text:
# Self-tuning solution of the cosmological constant problem with antisymmetric tensor field

## I Introduction

The cosmological constant problem veltman  is probably the most important clue to the physics at the Planck scale. Most attempts toward solutions of the cosmological constant problem introduce additional ingredients witten ; baum ; hawking ; coleman ; others ; duff , except the wormhole and anthropic solutions of the problem coleman ; anthropic .

The wormhole solution is based on the probabilistic interpretation that the probability to have a universe with a vanishing cosmological constant is the largest coleman . But in the evolving universe where the true vacuum is chosen as the universe cools down, the probabilistic interpretation in the early universe is in question since at a later epoch additional constant may be generated by spontaneous symmetry breaking. For this interpretation to make sense, there must exists a self-tuning solution. \[The self-tuning solution is defined as the flat space solution without any fine-tuning of parameters in the action.\] The anthropic interpretation anthropic  for the small cosmological constant is a working proposal, but does not answer the fundamental question, $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$Can we explain the vanishingly small constant from the fundamental parameters in the theory?”

On the other hand, Hawking’s probably vanishing cosmological constant hawking  relies on an undetermined integration constant. He showed that the wave function for a flat universe is infinitely large compared to non-flat universes. Thus, if there exists an undetermined integration constant, the phase transition will end probably to a flat universe. However, his original proposal with a three index antisymmetric tensor field does not introduce any dynamics in the 4D space-time and the integration constant is just another cosmological constant hawking ; duff . Witten witten  also argued that the existence of an undetermined integration constant may be a clue to the understanding of the flat universe, since a many-body theory may provide an explanation from a one constant universe to another constant universe dee . Thus, in the absence of a self-tuning solution of the cosmological constant, we regard that the cosmological constant problem in Hawking’s scenario still remains as an unsolved problem.

Therefore, it is worthwhile to search for any new solution of the cosmological constant problem. Since the gravitational law beyond the Planck scale is not a settled issue at present, we can look for solutions even in models with drastically different gravity beyond the Planck scale. If the cosmological constant problem is solved in models with a different gravity, then the new interaction can be studied extensively whether it leads to another inconsistency in theory or in phenomenology. In this spirit, there have been attempts to understand the cosmological constant in the 5 dimensional (5D) world with the fifth dimension $`y`$ compactified rs1  (RSI model) or uncompactified rs2  (RSII model). It seems that there can be a way to understand the cosmological constant problem shapo  in these RS type models since, RSI model for example, the nonvanishing brane tensions $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ and bulk cosmological constant $`k`$ can lead to a flat space solution if these parameters satisfy two fine-tuning conditions $`k_1=k=k_2`$. Therefore, the first step to understand the cosmological constant is to find the flat space solutions without any fine-tuning between parameters in the action.

With the fifth dimension compactified (RSI), the attempts to solve the cosmological constant has failed so far. The original try to find a flat space solution without any fine-tuning kachru  had a singularity, and taking the singularity into account by putting a brane there reproduced a fine-tuning condition nilles  even though the two conditions have been reduced to just one. Therefore, the first step toward a solution of the cosmological constant in the RS type models is to have flat space solutions without any fine-tuning between parameters in the Lagrangian. Restricting just to an exponentially small cosmological constant, it has been pointed out that it is possible with two or more branes hbk ; tye ; cline .

Recently, the needed flat space solutions in the RSII type background have been found kklcc . With a smeared-out brane a similar attempt led to a self-tuning solution tamvakis . In the RS type models, the brane(s) has a special meaning in the sense that the matter fields can reside at the brane only. However, the effective gravitational interaction of the matter fields is obtained after integrating out the fifth dimension $`y`$. For this effective theory to make sense, we must require that:
(i) the metric is well-behaved in the whole region of the bulk, and
(ii) the resulting 4D effective Planck mass is finite.

The condition (i) is to find a solution without a singularity in the region defined. In this regard, if the warp factor vanishes at say $`y=y_m`$, then $`y_m`$ becomes the horizon and the universe connected to the matter brane is up to $`y=y_m`$. In the RSI models, it is a disaster if $`0<y_m<\frac{1}{2}`$ is between the two branes located at $`y=0`$ and $`y=1/2`$. This is because one needs both branes for the consistency in the RSI models. But in the RSII models, if there exists $`y_m`$ then one can consider the space only for $`y_m<y<y_m`$ if $`y_m`$ is not a naked singularity. Indeed, it can be shown that it is consistent to consider the space up to this point only by calculating the effective cosmological constant by integrating $`y`$ to $`y_m`$. The localized gravity condition (ii) restricts the solutions severely, since the $`y`$ integration in some solutions would give a divergent quantity for $`M_P`$ or $`M_P`$ get more important contributions as $`y\mathrm{}`$.

The Einstein-Hilbert action with a bulk cosmological constant and a brane tension in the RSII model does not allow a self-tuning solution. Addition of the Gauss-Bonnet term kkl1  does not improve the situation, and also it does not help to regularize a naked singularity in the self-tuning model with a bulk scalar kachru . But addition of the three index antisymmetric tensor field $`A_{MNP}`$ (and the field strenth $`H_{MNPQ}`$ and $`H^2H_{MNPQ}H^{MNPQ}`$) allows a self-tuning solution kklcc .

In this paper, we discuss the RSII model with antisymmetric tensor field added. The case with $`1/H^2`$ term allowing the self-tuning solution is the main motivation for this extensive study. $`H_{MNPQ}`$ has been considered before in connection with the cosmological constant problem witten  and the possible compactification of the seven internal space in the 11D supergravity fr . Even in the 5D Randall-Sundrum model $`H_{MNPQ}`$ is useful to separate the 4 dimensional space. The $`1/H^2`$ term looks strange, but the consideration of the energy-momentum tensor would require a nonvanishing $`H_{MNPQ}`$, triggering the separation of the extra dimension from the 4 dimensional space. Below the Planck scale, we consider that the action is an effective theory. Above the Planck scale, we consider that the quantum gravity effects may be very important, but at present the final form for quantum gravity is not known yet.

In this paper, the self-tuning solution means that it does not need a fine-tuning between the parameters in the action, which is a progress toward understanding the cosmological constant problem. The self-tuning solutions are found from time independent Einstein equations. However, the existence of the self-tuning solution alone does not solve the cosmological constant problem completely. It is because if the ansatz for a time dependent metric allows, for example, the de Sitter space solutions with the antisymmetric tensor field added then choosing the flat space is simply choosing a boundary condition. However, the existence of the self-tuning solution and the probabilistic interpretation for the wave function of the universe can provide a logical understanding of the vanishing cosmological constant even in this case hawking . Suppose that we start from a flat universe from the beginning $`\stackrel{´}{a}`$ la the wormhole interpretation of the vanishing cosmological constant. But this interpretation alone may encounter a difficulty when the phase transitions such as the electroweak phase transition or the QCD phase transition add a nonvanishing cosmological constant at a later epoch. However, the existence of the self-tuning solution chooses the flat space solution out of numerous possibilities when the universe goes through these phase transitions. If there exists a self-tuning solution, then the wormhole interpretation chooses the vanishing cosmological constant even after these phase transitions.

We find that the $`1/H^2`$ term does always allow de Sitter space solutions with localized gravity. In the RS model, however, a negative brane tension ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1<0`$) does not allow a localized gravity in the de Sitter space karch , but allows only a nonlocalized gravity. There are arguments excluding these nonlocalized gravity local , and in the RSII model for a negative brane tension one may exclude the de Sitter space solutions. However, the nonlocalized gravity cannot become a strong argument for the vanishing cosmological constant. It simply means that the de Sitter space solution with nonlocalized gravity cannot materialize to our universe. At some point, we may invoke an anthropic principle or turn to a probabilistic interpretation. Namely, as long as there exist solutions for nonzero cosmological constants whether there results a localized gravity or not, we need a probabilistic interpretaion. For a probabilistic interpretation, the existence of the self-tuning solution is crucial in choosing the flat universe.

In Sec. II, we present the flat space solutions with $`1/H^2`$ term and with $`H^2`$ term. It is shown that $`1/H^2`$ term allows the flat space self-tuning solution but $`H^2`$ term allows at most one-fine-tuning solutions. De Sitter space and anti de Sitter space solutions are also commented. In Sec. III, it is shown that the $`1/H^2`$ term allows the anti de Sitter and de Sitter space solutions. We discuss the horizons appearing in our solutions. We also discuss how the universe chooses the vanishing cosmological constant. In Sec. IV, we present a time-dependent solution such that the 4D space time remains flat when the brane tension shift instantaneously to another value. Sec. V is a conclusion.

## II The static solutions

The five dimensional space is composed of the bulk and a 3-brane located at $`y=0`$ where $`y`$ is the fifth coordinate. We assume that matter fields live in the brane. For studying the gravity sector, we include the three index antisymmetric tensor field $`A_{MNP}`$ whose field strength is denoted as $`H_{MNPQ}`$, where $`M,N,\mathrm{}=0,1,2,3,5(y)`$. We find that there exist solutions for different bulk cosmological constants at $`y<0`$ and $`y>0`$. But for simplicity of the discussion, we will introduce a $`Z_2`$ symmetry so that the bulk cosmological constant is universal. In this section, we summarize the self-tuning solution kklcc  with the time independent metric. But for comparison we briefly comment the time dependent metric, i.e. the de Sitter space and anti de Sitter space solutions with the $`1/H^2`$ term. We also present one-fine-tuning solutions for $`H^2`$ term with time independent metric, and compare with the other known tuning solutions kachru ; tamvakis .

### II.1 A self-tuning solution of the cosmological constant with $`1/H^2`$

A self-tuning solution exists for the following action,

$$S=d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}R+\frac{24!}{H_{MNPQ}H^{MNPQ}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+_m\delta (y)\right)$$
(1)
which will be called the KKL model kklcc . Here we set the fundamental mass parameter $`M`$ as 1 and we will recover the mass $`M`$ wherever it is explicitly needed. We assume a $`Z_2`$ symmetry of the warp factor solution, $`\beta (y)=\beta (y)`$. The sign of the $`1/H^2`$ term is chosen such that at the vacuum the propagating field $`A_{MNP}`$ has a standard kinetic energy term.

The action contains the $`1/H^2`$ term which does not make sense if $`H^2`$ does not develop a vacuum expectation value. Since the cosmological constant problem is at the bottom of most cosmological application of particle dynamics, it is worthwhile to study any solution to the cosmological constant problem. We note that this problem has led to so many interesting but unfamiliar ideas witten ; baum ; hawking ; others . Therefore, any new idea in the possible interpretation of the cosmological constant problem is acceptable at this stage. In fact, we found a very nice solution with the above action and hence we propose the action (1) as the fundamental one in gravity. Being a part of gravity, we do not worry about the renormalizability at this stage.

Flat space solution The ansatz for the metric is taken as

$$ds^2=\beta ^2(y)\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2$$
(2)
where $`(\eta _{\mu \nu })=\mathrm{diag}.(1,+1,+1,+1)`$. Then Einstein tensors are,

$`G_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }\left[3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}\right)\right],`$
$`G_{55}`$ $`=`$ $`6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2.`$ (3)
where prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`y`$. With the brane tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ at the $`y=0`$ brane and the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, the energy momentum tensors are

$`T_{MN}=g_{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }_bg_{\mu \nu }\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)+44!\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{H^4}}H_{MPQR}H_N^{PQR}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H^2}}\right).`$ (4)
The specific form for $`H^2H_{MNPQ}H^{MNPQ}`$ in Eq. (1) makes sense only if $`H^2`$ develops a vacuum expectation value at the order of the fundamental mass scale. Because of the gauge invariant four index $`H_{MNPQ}`$, four space-time is singled out from the five dimensions fr . The four form field is denoted as $`H_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$,

$$H_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=\sqrt{g}\frac{ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }}{n(y)}$$
(5)
where $`\mu ,\mathrm{}`$ run over the Minkowski indices 0, 1, 2, and 3. With the above ansatz, the field equation for the four form field is satisfied,

$$_M\left(\sqrt{g}\frac{H^{MNPQ}}{H^4}\right)=0.$$
(6)
There exists a solution for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b<0`$. The two relevant Einstein equations are the (55) and ($`\mu \mu `$) components,

$`6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^8}{A}}`$ (7)
$`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)3{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^8}{A}}`$ (8)
where $`A`$ is a positive constant in view of Eq. (5). It is easy to check that Eq. (8) in the bulk is obtained from Eq. (7) for any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,`$ and $`A`$. This property is of the specialty of the $`H_{MNPQ}`$ field. Near B1(the $`y=0`$ brane), the $`\delta `$ function must be generated by the second drivative of $`\beta `$. The $`Z_2`$ symmetry, $`\beta (y)=\beta (y)`$, implies $`(d/dy)\beta (y)|_{0^+}=(d/dy)\beta (y)|_0^{}`$. Thus,

$$\frac{d^2}{dy^2}\beta (|y|)=\frac{d^2}{dy^2}\beta (|y|)|_{y0}+2\delta (y)\frac{d}{d|y|}\beta (|y|).$$
(9)
This $`\delta `$-function condition at B1 leads to a boundary condition

$$\frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }|_{y=0^+}k_1,$$
(10)
where we define $`k`$’s in terms of the bulk cosmological constant and the brane tension,

$$k\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{6}},k_1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{6}.$$
(11)
Let us find a solution for the bulk equation Eq. (7) with the boundary condition Eq. (10). We define $`a`$ in terms of $`A`$,

$$a=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6A}}.$$
(12)
The solution of Eq. (7) consistent with the $`Z_2`$ symmetry is

$$\beta (|y|)=\left(\frac{k}{a}\right)^{1/4}[\mathrm{cosh}(4k|y|+c)]^{1/4},$$
(13)
where $`c`$ is an integration constant to be determined by the boundary condition Eq. (10). This solution, consistent with Condition (i), is possible for any value of the brane tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Note that $`c`$ can take any sign. This solution gives a localized gravity consistent with the above Condition (ii). The boundary condition (10) determines $`c`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$,

$$c=\mathrm{tanh}^1\left(\frac{k_1}{k}\right)=\mathrm{tanh}^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{\sqrt{6\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}\right).$$
(14)
A schematic shape of $`\beta (y)`$ is shown in Fig. 1.

The effective 4D Planck mass is finite

$$M_{P,\mathrm{eff}}^2=2M^3\left(\frac{k}{a}\right)^{1/2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}(4ky+c)}}=\frac{M^3}{\sqrt{2ka}}F[\alpha ,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}]_0^{\mathrm{}}$$

$$=\frac{M^3}{\sqrt{2ka}}_{\sqrt{1(\mathrm{cosh}(c))^1}}^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt{(1x^2)(1\frac{1}{2}x^2)}}.$$
(15)
Here $`F(\alpha ,r)`$ is the elliptic integral of the first kind and

$$\alpha =\mathrm{sin}^1\sqrt{(\mathrm{cosh}(4ky+c)1)/(\mathrm{cosh}(4ky+c))}.$$
(16)
Note that the Planck mass is given in terms of the integration constant $`a`$, or the integration constant is expressed in terms of the fundamental mass $`M`$ and the 4D Planck mass $`M_{P,\mathrm{eff}}`$,

$$a=\left(\frac{M^3}{M_{P,\mathrm{eff}}^2\sqrt{2k}}F[\alpha ,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}]_0^{\mathrm{}}\right)^2.$$
(17)
Curved space solution The curved space solution is a time-dependent solution which will be discussed in the KKL model of Sec. III.

Localization of gravity and no tachyon The perturbed metric is

$`ds^2=(\beta ^2\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu })dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2`$ (18)
where we chose the Gaussian normal condition, $`h_{5\mu }=h_{55}=0`$. With the transverse traceless gauge, $`^\mu h_{\mu \nu }=h_\mu ^\mu =0`$, and by a separation of variables such as $`h_{\mu \nu }=ϵ_{\mu \nu }e^{ipx}\psi (y)`$ ($`p^2=m^2`$), we obtain the following linearized equations without matter on the brane,

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta ^2m^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_y^2+2k^22k_1\delta (y)6a^2\beta ^8\right]\psi (y)=0`$ (19)
where

$`k_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{6}},`$ (20)
$`a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6A}}}.`$ (21)
Here we make a change of variable by $`z=^y\frac{dy}{\beta (y)}^y𝑑ue^{C(u)}`$ and $`\psi (y)=\beta ^{1/2}\widehat{\psi }(z)`$ and then obtain the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger-like equation as follows,

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{z^2}}+V(z)\right]\widehat{\psi }(z)=m^2\widehat{\psi }(z)`$ (22)
where

$`V(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}k^2\beta ^23k_1\beta \delta (z){\displaystyle \frac{39}{4}}a^2\beta ^{10}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C}{z}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2C}{z^2}}\right).`$ (24)
Therefore, we can see that $`m^20`$, i.e., there is no tachyon state near the background, by regarding the above equation as a supersymmetric quantum mechanics tamvakis ,

$`Q^{}Q\widehat{\psi }(z)\left(_z+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{z}}\right)\left(_z+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{z}}\right)\widehat{\psi }(z)=m^2\widehat{\psi }(z).`$ (25)
Moreover, there appears the localization of gravity on the brane as expected from the finite 4D Planck mass, due to one bound state of massless graviton, $`\widehat{\psi }_0(z)e^{3C/2}=\beta ^{3/2}`$, that is, $`\psi _0(y)\beta ^2`$. Note that the zero mode solution $`\psi _0(y)`$ automatically satisfies the boundary condition $`(_y+2k_1)\psi |_{y=0+}=0`$ from Eq. (19).

### II.2 One-fine-tuning solutions of the cosmological constant with $`H^2`$ term

In this section, we obtain just the flat space solution for the $`H^2`$ term in the action,

$$S=d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{M^3}{2}R\frac{M}{24!}H_{MNPQ}H^{MNPQ}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+\underset{i}{}_m^{(i)}\delta (yy_i)\right).$$
(26)
The ansatze for the metric and the four form field are taken also as given in Eq. (2) and Eq. (5), respectively. Thus the field equation for $`A_{MNP}`$ is trivially satisfied again,

$$_M\left[\sqrt{g}H^{MNPQ}\right]=0.$$
(27)
The two relevant Einstein equations are the (55) and ($`\mu \mu `$) components,

$`6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\beta ^8}}`$ (28)
$`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta (yy_c){\displaystyle \frac{A}{\beta ^8}}`$ (29)
where $`A/\beta ^81/2n^2`$ expressed in terms of a ‘positive’ constant $`A`$.

The solutions of Eq. (28) and (29) are

$`\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b<0:\beta (|y|)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{k}}\right)^{1/4}[\mathrm{sinh}(|4k|y|+c|)]^{1/4}`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b>0:\beta (|y|)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{k}}\right)^{1/4}[\mathrm{sin}(|4k|y|+c|)]^{1/4}`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0:\beta (|y|)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|4a|y|+c|\right)^{1/4},`$ (32)
where the $`a`$ is defined in terms of $`A`$,

$$a\sqrt{\frac{A}{6}}.$$
(33)
We note that for a positive $`c`$ in Eqs. (30)– (32) $`\beta `$’s do not give localized graviton solutions near the brane B1, and for a negative $`c`$ $`\beta `$’s have naked singularities at $`|y|=c/4k`$ or $`c/4a`$. Therefore, to get the effective four dimensional gravity or to avoid the sigularities in the bulk, it is indispensable to cut the extra dimension such that it has a finite length size by introducing another brane, say B2. Thus, we need at least two branes and the situation is similar to that of the RSI except for the 4 form field contributions. Since the extra dimension is finite, the effective four dimensional Planck mass $`M_PM^3𝑑y\beta ^2`$ is also finite. If we introduce two branes, we should satisfy the boundary conditions at the two branes, consistently with the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry,

$$\frac{d^2}{dy^2}\beta (|y|)=\frac{d^2}{dy^2}\beta (|y|)|_{y0}+2\left(\delta (y)\delta (yy_c)\right)\frac{d}{d|y|}\beta (|y|).$$
(34)
Then the boundary conditions for the above three cases are

$`\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b<0:c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{coth}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{k}}\right)=4ky_c\mathrm{coth}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{k}}\right)`$ (35)
$`\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b>0:c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{k}}\right)=4ky_c\mathrm{cot}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{k}}\right)`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0:c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{k_1}}=a\left(4y_c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_2}}\right),`$ (37)
where $`k_2`$ is defined in terms of the brane tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ at B2,

$$k_2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{6}.$$
(38)
We note that in the case of the $`H^2`$ term (not $`1/H^2`$) in the action, the one-fine-tuning relations between $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ appear always, e.g. the relations (35,36,37), while in the case of RSI model, the two-fine-tuning relations $`k=k_1=k_2`$ were inevitable.

If we introduce both $`1/H^2`$ and $`H^2`$ in the action, there does not exist a flat space self-tuning solution. In this case, the derivative of the warp factor satisfies

$$\beta ^{}=\pm \sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\beta ^2}{6}\frac{\beta ^8}{6A}+\frac{A}{6\beta ^8}}.$$
(39)
A necessary condition for the existence of a flat space solution is $`\beta ^{}0`$ and $`\beta 0`$ as $`y\mathrm{}`$. Certainly, Eq. (39) does not satisfy this necessary condition. On the other hand, a necessary condition for the de Sitter space regular horizon is that $`\beta ^{}=\mathrm{finite}`$ as $`\beta 0`$. Also, this condition is not met in Eq. (39) and hence there does not exist de Sitter space regular horizon.

### II.3 Comparison with other tuning solutions

There appeared several self-tuning solutions since early eighties witten ; hawking ; kachru ; tamvakis . The early stage scenario witten ; hawking  used field strength of three index antisymmetric tensor field $`H_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ to introduce an integration constant. The vacuum value of $`H_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }c`$ introduces an integration constant $`c`$ which contributes to the cosmological constant $`c^2`$. Therefore, there exists a value of $`c`$ such that the effective cosmological constant vanishes for a range of bare cosmological constant. Once $`c`$ is determined to give the zero effective cosmological constant, $`c`$ cannot change since it is a constant. In this sense, the four dimensional example is not a working model. Thus, the self-tuning solution needed a dynamical field to propagate. The three index antisymmetric field is not a dynamical field in 4D spacetime.

Introduction of the extra dimension opened a new game in the self-tuning solutions of the cosmological constants kachru ; kklcc ; tamvakis ; tye ; cline ; davis . Here, we briefly comments on the key points of these solutions.

The California self-tuning solution kachru ; nilles  must use the RSI model set up, i.e. introduce two branes B1 and B2, and introduce a specific form for the potential of a bulk scalar field $`\varphi `$ coupling to the brane matter with a desired form. But the model has a naked singularity and to cure the problem, one has to introduce a brane at this singular point. Then, one needs a condition at the new brane and leads to one fine-tuning there nilles . If one satisfies this one-fine-tuning condition between parameters in the Lagrangian, there always exists a flat space solution. Therefore, the solution is not a self-tuning solution originally anticipated. One interesting or (disastrous to some) point of this model is that it does not allow the de Sitter or anti de Sitter space solutions. In this sense, it is an improvement over the original proposal witten ; hawking  for the self-tuning solutions. However, it may be difficult to obtain a period of inflation since the de Sitter space exponential expansion is not possible. One should see whether the bulk energy momentum tensor satisfies $`\rho =p=p_5/2`$ to have the exponential expansion of the effective 4D space kyae . However, at present it is not known what matter satisfies this kind of equation of state.

There appeared another interesting self-tuning solution tamvakis ; earlier , which does not introduce any brane. This model assumes a specific form of the 5D scalar potential multiplied to the matter Lagrangian in 5D. Even though the metric gives a localized gravity, the matter fields propagate in the full 5D space since the potential tends to a constant value as $`y\mathrm{}`$. It is not certain how we are forbidden to realize the extra dimension in this model.

Then, there are proposals that the de Sitter space solution is phenomenologically acceptable as far as the curvature at present is sufficiently small hbk ; tye ; cline ; davis . In a sense, it also tries to accomodate the current small vacuum energy perl  with the de Sitter space solutions. \[On the other hand, note that the quintessence idea is based on the solution of the cosmological constant problem quint .\] The way the proposals make the vacuum energy small is to separate the distance between branes sufficiently large since the vacuum energy is exponentially decreasing with the separating distance. The one fine-tuning at B1 is met but the second fine tuning at B2 is not satisfied and allows the de Sitter space solutions. To have the vacuum energy decreased down to the current energy density, one needs that the separation distance increases as $`t`$ increases. Namely, the horizon point at the $`y`$ axis is required to increase. Then it is possible to relate the current vacuum energy with the current mass energy. In Ref. davis , the relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(5/2)\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is obtained for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{total}=1`$.

The model presented in kklcc  allows a self-tuning flat space solution, self-tuning de Sitter and anti de Sitter space solutions. In general it is possible to introduce a period of inflation. The transition from one flat space to another flat space can arise following the solutions of the Einstein and field equations, as we discuss in the subsequent sections.

## III De Sitter space solutions

We find that there exist de Sitter space solutions in our model with a simple time dependence. First, let us briefly discuss the de Sitter space solution karch  in the RS II model and present de Sitter space solutions in our model.

### III.1 The RS-II model

Let us consider the following metric ansatz for the $`dS_4`$ brane in the RS II model:

$`ds^2=\beta ^2(y)[dt^2+e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}t}\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j]+dy^2,`$
$`=\beta ^2(y)\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2`$ (40)
from which the 4D Ricci tensor is given as $`R_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}=3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. Then, the warp factor $`\beta (y)`$ of the $`dS_4`$ brane solution is given by

$`\beta (y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{k}}\mathrm{sinh}[k(y_my)],`$
$`y_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{coth}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{k}}\right)`$ (41)
where the integration constant $`y_m`$ is determined from the boundary condition at the brane and

$`k\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{6}}},k_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{6}}.`$ (42)
For a positive tension brane, we get a positive value of $`y_m`$, which gives rise to an event horizon at the finite proper distance away from the brane. Therefore, the region beyond the horizon can not be causally connected to the region where the brane resides. This bulk horizon resembles the $`dS_4`$ horizon on the brane. And, the $`dS_4`$ solution is regular along the bulk because the curvature tensors become finite at the bulk horizon. To say about whether the $`dS_4`$ solution could describe a dynamical compactification of the extra dimension with the region beyond the horizon cut off, we should check its consistency from the 4D effective cosmological constant by integrating out the fifth dimension. The 4D effective action is given by

$`S_{4,eff}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g^{(4)}}_{y_m}^{y_m}𝑑y\beta ^4\left[\frac{1}{2}R^{(5)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)\right]},`$ (43)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g^{(4)}}\left(\frac{M_{P,eff}^2}{2}R^{(4)}6\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}\right)}`$
where $`g^{(4)}`$ and $`R^{(4)}`$ are given from $`g_{\mu \nu }=\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }`$ in the zero mode expansion and the 4D effective Planck mass and the 4D effective cosmological constant are determined as follows,

$`M_{P,eff}^2={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{k^3}}\left(ky_m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}(2ky_m)\right)>0`$ (44)
and

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _{y_m}^{y_m}}𝑑y\beta ^4\left(4{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}+6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)\right),`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{k^3}}\left(ky_m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}(2ky_m)\right)>0.`$
Then, when we compare the 4D Einstein equations of motion derived from the above 4D effective action with those satisfied by the $`dS_4`$ brane solution, we can show that the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}/M_{P,eff}^2`$ is exactly equal to the 4D cosmological constant $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of the brane solution. Therefore, the $`dS_4`$ brane solution can be regarded to reproduce the 4D effective de Sitter spacetime with the extra dimension dynamically compactified up to the horizon distance in the bulk.

It is easy to observe that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1<0`$ does not allow a horizon, which implies a nonlocalized gravity.

### III.2 The KKL model

The background metric is

$`ds^2=\beta ^2(y)\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2`$ (46)
where the metric corresponds to one of the 4D maximally symmetric $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}0`$ spaces:

$$\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}t},e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}t},e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}t}),(dS_4\mathrm{background},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}>0),$$

for de Sitter space, and

$$\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}x_3},e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}x_3},e^{2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}x_3},1),(AdS_4\mathrm{background},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}<0),$$

for anti-deSitter space.

The 4D Ricci tensor is given as $`\overline{R}_{\mu \nu }=3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. And, components of the five dimensional Einstein tensor are

$`G_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}\right)+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^23\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\beta ^2\right]\beta ^2\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },`$ (47)
$`G_{55}`$ $`=`$ $`6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^26\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\beta ^2.`$ (48)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}>0`$ for $`dS_4`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}<0`$ for $`AdS_4`$ background. The $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ term arises from the time derivatives of the metric. Then, the (55) and ($`\mu \nu `$) components of the Einstein’s equations with $`1/H^2`$ follows,

$`6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^26\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\beta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^8}{A}},`$ (49)
$`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}\right)3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\beta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)3{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^8}{A}}.`$ (50)
We can obtain bulk solutions by solving the (55) component.

We can consider two cases: $`\beta =0`$ at $`y=y_m`$=(finite) or $`\beta 0`$ as $`y\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise, the 4D Planck mass diverges and localizable gravity does not follow. The case $`\beta =0`$ at a finite $`y`$ arises in the deSitter space solution.

For the anti de Sitter space, let us consider the asymptotic behavior of the warp factor $`\beta (y)`$ as $`y\mathrm{}`$. With $`z=\frac{1}{y}`$, we can rewrite the (55) component as,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{dz}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{z^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\beta ^2}{z^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2\beta ^{10}}{z^4}},`$ (51)
where

$`k^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{6}},a^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6A}}.`$ (52)
To get the finite 4D Planck mass from the non-compact extra dimension or have the localized gravity, $`\beta `$ should be zero as $`z0`$. However, the 4D cosmological constant term should be divergent as $`z0`$ even if the last two terms are set to be zero. Therefore, there does not appear the localized gravity for the AdS background with non-zero effective 4D cosmological constants.

In the KKL model kklcc  the de Sitter space metric ansatz gives $`\beta ^{}`$ as

$$\beta ^{}=\sqrt{\overline{k}^2+k^2\beta ^2a^2\beta ^{10}}$$
(53)
where

$$\overline{k}=\sqrt{\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{6}},k=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{6}}.$$
(54)
The boundary condition at $`y=0`$ relates the brane tension ($`k_1`$) and the bulk cosmological constant,

$$k_1=\sqrt{k^2a^2\beta ^8(0)+\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\beta (0)^2}}$$
(55)
where $`\beta (0)`$ is a function of an integration constant $`c`$. The above relation (55) is valid for both the de Sitter and anti de Sitter space solutions.

Consider the half space $`y>0`$. If we choose the minus sign in front of the square root of Eq. (53), there always exist $`y_m`$ as in the RSII model.

Even if we choose the plus sign in front of the square root of Eq. (53) near $`y=0^+`$, there exist horizons. This is because there can exist a point where $`\beta ^{}`$ vanishes for a sufficiently large $`\beta `$ in the region where $`\beta `$ increases. For this not to be realized, $`\beta `$ should tend to an asymptotic limit as $`y\mathrm{}`$. If it goes to an asymptotic limit, the Planck mass becomes infinite and there does not result a localized gravity. Therefore, we restrict to the case for $`\beta `$ turning around and coming down, in which case there results a horizon which is determined by the point where $`\beta =0`$ at $`y=y_m`$. Between $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_m`$, there can ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1<0`$) or cannot ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1>0`$) exist a point where $`\beta ^{}=0`$. Even if there exists such a point as in the above example, the integral $`𝑑\beta /\sqrt{\overline{k}^2+k^2\beta ^2a^2\beta ^{10}}`$ always converges, and we obtain a localized gravity with the horizon at $`y=y_m`$. Therefore, there always exist de Sitter space solutions, which have the periodic form as shown in Fig. 3. Similarly, there exist anti de Sitter space solutions, which have the periodic form as shown in Fig. 2. But the anti de Sitter space solution does not lead to a localized gravity. Even if we allow the anti de Sitter space solutions, neglecting the unphysical unlocalized gravity, the probability to choose the anti de Sitter space is exponentially small hawking .

The curved space solutions in the KKL model have the effective bulk cosmological constant more negative compared to the RSII case. Therefore, the bound from the weaker energy condition on the background matter supporting those spacetimes is completely satisfied. On the other hand the weaker energy condition is saturated in the RSII case karch . The weaker energy condition reads $`T_{MN}\xi ^M\xi ^N0`$ for a null vector $`\xi ^M`$, which corresponds to $`(\beta ^{}/\beta )^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\beta ^2`$ for the background metric Eq. (46). In the KKL case, the weaker energy condition is always satisfied without the possibility of saturation,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^{}=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\beta ^24a^2\beta ^8<\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\beta ^2.`$ (56)
Existence of de Sitter space solutions in the KKL model allows possible cosmological constants in 4D space as nonnegative. Hawking’s probabilistic interpretation of the cosmological constant chooses the flat space hawking . However, we need a qualification in this statement. Existence of nonlocalizable de Sitter space solution can give a large probability. The Euclidean action can be written schematically as

$$S_Ed^4x\left(M_P^2\frac{R_4}{2}+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(57)
after the $`y`$ integration. The de Sitter space solutions have horizons as shown in Fig. 3. If we integrate over the whole region of the $`y`$ space $`M_P`$ diverges. But the Planck mass must be from the integration only up to the horizon connected to $`y=0`$ brane which we call the first universe. Then $`M_P`$ is finite in the first universe. However, if we neglect the effect of the brane, the probability to go the the second universe (the universe between the next two horizons) is of the same order as the probability to go to the first de Sitter space universe, because the horizen points appear periodically. Summing up the probabilities to go to either of these de Sitter universes, we would obtain an infinity. Nevertheless, the second universe does not contain the brane, and we have to exclude this possibility of transition to the universes not containing the brane. Therefore, $`M_P`$ is considered to be finite, and the probability to stay in the flat universe is maximum hawking .

## IV Time-dependent solution of the self-tuning model

The existence of the self-tuning solution will be a great leap toward the understanding of the vanishing cosmological constant hawking ; witten . As shown in the previous section, the action given in Ref. kklcc  also allows de Sitter and anti de Sitter space solutions.

Note that if there does not exist any de Sitter space and anti de Sitter space solutions but there exist flat space self-tuning solutions then the cosmological constant may become automatically zero for a finite range of parameters in the Lagrangian. In this sense, our self-tuning solution does not lead to a vanishing cosmological constant automatically but the cosmological constant is probably zero $`\stackrel{´}{a}`$ la Hawking hawking . However, the automatic solutions have a difficulty in implementing inflationary period which is needed for our sufficiently homogeneous and isotropic universe guth .

It is anticipated that the spontaneous symmetry breaking at the brane proceeds at the electroweak phase transition and the QCD phase transition. Then the effective potential energy will have a time dependence of the form, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(t)\delta (y)`$. According to the shift of the potential energy at the brane, the solution of the field and Einstein equations will have a time-dependence. Certainly, there will exist time-dependent solutions, and we will be interested in solutions $`\stackrel{´}{a}`$ la Hawking hawking , changing from one flat space solution with an integration constant $`c_1`$ corresponding to the brane cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{old}`$ to another integration constant $`c_2`$ corresponding to the brane cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{new}`$. This situation corresponds to a time dependent energy momentum tensor. This transition from a flat space solution to another flat space solution is through satisfying the field equations and is different from Witten’s sudden choice of a flat space solution witten . There can be time dependent solutions from a flat space to de Sitter or anti de Sitter spaces, but the probability for these transitions is exponentially small compared to a flat to flat transition hawking .

To study the time-dependence the metric is taken as

$$ds^2=n^2(t,y)dt^2+a^2(t,y)\eta _{ij}dx^idx^j+b^2(t,y)dy^2.$$
(58)
The Einstein tensors are,

$$G_{00}=g_{00}\left\{\frac{3}{n^2}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{b}}{b}\right)+\frac{3}{b^2}\left(\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}+\frac{a^{}}{a}\left(\frac{a^{}}{a}\frac{b^{}}{b}\right)\right)\right\}$$

$$G_{ii}=g_{ii}\{\frac{1}{n^2}[2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\ddot{b}}{b}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(2\frac{\dot{n}}{n}\frac{\dot{a}}{a})\frac{\dot{b}}{b}(\frac{\dot{n}}{n}2\frac{\dot{a}}{a})]$$

$$+\frac{1}{b^2}[\frac{n^{\prime \prime }}{n}+2\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}+\frac{a^{}}{a}(2\frac{n^{}}{n}+\frac{a^{}}{a})\frac{b^{}}{b}(\frac{n^{}}{n}+2\frac{a^{}}{a})]\}$$
(59)
$$G_{55}=g_{55}\left\{\frac{3}{n^2}\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(\frac{\dot{n}}{n}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)\right)+\frac{3}{b^2}\frac{a^{}}{a}\left(\frac{n^{}}{n}+\frac{a^{}}{a}\right)\right\}$$

$$G_{05}=3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{n^{}}{n}+\frac{\dot{b}}{b}\frac{a^{}}{a}\frac{\dot{a}^{}}{a}\right)$$

where dot and prime denote differentiations with respect to $`t`$ and $`y`$, respectively.

With the brane tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ at the $`y=0`$ brane and the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, the energy momentum tensor is

$`T_{MN}=g_{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }_bg_{\mu \nu }\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)+44!\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{H^4}}H_{MPQR}H_N^{PQR}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H^2}}\right),`$ (60)
Considering the homogeneous 3D space, nonzero components of $`H^{MNPQ}`$ are,

$`H^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma 5}_5\sigma `$
$`H^{5ijk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}ϵ^{5ijk0}_0\sigma .`$ (61)
Then, we have

$`H^2=4!(f^2h^2),H_{0NPQ}H_0^{NPQ}=3!g_{00}f^2,`$
$`H_{iNPQ}H_j^{NPQ}=3!g_{ij}(f^2h^2),H_{5NPQ}H_5^{NPQ}=3!g_{55}h^2,`$ (62)
$`H_{5NPQ}H_0^{NPQ}=3!bnfh,H_{5NPQ}H_i^{NPQ}=0,`$
where $`f^2=\sigma ^2/b^2`$ and $`h^2=\dot{\sigma }^2/n^2`$. The $`T_{MN}`$ appearing in the Einstein equations $`G_{MN}=T_{MN}`$ are

$`T_{00}=g_{00}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{f^2h^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4h^2}{(f^2h^2)^2}}\right)`$
$`T_{ij}=g_{ij}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{f^2h^2}}\right)`$
$`T_{55}=g_{55}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{f^2h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4h^2}{(f^2h^2)^2}}\right)`$ (63)
$`T_{05}={\displaystyle \frac{4bnfh}{(f^2h^2)^2}}.`$
The field equation of the four-form field is

$$_M\left[\frac{\sqrt{g}H^{MNOP}}{H^4}\right]=_0\left[\frac{ϵ^{0ijk5}\sigma ^{}}{H^4}\right]+_5\left[\frac{ϵ^{5ijk0}\dot{\sigma }}{H^4}\right]$$

$$=\frac{ϵ^{0ijk5}}{(4!)^2}\left\{_0\left[\frac{\sigma ^{}}{((\sigma ^{}/b)^2(\dot{\sigma }/n)^2)^2}\right]_5\left[\frac{\dot{\sigma }}{((\sigma ^{}/b)^2(\dot{\sigma }/n)^2)^2}\right]\right\}=0.$$
(64)
Note that $`\sigma `$ is given, in the static homogeneous 4D case considered above, by

$$\sigma (|y|)=\frac{ab}{4k^2}\sqrt{2A}\mathrm{sinh}(4kb|y|+c),$$
(65)
with $`2/f^2=\beta ^8/A`$.

It is very difficult to find a general solution of the above Einstein equations. However, we are interested in the existence of the interpolating solution between two flat space solutions. We anticipate that a flat space solution, viz. Eq. (13), with $`c_i=\mathrm{tanh}^1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i/\sqrt{6\mathrm{\Lambda }_b})`$ is given, probably by the initial condition or Hawking’s choice of the cosmological constant. During a phase transition when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{old}`$ changes to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{new}`$, we try to show the existence of an interpolating solution connecting two flat space solutions with $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$.

Let us consider the case that the brane tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{old}`$ changes to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{new}`$ instantaneously due to a phase transition by brane matter at the brane. Then the boundary condition requires a time dependent $`b`$,

$$b(t)=(b_{\mathrm{new}}b_{\mathrm{old}})\theta (tt_0)+b_{\mathrm{old}},$$
(66)
which gives

$$\beta (|y|,t)=\left(\frac{k}{a}\right)^{1/4}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(4kb(t)(|y|+y_1)\right)\right]^{1/4},\mathrm{for}tt_0,$$
(67)
where $`b_{old},b_{new}`$ and $`y_1`$ are constants. $`c`$ in Eq. (13) is endowed with a time-dependence as given above. The ‘$`t`$’ dependence of $`\beta `$ generates non-zero time-derivatives of our metric in the Einstein equation. We suppose that the metric dynamics gives rise to the bulk matter fluctuation near the vacuum, $`T_N^{(m)M}\mathrm{diag}(\rho ,p,p,p,p_5)`$,

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}\right)`$ (68)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\beta }}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{b}}{b}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right]`$ (69)
$`p_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\beta ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right).`$ (70)
Note that the bulk matter contribution vanishes when $`tt_0`$, because the matter would be proportional to $`\delta (tt_0)`$, $`\delta ^2(tt_0)`$ and $`\dot{\delta }(tt_0)`$.

If the following relation is satisfied,

$$\left(\frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }\right)^\dot{}=\frac{\dot{b}}{b}\frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta },$$
(71)
which leads to $`G_{05}=0`$, then the 5D continuity equations are automatically satisfied kyae ,

$`\dot{\rho }+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}(\rho +p)+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}(\rho +p_5)=0,`$ (72)
$`p_5^{}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}(p_5p)+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}(\rho +p_5)=0,`$ (73)
We will see that Eq. (71) is satisfied for our solution.

The ‘$`t`$’ dependence of $`b`$ in Eq. (66) gives also the ‘$`t`$’ dependence of the four form field, $`H^{MNPQ}ϵ^{MNPQR}_R\sigma /\sqrt{g}`$, where $`\sigma `$ is

$$\sigma (|y|,t)=\frac{a}{4k^2}\sqrt{2A}b(t)\mathrm{sinh}\left(4kb(t)(|y|+y_1)\right),$$
(74)
where $`A`$ is the constant. The ‘$`t`$’ dependence of $`\sigma `$ generates also non-zero $`H^{ijk5}`$ component of the four form field in Eq. (61), that would be proportional also to the delta function, $`\dot{\sigma }h\delta (tt_0)`$. Since the $`h`$ term on the RHS of the Einstein equations appear as $`h^m/(f^2h^2)^{n/2}`$ with $`0m<n`$, the $`\delta (t)`$-function of $`h`$ gives vanishing contribution at $`t=0`$. Thus, it turns out that $`T_{05}=0`$ for any $`t`$. For $`tt_0`$, Eq. (67) satisfies the Einstein equations with the $`f^2`$ dependence on the RHS kklcc . Near $`t=t_0`$, $`T_{MN}`$ are reduced to those of the RS rs2  due to the divergence of $`\dot{\sigma }`$ or $`h`$ (which kills the $`f^2`$ dependence), and so the solution $`\beta `$ becomes the RS solution rs2 .

We have shown above three solutions: the flat space solution with $`c_1=\mathrm{tanh}^1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{old}/\sqrt{6\mathrm{\Lambda }_b})`$ for $`t<t_0`$, the RS solution rs2  with the fine-tuning $`k=k_1`$, and the flat space solution with $`c_2=\mathrm{tanh}^1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{new}/\sqrt{6\mathrm{\Lambda }_b})`$ for $`t>t_0`$. The fine-tuning solution at $`t=0`$ means simply that our solution goes through such an intermediate stage. Namely, to satisfy the field equation and the Einstein equations, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{old}`$ suddenly jumps to $`\sqrt{6\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}`$ and again suddenly jumps to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{new}`$. If the transition from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{old}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{new}`$ is not abrupt, there would exist a solution smoothly connecting the two flat solutions with $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$. But the above example shows that at the intermediate stage it would go through the RS solution rs2 .

The consistency of the solution is achieved by showing Eq. (71) using the divergence of $`h`$. As the time derivatives of the metric in $`G_{55}=T_{55}+T_{55}^{(m)}`$ have been identified already with $`p_5`$ of $`T_{55}^{(m)}`$, the remnant reads as

$$\frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }=\pm b(t)\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{6}\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{f^2h^2}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{h^2}{(f^2h^2)^2}},$$
(75)
from which we can see immediately that Eq. (71) is satisfied,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^\dot{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}b\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^2h^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{(f^2h^2)^2}}}`$ (76)
$`\pm b{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^2h^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{(f^2h^2)^2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right),`$
where we used

$$\frac{}{t}\left[\frac{1}{\delta ^2(tt_0)}\right]=0.$$
(77)
Note that Eq. (77) can be shown for a specific representation of the delta function.

We should check whether the equation of motion for the four form field Eq. (64) remains satisfied even when the constant $`b`$ is changed to $`b(t)`$ like Eq. (66). But we can also see easily that even in the case, it is satisfied always regardless of $`t=t_0`$ or not. When $`tt_0`$, it is the static case, and so the equation of motion is trivially satisfied. On the other hand, for $`tt_0`$ the equation of motion is also satisfied due to the $`\delta (tt_0)`$ divergence of $`h`$, which is checked easily if we use Eq. (77).

We have seen that there exists a time-dependent solution when the brane tension changes from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{old}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{new}`$ instantaneously. In this case, the universe starting from a flat universe can go to a flat universe instantaneously. Instead of the sudden shift of the brane tension, the transition from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{old}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{new}`$ can be smooth. We argue that in this case also, there exists a solution since we can replace the $`\delta `$ function with a smooth function $`D(t;ϵ)`$ of $`t`$ defined in a short interval $`ϵ`$, such that $`lim_{ϵ0}D(t;ϵ)=\delta (t)`$. The error by introducing $`ϵ`$ is at most $`ϵ`$ and hence our solution is approximate, but this shows that there can exists a smooth solution very close to our approximate solution with an error of order $`ϵ`$.

There may exist solutions connecting de Sitter space and flat space, de Sitter space and de Sitter space, etc. horowitz . But the final universe may be chosen probabilistically to be the flat universe $`\stackrel{´}{a}`$ la Hawking hawking .

## V Conclusion

We considered the cosmological constant in the ($`4+1`$)-dimension with a warp factor. A brane, containing the matter fields, is located at the origin $`y=0`$ of the extra dimension. To separate the 4D space we introduced a three index antisymmetric tensor field with the field strength $`H`$. The simple form for the $`H`$ action is considered: the Lagrangian with $`1/H^2`$ and $`H^2`$. We found a self-tuning solution, Eq. (13), with $`1/H^2`$. The $`H^2`$ term does not allow a self-tuning solution, but allows nonlocalizable gravity with one brane or one-fine-tuning solutions with two branes.

We concentrated the discussion related to the self-tuning solution, Eq. (13). We also found that there exist de Sitter space and anti de Sitter space solutions with $`1/H^2`$ term. For a finite range of parameters of the bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and the brane tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, there always exists the flat space solution but it is not unique. Therefore, when the boundary condition is changed at the electroweak or QCD phase transitions, the cosmological constant after the phase transitions can be anything allowed by the Einstein equations. However, the probability to choose the vanishing cosmological constant is infinitely large compared to the others’ hawking . This argument is applicable in our case since there exists the self-tuning solution, Eq. (13).

This may not sound so attractive as any model not allowing de Sitter or anti de Sitter space solutions. However, if there exists a such model, then it may not allow $`\mathrm{`}`$inflation’ which is probably needed in cosmology. In the self-tuning model the transition from one integration constant to another integration constant is possible through satisfying the equations of motion.

For the self-tuning solution we presented to work in cosmology, there must be a natural explanation of the current acceleration of the expansion perl . There appeared some proposals quint , but these must be shown to work with the self-tuning solution.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported in part by the BK21 program of Ministry of Education, Korea Research Foundation Grant No. KRF-2000-015-DP0072, CTP Research Fund of Seoul National University, and by the Center for High Energy Physics(CHEP) of Kyungpook National University.


format: text

text:
# Minimal speed of fronts of reaction-convection-diffusion equations

## I Introduction

The reaction diffusion equation $`u_t=u_{xx}+f(u)`$ has been employed as a simple model of phenomena in different areas, population growth, chemical reactions, flame propagation and others. In the classical Fisher case Fisher , $`f(u)=u(1u)`$, a front propagating with speed $`c_{\text{kpp}}=2`$ joins the two equilibrium points KPP . The time evolution for general reaction terms was solved by Aronson and Weinberger \[AW\] AW78  who showed that sufficiently localized initial conditions evolve into a front which propagates with speed $`c_{}`$ such that $`2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}c_{}2\sqrt{sup(f(u)/u)}`$. The asymptotic speed of propagation is the minimal speed for which a monotonic front joining the stable to unstable equilibrium point exists. Existence proofs give limited quantitative information on the dependence of the speed of the front on the parameters of the problem Heinze . For this reason different variational methods have been developed. For the one dimensional case it has been shown that this minimal speed can be derived either from a local variational principle of the minimax type HR75 , or from an integral variational principle BD96a ; BD96c . Minimax variational principles for the speed of fronts in several dimensions and for inhomogeneous environments have also been established Heinze ; Volpert .

In many processes, in addition to diffusion, motion can also be due to advection or convection. Nonlinear advection terms arise naturally, for example, in the motion of chemotactic cells. In a simple one dimensional model, denoting by $`\rho `$ the density of bacteria, chemotactic to a single chemical element of concentration $`s(x,t)`$ the density evolves according to

$$\rho _t=[D\rho _x\rho \chi s_x]_x+f(\rho ),$$

where diffusion, chemotaxis and growth have been considered. There is some evidence redbook  that, in certain cases, the rate of chemical consumption is due mainly to the ability of the bacteria to consume it. In that case

$$s_t=k\rho ,$$

where diffusion of the chemical has been neglected (arguments to justify this approximation, together with the choice of constant $`D`$ and $`\chi `$ are given in redbook ). If we now look for traveling wave solutions $`s=s(xct)`$, $`\rho =\rho (xct)`$, then $`s_t=cs_x`$, therefore $`s_x=k\rho /c`$, and the problem reduces to a single differential equation for $`\rho `$, namely,

$$\rho _t=D\rho _{xx}\frac{\chi k}{c}(\rho ^2)_x+f(\rho ).$$
(1)
The more elaborate models of Keller and Segel for chemotaxis KellerSegel , which include diffusion of the chemical and other effects, have been considered to explain chemotactic collapse (Childress ; Herrero  and references therein) and other phenomena. The derivation of these equations from transport theory and the assumptions involved in them have been studied recently Othmer . In addition to these biological processes, equations analogous to (1) appear when modeling the Gunn effect in semiconductors and in other physical phenomena Lika ; Bonilla . Equation (1) for a Fisher type reaction term $`f(u)=u(1u)`$ has been studied in Murray2 . An extensive study of the existence of traveling waves of nonlinear diffusion-reaction-convection equations which includes a review of many results to which we refer for additional references is contained in Gilding .

In this work we concentrate on the equation with a general convective term which, suitably scaled, we write as

$$u_t+\mu \varphi (u)u_x=u_{xx}+f(u),$$
(2)
where the reaction term $`f(u)`$ is a continuous function with continuous derivative in $`[0,1]`$ and satisfies

$$f(0)=f(1)=0,f^{}(0)>0,f^{}(1)<0\mathrm{and}f>0\mathrm{in}(0,1).$$

The function $`\varphi (u)`$ is a continuous function with continuous derivative in $`[0,1]`$. Without loss of generality we may assume that in addition $`\varphi (0)=0`$, since otherwise only a uniform shift in the speed is introduced. The parameter $`\mu `$ is positive.

For equation (2), the existence of monotonic decaying traveling fronts $`u(xct)`$ for any wave speed greater than a critical value $`c_{}`$ has been proved recently Malaguti . Moreover, in Malaguti  the following estimate for the threshold value $`c_{}`$ is obtained,

$$2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}c_{}2\sqrt{\underset{u(0,1]}{sup}\frac{f(u)}{u}}+\underset{u[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}\mu \varphi (u).$$
(3)
Analogous results for density dependent diffusion are also established in Malaguti . The convergence of some initial conditions to a monotonic traveling front has been proved Crooks2003  for systems in which the minimal speed is strictly greater than the linear value $`c_L=2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}`$.

We will show that the minimal speed $`c_{}`$ for the existence of a monotonic decaying front $`u(xct)`$ joining the stable equilibrium $`u=1`$ to the unstable equilibrium $`u=0`$ obeys the variational principle

$$c_{}=\underset{g𝒮}{sup}(g),$$
(4)
with

$$(g)=\frac{_0^1(2\sqrt{f(u)g(u)(g^{}(u))}+\mu \varphi (u)g(u))𝑑u}{_0^1g(u)𝑑u}$$
(5)
and the supremum is taken over the set $`𝒮`$ of all positive, monotonic decreasing functions $`g(u)`$ for which the integrals in (5) exist and $`g(1)=0`$. From here it will follow that

$$2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}c_Lc_{}\underset{\alpha >0}{inf}\underset{u[0,1]}{sup}(\alpha +\frac{1}{\alpha }f^{}(u)+\mu \varphi (u)).$$
(6)
From the variational expression (4) one may obtain the value of the minimal speed with any desired accuracy, and the inequalities (6) enable us to characterize the reaction terms for which the speed is the linear value $`c_L`$. More precisely, if

$$\frac{f^{\prime \prime }(u)}{\sqrt{f^{}(0)}}+\mu \varphi ^{}(u)<0,\text{then}c_{}=2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}.$$

The bound (3) is also derived from the variational principle. The generalization to density dependent diffusion is given as a direct extension of the previous results.

## II Minimal speed of traveling fronts

Traveling monotonic decaying fronts $`u(xct)`$ of (2) satisfy the ordinary differential equation

$$u_{zz}+(c\mu \varphi (u))u_z+f(u)=0\underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}u=1,\underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}u=0,u_z<0,$$

where $`z=xct`$. It is convenient to work in phase space; defining as usual $`p(u)=u_z`$, the problem reduces to finding the solutions of

$$p(u)\frac{dp(u)}{du}(c\mu \varphi (u))p(u)+f(u)=0,$$
(7)
with

$$p(0)=p(1)=0,\mathrm{and}p>0.$$

We first perform the linear analysis around the endpoints $`u=0`$ and $`u=1`$ which may provide restrictions on the allowable speed. These results will also be needed when proving the existence of a variational principle. Near $`u=0`$, $`p(u)=mu`$ where $`m`$ is the larger root of $`m^2F(0)m+f^{}(0)=0.`$ For convenience, we have defined $`F(u)=c\mu \varphi (u)`$. This root is given by

$$m=\frac{F(0)+\sqrt{F(0)^24f^{}(0)}}{2}.$$

The condition that $`m`$ be real imposes the restriction $`F^2(0)4f^{}(0)`$. Written explicitly this bound is,

$$c2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}c_L.$$
(8)
Near $`u=1`$, $`p=r(1u)`$ where $`r`$ is the positive root of $`r^2+F(1)r+f^{}(1)=0,`$ namely,

$$r=\frac{F(1)+\sqrt{F^2(1)4f^{}(1)}}{2}.$$
(9)
No additional restriction on the range of allowable speeds is imposed from the expression above, since by hypothesis $`f^{}(1)<0`$.

In addition to the linear constraint (8), a simple constraint is found from direct integration of Eq.(7). Dividing by $`p(u)`$ and integrating between 0 and 1, we have

$$c=\mu _0^1\varphi (u)𝑑u+_0^1\frac{f(u)}{p(u)}𝑑u.$$

Since $`f`$ and $`p`$ are positive in $`(0,1)`$, we obtain

$$c>\mu _0^1\varphi (u)𝑑u.$$

### II.1 Variational principle

In this section we construct a variational principle from which the exact speed of the front may be calculated. Let $`g`$ be any positive function in (0,1) such that $`h=dg/du>0`$. Multiplying Eq.(7)) by $`g/p`$ and integrating with respect to $`u`$ we find that

$$c_0^1g𝑑u=_0^1\left(hp+\frac{f}{p}g\right)𝑑u+\mu _0^1\varphi g𝑑u$$

where the first term on the right-hand side is obtained after integration by parts. However since $`p,h,f,\mathrm{and}g`$ are positive, we have that for every fixed $`u`$

$$hp+\frac{fg}{p}2\sqrt{fgh}$$

so that,

$$c\frac{_0^1[2\sqrt{fgh}+\mu \varphi g]𝑑u}{_0^1g𝑑u}=(g)$$
(10)
To show that this is a variational principle we must prove that there exists a function $`g=\widehat{g}`$ for which equality holds. Equality is attained for $`g=\widehat{g}`$ such that

$$ph=p\widehat{g}^{}=\frac{\widehat{g}f}{p}.$$

Using Eq.(7) to eliminate $`f(u)`$ we have that

$$\frac{\widehat{g}^{}(u)}{\widehat{g}(u)}\frac{p^{}(u)}{p(u)}=\frac{F(u)}{p(u)},$$

which can be integrated to obtain

$$\widehat{g}(u)=p(u)\mathrm{exp}\left[_{u_0}^u\left(\frac{F(t)}{p(t)}\right)𝑑t\right],\text{with}0<u_0<1.$$
(11)
Since $`p`$ vanishes at 0 and 1, we must analyze the behavior of $`\widehat{g}`$ at these points in order to ensure the convergence of the integrals in (10).

At $`u=1`$, since $`p(u)=r(1u)`$, and since $`F(u)`$ is continuous at 1, we obtain that

$$\widehat{g}r(1u)^{(1+F(1)/r)}.$$

From the expression for $`r`$, (9) we see, that, since $`f^{}(1)<0`$, for any value of $`F(1)`$ the exponent $`1+F(1)/r`$ is positive, hence $`\widehat{g}(1)=0`$.

Near $`u=0`$, since $`p=mu`$ and since $`F`$ is continuous at zero, we find that

$$\widehat{g}\frac{m}{u^{(F(0)/m)1}}.$$

The integrals in (10) converge provided

$$\frac{F(0)}{m}1<1.$$

This condition is satisfied whenever $`c_{}>c_L`$. That is, whenever $`c_{}>c_L`$ there exists a function $`g=\widehat{g}`$ for which equality holds in (10) or , equivalently, $`c_{}=\mathrm{max}(g)=(\widehat{g})`$.

On the other hand, when $`c_{}=c_L`$, there does not exist a function $`\widehat{g}`$ in the set $`𝒮`$ of admissible functions for which equality holds in (10). Consider however the trial functions

$$g_\alpha (u)=u^{\alpha 1}1.$$

Clearly $`g_\alpha 𝒮`$ for any $`0<\alpha <1`$. Moreover one can check that (see the Appendix)

$$\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}(g_\alpha )=c_L=c_{},$$

therefore

$$c_{}=\underset{g𝒮}{sup}(g)$$

in this case. Notice that in this last case the maximum is not attained since the limiting function $`g_0`$ does not belong to $`𝒮`$. This concludes the proof of our variational principle.

### II.2 Upper and Lower Bounds

The variational principle provides lower bounds with suitably chosen trial functions, which can be arbitrarily close to the exact value of the speed. The fact that it is a variational principle for which equality holds, enables one to obtain also an upper bound to the speed.

To obtain an upper bound we use the fact that

$$2ab\alpha a^2+\frac{1}{\alpha }b^2,\text{with}\alpha >0.$$
(12)
Then the following inequality holds:

$$2\sqrt{fgh}=2g\sqrt{fh/g}g\left(\alpha +\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{fh}{g}\right),$$

where we used the inequality above with $`a=1,b=\sqrt{fh/g}`$.

Then,

$$c_{}=\underset{g}{sup}\left[\frac{_0^1(2\sqrt{fgh}+\mu \varphi g)𝑑u}{_0^1g𝑑u}\right]\underset{g}{sup}\frac{_0^1g\left[\alpha +fh/(\alpha g)+\mu \varphi \right]𝑑u}{_0^1g𝑑u}.$$

The second term in the last expression can be integrated by parts. The boundary term $`fg|_0^1`$ vanishes and we obtain

$`c_{}`$ $``$ $`\underset{g}{sup}{\displaystyle \frac{_0^1g(\alpha +f^{}/\alpha +\mu \varphi )𝑑u}{_0^1g𝑑u}}`$ (13)
$``$ $`\underset{u[0,1]}{sup}\left[\alpha +\mu \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}f^{}\right].`$
The above inequality holds for any positive $`\alpha `$, hence

$$c_{}\underset{\alpha }{inf}\underset{u[0,1]}{sup}\left[\alpha +\frac{1}{\alpha }f^{}(u)+\mu \varphi (u)\right].$$
(14)
The bound (14) in the case $`\mu =0`$ differs from the classical Aronson-Weinberger AW78  result for fronts of the parabolic reaction diffusion equation $`cc_{AW}=2sup_{u[0,1]}\sqrt{f(u)/u}`$. The bound (3) obtained in Malaguti  on the other hand, reduces, when $`\mu =0`$ to the classical Aronson-Weinberger result. Here we show that this last bound can be derived from the variational principle as well. Using the inequality (12), now with $`a=\sqrt{fg/u}`$ and $`b=\sqrt{uh}`$, we have that

$$2_0^1\sqrt{fgh}𝑑u_0^1\left[\alpha \frac{fg}{u}+\frac{1}{\alpha }hu\right]𝑑u=_0^1\left[\alpha \frac{fg}{u}+\frac{1}{\alpha }g\right]𝑑u,$$

where the last expression is obtained after integrating the second term by parts. We have then

$$c_{}\underset{g}{sup}\frac{_0^1g(\alpha \frac{f}{u}+\frac{1}{\alpha }+\mu \varphi )𝑑u}{_0^1g𝑑u}\underset{u[0,1]}{sup}\left[\alpha \frac{f}{u}+\frac{1}{\alpha }+\mu \varphi \right].$$

Choosing $`\alpha =1/sup\sqrt{f/u}`$ we obtain

$$c_{}\underset{u]0,1]}{sup}\left[2\sqrt{\frac{f(u)}{u}}\right]+\mu \underset{u[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}\varphi (u).$$

In the classical AW case $`\mu =0`$, we know that when the reaction term is concave then $`sup2\sqrt{f(u)/u}=2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}`$. In this case the upper bound coincides with the linear lower bound $`c_L`$ and the minimal speed is univocally determined. A similar criterion can be obtained in the present problem. The minimal speed for the existence of a front is known unambiguosly to be the linear value whenever the upper bound (14) coincides with the linear lower bound $`c_L`$. A sufficient condition for this to occur is that the supremum of the function $`K(u)=\alpha +f^{}(u)/\alpha +\mu \varphi (u)`$ in $`(0,1]`$ does not exceed the value of $`K`$ at the origin. Effectively, if $`sup_uK(u)=K(0)=\alpha +f^{}(0)/\alpha `$; minimizing with respect to $`\alpha `$ we obtain $`\alpha =\sqrt{f^{}(0)}`$ and the upper bound is precisely the linear value. A sufficient condition that guarantees that the maximum (supremum) of $`K`$ occurs at zero is that $`K(u)`$ be decreasing. With $`\alpha =\sqrt{f^{}(0)}`$ this condition is

$$\frac{f^{\prime \prime }(u)}{\sqrt{f^{}(0)}}+\mu \varphi ^{}(u)<0.$$

Whenever this condition is fulfilled, for all $`u`$, we know that the minimal speed of a monotonic front is the linear value $`c_L=2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}`$. Again as it occurs in the standard case $`\mu =0`$, this condition is sufficient but not necessary.

## III An exactly solvable case

Here we illustrate the above results by applying them to the exactly solvable case discussed in Murray2 : a Fisher type reaction term $`f(u)=u(1u)`$ and the simplest convective term $`\varphi (u)=u`$. By means of a phase space analysis Murray found Murray2  that the minimal speed for the existence of a monotonic decaying front is

$$c_{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{\mu }+\frac{\mu }{2}\hfill & \text{if }\mu >2\hfill \\ 2\hfill & \text{if }\mu 2\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Here we show that the results of the previous section allow the exact determination of the speed.

In this example the linear marginal stability value is given by $`c_L=2`$. We first use the variational principle to obtain a lower bound. Take the trial function

$$g(u)=\left(\frac{1u}{u}\right)^\lambda \text{with}0<\lambda <1.$$

A straightforward integration of (10) leads to

$$c2\sqrt{\lambda }+\frac{\mu }{2}(1\lambda )c(\lambda ).$$

If $`\mu >2`$ the maximum of $`c(\lambda )`$ occurs for $`\lambda =4/\mu ^2`$ and it is given by $`2/\mu +\mu /2`$. For $`\mu 2`$, however, the supremum of $`c(\lambda )`$ occurs as $`\lambda 1`$. We have then

$$c_{}supc(\lambda )=\frac{2}{\mu }+\frac{\mu }{2}\text{for}\mu >2,$$

and

$$c_{}supc(\lambda )=2\text{for}\mu 2.$$

To obtain an upper bound we use (13), that is,

$$c_{}\underset{u[0,1]}{sup}(\alpha +\frac{1}{\alpha }+u(\mu \frac{2}{\alpha }))\alpha >0.$$

We will separate the two cases, $`\mu 2`$ and $`\mu >2`$.

If $`\mu 2`$, choose $`\alpha =1`$, then

$$c_{}\underset{u[0,1]}{sup}(2+u(\mu 2))=2.$$

If $`\mu >2`$ choose $`\alpha =2/\mu `$, then

$$c_{}\underset{u[0,1]}{sup}\left(\frac{2}{\mu }+\frac{\mu }{2}\right)=\frac{2}{\mu }+\frac{\mu }{2}.$$

The lower bound obtained from the variational expression coincides with the upper bound obtained from (14), therefore we know with certainty that the minimal speed is indeed, (15) which had been previously demonstrated by phase space methods.

Notice that (3) constitutes a poorer bound in this case. Effectively, from (3) it follows that $`c_{}2+\mu `$.

## IV Density dependent diffusion

The effect of the convective term on the minimal speed of fronts of the reaction diffusion equation for non constant difffusion follows in a simple way from the previous results. Consider traveling fronts of the equation

$$u_t+\mu \varphi (u)u_x=(D(u)u_x)_x+f(u),$$

where $`f(u)`$ and $`\varphi (u)`$ satisfy the properties spelled in the previous sections. The diffusion coefficient $`D(u)`$ is continuous and $`D(u)>0`$ in $`(0,1]`$. $`D(0)`$ is either positive or zero. By a suitable change of variables Hadeler2 ; Engler  the equation for the fronts is reduced of the usual reaction diffusion equation with a reaction term $`\stackrel{~}{f}(u)=D(u)f(u)`$. This reaction term satisfies $`\stackrel{~}{f}>0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(0)=D(0)f^{}(0)`$. We must distinguish two cases. If $`D(0)0`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ satisfies the same properties as $`f`$ and the results of the previous sections can be applied directly. If $`D(0)=0`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(0)=0`$ and we expect a sharp wavefront. In this case it has been shown AW78  that the front approaches $`u=0`$ as $`cu`$. A variational principle exists also in this case BDdensity . We have then that, in both cases, the minimal speed of the wavefronts is given by

$$c_{}=\underset{g}{sup}\left[\frac{_0^1(2\sqrt{D(u)f(u)g(u)(g^{}(u))}+\mu \varphi (u)g(u))𝑑u}{_0^1g(u)𝑑u}\right]$$

where the supremum is taken over all positive monotonic decreasing functions $`g(u)`$ for which the integrals exist and $`g(1)=0`$. Upper and lower bounds can be obtained following the methods of the previous sections. We do not spell them out here.

## V Summary

We have studied the effect of a convective term on the speed of monotonic reaction-diffusion fronts. The minimal speed for the existence of fronts has been showed to derive from a variational principle from which the exact speed can be determined in principle. The existence of this variational characterization permits the obtention of upper and lower bounds. The classical result that establishes that for concave reaction terms, the minimal speed of the fronts is the linear or KPP value is extended to the case where convective terms are present. The extension to the the case of density dependent diffusion has been given for positive diffusion terms.

We have found that a convective term increases the minimal speed of the traveling front only if it is sufficiently strong, if not, the minimal speed is determined by the reaction term alone.

## Acknowledgements

R. D. Benguria and M. C. Depassier acknowledge partial support from Fondecyt under grants 1020844 and 1020851. V. Méndez acknowledges support from grants BFM2000-0351 and SGR-2001-00186.

## Appendix A

In this appendix we prove that

$$\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}(g_\alpha )=c_L=2\sqrt{f^{}(0)},$$

where $`g_\alpha =u^{\alpha 1}1`$ with $`0<\alpha <1`$.

Since $`_0^1g_\alpha (u)𝑑u=(1\alpha )/\alpha `$, and $`h_\alpha =(1\alpha )u^{\alpha 2}`$, we may write

$$(g_\alpha )=J_1(\alpha )+J_2(\alpha ),$$

where

$$J_1(\alpha )=\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha }}_0^1\sqrt{f(u)(u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2})}𝑑u,$$

and

$$J_2(\alpha )=\frac{\mu \alpha }{1\alpha }_0^1\varphi (u)(u^{\alpha 1}1)𝑑u.$$

Since $`\varphi (0)=0`$ and $`\varphi `$ is continuous the integral in $`J_2`$ has a finite value when $`\alpha =0`$. Then, due to the overall multiplicative factor of $`\alpha `$, we see that

$$\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}J_2(\alpha )=0.$$

To show that $`limJ_1(\alpha )=2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}`$, as $`\alpha 0`$, write

$$J_1(\alpha )=\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha }}_0^1\sqrt{uf^{}(0)(u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2})}𝑑u+K(\alpha ),$$

where

$$K(\alpha )=\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha }}\left[_0^1\sqrt{f(u)(u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2})}𝑑u_0^1\sqrt{uf^{}(0)(u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2})}𝑑u\right].$$

The first integral is

$$\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha }}_0^1\sqrt{uf^{}(0)(u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2})}𝑑u=\frac{\sqrt{\pi f^{}(0)}}{\sqrt{1\alpha }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{1a})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3+a}{2(a1)})}.$$

Now we prove that $`lim_{\alpha 0}K(\alpha )=0`$.

$$|K(\alpha )|\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha }}_0^1|\sqrt{f(u)(u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2})}\sqrt{uf^{}(0)(u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2})}|𝑑u.$$

But $`|\sqrt{a}\sqrt{b}|\sqrt{|ba|}`$, therefore

$$|K(\alpha )|\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha }}_0^1\sqrt{|f(u)uf^{}(0)|(u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2})}𝑑u.$$

Since $`f(u)`$ and its derivative are continuous, in $`[0,1]`$, there exist $`d>0`$, $`q>0`$ such that

$$\frac{|f(u)uf^{}(0)|}{u}<du^q.$$

In particular, if $`f(u)`$ is analytic in a neighborhood of 0, $`q=1`$. Using this inequality in the expression above, we have that

$$|K(\alpha )|\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha }}_0^1\sqrt{du^{q+1}(u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2})}𝑑u.$$

Finally, since $`u^{2\alpha 3}u^{\alpha 2}<u^{2\alpha 3}`$,

$$|K(\alpha )|\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha }}\sqrt{d}_0^1u^{\alpha 1+q/2}𝑑u=\frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{1\alpha }}\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\alpha +q/2}.$$

Therefore, $`lim_{\alpha 0}|K(\alpha )|=0`$.

To sum up,

$$\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}(g_\alpha )=\underset{\alpha 0}{lim}\frac{\sqrt{\pi f^{}(0)}}{\sqrt{1\alpha }}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{1a})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3+a}{2(a1)})}=2\sqrt{f^{}(0)}.$$


text:
# Anapole Moment and Other Constraints on the Strangeness Conserving Hadronic Weak Interaction

## Abstract

Standard analyses of low-energy NN and nuclear parity-violating observables have been based on a $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, and $`\omega `$exchange model capable of describing all five independent $`sp`$ partial waves. Here a parallel analysis is performed for the one-body, exchange-current, and nuclear polarization contributions to the anapole moments of 133Cs and 205Tl. The resulting constraints are not consistent, though there remains some degree of uncertainty in the nuclear structure analysis of the atomic moments.

Nuclei and nucleon-nucleon scattering are the only experimentally tractable systems in which to study the flavor-conserving hadronic weak interaction, where neutral current effects arise. This interaction can be isolated, despite the presence of much larger strong and electromagnetic effects, because of the accompanying parity violation. The long-term goal of the field is to learn how standard-model quark-boson couplings give rise to long-range weak forces between nucleons .

Several precise and interpretable measurements of parity nonconservation (PNC) in nuclear systems have been made. These include the longitudinal analyzing power $`A_z`$ for $`\stackrel{}{p}+p`$ at 13.6 and 45 MeV, $`A_z`$ for $`\stackrel{}{p}+\alpha `$ at 46 MeV, the circular polarization $`P_\gamma `$ of the $`\gamma `$-ray emitted from the 1081 keV state in 18F, and $`A_\gamma `$ for the decay of the 110 keV state in polarized 19F. An analysis  of these results, which have been in hand for some time, suggests that the isoscalar PNC NN interaction is comparable to or somewhat stronger than the “best value” suggested theoretically, while the isovector PNC NN interaction is significantly weaker, an isospin anomaly superficially reminiscent of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule in strangeness-changing decays. There has been great interest in obtaining additional experimental constraints that would test this tentative conclusion, as the weakness of the isovector weak NN interaction was unexpected. It had been anticipated that the neutral current would enhance this component (which is dominated by $`\pi `$ exchange).

After a considerable wait, several new PNC measurements have become available or are expected soon. Recently the Colorado group  measured, for the first time, a nuclear anapole moment – the PNC axial coupling of a photon to the nucleus in its ground state – by determining the hyperfine dependence of atomic parity violation. A significant limit on the anapole moment of another nucleus, 205Tl, has also been obtained . Preliminary results  for the $`\stackrel{}{p}+p`$ $`A_z(221`$ MeV) are now available: this result, which is sensitive only to PNC $`\rho `$ exchange, can be combined with lower energy measurements to separately determine the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ PNC couplings. In the next few years new results are expected on the PNC spin rotation of polarized slow neutrons in liquid helium  and on $`A_\gamma `$ in $`n+pd+\gamma `$ .

The primary obstacle to an analysis in which the new PNC constraints are combined with older results is the difficulty of treating anapole moments with a comparable degree of sophistication. The theoretical framework for NN and nuclear observables is a $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, and $`\omega `$exchange model involving six weak meson-nucleon couplings $`f_\pi `$, $`h_\rho ^0`$, $`h_\rho ^1`$, $`h_\rho ^2`$, $`h_\omega ^0`$, and $`h_\omega ^1`$. (The superscripts denote the isospin.) We use the standard Desplanques, Donoghue, and Holstein (DDH) definitions of these couplings  (so the sign of $`f_\pi `$ differs from that of Ref. ). If one takes the view that the PNC observables involve a momentum scale comparable to or below the pion mass, then this framework is quite general, describing the five independent $`sp`$ amplitudes and the separate long-range $`\pi `$ contribution to those amplitudes.

The older PNC results involve systems that are either amenable to exact potential-model calculations, or can be “calibrated” by a relation between PNC mixing and axial charge $`\beta `$ decay . Thus it is generally believed that little nuclear structure uncertainty remains. Calculations account for the full two-body PNC potential and the effects of short-range correlations on the potential. In contrast, most anapole moment investigations have been evaluated in the extreme single-particle (s.p.) limit employing effective one-body potentials. The only calculation employing a modern strong effective interaction (in a large-basis shell model (SM) calculation) in combination with the PNC two-body potential was limited to the effects of $`f_\pi `$ . Here that calculation (for 133Cs) is extended to the full potential and then repeated for 205Tl. We then examine the consistency of these and other constraints on the weak potential.

Zel’dovich  introduced the anapole moment, the E1 coupling of a virtual photon to an elementary particle induced by PNC. The measurability of anapole moments was first argued by Flambaum, Khriplovich, and Sushkov , who studied the nuclear-spin-dependent vector(electron)-axial(nucleus) interaction induced by the nuclear anapole moment in atomic PNC experiments. A definitive extraction of the anapole contribution to atomic PNC eluded experimentalists until the 7$`\sigma `$ result of Wood et al. on 133Cs .

Electrons in an atom experience a weak contact interaction with the nucleus of the form

$$H_W=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\kappa \stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{I}\rho (r),$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{I}`$ and $`\rho (r)`$ are the nuclear spin and density. (Note that $`\kappa `$ differs from the definition of .) From the hyperfine dependence of the atomic PNC signals in 133Cs (as extracted by Flambaum and Murray ) and 205Tl  one finds

$`\kappa (^{133}\mathrm{Cs})`$ $`=`$ $`0.112\pm 0.016`$ (2)
$`\kappa (^{205}\mathrm{Tl})`$ $`=`$ $`0.293\pm 0.400.`$ (3)
One contribution to $`\kappa `$ originates from $`Z_0`$ exchange with axial coupling to the nucleus

$$\kappa _{Z_0}=\frac{g_A}{2}(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)\frac{I\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\sigma (i)\tau _3(i)I}{I\widehat{I}I},$$
(4)
where $`g_A`$ = 1.26 is the axial vector coupling, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ = 0.223, and $`||`$ denotes a matrix element reduced in angular momentum. The reduced matrix element of $`\widehat{I}`$ is $`\sqrt{I(I+1)(2I+1)}`$. The Gamow-Teller matrix elements, taken from the SM studies described below, are -2.305 (133Cs) and 2.282 (205Tl), not too different from the corresponding s.p. values of -2.494 (unpaired $`1g_{7/2}`$ proton) and 2.449 ($`3s_{1/2}`$ proton). Thus the predicted $`\kappa _{Z_0}`$ are 0.0140 and -0.127, respectively. Note that one-loop standard model electroweak radiative corrections modify this result, reducing the isovector contribution and inducing a small isoscalar amplitude .

A second contribution to $`\kappa `$ is generated by the combined effects of the usual coherent $`Z_0`$ coupling to the nucleus (vector coupling, proportional to the nuclear weak charge $`Q_W`$) and the magnetic hyperfine interaction . From the measured nuclear weak charge and magnetic moment Bouchiat and Piketty  find

$`\kappa _{Q_W}(^{133}\mathrm{Cs})`$ $`=`$ $`0.0078`$ (5)
$`\kappa _{Q_W}(^{205}\mathrm{Tl})`$ $`=`$ $`0.044.`$ (6)
Thus the experimental values for the anapole contributions to $`\kappa `$ are obtained by subtracting the results of Eqs. (3) and (4) from Eq. (2), yielding

$`\kappa _{anapole}(^{133}\mathrm{Cs})`$ $`=`$ $`0.090\pm 0.016`$ (7)
$`\kappa _{anapole}(^{205}\mathrm{Tl})`$ $`=`$ $`0.376\pm 0.400.`$ (8)
These values can then be related to the corresponding nuclear anapole moments by

$$\kappa _{anapole}=\frac{4\pi \alpha \sqrt{2}}{M_N^2G_F}\frac{I\widehat{A}_1I/e}{I\widehat{I}I},$$
(9)
where $`\widehat{A_{1\lambda }}`$ is the anapole operator. As discussed in Ref. , the anapole moment is the sum of three contributions, the one-body operator associated with the anapole moments of individual nucleons, the two-body exchange currents, and the polarization contribution associated with parity admixtures in the nuclear ground state. The goal is to treat each of these in a manner consistent with the standard DDH meson-exchange model of PNC.

The anapole operator can be written, via the extended Siegert’s theorem, in a form where all components of the current that are constrained by current conservation are explicitly removed. This yields

$$\widehat{A}_{1\lambda }=\frac{M_N^2}{9}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}r^2\left[\widehat{j}_{1\lambda }^{em}(\stackrel{}{r})+\sqrt{2\pi }\left(Y_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_r)\widehat{j}_1^{em}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)_{1\lambda }\right].$$
(10)
(This form is equivalent to others in common use when current is conserved, but this is generally only possible in the simplest nuclear models, such as the s.p. limit.) This $`E1`$ operator has nonzero ground state matrix elements for currents induced by PNC, as well as for the ordinary electromagnetic current through PNC admixtures in the ground state.

a) Nucleon anapole moment. The one-body PNC electromagnetic current is obtained from, for example, loop diagrams involving a $`\gamma \pi \pi `$ vertex, where one pion is absorbed by the nucleon with a PNC coupling and the other with a strong coupling, yielding

$$\widehat{A}_{1\lambda }^{nucleonic}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\left[a_s(0)+a_v(0)\tau _3(i)\right]\sigma _{1\lambda }(i).$$
(11)
It is thus clear that the contribution of spin-paired core nucleons cancel, leaving only the anapole moment of the valence nucleons. In our earlier work  only the pion contribution to $`a_s(0)`$ and $`a_v(0)`$ was included, yielding a result proportional to $`ef_\pi g_{\pi NN}`$, where $`g_{\pi NN}`$ is the strong coupling. The isoscalar coupling $`a_s(0)`$ proved to be about four times larger than $`a_v(0)`$. This work was recently extended to included the full set of one-loop contributions involving the DDH vector meson PNC couplings, using the framework of heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory and retaining contributions through $`O(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi ^2)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi =4\pi F_\pi 1`$ GeV is the scale of chiral symmetry breaking . The contributions due to $`f_\pi `$ are consistent with the earlier work – the new $`a_s(0)`$ is about 1.3 times larger, while $`a_v(0)`$ is zero in this order – while the addition of the heavy mesons greatly enhances $`a_v(0)`$. An evaluation with DDH best value couplings yields $`a_v(0)7a_s(0)`$. Folding the resulting expressions with our SM matrix elements ($`I_{i=1}^A\sigma (i)I`$ = -2.372 and 2.532 for Cs and Tl, respectively) yields the results in Table I. The inclusion of heavy meson contributions substantially enhances the one-body anapole terms and alters the isospin character, generating opposite signs for the proton and neutron anapole moments.

b) Exchange currents. Insertion of the $`N\overline{N}`$ pair and transition currents, where the meson exchange involves a PNC coupling on one nucleon and a strong coupling to the second, into Eq. (7) produces a two-body PNC anapole current. The only previous estimate  of contributions of this type was restricted to pions. The extension to include the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ PNC couplings is a formidable task requiring evaluation of the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ pair currents and the $`\rho \rho \gamma `$ and $`\rho \pi \gamma `$ currents. The first step, to identify which of these currents are important, was a Fermi gas reduction of the operators to one-body form, which requires a standard summation over occupied core states. The results indicated that the $`\rho \rho \gamma `$, $`\rho \pi \gamma `$, and the component of the $`\omega `$ pair current where the photon and PNC $`\omega `$ couplings are on different nucleon legs are negligible, well below 1% of the dominant $`\pi `$ currents. We then evaluated the remaining (and more important) terms using the two-body density matrices from our large-basis SM calculations. Finally, to cross check our procedure for the neglected currents, we compared the ratios of two-body results to the ratios of the Fermi-gas reductions of the same currents. The correspondence was typically at the few percent level, which supports the notion that the one-body approximation could be used to assess the relative importance of all currents. (The approximation is less useful as an estimator of absolute strengths .) The exchange current totals are given in Table I. It is clear that the $`\pi `$ contribution continues to dominate. This work in described in considerable detail in Ref. .

c) Nuclear polarization contribution. The nuclear polarization contribution to the anapole moment is given by

$$\underset{n}{}\frac{IA_1^{em}nn|H^{PNC}|I}{E_{gs}E_n}+h.c.$$
(12)
where $`A_1^{em}`$ is obtained from the ordinary electromagnetic current operator, $`|I`$ is a ground state of good parity, $`H^{PNC}`$ is the PNC NN interaction, and the sum extends over a complete set of nuclear states $`n`$ of angular momentum $`I`$ and opposite parity. Several nontrivial nuclear structure issues must be addressed in evaluating this term.

One of these affects all of our calculations, the quality of the ground state wave function. The canonical SM space for 133Cs is that between the magic shells 50 and 82, $`1g_{7/2}2d_{5/2}1h_{11/2}3s_{1/2}2d_{3/2}`$. Calculations were performed with protons restricted to the first two of these shells and neutron holes to the last three, producing an m-scheme basis of about 200,000. Two interactions were employed, the Baldrige-Vary potential employed in Ref.  and a recent potential developed by the Strasbourg group , both of which are based on the addition of multipole terms to g-matrix interactions and are designed for the 132Sn region. As the results are very similar , we quote only the former here. 205Tl is described as a proton hole in the orbits immediate below the Z=82 closed shell ($`3s_{1/2}2d_{3/2}2d_{5/2}`$) coupled to two neutron holes in valence neutron space between magic numbers 126 and 82 ($`3p_{1/2}2f_{5/2}3p_{3/2}1i_{13/2}2f_{7/2}1h_{9/2}`$). A Serber-Yukawa force was diagonalized in this space.

The summation over a complete set of intermediate states in such spaces is impractical either directly or by the summation-of-moments method discussed in Ref. . However, because no nonzero $`E1`$ transitions exist among the valence orbitals, an alternative of completing the sum by closure, after replacing $`1/E_n`$ by an average value $`1/E`$, is quite attractive: the resulting product of the one-body operator $`A_1^{em}`$ and two-body $`H^{PNC}`$ contracts to a two-body operator, so that only the two-body ground state density matrix is needed.

The closure approximation can be considered an identity, clearly, if one knows the correct $`1/E`$, e.g., if it were governed by nuclear systematics and thus could be predicted reliable. This is known to be the case for the various sum rules of the $`E1`$ operator, an operator with very similar properties to $`A_{1\lambda }^{em}`$ and to the one-body analog of $`H^{PNC}`$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}`$. To assess the situation for the anapole polarizability, we completed a series of exact calculations in $`1p`$ and light $`2s1d`$shell nuclei (7Li, 11B, 17,19,21F, 21,23Na), determining the ground states from full $`0\mathrm{}\omega `$ diagonalizations. After performing the summations (by Lanczos moments methods ) over the $`1\mathrm{}\omega `$ spaces, the dimensions of which range up to $``$ 0.5M, the results in Table II were obtained. The systematics of the relationship between the closure results and the $`1/E`$-weighted sums are both interesting and encouraging. Distinct excitation energies are needed for the three isospins contributing to $`H^{PNC}`$. Measured as a fraction of the $`1/E`$-weighted giant dipole average excitation energy, which is $`1/E^1`$ (22-26) MeV for these nuclei, the appropriate effective energies for the closure approximation are $`0.604\pm 0.056(h_\rho ^0,h_\omega ^0)`$, $`0.899\pm 0.090(f_\pi )`$, and $`1.28\pm 0.14(h_\rho ^2)`$. The larger $`1/E`$ for $`h_\rho ^0`$ and $`h_\omega ^0`$ enhances these contributions to the anapole polarizability. The small variation in $`1/E`$, once the isospin dependence is recognized, supports the notion that we can connected the closure result to the true polarization sum. From the known $`E1`$ distribution  in 133Cs we then determine T=0,1,2 closure energies of 9.5, 14.1, and 20.2 MeV, respectively. That is, we fix these as 0.6, 0.9, and 1.28 of the $`E1`$ closure energy evaluated from the experimental dipole distribution. The corresponding 205Tl values are 8.7, 12.9, and 18.5 MeV. The resulting polarization contributions are given in Table I.

A summary of PNC constraints is presented in Table III and Fig. 1. Although the PNC parameter space is six-dimensional, two coupling constant combinations, $`f_\pi 0.12h_\rho ^10.18h_\omega ^1`$ and $`h_\rho ^0+0.7h_\omega ^0`$, dominate the observables, as Table III illustrates. We include the results for $`A_z^{pp}`$ at 13.6 and 45 MeV and the soon-to-be-published results at 221 MeV, $`A_z^{p\alpha }`$ at 46 MeV, $`P_\gamma (^{18}`$F), $`A_\gamma (^{19}`$F), and the Cs and Tl anapole results. We do not include $`P_\gamma (^{21}`$Ne) because of the arguments of Ref.  that the underlying nuclear structure is uncertain. The $`1\sigma `$ error bands of Fig. 1 are generated from the experimental uncertainties, broadened somewhat by allowing uncorrelated variations in the parameters in the last four columns of Table III over the DDH broad “reasonable ranges.” The resulting pattern is disconcerting. Before the anapole results are included, the indicated solution is a small $`f_\pi `$ and an isoscalar coupling somewhat larger, but consistent with, the DDH best value, $`(h_\rho ^0+0.7h_\omega ^0)^{DDHb.v.}12.7`$. The anapole results agree poorly with the indicated solution, as well as with each other. Although the Tl measurement is consistent with zero, it favors a positive anapole moment, while the theory prediction is decidedly negative, given existing PNC constraints. The Cs result tests a combination of PNC couplings quite similar to those measured in $`A_\gamma (^{19}`$F) and in $`A_z^{p\alpha }`$, but favors larger values.

The nature of the anapole discrepancy – theory constrained by other PNC measurements requiring a smaller Cs moment – is surprising. The first criticism of the theory would be that the SM calculations are still too limited, not generating the proper quenching of operators like $`\sigma \tau _3`$ that are known to be sensitive to core polarization effects. There is evidence, in the case of Tl where the odd proton is identified with the $`l=0`$ $`3s_{1/2}`$ orbital, that this is the case: the SM predicts a spin-dominated magnetic moment of 2.59 $`\mu _N`$, improved from the s.p. value 2.79 $`\mu _N`$ but well above the experimental value 1.64 $`\mu _N`$. Indeed, in Ref.  similar arguments were used to invoke quenching factors for the s.p. anapole moment results. We have explored these issues using the light nuclei of Table II as test cases, and while the approach of Ref.  proves somewhat naive, the guess about the quenching effects of core polarization is qualitatively correct . Clearly if anapole matrix elements are further quenched, the Cs problem in Fig. 1 becomes worse. Anticipated new results on $`np`$ PNC – from the $`n+^4`$He and $`n+pd+\gamma `$ experiments – will be of great help.

Our numerical results for Cs are consistent with those of Flambaum and Murray , who extract from the anapole moment an $`f_\pi `$ about twice the DDH best value, $`f_\pi ^{DDHb.v.}4.6`$, and point out that theory can accommodate this. (The DDH reasonable range is 0-11.4, in units of $`10^7`$.) However, this ignores $`P_\gamma (^{18}`$F), a measurement that has been performed by five groups. The resulting constraint is almost devoid of theoretical uncertainty

$$0.6\text{ }<f_\pi 0.11h_\rho ^10.19h_\omega ^1\text{ }<1.2.$$
(13)
Allowing $`h_\rho ^1`$ and $`h_\omega ^1`$ to vary throughout their DDH reasonable ranges, one finds $`1.0\text{ }<f_\pi \text{ }<1.1`$, clearly ruling out $`f_\pi `$ 9. Fig. 1 illustrates this, as well as the additional tension between Cs, $`p+\alpha `$, and $`A_\gamma (^{19}`$F).

In summary there appears to be a puzzle to sort out. One hopeful development involves recent discussions of direct atomic measurements of anapole moments through $`E1/M1`$ interference in hyperfine transitions , rather than by indirect differentials. Such progress is important because our understanding of V(e)-A(N) interactions also affects the interpretation of experiments like SAMPLE , where a similar discrepancy between theory and experiment exists.

This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy and by the National Science Foundation.