100V005251 from the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine which is gratefully acknowledged.

## References